Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to honor Marilyn Herz, a sixth grade language arts teacher from Rapid City, who has recently been named South Dakota's Teacher of the Year for 2001. Marilyn currently teaches at West Middle School in Rapid City and has taught various grade levels in the Rapid City Area School District since 1983. She has devoted an impressive 22 years of her life to teaching elementary school. Marilyn's greatest service to our community lies in her devotion as an educator to her students. She deserves the greatest praise both from the families of these young individuals, and from all those whose lives she will touch. Her efforts are an invaluable investment in South Dakota's future and we are all truly blessed to have her in the classroom. In a true testimony of Marilyn's devotion and love for teaching, she commented that her greatest contribution to education is simply that she has given, and will continue to give, all the caring, commitment, and compassion that she has within her to guide students to succeed academically, emotionally, and socially. Marilyn also makes extra efforts to see that her classes are learning to their potential and preparing themselves for the demands of the 21st century. A true veteran in the field of education, Marilyn's efforts to increase the credibility of teaching as a profession is designed to entice and encourage a new generation of students into following her in this most honorable profession. Marilyn will now proceed to the national competition for Teacher of the Year. I express my appreciation for the Rapid City Public School Foundation for sponsoring the Teacher of the Year program in the Rapid City School District. As well, I congratulate all of the South Dakota teachers nominated this year. I commend Marilyn for her outstanding service to the youth of our community. Congratulations and thank you, Marilyn, for your commitment to excellence and dedicated service to your students, your community, and to South Dakota.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate Virginia Driving Hawk Sneve for being awarded the National Humanities Medal for 2000 presented to her by the President of the United States. Virginia is the first South Dakotan to receive this prestigious award, and I am pleased that she is being recognized for her extraordinary contributions as an author, a counselor, and a teacher. As you know, the National Humanities Medal honors individuals whose work enhances the nation's understanding of the humanities while also preserving Americans' access to important resources about their history and society. The humanities preserve the voices of generations through history, literature, philosophy, religion, languages, and archaeology. However, the humanities are not simply records of past eras; they are an essential part to the development and understanding of our current culture and definition of who we are as Americans. Born on the Rosebud Indian Reservation in South Dakota, Virginia Driving Hawk Sneve has become one of the nation's preeminent storytellers. Virginia's stories often come straight from her experiences growing up on the reservation and help give an accurate portrayal of her ancestors' lives in the Dakotas. Her children's books have won numerous awards, including national competitions for minority children's books, because of their unique and poignant mixture of recorded events and imagination. Virginia has also given us valuable works of literature about the American Indian written from the female perspective. In her award- winning work, Completing the Circle, Virginia breaks the historic mold of denoting Native American women either as princesses like Pocohontas'' or noble savages like Sacagawea.'' The result is an educational account of the strengths and weaknesses of the Sioux culture from the female point of view. Virginia's research and writings have helped others to understand the high level of esteem held by the Sioux for women--a lesson from which Native American society and non- Indian cultures can draw guidance and appreciation. I applaud Virginia for the literary works she has given us and for her continued teaching, counseling, and mentoring in South Dakota. Virginia's words, either on paper or in person, have opened a nation's eyes to the lives of Native Americans and will prove to be the foundation from which other Native American writers, especially women, will continue to explore their unique heritage and society. Virginia Driving Hawk Sneve is a national treasure and the pride of South Dakota.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Dallas Tonsager for his years of extraordinary public service as South Dakota's State Director of the United States Department of Agriculture's, USDA, Rural Development, RD, office. Dallas has been a tireless advocate on behalf of rural communities and area residents. His commitment and dedication to ensure the long-term viability of rural communities will continue to cultivate opportunities for rural growth and prosperity for many years to come. Dallas has earned the respect and friendship of those who know him in South Dakota, Washington, D.C. and around the country. On behalf of the citizens of South Dakota, it is my honor to express our sincere gratitude to Dallas Tonsager for his countless contributions and achievements. In 1993, President Clinton asked Dallas to bring his talent, integrity, ingenuity, and initiative to federal service to help the Administration address the concerns of Rural America. Dallas accepted the challenge and was appointed director of the former South Dakota Farmers Home Administration by President Clinton. Currently he oversees approximately 80 employees across the state in several Rural Development offices. Prior to his USDA service, Dallas was a two-term South Dakota Farmers Union President, first elected in 1987. Dallas, his wife Sharon, and their family continue to actively participate in a diversified family farm partnership near Oldham, South Dakota. It is clear that from his roots on the family farm, to his service for South Dakota Farmers Union and USDA, Dallas has always had the perspective of the hard working, rural, South Dakota citizen close to his heart. Indeed, he is respected by his colleagues across the country and was presented with the ``Hammer Award,'' by Vice-President Gore in 1995. In 1999, Dallas was recognized as one of two Outstanding Rural Development State Directors in the entire nation by USDA Rural Development Under Secretary Jill Long Thompson. Rural Development takes a comprehensive approach towards economic development in rural areas, offering loans, grants, and other resources to rural citizens, communities, and Indian reservations. Dallas truly served as a partner in helping the people of rural South Dakota develop sustainable communities. He and his RD staff targeted financial and technical resources to areas of great need throughout the state in order to improve the quality of life. In his Rural Development tenure, Dallas has overseen the distribution of over $578 million in grants, loans and loan guarantees over the past six years in South Dakota. As such, the South Dakota RD office has been a central figure in the creation of many successful economic development projects in our state. For instance, the South Dakota Rural Development office was responsible for helping to create one of the first Enterprise Communities in the country--the Beadle and Spink Enterprise Community, BASEC. Additionally, RD assisted in developing the very first American Indian Empowerment Zone in the United States at the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Under the leadership of Dallas, Rural Development helped establish the South Dakota Value Added Agriculture Development Center , which now creates opportunities for farmers and ranchers to add value to the raw commodities produced on their operations, and capture the profits from these value-added products. Dallas is one of South Dakota's leading advocates of farmer-owned value-added cooperatives in South Dakota. Through the Rural Housing Service, South Dakota Rural Development has disbursed $320 million since 1995, which has benefitted nearly 6,000 families in our state. Moreover, RD has distributed $173 million in funding under the Rural Business Cooperative Service program, which has saved 2,001 and created another 1,414 jobs in South Dakota since 1995. Finally, Dallas and his family have always been dedicated to public service, and I know he will continue to contribute to our state and it's citizens in the future. Therefore, I wish him all the best and I will continue to rely upon his valuable insight on the economic development needs in South Dakota. On behalf of the people of South Dakota, I want to thank Dallas for being a true public servant who has helped improve the quality of life for thousands of people all across South Dakota.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to commend an individual who has provided immeasurable service to the family farmers and ranchers in my home state of South Dakota over the past eight years. Mr. Michael O'Connor has been the South Dakota State Executive Director for the Farm Service Agency, FSA, of United States Department of Agriculture, USDA. He was originally named the South Dakota State Executive Director of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service of USDA by President Clinton in 1993. His current responsibilities include supervising activity in 60 county FSA field offices across the state. As this Administration draws to a close, we sadly must say goodbye to some experienced, tireless, and talented people who have dedicated their professional careers to public service. Mike is one of those public servants, and so on behalf of the citizens of South Dakota, it is my honor to express our sincere gratitude to Mike O'Connor for his countless contributions and achievements. Throughout his career Mike has aggressively served the agricultural community in South Dakota through positions of leadership in the South Dakota Farmers Union, the Clay-Union Electric Board of Directors, the South Dakota Corn Utilization Council Board of Directors, and the Union County Pork Producers. He also served in as a representative in South Dakota Legislature from 1987-1993. Moreover, Mike, his wife Janelle, and their family have devoted their lives to production agriculture, operating a diversified grain and livestock farm for over 30 years near Alcester, South Dakota. Mike has been a valuable resource for me and a determined advocate of family farmers as we developed and implemented farm programs. He is constantly trying to improve the delivery system with the interests of family farmers close to his heart, always searching for ways to implement programs that are fair and equitable to all. Mike exhibits the courage to take on the status quo, and demonstrates a will to ensure integrity in program delivery for agricultural producers. Mike has guided innumerable disaster and assistance programs from the federal level to local disbursement in South Dakota. He and his top- notch staff have been asked to implement these ad hoc disaster programs in addition to the day-to-day administrative requirements of current farm and conservation programs. From marketing loans and loan deficiency payments to production flexibility contract payments and market loss payments, to loan and conservation programs, to crop loss disaster payments, Mike has seen it all. He has worked with his statewide staff to administer these programs and distribute payments in an effective, timely fashion to South Dakota farmers. In this last fiscal year alone, the South Dakota FSA, under Mike's direction, has delivered over $750 million to farm program participants in South Dakota. Mere words cannot describe everything that Mike has done to serve the farmers and ranchers in South Dakota through such an awful period of economic distress. Mike is as respected in Washington, D.C. as he is in South Dakota, and his working knowledge of the intricacies of farm bill will be missed. Therefore, it is with a sense of pride and yet, regret, that I wish Mike well in his future endeavors. Mr. President, I thank you and wish Mike, Janelle, and their family success in their future plans. I know that we will continue to work together, as Mike will continue to provide a respected opinion that I will seek out during the upcoming Congressional farm bill debate. On behalf of the people of South Dakota, I want to thank Mike for being a true public servant who has helped improve the quality of life for farmers and ranchers all across South Dakota.