Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator John Edwards, and Senator Chuck Hagel, in supporting legislation to help South Dakotans prepare for possible bioterrorist attacks. The recent example of anthrax being reported in Florida has highlighted the importance of being prepared to combat bioterrorism in our communities. Now this doesn't mean that everyone should run out and buy a gas mask. Successful attacks using germs and chemicals are relatively difficult to accomplish and rarely attempted. However, the nature of such an attack makes just one successful act of bioterrorism unique and incredibly damaging. For example, most of the germs involved in bioterrorism, anthrax and smallpox to name a few, are so rare that many medical professionals haven't treated them before. Symptoms may not be visible for days or weeks, and these diseases can be spread easily among people. In addition to threatening people, bioterrorism can also cripple our State's agriculture economy. We all saw this summer how the threat of foot-and-mouth disease in the United States can directly impact South Dakota's ag business. The risk of an agriculture terrorist attack poses a serious threat to our economy as well as our abundant food supply. An agricultural terrorist could introduce a pathogen to a certain crop and decimate that crop's yield. A quickly-spreading animal disease intentionally introduced could cause economic ruin to States that depend on revenues from the livestock industry. Earlier this week, the nonpartisan General Accounting Office, GAO, reported that coordination is fragmented between 40 Federal departments and agencies responsible for responding to a bioterrorist attack. The GAO report also noted insufficient State and local planning for response to terrorist attacks. In addition, while spending on domestic preparedness for terrorist attacks has risen 310 percent since 1998, only a portion of these funds were used to conduct research on and prepare for the public health and medical consequences of a bioterrorist attack. To better address the needs of State and local communities in dealing with the threat of bioterrorism, I recently joined Senators Edwards and Hagel on legislation called the Biological and Chemical Weapons Preparedness Act. Our legislation provides $1.6 billion in new resources for Federal, State, and local efforts, including $450 million specifically for agricultural counter-terrorism and food safety measures. Too often, bioterrorism funding has been tied up in the bureaucracy of Washington, and I'm pleased that our legislation sends over one- third of these funds, $555 million, directly to States and local governments through new block grants. Our legislation gives States and local communities the resources to study the problems unique to them and implement appropriate solutions. Our legislation would accomplish six goals. First, we would provide training and equipment to State and local ``first responders,'' such as emergency medical personnel, law enforcement officials, fire fighters, physicians, and nurses, to recognize and respond to biological and chemical attacks Second, our bill strengthens the local public health network through increased training, coordination, and additional specialized equipment. Third, we protect food safety and the agricultural economy by providing assistance to States to better coordinate with law enforcement and public health officials, increase training and awareness among farmers and other agricultural stakeholders. Our measure would also give States the resources they need to establish emergency diagnostic facilities to work in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's facility to quickly diagnose animal diseases. Along with this assistance to States, the measure would provide additional funds for the USDA's counterterrorism efforts. Fourth, the legislation assists local hospital emergency rooms with response training and biocontainment and decontamination capabilities. Fifth, we address the need to develop and stockpile vaccines and antibiotics. Finally, our Biological and Chemical Weapons Preparedness Act enhances disease surveillance between the Centers for Disease Control, CDC, and State and local public health services to provide electronic nationwide access to critical data, treatment guidelines, and alerts. Our legislation has been referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and there have already been a handful of hearings held so far. I anticipate a number of proposals, similar to ours, being discussed and a compromise ultimately being sent to the President this year. I will continue to work to ensure that the provisions in our legislation dealing with rural communities and agriculture remain in a final version that is signed into law by the President.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to thank President Chen Shui-bian of the Republic of China for his country's support of the United States in the aftermath of the September 11 attack on America. President Chen Shui-bian expressed his condolences to the American people and condemned the terrorist acts as shameful and cowardly. In a show of unity and shared mourning over this tragic event, President Chen Shui-bian ordered all government flags be flown at half mast for two days and asked all government offices in the United States to cancel their National Day celebrations. Taiwan was one of the first countries to declare its unequivocal support and cooperation with the United States. Taiwan has also offered its resources to help in the worldwide fight against terrorism. During this time of rebuilding and remembrance, it is important to recognize that Taiwan will be marking its National Day on October 10. The Republic of China on Taiwan is a true democracy which guarantees all the political freedom and civil liberty to its people. In addition, Taiwan is one of the most important economic players in the world. Despite its small population of 23 million people, Taiwan has financial resources surpassing those of many Western countries. There are many challenges facing Taiwan and America. The United States must continue to encourage productive dialogue between Taiwan and the Chinese mainland to promote peace and security in the region. At the same time, Taiwan must be allowed to participate in international organizations that allow Taiwan's success to be emulated around the world. On Taiwan's National Day, I hope Taiwan and the Chinese mainland will one day be reunited under principles of freedom and democracy, thus leading to lasting stability and prosperity in the Asian Pacific Region.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to thank Prime Minister of Greece Costas Simitis and President of Greece Kostis Stephanopoulos for their country's support of the United States in the aftermath of the September 11 attack on America. Prime Minister Simitis declared Greece's solidarity to the American people, and President Stephanopoulos expressed absolute condemnation of the attacks. Greece once again came to the side of its NATO ally, the United States, by fully committing its resources to combat and eradicate terrorism. Greece's solidarity reflects longstanding historical, political, and cultural ties based on a common heritage and shared democratic values. This solidarity is further evidenced by the fact that Greece is one of only seven allies to join the United States in every major conflict in the 20th century. The start of the 21st century poses new challenges for the United States and Greece. International terrorism attempts to undermine democracy and triumph over peace. I am pleased that Greeks and Americans stand shoulder to shoulder with freedom-loving people around the world in a united effort against the forces of terror.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I rise today to recognize the 10th anniversary of Armenia's independence. On September 21, 1991, the people of Armenia began their journey of freedom and democracy. The road they have travelled over the past 10 years has been full of challenges including natural disasters, conflict in Nagorno Karabagh, and the struggles associated with economic and political transformation. Any of these could have led Armenians off the path of liberty. However, it is through the perseverance of Armenians, and those around the world who support them, that Armenia begins this new century a strong republic and an example for young democracies worldwide. The events of September 11, 2001, pose a new challenge to Armenians, Americans, and those who reject terrorism and fight the war against fear. In his September 11 letter to President George Bush, Armenian President Robert Kocharyan called on Armenians to confront the ``evil of terrorism'' with ``determination and resolve.'' At this most critical time, Americans are thankful for Armenia's support, and together, along with a global coalition of freedom-loving nations, we will find the strength and patience to continue our journey.