Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, for 15 years, Jack Church has worked tirelessly on behalf of the citizens of Butte County as Emergency Management and Veterans' Service Officer. Over the years, Jack has completed and filed applications for disability, education, pension, and other benefits for the nearly 900 veterans living in Butte County. He has also provided assistance to the families of veterans and worked to obtain needed military and medical records, as well as medals and other decorations for veterans. I have appreciated Jack's work on behalf of veterans over the years. He has been a great advocate for veterans in South Dakota, not only on issues that impact the individual veteran and his or her family, but also on issues that impact all veterans, such as maintaining access to health care services in the Department of Veterans Affairs. He has always recognized the particular issues affecting veterans who live in rural areas, whose access to VA health care and other services can be limited by distance or income. He has been active on issues such as prescription drug costs for veterans and senior citizens, has advocated concurrent receipt of disability and retiree compensation for military retirees, and worked hard to speed up the processing of claims filed by veterans. He has truly been a friend to the veterans of South Dakota over the years. In 2000, Butte County veterans received $1.8 million in Federal benefits, compared to $900,000 in 1990. This represents Jack's work to ensure the veterans in Butte County get the benefits they deserve. When claims or requests for records or medals were delayed, Jack was not afraid to ``rattle the cages'' to get the necessary action on behalf of the veteran. At last resort, he would contact my office for assistance in some of these cases. Thanks to his efforts, countless veterans in Butte County and the surrounding region have benefitted from services provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. His comments and insight on veterans issues have helped me over the years in my fight to bring more attention and action on health care, education, and other issues affecting veterans. I commend Jack for his dedication and commitment to forging relationships that have the best interests of the individual veteran in mind. In addition to his great work with South Dakota veterans, I have appreciated Jack's involvement in other areas in his community. As emergency management officer for Butte County, Jack has helped develop and administer disaster plans for the citizens of Butte County. In times of crisis, Jack was always in the middle of the action, helping to coordinate relief efforts and provide assistance to individuals in time of need. Whether it was finding shelter during an evening storm, or providing food stuffs or even porta-potties, Jack has always been dedicated to getting assistance and emergency help to victims. But Jack has also been very proactive, helping to educate the public on the importance of awareness in times of emergencies. Together with other emergency management officials in South Dakota, I was pleased with Jack's efforts to help me promote the need for, and importance of, weather radios to the citizens of South Dakota. Jack Church richly deserves the thanks of his community. It is an honor for me to share his accomplishments with my colleagues and to publicly commend him for serving South Dakota and our country.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I rise today to congratulate Ben Leber of the Kansas State University Wildcats. Ben, a Vermillion, South Dakota native, was chosen in the third round of the National Football League's 2002 Draft by the San Diego Chargers, and was the 71st overall draft pick. At Vermillion High School, Ben excelled both in the classroom and on the football field. Ben played offense, as a running back, and defense, as a linebacker. He was a two-time All-State and All-Conference selection and played in the North-South Dakota All-Star game. He was also named to the Academic All-State team and was an honor roll student every year in high school. In 1997, his senior year, he was a Parade All-American, the only player from South Dakota to receive the honor that year, and received an honorable mention to the All-USA team by USA Today. At VHS, Ben also participated in Track and Basketball. At KSU, where Ben is a Business-General Management major, he started 35 of his last 37 games as an outside linebacker, continuing the school's excellent linebacker tradition. His junior year, Ben was an All-Big Twelve Conference second-team pick. His senior year, he was an All-American third-team selection by the Associated Press and a Consensus All-Big Twelve Conference first-team choice. Ben was also named to the Butkus and Lombardi Award watch lists and was invited to participate in the prestigious Senior Bowl. Ben was a team representative and defensive captain both his junior and senior years. Over the course of his career at KSU, Ben had 216 tackles, 13.5 sacks, 11 passes broken, three forced fumbles and one fumble recovery. I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Leber family, who have played no small role in Ben's success: his parents Al and Han, his brothers Jason and Aaron, and his sister Gina. I also want to congratulate VHS head football coach Gary Culver, who guided Ben and the Tanagers to the South Dakota 11A State Championship in 1995. Ben reflects the best of South Dakota, and I know I speak for the entire state when I congratulate him on being drafted. We are all very proud of him.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, statistics show that a woman is raped every 5 minutes in the United States and that one in every three adult women experiences at least one physical assault by a partner during adulthood. In fact, more women are injured by domestic violence each year than by automobile accidents and cancer deaths combined. Statistics that report the abuse of our children are equally staggering. Nationwide, an estimated 826,000 children are victims of abuse and neglect, a number greater than the population of my home State of South Dakota. April is recognized as both Child Abuse Prevention Month and Sexual Assault Awareness Month. This week, the week of April 21-27, is National Crime Victims Rights Week and is a good time to take a serious look at the progress we have made in addressing the problem of abuse against women and children in our communities. In 1983, I introduced legislation in the South Dakota State Legislature to use marriage license fees to help fund domestic abuse shelters. At that time, thousands of South Dakota women and children were in need of shelters and programs to help them. However, few people wanted to acknowledge that domestic abuse occurred in their communities, or even in their homes. During the last 7 years, I have led efforts in the U.S. Congress to authorize the original Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, and, most recently, expand and improve the program to assist rural communities. South Dakota has received over $8 million in VAWA funds for women's shelters and family violence prevention services. In addition, the law has doubled prison time for repeat sex offenders, established mandatory restitution to victims of violence against women, and strengthened interstate enforcement of violent crimes against women. South Dakotans can also call a nationwide toll-free hotline for immediate crisis intervention help and free referrals to local services. The number to call for help is 1-800-799-SAFE. In South Dakota last year, over 5,500 women were provided assistance in domestic violence shelters and outreach centers thanks, in part, to VAWA funds. While I am pleased that we have made significant progress in getting resources to thousands of South Dakota women in need, it is important to look beyond the numbers. Mr. President, 5,500 neighbors, sisters, daughters, and wives in South Dakota were victimized by abuse last year. Thousands of other women are abused and do not seek help. We must also recognize that the problem is multiplied on the reservations where Native American women are abused at two-and-a-half times the national rate and are more than twice as likely to be rape victims as any other race of women. The words of a domestic abuse survivor may best illustrate the need to remain vigilant in Congress and in our communities on preventing domestic abuse. A woman from my State wrote me and explained that she was abused as a child, raped as a teenager, and emotionally abused as a wife. Her grandchildren were also abused. In her letter, she pleaded: Don't let another woman go through what I went through, and please don't let another child go through what my grandchildren have gone through. You can make a difference. We all can make a difference by protecting women and children from violence and abuse.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, tomorrow marks the 87th anniversary of the start of the Armenian genocide, and I rise today to honor the victims of this horrific event. As we take time to reflect on this dark chapter of world history, I am not sure what is more troubling: The fact that so many people no longer remember the Armenian genocide, or that there are still people who deny it ever took place. To those who would deny it, I refer them to the U.S. National Archives which contains thousands of pages of source material proving the Armenian genocide did occur. To those who no longer remember, we must tell the story or face the possibility that history may repeat itself. On April 24, 1915, approximately 200 Armenian religious, political, and intellectual leaders were arrested in Constantinople and subsequently killed. Shortly afterward, the entire Armenian people were forcibly removed from their homeland in present-day eastern Turkey and deported. Over a million and a half Armenians were killed or died as a result of the deportation between 1915 and 1923, and another 500,000 were forced into exile. All told, one-third of the Armenian population was killed during this brutal episode. Despite having their population decimated and scattered into exile, the Armenian people have been able to maintain a rich culture and a strong sense of their own history. They should be proud of their many accomplishments in the nearly nine decades since the genocide. It is with this strong sense of the past that the Armenian people today are building a brighter future. As we know all too well, the Armenian genocide was the first, but not the last, genocide of the 20th Century. We join with the Armenian people to remember the victims and to keep alive the memory to ensure such a tragic event never occurs again.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I thank my colleague from New York for his gracious willingness to allow me to make a few remarks about this pending amendment. I rise in opposition to the amendment on the renewable fuels standard. The Senate energy bill contains a landmark renewable fuels standard that is an essential part of a sound national energy policy. The bill provides for an orderly phase-down of MTBE use, removal of the oxygen content requirement for reformulated gasoline--RFG--and the establishment of a nationwide renewable fuels standard--RFS--that will be phased in over the next decade. The standard has strong bipartisan support and is the result of long and comprehensive negotiations between farm groups, the American Petroleum Institute, and coastal and Midwestern States. It is the first time that a substantive agreement has been reached on an issue that will reduce our dependency on foreign oil and greatly improve the Nation's energy security. I have spoken in the past about the benefits of renewable fuels. These home-grown fuels will improve our energy security and provide a direct benefit for the agricultural economy of South Dakota and other rural States. The new standard is largely based on legislation that I introduced with Senator Chuck Hagel. The leadership of Senators Daschle and Bingaman resulted in the consensus legislation on this issue. The consensus package would ensure future growth for ethanol and biodiesel through the creation of a new, renewable fuels content standard in all motor fuel produced and used in the United States. Today, ethanol and biodiesel comprise less than 1 percent of all transportation fuel in the United States, 1.8 billion gallons is currently produced in the United States. The consensus package would require that 5 billions gallons of transportation fuel be comprised of renewable fuel by 2012--nearly a tripling of the current ethanol production. I don't need to convince anyone in South Dakota and other rural States of the benefits of ethanol to the environment and the economies of rural communities. We have many plants in South Dakota and more are being planned. These farmer-owned ethanol plants in South Dakota, and in neighboring States, demonstrate the hard work and commitment being expended to serve a growing market for clean domestic fuels. The new standard does not require that a single gallon of renewable fuel must be used in any particular State or region. Moreover, the language includes credit trading provisions that give refiners flexibility to meet the standard's requirements. In no way is this intended to penalize California, New York, or any other region in the country. Much has been made on the Senate floor and in the press recently about the possibility of additional