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Josh Heupel, a native of Aberdeen, South Dakota. All of South Dakota, and especially Aberdeen, is extremely proud of Josh, one of four finalists for the Heisman Trophy. The Heisman Trophy is presented annually to the nation's top collegiate football player. Josh is the starting quarterback of the number one ranked and undefeated Oklahoma Sooners, 12-0. Josh has passed for 3,392 yards and 20 touchdowns this year which makes him one of the Heisman favorites. Josh has led the Oklahoma Sooners through a very difficult schedule, which included two wins against top ten ranked Kansas State and overcame an early 14 point deficit against the then number one ranked Nebraska Cornhuskers. Josh is preparing for the National Championship game on January 3, 2001 against the Florida State Seminoles. No matter what the outcome is, I know the entire state is very proud of Josh and grateful he has conducted himself in a way that shines greatly on South Dakota. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate Ken and Cindy Heupel, Josh's parents, on Josh's success. As the father of three children who have participated in extracurricular activities, I can imagine how proud Ken and Cindy must feel today. Ken is currently the Head Football Coach at Northern State University in Aberdeen and Cindy is the principal at Aberdeen Central High School. Again, my congratulations to Josh Heupel and his family on behalf of the entire state of South Dakota.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to review where we stand, near the conclusion of the 106th Congress, on the subject of prescription drugs. Few issues have caught the public's attention more than this one, and few are more deserving of our attention. We live at a time when we can clearly discern remarkable benefits from all manner of drugs. It is nothing short of miraculous when we consider the relative ease and success of today's treatment of common disorders, as compared with that of only two or three generations ago. When World War II began, for example, penicillin and other similar antibiotics were known only to a small number of scientists. At the conclusion of the War in 1945, penicillin was widely available, used not only for battle wounds but for infectious diseases in the general public as well. Patients with high blood pressure or high cholesterol levels were, at best, only partially and inadequately treated in the 1940's and 1950's. Now success is the rule, rather than the exception. Calvin Coolidge's son died in 1924 as a result of a blister and a skin infection after playing tennis at the White House. An infection like that today would be treated as simple, outpatient therapy. While these examples are noteworthy and provide us with a valuable perspective of times gone by, the hard, cold fact is that many of these modern miracles are still out of the reach of too many American citizens. They simply cannot afford the drugs that might so often prove lifesaving, because of either no insurance or lack of drug coverage within their insurance. Why is this? Because, astronomical prices have come hand-in-hand with the great improvements in drug therapy. Spending for prescription drugs in the United States doubled between 1990 and 1998. In each of the five years between 1993 and 1998, prescription drug spending increased by an average of 12.4 percent. In 1999, the increase was 19 percent. We could go into all the reasons, but the fact remains that prescription drug prices are high and getting higher. Many millions of Americans, both Medicare age and younger have either inadequate or no prescription drug insurance at all. A by-product of no coverage is that these patients wind up paying the highest rates of anyone--an average of 15 percent more than those with insurance. Many of these uninsureds, including the seniors often called The Greatest Generation'' are not filling prescriptions because of their cost-- choosing between food and medicine. Or they split pills in half to make them go farther. This is shameful. These are very real every day problems that beg for help. So, given the fact of these well documented problems, what is the track record of this Congress in helping the citizens in my home state of South Dakota and the citizens of the United States? What do I tell my constituents back in Sioux Falls, or Custer, or Milbank when they ask me why nothing has been done to help them? I wish I could tell them that help is on the way. I wish I could tell them that the majority leadership heard their voices and scheduled the hearings and called for the votes. But, that just is not the case. Early in this Congress, I introduced, along with Senator Kennedy, the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors of Act of 1999''. This bill would provide Medicare beneficiaries access to prescription drugs at the same low prices that drug manufacturers offer their most favored customers, such as large insurance companies, HMO's, and the Federal Government. Without cost to the taxpayers, my proposal could save seniors approximately 40 percent on their drug bills, yet we did not see a vote on this floor. Similarly, in May of this year, I introduced the Generic Pharmaceutical Access and Choice for Consumers Act''. This bill encourages the broader use of generics in Federal health programs, a straight-forward common sense approach, yet we did not see a vote on this floor. Other measures that could have made a tremendous difference to millions of Americans also languished. This Congress should have passed a voluntary universal Medicare drug benefit plan. It did not. This Congress should have addressed rising drug prices. It did not. This Congress should have passed a truly strong and effective drug reimportation plan. It did not. This Congress should have passed a generic drug access plan. It did not. Mr. President, let me conclude by stating that these problems will not go away. Nor will my commitment for their resolution on behalf of the people of South Dakota and Americans across this country. The hope that this Congress will seriously address prescription drug costs and provide comprehensive Medicare drug coverage yet this year is all but an aspiration at this point. That being said, in a few months we will commence the 107th Congress. I will continue to do all that I can to work with my colleagues and urge the earliest possible discussions regarding prescription drugs in committee rooms and on the floor of the Senate. I believe this is the wish of most of the members in this body, as well as the wish and hope of the American people.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, throughout the past year, I continued working with local and state community leaders and law enforcement officials all across South Dakota in an effort to find solutions to the most pressing problems facing the people of my state. A number of issues that Congress can address were brought to my attention through these meetings, and I continue to find this statewide dialog extremely valuable on further developing a community approach to reducing crime. I've worked on a bipartisan basis with my colleagues in the United States Senate to help South Dakota communities get the resources they need to address the crime problems they face. Community Policing and the COPS Program Community Policing has proven effective in reducing crime rates nationwide, and I am optimistic that such efforts in our small towns will prove equally successful. As you know, the majority of potential offenders, both juvenile and adult, in our state are still within reach of rehabilitation and support to put them back on track as productive, law abiding citizens. I believe the Congress must assist state and local efforts to crack down on crime by continuing federal support through funding for localized programs. One of the most successful programs in South Dakota has been the COPS program. Since 1995, the COPS program has allowed South Dakota communities to hire 290 new police officers. In addition, the COPS program has expanded recently to help school districts hire police resource officers to deal with youth violence in South Dakota schools. The COPS in School's program has committed $1.25 million to South Dakota communities. Although the COPS program has helped reduce the overall crime rate nationwide and has been extremely popular with local law enforcement in our state, I find myself once again working to make sure the program is adequately funded. I support the Administration's request of $1.3 billion for the COPS program to hire 7,000 new police officers nationwide, provide local law enforcement with advanced crime fighting technology, hire more community prosecutors, expand crime prevention programs, enhance school safety programs, and assist law enforcement on Indian Reservations. At this level of funding, South Dakota would receive an estimated $734,000 next year to help fight crime in our communities and in Indian Country. However, the Senate and House Leadership's inability to pass the annual appropriations bills has put COPS funding in jeopardy. I will continue to work with my colleagues to increase funding for this critical program and am hopeful that common sense will prevail over partisan gamesmanship on this crucial issue. The Kyl-Johnson Federal Prisoner Health Care Copayment Act Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and I introduced two years ago a bill to require federal prisoners to pay a nominal fee when they initiate certain visits for medical attention. Fees collected from prisoners will either be paid as restitution to victims or be deposited into the Federal Crime Victims' Fund. I am pleased that the President recently signed into law the Kyl-Johnson Federal Prisoner Health Care Copayment Act. South Dakota is one of 38 states that have implemented state-wide prisoner health care copayment programs. The Department of Justice supported extending this prisoner health care copayment program to federal prisoners in an attempt to reduce unnecessary medical procedures and ensure that adequate health care services are available for prisoners who need them. My interest in the prisoner health care copayment issue came from discussions I had in South Dakota with a number of law enforcement officials and U.S. Marshal Lyle Swenson about the equitable treatment between pre-sentencing federal prisoners housed in county jails and the county prisoners residing in those same facilities. Currently, county prisoners in South Dakota are subject to state and local laws allowing the collection of a health care copayment, while Marshals Service prisoners are not, thereby allowing federal prisoners to abuse health care resources at great cost to state and local law enforcement. As our legislation moved through the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senate last year, we had the opportunity to work on specific concerns raised by South Dakota law enforcement officials and the U.S. Marshals Service. Senator Kyl was willing to incorporate my language into the Federal Prisoner Health Care Copayment Act that allows state and local facilities to collect health care copayment fees when housing pre- sentencing federal prisoners. Violence Against Women Act I am pleased the President recently signed into law a reauthorization of the landmark Violence Against Women Act. The legislation is part of a larger bill that also includes ``Aimee's Law.'' I've supported Aimee's Law'' in the past and am pleased this provision will help crack down on states that fail to incarcerate criminals convicted of murder, rape, and dangerous sexual offenses for long prison terms. I've been involved in the campaign to end domestic violence in our communities dating back to 1983 when I introduced legislation in the South Dakota State Legislature to use marriage license fees to help fund domestic abuse shelters. In 1994, as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, I helped get the original Violence Against Women Act passed into law. Since the passage of this important bill, South Dakota has received over $8 million in funding for battered women's shelters and family violence prevention and services. In South Dakota alone, approximately 15,000 victims of domestic violence were provided assistance last year, and over 40 domestic violence shelters and outreach centers in the state received funding through the Violence Against Women Act. Shelters, victims' service providers, and counseling centers in South Dakota rely heavily on these funds to provide assistance to these women and children. The original Violence Against Women Act increased penalties for repeat sex offenders, established mandatory restitution to victims of domestic violence, codified much