Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to take swift and decisive action to stem the tide of corporate greed that is eroding the integrity of America's capital markets. I am a strong believer in the free enterprise system, and I am proud of America's leadership in creating tremendous economic opportunity for all investors, big or small, domestic or foreign. However, it is time that Congress curb the appalling corporate excesses and misinformation that have hurt investors, employees and taxpayers. Passage of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act is a critical step in addressing these concerns. It is tempting to blame the problems corporate America is facing on just a few bad actors. For the most part, America's business men and women are industrious, innovative, and honest people who work hard to build our economy and provide jobs for our communities. However, we simply cannot ignore the shocking number and size of failed or failing companies, the marked increase in earnings restatements, and the profound toll this has taken on hard-working Americans. In fact, state pension funds have plummeted more than $1 billion from the WorldCom restatement and billions more from other companies involved in the scandals. In light of these inexcusable revelations, it is hard to believe that these problems are just isolated instances. Almost daily discoveries of accounting irregularities at some of America's largest and most highly respected companies, such as Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, and Xerox, to name just a few, clearly demonstrate the need for systemic accounting and corporate governance reform. Just recently, in fact, the Wall Street Journal reported that the drug company Merck may have understated revenue by over $12 billion. We must address systemic problems that are undermining the efficiency and transparency of our free market system, and which are eroding the faith of everyday Americans in the fundamental fairness of American business practices. We must clean up the current corporate culture that rewards misleading financial reporting and lax or corrupt corporate governance. We need strong legislation that will end the conflicts of interest and lack of disclosure that have misled investors and shaken their faith in America's financial markets. And we need to ensure that the SEC has the tools and money it needs to become a strong and formidable enforcer of securities laws. A kinder and gentler SEC serves only those corporate executives who have something to hide. The Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act addresses these problems in a way that limits regulatory burden but provides affirmative measures to restore the integrity of our free market system. I support the bill's creation of a strong Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and restrictions on non-audit services accounting firms can provide to public company audit clients. Further, the bill imposes tough new corporate responsibility standards and implements controls over stock analyst conflicts of interest. Also, the bill requires public companies to quickly and accurately disclose financial information, so that high-level executives don't have a head start over small investors in bailing out when a company is in trouble. Finally, the bill ensures that the SEC has the resources to accomplish its mission of regulating the securities markets. On this last point, I was disappointed that President Bush's budget did not include money that the Banking Committee authorized last year that would have strengthened the SEC. The SEC has long been hobbled by its inability to compete for top-notch employees because of a pay scale that was out of line with other financial regulators. Late last year, Congress passed, and the President signed, H.R. 1088, which provided pay parity for SEC employees. Unfortunately, the President's budget did not allocate additional funds, making it difficult if not impossible for the SEC to carry out its enforcement mission. I am pleased that President Bush is now calling for additional funding for the SEC, which should be better able to police public companies with adequate resources. Without the threat of real consequences, however, dishonest corporate executives have little to fear from being caught with their hands in the cookie jar. For this reason, Congress must implement a plan to hold irresponsible corporate executives responsible for their actions. We must not allow these criminals to hide behind the corporate veil, while stealing millions of dollars from hard-working Americans. In that vein, I support provisions contained in the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act, sponsored by Senator Leahy. The bill would provide stronger criminal penalties for corporate managers who defraud investors of publicly traded securities, criminal prosecution of persons who alter or destroy documents related to investigations, and protection for corporate whistleblowers against retaliation by their employers, among other provisions designed to protect investors from corporate greed. Finally, I believe that we should take a strong stance against another form of corporate greed: corporations that profit from American consumers, yet intentionally dodge U.S. taxes by moving their headquarters abroad. It is outrageous that these so-called ``American'' companies take advantage of the benefits of operating in this country and yet shirk even the most basic responsibilities of corporate citizenship. That's why I strongly support the Tax Shelter Transparency Act, sponsored by Senator Baucus, which would close the loopholes that allow corporate executives to use evasive accounting tactics to enrich themselves on the backs of American taxpayers. Before I close, I would like to thank Chairman Sarbanes for his leadership on this important issue. I also want to thank the Chairman as well as the Banking Committee staff for conducting a series of ten inclusive and comprehensive hearings on the issues addressed in his bill. The content of those hearings provided a conceptual foundation for our subsequent discussions of Senator Sarbanes' bill and a previous bill proposed by Senators Dodd and Corzine. In addition, our work has been enhanced by the fine contributions of Senator Enzi, who is the Senate's only Certified Public Accountant. The deliberative process used to develop this legislation has led to an appropriate, thoughtful, bipartisan bill that makes great strides in addressing the problems in our financial markets and restoring investor confidence.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. JOHNSON. I share the shock and dismay expressed by my colleague, my friend from Florida, over the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court relative to the Pledge of Allegiance in our schools. Without having read the decision, other than what has been released within the hour through the media, it would appear that ruling of the three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit--the Senator will concur that this is only one of our appellate circuits--applies only to the States of that circuit. Certainly, it would be my hope that this matter would be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and that the Supreme Court would not accept this decision and, hopefully, in my view, overrule the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Is that the progression of events that my friend and colleague from Florida hopes will be the next step that this particular controversy might take?

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I wanted to take a few moments today to talk about a topic that is critical to the future of my home State of South Dakota and indeed, many other rural areas around the country. The topic is access to advanced telecommunications and information services or what is commonly referred to as ``broadband.'' Those who have been following the broadband debate the last few years have probably heard more than they want to hear about the subject. As is often the case in Washington, policy debates get caught up in the extreme rhetoric of various interests vying for some legislative or regulatory advantage. And, unfortunately, the Washington debate, and broadband is no exception, seems to drift far from the real issue that needs to be addressed. For example, the debate over broadband services, at least the debate one sees in the radio and newspaper ads in this town, would lead one to believe that the broadband problem is a question as to whether or not cable companies or phone companies will dominate in their competitive struggle for urban customers. I think it is great that in some parts of the country, such as major cities like Washington, DC, many businesses and residential consumers have cable companies and phone companies vying for their business. This is good for those who live in areas where a choice for broadband service is available. Where I come from, however, the luxury of a choice or any choice does not exist when it comes to access to broadband services. Access to broadband services in many rural areas, including parts of South Dakota, is a real challenge. From my perspective, the broadband debate so far has really missed the mark and is not focused on the real challenge: how to ensure that all areas of the country have access to broadband services. Despite some claims to the contrary, broadband access is not a luxury item, like a Mercedes Benz. It has become a necessity in the information age. For rural States like South Dakota, broadband access is literally going to mean whether or not some of our small communities can survive in the new global economy where one's ability to access information and communication services will determine success or failure. While South Dakota will always be an important agricultural State, we know that we need to have the same access to advanced telecommunications and information services as the rest of the country. If we become a second-class society when it comes to broadband, we are more likely to be left behind. We will have less opportunity to keep our young people in the State and have less opportunity to create jobs and generate business activity. The good news is that there is really no reason why rural America has to lag behind the advances in telecommunications in other parts of the country. But, in order to ensure that we have the same opportunities as those in urban and suburban areas, we have to overcome the unique challenges of covering great geographic distances and the high costs of deploying networks in the prairie states. Well, help is on the way and we have begun to make some progress towards establishing policies and programs that will help ensure that rural America is not left behind. First, the recently enacted farm bill contained provisions that established a new low-interest broadband loan program for rural areas. A generation ago, The Rural Electrification Act established low- interest loan programs to enable small town cooperatives and independent phone companies to emerge and provide telephone service and electrical service in the rural and remote areas of the country. As a result, we now have ubiquitous and affordable telephone service. Now that we are moving into the next generation of telecommunications service, i.e., broadband, we need to build upon that model of success. Thus, the Senate demonstrated leadership in the Farm Bill debate this past year and we managed to pass the most significant broadband legislation to date. We provided $100 million for low-interest government loans for broadband deployment in rural areas over the next seven years. This is going to be very helpful to South Dakota and other rural areas, and I am very pleased that we managed to secure the passage of this landmark legislation. However, the job is far from complete. The broadband debate needs to move forward and there are several areas that need to be addressed before any of us can honestly say that we have done enough to ensure that broadband is going to be deployed throughout the United States. Some of my colleagues have introduced legislation that addresses the broadband issue from various fronts, and I do see merit in the various approaches. Senator Rockefeller for example has introduced S. 88, the Broadband Internet Access Act. This important legislation would provide tax credits to companies that deploy broadband service to rural America. I am a cosponsor of S. 88 and worked with Senator Baucus and others to include this legislation in the stimulus package passed by the Finance Committee. It is unfortunate this package was not adopted by the Senate; however, I will continue to work with my colleagues to secure passage of S. 88. Another colleague, Senator Breaux, has introduced legislation that is intended to address the regulatory inequity between cable and telephone broadband systems. The