Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the career of Patrick Gross, a dedicated public servant and an outstanding former member of my staff. He will be ending his career as the community development program director for USDA rural development in South Dakota. As USDA's rural development community development program director, Pat has been a model for other dedicated and talented South Dakotans to emulate and an invaluable asset to everyone who had the honor of working with him. As an original member of my staff, during my first term in the House of Representatives, Pat played an essential role in the development and creation of my congressional offices in South Dakota. As my first State director, Pat laid the groundwork for future members of my State staff to follow. A leader in State economic and rural development, both constituents and staff members often turned to Pat for his leadership and wealth of knowledge. An avid outdoorsman and advocate for rural development, Pat was well prepared for a position as my State economic development director. Pat's work on natural resource initiatives, land management concerns, and economic development projects, benefited countless South Dakotans. I could not have asked for a more reliable and dedicated individuals to head the direction of my State offices. As community development program director, Pat oversaw special initiatives including the Oglala Sioux Tribe Empowerment Zone, Beadle and Spink Enterprise Community, four Champion Communities, and public information activities for USDA rural development. He served on the senior management team for USDA rural development in South Dakota and is the recipient of the 1999 USDA Road Warrior Award. He served as chairman of the South Dakota Rural Development Council and also served USDA on several national committees. Pat led the process for a 5-year strategic plan for rural development in South Dakota, which included strategic planning processes for eight American Indian tribes. He shared responsibilities in the Federal/private collaboration that planned and developed the SuAnne Big Crow Youth Wellness Project on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. Pat will be greatly missed at the USDA rural development in South Dakota, and I wish Pat, his wife Donna, and their family all the best in the days to come. They are good friends, and I look forward to spending time with them in the future. It is an honor for me to share Pat's accomplishments with my colleagues and to publicly commend his outstanding services to my office and the people of South Dakota.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, my concern today is not to lay blame for past decisions which now place every American family, every American community in very real jeopardy from these weapons of mass destruction and which now give rise to the clear possibility, if not great likelihood, of war in Iraq with its attendant costs in lives of combatants and innocent civilians alike. Rather, it is my concern that this Senate and this Nation clearly understand how we arrived at this point so that we might learn from our Nation's past tragic mistakes. As Mr. Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post writes: The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait--which included large- scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors--is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators. . . . The United States also provided billions of dollars in credits to help arm Iraq, ostensibly to assist with its war at that time against Iran. The review of declassified documents and interviews with former policymakers: reveals that the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague. Anthrax and bubonic plague from the United States to Iraq. The Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Department terrorism list in 1982 over the strong objections of Congress. Despite this delisting, Iraq continued throughout the 1980s to harbor terrorists, including even Abu Abbas, leader of the Palestinian Liberation Front. The Reagan administration effectively turned a blind eye to the export of dual use items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications. . . . When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf war, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers. Mr. President, sadly, there is no new precedent in our Government using our citizens' tax dollars to finance the purchase of weaponry for antidemocratic, antihuman rights, and unstable foreign nations only to see their short-term friendship disappear and to have them become enemies to the United States and the Western World. What is truly shocking here, however, is that the very possession of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, which is the justification for a new war in Iraq and which places in jeopardy the safety of American families, American communities, and American military personnel, is, in large measure, the consequence of decisions made by the Reagan and Bush administrations. As we speak, tens of thousands of U.S. gulf war veterans continue to suffer from exposure to chemical agents over a decade ago. We in Congress debate whether and how to inoculate hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans to protect them from biological weapons that their own Government helped create in Iraq. It is one thing that our Nation would have provided cluster bombs and conventional weaponry to Saddam Hussein--it no doubt seemed important and strategically helpful to the purpose of stabilizing the Middle East during the 1980's. But how can members of this Senate look members of our military in the eye--and I include my own son, a sergeant in the 101st Airborne and a veteran of Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan--and acknowledge that these past administrations, albeit without congressional knowledge or consent, allowed Iraq to acquire the anthrax, and bubonic plague viruses? The circumstance our Nation now faces, from the threats of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as well as the possibility that these weapons have or will fall into the hands of Al-Qaida or other non-state terrorist organizations, are to a great degree, circumstances of our own making. Obviously, no American administration has ever supported terrorism against our own people, though interfering with Iraq's use of these weapons against many of its own people was apparently not a matter of first concern to the U.S. The lesson should be clear--to the extent that the U.S. arms the world, it undertakes a risk that those weapons could be used against our own citizens. While helping proven democratic allies to defend themselves will always be a legitimate role for the U.S., it is hard to imagine a lesson driven home more profoundly than we find today that arming non-democracies is a much greater risk, and arming non- democracies with weapons of chemical and biological warfare capability is an outrageous and utterly unacceptable risk to the U.S. and the world. It may be impossible for our Nation to avoid reaping what is has sown in the past, but this administration, this Congress and the American people must be united now in committing never again to be even a unwitting instrument of chemical, biological or nuclear terror in the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to share with my colleagues my very great concern over ties between Iraq's probable possession of biological and chemical weapons and the potentially catastrophic actions taken by the Reagan and Bush, Sr., administrations, including the active assistance of then ``special envoy'' and now Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. This arming of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction by the Reagan and Bush, Sr., administrations has now been disclosed from what were previously classified documents, as reported recently by the Washington Post. I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post article be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to call to attention of all Senators, the retirement of a dedicated public servant and an individual who has given much to the operation of four Senate offices. Cindy Dwyer, a member of my staff for the past 2\1/2\ years, will be ending her career as a staff person in the Senate. As the scheduler in my Washington, DC, Senate office, Cindy has been a model for other dedicated and talented staff members to emulate, and an invaluable asset to everyone who had the honor of working with her. It is with deep regret I announce she will be leaving my office and the Senate in February. Before coming to Washington, Cindy worked as a kindergarten teacher in Wakonda, SD. In 1975, she began her congressional career in the office of former South Dakota Senator James Abourezk. She worked as a staff assistant in Senator Abourezk's office, and also a part-time employee of the Senate's post office. After Senator Abourezk's retirement in 1978, Cindy joined the staff of then-Congressman Tom Daschle, in his first term as a Member of the House of Representatives serving South Dakota. It was during that time that Cindy began her long and distinguished career as a scheduler for Members of Congress. Cindy worked as a consultant for several years