of our existing laws on rape, and strengthened interstate enforcement of violent crimes against women. I am pleased to support efforts this year that strengthen these laws, expand them to include stalking on the internet and via the mail, and provide local law enforcement with additional resources to combat domestic violence in their communities. Juvenile Justice While I am pleased that Congress continued to debate Juvenile Crime legislation this session, I am disappointed that Senate and House Leadership will allow Congress to adjourn without enacting important juvenile crime prevention programs into law. The leadership of several of America's law enforcement organizations, along with prosecutors and crime survivors, have consistently endorsed quality child care and after-school programs as a primary way to dramatically and immediately reduce crime. I will continue to support significant increases in funding for Head Start, Early Head Start, after-school programs and the Child Care and Development Block Grant program in large part because of the potential these programs have to reduce juvenile crime and domestic violence nationwide. Combatting Methamphetamine in South Dakota A number of South Dakota law enforcement officials and local leaders have told me that meth abuse has become one of their top crime-fighting priorities in the past few years. Meth abuse threatens our young people, law enforcement officers, and our environment. Once again, I led efforts to enhance punishments of meth operators, mandate restitution for meth lab clean-up, and increase funding for treatment and prevention efforts. I also joined Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) in successfully securing emergency funding for meth lab clean-up efforts in South Dakota and nationwide. There is much to be done to bring crime rates in our state down, and to help every South Dakotan feel safe in their home and community. I look forward to continuing my work with state and local leaders, law enforcement agencies in South Dakota, and my Republican and Democratic Senate colleagues in Washington. Together, by focusing on community crime prevention and by investing in our kids, I believe we can make progress in addressing the unique needs of our South Dakota communities.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my appreciation for the contributions of Brian Kaatz, Pharm. D. who has worked as part of my staff for the past three months as a senior Fellow. Brian's expertise in the area of pharmacology has made him a tremendous asset to my legislative staff, and I am fortunate to have had his assistance. When he returns to the Department of Clinical Pharmacy at South Dakota State University in December, I know he will be missed immensely by me and my entire staff. Fellows are often considered secret weapons to the Members they assist. Brian has been no exception. He came to my office with a distinguished professional career accompanied by a wealth of experience within the pharmacy industry. While his expertise lies in clinical pharmacy, Brian's interests range from issues involving infectious diseases and use of antibiotics, nutrition, health care ethics, drug policy and roles for pharmacists. Currently a Professor and Department Head of Clinical Pharmacy at the South Dakota State University, Brian has had a career filled with accomplishments. He has been president of the South Dakota Society of Hospital Pharmacists, a member of the committee that re-wrote the pharmacy practice act passed by the South Dakota legislature in 1992, an official delegate several times to the American Society of Health- System Pharmacy annual meeting, and served as a consultant to several South Dakota hospitals and law firms. Additionally, Brian has authored or co-authored approximately twenty-five professional articles and is currently the editor of the South Dakota Journal of Medicine's Pharmacology Focus column, published monthly in South Dakota's Physician Journal. He has made numerous major presentations both regionally and nationally, and received several awards over the years for his notable career. Throughout the past three months, Brian has worked on a number of projects in my office dealing with pharmacy and health care. Brian led research efforts regarding a comprehensive study comparing prescription drug prices throughout South Dakota and the impact of rising drug costs on those without insurance. Many millions of Americans, both Medicare age and younger have either inadequate or no prescription drug insurance at all. There are roughly 39 million Medicare beneficiaries in this country, one third of whom have no prescription drug coverage. At a time, when drug prices are rising at rates far greater than the rate of inflation and seniors around this country are forced to choose between buying food or pills, we have an inadequate Medicare program that provides no coverage for prescription drug costs. The study that Brian spearheaded provided me with crucial data and real life stories depicting the impact of this issue for South Dakotans, young and old alike. Brian's research furnished my office with up-to-date and unbiased information that enabled me to communicate effectively with my constituents, especially pharmacists, during this time. Unfortunately, Congress was not able to come to an agreement on how we provide Medicare beneficiaries with prescription drug coverage, therefore the information that Brian compiled for me will be critically important as I work on this issue in the 107th Congress next year. Brian also facilitated discussions with the Government Accounting Office, GAO, on two subject matters involving direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs and conflict of interest matters involving the Food and Drug Administration's Advisory Committee members. The research Brian conducted in these two areas will provide me with the basis for further discussions with GAO and congressional committees seeking hearings into these matters. Brian previously authored and co-authored two articles specifically on the subject of direct-to-consumer advertising and has completed extensive research in this field. I ask to have the contents of these two articles printed in the Record following completion of my statement. One of the most important tasks as a Senator is to communicate with your constituents back home. Balancing my duties in Washington with my schedule in South Dakota is often challenging due to uncertainties of the Senate schedule. Brian's established relationship with the South Dakota Pharmacist's Association, South Dakota Board of Pharmacy and several national pharmacy organizations was extremely crucial to his work with my office. He was able to advance discussions surrounding several issues with these groups which will aid me tremendously in my future work with prescription drugs, roles of pharmacists and other health policy matters. Brian can take pride in his career and dedication to health care issues. He is a recognized health care expert, an educator, an author, an advocate and a friend. I wish to express my deep gratitude to Brian for a job well done. I wish him the very best in his future endeavors. The articles follow. [From the South Dakota Journal of Medicine, Dec. 1998] Direct-To-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs: An Ethical Perspective (By Brian Kaatz) There is no doubt to anyone who reads this that the detailing and promotion of prescription drugs is big business. Thousands of sales representatives are employed and millions of dollars are spent annually to explain the putative advantages of certain products over others. Notably, the effort by pharmaceutical manufacturers to expand market share of certain targeted prescription drugs has traditionally been directed solely to health professionals. This has changed in a big way. Newspapers, magazines, and television are inundated with prescription drug promotions aimed at attracting the attention and interest of the public. Advertisements are intended to stimulate the individual interest of patients, which then potentially will result in inquiries (or demands) directly to physicians for that product. This approach may seem entirely satisfactory to the general public, but it is potentially problematic from several standpoints. Even under the best of circumstances, most clinicians will admit that their knowledge of new drug products is far from complete. Ideally, a perspective of when or if to use a new product will come from careful surveillance of the primary literature, consultation with a respected and knowledgeable colleague, or from an unbiased, current review of a specific category of drugs. Many physicians pragmatically approach a new drug intending to be ``neither the first nor last'' to use it. This approach could understandably be thwarted if a number of patients persistently request a particular product as a result of the tried-and-true marketing approach of repetitive media encounters and high product visibility. A patient may not be understanding if her physician tells her that he has no experience with a drug when at the same time the patient has seen it advertised maybe 20 times in the last two weeks. What is wrong with my doctor? Doesn't he watch TV? The result may be subtle pressure or even coercion to prescribe the drug in question. Tens of millions of dollars are spent advertising drugs like Claritin, Rezulin, Zocor, and Pravachol. Apparently, this approach has been especially successful since August of 1997, when the FDA allowed televised advertisements to be exempt from detailed descriptions of drug risks. This ruling at least relieved the viewing public from the sometimes bizarre, oblique ads that were seen prior to this, when requirements limited drugs to a name but no detail as to its use. Even relatively astute observers were sometimes confused about the intent of these commercials. Now, patients and other interested parties are referred to the Internet or other sources ``for more information,'' though they obviously are already headed down the road of special interest in that drug. Beyond the easy questions that would ask, why can't these tens of millions of dollars be used to lower drug costs, or be put into research for new and safer pharmacologic entities, what of the ethics of direct-to-consumer advertising? Patient autonomy has been argued elsewhere as being the preeminent ethics principle. There is a strong case for patients knowing as much as they can reasonably understand about disease processes and medication risks and advantages. There is also a strong case for patients being actively involved in their own therapeutic journeys and fully participating in these kinds of decisions. But can we relate direct-to-consumer advertising with true patient autonomy? Is advertising valuable in the effort to develop autonomous decision making? There is a case for answering these questions in the negative. It must be remembered that patient autonomy does not begin and end with the simple act of a patient making a decision. To the contrary, autonomous decision-making occurs only when there is a fully informed decision-maker. Autonomy is based upon that important element. Thus, one can readily see that a brief, colorful advertisement by itself offers little in the way of full disclosure and does not contain the complete tools necessary to make an autonomous decision. It perhaps is particularly important in these situations for doctors to maintain a healthy beneficent attitude which could result in a patient receiving a drug with which his physician is familiar and comfortable, rather than the one that is most persistently on prime time. It is not a disservice to attempt to dissuade a patient who is only partially armed with knowledge from committing to long term therapy with a potentially suboptimal drug. And it is not true autonomy that is being exerted when a patient presses for that drug. What might at first glance seem like autonomy lost is actually beneficence gained. [From the Journal of Medical Humanities and Bioethics, Spring/Summer 1987] The Physician and the Pharmaceutical Detail Man: An Ethical Analysis (By Jerome W. Freeman and Brian Kaatz) The principal focus of medical practice should be the patient's interest. The physician's conduct in the clinical realm should consistently reflect this. Arguably, this ideal is not always realized. An example of a circumstance in which the patient's interest does not predominate occurs in the context of the physician's interaction with pharmaceutical companies. These companies have a variety of marketing techniques directed at physicians in order to promote prescription drugs. This essay will explore the ethical