Breaux-Nickles legislation, in my judgment, also addresses a legitimate issue. The problem with our current circumstance is that the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, has decided that cable broadband services should not be regulated but that telephone broadband services should be regulated. This does not make much sense to me. In fact, this circumstance seems to run counter to the technical neutrality policy that Congress adopted in the 1996 Telecommunications Act. It seems to me that similar services should be treated in similar fashion when it comes to government regulation. It does not make much sense to say that on the one hand, broadband services delivered by a cable company should not be regulated, i.e., are not required to provide access to competitors and do not contribute to universal service, and on the other hand subject broadband service provided by telephone companies to regulations that require open access to competitors and mandatory universal service contributions. As we debate this issue to determine the appropriate level of regulation, we must be certain that we have parity between competitors. I still have much to learn about all the implications of the Breaux- Nickles legislation, but I do know that it does address an important issue, the disparity of regulation between cable and telephone broadband services. Yet another colleague, Senator Hollings, has introduced a bill that builds upon the success of the farm bill and would redirect some of the existing telephone excise tax money into a broadband investment fund. The money in that fund would make even more low-interest loans and grants available for broadband deployment in rural areas. His bill would also support needed research into new generation broadband technologies, especially those that can help bridge the digital divide in rural areas. I think his legislation is very thoughtful and I agree with the notion that we do indeed need to invest more into loans and grants for rural broadband. His bill is, in my judgment, part of the solution. I realize that there are some strongly held positions on various sides of the broadband debate when it comes to the regulatory questions. The Congress will need to examine these issues and I am confident that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation will continue to debate the various pieces of legislation that have been introduced. I also know that there are some approaches where we seem to have a consensus, namely the idea that we continue to provide low-interest loans and that we maintain the universal service system that has helped to make phone service affordable. For my part, I intend to engage in these debates from the perspective of how rural America is going to participate in the digital age. Rural South Dakota is my biggest concern and I hope that my colleagues who are working hard on these issues will listen and work with those Senators, like myself, who come from rural states to address our unique concerns. I look forward to working with my colleagues on these important issues, I thank my colleagues for their leadership in this area.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise in strong support for the Levin/ Warner amendment No. 3912. I am pleased the Senate is addressing the issue of concurrent receipt of military retirement benefits. Under current law, military retirees cannot receive both full military retirement pay and full VA disability compensation. Instead, retirement payments are reduced by the amount received in disability compensation. Changing the law to allow for concurrent receipt of benefits is an issue of basic fairness because both military retirement pay and VA disability compensation are earned benefits. Retirement pay comes after at least twenty years of dedicated service in the Armed Forces and VA disability is earned as a result of injury during time of service. I have been working with South Dakota veterans and my colleagues in the Senate for several years to fix this problem. Last year, the Senate adopted an amendment to both the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution and to the fiscal year 2002 Defense authorization bill to include funding to correct this problem. Unfortunately, despite strong support in the Senate, the language to allow concurrent receipt was removed from last year's budget resolution during the conference with the House of Representatives. In the defense authorization bill, Congress agreed to allow concurrent receipt, but only if the administration included authorizing legislation as a part of the fiscal year 2003 budget request. I was very disappointed to discover that the President's fiscal year 2003 budget request did not include provisions for concurrent receipt. Although I am pleased the Senate is going to take care of our military retirees with the passage of this amendment, I remain concerned about the Bush administration's continued opposition to concurrent receipt. Just recently, the Bush administration released a statement criticizing the concurrent receipt provision contained in the fiscal year 2003 Defense authorization bill. I have sent a letter to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget asking him to reconsider the Bush administration's position. Simply state, at a time in which we are asking more and more from the men and women serving in the military, we should be looking for ways to encourage them to make a career in the military by improving benefits and assuring them they will be taken care of in retirement. I appreciate the Senate Armed Services Committee's leadership on this issue, and look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on behalf of our Nation's veterans. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the senior Senator from Maine for her question. I believe that the needs of group life insurers are not adequately met by this bill. I find this problematic because of the role that group life insurance plays for the majority of American families. I am particularly concerned about the families of firefighters and other first responders. We ask firefighters and other first responders to risk their lives for us in the event of a terrorist attack. We have to make sure that basic group life insurance is there for them. I am also concerned about families whose wage earners are at the lower end of the pay scale. These families often find that they are able to secure more life insurance than they could otherwise afford because their employer is subsidizing it. Finally, I am concerned about those families with a spouse who has had a serious medical problem. These families often find that the only life insurance they can afford or even find is group life. We need to make sure that this industry remains highly competitive and able to pay all of the claims that might be made in the event of a future terrorist attack.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor Chaplain Tony Firman on the occasion of his retirement as Chaplain at the Flandreau Indian School in Flandreau, SD. Chaplain Firman has completed 35 years as Chaplain at Flandreau Indian School. After receiving his training at Blue Cloud Abbey in Marvin, South Dakota, Tony served at Flandreau Indian School as Student Coordinator of Religious Activities, a boys counselor, and as a religious liaison between the students, staff and administration, area churches and the Flandreau community. He was selected as Flandreau Indian School Chaplain by representatives from the Association of Christian Churches, which is made up of representatives from each of the following denominations: United Presbyterian Church, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, Lutheran Church in America, Episcopal Church, Catholic Church, Rapid City and Sioux Falls Dioceses, Reformed Church in America, and Christian Church Desciples. The Flandreau Chaplaincy program was the first project to be sponsored by the Association of Christian Churches. On the occasion of his retirement as a school Chaplain, I want to congratulate Tony Firman for his tireless dedication to Flandreau Indian School, his commitment to finding the best in students, for helping others with spiritual guidance, and for coordinating and supporting religious activities. I also commend him for his valuable service to the community over the years. The lives of countless young people have been enormously enhanced by Tony's talent and skill as Chaplain. The State of South Dakota is a better place because of his commitment to and passion for working with local youth. His achievements will certainly serve as a model for other talented religious leaders throughout our State to emulate. I wish Tony Firman the best on his retirement.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, on this day 58 years ago, Allied forces began the D-Day invasion of Normandy, France. Given the importance of this event to our nation's history, we should take a moment today to remember and to honor those who sacrificed their lives on the beaches of France in the fight against the forces of fascism. D-Day was the largest air, land, and sea invasion in history. More than 5,000 ships, 10,000 airplanes, and 150,000 troops participated in the invasion of June 6, 1944. Soldiers from America, Britain, Canada, and France worked in concert to storm the beaches of Normandy, overcome entrenched German defensive positions, and establish a beachhead from which France and all of Europe was liberated. The success of the D-Day invasion not only turned the tide of the war, but changed the course of history as well. Exact casualties from the invasion have proven difficult to calculate. But upwards of 10,000 men were killed or wounded on the five beaches whose code names we have all come to know so well: Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno, and Sword. Today, we pause to honor all of those who participated in the Normandy invasion, including those who were killed, those who have died in the six decades since the invasion, and those who survive today to tell of their comrades' bravery and sacrifices. We owe a debt to each of these men that can never be fully repaid. Yet, I believe one of the best ways for us to pay our respect to these heroes, is to honor our commitments to our veterans and to those serving in the active duty and reserve. In an attempt to thank the U.S. servicemembers who participated in the liberation of France, the French government is offering certificates to U.S. veterans who served in France, its territorial waters, or airspace between June 6, 1944 and May 8, 1945. I am working to make my constituents aware of these Thank-You-America Certificates so that all eligible South Dakota veterans get the recognition for their service that they deserve. I know that my colleagues will join with me in commemorating the 58th anniversary of the D-Day invasion and honoring the veterans who answered our Nation's call to service on that fateful day.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. My oldest son returned from Afghanistan with the 101st Airborne just this week. We are proud to have him back. I wish Members obstructing this legislation could go to Afghanistan and look at our forces in the north, at Baghram, our forces in the south in Kandahar, look them in the eye and tell them: We have other things to do; we don't want to pass this legislation that allows you to have the resources to conduct our war against terror, to defend American families all over this Nation. I cannot imagine what the Members obstructing this legislation must be thinking or how they could look in the eye our law enforcement officers, our firefighters, our first responders, our military, all of whom it appears to me are going to be suffering from the lack of passage of this legislation, not to mention the fact, as Senator Wellstone said so ably on the floor earlier today, this also contains the funding necessary to keep our Veterans' Administration health care program going through the remainder of this year, for the people who in the past have fought so hard to preserve our liberty, to preserve our democracy. We have a handful who apparently are going to renege on those obligations, as well. This strikes me as truly an outrage. I certainly hope Senator Lott will do all he can and that the President of the United States will do all he can to prevail on those Members of their political party to allow this legislation to move forward, to allow free up-or-down votes. Perhaps the Senator from Nevada and I will have provisions in this bill which will be defeated. So be it. We will have a fair up-or-down vote and debate. To have no debate and no opportunity to move the legislation forward, win or lose, is truly an outrage. I commend the Senator from Nevada for being on the floor today to clarify why this needed legislation, which frankly should have passed weeks ago, is still floundering.