before rejoining Congressman Daschle's staff in 1985. She went on to become Senator Daschle's first Senate press secretary when he was elected to the Senate in 1987. She worked for our South Dakota colleague for another 1\1/2\ years, before leaving to work for another of our colleagues, Senator J. Robert Kerrey of Nebraska. For 12 years, from 1988-2000, she worked for Senator Kerrey, first on his campaign, and later as a senior member of his staff and a very integral member of the Kerrey team. I have been told that little occurred in Bob Kerrey's office that Cindy wasn't involved with. As one of Senator Kerrey's closest and trusted advisers, she was responsible for helping to execute the very strong record of service that Senator Kerrey delivered for his Nebraska constituents. While I regretted Senator Kerrey's retirement from the Senate in 2000, his departure turned out to be my good fortune, because it was at that point in time that I had the fortune of working with Cindy. I needed to hire an experienced scheduler, and Cindy Dwyer was that answer. To show Cindy's dedication to the Senate and the Senators with whom she has served, she undertook a herculean effort by working in both offices. For a period of time in 2000, she continued to work with Senator Kerrey, helping to wind down his final few months of Senate service, and began working in my office as my scheduler. Very few staff members could have undertaken the responsibilities that Cindy did, working well beyond a normal workweek, even by Senate standards, to provide service to two Senators. During her 2\1/2\ years of service, Cindy helped to organize the day to day activities of my office and my schedule. The efficiency and organization of my office is a direct result of her hard work and preparation. She is not only a valuable member of my staff, but a great friend. Her friendly demeanor and willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty have made her a popular figure in my office and throughout the Senate. Some have suggested that Cindy gets her political roots from her family. Her father, Gene Dwyer, still works as a staff assistant in Senator Daschle's Sioux Falls office. Her sister and brother-in-law, Peter and Barbara Stavrianos, have distinguished careers working for Senators McGovern, Abourezk, and Daschle. Cindy will be greatly missed, and Barbara and I wish her the very best on all her future endeavors. It is an honor for me to share Cindy's accomplishments with my colleagues and to publicly commend her outstanding service to my office and the people of South Dakota.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to publicly honor Elsie Meeks of Kyle, SD, on her appointment to the Federal Reserve Board's Consumer Advisory Council. Elsie will join 29 other members, selected from 167 nominees, on the Council for a 3-year term. Established by Congress in 1976, the Consumer Advisory Council advises the Federal Reserve Board on the exercise of its duties under the consumer credit protection laws and on other consumer-related matters, representing the interests both of consumers and the financial community. Elsie's numerous accomplishments are remarkable. An enrolled member of the Oglala Lakota Tribe, she helped develop and was Executive Director of the Lakota Fund, a Native American community development financial institution on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. Co-owner of the Long Creek Grocery in Wanblee, she received the distinguished ``South Dakota Minority Small Business Advocate of the Year'' award. In 1998 Elsie was nominated for Lieutenant Governor, becoming the first Native American woman nominated by a major party on a gubernatorial ticket in South Dakota. She was appointed by Senator Daschle in 1999 to serve as the first Native American on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Currently, Elsie is a board member of the National Community Capital Association and is the Executive Director of First Nations Oweesta Corporation, a subsidiary corporation of First Nations Development Institute, which provides technical assistance and training for the development and expansion of Native American community development financial institutions. It is an honor for me to share Elsie's accomplishments with my colleagues and to publicly commend her for honorably serving South Dakota and the Nation. This prestigious honor is a reflection of her extraordinary service, commitment, and unwavering dedication to the Native American community. She will be a tremendous asset to the Consumer Advisory Council. Her accomplishments serve as a wonderful example for other hard-working and dedicated South Dakotans to emulate. On behalf of all South Dakotans, I would like to congratulate Elsie and wish her continued success.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I thank Senator Daschle for his leadership on this amendment and express my high regard for Senator Cochran as well. We now find ourselves in a circumstance where the drought has gone on for 2001 and 2002 across much of this country, including in South Dakota, and it has been devastating. There has been a $2 billion loss to South Dakota's economy alone based on numbers from South Dakota State University. There is a need for urgent relief and comprehensive relief. We had 79 votes in this body for a $6 billion package last year. Now we find ourselves in a circumstance where we are being told about fiscal constraints and yet the White House and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are telling us they are willing to borrow $674 billion over the coming decade--$108 billion this next year--for a so- called tax relief plan, but we do not have the resources for a comprehensive $6 billion drought relief bill in rural America. If ever there was an initiative that would stimulate the economy of rural America, it is the comprehensive $6 billion amendment before us today, and it would fit very nicely within the context of the enormous stimulus initiative coming to us from the White House and from our colleagues. While I appreciate the work that has gone into the alternative bill presented by the Senator from Mississippi, it is half the money. With respect to aid for livestock producers, arguably the hardest hit, $1.5 billion would be available for livestock under the bill I support and Senator Daschle supports as opposed to only $250 million under the alternative version. By applying the AMTA payments, we wind up with gross inequities in the plan offered by the other side. In one of my counties, for instance, it is a primary disaster area, but it has been determined that just 23 percent of its 1,200 farmers have experienced crop or hay losses meeting or exceeding the 30-percent threshold that normally triggers disaster relief. That means 77 percent of the farmers in that disaster county have not experienced significant crop or hay losses but will still get an AMTA payment from the alternative plan. Meanwhile, a rancher in a western county in South Dakota with whom I spoke this morning said his average AMTA payment is just $250 per year because he is primarily a cattle producer. Under the alternative plan, he would receive a $250 AMTA payment, which would purchase just a couple bales of hay, and be forced to compete with other producers for just $250 million annually remaining for livestock producers, and that is spread across the entire country. On top of that, under the alternative plan, producers must pick drought payments from 2001 or 2002, but not from both, and there is concern over a $10 million grant for Texas farmers and $50 million carved out for cotton as opposed to the comprehensive crop loss coverage under the Daschle bill that I am cosponsoring. Simply put, the amendment I have cosponsored provides real, comprehensive aid to crop farmers and livestock producers who suffered actual losses to the drought or other natural disasters. The alternative plan provides aid to producers regardless of loss. It simply is not fair. It ought to be apparent which bill provides the real assistance and real relief. We are seeing a hemorrhage of farmers and ranchers off the land. It hits the youngest producers worst. Those least capitalized are least able to sustain their operations throughout all of this crisis. We have rancher after rancher who have liquidated their animals. Young people are leaving the land. We are falling below the critical mass of population in many of our rural areas to sustain basic rural institutions. At a time when this body is debating economic stimulus, I can think of no other initiative that would do more for rural America than this $6 billion drought bill in the context of the $108 billion that has been proposed by the White House as economic stimulus for this year alone. It makes sense for this initiative to pass now. I ask support of the Daschle amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON

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