costs that could be incurred when the new standard is enacted into law. I understand the concerns raised by the Senators from California and New York. This is a major change in the makeup of our transportation fuel. However, the goal of the agreement that has been reached on this title is to phase in the renewable fuels standard in a manner that is fair to every region of the country. The ban on MTBE and the elimination the oxygenate standard are two changes that Californians, New Yorkers, and others have sought for years. The goal of this agreement is not to raise gas prices, but to diversify our energy infrastructure and increase the number of fuel options. This helps to increase our energy security, increase competition and reduce consumer costs of gasoline. Moreover, little has been made about the source of information that has been cited to alarm Members or about its potential impacts about the consequences of failing to enact these provisions. Senators from New York and California have distributed charts and spoken on the floor, claiming that the renewable fuels standard will increase consumer costs by 4 to 10 cents per gallon. The source of this data is the MTBE consulting firm, Hart/IRI, which claims it based its cost estimates on data from the Energy Information Administration. EIA has completed two analyses of the fuels provisions of S. 517. The first, completed in February on the original provisions of the bill, found that the MTBE ban could increase gasoline costs by 4 to 10 cents per gallon, while the renewable fuels standard could increase gasoline costs by 1 cent per gallon in reformulated gasoline--RFG--areas and a half cent per gallon overall. Hart/IRI lumped these costs together and attributed them solely to the use of renewable fuels, making that provision appear to be roughly 10 times more expensive than it is. The second EIA analysis on the new compromise agreement found that, because 14 States already have banned MTBE, the incremental costs of the MTBE ban in S. 517 would be only 2 to 4 cents per gallon, while the cost of the renewable fuels provision would be less than a penny per gallon in RFG areas and less than a half cent per gallon overall. The analysis did not consider the positive economic effects of the banking and trading provisions of the bill, which the American Petroleum Institute has said will reduce the costs to less than one-third of a cent per gallon. The difference between the Hart/IRI analysis and the EIA analysis is not surprising. Hart/IRI is an MTBE consultant whose business depends on the continued existence of the MTBE industry. Since the fuels compromise bans MTBE, Hart/IRI has every incentive to exaggerate and misrepresent the cost impacts of the legislation. It is unfortunate and ironic that some Members have misinterpreted the data from this analysis. The renewable fuels standard in S. 517 addresses the difficulties that States have encountered in meeting Federal gasoline requirements, while promoting the use of home-grown fuels that will reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil. Any further attempts to reduce or eliminate the standard should be opposed so that we can move forward and improve our Nation's energy security. The inclusion of the renewable fuels standard will result in cleaner air, more jobs across America, a better trade balance for the United States, less reliance on the politics of very troubled parts of the country, fewer gallons of oil imported from Saddam Hussein, and it will result in better prices for our farmers and overall be a major plus as our Nation moves in the direction of renewable fuels.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator John McCain and Senator Tom Daschle, as sponsors of the Indian Trust Asset and Trust Fund Management and Reform Act of 2002. This legislation we are introducing today is intended as simply the first step in the legislative process as we continue to work closely with tribes to address the need for further reform of the management of the trust funds and assets that have been mismanaged for decades. I am hopeful that by taking this action today, we will begin to further the discussion of this critical issue, knowing full well that there will be ongoing consultation and input from tribal leaders and tribal members all across the country. As many of my colleagues are aware, the issue of trust fund mismanagement is one of the most urgent problems we are faced with in Indian Country. Of all the extraordinary circumstances we find in Indian Country, and especially in South Dakota, I do not think there is any more complex, more difficult and more shocking than the circumstances we have surrounding trust fund mismanagement. This problem has persisted literally for generations, and continues today. Administrations of both political parties have been inadequate in their response, and the level of direction and the resources provided by Congresses over past decades has also been sadly inadequate. The Federal Government, by law, is to be the trustee for Native American people. When the Trust Fund Management Act of 1994 was passed, I was hopeful that this accounting situation would at last be remedied. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. Last year's attempt by Secretary Norton and the Department of the Interior to address this ongoing problem has also fallen far short of what is needed. In fact, Indian leaders all across the country widely opposed the plan released by the Secretary last November to create a new Bureau of Indian Trust Asset Management, BITAM. Unfortunately, the Secretary released the Department's plan without seeking input and consulting with the very people who are supposed to benefit from these trust fund accounts. Many tribal leaders have offered counter proposals to the Department's plan, however, Secretary Norton continues to stand behind and defend BITAM as the best alternative to addressing this problem. I believe it is now time for Congress to attempt once again to make real progress on this issue. As I stated earlier, the bill my colleagues and I have introduced today is not intended to be a final product, but rather the beginning of a process that will lead to further improvements, revisions and refinements based on the continued input of tribal leadership. One of the main provisions of our legislation is to establish the position of a Deputy Secretary for Trust Management and Reform in the Department of the Interior. The Deputy Secretary will be appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a term of 6 years and may only be removed for cause. The Deputy Secretary will report directly to the Secretary and will be responsible for the oversight of all trust fund and trust asset administration and management, including consultation with Indian tribes. It is my hope that the Deputy Secretary is provided the adequate authority to administer the trust assets and to ensure that reform of the administration of trust assets is permanent. In addition, we must maintain and strengthen the integrity of services of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, as the primary agency providing trust services directly to tribes. This reorganization should not by any means diminish the BIA in it's role as advocate for tribes and must include the necessary funding to allow for real trust reform to be implemented at the regional and agency levels. We have already benefitted from the input of the many tribal officials in South Dakota, including the input of the Great Plains Tribal Region and Montana Wyoming Tribal Leaders' Council. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mike Jandreau, chairman of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and a member of the Interior Department's Tribal Task Force, as well as Tom Ranfranz, president of the Flandreau Santee and chairman of the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association for their advice and counsel as we attempt to address the many challenges facing trust reform. Their important insight into the trust fund management issues and their leadership, along with the other tribal chairs in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain Regions who have been very helpful to me as we to address the shortcomings of the Department's plan and try to find a legislative approach that will finally begin to improve this situation,. Madam President, I have high hopes that this issue may finally be laid to rest. It is crucial that the first Americans of this proud country be treated with the dignity and respect that has been so sadly lacking for far too long. This legislation provides a new foundation from which we may once again begin to rebuild the trust that the U.S. Government has, in the eyes of the Indian people, let crumble into the rubble of a bureaucratic maze.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator John McCain and Senator Tom Daschle, as sponsors of the Indian Trust Asset and Trust Fund Management and Reform Act of 2002. This legislation we are introducing today is intended as simply the first step in the legislative process as we continue to work closely with tribes to address the need for further reform of the management of the trust funds and assets that have been mismanaged for decades. I am hopeful that by taking this action today, we will begin to further the discussion of this critical issue, knowing full well that there will be ongoing consultation and input from tribal leaders and tribal members all across the country. As many of my colleagues are aware, the issue of trust fund mismanagement is one of the most urgent problems we are faced with in Indian Country. Of all the extraordinary circumstances we find in Indian Country, and especially in South Dakota, I do not think there is any more complex, more difficult and more shocking than the circumstances we have surrounding trust fund mismanagement. This problem has persisted literally for generations, and continues today. Administrations of both political parties have been inadequate in their response, and the level of direction and the resources provided by Congresses over past decades has also been sadly inadequate. The Federal Government, by law, is to be the trustee for Native American people. When the Trust Fund Management Act of 1994 was passed, I was hopeful that this accounting situation would at last be remedied. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. Last year's attempt by Secretary Norton and the Department of the Interior to address this ongoing problem has also fallen far short of what is needed. In fact, Indian leaders all across the country widely opposed the plan released by the Secretary last November to create a new Bureau of Indian Trust Asset Management, BITAM. Unfortunately, the Secretary released the Department's plan without seeking input and consulting with the very people who are supposed to benefit from these trust fund accounts. Many tribal leaders have offered counter proposals to the Department's plan, however, Secretary Norton continues to stand behind and defend BITAM as the best alternative to addressing this problem. I believe it is now time for Congress to attempt once again to make real progress on this issue. As I stated earlier, the bill my colleagues and I have introduced today is not intended to be a final product, but rather the beginning of a process that will lead to further improvements, revisions and refinements based on the continued input of tribal leadership. One of the main provisions of our legislation is to establish the position of a Deputy Secretary for Trust Management and Reform in the Department of the Interior. The Deputy Secretary will be appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a term of 6 years and may only be removed for cause. The Deputy Secretary will report directly to the Secretary and will be responsible for the oversight of all trust fund and trust asset administration and management, including consultation with Indian tribes. It is my hope that the Deputy Secretary is provided the adequate authority to administer the trust assets and to ensure that reform of the administration of trust assets is permanent. In addition, we must maintain and strengthen the integrity of services of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, as the primary agency providing trust services directly to tribes. This reorganization should not by any means diminish the BIA in it's role as advocate for tribes and must include the necessary funding to allow for real trust reform to be implemented at the regional and agency levels. We have already benefitted from the input of the many tribal officials in South Dakota, including the input of the Great Plains Tribal Region and Montana Wyoming Tribal Leaders' Council. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mike Jandreau, chairman of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and a member of the Interior Department's Tribal Task Force, as well as Tom Ranfranz, president of the Flandreau Santee and chairman of the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association for their advice and counsel as we attempt to address the many challenges facing trust reform. Their important insight into the trust fund management issues and their leadership, along with the other tribal chairs in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain Regions who have been very helpful to me as we to address the shortcomings of the Department's plan and try to find a legislative approach that will finally begin to improve this situation,. Madam President, I have high hopes that this issue may finally be laid to rest. It is crucial that the first Americans of this proud country be treated with the dignity and respect that has been so sadly lacking for far too long. This legislation provides a new foundation from which we may once again begin to rebuild the trust that the U.S. Government has, in the eyes of the Indian people, let crumble into the rubble of a bureaucratic maze.