Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I yield back the reminder of my time so we can proceed with the substance of this legislation. Amendment No. 2897 (Purpose: To address certain lending practices)

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I send to the desk a second-degree amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, we have reached concurrence on the core of this legislation, and I commend Senator Gramm for his work with us on that matter. We have had bipartisan cooperation. We have one remaining issue in particular, however, that remains to be resolved. Senator Gramm has an amendment which opens up the possibility of CFC financing but under very circumscribed conditions, which I contend are so severe as to make CFC financing very unlikely. The question is: What can we do to lower the cost of financing to make this programming available to rural Americans and yet do so in a responsible, fiscally prudent manner? The amendment offered by Senator Gramm does essentially three things: First, it requires that any lender that is a nonprofit, such as a CFC, cannot provide financing under this act unless the board determines the credit rating of the lender will not decline upon the approval and funding of the loan. Second, it requires that nonprofit lenders sell any loans guaranteed under this act if their credit rating declines. Third, it excludes GSE lenders, such as CoBank, from participating in this program. It is inappropriate, I believe, to require the board to make a judgment on the impact on the credit rating of a nonprofit lender, such as a CFC, because, one, it places the burden of proof on the lender to show why its rating would not decrease. Under the proposed amendment, the board would need to predict future actions of credit rating agencies, and I do not believe this is a reasonable requirement to impose on a governmental board. In reaching the bipartisan compromise in this legislation, I went along with the creation of a board. This was a good idea on the part of Chairman Gramm. It involved the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, as well as the Department of Agriculture, to oversee this lending to make sure we have that extra element of prudence. But I believe it is simply not fair to put a burden of proof on the board to certify in advance what, in fact, is going to happen to a rating on the part of a CFC or another nonprofit. Wall Street credit rating agencies make determinations on credit ratings on a continuous basis. This is a real world market discipline that is imposed on lenders by the capital markets. A board of three people, qualified as they may be, is not an appropriate substitute for market discipline. It makes no sense, I believe, to charge this board with the requirement to predict that the credit rating of any lender will not decline. CFC raises funds in the private capital markets through sale of bonds, sale of equity hybrid securities, and by equity investments by CFC owners. All of these entities have expressed their confidence in CFC, and that is a real test of the CFC's strength. The CFC has demonstrated over its 30-year life that it understands rural energy and telecommunications markets. It has done a fine job of evaluating credit risks and has made sound credit decisions. CFC is not a new or untested entity in the marketplace. It may be argued that all CFC loans are to ``utilities with captive customers.'' This is not true. Many rural electric and telephone cooperatives do have a monopoly position in their service areas, just as other utilities do. However, in the electric area, deregulation is being implemented in a number of States, and co-ops and other utilities in those States are, in fact, facing a competitive marketplace. In the telecommunications area, CFC, through its controlled affiliate, the Rural Telephone Finance Cooperative, has made loans to a number of projects that include highly competitive services, including wireless telephone services, PCS, and CLEC service in rural areas that were previously poorly served by incumbent providers. The question then is: Why add an additional layer of bureaucratic review to one class of lenders--CFC and other nonprofits--when that level of review is not imposed on other lenders? This delays implementation in this needed program, adds costs, and provides a competitive advantage to for-profit finance companies. The amendment does not require banks to be within the highest three ratings categories, and most are not. Why would this provision be applied to nonprofit lenders and not to for-profit banks? I have a chart here which I think is interesting. The bottom line shows the Cooperative Finance Corporation's AA- rating under S&P and Aa3 rating under Moody, which compares with the largest banks in America. I think it is of interest that even if there were a decline, the CFC would still have a rating higher than most of the largest banks in the United States. A second point has to do with the requirement that a lender sell its loan if its credit rating declines. The requirement that a nonprofit lender sell a loan guaranteed under this act if its credit rating declines is an onerous provision that would cause significant financial stress and costs to the lender. If such a decline in a lender's rating should occur, a forced sale at that time could result in still further financial losses. This is basically, I believe, a poisonous provision designed to exclude nonprofit lenders, such as the CFC. Even if the credit rating of an AA rated company would decline to AA-, it would still have a significantly higher