Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I commend and applaud the work of Senator Carnahan and Senator Bond on crafting this amendment. We have been at a gridlock state on the master manual development now for many years. Senator Carnahan's work to try to break that gridlock ought to be applauded. Last year, as many recall, this bill wound up being vetoed by President Clinton over this very issue. For years it has been an all- or-nothing struggle between upstream and downstream States over the management of the Missouri River. I think we may be moving ahead more constructively now, thanks to a more thoughtful approach being taken in this body. The Missouri River is of utterly profound consequences to my home State of South Dakota. It divides the State in two, an East River and West River, as we say in South Dakota. It is central to the economy of the State. It is the corridor by which settlers came to Dakota territory. This Senator grew up on the Missouri River. My hometown is a college town situated on a bluff overlooking the Missouri River. Its welfare is of great concern to my State. It is of great concern to me personally. My colleague, Senator Daschle, noted that the Missouri River has been referred to as ``America's most endangered river.'' I appreciate that could be the criteria you might happen to choose to apply, but, nonetheless, the Missouri River has gone through a great many changes from its pristine early days--largely impounded at least in the upper stretches of the river behind huge earthen dams, channelized in other stretches, and barge traffic. In my home community of Vermilion, it remains as about as close to what Lewis and Clark saw as any stretch that remains. But that is only for a stretch of some 60 or 70 miles. This river remains of enormous consequence. The management of the river has always been a matter of great import. For 40 or 50 years now, the existing master manual--the rules for the management of the river that guides the Corps of Engineers--has been in place. When the Pick- Sloan plan was implemented and these larger earthen dams were constructed, they were constructed with multiple purposes--flood control for South Dakota and for our downstream neighbors as well; energy production; and they remain a great source of hydroelectricity for our State and throughout the region; recreation certainly; barge traffic; and drinking and irrigation purposes. The thought at the time was that these huge bodies of water would be used for massive irrigation development through the Dakotas, and that there would then, in turn, be a need for reliable barge traffic to haul this amount of grain from the heartland and the Dakotas downstream. For many reasons, irrigation never happened--at least not on a large scale. We have moved on from the irrigation that was envisioned. The Missouri River is used as a significant source of drinking water. In the meantime, recreation, fish, and wildlife purposes have become paramount on the Missouri River. Although it is a far, far small industry than it was originally thought, it is of no one's interest to unnecessarily drive the barge industry out of existence. It still plays an important role in a much smaller way than was originally thought. But, nonetheless, it plays an important role, and to the degree that we can preserve it, that is well and good. But I think there is a very strong consensus that the vision for the Missouri Valley that existed at the time of the Pick-Sloan plan was envisioned and then implemented is much changed. This master manual no longer serves the interest and no longer reflects the contemporary economic realities of the Missouri River-- certainly in the upstream reaches of the river but downstream as well. It is the responsibility of the Corps of Engineers to proceed with the study, public input, and with the science that goes into at long last a revamping of the master manual. Up until now, we have been caught up in the question of should we revise the manual or should we not revise the manual. Now, at least in this body, there is an agreement that, yes, the manual should and needs to be revised. It should be done in a careful manner. I am pleased that we have gotten over that hurdle. That hurdle still remains in the other body, the House of Representatives, but I think as the Senate approaches this issue in a more thoughtful and wiser fashion, it is important for the Corps to take the best biological science available from the Fish and Wildlife Service. It is also important for the Corps to listen to those who have concerns about flooding. It is important for the Corps to listen to those concerned about energy production. Our rural electrics, and public power in particular, have a great concern about levels of energy production from these hydrodams. This year more than most, we have had a lesser amount of waterflow from the head waters of the Missouri than in past years. In fact, our water levels are down this year in any event regardless of the master manual. That remains of concern. We have endangered species. We have a great recreation and wildlife industry on the Missouri River. Much of it has been at risk because of the unreliability of the waterflows on the river and the lack of consideration given to this huge industry, the recreation and wildlife industry. In fact, every dollar's worth far exceeds that of the barge industry that has been there for so long. We have concerns about erosion. We have concerns about the supply of drinking water on the Missouri River. We have concerns about the health of the Missouri River itself. Steps need to be taken to restore this river to the grand status that it once had. I am pleased we are taking this step today. This does not mean that Fish and Wildlife's views will be ignored, or that the ultimate plan developed by the Corps of Engineers will be contrary to what the Fish and Wildlife Service wishes. But it does suggest that there are other perspectives that ought to be considered as well, and that the Corps will proceed, that they will move forward finally, at last, with the revision of the master manual--one that I hope will more fully reflect the contemporary economic and environmental realities of the Missouri River. It is my hope again that as we proceed on with this bill--again, my commendation to Senator Reid, our friend from Nevada, and Senator Domenici, our friend from New Mexico, who have done such great work on this bill as a whole--we will proceed with an excellent piece of legislation, so that when we reach a conference circumstance with the other body, the views of the Senate on this critical issue will, in fact, prevail. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from New York for the fiscal responsibility he is exhibiting with this amendment. The amount of money to be saved, again, is $34 million, roughly? Mr. President, $34 million--this is astonishing, $34 million to send out a mailing? This doesn't pass the laugh test, frankly. If I were to go home to my home State of South Dakota and talk to people in the street to tell them we are going to send some checks--by the way, which I voted for; I voted for the stimulus package, but we are going to add $34 million to the cost, from the taxpayers, to brag about what we did in advance--they would not know whether to laugh or whether to cry. This is just astonishing, $34 million for a mailing. Are we going to do this now when we do Patients' Bill of Rights? Are we going to send out a $34 million mailing? How about ag disaster payments? What else are we going to pass this year about which we are going to send out to everybody in the country what a wonderful job we are doing for them, thanks to your dollars? Here we are in this body talking about, well, it doesn't look as if we can afford to do as much as we should with school construction; probably not enough money to advance Head Start where it ought to be; our GI bill enhancement, where we are trying to catch up with inflation so our military can get the education opportunities they should have, we might not have the money; prescription drugs, we probably do not have enough to set aside to do what we need to do. But wait, we are going to take $34 million of your money and send you a letter telling you what fabulous things we are doing for you. I don't know whether or not it is political. What I care about is if you are going to carefully mind the people's money, this is not how you ought to go about doing it. I congratulate the Senator from New York for a little common sense, something I see all too seldom in the course of some of these political debates. Thank you to the Senator from New York. It seems to me this amendment deserves support. Let's save $34 million, put it back in the kitty where the American people can have it for their benefit. I yield.