Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I yield the floor. The Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to express not just my profound disappointment but, very frankly, my contempt for the outrageous political ploy the Senate Republican leadership is foisting upon this Senate and upon the American people. This is a monumental waste of time, every Member knows that, at a time when we have so much work to be done, to be wasting 30 hours--now, I understand, perhaps more than that--on a false, fabricated issue. On top of that, all of this, I am being told, is costing the taxpayers at least $100,000--taxpayer money for this political ploy to be brought to the floor. And as the media has said from all around the Nation, there is no judicial crisis in America at the Federal level. This is a fabricated crisis which, frankly, is a polite way of saying that what is being brought to the floor is a fake. It is phony. It is fabricated. At stake is not a principle; at stake is--let's face it-- money. What is at stake is the far radical right of the Republican coalition with their vision of an America with no Social Security and no Medicare, no Federal role in the schools, what have you, a radical vision that very few Americans share. They have let it be known to the Republican leadership of the Senate here that they are going to not be as generous with their political contributions if they do not see more noise and more combat on behalf of a tiny percentage of judges nominated by the President. This, what we have here today, and last night, and on into the night tonight, is an incredibly cynical political ploy not worthy of the Senate, certainly not worthy of the American people, Republican or Democrat. The American people deserve better. They deserve better of this institution than what the Republican leadership has foisted on this country; and then, to add insult to injury, putting it on the credit card of the American people. So far, this President has had 168 Federal judges--virtually all conservative, Republican judges--approved by this Senate, and I have voted for most of them. So the question is not whether the Senate will approve conservative Republican judges--we have over and over and over again; 168--but the Constitution requires the Senate to provide advice and consent to this President or any President on these appointments, which are of a lifetime nature. This is not some Cabinet appointee who will come and go with whoever is President. These people will sit on the Federal bench for as long as they live, if they so choose. Much longer than virtually anyone in this Chamber will live, these nominees will still be there. If the expectation--which apparently is the logic of the opposition here today--is that anything short of 100 percent approval of these judges is out of compliance with the obligation of the Senate, then what does that say about our Republican friends' notion of what advice and consent is all about? Now, President Bush, obviously, with 168 successes to 4, could have 100 percent success if he would send us mainstream, conservative Republican judges, which he mostly has done. But obviously he has taken the political tactic of rounding up a handful of judges who are absolutely beyond the pale and sending them here knowing they would be lightning rods, knowing they would energize the radical, political right in this country, and it would gin up political contributions. That is what this is all about. Now, when President Clinton was President, he was told: Do not send any liberals to be nominated for the bench. They will not even get hearings, much less votes on the Senate floor. And that turned out to be true. The Senate, because of our parliamentary rules, allows the minority party to exercise a 60-vote criterion on issues that are controversial. It is one of the reasons the Senate has long been the institution of moderation, relatively speaking, in the Congress, because while in the other body the majority of one allows them to jam almost anything through that body, on the Senate side we have an ability to enforce a certain level of bipartisanship because nobody can get anything done that is controversial without 60 votes. I would suggest that this is one of the geniuses of the Senate, that this is not the House of Representatives, that there is a certain level of consensus that is required to get things done in the Senate, and I believe that is what the American people want to see. Now, we respect the right of this President to nominate like-minded people to the bench. He has. And they have been approved--168 of them. But where those people, those nominees, fall outside of the broad consensual understanding of the Senate, and cannot get 60 votes, those nominees ought to be rejected. They will be easily filled by other no doubt conservative Republicans, but at least people who have the respect of the bar associations, of the Senators of their States, and who fall clearly within the mainstream of contemporary legal and political thinking. Mr. President, 98 percent of the administration's judicial nominees have been confirmed--98 percent. That is a good success ratio in almost any human endeavor, contrary to what you hear from the other side. Mr. President, 95 percent of Federal judicial seats are now filled. We currently have the lowest judicial vacancy rate in 13 years. If anything, this Senate ought to be patted on the back for its acceleration of judicial nominees the Judiciary Committee has considered and the floor has approved. Last year, the Senate, led by my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, confirmed the largest number of judicial nominees in a single year since 1994--a remarkable track record. So to stand this on its head and suggest there is some sort of an obstruction, some sort of interference with the process, it goes beyond outrage, it defies comprehension. Sometimes we hear: But what about the appellate judges? Well, the Senate has confirmed 29 of President Bush's circuit court of appeals nominees to date. More Bush circuit court nominees--get this, and this is the highest Federal court until you get to the Supreme Court--than Clinton, Reagan, or George Herbert Walker Bush had by this point in any of their administrations. We also hear that this process requiring 60 votes, this process requiring bipartisanship on judicial nominees for their lifetime appointments, is some unprecedented sort of thing. Well, that is far from the truth. Our Republican friends required 60 votes on 6 Democratic judicial nominees on the floor and filibustered 63 nominees in committee. So there is nothing unprecedented that is going on here. What is happening is there is an enforced bipartisan, an enforced moderation that I think is good for the country, and certainly good for the Federal bench, at a time when this country is narrowly divided, at a time when we are approving people who will serve on that bench for a lifetime. What is sad is that while these hours are being devoted to a fabricated fake crisis that has to do with political fundraising, we are not getting on with the issues of jobs, of education, of health care, and prescription drugs. We have an Energy and Medicare bill in conference, but they are both on life support as we speak. The budget, which was supposed to have been done by October 1, the first day of the Federal fiscal year, has not been done. It is not even close to having been done. And yesterday Senator Byrd, our colleague from West Virginia, noted that this week, the week of Veterans Day, the Republican leadership insisted we shut down the debate on the Veterans Administration legislation appropriations bill in order to consume this time on this issue. The American people deserve better than that. I have to wonder if the other side that concocted this cockamamie scheme has any shame at all, to have done this to the American people, and to have done this to this institution. We ought to be talking about the jobless economy that continues to drag on. The economy would now have to create 326,000 jobs every month to keep the Bush administration from having the worst job creation record of any administration since the Great Depression. As of October 2, 2 million people have been unemployed for over 6 months, more than triple the number at the beginning of the Bush administration. That remains the highest level in 10 years. Almost 5 million people work part time because of the weak economy. This is an increase of 44 percent since January of just 2001-- the highest level in almost 10 years. Talk about crisis. Talk about the need for attention. What about an increase of 44 percent in part-time workers and record high unemployment? Mr. President, 24,000 manufacturing jobs were lost last month alone. Imagine that, 24,000 manufacturing jobs just last month lost. And in too many cases, those jobs are not coming back. Talk about crisis. That is what this body ought to be talking about. According to job placement firms, planned layoffs of U.S. companies shot up to 172,000 jobs in October from 75,000 in September. Announced layoffs are at their highest level since October 2002, when 176,000 jobs were cut. Recent studies suggest that jobs lost since 2001 are now gone for good. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has concluded that the vast majority of job losses since the beginning of the 2001 recession were the result of permanent changes in our economy and are not coming back. The labor market is not going to regain strength until positions are created in new economic sectors. The surge in discouraged workers masks the true impact of the economic downturn. Currently, 1.6 million people are marginally attached to the labor force; about 462,000--almost a half million of these workers--have stopped looking for work altogether because they do not believe there is any work available. African Americans and Hispanics bear the brunt of the economic downturn. During a month with a net gain in jobs, the unemployment rate among African Americans jumped to 11.5 percent in October, about twice the national average. The unemployment rate among Hispanics, 7.2 percent, is far higher than the national average. This anemic job creation of the last month provides about 25,000 fewer jobs than are required to even keep up to the new entrants into the labor market. We actually lost ground this last month, meaning young people leaving high school and college cannot find work in too many cases. In addition, average hourly wages increased by 1 penny last month. So when we talk about urgency, when we talk about a crisis, we need to get past the right-wing politics and get back to political moderation, which is what this 60-vote requirement requires of this body, and we ought to get back to the real issues the American public want the United States to be considering.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, reference has been made at this early hour this morning about debasing the values of this institution and this country. If any American sadly wants to see debasing of the institution, they have only to look at the strategy that has been foisted upon this body and on the American people by the Republican leadership of this Senate with their fabrication of a ``crisis'' relative to the nomination and approval of Federal judges. There is no crisis. The fabricated crisis the media has talked about is a polite way of saying the phony crisis, the fake crisis. The reality of the situation is that this Senate has approved 168 Federal judges nominated by President Bush. The Senate has blocked the approval of 4 Federal judges, a remarkable 98 percent success rate. The ratio of unfilled judgeships is now at its lowest point in some 13 years. The pace of approval of judges is at a higher rate than that of past Presidents of either political party, and I think it is fair to say that of these 168 judges, most of whom I voted for, virtually all, if not all, were conservative Republican judges. That is to be anticipated. They were all nominated by President Bush. The question is not whether we should approve conservative Republican judges. We have, overwhelmingly. The question is, Should there be some shred of moderation, some shred of bipartisanship in this institution relative to these judges who will serve life terms on the bench? These are not Cabinet officers. These are not people who come and go with whatever President happens to be in office. These are people who will serve virtually their entire lives on the Federal bench. So this body has a constitutional obligation of advice and consent. Apparently, the other side believes unless there is 100 percent approval of Federal judges, that somehow we haven't done our job. I would say the opposite, that if all we do is rubberstamp the nominations of any President, Republican or Democrat, this body has fallen down in its obligations, constitutionally and ethically. One of the great things about the Senate and the great traditions of the Senate--and there are great traditions in this body--is that unlike the House--I served in the other body, as did many of my colleagues-- unlike the House of Representatives with its majoritarian philosophy, set up that way by the Founders, where if you have a majority of one vote, that is sufficient to ram through almost anything, the Senate was devised by the Founders of our Republic to be a moderating, cooling institution. That is why we have 6-year terms--because Senators are invited to take a longer term view of what is good for our Nation and what is not. The Senate is designed to be a body that doesn't jump every time a whim is expressed by the public or in the political whims of the day. Our role is to take a longer term view and to moderate what is oftentimes the hot politics of the House of Representatives. It is very difficult, because of the rules of this body, to jam through legislation for the approval of virtually anything of any controversy without some bipartisanship. That is the course of action we are seeing here today. While we have approved 168 of President Bush's judicial nominations, the minority party, a 51-to-49 minority, has said these are such important positions, let's make sure there is a general consensus about the support of these nominees. That is what the 60-vote rule requires. The other side is very frustrated because they like to jam things through the Senate with 51 votes, but that is not the way the Senate works on this or many other issues. I have to say President Bush's nominees have received prompt hearings compared to virtually any other standard. That contrasts greatly with President Clinton's experience. President Clinton was told: Don't bring us a nominee who is liberal; they will not receive a hearing. And, indeed, they did not. We had people nominated, closed up their law practices and put their family on hold for years upon years, and could not get a hearing under the Republican leadership during the Clinton years. That doesn't happen anymore. Now people who are nominated do receive timely consideration. They do get votes. They get votes on the floor of the Senate. But the Senate has chosen to use its prerogative to require bipartisanship on some of the judges who many in this body believe fall outside the mainstream of conservative thought in terms of their politics, in terms of their legal interpretations. There is no crisis in terms of judges. For over a decade, we have not had the ratio of judgeships filled as we have today. President Bush has an enormous winning record in terms of the nominations that have been approved. Again, virtually all of them are conservative Republican judges. That is his prerogative. The Senate has gone along with that. There is no problem there. This is not as though somehow the President is getting jammed. What is happening here, I think, is that there has been a strategy concocted by the leadership of the other side to try to gin up political support among a faction of their supporters. What we have here is politics, an effort to play to the radical right. It is costing $100,000 or more of the taxpayers' money for this debate, and yet what we have here is a phony, fake, fabricated crisis. This is no crisis. The Senate is dealing with judges in a timely and responsible fashion. President Bush, obviously, could have the approval not of 98 percent but 100 percent of his nominees if he were to send to us mainstream conservative Republican judges, as he largely has done. Clearly, it is part of the political strategy to look around the country and find a handful who fall far outside the mainstream of Republican or Democrat judicial thinking and nominate them, knowing there will be resistance to these individuals. The thought is that by nominating these individuals, they can energize the radical right-wing political faction within the Republican Party. They will contribute money then if they see all this going on. It is a very cynical strategy. This has nothing to do with the interpretation of the Constitution. We are approving conservative Republican judges. It does have to do with able people who are in the mainstream, broadly thought. I think it is regrettable that we find this Senate and our work hijacked by those who want to push aside timely consideration in the Senate of issues pertaining to jobs, education, health care, energy, environment, our veterans and our military--all the issues with which this body ought to be dealing. The Federal fiscal year began October 1. Yet the Federal budget is not concluded. So there is so much that needs to be done, that we are being prevented from doing as we spend these many hours around the clock on a fabricated, phony crisis that does not exist. All of this to play to a very small faction politically in America. It has to do with political fundraising. It does not have anything to do with the quality of the court. I note that 95 percent of the Federal judicial seats are now filled. That is the lowest vacancy rate in 13 years. Last year, this Senate, led by my colleague Senator Daschle, confirmed the largest number of judicial nominees in a single year since 1994. There ought to be celebrations on the part of the other side in this body over the remarkable, timely, aggressive approval of Federal judges, the highest number of judicial nominees approved in a single year since 1994. The highest level of judicial seats filled, ratio of seats filled, in 13 years. That ought to be cause for celebration. That is a remarkable level of progress, and it was done in a bipartisan fashion. Part of that time, the Democrats controlled the Judiciary Committee with Senator Leahy as chairman. Part of that time the Republicans controlled the Judiciary Committee. So the track record is truly extraordinary. What an irony that in the face of that reality, we find ourselves through the wee hours of the night, through the day yesterday, through the day today, being prevented from dealing with the real legislative issues while we talk about this political gamut that we have before us. Some say, well, what about the appellate court judges? That is the highest Federal court next to the Supreme Court itself, and one that truly does write law. Well, even there the Senate has confirmed 29 of President Bush's appellate court nominees to date, more Bush circuit court nominees than--get this, President Bush has had more of his appellate court nominees approved by this Senate than President Clinton, President Reagan, or President George Herbert Walker Bush had by this point in their administrations. Yet here we are, the other side posing as though there is some sort of terrible crisis going on when, in fact, it is just the opposite. Conservative Republican judges are being approved at a record pace by this body. What the other side seems to find unacceptable is that the Democratic Party is insisting that one should not go to a lifetime Federal bench unless there is a generally broad consensus, bipartisan consensus, not unanimous but a broad consensus, of at least 60 votes that that person deserves to sit on the bench dealing with legal issues that are of monumental importance to every American citizen for the rest of their lives. I think that is one of the great strengths of this body. That is one of the great strengths of the United States Senate, that we cannot be stampeded into the radical actions of a few but that we take a longer term view of what is good for America, what is consistent with American values, what is consistent with American priorities, for all of our people. That is what is happening in this body this year, and that is why a few on the other side are objecting so strenuously. Now, other judges have been filibustered; cloture votes have been held. Other judges have been held up in committee, which has been the favorite mechanism of keeping people from having a vote at all. That is to be said even for these four. They have been allowed votes in committee and cloture votes on the floor. They cannot get the 60-vote requirement and so they are not going to the Federal bench because they do not have that broad-based consensus of support in this body. That is what this body is all about. It is not just judges. This same 60-vote rule prevails on virtually everything we do in the Senate, from the passage of health care, to education, to appropriations legislation. Virtually everything is subject to that consensus requirement. I think it reflects the best of our values in America and, in fact, it represents America coming together in this body to try to produce legislation that is good for us all. It is not ideologically driven. It is not the product of the far left or the far right. The product of the far left or the far right does not do well in this body because of the nature of the rules that have been the rules since our Republic began. It is one of the geniuses of the Founders of this Nation, that that is the profoundly important role of the Senate to moderate the radical winds that occasionally blow politically through this country and through Washington, DC. So it is a bulwark of individual freedom and of American values and priorities that we have a body like this that mandates that there be greater thoughtfulness, greater moderation, greater reflection than would otherwise be the case. There are other issues that we rightfully ought to be moving on to. Recently--yesterday, in fact--I visited the Walter Reed Army Hospital in Washington, DC. One of my constituents, a soldier injured in Iraq, was there. Senator Daschle and I and a contingent of other Senators visited our troops. We can take great pride in the quality of these young men and women and what they have done for America, what they are doing for America. They are extraordinary people with great courage, and they are getting on with their lives as best as they can. It was heartbreaking to go from room to room at Walter Reed and see our Iraq military veterans. In one room, a soldier has lost an arm. The next room, a 20-year-old young man has lost both arms. In the next room, a young man has lost his leg all the way to the hip. In another room, there was a young man with brain damage. In another room, a man has lost his feet. Another room, a man has lost his hand. In another room, an individual has lost his arm again. It goes on and on. There has been a lot of reference to those who have lost their lives and made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq. Our hearts and prayers go out to them and their families, but we should not forget those as well who are alive and with us but whose bodies are shattered, whose lives are forever changed because of what they were willing to do for the United States of America in their military service. Their families were there. Young wives were there yesterday, many of them with very small babies, some pregnant. Now they have a husband who has no arms, who has no legs, who has brain damage. We need to give some thought to these families as well, think about the enormous sacrifices they are making for America. One of the great ironies and sad ironies of this debate that is going on is that the legislation that was taken off the floor in order for us to have this debate was the VA-HUD appropriations bill, the very bill where we will make determinations about whether these young men and young women, once they conclude their military service, will have the health care, the job training, and the therapy they need to get on with their lives. That was pushed aside. We do not have time for that debate apparently because we need to spend 2 days or more of the Senate's time on this phony crisis because 4 out of 172 judges have not been approved by this body. What a sad commentary about the priorities of the Republican leadership in this body. I do not ordinarily make partisan references lightly. I am a Democrat. I am elected in a State that is overwhelmingly Republican, and I am proud of the Republican support that has been extended to me for many years. They are good, wonderful, thoughtful, patriotic, religious people on both sides, no question about that. But I am profoundly disappointed, to the point of contempt, for what has happened in this body the last day or so with the hijacking of the Senate's agenda already behind schedule on these important issues that we ought to be talking about in order to take up this question of 168 to 4. I suggest that if it was 172 to 0, that would be good evidence that the Senate is not doing its job of advice and consent. This body is not meant to be a rubber stamp. That is not what the Founders of this Nation thought that they were doing when they wrote our Constitution and devised the rules of the Senate. Mr. President, in 1968 New York Senator Robert Kennedy launched a Presidential campaign at a time of great unrest and dissent in our nation. He ran a campaign that lasted 85 days to empower those who did not have the power, to bring justice to those who did not have justice, and the protest the direction of our great nation. At the beginning of that campaign, he addressed criticism of anti-war protesters by saying: There are millions of Americans living in hidden places, whose faces and names were never know. But I have seen children starving in Mississippi, idling their lives away in the ghetto, living without hope or future amid the despair on Indian reservations, with no jobs and little hope. I have seen proud men in the hills of Appalachia, who wish only to work in dignity--but the mines are closed, and the jobs are gone, and no one, neither industry or labor or government, has cared enough to help. Those conditions will change, those children will live, only if we dissent. So I dissent, and I know you do, too. Mr. President, I rise today to dissent. I dissent to the majority of this body's unwillingness to focus and deliver on healthcare and education. I dissent to this body's inability to provide for our veterans. I dissent to the President's blatant disregard for treaty and trust responsibilities to Indians. And most of all, I dissent this political charade. Instead of talking about judges, as a body, we should be addressing the unmet needs across this country. Our Veterans made tremendous sacrifices in service to our Nation. They have answered the call to defend our freedom and served our country at the time of its greatest need. We are trying to provide our veterans with the full benefits they have earned. While the White House can find money for tax cuts for America's wealthiest families and a $20 billion lavish grant for Iraq, too often poverty is pled when it comes time to providing our veterans the benefits they deserve. Right now 60,000 veterans are waiting 6 months or longer for an appointment at VA hospitals. I think it is important to fully fund VA health care so that veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom can get the care they need when they return home. My own son served with the 101st Airborne in Iraq. He is home now. He is safe. He did not suffer one of these horrific injuries. We are grateful for that, but we are very mindful that tens of thousands of others are still there, have suffered horribly, have lost their lives, and their families have gone through enormous painful stress. In contrast, the Republican leadership in the Senate has broken their promise to provide an additional $1.8 billion for veterans health care this year and even proposed an increase in prescription drug copayments that impose a $250 annual membership fee for veterans seeking health care. Should we not be talking about these kind of priorities? It is astonishing to me that the Republican leadership of the Senate has set a target adjournment date only days from now, November 21, and has scheduled 39 straight hours of executive session to discuss this phony issue; not 39 straight hours to discuss critical legislation such as lack of prescription drug coverage facing millions of American beneficiaries in this country. Do not the 40 million Medicare beneficiaries deserve as much attention as this phony issue is receiving? We are at an impasse. We do not have a final Medicare bill. At this rate, spending hours and hours discussing nominations which have overwhelmingly been approved, instead of debating important Medicare legislation, makes me wonder about the priorities of the majority party in this body. They are dedicating nearly 10 hours each of discussion for four individual judges, but we cannot spend 1 hour each for every million individuals on Medicare. What is wrong with that picture? High drug spending is placing a heavy burden on American families, and many businesses are responding to rising drug spending by increasing the amount that employees must pay for prescription drugs. The public programs such as Medicaid and the Veterans Health Administration are also struggling to respond to soaring drug spending. Finding a solution to the prescription drug crisis in this country is a priority for me, for many in this body. It should be a priority for the entire body. States and local communities are struggling with the worst budget shortfalls since World War II and many have cut back on education funding, on instruction time, have laid off quality teachers and school staff. School district after school district in my home State of South Dakota are having opt-out votes, trying to do something to try to make sure that children in our communities have the resources they need to learn. Parents and students are holding bake sales and auctions to save teaching jobs, music, art, other student activities. It would be impossible for our public schools to meet the strict demands of the new Federal education law if vital school services continue to be cut all across our Nation. I believe that fighting to bridge this gap by increasing Federal aid to the States and raising public awareness of the school public crisis is essential. I think it is important to recognize that money alone is not the solution to improving our schools, but we need also to be cognizant of the fact that public schools need the financial resources necessary to successfully implement No Child Left Behind. The National Education Association's State-by-State report on layoffs and cuts affecting public schools and the responses of students, parents, and communities, NEA collected anecdotal data from 2003 through the end of September and finds the school district stress all across this country. In my home State of South Dakota, our Native-American community is struggling badly--high unemployment, lack of health care, high infant mortality, lack of jobs. Again, that is another area that deserves the attention of this body. These are the real crises that face America, not a 98-percent approval of conservative Republican judges, which this body has done. This President has been served very well by the Senate on the timely approval of 98 percent of these judicial nominations. I submit that the four who have been rejected were selected with the thought in mind that they would be rejected because what the other side of the body wants, and I think what the President wants, is a fight. They know that a fight will energize