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a very special South Dakotan who has made a real difference in the lives of women, children, and families across my home State. Today is Loila Hunking's last day as Childcare Services Coordinator for the State of South Dakota. While I'm sure this is not the last we have seen of Loila, I wanted to use the occasion of her retirement to honor her tireless work in many capacities for the people of the State of South Dakota. After some time as a reporter and editor for our State's largest newspaper, the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, Loila turned to a career as a high school English and Journalism teacher in Brandon, SD. During this time, Loila was an active member in the South Dakota Education Association, and also served in the South Dakota House of Representatives. Her time in the South Dakota Legislature is marked by her strong support for equal rights for women, enactment of a spousal rape law, credit regulation, and human rights issues. After leaving the legislature, Loila continued her work as an advocate in many capacities, truly leading the charge for issues important to women. In 1976, Loila developed the first tool to measure community child care needs in South Dakota. Together with the Augustana Research Institute, Loila worked to put together a survey questionnaire and process of statistical computation that would assess child care needs and the causation of those needs in communities across South Dakota. Because of this survey, communities were able to explore the availability and scope of services and suggested relationships between women's career mobility, educational advancement, and child care opportunities. As Chair of the South Dakota Commission on the Status of Women, Loila worked on a landmark publication that brought the serious issue of domestic violence into the light of day in South Dakota. The report published in 1979, and titled ``A Conspiracy of Silence: A Report on Spouse Abuse in South Dakota'' exposed the high occurrence of domestic violence in our State for the first time. State officials and the general population were stunned by the dramatic statistics the report revealed. The report offered important data and information to lawmakers who soon realized that this was not an issue that could be ignored. Over the next two decades, Loila served as a member of the Sioux Falls School Board, the Sioux Falls City Commission, and as Chair of the South Dakota Democratic Party. Her tenure in all these positions was always marked by her devotion to the needs of children and families in South Dakota communities. In 1996, Governor Janklow appointed Loila as Childcare Services Coordinator for the state of South Dakota. He made an excellent choice. Throughout her years in that office, Loila has been dedicated to expanding, developing and improving childcare services in our state. She will be greatly missed. Over the years, I have known that I can always count on Loila to give me the story, straight. I have always appreciated her no-nonsense approach to policy, government, and politics. It's my hope that Loila will find time in her retirement to continue to serve women, children, and all of South Dakota. She has always been a strong voice for those who were in need of one. She truly has made South Dakota a better place to live. I offer her my whole-hearted congratulations and thanks upon her retirement, and wish her all the best in her future endeavors.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Feinstein amendment on the renewable fuels standard. The Senate energy bill contains a landmark renewable fuels standard that is an essential part of a sound national energy policy. The bill provides for an orderly phase-down of MTBE use, removal of the oxygen content requirement for reformulated gasoline (RFG) and the establishment of a nationwide renewable fuels standard--RFS--that will be phased in over the next decade. The standard has strong bipartisan support and is the result of long and comprehensive negotiations between farm groups, the American Petroleum Institute, and coastal and Midwestern states. It is the first time that a substantive agreement has been reached on an issue that will reduce our dependency on foreign oil and greatly improve the nation's energy security. aa Moreover, the renewable fuels standard in S. 517 provides a nationwide, cost-effective solution to address the concerns over MTBE use. Although individual states are banning or considering banning MTBE, the states are still left with meeting the federal oxygenate standard for reformulated gasoline. The provisions of S. 517 address both of these issues in a balanced manner and do so without mandating individual states to meet specific levels of renewable fuels production or use. I have spoken in the past about the benefits of renewable fuels. These home-grown fuels will improve our energy security and provide a direct benefit for the agricultural economy of South Dakota and other rural states. The new standard is largely based on legislation that I introduced with Senator Chuck Hagel. The leadership of Senators Daschle and Bingaman resulted in the consensus legislation on this issue. The consensus package would ensure future growth for ethanol and biodiesel through the creation of a new, renewable fuels content standard in all motor fuel produced and used in the U.S. Today, ethanol and biodiesel comprise less than one percent of all transportation fuel in the U.S--1.8 billion gallons is currently produced in the US. The consensus package would require that 5 billions gallons of transportation fuel be comprised of renewable fuel by 2012 nearly a tripling of the current ethanol production. I do not need to convince anyone in South Dakota and other rural states of the benefits of ethanol to the environment and the economies of rural communities. We have many plants in South Dakota and more are being planned. These farmer-owned ethanol plants in South Dakota, and in neighboring states, demonstrate the hard work and commitment being expended to serve a growing market for clean domestic fuels. Today, 3 ethanol plants--Broins in Scotland and Heartland Grain Fuels in Aberdeen and Huron--produce nearly 30 million gallons per year. With the enactment of the renewable fuels standard, the production in South Dakota and other states could grow substantially, with at least 2000 farmers owning ethanol plants and producing 200 million gallons of ethanol per year or more. I understand the concerns raised by the senators from California and New York. This is a major a major change in the makeup of our transportation fuel. The goal of the agreement that has been reached on this title is to phase in the renewable fuels standard in a manner that is fair to every region of the country. It also bans MTBE and eliminates the oxygenate standard, two changes that Californians have sought for years. The goal of this agreement is not to raise gas prices, but to diversify our energy infrastructure and increase the number of fuel options. This helps to increase our energy security, increase competition and reduce consumer costs of gasoline. The new standard does not require that a single gallon of renewable fuel must be used in any particular state or region. Moreover, the language includes credit trading provisions that gives refiners flexibility to meet the standard's requirements. In no way is this intended to penalize California, New York or any other region in the country. In addition, there are allegations of huge price increases at the pump should the standard be enacted. This concern is unfounded and the analysis that the figures are based upon is flawed. Two recent reports by the Energy Information Administration--EIA--and the General Accounting Office--GAO--have raised some concerns about higher gasoline costs as well supply implications of the renewable fuels standard. These reports failed to take into account several factors, resulting in conclusions that are incomplete. The EIA report notes that 90 percent of the costs associated with the provisions of the bill are because of the ban on MTBE, not the inclusion of the renewable fuels standard. The report also states that the RFS without the MTBE ban would raise prices up to one cent a gallon for reformulated gasoline and up to .5 cents a gallon for all gasoline. However, the report failed to account for the provisions of the legislation that allow for credit banking and trading, which would lower any increase in prices. The GAO report only evaluated a California ban on MTBE but assumed the continuation of the federal oxygenate standard. Because S. 517 eliminates the oxygen standard, the high costs in the GAO report are exaggerated. The American Petroleum Institute analysis of the effect of the RFS on gasoline costs, including the trading program and the elimination of the oxygenate standard, indicates that there are almost no additional costs. The renewable fuels standard in S. 517 addresses the difficulties that states have encountered in meeting the makeup of federal gasoline standards, while promoting the use of home-grown fuels that will reduce the nation's dependency on foreign oil. Any attempts to reduce or eliminate the standard should be opposed so that we can move forward and improve the nation's energy security.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and congratulate the Custer Wildcats. The Wildcats under veteran coach Larry Luitjens, won the South Dakota Class ``A'' Basketball Tournament March 16 in Sioux Falls, SD. This is the fifth title in a dozen years for the Wildcats and Coach Luitjens. Custer defeated Pine Ridge and Crow Creek to advance to the championship game against long-time State tournament rival Lennox. The Wildcats rallied to win the contest 55-50. Custer had defeated Lennox to claim State titles in 1992, 1993 and 1998. Lennox defeated Custer for the 1991 title. This is the first State title won by Custer since the 1998 championship, when Derek Paulsen hit a game-winning basket. Just over a year later, Derek was tragically killed in an automobile accident. This year's team included the athletic talents of Derek's brother, Paige, and their father Fred is a long-time Assistant Coach to Luitjens. ``It was just four years ago that we were here on this same floor and Derek made the last shot that won the game for us,'' Coach Luitjens told the Rapid City Journal after this year's title victory. ``You can't help but think about him.'' Guided by the spirit and memory of Derek Paulsen, the team won 20 of their last 21 games. Another special highlight this season came when Coach Luitjens became the winningest coach in South Dakota basketball history. Luitjens' 35-year coaching career includes stints with DeSmet, SD, and New England, ND, and the long-time coach now has a record of 590- 224. Larry's teams from 1989 to 1991 put together a string of 49 consecutive victories, South Dakota's longest winning streak among State ``A'' teams. Larry is known for his coaching expertise and the quality of teams he puts on the basketball court each year. He is also well-respected for the sportsmanship he instills in his players and the students he mentors each year and the relationships he fosters between his team and other teams in South Dakota, especially teams on South Dakota's Indian reservations. I want to applaud and commend the community of Custer for their ongoing support of young people. This title reflects that community support. I want to acknowledge Superintendent Tim Creal and Athletic Director Paul Anderson and recognize the dedicated efforts of Head Coach and Principal Larry Luitjens and Assistant Coaches Fred Paulsen, Chris Kolker and Neil Sieger. I congratulate the success and hard work of players Brady Sumners, Travis Meyers, Ben Mueller, Cash Melvin, Paige Paulsen, Michael Burke, Matt Lyndoe, Danny Fool Bull, Michael Arnold and Tyler Custis. Travis Meyer and Tyler Custis were named to the all-tournament team. In addition, I want to recognize the work of team managers Lacey Stender, Cassie Borg, Candi Cullum, Pete Linde, Ryan Scheibe, Spencer Paulsen and Caleb Woods and the special support provided by cheerleaders Amanda Halderman, Ashley Ziemann, Elizabeth Plooster and Shay Larson, under the guidance of advisor Cherri Block. Again, congratulations to the Custer Wildcats on winning this year's State ``A'' basketball championship for the State of South Dakota.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and congratulate the Spearfish Spartans. The Spartans, under second-year coach Dan Martin, won the South Dakota State ``AA'' Basketball Tournament March 16 in Rapid City, SD. Coach Martin's squad went through the 2001-2002 season with only one loss, a double-overtime setback to Gillette, WY, a squad that went on to win its own State title. The Spartans entered the State tournament with an impressive 20-1 mark and defeated Rapid City Central and Watertown before rallying in the final exciting minutes to overtake Sioux Falls Lincoln, 65-61, for the State title. It was the Spartans' first-ever State basketball championship and the first Class ``AA'' title for a team west of the Missouri River since 1989. The team was guided this season by the senior leadership provided by Deming Haugland, Aaron Croff, Slade Larscheid and Timm Cooper. Haugland and Croff were joined by Spartan sophomore Matt Martin on the all- tournament team and Haugland received the coveted Spirit of Su Award, for his sportsmanship and actions both on and off the basketball court. As Coach Martin told ``The Black Hills Pioneer'' after the title victory, ``It was due to a lot of hard work. The boys put a lot of blood and sweat into it and they deserve it.'' I want to commend and applaud the community of Spearfish for their support of young people. This title reflects that community support. I want to acknowledge Superintendent David Peters, Principal Dr. Dan Leikvold, Athletic Director Karen Hahn, Head Coach Dan Martin, Assistant Coaches Les Schroeder, Dick Tschetter and Pete Wilson for their guidance and support to help make this year's team so successful. I also want to congratulate all of this year's team members: seniors Deming Haugland, Aaron Croff, Slade Larscheid and Timm Cooper; juniors Tanner Tetrault, Josh Delahoyde, Turner Johnson and Jared Noem; and sophomores Billy McDonald, Matt Martin, Josh Stadler, Derek Bertsch and Scott Betten, for their hard work, dedication and commitment this season. Finally, I want to acknowledge the great work of team managers Eric Skavang, Wally Byrne, Rachel Brady and Katie Goodnough, and the hard-working efforts of cheerleaders Terra Ketchum, Sarah Hanna, Amber Orce and Angie Koski. Again, congratulations to the Spearfish Spartans on winning their first State basketball championship! j