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to strongly support the extension and the expansion of the Northeast Dairy Compact as a reasonable and proven way to help dairy farmers in New England and beyond. Dairy farms are truly the agricultural heart of New York State. Their survival is vital to the economic, social, and cultural well-being of the State. I am such an enthusiastic advocate for the Compact because, it offers the means to maintain not only healthy dairy farms in my State, but the rural settings and communities upon which so much of New York and the rest of the country depend. Historically, dairy prices have been subject to unpredictable and unacceptable fluctuations in prices. In the face of such uncertainty, the current Federal price support system was designed to provide basic levels of assistance to dairy producers. Unfortunately, the support provided, while helpful, is often inadequate. Many dairy farmers in New York and elsewhere are unable to operate at a profit. As a remedy, the Dairy Compact was designed to provide producers with supplemental support, through assessments to processors, when the Marketing Order price is low. Most importantly, the price stability afforded by the Compact is especially important to farmers as a planning tool. As originally implemented, the Dairy Compact did not include New York. The Bill that has been introduced would allow New York State and other States in the Northeast, Southeast and elsewhere to join the Compact. The New York Legislature, like 25 other State Legislatures, has voted to join the Compact. Why? Because over the 4 years that the Compact has been in existence it has made the difference for many family farmers between surviving as a dairy producer or selling their land for development which is slowly decimating our rural landscape. It has helped us maintain a local supply of affordable milk for consumers including women and children throughout the Compact region at no cost to the government and without placing an undue burden on consumers. New York is an important dairy producing and consuming State. As of the year 2000, we had about 7,200 dairy herds and produced 11.9 billion pounds of milk. That year, New York ranked third behind California and Wisconsin in both the number of milk cows and total milk produced. The viability of dairy farms is very, very important to my State. If New York had been a member of compact that year when dairy prices were at rock bottom, they would have received an average payment per farm of $18,200. While that size payment will not lead to prosperity, it will help keep the farm going. Several New York dairy farms sell milk to the Compact, and thus receive some of these benefits. I want to ensure that all dairy farms are in the State can participate, and the only way to do that is to expand the Compact. Opponents of the Compact claim that if it were to be expanded, farmers in the Compact region would overproduce fluid milk thus driving prices down in other parts of the country. This is not the case. The Compact legislation that we propose today specifically acts to prevent such an over production through a supply management feature that rewards dairy producers in the Compact who maintain relatively stable levels of production. If needed, this tool could be used to control over-production from an expanded Compact and thus minimize negative impacts elsewhere. Other important features of the Compact that are important to remember include the following: It has been fully reviewed and found to be legal. It includes a feature to protect disadvantaged women, infant and children, and in fact, in the year 2000, the Compact paid the WIC program close to $1.8 million to reimburse WIC for any extra expense the program incurred under the Compact. Approximately 1 percent of Compact payments are similarly set aside to reimburse school lunch programs. I am concerned about the move towards consolidation in the dairy industry. While some concentration is to be expected, recent trends indicate that a few very large dairy operations and processing plants are grabbing up more and more. Many dairy operations are also succumbing to unplanned sprawl. By helping small at-risk farms stay afloat, the Compact is a hedge against unhealthy amounts of consolidation. It also helps to preserve the rural life style, the countryside settings with open spaces, and the economic core of communities that are so important to my New York and so many others. In sum, the Dairy Compact is an effective way for States, New York and others, to obtain from Congress the regulatory authority over the region's interstate markets for milk. It offers a price stability that is incredibly helpful, and it helps to slow the demise of a tradition that our country holds dear, the family farm.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1119, a bill that would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study of the health care coverage of the military's Selected Reserve. Most South Dakotans know at least one of the 4,500 current members of the South Dakota Guard and Reserves--the so-called Selected Reserve--or the thousands of former Guardsmen and Reservists. Sometimes, the connection is even more direct. Before joining the Army, my oldest son was a member of the South Dakota Army Guard in Yankton. South Dakota's Guard and Reserve members have supported overseas operations, including those in Central America, the Middle East, Europe and Asia. Members of the South Dakota Air Guard are currently preparing for its mission later this year, where it will patrol the ``No-Fly Zone'' in Iraq. South Dakota's Guard and Reserve units consistently rank in the highest percentile of readiness and quality of its recruits. But keeping and recruiting the best of the best in the South Dakota National Guard and Reserves is becoming more of a challenge as our military's operations tempo has remained high while the number of active duty military forces has decreased. This tempo places significant pressure on the members of the reserve component, and has exposed possible health care deficiencies. Many deploying members and their families have experienced tremendous turbulence moving back-and-forth between their civilian health insurance plans and TRICARE Prime, the military's health care system. Some junior reservists have no health insurance at all. Some figures, for example, have shown that upward of 200,000 Selected Reservists nationwide do not possess adequate insurance. The exact nature of these disturbances and the broader shortfalls of this system are unclear because examinations have not completed. I am pleased to join with my colleagues in introducing this legislation, which will take a step towards understanding this problem and giving Congress direction on how to solve it. I know how poor health care and broken promises can reduce morale within our military and their families. A poor ``quality of life'' among our reserve component and active duty personnel has a direct impact on recruitment and retention of the best and brightest in our Armed Services. I will continue to do all I can to ensure our men and women in the military, veterans, and military retirees have the health care they deserve.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to strongly support the extension and the expansion of the Northeast Dairy Compact as a reasonable and proven way to help dairy farmers in New England and beyond. Dairy farms are truly the agricultural heart of New York State. Their survival is vital to the economic, social, and cultural well-being of the State. I am such an enthusiastic advocate for the Compact because, it offers the means to maintain not only healthy dairy farms in my State, but the rural settings and communities upon which so much of New York and the rest of the country depend. Historically, dairy prices have been subject to unpredictable and unacceptable fluctuations in prices. In the face of such uncertainty, the current Federal price support system was designed to provide basic levels of assistance to dairy producers. Unfortunately, the support provided, while helpful, is often inadequate. Many dairy farmers in New York and elsewhere are unable to operate at a profit. As a remedy, the Dairy Compact was designed to provide producers with supplemental support, through assessments to processors, when the Marketing Order price is low. Most importantly, the price stability afforded by the Compact is especially important to farmers as a planning tool. As originally implemented, the Dairy Compact did not include New York. The Bill that has been introduced would allow New York State and other States in the Northeast, Southeast and elsewhere to join the Compact. The New York Legislature, like 25 other State Legislatures, has voted to join the Compact. Why? Because over the 4 years that the Compact has been in existence it has made the difference for many family farmers between surviving as a dairy producer or selling their land for development which is slowly decimating our rural landscape. It has helped us maintain a local supply of affordable milk for consumers including women and children throughout the Compact region at no cost to the government and without placing an undue burden on consumers. New York is an important dairy producing and consuming State. As of the year 2000, we had about 7,200 dairy herds and produced 11.9 billion pounds of milk. That year, New York ranked third behind California and Wisconsin in both the number of milk cows and total milk produced. The viability of dairy farms is very, very important to my State. If New York had been a member of compact that year when dairy prices were at rock bottom, they would have received an average payment per farm of $18,200. While that size payment will not lead to prosperity, it will help keep the farm going. Several New York dairy farms sell milk to the Compact, and thus receive some of these benefits. I want to ensure that all dairy farms are in the State can participate, and the only way to do that is to expand the Compact. Opponents of the