Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I am happy to join my colleague, Senator Campbell, in introducing legislation that will provide millions of seniors with direct access to important audiology services through the Medicare Program. Approximately 28 million people in the U.S. have some degree of reduced hearing sensitivity, and of this number, 80 percent have irreversible hearing loss. The majority of these individuals are 65 and older, and as the baby boom generation ages, this number will skyrocket. Hearing loss is the 3rd most prevalent chronic condition in the older population. One in three people older than 60 and half of those older than 85 have a hearing loss problem and only about one- fourth of those who could benefit from a hearing aid actually use one. Hearing problems can make it difficult to understand and follow a doctor's advice, respond to warnings, and to hear doorbells and alarms. They can also take away from the enjoyment of the simple things in life, like talking to friends and family, or listening to the radio or television. Additionally, the 21st century work environment requires intense use of communication and information skills and technologies. As seniors continue to remain in the workforce for longer periods, work-related hearing challenges will become increasingly evident and the individual who has a communication disability, disorder, or difference will be at a distinct disadvantage. This legislation will help seniors challenged by hearing problems obtain direct access to licensed audiologists through the Medicare Program. Because most of these hearing conditions are not medically or surgically treatable, direct access to audiology services will allow comprehensive and timely care through the diagnosis, treatment, and management of hearing loss. Audiologists can conduct a variety of specialized auditory assessments and based on such examinations, can present numerous options to help patients cope with hearing problems. This legislation will not diminish the important role of primary care physicians, who closely with audiologists and will remain intimately involved in patient care as needed under this bill. Direct access to such audiology services is supported by numerous governmental agencies. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recognized the importance of this issue by making access by persons with hearing impairments to rehabilitative services a Health People 2010 objective. Additionally, the Veteran's Administration and Office of Personnel Management have established policies to allow beneficiaries such access. Seniors under the Medicare Program deserve similar benefits, and I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I am happy to join my colleague, Senator Campbell, in introducing legislation that will provide millions of seniors with direct access to important audiology services through the Medicare Program. Approximately 28 million people in the U.S. have some degree of reduced hearing sensitivity, and of this number, 80 percent have irreversible hearing loss. The majority of these individuals are 65 and older, and as the baby boom generation ages, this number will skyrocket. Hearing loss is the 3rd most prevalent chronic condition in the older population. One in three people older than 60 and half of those older than 85 have a hearing loss problem and only about one- fourth of those who could benefit from a hearing aid actually use one. Hearing problems can make it difficult to understand and follow a doctor's advice, respond to warnings, and to hear doorbells and alarms. They can also take away from the enjoyment of the simple things in life, like talking to friends and family, or listening to the radio or television. Additionally, the 21st century work environment requires intense use of communication and information skills and technologies. As seniors continue to remain in the workforce for longer periods, work-related hearing challenges will become increasingly evident and the individual who has a communication disability, disorder, or difference will be at a distinct disadvantage. This legislation will help seniors challenged by hearing problems obtain direct access to licensed audiologists through the Medicare Program. Because most of these hearing conditions are not medically or surgically treatable, direct access to audiology services will allow comprehensive and timely care through the diagnosis, treatment, and management of hearing loss. Audiologists can conduct a variety of specialized auditory assessments and based on such examinations, can present numerous options to help patients cope with hearing problems. This legislation will not diminish the important role of primary care physicians, who closely with audiologists and will remain intimately involved in patient care as needed under this bill. Direct access to such audiology services is supported by numerous governmental agencies. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recognized the importance of this issue by making access by persons with hearing impairments to rehabilitative services a Health People 2010 objective. Additionally, the Veteran's Administration and Office of Personnel Management have established policies to allow beneficiaries such access. Seniors under the Medicare Program deserve similar benefits, and I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to publicly command Robert Duxbury of Wessington, SD, on his selection as one of South Dakota State University's Eminent Farmers for 2003. The Eminent Farmer and Homemaker Program, which was honored nominees since 1927, seeks farmers who have not only made significant contributions to their community, State and Nation, but have also given unselfishly of their talent, time and leadership to public programs, educational institutions, and church. Bob has earned the respect and admiration of all those who have had the opportunity to work with him. His love for South Dakota and passion for agriculture set him apart from other outstanding farmers in the State. Bob's friendly demeanor and wealth of knowledge have helped him develop close relationships in various agriculture groups, including the South Dakota 4-H Leaders Association and the State Fair Board. Bob has also served South Dakota in additional capacities: as a member in the South Dakota Legislature in both the Senate and House of Representatives; as a senior member of the Appropriations Committee for nearly 20 years; and as South Dakota secretary of agriculture from 1975 to 1978. Furthermore, after earning a degree from South Dakota State College, Bob used his extensive agriculture know-how to teach animal science and coach livestock-judging teams from 1956 to 1959. Americans are the envy of the world because we enjoy the most affordable and the safest food, spending only 10 percent of our household income on groceries. Agricultural producers in the U.S. must cope with the unpredictability of the weather, markets, and government policy, yet time and time again they are the most productive and efficient in the entire world. Farming and ranching families provide immeasurable contributions to quality of life, economic development, and the culture of rural America. Farmers and ranchers are the backbone of South Dakota's economy and should be commended for what they do. This prestigious honor is a reflection of Bob's extraordinary success as a farmer, as well as his commitment to conservation, and contributions to the community. I am proud to claim Bob as a good personal friend and former colleague in the South Dakota legislature. I am pleased that his agricultural leadership is being publicly recognized, and that his achievements will serve as a model for outstanding agricultural producers throughout the state to emulate. It is with great honor that I share his impressive achievements with my colleagues.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and congratulate the Rapid City Harney All-Star Little League softball team. The Rapid City Harney All-Stars, under coaches Rich Larsen and Rick Johnson, made it to the Central Regional Championship Game August 1, in Joplin, MO. The Rapid City Harney All-Stars went through the Central Regional Tournament with wins over such teams as, Illinois with a final score of 10-5, and Kansas with a winning score of 18-0. They advanced to the championship game by defeating the Tallmadge Little League team from Tallmadge, OH with a winning score of 9-5. These young people represented Rapid City and South Dakota in an extraordinary fashion. Their hard work is representative of South Dakota and has resulted in a great outcome. I would like to give credit to the coaches, parents, supporters and organizers and especially the hard work and dedication of these young players. I would like the community of Rapid City to recognize the hard work, dedication, and sportsmanship this team has shown on their way through the tournament. This is a well deserved victory and the team deserves to be acknowledged for their extraordinary achievement. I want to recognize Manager Dave Johnson, Coach Rich Larsen, and Coach Rick Johnson for their guidance and support to help make this year's team so successful. I also want to congratulate all of this year's team members: Hailey Rae Brown, Nicole Tresch, Andrea Johnson, Kaitlyn Ringo, Camie Johson, Stevie Wessel, Devin Jacob, Ashley Kiewel, Dawn Henderson, Allysa Nelson, Alysa Sack, and Ali Larson for their hard work, dedication and commitment this thriving season. Again, congratulations to the Rapid City Harney All-Stars on fighting their way to within one game of the World Series in Portland, OR.