credit rating than the vast majority of banks in America. No similar requirement is being imposed on banks. I believe the idea of requiring a lender to sell loans is not the proper remedy. The last point I would make is, I believe the exclusion of lenders under the program is an unwise public policy. The exclusion of lenders under this program will only increase the cost of funds to borrowers and ultimately to rural and other TV viewers. The bill already establishes a sound process for the evaluation of projects applying for financing. This process includes approval by a board that includes the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Agriculture, advice from NTIA, evaluation, underwriting and analysis by the Rural Utilities Service, and the commitment of private lenders that are on the line to take a very substantial risk in the event of default by a project funded under this program. I believe that much of what we have accomplished in this legislation--the creation of a board and an 80-percent guaranteed loan rather than the 100 percent which, frankly, was the idea being pushed in the House and which I originally thought might be the way to go--we have diminished to an 80-percent guarantee; we have set up a board. I think we have a responsible approach to this guaranteed loan process. But I do believe that Senator Gramm's amendment would go one step further to the point of, in effect, making it very difficult, if not impossible, for the board and institutions, such as a Cooperative Financing Corporation, to participate in the program. Keep in mind, our amendment does not require that the CFC be involved at all. It simply makes it an alternative financing strategy that would be available for the board, with the Secretaries of Commerce, Treasury, and USDA to evaluate. I have great confidence in their leadership. I think if we were to adopt this second-degree amendment, we would be back to what I believe would be a clean bill. I look forward to additional debate.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I yield to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. JOHNSON. The Agriculture Committee in the House of Representatives reported a 100-percent guaranteed bill. The Commerce Committee, it is my understanding, is working on a bill that may involve an 80-percent guarantee.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is absolutely correct.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is absolutely right.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is right.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides?

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I reiterate my request for the yeas and nays.

Mr. JOHNSON. I appreciate there is a timeliness issue here, but I do think it is important to have a rollcall on this amendment. This is a very significant matter. This is going to the conference committee. I am hopeful we can expedite that matter.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Thomas, Senator Burns, Senator Grams, and Senator Gramm. We have worked throughout the afternoon to expand the universal qualified lenders without sacrificing taxpayer protections in the bill. Thanks to the good faith on all sides, we have now allowed cooperative lending entities, such as the CFC and CoBank, to participate in the program while ensuring maximum protection of the taxpayer dollars. I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, we have had a discussion going on throughout the course of this afternoon relative to the satellite television legislation and an amendment that is necessary on this bill. I commend Senator Gramm, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and his staff, Senator Thomas, Senator Grams, Senator Burns, Senator Sarbanes and his staff, and others who have worked diligently on this. We have spent a lot of time on it. I believe we are almost at the moment where we can offer a compromise amendment and resolve this once and for all. We just received a copy of the amendment. There are one or two points that are being checked with counsel. Within literally minutes, we should be able to confirm the language is exactly what we think it is. I am appreciative of the bipartisan effort that went into making this legislation a reality. The legislation last fall was a good bill. It permitted the broadcast of local signals to local areas, but we did need the guarantee loan provisions to get into the smaller television markets. It has just been confirmed to me the language is as we thought. Again, I applaud Senator Gramm and others for their work in that regard. Amendment No. 2903 (Purpose: To address certain lending practices)

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fellow of Senator Baucus, Deb Jackson, be extended floor privileges for the remainder of the day.