Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am saddened to report the passing of one of South Dakota's heroic firefighters, Daniel Lee Silvernail. After a lengthy battle with diabetes, Dan passed away on May 4, 2003. Born in Sturgis, SD, October 9, 1982, to Dennis and Sherry Silvernail, Dan attended Lead-Deadwood Schools and was a volunteer counselor at the Diabetes Incorporated Camp for kids. Responding to the call to serve his State early, Dan was a team leader for the Junior Lead-Deadwood Fire Department before becoming an active member of the Lead-Deadwood Fire Department. Dan Silvernail was a highly respected firefighter and his help in last year's Colorado's wild fires, countless hours on the Grizzly Gulch Fire in South Dakota, and most recently in Texas to help with the cleanup from the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster will serve as a reminder of his profound desire to serve his State and Nation. He was greatly admired by his peers for his dedication to his community and local concerns and his love for helping others is what set him apart from other outstanding South Dakotans. A native of South Dakota, Dan is survived by his father, Dennis Silvernail; stepmother, Kelly Silvernail; mother, Sherry Silvernail; sister, LeAnn Silvernail; brother, Casey Kendall; grandparents, Art and George Ann Silvernail, and Jim and Marlys Eggleston; step-grandparents, Keith and Marilyn Harrison; friends LeRoy and Roy; aunts, uncles, cousins and fellow firefighters. Through his outstanding community involvement and activism, the lives of countless South Dakotans were enormously enhanced. His work will continue to be an inspiration to his fellow members of the Lead Fire Department, and also to all those who knew him. Our Nation and South Dakota are far better places because of his life, and while we miss him very much, the best way to honor his life is to emulate his commitment to public service and to his community.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators Craig, Stabenow, and Leahy, to introduce the ``Commodity Distribution Act of 2003.'' Senator Craig and I have introduced similar legislation in the past, and while it is unfortunate that this legislation is necessary, we are pleased to meet the need that currently exists. In 1999, Congress enacted the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act, which amended the School Lunch Act to require the United States Department of Agriculture to count the value of bonus commodities when it determines the total amount of commodity assistance provided to schools. This change meant a $500 million budget cut to the school lunch program over a 9-year period. Senator Craig and I have been successful since the passage of the Ticket to Work Act in preventing this cut from affecting the School Lunch Program for the past 4 years. However, a provision included in the 2002 Farm Bill will expire the end of this fiscal year, leaving the school lunch program vulnerable to cut of over $50 million per year over the next 5 years. Our legislation, the Commodity Distribution Act of 2003, would prevent this devastating cut to the school lunch program. While not large in overall budget terms, $50 million in commodities for school lunch programs across the country means a great deal in delivering quality meals to our children every day. It also means a great deal to the agricultural producers who benefit from having these commodities taken out of the marketplace, and used for a valuable purpose. Our Nation faces a unique situation when it comes to feeding our Nation's children. We live in a country where both hunger and obesity co-exist among the children served by our important nutrition programs. We can and must form policy that addresses both of these problems. The legislation that Senators Craig, Stabenow, and Leahy, and I are introducing today takes an important first step in addressing this unique situation by maintaining the level of commodity support our school districts receive to run their school lunch programs. There could be no worse time to take away these valuable assets to their programs. The Commodity Distribution Act continues the dual purpose of our school lunch program--supporting American agriculture, while delivering nutritious food to our Nation's children. Mr. President, I ask that this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators Craig, Stabenow, and Leahy, to introduce the ``Commodity Distribution Act of 2003.'' Senator Craig and I have introduced similar legislation in the past, and while it is unfortunate that this legislation is necessary, we are pleased to meet the need that currently exists. In 1999, Congress enacted the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act, which amended the School Lunch Act to require the United States Department of Agriculture to count the value of bonus commodities when it determines the total amount of commodity assistance provided to schools. This change meant a $500 million budget cut to the school lunch program over a 9-year period. Senator Craig and I have been successful since the passage of the Ticket to Work Act in preventing this cut from affecting the School Lunch Program for the past 4 years. However, a provision included in the 2002 Farm Bill will expire the end of this fiscal year, leaving the school lunch program vulnerable to cut of over $50 million per year over the next 5 years. Our legislation, the Commodity Distribution Act of 2003, would prevent this devastating cut to the school lunch program. While not large in overall budget terms, $50 million in commodities for school lunch programs across the country means a great deal in delivering quality meals to our children every day. It also means a great deal to the agricultural producers who benefit from having these commodities taken out of the marketplace, and used for a valuable purpose. Our Nation faces a unique situation when it comes to feeding our Nation's children. We live in a country where both hunger and obesity co-exist among the children served by our important nutrition programs. We can and must form policy that addresses both of these problems. The legislation that Senators Craig, Stabenow, and Leahy, and I are introducing today takes an important first step in addressing this unique situation by maintaining the level of commodity support our school districts receive to run their school lunch programs. There could be no worse time to take away these valuable assets to their programs. The Commodity Distribution Act continues the dual purpose of our school lunch program--supporting American agriculture, while delivering nutritious food to our Nation's children. Mr. President, I ask that this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, the issue of one's privacy is something that resonates throughout each and every one of our lives on a daily basis. As Americans we enjoy the luxury of certain forms of privacy, while at the same time live within the very constraints of a society that is experiencing an erosion of our privacy rights with each passing day, consequently affecting the boundaries of individual freedoms. Jeffrey Rosen, noted author of the book called ``The Unwanted Gaze, The Destruction of Privacy in America,'' stated that ``it is surprising how recent changes in law and technology have been permitted to undermine sanctuaries of privacy that Americans took for granted throughout most of our history.'' Furthermore, he states that ``there is nothing inevitable about the erosion of privacy, just as there is nothing inevitable about its reconstruction.'' On April 14, 2003, America experienced the beginning of comprehensive guidelines governing the world of medical privacy. This day marked the final compliance for health care providers who are implementing the new regulations laid out in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, HIPAA. Originally known as the Kennedy-Kassebaum legislation, passed in 1996, this bill was the result of over a decade's worth of input regarding the privacy of patients' medical records. As we move forward with these changes, it is important to note a few of the significant alterations that will impact both health care entities and consumers. HIPAA was enacted by the Federal Government to give patients more control over their health information as well as provide greater boundaries for the use and release of health records. As of April 14, hospitals, health care providers, health plans, and clearinghouses will be working under stricter guidelines in regards to patient records. Health care entities will be restricted from releasing information regarding inpatient, outpatient, or emergency room patients unless that patient agrees to such a release in specific written documentation. Federal law, rather than various State regulations, will now protect the confidentiality of medical files. Consumers will be able to find out who has tried to have access to their medical records. This new law will also prohibit marketers from obtaining personal medical information without an individual's consent. These are just a few of the many new regulations set to take place as a result of implementation of HIPAA law. Health care providers have had to rearrange existing procedures, as well as yield additional funding to meet the April 14 compliance deadline. This has proven to be more challenging for some entities than others especially those in rural areas where financial and workforce constraints are often greater than for their urban counterparts. Hailed by medical consumer groups as a significant advance in protecting the rights of consumers and the privacy of medical records, some have expressed concern that the regulations are cumbersome or don't go far enough. Before HIPAA, however, there were few rules in place to the coherence of patient safety. Consumers now will find great comfort in knowing significant protections are being undertaken to protect their personal medical information. As we move forward with implementation of these new privacy regulations, I will continue to monitor these new rules and solicit feedback from consumers and health providers alike about medical and other privacy issues so critically important to our everyday lives.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and congratulate the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology on earning first place for their remarkable display of ingenuity and design at the 2002 Rocky Mountain Regional Concrete Canoe Competition in Logan, UT. Under the supervision of their advisor, Dr. Marion Hansen, the team earned their 14th first place regional win within the last 16 years. This win qualifies the team for the National Concrete Canoe Competition hosted by Drexel University in June. South Dakota School of Mines and Technology's American Society of Civil Engineering program has a strong record of finding ingenious solutions to complex problems, and has placed in the top five in the National Concrete Canoe Competition five times as well as winning the over all national competition in 1995. Based on appearance, weight, presentation, and sprint and endurance races for men, women, and co-ed squads, the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology team defeated teams from Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado for their first place win. To effectively implement their strategy, students worked as a whole and within centralized teams, such as hull design, mix design, construction, and paddling, to bring the project together as an award-winning canoe. This win reflects the work ethic and dedication that is so visible in the state of South Dakota. I want to acknowledge Dr. Richard J. Gowen, president of the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, as well as Dr. Marion R. Hansen, 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: Steve Lipetzky, Andy Coats, Ryan Hamilton, Dave Lowe, Eric Gassland, Jen Pohl, Mandy Kost, Katie Zeller, Tarar Boehmer, Wade Lein, and Marshall Cassady. Again, congratulations to the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology on winning their 14th regional concrete canoe competition.