Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I retain my time and yield the floor. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I will be brief. I ask unanimous consent that Susan Hansen of my staff be permitted to be on the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, in expressing support for the underlying Ed-Flex legislation that we are taking up today. This legislation recognizes that the final thought in how to prioritize educational needs in our school districts and our States does not reside exclusively here in Washington. It will commit to a level of innovation that I think is needed in the 50 States, and with the proper accountability, provide for many different strategies designed to improve student achievement all across this country. However, I think Congress would be remiss if it stopped there. I think there are a number of very constructive amendments being offered relative to this legislation, not least of which is the afterschool program amendment being offered by the Senator from California, Senator Boxer, to provide for what I believe is a commonsense kind of Federal, State and local partnership, to provide for an enhanced ability to deal with afterschool programs for children K through 12. This is not a new idea and it is not the province of either particular political party. There has been a tremendous amount of effort through the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program across some 46 States today that have afterschool programs of one kind or another, in 800 different schools, involving some 190,000 students. This amendment would create the kind of partnership that would not involve Federal bureaucracy or Federal micromanagement, but would provide some additional resources for our States and our schools to expand afterschool efforts to 1.1 million additional students in the United States. Our school budgets are strapped. Property taxes that fund school districts in many of our States are already too high. It is apparent to anyone who has had any discussions with school leaders and community leaders and child advocacy leaders that they simply cannot go it alone, that this kind of effort requires a new form of partnership. Not least of all, one of the great gains that we have already seen demonstrated by effective afterschool programs in this country has been a significant reduction in juvenile crime. At a time when we see crime rates going down nationally but yet crime rates among children, among young juveniles, in too many instances going up, there is a need for an additional strategy, an additional partnership to address that crisis. Every study we have presented to the Senate indicates that most juvenile crime occurs between 3 o'clock in the afternoon and dinnertime. That is when experimentation with drugs, with alcohol, with sexual activity, and with gang participation most often occur, it is when it is initiated, and it is the time when we most need this kind of partnership not just with our schools but with other community organizations and civic organizations to provide alternative kinds of activities for young people. The studies have already shown that to the degree we have these effective programs in place, they have cut juvenile crime by anywhere from 40 to 70 percent. That is why we have such broad-based support from national law enforcement and police groups across this country. And it is why we can make a contrast between the modest expenditure required to significantly increase these afterschool programs and the alternative cost of incarceration. The cost of keeping a young person in a juvenile facility and ultimately in a prison equates roughly to the cost of sending them to Harvard for a year. For a much more modest expenditure, we can keep whole communities intact, have the kind of responsible adult supervision, and have the kind of focus in these young people's lives that they so badly need. I have been holding meetings all across my home State of South Dakota, meeting with parents, with teachers, with law enforcement officials, with child care providers, and the need for expanding after school programs is obvious. More and more families are working. Both spouses are in the workplace, neither of them at home, because of the economic necessity of having a two income household. South Dakota has one of the highest ratios of two-spouse incomes in the Nation. More and more single-parent households as well find themselves confronting the latchkey option with their young people in the family. As a consequence of this very apparent reality, South Dakota. Has struck a bipartisan level of cooperation and understanding about the need for these programs. My Governor, Republican Governor William Janklow, has been one of the more forceful advocates of an expanded State-local partnership on afterschool programs. I applaud his leadership on the issue. He has secured the services of Loila Hunking, the state coordinator for child care services and a long-time Democrat activist, to head up his afterschool program. It has been a model in many ways and reflects what States in other parts of the country have been doing to bring both sides together to set aside political polarization and, instead, to focus on what in fact is in the best interest of our kids and our communities. But it is all too apparent--even though we have been building facilities and afterschool program facilities that can be used for afterschool programs, and day-care centers, even though we are scraping to find private funds to match local school funds and State funds--that the resources simply are not there, and all too often the communities where the need is the greatest are the communities that have the least financial capability of providing for these kinds of programs. So, again, if we can come up with this amendment to authorize adequate funding for an afterschool program, we will, make a long stride forward not only to anticrime strategy but a pro-education strategy and one that both political parties can rally around. I think it compliments our Ed-Flex legislation. It compliments everything else that we are doing here on the floor today. I want to again applaud Senator Boxer, Senator Kennedy, and others who have worked hard to promote this afterschool amendment and the underlying Ed-Flex legislation as well. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will correct an unintended oversight in the federal administration of Native American housing programs, allowing Indian tribes to once again access Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs) for housing development in some of this nation's most under-served communities. Joining me as original cosponsors of this bill are Senators Inhofe, Conrad, Kerry, Daschle, Inouye, Wellstone, Sarbanes, Kerrey, Kennedy, Dorgan, Reid, Baucus, Bryan and Boxer. In the 104th Congress, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act (NAHASDA) was signed into law, separating Indian housing from public housing and providing block grants to tribes and their tribally designated housing authorities. Prior to passage of NAHASDA, Indian tribes receiving HOME block grant funds were able to use those funds to leverage the Low Income Housing Tax Credits distributed by states on a competitive basis. Unfortunately, unlike HOME funds, block grants to tribes under the new NAHASDA are defined as federal funds and cannot be used for accessing LIHTCs. The fact that tribes cannot use their new block grant funds to access a program (LIHTC) which they formerly could access is an unintended consequence of taking Indian Housing out of Public Housing at HUD and setting up the otherwise productive and much needed NAHASDA system. The legislation I am introducing today is limited in scope and redefines NAHASDA funds, restoring tribal eligibility for the LIHTC by putting NAHASDA funds on the same footing as HOME funds. With this technical correction, there would be no change to the LIHTC programs--tribes would compete for LIHTCs with all other entities at the state level, just as they did prior to NAHASDA. This technical corrections legislation is a minor but much needed fix to a valuable program that will restore equity to housing development across the country. The South Dakota Housing Development Authority