the radical right wing of the Republican Party and will energize political contributions. Sadly, that is what this debate is all about. That is why the taxpayers are having to fund $100,000 or more for the cost of this. That is why we are not able to get on to the other issues that truly we ought to be addressing right now. One hundred sixty-eight conservative Republican judges have already been approved, most with my support. That is not the question. The Federal bench has a higher ratio of judges seated now than we have had in 13 years. The appellate judges are being approved at a faster rate than Clinton, Reagan, or George Bush, Sr. So the record of this body, Republican and Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, has been one of accelerated consideration of judges in a way that has not been seen in many years. I think that reflects well on the body. What does not reflect well on this Senate is this hijacking that has taken place of our agenda, where we are being prevented from talking about the real issues, the real crises having to do with our children, having to do with our schools, having to do with our seniors, having to do with our veterans, having to do with health care costs. That has been hijacked by a body that wants to talk about these four judges who were selected, I think, by a process where the President and the leadership of the other side knew very well that these would be lightening rod candidates, that they do not fall within the same mainstream body as the other 168 conservative Republican judges. That has led to this dispute, and the dispute, I think, is not about principle. It is about energizing politics. It is about raising money. That is a sad commentary. That is contrary to the values of this body and of the American people, Republican and Democrat. The American people deserve better than what has gone on on the floor of this Senate over these last many hours. We are going to see the rest of today wasted as well. Mr. President, our roads, schools, and infrastructure are crumbling as Nero fiddles here in the Senate. Yet our friends in the majority complain about a 98 percent approval rate for President Bush's judicial nominees. In baseball, that would equate to roughly a batting average of .980. A power hitter is someone with a batting average in the range of .330. That means if the Bush Administration's judicial approval rate in the Senate were considered in baseball terms, we would be batting nearly triple what any major league manager would love to have. And consider a baseball team that would have a .980 winning percentage. A winning percentage like that would far surpass any record set by any team in major league baseball; and would certainly beat the losing seasons of the Texas Rangers when President Bush was their managing general partner. In fact, the quality of some of the judicial appointments sent up here by President Bush shows the same judgment he used when he traded Sammy Sosa, a perennial home run leader, to the Chicago Cubs.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor Dr. Jerald Tunheim on the occasion of his retirement as the president of Dakota State University in Madison, SD. After receiving both his Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering Physics and Master of Science in Physics from South Dakota State University in Brookings, South Dakota, Dr. Tunheim briefly moved to Stillwater, OK, where he received his Ph.D. in Physics from Oklahoma State University. He began his South Dakota teaching career at his alma mater in 1968 as an assistant professor of physics before becoming professor and Head of the Physics Department in 1980. Dr. Tunheim has earned the respect and admiration of all those who had the opportunity to work with him. His friendly demeanor and wealth of knowledge helped him develop close friendships with various colleagues and students while establishing the legacy of Dakota State University in South Dakota. Dr. Tunheim joined Dakota State University three years after the South Dakota legislature changed Dakota State University's mission to focus on computer and information systems technology as academic disciplines. In his term as President, there has been a 236 percent increase in enrollment and the number of computer majors has soared from 109 in 1985 to over 1,000 today. In his Letter from the President, Dr. Tunheim is proud to announce that, ``with a proud heritage as its foundation, Dakota State has evolved to meet the needs of today's students with its innovative approach to education and a faculty with diverse backgrounds and experiences. Dakota State offers its students the best opportunities to learn and grow to meet the demands of their future.'' Over the years, Dr. Tunheim has committed himself to helping Dakota State University students learn more about themselves and the world around them as he has worked hard to help students find the best in themselves. Thousands of students over the years have benefited from Dr. Tunheim's commitment to higher educational excellence. On the occasion of his retirement, I congratulate Dr. Tunheim for his tireless dedication to Dakota State University and his commitment to quality education. Dr. Tunheim has been recognized many times over for his extraordinary career including being named Teacher of the Year twice while at South Dakota State University. He was also chosen as one of the ``100 Influential South Dakotans for 1994'' is listed in journals such as American Men and Women of Science, Who's Who in America, Who's Who in American Education, and Oxford Who's Who. In addition to the hours he puts in as President of Dakota State University, Dr. Tunheim has spent his time on the Madison Area Chamber of Commerce Education Committee, Madison Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, Council of Presidents and Superintendents of South Dakota System of Higher Education. Governor's Task Force on Vocational- Technical Education, and the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletes Council of Presidents, among many others. The lives of countless people have been enormously enhanced by Dr. Tunheim's talent and leadership as President at Dakota State University. The State of South Dakota is a better place because of his commitment to and passion for higher education excellence and his achievements should serve as a model for other talented educators throughout our state to emulate. I wish Dr. Jerald Tunheim the very best on his retirement.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing last week on the Universal Service Fund, USF, and I would like to take a few moments to share with my colleagues some thoughts on this topic. As many of my colleagues know, the survival and strength of this fund is critically important to providing affordable, state-of-the-art telecommunications services to rural and high-cost areas. Without universal service support, many residents in South Dakota and other rural areas would not have the opportunity to share in the benefits of quality telephone and data services. I have recently cosponsored S. 1380, the Rural Universal Service Equity Act of 2003, which would change the formulas that determine the distribution of universal service high-cost funds among nonrural telephone companies. I believe this legislation is necessary to address an inequity in the current formulas limiting the amount of high-cost support so called nonrural companies such as Qwest receive from the USF. While I am pleased that under this legislation, South Dakota would receive more support than it currently does, I am mindful that it does so at the expense of other States and Puerto Rico. Under the current USF system, although Qwest provides telephone service to many South Dakota residents, including some in very rural and high cost areas, it receives no universal service support from the high-cost model for operations in South Dakota. This has the practical effect of forcing Qwest to keep rates in other areas of my State higher than they otherwise would be in order to subsidize service in the high cost areas. Although I support this legislation, I recognize that it does not address the more fundamental issues threatening the sustainability of the universal service fund. The entire universal service system is jeopardized because of a shrinking contribution base and increased demands. Without addressing these fundamental problems related to the viability of the system as a whole, the change in the formulas as proposed in S. 1380 will have limited value. I urge my colleagues to work in a bipartisan manner to help assess and develop comprehensive solutions to the many outstanding and emerging issues that confront the universal service program. We can do no less if we truly believe in the underlying principles of this longtime national policy that has proven so vital to both our economic and national security.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to draw my colleague's attention to an article published in the November 2003 edition of Air Force Magazine entitled ``The Long Reach of the Heavy Bombers.'' The article outlines the importance of our Nation's long-range bomber fleet, and in particular notes the increasing role the B-1 bomber is having in our national security planning. I am extremely proud that Ellsworth Air Force Base in my State of South Dakota is home to the B-1 bombers and crews of the 28th Bomb Wing. Their contributions in Operation Iraqi Freedom were critical to our military success. Although B-1s flew fewer than 2 percent of the combat sorties in Operation Iraqi Freedom, they dropped more than half the satellite guided Air Force Joint Direct Attack Munitions, JDAMs, and maintained a 79 percent mission capable rate. The B-1s were assigned against a broad range of targets in Iraq, including command and control facilities, bunkers, tanks, armored personnel carriers, and surface-to-air missile sites. They also provided close air support for U.S. forces engaged in the field. Given the demonstrated capabilities of the B-1 and its importance to our military, we need to continue to invest in the technological improvements that will maintain the B-1s role as the backbone of our bomber fleet. I am pleased that Congress enacted legislation earlier this year that will return 23 B-1s to the active inventory, and I look forward to working with the Air Force and my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that we provide the resources necessary to fully upgrade these planes. I close by commending the men and women stationed at Ellsworth Air Force Base and thanking all of the members of our Armed Forces for their sacrifices on behalf of our Nation's security. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am a bit confounded. I have to admit that some of the great concerns expressed about country-of-origin labeling for meat are being raised at a time when USDA has not yet issued a final statement about what the regulations are even going to be. The USDA has considerable discretion, based on the legislation that passed this body and is now part of the farm bill. So a lot of this frenzy going on is about final regulations that are not yet in place. Let me add that we are soon going to see Senator Daschle offer an amendment, a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, relative to country-of- origin labeling that the Senate conferees sought to stay with the Senate approach and reject the House approach to delay implementation. That effort on the part of Senator Daschle, joined by our Republican colleague, Senator Enzi of Wyoming, and myself, is supported by some 135 agricultural organizations, as Senator Reid has noted, including, I say to my friend and colleague from Missouri, Missouri Farmers Union, Missouri National Farmers Organization, Missouri Rural Crisis Center, and the Missouri Stockgrowers Association, not to mention the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Farmers Union. So from the left to the right, across the entire spectrum of agricultural and rural organizations, there is overwhelming support transcending party-line differences in support of this amendment that is going to be offered by Senator Daschle. The amendment directs the Senate conferees to insist that the final Agriculture appropriations bill should not restrict or delay the implementation of country-of-origin labeling for meat. Mr. President, there are interests in this country that have convinced the House to include language in its version of this year's Agriculture appropriations bill to interfere with the USDA rulemaking process by delaying for up to 1 full year implementation of country-of- origin labeling for meat and meat products only. The law in the current farm bill provides for country-of-origin labeling for fruit, vegetables, and for meat. But it is only meat that has been singled out for this delay, keeping in mind, of course, that the farm bill already provided for 2 years of delay in the implementation of a mandatory program as it is. This interruption is simply not justified, and it serves to placate only those special interests who profit from the status quo by, frankly, camouflaging foreign meat products. I understand there are certain interests that have foreign meat that comes into the country, and this is not a trade barrier. We are suggesting there be no trade barrier. If people want to eat Argentine beef or Mexican meat, they are certainly entitled to make that choice, but it ought to be a knowing choice. That is all we are suggesting, that people get to know the origin of their shoes, shirts, and auto parts. Why should the United States be among the last of the industrialized democracies in the world to allow our consumers to know the origin of the meat products they feed their families? It is a very simple question. It would strike most people as common sense that in this day and age, people ought to have the opportunity to know the origin of the products they are buying, especially products they are feeding their families. The farm bill already included a very lengthy 2-year implementation process for country-of-origin labeling, and USDA is now just half way through the rulemaking procedure. To prematurely disconnect country-of- origin labeling for meat from this process is unfair and will harm U.S. livestock producers and American consumers alike who stand to benefit from a country-of-origin labeling program. We need to allow USDA to continue with the process of allowing the public, both those opposed and those supportive of country-of-origin labeling, to interact with USDA in their responsibility to implement this law for the fall of 2004. There has been submitted for the Record a letter signed by 135 farm, ranch, and consumer organizations supportive of our bipartisan sense- of-the-Senate resolution. Mr. President, these organizations represent more than 50 million Americans. Additionally, the most important and influential farm and consumer groups in the Nation support country-of-origin labeling, including the National Farm Bureau, the National Farmers Union, and the Consumer Federation of America. I think it can be fairly said this is as much, even more so, a consumer issue as it is a livestock producer issue. It is now the job of the Senate to stand up for the majority of U.S. citizens and fix what special interests have convinced the House to do. A delay in implementation of country-of-origin labeling for meat is a seriously misguided effort because country-of-origin labeling is the only method we have now to differentiate and identify meat that comes from our country as opposed to meat that comes from other countries; for instance, meat that may come from a BSE-infected, mad-cow-infected country. We don't claim country-of-origin labeling is, per se, a food safety issue, but it certainly is a consumer confidence issue at a time when meat may very soon be coming into the United States from Canada, a country where BSE was recently identified. Now USDA is talking about allowing these younger cattle to come into the country from Canada, while at the