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue Unity Bonds in support of recovery and response efforts relating to the September 11, 2001, hijackings and attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. This amendment is similar to legislation that I introduced last week, S. 1430. I was pleased that several of my Republican colleagues introduced similar bills because this is an initiative that should and must be bipartisan. Unity Bonds will allow Americans who want to show their support for this great country to participate in a meaningful way. This amendment deserves full bipartisan support, and I look forward to working in a consensus fashion to make Unity Bonds available to all Americans.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill to unite our citizens in this time of great crisis. As Americans, we feel many emotions, from anger to sadness, because of the tragedy of the terrorist attacks this past week. The American people have responded with incredible acts of heroism, kindness, and generosity. The outpouring of volunteers, blood donors, and contributions of food and money demonstrates that America will unite to provide relief to the victims of these cowardly terrorist acts. This response is the true American spirit our country has always known. So many of my constituents in South Dakota have called my office this week to ask what they can possibly do to help their fellow Americans who are suffering today. Many have given blood, others have donated to aid organizations, and most have offered prayers for the victims and their families. One woman asked whether she could buy the equivalent of the old war bonds that allowed our citizens to contribute to the war effort back in World War II. Based on my constituent's idea, today I am introducing legislation that directs the United States Treasury to issue Unity Bonds. Americans who purchase these savings bonds will be contributing to disaster relief to the victims of Tuesday's attack and to our Nation's war against terrorism. We will recover from this week's attacks. We will rebuild our Nation's infrastructure, and we will rebuild our Nation's spirit. But it will take a sustained, long-term effort to stamp out terrorism against the United States and all other liberty-loving nations. Unity Bonds will allow Americans who want to show their support for this great country to participate in a meaningful way. I urge you to join me in helping to unite our citizens.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill to unite our citizens in this time of great crisis. As Americans, we feel many emotions, from anger to sadness, because of the tragedy of the terrorist attacks this past week. The American people have responded with incredible acts of heroism, kindness and generosity. The outpouring of volunteers, blood donors and contributions of food and money demonstrates that America will unite to provide relief to the victims of these cowardly terrorist acts. This response is the true American spirit our country has always known. So many of my constituents in South Dakota have called my office this week to ask what they can possibly do to help their fellow Americans who are suffering today. Many have given blood, others have donated to aid organizations, and most have offered prayers for the victims and their families. One woman asked whether she could buy the equivalent of the old war bonds that allowed our citizens to contribute to the war effort back in World War II. Based on my constituent's idea, today I am introducing legislation that directs the United States Treasury to issue Unity Bonds. Americans who purchase these savings bonds will be contributing to disaster relief to the victims of Tuesday's attack and to our Nation's war against terrorism. We will recover from this week's attacks. We will rebuild our Nation's infrastructure, and we will rebuild our Nation's spirit. But it will take a sustained, long-term effort to stamp out terrorism against the United States and all other liberty-loving nations. Unity Bonds will allow Americans who want to show their support for this great country to participate in a meaningful way. I urge you to join me in helping to unite our citizens.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for S. 1426, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill for assistance in the recovery from the tragedy that occurred on September 11, 2001, and for S. J. Resolution 23, which authorizes the use of force against those responsible for the attacks launched against the United States. On this day of remembrance in our country, we must also face the need to respond and rebuild. As we are faced with another critical moment in our Nation's history, I am proud to be a member of the United States Senate and the Senate Appropriations Committee, as we work in a nonpartisan way to provide support to the victims of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The Senate approved this critically important funding legislation of $40 billion by a vote of 96-0 earlier today. The United States Congress and the President have worked together to demonstrate that the United States will stand together and put our partisan differences aside as we address this tragedy facing our great country. This funding will also help our country as we begin to rebuild and work to find those responsible for these reprehensible and cowardly acts of terrorism. Today, I join members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, Democrats and Republicans, in supporting our President and our country by approving legislation to authorize the use of force against those responsible for the despicable acts of terrorism made against our Nation on September 11, 2001. Innocent Americans were killed at the hands of our enemies. Our Nation grieves their loss and remembers an innocence now lost. Now, it is time to act swiftly and decisively against those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks in order to prevent future aggression against Americans at home and abroad. The war declared by these terrorists is a new kind of conflict. Unlike wars of the past, the attack was not made by one military against another, battling over borders. Instead, the attacks came from a faceless source and focused on innocent civilians. Their aim was to undermine our Nation's freedom, our liberties, and to destroy us from within through fear, hatred, and rage. We must not and will not allow terrorists to ultimately win this war. I think about the families of those who have lost loved ones this week, the children who are now orphans, and those who still await word on the missing. We hold them in our hearts and keep them in our prayers. As the parent of a son in the US Army, I also share the pride felt by those currently serving our Nation and protecting our freedoms in the military and in our communities as police and firefighters. The coming weeks and months will by trying, and we must stand with one voice in support of these brave men and women. It is important that we also stand as one America against any example of violence against people based on their religion or ethnicity. We will have lost this war against terrorism if our country's diversity becomes threatened. We will remember those we've lost. We will respond against those responsible. And we will rebuild our Nation's confidence and security.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill to unite our citizens in this time of great crisis. As Americans, we feel many emotions, from anger to sadness, because of the tragedy of the terrorist attacks this past week. The American people have responded with incredible acts of heroism, kindness and generosity. The outpouring of volunteers, blood donors and contributions of food and money demonstrates that America will unite to provide relief to the victims of these cowardly terrorist acts. This response is the true American spirit our country has always known. So many of my constituents in South Dakota have called my office this week to ask what they can possibly do to help their fellow Americans who are suffering today. Many have given blood, others have donated to aid organizations, and most have offered prayers for the victims and their families. One woman asked whether she could buy the equivalent of the old war bonds that allowed our citizens to contribute to the war effort back in World War II. Based on my constituent's idea, today I am introducing legislation that directs the United States Treasury to issue Unity Bonds. Americans who purchase these savings bonds will be contributing to disaster relief to the victims of Tuesday's attack and to our Nation's war against terrorism. We will recover from this week's attacks. We will rebuild our Nation's infrastructure, and we will rebuild our Nation's spirit. But it will take a sustained, long-term effort to stamp out terrorism against the United States and all other liberty-loving nations. Unity Bonds will allow Americans who want to show their support for this great country to participate in a meaningful way. I urge you to join me in helping to unite our citizens.