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to make observations on two important points that have already been alluded to by my colleagues from South Dakota and Nevada during this session. One has to do with the need to resolve the issue of funding for committee staffing. One ordinarily would think this would be an administrative decision that would not be of enormous consequence, but the fact is, until that is resolved, this Senate is not able to go forward with legislation of any kind, much less to resolving the fiscal year 2003 appropriations issue involving 11 of the 13 appropriations bills remaining incomplete and needing work. These are bills that should have been concluded prior to October 1 of last year, and yet here we are now well into January with that work incomplete. I have some concerns about the size of the budget cuts--roughly $9 billion--that will be required, apparently, to come out of these 11 appropriations bills in order to accommodate President Bush and the Republican leadership budget baseline to which they have agreed. I look forward to offering amendments to moderate that for purposes of agriculture, veterans health care, and other areas. But we cannot go forward, in any way, until a resolution is reached. Unfortunately, the majority leader, at this point, appears to have taken the position of the far right of his caucus in demanding that his party have two-thirds of the funding versus one-third for the Democratic side. It does not take a rocket scientist to conclude that with a 51-to-49 division in the Senate--consistent with what we did in the most recent Congress--a funding division of two-thirds to one-third is not fair. I appreciate that there is precedent going back a number of years for that kind of divide, but most recently, with the then-majority leader, Senator Daschle, in place, we accommodated our Republican colleagues with a much narrower divide of committee budgeting. That is the right way to proceed. It is the only way that will allow us to go forward with our work. It certainly is my hope that the majority leader will see the error of his ways and return to a more moderate, more responsible approach to the funding of these committees and concur with the recommendations of Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader, so we may get on with the work of the people. Secondly, I have to share with my colleagues some thoughts on the budget tax proposal submitted by President Bush. I stand here as 1 of 12 Democrats who joined in an effort of moderating President Bush's initial $1.35 trillion tax cut. Our thought was that by participating in that effort, we could moderate its cost, make it more fiscally responsible, as well as redirect some of its benefits to middle-class and working families, to people who really make our economy go, and certainly in a way that is consistent with the interests of my home State of South Dakota. We did that, but we did that at a time when the projections were that we were going to run up a $5.6 trillion budget surplus over the coming 10 years. We had just come from 4 consecutive years--the final 4 years of the Clinton administration--of budgets in the black, and we were paying down the national debt. There was concern about whether we would pay down the national debt too quickly. That, believe it or not, was the concern at the time. We had budget surpluses as far as the eye could see, and there was no war on the horizon. So the environment was considerably different. Now we find ourselves, with the passage of that tax bill, with changes in the economy and with a war possibly imminent. We hope not, but we certainly are very cognizant of the fact that we may wind up in Iraq and expending literally hundreds of billions of dollars in that effort to make sure that our men and women in uniform have the resources they need if, in fact, we wind up in that kind of conflict. So the environment is radically different. Now we find ourselves with deficits as far as the eye can see. Now we find ourselves utilizing Social Security trust fund dollars, according to the administration's Office of Management and Budget, for the remainder of this decade. Now we find ourselves not paying down the accumulated national debt at all, much less paying it down too quickly, as President Bush and his administration coached us to fear a short time ago. So now we find ourselves with this radically different environment. Yet the President comes to us with a plan which would cost $675 billion over the coming 10 years. If you take into consideration the interest payments that would have to be made--because every dime of that will have to be borrowed; we will have to borrow that money out of the Social Security trust fund to pay for these tax cuts--if you take into consideration the interest costs, it comes to cost roughly $933 billion over the coming 10 years. We would be deep in the red as far as the eye could see. And this is before you take into consideration the added costs of war, before you take into consideration what else could happen to the economy. This would involve about a $108 billion tax cut in the coming year, primarily for Wall Street and for the superwealthy, although there are a few grains of benefit for middle-class families. But, by and large, that is a very modest part of the overall plan we would borrow money to pay for. Yet at the same time that we are considering this ill-considered, irresponsible plan, we are being told by the administration that we have to cut about $9 billion out of next year's budget. That comes out of veterans health care. That comes out of education; it comes out of economic development; it comes out of infrastructure; it comes out of highways and airports; it comes out of law enforcement; it comes out of so many areas that are fundamental and vital to America's national interests. That will have to come out this year alone. But that is just the beginning compared to where we would be in future years. My constituents--Republicans and Democrats alike--in my home State, which is a very agricultural State, are asking me: Why has the President threatened to veto a $6 billion drought relief bill, for droughts in 2001 and 2002, that has the support of 32 agricultural organizations, from the Farm Bureau to the Farmers Union, liberal to conservative, because of the natural disasters they faced? Why is the President threatening to veto $6 billion of relief but talking simultaneously about $108 billion of economic stimulus this year that would go primarily to Wall Street? What would be more stimulative of the economy than to provide that drought relief across the dozens of States that suffer badly this year? Because of the circumstances the States face, schools in my State are literally on the verge of closing their doors. My hospitals and my nursing homes--because we did not pass the Medicare reimbursement changes last year and seemed to be in no rush to get it done this year--are at risk of closing their doors as well. Our veterans are standing in lines, 10 and 12 and 14 months long, in my home State, waiting to gain access to the health care benefits that they fought and struggled for in defending our Nation but for which we do not now have the money to provide. The priorities laid on the table are astonishing, that the President would recommend $108 billion of tax cuts this year, to borrow the money to pay for that when we can't come up with the drought relief and the VA health care and can't keep our schools and nursing homes open. What sense does that make? I am willing to consider some additional tax relief for middle-class families, but the environment has changed radically from what it was a couple years ago. Now we find ourselves in a situation where the most fundamental needs of our people are in jeopardy. We need to take that into consideration. It is my hope that there will be strong bipartisan opposition to the plan as presented by the President, that we can in fact go forward, come to an equitable division of resources available for committees, promptly take up the 2003 budget, take up the 2004 budget, deal with the shortfalls that we have in rural America for our veterans, education, health care, seniors. And when we have done that, we will see what we can do relative to tax relief for our middle-class working families who struggle so hard every day to meet health care payments and house payments and to keep their kids in school. We will work with them as well, but we can't give away the store. We cannot, regardless of the libertarian political drive behind it, support a budget tax proposal as wildly out of keeping with where most South Dakotans and most Americans of either political persuasion want to go. I express my frustration that this Nation needs to meet its commitments, it needs fiscal responsibility, and it can only do that by rejecting the President's enormous $933 billion, over 10-year proposal, and returning to taking care of the needs of our people, returning our budgets to the black and setting the stage for additional prosperity and making sure that we have the resources to deal with whatever military eventuality we may have to face very soon. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am saddened to report the passing of one of South Dakota's most exceptional public leaders, Don Cook. Don Cook was a widely respected representative, political strategist, and long time leader in the South Dakota Democratic Party. He was greatly admired by his peers for his dedication to his community and local concerns. A principle figure in the State party, Don served as State Central Committeeman and Vice Chairman, as well as a delegate to the Democratic National Conventions in 1992 and 2000. His tremendous contributions to the community and public leadership set him apart from other outstanding South Dakotans. Born in 1920, Don joined the U.S. Army in 1942 and served with General George Patton's Army in Europe where he was awarded the Bronze Star and five Battle Stars. A native of Missouri, Don moved to South Dakota 40 years ago, where he and his wife Maxie ran a very successful feed and seed business in Huron. They had two children, a daughter Connie and son Sid, who recently preceeded his father in death. An active member of the community, Don was a participating member of the First Presbyterian Church, the Huron Country Club, Yel Daz Shrine, American Legion, VFW, and the Huron Chamber of Commerce. Like fellow Missouri native, President Harry Truman, Don was described as a regular guy who did not mince words. He was a staunch and determined political fighter, who unselfishly lent his support to many local politicians. A man of action and passion, Don made things happen and those around him proud to know him. His influence on South Dakota's political development is extraordinary, and extends here to our Nation's capital. He was a friend and supporter of both Senator Daschle and myself, both as State legislators and as representatives in Washington, D.C. Through his outstanding community involvement and political activism the lives of countless South Dakotans were enormously enhanced. His work continues to inspire all those who knew him. I am proud to have been a friend of Don Cook. Our Nation and South Dakota are far better places because of his life, and while we miss him very much, the best way to honor his life is to emulate his commitment to public service and to his community.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am saddened to report the passing of one of South Dakota's most exceptional spiritual leaders, Rev. Harold Jones. Harold was the first Native American to serve as a bishop in a Christian denomination. He was a widely respected leader, and was greatly admired by his peers for his dedication to the people he served and guided. His tremendous contributions to the community and groundbreaking achievements set him apart from other outstanding spiritual leaders. Born in 1909 and raised on the Santee Reservation in Nebraska, Harold lost his parents at an early age and was raised by his grandparents, who brought him up as a Christian. He attended school at Seabury- Western Seminary in Illinois. After graduating, Harold spent 13 years at the Pine Ridge Mission and 12 years at Holy Trinity Parish in Wahpeton, ND. He also served at the Cheyenne River Agency, Gettysburg, Dupree, Pine Ridge, and Rapid City, SD and Fort Defiance, AZ. Harold was consecrated as a bishop suffragan of the Episcopal Diocese of South Dakota on January 11, 1972. The ecumenical ceremony was witnessed by 1,000 people in the Catholic Church's St. Joseph Cathedral in Sioux Falls. As a Native American, Harold's entry into the church did not occur without controversy and prejudice. While at seminary school in Illinois, Harold earned money by giving talks about life on South Dakota Indian reservations to churches in the Chicago area. Outside these churches signs often read, ``Come this Sunday and see a live Indian!'' Never deterred from following his chosen path, Harold overcame the misconceptions and prejudices of others to become one of the most respected and revered bishops in the country. Harold's dedication to helping others serves as his greatest legacy. His work continues to inspire all those who knew him. Our Nation and South Dakota are far better places because of Harold's life, and while we miss him very much, the best way to honor his life is to emulate the love and support he shared with others.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to N. Jack Taylor, Jr., who has worked as a Congressional Fellow in my office since January of 2002. On behalf of my staff and the people of South Dakota, I would like to thank Jack for his hard work, his dedication, and his considerable contributions to my state and to this great nation. Jack joined our staff to work on banking issues at a troubled time here in the Senate, when we faced significant physical threats in the wake of 9/11 and the Senate anthrax scares. Nevertheless, Jack left the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, his home for the past 15 years, to spend a year learning about the legislative process. And what a year it was. Jack was on the front lines during the Senate debate over accounting reform, and he played a key role in our office's involvement in the Sarbanes-Oxley Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act. He got a bit more than he bargained for by playing the lead staff role during floor action and the conference committee, but he performed with great aplomb and professionalism. Jack has also been immensely valuable in raising our awareness of Native American banking issues. He took the lead in conceptualizing and organizing a hearing in the Senate Banking Financial Institutions Subcommittee on ways we might increase private capital in Indian Country. He brought together an impressive group of witnesses whose ideas I hope we can implement in the future. Jack also provided valuable assistance on a number of other tribal-related housing and banking issues. Another noteworthy contribution of Jack's was his hard work in putting together S. 3034, the Check Truncation Act. While it may not be the most high-profile subject, check truncation would modernize our financial system in significant ways, and be particularly helpful in rural areas such as South Dakota where the physical transportation of checks is often difficult and expensive. Jack helped us to lead the charge to modernize our system, and I am hopeful we can complete action on that bill next year. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention Jack's role in our continued efforts to pass comprehensive deposit insurance reform. Jack, who came to us from the FDIC's division of insurance, proved to be an invaluable in-house resource for my staff on matters related to deposit insurance. He was also willing to travel out to South Dakota to meet with bankers throughout the State to ensure that our bill reflects the needs of Main Street bankers across this country. It is my pleasure and honor to stand before the Senate today to thank Jack Taylor publicly for his service to the United States Senate. I am pleased he will continue to serve our country by returning to the FDIC, which is lucky to have him.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, one of the key remaining issues of the 107th Congress that I believe must be addressed yet this year is Medicare relief for rural health care providers and beneficiaries. Recently, bipartisan legislation was introduced, called the Beneficiary Access to Care and Medicare Equity Act of 2002, S. 3018, that will provide definitive steps to strengthen South Dakota's rural health care delivery system. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bill. The legislation will provide $43 billion over ten years for provider and beneficiary improvements in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Earlier this summer, the House passed a Medicare bill, which provides approximately $30 billion over ten years. The Senate legislation will provide South Dakota with nearly $84.2 million in Medicare improvements for rural hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, home health services, physicians, and beneficiaries alike. Although the Administration has expressed some resistance to working with Congress on Medicare legislation this year, I will continue to fight for passage of this critically important legislation. As I travel throughout South Dakota, many health care providers and Medicare beneficiaries have expressed concerns regarding inequities with Medicare reimbursements in rural states like South Dakota. It is a travesty that nationwide, rural providers receive less Medicare reimbursement for providing the same services as their urban counterparts. Therefore, I remain committed to improving the equity in Medicare reimbursement levels for rural States, and increasing access to quality, affordable health care for the citizens of South Dakota. As a member of the Senate Rural Health Caucus, I joined several of my fellow caucus members in sending a letter to the Senate Finance Committee expressing our rural health priorities as compiled from the input that I received from South Dakotans, such as yourself. I was pleased that many of my rural priorities were included in S. 3018, and would ask unanimous consent that the text of this letter be printed in the Congressional Record. As well, I ask unanimous consent that the summary of S. 3018 also be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor Robert Pore on the occasion of his extraordinary reporting career at the Huron Daily Plainsman in Huron, SD. Robert graduated from Northwest Missouri State in Maryville, MO in December 1978. Before coming to Huron, Robert worked a variety of positions for several newspapers. He was a regional editor for the McCook Daily Gazette in McCook, NE for three years; managing editor for the Hope, Arkansas newspaper; regional director editor of the Le Mars Daily Sentinel in Le Mars, IA; and publisher of the Hillsboro Banner in Hillsboro, ND. He will be ending his South Dakota career on Friday, October 18 after 10 years as the lead agriculture reporter for the Huron Daily Plainsman. Robert earned the respect and admiration of all those who had the opportunity to work with him. His love for South Dakota and passion for agriculture set him apart from other outstanding agriculture reporters in the state. Robert's friendly demeanor and wealth of knowledge helped him develop close relationships with various agriculture groups and state and federal officials. These relationships allowed Robert unique insight and access to news affecting South Dakota's agriculture community. Robert and his wife Bette, a former editor at the Huron Daily Plainsman, will be greatly missed by the people of Huron for their years of valuable community service. On the occasion of his retirement, I want to congratulate Robert Pore for his tireless dedication to the Huron Daily Plainsman and commitment to quality journalism. The lives of countless people have been enormously enhanced by Robert's skilled reporting. His achievements will serve as a model for other talented reporters throughout our state to emulate. I wish Robert Pore the best on all his future endeavors.