Compact claim that if it were to be expanded, farmers in the Compact region would overproduce fluid milk thus driving prices down in other parts of the country. This is not the case. The Compact legislation that we propose today specifically acts to prevent such an over production through a supply management feature that rewards dairy producers in the Compact who maintain relatively stable levels of production. If needed, this tool could be used to control over-production from an expanded Compact and thus minimize negative impacts elsewhere. Other important features of the Compact that are important to remember include the following: It has been fully reviewed and found to be legal. It includes a feature to protect disadvantaged women, infant and children, and in fact, in the year 2000, the Compact paid the WIC program close to $1.8 million to reimburse WIC for any extra expense the program incurred under the Compact. Approximately 1 percent of Compact payments are similarly set aside to reimburse school lunch programs. I am concerned about the move towards consolidation in the dairy industry. While some concentration is to be expected, recent trends indicate that a few very large dairy operations and processing plants are grabbing up more and more. Many dairy operations are also succumbing to unplanned sprawl. By helping small at-risk farms stay afloat, the Compact is a hedge against unhealthy amounts of consolidation. It also helps to preserve the rural life style, the countryside settings with open spaces, and the economic core of communities that are so important to my New York and so many others. In sum, the Dairy Compact is an effective way for States, New York and others, to obtain from Congress the regulatory authority over the region's interstate markets for milk. It offers a price stability that is incredibly helpful, and it helps to slow the demise of a tradition that our country holds dear, the family farm.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, this week the Senate began discussion of the Patients' Bill of Rights, a long overdue bill which patient advocates have fought to pass for nearly 5 years. I am disappointed that we were not able to move directly to a full discussion of the bill earlier this week as Majority Leader Daschle attempted to do, but I am pleased that we finally began this critically important discussion. I also want to commend the distinguished Senate Majority Leader Daschle for his leadership in bringing this crucial legislation to the floor and making this top priority legislation his first directive as Senate Majority Leader. The Senate begins debate of a bipartisan bill that was introduced in both the House and Senate which covers all Americans and holds HMOs accountable when they make medical decisions. I am proud to be cosponsoring the Senate Bipartisan Patient Protection Act which is sponsored by Senators McCain, Edwards, and Kennedy. Approximately 500 provider and patients' rights groups have endorsed this bipartisan legislation which achieves overwhelming support because it represents a balanced approach to ensuring patient safety and health plan accountability without significantly raising health plan premiums or employer costs. The last time the Senate debated this legislation was in July of 1999. At that time, the Senate ended up passing a much weaker patient protection bill while the House passed a strong bipartisan patients' bill of rights by a vote of 275 to 151. The McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill that we will be debating this week and next is a carefully, crafted bipartisan compromise and the only patients' rights legislation currently under consideration that assures patients the protections they need. Although penetration of HMOs in South Dakota is not all that prevalent as it is in other parts of the country, South Dakotans still deserve the same patient protections as individuals living in New York, Washington or California. The Bipartisan Patient Protection Act will guarantee access to essential prescription drugs; allow access to needed health care specialists; ensure patients can access emergency room care where and when the need arises; require continuity of care protections so that patients will not have to change doctors in the middle of their treatment; provide access to a fair, unbiased, and timely internal and independent external appeals process to address health plan grievances; assure that doctors and patients can openly discuss treatment options; and includes an enforcement mechanism that ensures these rights are real. Also, the McCain-Edwards bill ensures that States have flexibility while protecting all Americans in all health plans. This compromise legislation clarifies that in the case of a State that has enacted protections that are ``substantially equivalent,'' the State may seek certification from the Department of Health and Human Services to use its standard rather than the Federal one. The standards for certifying State laws that meet or exceed the Federal minimum standard ensure than only more protective State laws will replace the Federal standards while providing for strong oversight. The McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill is a true bipartisan compromise and should not be watered down or weakened before passage. The McCain- Edwards-Kennedy bill builds on the progress made by the Norwood-Dingell bill--which had the votes of approximately 60 Republicans in the House--on a number of key provisions, including strengthening protections for employers to ensure that they are not liable unless they have directly participated in a health plan decision; compromising on liability and placing suits based on administrative plan decisions in Federal court to ensure that insurers have uniform standards; and increasing State flexibility and allowing them to keep their own patient protections if they are substantially equivalent. I am concerned that opponents of this bill will want to load up the bill with proposals that will weigh down its chances for passage. They will propose inefficient tax credits that do little to expand health insurance coverage, medical savings accounts, and association health plans and include other tax cuts to try and make it a tax-break Christmas tree for the special interests. I hope that we can avoid parliamentary maneuvers that serve only to sink this long-overdue legislation. I believe that Americans deserve a bill that assures them the patient protections they need. Nearly every doctors' association, every nurses' association, and every patients' rights group in America agrees that we need a strong, enforceable, Patients' Bill of Rights now. Recent polls indicate overwhelming support for this legislation. As the Washington Post reported today, ``Patients' Rights Debate Opens On Angry Note,'' June 20, 2001, a recent Pew Research Center said that 77 percent of those surveyed favored passage of a bill giving patients the right to sue HMOs, with overwhelming support across all party lines. We need to put people's interests ahead of the special interest here on Capitol Hill and move forward with passage of this critical legislation. I am looking forward to an open and fair debate and the passage of a real Patients' Bill of Rights that will truly strengthen our health care system, protect South Dakota families, and enrich our Nation for the 21st century.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to publicly commend an excellent group of students from Spearfish High School in Spearfish, SD. This class of 23 government students performed extraordinarily well at the Center for Civic Education's ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' national finals held in Washington, D.C. The Spearfish High School class competed with 49 other government classes from around the country, and I applaud these students for their outstanding performance and for their dedication and commitment to studying the U.S. government. ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Nation,'' is an outstanding program directed by the Center for Civic Education and funded by the United States Department of Education by an act of Congress. The program's goal is to create an enlightened citizenry that is well-versed on the principles and virtues of America's constitutional democracy. To help meet this goal, students take part in an instructional curriculum that culminates with a simulated congressional hearing that tests students knowledge and understanding of the history and principles of American government. Spearfish, SD is a wonderful town located in the northern part of the Black Hills, home to Mt. Rushmore, Crazy Horse monument, and other beautiful landmarks and landscapes. I am proud that these students from Spearfish serve as such excellent representatives of our great State of South Dakota. I commend them for their talent and their commitment to learning about our Nation's system of government. For their contributions to the successful team effort, I congratulate class members Ryan Aalbu, Jessica Barron, Ryan Batt, Chelsea Brennan, Christi Coburn, Doug Dodson, Johanna Farmer, Ryan Freemont, Christina Hammerquist, Marie Hoffman, Matt Loken, John Martin, Cassie Parsons, Faith Pautz, Kara Peep, Danielle Peterson, Crystal Sachau, Amanda Schlepp, Jordan Schmit, Mindy Simonson, Mark Stratton, Erin Talsma, and Aaron Varadi. Mr. Patrick Gainey deserves special recognition for his role in this accomplishment. As the teacher of this class, he both taught and inspired these students, while leading them to the national finals competition. I also acknowledge State Coordinator Lennis Larson, and District Coordinator Mark Rockafellow for helping to facilitate this event for these students. I am proud that South Dakota is home to such outstanding students, whose desire and commitment to studying our constitutional government is clearly evident from this achievement. I thank you, for allowing me time to share this outstanding accomplishment with my Senate colleagues. Their performance in this national competition not only makes all of South Dakota proud, but also serves as a model for other talented and motivated students throughout our state to emulate.