Mr. JOHNSON. I am sure the Senator from Nevada finds the same circumstances when he returns home to his State. We talk to our veterans, we talk to our military, we talk to our firefighters, we talk to our law enforcement officers, our ambulance people, our first responders. These are all people willing to put their lives in harm's way, willing to work at very modest wages. They are willing to disrupt their families. They are willing to do a great deal. All they ask is that the American people and the Senate stand behind them, reinforce them, and show support. What kind of signal does this inaction, this obstruction--what kind of signal does this send to those men and women in uniform who do so very much for our Nation during this difficult time? This must be dispiriting to each and every one of them the longer this goes on. I wonder if the Senator has any observations from the people he has talked to in his State about their expectation, that they will do these hard tasks and put their lives on the line but they do expect their Nation to stand behind them.

Mr. JOHNSON. Would the Senator concur as a member of the Appropriations Committee, as this Senator is--I recall the hearings, which were substantial, that went into the formulation of this legislation. Then I seem to recall a markup in the Appropriations Committee where I believe this bill was passed something like 19 to 0.

Mr. JOHNSON. This is not some legislation which the Democratic Party is somehow trying to shove past our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. In fact, Senator Stevens voted for this bill. We had unanimous bipartisan support in the Appropriations Committee by the people who focused very closely on this and attended the many hearings that went into the legislation. If I understood the Senator correctly, Senator Lott as well would just as soon see this legislation move forward now. I think it does need to be clear that this is not some sort of partisan, one-party-against-the-other gridlock. This is an instance where a small handful of people are using and manipulating the rules of the Senate to thwart the will, not just of one political party but the large overall majority of the Senate who would wish to go forward. So we have heard references to obstructionism around this Chamber over the course of this past year. I ask the Senator, what is the source of the obstruction on this legislation and why are we not proceeding with it and the whole array of additional legislation which the majority leader has outlined for us just today, which is daunting in terms of the scope and breadth of legislation this body is obligated to deal with in the coming couple of months. But we cannot begin to even move on that unless we take care of this urgent matter. That obstructionism appears to me to be not only a political tactic but one that is a disservice to the men and women in the uniform of this Nation, a disservice to those of us who believe this Nation needs to move aggressively to prepare itself against terror.

Mr. JOHNSON. If I may continue, I am struck that it is one thing to slow down the train on noncontroversial legislation, but is this not the very legislation that our troops in uniform are relying on so they can continue to be equipped, continue to have ammunition, continue to have resources they need to fight in Afghanistan and around the world?

Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. JOHNSON. I ask the Senator from Nevada, is there any parliamentary obstacle to anyone bringing an amendment to the floor at any time? Is there anything the leader, or you, would do to interfere with our right to offer an amendment, have a debate, and vote up or down on any amendments?

Mr. JOHNSON. Same son, just returned from the 101st this past week.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and congratulate students Jaime Bentley, Alexis Bertsch, Wes Bouska, Taylor Dykes, Grant Feterl, Kirsten Graslie, Jamie Hahn, Deming Haugland, Jessica Henry, Jayni Lueders, Teresa Martinez, Derek Meyers, Erin Nelson, Sydni Richey, Sydney Schempf, Jeremy Smith, John Steele, Kaija Swisher, Kyle Triplett, Cami Tripp, Jackie Vosler, Caleb Wells, John Williams, Adam Ziegler of Spearfish High School, in Spearfish, South Dakota. Under the direction of teacher Patrick Gainey, these students had an outstanding performance in the ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' national finals held in Washington, D.C. May 4- 6, 2002. This program, which is administered by the Center for Civic Education, is the most extensive of its kind, reaching more than 26.5 million students at elementary, middle, and high schools throughout the Nation. These outstanding young people competed against 50 other classes from all across the Nation. Their extraordinary interest and dedication to learning and studying are demonstrated in their remarkable understanding of the fundamental ideals and values of American constitutional government. The national finals competition simulates a congressional hearing in which high school students testify as constitutional experts before a panel of judges. Not only does this program encourage learning, but it also gives the students a chance to articulate what it is they have learned. In order to speak intelligently about any subject, it is important to be well-prepared, and these students have done just that. They have dedicated time and hard work, and have committed themselves to performing to their best abilities. The preparation and dedication the students of Spearfish High School committed to the national final competition is to be commended. All of South Dakota is proud of their performance. They represented our state with tremendous poise and motivation. Their success is an example for other talented young people to emulate. Again, congratulations to Spearfish High School for their outstanding performance in the ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution.''

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor Maurice (Maury) LaRue on the occasion of his retirement as a teacher in the Meade County School District in South Dakota. By the end of May, Maury LaRue will have completed 33 years in the teaching profession, all at Sturgis High School. Upon graduation with a bachelor of science degree in education from the University of North Dakota, LaRue accepted a position as teacher and debate coach at Sturgis in 1969. His teaching career has ranged from social studies and literature to vocational broadcasting and forensics. There has always been a strong emphasis on communication skills for LaRue. For 20 years, he was one of South Dakota's most respected and successful debate coaches. His debaters won numerous local, state, regional and national forensic honors. And while his students performed well in competition, the true measure of Maury's ability to build and improve the communication skills of his students, came in the number who went on to become successful community leaders, business leaders, attorneys, senior political staff as well as students who were able to think and communicate in their daily lives as adults, thanks to Maury's dedicated teaching style. In addition to his many years as teacher and debate coach, Maury also coached cross-country and track for several years and is retiring as the director of the social studies department at Brown High School in Sturgis. He has served as a city council member for the City of Sturgis and has maintained a strong interest in community affairs and city, county and state government. He has performed technical direction for the South Dakota State Junior Miss program since 1970, and currently serves as the technical advisor for the Sturgis Community Center Theater. He is a member of the Sturgis Chamber of Commerce, serving on several committees, and is a member of the Fort Meade Museum Board, the Sturgis Area Arts Council and is very active as an elder, choir member and leader with the Presbyterian Church. For the past dozen years, he has also owned and operated a successful photographic studio and gallery in Sturgis and most recently, he has become a volunteer fireman and earned the credentials as information officer. If there were any time left in the day, he would find time to fill it and provide counsel to his students or provide service to his community. I have met Maury several times during my visits to Sturgis High School and the community of Sturgis. He is definitely a mover and shaker in the community of Sturgis and is very well-respected by both current students and alumni for his skills and abilities as an instructor and for the way he has shaped the lives and futures of those he has tutored over three decades. He is very focused and knowledgeable of local, state and federal politics and issues. On the occasion of his retirement as a public school educator, I want to congratulate Maurice LaRue for his tireless dedication to his students, his commitment to finding the best in his students and for helping his students to `communicate' with the world. I also want to commend him for his valuable service to his community over the years. Instead of hiding behind a textbook or staying at the chalkboard, Maurice LaRue has provided his many students over the years with his own example of being active in school and community. He has motivated the lives of many students and many of them would point to Maury as playing a pivotal role in their lives. Can there be any better reward for 33 years of dedicated teaching and community service! I wish Maurice LaRue the best on his retirement.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, commodity programs in the new farm bill will furnish America's farmers with three features to secure the farm income safety-net. These commodity programs will maintain the planting flexibility so popular under the current program, but, they will also provide more predictable support when prices are low. First, the farm bill will continue the practice of providing farmers of program crops with marketing assistance loans or loan deficiency payments, LDPs, to help them market their crops and manage price risk. These 9-month non- recourse loans provide farmers with the necessary support to make market-based decisions. Second, the farm bill will also continue to provide de-coupled direct, or fixed, payments to farmers regardless of price or production. The 1996 farm bill first introduced these direct payments, known as AMTA or production flexibility contract payments. Finally, the farm bill will complement these two payment features with a new counter-cyclical payment program to provide additional support when crop prices fall below profitable levels. These new counter- cyclical payments will also be de-coupled in a sense, because they're not directly tied to what a farmer plants. I am hopeful the revisions made to commodity programs will help restore and strengthen the safety- net for our agricultural producers. South Dakota farmers will be pleased to know that for the first time since 1981, the farm bill will include a significant increase in loan rates which are the basis for marketing assistance loans and LDPs. I believe that increasing loan rates is one of the best ways to mend the farm income safety-net. First, loan rates are tied to actual production, instead of decoupled like direct and the new counter- cyclical payments. Second, marketing loans are available at harvest, when prices are historically the lowest during a crop year. Third, marketing loans or LDPs are paid on 100 percent of production, not a partial percentage. Fourth, the loans go to actual producers who raise crops, rather than absentee landlords. I am also pleased that producers of honey and wool in South Dakota will benefit from the inclusion of marketing loans for their products. This is important because South Dakota is the Nation's fourth largest honey and sheep producer. Finally, I would note that for the very first time, cold season legumes such as chickpeas, peas, and lentils will receive marketing assistance loan support. The inclusion of these so-called pulse crops in the marketing loan program