same time our Japanese friends are telling us that BSE is, indeed, possible in these younger livestock. If we are going to preserve confidence in the high quality product United States livestock producers have available, have created for the American consumer, then consumers need to be able to make a knowing choice. You can argue for them, these are decisions other people can make for you, that you ought to simply take on blind faith the food inspection and safety of the meat that is served in America, that is sold in America. Why shouldn't the United States be among the few industrialized democracies in the world that says: No, we will not allow you to make that choice; this is information you don't need, and we'll decide for you that you don't need this information? Last week, USDA announced a plan to open the U.S. border to imports of Canadian live cattle, a plan that could be implemented in the first quarter of the 2004 calendar year. I am disappointed USDA appears more serious to opening our border to Canadian cattle than they are to implementing country-of-origin labeling. If they open floodgates to nearly 1 million head of Canadian cattle early in 2004, and if Congress simultaneously postpones the implementation of country-of-origin labeling for meat, the American consumers will have no way to determine whether they are buying Canadian or U.S. beef. Again, if their choice is to buy Canadian beef, they certainly have the legal right to do so, but they ought to have an opportunity to know. They ought to have an opportunity to make that choice, and it ought to be a knowing choice. That is what makes the market forces in America work so well; the sales are transparent. People get to know the quality and origins and the value of the products they buy, and they let the best product win. To camouflage origins of meat is contrary to those free market decisionmaking processes. It is no secret, country-of-origin delay, matched with the deluge of Canadian cattle imports, recklessly places consumer confidence at risk and could lead to serious economic harm for United States cattle ranchers. Furthermore, postponing implementation of country-of-origin labeling for meat neglects demands of our most important and valuable export markets. Japan and South Korea have written to the Department of Agriculture seeking our assurances to provide country-of-origin labeling for all U.S. beef exports to those countries because those countries do not want Canadian beef to be commingled with our exports. The same day USDA announced their plan to allow Canadian cattle into the U.S., it was reiterated by Japan that the U.S. ought to guarantee no beef from Canadian-born cattle is exported to Japan. The only method to certify origin of beef exports to Japan and our other important trade partners is to implement country-of-origin labeling. A delay of country-of-origin labeling seriously jeopardizes our most important exports of beef, which will certainly lead to economic injury to America's cattle men and women. We face a simultaneous problem: One, that our own consumers are being denied the information they need to have confidence, to make knowing choices about the meat they serve their families and, at the same time, we are putting in great jeopardy the export market. Japan is the largest buyer of American beef in the world, and they are saying: Look, we don't want to buy your beef if you can't certify to us this is, in fact, American beef you are selling us, We can't do that right now because we don't have a country-of-origin system in place. So we find ourselves not only doing a disservice to American consumers and American families, but we also are setting ourselves up in a circumstance where we can take a catastrophic hit to our export markets at the same time. Eighty-four percent of our major trade partners already have country- of-origin labeling for food products, including meat--84 percent. That means 48 of our 57 major trade partners already have country-of-origin labeling. Clearly this is not rocket science. It does not have to be costly. In fact, in the United States, we already have country-of- origin labeling in some niche areas. It is required that meat that goes into the School Lunch Program be American meat. It is self-certified. It seems to work. We have a Black Angus Program, and we have other programs that already work. They are not costly. It is not that expensive. This notion that somehow country-of-origin labeling has to be some immensely expensive and complicated process is foolishness. If all we did was keep track of the meat that comes into the United States, that alone would be enough to be able to certify everything else is American without requiring anything in particular of American livestock producers. Well, the packers and retailers would like us to think that country- of-origin labeling is some enormously expensive and burdensome program, and they have been working very hard at trying to frighten both producers and consumers to think just that. There have been letters that have gone out and there has been a lot of scare talk that has been going on, and there is no doubt they enjoy taking the profits of mingling foreign meat with U.S. meat, selling it all off as a premium product, without allowing consumers to make a knowing choice. I appreciate there are those from certain parts of the United States who enjoy the benefit of bringing in Mexican feeder calves, fattening them and then selling them as an American product. They are able to profit at a higher level than they would otherwise by not allowing American consumers to know what in fact it is they are buying. We are not suggesting one cannot bring in feeder calves from anywhere one wants, one cannot bring in meat from anywhere one wants. We are suggesting consumers ought to know the difference. Nearly a year ago, USDA said country-of-origin labeling would cost $2 billion. Then Senator Daschle and I asked the Government Accounting Office, the GAO, to assess whether USDA's cost was accurate. GAO said the Department of Agriculture's initial recordkeeping cost was ``questionable and not well supported.'' Now USDA has reduced their recordkeeping cost estimate by $1.5 billion of that $2 billion. Furthermore, country-of-origin labeling is not going to result in a mountain of red tape as some of the critics suggest. In fact, USDA's proposed rule states most livestock producers already maintain the types of records--birth, health, and so on--that would be relied upon to verify the origin of animals under country-of- origin labeling. People simply need to do what they are already doing. Even if individuals have questions or concerns about country-of- origin labeling, the best way to ensure those questions and concerns are addressed is to allow USDA to continue forward with its very lengthy rulemaking process. It is through this process only that all parties can submit questions and develop alternatives to ensure implementation of country-of-origin labeling does not lead to red tape and overwhelming costs. We can move away from some of the scare talk and from some of the reckless rhetoric and in fact allow USDA to evaluate whatever issues are raised in a thoughtful, deliberative fashion, as they have the opportunity currently to do. Every stakeholder group has 60 days to submit written comments to USDA with respect to their proposed rule to implement country-of-origin labeling. Then USDA will incorporate those comments into the final rule, which is not even going to be written until well into the year 2004. USDA's proposed rule is far from perfect--I would be the first to say that--but compared to what it looked like nearly a year ago, USDA has been making improvements and has been making progress. With balanced public input and assurance that the implementation process will not be interrupted, maybe then those with questions and concerns can work with USDA in the coming year to help make the law and address the concerns they raise. I commend Senator Daschle, Senator Enzi, and others in a bipartisan spirit, who have offered support for this amendment. I encourage my colleagues to support it. All this simply does is to say a law which is already law, which has been signed by the President, is part of the farm bill, is in the midst of the rulemaking process now, be allowed to go forward. Allow USDA to take the comments from the public, allow USDA to evaluate all of that, perhaps make still further changes on their way to a final regulation, and then we will see where we are. To stop the process midway through the regulation listening process cannot possibly serve the American public, the American consumers, the American agricultural economy well. Again, I thank Senator Daschle for his extraordinary leadership on this issue, and what he is trying to do to bring some sense to our deliberations on this Agriculture appropriations bill and to send some direction to the conferees to not prematurely pull the plug on the rulemaking process USDA is in the midst of now. I urge my colleagues to be supportive of this sense-of-the-Senate amendment Senator Daschle is shortly going to formally introduce. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 2078

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I wish to express my great high regard and respect for my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, but I must rise in opposition to the amendment she offered earlier this afternoon. I think it is important for us to keep in mind that the Fair Credit Reporting Act provided for a national preemption going back to 1996. It has been an extraordinary success story for America's consumers, particularly America's middle class and working families who previously suffered the most from a lack of access to credit but now find themselves having access to credit never before imagined and having it done in an instant fashion. The legislation before us is an enormously complex piece of legislation. It takes the 1996 preemption and builds on it, and strengthens consumer rights beyond anything we have ever known before. Chairman Shelby and ranking member Sarbanes deserve great credit for what they have been able to do. They put together a bill that had a unanimous vote out of the Senate Banking Committee--no easy feat, we all know. To now on the floor of the Senate introduce a very complicated and, some would suggest, improperly drafted amendment only serves to slow the process and, in fact, perhaps even to jeopardize passage of the reauthorization of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, something that must be done before the first of the year, otherwise, the consequences would be catastrophic not only to the business community and to our economy but to American consumers who would be the biggest losers of all if we were unable to pass legislation because of the additional burden put on it by the Feinstein amendment. I wish to very briefly touch on some problems that this amendment poses. The amendment being offered is different from and far more unworkable than the affiliate sharing restriction in the California legislation, and I will comment on why this is so. First, the amendment being offered is much broader in scope than the California bill. Despite claims that they fixed the overly broad scope because of drafting errors, that simply is not the case. Unlike the California amendment SB-1, which applies specifically to financial institutions, this amendment applies to any institution that has affiliates, including retailers, manufacturers, nonprofits, labor unions, churches, universities--basically, every type of organization in the country that shares certain consumer report information. Yet the most important exception by this amendment being offered is provided only to financial institutions. Clearly, the drafters of the amendment have spent a lot of time on the California bill, perhaps more so than on the FCRA, because there does not seem to be the full appreciation of the breadth of the very statute they are amending. The Feinstein amendment provides exceptions to certain institutions based on their functional regulator, a concept we defined in Gramm- Leach-Bliley in the Banking Committee and which is specifically defined in this amendment. It is limited to financial institutions such as banks, securities firms, and insurance companies. This means while financial institutions can qualify for what proponents refer to as the ``silo'' exception, other covered businesses cannot. I assume this is probably a drafting oversight, but it simply reinforces my concern that this amendment has not been fully vetted by the Banking Committee or by any other presence in the Congress. I doubt very seriously that the sponsors are trying to give large financial institutions a competitive advantage, but that is one of the consequences of the amendment that has been offered. The FCRA has a sweeping scope by design. Congress believed and still believes that sensitive information bearing on credit, employment, or insurance risk, no matter who is using it, should be protected. That is why the FCRA is by no means limited to financial institutions, and should not be. The amendment being offered backtracks on the final version of the California legislation with respect to the so-called common database exception that was an integral part of the deal. The amendment contains the original, unnegotiated version of the common database exception, which was widely understood to be unadministratable. This provision, which was intended to assure companies with large information databases that they would not have to undergo major systems revisions, fails to accomplish that goal. The final version of the database exception prohibited information from a common database to be further disclosed or used by an affiliate. The amendment before us this afternoon prohibits not only disclosure or use but even access itself. What is the point of a common database if it cannot be accessed? I understand that the California bill has come under fire recently for including what some view as a giant loophole of the common database exception, and I share Senator Feinstein's concern about the loophole but it is not right to make a major change to a central provision and continue to claim that this amendment mirrors SB-1, the California legislation. Even if all the California exceptions were added, the amendment would still be far less workable than the affiliate sharing provision in the unanimously adopted Senate Banking Committee bill. With all the California exceptions, the only sharing not permitted would be affiliate sharing used for solicitation and marketing purposes. It is simply not true, as some have suggested, that the California opt-out applies to information shared for a broad range of purposes other than marketing and solicitation. But if sharing for solicitation is all that is subject to the California opt-out, then why not use the far more straightforward approach of the bipartisan Banking Committee bill? That is, why not target the opt-out only to solicitations of noncustomers made possible by affiliate sharing? As the Banking Committee has recognized, and as the Senator from California has pointed out many times during today's debate, the real consumer concern is getting bombarded by advertisements from unfamiliar companies. We all sympathize with that. The bipartisan committee bill addresses this concern head on with its targeted, focused provision on affiliate sharing, while the pending amendment, even if it added all of California's numerous exceptions, which it does not, is far more cumbersome and overreaching on its face. In fact, the committee bill gives consumers far more control. S. 1753 allows consumers to opt out of all marketing from any affiliate. The pending amendment does not do that. For example, the California silo exception strips away consumer control over information shared by affiliates in the same line of business. By contrast, we believe consumers should not have to be bombarded by marketing materials just because they have chosen to do business with a large financial institution. Sharing of information among affiliate entities has a significant impact on the cost and availability of credit in ways that are not always apparent to consumers. This is a critical point that I believe has been lost in the course of this debate. Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin testified back in 1997, for example, that consumers could expect ultimate savings of as much as $15 billion per year from the increased efficiencies that affiliation provides. Treasury Secretary John Snow recently testified that affiliate information sharing serves a critical purpose in the war on identity theft. FDIC Chairman Don Powell has noted that access to credit and the cost of credit is far more favorable in the United States than in other parts of the world due, in large part, to the relative ease of information sharing between potential credit customers and potential lenders. Finally, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has noted that information sharing has had ``a dramatic impact on consumers and households and their access to credit in this country at reasonable rates.'' The Senate bill ably balances the legitimate concerns of consumers against the substantial benefits that information sharing brings to this economy and to all consumers. As Chairman Shelby and ranking member Sarbanes have noted, this is an enormously complicated area of law, and the committee took great care to guard against unintended consequences, spent literally months on the drafting and formulation of this legislation. Make no mistake, it is hard to imagine that what we are doing here today is the last word on privacy. Our constituents will continue, rightfully so, to demand that we review our current laws as information technology develops. I believe we intend in a bipartisan fashion to do just that. At this point in time, giving consumers the right to opt out of marketing, with no exceptions, is the right rule for American consumers, while at the same time providing immediate and affordable access to credit to all of our consumers, regardless of their economic background, regardless of racial or other factors is something that I think this Senate can take great pride in and we can take great satisfaction in the quality of this bipartisan legislation. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to mirror the bipartisan vote of the Senate Banking Committee and to support the FCRA reauthorization and oppose the Feinstein amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank the leadership for moving to floor consideration of S. 1753, which amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This bill, which was approved unanimously by the Senate Banking Committee, will ensure that millions of Americans continue to have access to affordable credit under a uniform national standard that includes significant new consumer protections. Similar legislation was passed out of the House of Representatives recently by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 392 to 30. Only occasionally do we have the chance to vote for a bipartisan bill that so ably balances the needs of consumers and business. Under the leadership of Chairman Shelby and ranking member Sarbanes, we have achieved a product that is good for everyone. In the area of consumer credit, we have a rare convergence of interests. What is good for consumers helps business to expand, which in turn helps to give consumers more choice. The end result is a stronger economy. I urge my colleagues not to squander this opportunity to send a decisive message that we are committed to protecting and improving a pillar of this Nation's economy, and that is the consumer credit market. It is a testament to the success of our national credit reporting system that few people have heard of the Fair Credit Reporting Act or FCRA. FCRA is the statute that governs the collection and use of personal credit data that make up an individual's credit report. That credit history, in turn, allows Americans to access the credit markets in whatever form meets their needs. For example, millions of Americans have refinanced their mortgages over the past year to take advantage of historically low interest rates. Others have applied for low-cost auto financing. Most Americans have some form of revolving credit line that helps them to meet certain payment needs. Very rarely do we stop to ask ourselves why is it that we can walk into a bank, walk into a store or credit union, or apply over the phone or the Internet for credit with a mortgage broker and a few minutes later get approval. These people do not know us, they have never seen us, and yet they have the information they need to make an objective and sound credit-granting decision. When I was growing up, if you needed a loan, you had to walk down the street to the local banker, who had probably known you your whole life. He lent you money because he knew your family, he knew you were a hard worker, and he trusted you to make a good loan. Or maybe because the banker had certain preconceived notions about you or your family, you did not get credit that you deserved. Today, that has all changed. Today, the national marketplace for credit has transformed this loan-granting process. Uniform credit information allows lenders, big or small, to make sound lending decisions based on an objective evaluation of past credit performance. These objective indicators are critical to the safety and soundness of our financial institutions. Poor lending decisions affect all of us through institutional instability and an increased cost of credit. The FCRA, which was passed in 1970 and amended in 1996, has created a national credit marketplace based on standardized information related to consumer credit histories for all of us, regardless from which state we come. That same statute has standardized consumer rights related to accuracy and access. And the reason we are here today on the floor of the Senate is to improve and to protect this system. Unless Congress acts, important preemption provisions of the FCRA will expire on January 1, 2004. Under the pressure of that deadline, Banking Committee Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Sarbanes have done an extraordinary job of creating an exhaustive hearing record on this law, and putting together a bill that both enhances the underlying statute and also permanently extends the preemption provisions to guarantee uniformity, to the benefit of consumers and businesses alike. When I introduced the first reauthorization bill, S. 660, back in March, I had no idea the process would move forward with such bipartisan spirit, with unanimous approval from the Senate Banking Committee, and a 392-30 vote out of the House. But these votes are testament to the critical importance: the urgency of this legislation. The United States is unique in having what is known as ``full file'' credit reporting. Unlike in other countries, where only consumers with negative credit history have any kind of record, our system encourages data furnishers to report both negative and positive credit history-- all on a voluntary basis. This information allows lenders to make informed decisions about a given consumers credit risk, and to make better, safer, and more objective lending decisions. This means that when you pay on time, this positive payment history gets reported to centralized credit bureaus. Of course, of you're late or you miss payments, that information goes into your file as well. But unlike the ``no news is good news'' system that exists in so many countries, our full-file reporting system means that consumers can build up a solid credit history through on-time and responsible payments, and that history will follow us wherever we go. So when the time comes to apply for a mortgage or other loan, a lender can see that you know how to handle your finances. This full-file reporting system has led to another critical development in our credit markets, and that is risk-based pricing. Until fairly recently, credit granting was a binary business. In other words, either you qualified for credit or you didn't. Now, lenders can take a chance on a borrower by charging a higher interest rate to account for that risk instead of simply rejecting a loan application. This type of pricing has helped to fuel America's small businesses. It has also helped those with impaired credit histories or with little history at all to enter the mainstream credit markets, opening up new opportunities. I would like to spend just a few minutes highlighting the magnitude of what's at stake today with some statistics. A recent study of the consumer credit marketplace shows the growth of credit card access over the last 30 years, and the results are striking. In 1970, only 2 percent of families in the lowest income bracket had a credit card. In 2001, that number stood at 38 percent. In the highest bracket, the 33 percent of households that had at least one credit card in 1970 had risen to 95 percent. Even more striking are the statistics related to access to credit by race. Between 1983 and 2001, the number of white families who held credit cards increased by 69 percent. During the same period, the number of Hispanic families increased by 85 percent, and the number of African-American families increased by 137 percent. It is worth noting the significance of these figures extends far beyond simple borrowing power. Today, you can't rent a car without a credit card. You can't buy movie tickets over the phone without a credit card. And with only a few exceptions, you can't shop on the Internet without a credit card. The results are just as noteworthy in the area of mortgage lending. Over the last three decades, white non-Hispanic families experienced a 20 percent increase in access to mortgage loans, while minority groups experienced a 65 percent increase over the same period. Those rates coincided, not surprisingly, with a parallel increase in homeownership rates. I think we all understand the important social and economic benefits of homeownership. The study also notes the critical role that automated underwriting has played in democratizing our credit markets. Automated underwriting, which would be next-to-impossible without a uniform national credit standard, now accounts for over 90 percent of mortgage lending, up from 25 percent in 1996. According to this report, and this is an astonishing statistic: Before the advent of automated underwriting, approving a loan application took close to three weeks; in 2002, over 75% of all loan applications received approval in two or three minutes. Even more important, the automated underwriting systems greatly reduce racial and gender bias that in the past resulted in redlining, which unfairly prevented certain groups from owning homes, and which kept too many financial services companies out of markets inaccurately and unfairly deemed to be high risk. This study also concludes that certain changes to FCRA, and in particular restrictions on the type of data that might be reported about a consumer, would be especially harmful to consumers at the lower end of the credit spectrum. In particular, minority, lower-income and younger borrowers would be the hardest hit. This conclusion is critical, and gets to the heart of what a uniform national credit reporting system is about. The last thing we want is to reintroduce discrimination into the lending system, which would mean that minorities and low-income people would be forced to high-cost unregulated lenders for credit. Failure to maintain a uniform national standard would also have a staggering impact on the cost of credit. Even credit cards, which often carry higher interest rates than other types of non-revolving lines, have seen significant decreases in cost, which the study attributes largely to the competition in the market and to prescreening, which is made possible on a large-scale basis by the FCRA. For example, in 1990, only 6 percent of all credit card balances paid interest rates under 16.5 percent. By 2002, 15 percent of all card balances paid rates below 5.5 percent, and 71 percent of all credit card balances carried interest rates under 16.5 percent. In 1990, while more than 93 percent of all credit card balances paid interest rates over 16.5 percent, that number had plummeted to 29 percent in 2002. I note here that consumers who do wish to receive pre-screened offers have the right to opt out of the system. In fact, S. 1753 makes that opt-out even easier and long-lasting. While some of these interest rate declines may be due to a general drop in interest rates, much absolutely has to do with companies' ability to differentiate risk among borrowers and to price credit accordingly. Credit scoring models have increased in their predictive power and one result is increasingly competitive cost of credit. Any reduction in the type of information available to lenders would significantly degrade the predictive power of most models. The study further indicates an increasingly efficient marketplace, leaving aside the role of interest rates. One chart shows mortgage rates back in the early 1980s hovering around 3.5 percentage points above the 10-year Treasury bill. In the last few years, spreads have closed to about 2.5 percentage points. The national credit marketplace has increased competition, with all the positive effects we learned in Economics 101. One of the main reasons we have a competitive national marketplace is because we have a national credit reporting standard that permits consumers, no matter where they live, no matter where they move, to apply for credit and to receive an answer in a matter of minutes. America is the envy of the world in terms of immediate access to credit for all of our citizens. There are ongoing attempts to mischaracterize the fundamental nature of the FCRA as a privacy statute. And while there are certainly important privacy components to this statute, components which the Banking Committee bill strengthens significantly, the FCRA fundamentally is about the economy. And all too many of us know firsthand that the last thing our economy needs now is an attack on the consumer credit markets. Under the able leadership of Senators Shelby and Sarbanes, the Banking Committee's bipartisan legislation takes groundbreaking new steps to give consumers greater control over their financial lives; fight the growing crime of identity theft; and promote much needed financial literacy and education efforts. Under the act, every American will be able to get one free credit report a year--a significant milestone. The public will also know that their private medical information will never be used inappropriately in making credit- granting decisions. And the act takes important new steps to empower consumers to reduce unwanted credit solicitations. It is my understanding that some Members may be offering amendments that include wholesale replacement of significant portions of this carefully-crafted bill with a substitute proposal that has moved through a State legislature under a highly charged and political atmosphere. While I look forward to discussing these proposals, I am frankly very concerned that we not get into a situation where we are playing politics with access to credit. One of these amendments in particular is drafted in such a way that we would end up catching labor unions, churches, universities, charities, and a host of other groups in the FCRA net, a consequence that is clearly unacceptable. As we move forward with this legislation to strengthen and protect our consumer credit markets,I would urge my Senate colleagues to look to the model of bipartisan lawmaking that has surrounded reauthorization of key provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act: a unanimous vote out of the Banking Committee and an overwhelming House vote of 392-30 on final passage. We owe it to our constituents to continue working together to secure final passage of this critical economic bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, which is so important to America's consumers and businesses alike.