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to publicly commend Laird Larson, a farmer near Clark, SD, on his selection as one of South Dakota State University's Eminent Farmers for 2003. The Eminent Farmer and Homemaker Program, which has honored nominees since 1927, seeks farmers who have not only made significant contributions to their community, State and Nation, but have also given unselfishly of their talent, time and leadership to public programs, educational institutions, and church. Laird has earned the respect and admiration of all those who have had the opportunity to work with him. His love for South Dakota and passion for agriculture set him apart from other outstanding farmers in the state. Laird's friendly demeanor and wealth of knowledge have helped him develop close relationships in various agriculture groups, including the South Dakota Crop Improvement Association, Northeast Research Farm Advisory Board, and South Dakota FFE Foundation Board. Laird has also worked to raise funds for renovation South Dakota State University greenhouses and is currently working to develop a seed science center at South Dakota State University. Americans are the envy of the world because we enjoy the most affordable and the safest food, spending only 10 percent of our household income on groceries. Agricultural producers in the United States must cope with the unpredictability of the weather, markets, and government policy, yet time and time again they are the most productive and efficient in the entire world. Farming and ranching families provide immeasurable contributions to quality of life, economic development, and the culture of rural America. Farmers and ranchers are the backbone of South Dakota's economy and should be commended for what they do. This prestigious honor is a reflection of Laird's extraordinary success as a farmer, as well as his commitment to conservation, and contributions to the community. I am pleased that his agricultural leadership is being publicly recognized, and that his achievements will serve as a model for outstanding agricultural producers throughout the State to emulate. It is with great honor that I share his impressive achievements with my colleagues.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, it is with great honor that I rise today to congratulate the Volunteers of America, Dakotas in South Dakota, which celebrated its 80th anniversary celebration in August, 2003. Volunteers of America, Dakotas is one of over forty affiliates making up a national network of nonprofit, spiritually based organizations providing local human service programs and creating opportunities for individual and community involvement. Nationally, Volunteers of America employs more than 11,000 people and each year more than 1.5 million people feel the helping hand of this organization. Began in the early 1920s, Volunteers of America, Sioux Falls was started as a prison ministry by Frank and Emma Tremont. However, the concerns of the couple were expanded when, during World War I, men went to war and women went to work, and childcare became a pressing need. In response, the organization opened a childcare center and soup kitchen. Over the years, the soup kitchen and prison ministry faded away, but quality childcare remained a service priority. It was the recent merger of this organization with another group, Turning Point, that formed Volunteers of America, Dakotas. Started as Project Threshold on September 16, 1972, Turning Point's original vision was a home for delinquent and runaway girls. Over its next 20 years, Project Threshold became a widely recognized leader in adolescent issues, treatment, and prevention services, Together, these two associations are now assisting more than 290 children each day. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge all of the Volunteers of America-Dakotas Centers in South Dakota, including the Bollinger Center, Joe Foss School, Whittier Middle School, Thrift Store, and other Centers in Sioux Falls, SD; the Native Hope Center in Sisseton, SD; and the Volunteers of Americas, Dakotas Center in Aberdeen, SD. Headquartered in Sioux Falls, Volunteers of America, Dakotas serves over 12,000 individuals of all ages each year. Their mission, which is to assist people of all ages in stepping toward a brighter future, is one that all South Dakotans should strive to live by. I am proud to have this opportunity to honor the Volunteers of America-Dakotas for its 80 years of outstanding service. People of all ages need to think more about how we, as individual citizens, can work together at the local level to ensure the health and vitality of our towns and neighborhoods. I strongly commend the hard work and dedication of these Centers, and I am very pleased that their efforts are being publicly honored and celebrated. It is with great honor that I share their impressive accomplishments with my colleagues.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to share my thoughts on the second anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks. None of us will ever be able to forget where we were when we first heard the terrible news of that day. As the day went on, we were riveted to our television sets and saw incomprehensible images of destruction at the World Trade Center, the serious damage at the Pentagon, and the crash site of Flight 93 in rural Pennsylvania. Yet beyond the destruction we also saw remarkable demonstrations of heroism. From the first responders who unhesitatingly rushed into the World Trade Center and Pentagon to rescue survivors, to the passengers and crew of Flight 93 who chose to crash their plane rather than allow the terrorists to complete their plan, September 11 showed us the strength of our country. The terrorists had hoped to paralyze us with fear, but the American people were somber and resolute in their commitment to honor those who had died, to rebuild from the destruction, and to ensure that we would lessen our vulnerability to future terrorist attacks. Bearing in mind the example provided by the heroes of September 11, people throughout the country began to look for ways that they could contribute to the relief and recovery effort. I am particularly proud of the contributions made by thousands of South Dakotans in the days following the attacks. Schoolchildren led drives to collect clothing and blankets for those left homeless. Students from Augustana College spent their 2002 spring break in New York serving food to Ground Zero workers. Experts from the Disaster Mental Health Institute at the University of South Dakota went to New York to help counsel family members and relief workers and to assist in the recovery process. Ranchers from my State sold cattle so they could make donations to the victims and their families. And countless South Dakotans lined up at the Red Cross to donate blood. Each of these people, in large and small ways, was doing their part to help our Nation. As we take this time to look back on how our country responded to the attacks, I want to say a special word about the men and women of our Armed Forces. The members of our military have made extraordinary sacrifices over the last 2 years in the war on terrorism to make our Nation safer. We can never forget the debt of gratitude we owe to those who have fought and to those who have died in defense of our freedoms. South Dakota is privileged to be the home of Ellsworth Air Force Base, and on behalf of all South Dakotans I would like to thank the men and women of Ellsworth Air Force Base for their dedicated service and decisive contributions to both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. I also acknowledge the important work of the members of the South Dakota National Guard and Reserves, many of whom are still in the middle of lengthy deployments away from their families and friends. The National Guard is the oldest component of our Armed Forces. Since its earliest days, the Guard has served a dual, Federal-State role. Following the September 11 attacks, members of the National Guard and Reserves were called on to provide additional security at our Nation's airports, to assist at critical U.S. border checkpoints, to fly protective missions over U.S. cities, and to maintain disaster preparedness in the States. In addition, National Guard units have played a crucial role in the war on terrorism; several units from South Dakota continue to serve in Iraq and Kuwait. I know my colleagues join with me in thanking all of our Armed forces, both Active Duty and Reserve, for their continuing service to our Nation. Rather than defeating us, the September 11 attacks demonstrated our strength and resiliency. In New York, planning and design for a memorial and the future use of the World Trade Center site is well underway. In Somerset County, PA, there are ongoing efforts to erect a permanent memorial to the crew and passengers of Flight 93. And at the Pentagon, reconstruction has been completed for several months. While our Nation has moved forward, September 11 will always be a day for quiet reflection and an opportunity to honor those who were lost.