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I congratulate Philip D. Authier, MPH, RN, 2002 President of the American Organization of Nurse Executives, AONE. Philip Authier is also Vice President of Patient Care at St. Mary's Healthcare Center, in Pierre, South Dakota. Among his many accomplishments, Mr. Authier, has been a member of AONE for 17 years and served on the AONE Board of Directors from 1995 to 1999. During this time he also served on AONE's Finance Committee and as a AONE representative to the Region 6 Regional Policy Board of the American Hospital Association. In addition, he is a past president of South Dakota Organization of Nurse Executives and has chaired the finance and nursing policy committees of the South Dakota Board of Nursing. In 2000, by a national membership vote, he was elected President-Elect for a one year term beginning January 1, 2001, and took on his current position as President this past January. As President, Philip Authier will help lead the AONE in its mission to facilitate excellence in the nursing practices; to offer professional development opportunities; to influence health policy; and to support research and development in nursing administration. His experience and expertise will help to achieve the important goal of improving the recruitment and retainment of individuals to this very important profession. I am confident that his experience and expertise within this profession will help to achieve these goals. Once again, I commend and congratulate Philip Authier, a fellow South Dakotan, on his national leadership role in helping to address the needs and concerns of the nursing profession throughout the country.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, over the last few weeks, I have had the honor of meeting with a number of veterans, both here in Washington and in South Dakota. Every time I meet with them, I am reminded of the tremendous sacrifices they have made on behalf of our country. We owe each of them a debt of gratitude that can never be fully repaid. One of the things we must do for our veterans is honor our past promises. For decades, the men and women who joined the military were promised educational benefits and lifetime health care for themselves and their families. Those commitments have too often not been kept, and I am concerned this is starting to threaten our national security. Veterans are our Nation's most effective recruiters. However, inadequate education benefits and poor health care options make it difficult for these men and women to encourage the younger generation to join today's voluntary service. In my meetings with veterans, the issue of greatest concern is health care. They want assurances that they will be able to access quality care. Unfortunately, years of inadequate funding for veterans health care has pushed the VA health system to the brink of crisis, and the quality of care is starting to suffer. Let me be clear, this has nothing to do with the men and women who work in the VA health system. They are dedicated professionals who care about the veterans they serve, but they are being asked to do too much with too few resources. Veterans were very optimistic when the President mentioned his commitment to veterans health care in the State of the Union address in January. At first glance, it looked as though the President's budget had made a significant effort to fix the mounting funding problems at the VA. But after budget gimmicks, such as $800 million that was included for the first time in the VA budget for federal employees' retirements, the amount of funding that the President has recommended for veterans health care falls far short of the promised $2.2 billion increase. Instead, it is only about $1.4 billion more than last year. I am pleased that the Senate Budget Committee, of which I am a member, has recently approved a budget resolution that will provide $1.2 billion more than was requested by the Bush administration for VA health care and $2.6 billion more than was approved in fiscal year 2002. I am hopeful that this level of funding will go a long way toward addressing the critical funding needs in VA health care. While there is good news about the health care budget, I am concerned about a provision in the President's budget that would establish a $1,500 deductible for Category 7 veterans. Under this new policy, a veteran would be forced to pay for 45 percent of his or her medical care, up to a limit of $1,500 per year. The VA estimates that 121,000 veterans will choose not to be treated at the VA next year if the proposal becomes law. This would include several thousand in South Dakota. I know this is an attempt to ask veterans who make more money to contribute more to their own health care. However, the way in which the VA determines Category 7 status is unfair, particularly to many veterans in South Dakota. Category 7 veterans are those who lack a disability related to their military service or whose income is higher than the current VA eligibility standards. The current income standard is $24,000 annually for a single, or $28,000 for a couple, and applies to 40 percent of the veterans in South Dakota. Assets, such as land, are included in the calculation of income. This is a concern for many farmers and ranchers in my state who may own land worth a considerable amount, but whose actual yearly income is well below the VA threshold. The administration's proposal to impose a $1,500 co-pay on all Category 7 veterans would be particularly onerous on these veterans. I would also like to note the concern some veterans have raised about a new VA regulation that increases the price of prescription drugs from $2 to $7 a month. Seven dollars a month for a prescription is still relatively inexpensive, and given the lack of prescription benefits under Medicare, many older veterans still benefit greatly from this VA service. However, when you look at longer waits for appointments, cuts in VA services, and the proposed $1,500 co-pay for Category 7 veterans, this increase in prescription costs is seen as yet another example of the erosion of veterans benefits. One of the positive steps in VA health care has been the shift away from a health system based on lengthy, in-patient hospital stays, to a system focused on preventative, outpatient care. This shift has vastly improved patient care. It has also proven to be popular with veterans, as demonstrated by the large numbers currently utilizing the Community Based Outpatient Clinics, CBOCs. These community based clinics are particularly important in rural States like South Dakota. By placing clinics in local communities, we increase access to care by cutting down the amount of time a veteran must spend travelling. Greater access to nearby care means veterans are likely to seek medical attention before an illness becomes a major health problem. This new access to clinics was threatened in South Dakota when budgetary constraints prompted the VA to put a moratorium on enrollment in CBOCs in Aberdeen, Rapid City, and Pierre. This caused concern among veterans in the areas around the clinics who were told their only option for health care was a multiple hour drive away. After working closely with the VA, the enrollment caps appear to have been lifted. I will continue to monitor this situation and will work with Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony Principi to ensure all eligible veterans continue to have access to these clinics. I believe we in the Senate should commit to making this the year we finally address 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 20 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. I recently sent a letter to the President expressing my regret at his decision not to address concurrent receipt and asking him to work with Congress to address this urgent matter. I am very pleased that the Senate version of the fiscal year 2003 budget resolution includes a provision to phase in full concurrent receipt for veterans who are 60- 100 percent disabled as a result of their military service. This is only a first step, but a positive step. 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. Another priority for me is improving educational benefits for veterans. Unfortunately, the current GI bill fails to keep pace with the rising costs of higher education. Less than one-half of the men and women who contribute $1,200 of their pay to qualify for the GI bill actually use these benefits. Last year, I joined Senator Susan Collins in introducing legislation to bring the GI bill into the 21st century by creating a benchmark level of education benefits that automatically covers inflation to meet the increasing costs of higher education. Our concept is a very simple one; at the very least, GI bill benefits should be equal to the average cost of a commuter student attending a 4-year university. The Montgomery GI bill has been one of the most effective tools in recruiting and retaining the best and the brightest in the military. It has also been a critical component in the transition of veterans to civilian life. It is imperative that the Senate passes this legislation this session. I am also pleased to be a sponsor of two other very important bills that will honor the commitments we have made to our veterans. S. 1644, The Veterans Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act, will protect all veterans memorials on public property by extending current criminal penalties for destruction of property to any statue, plaque, or monument commemorating veterans. The bill also creates a restoration fund--to which individuals or organization can contribute--to repair and maintain our Nation's veterans memorials. Finally, the bill authorizes States to place supplemental guide signs for veterans cemeteries on Federal-aid highways. I am also an original cosponsor of S. 2003, the Veterans Benefits and Pensions Protection Act. This bill will help protect veterans from unscrupulous predatory lending. The VA currently prohibits the direct sale of veterans pension or disability benefits. However, certain companies are exploiting a loophole in the law that allows them to enter into contracts with veterans to offer them ``instant cash'' in exchange for future benefit payments. In essence, a veteran agrees to sign away his or her benefits for a selected amount of time, and in exchange, the company agrees to pay the veteran a lump some of money. Frequently, this ranges from only 30 to 40 cents on the dollar. The veteran is then required to open a joint bank account with the company in which the benefits are directly deposited and the company makes the withdrawal. Veterans are often also required to take out life insurance, payable to the company, or use their homes as collateral. S. 2003 will close this loophole and authorize education programs to inform veterans about the danger of this scam. The bill has been endorsed by the Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Vietnam Veterans of America, and AMVETS. Mr. President, there are few things more important than those who serve our country in the Armed Forces. As a nation, we need to take care of these men and women, not only while they wear the uniform, but also when they become veterans. I look forward to continuing to work on behalf of the veterans of South Dakota and the Nation.