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for the pending resolution. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Lieberman- Warner-McCain resolution because I believe it is in our national security interests to deal with the threat posed by Iraq. The world would be a far safer place without Saddam Hussein, and as long as he remains in power, he will continue to be a threat to the region, to the United States, and to his own people. Saddam Hussein is a destabilizing force in the Middle East. A quick review of history reveals he has invaded two of his neighbors--Iran and Kuwait--causing massive destruction, killing hundreds of thousands of people, and bankrupting his country. During the gulf war, he launched ballistic missiles at civilian populations in Israel. He opposes the Middle East peace process and has provided financial rewards to the families of suicide bombers. He supports organizations engaged in terrorism and committed to the overthrow of governments within the region. It is clear that Saddam Hussein is an opponent of stability in the Middle East, and our efforts to build a lasting peace in the region is in jeopardy as long as he remains in power. In addition to being a threat to his neighbors, Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our vital national security interests. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued its drive to develop weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. After the gulf war, Saddam Hussein agreed to open up his country to international inspectors, to destroy his weapons stockpiles, and to halt all weapons of mass destruction development programs. Despite near continual obstruction by Iraq, international weapons inspectors were able to uncover a portion of his extensive chemical and biological weapons, and gain vital information about his effort to develop nuclear weapons. However, the weapons inspectors' progress was thwarted when Saddam Hussein forced them to leave the country in 1998. For 4 years, he has been able to pursue chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons capabilities outside the watchful eye of the international community. While Iraq has agreed to allow the weapons inspectors to return, I am skeptical that Saddam Hussein will keep his word and allow unfettered access to suspect sites. Already there are indications that the agreement under which the inspectors will return allows Iraq to forbid entrance into certain key locations. Without full and guaranteed access to all sites, this inspection regime is likely to fail and prove to be just another delaying tactic. Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction is in itself a threat to the United States, but equally concerning is his ties to international terrorism. It is clear that Iraq is in violation of its obligation to renounce terrorism and to halt its support for terrorist organizations. Recently, the Bush administration announced that it has evidence linking Saddam Hussein with international terrorists. A link between Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and al-Qaida terrorists would be the gravest threat facing our Nation and would require immediate action by the United States. Given this threat, and the fact that Iraq is in violation of 16 separate United Nations Security Council resolutions, the United States is well within its rights to act militarily to protect the safety of the American people. I disagree with those who argue our actions must be tied to prior approval by the United Nations. The defense of our Nation should not be dictated by other countries or international organizations. If necessary, the United States should be prepared to act alone. However, I strongly support efforts to build international support prior to military action against Iraq. The support of our allies, and the international community as a whole, will increase the chances of success for our policy in Iraq and in the ongoing fight against global terrorism. One reason why I support the pending resolution is that I believe a strong vote by Congress will signal our national unity and make it more likely that the President will succeed in creating a strong international coalition. While much of our focus has been on preparing for possible military action against Iraq, and working with the international community to resume inspections of Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction sites, I believe we must also begin the process of planning for a post- Saddam Hussein Iraq. As a part of this, we must begin to talk to the Iraqi people and enlist their support in the fight against Saddam Hussein. There can be no doubt that no one has suffered more from Saddam Hussein's regime than the people of Iraq. The list of crimes Saddam Hussein has perpetrated against his own citizens is shocking. Since 1997, he has killed over 2,500 prisoners-- many of whom were jailed simply for their opposition to his regime. He has repressed both the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south by causing environmental devastation, demolishing homes, destroying villages, and creating hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people throughout the country. In 1988 in the village of Halabja, he used chemical weapons to kill more than 5,000 innocent Iraqi civilians. And while thousands of his people starve, Saddam Hussein diverts much needed food and medicine from the U.N.'s Oil for Food Program for his own enrichment. Given his history, the Iraqi people should no doubt welcome the end of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. We should ask for their support in ousting Saddam by assuring them that our goal is nothing short of helping them establish a functioning, democratic society. Iraq enjoys a wealth of natural resources and a well-educated, innovative population. The Iraqi people may well thrive once they are allowed to harness the power of democracy and free markets. I believe we can succeed in helping the Iraqi people create a better country. It will be difficult and will take a long-term commitment from the United States. But ultimately, the success of our efforts in Iraq will be judged by our ability to make sure that Saddam Hussein is not simply replaced by another dictator who will pursue weapons of mass destruction, invade his neighbors, and support global terrorism. This vote has particular significance to me. My son, Brooks, is currently serving in the 101st Airborne. The 101st is one of the Army divisions that has been identified by military leaders as likely to prosecute the war against Iraq. I know that a vote in favor of this resolution may be a vote to send my own son to war. Given this, I do not take this vote lightly. I am very proud of my son, and of the thousands of South Dakotans serving in our Armed Forces, and I know they are prepared to do what is necessary to protect the United States. I will vote for this resolution because I know putting a stop to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and ending Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship is in our national security interests and vital to protecting the American people. While this approach is not without danger, the greatest danger of all would be in a failure of the U.S. and the world community to act in a decisive and urgent manner.