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, this week the Senate Budget Committee is about to proceed with a markup of the budget resolution, an effort that is overdue. Nonetheless, it will be taken up this week. I think we should examine the context in which the budget resolution will be considered in the Senate. There was some awfully good news for American families this weekend. It was announced this weekend that the Federal income tax burden for American families has shrunk to the lowest level in 40 years. Who says this? Studies by both liberal and conservative tax experts, the administration, and two arms of the Republican-controlled Congress confirmed that the Federal income tax burden for families in America is lower than it has been for 40 years. The middle fifth of American families, with an average income of $39,100, paid 5.4 percent in income tax last year compared to 8.3 percent in 1981. A four-person family, with a median income of $54,900, paid 7.46 percent of their income in income tax--the lowest since 1965. And a median two-earner family, making $68,605, paid 8.8 percent in 1988, which is about the same as in 1955. In fact, one-third of American families no longer pay income tax. That is the context in which we need to take up what we are going to do as a people relative to our newfound economic prosperity that is being projected by so many. We need to remember, too, how we arrived at this point. In 1993, when President Clinton took office, he inherited a budget with a record deficit of $290 billion per year. In 1993, we passed the Budget Act without a single Republican vote--none in the House; none in the Senate. In fact, Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding vote on this floor in the Senate and created a framework for a remarkable turnaround. From almost 30 years of continuing hemorrhaging red ink and growing deficits, we then had 7 years in a row of declining deficits--in fact, the last 3 in surplus, even over and above that required for Social Security. For fiscal year 2000, we are looking at a $26 billion surplus over and above Social Security. In the meantime, that set the framework for 107 consecutive months of economic growth. There have been 20.4 million new jobs since 1993. Home ownership is up a record 67 percent. Real wages have increased since the beginning of the Clinton administration by 6.6 percent, reversing a two-decade-long trend of declining real wages. From 1993 to 1998, the number of poor people in America declined by 4.8 million and the number of poor children went down by 2.1 million. In these past 7 years, 7.2 million have left the welfare rolls--a 51- percent decline in the welfare rolls. Welfare recipients now account for the lowest percentage of the U.S. population since 1967, the height of the Vietnam war. In 1999, Federal spending was the smallest share of our gross domestic product since 1966. Lower- and middle-income Americans had the smallest tax burden in 40 years, as noted by the study that came out this weekend. And we are now paying down debt. By the end of fiscal year 2000, the Treasury expects to have reduced our debt held by the public by about $300 billion--that is ``billion'' with a ``B''--from where it was only 3 years ago. Now we have this great national debate. The experts in both the House and the Senate are projecting about a $3 trillion surplus over the coming 10 years, thanks, in very large part, to the decision made in 1993 to set that framework for prosperity and growth. We are talking about a $3 trillion surplus. And $2 trillion of that is attributable to Social Security. To the good credit of the President of the United States, he said: Save Social Security first. Our Republican friends have concurred. That is off the table. The next question is, then: What do you do about the remaining $1 trillion over the coming 10 years? The first thing is to be very cautious. Indeed, we have a hard time projecting 1 year in advance, much less 10 years in advance, what is going to happen to our economy. We cannot get too giddy about how to spend or give back or do whatever with $1 trillion that may or may not materialize. But that is the debate that is going on today. It is going on between the two Presidential candidates. It has been going on between the parties. The American public themselves are trying to digest what kind of vision we have for America in the first 10 years of this century, the first 10 years of this millennium. George W. Bush has said he knows what to do with the $1 trillion dollars: essentially give it all back in a tax cut, commit to that now. If $1 trillion doesn't actually show up, too bad, because Social Security, Medicare, and virtually everything else we do will be in jeopardy. There are others, including myself, who say, first, be prudent about whether this trillion is going to materialize. To the degree that it does, let us look at making sure that we protect the long-term viability of Medicare, which is in shaky financial condition. Most concur. Secondly, let us put some additional dollars towards paying down the debt. That will keep the interest rates down. It will continue to foster economic growth and prosperity. It will make the ability to buy a car, a house, to create new jobs, to run a farm or ranch all cost less. It will do more than many other things the Federal Government could do. Third, let's make sure we do make key investments in our schools. We have crumbling schools all across the country. We have schools that have a greater need for better technology. We have teacher pay problems. We have problems all the way from Early Head Start through our graduate programs and research programs, including our technical and vocational programs. Let's put some dollars there as well. That will create a foundation for continued economic growth and prosperity, if we continue to invest in the minds of American citizens. We are in a global economy today. The world is full of people who work as hard as any American for a dollar a day. The question is, Do American workers bring to the table more than just a willingness to work hard but also bring with them the technical skills and intellectual abilities to do things other people in the world cannot do? That is where we need this growing, developing, and constructive partnership between the Federal, State, and local government, public and private, whereby