has enthusiastically endorsed this legislation out of concern for equitable treatment of every resident of our state and to reinforce the proven success of the LIHTC program for housing development in rural and lower income communities. I have joined many of my colleagues in past efforts to preserve and increase the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program which benefits every state, and I ask my colleagues to recognize the importance of maintaining fairness in access to this program emphasized through this legislation and encourage my colleagues to support passage of this vital legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will correct an unintended oversight in the federal administration of Native American housing programs, allowing Indian tribes to once again access Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs) for housing development in some of this nation's most under-served communities. Joining me as original cosponsors of this bill are Senators Inhofe, Conrad, Kerry, Daschle, Inouye, Wellstone, Sarbanes, Kerrey, Kennedy, Dorgan, Reid, Baucus, Bryan and Boxer. In the 104th Congress, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act (NAHASDA) was signed into law, separating Indian housing from public housing and providing block grants to tribes and their tribally designated housing authorities. Prior to passage of NAHASDA, Indian tribes receiving HOME block grant funds were able to use those funds to leverage the Low Income Housing Tax Credits distributed by states on a competitive basis. Unfortunately, unlike HOME funds, block grants to tribes under the new NAHASDA are defined as federal funds and cannot be used for accessing LIHTCs. The fact that tribes cannot use their new block grant funds to access a program (LIHTC) which they formerly could access is an unintended consequence of taking Indian Housing out of Public Housing at HUD and setting up the otherwise productive and much needed NAHASDA system. The legislation I am introducing today is limited in scope and redefines NAHASDA funds, restoring tribal eligibility for the LIHTC by putting NAHASDA funds on the same footing as HOME funds. With this technical correction, there would be no change to the LIHTC programs--tribes would compete for LIHTCs with all other entities at the state level, just as they did prior to NAHASDA. This technical corrections legislation is a minor but much needed fix to a valuable program that will restore equity to housing development across the country. The South Dakota Housing Development Authority has enthusiastically endorsed this legislation out of concern for equitable treatment of every resident of our state and to reinforce the proven success of the LIHTC program for housing development in rural and lower income communities. I have joined many of my colleagues in past efforts to preserve and increase the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program which benefits every state, and I ask my colleagues to recognize the importance of maintaining fairness in access to this program emphasized through this legislation and encourage my colleagues to support passage of this vital legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chief Justice, the great question now before the Senate is not whether the rule of law will prevail--it surely will-- both by the actions of this body and by possible proceedings within the judicial system. The question before the Senate is whether we should take action against the President beyond that allowed for in our nation's courts. We are, I believe, confronted by two threshold questions which must first be resolved before consideration can or need be given to weighing the evidence presented by the House Managers. First, is whether the Articles of Impeachment have been adequately drawn to allow the accused to know with precision the wrong-doing to which he is accused, and to require that a \2/3\ majority vote of the Senate be secured upon a single act of wrong-doing in order to convict. As a second threshold matter, if the Articles are at least adequately drawn, do they, if true, allege wrong-doing of sufficient import to justify for the very first time in our nation's long history, the over-turning of the people's will as expressed in a free, fair and democratic national election? I am troubled by the adequacy of the articles, but even accepting them, the second threshold question of impeachability is simply not met. Only if these threshold questions are adequately met in the mind of an individual Senator, can that Senator proceed to determine whether the weight of the evidence is sufficient to convict. And even if both threshold questions are ignored, it is impossible for me to say that the circumstantial evidence presented reaches a ``beyond a reasonable doubt'' standard on either article. Reasonable doubt means that if there are multiple reasonable theories as to what occurred--if one of the reasonable theories is consistent with innocence, then an acquittal must follow. Especially relative to article two--I can understand the belief of some that a plausible scenario of obstruction was established. Some may even believe that the President was more likely than not obstructing justice. But the evidence is clearly not so powerful as to lead anyone to believe that no reasonable and innocent scenario remains. I am both profoundly honored and humbled to have this historic responsibility to participate with my Senate colleagues, Republican and Democrat, in perhaps the most grave proceeding envisioned by the authors of our national Constitution. I have listened carefully to both sides of this dispute, and I have also carefully reviewed the thoughts of many of our nation's leading scholars of history and constitutional law. It is clear to me that the results of this trial have ramifications which go far beyond the fortunes of William Jefferson Clinton. The decision made by the Senate this week will have an utterly profound impact on the relationship between the executive and legislative branches of our government for the rest of time. Accordingly, it is essential that the decisions made in this proceeding not be driven by transitory passions of partisan politics, but rather, with an eye toward the long-term stability and integrity of our democracy. My humble reading of history leads me to believe that the never- failing bipartisan honoring of national presidential elections over these past two centuries has been one of the greatest sources of our national success. While holding a president accountable to all the same civil and criminal laws that apply to the general citizenry is absolutely essential, the writers of our Constitution properly intended for the reversal of fair elections at the hands of Congress to be exceedingly rare and difficult. The learned opinions of our nation's leading scholars overwhelmingly support the understanding that presidents should not be removed from office by Congress short of some horrific personal misconduct or misconduct which arises from executive authority and threatens the nation--such as treason or bribery. By requiring a \2/3\ vote for the over-turning of presidential elections, the founders of our nation also made it crystal clear that such an extraordinary step should not and cannot be taken unless there is an overwhelming bipartisan outcry against the President's actions. The American public and most Members of Congress, including myself, have criticized President Clinton's personal conduct in harsh terms. But the American public also seems to understand that at stake is not simply Bill Clinton's future, but the integrity of our election system and the long-term freedom of the executive branch from partisan congressional attack--this understanding about the need for stability, for proportionality, for continuity, is a natural and a deeply conservative inclination on the part of our citizenry. The writers of our Constitution wanted some degree of proportionality between a president's conduct and the penalties applied--otherwise they would have made impeachment applicable to all crimes and misdemeanors. It is certainly conceivable that the will of the people expressed in an election may someday be rightly overturned by Congress. But it is also certain to me that