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, Ralph Waldo Emerson once put into words what many know about the art of education, but many of us sometimes fail to realize: ``The secret of education is respecting the pupil.'' I rise today to recognize an exceptional teacher whom we are fortunate to have in South Dakota, who has never forgotten this maxim. Indeed, she has chosen to live by it. Connie Krueger of Rapid City, SD was recently recognized for her commitment to education and to her students by the South Dakota Council of Teachers of English when she was named the 2003 Language Arts Teacher of the Year. I want to take a moment today to recognize Connie for this highly deserved honor, and to commend her lifelong dedication to learning and young people. I consider myself especially lucky to have known Connie before she formally became an educator, when we both roamed the halls of Vermillion High School as fellow students. Even as a teenager, it was evident that Connie had a passion for life and learning that was almost contagious. Connie and I were two of the many students influenced by another great teacher, Mrs. Donna Gross. Connie credits Mrs. Gross as being a large part of the reason for her decision to enter the field of education, and I know that Mrs. Gross is very proud of what Connie has done for students and education in South Dakota. One of Connie's many contributions to education in South Dakota is her participation in, and advocacy for, the Dakota Writing Project. Funded by the National Writing Project, the Dakota Writing Project is a collaborative university and school staff development program to improve the teaching and learning of writing in South Dakota classrooms. Connie has been instrumental in the growth and development of the project, which gives teachers the opportunity to learn from other teachers, while also demonstrating the cross-disciplinary importance of writing. Through her work with the project, Connie not only empowers her colleagues, but also provides educational benefits to all the lives that her colleagues touch. At the heart of everything that she does is the interest in her students. On her nomination form for the award, Connie wrote that she ``will honestly answer any question my students ask, although I reserve the right to not answer if the question makes me uncomfortable. I've yet to use that veto.'' It is this kind of respect and openness with her students, coupled with her love for the subject matter, that has made he such an exceptional educator. Her love of education, and of English, is also evident in the professions that her own children, Mike and Heidi, have chosen. Mike aspires to be a teacher, and Heidi is completing her doctorate in linguistics at the University of Chicago. I know Mike and Heidi are very proud of the prestigious honor bestowed upon their mother, and the hard work and dedication she has shown them over the years. In a recent article highlighting her award, Connie stated that her goal for this year has been, ``Be joyful.'' Well, thanks to Connie, much joy, knowledge, and inspiration has been shared with students and educators across South Dakota. I consider myself one of the many lucky South Dakotans whose lives have been touched by Connie, and I thank her for her hard work, her dedication, and for sharing her passion for life and learning with all of us. Our State is truly blessed by her extraordinary talent and commitment to educational excellence.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and congratulate the South Dakota State University Lady Jackrabbits. The Jackrabbits, under head coach Aaron Johnston and assistant coach Laurie Melum, won the National Division II Basketball Tournament against Northern Kentucky March 29 in St. Joseph, MO. Coach Johnston's squad went through the 2002-2003 season with a school-record 32 wins against just three losses. The Jackrabbits entered the tournament with an impressive 32-3 mark and defeated Cal State-Bakersfield and Bentley before rallying to overtake Northern Kentucky, 65-50, for the first ever women's basketball national title. The team was guided this season by the leadership provided by seniors Melissa Pater and Karly Hegge. Joining them were Jackrabbit juniors Stacie Cizek and Brenda Davis. All- tournament team member and NCAA Division II Elite Eight Most Outstanding Player Pater was joined on the all-tournament team by freshman Heather Sieler. As Hegge told the Sioux Falls Argus Leader following the title victory, ``After A.J. [Coach Aaron Johnston] first started coaching, he used the phrase, `Don't stop believing.' That's what we tried to do, not stop believing and just keep on going.'' This title reflects that devotion and conviction South Dakota residents pride themselves on. I want to acknowledge Dean Dr. Laurie Nichols, Athletic Director Dr. Fred Oien, Head Coach Aaron Johnston, Assistant Coach Laurie Melum, and Graduate Assistant Sheila Roux 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: seniors Melissa Pater and Karly Hegge; juniors Stacie Cizek and Brenda Davis; sophomores Stephanie Bolden, Megan Otte, Brooke Dickmeyer, Dianna Pavek, Shannon Schlager, and Christine Gilbert; and freshmen Heather Sieler and Christine Gilbert, for their hard work, dedication and commitment this season. Finally, I want to acknowledge the great work of team manager Laci Greenfield, and the hard-working efforts of cheerleaders Christina Bennett, Emmie Johnson, Eve Becker, Jill McClung, Julie Raeder, and Katie Jacobson. Again, congratulations to the South Dakota State University Lady Jackrabbits on winning their first women's basketball national title.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to recognize Mr. John Koerner's long, distinguished career with the United States Fish & Wildlife Service. John began his career in 1972 in Valentine, NE at Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge. Before he arrived at his ``dream location'' of Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, he was stationed in the South Dakota communities of Madison, Pierre and Waubay. John has now managed the Sand Lake NWR for 15 years. This refuge has a wonderful reputation within the refuge system, and that reputation reaches far beyond its borders. In 1988, because of its importance to migratory birds, Sand Lake was designated as the 16th Wetland of International Importance in the United States. This designation was proposed under John's guidance, and supported by myself and U.S. Senator Tom Daschle. During his time in South Dakota, John has been instrumental in reaching out to the public he serves through effective outreach and environmental programs. The annual Eagle Day event held at Sand Lake Refuge has grown from one carload of visitors attending the first Eagle Day event to well over 1,200 visitors attending in 2002. John has also enhanced the youth, education and outreach programs during his time at the refuge. John has been an articulate and outspoken voice on water and conservation issues concerning the James River. His coordination efforts with local, State and Federal agencies, during major flooding events and day-to-day operations have been an asset to Sand Lake Refuge and to the communities and landowners up and down the James River. His knowledge of the James River has been very helpful to South Dakota's congressional delegation. John's coordination efforts with all of South Dakota's congressional offices have been beneficial to both the FWS and the citizens of South Dakota. His knowledge of FWS history, compatibility issues, and his vast experience has provided him with a ``common sense'' approach to resolving issues before they become major problems. I know that John Koerner has provided extremely valuable assistance to my offices in working through many of the difficult issues that have been brought forward during his tenure. I commend John Koerner for his work with the U.S Fish & Wildlife Service. His contributions will benefit many generations to come.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am honored to have an opportunity to take part in this tribute to our American troops this evening here on the floor of the Senate. I express a special commendation to my colleague and good friend, Senator Lincoln of Arkansas, for her comments and for her leadership in helping to put together this tribute, as well as my South Dakota colleague, Senator Daschle, for all his support of our troops and his suggestion that we go ahead with a regular tribute and acknowledgement of the contributions our American military personnel are making. This is a matter of particular personal importance to me with my own oldest son Brooks serving in the 101st Airborne in Iraq today. But there are thousands of others from South Dakota--Reserve, National Guard, Active Duty, Ellsworth Air Force Base in our case in South Dakota--and around the Nation who each are making profound contributions to the security and freedom of this country and for stability in that troubled part of the world. We owe so much to each and every one of them, not only to honor the men and women who put on our Nation's uniform and jeopardize their lives by doing so but their families who suffer mightily from the sacrifices that are made, and from the prospect of death, injury, captivity--all that to which our military personnel subject themselves. In our own family's case, we recognize this is a voluntary military in this day and age. Our son Brooks chose to enter the military. It was not my encouragement, particularly. It was his choice. All the credit goes to him. And that young man, with so many others, has served in four conflicts in the last 5 years: Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, now Afghanistan. And we in South Dakota, and many around the country, do what we can to demonstrate our pride and support. In South Dakota, we have revived an old World War I tradition of wearing the blue star if we have a family member in the war. We have banners on our front door and at my offices around the State and here in Washington with that same blue star. We recognize that as the tradition goes, some of those blue stars will eventually become gold stars, and that is the symbol worn by parents who have lost a loved one. We keep a map of Iraq in our