we empower more American citizens to take care of their own needs, to grow the economy, and to make sure America remains the foremost economic power in the world bar none. Yes, in the context of how to use this $1 trillion, let's try to find some room for tax relief, too, but let's target it to middle-class and working families, families who have the most difficult time meeting their bills. When you look at George W. Bush's proposal, it is blown on a tax cut, with nothing for the schools, nothing to invest, nothing to reduce the deficit, nothing to protect Medicare, at least not to the degree that it needs to be done. Then look and see who are the winners and losers on this. The typical middle-class family gets about a $500 tax cut; a-million- dollar-a-year income gets about a $50,000 tax cut. That is not fair, not when we are being told we don't have the money to build new schools. We can't pass a bond issue in most of the counties in my State of South Dakota. Real estate taxes are through the roof. Our ag economy is not doing well. We are wondering how to replace all those 1910, 1920 vintage schools across my State. We are looking at still a great many children who would benefit from Early Head Start programs, Head Start programs. We are looking at the need for better law enforcement. We are looking at the need for investing in our infrastructure, including our rural water. We are looking at all the things we need to do to prepare ourselves for the increasingly challenging economy of this coming century, the coming millennium. That is where the American public is in concurrence with those of us who say, first be prudent about that $1 trillion, making sure that we stay in the black, that we don't go back into the bad red-ink days of the Reagan-Bush years and the years before that which were bipartisan; both parties were in the red prior to 1993, for over 30 years. We don't want to go back to those days. To the degree we have these dollars to utilize, let's make sure we cover an array of needs we have: paying down further debt; protecting Medicare; investing in our schools, education, making us a more competitive society; doing some things for our families; and, yes, some tax relief as well. But let's do it all in that package rather than some sort of radical libertarian vision of America where the role of the Federal Government is to guard the border and deliver the mail. Many of our friends seem to think we shouldn't be delivering the mail anymore either. I think most Americans have a more moderate, mainstream view. The American people are not ideologues. They are not far to the left. They are not far to the right. They don't want the Government to do everything, and they don't want a situation where the Government does nothing. They are commonsense about their vision of where we need to be. I think we should use caution in taking public opinion polls too seriously around this place. Time after time, poll after poll taken reveals the American public is on the side of this more balanced, thoughtful, deliberative approach to how we are going to position ourselves to be in a situation of strength in the years to come. A lot of people's eyes glass over when we talk about budget issues, dollars and cents, talking about trillions of dollars. It is almost unfathomable. Yet at the heart of it all, where our real values and priorities lie is determined by those dollars-and- cents decisions we make in this body and on which we are about to begin this week. The rhetoric is never lacking. The rhetoric is always in favor of almost everything. But when it comes time to see whether we are going to protect the environment, whether we are going to help our kids, whether we are going to rebuild schools, strengthen Medicare, whether we are going to do something about prescription drugs and health care, as Senator Dorgan from North Dakota has noted, whether we are going to do these kinds of things is, in large measure, dictated by the dollar- and-cents decisions we make on this floor. This is going to be a very crucial week. We will be establishing a budget resolution. I am fearful from what I see headed our way that there is a likelihood that it will be another partisan political exercise at a time when the American public is rightfully frustrated by the lack of ability of the two parties to work together as well as they should. If that is the case, we will see, as we go through the 13 separate appropriations bills or omnibus bill in the end, as may wind up being the case, whether we come out in a way that is, in fact, balanced, which does, in fact, use the resources necessary. It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Two generations have gone by waiting for this opportunity to have our Federal Government in the black and to make some policy decisions about how we can partner together to continue opportunity and prosperity for all of our citizens and not just a few. How tragic it would be if we were to lose this opportunity, if we would say, no, there is no role for the Federal Government to improve Medicare, to keep our rural hospitals open with a decent level of reimbursement, to rebuild our schools, to do the things that need to be done while at the same time providing some tax relief and paying down debt. What a loss that would be if we were to miss that opportunity. There is no more fundamental decision to be made in this the 2nd session of the 106th Congress than these budget issues that are before us this week. We can be proud and we can take some satisfaction in the fact that taxes for middle-class families are now the lowest in 40 years, that we have had 3 years in a row of budget surpluses over and above that required for Social Security, and that our economy has had 8 years in a row of continuous GDP growth. But there is no automatic pilot on which to put our economy. It requires difficult decisions to be made each and every year by the Congress to set the stage for continued prosperity. That is the challenge before us. I am hopeful that before we adjourn at the end of this year, we will be able to look back at this 2nd session of the 106th Congress as truly a watershed time, a fork in the road where we chose the right road to go down in terms of strengthening our society and creating a framework for continued growth and prosperity. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be able to proceed in morning business for a period of 12 minutes.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to publicly commend Girl Scout Troop 290 of Yankton, South Dakota. The girls of Troop 290 have worked especially hard this last year, donating their time and energy to the community. Their wonderful efforts to enhance the lives of many unfortunate South Dakotans at Christmas and Thanksgiving, to assist the community's elderly, to aid impoverished people in Haiti, and to undertake many other key projects has had a very important positive impact in the world around them. Sadly, on November 24, 1999, Brianne Cox, a member of Troop 290, was killed in a tragic accident. She was active not only in Scouts, but enjoyed soccer, softball, dance, violin, trumpet, cross country, basketball, and many other activities. This young lady had a wonderful spirit that touched everyone who knew her. In her name, the Troop 290 scouts have undertaken a very special project. These wonderful girls want to keep Brianne's memory alive and stay close to her family. To this end, they hold a fundraiser every summer to raise money for the `Brianne Cox Memorial Fund'. This effort, in the name of a special girl, will designate funds to other middle school students who wish to participate in the many activities Brianne enjoyed, and who otherwise could not afford it. Mr. President, these girls are true examples of charity and goodness. Their work to elevate the spirit of their hometown is inspiration in itself, but added to their work to keep Brianne Cox's memory alive, is truly extraordinary. I am pleased to be able to share their story with my colleagues and to be able to publicly commend their work.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Dr. Wayne S. Knutson, of Vermillion, South Dakota, a distinguished member of the arts community. On December 11, 1999, the University of South Dakota renamed Theatre I of the Warren M. Lee Center for the Fine Arts in Dr. Knutson's honor. This is an honor he richly deserves. Dr. Knutson has had a distinguished career as an educator, artist, and administrator at the University of South Dakota and in the state arts community over the past fifty years. His tenure at USD began in 1952 as Professor of Speech and Dramatic Art and Director of University Theatre. Subsequently, he has also held the positions of Professor and Chair of the Department of English (1966-1971), Dean and Professor of Fine Arts (1972-1980), Vice-President for Academic Affairs and Professor of Fine Arts (1980-1982), and Professor of English and Theatre (1982-1986). In 1987, Dr. Knutson was appointed by the South Dakota Board of Regents as the first University Distinguished Professor. As a member of the arts community, he has also served on the Literature Panel of the National Endowment for the Arts (1975-1977) and as chairperson of both the South Dakota Arts Council (1971-1978) and the South Dakota Humanities Council (1989-1991). Dr. Knutson's honors include a Distinguished Service Award from the Speech Communication Association of South Dakota, the Governor's Award for Distinction in the Arts, the Burlington-Northern Faculty Achievement Award, a South Dakota Arts Council Senior Fellowship for Play Direction, and an award for Outstanding Achievement in the Humanities from the South Dakota Humanities Council. In addition to his instrumental work as a professor and an actively involved member of the arts community, Dr. Knutson is also an accomplished author, director, and playwright. He wrote ``The Dakota Descendants of Ola Rue'' and ``Dream Valley'', as well as a number of articles on theatre for Dramatics magazine and a short history of the University of South Dakota. He has directed over sixty-five plays and musicals for USD, the Black Hills Playhouse, Pierre Players, Lewis and Clark Theatre, and the Group Theatre of Rapid City. He has also written ten plays and opera librettos, one of which was aired on Voice of America. Mr. President, Dr. Knutson has a immensely enriched life in South Dakota and the honor of having Theatre I at USD renamed the ``Wayne S. Knutson'' is one he highly deserves. He has been an extraordinary pioneer and supporter of the arts. He is a man of great scholarship and knowledge, and will continue to shape the arts community for years to come. It is an honor for me to share the accomplishments of Dr. Wayne S. Knutson with my colleagues and to publicly commend him on his talent and commitment to the arts and education.