while this president's personal conduct (involving immaterial testimony to a lawsuit dismissed by a federal court as having no merit) is deserving of public condemnation, and even possible prosecution within the judicial system, it simply does not rise to the level of extraordinary danger to the nation that justifies removal from office. Some will no doubt say that I have set a high standard for overturning presidential elections. I would very much agree. Particularly as a recently former member of the House of Representatives, I have witnessed first hand the depth and the intensity of partisan anger that can occur from time to time in Congress and among portions of the national public. It is a reaction to that open partisanship demonstrated by the House and the Independent Counsel that surely is at the foundation of the American public's overwhelming contempt for this proceeding and the view that this process is politics as usual, an exercise in raw political power and beneath what should be the dignity of Congress. I have no certain solutions for that sad and angry state of affairs, other than to attempt to conduct my own political life in as thoughtful and moderate a manner as I am capable, but I believe the Constitution provided our nation with a strong bulwark against negative and hateful partisanship by creating an executive branch which is largely shielded from congressional partisanship and which is instead disciplined by law and by the electoral will of the people. I greatly fear that any lesser standard would result, even without an independent counsel law, in a situation whereby civil actions against standing presidents will be routinely brought as yet another destructive partisan political tactic. These multiple and nefarious actions will then be followed by never-ending legal discovery proceedings, and they in turn followed by impeachment articles or the threat of impeachment each time the House is controlled by a different political party than the Presidency. I fear the wrong decision here will lead our nation into an ever downward spiral where impeachment proceedings will be routine. It is critically important, in my view, for this United States Senate to say, Stop!'' Enough!'' We must send an unmistakable message to the House, the nation and the world, that we will not permit the stability and independence of the executive branch of our government to be jeopardized by anything less than heinous crimes or gross threats to the nation. This leaves, of course, other avenues for Congress and the public to express great displeasure with the President's dishonorable conduct. If illegal activity did in fact take place, that activity would be subject to discipline in the courts. While there are divided opinions on its wisdom, it is possible that some sort of collective censure may be agreed upon by the Senate, and certainly individual Senators are free to place their condemnations of the President's personal behavior in the Congressional Record. The House impeachment of the President, the public humiliation of Bill Clinton and his family, as well as the great private fortune this dispute will have consumed will also serve as punishment enough. But, I think it is also important for this Senate to understand that the writers of our Constitution did not create an impeachment process as one more form of punishment, but exclusively to protect the viability of our nation. Given my sacred oaths as a United States Senator and as a participant in this impeachment trial, and given my abiding commitment to the Constitution and the well-being of our nation, I have no choice but to vote against both Articles of Impeachment. I do not know nor do I care what the political consequences might be of the decision I make here--I am a Democrat elected six consecutive times state-wide from my largely Republican state, and I have long been proud of the bipartisan support extended to me by the good people of South Dakota. In turn, I have long recognized that neither political party has a monopoly on good ideas or bad, good people or bad. But I know this--the issue before me is too grave for politics. At the end of the day, when my service in this body is done, I want my children, my family and myself to view my decisions here as honorable, as an exercise in responsible judgement, and in a small way, as efforts that strengthened the bulwark of democracy that our Constitution represents. The President dishonorably lied to the American people, however, the two Articles before the Senate fail, first because they do not allege offenses that give rise to removal from office, and secondly, because it cannot be said that the evidence proves guilt of perjury or obstruction of justice beyond all reasonable doubt (to such a degree that no innocent and reasonable explanation exists). I will vote not guilty on both Article one and Article two.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President. Today, I am proud to be introducing legislation, along with my colleagues, the Minority Leader Senator Daschle of South Dakota, Senator Harkin and Senator Grassley of Iowa, and Senator Wellstone and Senator Grams of Minnesota, to authorize the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System. We introduced similar legislation last Congress, and I am pleased with the progress we made in the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The Committee held a hearing and passed the legislation during the 105th Congress, and I look forward to again working closely with my colleagues for timely consideration of this important measure. The Lewis and Clark Rural Water system is made up of 22 rural water systems and communities in southeastern South Dakota, northwestern Iowa and southwestern Minnesota who have joined together in an effort to cooperatively address the dual problems facing the delivery of drinking water in this region--inadequate quantities of water and poor quality water. The region has seen substantial growth and development in recent years, and studies have shown that future water needs will be significantly greater than the current available supply. Most of the people who are served by ten of the water utilities in the proposed Lewis and Clark project area currently enforce water restrictions on a seasonal basis. Almost half of the membership has water of such poor quality it does not meet present or proposed standards for drinking water. More than two-thirds rely on shallow aquifers as their primary source of drinking water, aquifers which are very vulnerable to contamination by surface activities. The Lewis and Clark system will be a supplemental supply of drinking water for its 22 members, acting as a treated, bulk delivery system. The distribution to deliver water to individual users will continue through the existing systems used by each member utility. This ``regionalization approach'' to solving these water supply and quality problems enables the Missouri River to provide a source of clean, safe drinking water to more than 180,000 individuals. A source of water which none of the members of Lewis and Clark could afford on their own. The proposed system would help to stabilize the regional rural economy by providing water to Sioux Falls, the hub city in the region, as well as numerous small communities and individual farms in South Dakota and portions of Iowa and Minnesota. The States of South Dakota, Iowa and Minnesota have all authorized the project and local sponsors have demonstrated a financial commitment to this project through state grants, local water development district grants and membership dues. The State of South Dakota has already contributed more than $400,000. Mr. President, I do not believe our needs get any more basic than good quality, reliable drinking water, and I appreciate the fact that Congress has shown support for efforts to improve drinking water supplies in South Dakota. I look forward to continue working with my colleagues to have that support extended to the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce legislation to authorize a critically important rural water system in South Dakota, the ``Perkins County Rural Water System Act of 1999.'' I am pleased to have my good friend and colleague from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, as