is similar to S. 977, legislation that I cosponsored to provide for marketing loans and LDPs for pulse crops. Cold season legumes are gaining in popularity in South Dakota, and I am pleased to help provide certainty for farmers wishing to plant them. Individual farmer crop-yields used to calculate support under the direct and counter-cyclical payment programs are critical to South Dakota's farmers because our yields have dramatically improved in recent years. Despite strong opposition from the House, the new farm bill will reward South Dakota farmers for their productivity with a modest yield update permitted for new counter-cyclical payments. This is good news for farmers in my State because yields have increased significantly since the 1981-85 period, a time frame used to base direct payments under the House farm bill and AMTA payments under the 1996 farm bill. For instance, according to the South Dakota Farm Service Agency, the House bill would base payments on a 64 bushel-per- acre corn yield, but the Senate bill would account for a modern-day 108 bushel-per-acre corn crop, a 44-bushel increase to reflect realities in corn production. A corn farmer from Brown County, SD, called my office just yesterday to note that his yields are remarkably better than the levels set in the House-passed farm bill. Moreover, the House farm bill would base wheat payments on a 24 bushel-per-acre wheat yield, yet most wheat farmers in South Dakota produce wheat crops yielding approximately 36 bushels-to-the-acre today. Wheat producers in Stanley County would agree that given a choice, they'd rather operate under the rules of the Senate bill which rewards them for yield improvements. The final agreement will allow farmers to use updated and proven yields from the last four years and apply a 93.5-percent factor to that updated yield for their counter-cyclical payments. While the new counter-cyclical payments may be made based upon these updated yields, the fact that the House forced the conference committee to not update yields for direct payments is a significant and costly problem that will take money out the pockets of South Dakota farmers and continue to provide the bulk of direct payments to large cotton and rice operations in the South. According to calculations by the South Dakota Farm Service Agency, if the final farm bill had rewarded farmers by allowing them to prove-up modern-day yields to base direct payments, as the Senate bill did, then these payments to South Dakota producers would have doubled from $135 million to $271 million per year. While ordinary observers may not think a yield update is a crucial element in the farm bill, consider the following. If the new farm bill froze crop yields at levels in the House bill, farmers in South Dakota would be forced to use yield data nearly 30 years old by the time this farm bill expires, meaning young farmers may be using data older than they are to calculate price support. I am very pleased that under the new farm bill conservation programs will experience the most significant amount of funding ever in a farm bill, an 80-percent increase over current levels. I believe farm programs should place more emphasis on conservation initiatives that benefit crop farmers, livestock producers, and American taxpayers, who realize tangible benefits from clean air, clean water, and more wildlife habitat. I fought to increase our investment in conservation because I desire to help farmers keep lands in working condition while protecting our soil, water, and habitat. The most popular conservation program, the Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, will be expanded from 36.4 to 39.2 million acres under the new farm bill. I am pleased to note that the Farmable Wetlands Program, the Conservation Security Program, the new Grasslands Reserve Program, and a new-and-improved Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, will all be in the final farm bill as well. Inclusion of the Farmable Wetlands program is modeled after the pilot legislation I authored in 2000, S. 2980, the Conservation of Farmable Wetlands Act. The continuation of this program will ensure farmable wetlands are eligible for enrollment in the Conservation Security Program Chairman Harkin included in the farm bill is similar to S. 932, the Conservation Security Act that Senator Harkin and I sponsored. These programs provide a positive contribution to the stability of our delicate ecosystem, while providing landowners and producers adequate incentives to participate. It is also important to note that if the United States is planning to continue working within the World Trade Organization conservation programs provide so-called green payments to producers that do not violate spending limitations established by the WTO. I worked with Chairman Harkin in developing the new and innovative idea for an ``energy title'' in the Senate farm bill because it's time to recognize that U.S. farmers and ranchers can help develop home-grown solutions to energy problems. While the House-passed farm bill did not include this energy title, the final farm bill will contain one for the very first time. It will launch a number of new initiatives, including a biobased products purchasing requirement for Federal agencies if the products are comparable in price, performance, and availability to traditional products. The farm bill will also establish a new program to educate consumers about the benefits of bio-diesel use. Moreover, the energy title will provide grants and loans to farmers, ranchers and rural small businesses for renewable energy systems and energy efficiency improvements, and, a complementary grant and loan program is established so that farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses can purchase renewable energy systems and make energy efficiency improvements. Importantly, the bill will provide $204 million over 6 years for the Bio-Energy Program, similar to S. 1960, the Bio-based Energy Incentives Act of 2002 that I cosponsored. My provision in the farm bill will reimburse existing and new ethanol and biodiesel facilities for using commodities to produce renewable fuels. A total of 42 ethanol plants and 12 bio-diesel facilities in 19 States received payments under this program last year. Ethanol plants such as Heartland Grains Fuels in Huron and Aberdeen, Broin's in Scotland, and Dakota Energy in Wentworth were South Dakota's recipients. This year, three new ethanol projects in Milbank, Watertown, and Rosholt, SD, are poised to collectively produce nearly 100 million gallons of ethanol. Because my legislation was included in the final farm bill, they will benefit from this incredible program. Agriculture is entering an exciting new dimension with value-added production and processing, and I have fought to ensure the energy and rural development titles of the farm bill will collectively help South Dakota create more success stories in value-added agriculture. When agricultural producers capture a more significant share of profits by adding value to their commodities or livestock before they are sold, it's called value-added agriculture. South Dakota has quickly become a leader in ethanol production, and given the number of projects operating in the state or at various planning stages, we're poised to produce over 200 million gallons annually. A typical 40 million gallon ethanol plant in South Dakota will provide a new market for nearly 15 million bushels of corn, provide jobs and over $1 million in annual payroll, and help South Dakota farmers become part-owners of the United States' energy supply. The new farm bill may help create several of these ethanol plants, which will multiply the financial benefits and put thousands of South Dakota farmers in a better economic condition. South Dakotans are working hard to create a new value-added agriculture sector beyond our growing ethanol industry, including projects such as soybean processing, dairy cooperatives, beef and pork marketing co-ops, and venture capital initiatives. From the fledgling Dakota Value Capture Co-op in Sully County to the existing South Dakota Soybean Processors plant in Volga, farmers will be able to capitalize upon the assistance in this bill to become price setters rather than price takers. A recent study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that farmers and ranchers are expected to lose 328,000 jobs over the next ten years, more than any other sector of the economy. Given this startling forecast, the attention this farm bill places on rural development and job growth is critical to the future of rural States such as South Dakota. The farm bill contains a rural development title which will help foster positive results for communities and rural citizens. I am very pleased the Value Added Agricultural Market Development Grants program will receive a total of $240 million--$40 million annually--to provide crucial grant assistance to value-added agriculture ventures. While the funding level for this program was $75 million annually in the Senate bill, it's important to keep it in the farm bill. Another benefit of this rural development title is the establishment of the Northern Great Plains regional authority, as provided for in S. 1681, my legislation to re-authorize the Northern Great Plains Rural Development Authority. As a result, South Dakota is one of five States that will have access to $30 million per fiscal year to provide grants to States in the Northern Great Plains Authority for projects including transportation and telecommunication infrastructure projects, business development and entrepreneurship, and job training. Also, for the first time, the farm bill will help provide $80 million for rural citizens to access local television stations via satellite. This program provides loan guarantees to launch satellite systems that provide critical and timely news and weather to rural residents via their satellite. The LOCAL TV Act and loan guarantee begun because of legislation I sponsored in 2000, S. 2097, the Satellite Home Viewer Act. We also must strive to bridge the digital divide, and the inclusion of $100 million for broadband service will allow rural citizens to receive high-speed, quality broadband service. As an original co-sponsor of S. 1111, I am very pleased to report to South Dakotans that a new National Rural Development Partnership Act was included as a part of the rural development title as well. I believe it is important for local coordination to be a part of the larger national strategy to enhance rural development. The entire State of South Dakota is considered rural, and in many places it is critically depressed. Through this new program, rural economic development efforts will utilize the expertise of Federal agency officials and dedicated local officials. Too often, the facilitation and implementation of rural development initiatives does not reach its full potential because of the lack of local participation. The primary goal of this new program is to engage in meaningful conversions that will allow for the greatest success of all rural development initiatives. South Dakota will be a true benefactor of the new National Rural Development Partnership, and I am honored to have been a part of its establishment. The farm bill is not only supportive of crop farmers and rural communities, it also authorizes essential nutrition and food assistance programs. I am pleased that a provision of mine was included that will essentially save school lunch programs all over the country $100 million over the next 2 years. S. 1179, the Emergency Commodity Distribution Act, is my legislation included in the farm bill to fix the way that commodities are calculated for the school lunch program. While not large in overall budget terms, this fix contained in my legislation and the final farm bill will result in important stability for South Dakota and nationwide school lunch programs. Moreover, the farm bill continues the great progress made by the McGovern-Dole Global Food for Education Initiative, a program that I helped create by serving as an original co-sponsor of S. 