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, not since December 7, 1941, has the United States suffered such a damaging blow on our own soil as the cowardly and hateful terrorist attack our Nation sustained on what will become, I am certain, a new day of infamy: September 11, 2001. While our enemy may not be another nation in the traditional sense, the strike against America was, in fact, an act of war. Our Nation now needs to demonstrate the same kind of moral clarity and courage that characterized the World War II generation. Three immediate steps need to be taken. First, of course, is that our Nation extends its prayers and its assistance to the victims of this monstrous and shameful attack. I am proud that South Dakotans have overwhelmingly responded with offers of blood and other assistance. While our Dakota homes may not often be at direct risk from attacks of this nature, we fully understand the strike against New York and Washington was a strike against all Americans, wherever we might live. The numbers are staggering, but we recognize in those numbers are real lives and real people, real children who have lost their parents, real parents who have lost their children. The people of South Dakota are grateful to the heroes who did so much to save so many, many of whom gave their own lives in the course of that effort. We share the sorrow of the rest of the Nation for those lives that were lost, those families who have forever been devastated by this hateful and shameful attack. Second, we recognize we must respond in a spirit not of revenge but of justice. Our enemies, however, must understand that justice can be severe indeed. We must make careful but swift determinations about the guilt of our enemy and make it very clear we will not distinguish between terrorists and those who attempt to provide a safe harbor for terrorists. Anything short of the capture and punishment of these people will only serve to encourage more terrorism against the United States and against all other liberty-loving nations throughout the world. Third, the United States, in conjunction with its democratic allies all over the world, needs to make substantial improvements in our antiterrorist strategies. That means far better intelligence gathering and infiltration of terrorist cells so that plans for violence against innocent people, wherever they may be, can be intercepted before they are carried out. It means far better air transportation security efforts than anything, frankly, that has yet been developed. As a new member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I vow I will do all I can to work with this administration to make certain that adequate financial resources are made available for all of these efforts. Make no mistake, the recent attack against the United States of America was intended as an attack against the principles of democracy, of personal liberty, and of religious tolerance. Our security is at stake, but even more importantly our fundamental values are under siege. American citizens, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, have denounced this terrible violence. It is important we condemn the guilty but recognize that our American principles, the principles of our Constitution, keep us from unfairly stereotyping any ethnic or religious group. We need now, more than ever, to remain united as Americans, to put aside partisan politics, in this new war against the evil forces of hatred, intolerance, and barbarism. God bless our Nation, and on this very difficult day, God bless the families who have lost so much. God bless our effort for renewed vigor in maintaining the principles of our democracy. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I am very pleased that S. 149, the Export Administration Act of 2001, passed the U.S. Senate by such an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 85-14. This important law reforms our export controls of dual- use items to reflect the vast geopolitical, technological and commercial changes that have occurred since the old law was enacted back in 1979. While we must remain ever-vigilant to protect our nation from security threats, we must at the same time recognize that our security depends in large measure on a vibrant economy, and in particular on our ability to continue innovating in the high technology sector. Ensuring that American producers have the ability to participate in the global marketplace is critical to this effort. The hard work that contributed to the overwhelming support for S. 149 cannot be overstated, and I was especially gratified by the spirit of cooperation that dominated the discussion. This bill, and the quality of its provisions, owe a great deal to the thoughtful participation of a variety of players on both sides of the aisle. In some cases, too many cooks spoil the broth. In this case, however, a variety of players made very thoughtful improvements to the bill. I extend my thanks and gratitude to the core group of sponsors, which included Senator Mike Enzi, Republican of Wyoming, Chairman Paul Sarbanes from Maryland, Senator Phil Gramm from Texas, and also to so many others contributed to an improved final product. In particular, I would be remiss in not mentioning the important and dedicated efforts of Senator Mark Dayton, my Democratic colleague from Minnesota. Senator Dayton and his staff worked tirelessly to ensure that S. 149 protects the interests of the agricultural community relative to export controls. While there are many legitimate reasons to restrict the export of certain items abroad, especially where the export of such items could pose a threat to America's national security, there is to my mind absolutely no acceptable logic for imposing restrictions on the export of food. The export of food can never pose a national security threat to this Nation, and Senator Dayton, along with his Republican colleague from Kansas Senator Pat Roberts, put together an amendment that eliminated the possibility that this government ever restrict the export of food for a purported national security threat. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Dayton on agricultural issues, and I know that the farm community is grateful to the Senator for his work in this area. I also wish to commend Senator Dayton's staff, in particular Jack Danielson, Sarah Dahlin and Lani Kawamura.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a friend and an extraordinary South Dakotan who is about to be inducted into the South Dakota Hall of Fame on Saturday, September 8th. I am very pleased that Mr. Jim Woster, of Sioux Falls, SD has been selected for this very prestigious honor. I am sure this is also a great honor for Jim's wife, Penny, their three children, Jim, Sara, and Michelle, and their new granddaughter, Tessa. Jim's contributions to our State have been many, but he has, in particular, been an absolute champion for the interests of agriculture and South Dakota's rural communities. After growing up on a ranch near Reliance, SD, Mr. Woster graduated from South Dakota State University with a degree in animal science. As a young man, Jim began to compile an incredibly impressive list of accomplishments in all aspects of South Dakota agriculture. Jim's experiences range from working in the cattle alley at the Sioux Falls Stockyards to conducting important ruminant nutrition research. Jim has been involved in consignment sales of livestock at sale barns throughout the State, and became a highly respected and beloved media personality in our State through his market reports on radio and television. Nobody knows rural America, and nobody knows South Dakota agriculture better than Jim Woster. Jim has always exhibited a strong commitment to public service. Throughout his career, he has devoted an enormous amount of time and energy to worthy causes such as the American Cancer Society, the Arthritis Foundation, and the Make-A-Wish Foundation. All this while serving our Nation for eight years as a member of the South Dakota National Guard. The great honor to be bestowed on Mr. Woster is exceptionally well deserved, as he has contributed so much to our State while at the same time serving as a model for other talented South Dakotans to emulate. I join my fellow South Dakotans on extending congratulations and a ``job well done'' to Jim Woster.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, S. 149 is, in fact, a balance that modernizes our export control laws to account for the geopolitical, commercial, and technological changes of this past decade. This bill recognizes that on occasion exports must be controlled for national security and for foreign policy reasons. S. 149 substantially increases the President's authority to impose controls when in fact they are necessary. I have great respect for the few opponents of this legislation. However, I believe it is a misstatement to suggest that this bill somehow diminishes our Nation's ability to control technology which needs to be controlled when in fact this legislation imposes greater controls where necessary and significantly increases penalties and decreases the likelihood of sales that are inappropriate. At the same time this legislation acknowledges that a vibrant American economy is a critical component of our national security. Senator Bennett, our friend from Utah, spoke eloquently to this point yesterday. Advancements in high technology allow us to ``run faster'' than our enemies. To foster continued advancements, we must take great care not to punish American businesses by limiting unnecessarily their marketplace, if those same products will simply be provided by our foreign competitors. The observation is made, well, what about unique American technology? This legislation takes that into account. It allows for strong limitations where it is truly unique and where those sales would, in fact, pose some