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the bill to reauthorize the Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determination Act which is an important step in strengthening Federal housing assistance for tribal authorities. I urge prompt consideration of this legislation by the full Congress. I wish to thank Senators Inouye and Campbell for their work on this bill during deliberations in the Committee on Indian Affairs. Also, I wish to thank Senator Sarbanes for his leadership in moving this bill quickly through the Banking Committee. Throughout my 16 years in Congress, I have been dismayed by the living conditions of Native Americans. On numerous occasions, it has been documented that Native Americans have the worst housing conditions in the United States. Rampant overcrowding, homelessness, and a crumbling housing stock plague our tribal communities, and South Dakota has seen some of the worst conditions overall. Our tribes suffer from anywhere between 50 to 80 percent unemployment on Native American reservations. According to the Housing Assistance Council, South Dakota contains 10 counties that are inhabited by 30 to 65 percent of persons below poverty. NAHASDA was originally passed in 1996 to strengthen Federal housing assistance to tribal communities. NAHASDA provides block grants to Indian tribes for affordable housing activities that were previously under general housing programs, including public housing, section 8, Youthbuild, and homeless programs. I believe that consolidating these funds in a block grant to tribes helps meet the goal of self- determination for Indian tribes. NAHASDA has proven to be a vast improvement over the previous way that housing assistance was provided to tribes. The Federal Government must end the practice of treating our first Americans as third class citizens. As this bill is considered by the full Senate, I will continue to press my colleagues for their full support.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am saddened to report the passing of one of South Dakota's most exceptional public leaders, Richard ``Dick'' Hagen. Dick was a widely respected leader and representative in South Dakota. He served in the State House from 1983 until 2000 and was elected to his first term in the State Senate in 2000. He was greatly admired by his peers for his honesty and unwavering dedication to the people he represented. A member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, Dick strived to promote a better understanding of Native American culture among his colleagues in the state legislature. His tremendous contributions to the community and public leadership set him apart from other outstanding public representatives, and lead to a Legislator of the Year award in 2001 and the West River Legislator of the Year award in 2002. Dick entered Coast Guard boot camp at Cape May, NJ in 1957. He was stationed in Morgan City, LA and later in Unimak Island, Alaska before being honorably discharged from Sheboygan, WI in 1961. After his discharge from the Coast Guard, he returned to South Dakota and served with the Bureau of Indian Affairs for one year, the Shannon County School Board for two terms, and the Tribal Council for two terms. Dick lent his leadership and good nature to many activities and events throughout the Pine Ridge Reservation. He announced countless ball games, parades, and rodeos, and was a familiar face at numerous sporting events over the years. Through his outstanding community involvement in these, and many other activities, the lives of countless South Dakotans were enormously enhanced. One of the most important pieces of legislation Dick initiated was his bill to fund reservation nursing homes. Elderly Native Americans, living on South Dakota's reservations, are often forced to leave their families to find nursing home care far from home. Dick believed all South Dakotans deserve the right to convenient quality health care service. Although he did not live to see his dream realized, his work continues to inspire all those who knew him. Dick's legislative achievements were extraordinary, but it was his dedication to helping others that serves as his greatest legacy. I am proud to have been a friend of Dick and of Mona, his deceased wife. Our Nation and South Dakota are far better places because of Dick's life, and while we miss him very much, the best way to honor his life is to emulate his commitment to public service and community.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the youth organization 4-H for its achievement in developing leadership among our youth for 100 years. I have always been impressed by the leadership and enthusiasm shown by members of the 4-H Program. More importantly, I have always been a firm believer in the goals and directives of the 4-H Program. Through participation in fairs and shows, camps, gatherings, conferences, Character Counts, and the international youth exchange, the 4-H Program helps young people develop important life skills, self- confidence, and a better sense of the world around them. I was proud to cosponsor the National 4-H Program Centennial Initiative, which President Bush signed into law. This bill authorizes a grant to the National 4-H Council to conduct a program of discussions through meetings, seminars, and listening on a national, State, and local level on strategies for youth development. I can't think of a better way to commemorate the 4-H Centennial than enacting this legislation and looking ahead to the youth of our future. The 4-H Centennial Initiative is a wonderful example of a public- private partnership to develop new strategies for youth development. As our economy becomes increasingly global and technology-oriented, we must ensure that our Nation's youth are well-prepared for the ever- changing demands and challenges they will most certainly face. The 4-H Program has long been a developmental foundation for South Dakota youth, and I am pleased that this initiative will honor the celebration of the 4-H Centennial and enhance this program for the 21st century. Each time a young person recites the 4-H pledge, ``I pledge my head to clearer thinking, my heart to greater loyalty, my hands to larger service, and my health to better living for my club, my community, my country, and my world,'' it reflects the important values and characteristics that guide 4-H members through their daily activities. These principles have helped 4-H become strong over the last 100 years, and they will set the course for 4-H in the future. It is with great honor that I have this opportunity to recognize such an outstanding youth organization. On behalf of all past and present members of 4-H, I congratulate the organization for its dedication, achievements, and continued success.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor the Check Truncation Act, which will be a significant step in improving the Nation's check payment system. The Act improves America's check payments system by allowing banks to exchange checks electronically. Current law requires banks to physically present and return original checks, a tedious, antiquated and expensive process. This legislation will also reduce infrastructure costs for banks, allowing for more flexibility and greater cost savings for the consumer. In the days following September 11, 2001, when planes across the country remained grounded, banks were forced to take drastic steps to ensure the shipment of checks from bank to bank. Check payments across the country were delayed, which opened up possibilities for processing errors and fraud. Electronic payments, on the other hand, continued to be processed in a safe and timely fashion during the crisis. Processing challenges confront banks in my State of South Dakota every winter. Deep snowfalls and vast distances between small-town banks and processing centers add significant costs to physical transportation of checks. These costs trickle down to consumers, and everyone ends up paying the price of our outdated system. I am proud to introduce this legislation, which would help to ensure the financial stability of our system in the event of another attack, and would increase its efficiency day-to-day. It is the right time to change our banking laws to give electronic versions of checks the same legal validity as paper checks, so America's financial institutions can provide customers with faster check clearing and better access to liquid funds in both good times and times of crisis.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor the Check Truncation Act, which will be a significant step in improving the Nation's check payment system. The Act improves America's check payments system by allowing banks to exchange checks electronically. Current law requires banks to physically present and return original checks, a tedious, antiquated and expensive process. This legislation will also reduce infrastructure costs for banks, allowing for more flexibility and greater cost savings for the consumer. In the days following September 11, 2001, when planes across the country remained grounded, banks were forced to take drastic steps to ensure the shipment of checks from bank to bank. Check payments across the country were delayed, which opened up possibilities for processing errors and fraud. Electronic payments, on the other hand, continued to be processed in a safe and timely fashion during the crisis. Processing challenges confront banks in my State of South Dakota every winter. Deep snowfalls and vast distances between small-town banks and processing centers add significant costs to physical transportation of checks. These costs trickle down to consumers, and everyone ends up paying the price of our outdated system. I am proud to introduce this legislation, which would help to ensure the financial stability of our system in the event of another attack, and would increase its efficiency day-to-day. It is the right time to change our banking laws to give electronic versions of checks the same legal validity as paper checks, so America's financial institutions can provide customers with faster check clearing and better access to liquid funds in both good times and times of crisis.