an original cosponsor of this important legislation, which we introduced during the 105th. This legislation is also strongly supported by the State of South Dakota and local project sponsors, who have demonstrated that support by agreeing to substantial financial contributions from the local level. During the 105th Congress the Perkins County Rural Water System Act was passed by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as well as the full Senate. Unfortunately, this legislation was caught up in part of a larger legislative package, but I am hopeful the Senate will again support this important drinking water project and pass this legislation early this year. Like many parts of South Dakota, Perkins County has insufficient water supplies of reasonable quality available, and the water supplies that are available do not meet the minimum health and safety standards, thereby posing a threat to public health and safety. In addition to improving the health of residents in the region, I strongly believe that this rural drinking water delivery project will help to stabilize the rural economy as well. Water is a basic commodity and is essential if we are to foster rural development in many parts of rural South Dakota, including the Perkins County area. The ``Perkins County Rural Water System Act of 1999'' authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to construct a Perkins County Rural Water System providing service to approximately 2,500 people, including the communities of Lemmon and Bison, as well as rural residents. The Perkins County Rural Water System is located in northwestern South Dakota along the South Dakota/North Dakota border and it will be an extension of an existing rural water system in North Dakota, the Southwest Pipeline Project. The State of South Dakota has worked closely with the State of North Dakota over the years on the Perkins County connection to the Southwest Pipeline Project. A feasibility study completed in 1994 looked at several alternatives for a dependable water supply, and the connection to the Southwest Pipeline Project is clearly the most feasible for the Perkins County area. Mr. President, South Dakota is plagued by water of exceeding poor quality, and the Perkins County rural water project is an effort to help provide clean water--a commodity most of us take for granted--to the people of Perkins County, South Dakota. I am a strong believer in the federal government's role in rural water delivery, and I hope to continue to advance that agenda both in South Dakota and around the country. I urge my colleagues to support this important rural water legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to move forward on enactment as quickly as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, on October 2, 1998, South Dakotans honored one of their veterans with the dedication of the Michael J. Fitzmaurice State Veterans Home in Hot Springs. I believe this is a fitting tribute to a man who was willing to sacrifice his own life to defend the lives of his friends amidst the chaos of battle. Michael Fitzmaurice served in Vietnam with the 101st Airborne Division at Khe Sanh. On March 13, 1971, American forces at Khe Sanh were engaged by North Vietnamese troops. During the assault, North Vietnamese sappers threw three satchel charges into a bunker defended by Michael and other airborne troops. Michael Fitzmaurice was able to throw two of the explosive charges out of the bunker, and then showing no regard for his own life, used his flak jacket to smother the third charge. Despite receiving severe wounds, Michael Fitzmaurice refused medical attention and continued to defend the bunker from the North Vietnamese assault. Because of his unselfish action, Michael was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his heroism and for saving the lives of his fellow soldiers. Today, Michael Fitzmaurice works at the Sioux Falls Veterans Medical Center after serving twenty years with the South Dakota National Guard. He now lives in Hartford, South Dakota with his wife Patty and his children. The veterans home dedicated in Michael's honor will serve as a residence for veterans who saw combat. The facility also has a nursing home and a place where veterans can receive needed medical attention. From the battlefields of Lexington and Concord, to the beaches of Normandy, and to base camps such as Khe Sanh, our nation's history is replete with individuals who, during the savagery of battle, were willing to forgo their own survival not only to protect the lives of their comrades, but also to defend a people they did not know. Americans should never forget these men and women who served our nation with such dedication and patriotism. Mr. President, I offer my congratulations and gratitude to Michael and his family on this profound dedication. The Michael J. Fitzmaurice State Veterans Home will stand not only as a testament to Michael Fitzmaurice's bravery and leadership, but will remain a constant reminder of South Dakota's continued dedication in serving the needs of our veterans.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I want to take the opportunity today to recognize the kind and generous people of western Massachusetts who donated exercise equipment to the Cheyenne River Reservation community in my home state of South Dakota. The participating YMCA's of Greenfield, Springfield, Holyoke, Northampton and Westfield Massachusetts organized a month long drive that collected 80 pieces of exercise equipment ranging from treadmills to exercise bikes. Robert Sunderland, Vincent Olinski, Harry Rock, Suzanne Walker, Stephen Clay, Kurt Kramer, and Mark St. Pierre all worked together to make this project a reality. Their vision, tireless dedication, and proactive efforts to mobilize the people of western Massachusetts should not go unnoticed. Additionally, I would like to recognize Keith Eichenholz of my staff, a native of Greenfield Massachusetts himself, for recognizing the effort of these participating YMCAs, as well as the needs of Indian country in South Dakota. As my Senate colleagues know, there are nine federally recognized tribes in South Dakota, whose members collectively make up one of the largest Native American populations in this country. At the same time, South Dakota has three of the ten poorest counties in the nation, all of which are within reservation boundaries. The severe poverty within these reservations makes it extremely difficult to secure valuable resources that can be used to fight the grave health situation plaguing the American Indian communities. The contributions of the western Massachusetts YMCAs will help overcome these alarming conditions. Native Americans die at younger ages than the general population: 13 percent of Indian deaths, compared to 4 percent of deaths for all races, occur before age 25. Tuberculosis as a cause of death for Native Americans is 4 times the national mortality rate for this disease, and the Native American mortality rate for diabetes out-paces the national average by 139 percent. Additionally, a 1997 Harvard/Centers for Disease Control study on life expectancy found that the lowest life expectancy in the nation for both men and women, including inner city populations, exists in the Indian population and are the worst rates of any nation in the western hemisphere except Haiti. American health care and medical science are far too advanced to allow such statistics to persist. Time and time again, regular exercise has been proven effective in reducing the occurrence of heart disease, diabetes, and early deaths. The five western Massachusetts communities will help provide the Cheyenne River Reservation community with the opportunity for a healthier lifestyle at practically no cost. Their contribution deserves recognition, and I thank them for all of their help. Throughout my service in Congress I have worked with Indian tribes to improve the quality of life on this nation's Indian reservations. I am glad that I have the generous people of Greenfield, Springfield, Holyoke, Northampton and Westfield Massachusetts as allies is this courageous effort. Again, I would like to offer my sincere gratitude for their collaborated effort, and wish them continued success in future endeavors.