implications of one aspect of these marketing programs-- namely, the role of pharmaceutical salespersons. These men and women have a variety of titles including ``sales representative,'' ``medical sales liaison,'' and ``detail man.'' The latter term is commonly used, apparently as a reflection of these representatives' efforts to provide physicians with details or data about drugs. Before attempting to assess the ethical implications of pharmaceutical companies' marketing techniques, a specific inquiry into the goals and ideals of medical practice is warranted. Most physicians take for granted the notion that the patient's interest is of primary importance and that moral dilemmas in medicine are appropriately resolved through a patient-centered ethic. Kass reflects this view when he notes that ``loyalty to the patient must be paramount, first, because the mysterious activity of healing depends on trust and confidence, which is lodged by the vulnerable and dependent patient with the physician, in the very act of submitting to his care.'' The basis for such a patient-centered ethic derives from, and is consistent with, basic ethical principles. Veatch' characterizes these principles as the ``basic social contract,'' and he points out that diverse ethical systems frequently arrive at a similar core of basic principles and derivative rules. Often such principles include autonomy, nonmaleficence and beneficence. On the basis of such articulated principles, society can proceed to define the nature of relationships between a profession and society. Veatch argues that this process can establish that a contract or covenant exists between the physician and society and between the physician and the individual patient. This covenant arguably mandates a patient-centered ethic in medicine, guided by adherence to those basic ethical principles society has defined and endorsed. Of these major principles, autonomy dictates that the physician treat the patient with dignity and respect and that the patient be allowed to participate in his or her own health care decisions. Nonmaleficence warrants that the physician endeavor to avoid causing the patient harm through his actions. The sense of this principle, thought to derive from the Oath of Hippocrates, is often quoted in the Latin phrase primum non nocere (first, do no harm). Beneficence stipulates that the physician work actively to benefit the patient by contributing to his or her health and welfare. In this ethical framework, it is possible to characterize the impact that pharmaceutical marketing techniques have on the physician-patient relationship. The pharmaceutical detail man promotes his company's products to physicians in a number of ways. He or she frequently calls on physicians in their offices and also meets with them in the hospital. Often in hospitals the representatives from various pharmaceutical companies participate in a rotational schedule for operating a drug display in a prominent location, usually near the physicians' entrance. A detail man frequently has one or two drugs to promote actively, and literature and visual displays which describe these agents. Each salesperson argues why his or her drugs are better than competitors' formulations. In addition to a verbal message and printed information, the detail man often has various ``gifts'' for the physician. Pens or writing pads inscribed with a particular drug name are common. Gifts also include free texts, medical equipment (such as reflex hammers and penlights), and medical bags (typically given to graduating medical students). Drug samples are frequently offered. In addition, the detail man may coordinate more elaborate gratuities such as cocktail parties, refreshments at medical meetings (such as those of state medical association groups) and the sponsorship of medical symposia. Specific examples of such marketing efforts are illustrative. One of our community hospitals was approached by a drug salesperson to participate in a study involving an antibiotic that was on the market. This drug's utilization had been minimal because of increased cost to the patient and the fact that it offered no substantive therapeutic advantage. The proposal extended to the physicians and hospital was to use the drug on a given number of patients, at the patients' expense. Physician participants in the study were to be ``reimbursed'' 125 dollars for each patient enrolled. This sum was designated to cover ``expenses'' associated with the study. A second example of an elaborate gratuity system has recently been utilized in our community. Selected physicians were invited by a pharmaceutical company's detail man to an expense-paid seminar in a popular vacation city. The meeting focused on a new antihypertensive drug (at the time, this drug company had the only formulation of this drug on the market). The educational component of the meeting was judged to be very good by the physician participants. This promotional package included airfare for the physician, lodging for the physician and spouse, meals, a cocktail party, and an evening of dining and dancing on a chartered river boat. In the year following this event, two other pharmaceutical companies have offered similar meeting packages to physicians in the community. Such promotional efforts are clearly expensive. For instance, it has been estimated that each visit by a detail man to a physician costs the pharmaceutical company 75 dollars. Despite the expense, however, drug companies have found that the use of the detail man is the most effective means of promoting their products. These companies often prefer to characterize their detail man as ``service representatives'' purveying information, rather than as salespersons. One company not only requires the detail man to attend four tutorials a year, but also gives pharmacology tests to all its representatives quarterly. But such training does not negate the fact that, in practice, detail men function as aggressive, effective salespeople. Indeed, most of them are at least partially reimbursed on a commission basis. Their success as pharmaceutical representatives is clearly dependent upon their ability to sell drugs. Those drugs which representatives emphasize at any given time reflect corporate decisions based on such factors as competition, quotas and the patent status of the drugs. Given the stated nature of the physician-patient covenant, the type of relationship that frequently exists between the physician and the detail man is ethically troublesome. More specifically, that relationship appears to violate all three of the basic ethical principles previously discussed. By virtue of the principles of autonomy and beneficence, the patient has a right to expect that he or she will be treated with dignity and respect. He or she expects to receive the best possible treatment the physician can generate. The patient has a right to assume that the physician's therapeutic decisions are based solely on scientific medical knowledge, unbiased by extraneous factors or inducements. Thus, the very nature of the physician-patient covenant, and the principles that underlie it, would seem specifically to preclude the physician from basing a drug-prescribing decision on factors other than what is objectively best for the individual patient. To the extent that the physician decides to try out a new drug or opt to prescribe regularly a medication simply because he likes a detail man or because he is consciously or unconsciously affected by his or her various inducements and salesmanship, the physician would seem to be violating the patient's trust. One wonders what a patient's reaction would be if he or she were explicitly aware that such interactions and inducements existed. In addition, the principle of nonmaleficence can be violated by the physician-detail man relationship. Often the new drug formulations which are promoted offer no meaningful advantage over older drugs. Yet, in taking them, the patient risks the possibility of experiencing adverse effects as yet undiscovered or not well publicized (even when the drug has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration). The recent controversy surrounding the drug Oraflex constitutes such an example. This drug was vigorously promoted as a new, very effective agent for arthritic symptoms. Shortly after its release, this agent was removed from the market because it was associated with serious liver toxicity in some patients. Moreover, the patient usually pays considerable financial premium when a new drug formulation is used. Invariably, the newer drugs being marketed are significantly more expensive than older, and sometimes equally effective, drugs whose patents have expired (rendering them much less profitable to the pharmaceutical company). Again, the average patient has no insight into this fact. He or she certainly is not usually afforded the opportunity to decide autonomously whether the drawbacks and risks of a new drug formulation render it less advantageous than other, longer-established drugs. And indeed, even if the typical patient is given some knowledge of drug options, he or she lacks the expertise to participate seriously in the decision of which drug to employ. In fact, it is the physician alone who ordinarily must make the determination of which drug to employ. If this decision is based on sound, scientific data, the choice of a new and more costly drug may clearly be justified. However, to the extent that the physician does not rely on objective medical data (as published in medical journals or discussed at medical meetings), but rather derives his information from the drug companies' own representatives, a potential conflict of interest exists. Pharmaceutical companies might respond to this assertion by observing that in our free enterprise system there is nothing wrong with vigorously marketing one's products. Indeed, in the open marketplace it is, of course, common to offer a variety of inducements, including rebates, coupons, gifts and other types of price reductions. However, this situation is not analogous to the relationship between the detail man and the physician. In the ordinary marketing arena, companies attempt to influence the purchaser and user of various products. This is categorically not the case in the relationship between the physician and the pharmaceutical companies. The patient is the passive, dependent recipient of the physician's practice decisions. By virtue of this fact, as well as the implicit covenant which exists between the physician and the patient, the physician has an obligation to strenuously avoid basing any prescription decisions on factors other than the strict medical indications for those drugs. To the extent that the physician is either unconsciously or manifestly induced to use the drugs of a given detail man or pharmaceutical company, in the absence of strict medical indication, a significant ethical problem exists. The implications of this analysis are clearly troublesome. It would appear that the current standard of medical practice, in terms of the relationship between the physician and the pharmaceutical detail man, may readily promote outcomes not in the patient's best interest. Since the physician-patient covenant and the ethical principles which underlie it warrant that the patient's interests should be the prime focus of medicine, significant changes are warranted in the methods which pharmaceutical companies employ to market their drugs. Currently, pharmaceutical companies, medical organizations and individual physicians are clearly party to, as well as beneficiaries of the present marketing techniques. Thus, there are powerful incentives to maintain this longstanding system. The pharmaceutical companies' profit makes it understandably difficult for them to endorse sweeping changes in their current, successful marketing practices. Many medical organizations and their scientific journals are largely dependent on the advertising which is purchased by the drug companies. And certainly the individual practitioner, too, clearly benefits from the current system of gifts and gratuities. Changes in the present system of drug marketing will doubtless come slowly. Most likely, improvements will evolve only as individual physicians become better educated about these ethical concerns and committed enough to demand alterations in the present marketing practices. The individual physician's role in this process should not be viewed as an optional one. Rather, the physician is ethically mandated to work for change in this realm of drug marketing. This responsibility derives from the physician's clinical covenant with the patient and the moral principles which underlie it.