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Naomi Camper, Adam Healy, and Elizabeth Canter of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor during debate on S. 1753, the National Consumer Credit Reporting System Improvement Act.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering legislation that will go a long way toward reducing the fire risk to communities throughout the western United States. The Senate is set to pass bipartisan legislation that authorizes federal land managers to treat up to 20 million acres of at-risk public lands while empowering communities with the resources and tools to protect lives and property. The catastrophic fires in California are only the most recent demonstration of how the Forest Service, state and local communities, and private landowners must actively manage the Nation's forestlands. In South Dakota, fires have endangered the communities of Deadwood and Keystone in recent years, burning nearly one out of every 10 acres of the Black Hills National Forest. I am very supportive of the bipartisan response of the U.S. Senate toward passing aggressive forest legislation. During the last 2 years, the Congress has debated and discussed the need to actively manage our forestlands, with particular emphasis toward protecting the wildland-urban interface, home to millions of individuals and hundreds of communities. The Black Hills is a stark example of interface and intermix communities, with a patchwork of private landowners scattered through the 1.3 million acre forest. Public land managers and communities need the tools and resources to reduce fire risk, restore forest ecosystems to a more natural balance and protect a vitally important renewable resource. It is overdue-- overdue to end the debate and pass legislation. I believe that the agreement crafted today will address many of the challenges facing public forestlands. There has been a great deal of debate from those on both sides of the spectrum as to the shortcomings and compromises made to craft the Senate bill. I agree that the bill is not perfect, but in crafting the compromise agreement, the Senate has put forward a bipartisan proposal that will enhance the long-term health and sustainability of forestlands. The Senate plan authorizes fuel reduction projects on up to twenty million acres of National Forest System lands and enhances local participation. In the plan, communities can develop ``community wildfire protection plans'' to identify areas for hazardous fuel reduction and other treatments necessary to protect the community from wildfire. The collaborative process established in the Senate bill will identify and prioritize fuel treatments and recommend the types and methods of projects on federal and non-federal lands. This provision is a key feature that empowers local communities to craft the proper response to the threat of wildland fire specific to their local areas. The plan put forward today will allow the Forest Service to focus on its core mission of managing our forest for multiple uses and ease the crush of bureaucratic and administrative appeals. This fall during a tour of the Black Hills, I witnessed the progress made from recent fuel reduction projects thinning insect ravaged trees, and believe more should be done to reduce fire risk throughout the West. I will vote for the Senate compromise because it will finally replace endless talk with constructive action. I encourage the House of Representatives to join the administration in supporting the Senate bill and quickly passing this important and historic plan.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, while the pharmaceutical industry is the most profitable industry in the world, millions of uninsured and underinsured Americans continue to struggle to afford medicines they need when prices are out of reach. The facts paint a disturbing picture. According to a 2002 Families USA report, the pharmaceutical industry has been the most profitable industry in the U.S. for the past 10 years, being five-and-one-half times more profitable than the average Fortune 500 companies. 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 profits for Fortune 500 companies. While drug companies claim that their high prices support research and development one study found that eight major American pharmaceutical companies spent more than twice as much on marketing and administrative costs than on research and development. And while powerful drug manufacturers continue to bring in high profits, American consumers continue to pay the highest prices in the world--three to ten times more than other developed countries pay. South Dakotans cross the border every day to go to Canada in the hopes of purchasing lower-priced drugs that will prevent them from having to make the tough decision of choosing between buying groceries or life- saving medications. And the recent actions of many of our State leaders indicate that Americans are fed up with paying by far the highest dollar prices in the world for prescription drugs that often times their tax dollars helped to develop. State governments have resorted to taking matters into their own hands: Maine now allows the State to negotiate fairer drug prices for all residents using the buying power of its Medicaid program, several States including Illinois, Iowa and Minnesota are exploring the possibility of importing prescription drugs from Canada for State employees, and Minnesota's Attorney General filed a lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline alleging that the pharmaceutical company is violating antitrust laws by ``spearheading an industry-wide conspiracy'' to prevent U.S. residents from reimporting U.S.-made prescription drugs at a lower cost from Canada. The American people are fed up. They are demanding that Congress end the ``sweetheart deal'' that gives the powerful pharmaceutical industry a captive market. A recent poll taken by the Washington Post and ABC News found that two-thirds of Americans support the legal importation of FDA approved prescription drugs and I have joined several of my colleagues to introduce the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act which will do just that. I thank Senators Dorgan, Stabenow, Dayton, Pryor, Levin, Feingold, Snowe, Jeffords, and McCain for staying committed and working with me on this very important issue. This bill, which is the companion to House reimportation bill H.R. 2427 that passed with broad bipartisan support, will finally provide American consumers with immediate access to FDA-approved medicines in Canada, as well as other industrialized nations. It contains strong safety protections that will ensure that the U.S. drug supply remains safe. Innovative techniques such as counterfeit-resistant packaging and drug wholesaler pharmaceutical shipment testing will ensure this safety. American consumers are already importing $500 million to $1 billion in prescription medicines from Canada and elsewhere. This is on top of the already $13 billion U.S. made prescription drugs already being reimported by pharmaceutical manufacturers under the authority found in the Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1988. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the reimportation provisions found in this bill could provide approximately $40 billion over 10 years in savings to consumers. We need to bring these savings to the American people and finally eliminate the price disparity experienced in this country by passing a strong drug reimportation law and ensuring that it is actually implemented. Please support this important legislation.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, yesterday, in a joint statement, Senator Domenici and Representative Tauzin indicated that because of continued disagreements over energy tax provisions that additional conference meetings on comprehensive energy legislation will not occur this week. At the same time, Representative Tauzin and Senator Domenici announced that final agreements had been reached on ethanol and electricity. I learned about these developments, as did my other Democratic colleagues who serve on the conference committee to the energy bill, not from meeting with the chairman of the conference, but through third-hand news accounts. The exclusion of Democrats from the conference committee process is well known. Yesterday, Senator Bingaman, the ranking democrat on the Senate Energy Committee and one of the Senate's foremost experts on energy matters, raised these same points on the Senate floor. By choosing not to release to the public Republican-bargained agreements on ethanol and electricity, the Congress runs a substantial risk of harming South Dakota farmers and consumers, while failing to produce the long-term energy policy our country requires. Implementing an aggressive renewable fuels standard that grows demand for ethanol is vitally important to the ethanol industry, American farmers, and our long-term energy security. South Dakota is at the forefront of expanding ethanol production with 1 of every 3 rows of corn in South Dakota devoted to ethanol production. Nearly 8,000 South Dakota farm families are connected to my State's nine ethanol facilities. Implementing a Renewable Fuels Standard, RFS, that significantly benefits this growing industry is more important than slapping together an agreement cut by a few Senators in order to grease the wheels for passage of a broader energy bill. As I look at the list of Republican conferees serving on the energy conference, I am very concerned that by excluding Democrats, such as Senators Dorgan, Daschle, and Baucus, that the ethanol agreement constructed will not produce the long-term benefits South Dakota's member-owned ethanol facilities and farmers expect from this bill. This concern is not only shared by Senate Democrats, but many Republican Senators who want to grow ethanol production. Last Friday, 29 Senators wrote to Senator Domenici and Representative Tauzin reiterating that the conference accept the Senate's ethanol agreement that passed on a bipartisan vote of 68 to 28. Unfortunately, opponents of renewable fuels appear to be prevailing within the conference. Therefore, I have great concerns with the decision by Senator Domenici not to release the ethanol and electricity agreements to the public so that it could be reviewed by all conferees. By refusing to release the ethanol and electricity agreements, South Dakotans are deprived of the opportunity to understand how this bill will impact their pocketbook and livelihood. Notwithstanding a vague agreement to allow conferees to review the language 24 hours before a final vote, this closed process could ultimately produce a bill that hurts my constituents. The electricity provisions in this bill have a significant impact on the thousands of customers in my State served by rural electric cooperatives, yet this complicated section that could easily comprise over 100 pages of text will be released only one day before a final vote. My concerns go far beyond procedural fairness but speak directly to what type of electricity market Congress envisions taking shape in the next decade, and how to ensure that markets do not disadvantage consumers. Will the authority over setting rates and ensuring the reliability of the power grid be handled primarily through individual States or the Federal Government? What incentives are contained in the bill to encourage utilities to serve less populated regions of the country and maintain the infrastructure needed for reliable and dependable service? The answers to these complicated questions lie within the closely guarded deals agreed to by a handful of Senators and Congressman. It is very important that the conferees have access to these agreements as soon as possible so that conferees can share them with our constituents. The Senate has twice passed comprehensive energy legislation in the last 2 years because of an open and deliberative process that produced compromise and solutions on ethanol and electricity, as well as other contentious provisions. That same openness is needed at this time if we are to construct an energy policy that grows domestic energy sources and secures reliable and available supplies of energy.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President. I was unavoidably detained and absent from the Senate on the evening of Thursday, October 2, and I missed one voting during that time. I would like to state for the Record how I would have voted. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 376, a Stevens motion to table the Dodd-Corzine amendment which provided an additional $322 million for battlefield clearance and safety equipment for U.S. forces in Iraq; and offsets by reducing the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322 million.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I rise to express my support for the effort of my colleague from Arkansas relative to the $87 billion supplemental appropriations request for Iraq that is currently pending before the Senate. I am very supportive of the President's $65 billion or roughly $67 billion level of funding for our troops. If we had an up-or-down vote on just that component of the President's request, I have no doubt it would pass 100-0. No question. Regardless of what you think about whether we should be in Iraq, I think this body will overwhelmingly be supportive of making sure our troops in Iraq have all the resources they need to safely and efficiently and properly do the courageous and extraordinary work they have done. We are proud of the members of our United States military who are currently operating under very difficult circumstances, but doing the very best they can and doing a very good job under the circumstances. The portion of the request from the President, however, for the $20 billion, roughly, for construction and various needs in Iraq is entirely a different matter. That calls for $100,000-$200,000 consultants for tens of millions of dollars of study for the Iraqi postal service; $10 million for a new ZIP Code; new cities; new high schools, new hospitals--things that never existed in their history. This is not for damage done in the war; this is establishing a whole new infrastructure that never existed before. It is hard to tell our military veterans that we cannot find $1.8 billion so everyone gets access to a VA hospital, and then turn around and spend $20 billion on construction and other needs in Iraq; or tell America's teachers and kids and parents that we cannot find $8 billion for Leave No Child Behind, but we are going to build a new school system abroad that never existed before, and $20 billion will go out the door for that. Now we found this last weekend references in the Washington Post finding that one of the problems the Bush administration is having is physically moving so much American cash to Iraq. They started out putting the money into huge bags and putting it into aircraft at Edwards Air Force Base, but it got to be so cumbersome to send out these billions of dollars that now they are shrink-wrapping American money into these huge cubes and pushing them into airplanes and sending them to Iraq. But one of the problems we have is we are shrink-wrapping these mountains of American taxpayers' money, and they shift in the plane and sometimes fall apart, and we are having problems physically moving all this American cash to Iraq. I asked my constituents in South Dakota over the past week what we should be doing about this. A number of suggestions came up from South Dakota constituents. A gentleman from Sioux Falls suggested since the combat phase of the Iraq war is over and we have all these intercontinental ballistic missiles, we ought to load the cash into the warheads of these missiles and fire them into Iraq. Since we are not keeping track of how the money is used there anyway--there is no auditing; we just hand it over to people and hope they spend it right-- the missiles