1036, the bill that codified the incredible idea former Senators McGovern and Dole had for an international food for education and child nutrition program. Finally, the nutrition title will restore Food Stamp Program benefits for all legal immigrants who have lived in the United States for at least 5 years, and the immediate restoration of food stamp benefits to legal immigrant children and the disabled. This provision was a bipartisan endeavor, with President Bush helping to lead the way for this reform. I am also pleased the farm bill will re-authorize farm lending programs and provide greater access to credit for beginning farmers and ranchers. Under the final bill, USDA will increase its share of down payment loans for beginning farmers and extend the term of the loans. Additionally, the bill will furnish $1.3 billion over 6 years for research programs such as those successfully carried out by land-grant colleges like South Dakota State University. Also of interest to South Dakota is the creation of a new national dairy program, to replace the controversial compacts that divided dairy farmers between regions of the country. This is critical for new dairy operations in eastern South Dakota, and dairy processing facilities such as the new cheese plant hoping to begin operations near Lake Norden. In addition to extending the very important dairy price support program at $9.90 per hundredweight, the farm bill creates a new counter-cyclical program that will provide assistance to farmers when the price of milk falls below $16.94 per hundredweight. We in the Upper Midwest have argued over the years that all dairy farmers should be treated the same regardless of the end use of their milk and I am pleased that this bill supports that position. Despite these and other farm policy improvements, special interests prevailed upon the House conferees to eliminate a number of important initiatives from the final farm bill. As a result, Mr. President, I am very disappointed that the final farm bill may result in long-term problems for rural America. First, the farm bill won't include my ``Johnson Amendment'' to ban packer ownership of livestock. The opposition from the House conferees and packer-apologists was overwhelming according to Senator Daschle and others on the conference committee. In the end, it appears the fact that the House did nothing on this topic resulted in it's defeat in the conference committee. The Johnson amendment to ban packer ownership of slaughter livestock and the new ``Competition Title'' were necessary because the national food industry continues to grow economically while independent livestock producers receive a small share of the consumer food dollar. Horizontal and vertical integration have tipped the balance of market power in favor of major meatpacking firms at the expense of family-sized livestock producers. While the Competition Title was narrowly defeated in the Senate Agriculture Committee, we conquered well-funded opposition twice during Senate consideration of the farm bill and added my packer ownership provision to the Senate bill. Many livestock producers in South Dakota told me that the packer ownership ban was one of the most important farm bill items. Despite bipartisan Senate support and an affirmative vote by Senate farm bill conferees the House of Representatives unanimously objected and the provision was stripped from the final farm bill. While the opponents of making livestock markets more competitive are probably celebrating the defeat of my Johnson amendment in the farm bill conference, it's critical that Congress demonstrate leadership and a willingness to act on this issue in a timely manner. I have already written Chairman Harkin to call for hearings in the Senate Agriculture Committee to investigate problems in the marketplace and to once again pass my packer ownership ban. I wish to thank the many South Dakota farm and ranch organizations that provided real leadership on this issue, along with the Organization for Competitive Markets and Senator Grassley. Together, we will continue the fight. While my country-of-origin labeling bill was included in the final farm bill, the provision to prevent USDA quality grades from being applied to foreign beef and lamb was left on the cutting room floor. It's discouraging to South Dakota's cattle and sheep ranchers that their high-quality meat has to compete with foreign beef and lamb which is camouflaged with a USDA choice or prime seal. I vow to continue to fight for a change that will only allow USDA quality grades on domestic beef and lamb. Also, the House insisted on changes to the payment limits provision I cosponsored in the Senate that virtually render the payment limits meaningless. The new farm bill weakens what are already flawed payment limitations and may provide a larger share of payments to the Nation's mega-farms than any other farm bill in history. While the overall limit was reduced from the House level in the conference committee--the House limit was $560,000 and Senate was $275,000 the inclusion of the ``triple entity rule'' will allow large farms to double their $180,000 payment to $360,000. Furthermore, the farm bill imposes no real limit on gains from marketing assistance loans because large farms can receive unlimited marketing loan gains through use of generic certificates. The Center for Rural Affairs has estimated that a 25,000- acre California cotton farm would receive $8.4 million, thanks to the meaningless limits in this bill. While the bill was debated on the Senate floor, an overwhelming majority approved the Dorgan-Grassley- Johnson amendment to forestall large corporate farms from receiving these huge government subsidies at the expense of family farm operations. Yet the House provision contained virtually no limits on these payments. The integrity of this bill and future farm legislation is dependent upon common sense limitations. We cannot expect the American taxpayer to continue subsidizing corporate farms who take advantage of programs that are intended to assist small family farmers. I was pleased to see that the language includes a $2.5 million adjusted gross income cap on eligibility for participation in farm programs and that some level of transparency will be included. Hopefully, this will shed light on those operations abusing the program. A new commission will also be established to study and make recommendations regarding farm program payment limitations and the impact of payment limit policy changes on farm income, land values and agribusiness infrastructures. I vow to continue working with groups such as the Center for Rural Affairs and Senators Grassley and Dorgan to address this issue in the future. Finally, the White House and House opposition to the $2.4 billion in emergency aid for the 2001 crop year led to its defeat in the final bill. I cosponsored Senator Baucus' amendment to include this important disaster aid in the Senate farm bill because several agricultural producers in South Dakota experienced weather-related disasters that damaged crop and forage production last year. In fact, 13 counties in western and central South Dakota have been declared a drought disaster by USDA, and yet the Senate language to include this timely assistance was killed. Congress has provided ad hoc disaster assistance to farmers since 1998, but, without this provision, we will have disregarded losses occurring in 2001. I am hopeful we can identify ways to include this necessary disaster funding in another bill. I cannot talk about this farm bill without publicly thanking the members of my staff who have worked so hard on this legislation for many months. I can confidently say that the Senate version of the farm bill, and ultimately this conference report, would not have been as good as it was without the efforts of my Legislative Assistant for agriculture issues, Brian Jennings. Brian's tireless effort for many months, and frankly over most of the past 3 years, was a major factor in my country of origin labeling provision being adopted by the full Senate and then included in the conference report as I have referred to earlier. And it was with Brian's help that my amendment to ban packer ownership of livestock was adopted by the Senate. The long days, nights and even many weekends that Brian has worked during consideration of this farm bill have paid off in many of the positive improvements this farm bill makes over the current farm bill passed in 1996. Brian has worked closely with Senator Daschle's staff, Senator Harkin's Agriculture Committee staff, and staff from Senator's who serve on the Agriculture Committee on both sides of the aisle. I also want to commend those staff members as well, as the Senate would simply not be able to function without the dedication and true public service provided by all of our staff members. Brian has worked on agriculture issues as a member of my staff since 1998, and he has been instrumental in the success my office has had in fighting for South Dakota's family farmers and ranchers. And for those who know Brian, this comes as no surprise. He grew up working on his family's ranch in Stanley County, SD, near Ft. Pierre, and his first- hand understanding of family farmers and ranchers in South Dakota is in part what makes him such an outstanding and effective advocate for all family farmers and ranchers here in the Nation's Capital. Brian's parents, Keith and Patti Jennings, should be very proud of Brian, as his upbringing by them on the Jennings' Ranch is the main reason he has been such an effective and strong advocate for South Dakota's farm and ranch families. I also want to thank Sharon Stroschein of my Aberdeen, SD, staff, and Katy Ziegler of my Washington, DC staff. Sharon and her husband Larry Stroschein operate their family farm near Mansfield, SD, in Spink County. Sharon is one of my original South Dakota staff members after I was elected to the House of Representatives in 1986. Her first-hand knowledge and understanding of South Dakota agriculture have been invaluable to me over the years as I do my best to represent South Dakota in the United States Senate. Katy Ziegler grew up on a farm in Minnesota, and although she only joined my Washington staff last year, her farm background has also helped her to provide critical insights on many issues that have been helpful to me and members of my staff during consideration of the farm bill. I will conclude my statement by saying that while a farm bill is not a cure-all, the new farm bill should be a long-term economic stimulus package for family farmers, ranchers and rural communities. Whether you support or oppose this farm bill, it's important to pause and determine whether the bill will provide a greater optimism about what family-farm agriculture will look like in the future. In some ways, I believe this farm bill will indeed create a brighter future for family farmers and ranchers, but without more meaningful reforms to meatpacker concentration and payment limitations, I am uncertain whether the long- term result will be as favorable as what is necessary to keep independent producers on the land. According to a preliminary analysis by the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act will provide South Dakota farmers with an increase of approximately $200 million in benefits over the current farm bill for the 2002 crop year. Moreover, after passage of the House farm bill last year, FAPRI determined that South Dakota farmers would receive the second lowest percentage increase in payments under the House farm bill among all 50 states. Therefore, despite this bill's shortcomings, it is certainly better for South Dakota than the current farm bill and the House-passed version, which catered to mega-farm agriculture and agri-business. In the final analysis, independent farmers and ranchers in our free- enterprise democracy deserve the opportunity to make a living from the commodities they produce in fair and competitive markets. I will continue to fight in the Senate to provide that opportunity and reduce the obscene market power that is becoming all too common in crop and livestock markets.