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned that important efforts to support small businesses are jeopardized by the many unrelated amendments that have been added to H.R. 2614 the Small Business, Health, Tax, and Minimum Wage Act. I ask my colleagues to join me in working to pass important legislation vital to preserve the Certified Development Company Program, the Small Business Innovation Research Program, and the reauthorization of the Small Businesses Administration. As Congress prepares to adjourn, it is irresponsible to prevent action on these important issues. I am very concerned that innocent provisions that support small businesses and job creation are being held hostage in a debate over unrelated issues. H.R. 2614 was introduced as a bill to amend the Small Business Investment Act to make improvements to the certified development company program. This program provides gap financing which is vital to foster entrepreneurship and create economic opportunities. In recent days, however, this bill has been loaded down with numerous provisions that completely overshadow this program and threaten to shatter our chance to authorize these programs before Congress adjourns. I am proud to speak out on behalf of the real intent of H.R. 2614 which would help small businesses succeed. There is an old proverb used in my state of South Dakota which advises; ``Don't put off until tomorrow what can be done today.'' Today, we should strip out the politically charged amendments that have been tacked onto this bill and pass legislation both parties agree is important to our economy, our local communities, and many businesses and families across the country. It is careless not to reauthorize these important programs because of election year politics which bogged down the legislation with unrelated issues. Congress should vote on the genuine issues with regard to small business programs. We must not let certain partisan differences cause us to turn away from our opportunity to promote the entrepreneurial spirit of our country. There are many issues before this body which evoke strong differences of opinion, however, authorizing these important small business programs are not among them. I urge my colleagues to join me in securing the passage of this important legislation and not allow these widely supported initiatives to fall victim to nonrelated amendments thrown together in the closing days of Congress.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, every year in October there is recognition made of our nation's pharmacists in the form of National Pharmacy Week. This year's designation was October 22-28, 2000. I would like to take a few minutes to talk about that profession and its role in the safe, cost-effective delivery of medication to American citizens. I have great respect for the innovation that this nation's scientists have demonstrated to continually produce new and better ``wonder drugs'' that have played a major role in the prevention and treatment of disease. Farther down the line within the drug delivery system are pharmacists, using those same drugs every day, getting them to patients along with information for their safe use. The role of the pharmacist is changing. In addition to the traditional role of accurately dispensing prescription drugs, today's pharmacists are successfully involved in all areas of the drug use process. The result of this involvement, often termed ``pharmacy care'' has made a huge positive difference in many studies within the areas of anticoagulation, asthma and diabetes treatment, pain control and many others. When pharmacists are proactively involved, there have been demonstrations of not only increased effectiveness and fewer adverse reactions, but cost savings as well. Within the startling report issued earlier this year by the Institute of Medicine, which pointed out that tens of thousands of American die every year from medical errors, was a recommendation to increase the utilization of pharmacists and pharmacy care. So today I would like to congratulate the pharmacy profession for its accomplishments in improving patient care. During this Congress several bills have included provisions to encourage and support pharmacy care. I believe this is a fascinating approach that we should strongly consider as we continue to work toward optimizing the safe and cost- effective use of prescription drugs.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, anyone who has lived or visited in the United States during the last few years has been exposed to a phenomenon which is uniquely American. I speak of the direct-to- consumer advertising of prescription medicines. U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturers will spend an amount this year very close to $2 billion on advertising to the general public. This can be compared to about just $150 million in 1993--which explains why no one can avoid these advertisements even if they wanted to. They are ubiquitous--TV, radio, newspapers, and magazines are all replete with prescription drug ads. Typically, the drugs that are most heavily advertised are among those that ultimately are the most heavily prescribed. According to a recently released National Institute for Health Care Management study, for example, the seven drugs in 1999 which had more than $1 billion in sales were advertised an average of $58.5 million each. Together, they contributed an estimated 24.3 percent toward the increases in total expenditures of prescription drugs during 1999. Clearly, advertising works, just as it always has. Advocates of this relatively new technique to increase name brand prescription sales will say that consumers become more aware of treatment possibilities and may have a better starting point for discussion with their physicians. Other observers believe this practice artificially increases demand from consumers who are still not fully educated enough to know about less expensive, or maybe even safer, alternatives. Certainly, the advertising costs are passed along to the consumer. Is the information value worth the yearly increases in drug costs that advertising inevitably causes? Are patients getting the best individualized choices of medicines or the just best advertised ones? Are generic drugs, often an excellent cost-effective alternative, getting equal consideration? Frankly, I have my concerns about this practice. Many professional organizations have gone on record as opposing the kinds of direct-to- consumer advertising that goes on today. I believe it bears very close watching and we all need to closely scrutinize its value and its place within the health care system.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr.President, I rise today to commend the Sawtooth Hotshots for their valiant efforts in fighting the recent forest fires that raged through the Black Hills of South Dakota and other western states. The Hotshots are U.S. Forest Service fire crews that specialize in putting out large forest fires. The work is tough, demanding and invaluable. The Hotshot crew is dedicated, spending countless hours training for situations like those faced this summer. Once the fires occur, they often literally work around the clock to save the forests. Nowhere is this spirit more exemplified than by Jared Hohn, a 21-year old college student from Hill City, South Dakota. For the last four summers, Jared has worked as a member of the Hotshot crew, fighting fires all over the country to help put himself through college at the University of South Dakota. As a member of the crew, he often works 16 hour days and, in one instance, worked for 42 hours straight fighting desert fires. The work is dangerous and many lives have been lost. But the 80 hours of training that the crew receives at the start of each summer greatly helps to minimize the danger that they face. The training teaches proper firefighter techniques and understanding of the forces that affect fires, like weather patterns. The dedication to public service and to saving lives is reflected in Jared and the entire Hotshot crew. Jared and the Hotshots are a hard- working group who literally lay their lives on the line to improve the world around us and to protect us from fires. We owe a great deal to them and to the Forest Service for preforming such a valuable public service.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr President, I rise today to applaud Senate adoption of legislation I introduced to re-authorize and expand a popular program which provides mediation services between agricultural producers and the various credit and United States Department of Agriculture agencies who family farmers and ranchers work with to maintain their farming and ranching operations. On June 15, 2000, I introduced S. 2741, legislation to re-authorize, expand, and clarify the state agricultural mediation program. Nine Senators cosponsored this legislation, including Senators Daschle, Roberts, Conrad, Grassley, Kerrey, Craig, Harkin, Dorgan, and Levin. I thank these colleagues for their bipartisan support for my bill, which was included as part of the Grain Standards Act adopted by the Senate earlier this week. Extension of this mediation program was adopted with wide bipartisan support in the Senate as part of the Grain Standards Act Reauthorization. The present state agricultural mediation law was set to expire this year, but our reauthorization extends it through 2005. This step was significant because family farmers and ranchers in my state of South Dakota and all across this country continue to suffer from a depressed rural economy and rock-bottom commodity prices. Agriculture is the backbone of our economy, and we must not fail to provide support to our family farmers and ranchers who are coping with these difficult times. During the 1980's farm crisis, Congress approved federal funds and participation in a state-by-state operated farm mediation program. Authorized in the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987, this mediation program helps farmers and ranchers, and their creditors, in resolving credit disputes in a confidential and non-adversarial setting, which is outside the traditional process of litigation, appeals, bankruptcy, and foreclosure. The mediators are neutral facilitators and they do not make decisions for the disputing parties. Each year Congress provides funding for state mediation, and these funds are matched with state funds to carry out the mediation program. Currently, twenty-five states participate in this mediation program, including Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. I am pleased we were able to clarify and expand the scope of mediation in this reauthorization. With the support and direction of the Coalition of Agricultural Mediation Programs (CAMP), mediation now clearly can aim to resolve disputes such as wetland determinations, grazing issues, and USDA farm program matters, in addition to the traditional credit role of mediation. CAMP represents the individuals and entities across the nation who administer the state agricultural mediation programs, and I thank that organization for their leadership on this issue. I want to specifically offer my thanks and gratitude to Linda Hodgin, Director of Mediation and Ag Counseling, with the South Dakota Department of Agriculture. Linda's knowledge, input, and ability to work with CAMP enabled Congress to enact the mediation reauthorization this year. Under her direction in the last two years, around 500 family farmers and ranchers in South Dakota have benefitted from the services of mediation and counseling. The mediators and counselors who work with Linda in South Dakota are to be commended for their time and commitment to family farm agriculture. We live in a day and age where nearly every farmer and rancher must secure financing from some source in order to take care of production costs associated with agricultural production. This mediation program allows agricultural producers to settle their credit and farm program disputes in a fair way without digging themselves into legal debt. I wish to thank my colleagues who supported this important initiative.