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues Senators Landrieu and Daschle in offering this West Nile Virus amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. As many of you know, West Nile Virus has returned this mosquito season and has already impacted numerous states. Particularly hard hit this year have been Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming and my home State of South Dakota. Last year, South Dakota only experienced 37 human cases of West Nile, and this year that number has already risen to 583 cases and 7 deaths, representing the highest per capita rate in the Nation. It is hard to believe that just a few short years ago West Nile Virus had never even been heard of in this country, and this year the total case count has climbed to almost 3000 and took the lives of many. In just one year we learned that this illness could be transmitted not only by mosquitoes, but through blood, tissues and even breast milk. Our recent experiences with this illness and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome are just two examples that should make us aware of how critical it is that we be prepared to respond swiftly and effectively to newly emerging infectious disease threats that now face our country and our friends across the globe. Over the last month, I have met with experts on this issue in South Dakota, as well as CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding to try and get a better handle on what is happening in my State and across the Nation regarding this virus. What I have heard from the experts in South Dakota is that our cities and counties are woefully underfunded and ill-equipped to handle the pressing needs to get information to the public and protect the public health from this threat. Community understanding of the virus and how to combat it at the local level is minimal, and State and Federal support is sorely needed. I have also heard from people in Indian Country who have said that fear is rampant on the reservations and that there is virtually no money for public education and even less for mosquito abatement. Our State lab capacity is fairly good, but turnaround time on tests takes several days and the lab is not open 24 hours, 7 days a week. The medical community has indicated that less than optimal lab testing capabilities for West Nile has resulted in doctors ordering unnecessary and costly tests and treatments. For these reasons, it is important that we fund not only the newly enacted Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health or MASH Act, which will provide local communities with funds for mosquito abatement, but also provide CDC with additional funding under its existing authorities for other public health activities in 2004. In South Dakota and I imagine in other States, health departments, public health professionals and the provider community are doing everything they can to prevent and control this illness with resources available. However, we can do better to help them improve public health infrastructure, public education and increased lab capacities, which all mean better West Nile prevention, surveillance and detection of an illness that has challenged South Dakota's public health system and others around the Nation. Investing in these types of activities will allow us to prepare for next year, when States like mine may experience an even worse outbreak of the virus in South Dakota. In my discussions with Dr. Gerberding last week, she indicated that experts believe that the virus will move West, and has the potential to hit larger communities in California and across the coast, which could present an even greater public health challenge than what we have experienced in South Dakota this year. I thank Senators Landrieu and Daschle for their work on this amendment which will provide $100 million to fund the MASH Act, which did not receive any funding in the President's budget nor in the current bill on the floor. This amendment will also provide $25 million for other West Nile public health-related grants to States through the CDC to provide public education, information dissemination and basic public health infrastructure. We have also included funding for tribal set asides through these two appropriations which is so important to our reservations that have been hit hard by West Nile this year with little financial assistance.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I recognize the National Health Center Week that will be celebrated from August 10 to 16, 2003. Health centers provide services to over 10 million people living in underserved areas through the United States, with about 50 percent of the users being from rural areas such as South Dakota. Community health centers have a longstanding history of providing quality primary health care services to medically underserved populations. Providing care to one of every 12 rural Americans and tending to needs of the increasing number of uninsured individuals, health centers provide medical attention to those who would otherwise lack access to health care. A unique aspect of community health centers allows them to individualize their center to meet the specific needs of a particular community. By partnering with community organizations, schools and businesses, health centers are able to best meet the health care needs of individuals in each respective community. I want to pay special recognition to the Community HealthCare Association in South Dakota, and all of the staff at the association for the fine work they do on behalf of South Dakota. Furthermore, I want to commend all of the dedicated health care professionals in the health centers throughout South Dakota who work day in and day out devoting their lives to delivering critical health care to those most in need. At this time, there are 25 community health centers serving individuals across my State and I am working with my colleagues in Congress and the administration to greatly increase the number of these centers nationwide. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I am pleased to have recently voted in committee to increase funding by $122 million over last year's funding, for a total of $1.62 billion for the Nation's community health centers next year. I will continue to work with my colleagues to see that we are able to double funding for these medical centers by 2006. Once again, it gives me great pleasure to recognize the National Health Care Center Week on behalf of the South Dakota Community HealthCare Association and the many thousands of South Dakotans who may continue to benefit through this important program.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, it is with great honor that I rise today to congratulate the Earth Resources Observation Systems, EROS, Data Center in Sioux Falls, SD, which will hold its 30th anniversary celebration on Tuesday, September 30, 2003. Opened in the early seventies, the EROS Data Center was staffed by only a handful of people and the largest mainframe computer in the State of South Dakota. Thirty years later, the EROS Data Center has grown to an organization with over 600 employees and they are responsible for supplying data to a worldwide community of users. Scholars, engineers, and land managers use their data to study a growing list of environmental issues such as resource development, global change, and land use planning. In addition to maintaining Earth science data, EROS scientists are working constantly to discover new ways to utilize this information. Within the EROS Data Center lies a computer room that was associated with NASA's Earth Science Enterprise initiative. The robotic mass storage systems within this room hold approximately 920,000 separate images and make much of the EROS Data Center's NASA satellite information immediately available to scientists working at desktop workstations in both South Dakota and around the world. A major part of NASA's Earth Science Enterprise initiative is the Earth observing system which will collect data required to measure changes in the Earth system. Beginning in 1999, and running for at least the next 15 years, The EOS will collect data through a series of satellites and field experiments to observe the Earth. In addition, since 1991, the EROS Data Center has supported the United Nations environment programme/ global resources information database making environmental data available to developing countries. While the EROS Data Center's mission has changed and grown over the years, its original mission, which was to receive, process, and distribute data collected and transmitted, still holds true. It is my belief that the center will keep on growing and continue to make a large impact within the Department of the Interior. As a small state, South Dakota can be extremely proud of the impact such a center has not only on the State but on the United States and other nations. I am proud to have this opportunity to honor the EROS Data Center for its 30 years of outstanding service. It is an honor for me to share with my colleagues the exemplary leadership and strong commitment to data management and research the EROS Data Center has provided. I strongly commend their years of hard work and dedication, and I am very pleased that their substantial efforts are being publicly honored and celebrated.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I call on Congress to pass the Lincoln bill which will provide immediate tax relief for 12 million children and our Nation's fighting men and women. Millions of working American families with incomes between $10,000 and $26,000 will receive absolutely no benefit from the increase in the child credit that was signed into law by the President several weeks ago. Close to 200,000 military personnel have incomes in this range, and most will not qualify for the $1,000 child tax credit. More then 300,000 military personnel are currently serving in combat zones around the world. In answering the call of duty, these young men and women were forced to leave their families behind as they headed to Iraq and Afghanistan to serve their country and to help create new democracies. Yet this Nation's laws have failed them. Under current law, the children of these families are truly left behind. The Treasury Department will begin sending checks to taxpayers reflecting the increase in the child credit from $600 to $1,000 for 2003. Yet the Children's Defense Fund estimates that 1 million children in military families will not be eligible for the full child credit. This is roughly 1 out of every 8 children of military families. For active duty military families, the numbers are even more staggering. Roughly 260,000 of the 1.4 million children of active duty military personnel, or nearly 1 of every 5, will not receive the $1,000 child credit. Military personnel serving in combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan would be particularly hard hit. Under current law, a family must make $10,500 to qualify for any portion of the child credit. Because combat zone pay does not count toward the income required, many military personnel who left their families behind to fight America's wars will themselves be left behind by this Congress. Congress