family kitchen, as I am sure, in some similar way, the hundreds of thousands of other parents do all across this country, trying to keep track, as best we can, where our son is, as others keep track of where their sons and daughters are, their husbands and wives. The communication, of course, at this time is just spotty. Initially, we were able to get a couple e-mails. A short time ago, I received a note from our son Brooks on the back of a beef stew box, a piece of cardboard. They had no paper anywhere, and they had to make do as they could. We will keep this forever. We sent, obviously, notes and cards to them. There are organizations that have encouraged this to go on, and I am sure that builds morale, as these troops suffer through incredible circumstances, both militarily as well as just the sandstorms and all that goes with living out in a desert and in a troubled place. One of the things Barbara and I recognize, that all the other parents share in a way that is more profound than could possibly be the case unless you have had a loved one in a circumstance like this, is that every glance at the television, every glance toward the radio could convey to you at any moment some catastrophic news. There are many who follow the conflict, have an interest in it, but the families recognize more so than anyone the very real nature of what is happening. These are not video games. There is a tendency sometimes in the media to talk about collateral damage and casualties, and you see numbers on the maps and colored diagrams going in one direction or another. But the families recognize that each one of those represents real people and real hopes and the love of real families. We in this body understand the sacrifices that need to be made. But it goes almost beyond understanding how much we owe to these men and women and all that they do. This past week, Barbara and I were listening at our home to some reports, and there was a report of casualties and deaths in our son's division. I went to tell Barbara about it, and it was almost impossible for me to even speak. She had been following the news herself and knew that in this instance it involved a different brigade than where our son was; our son had left Kuwait for Iraq the day before. We breathed a sigh of relief as parents will when their own son or daughter has escaped harm, but we recognized more than ever because of our circumstances that while our son in that case was safe, the losses were very real. Someone else's son, someone else's husband was injured, was killed, somewhere else families are devastated. We will win this war. We have the greatest military in the world. The world will be a better place when we are victorious. But it is important for us to take stock of the men and women who make this possible. It is important for us to express our honor for what they do and who they are. It is important for us to share our prayers that this conflict is a short and decisive conflict with the fewest losses of life possible on either side. We as a people owe more to these men and women than words can possibly convey. It is my hope that as we follow this conflict and pray that it is a short one, we in the Senate will do all we can, obviously, to express our honor and our praise for these people, but also that we will go beyond that to take the steps necessary so when they come home, they will come home to a country where there is opportunity, where schools for their children are good, where the environment is clean, the economy is growing, where there are jobs available that are challenging and meaningful to them, and that so long as they remain in the military, their pay, their housing, their quality of life is what it deserves to be. Every night when we go home and live in relative comfort, I hope we keep in mind these hundreds of thousands of our troops, who this very night, many of them, are sleeping in a hole in the sand 2 or 3 feet deep to protect themselves from shrapnel during the course of the evening, blowing sand, horrible weather, fear of snipers, bombs, biological, chemical warfare that could arise at any moment, and appreciate the quality of these troops and how we as a free people could not possibly sustain our freedoms were it not for the willingness of these troops, these men and women, to voluntarily step into this kind of circumstance and fight this war. I yield to our leader, Senator Daschle. Again, I acknowledge my gratitude to him for helping to organize this tribute to our American troops.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Levin and my colleague, Senator Byrd. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the men and women serving in our Armed Forces in the war on Iraq. I join with my colleagues in the Senate and with the American people in conveying our gratitude to each of them for their willingness to courageously serve our Nation. Now that the war has begun, it is time for all Americans to come together to support our military. While we had hoped a diplomatic solution could be found so that we could avoid the use of force, it now appears that military action is imminent. I will do all that I can to assure that our troops have the resources they need to complete their mission quickly, efficiently, and with as little loss of life as possible. Be they active duty or members of the National Guard or Reserves, our Armed Forces are the best equipped, best trained fighting force in the history of the world. Despite our preparedness, this may not be a quick and easy war. The Iraqi Army, if it chooses to fight, remains a formidable force. But let there be no doubt that our military will achieve its mission. We will disarm Saddam Hussein. We will end his brutal dictatorship, and we will liberate the Iraqi people. We should not forget that we are fighting this war not only to ensure that Saddam Hussein never again is able to use weapons of mass destruction, but also to give the 22 million Iraqi people the chance to build a democracy and to live in freedom. Our goals are noble, and the actions of our military are just. Finally, to the families whose sons and daughters, fathers and mothers have been deployed to the Middle East, I want to say that you and your loved ones are in our prayers. As a father with a son serving as a sergeant in the 101st Airborne, now in the Iraqi theater, I understand the mix of pride and fear that family members are feeling at this time. I wear my blue star with pride. They should find comfort in the fact that they are not alone; our entire Nation is with them during these difficult moments. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to address the Senate on this timely and important matter and to offer my thanks, prayers, and gratitude to our Armed Forces.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the New Homestead Act and I want to thank Senator Dorgan and Senator Hagel for their leadership on the critically important issue. I am pleased to cosponsor this bipartism legislation. America was originally a rural place. Many of our citizens lived and worked on farms or in rural towns throughout our country. During the turn of the century, towns and communities sprang up on railroad lines and river crossings. They served as regional trade centers and seats of local government. Opportunity was available for the children of these communities. Too often that is no longer the case. A changing economy from agriculture to technology has reduced opportunity in rural America and certainly rural South Dakota. Out-migration is decimating many communities in my home State of South Dakota. Currently, 63 percent of South Dakota counties are considered high out-migration counties-- averaging a 10 percent population loss over the past 20 years. In these counties there is also a 16 percent reduction in youth population, 6 percent increase in the elderly population, and 25 percent of these counties had more deaths than births. Once proud communities that were self sufficient are slowly withering away. I believe that in order to forestall these trends Congress must now prioritize rural America. That is one reason why I am so supportive of this legislation. The New Homestead Act hopes to address out-migration by offering individuals who make a commitment to live and work in rural areas to get a college degree, buy a home, start a business and build a nest egg for the future. This legislation will also provide incentives for businesses to relocate or develop in high out-migration areas. This comprehensive, approach is needed to address this huge problem. While the bill will not save every community, it will provide communities with the tools they need to survive. Rural communities provide businesses and families many benefits. Good schools, low crime rates, a high level of civic involvement and a talented and committed workforce are just some of the benefits (specifics) that rural America provides this country. It is a way of life worth fighting for, and our Nation's commitment to this lifestyle is long-standing. In fact, in 1862 our government made a commitment to populate rural America. The original Homestead Act made a deal with settler's willing to travel to the midwest; if you stay and work the land for 5 years we will offer you a quarter-section of land. This was a hugely popular and successful program. I know this first hand because my great-grandfather used this legislation to homestead near Centerville, SD. Today we can offer tax incentives and financial rewards to individuals to move into out-migration counties. A generation ago the United States used a similar approach addressing the needs of our metropolitan areas. At that time, our country's cities were facing population and job losses, crumbling infrastructure--many of the same problems our rural areas face today. Billions of dollars were committed to housing, transportation, and job creation in urban areas. As a Senator from a rural area, I was proud to participate and join in that effort. But now many of our metropolitan areas that were struggling thrive. We need this kind of commitment for our rural communities at this point in our history. While this comprehensive legislation takes aim to remedy many of the problems facing small towns, I believe this forward-thinking bill is also important for farmers and ranchers who make a living from the land. It is critical to understand that prosperity in production agriculture can lead to robust conditions in Main Street rural America. As such, a decline in the farm economy causes economic hurt for rural businesses as well. This downturn in the rural economy is one we know all too well in South Dakota. Volatile market conditions for crops and livestock, unfair foreign trade, and the disastrous forces of Mother Nature, have all taken a toll on our farmers and ranchers in recent years. Consider the sobering economic damage to South Dakota resulting from the ongoing drought: South Dakota State University, SDSU, economists estimate $1.4 billion has been eroded from the State's economy due to the drought. The impact includes $642 million in direct losses for livestock and crops, which is about one-sixth, or 17 percent of the average annual cash intake for agriculture. I believe the New Homestead Act provides the kind of commitment and opportunity that our nation must be willing to once again make in order to sustain and grow prosperity for farmers, ranchers, and rural America. Our entire Nation suffers when rural America suffers. Some of our country's most prized virtues, like good school systems, low crime rates, and high levels of civic participation, are alive and well in these areas, yet many are fighting for their survival. There is no doubt in my mind that these areas are worth saving. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, in recognition of Cover the Uninsured Week, March 10th through the 16th, I want to address a very serious issue that our country is facing on the domestic front. It is a problem that can be found in every State and encompasses a staggering 41 million Americans, a number that is only due to increase if we do not take immediate efforts to remedy the problem. I am referring to the number of people in this country who lack health insurance. Let me also take this opportunity to acknowledge the effort that is being put forth this week by numerous individuals, organizations, and businesses alike who have been instrumental in arranging Cover the Uninsured Week. This event will highlight the degree to which the issue affects our society and will serve as a venue bringing communities, professionals, educators, faith groups, legislators, businesses, and those directly affected to find solutions. There are 41 million Americans who lack health insurance, 75,000 of whom are South Dakotans. In 2001, 41.2 million people or 14.6 percent of the U.S. population were uninsured, which was an increase of 1.4 million from the previous year. This is most likely a result of the continued increase in the unemployment rate. These factors, coupled with State budgets that are strapped thin, are what many analysts predict is the making of a ``perfect storm'' in the wake of health care today. South Dakota is facing a $54 million shortfall this year alone. Every year, South Dakota continues to lose access to health insurance companies. Currently, there are only three health insurance carriers offering individual coverage in this State. This is compounded with the continued increase of yearly premiums, which have left many individuals and families having to choose either between coverage and financial insecurity or joining the ranks of the uninsured and watching the possible deterioration of their health. Nationally, 8 out of 10 or the uninsured are in working families that cannot afford health insurance and are not eligible for public programs. In South Dakota, 84 percent of the uninsured live in a family headed by a working adult. The Center for Studying Health System Change found that health care costs for privately insured Americans jumped 10 percent in 2001. In 2002, premiums for employer-sponsored health coverage increased 12.7 percent. As many as 40 percent of small businesses in South Dakota that have provided workers a health benefit say that they may have to eliminate it. In addition, children are seriously affected by this decrease in health insurance coverage. While South Dakota has done very well at enrolling eligible children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program SCHIP, according to a January 2003 report by the Children's Defense Fund the State ranks 16th in the Nation in percent of uninsured children. A recent report showed that 19,000 South Dakota children under age of 19 are uninsured. These statistics on both the South Dakota level, as well as national level, only reconfirm the seriousness of the problem. It goes without saying that the uninsured often face greater challenges and run a higher risk of developing chronic illness because seeking treatment or even preventative care is fiscally out of the question. A third of uninsured South Dakotans report needing to see a doctor but not going because of cost concerns. National studies have shown that the uninsured are four times more likely to experience an avoidable hospital or emergency room visit or stay. For those who experience these types of visits, medical costs can be too substantial to pay. Outstanding medical bills are a leading cause of bankruptcy and have been cited as a reason for half of all personal bankruptcy filings. It is troubling to know that a large number of Americans are placed in a position to gamble with their health and be faced with possible financial ruin if they seek care for minor or major ailments. With these staggering statistics, we need to take initiatives, as well as employ current resources, that will prevent this problem from becoming even worse. I support the establishment of full deductibility of health insurance premiums for the self-employed. I feel strongly that we need to make additional funding available to community health centers and other public health programs, which are the main source of care for the uninsured. As well, I look forward to further movement on such legislative initiatives as the Family Opportunity Act, which would give States the option of allowing families of disabled children to purchase Medicaid coverage for them, and would provide for treatment of inpatient psychiatric hospital services for individuals under age 21 by allowing for payment of part or all of the cost of home or community- based services. While all of these initiatives are important steps forward, more needs to be done. It is also important as we move forward with these initiatives, that we make sure to take precautions on other levels, so as not to exacerbate this problem any further. It is for this reason that I am concerned with the administration's Medicaid reform proposal. With States facing the most serious fiscal shortfalls to date, it is imperative to see that such programs as Medicaid be adequately funded. In previous years we have seen how Federal assistance has helped to expand this program, and in many ways been able to pick up where Medicare has left off. The Medicaid program has proved instrumental in providing health care coverage for many who would otherwise fall into the growing ranks of the uninsured. Currently, there are 91,531 Medicaid-eligible recipients in South Dakota and the States' Medicaid expenditures are in excess of $450 million. This includes both State and Federal dollars. It is projected that the South Dakota Medicaid Program will spend over $70 million on prescription drugs alone in fiscal year 2003. The President's proposal would for the most part cease future Federal assistance, which has been instrumental in funding this program, and leave States having to pay back any Federal assistance they receive in a decade from now. This is not a solution, but a reshuffling of responsibility and liability from Federal and State to just States. This proposed reform could leave thousands of additional South Dakotans uninsured. As you can see, the high volume of the uninsured is a serious situation in South Dakota, as well as the Nation at large. This problem needs to be remedied before any further erosion of our health care system commences. I look forward to the progress that will arise this week from the numerous presentations and discussions that will take place. However, it is my hope these discussions do not stop here. The ultimate goal of covering the uninsured can be reached as long as we work in a bipartisan fashion on both the Federal and State levels to make health care more affordable and accessible to all Americans.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I, along with Senators Daschle, Campbell, Cochran, and Murray introduce the Indian School Construction Act. This legislation establishes an innovative funding mechanism to enhance the ability of Indian tribes to construct, repair, and maintain quality educational facilities. For education construction in fiscal year 2004, President Bush proposes a total of $292.6 million, the same level as was requested in FY 2003. Of this total, $131.4 million is for new school construction to replace seven trial schools on the BIA Priority List, one of those is in my home state of South Dakota. While I am pleased that seven schools will be replaced this year, there are literally dozens of schools that are in desperate need of replacement and repair. Simply, the process for replacing schools does not meet the need. American Indians have been, and continue to be disproportionately affected by both poverty and low educational achievement. The fact that children are expected to learn despite inadequate educational facilities undoubtedly contributes to this disparity. This bill provides a mechanism whereby an escrow account will be set up with a one time appropriation. Money would be placed in the escrow account and the tribal governments could use that account to issue bonds for purposes of constructing elementary and secondary schools. This allows tribal governments an opportunity to construct schools, even if the schools are low on the BIA priority list and are not slated for immediate construction under the direct appropriation process. Ultimately, this would mean that our children can learn in a better environment more quickly. I urge my colleagues to closely examine the Indian School Construction Act and join me in working to make this innovative funding mechanism a reality.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I, along with Senators Daschle, Campbell, Cochran, and Murray introduce the Indian School Construction Act. This legislation establishes an innovative funding mechanism to enhance the ability of Indian tribes to construct, repair, and maintain quality educational facilities. For education construction in fiscal year 2004, President Bush proposes a total of $292.6 million, the same level as was requested in FY 2003. Of this total, $131.4 million is for new school construction to replace seven trial schools on the BIA Priority List, one of those is in my home state of South Dakota. While I am pleased that seven schools will be replaced this year, there are literally dozens of schools that are in desperate need of replacement and repair. Simply, the process for replacing schools does not meet the need. American Indians have been, and continue to be disproportionately affected by both poverty and low educational achievement. The fact that children are expected to learn despite inadequate educational facilities undoubtedly contributes to this disparity. This bill provides a mechanism whereby an escrow account will be set up with a one time appropriation. Money would be placed in the escrow account and the tribal governments could use that account to issue bonds for purposes of constructing elementary and secondary schools. This allows tribal governments an opportunity to construct schools, even if the schools are low on the BIA priority list and are not slated for immediate construction under the direct appropriation process. Ultimately, this would mean that our children can learn in a better environment more quickly. I urge my colleagues to closely examine the Indian School Construction Act and join me in working to make this innovative funding mechanism a reality.