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to support and discuss the new farm bill, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, legislation the Senate will send to President Bush for his signature. This new farm bill is not perfect. If this farm bill contained all of the initiatives I helped include in the Senate-passed bill, it could have been more beneficial to South Dakota agriculture, which generated $17 billion in economic activity in 2000 to South Dakota's economy, approximately twice that of the second largest industry in my state. However, overall, it is a modest step in the right direction. I have advocated for the passage and implementation of a new farm bill since the inadequacies of the current program were revealed in 1997, a time when a significant drop in crop prices eventually developed into a longer-term price crisis. Therefore, I look forward to the President signing this important legislation and anticipate the United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, will take seriously their job to implement the new farm bill in a timely manner. I hope that USDA can administer the new bill for the 2002 crop year. I will work with USDA to make sure South Dakota's farmers and ranchers are treated fairly and appropriately under the new farm bill. I wish to take this opportunity to thank my friend and colleague, Senator Daschle, for his enduring leadership and tireless work to finalize the farm bill. From day one, he has been determined to pass legislation that would benefit America's family farmers and ranchers. Additionally, I commend Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Harkin for his persistence in shepherding this complex farm bill and reaching a compromise with our House colleagues in the conference committee, despite the substantial policy differences between the Senate and House bills. From the beginning of the farm bill process, Senator Harkin listened to my concerns, included my initiatives for South Dakota's farmers and ranchers in the Senate bill, and resisted many efforts by the special interests to remove these important reforms from the final bill. I thank as well, Brian Jennings, from my Senate staff, for his excellent work on this bill. Most importantly, however, I am pleased that we finally have a farm bill for South Dakota's agricultural producers, who have been busy with fieldwork and preparations for the 2002 crop year. Indeed, South Dakota's winter wheat crop has long-emerged from dormancy, winter wheat harvest will begin in the South within days, and my State's farmers have planted much of the spring wheat crop and other small grains already. Row crop seeding is underway in South Dakota, with over ten percent of the corn crop in-the-ground, and soybean and sunflower planting will begin soon. Last year, South Dakota farmers produced 370 million bushels of corn and approximately 140 million bushels of soybeans, making us the nation's eighth largest producer of those commodities. Additionally, South Dakota ranks second in the nation as a producer of sunflowers, flaxseed, hay, and proso millet, and we're within the top 10 States in wheat production. Obviously, it is critical that we act quickly to move this legislation to the President's desk, allow USDA to begin implementation, and let South Dakota producers know how the legislation will affect their operations. Americans are the envy of the world because we enjoy the most affordable and the safest food, spending only 10 percent of our household income on groceries. Yet today, our agricultural producers receive about half the price for crops they pocketed 6 years ago. In some cases, production costs exceed farm income. Furthermore, inclement weather has destroyed crop and forage production, while meatpacker concentration, the strength of the U.S. dollar, and unfair trade agreements have contributed to the demise of independent producers. Without policy changes to provide a much needed booster-shot to the farm economy, USDA estimates that net farm income in 2002 could drop 20 percent, its lowest level since the 1980s farm crisis. Without a new farm bill, our Nation would be unable to provide economic security to farmers, enjoy environmental benefits, and maintain food security and affordability. I am hopeful the passage of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act will help forestall the economic decline in rural America and help farmers, ranchers, and rural communities return to prosperity and growth. South Dakota's farmers and ranchers have made it clear to me that they want to derive income from the marketplace, not the government. For that to happen, Congress must mend the income safety-net and restore fair competition to agricultural markets. That is why I worked hard in the Senate months ago to include many meaningful provisions in the farm bill, provisions that were priority-items for South Dakota producers. A number of my initiatives were included the final bill in some form, while others were dismissed by the House conferees and stripped from this farm bill. In summary, this farm bill meets most, but not all, of the objectives I set out to accomplish when we began to develop and write the bill last year. Namely, this bill secures the income safety-net for farmers, restores modest market competition for livestock producers, greatly increases our commitment to conservation, devotes more assistance to value-added agriculture and rural development, and focuses new attention to home-grown energy solutions. Mr. President, this bill provides meaningful reform in farm policy, and I'm pleased with a number of provisions. First, the farm bill contains language from S. 280, the Consumer Right-to-Know Act, legislation I sponsored to require country-of-origin labeling for beef, lamb, pork, fruits, vegetables, fish, and peanuts. Despite strong opposition from the Bush administration, the meatpackers, and other special interests, we prevailed in this effort that I have worked on since I was in the House of Representatives. In fact, my first meat labeling bill was introduced in 1992, 10 years ago. Western South Dakota cow-calf ranchers will be proud to know that the standard for ``U.S. beef'' under my provision will require it to come from cattle born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States, despite a last-minute campaign by opponents to allow foreign cattle to qualify as U.S. beef. Although the labeling program must first undergo a 2-year voluntary implementation period, consumers will eventually be able to select meat and other food products by their country-of-origin at grocery stores. While the House-passed farm bill merely covered fruits and vegetables, the Senate-passed bill included an amendment I worked on with Senator Wellstone to cover meat and other products. The conference committee nearly prevented the labeling of meat because it was not in the House farm bill, but, I am pleased that we overcame their opposition. I want to express my heartfelt gratitude to all of the South Dakota farm organizations for supporting this legislation. Furthermore, I wish to commend the national farm and consumer groups that helped lead the way on this effort, including, the National Farmers Union, the American Farm Bureau, R-CALF USA, the Consumer Federation of America, the National Consumers League, and a host of others too numerous to mention. In fact, over 200 organizations in the U.S. have written me in support of this provision. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the National Farmers Union regarding the passage of country-of-origin labeling in the farm bill.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, as the author of S. 280, the Consumer Right-to-Know Act, and the provision in the new farm bill requiring retail-level country of origin labeling for beef, pork, lamb, fruits, vegetables, peanuts, and fish, I feel compelled to offer my views on how country-of-origin labeling should be implemented by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA. This farm bill provision is not overly prescriptive because I believe USDA deserves some degree of discretion to develop rules and regulations to ensure this labeling program is effective. That being said, I believe it's equally important for USDA to adhere to the intent of Congress in passing this important labeling legislation, and to comply with my intent as the primary author. Well-funded opponents of country-of-origin labeling who like to import cheap meat and other products into the United States and camouflage those products as ``Made in the USA'' will make outrageous claims about how country-of-origin labeling is difficult to administer, how it will cost them and USDA resources, and how it just can't work. It's awfully ironic they say these things, when virtually every single other item consumers buy at the retail level indicate their country-of- origin. The fact is that labeling can be implemented in a low-cost manner, and Congress expects USDA to work with all interested parties to make labeling a reality. Nevertheless, passage of country-of-origin labeling will not stop those who don't want consumers to know the origin of meat and other items at the retail-level to try to water-down and minimize this legislation through the rulemaking process and other avenues. Therefore, it's important that USDA know my intent with respect to this program. My labeling provision amends the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.) and adds subtitle D, a requirement for retail- level country-of-origin labeling for covered commodities at the final point-of-sale for consumers. This section mandates retail-level, country-of-origin labeling for covered commodities, including beef, lamb, pork, farm-raised fish, wild fish, peanuts, and perishable commodities. The purpose of the section is to inform consumers about the origin of the meat, fish, peanuts, and perishable commodities they purchase at the retail-level. The items that qualify as covered commodities must be labeled with their country- of-origin. Under present law, most products require labeling according to their country-of-origin if they are produced outside of the United States. However, some products, such as fruits, vegetables, and peanuts have been excluded from this requirement. Further, meat from livestock or fish born outside of the United States, or born and raised outside of the United States, and slaughtered or processed within the United States, are not required to be identified as a foreign product. With respect to meat, the labeling requirement in the farm bill shall apply to all muscle cuts of beef, pork, and lamb, including, but not limited to, steaks, roasts, chops, tips, ribs, and loins, as covered commodities that must be labeled as to their country-of-origin. Furthermore, ground beef, including, but not limited to hamburger and ground beef patties, whether frozen, chilled, or fresh, ground lamb, and ground pork qualify as covered commodities for purposes of country- of-origin labeling. If, however, a covered commodity is an ingredient in a processed food, the section does not require that item to be labeled as to its country-of-origin. For example, if beef, pork, or lamb is an ingredient in a can of soup, lunch meat, meat snack, frankfurter, meatball, meat salad, stew, pasta, frozen dinner, frozen entree, or frozen pizza, than the section does not require the food item containing beef, pork, or lamb to be labeled with its country-of-origin. However, this exemption shall not apply to ground beef or hamburger, as mentioned above, which must qualify as a covered commodity for country-of-origin labeling at the retail-level. While retail-level country-of-origin labeling is required of grocery stores and supermarkets, food service establishments are not required to notify the country-of-origin of covered commodities that are prepared or served to consumers. Because many polls indicate consumers wish to know the origin of the food they eat, and many individuals consume food items from food service establishments, food service establishments and restaurants