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution honoring the 60th anniversary of the commissioning of the USS South Dakota. The USS South Dakota was the lead ship of a class of 35,000-ton battleships and was officially commissioned on March 20, 1942. Few ships in the history of the United States Navy have had such a distinguished service record or have been as integral to the defense of our Nation. The Resolution I am submitting today honors both the USS South Dakota and her dedicated crew. The USS South Dakota served throughout World War II, and became the most decorated American battleship of the war having been awarded 13 battle stars. In addition, the South Dakota became one of only four battleships to receive the Navy Unit Commendation. While the South Dakota spent the majority of its service in World War II in the Pacific, it did serve in the Atlantic along with the British Home Fleet from February to July 1943. However, no one can deny that the crew truly distinguished themselves in the Pacific Campaign. Very few of the battles fought in that theater of operation occurred without the support of the USS South Dakota. In fact, the South Dakota saw action at the battle for Guadalcanal, the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands, the invasions of the Gilbert Islands and Marshall Islands, the Marianas Campaign, the Battle of the Philippine Sea, the invasions of Leyte and Luzon in the Philippines, the invasions of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and attacks on the home Islands of Japan. All told, the USS South Dakota was credited with sinking three enemy ships and downing 64 enemy aircraft during the war. The proudest moment for the crew may have been when the South Dakota served as the flagship for Admiral Chester W. Nimitz during the surrender of Japan in Tokyo Bay on September 2, 1945. For the ship, its crew, and our Nation, this signalled the end of World War II and our complete victory over the forces of fascism. Following the surrender of Japan, the South Dakota was the flagship for Admiral William F. Halsey during the return of the fleet to the United States. On the 60th Anniversary of its commissioning, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the crew of the USS South Dakota for their service to our Nation. Their contributions to the freedoms we enjoy today is a debt we can never fully repay. I ask my colleagues to join with me in remembering the USS South Dakota and honoring the lasting legacy of her crew.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I am pleased to rise today to speak about the inclusion of a renewable fuels standard in the pending energy bill. In the midst of the ongoing debate about this legislation, it is heartening to see us come together on an issue that has the potential to enormously improve our Nation's transportation fuel supply. This is a landmark provision that will improve our energy security and provide a direct benefit for the agricultural economy in my State and in other rural States across our country. Senator Daschle should be commended for his hard work in bringing the parties and the industries together to reach a bipartisan consensus that will help our Nation in the next decade and in the decades to come. Senator Jeff Bingaman, chairman of the Energy Committee, also deserves commendation for working with us to include this package in a comprehensive energy bill. As we all know, there has been a great deal of discussion this past year about our Nation's energy. The increasing volatility in gasoline and diesel prices and the growing tension in the world from terrorist attacks have affected all of us. There is a clear need for energy policies that will address issues of the environment, issues of improving our trade balance, clean air, energy security, our farm economy, and more jobs in America. This provision addresses all of those issues. Earlier this year, I introduced legislation with my friend and colleague from Nebraska, Senator Chuck Hagel. Our legislation, the Renewable Fuels for Energy Security Act of 2001, S. 1006, was designed to ensure future growth for ethanol and soybean-based biodiesel fuels through the creation of a new renewable fuels content standard in all motor fuel produced and used in the United States. I am also a cosponsor of another renewable fuels bill that was introduced by Senator Daschle and Senator Lugar. I am pleased that an effort has been made here to incorporate these bills in a comprehensive energy legislation bill and that we have the package we are considering today. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives passed an energy bill that contains no renewable fuels standard of any kind. It is the Senate legislation that is the groundbreaking bill which will determine whether our Nation will, in fact, go forward with a thoughtful renewable fuels standard for our Nation. So it is with some pride and satisfaction that, in a bipartisan fashion, the Senate has come together on this issue. It is clear that Senators--particularly from rural States but others as well--understand the importance of including a new standard in our energy legislation. Today, ethanol and biodiesel comprise less than 1 percent of all transportation fuel in the United States, and 1.8 billion gallons is currently produced in our country. The consensus package we have today would require that 5 billion gallons of transportation fuel be comprised of renewable fuel by the year 2012. Ambitious but doable. That is nearly a tripling of the current ethanol production for the coming decade as we incorporate this new standard. I don't need to convince anybody in my State of South Dakota or other rural areas of the benefits of ethanol to the environment and the economies of rural communities. We have several plants in South Dakota and more are being planned. These farmer-owned ethanol plants in South Dakota, and in neighbor States, demonstrate the hard work, commitment, and vision we see in rural areas and the commitment to a growing market for clean domestic fuels. Based on current projections, construction of any new plants will generate roughly $900 million in capital investment and tens of thousands of construction jobs in rural communities. For corn farmers, the price of corn is expected to rise as much as 20 to 30 cents a bushel. Farmers will have the opportunity to invest in these ethanol plants to capture a greater piece of the ``value chain.'' Combining this with the provisions in this bill and the potential economic impact for South Dakota is tremendous. An important but underemphasized fuel is biodiesel, which is chiefly produced from excess soybean oil. We all know soybean prices are hovering near historic lows. Biodiesel production is small but has been growing steadily. The renewable fuels standard would greatly increase the prospects for biodiesel production and greatly benefit soybean producers all across our land. It is important that Congress take a serious look at these issues beyond just the economic impact to our region. Bio-based fuels offer multiple benefits--from addressing climate change to improving our trade balance. By increasing fuels production in rural areas of our Nation, we can also reduce the need for new refineries and new pipelines. The renewable fuel standard over the next decade will displace roughly 1.6 billion barrels of oil without any additional drilling and could increase ethanol renewable fuels being more widely used. In addition, it takes 1 gallon of ethanol to the same amount of fuel that produces 2 gallons of oil. A substantive bill that improves the Nation's energy security can only be enacted if we work in a bipartisan manner. Problems and difficulties our Nation faces are simply too important to be bogged down in partisan rhetoric. The consensus emerging on this issue demonstrates the benefits of working together to find real solutions for our Nation and should serve as a model for the consideration of the rest of the legislation we take up this year. Again, I thank Senator Hagel, Senator Daschle, and Senator Bingaman for their extraordinary efforts and for working with me as we have developed this amendment and included it in this important legislation. We know we are not to the goal line yet relative to the renewable fuel standard. This energy legislation remains controversial as a whole, with issues ranging from drilling in ANWR to CAFE standards, all creating hurdles to its final passage. But I am pleased to see the kind of bipartisan consensus that reaches across industries on the renewable fuel standard. It is my hope when the dust settles at the conclusion of this debate that we will have a comprehensive energy bill that will include this provision. Whatever else happens, this Congress cannot adjourn at the end of the year without having addressed the need for a renewable fuel standard in this or some other comprehensive legislation. I thank the Chair. I urge my colleagues to be supportive of the renewable fuel standard, and I look forward to final passage of this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution that will commemorate the life of Crazy Horse. I submit this legislation along with Senators Dorgan, Ben Nelson, Conrad, Bingaman, Baucus, Daschle, Campbell, and Feingold. Crazy Horse was a great leader of his people, and the designation of September 6 will be the ultimate commendation for his bravery and contribution to Native Americans. Crazy Horse was born on Rapid Creek in 1843. He was killed when he was only 34 years of age, September 6, 1877. He was stabbed in the back by a soldier at Fort Robinson, NE, while he was under U.S. Army protection. During his life he was a great leader of his people. Crazy Horse was a warrior and a military genius. His battle strategies are studied to this day at West Point. Crazy Horse was bestowed with the honor of becoming a Shirt Wearer. This honor is comparable to duties like that of the Secretary of State. Crazy Horse defended his people and their way of life in the only manner he knew, but only after he saw the treaty of 1868 broken. He took to the warpath only after he saw his friend Conquering Bear killed; only after he saw the failure of the government agents to bring required treaty guarantees such as food, clothing, shelter and necessities for existence. In battle the Sioux war leader would rally his warriors with the cry, ``It is a good day to fight--it is a good day to die.'' Throughout recent history, a memorial commemorating the life of this great warrior is under construction in my State of South Dakota. I would like to take these efforts one step further and designate September 6, 2002, the 125th anniversary of Crazy Horse's death, as ``National Crazy Horse Day.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in the commemoration of this great hero.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, today I express appreciation for the work that Major General Philip G. Killey has done as the Adjutant General for the South Dakota National Guard. Today, General Killey and other members of the National Guard come up to the Capitol for their annual trip to Washington, and I wanted to take this time to thank the general for the terrific leadership he has provided to the Guard over the past four years. General Killey reports that South Dakota has continued its high rankings in terms of readiness of its Guard and Reserve units. South Dakota's units are also tops in the Nation in the quality of its new recruits. I commend the South Dakota Guard for its continued excellence, and General Killey for his leadership, which has led to the maintenance of this high standard. National rankings only confirm the quality that has come to be expected of the Guard and Reserve of a great State. Most South Dakotans know at least one of the 4,500 current members of the South Dakota Guard and Reserves or the thousands of former Guardsmen and Reservists. Sometimes, the connection is even more direct. Before joining the Army, my oldest son Brooks was a member of the South Dakota Army Guard in Yankton. Almost every community in my State benefits from the work of these Guardsmen. Following the tragedies of September 11, Guardsmen were called to assist in the campaign against terrorism and have performed security duties at airports around the state. From Aberdeen to Yankton, the Guard and Reserves are active members of the South Dakota community. In addition to the support the Guard and Reserves give to South Dakota, they have also supported overseas operations including those in Central America, the Middle East, Europe, and Asia. The South Dakota Air Guard performed admirably in their deployment to the ``no-fly zone'' over Iraq late last year. These latest activities, and the professionalism that our South Dakota Guardsmen have shown, are a testimony to the leadership of General Killey. Before becoming the Adjutant General in 1998, General Killey served with distinction in both the active duty Air Force and in the South Dakota National Guard. General Killey received his commission in 1963 through Officer Training School, at Lackland AFB in Texas. He served a tour in Southeast Asia in 1967-1968 flying the F-4 with the 8th Tactical Fighter Wing at Ubon Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand. He left active duty in 1969 and joined the Air National Guard in 1970. He held various positions with the South Dakota Air National Guard before becoming the Adjutant General. He was recalled to active duty as director of the Air National Guard from 1988 until 1994. General Killey was the first Guardsman to serve as commander, 1st Air Force, Air Combat Command, and Continental United States North American Aerospace Defense Command Region, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida from 1994 until 1998. I commend General Killey for his many years of service, and thank him for all that he has done for this nation and for our great state of South Dakota.