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today with pride to remark on the extraordinary public service career of Dr. Donald Lauer. For over twenty-five years, Dr. Lauer has played a key leadership role at the Earth Research Observation Systems, EROS, Data Center near Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and for over a decade has served as Chief at EROS. Under the jurisdiction of the United States Geological Survey, the EROS Data Center holds one of the world's largest collections of images of the earth's land surface. These incredibly valuable images are managed and distributed by EROS personnel to scientists, policy makers and educators worldwide. The data is used to study a wide range of natural hazards, global environmental change and economic and conservation issues. EROS is also now home to the United Nations Environmental Programme's, UNEP, Division of Environmental Information, Assessment and Early Warning office in North America. South Dakotans are proud to host this important United Nations office within our state. The great success of EROS is due in significant portion to the outstanding leadership provided over the years by Dr. Lauer. His scientific, and management skills have proven invaluable as the role of EROS has expanded and become ever more complex. He has played a key role in facilitating a recent multimillion dollar transfer of NASA earth images to the UNEP, and their placement at EROS. Beyond all this, Dr. Lauer has also provided important leadership for the Sioux Falls community. He currently serves on the Board of Directors for Sioux Valley Hospital, and has had a career long interest in the health and education of his fellow citizens. I am pleased that Dr. Lauer will remain with the United States Geological Survey as an Emeritus Scientist, and that he plans to continue his residence in Sioux Falls. His vision and commitment to science will continue to well serve the people of the United States and of the world. Dr. Lauer's life and career serve as models for public servants throughout our nation. I take this opportunity to thank him for all he has accomplished at EROS, and wish him well on all his future challenges and opportunities.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to introduce legislation, known as the Medicare Pharmacist Services Coverage Act, that will provide for important patient safety and health care quality improvements in the Medicare program. This legislation will reform Medicare by recognizing qualified pharmacists as health care providers within the Medicare program and make available to beneficiaries important drug therapy management services that these valuable health professionals can and do provide. These services, which are coordinated in direct collaboration with physicians and other health care professionals as authorized by State law, help patients make the best possible use of their medications. The members of this body know very well the vital role that today's powerful and effective medications play in the maintenance of health and well-being of our nation's seniors. The substantial and important discussion now underway on how best to craft and implement a prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries is an explicit recognition of this vital role. But access to the medications, even at the most affordable prices possible, is only one part of the equation in achieving the kinds of health care outcomes that patients and their health care providers desire. That is where today's pharmacists play a pivotal role. But members of this body may not be as aware of the tremendous changes in pharmacy practice and education that have taken place in the past decade that have resulted in an expansion of pharmacists' capabilities and responsibilities. Fortunately for my office Dr. Brian Kaatz, a clinical pharmacist and faculty member of the College of Pharmacy at South Dakota State University was able to spend 6 months with us here in Washington last year as we studied and evaluated the many policy issues and concerns related to a Medicare prescription drug benefit. In the course of that time it became clear to me and to members of my staff that pharmacists are critical in assuring safer and more effective medication use by our nation's seniors. In addition to the important and continuing responsibility for assuring accurate, safe medication dispensing, compounding, and counseling, pharmacists now provide a much more comprehensive range of clinical, consultative, and educational services. Thirty States, the Veterans Administration, and the Indian Health Service, among others, all recognize the value of collaborative drug therapy management services as a way to provide optimal patient care using the specialized education and training of pharmacists. Unfortunately, Medicare does not. Indeed, payment for prescription drugs in almost all types of health plans and programs focuses on payment for the product and the associated costs of its distribution to patients. The logical financial incentive therefore is to dispense more medications, not fewer. Payment to the pharmacist for time spent in reducing the number of medications the patient is taking or enhancing the patient's ability to understand and more properly use the medications they do need is provided only by some forward-thinking payers and programs. Unfortunately, Medicare is not among them. Access to pharmacists' collaborative drug therapy management services is particularly important right now, while many Medicare beneficiaries are struggling to pay substantial out-of-pocket costs for their prescription medications. On average, persons aged 65 and older currently take 5 or more medications each day. These medications are often prescribed by several different physicians for concurrent chronic and acute conditions. Recently published research has indicated that drug-related problems cost the U.S. health care system as much as $177 billion each year, an amount equal to the ten-year cost projections for some of the more modest Medicare prescription drug coverage proposals now being discussed. A substantial portion of this expense is preventable through collaborative patient care services provided by pharmacists working with patients and their physicians. With careful examination of a patient's total drug regimen, pharmacists can eliminate unnecessary or counterproductive treatments. For example, pharmacists working closely with the health care team can identify or prevent duplicate medications, drugs that cancel each other out, or combinations that can damage hearts or kidneys. Pharmacists may also find that a newer multi-action drug may be exchanged for two older drugs or a slightly more expensive drug may be substituted for a less expensive alternative that causes side effects and results in the patient either taking additional medication or stopping their medication with the result that their medical condition worsens. The overuse of medications is particularly common in the elderly, who tend to have more chronic conditions that call for drug treatment. In addition, physiological changes that occur naturally in the aging process diminish the body's ability to process medications, increasing the likelihood of medication-related complications. The pharmacist's specialized training in drug therapy management has been demonstrated repeatedly to improve the quality of care patients receive and to control health care costs associated with medication complications. As a precursor to a prescription drug benefit, it makes sense to take this proven initial step to improve the medication use process. This will help Medicare beneficiaries immediately by ensuring that each precious dollar spent out-of-pocket is spent wisely on a streamlined and effective drug therapy regimen. This is an important benefit that we can deliver now while Congress works to address the more difficult economic and political issues impacting a prescription drug benefit. In addition, the quality improvement and cost-control resulting from this benefit establishes a critical infrastructure element for whatever Medicare prescription drug benefit is ultimately put in place. By supporting pharmacists who are working to improve the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of medication regimens, as well as reducing preventable medication-related complications and adverse drug events that result in unnecessary health care expenditures, we can enhance the prospects of achieving an affordable Medicare drug benefit that will bring real value to beneficiaries and taxpayers alike. Recognition of qualified pharmacists as providers within the Medicare program is the logical and very affordable first step in establishing the essential infrastructure of a Medicare prescription drug benefit. As the Institute of Medicine report ``To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System'' stated: ``Because of the immense variety and complexity of medications now available, it is impossible for nurses and doctors to keep up with all of the information required for safe medication use. The pharmacist has become an essential resource . . . and thus access to his or her expertise must be possible at all times.'' This legislation will empower Medicare to catch up on this important health care quality issue. Pharmacists' collaborative drug therapy management services can and will make a real difference in the lives of Medicare beneficiaries. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give this proposal their serious consideration.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to introduce legislation, known as the Medicare Pharmacist Services Coverage Act, that will provide for important patient safety and health care quality improvements in the Medicare program. This legislation will reform Medicare by recognizing qualified pharmacists as health care providers within the Medicare program and make available to beneficiaries important drug therapy management services that these valuable health professionals can and do provide. These services, which are coordinated in direct collaboration with physicians and other health care professionals as authorized by State law, help patients make the best possible use of their medications. The members of this body know very well the vital role that today's powerful and effective medications play in the maintenance of health and well-being of our nation's seniors. The substantial and important discussion now underway on how best to craft and implement a prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries is an explicit recognition of this vital role. But access to the medications, even at the most affordable prices possible, is only one part of the equation in achieving the kinds of health care outcomes that patients and their health care providers desire. That is where today's pharmacists play a pivotal role. But members of this body may not be as aware of the tremendous changes in pharmacy practice and education that have taken place in the past decade that have resulted in an expansion of pharmacists' capabilities and responsibilities. Fortunately for my office Dr. Brian Kaatz, a clinical pharmacist and faculty member of the College of Pharmacy at South Dakota State University was able to spend 6 months with us here in Washington last year as we studied and evaluated the many policy issues and concerns related to a Medicare prescription drug benefit. In the course of that time it became clear to me and to members of my staff that pharmacists are critical in assuring safer and more effective medication use by our nation's seniors. In addition to the important and continuing responsibility for assuring accurate, safe medication dispensing, compounding, and counseling, pharmacists now provide a much more comprehensive range of clinical, consultative, and educational services. Thirty States, the Veterans Administration, and the Indian Health Service, among others, all recognize the value of collaborative drug therapy management services as a way to provide optimal patient care using the specialized education and training of pharmacists. Unfortunately, Medicare does not. Indeed, payment for prescription drugs in almost all types of health plans and programs focuses on payment for the product and the associated costs of its distribution to patients. The logical financial incentive therefore is to dispense more medications, not fewer. Payment to the pharmacist for time spent in reducing the number of medications the patient is taking or enhancing the patient's ability to understand and more properly use the medications they do need is provided only by some forward-thinking payers and programs. Unfortunately, Medicare is not among them. Access to pharmacists' collaborative drug therapy management services is particularly important right now, while many Medicare beneficiaries are struggling to pay substantial out-of-pocket costs for their prescription medications. On average, persons aged 65 and older currently take 5 or more medications each day. These medications are often prescribed by several different physicians for concurrent chronic and acute conditions. Recently published research has indicated that drug-related problems cost the U.S. health care system as much as $177 billion each year, an amount equal to the ten-year cost projections for some of the more modest Medicare prescription drug coverage proposals now being discussed. A substantial portion of this expense is preventable through collaborative patient care services provided by pharmacists working with patients and their physicians. With careful examination of a patient's total drug regimen, pharmacists can eliminate unnecessary or counterproductive treatments. For example, pharmacists working closely with the health care team can identify or prevent duplicate medications, drugs that cancel each other out, or combinations that can damage hearts or kidneys. Pharmacists may also find that a newer multi-action drug may be exchanged for two older drugs or a slightly more expensive drug may be substituted for a less expensive alternative that causes side effects and results in the patient either taking additional medication or stopping their medication with the result that their medical condition worsens. The overuse of medications is particularly common in the elderly, who tend to have more chronic conditions that call for drug treatment. In addition, physiological changes that occur naturally in the aging process diminish the body's ability to process medications, increasing the likelihood of medication-related complications. The pharmacist's specialized training in drug therapy management has been demonstrated repeatedly to improve the quality of care patients receive and to control health care costs associated with medication complications. As a precursor to a prescription drug benefit, it makes sense to take this proven initial step to improve the medication use process. This will help Medicare beneficiaries immediately by ensuring that each precious dollar spent out-of-pocket is spent wisely on a streamlined and effective drug therapy regimen. This is an important benefit that we can deliver now while Congress works to address the more difficult economic and political issues impacting a prescription drug benefit. In addition, the quality improvement and cost-control resulting from this benefit establishes a critical infrastructure element for whatever Medicare prescription drug benefit is ultimately put in place. By supporting pharmacists who are working to improve the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of medication regimens, as well as reducing preventable medication-related complications and adverse drug events that result in unnecessary health care expenditures, we can enhance the prospects of achieving an affordable Medicare drug benefit that will bring real value to beneficiaries and taxpayers alike. Recognition of qualified pharmacists as providers within the Medicare program is the logical and very affordable first step in establishing the essential infrastructure of a Medicare prescription drug benefit. As the Institute of Medicine report ``To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System'' stated: ``Because of the immense variety and complexity of medications now available, it is impossible for nurses and doctors to keep up with all of the information required for safe medication use. The pharmacist has become an essential resource . . . and thus access to his or her expertise must be possible at all times.'' This legislation will empower Medicare to catch up on this important health care quality issue. Pharmacists' collaborative drug therapy management services can and will make a real difference in the lives of Medicare beneficiaries. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give this proposal their serious consideration.