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to express my great dismay at the policy of the President of the United States that he seems to be attempting to impose on the Senate, which would require each and every one of us in this body to betray the Constitution, to betray our oath of office, and to ignore the constitutional mandate that we give meaningful advice and consent on judicial nominees coming before this body. I will never betray the Constitution and my oath. I don't care whether we have to be here night after night. I am not going to go down that road. I speak as a Senator who has voted in favor of somewhere in the range of 100 judicial nominees that President Bush has sent to this body, virtually all conservative Republicans. I wish it were different. I wish there were more progressive judges before us. But I understand the President's prerogative, and I respect his right to nominate whomever he may wish. But this nomination before us is unprecedented. It is not only a matter of Mr. Estrada, it is a matter of the sanctity of our Constitution. It goes to the very oath of office we have taken. It would make a travesty of this body and of the Constitution for us to do otherwise than to object to the manner in which this particular nominee has been presented to the Senate. The other nominees who have come before this body--for whom I have voted over and over again, somewhere in the range of 100 already--we at least knew what was their legal philosophy. They tended to be conservative Republicans and that is the President's prerogative and I voted for them, but they had either been Federal judges or State judges, allowing us to look at their rulings in the past, or they had been legal scholars with a significant body of work that allowed us to view what the inner workings of their minds were and allowed us to determine whether they were, in fact, within the mainstream of American jurisprudential thought. This nominee stands unique. The precedent would be catastrophic to our Republic if we start, for the first time ever, to approve secret judges, stealth judges, judges who have no record and who will disclose no record to the Senate. We have no way of knowing what this individual's legal philosophy might be. We have reason to believe he is undoubtedly a capable lawyer, in terms of his technical skills as a Solicitor, but we have no idea where he stands otherwise. The question is not whether we will have Hispanic Republican judges on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. That is irrelevant. I voted repeatedly, as have my colleagues on my side of the aisle, for Hispanic judges and other high officials in our Government. I am proud to have played a role in supporting our Hispanic colleagues in issue after issue, and position after position. But this, this is a sham. This is a travesty. I believe any Senator who thinks seriously about his oath and reads the Constitution, the obligation--not the right but the obligation of the Senate to provide advice and consent on these offices is a profoundly important role. It is one thing to approve or not approve Cabinet appointees and other advisers to the President; they come and they go. It is a serious matter, but at least there is not a lifelong appointment involved. In this case, we have a lifetime appointment to the second highest court in the land. What is worse, if we submit to this failure to abide by our constitutional obligations to make a meaningful decision about advice and consent, we will have opened the floodgate because it will become apparent to this President that the strategy to use from here on out is to continue to find individuals who have no track record, who may have a secret ideological agenda, and to send them one after another through the Senate to be rubberstamped by this institution. That is not acceptable. This is a matter of enormous importance. These individuals, and this particular individual about whom we are debating today, if confirmed, will likely serve on this bench for the rest of our lifetimes, for many of us in this body. President Bush may come and he may go, but these appointments will last a lifetime. So it is with enormous concern that I rise to express my opposition to this strategy because that is what this is about. It is about a strategy. It is not about whether a Hispanic Republican should be on the bench. It is not about whether a conservative should be on the bench, so long as they fall within the mainstream of American juris prudential thought. The question is, Should this Senate be allowed any idea about this individual's ideology, about his legal philosophy? There we know nothing. We would be surrendering our constitutional prerogatives and our constitutional obligations were we to respond any other way than we have attempted to do on this side. Obviously, we can move on to other agenda items, whether it be stimulating the economy, education, health care, or what have you. All that is required is for leadership of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in support of the President to either withdraw this nominee or to have him respond to reasonable questions about his philosophy. There is no effort here to require this individual to answer questions that have not been put to other judges. The question is not his response to specific items before the Court. It would be inappropriate to ask those kinds of questions. But this is astonishing. This is stonewalling. That is what this is. It is unacceptable. Again, over 100 judges that President Bush has nominated have been confirmed by this body, and most have gone through with my support. Most of them were conservative Republican judges. That is fine. But this is different. I hope the American public understands the profound consequences that would flow from our surrendering of our constitutional obligation to at least make meaningful decisions about whether to confirm a particular nominee.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, on April 26, 2003, more than 1,200 students from across the United States will visit Washington, DC to compete in the national finals of the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution program, the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People program is funded by the U.S. Department of Education by act of Congress. I am proud to announce that the class from Marion High School will represent the State of South Dakota in this national event. These young scholars have worked conscientiously to reach the national finals by participating at local and statewide competitions. As a result of their experience they have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. The 3-day We the People national competition is modeled after hearings in the United States Congress. The hearings consist of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges on constitutional topics. The students are given an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge while they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. Their testimony is followed by a period of questioning by the judges who probe the students' depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. The We the People program provides curricular materials at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels. The curriculum not only enhances students' understanding of the institutions of American constitutional democracy, it also helps them identify the contemporary relevance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Critical thinking exercises, problem-solving activities, and cooperative learning techniques help develop participatory skills necessary for students to become active, responsible citizens. The class from Marion High School is currently preparing for their participation in the national competition in Washington, DC. It is inspiring to see these young people advocate the fundamental ideals and principles of our government, ideas that identify us as a people and bind us together as a nation. It is important for future generations to understand these values and principles which we hold as standards in our endeavor to preserve and realize the promise of our constitutional democracy. I wish these young ``constitutional experts'' the best of luck at the We the People national finals.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my profound appreciation for the work MG Philip G. Killey has provided as the adjutant general for the South Dakota National Guard. General Killey has announced that he will be retiring after 40 years of service, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for the extraordinary work he has done for this country and for the South Dakota National Guard. General Killey reports that South Dakota has continued its high rankings in terms of readiness of its National Guard units. South Dakota's units also excel in the quality of its new recruits. I commend the South Dakota National Guard for its continued excellence, and General Killey for his leadership, which has led to the maintenance of this high standard. National rankings only confirm the quality that has come to be expected of the National Guard of a great State. Most South Dakotans know at least 1 of the 4,500 current members of the South Dakota National Guard or the thousands of former guardsmen. Sometimes, the connection is even more direct. My oldest son Brooks was a proud member of the South Dakota Army National Guard in Yankton prior to his active duty service with the U.S. Army. Every community in my State benefits from the work of these guardsmen. Following the tradegies of September 11, guardsmen were called to assist in the campaign against terrorism and performed security duties at airports around the State. From Aberdeen to Yankton, the Guard is a key member of the South Dakota community. In addition to the support the National Guard provides to South Dakota, it has also supported overseas operations including those in Central America, the Middle East, Europe, and Asia. Units around the State have been activated this year, deploying to military bases across our country and around the world. These latest activities, and the professionalism that our South Dakota National Guardsmen have shown, are a testimony to the leadership of General Killey. Before becoming the adjutant general in 1998, General Killey served with distinction in both the active duty and in the South Dakota National Guard. General Killey received his commission in 1963 through Officer Training School, at Lackland AFB in Texas. He served a tour in Southeast Asia in 1967-1968 flying the F-4 with the 8th Tactical Fighter Wing at Ubon Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand. He left active duty in 1969 and joined the Air National Guard in 1970. He held various positions with the South Dakota Air National Guard before becoming the adjutant general. He was recalled to active duty as director of the Air National Guard from 1988 until 1994. General Killey was the first guardsman to serve as commander, 1st Air Force, Air Combat Command, and Continental United States North American Aerospace Defense Command Region, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, from 1994 until 1998. I enthusiastically commend General Killey for his many years of service, and thank him for all that he has done for this Nation and for our great State of South Dakota. I wish him and his wife Ellen all the very best as they move on to new challenges and opportunities.