Mr. JOHNSON

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

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I voted today for the omnibus appropriations bill that was pending before the Senate, in large part because, very frankly, of my great doubt that delaying what already has been an utterly abominable legislative process would, at this late point, improve the nature of the final product. It should be abundantly clear to us all, to even the most casual observers, that the first and most fundamental mistake made by this 105th Congress was the unwillingness, or perhaps the inability, of the Republican leadership to craft a budget resolution acceptable to a majority of Members of both parties. But, amazingly, the Republican leadership was then unable or unwilling to put together a budget resolution that could even muster the majority support of its own party. As a result, for the very first time since the current Budget Act was enacted, Congress was forced to proceed on with the 13 separate appropriations bills without the benefit of the direction of a budget resolution at all. In fairness, this body did pass its own version of a budget resolution, and much of the difficulty in reaching an agreement with the other body lies with the radical faction in the House, which was unwilling to support any measure unless it called for huge tax reductions funded out of a naked raid on the Social Security surplus. There were a few Members of this body as well who indicated they could not vote for a final resolution unless a tax cut/Social Security plunder plan was involved. So, April 15, the deadline for passage of a budget resolution, came and it went, and in the end no agreement was reached between the Senate and the other body and no serious effort at bipartisanship, frankly, was ever attempted. The budget process that has ensued, and we have witnessed its culmination today, is certainly a case of the Republican leadership having to reap what it sowed. Without the discipline of a budget resolution, this Congress then proceeded to make an utter mockery of the appropriations process. Rather than deliberate debate and careful consideration of the 13 separate appropriations bills needed to run the Federal Government, we wound up with an omnibus appropriations bill weighing some 40 pounds and going on for 3,825 pages as it compressed 8 of the appropriations bills, a supplemental appropriations bill, and miscellaneous matters all into one ill-considered mess. The bill we have had before us today is a consequence of massive, massive legislative mismanagement. All this is not to say that the legislation that was before this body today did not have some redeeming strengths. There will be no Federal Government shutdown, and as the American people rightfully celebrate the first balanced unified Federal budget in 30 years, the omnibus bill does stay within the previously agreed upon budget caps. Thanks to President Clinton and his earlier veto, this legislation does provide for significant assistance for farmers and ranchers suffering through an economic crisis throughout much of rural America and, again, thanks to the President's tenacity, this bill will provide for the hiring of additional teachers and the expansion of some key educational programs, such as Head Start. But even here, the omnibus bill is not as good as it ought to have been. The agricultural provisions failed to address the underlying problem of inadequate market prices for livestock and grain by neglecting to raise the marketing loan rates, and by eliminating price reporting and country of origin meat labeling, it does next to nothing for livestock producers. The educational provisions are inadequate in several areas, but most noticeably, the Republican leadership refused to permit a Federal- State-local partnership which would have allowed the cost of school construction and renovation bonds to have been significantly reduced for local taxpayers. To this Senator, it is simply outrageous for some on the far political right to claim, as they have, that this commonsense provision would have amounted to some sort of ``federalization'' of education. Clearly, the decisions as to whether to build or renovate a school would have remained at the local level, where such decisions belong, and the bulk of funding for such construction would likewise have remained appropriately enough with local taxpayers. Mr. President, it is not federalization for the Federal Government to help local citizens reduce the cost of their education decisions, decisions that they make at the local level, by partially writing down interest rates on the bonds which these school districts would then have to issue. There are some who are referring, with some justification, to the 105th Congress as the worst that has ever met in this Capitol Building. I don't know if that is true, but the mismanagement of this legislation, coupled with the refusal of the majority leader to even allow meaningful debate and progress on such issues as managed health care reform, campaign finance reform, and modernization of financial services, among others, ought to be a source of shame for this institution. Again, Mr. President, while some have voted against the omnibus bill as a protest gesture, motivated by any number of concerns, I wanted to do the responsible thing, and I voted to pass this faulty but, frankly, at this point in time very necessary legislation. It is my hope, however, that never again will Congress proceed without a budget resolution and without an opportunity to debate and deliberate on individual appropriations bills in a timely manner. Federal Vacancies Reform Act

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, the Surface Transportation Board (STB) was established in 1996 by act of Congress as a quasi-independent body within the Department of Transportation. The STB adjudicates disputes and regulates interstate surface transportation including the restructuring of railroad lines. Although the authorization of the STB expired this year, a reauthorization bill has not been scheduled. It was my intention to offer an amendment to the reauthorization relating to railroad lines, or at least engage in a colloquy with the manager of the bill. However, because no amendments, or even colloquies, will be agreed to by the managers of the reauthorization of the STB, I offer these comments for the record. It is my understanding that under section 10901 of title 49 of the U.S. Code, relating to the construction and operation of railroad lines, the STB is required to issue a certificate authorizing the construction or extension of a railroad line, unless it finds that such activity is ``inconsistent with the public convenience and necessity.'' Because the construction of railroad lines can cause significant adverse environmental impacts such as noise, safety and quality of life on local communities, my amendment would have sought to direct the STB to require applicants for the construction or extension of railroad lines to use all reasonable means to route them away from population centers in compliance with the above provision. Although I am disappointed that I will not be able to offer my amendment, I have been assured by the Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board that ``regardless of whether or not language is inserted into our reauthorization bill, the Board must, and will, consider local interests in assessing the DM&E construction case.'' Mr. President, I appreciate Chairman Morgan's assurances, and I look forward to working with the STB on this and other issues in the next Congress.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I introduce common-sense legislation which will greatly benefit America's manufacturers and consumers. My colleague, Senator DeWine of Ohio, is joining me as an original cosponsor of this bill. The ``Made In America'' Consumer Hotline bill will establish a toll free number in the Department of Commerce to assist consumers in determining whether the products they buy are American-made. The House has passed this legislation and I urge my colleagues to move this bill swiftly in our remaining days of the Congress. As the world economy becomes more inter-related, determining to what extent a product is ``Made in America'' is increasingly difficult for American consumers. We have come to expect access to information about so many of the products and services we rely on every day, information to help us make decisions about what's best for our families, our communities and our economy. With auto parts, computers, clothing, or appliances, American consumers know that the ``Made in America'' designation on products represents quality, reliability, and value. This legislation would establish a pilot program for the operation of a three-year, toll-free number to assist consumers in determining what products are ``Made in America.'' This legislation will have no cost to American taxpayers. Instead, fees collected from manufacturers who voluntarily choose to register their product will fully fund the toll- free line. In the past, I cosponsored this hotline legislation in the House and I applaud my House colleagues for passing this bill. Providing consumers access to accurate and reliable information on the content of the products they buy is common-sense legislation that is long overdue. Some may object to the creation of such an information hotline as a protectionist endeavor. On the contrary, I believe there is nothing more conducive to