could explode and the money would sort of fall all over Iraq. That is one idea. The problem is sometimes these rockets explode on a launch pad, and there is a great risk some of that money might fall on an American school or daycare center. That is a risk the Bush administration would not tolerate. That would probably not work. Another suggestion was since we take all the oil from the Middle East in the huge tankers to the U.S., perhaps once they come here and unload, they can fill the tankers full of American cash and send that to Iraq. Once again, the ports there are not capable of unloading that massive amount of American cash, and we would probably have ships backed up to Egypt if we did that. One of the suggestions came from a gentleman from Aberdeen, SD. He suggested we use our B-52 and B-1 fleets to bomb Iraq with American cash--borrow it from the Social Security trust fund, as the President recommended--and drop this money over Iraq; some would land in good places and some in bad, but no doubt it would probably be used as efficiently as what the administration's plan calls for. There are interesting ideas out there. I hope people will contact the White House with their ideas about how best to disburse these huge mountains of cash--more than any one of us here or any citizen will ever see in a lifetime--$20 billion. We have been spending $1 billion a week up until now. That is before you get to this provision. So at a time when we are having a hard time funding our own water projects, our hospitals, and we have nursing homes on the cusp of closure because of Medicare reimbursement problems, at a time when the White House is cutting back on Pell grants, college grants for young people, and nontraditional students who want to go to college, when we are $1.8 billion short for our veterans to get access to VA hospitals, and when our troops come home, one of the things they will be presented with is the bill for the borrowing that is going into this $20 billion package. We are not going to cut and run. We do have a role to play in helping Iraq. No doubt, some expenditure is required. But $20 billion, when there is very little help coming from our allies at this point, is a massive expenditure. The newspapers reported we are shoving this money out the door so fast they are unable to audit the disbursal of the money. It goes to a handful of Iraqi leaders and they hope they will get it to the right place. Yes, right. I can imagine where this money is winding up in many instances. At the same time, to the degree we hire American corporations to do work there, I hope we will end this business of no-bid contracts going to a few well-positioned corporate entities and make sure it is an open, clear, transparent process so the American public at least has the consolation of knowing these tons of dollars going into Iraq are going for some constructive purpose rather than to line the pockets and bolster the profitability of a few. We can at least do that. Madam President, we have a role to play, that is for certain. But this level of expenditure is almost mind-boggling, breathtaking--$20 billion. That is on top of the $79 billion just approved in the supplemental appropriations bill last April, and, heavens knows, this is not the last of it. This could be going on for a long time. We are told the construction projects that have been suggested for Iraq would run easily into the $50 billion or $60 billion range and that somehow our allies are going to pay for that. Well, that doesn't appear to be what is happening. We may very well be seeing future requests as well for this kind of money. We don't have $20 billion laying around. If we had $20 billion laying around, that might be another matter. But we will have to borrow it to give to Iraq. Iraq sits on the first or second biggest supply of oil in the world. There is no question that they cannot pump it out quickly enough now because their infrastructure is not what it was 10 years ago; but the oil is still there, there is no question about that. Why couldn't we come up with a mechanism for helping Iraq borrow against their own oil? Why should they not borrow against one of the world's biggest mountains of gold in the world, as opposed to us borrowing from our Social Security trust fund? This is not rocket science. We have already paid a billion dollars a month for the military operation, with virtually very little help from our allies. We have had some help from the Brits and modest amounts from others. We are paying a dear price for a doctrine of unilateral preemptive war now, but we are in it and we have to find a way to get out. It seems to me that, while we will support our troops--and there will be some effort, no doubt, toward reconstruction in Iraq; but $20 billion, at a time when we are finding ourselves in record budget deficits in the United States, is not a good use of our taxpayers' money. It is a disservice to the American taxpayers, and it is a precedent we will rue for years to come. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor SSG Daryl Devries of Armour, SD. Staff Sergeant Devries was recently awarded the Purple Heart for injuries suffered while serving in Iraq. Daryl was injured when a rocket-propelled grenade struck the Humvee he was riding in while on security patrol in northern Iraq. Daryl, who is a member of the 200th Engineer Company, was sent to Iraq in April to help assemble and secure a bridge across the Tigris River. The Purple Heart was established by General George Washington at Newburgh, NY, on August 7, 1782, during the Revolutionary War. The Purple Heart, which is awarded to a member of the Armed Forces who is wounded or killed in an armed conflict, is unique in that an individual is not recommended for the decoration; rather they are entitled to it. Daryl joins a heroic and honorable group of soldiers who have sacrificed their own wellbeing in service to our country. Let me also express my admiration for the South Dakota National Guard. With 750 members of the National Guard serving in Iraq, South Dakota has one of the highest rates of mobilization in the Nation. This high rate of service is a reflection of the hard work and pride South Dakota National Guard members maintain. These brave and accomplished servicemen and women regularly win national awards and rank at or near the top in National Guard performance tests and competitions. They represent South Dakota principles with remarkable distinction. I know Staff Sergeant Devries is a valued member of the South Dakota National Guard. As the father of a soldier who has recently returned from active duty service in Iraq, I am especially appreciative of his skilled and courageous actions. This prestigious award is a reflection of his military professionalism and extraordinary bravery. Mr. President, I join with all South Dakotans in expressing my gratitude to Staff Sergeant Devries. We are all proud and thankful for all that he has done and continues to do in the service of the United States of America.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor SP Tyler Campbell of Lemmon, SD. Specialist Campbell was recently awarded the Purple Heart for injuries suffered while on patrol in northern Iraq in July. Tyler, who is a member of the 854th Quartermaster Company, was sent to Iraq in April to help assemble and secure a 300-meter bridge across the Tigris River. The Purple Heart, which was established by General George Washington at Newburgh, NY on August 7, 1782, during the Revolutionary War, is awarded to a member of the Armed Forces who is wounded or killed in an armed conflict. Tyler richly deserves this prestigious award, and joins a honorable group of soldiers who have admirably sacrificed their own safety while serving our country. Let me express my admiration for the South Dakota National Guard. With 750 members of the National Guard serving in Iraq, South Dakota has one of the highest rates of mobilization in the Nation. This high rate of service is a reflection of the hard work and pride South Dakota National Guard members maintain. These brave and accomplished servicemen and women regularly win national awards and rank at or near the top in National Guard performance tests and competitions. They represent South Dakota principles with remarkable distinction. I know Specialist Campbell is a valued member of the South Dakota National Guard. As the father of a soldier who has recently returned from active duty service in Iraq, I am especially appreciative of his skilled and courageous actions. This prestigious award is a reflection of his military professionalism and extraordinary bravery. Mr. President, I join with all South Dakotans in expressing my gratitude to Specialist Campbell. We are all proud and thankful for all that he has done and continues to do in the service of the United States of America.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Biden amendment. There is no question we will support our troops. My colleague from Delaware mentioned my own son Brooks, who has recently returned from fighting in Iraq, in Baghdad; outside of Kandahar, Afghanistan prior to that; and Kosovo and Bosnia prior to that. So I have a full appreciation, as do my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in this Chamber, that our fighting men and women deserve all the resources they need, and we will do all it takes to make sure they have those resources. But there is the larger question of the $87 billion, particularly I think the $20.3 billion component for so-called rebuilding in Iraq, although when we say ``rebuilding,'' keep in mind that the President is not talking about rebuilding things that were damaged in the war; the President is talking about creating schools, whole new cities, whole new water and telecommunications systems that have never existed in all of Iraq's history. But the fundamental question we have here at this moment is, How will this be paid for? There have been essentially--until the Biden amendment--two strategies. One is that Iraq borrow the money and build it themselves. They sit atop the world's largest supply of oil, literally a mountain of gold. Granted, they do not have the technology to pump that oil quickly at this point in their history, but it is there and could be collateralized. Second is the President's recommendation, where, rather than Iraq borrowing to pay for the $87 billion, we borrow it to pay for the $87 billion, because we do not have $87 billion either. We do not have $87 billion in cash lying around. In fact, we have gone from record budget surpluses only 2 years ago to, under the guidance of this President, an annual deficit now approaching $500 billion a year. It is a breathtaking record deficit that we face. So we do not have any surplus money to be used anywhere, including in Iraq. The President says: Well, we do not want Iraqis to have to borrow because that might raise their debt service cost, despite the fact they have the world's largest pool of oil. Instead, let's borrow it out of our Social Security trust fund. That is the President's strategy. I think it is a terrible strategy. We have been doing too much of that as it is. To borrow still more, and drive our deficit still deeper, to put Social Security in still greater jeopardy in the outyears is, to me, not an acceptable strategy. Senator Biden has suggested there is a third way. If the President simply will not accept the fact that Iraq ought to borrow this money themselves, then at least let's not borrow it out of the Social Security trust fund from the United States; let's allow those who have benefited the greatest by the growth of the United States economy-- those 1 percent of Americans who earn over $300,000 a year--to have a temporary freeze in the tax reductions over the course of 5 years that would pay the $87 billion. It troubles me that this President and some of our colleagues--who are constantly lecturing us about how there is not enough money for our own schools, for our own highways, for our own health care, for our own veterans, for our own job creation--are the very first ones to come to this body and tell us how badly we need to spend that same amount of money in Iraq, and borrow it out of the Social Security trust fund while we are at it. It is not acceptable to me. I have to wonder about those kinds of priorities when we have such great unmet needs here and when, Heaven knows, we are also facing stupendous budget deficits. So it does seem to me that Senator Biden is correct in saying, let's not go down the borrowing route ourselves, let's pay for this, if it needs to be paid for. And, frankly, there are many components of that $20 billion piece which I am dubious about, but if we are going to pay for any of this, let's pay for it by making sure that ordinary Americans are not hit once again. As was noted earlier, our troops and their families are making immense sacrifices, for many the ultimate sacrifice. But there are other people who are making sacrifices as well--in terms of crowded classrooms, in terms of schools that are not being repaired, in terms of technology that we cannot afford in our schools, in terms of those who have no access to health care, in terms of rural hospitals that are closing, in terms of veterans who have no access to the VA, and in terms of those who have lost their jobs and see no jobs in the near future. All of those people are sacrificing as well. If there is going to be sacrifice, let it be by the 1 percent rather than borrowing this money. I thank the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.

Mr. JOHNSON. I thank my colleague from Louisiana for her extraordinary leadership on education issues. I do not want to take long on another topic. (The remarks of Mr. Johnson are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, as a Member of the Appropriations Committee, having had the opportunity to listen carefully to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld lay out before the Senate and to the American people President Bush's agenda for Iraq, I think I need to share my dismay at some itemization of the President's requests. We all know, due to the lack of internationalization and the go-it- alone approach in Iraq, that the cost in blood and in money is almost exclusively American. That contrasts with Desert Storm over a decade ago when George Bush, senior, led that war. While the United States did the lion's share of the fighting, the financial cost, at least, was offset--not quite but almost entirely--by our allies. In this case, a unilateral or near unilateral preemptive effort, alienating our allies, has led us to a situation where, on the heels of the $70 billion supplemental appropriations of a short time ago, the President has now asked for an additional $87 billion in yet another installment, and there will be more to come from the American taxpayers. This is at a time when our budget is deep in red ink, having gone from budget surpluses from the last years of the Clinton administration to now record deficits. To put this $87 billion in some perspective, that is roughly three times what the Federal Government spends on K through 12 education for an entire year. At a time when we are told we do not have the money to come up with the additional $8 billion for Leave No Child Behind, we have an $87 billion request here. This is, again, due to a woeful lack of postwar planning for our circumstances in Iraq. Much of this money will go for equipment and pay and resources for our troops in the field. There, there will be no quibbling. There will be strong bipartisan support for that. My own son fought with the 101st Airborne in Baghdad. No one is more supportive of our troops than I. Although out of that immense amount of money, no doubt we do need to scrutinize it carefully to make sure the money is well spent. But on the other $20.3 billion request for reconstruction--and when George Bush says reconstruction, keep in mind he is not talking about repairing things that were damaged in the war. He is talking about building whole new water systems and