are encouraged to voluntarily notify the consumers as to the country-of-origin of the food products sold at restaurants. At this point, I want to make it unconditionally clear that what is meant by this provision with respect to ``retailer'' is that any retailer selling any covered commodity, beef, pork, lamb, fruits, vegetables, peanuts, or fish, is required to indicate the country-of- origin of that covered commodity at the retail-level or final point of sale. While the definitions section of the country-of-origin labeling provision refers to ``retailer'' in the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, PACA, of 1930, this reference is made only to draw a distinction between retailers and restaurants, because the labeling requirement applies to retailers but not restaurants. Let me make it unquestionably clear right now that the only reason S. 280 and the farm bill country-of-origin labeling language refers to the word ``retailer'' is that Congress wanted it to be understood that country- of-origin labeling would be required at the retail-level, the final point of sale, as opposed to labeling in restaurants, regardless of whether the product to be labeled by its country-of-origin was a cut of beef or a fruit or vegetable. The intent is to require labeling of all covered commodities at the final point of sale, regardless of what the retailer sells, and not to inadvertently allow any retailer to avoid the labeling requirement simply because that retailer may only sell perishable agricultural commodities. In the case of meat, the farm bill provision intends for retailers to designate a covered commodity as having a United States country-of- origin only if the meat is from an animal that was born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States. An exception is made for beef from cattle born and raised in Alaska or Hawaii, and transhipped for a period not in excess of a period of days through Canada into the United States for slaughter. I understand that the World Trade Organization, WTO, committee on Rules of Origin has not yet completed its work on harmonizing rules of origin on Chapters 1 and 2 dealing with cattle and beef. Therefore, I encourage the Secretary and U.S. Trade Representative to immediately develop a position constituting a born, raised, and slaughtered standard to determine the origin of meat within the WTO which will be consistent with this section and the current voluntary beef labeling program. My legislation does not intend to prescribe the specific type or method of country-of-origin label that must be used on covered commodities. The means by which the country-of-origin is designated may differ on a commodity-by-commodity basis. For example, an affixed-label may designate the country-of-origin of a steak or package of ground beef, while a sign on a holding bin may indicate the country-of-origin of fruit or vegetables. The section provides examples by which the country-of-origin of a covered commodity may be provided at the retail- level, including a label, stamp, mark, placard, or other clear visible sign on the covered commodity or on the package, display, holding unit, or bin containing the covered commodity at the final point of sale to consumers. For purposes of consistency and equitable national treatment, I encourage the Secretary to work with industry to create a label that includes the country-of-origin and the commodity. For example, a cut of beef to be labeled as a product of the United States may be labeled, ``United States beef.'' Similarly, a tomato from Mexico may be labeled ``Mexican tomato.'' With respect to the type or method of country-of-origin label to be applied or used for covered commodities, the Secretary is encouraged to seek input from producer and farm organizations, consumers and consumer groups, and industry and businesses affected by the section. The Secretary shall attempt to create a labeling program that is easy-to-understand and as uniform as possible for like commodities to be covered under the labeling requirement. Furthermore, retailers and those responsible for country-of-origin labeling are encouraged to develop labels that are legible, noticeable, uniform, and easy-to- understand for consumers. My legislation gives the Secretary discretion to work with those responsible for tracking the origin of items and for designating the country-of-origin to develop a system that meets the intent of the section in an efficient and convenient manner. I recognize that USDA must develop a system by which to verify the origin of animals for country-of-origin labeling to be effective. The section provides the Secretary with the authority to require a verifiable record keeping audit trail to help verify origin, as well as a requirement that anyone engaged in supplying a covered commodity to a retailer must provide information indicating the origin of the covered commodity. For the retailer to know the country-of-origin of a covered commodity, and for the Secretary to enforce this section, all participants and businesses affected by this Section should cooperate to develop this verifiable record-keeping audit trail. However, especially concerning meat labeling, it is not necessary to impose a mandatory animal identification program in order to implement country-of-origin labeling because proven models already exist within USDA to verify the country-of-origin or birth of animals for various purposes. One such model is the quality grade certification system that signifies the quality grade of certain meat cuts, such as USDA ``choice,'' ``prime,'' or ``select''. The USDA stated in a report ``The Benefits/Cost Analysis of Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling'' released in 2000 that the Agricultural Marketing Service, AMS, and industry could model this certification program to implement country- of-origin meat labeling. Additional models that can be applied include the existing voluntary country-of-origin labeling program for beef, which uses an affidavit to verify origin, ``Certified Angus Beef'' and similar programs that USDA implements to aid industry in promoting certain meat cuts for breed, the National School Lunch Program, and the Market Access Program, MAP. USDA has effectively administered these existing programs. Therefore, I intend for the Secretary to capitalize upon these existing programs rather than creating a new mandatory animal identification system in order to verify origin. The programs used by USDA were listed in the section to serve as models for the department, producers, packers, retailers, and others to ensure the proper implementation of mandatory country-of-origin labeling. Moreover, USDA Health Certificates issued by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, ensures the tracking of all imported animals for slaughter without the need for a mandatory, animal identification system. By law, no animal may be imported into the United States without being accompanied by a USDA-APHIS health certificate. The application form for this certificate requires documentation as to the origin of the animal(s) being imported into the United States. The record keeping system applied for tracking imports may be helpful to the Secretary in carrying out this section. It is also my understanding that many livestock auction markets and sale barns in the United States have requested individuals selling cattle or other ruminant animals to sign affidavits verifying that the cattle were not fed mammalian parts, so as to ensure cattle buyers and customers that those cattle will not contract Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, BSE or mad cow disease. The Secretary is encouraged to determine if this system of tracking animals for prevention of the spread of BSE may work similarly for keeping records for country-of- origin. I intend that the enforcement of this section be implemented in a most reasonable fashion, so as to accommodate unintentional violations with the program. As such, the section provides the Secretary with the authority to first issue a warning to a retailer violating the section, rather than a fine. For example, on the first occasion a retailer is found out of compliance with the labeling requirement, the Secretary may notify or warn the retailer in writing, and provide the retailer 30 days in which to take steps to comply with the labeling requirement. If subsequent to the 30 day period the Secretary determines that the retailer has willfully continued to violate the section, the Secretary must provide notice and opportunity for a hearing with respect to the violation before any further enforcement action can be taken. Finally, after such steps are taken, and a retailer remains in violation of the labeling requirement, the Secretary may fine the retailer in an amount determined by the Secretary. In the case of enforcement, I intend that the Secretary take into account the special circumstances of small businesses affected by this section. I recognize that this new program and its requirements may require some time and complexity to comply with, especially for small businesses, therefore, the Secretary is encouraged to cooperate with any small business affected by this section so that the requirements are understandable, reasonable, and simple. Small businesses may need additional assistance to comply with this section, therefore, I encourage the Secretary to take into consideration these and other special circumstances which may make it difficult for small businesses to meet the requirements. Furthermore, to the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall enter into partnerships with States to enforce this section. Finally, I intend for the Secretary to promulgate such regulations that are necessary to implement the labeling requirements under this section as soon as possible. The Secretary may be under pressure from opponents to country-of-origin labeling to delay the implementation of this section. Those of us who wrote this legislation and worked hard to enact it will make sure that this section is implemented in an expeditious fashion, without unnecessary delay.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I was unable to vote during the consideration of S. 517, the Senate energy bill, on Wednesday, April 24. I traveled to my home State on that day to welcome and meet the President of the United States on his trip to Wentworth, SD. Had I been here, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 80, a motion to table Cantwell amendment No. 3234, ``Nay'' on rollcall No. 81, a motion to table Bingaman amendment No. 3316, ``Yea'' on rollcall No. 82, a motion to table Carper amendment No. 3197, ``Nay'' on rollcall No. 83, a motion to table Nickles amendment No. 3256, and ``Nay'' on rollcall vote No. 84, a motion to table Fitzgerald amendment No. 3214.