fair trade than providing consumers the freedom to decide what product is best for them. This legislation is not about telling consumers what to buy, it's about providing consumers the resources they need to make their own decisions. I have worked hard to advance the issue of freedom of information on country of origin labeling, but we need to do more to facilitate consumer access to information. As you and I know, we can easily determine which country manufactured the automobiles we drive. We trust the tags on our shirts or trousers and we can see where our computers, stereos, and telephones were made by simply looking at the products' label. But many areas remain void of information on product origin. For example, when we go to the grocery store to purchase meat products for our families to eat, we have no idea where that meat originated. Throughout my service in the United States Congress, I have been a strong believer in country of origin labeling for all types of consumer products. I have been an especially strong supporter of country of origin labeling for meat products because of its common-sense nature, its benefits to ranchers, farmers, and consumers, its strong bipartisan and agricultural group support, its cost-free benefit to taxpayers as scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and its trade friendly provisions. I don't intend to stop at agricultural products. The legislation I am introducing today targets general consumer products greater than $250 in value. Freedom of information about country of origin labeling is fair trade because it provides global consumers with freedom of choice. In today's global economy, consumers deserve access to information on where the products their families use are from. By passing this ``Made in America'' toll-free hotline legislation, Congress will help consumers assert their right to know.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I introduce common-sense legislation which will greatly benefit America's manufacturers and consumers. My colleague, Senator DeWine of Ohio, is joining me as an original cosponsor of this bill. The ``Made In America'' Consumer Hotline bill will establish a toll free number in the Department of Commerce to assist consumers in determining whether the products they buy are American-made. The House has passed this legislation and I urge my colleagues to move this bill swiftly in our remaining days of the Congress. As the world economy becomes more inter-related, determining to what extent a product is ``Made in America'' is increasingly difficult for American consumers. We have come to expect access to information about so many of the products and services we rely on every day, information to help us make decisions about what's best for our families, our communities and our economy. With auto parts, computers, clothing, or appliances, American consumers know that the ``Made in America'' designation on products represents quality, reliability, and value. This legislation would establish a pilot program for the operation of a three-year, toll-free number to assist consumers in determining what products are ``Made in America.'' This legislation will have no cost to American taxpayers. Instead, fees collected from manufacturers who voluntarily choose to register their product will fully fund the toll- free line. In the past, I cosponsored this hotline legislation in the House and I applaud my House colleagues for passing this bill. Providing consumers access to accurate and reliable information on the content of the products they buy is common-sense legislation that is long overdue. Some may object to the creation of such an information hotline as a protectionist endeavor. On the contrary, I believe there is nothing more conducive to fair trade than providing consumers the freedom to decide what product is best for them. This legislation is not about telling consumers what to buy, it's about providing consumers the resources they need to make their own decisions. I have worked hard to advance the issue of freedom of information on country of origin labeling, but we need to do more to facilitate consumer access to information. As you and I know, we can easily determine which country manufactured the automobiles we drive. We trust the tags on our shirts or trousers and we can see where our computers, stereos, and telephones were made by simply looking at the products' label. But many areas remain void of information on product origin. For example, when we go to the grocery store to purchase meat products for our families to eat, we have no idea where that meat originated. Throughout my service in the United States Congress, I have been a strong believer in country of origin labeling for all types of consumer products. I have been an especially strong supporter of country of origin labeling for meat products because of its common-sense nature, its benefits to ranchers, farmers, and consumers, its strong bipartisan and agricultural group support, its cost-free benefit to taxpayers as scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and its trade friendly provisions. I don't intend to stop at agricultural products. The legislation I am introducing today targets general consumer products greater than $250 in value. Freedom of information about country of origin labeling is fair trade because it provides global consumers with freedom of choice. In today's global economy, consumers deserve access to information on where the products their families use are from. By passing this ``Made in America'' toll-free hotline legislation, Congress will help consumers assert their right to know.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a special colleague and a true American hero, John Glenn of Ohio. During his distinguished career, Senator Glenn has used his boundless energy and expertise to work for effective and efficient government and world peace. He is one of our most beloved national figures and a role model to people of all ages and all backgrounds from all over the world. I was a teenager when the nation watched in awe as John Glenn became the first American to orbit the earth. I never would have guessed during those spectacular early days of the space program that someday I would have an office next to his in the United States Senate. It has been my great privilege to serve with him and to know him as both a friend and a colleague. Today, he is at Cape Canaveral preparing to visit space again. I know my colleagues share in my admiration and pride for Senator Glenn as he boldly goes once more into space. I wish him an exciting journey, a safe return and wonderful retirement. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to recognize Philip and Marge Odeen of Virginia. These two natives of Yankton, South Dakota have been selected by the Northern Virginia Community Foundation to receive the 1998 Northern Virginia Community Founder's Award. The Founder's Award is presented each year to those citizens who have consistently demonstrated a commitment to both civic and humanitarian concerns, while making a substantial contribution to improving the quality of life in Northern Virginia. The Founder's Award is a tribute to the Odeens' leadership in all of these areas. From the time they moved east in 1960, the Odeens made an immediate impact in the areas of commerce, public affairs, the arts, and community improvement. Phil distinguished himself in the public sector at the National Security Council, later as a co-founder of the World Affairs Council, and most recently in his work with BDM International and TRW. Marge's endeavors on behalf of Northern Virginia Community College and the Women's Center have also been noted for their success. Throughout their professional careers Phil and Marge have always found a way to donate time and effort to worthy causes such as the Salvation Army, Childhelp USA, the Heart Association, and the Wolf Trap Foundation. They have given freely to non-profit organizations in terms of time and money, have consistently taken the lead in getting others involved, and most importantly have positively affected the lives of numerous men, women, and children in the Washington area. I would like to commend the Odeens for their numerous contributions to the Northern Virginia Community; their community leadership serves as a model for the citizens of both Virginia and South Dakota to emulate.