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Dave Frederickson as the recently elected National Farmers Union, NFU, president. During the National Farmers Union 100th anniversary convention, delegates chose a true leader for their future in Mr. Frederickson. Family farmers and ranchers across America can rest assured that Dave will continue his commitment to them in his new role. Dave brings 11 years of experience as the Minnesota Farmers Union, MFU, president to his new post. Not only is Dave committed to sustain family farmers and ranchers, he also holds the education of youth to a high standard. After graduating from St. Cloud State University with a degree in education, Dave spent 8 years teaching special education children. The Farmers Union philosophy regards education as one of their three most important principles. Having a leader with Dave's background and experience, the national organization is sure to continue its legacy of teaching our youth. From 1986 to 1992, Dave served as a State senator in the Minnesota legislature. During this period, he served on a number of committees, including the rural development committee, the education committee, and the governmental operations committee. Because of Dave's commitment to rural development and legislation that he supported, the ethanol industry has become a primary rural development tool in Minnesota. Dave continued his commitment to rebuilding and strengthening rural communities while president of MFU. The experience that he brings to the table can only ensure that one of the most effective general farm organizations in America is in good hands. Dave has made his first priority as president of NFU to see a good farm bill passed out of conference committee. He said, ``Farmers Union has worked hard throughout the House and Senate farm bill process, and we have much more work ahead of us, let's go back to Washington and work for a farm bill so that when you go back into your fields, you will know what kind of support you have behind you.'' I look forward to working with Dave on issues that not only affect South Dakota, but the entire fabric of rural America. The members of Farmers Union elected a true public servant, a leader with integrity, vision, and commitment. Again, congratulations to Dave Frederickson on his accomplishments of the past, and his commitment to the future of rural America in his new role as National Farmers Union president.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Beverly Lafferty of Rapid City, SD. On March 1, 2002, Bev retired from Child Protection Services after 34 years of dedication to the children and families in my home State of South Dakota. Bev began her career as a child protection social worker in Rapid City on July 1, 1968. Her gentle nature and caring heart have helped many families in South Dakota through the adoption process. As a founding member of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, I have had the honor of nominating Bev for the coalition's annual Angels in Adoption awards. Bev is an example to our entire Nation of the joys associated with adoption, and I commend her work, especially her devotion to Native American children and families. Adoptive parents, judges, social workers, and others involved with the adoption process truly are angels who do not gain the recognition they deserve on a day to day basis. Bev's recognition as an ``Angel in Adoption'' in 2001 was one way for me to help recognize the important contributions Bev makes to the lives of children and to our communities. As a parent, I know the challenges and joys of raising a family, and that is why I have made it one of my priorities in Congress to make adoptions easier for families. Bev's work in Rapid City has made the adoption process easier for children and families in that community. Although I know that she will be missed, her impact in the adoption community will be felt for many years to come. I wish her all the best as she moves on to enjoy the next phase of her life.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to call to the attention of my colleagues an editorial which appeared in the Huron, SD Daily Plainsman entitled ``We Need Action, Not Another Study.'' This editorial provides a strong endorsement of the bipartisan amendment that Senator Grassley and I had included in the Senate version of the farm bill to ban the ownership of livestock by packers. This newspaper recognizes the importance of my amendment and understands the real motivation behind the lobbying efforts to replace my language with a study on vertical integration--to kill it. This editorial speaks clearly to the importance of having a farm bill that goes after concentration and replaces government checks with dollars from a true, competitive marketplace. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial published in the Huron Daily Plainsman on February 10, 2002, be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce S. 1945, the Safe and Fair Deposit Insurance Act of 2002, together with my good friends and colleagues, Senator Hagel, Senator Reed and Senator Enzi. This important legislation would help to ensure that deposit insurance, which is the bedrock of our banking system, maintains its strength even when faced with economic weakness. S. 1945 is the culmination of many years of my involvement in the issue of deposit insurance reform. I would like to recognize the banking community in South Dakota for their critical role in the process, from explaining how elements of the current system endanger local banks throughout that great State, to helping to craft solutions that make sense to the average American depositor. The current deposit insurance system is dangerously pro-cyclical, and in a softening economy, banks are at real risk of having to absorb severe insurance premiums when they can least afford them. In the last month alone, four banks have failed, putting pressure on the insurance funds. In addition, deposit insurance coverage was last adjusted in 1980, and its real value has eroded over the decades. S. 1945 proposes an increase in coverage, and ensures that in the future, coverage keeps pace with inflation through periodic indexing. We also increase the level of coverage for our municipalities' deposits, to reduce the risk that a bank failure will wipe out a town's financial base, as happened just last week in Ohio, and also to free up much needed capital to lend to cash-starved communities. Our bill pays special attention to the needs of our retirees. We propose that retirement savings be covered up to $250,000, to allow our retirees to keep their money safe without being forced to search for a bank outside of their trusted communities. So many of our retirees have spent their lives saving to make sure they can remain independent in their later years, especially given some uncertainty about the long-term health of Social Security. Many have put those savings to work in a variety of investments through tax- deferred accounts and have watched those balances mount. Over the last few months, however, we have been reminded that while equity markets can provide unparalleled opportunities for economic growth, those opportunities come with volatility. And while many younger investors have enough time to ride out ups and downs, those of us who are closer to retirement age have to make sure we have enough savings in secure investments to provide for a comfortable retirement. Our bill also merges the two deposit insurance funds, and gives the FDIC additional flexibility to manage the fund balance through regular insurance premiums. Since 1996, 93 percent of all insured depositories have paid nothing for their insurance coverage, which simply doesn't make sense. Under the bill, the FDIC would be permitted to resume premium assessments; however, they would also be required to keep the fund ratio within a range, with a goal of minimizing sharp swings in those assessments. FDIC is also charged with the task of building the fund up in good times, so in bad times, banks will avoid the economic pressure of steep charges that could precipitate a downward spiral. Finally, we provide a one-time assessment credit so that institutions that have paid their fair share into the insurance funds don't end up subsidizing new entrants and fast growers. The credit will also defer premium payments for up to several years in some cases. Before I close, I would like to comment on the remarkable bipartisan process that has allowed this bill to take shape. Partisan politics has no place in discussions of deposit insurance reform, which is so critical to America's economic foundation. Senators Hagel, Reed, Enzi and I have worked together on S. 1945, and I am proud of the results of this teamwork. This is just one more example proving that the best laws are those that are built on solid principles by bipartisan teams. Finally, I thank FDIC Chairman Don Powell for his leadership on this issue. He has recognized the importance of reform, and it has been a pleasure working with him and his talented team at the FDIC.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce S. 1945, the Safe and Fair Deposit Insurance Act of 2002, together with my good friends and colleagues, Senator Hagel, Senator Reed and Senator Enzi. This important legislation would help to ensure that deposit insurance, which is the bedrock of our banking system, maintains its strength even when faced with economic weakness. S. 1945 is the culmination of many years of my involvement in the issue of deposit insurance reform. I would like to recognize the banking community in South Dakota for their critical role in the process, from explaining how elements of the current system endanger local banks throughout that great State, to helping to craft solutions that make sense to the average American depositor. The current deposit insurance system is dangerously pro-cyclical, and in a softening economy, banks are at real risk of having to absorb severe insurance premiums when they can least afford them. In the last month alone, four banks have failed, putting pressure on the insurance funds. In addition, deposit insurance coverage was last adjusted in 1980, and its real value has eroded over the decades. S. 1945 proposes an increase in coverage, and ensures that in the future, coverage keeps pace with inflation through periodic indexing. We also increase the level of coverage for our municipalities' deposits, to reduce the risk that a bank failure will wipe out a town's financial base, as happened just last week in Ohio, and also to free up much needed capital to lend to cash-starved communities. Our bill pays special attention to the needs of our retirees. We propose that retirement savings be covered up to $250,000, to allow our retirees to keep their money safe without being forced to search for a bank outside of their trusted communities. So many of our retirees have spent their lives saving to make sure they can remain independent in their later years, especially given some uncertainty about the long-term health of Social Security. Many have put those savings to work in a variety of investments through tax- deferred accounts and have watched those balances mount. Over the last few months, however, we have been reminded that while equity markets can provide unparalleled opportunities for economic growth, those opportunities come with volatility. And while many younger investors have enough time to ride out ups and downs, those of us who are closer to retirement age have to make sure we have enough savings in secure investments to provide for a comfortable retirement. Our bill also merges the two deposit insurance funds, and gives the FDIC additional flexibility to manage the fund balance through regular insurance premiums. Since 1996, 93 percent of all insured depositories have paid nothing for their insurance coverage, which simply doesn't make sense. Under the bill, the FDIC would be permitted to resume premium assessments; however, they would also be required to keep the fund ratio within a range, with a goal of minimizing sharp swings in those assessments. FDIC is also charged with the task of building the fund up in good times, so in bad times, banks will avoid the economic pressure of steep charges that could precipitate a downward spiral. Finally, we provide a one-time assessment credit so that institutions that have paid their fair share into the insurance funds don't end up subsidizing new entrants and fast growers. The credit will also defer premium payments for up to several years in some cases. Before I close, I would like to comment on the remarkable bipartisan process that has allowed this bill to take shape. Partisan politics has no place in discussions of deposit insurance reform, which is so critical to America's economic foundation. Senators Hagel, Reed, Enzi and I have worked together on S. 1945, and I am proud of the results of this teamwork. This is just one more example proving that the best laws are those that are built on solid principles by bipartisan teams. Finally, I thank FDIC Chairman Don Powell for his leadership on this issue. He has recognized the importance of reform, and it has been a pleasure working with him and his talented team at the FDIC.