jeopardy to our Nation's security. S. 149 balances our national security interests and our commercial interests with a first and foremost concern for national security-- appropriately so. But it does recognize that our prosperity and our security are, in fact, interrelated. This has been a thoroughly bipartisan process--a process, frankly, that I would like to see more often the case on the floor of this body. I have great gratitude for the work of Chairman Sarbanes, ranking member Gramm, Senator Enzi, and some others who have contributed in a constructive way to this legislation. And Senators Thompson and Kyl have made valuable suggestions to enhance the bill. I thank them for their role and their sincere concern for our Nation's security. I thank Senators Dayton and Roberts for their constructive input on this legislation as well. I urge the House to move expeditiously to pass the EAA so the White House can sign this bill into law. This is a high priority for the White House. For those who may have some concern about the expertise of the vast bipartisan majority of this Senate in support of this legislation out of national security concerns, I again remind the body that this legislation not only had the overwhelming bipartisan support of thoughtful Senators on both sides of the aisle but is urgently supported by President Bush, by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Powell, Commerce Secretary Evans, and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. Certainly those in the White House have taken national security as a first and foremost concern. Any suggestion that somehow that issue has been taken lightly by the advocates of this bill is simply incorrect. This has been, frankly, a model for how the Senate can work together for the good of our Nation. It is not a Republican bill. It is not a Democrat bill. But it is a bill put together across the aisle with the cooperation of the White House. It has been extremely gratifying, frankly, to have been so closely involved in the creation of this reauthorization. To reject this legislation, to fall back on the Executive order, which is under legal challenge, and which extends far less authority to the White House to control the sales of high-tech items around the world, would be a tragic mistake. This Nation needs a modern dual-use technology trade regime. This legislation provides that. Those in our Government who are given the great responsibility of national security have applauded this bill. It is the kind of balance our country needs. I believe the Senate has performed its work very ably to bring this bill to this point. It is my hope we can conclude this debate very soon, work with our colleagues in the other body, and deliver this bill onto the desk of the President, who has urged us over and over again to pass this bill and to again have in place a strong, powerful, dual-use technology trade regime for our Nation. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 149, the Export Administration Act of 2001. It is difficult to overstate the urgency of reauthorizing EAA, which expired on August 20. We are now operating under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, an improvised export control measure that has weak enforcement powers and that has been challenged in the courts. President Bush and his national security team have repeatedly urged Congress to pass S. 149, and I rise today to urge my colleagues to do just that. S. 149 is both a national security and a trade bill. It is one of the best examples that I have seen of a law that accounts for the vast geopolitical and commercial changes of the past decade and at the same time provides flexibility for the continued changes we must expect over the coming decades. The Export Administration Act has seen no major revisions since 1985. Since that time, the Soviet Union has collapsed, the cold war has ended and a new world order, including new threats, have emerged. At the time the political landscape has changed dramatically, so too has the commercial landscape. A global marketplace for goods, services and technology has developed, and once unimaginable technological advancements are now available on a widespread basis. The high tech sector is largely responsible for the remarkable change in our access to computers and the Internet, and we must take great care not to jeopardize that economic vitality. I have spent the last few years working on EAA with my colleagues across the aisle. When we started this effort, Senator Enzi and I were, respectively, the ranking member and chairman of the International Trade and Finance Subcommittee of the Banking Committee. From the beginning, we have had the full support of Chairman Sarbanes and Senator Gramm, and I am hard pressed to recall a situation in my 15 years in Congress where a bipartisan team was completely cohesive. There is a reason why our team of unlikely bedfellows has held together so well, and the reason is that S. 149 is a very good bill. I believe in this bill. I believe it will help our nation. It will strengthen our national security. It will create an environment that promotes further technological advancement and fosters economic vitality. And it provides a structure that can grow and change into the future. S. 149 creates a new framework for export controls on dual-use items. By targeting enforcement efforts on problem areas, this more focused approach is just good, common sense. S. 149 will make exporting some items easier, and make exporting other items much more difficult. As Representative Cox has stated, ``We ought not to have export controls to pretend to make ourselves safe as a country. We ought to have export controls that work.'' At the same time, S. 149 will impose real costs and penalties on those who violate the law. Some violators will serve prison terms along with their hefty fines. While no one has more respect than I do for the deliberative process that allows the Senate to create thoughtful and responsible laws, I am struck by the irony of today's debate. I understand that several of my distinguished colleagues will object to reauthorization of EAA on the grounds that S. 149 will somehow compromise our national security. They will urge us to delay passage of EAA in the interest of our national security. They will demand further study before we move forward with S. 149, which has nearly unanimous support of both industry and government, including the national security community. I look forward to hearing from those colleagues because I am having some difficulty understanding how delaying passage of EAA does anything but harm our nation and our national security. I must remind my colleagues that EAA has expired. We are operating under IEEPA and will continue to do so until we enact S. 149. This is the real national security threat. The argument that S. 149 compromises our national security is, I believe, based on a false premise. That premise is that national security and a strong export economy are incompatible. In fact, our national security depends on a strong export economy and America's continued leadership in the high tech field. I agree with the way Senator Gramm framed the question last year: Is our security tied to our being the leader in technology, or is it tied to our ability to hold onto the technology we have and not share it with anybody? Clearly, our security is tied to being the leader in technology, and security experts confirm this point. As Dr. Donald A. Hicks, former Under Secretary of Defense for Research & Engineering and chairman of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Globalization and Security testified before the Banking Committee on February 14, 2001: Today, the ``U.S. defense industrial base'' no longer exists in its Cold War form . . . DoD is relying increasingly on the U.S. commercial advanced technology sector to push the technological envelope and enable the Department to ``run faster'' than its competitors. DoD is not a large enough customer, however, to keep the U.S. high-tech sector vibrant. Exports are now the key to growth and good health. . . . If U.S. high-tech exports are restricted in any significant manner, it could well have a stifling effect on the U.S. military's rate of technological advancement. Without a vibrant high technology sector, our national security will suffer. And without the ability to export dual-use items, the high tech sector will simply not be able to support our national security needs. We must not lose sight of this critical point. This is not to say that we should never restrict exports of our goods, services and technologies. On the contrary. In fact, S. 149 is largely about establishing the most effective mechanism for restricting the export of dual-use items that pose a potential national security or foreign policy threat. Based on recommendations from national security experts, including the Cox Committee and the WMD Commission, S. 149 takes a risk-based approach to export control. This approach is sensible, and allows resources to be used where they are most effective. More specifically, S. 149 targets export controls on those items and destinations that the U.S. determines to pose the greatest risk to national security and foreign policy, while removing ineffective controls that serve as unnecessary barriers to trade. This