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I want to take the opportunity today to honor Robert (Bob) Martin for his years of hard work and commitment to the people of South Dakota. I would also like to extend my warmest wishes and congratulate Bob on his upcoming retirement. Bob, a native of Estelline, South Dakota, graduated from high school in 1952. After his graduation Bob joined the United States Navy and proudly served from 1952-1956. Following his military service, he attended Dakota State University in Madison, South Dakota receiving a bachelors degree in 1960. With a degree in hand, Bob became a welcomed addition to the faculty in the Madison School System where I am certain he inspired many students to pursue their dreams. In 1965, Bob joined KEM Electric Cooperative, in Linton, North Dakota, serving as Public and Member Relations and Power Use Director. Coming back to his South Dakota roots, Bob returned to Madison in 1970 to become Member Service Director for East River Electric Power Cooperative and eventually Assistant to the General Manager at East River, a position he held until 1983. Ultimately, Bob became Manager of the Member Services and Public Affairs Division and remained in this position until 1990. In 1990, Bob left East River Electric to become General Manager of Rushmore Electric Power Cooperative located in Rapid City, South Dakota. Bob's lifetime of service to rural electric cooperatives is impressive and reflects his commitment to public power and the critically important role rural electric cooperatives play in rural America. Bob has been a leader on many different issues important to public power and rural electrics, from preventing the privatization of the Power Marketing Administrations to helping further rural water efforts in South Dakota. Rural electric cooperatives are an important factor in the economic development of their communities and in many cases, they are the best equipped to work to ensure small communities remain viable and continue to keep medical facilities, schools and other services available. I am convinced the importance of rural cooperatives will continue to grow, but it will require the dedication of more individuals like Bob Martin to ensure the future of public power. Today, Bob is a member of the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology Citizens Advisory Committee; a Director on the Board of the Mid-West Electric Consumers Association; chairs the Rapid City Chamber of Commerce Agriculture Committee; and is Chairman of the Pennington County Extension Board. In addition to his military, scholastic, and professional achievements Bob and his wife, Kay have four grown children and five grandchildren. Again, I would like to thank Bob for all he has done to better South Dakota and I would like to wish him best of luck in his retirement. Although I imagine that keeping up with five grandchildren is not exactly retirement.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I rise to express--in very stark terms--my deep and increasing concern for the future of family farming and ranching in this country. The truth is, our country's family farmers and ranchers are under increasing economic pressure from concentration in agriculture--concentration in meatpacking, concentration in food-retailing, concentration in rail and other forms of transportation, concentration in banking, concentration in the grain-trading companies, and concentration in production itself. The strands of these varied concentrations are tightening around the throats of family farmers and ranchers, threatening not only the farmers and ranchers themselves, but also their families, the small- town businesses that depend on them, their schools, their churches, and the very social fabric that makes rural America such a special and wonderful place to live--the reasons why we should do whatever we can to preserve and promote our system of family farming and ranching. But there is more at stake here than just our farmers and ranchers and their families, critically important as they are. What's also at stake is the very system that produces our food, that gives us life. Study after study shows that family agriculture is the most efficient way, the most environmentally safe way, to produce our food. And that is another reason why we should do whatever we can to preserve and promote our system of family farming and ranching. But, frankly, there is a troubling movement in our country toward the corporatization of family agriculture. Look at the pork industry--it has become increasingly dominated by giant corporate hog factories, a fact which has gone hand-in-glove with lower and lower prices for hogs, to the point that many family pork producers can't make a living at it anymore, and have simply given up. A case in point is the state of North Carolina, which has seen the biggest influx of corporate hog factories in the United States. In 1984, there were 24,000 hog farmers in that state, just before the growth of hog factories skyrocketed. Now, there are 7,000 hog farmers in North Carolina, almost all of them working on contract, little more than hired hands working for outside corporate investors. However, at the same time that independent family hog producers have almost disappeared in North Carolina, the number of hogs produced there has tripled, thus leading to enormous environmental problems--fish kills numbering in the tens of millions, rapidly rising nitrates in groundwater used for drinking, increasing levels in airborne ammonia, stench that makes the eyes water, and a corresponding and unsurprising drop in tourism. The North Carolina experiment has clearly not worked. What has happened in North Carolina, and what is happening in many other states, is nothing less than a human tragedy. My ancestors, and the ancestors of many people here today, left Europe to escape the feudal system of agriculture, a system of inequality and unfairness where a baron controlled the land and the peasants worked for him as little better than slaves. I do not want to return to a ``new feudalism'' in which the baron is replaced by out-of-state corporate investors, nor do I believe that the people of my state desire to do so, either. It is for that reason that I have opposed the concentration in agriculture at all levels, because it ultimately is fair to neither food producers nor food consumers. And it is also the reason that I plan to vote for ``Amendment E,'' an initiated measure that will appear on the November 3rd, 1998 South Dakota general election ballot. This measure corresponds very closely to a similar measure in Nebraska, which has been deemed constitutional by the United States Supreme Court, and has allowed Nebraska to maintain both market share and number of producers much better than its neighboring states, including South Dakota. I'm not telling any South Dakotan how to vote on this or any other issue, but I do want to add my voice to those who believe the move toward the corporatization of our family farming system has gone too far. We have far too much at stake to simply sit silently by while the best food producing system ever devised by humankind is allowed to die a slow and painful death.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I rise to express in part my profound disappointment with the contents of the agricultural appropriations conference report, recognizing that there are many in this body--in particular, that there are numerous instances, thanks to the leadership of the Senator from Mississippi, and others--who have brought together a sense of bipartisanship on some key issues. And there are other issues and other needs that I believe this body needs to address outside of this agricultural appropriations bill, as my very good friend and colleague from Kansas has made reference to a string of extraneous other issues that are urgent. On the issue of trade, I believe that there is fairly good agreement in this body relative to where we need to go next. There is support in this body for funding for the International Monetary Fund. That is perhaps the single thing we could do that would have the greatest immediate impact on stabilizing currencies and opening markets and stabilizing economies in Asia, and increasingly in Russia and Latin America. Unfortunately, that issue has been held up in the other body, not this one; but it is an issue that should be dealt with before we adjourn for the year. My colleague raises the issue of fast track. On that issue I share his concern that we ought to have fast-track authority. This body does as well. The House does not. I think in all fairness, though, it ought to be kept in mind that if we were to pass fast track, that would have a consequence years down the road but not next month, not the next 6 months. It would simply put our trade representative back in at the negotiating table for trade negotiations. That would bear fruit probably years down the road from now, but it would not have an immediate consequence. Certainly, in the case of relief of unilateral sanctions and the sanctions reform legislation that our colleague, the chairman of our Senate Ag Committee, Senator Lugar, has championed, we ought to be moving forward with that. Unfortunately, we have not. But I think there is broad-based bipartisan consensus that we ought to do that. And certainly MFN, now having normal trade relations with China as well, is something that we should go forward with. I think all these issues are concurred upon by this President and by the majority of both political parties in the Senate. Those are issues we should proceed with. We should not use them, however, as an excuse for a lack of action, for inaction on key disaster issues before us today. On the tax agenda, as well, I think that there is broad-based support in both political parties for tax relief targeted to middle-class and working families, certainly for those in the agricultural sectors of our economy. But again in fairness, it ought to be kept in mind that the tax package that arrived in this body from the other body is funded 100 percent out of the Social Security trust fund surplus. That is unacceptable to a great many of us in this body. It is utterly unacceptable to the President of the United States who has expressed his veto intent if that were to reach his desk. I think there is a great likelihood it will reach his desk, but if he were to veto it, he would do the right thing. And we talk about statesmanship, that is what we are talking about-- doing the right thing, rejecting what seems on the surface to be popular, recognizing that in too many instances the