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I had intended to offer an amendment to H.R. 1836, the Reconciliation Tax Act, that would have called for a $1.7 billion increase in veterans health care funding. Senators Bingaman, Wellstone, Durbin, and Dorgan supported my amendment. While I will refrain from offering my amendment today, I will nonetheless continue to fight for improved health care for our Nation's heroes. In a few short days, Members of Congress will return home to participate in Memorial Day services around the country. There is no shortage of rhetoric to go around Congress in support of veterans benefits and veterans health care. However, when the time comes for real decisions to be made on the prioritization of veterans issues in the budget, too many Members of this body are missing in action. A case in point occurred during debate of the budget resolution. Despite bipartisan support for increased funding for veterans health care in both the House and the Senate, the budget conference report include funding levels below that proposed by the administration. Last week, I spoke with veterans from South Dakota who expressed their concern that the current level of funding in the budget conference report could mean long waits for appointments and reductions or cuts in vital services. These situations are not unique to my State and affect every VA hospital and clinic in the country. When the current level of funding in the budget conference, the VA could be forced to delay and even deny needed care and slash vital programs. Long term care and other provisions authorized under the Millennium Health Care Act must be fully funded in order to be carried out. The VA is faced with salary increases and inflation which alone consume over $1 billion of health care dollars. The Paralyzed Veterans of America, PVA, noted that the budget conference report ``pays a grave disservice to the sacrifice of the men and women who have served this Nation. By providing fewer resources than was provided in the House-passed version, or the Senate-passed version, the conference report breaks faith with veterans. By providing fewer dollars than even the Administration's inadequate request for health care and benefits delivery programs, the conference report calls into question the commitment of this Congress to sick and disabled veterans.'' The Veterans of Foreign Wars, VFW, described the budget conference report as ``sadly inadequate'' and unable to cover ``uncontrollable expenses such as health-care cost inflation, implementation of the congressionally mandated Millennium Health Care Act and other pressing initiatives.'' The Disabled American Veterans, DAV, and AMVETS noted that an additional $1.7 billion would provide necessary resources to meet the needs of the men and women who have served our nation and rely upon the VA for the health care they need. With an additional $1.7 billion, we will have the resources for a VA veterans health care budget that can adequately offset years of underfunding, the higher costs of medical care caused by consumer inflation, medical care inflation, wage increases, and legislation passed by Congress. Only with this additional funding will the VA be unable to address the treatment of Hepatitis C, emergency medical services, increased cost due to medical inflation, and long-term care initiatives. The Independent Budget, coauthored by AMVETS, the DAV, PVA, and the VFW, highlights the need to increase funding in a number of important health care initiatives including: an additional $523 million needed for mental health care; and additional $848 million necessary for long- term care; and additional $25 million needed to restore the Spinal Cord Injury program; and an additional $75 million to help homeless veterans. The budget conference report is clearly inadequate to meet the needs of sick and disabled veterans. It is unacceptable that while the House provided an increase, and the Senate truly met the needs of the VA, we are left with a figure that is below the amount found in either resolution, below the amount recommended by the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, below the amount initially requested by VA Secretary Principi, and far below the amount recommended by the Independent Budget. The amount in the conference report fails to meet mandatory salary increases due to inflation, fails to meet medical care inflation, and returns us to the days of inadequate budgets to meet the needs of veterans. Our country's heroes deserve better, and I encourage my colleagues to honor their service by supporting increased funding for veterans health care. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support for increased veterans health care be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota. I will be very brief. I applaud the work Senator Conrad has done on the marriage penalty amendment by accelerating the marriage penalty relief to begin immediately. One of the great disappointments of the pending legislation is that the marriage penalty is not phased out until beginning the year 2005. There are many of us who thought this was going to be one of the high-priority items we would be taking up in a tax cut bill, and yet we find nothing happens relative to getting rid of the marriage penalty for half a decade. The offset Senator Conrad has proposed is a delay in the phase-in of the marginal tax rates for the top two brackets, the 39.6 and 36- percent brackets. Those are families who are making roughly $300,000 a year for the 39.6-percent bracket and about $161,000 for the 36-percent bracket. This would be delayed. They would ultimately get the bracket reduction, the same as was initially proposed. The question is, who has to wait? The people with the marriage penalty or the highest tax bracket? Somebody has to wait to fit into the tax plan, and it seems to me we ought to accelerate the marriage penalty, which benefits everyone who is married, regardless of what their income might be, and move forward with that. Again, under this amendment, we will allow the phased-down reductions of those two top tax brackets just as was in the original bill. It is not a matter of eliminating bracket reduction, but it is a matter of having to choose, having to make a decision. We have to decide right here and now whose tax relief ought to come first. Should it be people who are, under Federal policy, being penalized for their marital status, or should the highest income people in America get their relief first and people who are being penalized for being married have to wait? To me, that is an easy decision. To me, public policy ought to encourage family stability. Public policy ought to encourage marriage, not discourage it, and in the course of trying to come up with a more equitable Tax Code, it ought to be among the very first items we address. To delay tax relief on the marriage penalty in order to continue to quickly reduce the tax brackets on the wealthiest upper percentiles of the American public does not make a lot of sense to me. This change would be a great benefit to married families all across South Dakota. It would affect, by slowing down the phase-in, fewer than 3 percent of the citizens of my State, but in exchange for that, they would get their marriage penalty relieved as well regardless of income levels. This is a sensible, commonsense amendment being offered by Senator Conrad. It does nothing to the overall scope of the tax cut. It does nothing to eliminate the reductions in brackets for the top income tax brackets, but it does say, with an exclamation point, right here and now that we will make elimination of the marriage tax penalty immediately one of our priorities. We should not be phasing it in over the course of 5 years simply to allow the immediate reduction of tax payments by the wealthiest upper percentiles in America. That is the tradeoff. That is the balance and choice we have to make. I applaud Senator Conrad for his work on this amendment and hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support the immediate elimination of the marriage penalty. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Harkin's amendment to the Better Education for Students and Teachers (BEST) Act, S. 1, that would restore the critical school repair program. I commend Senator Harkin for his leadership on this issue, and I thank Senators Kennedy and Jeffords for the work that they have done on the overall elementary and secondary education reauthorization bill before us today. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment. Communities across the country like many in my home State of South Dakota are struggling to address critical needs to build new schools and renovate existing ones. School construction and modernization are necessary to address urgent safety and facility needs, to accommodate rising student enrollments, to help reduce class sizes, and to make sure schools are accessible to all students and well-equipped for the 21st century. In South Dakota, it has become increasingly difficult to pass school bond issues, given the fact that real estate taxes are already too high and our State's agricultural economy has been struggling. The result is an enormous backlog of school construction needs, and the costs of repair and replacement only increase with each passing year. A report by the General Accounting Office found that in my home State of South Dakota, 25 percent of schools have inadequate plumbing, 21 percent of schools have roof problems, 29 percent have ventilation problems, and 21 percent of schools are not meeting safety codes. Crumbling schools are not just an urban problem. They are a nationwide problem, and rural areas are no exception. In fact, 30 percent of schools in rural areas report at least one inadequate building feature. Nationwide, the statistics are similarly ominous. The findings surrounding the condition of our Nation's schools is down-right frightening. Fourteen million children attend classes in buildings that are unsafe or inadequate. Nearly three-quarters of our Nation's schools are over 30 years old with 74 percent of schools built before 1970. According to the American Institute of Architects, one in every three public schools in America needs major repair. The American Society of Civil Engineers found school facilities to be in worse condition than any other part of our Nation's infrastructure. South Dakota's tribal schools also face very serious facilities problems and major construction backlogs. There are nine federally recognized tribes in South Dakota. At the same time, my State has 3 of the 10 poorest counties in the Nation, all of which are within reservation