so-called ``tiering'' approach is an ingenious solution to the current situation. Today, 99.4 percent of all export applications are approved. This leads me to believe that the current system is not making effective use of our export control resources. My colleagues on the Banking Committee determined that the U.S. export control regime should focus on controlling those items that pose the greatest risk to national security. A useful way of thinking about the right approach was voiced by Dr. Hicks before our committee. He said the U.S. ``must put up higher walls around a much smaller group of capabilities and technologies.'' We on the Banking Committee identified two categories of exports whose control does little to enhance our national security, and the control of which could in fact undermine our security interests by endangering America's technology leadership. We determined that it is best to heed the wise counsel of former Secretary of Defense and National Security Advisor Frank Carlucci that ``we should do only that which has an effect, not that which simply makes us feel good. . . .'' Based on this principle, we concluded that there is little national security benefit derived from controlling U.S. items if substantially identical items can be acquired through another source or if such items are produced and available for sale in large volume to multiple purchasers. For these reasons, we created the so-called ``foreign available'' and ``mass market'' exceptions to export controls. Specifically, the foreign available exception acknowledges that unilateral control on items that are readily available from foreign sources are ineffective, and in fact may be counterproductive. The Defense Science Board Task Force on Globalization and Security noted in its final report that: Shutting U.S. companies out of markets served instead by foreign firms could inhibit the competitiveness of the U.S. commercial advanced technology and defense sectors upon which U.S. economic security and military-technical advantage depend. Stated another way, Mr. John Douglass, president of the Aerospace Industries Association, noted before our committee that such unilateral measures punish the exporter rather than the importer. The ``mass market'' exception likewise acknowledges the futility of trying to control items that are virtually uncontrollable by the nature of their wide distribution channels, large volumes, and general purposes. While S. 149 strives to be as targeted as possible, it also provides appropriate flexibility by recognizing that the President should have the ability to impose controls in certain critical circumstances, including cases involving national security, international obligations, and international terrorism. At the same time, the bill promotes accountability, discipline and transparency in the decision-making process through review and other procedures. Some have criticized S. 149 for reducing the power of the President in a way that I believe is, frankly, misleading. In fact, S. 149 grants the President unprecedented authority to set aside foreign availability or mass market determinations. President Bush and his national security team themselves believe that S. 149 as reported gives the President full and sufficient authority to maintain controls when it is in America's national security or foreign policy interest. One other aspect of the bill worthy of note involves how risk management techniques can be used to target our export control resources. First, the bill's system builds in controls for technological and political change by imposing a risk analysis requirement and continual review of controlled items. In addition, S. 149 establishes a country tiering system that assigns items and countries to tiers according to their potential threat to U.S. national security. This flexibility to classify risk by both destination and product will be highly effective in targeting our efforts. In addition, a new Office of Technical Evaluation would be established in the Department of Commerce to assess, evaluate and monitor technological and other developments. And finally, S. 149 places a great emphasis on post-shipment verification resources of exports posing the greatest risk to U.S. national security. As a final matter, I would like to discuss the role of penalties in S. 149. Under the 1979 act, and especially under IEEPA, which we currently operate under, penalties are modest from any perspective. In fact, penalties are modest enough that businesses intent on violating our export laws simply factor the penalties in as a cost of doing business. That is how inadequate, how modest, how unsatifactory the current regime, both under the old 1949 act and under IEEPA are. A company that willfully violates export laws today is liable for a mere $50,000 per violation--chicken feed. Under S. 149, that company would pay a minimum penalty of $5 million per violation, and could owe significantly more. Individuals who willfully violate the law will owe a minimum penalty of $1 million and could serve up to a 10-year prison sentence. Civil penalties for any violation of export law rise from $10,000 per violation under IEEPA to $500,000 per violation under S. 149. My distinguished colleagues, reauthorization of EAA is critical to our nation's interests. We are now operating under a grossly inadequate emergency control system, IEEPA, and that situation will not change until we enact S. 149. Our situation is urgent. Under current law, exporters face anemic penalties for violations, and in fact the entire structure is vulnerable to court challenge. Until we pass EAA, we do indeed face a national security crisis. In addition, we must not lose sight of the impact our export control system on dual-use items could have on our high tech sector. The American economy has achieved unprecedented growth largely as a result of high tech innovations. In addition to creating wealth for our citizens, new technologies have enhanced our national security by giving us a competitive edge in development of our own security systems. The bill beefore us does nothing to compromise our security. On the contrary, S. 149 takes a common sense approach to export controls that significantly enhances our national security and economic vitality. S. 149 is bipartisan, and has the strong support of the administration, the national security community, and business organizations. This morning, our chairman, Chairman Sarbanes, submitted for the Record the most recent letter expressing support for the passage of this bill from President Bush, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Powell, Secretary of Commerce Evans, and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice previously indicated her support for this bill--not the concept but this bill. I thank many for the extraordinary effort they have given to the creation of this bipartisan legislation. This kind of legislation has the support of Republicans and Democrats. It passed the Senate Banking Committee on a vote of 19-1. It has the support of the administration as well as the Senate. A lot of significant work ought to be credited to Marty Gruenberg of Senator Sarbanes' staff; Amy Dunathan of Senator Gramm's staff; Katherine McGuire of Senator Enzi's staff; Joel Oswald, Senator Enzi's former Banking Committee staff; Paul Nash, my former Banking Committee staffer; Naomi Campbell of my staff; and certainly Senator Bayh of Indiana and Senator Hagel of Nebraska have made significant contributions as well to the furthering of this legislation. This legislation has been reviewed by the Bush administration. They state in their letters there is intensive review of S. 149. They express their strong support. I express my strong support. It is my hope that this debate will proceed in an expedited fashion and that we will very quickly pass this legislation by the overwhelming bipartisan margin it deserves, and that it will go to the President who asked that it be presented to him for his signature. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize September 2, 2001, as the 10th anniversary of Nagorno Karabagh's declaration of independence. Born from the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s, the Republic of Nagorno Karabagh has faced incredible odds over the past decade in its struggle for self- determination, independence, peace, and stability. Many Americans know very little about Nagorno Karabagh. However, the region is culturally rich and historically significant as a bridge between Eastern and Western societies. Armenians have been a distinct political entity in Artsakh--the traditional Armenian name for the Republic of Nagorno Karabagh--since the 2nd Century B.C. Christianity in the region grew and strengthened following the construction of the historic Monastery in Amaras in 330 A.D. Repeatedly destroyed by generations of invaders and rebuilt, the Monastery in Amaras currently stands as a symbol of faith and perseverance for Armenians. The Soviet Union's oppression of independence in the region began in the 1920s as Nagorno Karabagh and its predominantly Armenian population were attached to Azerbaijan. Most recently, Armenians in Nagorno Karabagh struggled to fight the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the Cancasus region. Finally, on September 2, 1991, the Armenians of Nagorno Karabagh declared their independence and survived a three-year war with Azerbaijan to create legitimate government institutions. Residents of Nagorno Karabagh have participated in national elections for parliament and president since then. Many challenges face the Republic of Nagorno Karabagh and Armenians in the region. I applaud efforts undertaken earlier this year to bring together Armenia and Azerbaijan in Key West, Florida, to discuss a peaceful end to the Nagorno Karabagh conflict. As Secretary of State Powell noted, ``achieving a durable and mutually acceptable resolution to Armenia's conflict with Azerbaijan over Nagorno Karabagh is key to several US interests.'' In addition to helping to restore stability in the Caucasus region, a lasting peace agreement would allow Armenia to improve its relations with Turkey and focus much of its economic resources on internal development and social improvements. As a member of the Senate Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, I will continue to work to secure funding to support a settlement of the Nagorno Karabagh conflict. These funds are critical to the peace process and to post-settlement reconstruction in Azerbaijan and Armenia as part of a coordinated international donor effort. Again, I commend the Armenians of the Republic of Nagorno Karabagh for their courage and perseverance on this anniversary of their independence. I look forward to years of peace and economic vitality in the region.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, this week the Senate has been trying to pass S. 1246, the Emergency Agriculture Assistance Act, legislation to provide emergency relief to U.S. farmers and ranchers suffering at this time. Unfortunately, certain members of the Senate have tried to politicize, delay, and complicate this very necessary legislation. Moreover, now that the House of Representatives has adjourned for the August recess, we may very well be forced to adopt a reduced level of assistance in order to match the House's lower funding level in a fashion that meets the President's needs, without a conference committee. If this must be the case, then I am sure the will of the Senate will be to adopt less funding for farmers, but I shall vote against reduced funding for our farmers and ranchers this year because I know it is not enough to adequately assist crop producers and livestock ranchers through the 2001 crop year, indeed a fourth year in a row of near-recession in agriculture. I have made a quick calculation or two regarding the level of assistance expected if we indeed enact the House passed assistance level of just $5.5 billion today. First, the funding for program crops nationwide will be reduced by around 16 percent. More importantly, South Dakota's farmers and ranchers stand to lose between $30 and $50 million. The reduced market loss AMTA payment in the House plan is 85 percent of the level in Senator Harkin's plan, indicating to me that South Dakota farmers would lose around $23 million in these market loss payments if we adopt the House plan. Moreover, the oilseed payment is reduced by about $4.5 million under the House plan. Finally, if you count the assistance we provide to peas, lentils, wool, honey, flooded lands and conservation programs and total everything up, South Dakota may realize a loss of between $30 and $50 million under the House plan. Under the leadership of Senator Harkin, the Senate Agriculture Committee completed action on the fiscal year 2001 short-term economic assistance package for farmers and ranchers, providing $7.494 billion, $5.5 B in fiscal year 2001 funds plus $1.994 B in fiscal year 2002 funds. The United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, said they must distribute the fiscal nyar 2001 funds, $5.5 B in AMTA, by the end of the fiscal year, September 30, 2001. USDA has indicated the only way they can guarantee timely delivery of aid is to provide it through the bonus AMTA payment mechanism. Moreover, my colleague from South Dakota, the Majority Leader, Senator Daschle has received an assertion from the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, that Congress has to resolve this issue before the August recess in order to protect the $5.5 billion set aside, for fiscal year 2001, for these emergency payments. Nonetheless, we have had trouble getting a final vote on this assistance package because some of my colleagues, whom I respect a great deal, are slowing the bill down because they are upset at the level of funding, $7.4 billion. In South Dakota, farmers and ranchers continue to struggle from terribly low commodity prices. While certain prices have improved in recent months, this short-term recovery in price, really just in the livestock sector, cannot compensate for nearly 4 years of recession in farm country. Most crop prices remain at 15-25 year all-time lows. Moreover, input costs such as fuel and fertilizer have increased dramatically, wiping out chances for producers to enjoy profits to keep operations afloat. Corn prices remain around $1.55 per bushel, far below the $4.50 range when the 1996 farm bill was enacted. Soybean prices are stagnant at $4.50 per bushel, nearly $4.00 less than soybean price levels in 1996. While wheat prices have made a very modest price recovery, they still remain less than $3.00 per bushel, far below the $5.55 level in 1996. Moreover, due to disease, drought, and winter kill, many South Dakota farmers had most or all of their winter wheat crop wiped out completely, so this modest increase in price won't help them because they may not have a crop to put in the bin. All this at a time when aggregate production costs, the prices farmers pay for their inputs such as fuel and fertilizer, are 20 percent higher right now than the prices farmers receive for their commodities. This price-cost squeeze makes it very difficult to turn a profit in agriculture today. So, this assistance is badly needed. And while it is unfortunate that this assistance is necessary, I believe this aid is critical until Congress can write the next farm bill in a way that promotes and supports fair marketplace competition and good stewardship of our land. Unfortunately, the administration and some Senators want to reduce the size of this emergency package, suggesting it provides too much assistance to our Nation's family farmers, or, alleging that it creates budget problems. Even more ridiculous is the assertion by some that no funding is necessary in fiscal year 2002 to help farmers. I believe we need to look at this from the farmers' perspective, a little tractor- seat common sense if you will, because farmers deal with crop years, not fiscal years. It all boils down to some in the administration wanting to implement this assistance based upon how the Government does business, by fiscal years, instead of how farmers and ranchers do business, by crop years. We need this assistance to span the current crop year, and therefore, it must allow for investments over both fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002. Further, our budget resolution, which was adopted by Congress and signed by the President, allows for this funding. The budget resolution enacted by Congress and signed by the President provided the Agriculture Committees authority to spend up to $5.5 B in fiscal year 2001, with additional authority to spend up to $7.35 B in fiscal year 2002, for a total of $12.85 B in fiscal year 2001-2002 spending authority for agriculture. The committees were given total discretion to spend this money on emergency and/or farm bill programs. However, for the third time now, Office of Management and Budget, OMB, Director Mitch Daniels has signaled a possible veto threat if the Senate aid package totals more than $5.5 billion in fiscal year 2001. A similar OMB threat was made as the House contemplated $6.5 billion, and despite efforts to increase the aid in the House, the level ended up at $5.5 billion. It cannot be argued that we are busting any budget caps, or endangering the Medicare or Social Security Trust funds, because this money has already been provided by the budget resolution, and it is not part of the $73.5 billion (fiscal year 2003-2001) ag reserve fund. A veto is not warranted because the aid total for fiscal year 2001 is $5.5 billion, precisely the level permitted under the budget resolution. The fact that an additional $1.9 billion is provided in the grand total does not matter because it is actually fiscal year 2002 money, which we are permitted to spend under the budget resolution passed by Congress and signed by the President. The Senate Agriculture Committee voted to spend $7.4 billion of both fiscal year 2001 and 2002 money because the current, 2001 crop year spans both fiscal years. It is a subtle, yet, critically important difference between a crop year and a fiscal year that must be understood in order to meet the needs of farmers. The 2001 crop year mirrors the 2001 calendar year, while the fiscal year 2001 fiscal year ``expires'' September 30, 2001. Several major commodities must be marketed after the fiscal year 2001 fiscal year ends, and prices for these commodities are not expected to magically improve after September 30. Clearly, there is a necessity to provide economic aid into fiscal year 2002 as well. In order to provide