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I thank my friend, Senator Grassley, my colleague from Iowa. I come to the Chamber to make one final stand for my bipartisan amendment that restores fair competition and access in the livestock markets. Fifty-one Senators already voted for this provision which prevents meatpacker ownership of livestock. I greatly respect the right of my colleagues to demand a second vote on this issue. That is what we will wind up having today. To clear up any question about the intent of our provision, Senators Grassley and Harkin have offered a second-degree amendment to the Craig language making it clear that forward contracts can be used as a marketing tool for both packers and producers under the underlying amendment that was passed with 51 votes earlier. I don't think there has ever been a serious issue about whether forward contracting is permitted under the amendment which we passed last December. The leading agricultural experts in the world have examined that legislation and have all concluded that, in fact, there is no prohibition on forward contracting on the underlying amendment. However, this issue has come up. There have been people who have raised issues. I think it is a red herring for those who simply do not want to roll back the right of packers to own livestock outright, but, nonetheless, this additional language is now being offered, and we will have this debate this morning and vote on this issue. With this additional clarification, we have the support of most major farm groups: the American Farm Bureau Federation, National Farmers Union, plus many more. However, our colleague from Idaho, who I greatly respect, proposes to strike my amendment in exchange for a study on these issues. It seems to me that we have had studies enough. The Senate Agriculture Committee has held three hearings on concentration of livestock markets, packer ownership, and other issues--in June of 1998, May of 1999, and April of 2000. The problems are clear, and I believe they have been demonstrated. This amendment applies to hogs, cattle, and sheep. A lot of the most recent controversy has been relative to hogs. The percentage of hogs owned by packers rose from a modest 6.4 percent only in 1994 to a whopping 27 percent only 7 years later in 2001, according to the University of Missouri. This increase in packer-owned hogs means that packers prefer to buy their own hogs instead of paying farmers a fair price. When packers own their own farms and their own livestock, they don't make purchases from farmers who otherwise provide economic contributions to our rural communities--to main street businesses, school districts' tax base, banks, car dealerships, feed stores, and so on. Frankly, those opposed to my amendment prohibiting packer ownership of livestock simply have a profoundly different vision of what rural America ought to be about. I believe we ought to have independent livestock producers in a position where there is competition, and they can leverage a decent price for their animals. I don't believe the future of livestock production in our Nation ought to be a series of low-paid employees of the packers on their own land bearing all the risk and little of the profit for the production of their animals. That is not the direction I wanted livestock production in America to go. We had strong bipartisan support for this amendment last December when it was brought up. I am hopeful we can retain that support so that those of us who have a more optimistic vision of a competitive free enterprise and free market economy for livestock producers can in fact envision them having more choices and options about how to sell their animals and where to sell them. History demonstrates that USDA studies simply won't do the work. A case in point: USDA failed to take action on a petition with regard to packer ownership and captive supply. This petition was submitted in October of 1996, initially published in the Federal Register for comment in January 1997, hearings were held on September 21, 2001, and USDA still has done nothing on this petition. Additionally, USDA has failed to hire attorneys to lead investigations on competition cases despite the fact that GAO made a recommendation and Congress appropriated increased money for this purpose. USDA has done a lot of studies in the past. They have found a strong correlation between increased captive supplies and price. However, the studies conducted by USDA have not made a conclusion. Rather, they have been indecisive as to action, this is why policy and legislation must clarify and strengthen existing law. I encourage my colleagues to support the Grassley-Harkin second- degree amendment. Should we vote on Senator Craig's amendment, I urge my colleagues to oppose it and put a stop to concentration in the livestock industry. Have no doubt about it, this is our opportunity to address the issue. Talk is fine. We can do this in 200 days or a year or so down the road. The fact is, this is the farm bill. The likelihood of passing this legislation as a freestanding bill, with all the controversies and lobbying that come into play, is very slight. This is the opportunity. We either act in the context of this farm bill or I fear that years will go by before we have another opportunity to address the integration crisis we have in American agriculture--livestock in particular. We will find that the horse is long out of the barn before we have another opportunity to address this issue. I ask my fellow colleagues to support the underlying amendment prohibiting packer ownership of livestock, to support the clarification as it applies to forward contracting, and to support Senator Grassley's amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong opposition to the amendment offered by Senator Craig last evening which would eliminate a bipartisan provision in this farm bill that restores fairness, competition, and free enterprise into livestock markets. In December, the Senate adopted an amendment to the farm bill based upon legislation I introduced 3 years ago which strengthens the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, by prohibiting large meatpackers from owning livestock--cattle, hogs, and sheep--for more than 14 days prior to slaughter. Nearly every farm and ranch organization in the country supports a ban on packer ownership, including the American Farm Bureau, the National Farmers Union, R-CALF, the Livestock Marketing Association, the Organization for Competitive Markets, the Center for Rural Affairs, and the Western Organization of Resource Councils, just to name a few. More importantly, every farm and ranch group in South Dakota supports my amendment, including Farm Bureau, Farmers Union, the Cattlemen, the Stockgrowers, Livestock Auction Markets, the Independent Pork Producers, and even South Dakota Governor Janklow. Let me take some time to clarify what our amendment does, and, what it does not do. The objectives of our amendment are to increase competitive bidding, choice, market access, and bargaining power to farmers and ranchers in livestock markets. Here are the facts about our amendment. First, my language strengthens section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921--and 80-year-old law--by prohibiting meatpackers from owning, feeding, or controlling livestock for more than 14 days prior to slaughter. Currently, packers are already prohibited from owning sale barns and auction markets. Second, it exempts producer-owned cooperatives engaged in slaughter and meatpacking, in addition to packing plants owned by producers who slaughter less than 2 percent of the national annual slaughter of beef cattle--724,000 head--hogs--1,900,000 head-- or sheep--69,200. Therefore, many of the innovative, start-up projects operating and being formed to give producers greater bargaining power in the market will not be affected by our amendment. Some have made very misleading and false statements about the Johnson-Grassley amendment and our intent. Let me try to clarify some of those issues. This amendment does not prohibit meatpackers from purchasing livestock for slaughter. In fact, it promotes the purchase of livestock in the cash market. Therefore, it promotes competition and bidding among a significant number of buyers. Again, I say, this amendment does not ban packers from owning livestock for slaughter; it simply says they cannot own the livestock from birth all the way until slaughter, the vertical integration to which some aspire. It bans them from owning livestock prior to 14 days from the date of slaughter. The amendment does not prohibit forward contracts wherein packers and growers work together to raise and market livestock as long as the livestock are owned by the individual farmer or rancher. Senator Grassley and I have taken significant efforts to make it crystal clear that forward contracts and marketing agreements are not prohibited under this amendment. We have entered into a colloquy making it clear that the word ``control'' only refers to substantial operational control and not contracts. There are those who would prefer that this amendment did apply to forward contracts, and I respect those who hold those views. But the goal of this amendment is narrow. The goal of this amendment is focused exclusively on the actual vertical integration, the actual packer ownership from birth to slaughter of livestock. Some have questioned whether contractual marketing arrangements known as forward contracts are permitted under the provision. The answer is yes. Three of the most respected agricultural economists and legal counsel in America--Roger McEowen from Kansas State University, Peter Carstensen from the University of Wisconsin, and Neil Harl from Iowa State University--have completed an analysis that supports our intent that contractual marketing arrangements and forward contracts are permitted under this amendment. These experts agree with us that the meaning of the word ``control'' in this amendment applies to a potential arrangement purposefully drafted by a clever legal counsel to give a packer control over the ownership of livestock from birth to slaughter, though a farmer may hold title to the livestock, by providing the packer complete operational control over these animals. Operational control provides the packer the ability to dictate nearly every detail of production and marketing, such as the facilities, nutritional and veterinary decisions, as well as providing the packer 24-hour access to the livestock. Forward contracts and other marketing arrangements do not give a meatpacking firm managerial or operational control of the production-to-market process. Rather, such arrangements only provide the packer with a contractual right to receive delivery of the livestock in the future. The producer signing the contract still makes most of the production decisions. Therefore, forward contracts or contractual marketing arrangements are still permitted under the language of this amendment and the word ``control'' does not affect their use. So Senator Grassley and I have received assurance from legal counsel that ``control'' does not include forward contracts and marketing agreements. On the other hand, those expressing opposition have presented no legal analysis in support of their proposition that somehow the word ``control'' in this legislation means a prohibition on forward contracting. While marketing arrangements such as forward contracts have caused or can cause problems in the market, they are outside the scope of this specific amendment. In a December colloquy with Senator Grassley, we stated the intent of the word ``control'' must be read in the context of ownership. In other words, ``control'' means substantial operational control of livestock production, rather than the mere contract right to receive future delivery of livestock produced by a farmer, rancher, or feedlot operator. ``Control,'' according to legal dictionaries, means ``to direct, manage or supervise.'' In the meaning of our amendment, the direction, management, and supervision is directed towards the production of livestock or the operations producing livestock, not the simple right to receive delivery of livestock raised by someone else. There are two reasons that forward contracts and marketing agreements are not within the definition of ``control.'' First, these contracts do not allow a packer to exercise any control over the livestock production or operation. Rather, the contracts merely provide the packer with the right to receive delivery of livestock in the future, and most include a certain amount of quality specifications. There is no management, direction, or supervision over the farm operation in these contracts. The farmer or rancher makes the decision to commit the delivery of livestock to a packer through the contract without ceding operational control. In fact, the farmer or rancher still could make a management decision to deliver the livestock to another packer other than the one covered in the contract, albeit subject to damages for breach of contract. Even where such contracts include detailed quality specifications, control of the operation remains with the farmer. The quality specifications simply relate to the amount of premiums or discounts in the final payment by the packer for the livestock delivered under the contract. Second, several States, such as Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and South Dakota, already prohibit packer or corporate ownership of livestock. The Iowa law, for example, prevents packers from owning, operating, or controlling a livestock feeding operation in that State. But packers and producers may still