has failed its fighting men and women. It does not matter how many speeches we give thanking them for their service, and lionizing their courage, and acclaiming their patriotism. The single mother whose husband has been deployed to the Middle East for the 50th week running cares a lot more about getting her $400 check than she does about hearing how much we appreciate her sacrifice. Frankly, it is shameful that a body willing to send our young men and women to war would at the same time turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to their families. The Lincoln bill, however, changes the law to ensure those military personnel fighting for our freedom will receive the child credit that is guaranteed to all other middle-income families. The Lincoln bill will ensure that military families get the child credit checks promised to our Nation's families. In contrast, the House bill will leave these families behind. For example: Navy Petty Officer Second Class E-5, 4 years service, married with two children, stationed in Iraq from December 2002 until June 2003. He receives an annual salary of $22,842, and hazardous duty pay of $190 per month. Under current law, he will not see any of the increase in the child credit. Under the Lincoln bill, he will get the full $1,000 per child tax credit, an increase of $800, which his family will receive through a check in their mailbox. The Senate bill also recognizes that the latest Bush tax cut failed to include millions of working families, families who have jobs and work hard to put food on the table for their children, and that they deserve tax relief as well. Unless we pass the Lincoln bill, there is no check in the mail for over 6.5 million working families earning between $10,500 and $26,625; this means that over 12 million children will be left behind. Not only do we help millions of children, but we pay for every penny by shutting down corporate tax loopholes. For all these reasons, I call on the Senate to express its deep commitment to working together for this Nation's fighting men and women, this Nation's working men and women, and all of their children, and ask that: 1, the committee of conference between the Senate and House of Representatives on H.R. 1308 should agree to a conference report before the August recess; 2, any conference report on H.R. 1308 should contain the provisions in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1308 concerning the refundability of the child tax credit; 3, any conference report on H.R. 1308 should contain the provisions in the Senate amendment to H.R. 1308 concerning the availability of the child tax credit for military families; 4, any conference report on H.R. 1308 should contain the provision in the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2003; and 5, any conference report on H.R. 1308 should contain provisions to fully offset its cost. It is my hope that this resolution will be taken up promptly and that we will emerge from conference with the House in a timely fashion so that we may honor the families of our fighting men and women in a very real way with more than platitudes, more than salutes, more than just honors, but by including their kids and their families in the same kind of tax credit that other American families receive. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 200 regarding the adoption of a conference agreement on the child tax credit; that the resolution and the preamble be agreed to; and that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, we are currently debating the Defense appropriations bill. I wanted to call to the attention of my colleagues reports in the media this morning that the new U.S. military commander in Iraq has acknowledged now for the very first time that American troops are engaged in what he calls a ``classical guerrilla-style war'' against the remnants of the former Iraq President Saddam Hussein's Baath Party. He acknowledges that the attacks are growing in organization and sophistication. These statements by Army GEN John Abizaid in his first Pentagon briefing since taking charge of the U.S. Central Command last week are in stunning and sharp contrast with earlier statements from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. It was only 2\1/2\ weeks ago that Secretary Rumsfeld insisted that the U.S. military was not involved in a guerrilla war. As Secretary Rumsfeld said as recently as Sunday on ABC News, the fighting in Iraq did not fit the definition of a guerrilla war. I think it is important that the American public and we in the Senate acknowledge the circumstances that our troops now find themselves in a near unilateral circumstance because of the unwillingness or the inability of this administration to attract an international coalition for the aftermath of the Iraqi war. Now it was also reported yesterday yet another American was killed in a rocket-propelled grenade attack, making him the 33rd U.S. soldier killed since President Bush declared major combat over, and the seventh soldier killed since President Bush, 2 weeks ago, said ``bring 'em on'' to the Iraqi militants. In addition, the pro-American mayor of an Iraqi city was also assassinated. Minnesota Public Radio this week quoted Mary Kewatt, the aunt of a soldier killed in Iraq, saying: President Bush made a comment a week ago, and he said ``bring it on.'' Well, they brought it on, and now my nephew is dead. Our Nation would be better served, and the security of our troops would be better served, if our President would spend less time trying to look and sound like a grade-B movie cowboy and a little more time providing some leadership to internationalize this situation in Iraq, and to give our troops some notion of when they are coming home. I have to believe if President Bush had his two daughters in service to the military in Iraq, and his family's blood was on the line--as are thousands of American families', including thousands of America's daughters whose lives are also at risk--he may have thought twice before goading the Iraqi guerrilla war fighters to take another shot at America's military's finest in that country. So we find ourselves now in a circumstance where we have morale problems reported because our troops have no idea when they are coming home. We now have an indication that there are few troops readily available to sustain a force of the 148,000 we have in Iraq. The Army has 33 Active Duty combat brigades. There are now 16 in Iraq, two in Afghanistan, two in South Korea, and most of the rest are either committed to other missions or reconstituting, leaving just three brigades to send to Iraq as replacement forces. The recruitment of multinational forces has been largely a failure because of the administration's insistence that everything be run through the United States rather than through the United Nations or NATO. The Army indicates they are likely to activate two or more enhanced National Guard brigades by the beginning of next year for rotation to Iraq by March or April. And I quote: ``Every possible unit worldwide is being considered for the possible rotations.'' It is troubling that we continue not to see a long-term strategy that is international in nature. We continue to see the blood being the blood, almost exclusively, of American troops. We see the financial cost as being almost exclusively the burden of American taxpayers, as we are being told now the expenditures will run easily $4 billion per month for as far as the eye can see. To put that in some perspective, we are not able to fully fund the VA health care program for the entire year for all of the veterans of our Nation who have served our country because we cannot find the $2 billion for the entire year, but we are spending $4 billion in a month in Iraq. We cannot fund our schools; we cannot fund our prescription drug program at a decent level. So I think people have to wonder, How long will this go on? We cannot cut and run. The decision has been made. We are there. The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, there is no question about that. But we do have to wonder why it is the United States should have to serve as a unilateral police force for the world, why the administration has not found ways to internationalize this issue, given the good will that was extended to us from allies all around the world post 9/11. That seems now to have been badly eroded. So I hope our President will spend a little more time on international diplomacy, a little more time rethinking his budget priorities, a little less time posing for photo opportunities and trying to sound like a tough guy, when, at the time, it is our young men and women whose lives are at great risk, and will be at great risk on and on and on into the future if things do not change soon. We can take great pride in the courage, the professionalism, the skill of our American military. They are second to none. They are the finest military in the world. But these unending deployments are going to cause great morale problems, are going to cause problems with recruitment and retention of our military. It is making a shambles of too many of their families' lives and their businesses. We need to find a way so that it is not the United States that has to carry single-handedly this kind of burden on into a limitless future. I think the circumstances we find ourselves in now are testimony to, frankly, inadequate planning, unrealistic planning about what was, in fact, going to occur after the major military portion of the attacks in Iraq. Somehow there were these naive notions that the expatriates from Iraq would step in, we would decapitate the leadership, and all would go on well and easily. That is not the case. Now we find ourselves in a full-blown guerrilla war. The United States is in up to its neck now. We owe tremendous gratitude to our soldiers who are fighting in these circumstances. We need to find a way, this administration needs to find a way so we do not find this lasting forever, that our taxpayers wind up being drained, that families all across this country wind up going through such tremendous emotional and other hardships, as we find ourselves virtually exclusively out on our own on the front lines in this very difficult part of the world. So as Prime Minister Blair comes to visit with us later on this afternoon, I am hopeful perhaps this will be the beginning of a more realistic assessment on the part of the Bush administration about what, in fact, will have to come next. And what will have to come next will have to be an international alliance, not the exclusive energy and budget and blood of Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON. I yield to my colleague from Nevada.