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today, I proudly join with Senator Kerry to introduce the Native American Small Business Development Act of 2002. This important legislation is designed to help American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians to overcome barriers which inhibit business development and job creation. We greatly appreciate the support of the distinguished Senators who join us in sponsoring the legislation including Senators Cantwell, Wellstone, Daschle, Baucus, Inouye, Bingaman, Stabenow, and Clinton. I encourage my colleagues to support this critical legislation. The communities served by this initiative represent some of the most traditionally isolated, disadvantaged, and underserved populations in our country. Despite the unique and persistent challenges to business development in these areas, many of the supportive services the Federal Government provides to entrepreneurs are not available in these distressed regions. The Native American Small Business Development Act endeavors to develop and disseminate culturally tailored business assistance to assure Native American businesses may secure and sustain long-term success. Among the achievements included in the bill is the establishment of a statutory office within the U.S. Small Business Administration to focus on concerns specific to Native American populations. The Office of Native American Affairs will serve as an advocate in the SBA for the interests of Native Americans. In addition to administering the Native American Development Program, the Assistant Administrator will consult with Tribal Colleges, Tribal Governments, Alaska Native Corporations and Native Hawaiian Organizations to enhance the development and implementation of culturally specific approaches to support the growth and prosperity of Native American small businesses. Furthermore, the Act creates the Native American Development Program to provide necessary business development assistance. These services are vital to establish and support small businesses. The Federal Government currently invests to provide these services in communities throughout the country. It is past time for these services to be integrated into our efforts to promote self-sufficiency and economic development in Indian Country. In addition, we recognize that in order to remain competitive, businesses and entrepreneurs must be innovative and flexible to change. This legislation reflects the needs of businesses, tribes, and regional interests to pursue unique approaches that will complement local needs and improve the overall quality of services. Two pilot programs are integrated in this approach to promote new and creative solutions to assist American Indians to awaken economic opportunities in their communities. We must strive to eliminate the impediments that stifle Native American entrepreneurs. By providing business planning services and technical assistance to potential and existing small businesses, we can unlock the capacity for individuals and families to pursue their dreams of business ownership. Not only will these efforts combat poverty and unemployment, but they will bring new services and opportunities to communities that enhance the quality of life for local families. We must also work to improve access to investment capital to support economic and community development for Native Americans. As the chairman of the Senate Banking Financial Institutions Subcommittee, I am conducting hearings to identify opportunities and techniques which may foster greater access to capital markets for Tribal and Native American entities. Together, these initiatives will help to turn an important corner as we endeavor to enhance the livelihood of the first Americans. I would like to thank Congressman Udall for his leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives in bringing these issues to the forefront and for his cooperation on this historic legislation. I would like to thank Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, for his hard work on this legislation and his serious commitment to these critical issues. In addition, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the strong support of the many cosponsors who join us in introducing the bill today. I encourage the Senate to fully consider this historic legislation and to work expeditiously to enact it into law. The Native American Small Business Development Act will forge a more hopeful and prosperous future for Native American families and communities. By investing in adequate infrastructure and by making the appropriate tools available, we can empower individuals to pursue, achieve, and sustain economic opportunities that enrich their lives and their communities. The American dream will never be fully realized until it becomes a reality for all Americans. This legislation is critical to ensuring that economic growth and economic opportunity permeate the lives of Native American families. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today, I proudly join with Senator Kerry to introduce the Native American Small Business Development Act of 2002. This important legislation is designed to help American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians to overcome barriers which inhibit business development and job creation. We greatly appreciate the support of the distinguished Senators who join us in sponsoring the legislation including Senators Cantwell, Wellstone, Daschle, Baucus, Inouye, Bingaman, Stabenow, and Clinton. I encourage my colleagues to support this critical legislation. The communities served by this initiative represent some of the most traditionally isolated, disadvantaged, and underserved populations in our country. Despite the unique and persistent challenges to business development in these areas, many of the supportive services the Federal Government provides to entrepreneurs are not available in these distressed regions. The Native American Small Business Development Act endeavors to develop and disseminate culturally tailored business assistance to assure Native American businesses may secure and sustain long-term success. Among the achievements included in the bill is the establishment of a statutory office within the U.S. Small Business Administration to focus on concerns specific to Native American populations. The Office of Native American Affairs will serve as an advocate in the SBA for the interests of Native Americans. In addition to administering the Native American Development Program, the Assistant Administrator will consult with Tribal Colleges, Tribal Governments, Alaska Native Corporations and Native Hawaiian Organizations to enhance the development and implementation of culturally specific approaches to support the growth and prosperity of Native American small businesses. Furthermore, the Act creates the Native American Development Program to provide necessary business development assistance. These services are vital to establish and support small businesses. The Federal Government currently invests to provide these services in communities throughout the country. It is past time for these services to be integrated into our efforts to promote self-sufficiency and economic development in Indian Country. In addition, we recognize that in order to remain competitive, businesses and entrepreneurs must be innovative and flexible to change. This legislation reflects the needs of businesses, tribes, and regional interests to pursue unique approaches that will complement local needs and improve the overall quality of services. Two pilot programs are integrated in this approach to promote new and creative solutions to assist American Indians to awaken economic opportunities in their communities. We must strive to eliminate the impediments that stifle Native American entrepreneurs. By providing business planning services and technical assistance to potential and existing small businesses, we can unlock the capacity for individuals and families to pursue their dreams of business ownership. Not only will these efforts combat poverty and unemployment, but they will bring new services and opportunities to communities that enhance the quality of life for local families. We must also work to improve access to investment capital to support economic and community development for Native Americans. As the chairman of the Senate Banking Financial Institutions Subcommittee, I am conducting hearings to identify opportunities and techniques which may foster greater access to capital markets for Tribal and Native American entities. Together, these initiatives will help to turn an important corner as we endeavor to enhance the livelihood of the first Americans. I would like to thank Congressman Udall for his leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives in bringing these issues to the forefront and for his cooperation on this historic legislation. I would like to thank Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, for his hard work on this legislation and his serious commitment to these critical issues. In addition, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the strong support of the many cosponsors who join us in introducing the bill today. I encourage the Senate to fully consider this historic legislation and to work expeditiously to enact it into law. The Native American Small Business Development Act will forge a more hopeful and prosperous future for Native American families and communities. By investing in adequate infrastructure and by making the appropriate tools available, we can empower individuals to pursue, achieve, and sustain economic opportunities that enrich their lives and their communities. The American dream will never be fully realized until it becomes a reality for all Americans. This legislation is critical to ensuring that economic growth and economic opportunity permeate the lives of Native American families. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I would like to add a brief comment on this topic, which is of critical importance to my State of South Dakota. My colleagues have all spoken eloquently about the role of broadband deployment to our Nation, and the special importance of ensuring that our rural areas have equal access. I think we all agree that the widespread availability of broadband infrastructure is absolutely crucial to the future of America. Throughout history, we have found ourselves at critical junctures, when the Federal Government has needed to step in and help build an intrastructure system that is national in scope. The transcontinental railroad. Rural electrification. The Interstate highway system. None of those would have occurred without help from the Federal Government. That, in my opinion, is one of the most important aspects of our job--to know when it is time for the Government to step in and facilitate the building of something big, something that will benefit the nation as a whole and make us a stronger nation. The transport of large amounts of information is no less important today than the transport of large amounts of goods was a few decades ago. The physical transport of goods is still necessary, and probably always will be. But the transport of information? Why should we have to transport people just to transport information? If a supplier can meet with his customer without driving across town or getting on an airplane, then that is better. If a rural American can meet with the urban medical specialist without driving or flying to the city, then that is better. If a rancher can show his cattle for sale to a distant buyer without the expense of transporting them to a sale barn, then that is better. All of those things are theoretically possible today, but they are possible in fact only to a few of our citizens. The disturbing thing is, that other nations are moving ahead of us in deploying broadband technology, as my colleagues have already pointed out. I believe that if the United States is to continue to lead the world economically, it must invest in broadband infrastructure. That's why I will continue to fight hard to pass this legislation. I have written the President about it, I have written the majority leader about it, I have spoken to my colleagues on the Finance Committee about it, and now I want to address all of my Senate colleagues about this bill. The fact is, we need this legislation to push broadband out to remote areas of the country. There are areas where the market will not take broadband for many years, if ever. But that is where this legislation is targeted--those very areas the market is leaving behind. We need this legislation to ensure, first of all, that rural areas are not left behind, and secondly that we do not fall behind as a nation. We must not continue to fall behind Korea, Canada, Sweden, Japan, Singapore and others, because if we do, then they will be able to work faster and more productively than we can work, and it is productivity which has been our hallmark, our saving grace, our competitive edge for years. The Internet was an American invention, as are the broadband technologies that accelerate its use. We must not let others surpass us in our own technology, simply through inaction. I urge my colleagues to take up and pass this very crucial legislation this year--at the earliest opportunity. It is very important that we do so, and I pledge my support for it here today.