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, given that over thirty groups and several more individuals were active participants in this historic agreement in South Dakota--it is impossible to aptly recognize every single one that deserves credit for this achievement. However, I cannot overlook the efforts of two real champions of this agreement and pilot project--two individuals who worked closely with me to make sure their idea developed from a South Dakota agreement to a six-state pilot project that the 106th Congress enacted and that the President will sign into law. Paul Shubeck, a Centerville, South Dakota farmer and Carl Madsen, a Brookings, South Dakota private lands coordinator for the Fish and Wildlife Service developed this plan and helped negotiate its path through Congress. Paul Shubeck greatly impressed me with his ability to shepherd this proposal, not only within a diverse coalition of South Dakota groups who normally do not tend to agree on wetlands matters, but also at the national level where he consistently advocated on behalf of the American family farmer who just wants a chance to produce a crop on his land and protect the environment all at the same time. Paul's drive and ability to compromise were key to the success of our pilot project. Carl Madsen was a real source of passion for this project and provided us with a sense for the big picture--how our pilot would and could work in South Dakota and other parts of the United States. Carl's deep knowledge of wetlands and conservation policy provided us with critical technical assistance to ensure this pilot project was a credible, practical program. Many, many more individuals and groups in South Dakota and the United States provided direct assistance to this effort Mr. President, and I want them all to know I am deeply grateful. Earlier this year Mr. President, Senator Daschle and I urged Secretary Dan Glickman and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to implement the South Dakota agreement in principle on an administrative basis. While USDA was supportive of the concept, they were reluctant to implement such a program without a clearer understanding of the purpose and implications of the program. In response, on July 7, I brought a top USDA official to a farm near Renner, South Dakota where we met with several groups and individuals to discuss how to conserve these critical wetlands yet compensate farmers for taking the wetlands out of crop production. It was there that some suggested a pilot project would be the best route to take. Then, on July 27, Senator Daschle and I introduced S. 2980 to create a South Dakota pilot project permitting up to 150,000 acres of farmable wetlands into CRP. Once S. 2980 was introduced, national conservation, wildlife, and farm organizations took interest and requested that we expand the pilot to cover more than South Dakota. The proposal adopted by Congress is the result of weeks of negotiations between Senator Daschle, myself, USDA, Senator Lugar who serves as the Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and several national groups who now support the pilot. The changes resulted in expanding this program to the Prairie Pothole Region of the United States, including South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, and Montana. It is limited to 500,000 acres in those states, with an assurance that access be distributed fairly among interested CRP participants. I truly believe this pilot project will provide landowners an alternative to farming these highly sensitive wetlands in order to achieve a number of benefits including; improved water quality, reduced soil erosion, enhanced wildlife habitat, preserved biodiversity, flood control, less wetland drainage, economic compensation for landowners for protecting the sensitive wetlands, and diminished divisiveness over wetlands issues. Moreover, the pilot project is consistent with the purpose of CRP, and, if successful, could serve as a model for future farm policy as we look toward the next farm bill. I believe Congress will be unable to develop a future farm bill without the support of those in the conservation and wildlife community. I am a strong supporter of conservation programs that protect sensitive soil and water resources, promote wildlife habitat, and provide farmers and landowners with benefits and incentives to conserve land. I have introduced the Flex Fallow Farm Bill Amendment to achieve some of these objectives. It is my hope that the success on our pilot project can serve as a model to once again bring conservation groups together with farm interests in order to develop a well-balanced approach to future farm policy that protects our resources while promoting family-farm agriculture. Finally, I fully understand the successful adoption of this wetlands pilot project--no matter how important--will not put an end to the ongoing debate over the management of wetlands on farmland. Yet, I really hope that everyone engaged in the debate considers how effective we can be when we cooperate and compromise on this important issue.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to offer sincere thanks and gratitude for the cooperation and leadership demonstrated this year in South Dakota by a large coalition of farm, conservation, wildlife, and environmental groups in my great State. These groups have taken an almost unprecedented step to cooperate in solving a problem concerning the treatment of wetlands in the context of production agriculture in South Dakota. Their cooperation led to the adoption of a pilot project--the Conservation of Farmable Wetland Act of 2000--negotiated through Congress by Senator Daschle and me whereby farmed wetlands in a six- state region can become eligible for enrollment in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). When it comes to conservation policy and the federal farm program, many issues are hotly debated. Perhaps nowhere has this become more evident than in the administration and policy implications of managing wetlands on farmground in South Dakota and the entire country. A real battle over the management of farmed wetlands has waged over the years between farmers--who own and farm the productive land where these wetlands are located--and conservation groups--who believe these wetlands should be maintained in their natural state. Earlier this year, over thirty South Dakota groups struck an agreement in principle regarding the treatment of wetlands with some constructive ideas to signify a cease fire of sorts in this battle over the management of wetlands. Their agreement in principle expressed support for financial assistance for farmers and landowners who voluntarily chose to commit the wetlands on their private lands--primarily land in crop production--to conservation under CRP. The farmable wetlands targeted in their agreement are located in low-lying draws or waterways that run through crop fields and carry runoff and topsoil into creeks and rivers in wet years. In dry years, these wetlands are farmed. Currently, grass filter strips surrounding these farmed wetlands qualify for CRP, but not the actual wetland acreage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the agreement in principle and name of every group signing the agreement be printed at this point in the Record, and that my statement continue in the Record at the conclusion of the agreement in principle and list of groups.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to publicly commend Lincoln McIlravy, a native of Phillip, SD, on earning a bronze medal for his remarkable display of athleticism in the freestyle wrestling event at the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney, Australia. Lincoln McIlravy's wrestling talent combined with years of practice, and an extraordinary dedication to physical excellence attribute to his athletic success. On October 1, 2000, Lincoln became one of America's best wrestlers on the global Olympiad stage where he scored a solid 3-1 victory over Sergei Demtchenko of Belarus, thus victoriously claiming the bronze medal in the 69kg freestyle event. Success has been abundant in Lincoln's wrestling career, as his honors include being a three-time NCAA champion for the University of Iowa, as well as four U.S. National titles, 1997-2000. Yet, Lincoln's prominence as an international contender began when he was a member of the 1997 World team. McIlravy then became a two-time world medalist having won a silver medal at the 1999 World Championships and a bronze medal in the 1998 World Championships. He not only was a 1999 Pan American Games champion, but also a 1998 Goodwill Games champion, in addition to the three-time World Cup champion, 1998-2000. Lincoln McIlravy is an exemplary athlete who richly deserves this distinguished recognition. Therefore, it is with great honor that I share Lincoln's impressive Olympic accomplishments with my colleagues.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased the President recently signed into law the Federal Prisoner Health Care Copayment Act. As you know, Senator Jon Kyl and I introduced last year a bill to require Federal prisoners to pay a nominal fee when they initiate certain visits for medical attention. Fees collected from prisoners will either be paid as restitution to victims or be deposited into the Federal Crime Victims' Fund. My State of South Dakota is one of 38 States that have implemented State-wide prisoner health care copayment programs. The Department of Justice supported extending this prisoner health care copayment program to Federal prisoners in an attempt to reduce unnecessary medical procedures and ensure that adequate health care services are available for prisoners who need them. My interest in the prisoner health care copayment issue came from discussions I had in South Dakota with a number of law enforcement officials and US Marshal Lyle Swenson about the equitable treatment between pre-sentencing Federal prisoners housed in county jails and the county prisoners residing in those same facilities. Currently, county prisoners in South Dakota are subject to State and local laws allowing the collection of a health care copayment, while Marshals Service prisoners are not, thereby allowing Federal prisoners to abuse health care resources at great cost to state and local law enforcement. As our legislation moved through the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senate last year, we had the opportunity to work on specific concerns raised by South Dakota law enforcement officials and the US Marshals Service. I sincerely appreciate Senator Kyl's willingness to incorporate my language into the Federal Prisoner Health Care Copayment Act that allows state and local facilities to collect health care copayment fees when housing pre-sentencing federal prisoners. I also worked with Senator Kyl and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to include sufficient flexibility in the Kyl-Johnson bill for the Bureau of Prisons and local facilities contracting with the Marshals Service to maintain preventive-health priorities. The Kyl- Johnson bill prohibits the refusal of treatment for financial reasons or for appropriate preventive care. I am pleased this provision was included to pre-empt long term, and subsequently more costly, health problems among prisoners. The goal of the Kyl-Johnson Federal Prisoner Health Care Copayment Act is not about generating revenue for the Federal, State, and local prison systems. Instead, current prisoner health care copayment programs in 38 States illustrate the success in reducing the number of frivolous health visits and strain on valuable health care resources. The Kyl-Johnson bill will ensure that adequate health care is available to those prisoners who need it, without straining the budgets of taxpayers.