enter into forward contracts or marketing agreements without violating that law because operational control, in the context of ownership, is the issue. The term ``control'' is intended to be similarly interpreted and applied in this amendment. Beyond the genuine concern about this amendment, a few in the meatpacking industry have hastily come to false, or at least erroneous, conclusions about its effect, and, frankly, they are busily working the Halls of Congress to kill this amendment due to those concerns. It may be that we simply have a profound philosophical difference between those of us who supported the amendment and others in opposition. I believe our country is best served by a wide dispersion of independent livestock producers who have, in a free market, an opportunity to leverage a decent price for their animals and a decent opportunity to sell those animals in a competitive environment. I believe it is a disservice to rural America, a disservice to the livestock industry, if we wind up with a circumstance where our independent livestock producers increasingly become, in effect, low- wage employees of the packers on their own land--subject to all the risks of livestock production but very little of the occasional profit that can come about from a fair opportunity to sell their animals. So we have a profound difference of vision of what livestock production is all about and how our country is best served. I believe in free enterprise. I believe in competition. I believe in independent producers having opportunities to seek out alternative buyers for their animals on an independent cash basis. If some wish to forward contract and to secure its assurances, that is fine. That is a prerogative they have as well, at least under this amendment. But I do not believe we ought to have a total vertical integration of the livestock industry whereby a very small handful of huge agribusiness conglomerates control the production of livestock from birth all the way through slaughter, reducing livestock producers to simply low-wage employees, for all practical purposes. That is not my vision of rural America. That is not the vision shared by the people who supported this amendment. So I think that while a lot of this debate is caught up in what may sound legalese to many, the actual consequences of what is going on here have profound effects on the look of rural America for all time to come. There is a particular packer who has been running full-page ads in my State, apparently with an intent to intimidate me. They have the right to do that. It turns out that the packing company that does operations in my State is a pork production company which has never owned hogs, and has no particular immediate plan to, and would not be affected, at least for now, by this amendment. They may wish to go into a different business plan than they have had in the past, and that may be the case. But I want to make clear that I believe someone has to stand up for livestock producers in our country. We see this continued concentration, this continued integration, going on in every sector of the economy, but certainly in agriculture it has been one of the harshest. For that reason, Senator Grassley and I have offered this amendment. We have already passed this amendment on a narrow 51-to-46 vote earlier this past session of the 107th Congress. I have no problem with an additional vote, an up-or-down vote. Let everyone stand up and be counted wherever they are. I respect my colleagues however they may come down on this issue. I do want to convey the real import, the real impact of this amendment, and make people understand what is, in fact, at stake. The amendment being offered would reduce this antipacker ownership amendment to another study. Heaven knows, we have studies galore lining the shelves of every building in Washington, DC, many of them gathering dust. We have known USDA to conduct study after study after study not leading to any matter of practical consequence. I don't think our farmers and ranchers need another study. It is incorrect to observe that no hearings have been conducted on the topic of packer ownership. Rather, the Senate Agriculture Committee has held three hearings on concentration in livestock markets, packer ownership, and other issues--in June of 1998, May of 1999, and April 2000--and the problems remain clear and the need to act remains real. The percentage of hogs owned by packers rose from a small 6.4 percent, as recently as 1994, to 27 percent in 2001, from 6.4 percent to 27 percent packer ownership in a period of only 7 years, according to the University of Missouri. This increase in packer-owned hogs means that packers prefer to buy their own hogs instead of paying farmers a fair price, thereby depressing competition. Eighty-eight percent of respondents in the Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll believed that meatpackers should be prohibited from owning livestock, and 89 percent believed that too much economic power is concentrated in a few large agribusinesses, according to studies done by Iowa State University. When packers own their own farms and their own livestock, they do not make purchases from farmers who would otherwise be providing economic contributions to rural communities--main street businesses, school districts tax base, banks, car dealerships, feed stores, and so on. Those opposed to this amendment have a different vision for rural America, a far different vision than mine. I have a more optimistic view of what rural America could look like. I envision more farmers and ranchers being able to compete in a free market and a free enterprise system raising more livestock on family farms so local economies can grow and the environment can be safer for families to make a living. I fear if we go the other direction, packer market power will grow, allowing packers to go to the cash market only during narrow bid windows or time periods each week rather than bidding all week, thus resulting in panic selling by producers. A ban on packer ownership of livestock will not drive packers out of business. Most of their earnings are generated from branded products and companies marketing directly to consumers. Conversely, livestock ownership by packers could drive independent livestock producers out of business because they will simply be at the mercy of these large corporations. I do not, again, have a problem with another vote. It was important to clarify the forward contracting component of this amendment to make it crystal clear that that is not the gist of it. The gist is not forward contracting. The gist is the vertical integration of the actual ownership, the birth and slaughter of livestock in America. We have a very fundamental decision to make in this body. I don't underestimate the steep climb this amendment has to make. I know the packers have been active in their lobbying effort. I know the intimidation efforts have been extraordinary. I recognize that no such amendment is contained in the House version of the agriculture bill and that, even if we were to survive in the conference committee, an uphill fight would occur there relative to this amendment. Nonetheless, it is important to lay out in a clear, concise fashion what is at stake, what my motives are, what the motives are of the bipartisan sponsorship of this amendment, and to reflect that that may, in fact, be why this amendment acquired the support of every single Republican and Democratic Senator on the northern plains where livestock production is such a key component to the economies of our States. I look forward to continued debate and another amendment to vote on. We will see what the final product is, but I did want to make it very clear what this amendment does, what it does not do, and to make certain people understand that this is not some arcane agricultural issue; that this, in fact, is fundamentally crucial to the look of rural America for all time to come. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I thank my friend from Iowa for yielding me this time. I rise to offer support for this bipartisan amendment Senator Dorgan and Senator Grassley have sponsored. This is truly an astonishing debate. People all around America must be shaking their heads as they listen to this debate about whether a business that is being subsidized to the tune of $275,000 by the taxpayers should regard that as inadequate, and that we should be told we are pulling the rug out from under a business because they are only getting a $275,000 taxpayer-paid subsidy, that they need a $550,000 subsidy in order to cashflow. Has it really come to this? Is this what American agricultural policy is all about, half-million-dollar subsidies and anything less is regarded as somehow inadequate? This is amazing. I think it is time for us to recognize the current structure of the farm program payments has in fact failed rural communities and family-sized farmers and ranchers. The advocates of the amendment, including myself, would suggest that anyone who wishes to farm the entire county is free to do so. This is a free country. Farm however much they wish, but there should be some reasonable limitation as to how much the taxpayers ought to be expected to assist with their cashflow, and $275,000 strikes me as a generous level of support. That is what this amendment is all about. We are talking about modifications to the 1996 farm bill, which I believe especially hurts beginning farmers because it increases the cost of getting started in farming. As long as huge farms can count on larger and larger Government checks every time they add another farm, they will bid those Government payments into higher cash rents and higher land purchase prices. By reducing the number of middle-sized and beginning farmers, the current payment structure has deprived rural communities and institutions of the population base they need in order to thrive. I believe the single most effective thing Congress can do to strengthen the fabric of rural communities and family farms across the Nation is to stop subsidizing megafarms that drive their neighbors out of business by bidding land away from everybody else. This amendment aims to place some commonsense payment limitations on the various price supports contained in the farm bill proposal. The question of implementation was raised. There are farm program payment limits now that need to be implemented. We do not change that. We simply put the limitation levels at a far more reasonable level. The distribution of benefits from farm programs has been a hot topic in recent months, as we find that almost half the farm program payments are going to families who make over $135,000 per year. We need to modify that. We need to recognize what we are doing is not working. I, too, am concerned that the millions and millions of dollars going to individual megafarm operators and absentee landowners will eventually ruin public support for the farm program. Today, with our amendment, we have an opportunity to close certain loopholes that exist in the farm bill that allow enormously large operators to receive millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. It is our duty, I believe, to tighten the rules on who qualifies for farm programs and to make sure those people who do receive benefits are, in fact, actively farming. First, it would limit an individual's or entity's total amount of direct payments and countercyclical payments to $75,000 in any fiscal year. The current farm bill permits individuals to receive $80,000. The House farm bill allows individuals to reap $125,000; and the Senate bill, as it is before us, allows a $100,000 payment. Second, our amendment limits an individual's or entity's total amount of payments under a marketing assistance loan, or LDPs, to $150,000 per crop per year. Third, our amendment puts some real teeth into the application of the triple entity rule, which virtually doubles the statutory payment limitation for certain entities. Our amendment tracks the new limitations on farm program payments through sole proprietorships or individuals, entities, partnerships, or other arrangements directly to the individuals. With the implementation of a direct attribution of benefits, we eliminate the application of the triple entity rule to participate in multiple entities for the purpose of gaining more and still more subsidies from the farm program. To address situations where a husband and wife are indeed both active on the farm, we allow for a $50,000 add-on over the combined total of limits for individuals, resulting in this $275,000 limit. Simply put, our amendment cuts by 50 percent the huge subsidies permitted under the House farm bill proposal, and under the 1996 farm bill the total payment limit is $460,000. Under the Senate proposal, it is $500,000; and under the House bill, it is $550,000. We come up with $275,000. Savings from the payment limits go to an array of needed areas: to help beginning farmers, to help with rural development, to help with nutrition and commodities programs, and to assist with crop insurance-- almost $1.3 billion over the lifetime of this effort. If we want to have a farm program that has credibility with the Nation at large, and if we want to direct farm benefit programs to the people who most need them, we need to pass this amendment. I believe that is one of the key reforms that is required for a farm program to have the kind of public support it deserves to have in this Nation. I yield the floor.