boundaries. With 56 percent of its people under the age of 24, the Native American population in this country is disproportionately young when compared the American population overall. This population strains existing school facilities. The BIA estimates that there is a construction backlog of $680 million in its 185 elementary, secondary and boarding schools serving Indian children on 63 reservations in 23 States. However, after several years of debate on this issue, Congress made substantial progress last year on the fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill by including a bipartisan agreement to provide $1.2 billion for a new school urgent repair and renovation program. This important program will help repair some 3,500 schools across the country this year and assist schools with approximately $5.4 million in repair needs throughout the State of South Dakota. Under this program, funds are allocated to the States based on title I and States are to make competitive grants to Local Education Agencies, LEAs. 75 percent of the funds are to be distributed to LEAs to make urgent repairs such as fixing a leaky roof, replacing faulty wiring or making repairs to bring schools up to local safety and fire codes. The remaining 25 percent of the funds are to be distributed to LEAs for activities related to Part B of IDEA or for technology activities related to school renovation. $75 million is reserved for school districts with more than 50 percent of their students residing on Indian lands. Senator Harkin's amendment reauthorizes this critically important program and increases the authorization to $1.6 billion, continuing the split between school modernization and IDEA negotiated in last year's bill. It is no secret that crumbling schools are a problem of enormous magnitude. It is nearly impossible to measure the impact that these conditions have on students' ability to learn, but there is no doubt that the impact is severe. The school repair program is a key component in a dual strategy to modernize our Nation's schools. Some schools have simply outlived their usefulness and need to be replaced. In addition, the record enrollment in our Nation's public schools have caused overcrowding that can only be remedied by building new schools. Estimates are that we will need to build 6,000 new schools by the year 2006 if we want to keep class sizes the same as they are presently. That is why we also need to pass legislation to provide school modernization bonds that will finance at least $25 billion in new construction through a Federal-State-local partnership. South Dakota has a great many school districts which are not completely impoverished, but yet find it almost impossible to pass a bond issue and otherwise adequately fund their education programs. I strongly believe that there is a legitimate federal role in helping fix our Nation's crumbling schools, and we can do so without undermining local control of education. I applaud and support these efforts to invest a small portion of our Nation's wealth in improved educational opportunities and facilities for all--this investment now, will result in improved academic performance, better citizenship and a stronger economy for generations to come. I urge the Senate to pass Senator Harkin's amendment and invest in the health and well-being of our Nation's school children. Amendment No. 477

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President I rise today to congratulate Mike Miller from Mitchell, SD. Mike, a starting small forward for the Orlando Magic, has been selected as the National Basketball Association, NBA, Rookie of the Year. As the fifth overall draft pick from the University of Florida, he averaged 11.9 points, 4.0 rebounds and 1.7 assists this year. Mike scored in double figures 51 times this year and scored a season-high 28 points against the Milwaukee Bucks on March 23. Although those statistics are very impressive, perhaps the most impressive part of Mike's rookie season was the leadership role Mike had to assume with the injury to his teammate Grant Hill. He responded to the challenge of filling the shoes of a perennial NBA all- star and he came to be a trusted go-to, clutch player. Of course he showed this type of poise when he made the game winning shot against Butler in last year's NCAA tournament. By winning this award, Mike has joined the ranks of the very best to ever play basketball. Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robertson, Michael Jordan and Shaquille O'Neal are just a few of the basketball luminaries who Mike joins as winners of this award. Those in South Dakota knew that Mike was destined for great things. As a three-time all-state selection and a two time state champion in South Dakota, Miller has showcased his abilities for many years. As a father of three children I know how proud Tom and Sheryl Miller must feel today. I join the rest of the State of South Dakota in congratulating Mike on his remarkable accomplishment and look forward to cheering him on as his career moves forward.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, on April 24, 2001, I voted to report S. 206, legislation which would repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act, out of the Senate Banking Committee. I did so with strong reservations. I have been one of the strongest supporters of public power during my service in Congress. Public power has been extremely beneficial for my State. Without the initiative and determination of the municipal utilities and the rural cooperatives in the early part of this century, South Dakota and the neighboring states would not have received electricity as soon as they did. Since then, these entities have provided South Dakota with reliable electricity and energy services. In addition, I have had a long record of support for public power. This includes authoring an amendment during committee consideration in the House of Representatives that helped stop the sale of the public power administrations that House Republicans attempted to sell in 1995. Moreover, I have worked closely with the rural electric coops, municipal owned utilities and rural telephone coops on a number of issues. Recently, I was graciously given an award from the South Dakota Rural Electric Cooperatives and the Congressional Leadership Award from the National Telephone Cooperative Association in recognition of the work we have done together. I have concerns about S. 206 and am not committed to voting for it on the floor. I believe that more needs to be done to ensure that sustainable, competitive markets are in place that will keep prices affordable and that will discourage undue concentration. I pledge to work with all parties on this effort so that any legislation that is considered will be fair to public power and its concerns.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President I rise today to recognize the Spirit Mound Trust and the State of South Dakota in their efforts to preserve and maintain the historic Spirit Mound site located near Vermillion, SD. Recently, 320 acres of the Spirit Mound site were acquired through the collaborative efforts and active involvement of the local community, the State of South Dakota and the Federal Government. On August 24, 1804, Lewis and Clark stopped near present day Vermillion, SD, and walked nearly 9 miles in temperatures over 100 degrees to a hill that native people thought was inhabited by devils 18-24 inches high. When Lewis and Clark reached the top of the mound, they saw the great northern plains buffalo herds below them, the beautiful Missouri River valley and even present day Iowa and Nebraska. As the Lewis and Clark bicentennial approaches, it is estimated that between 15-30 million enthusiasts will retrace the expedition's footsteps. This provides a unique opportunity for many to visit and enjoy South Dakota's beautiful and historic landscape. A restored Spirit Mound will significantly contribute to the public's appreciation of Native culture, the Lewis and Clark expedition and the natural beauty of South Dakota's prairie. Also, the W.H. Over Museum in Vermillion, SD, has established a Lewis and Clark/Spirit Mound Learning and Information Center. This center will help educate visitors about the historical role Spirit Mound played in the Lewis and Clark expedition. The Spirit Mound Trust, a group that has long advocated the preservation of the Spirit Mound site, was established in 1986 with the goal of raising the necessary money to purchase and restore the area to its native prairie landscape. The acquisition and restoration of Spirit Mound would not have become a reality if it were not for the leadership and perseverance of this local group. In the group's 15 year history, 17 board members--past and present--are responsible for Spirit Mound's current preservation. Those members are: Larry Monfore, Dr. Loren Carlson, Mark Wetmore, Margaret Cash, Dr. William Farber, Dr. Thomas Gasque, Amond Hanson, Dr. Jim Heisinger, Dr. Jim Peterson, Charles Wetmore, James Antonen, Dr. Betty Asher, Dr. Leonard Brugier, Dr. Jerry Johnson, Jim Kruger, Dr. Fred Peabody, and Dr. Webster Sill. Governor William J. Janklow and his staff also played an important role in the acquisition of the Spirit Mound site. Governor Janklow has been steadfast in his support for state participation in the Spirit Mound project. Tim Bjork, who is the director of the South Dakota Parks and Wildlife Foundation, negotiated the purchase price of the land. Without his leadership and tenacity, the acquisition of Spirit Mound would have never been accomplished. I would also be remiss if I did not thank my former staff member and Vermillion native, Sarah Dahlin. Because of her tireless work and dedication to this project, we are now able to celebrate the eventual preservation of one of the very few physical features of the Upper Missouri River readily identifiable as a place where Lewis and Clark actually stood. With Sarah's assistance, I am pleased that we were able to secure sufficient federal funds to purchase the Spirit Mound acreage and to pass legislation authorizing this unique federal-state partnership. Future generations will thank all of those who have sacrificed time, effort and money for this project. The preservation of Spirit Mound will enable all Americans to better appreciate what the Lewis and Clark Corps of Discovery experienced nearly 200 years ago.