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, last week, the Senate passed a conference report which contained the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, the legislative branch appropriations bill, and a repeal of the century-old telephone excise tax. This package was the first of the several ``mini- omnibus'' packages we will likely consider in the waning days of this Congress, and unfortunately, it demonstrates the fundamental problems associated with this type of legislating. I voted against this mini-omnibus for several reasons. The Senate never had the opportunity to even consider the Treasury-Postal bill on the floor. Many issues that are critical to Senators could not receive deliberation because of the unwillingness of the leaders to allow the Senate to fulfill its constitutional directive of deliberating on the crucial issues facing the nation. I will not review the entire list of neglected issues again. That recitation has occurred elsewhere, and I am confident we will hear more about them in the coming days. Suffice it to say, I deplore the procedure that permits unpassed appropriations bills to go right to conference. Other than the procedural irregularity, I opposed this conference report because it did not contain language to strike the congressional pay raise. It is unfathomable to me that at a time we cannot raise the minimum wage to bring a full-time worker above the poverty line, we once again raise salaries for Members of Congress. I have opposed any effort to raise congressional salaries in every year since 1994. I, and similarly- minded colleagues, were denied the opportunity to fully debate this issue. I cannot support this increase, especially under the current circumstances with so much unfinished business. Unfortunately, many initiatives I support were also included in this package. Among them is the repeal of the telephone excise tax, a revenue used originally to help fund the Spanish-American war. This three percent surcharge is among the most regressive taxes, and I was proud to be an early cosponsor of the effort to repeal it. In addition to cosponsoring the original legislation, I voted to repeal this tax when the repeal was offered as an amendment to the estate tax repeal. In a time of unprecedented surpluses, we must fix some of the inequities in the tax code. I am disappointed we have not managed to accomplish more. Once again, this is indicative of the overly partisan nature of Senate activity, and this partisanship has blocked fair tax reform. Nonetheless, I am pleased we have at least resolved the federal telephone excise tax, a reform which will save all Americans $51 billion over the next decade. I commend the major telephone providers for committing to pass fully these savings to consumers, and I once again regret that the unique and deplorable manner in which this Congress is fulfilling its responsibilities forced me to vote against this package.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Congress and the President on the recent enactment of S. 2420, the bill to provide long-term healthcare insurance for federal employees. As the nation's largest employer, we have set an example for the private sector in establishing a long-term care insurance program for federal workers and retirees. At least thirteen million people are expected to benefit from this far-sighted effort, but there is more work to be done on those issues affecting current and former Federal employees. Today, I wish to highlight three proposals on which I have received much correspondence from my constituents: repeal of the Government Pension Offset, GPO, elimination of the Social Security Windfall Elimination Provision, WEP; and, health insurance premium conversion availability. I am a cosponsor of S. 717, Senator Mikulski's proposal to reform the GPO. Additionally, I am a supporter of initiatives in the House of Representatives to eliminate the WEP. Both pieces of legislation alleviate current laws that block Federal annuitants and their spouses from collecting full Social Security benefits. Because of the current budget rules requiring the offsetting of spending cuts or tax increases, passage of these reforms have been complicated. We should not penalize people who have worked hard and contributed to the country simply because they worked for the Federal government and receive a Federal pension. This Senate must consider these bills a priority, and seriously review the offsets necessary to achieve these essential and fair changes. I believe that we need to enforce a budget discipline which will balance the budget without borrowing payroll tax dollars from the Social Security trust fund and any other federal trust funds. However, now that the budget is balanced, we should first restore the change that helped bring us toward fiscal soundness. Finally, I wish to address the availability of health insurance premium conversion arrangements. As my colleagues may be aware, no Senate legislation has been introduced, but H.R. 4277 has been introduced in the House. Under the provisions of this bill, the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, would be directed to take necessary measures to ensure that enrollees have the option to paying charges out of pre-tax earnings. This would ensure equal premium tax treatment for federal workers and retirees. I urge my House and Senate colleagues to provide full consideration to this legislation, and bring Federal employees and retirees pay and benefit equity and fairness. Mr. President, these are just three issues of concern to me and my constituents. While enactment of the long-term care bill was a great step forward, I must reiterate my call for more work to be done. I am hopeful that we may make a serious effort on this legislation on the few remaining days of the 106th Congress. These concerns will not go away, and I know we will surely be hearing about the GPO, WEP, and premium conversion in the next Congress is we do not take action this year.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate will vote today on the fiscal year 2001 Department of Defense Authorization Conference Report. This defense bill contains historic improvements in health care coverage for the approximately 12,600 military retirees, their families, and survivors currently living in South Dakota. In addition, the defense bill contains much-needed quality of life'' improvements for men and women in active duty and several improvements to the TRICARE health care system for active duty personnel and their families. On the first day of this legislative session, I introduced the Keep Our Promises to America's Military Retirees Act to restore the broken promise of lifetime health care for military retirees and their dependents. Men and women were promised lifetime health care for themselves and their families upon completion of 20 years in the military. However, military retirees are currently kicked out of TRICARE once they become eligible for Medicare. The current situation breaks a promise our country has made with its veterans and military retirees. The lack of adequate health care coverage for military retirees also impacts retention of qualified military personnel and sends a negative signal to young men and women considering a career in the military. My bipartisan legislation received the endorsement from military retiree and veterans organizations as well as from a grassroots organization of thousands of military retirees across the country. My legislation called for military retirees to have the option of staying in their TRICARE military health care program or electing to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, FEHBP. The Keep Our Promises to America's Military Retirees Act would also allow military retirees who entered the military prior to June 7, 1956 (the date military health care for retirees was enacted into law) to enroll in FEHBP with the United States paying 100 percent of the costs. I offered my legislation as an amendment during Senate consideration of the fiscal year 2001 Defense Authorization bill. Although the amendment failed on a procedural motion, I was pleased that Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner agreed to include one part of my bill--the expansion of TRICARE to Medicare-eligible military retirees--in both the Senate defense bill and the final conference report that will be sent to the President. The conference report also extends full DoD pharmacy benefits for Medicare-eligible military retirees. Military retirees will now be able to use DoD retail and mail-order pharmacy programs. A 20 percent copayment is required for retail, and a $8 copay is required for a 90- day supply of mail-ordered drugs. As you recall, this pharmacy provision was included in the Senate defense bill after I was successful in creating a special military retiree health care reserve fund'' in the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution. The fiscal year 2001 Defense Authorization Conference Report includes a number of other health care and ``quality of life'' improvements for men and women in active duty and their families. I am pleased this bill eliminates TRICARE Prime copayments for active-duty family members as well as increasing reimbursement rates for TRICARE providers. In my numerous meetings in the state on TRICARE, low reimbursement rates have been of particular concern because the low rates make recruitment of TRICARE health care providers in rural areas difficult. With my support, the bill also includes efforts to improve TRICARE through good business practices, increased technology, and reduced administrative waste. The conference report includes a much-deserved 3.7 percent pay raise for active duty and reserve personnel. I am pleased the bill also begins the process of eliminating the mandatory out-of-pocket housing costs incurred by servicemembers. Recruitment and retention efforts will be enhanced with incentives to join ROTC and increased enlistment bonuses, as well as a provision that allows VEAP conversion to the Montgomery GI Bill for servicemembers currently on active duty who had previously contributed to VEAP. While I am pleased that a number of health care issues have been addressed in this year's defense authorization bill, there is more work that needs to be done. I will continue to work with cosponsors of my Keep Our Promises legislation to provide military retirees with the option of using FEHBP and to address the broken promise of free lifetime health care to those military personnel who entered the military prior to June 7, 1956. I am also disappointed that the bill failed to adequately address a rule that prohibits disabled vets from receiving their retired pay and disability compensation concurrently. I am a cosponsor of legislation that would correct this injustice, and I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure its eventual passage. Finally, I will continue to fight for increased veterans education benefits through a strengthened Montgomery GI Bill and passage of my Veterans Education Opportunities Act. The health care improvements and ``quality of life'' improvements included in this year's defense authorization bill are a testament to the hard work and grassroots organization of thousands of military retirees across the country. One particular military retiree, Fred Athans from Rapid City, recently completed his term as national president of The Retired Enlisted Association. Fred and countless others from South Dakota and around the country were essential in the passage of this legislation.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to request that the provisions of Title III of H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act be included in the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations conference report. The Interior Appropriations conference report passed last week included increased funding for land, water and wildlife conservation programs. While the bill is a positive first step towards providing permanent funding for these programs, I would have preferred to see enactment of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, CARA, especially the wildlife conservation provisions in Title III of the bill. To this end, I am requesting that Title III of H.R. 701 be included in the conference report of the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill. I was a strong supporter of CARA when it was reported out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, of which I am a member. It is the most important conservation and wildlife measure that Congress has written in the last 50 years. In particular, I am very pleased with Title III of the bill, which addresses wildlife conservation. I was actively involved early in the process and worked with the Committee to see that the wildlife provisions were included in the final product. Title III would provide funding for a diverse array of fish and wildlife species, with an emphasis on preventing species, both game and non-game, from becoming endangered. These goals would be achieved by conserving important wildlife habitat, funding wildlife inventories to design better management plans, and working cooperatively with private landowners in a non-regulatory, incentive-based manner. Moreover, it gives the States the flexibility to set their own goals to meet their needs in a way that works for them. In addition, the emphasis on preventing species from becoming endangered will go a long way to help private property owners. Addressing concerns for endangered species on their lands is a costly process. Preventing species now from becoming endangered later is an investment that will save landowners valuable time and money that would occur after the species have been depleted. In addition, CARA will make it easier on hunters and anglers---more than 90 percent of all State fish and wildlife agency funding is from user fees. The passage of Title III and of CARA would create more equity in funding preservation efforts. I am concerned that the language in the Interior bill, while providing funding for a new wildlife conservation fund'' does not provide enough funding for the States to meet their needs and leaves discretion to the Fish and Wildlife Service without giving States the proper flexibility to administer the programs. Wildlife conservation efforts have been chronically underfunded over the years. Including Title III of CARA would help to guarantee that sufficient resources are available so that States and the Nation can meet these important needs.