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to support legislation on the Senate floor today that improves and expands the crop insurance and risk management tools available to farmers in the United States. After months of uncertainty on this issue it is my hope that farmers desiring enhanced crop insurance and risk management options will be reassured that Congress will take a positive step and enact reform this year. Beyond the day-to-day uncertainties facing family farmers and ranchers, matters are complicated today by current economic conditions in rural America. Collapsed crop and livestock prices, weak export demand, and agribusiness concentration continue to threaten the viability of our independent family farmers and ranchers. Crop insurance provides many agricultural producers with a risk management tool, but Congress needs to reform the current program at this time to avoid allowing both low prices and an inadequate safety net to force farmers out of business. Nonetheless, I must caution that no matter how well crop insurance is improved, it is not a substitute for a sound farm policy or safety net. Instead, crop insurance is an important part of that farm safety net. It is my desire to also participate in a farm bill debate this year so Congress can reform the underlying farm bill. But, we must take advantage of this day to act on crop insurance. In 1994, I chaired the House of Representatives subcommittee charged with reforming crop insurance. At the time one of our goals was to improve insurance to a point where the government would not need to develop ad hoc disaster programs. Ad hoc disaster programs are difficult to create, difficult to administer, and are politically unpopular. While I am pleased with many of the reforms we made in 1994, action in Congress to pass crop loss disaster programs in the last two years reminds us that crop insurance has not fully replaced the need for ad hoc disasters. Crop insurance is critical to the farmers of South Dakota. Nearly twenty South Dakota grown crops are currently eligible for crop insurance, and among our major commodities, participation in the crop insurance program is high. Ninety-five percent of our corn acreage is enrolled in crop insurance while 92 percent of our soybean acres are in this program. Wheat producers in South Dakota place 76 percent of their acreage in crop insurance. After the reforms made to the program in 1994, over 10 million acres of farmland in my state have been enrolled in crop insurance. I am pleased to co-sponsor a bipartisan reform bill that is a modification of S. 1580, the Kerrey-Roberts Crop Insurance for the 21st Century Act. Our bill clearly recognizes improved crop insurance is absolutely necessary for farmers in the future. Our underlying bill closely mirrors the crop insurance reform bill enacted in the House of Representatives last year. Finally, our bill addresses some of the most serious concerns of the current crop insurance program; affordability, dependability, and flexibility. The major reform proposed in our bill ensures greater affordability for farmers, especially for higher levels of protection. Nearly every farmer I talk to wants the opportunity to purchase higher levels of coverage, but most have found that a threshold exists were buy-up coverage becomes cost prohibitive. The Kerrey/Roberts bill makes coverage more affordable by providing higher subsidies for higher levels of coverage. South Dakota farmers support this provision of our bill because affordability seems to be the most pressing issue facing crop insurance today. In recent years, the issue of coverage dependability has come into serious question. Farmers in South Dakota and elsewhere have suffered under multiple years of weather related disasters. The bill I support ensures greater coverage dependability by providing relief for producers suffering from insurance coverage decreases and premium increases due to multi-year crop losses resulting from natural disasters. The bill adjusts actual production yield history--APH--for farmers by allowing producers who have suffered under three natural disasters in five years to drop their lowest APH. It also provides APH credit to assist beginning farmers and those who are diversifying with new crop rotations. Finally, the proposal I support authorizes the development of cost of production crop insurance policies. This should eventually be a new, useful tool for producers. It also provides livestock producers hope that the development of some type of livestock coverage is a priority. Livestock producers are the major contributor to South Dakota's agricultural economy, and risk management options are essential for these producers. However, our proposal, S. 2251, differs somewhat from our underlying bill, S. 1580, as well. Months of debate between members of the Senate Agriculture Committee has resulted in a certain degree of compromise on the overall issue of crop insurance and risk management. Some in our Committee believe a lump sum risk management payment is preferred by farmers in parts of the United Sates. While I am very concerned that a de-coupled, lump sum payment is the wrong approach to take for several reasons, I understand the need to have comity and reasonable compromise in the Senate. Therefore, our proposal includes a pilot project to give farmers a choice between either crop insurance coverage or a risk management payment on a commodity by commodity basis. Yet, there are differences between the two risk management pilot programs offered by our coalition and those supporting large direct lump sum payments. I am concerned the de-coupled payment alternative offered by others of the Committee is flawed. First, dividing a limited amount of money among many producers with a risk management payment fails to ensure the need for ad hoc disaster programs is eliminated. These direct lump sum payments will also be capitalized in land values and make it difficult for