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the late Dorothy Gonzalez, of Rapid City, SD. On February 17, Oglala Lakota College's East Wakpamni District College Center in Batesland, SD, was renamed in Dorothy Gonzalez's honor. This is an honor she richly deserves. Dorothy had a distinguished 28 year career as an educator and administrator at Oglala Lakota College. In 1975, she became East Wakpamni District College Center's first director. She served as East Wakpamni District College's director until 1990, before becoming He Sapa College Center's director. She was named Center Director of the Year in 1985 and 1987. East Wakpamni District College Center being renamed in honor of Dorothy Gonzalez is wonderfully appropriate. Dorothy immensely enriched the life of countless young people in South Dakota. She was an extraordinary educator, mentor, and leader. It is an honor for me to share her accomplishments with my colleagues and to publicly commend the talent and commitment to education she always exhibited throughout her life. She was a woman of great scholarship and knowledge, and her positive influence will be felt for years to come. Dorothy's dedication to high quality Native American education serves as her greatest legacy. Her work continues to inspire all those who knew her. Our Nation and South Dakota are far better places because of Dorothy Gonzalez's life, and while we miss her very much, the best way to honor her is to emulate the love and support she shared with others.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I am pleased that we are reintroducing renewable fuels legislation and that we are taking time today to talk about the benefits and importance of this bill. I want to acknowledge the extraordinary leadership of Senator Daschle and also Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota who was on the floor to speak to this issue but was called away for another critical responsibility and will not be able to be in the Chamber this morning. There has been a great deal of discussion about the nation's energy situation. The increasing volatility in gasoline and diesel prices, the growing tension in the world from the terrorist attacks, and the possibility of war with Iraq have affected all of us. The more we depend on oil from the Middle East, the more our stability is inextricably tied to governments and factions in that region. There is a critical need for finding new sources of energy that will move the country away from dependence of a natural resource available in increasingly volatile regions of the world. Dependence on foreign oil in the unstable Middle East and South America makes us less stable. The use of domestic, clean, renewable energy sources can increase our energy security and increase the nation's security. It must be a critical part of our nation's energy strategy. To this end, last year I introduced a bill with Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska that would ensure future growth for ethanol and biodiesel. The bill would create a new, renewable fuels content standard in all motor fuel produced and used in the United States. Last year, the Senate passed a comprehensive energy bill which included the framework of our legislation. Today, ethanol and biodiesel comprise less than one percent of all transportation fuel in the U.S. This consensus language would require that five billion gallons of transportation fuel be comprised of renewable fuel by 2012-- nearly a tripling of the current ethanol production. The consensus language was agreed to last year after productive negotiations between the renewable fuels industry, farmers' groups, the oil industry and environmentalists. Unlike many of the disputes during consideration of the energy bill last year, this issue had a relatively wide range of agreement. The basis for this agreement is still viable, and it is under this framework that we are reintroducing the bill today. The people of South Dakota and the neighboring states understand the benefits of ethanol to the economies of rural communities. Increased renewable fuel production lowers our dependence upon foreign oil, strengthens energy security, increases farm income and creates jobs. The growth of farmer-owned ethanol plants in South Dakota demonstrates the hard work and commitment needed to serve a growing market for clean domestic fuels. Based on current projections, construction of new plants will generate $900 million in capital investment and tens of thousands of construction jobs to rural communities. For corn farmers, the price of corn would rise 20-30 cents per bushel. Combine this with the provisions of the bill and the potential economic impact for rural states is tremendous. In South Dakota, seven ethanol plants are operating to produce approximately 156 million gallons per year. Three other ethanol projects are under construction, with a combined capacity to produce an additional 180 million gallons of ethanol annually. With the enactment of a renewable fuels standard, the production in South Dakota now could grow substantially, with at least 5000 farmers owning ethanol plants and producing over 500 million gallons of ethanol per year. An important but under-emphasized fuel is biodiesel, which is chiefly produced from excess soybean oil. Soybean prices are hovering near historic lows. Biodiesel production is small but has been growing steadily. The renewable fuels standard would greatly increase the prospects for biodiesel production, benefitting soybean farmers from South Dakota and other states. While the energy bill was not enacted last year, two-thirds of the Senate voted against amendments that would have weakened or eliminated the renewable fuels provision. For the first time in recent memory, Congress's actions reflect the knowledge that value-added agriculture and ethanol production are critical to the nation's energy needs and to the future of family-farm agriculture and rural America. The prospects for farmers in South Dakota and other rural states have brightened considerably. Moreover, we have a unique opportunity to help reduce our use of foreign oil and make our nation more stable. I am pleased that we are reintroducing the bill and urge its swift passage.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I am pleased that we are reintroducing renewable fuels legislation and that we are taking time today to talk about the benefits and importance of this bill. I want to acknowledge the extraordinary leadership of Senator Daschle and also Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota who was on the floor to speak to this issue but was called away for another critical responsibility and will not be able to be in the Chamber this morning. There has been a great deal of discussion about the nation's energy situation. The increasing volatility in gasoline and diesel prices, the growing tension in the world from the terrorist attacks, and the possibility of war with Iraq have affected all of us. The more we depend on oil from the Middle East, the more our stability is inextricably tied to governments and factions in that region. There is a critical need for finding new sources of energy that will move the country away from dependence of a natural resource available in increasingly volatile regions of the world. Dependence on foreign oil in the unstable Middle East and South America makes us less stable. The use of domestic, clean, renewable energy sources can increase our energy security and increase the nation's security. It must be a critical part of our nation's energy strategy. To this end, last year I introduced a bill with Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska that would ensure future growth for ethanol and biodiesel. The bill would create a new, renewable fuels content standard in all motor fuel produced and used in the United States. Last year, the Senate passed a comprehensive energy bill which included the framework of our legislation. Today, ethanol and biodiesel comprise less than one percent of all transportation fuel in the U.S. This consensus language would require that five billion gallons of transportation fuel be comprised of renewable fuel by 2012-- nearly a tripling of the current ethanol production. The consensus language was agreed to last year after productive negotiations between the renewable fuels industry, farmers' groups, the oil industry and environmentalists. Unlike many of the disputes during consideration of the energy bill last year, this issue had a relatively wide range of agreement. The basis for this agreement is still viable, and it is under this framework that we are reintroducing the bill today. The people of South Dakota and the neighboring states understand the benefits of ethanol to the economies of rural communities. Increased renewable fuel production lowers our dependence upon foreign oil, strengthens energy security, increases farm income and creates jobs. The growth of farmer-owned ethanol plants in South Dakota demonstrates the hard work and commitment needed to serve a growing market for clean domestic fuels. Based on current projections, construction of new plants will generate $900 million in capital investment and tens of thousands of construction jobs to rural communities. For corn farmers, the price of corn would rise 20-30 cents per bushel. Combine this with the provisions of the bill and the potential economic impact for rural states is tremendous. In South Dakota, seven ethanol plants are operating to produce approximately 156 million gallons per year. Three other ethanol projects are under construction, with a combined capacity to produce an additional 180 million gallons of ethanol annually. With the enactment of a renewable fuels standard, the production in South Dakota now could grow substantially, with at least 5000 farmers owning ethanol plants and producing over 500 million gallons of ethanol per year. An important but under-emphasized fuel is biodiesel, which is chiefly produced from excess soybean oil. Soybean prices are hovering near historic lows. Biodiesel production is small but has been growing steadily. The renewable fuels standard would greatly increase the prospects for biodiesel production, benefitting soybean farmers from South Dakota and other states. While the energy bill was not enacted last year, two-thirds of the Senate voted against amendments that would have weakened or eliminated the renewable fuels provision. For the first time in recent memory, Congress's actions reflect the knowledge that value-added agriculture and ethanol production are critical to the nation's energy needs and to the future of family-farm agriculture and rural America. The prospects for farmers in South Dakota and other rural states have brightened considerably. Moreover, we have a unique opportunity to help reduce our use of foreign oil and make our nation more stable. I am pleased that we are reintroducing the bill and urge its swift passage.