modest aid in fiscal year 2002, we have chosen to take a modest $1.9 billion, out of $7.35 billion available in fiscal year 2002, to help producers through the entire 2001 crop year. Unfortunately, the administration doesn't seem to understand the difference between a fiscal year and a crop year. Additionally, we left around $5.4 B for additional fiscal year 2002 spending if needed. Last year, as part of the crop insurance reform legislation, Congress provided a total of $7.14 billion in emergency aid for both fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001, almost exactly the same amount of assistance we aim to provide this time around. Specifically, $5.5 billion last year was allocated for bonus AMTA in fiscal year 2000, and, $1.64 billion for other needs in fiscal year 2001. Coincidentally, Congress and the President understood the need to provide assistance in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 for the 2000 crop year , thus, a precedent has been set to do it once again. Furthermore, let us not forget that every major farm organization actually requested at least $9-10 billion in emergency ag support this year. Our legislation doesn't provide that total, but it does cover a majority of the immediate economic distress in agriculture today. I find it ironic that some in the Senate would rely upon the OMB Director, Mitch Daniels, on how much farm aid is necessary when what we are trying to pass in the Senate, $7.4 billion, is supported by farmers, including the following farm groups; Farm Bureau, Farmers Union, the National Corn Growers, and the National Assn. of Wheat Growers. Yet some are still suggesting that spending $5.5 billion, most of it in fiscal year 2001, will be enough to help U.S. family farmers and ranchers. However, 19 Republicans in the House Agriculture Committee, including the Chairman Larry Combest, voted against an amendment to reduce the size of the House package to $5.5 billion because they believe that $5.5 billion does not go far enough to assist farmers and ranchers at this time. The vote to reduce the size of this assistance for farmers to $5.5 billion in the House Ag Committee passed by just one vote. The House passed emergency package falls short, by 16 percent, on the level of support Congress provided to program crops last year. Moreover, the Lugar or House plan does not include any funding for critical conservation programs such as CRP and WRP. Finally, Chairman Combest and other House Republicans were so concerned with the inadequacy of the House passed $5.5 billion that they wrote their ``viewpoints'' or ``concerns'' into the House passed legislation. Their concerns, accompanying the House farm aid state, and I am quoting from what House Republicans wrote about their own ag emergency bill now: . . .H.R. 2213, as reported by the House Agriculture Committee is inadequate. . . . .the assistance level ($5.5 billion) is not sufficient to address the needs of farmers and ranchers in the 2001 crop year. . .At a time when real net cash income on the farm is at its lowest level since the Great Depression and the cost of production is expected to set a record high, H.R. 2213 as reported by the Committee cuts supplemental help to farmers by $1 billion from last year to this year. Hardest hit will be wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, rice, soybean, and other oilseed farmers since the cuts will be at their expense. This is very concerning to me. Many of the farmers that will suffer if we go with $5.5 billion--the wheat, corn, grain sorghum, and soybean farmers, are trying to make a living in my State of South Dakota. So, as you can see, these very poignant words prove that the House passed $5.5 billion level of assistance is woefully inadequate. I will stay and fight on the Senate floor for increased funding this week to ensure South Dakota's farmers are assisted with the construction of a more sturdy bridge over this year's financial problems.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to publicly commend an outstanding group of young people from my home State of South Dakota. These fourteen extraordinary students were recently honored with the Congressional Gold Award, a prestigious award given to a very select group of dedicated young people from throughout the Nation. The Congressional Award program was established by Congress in 1979 to recognize the initiative, achievement, and service of extraordinary young people from across the Nation. The Award was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter, and each president since Carter has renewed the authorizing legislation. To qualify for the Congressional Gold Award, an individual aged 14 to 23 must complete at least 800 hours of goal-oriented work in four program areas: Volunteer Public Service, Personal Development, Physical Fitness, and Expedition/Exploration. These program areas emphasize each person's capacity to grow and develop as an individual, as well as how each person can selflessly contribute to the happiness and well-being of their community. South Dakota Congressional Gold Award recipients chose to volunteer their time and talents in many different areas, where they made tremendous contributions. One recipient volunteered at the Veterans Affairs hospital in Ft. Meade, SD. Some awardees became mentors or Girl Scout leaders, while others volunteered at childcare centers, athletic associations, local schools, parks, and even in the South Dakota State Penitentiary. One individual actually established an annual volksmarch in their hometown. For their outstanding commitment to physical fitness, personal development, exploration, and for committing their hearts and hands to volunteering in their communities, I would like to congratulate the following young South Dakotans for receiving the Congressional Gold Award: Kary Bullock of Ashton; Eric Davies of Whitewood; Nicole Hammer, Janelle Stahl, Kayla Stahl, and Michelle Jilek of Mellette; Ryun Haugaard and Norman Haugaard II of Milbank; Carrie Larson and Jessica Larson of Mitchell; Alexsis Malsam of Aberdeen; Andrea McComsey and Tracey Smith of Conde; and Betsy Valnes of Sioux Falls. I thank these outstanding young people for their immeasurable contributions to their communities, the State of South Dakota, and our Nation. It is because of individuals like these that I have great faith in the continued success and prosperity of our great Nation. These individuals truly serve as an example for all young Americans.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join AARP, including South Dakota's nearly 85,000 members, today to celebrate the 36th anniversary of the Medicare program. I want to applaud the efforts of Don Vogt, Deb Fleming, and all the volunteers of South Dakota AARP for the work they do in South Dakota and those AARP staff and volunteers around the country that provide important assistance to their over 34 million members nationwide. As long as we are celebrating important dates in history, I want to also recognize and celebrate the 43rd anniversary of AARP this year. Since its inception, AARP has had a vision, ``to excel as a dynamic presence in every community, shaping and enriching the experience of aging for each member and for society.'' I think we can all agree that today's celebration is an example of making this vision a reality. Most of us here today can remember what life was like prior to the Medicare program. While some people may reflect on the good old days of housecalls and town doctors, the reality for most seniors was that there was very little access to health care coverage. In fact, when the Medicare program was implemented in 1965, nearly 30 percent of elderly Americans lived below the poverty line and could not afford medical insurance coverage. As a result of Medicare's successes over the last 36 years, the decrease in individual expenditures on health are allowed many seniors to maintain their savings longer into their retirement years, leading to a dramatic drop in the poverty level of seniors to just over 10 percent in recent years. This stark contrast to the number of seniors living in poverty prior to the Medicare program is a testament to the program's long term success. In addition, elderly Americans now maintain healthy, active lives well past the average life expectancy of Americans during the first half of the 20th century. I do, however, feel that no entitlement program is perfect and Medicare is no exception. While I believe that Medicare does an outstanding job of providing coverage for its nearly 44 million beneficiaries, I think it is possible to improve upon this highly effective program. To use a phrase that coincides with the theme of this year's Medicare birthday celebration, I believe it is possible to have our cake and eat it too. Prescription drugs played an extremely small role in health care when Medicare was first implemented. Today, prescription drugs play an integral part in a wide variety of therapies for illnesses and diseases that affect aging populations. But while our Medicare beneficiaries' dependence on prescription drugs grows, so has the price of acquiring those important therapies. That is why I have introduced several pieces of legislation that provide common-sense solutions to the rising cost of prescription drugs. My Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors legislation would allow seniors to purchase their prescriptions at the same cost as is offered to senior citizens of other industrialized nations. Another version of the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors bill would require that seniors have access to the same prices that most favored purchasers like HMOs have. I believe it is wrong that our Nation's seniors are forced to pay the highest prices in the world for their prescription drug needs, and both of my plans could provide immediate financial relief for the nearly 119,000 Medicare beneficiaries in South Dakota and the 39 million Medicare beneficiaries nationwide. I have also introduced legislation that would guarantee greater access to generic pharmaceuticals, which play an integral role in keeping down the cost of pharmaceuticals. Many seniors have expressed to me that if they only had greater access to generics that they could get a better handle on their medication costs. This is another way we can immediately address the price of prescription drugs without additional bureaucratic red-tape. There is no question, however, that a comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefit would be a tremendous addition to the Medicare program. I have been an ardent supporter of efforts in recent years to push forward with a strong, voluntary prescription drug plan that gives seniors the option of prescription drugs through Medicare. I strongly believe that we must ensure that Medicare beneficiaries have access to needed drugs, access to their local pharmacy, and affordable premiums that make the program accessible to all. And, perhaps most importantly, any benefit must ensure rural beneficiaries, like many on Medicare in South Dakota, are assured that they have universal access wherever they live. I was pleased to join in AARP's ``Medicare Monday'' celebration. Providing Medicare prescription drug benefits is a goal that I share with Medicare beneficiaries nationwide, and I will continue my fight for lower prescription drug costs until we reach that goal.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I rise today in praise of the Americans with Disabilities Act on the occasion of its 11th anniversary. The advances in law, health care, education and technology promoted in this historic legislation over the past 11 years have given Americans with disabilities a new lease on life. Today, 53 million Americans live with a disability, and 1 in 8 of them is severely disabled. According to the most recent data available, there are approximately 117,701 individuals sixteen years or older living with a disability in South Dakota and 57,233 who have a severe disability. Yet due to the landmark Americans with disabilities Act, the stereotypes against these persons are crumbling and they are able to lead increasingly integrated and fulfilled lives. The Act has guaranteed that people with disabilities be able to live in the most integrated settings possible in their communities. The Americans with Disabilities Act has also spurred research and improved care for seniors, children and mentally disabled persons. In doing so, the Act has ensured improved quality of life for people living with disabilities and has promised disabled children hope for a successful future. The contributions of the Americans with Disabilities Act over the past 11 years are an inspiration for what can be done to improve the lives of Americans living with disabilities, and a proponent of more progress in the future. Once again, it gives me great pleasure to recognize and honor today's celebration on behalf of the millions of disabled Americans throughout this country.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Patrick Benton. I have had the good fortune of having Patrick as part of my staff since 1994, and I would like to thank him for all his hard work in his efforts on behalf of the people of South Dakota. Patrick is heading off to Colby College in September, and I have no doubt that our loss is their great gain. While in high school, Patrick organized and led a student rally to save the Rapid City School District counselors who were in jeopardy of losing their jobs. Patrick represented South Dakota on a trip to Japan as part of the Sony student project abroad. Patrick began work as an intern in my Rapid City Office in mid 1998, and eventually joined my staff full time in November of that same year. In September 1999, Patrick moved to Washington, DC, and has been a critical part of my staff ever since. Patrick has always been wise beyond his years, and he has built up the trust and confidence of the entire staff. Patrick has worked his way up to a Research Assistant position, and has been an invaluable resource in handling matters related to banking, telecommunications, labor, campaign finance reform, election reform, federal employees and the Postal Service. He has mastered a vast amount of technical knowledge in all of these areas. When people find out Patrick is on his way to college, they can't figure out how someone with such knowledge and judgment can possibly be only 19 years old. While we will sorely miss Patrick, I join with my entire staff and my wife, Barbara, in expressing our pride in Patrick's achievement and promise, and our thanks for his years of service to South Dakota. However Patrick chooses to apply his formidable intellect and talents, we will all be the better for it.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to publicly commend Wynn Speece of Yankton, South Dakota, who with her sixty years of broadcasting excellence at WNAX, 570 AM, has become the longest running radio personality in the nation. Wynn began her career at WNAX in 1939 as a writer in the continuity department earning $20 a week. She later was given 15 minutes of air time each Saturday to mention the special premiums offered by WNAX advertisers. Her career advanced rapidly after the station's female director left, and she was selected to fill the position. In addition to her other duties, Wynn was asked to host a 15 minute program targeted primarily at homemakers six days per week, and on July 14, 1941, this show, known as the ``Neighbor Lady,'' hit the air. Wynn's most avid listeners were provided by farms, ranches and small towns across the upper Midwest. Six decades later, Wynn continues to conduct interviews for the local radio station and writes a long-running column for Yankton's Press & Dakotan where she has literally informed and entertained generations of listeners. Since her first show, Speece has interviewed hundreds of people, hosted 15,000 broadcasts, and received countless letters. With her outstanding talent, leadership and commitment to quality radio broadcasting, Wynn has enhanced the lives of countless South Dakotans. Wynn's honors include the Macaroni Award for the top small-market personality in the country, and earlier this year she received a distinguished alumni award from Drake University. She is a member of the South Dakota Hall of Fame, and was named one of Yankton's top Citizens of the Millennium by the Press & Dakotan in 1999. Wynn Speece richly deserves this distinguished recognition. Therefore, it is an honor for me to share her extraordinary professional accomplishments with my colleagues.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the Senator.

Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the Senator from Nevada for his leadership and cooperation in providing funding in the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water Appropriations bill for key South Dakota rural water projects and priorities. As chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, he has provided funding above the President's request and the House approved level for the Mni Wiconi Rural Water Project and the Mid-Dakota Rural Water Project. Moreover, the Senator funded other important water projects in South Dakota such as the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System. Indeed, his commitment will benefit many South Dakotans.

Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the Senator from Nevada for his assistance and recognition of South Dakota's rural water needs. Despite the high priority given to provide funding for these South Dakota water projects, two critical items remain important to me as the Senate works to complete action on the FY02 Energy and Water Appropriations bill in its upcoming conference with the House of Representatives. First, the Mid-Dakota Rural Water Project is in need of an increase in funding to ensure the timely delivery of safe, clean, and affordable water to citizens and communities served by that project. Second, the James River Water Development District--a subdivision of State government in South Dakota--requires funding to complete an Environmental Impact Statement on authorized projects along the James River watershed before the JRWDD can commence continued channel restoration and improvements authorized by section 401(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4128). I respectfully request the Chairman's committing to review opportunities in conference committee negotiations on the FY02 Energy and Water Appropriations bill to consider additional funding for the Mid-Dakota Rural Water System and to consider funding for the JRWDD to complete an EIS.