small and beginning farmers to compete for land. Moreover, the alternative bill pushed by others in the Committee allows ``double dipping'' of benefits which I oppose. Those who choose a risk management payment are then also eligible for crop insurance under the current premium subsidy structure in the alternative supported by others today. This leads to a problem of complexity in terms of administration because crop insurance agents would be required to be able to quote two sets of premium rates available for farmers. Nonetheless, members of the Senate have every right to propose risk management alternatives that they believe suit the interests of the farmers they represent. So with caution, I understand the need to offer a compromise bill with my colleagues on the floor today that offers some degree of ``choice'' and compromise. So, while the bill I support today also includes a risk management payment choice, it requires a more rigorous set of conditions through certification and random auditing to ensure program compliance. Therefore I believe the risk management payment in our approach is more responsible. That said, I would be remiss if I did not state, unequivocally, that I deeply appreciate the chairman's leadership in the Senate Agriculture Committee, and I respect the fashion in which he allowed the mark-up hearing to take place on March 2. I want to mention one final issue very critical to the overall acceptance and viability of a taxpayer funded program like crop insurance. The issue of potential abuse in the insurance program was discussed in Congressional hearings on crop insurance reform last year. I do not believe fraud or abuse is of epidemic proportion in the crop insurance program. In fact, I believe the lion's share of interests (farmers, agents, loss adjusters, industry, and government) working in and around federal crop insurance are doing so with the highest degree of integrity. However, I am cognizant that questionable claims and potential abuse were of great concern last year. That said, unless steps are taken to bolster compliance and oversight the public support for this vital program may diminish. I am pleased to learn that earlier this month the risk Management Agency announced a major commitment to work with the private insurance industry to strengthen the integrity of crop insurance. I am hopeful this joint effort begins to end the concerns of this important program. I commend those involved in taking this positive step.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today is a particularly important day for American seniors. With a unanimous vote, the Senate passed H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens' Freedom To Work Act which will abolish a Depression- era Social Security restriction that lowers benefits paid to seniors ages 65 to 69 who earn more than a specified amount each year. Earlier this month the House passed H.R. 5 by a vote of 422 to 0. As a proud cosponsor of the Senate version of this bill, I am elated that Congress moved swiftly to pass this long overdue legislation. Presently, the Social Security earnings test reduces benefits $1 for every $3 over earnings of $17,000 for retirees age 65 to 69. Due to the cap on earnings, older Americans, many of whom live on fixed, modest- incomes, are burdened with a 33.3 percent tax on their earned income. When this is combined with Federal, State, local and other Social Security taxes, it amounts to an atrocious 55-65 percent tax or even higher. Such a policy defies the principals of self-reliance and personal responsibility on which America was founded. Seniors who have substantial outside income from investments have never had a similar tax penalty to pay. By eliminating the retirement earnings test, older Americans can now decide whether and how much they want to work without a reduction in their current Social Security benefits. An estimated 800,000 Americans lost all or part of their Social Security benefits in 1999 because they were employed and earned more than the limit. Even a part-time job can put someone over the earnings limit. According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the elimination of the earnings test will affect approximately 1,153,000 retirees and auxiliary retirees nationwide, including 3,462 seniors throughout South Dakota. I believe older Americans ages 65 through 69 should be able to work and supplement their Social Security without a benefit reduction, just as other beneficiaries can supplement, without restriction, their Social Security with pensions and unearned income. At a time when labor shortages loom on the horizon and people are living longer, we should encourage, not penalize, older workers. Faced with serious health care expenses, escalating prescription drug prices, long term care needs, and other expenses in caring for a spouse or other family members, older Americans are choosing to stay in the job market longer. By eliminating the earnings test today we have just improved the personal and financial well-being of thousands of seniors throughout South Dakota and our nation. I am very pleased that President Clinton is supportive of the legislation and has indicated that he will sign the bill into law immediately. Today marks a strong vote for older Americans. Seniors are one of our nation's most valuable resources and we should honor and respect them by providing the means necessary to live long, fulfilling lives without worrying about whether or not they can afford to pay their rent, heating bill, and other necessities. As we move forward with the 106th Congress, I look forward to working with my fellow colleagues to implement further programs and a strong legislative agenda which strengthens crucial programs such as Social Security and Medicare, and establishes prescription drug coverage, nursing home reforms, new efforts on long-term care, tools to fight crimes against seniors, new plans to secure retirements and protect pensions, and other initiatives that meet the needs of our growing population of seniors.