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

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, it is with great honor that I rise today to congratulate the University of South Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences Center for Disabilities in Vermillion, SD, which will hold its 30th anniversary celebration on Wednesday, July 30, 2003. Started in September 1973, as the Developmental Disabilities Evaluation Center, the Center for Disabilities has a long and distinguished history of providing training, service, information, and research not only to South Dakota, but to the entire region. My wife Barbara served on the DDEC staff during those initial years. Thirty years later, the school continues to serve those needs of South Dakota through current projects, such as the Autism and Related Disorders Program, Birth to 3 Connections, Cheyenne River Reservation Rural Health Outreach Project, Deaf-Blind Program, Dietetic Internship, and the Upper Midwest Public Health Training Center. The Center for Disabilities is also working with other States to provide service in projects such as the Four-State Consortium on Studies in the Prevention of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome/Fetal Alcohol Effect and the Upper Midwest Public Health Training Center. Over the last 30 years, the University of South Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences Center for Disabilities has provided quality services to the people of South Dakota. Their goal, which is to ``work with others to create opportunities that improve the lives of persons with disabilities and those they consider their families,'' has been demonstrated through the citizens with whom they have worked. Those ideals have also been carried out by the students who have graduated and gone on to excel in their careers. Not only has this center encouraged learning and research, but the University of South Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences Center for Disabilities also strives to bring together communities. Indeed, one of the core functions of the center is community education. The Center works to provide training and assistance, not only to individuals with disabilities and their families, but also to professionals, paraprofessionals, policymakers, students, and any member of the community who chooses to get involved. I want to acknowledge Executive Director Judy Struck, Director of Research Amy Elliott, Director of Services and Supports Matthew Hocks, Director of Community Education and Population Studies Roland Loudenburg, Director of Information and Resources Heather Stettnichs, and Director of Academic Training Joanne Wounded Head for the guidance and support they provide to the Center and all who work with it. I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize the project and program staff at the Center: Missy Bailey, Mark Boyd, Stephanie Brown, Mary Fitzpatrick, Sherry Lafferty, Teresa Nold, Ellisa Nyberg, Susan Parr, Mary Mikkelson Peterson, Cheryl Raysby-Park, Dennis Stevens, Brittany Schmidt, Tracy Stephens, Kimberly Butler, Pam Anderson, Gregg Drube, Rolad Ellis, and Dan Korves. Finally, I would like to recognize the hard work of support staff members: Jaime Larson, Kristen Blaschke, Jennifer Gaspars, Paula Koller, LaVita Logue, Misty Miller, Jeanette Smolik, Elizabeth Fox, and Alana Richards. I am proud to have this opportunity to honor the University of South Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences Center for Disabilities for its 30 years of outstanding service. It is an honor for me to share with my colleagues the exemplary leadership and strong commitment to education and research the University of South Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences Center for Disabilities has provided. I strongly commend their years of hard work and dedication, and I am very pleased that their substantial efforts are being publicly honored and celebrated.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, may I respond to my colleague and my friend from Nevada. There are hundreds of thousands of parents all across America who do daily, as my wife Barbara and I have done, and that is to watch the news, follow the news as closely as possible with both pride in our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, but dread as well. As we did, there are hundreds of thousands of parents and loved ones across this country who follow with great intensity the daily reports about deaths and injuries. There are families all across our country as we speak who know that at any moment there could be a catastrophic, life-shattering report of the loss or injury of their loved ones. When people talk about acceptable levels of casualties, I hope more and more Americans understand there are real families, real faces involved, and that we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to our military. They are the greatest in the world. They do as they are ordered to serve, and I hope we stand not only with these men and women in uniform but with their families who have no idea, in most cases, when they are coming back, many suffering great financial hardship but also emotional hardship, the loss of parenting, the loss of key employers as a great consequence. While we follow this war and the aftermath of the war with great concern, we also should remember this is not just numbers. This is not a game. This is a very real situation that is going on in the lives of very real American families, and all of these issues need to be approached with that kind of somber awareness and commitment that we do the best we can for our troops and their families. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I approach the current Department of Defense appropriations bill and our current status in Iraq and the Middle East from somewhat of a unique circumstance: as a Senator but also the father of a soldier who has served in Iraq. My oldest son Brooks, a staff sergeant with the 101st Airborne Infantry over the past roughly 5 years, has now served in four wars--in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and most recently Iraq. I appreciate profoundly how much our Nation owes to our military. These young men and women are professional. They are skilled. They are courageous. They are taking on a job few other Americans would want to do for any amount of compensation. We can take great pride in America that our military is the finest in the world. In that context, no one is more supportive of our military personnel and their families than I am. The deployment tempo has been enormous. Many families have seen the absence of their husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters for a great amount of time, and the tension and stress of the families has been great. We owe gratitude to the families of our military as well. I voted for a resolution authorizing force. I think the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. But that resolution was based on two major pillars. One was that there was an imminent threat to the security of the region and to America because of the presence of weaponized weapons of mass destruction and, secondly, that the President was to go to the United Nations and our allies and try to internationalize a strategy relative to Iraq to the best degree possible. Now we find ourselves in a circumstance where there is great doubt about the quality, the credibility of the intelligence the President shared with the American public. He was quoted in the paper this morning saying, our intelligence is ``darn good.'' What is at stake is not just the presence of weapons of mass destruction. It is possible that perhaps some will ultimately be found. But what is at stake is the credibility of America in the world community. It turns out that the statements about nuclear weapons were simply false. The CIA knew that. It turns out that ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida at 9/11 were nonexistent. Yet over half of America to this day thinks there is some connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, when there was none--zero. Well, this is particularly troubling at a time when this administration has enunciated a radically new approach to military affairs abroad, saying that we will from now on be willing to take on preemptive war--preemptive war, of course, is based on the quality of intelligence--and that we will do it unilaterally if need be; the rest of the world community doesn't count. Thirdly, that if we so choose, we will use nuclear weapons in a first-strike capacity. This new Bush doctrine is intended, apparently, to make the United States sound like the toughest country on the block. To the contrary, it should not be a surprise to anyone that this kind of strategy, coupled with faulty intelligence and perhaps a manipulation of what intelligence was there in a false, misleading way, has in fact lost the support of our allies around the world when, after 9/11, the United States had the near unanimous support of the world community. Now that has been largely lost, and even our allies express contempt for the American policy abroad and our role in the world. It should come as no surprise to anybody that this unilateralist, first-strike capability, all premised on