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I rise today to express my deep disappointment with the so-called drought aid provisions included by the White House and Republican leadership in the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill. Coincidentally, 1 year ago the Senate first adopted drought aid--as part of the Senate farm bill--to cover losses experienced by farmers and ranchers in 2001. At that time, 68 Senators joined me and voted in bipartisan cooperation to support the victims of drought. However, one year ago was also the first time the administration voiced in the strongest possible terms their opposition to emergency aid for farmers and ranchers. The White House declared that assistance to farmers and ranchers had to be cannibalized from the farm bill--a position never before taken by any administration with respect to a natural disaster. As Mother Nature turned the hands of time in 2002, the drought conditions became even more persistent. By autumn, more than half the counties in the U.S. were affected by drought conditions and ``ground zero'' unfortunately was the Northern Plains of South Dakota and our neighboring states. In fact, the drought dealt so much damage to the South Dakota economy that South Dakota State University estimated the total economic loss to reach nearly $2 billion. Senator Daschle and I led an effort in the Senate to enact emergency legislation providing at least $6 billion for farmers and livestock producers who experienced crop and forage losses in 2001 and 2002. Our drought relief plan was consistent with the approach Congress would always take with respect to the aftermath of a natural disaster--our relief was emergency in nature because droughts, floods, fires, and hurricanes are historically addressed by emergency assistance. Despite the clear need for emergency aid, the White House hard-line prevailed last year and multiple efforts to enact drought relief were defeated by White House foot soldiers in Congress. I firmly believe that in order to help agricultural producers coping with the drought, the relief must be comprehensive. But the plan advanced in the omnibus today shortchanges producers in a number of ways. First, the relief plan written by Vice President Cheney and House and Senate Republicans provides inadequate aid for losses occurring in either 2001 or 2002, but not both. Second, the $3.1 billion offered in the omnibus does not adequately cover the severe crop and forage losses producers suffered as a result of the drought. Third, cutting the new Conservation Security Program (CSP) in the farm bill to pay for the disaster aid is a terrible precedent to set. When a hurricane damages the Gulf Coast or an earthquake occurs in California, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) budget is not raided, rather emergency aid is provided to natural disaster victims. A drought is no different, and it's a crippling mistake to cut the farm bill in order to pay for a drought emergency. Fourth, the special-interest provisions slipped into the omnibus drought plan by Republican authors leaves much to be desired. While the proposal that Senator Daschle and I advanced would cover all crop losses, the omnibus makes special grants to cotton and tobacco farmers. Moreover, the omnibus contains a special section to address hurricane losses and $10 million to the State of Texas. This simply is not fair. How did White House and Republican negotiators find the farm bill funds to pay for this woefully inadequate disaster aid? I am told they asked the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to revise the estimated cost of the CSP. CBO's re-estimate reportedly grew the cost of the new conservation program to around $6.8 billion over ten years. This level is substantially above CBO's initial estimate of the cost of the CSP-- $2 billion over 10 years. I am very disappointed that Republicans employed a budget gimmick to inflate the cost of the CSP in order to launder funds through the program and pay for disaster aid. This entire process is a dis-service to farmers, ranchers, and conservationists and is sure to create hard feelings among these groups. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), not in three decades has a program in the farm bill been cut in order to pay for a natural disaster. This historically outrageous move to eliminate money from a conservation program in the farm bill to address a drought emergency may prove a precedent that hurts farmers, ranchers, and the environment for years to come. It is terribly short-sighted and I cannot support such a step. Less than 6 months ago, 77 Senators joined Senator Daschle and I in support of $6 billion in drought aid for farmers and ranchers suffering losses in 2001 and 2002. Today, it appears producers will get less than half of what they need and pay the price in the long run with a cut to the farm bill. I am disappointed that nearly thirty of my colleagues in the Senate dropped their support for comprehensive and emergency drought aid totaling $6 billion in order to satisfy the White House for half that much. My record on drought relief for farmers and ranchers is clear. On three occasions in the last Congress, the Senate passed relief that would have compensated all drought victims for their loss. Unfortunately, each time objections from the White House and the House Republican leadership stopped this aid from making it to producers. South Dakota's farmers and ranchers deserve better and for this reason I will not support the so-called drought aid in the omnibus.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the nomination which, sadly, strikes me as, frankly, an arrogant nomination and an anticonstitutional nomination of Miguel Estrada to be the very first ``secret'' judge ever nominated for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, or for any other court in the Federal system. Over the past few days we have had a considerable amount of debate on this nomination. While I believe the debate has been good, I have been troubled by several of the accusations put forward about the nature of the opposition to the nomination of Mr. Estrada. I wanted to come to the floor today to discuss this nomination. Let me set the record straight about what this debate is about and what it is not about. First, this debate is not about obstructing President Bush's judicial nominee. Under Senator Leahy's leadership, Democrats have had a remarkable record of approving President Bush's nominees to the Federal court. While Democrats controlled the Senate, we confirmed more than six nominees per month. The rate of confirmations by the Republican-led Senate was much lower in comparison--3.2 nominees confirmed per month during the 104th Congress; 4.25 nominees confirmed per month during the 105th Congress; and 3.04 nominees confirmed per month during the 106th Congress. In fact, the Democrat-led Senate confirmed more nominees in 1 day than the Republican majority confirmed during the entire 1996 session. On November 14, 2002, the Senate confirmed 18 judicial nominees. In 1996, the Republican majority allowed only 17 district court judges to be confirmed and did not confirm a single circuit court nominee. Some of the outrage and some of the expressions of self- righteousness, if you will, strike me as badly put. Personally, I have voted for more than 98 percent of President Bush's judicial nominees--98 percent--including three judges who were unanimously confirmed earlier this week--all conservative Republican judges, no doubt, with my support and my vote. The record demonstrates our commitment to move qualified nominees quickly through the hearing process and to have a vote on the floor in order to fill the backlog of vacancies on the Federal bench that was created, frankly, by a failure to confirm President Clinton's judicial nominees. Let me also state--I am saddened this has to be even raised in this Chamber--that this debate is not about race. I have heard some colleagues say the only reason the Democrats are opposed to Mr. Estrada's nomination is that he is Hispanic. Nothing could be further from the truth. Closer examination of the facts reveals what I think everybody knows; that is, the Democrats have a solid record when it comes to approving Latino candidates to the bench. In fact, 80 percent of the Hispanic appellate judges currently serving were appointed by President Clinton. During the 107th Congress, Democrats held hearings and swiftly confirmed six of President Bush's Hispanic judicial nominees--six of President Bush's Hispanic judicial nominees approved by a Democratic Senate. Using race as an issue in this debate is a red herring. And that is a kind way to put it. To understand this, you have to only look at the ever-growing list of Hispanic organizations that have expressed their strong opposition to Mr. Estrada's nomination--the Hispanic organizations that have expressed their opposition to Mr. Estrada as a ``secret'' nomination. These groups include the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, to name but a few. To claim that Democrats oppose Mr. Estrada's nomination based on his race is offensive, and it is not worthy of the great traditions of this Senate. So if the opposition to Mr. Estrada's nomination is not about obstructing President Bush's judicial nominees or about race, then what is this debate about? Simply put, it is about the constitutional duties of the Senate. When I was sworn in to this Senate, with great pride, great conviction, I swore an oath to God to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Article II, section 2, of the U.S. Constitution gives the President the power to appoint judges with the ``Advice and Consent of the Senate.'' I take this responsibility very seriously. The Senate is not a rubberstamp for the nominations of a President-- Republican or Democrat. The Senate has a coequal role to play in the approval of nominees from a President. The Constitution requires this body to play that role. I must follow my constitutional duty to carefully scrutinize each nomination as it comes before the Senate. I render my best judgment as to whether or not the individual is fit and qualified to serve on the court to which he or she has been nominated. In order to make that judgment, I rely on material provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee by the nominee, his or her legal record, and independent analysis of outside organizations, such as the American Bar Association. In addition, I use the statements and responses to questions put to the nominee during his or her confirmation hearing. All of these sources allow me to make an informed decision on each nominee's qualifications to serve. I have attempted to follow this process as I have examined Mr. Estrada's nomination, as I have the dozens and dozens and dozens of previous President Bush nominees for whom I have voted, conservative Republican judges, and I voted for them with pride. But throughout my time in the Senate, I have never seen a nominee with more of a stealth record than Mr. Estrada. Despite a full hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee, there is simply not enough information about Mr. Estrada's judicial views for me to be able to fulfill my responsibility of advice and