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of Gene and Jim Burdick of Redfield, SD. The Burdick brothers are being honored this week as the South Dakota Small Business Persons of the Year. Gene and Jim understand what many business owners have learned. Owning a business requires some talents, some know how, and a lot of hard work and perseverance. Like many small business owners, their enterprise is a family effort for the brothers and their wives, Lucy and Deborah. I congratulate the families and the employees of this company on their years of achievement. In 1984, the brothers embarked on a business partnership and founded Burdick Brothers, Inc. They built a business constructing trailers and custom equipment for area farmers, businesses, and individuals. Through the years, they cultivated a reputation as a company dedicated to innovation and customer service. In 1987, the company purchased its first building. Three years later, their successes were adding up and Burdicks were adding to the size of their building. In 1998, they moved into a second building with 12,000 square feet. This new facility allowed for additional equipment and space that the company quickly utilized on a bridge project helping the community of Redfield rebuild a needed facility following disastrous flooding in the region. Burdick Brothers, Inc. has been a valued member of the Redfield community for over 15 years. It is truly a South Dakota success story. I know that all those who contributed to the company's many achievements take great pride in the personal and collective accomplishments celebrated and recognized through this honor. It is with great appreciation that I join with the community, the employees, the customers, and the many people who interact with the company, to congratulate Burdick brothers on their years of service and success. I wish Burdick Brothers, Inc. enduring good fortune and prosperity in the continued pursuit of excellence.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the many contributions and services of Susan Meidinger of Aberdeen, SD. Susan is being honored this week as South Dakota's Small Business Advocate of the Year, an honor for which she is very deserving. Susan is a valuable asset to her community. She is a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the South Dakota Society of CPAs and the Northeast Chapter of CPAs. While raising three children, she took on the challenge of starting her own accounting firm. Through her commitment and dedication to her clients, the firm flourished. Susan measures her achievements not necessarily in the success of her business, but moreover, by the measure of how she can help her fellow businesses and clients achieve their own personal successes. It is not surprising, therefore, that her services are sought after. Despite the demands of balancing the work of raising a family and owning a business, Susan is an active participant in her community. By regularly putting her skills and talents to work on behalf of local organizations, she strengthens local establishments and helps to promote growth and opportunity in the area. Susan's work with the Small Business Development Center is an excellent example of why she is being honored for her work on behalf of Small Businesses. By volunteering her time and expertise, she helps entrepreneurs to achieve their aspirations and avoid cumbersome pitfalls or missteps in their accounting practices. She offers advice, counseling, and mentorship that enhances opportunities for business growth and job creation which has had a positive impact on many families. It is with great appreciation that I join with the community, the businesses, the customers, and those who know Susan Meidinger, to congratulate Susan for being honored as a Small Business Advocate of the Year. I wish Susan enduring good fortune and prosperity in the continued pursuit of excellence.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor South Dakota's native son, Lt. Shane Osborn, the Navy pilot whose leadership and piloting skills saved the lives of the crew detained in China for the first part of April. Even at three years of age, Shane exhibited a fascination with planes. Shane's family lived on a farm near Rapid City, South Dakota, where the farmer owned a small, two-seat aircraft. The hangar wasn't far from the house, and Shane would often climb into the plane and pretend to take to the skies in flight. This lifelong interest led Shane to the Navy where he trained as a pilot and was commissioned an officer in 1996. Shane eventually was transferred to Whidbey Island Naval Station in Washington where he was trained to fly naval reconnaissance. As his Navy EP-3E plane recently flew a routine mission near the Chinese coast, it is reported that a Chinese F-8 fighter plane made two passes near the American aircraft, flying within three to five feet of the plane. On the third pass, the Chinese pilot apparently ran into the American plane's propeller, sending Shane and his crew into a steep dive. With two of the four propellers out of commission, a smashed nose cone, and destroyed navigational instruments, the American plane dropped nearly 7,500 feet toward the China Sea. With sheer will and brute force, Shane managed to bring the plane under control and land safely on the Chinese island of Hainan. During the ensuing days as Shane and his crew were held by Chinese officials, I spoke with the Chinese Ambassador and urged his government to release the American crew as quickly as possible. I also passed along to the Ambassador an email message Shane's father, Doug, wrote to his son. As the parent of a son in the military, I understood the fear and uncertainty one feels when their child is suddenly placed in harm's way. However, when I spoke with Doug Osborn, I was reminded also of the immense pride and love that a parent feels for their son or daughter in the military. I commend Lt. Shane Osborn for his heroism in safely landing the disabled American plane and his leadership as mission commander during the 11 days the American crew was detained in China. Shane symbolizes the very best that we have come to expect from the men and women in our military. I will continue to be an advocate on military issues in Congress and make sure that military personnel like Shane receive the ``quality of life'' benefits they and their families deserve. After the numerous sacrifices the men and women in our military make for our country, we in Congress can be expected to do no less.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I am interested, given his remarks today, whether the Senator views President Bush's support for this legislation, support expressed by our Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State, as reflecting an inadequate consideration of the implications relative to China and inadequate consideration of the moral dimensions of our trade policy in the United States and certainly an inadequate consideration of the national security fundamentals of our Nation. Does the Senator suggest the Bush administration is in error in their support of this legislation?

Mr. JOHNSON. I will be very brief. I appreciate the Senator's thoughtful remarks. I do not want to delay his proceeding with those. The question is not whether the Senator supports the White House on each and every issue. The question simply is, Does the Senator support the administration and Colin Powell and the defense establishment of this administration on this specific issue? The point the President has made is that he wished this legislation would be brought up in a very timely, very expeditious manner. The question is not whether he supports the President--of either of our parties, all the time. Certainly we do not. The question is whether there was a disagreement with the defense establishment of this administration on this specific issue.

Mr. JOHNSON. May I put a question to the Senator from Wyoming?

Mr. JOHNSON. If I might respond?

Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Given the circumstances described by the Senator from North Dakota and my own knowledge of the five tribal colleges in my own State, I ask that every effort be made in Fiscal Year 2002 and beyond to fund the colleges at the level at which they are authorized in the Tribally Controlled College and University Assistance Act. Would the Senator from Iowa agree that with respect to the education funding amendment adopted by the Senate that this will be a priority?