faulty and shaky intelligence and manipulation of intelligence, actually puts America at greater risk than before. It leads to--and it should come as no surprise--an arms race greater than before, where other countries may believe that the only way to defend themselves against a unilateral, preemptive nuclear attack from the United States is to arm themselves to the hilt, perhaps with their own nuclear weapons--certainly weapons of mass destruction. Now we find that this strategy will lead to a less secure, more troubled world. It is something this Congress and this Senate need to rethink. With the contempt toward the United States this spurs, like internationalism, greater terrorism, more people willing to join terrorist groups, I think it is fair to say there is a greater threat of terror applied to the United States and our allies today than there was before. Secondly, the lack of international concern, the lack of diplomacy, and the failure of American diplomacy to pull together a greater alliance and cohesion--certainly in the Western World, but in the world in general--have led to America being even more targeted than before by the powers of hate around the world. We were told at the time that there was great urgency for this conflict and that we would be in and we would be out and we would restore democracy. How foolish and naive that looks today. Now we are being told that this conflict and our presence in Iraq could easily last 4 years, perhaps 10 years, at a cost of $100 billion, conceivably, over the coming year, while our men and women in uniform, who are doing courageous work, find themselves in a near shooting gallery environment in Iraq, with very little contribution from our allies. Some of those contributions are even discouraged by the United States. To put some context on this--because our troops are on the ground and our troops are being killed daily, because our taxpayers are paying virtually 100 percent of the cost of this--we now find ourselves with an administration telling us we cannot afford full funding for VA health care so our veterans can get the medical services they need because we don't have the $2 billion extra. We are spending $4 billion a month in Iraq, and we are going to do that for years, perhaps for a decade. We are being told we don't have enough money for Amtrak because it costs a half billion dollars more. We are going to spend $100 billion in the coming year in this faraway place, but we don't have the funding for education or health care. And the reason the prescription drug plan is so faulty and viewed with dissatisfaction by American seniors is that the funds are not there to fund a decent plan. Yet all of those costs are a tiny fraction of what we are committed to send into the far distant future in the Middle East. We have 200,000 troops abroad total, with some 140,000 to 150,000 in the Middle East; we have 1,000 in Saudi Arabia; we have 1,300 in Bahrain; we have 4,000 in Qatar; we have 145,000 in Iraq; we have 11,000 in Pakistan; we have 14,000 in Turkey; we have 1,000 in Egypt; and we have over 1,000 in Djibouti. We have troops scattered all over the world. Their families want to know when they are coming home. Employers want to know when they are coming home. Nobody can say. Nobody has a timeframe, other than to know that our military is going to be under tremendous stress for a long, unforeseeable time. At the same time, we have budding conflicts in North Korea, Liberia, Iran, and the existing conflict in Afghanistan. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this is going to lead to enormously difficult problems in terms of recruiting and retaining military active-duty Guard and Reserve. My son confides in me, after 4 wars in 5 years, in talking to his colleagues in the U.S. Army, there are more and more of them saying: I thought this would be a career, but frankly this is destroying my family, my future. We cannot be deployed at this kind of tempo forever. It appears that that will be the case because the United States has taken such a unilateral approach--to become the policeman for the entire world without the participation of our allies, without the U.N., without the regional groups. When will this President learn that we are the world's major military power but we cannot be the policeman for the world, we cannot be doing all this ourselves? We need to bring together our allies, and we need the diplomacy to make that happen. So while we are asking our military to be deployed at an enormous tempo, while we are losing men and women daily in Afghanistan and Iraq--and we have another conflict on the near horizon in Liberia--the President says we cannot afford the full combat pay increase that the Senate requested. How many of you would go live in a hole in the wall in Iraq and be fired at from every angle as you walk down the street, and your President says we won't give you that extra $100 a month. One hundred dollars a month? How many in this Chamber would encourage their children to serve in that environment? We are being told by the White House we cannot afford the full funding for health care. Our vets are going to have to wait in line for another year to get the access to health care that they deserve and that they are owed because we don't have the funding. The President says he will veto any legislation we pass in the Senate to expand access to health care for our National Guard and our Reserve troops. He will veto it. There is plenty of money to go around for an enormous tax cut to enrich the wealthiest families in this Nation, but when it comes time to do modest things for our own soldiers, the President is not there. We need to hold him accountable for this irresponsibility. There is enormous damage being done to the credibility of our Nation by what has transpired over these past months. We can be proud of our military, proud of our troops. We know Saddam Hussein was a thug and the world is better without him. But when we see what has happened due to the lack of an international alliance, due to our unilateralism, due to faulty intelligence, or the manipulation of our intelligence, when we see what happened to world opinion relative to the United States, and now the unwillingness of the rest of the world to work with us to stabilize the world military situation, we find ourselves in a terrible hole and how a $450 billion deficit reported just today--a record deficit, where we are going to borrow from the Social Security trust fund for the remainder of the decade in order to pay for all of this-- we need to regroup. Our U.S. troops, our men and women in uniform, deserve better. We American citizens deserve better as well. I simply have to share my frustration and, yes, my anger, at the circumstances we find ourselves in today due to profound failings of this administration in the conduct of our military strategy in the Middle East and all that portends for the future of this country and our role in the world, all that means for the taxpayers of this country, all that means in the inability to fund our schools, our health care, our environment, and all the needs of infrastructure we need to get our economy going again. Our country deserves better. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the American Veterans Disabled for Life Commemorative Coin Act of 2003. This bill will authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to mint a commemorative coin honoring the millions of veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces who were disabled while serving our country. Revenues from the surcharge on the coin would go to the Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation to help cover the costs of building the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial in Washington, DC. The three-acre site for the Memorial is located on Washington Avenue at 2nd Street, SW., across from the U.S. Botanic Gardens, and in full view of the U.S. Capitol Building. Federal legislation for the Memorial, Public Law 106-348, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 24, 2000. Sponsors included Senator John McCain, Senator Max Cleland, Congressman Sam Johnson, and Congressman Jack Murtha. The National Capital Planning Commission unanimously approved the Capitol Hill location on October 10, 2001. The mission of the Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation is to commemorate the selfless and continuing sacrifice of America's 2.3 million living disabled veterans, ensuring they will always be remembered; to provide all Americans with a place to express their appreciation for the men and women who came home from war bearing the scars of our great Nation's defense, and to serve as an eternal reminder of disabled veterans' honor, service, and sacrifice. Recent events have brought about a renewed reverence and respect for the men and women who gave so much in service of our Nation. This legislation would help bring national attention to America's disabled veterans, and would serve as a fitting tribute to their sacrifice. The Disabled Veterans LIFE Memorial Foundation was co-founded in 1996 by the Lois Pope Life Foundation and the Disabled American Veterans. Lois Pope, one of America's leading philanthropists, is the founder and President of the Lois Pope Leaders in Furthering Education Foundation. In addition to supporting veterans programs, this organization provides awards for medical research, scholarships, and summer camp programs. Formed in 1920, the Disabled American Veterans is a nonprofit organization representing America's disabled veterans, their families, and survivors. The drive to build the Memorial, which is scheduled for completion within the next several years, is well under way, but has a long way to go. Prominent national figures including Retired Army General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, Poet Laureate Dr. Maya Angelou, and New York Giants star defensive end Michael Strahan are lending their support to this effort. We have an