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased that President Clinton announced yesterday his decision to visit Pakistan during his upcoming trip to South Asia. During my recent visit to Pakistan, I met at length with General Musharraf and discussed a number of critically important issues including the prompt restoration of democracy in Pakistan, nuclear arms restraint by both India and Pakistan, and the need to fight global terrorism. The President's upcoming trip will provide an opportunity to continue this dialogue with both Pakistan and India in a manner that can, hopefully, bring lasting peace and economic stability to the region. The fact that both Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons makes it imperative for the United States to facilitate a resolution of a major problem in South Asia--the Kashmir dispute.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, in the absence of Chairman Gramm and Chairman Enzi, in order to expedite consideration of this very important legislation, I will go forward with a brief discussion and my view of the Export Administration legislation. I rise today in support of the Export Administration Act. I have worked closely on export control issues with Senators Enzi, Gramm, and Sarbanes, and I am pleased that we have reached consideration of this important issue by the full Senate. There are several different classifications of exports. Items which can have both civilian and military applications are considered to be dual-use technology, and those goods are governed by the EAA. There have been numerous attempts to reauthorize the EAA in the years since it expired in 1990. It is unfortunate that this legislation has gone unauthorized for most of this decade, and I strongly urge the Congress to not forgo this opportunity. Reauthorization becomes even more critical as legal challenges to the continued reliance on the expired EAA through emergency powers winds its way through the courts. After ten years of congressional silence, I am fearful that one of these challenges will ultimately succeed, leaving us without any control over sensitive dual use technologies. At that point, even technology which is universally agreed to be dangerous could be freely exported to countries considered to be direct threats to the United States. Reauthorization of the EAA in of itself adds a tremendous component to our national security. I want to especially thank Chairman Enzi for his work on this issue. Without his hands-on leadership, we frankly would not be at this point today. S. 1712 is a testament to Mike's hard work and the widespread support this bill enjoys derives from Chairman Enzi's commonsense approach to issues. I want to note the important roles played by Banking Committee Chairman Gramm and Ranking Member Sarbanes of Maryland. We have had constructive participation across the board, and that bipartisan cooperation has brought us to this point. That spirit contributed to the unanimous 20-0 vote in support of S. 1712 in the Banking Committee. We had a simple goal when we embarked on this effort: reduce or eliminate controls on items that do not have security implications and tighten controls on items that raise security concerns. While most everyone can agree on these principles, it is much more difficult to draft the language to accomplish that end. We worked very closely with concerned Senators, the national security establishment, the administration, and the impacted industries. I believe we addressed the major concerns of each entity. We increased the penalties, making violators of export control laws pay a real price. We made the foreign availability and mass market standards a true measure of what items could be accessed regardless of U.S. sanctions, and provided for those items to be decontrolled. S. 1712 strengthens our national security. For the first time, the Department of Defense will have unilateral appeal rights if it disagrees with an approved export. Penalties move from $10,000 per violation to up to $1 million per violation. At one of our eight hearings on this bill, we heard from Representatives Cox and Dicks on the Cox Report relative to exports to the People's Republic of China. We directly incorporate fifteen of the Cox Report recommendations in our bill to enhance national security. I might add that reauthorization of the EAA is one of the specific recommendations from the Cox Report. America benefits when our businesses prosper. Exporting technology has long been an American success story. The technology field will lead our economy into the next century. But, new technologies could prove dangerous in the wrong hands, and our national security depends in part on limiting access to certain technologies. That is the balance we seek to strike, and I believe S. 1712 does that. I look forward to a vigorous debate of these important issues. Passage of this EAA bill will make a significant contribution to our national security and will help bring transparency to our export control system. I encourage my colleagues to join this bipartisan, balanced approach to these critical issues. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.