communications systems and roads and schools and housing systems that never have existed before. So it was with some interest that I looked at what some of the components are of our taxpayers' money that George Bush recommends that we authorize in this body. There is $164 million for the curriculum for training the Iraqi military. This doesn't involve any training organization hiring any troops or policing. This is for a new textbook for a few for curriculum training--$164 million? There is $100 million to finance 500 experts for investigating crimes against humanity at $200,000 per expert; 500 at $200,000 per expert to investigate crimes in Iraq; $20 million to protect 400 judges and prosecutors at $50,000 a crack--$50,000 a person, or 400 judges. That is just this year. Heaven knows what this is going to be in the future. There is $100 million to enroll 100 families of five in a witness protection program at $200,000 a person. Mr. Chairman, $200,000 a person for witness protection in Iraq? I think you ought to be able to hide someone pretty well for $200,000 a pop. Yet this is going to cost us $100 million. There is $10 million for 100 experts to assist prison reconstruction for 6 months at $100,000 each. These experts must be much cheaper than the $200,000 experts for crime investigation because prison construction is only $100,000 per piece but we are going to have 100 of them. There are 100 experts advising Iraq on how to build prisons in Iraq. There is $400 million--we are getting into big money--for two new 4,000-bed prisons at $50,000 a bed; 4,000 prison beds at $50,000 a bed. I have a lot of constituents in my State of South Dakota who live in homes that do not cost $50,000 a bedroom by far. Yet here we are building this immense infrastructure in Iraq with American taxpayers' money at the time we are being told, no, we don't have the money to help our police and law enforcement in South Dakota and across the country. We don't have the resources for so many other needs which we have. We are deep in debt and every dime of this is being paid for from the Social Security trust fund? The list goes on: There is $150 million to begin work on a $500-$700 million children's hospital with all the latest technology. We all want to help the children of Iraq, but I have to tell you that we have children in South Dakota--particularly on our Indian reservations--who have access to virtually no health care at all. We have people in rural areas with hospitals that are on the verge of closing because of the lack of Medicare reimbursement. We have hospitals, clinics, and nursing homes across America that may not last a year given the inadequacy of Medicare reimbursement, particularly in the rural areas. We have teaching hospitals that train the next generation of medical experts in America that are financed on fumes and do not know where their money is going to come from for next year. Yet we have this kind of expenditure request. There is $100 million to build seven new cities, complete with 3,258 houses, roads, elementary schools, two high schools, a clinic, a place of worship, and a market--seven new cities with new high schools. I have high schools all over South Dakota that can't pass bond issues, that are falling down, that do not have infrastructure, and that literally are a danger to the pupils. President Bush says he would veto legislation that would include money to help rebuild and renovate schools in America. But guess who is getting the new schools. It is not us. We are going to borrow more money out of the Social Security trust fund in order to do this. This is President Bush's priorities? What does that reflect on his values? Think of it. There is $54 million for comprehensive technical and business process studies for a computer network for the Iraqi postal system--$54 million for computer studies for the Iraqi postal system. Where I come from, you can buy a lot of computers for $54 million. You could run a pretty good postal system in a small country with that. This is just for computer studies--$54 million. Think of the hospitals, nursing homes, clinics, schools, daycare centers, afterschool programs--think of what you could do with that kind of resource. There is $9 million to reengineer the business practices of Iraq's postal service, including instituting ZIP Codes. How has Iraq made it for these thousands years without the Americans helping them develop a ZIP Code? It is amazing. How have they struggled? How can we expect these people to live without our taking money out of the Social Security trust fund to help them develop a ZIP Code? What a generous thing for this administration to do for other people on the other side of the planet on our dime, borrowing money to do it. We have another $2 million for garbage trucks at $50,000 apiece. Apparently, for these thousands of years the Iraqis have been unable to collect their garbage because they did not have a modern garbage truck. They had other vehicles for doing this. We are going to provide 40 of these at $50,000 a pop. I can tell you that I have a lot of people in communities in my State wishing they had some help for their infrastructure--whether it is garbage, sewage, water, or a lot of other things. A lot of communities are struggling but they don't have the resources for this kind of help. I am not suggesting that we cut and run from Iraq. I am not suggesting that the United States doesn't have a significant role to play in the reconstruction of that sad country. We are all glad Saddam Hussein is gone. Heaven knows what is going to be in its place. We have demonstrated that we can win wars unilaterally. But winning the peace, this President should have learned long ago, requires significant international assistance. Now that our allies have been largely alienated, it looks as if it is going to be our dollars and our blood to do it. There is $20.3 billion, and the list of these kinds of things goes on and on. I think this requires serious scrutiny. I think this deserves debate in this Senate. Our friends in the Republican leadership have told us they don't want to segregate these issues from the financing of our troops because they don't want the embarrassment of having a debate on this and amendments offered and the possible rejection of some of this. Apparently their goal is to wrap the whole thing up into one huge $87 billion item and anybody who dares vote against that will have their patriotism challenged. They will be told they are not good Americans because they are not supporting our troops. We need a little sanity here. We need an opportunity--not to reject everything in the rebuilding of Iraq, but we have a role to play. We will step to the plate to do our share. But this administration has been told in no uncertain terms that this shouldn't be exclusively our obligation; that when we do some rebuilding it shouldn't be at such a fabulous level of extravagance far beyond what any American community could possibly come to Washington and ask for. Our people deserve better. They deserve to know what is in George Bush's request. They deserve to have some up-and-down votes, and this shouldn't be rushed through in a manner that the people do not actually understand what they are buying into with an agenda such as this. I know we are going to go to markup on this supplemental request very quickly next week. The difficulty in shoving this thing through so fast is that the American taxpayer will have no idea what was in this thing. They will be told it is $87 billion--a huge number. Who knows what that means until you explain in some detail what you could buy with that kind of money. I think we need to have a national debate about America's role in the world and about the level and scope of the contributions that America is making in rebuilding this country. Why has this administration failed to attract international financial support? If you cannot get their troops, why not at least some financial resources for this rebuilding? Why has that failed, as well? We need to know that. We need to know what will follow. I assure this body, this is not the last request. This is an installment. There is much more to come, both militarily and potentially in rebuilding. What has happened to the Iraqi oil revenue? Is there a possibility of turning some of this into loans rather than flatout grants? We are told we cannot loan the money because Iraq already has a lot of debt. Their debt is primarily to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Apparently, it appears we are going to put repaying their debts ahead of the American taxpayer, ahead of our financial needs. We are saying we have to give grants because these people have to pay off their loans to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait before they can do anything for us. We have water projects in South Dakota. We have sewer wastewater problems. We have roads, railroads, all kinds of infrastructure that is underfunded. Those communities are being asked for matching funds. Many projects in South Dakota and across the country are done by loans. And we have a grant level at $20.3 billion, with mind-boggling levels of expenditure, for purposes that would leave any American citizen shaking his head. We do not want to delay anything unnecessarily. There are some urgent needs in Iraq, particularly for our troops. We need to take care of those needs and have some certainty. I hope in the course of this debate the American people are considering the use of their dollars, that there be considerable scrutiny and the people understand what this President wants them to buy into. If that comprehension is out there, there will be a lot of unhappiness in the land if, in fact, this Senate is unable to break out some of these expenditures; if we have to pass this up-or-down vote in one massive $87 billion item--three times America's education budget-- for purposes that would make royalty blush. Our people deserve better. The Senate deserves an opportunity to consider these issues with much more care than is being suggested. We will learn more, no doubt, about the details of some of the proposed expenditures from the Bush administration in the days to come. I hope we have a very real, sobering debate about the use of our constituents' money and whether this is the best use--some of it, no doubt, is; but much of it, I submit, is an outrageous abuse to the American taxpayer. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I wish to express our Nation's gratitude for the respectful services provided by Black Hills National Cemetery near Sturgis, SD. This year marks the 55th anniversary of the cemetery, and comes at a time when all Americans have been painfully reminded that our freedom is preserved by brave men and women in uniform who are willing to risk their lives in service to our Nation. In the summer of 1862, thousands of soldiers had already died in a terrible war that few believed would last more than a matter of months. On July 17 of that same year, Congress enacted legislation that would authorize the President to purchase cemetery grounds to be used as national cemeteries for soldiers who died while in service to the country. It was not long after that, in 1873, that all honorably discharged veterans became eligible for burial in national cemeteries. According to local legend, the hoofbeats of Custer's Cavalry may still be faintly heard today in the shadows of the Black Hills, where the Black Hills National Cemetery has provided a dedicated area for the honored burial of past and present South Dakota members of our Nation's armed forces and their eligible dependents for the past 55 years. Too often, it seems that Congress forgets those men and women who sacrificed a part of their lives to serve their country. In a Nation as wealthy as ours, the very least we can do to repay veterans for their service is to provide them with the final resting place they deserve. Today, the National Cemetery Association ensures our veterans have a proper burial, while also maintaining the national cemeteries as shrines to their memory. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, the ``nation must care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan.'' The Black Hills National Cemetery has long been part of that respected tradition since World War II, when the first four burials were conducted on September 27, 1948. Three additional burials were done before the official dedication of the Black Hills National Cemetery on October 3, 1948. Since those initial entombments, the remains of more than 17,000 courageous soldiers who have served their country have been laid to rest there, including South Dakota's only casualty from Operation Iraqi Freedom, Hans Gukheisen. The Black Hills National Cemetery is also the final resting place to such notable men as United States Senator Francis H. Case, who also gave the dedication address in 1948, suggesting that the Black Hills National Cemetery be the ``Arlington of the West,'' and Brigadier General Richard E. Ellsworth, Commander of the Rapid City Air Force Base, which was later renamed Ellsworth Air Force Base in his honor, was also laid to rest there. As the father of a soldier who has recently returned from Iraq, I have made it a priority to give veterans the recognition and treatment they deserve for their outstanding service to our country. I am proud to have the Black Hills National Cemetery located in my home State of South Dakota, and I am honored today to congratulate the Black Hills National Cemetery on their first 55 years of service. I know that our entire Nation shares in this expression of gratitude.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I wish to publicly congratulate Karlene Hunter, of Kyle, SD, for receiving the Native American Businesswoman of the Year award at the National Indian Business Association Conference. Karlene Hunter understands what many business owners have learned: owning a business requires talent, know-how, and a lot of hard work and perseverance. Karlene saw a need in her community and started Lakota Express, Inc., the only direct marketing and telemarketing company in the United States that is Indian-owned and operated. Lakota Express, Inc., employs trained professionals that have exceptional marketing skills. Because the company has provided telemarketing and direct mailing services for various organizations, it has an impressive track record of success. Lakota Express, Inc., has become a valued member of the Pine Ridge community and is truly a South Dakota success story. For the past 5 years, Karlene has worked as CEO of Lakota Express, and has followed her dream of building a small business run out of her basement into the company that has raised $10 million to fund the Oglala Lakota College's first public library, as well as 10 college centers across the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. Karlene and Lakota Express have also worked to build the first independent Indian-owned public radio station. Lakota Express' mission is to operate a business that creates economic opportunities for the Lakota Nation and participates in social, educational, and political issues that empower the people and protect the earth. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the staff of Lakota Express, Inc., who have helped Karlene achieve this remarkable accomplishment; Mark Tilsen, Betty Brave, Theresa Zottola, Jim Head, Stephanie Sorbel, Nick Tilsen, April Rosales, Nicole Pourier, Mary Under Baggage, and Marlene Mesteth. I know that all these individuals and countless others, who have contributed richly to the company's many achievements, take great pride in the personal and collective accomplishments that are recognized through this honor. It is with great appreciation that I join with the community, the employees, the customers, and the many people who interact with the company, in congratulating Karlene Hunter on her years of service and success. I wish Lakota Express, Inc., enduring good fortune and prosperity in their continued pursuit of excellence.