obligation to assure that men and women who each day endure the cost of freedom are never forgotten. The American Veterans Disabled for Life Commemorative Coin Act of 2003 will honor these veterans and help fund the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial. I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting America's disabled veterans with this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I support the bipartisan medical malpractice alternative legislation, a bill that is more comprehensive than the bill previously being considered on the floor, S. 11, called the Patient First Act. I want to thank Senators Durbin and Lindsey Graham for their leadership and hard work on this issue, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of the alternative, which really begins to address the root of the medical malpractice premium problem, rather than just attempt a quick fix as does the approach found in Senator Ensign's legislation. In South Dakota, we already have a cap on noneconomic damages at $500,000, which has been in effect since 1997. While some are claiming that caps are supposed to reduce premiums doctors pay, this issue is not that cut and dried. The Medical Liability Monitor found that in South Dakota, prior to 1997, medical malpractice premiums charged by some insurers were being maintained or on the decline, while for others rates were going up. And these rates varied across specialty. For example, in 1996 the premium rate went up for general surgery across two insurers, while one company increased premiums for internal medicine and OB/GYN and another insurer reduced rates for those exact same specialties. Since the implementation of caps in my State, rates initially declined, but in 2002 rates jumped as high as 20 percent over the previous year. This would indicate that caps are not the quick fix that Republicans would like you to believe is needed. Generally, my feeling is that caps are really a State issue and that we should spend our time focusing on how to prevent the need for malpractice in the first place, through measures to reduce medical errors and improve patient safety. Beyond my overall view of this issue, I am disappointed that our Republican colleagues have taken the issue of medical malpractice, which touches the core of these important patient care issues, and are using it for politically motivated purposes. This legislation has not had any hearings in the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions or Judiciary Committee. It has not been given careful consideration in a bipartisan way prior to the majority leader bringing it to the floor. This is not the way we get things done in the Senate and this is one of the reasons why I cannot support S. 11. I also cannot support S. 11 because it is crafted in such a way that has broad implications across the health care continuum. This bill's supporters will try and tell you that it is only about doctors' abilities to continue to provide care to patients. While I do recognize that this is of significant concern and support measures to bring down the cost of medical malpractice premiums, this bill goes far beyond that. S. 11 represents a broad, sweeping initiative that would apply not only to lawsuits against doctors, but to all health care lawsuits, thereby shielding HMOs, drug companies, nursing homes, hospitals, and medical device manufacturers who injure patients. And what is equally disturbing is that this so-called fix is not even considered the solution by all doctors, some who have conceded that this legislation would not reduce their malpractice premiums for 3 or 4 years. This legislation also discriminates against the most vulnerable: the aged, children and low-income. By placing a cap on noneconomic damages, it says to those with lesser earning potential--``your lives mean less and a small pot of money for the rest of your life is enough, irrespective of how much of your quality of life has been taken from you.'' I cannot support this mindset and would prefer to approach this issue more comprehensively and without discriminatory practices. As mentioned, we have learned that caps do not necessarily translate to lower premium rates. Studies have examined this issue and results are found on both sides, some finding that caps do reduce malpractice premiums, while others find the exact opposite. This says to me that we do not have the sound evidence needed to say that caps are the way to go. Because of this, we must be looking at other creative ways to address this issue that is forcing many doctors, especially those in high-risk specialties, to leave practice. That is why I support the Durbin/Graham alternative, which takes a critical look at the causes of high malpractice premiums and seeks to address them. The Durbin/Graham alternative does provide some relief to doctors through tax credits for malpractice premium rates. It also provides a voluntary system to share medical error information through a database that is immune from legal discovery and will improve patient safety. It addresses issues related to frivolous lawsuits and provides some protection from punitive damages for health professionals participating in federally funded programs. This alternative finally addresses Federal antitrust exemptions enjoyed very broadly by insurance companies in an effort to diminish their opportunity to collude and set rates. These initiatives get at the root of the medical malpractice problem and are a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 11 and work together to embrace the Durbin/Graham alternative.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the American Veterans Disabled for Life Commemorative Coin Act of 2003. This bill will authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to mint a commemorative coin honoring the millions of veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces who were disabled while serving our country. Revenues from the surcharge on the coin would go to the Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation to help cover the costs of building the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial in Washington, DC. The three-acre site for the Memorial is located on Washington Avenue at 2nd Street, SW., across from the U.S. Botanic Gardens, and in full view of the U.S. Capitol Building. Federal legislation for the Memorial, Public Law 106-348, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 24, 2000. Sponsors included Senator John McCain, Senator Max Cleland, Congressman Sam Johnson, and Congressman Jack Murtha. The National Capital Planning Commission unanimously approved the Capitol Hill location on October 10, 2001. The mission of the Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation is to commemorate the selfless and continuing sacrifice of America's 2.3 million living disabled veterans, ensuring they will always be remembered; to provide all Americans with a place to express their appreciation for the men and women who came home from war bearing the scars of our great Nation's defense, and to serve as an eternal reminder of disabled veterans' honor, service, and sacrifice. Recent events have brought about a renewed reverence and respect for the men and women who gave so much in service of our Nation. This legislation would help bring national attention to America's disabled veterans, and would serve as a fitting tribute to their sacrifice. The Disabled Veterans LIFE Memorial Foundation was co-founded in 1996 by the Lois Pope Life Foundation and the Disabled American Veterans. Lois Pope, one of America's leading philanthropists, is the founder and President of the Lois Pope Leaders in Furthering Education Foundation. In addition to supporting veterans programs, this organization provides awards for medical research, scholarships, and summer camp programs. Formed in 1920, the Disabled American Veterans is a nonprofit organization representing America's disabled veterans, their families, and survivors. The drive to build the Memorial, which is scheduled for completion within the next several years, is well under way, but has a long way to go. Prominent national figures including Retired Army General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, Poet Laureate Dr. Maya Angelou, and New York Giants star defensive end Michael Strahan are lending their support to this effort. We have an obligation to assure that men and women who each day endure the cost of freedom are never forgotten. The American Veterans Disabled for Life Commemorative Coin Act of 2003 will honor these veterans and help fund the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial. I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting America's disabled veterans with this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am saddened to report the passing of Private First Class Michael Deuel of Nemo, SD. Pfc. Deuel was killed on June 18, 2003, while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Michael moved from his home in Cheyenne, WY to attend school at Boxelder Job Corps in South Dakota in May 2000. His friends and teachers described him as an unassuming, yet confident student. Focused and hard working, Michael was determined to perform well in school. He received his general education diploma and certification from the culinary arts program shortly before enlisting in the Army. Following service in the military, he dreamed of becoming a chef and owning his own restaurant. After enlisting in the Army, Michael entered airborne school to become an Airborne Ranger. He went on to Army Ranger School and became a member of the Army's 325th infantry regiment of the 82nd Airborne Division, which is based in Fort Bragg, NC. On February 13, 2003, he was deployed to Iraq. While protecting a propane-distribution center in Baghdad, he was killed by enemy fire. The lives of countless people were enormously enhanced by Michael's goodwill and service. Although he did not live to see his dreams realized, he continued to inspire all those who knew him. Our Nation and South Dakota are far better places because of his life, and the best way to honor his life is to emulate his commitment to our country. I join with all South Dakotans in expressing my sympathies to the family of Private First Class Deuel. I know he will always be missed, but his service to our Nation will never be forgotten.