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, as I have on many occasions, I want to speak to the very important issue of broadband deployment, especially in rural States like my home State of South Dakota. I want to ensure new technology is utilized in ways that will help link rural communities to new and exciting opportunities available via the Internet. New technology will be critical to bringing new jobs, educational opportunities, and health care to South Dakota communities. As the Senate considers the various proposals on how best to encourage the deployment of broadband, I want to make absolutely certain that any legislation we pass takes into account the extraordinary challenges we face in rural America to deploy advanced telecommunications services at an affordable cost to consumers. On this point, I must acknowledge and comment on the terrific effort put forth by so many of our rural independent and cooperative telecommunications providers in South Dakota. These companies have taken very seriously their commitment to serving rural communities, and now it's our turn in Congress to do our part towards this effort. Not only will broadband deployment assist rural communities in developing new opportunities, I believe increased broadband deployment will help jumpstart our lagging economy. A recent study by an economist with the Brookings Institution concluded that adding more broadband connections could boost the economy by $500 billion per year. To support this finding, computer and technology companies like Microsoft, Cisco, Hewlett Packard, Dell, Intel, Corning, Motorola, and NCR have weighed in, saying it is critically important for the United States to adopt a national broadband policy that encourages investment in new broadband infrastructure, applications, and services. Broadband deployment should be a national priority in the 21st century. In order to be competitive, educate our workforce, and increase productivity, the United States must have universal broadband. Millions of Americans in rural areas and inner cities are impeded in accessing the full range of services available from the Internet because they do not have access to broadband service. We should strive to connect all Americans to the Internet through broadband technology. I will work with my colleagues to find a way to accomplish this goal in a fair manner that supports broadband deployment throughout all of our Nation.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am honored to represent a State that has nine treaty tribes. It has become increasingly clear that nothing is more important to the tribes of South Dakota than the recognition of the obligations this Nation has to the Indian people of South Dakota as spelled out by the treaties entered into by the United States Government and the tribes of South Dakota. Especially at the urging of President John Steele of the Oglala Sioux Tribe and Chairman Andrew Grey of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, I offer this statement pertaining to this issue of critical importance to the tribes located within my home State of South Dakota. As you know, the South Dakota tribes have a proud history of providing leadership to Indian issues. I thank President Steele and Chairman Grey for helping me understand this issue. It is with the utmost respect that I share with you some of our tribes' perspective on what treaties mean to them, as follows: It is important to note that each of the Tribes located in the State of South Dakota have entered into treaties with the Federal Government. All federally recognized Indian tribes and villages are often categorized into the same class. However, important rights were guaranteed to the South Dakota tribes by treaty, and many of these rights continue to be enforceable today. From the first treaty with the Delawares in 1787 until the end of treaty-making in 1871, hundreds of agreements were entered between the Federal Government and various bands and tribes of Indians. Provisions of the treaties differ widely, but it was common to include a guarantee of peace, a delineation of boundaries, often with a cession of specific lands from the tribe to the Federal Government, a guarantee of Indian hunting and fishing rights, often applying to the ceded land, a statement that the tribe recognized the authority or placed itself under the protection of the United States, and an agreement regarding the regulation of trade and travel of persons in the Indian territory. Treaties also commonly included agreements by each side to punish and compensate for acts of depredation by ``bad men'' among their own number, a clause that still can support a claim against the Unites States. See Tsosie v. United States, 825 F.2d 393 (Fed.Cir. 1987). Indian treaties stand on essentially the same footing as treaties with foreign nations. Because they are made pursuant to the Constitution, they take precedence over any conflicting State laws by reason of the Supremacy Clause. U.S. Const., Art. VI, Sec. 2; Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832). They are also the exclusive prerogative of the Federal Government. The First Trade and Intercourse Act, 1 Stat. 137 (1790), forbade the transfer of Indian lands to individuals or States except by treaty ``under the authority of the United States.'' This provision, repeated in later Trade and Intercourse Acts, has become of tremendous importance in recent years, for several eastern States negotiated large land cessions from Indian tribes near the end of the eighteenth century. In County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation, 470 U.S. 226, (1985), the Court held invalid a treaty entered in 1795 between the Oneidas and the State of New York. The treaty, which had been concluded without the participation of the Federal Government, transferred 100,000 acres of Indian lands to the state. The Court held that the tribe still had a viable claim for damages. Similar claims exist in other eastern states; in Maine, the likely invalidity of a 1795 state-tribal treaty clouded land titles covering about sixty percent of the State until legislation settled the issue. See Joint Tribal Council of Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton, 528 F.2d 370, 1st Cir.1975; Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act, P.L. 96-420, 94 Stat. 1785, 1980. Not only is the treaty-making power exclusively federal, it is almost entirely presidential. While it is true that two- thirds of the Senate must concur in any treaty, the initiation of the process and the terms of negotiation are inevitably controlled by the executive branch. Indeed, there were many instances, especially in California, where executive officials negotiated treaties and acted upon them despite the failure of the Senate to ratify them. In the middle of the eighteenth century, Congress and particularly the House of Representatives grew increasingly resentful of being excluded from the direction of Indian affairs. The ultimate result was the passage in 1871 of a rider to an Indian appropriations act providing that ``No Indian nation or tribe . . . shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty.'' 25 U.S.C.A. Sec. 71. The rider also specified that existing treaty obligations were not impaired. As an attempt to limit by statute the President's constitutional treaty-making power, the rider may well be invalid, but it accomplished its purpose nonetheless by making it clear that no further treaties would be ratified. Indian treaty-making consequently ended in 1871. Thereafter formal agreements made with the tribes were either approved by both houses of Congress or were simply embodied in statutes. Congress, in declaring that Indian tribes should no longer be acknowledged as independent political entities with whom the Untied States might contract by treaty, did not end the tribal organization of Indian communities. The solution to the 1871 Act was the use of ``treaty substitutes that consisted of agreements that were directed and authorized by Congress. Yet, other agreements were negotiated by the Indian Office to solve particular needs or resulted from Indian initiative. Most concerned cessation of land or other modification of boundaries whereby the need to declare peace between two sovereign nations was no longer an essential goal. Although such agreements were similar to treaties, Tribal consent was no longer a prerequisite to establish a binding agreement. Many reservations were established by Executive Order issued by the President of the United States. Although no general law existed authorizing set asides for Indian use, Congress and the public acquiesced and the Courts upheld the action. Executive orders differed from treaties wherefore they could be easily changed and a new one substituted as occasion demanded. They were neither uniform in terminology nor scope. In addition, a reservation could be established by administrative action prior to the issuance of an executive order and later sanctioned by the official action taken by the