consent. Let me take a few moments to outline Mr. Estrada's failure--utter failure--to provide the information necessary to confirm his nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. We are talking here not about a Cabinet position, a political position that will come and go. We are talking about the approval of an individual for a lifetime appointment, someone who will serve in the second highest court of the land for the rest of the lifetimes of many of us here in this body. First, during his confirmation hearing, Mr. Estrada refused to comment on a single Supreme Court case. Now, this is an individual who has never served on the bench and so has no record on the bench. He has not been an academic scholar, so he has no writings that are publicly available for anybody to review. Most other nominees have long experience either on the bench or in academia, and we can examine their record with great scrutiny. I may approve or disapprove of their views on one thing or another, but at least I know what their views are. And overwhelmingly I have voted for them because I knew what their views were. I may have disagreed with some of their views but, nonetheless, found them to be competent, capable individuals for whom I could vote. But in this instance, Mr. Estrada refused, and has no other record, and refused to comment on a single Supreme Court case. While I understand that nominees often do not like to comment on cases and issues that one day may be appear before them--and I understand that, certainly--Mr. Estrada refused to give the committee a single example of a Supreme Court decision that he disagreed with throughout the entire history of the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Estrada may not want to create a record for himself by stating his views on a controversial case such as Roe v. Wade--I understand that--but did his coaching to avoid answering questions include commenting on, say, the Dred Scott case? Rather than addressing the issue, he simply refused to give the committee an answer. Several attempts were made by members of the Judiciary Committee to get Mr. Estrada to elaborate on his approach to legal issues. Despite being asked specific questions about his judicial philosophy, he refused to give the committee an answer--refused. Even when asked to name a single judge--living or dead--whom he admires or would like to emulate, he refused to give the committee an answer. Finally, members of the Judiciary Committee have asked Mr. Estrada to provide the Senate with legal memos or other analysis which he has prepared in the past and which could possibly shed some light on his judicial thinking. So far, Mr. Estrada has refused to provide this additional information as well. One of our colleagues has argued that this request for information is merely a delaying tactic or beyond what is truly needed to confirm Mr. Estrada. Yet our Republican friends had no problems asking Democratic judicial nominees for extensive documentation. This included asking Marsha Berzon, nominated to the Ninth Circuit, for the minutes to every single meeting of the California ACLU during her entire membership period with that organization. It was argued, then, that such information was required by the Senate to be diligent in examining the qualifications of judicial nominees. If this type of information was necessary to confirm judges in the past, I believe it is fair to ask Mr. Estrada to supply enough information to the Senate to help us understand his judicial philosophy. No stealth judges. No secret judges. Conservative Republican judges? Yes, of course. President Bush is President of the United States. He is our President. He has the opportunity and the authority to nominate these individuals to the bench. And they have been overwhelmingly approved by this Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike. That is not the question. The question is, What kind of precedent are we going to set to begin to approve individuals to lifetime appointments to the bench while having utterly no concept of where the individual is in terms of his judicial philosophy? Mr. Estrada may well be qualified to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals. He may well be qualified. Unfortunately, it appears he has been coached, he has been advised to say nothing, to elude all questions, and to avoid providing the Senate with any information that would help us to construct an opinion about his thoughts on judicial issues. I ask each of my colleagues to consider the precedent we will set for future Presidents, future nominees, and, indeed, for this Senate if we confirm a nominee who has refused to provide the Senate with sufficient information. I fear it is a step toward making the Senate merely a rubberstamp for this or any other President's nominations and would, in fact, be an abrogation of our constitutional duties. We swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not to surrender the role of the Senate's responsibilities for advice and consent. The precedent that would be set here would lead to a circumstance where Presidents, perhaps of both political parties, in the future would routinely nominate people to the bench who had some ideological ax to grind, some out-of-the-mainstream judicial views, but who had never sat on the bench before. It would be considered to be a disadvantage to have served on the bench before. It would be considered to be a disadvantage to have been a scholar and written about your views. And we would wind up getting a succession of these stealth candidates who had no record and who also, on top of that, refused to respond to the Senate relative to their judicial philosophy. This would be catastrophic to the integrity of the Federal bench. Unless we are able to get more complete information, I will vote against Mr. Estrada. My vote is not based on race. I am proud to have voted for Hispanic nominee after Hispanic nominee. That is not the question. Nor is it an attempt to block President Bush's nominees because I am proud of the dozens and dozens and dozens of President Bush nominees for whom I also have voted. Even though I may have disagreed to some extent with their political and judicial philosophy, at least I understood where they were coming from, and I knew what they were. They seemed to be, in my best judgment, largely in the mainstream of contemporary American jurisprudence. I will vote against Mr. Estrada because I believe it would make a mockery of my constitutional obligation for advice and consent to confirm a nominee to a lifetime appointment to the appellate bench, the second highest court in the land, who has refused to answer basic questions and who has no record. What a precedent, what an ugly precedent it would be for this Nation to accept that. This Senate deserves better. The American people deserve better. I lay before my colleagues my rationale for taking this position on this particular individual. It is my hope that never again will we see this kind of stealth, secret process, this assumption that the Senate will abrogate its advice and consent obligations brought before this body. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission recently announced that Pam Bonrud will serve as the PUC's new executive director. I wish to congratulate Ms. Bonrud for her selection to lead the PUC and to formally thank her for her 10 years of service to the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System. During that time, Ms. Bonrud distinguished herself as an effective and dedicated leader. While with Lewis and Clark, Ms. Bonrud was instrumental in helping me and my colleagues secure the successful passage of legislation authorizing the project. Through her leadership, we were able to build a strong coalition supporting the project at the local, State and Federal levels within the States of South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa. Ms. Bonrud displayed all the qualities necessary to help make sure this critically important water project would receive Federal authorization. She was professional, persistent, and determined, and always had a positive attitude, even though the authorization process took 6 years from the time the first version of the legislation was introduced in 1994. I always enjoyed working with Ms. Bonrud, and she was able to work effectively with Senators and House Members of all three States involved and on both sides of the aisle. She has been one of South Dakota's best advocates and supporters of rural water development, and the entire southeast region of South Dakota, as well southwestern Minnesota and northwestern Iowa, will always be thankful for her 10 years of hard work, dedication, and foresight to help bring this much needed drinking water project from the drawing board to construction. In fact, the Lewis and Clark System will be undertaking a groundbreaking ceremony this spring, and Ms. Bonrud is a major reason it will be the beginning of making this project a reality. She leaves the project in good stead and her leadership and fine character will be sorely missed.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to publicly commend Dr. Josette Lindahl of Vermillion, SD, for being named one of six National Institute of Mental Health Outstanding Psychiatry Residents and South Dakota's first recipient of a National Institute of Health grant. A third-year psychiatry resident at the University of South Dakota School of Medicine, Josette will use the 3-year National Institute of Health grant, which is awarded to physicians who have the desire to perform research, to study glutamate receptor subunit function and schizophrenia. Josette hopes her research will lead to a better understanding of schizophrenia and more effective treatments. She has also received a grant from Avera McKennan Hospital to study brain receptors and their role in the etiology of schizophrenia. In 1982, Josette received her bachelor's degree from the University of South Dakota where she was a Presidential Alumni Scholar. Three years after graduating, she opened her own business in Vermillion and performed veterinary diagnostic tests. Josette's company became the first joint venture between a State agency and a private high-tech corporation. In 1996, she received a Ph.D., from the University of South Dakota, and in 2000 earned her medical degree. Today, Josette sees patients 2 days a week at Lewis and Clark Mental Health Center in Yankton, as well as being on call at hospitals in Sioux Falls. Josette's medical and research talents have enhanced the lives of countless South Dakotans and will lead to important developments in the future care of mental health patients. Her hard work and determination serves as a model for other talented health care professionals to emulate. I am pleased to be able to share her accomplishments with my colleagues and to be able to publicly commend her work.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask that the following statement from our former colleague, Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, be printed in the Record. Senator Kerrey is providing this statement concerning a former member of his Senate staff who is presently serving as my scheduler.