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I join several of my colleagues to urge Members of the Senate to vote in strong support of the ``Medicare Savings Alternative that's Voluntary and Equitable,'' or MediSAVE amendment. I thank Senator Durbin for working hard to create an amendment which will make this Medicare prescription drug package a meaningful benefit for seniors across this country. I have been troubled over the course of this debate on many fronts. There are numerous holes in S. 1 that many of my colleagues have tried to fill. Many of my colleagues have offered targeted amendments to address this bill's specific flaws. So far, we have tried to put some reasonable limitations on the premium levels that can be charged to beneficiaries. We have tried to eliminate the coverage gap that will hit seniors hard in the fall of 2006. We have tried to extend the fallback period to two years to provide more stability to seniors living in areas where managed care is just not likely to work. We have attempted to ensure that the 37 percent of employers that are estimated to drop their retiree coverage would not do so. And all of these attempts have been unfruitful, due to the resistance of Members on the other side of the aisle. We have tried to make this a better bill, and while we have had success on a few cost containment amendments, we have come up short on many of these other critically important provisions. Seniors in my home State will be scratching their heads in 2006, wondering where their affordable, comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefit is. This is why I am a cosponsor and supporter of the MediSAVE amendment. This amendment will provide seniors with a real benefit, one that allows seniors to get their drug coverage through traditional Medicare, not forcing them into plans to get it. It has no deductibles, limited cost sharing and no coverage gap. It addresses a blatant omission in this bill to deal with the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs in the U.S. It allows the Federal Government to utilize its bargaining power to purchase prescription drugs at reasonable prices, rather than providing a blank check to drug manufacturers as is planned under the current bill. Let's try and make this the best bill possible. This amendment may require us to allot some additional funds down the road, but aren't our seniors worth it? Isn't the security of average seniors, those who have worked hard all their lives to make this country what it is today equally, if not more important than big tax cuts for the elite? I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment today.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I join my colleagues Senators Clinton and Bingaman today to offer an amendment to S. 1 that will provide consumers and practitioners with real, objective information regarding the comparative effectiveness of prescription drugs. Too often, prescription drug information is influenced by drug manufacturers, through advertisements, and by clinical studies financed by those who will gain from favorable reports. Consumers are just inundated with information--from direct-to-consumer advertising on drugs which can paint a misleading picture, to a sea of free drug samples from their physicians--with all this information it can be extremely difficult to make a sound decision which can be just overwhelming for average Americans. But what does the data really say about differing prescription drug options? Does a newer drug that costs more than an earlier version necessarily do a better job for most patients? Is it possible that a Medicare beneficiary may get the same, or even better outcome from the drug that has been on the market for a longer time? We just really don't have the answers to these--questions at least from independent, objective sources. We are about to create a massive new program that will effect 40 million Americans and with this comes responsibility to deliver a program that ensures the availability of appropriate prescription drugs for all beneficiaries. This amendment will create a reliable source for valid, evidence-based information about the comparative medical effectiveness of medicines used by Medicare beneficiaries. It will provide unbiased information on how drugs that treat particular diseases and conditions compare to one another. By authorizing the National Institutes of Health, in coordination with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to conduct research on comparative effectiveness of drugs, consumers, employers, State governments and the Federal Government will finally have access to information that will enable them to choose medicines based on clinical research. This information will be made available to help them make better decisions with respect to choosing the prescription medicines to take, prescribe, cover and pay for. By using the objective, scientific expertise available at NIH and AHRQ, this amendment assures that the information received comes from independent and impartial sources. This amendment is supported by RxHealthValue, a national coalition of large employers, consumer groups, labor unions, health plans, health providers and pharmacy benefit managers that through its members represent almost one-hundred million Americans. It is also supported by Families USA and Consumers Union. This amendment preserves individuals' freedom to get any medicine that they want, but would encourage the use of medicines that are scientifically proven more effective for patients. It will not create ``one-size-fits-all'' medicine as Republicans will try and tell you. It does nothing to prevent independent decisionmaking by practitioners and their patients, just better educated decisionmaking. Our Republican colleagues believe in the strength of the free market. Well, a well functioning marketplace depends on the free flow of information. Denying consumers and providers, as well as other purchasers of prescription drugs access to comparative information about effectiveness means that decisions in the marketplace are made without perfect information--which should not be the case in an open market. You are not going to buy a car without taking a look at Consumer Reports are you? Are you only going to base your purchase on the glitzy adds in ``Car and Driver'' magazine? I think we all know the answer to this is ``no'', and most certainly Medicare beneficiaries should have access to similar information for drugs they put in their bodies as they do for the car they drive. Amendment No. 985, As Modified

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, as we move forward with debate on Medicare prescription drugs, it is important to recognize that this bill does very little to address the unrestrained costs of prescription drugs. I find it disconcerting that as we are discussing one of the most major public program expansions of all time, we have neglected to have a real discussion about how to ensure that taxpayers get the most bang for their buck in this program, and that seniors who will have significant cost sharing responsibilities have as minimal a burden as possible. For many years, I have been a strong advocate for implementing reforms to reduce prescription drug costs for consumers in this country. I believe one way to do that is through increasing consumers' access to approved, safe and affordable generic prescription drugs. Last week the Senate passed an amendment that would accomplish this very goal. I was pleased to see that the Gregg-Schumer-McCain-Kennedy amendment passed the Senate with wide bipartisan support and I want to thank my colleagues for their dedication and hard work on this issue. This represents one encouraging step towards leveling the playing field and ensuring that prescription drug costs under this program are indeed reasonable. The generics amendment, which I have cosponsored along with many of my colleagues will allow generic drug companies to compete with brand- name manufactures by clearing the major obstacles that delay generic drug approval. The act levels the playing field for generic drug makers to better compete against large, brand-name manufacturers, and it represents a bold step in putting consumer health and savings first. The legislation seeks to bolster the Hatch-Waxman Act passed in 1984, which promoted the growth of the generic drug industry. Loopholes in the patent laws, which benefited brand-name drug manufacturers, prohibited the bill from ever realizing its full potential. Efforts to promote the value of generic drugs are competing with some powerful forces, such as direct-to-consumer advertising and the unwillingness of many doctors to prescribe generic drugs more regularly. However, I believe this amendment, along with greater public education efforts directed at consumers and doctors about the effectiveness of safe and approved generic drugs, will go a long way towards improving greater access and utilization of generic prescription drugs. I will continue to fight for lower prescription drug costs and will oppose any efforts that would deny generic drugs equal access into the market. With the enactment of this amendment, we are one major step closer to achieving this goal and I hope the House will follow suit and make similar provisions a part of shier Medicare prescription drug legislation. Passage of the generics amendment paved the way, but we must not stop here. We must continue the discussion and debate on the cost containment of prescription drugs under this program and I urge my colleagues to support all amendments that work towards that goal.