President. A 1952 Report by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs found that of the total of 42,785,935 acres of Tribal trust land only 9,471,081 acres had been established by Treaty and the remaining 23,043,439 acres of trust land were established by executive order. Federally-recognized Indian tribes in South Dakota signed the Treaty of Fort Laramie with the desire to declare peace and thereby perpetuate a Nation-to-Nation relationship with the Federal Government. The common misperception that most Tribes have entered into treaties with the United States serves as a great injustice to Tribes who have entered into such formal and solemn agreements. In 1890 there were 162 established Tribes; 56 of those were established by executive order, 6 by executive order under the authority of Congress, 28 by acts of Congress, 15 by treaty and executive order, 5 by treaty or agreement and an act of Congress, 1 by unratified treaty and 51 by treaty or agreement. The treaty establishing the South Dakota Tribes is a contract negotiated between sovereign nations, relating to peace and alliance formally acknowledged by the signatories of the nations. The United States entered into such agreement because they desired peace and cessions of land from the Sioux Tribes, and in return they made promises that must be upheld. In conclusion, it is appropriate to recognize the special status of the treaty tribes located in South Dakota.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to urge the House-Senate Energy Bill conferees to resist any efforts from House Republican conferees to alter or weaken the renewable fuels standard that was included in the Senate energy bill. The new standard was crafted in a consensus manner and supported by a strong majority in the Senate. It must remain intact in the conference report. Earlier this Congress, I introduced a bill with Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, the Renewable Fuels for Energy Security Act of 2001, S. 1006, to ensure future growth for ethanol and biodiesel through the creation of a new, renewable fuels content standard in all motor fuel produced and used in the United States. The framework of this bill was included in the Senate energy bill, requiring that 5 billions gallons of transportation fuel be comprised of renewable fuel by 2012, nearly a tripling of the current ethanol production. While the House of Representatives version of the bill did not include a renewable fuels standard, this issue was thoroughly debated on the Senate floor during consideration of the energy bill. Several amendments were offered to weaken or eliminate the renewable fuels standard but all of those efforts were soundly defeated. And for good reason: increased renewable fuel production lessens our dependence upon foreign oil, strengthens energy security, increases farm income, creates jobs, helps the environment, helps our international balance of trade, and would lower annual federal farm payments by $6.6 billion. In addition, the new standard boosts economic growth in rural America. I do not need to convince anyone in South Dakota and other rural States of the benefits of ethanol to the environment and the economies of rural communities. Farmer-owned ethanol plants in South Dakota, and in neighboring States, demonstrate the hard work and commitment being expended to serve a growing market for clean domestic fuels. In South Dakota, six ethanol plants are operating to produce approximately 116 million gallons per year. Four other ethanol projects are under construction, with a combined capacity to produce an additional 139 million gallons of ethanol annually. Increasingly, modern ethanol plants in South Dakota are equipped to produce 40 million gallons of ethanol per year, such as the plants operating in Wentworth, Watertown, and near Milbank, as well as the proposed sites under construction in Chancellor and Groton. The economic benefits of one, 40 million gallon ethanol plant are significant, including an increase of household income for the community by $20 million annually. The bill has other important provisions, including an orderly phase- down of MTBE use and removal of the oxygen content requirement for reformulated gasoline, RFG. The new standard has strong bipartisan support and is the result of long and comprehensive negotiations between farm groups, the oil industry and environmentalists. It is the first time that a substantive agreement has been reached on this issue. Including the Senate-passed renewable fuels standard in the conference will go a long way towards increasing the Nation's domestic energy supply and making it more secure in the future. However, after no renewable fuels provision was included in the House energy bill, House Republican conferees, have chosen to introduce an unworkable alternative at the eleventh hour that has received no debate and has no consensus. This is not acceptable. The conference should adopt the Senate-passed standard immediately. After a long debate, a consensus has been reached on this issue, demonstrating bipartisan support for a broader, deeper and more diverse energy portfolio, one that ensures we have clean, reliable and affordable domestic sources of energy. Let's move forward and enact the Senate language into law.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to state my intention to vote in favor of a resolution to authorize the use of military force against Iraq. At this point, final resolution language is begin arrived at, and I believe this effort will lead to a resolution which will gain broad, bipartisan support. I support the President, and as a member of the Appropriations Committee, look forward to working with him to ensure that our Armed Forces remain the best-equipped, best-trained fighting force in the world. Simply put, the world would be a far safer place without Saddam Hussein. As long as he remains in power in Iraq, he will be a threat to the United States, to his neighbors, and to his own people. Over the past decade, he has systematically reneged on his commitments to the international community. He has refused to halt his weapons of mass destruction program, to renounce his support for international terrorism, and to stop threatening peace and stability in the region. The threat that Saddam Hussein continues to pose to our national security interests, and his failure to abide by previous United Nation's Security Council resolutions, provides sufficient justification should military action become necessary. I am pleased that President Bush has come to the Congress to ask for authorization for the use of force in Iraq, and that the White House is continuing to work with us to develop the appropriate language for a congressional resolution. It is important for the people's representatives in Congress to have the opportunity to fully debate and vote on a matter of this importance. I hope we will move to this vote in an expeditious manner. In addition, I back the administration's efforts to build support for our policy in Iraq with our allies and with the international community as a whole. Secretary of State Colin Powell has been particularly effective in making the case that Iraq has not complied with the relevant Security Council resolutions and that he remains a threat. Make no mistake, I believe the United States is within its rights to act alone militarily to protect our vital national security interests. I we are required by circumstances to act alone, I will support that decision. U.S. action should not be contingent upon the decisions made by other nations or organizations. My expectation, however, is that this resolution will strengthen the hand of the President at securing United Nations or other forms of international support and cooperation, and I encourage his on-going effort in that regard. I believe that there is value in building an international coalition of nations and in having the full support of our allies. International support brings practical benefits, such as basing rights for U.S. soldiers and equipment in the region and authorization to use the airspace of neighboring countries to execute military strikes against Iraq. In addition, international support will increase the likelihood of success for our long-term strategy in Iraq and for the ongoing war on global terrorism. I encourage the President to continue his efforts to build a strong coalition of nations to support our Iraq policy. Mr. President, this issue has particular significance for me--my son Brooks is on active duty in the Army and is a member of one of the three units that General Franks has identified as likely to prosecute this war. There is a strong possibility that I may be voting to send my own son into combat, and that give me special empathy for the families of other American servicemen and women whose own sons and daughters may also be sent to Iraq. Nevertheless, I am willing to cast this vote--one of the most important in my career both as a Senator and certainly as a father--because I recognize the threat that Saddam Hussein represents to world peace. It is my hope that we can move forward quickly, in a bipartisan manner, to approve a resolution that will give the President the authority he needs to defend our Nation.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.