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr President, I rise today in support of the Daschle- Johnson resolution that commends the men and women who valiantly fought the Jasper fire in the Black Hills of South Dakota. The fire that raged through the Black Hills caused considerable damage to the forests in these states. Almost 100,000 acres burned in the Black Hills alone. To the great relief of all of us in South Dakota, the fire has been brought under control. The firefighters in our state did a tremendous job in containing the fire. Their efforts have been nothing short of Herculean. The fire started near Jasper Cave on the Black Hills National Forest on August 24, 2000 and was contained by September 8, 2000. By the second day, the fire had quadrupled in size and was burning as fast as 100 acres per second. The fire threatened private homes in the communities of Deerfield, Custer and Hill City, the Jewel Cave National Monument and the Mount Rushmore National Memorial. It also forced the evacuation of many residents on northwestern Custer County and southwestern Pennington County. 1,160 men and women worked around the clock, most of them volunteers who literally risked their lives and made great sacrifices to contain the fire. Special mention should be made of the Tatanka Hotshot crew, an elite 20-person firefighting team based in the Black Hills who came from fighting fires in western Wyoming the fight the Jasper fire. While the Tatanka crew has fought several fires throughout the country, this was the first major fire they fought in their home forest . The firefighters were incredibly successful. In spite of the rugged terrain and the intense speed and size of the Jasper fire, it was contained with only one home lost and with no injuries to any firefighters or local citizens. This resolution commends the firefighters for their bravery, their extraordinary efforts to contain the fire, and their commitment to protect lives, property and the surrounding communities. Senator Daschle, myself, and the entire Senate are proud of their efforts. We can't thank them enough.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate today will vote on legislation to reauthorize the landmark Violence Against Women Act. The legislation is part of a larger bill that also helps end the trafficking of women and children into international sex trades, slavery, and forced labor. This bill passed the House of Representatives last week, and I am confident the President will sign it into law. I have been involved in the campaign to end domestic violence in our communities dating back to 1983 when I introduced legislation in the South Dakota State Legislature to use marriage license fees to help fund domestic abuse shelters. At that time, thousands of South Dakota women and children were in need of shelters and programs to help them. However, few people wanted to acknowledge that domestic abuse occurred in their communities, or even their own homes. In 1994, as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, I helped get the original Violence Against Women Act passed into law. Since the passage of this important bill, South Dakota has received over $8 million in funding for battered women's shelters and family violence prevention and services. Nationwide, the Violence Against Women Act has provided over $1.9 billion toward domestic abuse prevention and victims' services. In South Dakota alone, approximately 15,000 victims of domestic violence were provided assistance last year, and over 40 domestic violence shelters and outreach centers in the state received funding through the Violence Against Women Act. Shelters, victims' service providers, and counseling centers in South Dakota rely heavily on these funds to provide assistance to these women and children. Some of these examples include: The Mitchell Area Safehouse started the first Family Visitation Center in the state with these funds. The center ensures that children receive safe and monitored visits with their parents when violence has been a factor in their home environment. Now there are 9 such centers in the state. The Winner Resource Center for Families received funding to provide emergency shelter, counseling services, rent assistance, and clothing to women and children in south-central South Dakota. Violence Against Women Act funding has also allowed Minnehaha County and Pennington County to hire domestic court liaisons to assist with the Protection Order process. In Rapid City, Violence Against Women Act funding also allowed Working Against Violence Inc. (WAVI) to develop a Sexual Assault Program and provide specialized crisis intervention and follow-up for child and adult survivors of rape. On the Crow Creek reservation, Violence Against Women Act funding helped the tribal justice system to develop stalking, sexual assault, and sexual harassment tribal codes. Similar efforts have been realized on the Rosebud and Sisseton-Wahpeton reservations through this program. The original Violence Against Women Act expired last Saturday, October 1, and I once again led the fight in the Senate this year to reauthorize this legislation. The bill that the Senate will vote on today authorizes over $3 billion for domestic abuse prevention programs. I am especially pleased that the bill includes a provision I supported that targets $40 million a year in funding for rural areas. The National Domestic Violence Hotline is also reauthorized in this legislation. As you know, this hotline has received 500,000 calls from women and children in danger from abuse since its creation in 1994. The hotline's number is 1-800-799-SAFE, and I encourage any woman or child who is in an abusive environment to call for help. The original Violence Against Women Act increased penalties for repeat sex offenders, established mandatory restitution to victims of domestic violence, codified much of our existing laws on rape, and strengthened interstate enforcement of violent crimes against women. I am pleased to support efforts this year that strengthen these laws, expand them to include stalking on the internet and via the mail, and extend them to our schools and college campuses. Passage of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill is another important step in the campaign against domestic violence. While I am pleased that this historic legislation will soon be on its way to the President for his signature, the fact remains that domestic violence remains a reality for too many women and children in our country and in South Dakota. I will continue to do all that I can, as a member of the United States Senate and a concerned citizen of South Dakota, to help victims of domestic violence and work to prevent abuse in the first place.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to publicly commend Shirley Ragsdale, the editor for the Sioux Falls, South Dakota Argus Leader newspaper, on her receiving the national Casey Journalism Center Awards 2000 Casey Medals for her outstanding coverage of the plight of South Dakota's children in the Juvenile Corrections facilities. The Casey Medals for Meritorious Journalism honor distinguished coverage of disadvantaged children and family, and the institutions and agencies charged with serving them. The Casey Journalism Center serves as an independent national resource center for professional journalists and it is operated by the University of Maryland and funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Shirley Ragsdale is a talented journalist, an advocate of children's rights, and a dedicated citizen of South Dakota. This honorable award is a reflection of her extraordinary talent, creativity, and ability to convey depth and originality supported by thorough research and consistent documentation. Her unremitting and well-reasoned editorials pressed for changes in the unacceptable practices, as indicated by substantiated reports of abuse, occurring within the South Dakota juvenile correction system. Shirley Ragsdale truly deserves this prestigous award. It is an honor for me to share her impressive achievements with my colleagues and to commend her on her journalistic success.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and I can think of no better way to start off the month than by reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act and providing thousands of South Dakota women and children with the resources and protection from violence and abuse. As you know, programs contained in the Violence Against Women Act expired October 1. I have sponsored legislation to reauthorize and expand these important programs, and the reauthorization bill has received broad, bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. In fact, there are 72 Senators cosponsoring my bill. Also, the House of Representatives voted last week by an overwhelming 415-3 margin to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. This Congress, that has failed to act on several important legislative initiatives, has the opportunity to do something right this week. Majority Leader Lott can schedule votes today on reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, and it would pass overwhelmingly. The President has promised to sign the bill as soon as possible. The time to act is now. In South Dakota alone, approximately 15,000 victims of domestic violence were provided assistance last year. Shelters, victims' service providers, and counseling centers in South Dakota rely heavily on these funds to provide assistance to these women and children. Reauthorization of this legislation assures that South Dakota communities will continue to have access to critical funds for domestic violence services. A woman from South Dakota recently wrote me about this issue, and I shared her story on the Senate floor last week because I believe it made the most compelling case for reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. This South Dakotan was abused as a child, raped as a teenager, and emotionally abused as a wife. Her grandchildren were also abused. In her letter, she pleads: Please reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. Don't let another woman go through what I went through, and please don't let another child go through what my grandchildren have gone through. You can make a difference.'' I also heard from a Rural Outreach Advocate in South Dakota who said a grant from the Violence Against Women Act enables her and other advocates to help battered women in our state. She noted that many assaulted women and children in our state live in remote, rural areas that don't have available services. Without grants from the Violence Against Women Act, this Rural Outreach Advocate warned that we will be unable to help a majority of battered women and children on our state's farms and in our state's small towns. In addition to the need to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, I recently joined Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota in introducing legislation called the National Domestic Violence Hotline Enhancement Act. Since 1994, the National Domestic Violence Hotline (1- 800-799-SAFE) has received 500,000 calls from women and children in danger from abuse. My legislation would create the National First Call for Safety web site that would allow National Domestic Violence Hotline operators to quickly and easily find the most appropriate shelter for callers. The highly secure and confidential web site would keep a continuously updated, nationwide list of available shelters and information about services and facilities offered by these shelters. My legislation is modeled after the successful Day One program in Minnesota. Day One has run a web site linking every shelter in Minnesota and reports that 99 percent of women and children who call are assured to receive shelters and services that meet their needs. While there are many worthwhile issues that must be addressed by this Congress in the next few weeks, I can think of no better accomplishment for Congress than to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act and pass my National Domestic Violence Hotline Enhancement Act. Simply put, these laws will help keep wives, daughters, sisters, and friends from becoming victims of domestic violence.