underlying premise that allows that action to go forward is, in fact, simply wrong. Stealing money, raiding, plundering the Social Security trust fund is not acceptable for any of us. Regardless of how great the crisis might be that we have in agricultural today, how much we would like to have tax relief for every sector of our economy, that is not where we need to go. To his great credit, Senator Daschle, with the help of numerous others, has put together a tax package which provides most of the same kinds of relief that my friend from Kansas was making reference to, but is funded exclusively out of efficiencies, out of savings, out of the closure of tax loopholes in the existing Tax Code and budget. So it is not a question of whether we can have tax relief or whether we cannot have tax relief; we can so long as it is carefully targeted, so long as it is focused on those areas where it is most in need, and so long as it is truly offset by savings, by efficiencies, by loophole closures-- other places--and not premised on a raid on Social Security. So, again, I think we ought to be able to find bipartisan agreement before we leave here on those issues as well. I want to say that we did reach some concurrence on some important issues in this body. The pain and the hurt that is going on across much of rural America today is too great to allow for the kind of finger pointing and partisanship that too often characterizes the debate in this Congress, especially as we draw near an election as we reach the end of this Congress. I am pleased that in this body we were able to find bipartisan agreement on my particular amendment that was incorporated in the Senate version of the agricultural appropriations bill on meat labeling. The Senator from Idaho was a champion on the meat labeling issue. And I was pleased that the chairman, the Senator from Mississippi, was supportive of our concern in the conference committee in that regard. I am disappointed in what turned out to be a party-line vote from our colleagues in the House of Representatives that thwarted the will of the U.S. Senate in that regard--a measure which has the support of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Farmers Union, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the American Sheep Industry Association. The underlying bill, which had the sponsorship of eight Republican Senators and eight Democratic Senators, along with myself--this was a bipartisan effort to, for the first time, allow consumers to know the origin of their food products which they serve their families, much as they do virtually every other consumer item that they purchase. Yet even this commonsense measure was turned down in the conference committee, to my great disappointment. And I want to confirm that this issue simply will not go away. It will be revisited and revisited until it becomes law. We also found bipartisan support on the Senate agricultural appropriations bill--again, with the support of the Senator from Idaho, the Senator from Mississippi, and a great many others --in a bipartisan fashion, to allow price transparency in the livestock industry to go forward, to put our individual livestock producers on the same footing as the packing industry to give them a better marketing opportunity. And yet even that which would have seemed, again, to be common sense we lost, unfortunately, on a partisan, party-line vote on the part of the House conferees, over the objections of the Senate. I want to express my disappointment at the loss of both of those provisions which would not have meant night or day, would not have turned around overnight the price crisis that we have in the livestock industry, but we would have contributed, I think, in a very constructive fashion to lay the groundwork for a long-term recovery, and it would have been a constructive, positive step in the right direction. We reached some bipartisan agreement, I think, in this body early on, again, on the need for disaster relief. I think we all recognized as time went on, as disasters struck the South and the West, other parts of the country, that the amount of money, the $500 million we had placed in the Senate agriculture appropriations bill simply was not going to be adequate from anyone's perspective, and that needed to be augmented in a significant way. I think the President is right that if we are going to realistically address the real pain all across rural America, that a final level of disaster relief approximating the funding in the President's recommendation rather than in the House proposal and imposed on the conference report on ag appropriations is more appropriate. I think we all recognize that there needs to be some give-and-take, that the final version of whatever we do probably will not meet the 100 percent satisfaction of any of us here, should not be 100 percent what the Republican leadership in the House was offering, probably will not be completely what the President is offering; but we need to come together somewhere in the middle in a way which more effectively deals with the disaster that is national in scope and deals with it in a meaningful way, all within the context of, obviously, a balanced Federal budget. I believe we can do that, but we need to take, I believe, some of the direction that is coming from the White House to moderate the provisions which have been imposed in the ag appropriations bill by our House colleagues. This should not turn into a bidding war. It has been suggested that could occur. That would be wrong. That is not where we need to go. But we do need to step back, and with some careful deliberation and some care, evaluate the scope of the relief that needs to be made in order to have a meaningful consequence in the context of this national disaster. One area where we were not able to reach bipartisan consensus in this body--and I certainly respect the views of those who differ with me and with many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle--is on the wisdom of utilizing a strategy which would take the cap off the existing marketing loan provisions in the freedom to market legislation. Now, it is suggested by some that that is an attack on Freedom to Farm, that this is on the part of those who would go back to the old days of the previous farm bill. I think that simply is untrue. That is a straw man that is easily knocked down but one that does not characterize the goals and the perspective of those of us who believe that it makes a lot of sense to take the caps off the existing marketing loan. Keep in mind, the current bill has marketing loan provisions in it. It is not a turning inside out of that legislation. The problem with the existing legislation, the existing farm bill, is that the loan rates established in that farm bill are unrealistically low. They are too low to be meaningful given the kind of crisis that we have today. And taking the caps off that loan rate and tying it to a 5- year Olympic average is a moderate but responsible step in the right direction. In fact, if we were to do that--and we are talking about doing this for 1 year only, so it would have no consequence whatever on planting decisions made by others because the crops have already been planted and are about to be harvested--it would have a 57-cent-per- bushel increase for wheat, 28 cents for corn, 28 cents for beans, if we were to follow the proposal in the President's recommendation. That won't make anyone rich, that won't bring the price back to anywhere near where a lot of us think in an ideal world it ought to be, but it will stave off in so many ways the crisis that is upon us. It will give a decent return. It will treat renters more fairly than alternative proposals would. It will not turn the clock back. It will not abandon the existing farm bill. It will be done within the context of that farm bill and we will preserve the marketing flexibility that I think a great many of us value in that farm legislation. I think there is room for bipartisan concurrence. This is not a matter of one political party rolling the other or stiffing the other or coming away 100 percent victorious. I think in good faith everybody in this body wants to do what reasonably can be done to create the framework whereby family producers can at least survive the current era and emerge from the other side with an opportunity for prosperity in the future. If we do nothing and if we take steps that are simply wholly inadequate, we are going to see the loss of thousands upon thousands of agricultural producers both in the grain and livestock sectors of our economy. The FSA leadership in my State tells us that we could lose as many as a third of the farmers and ranchers in my home State of South Dakota. That is unacceptable. That has consequences not only for the lives of those families, many of whom have been on the land for 100 years or more, going back to homesteading days, but it has consequences up and down the main streets of every community as well--not just the small farm community but the larger communities--as well as the ripple effect that takes hold, affecting the medium and large communities. I think this has global consequences. We need to recognize that as we address the situation. I think we ought to avoid the pride of authorship and the temptation to subscribe to partisan warfare and find the middle ground. It makes meaningful, constructive, positive relief a ``doable'' sort of thing. I am hopeful we can send this conference report back to committee, not to emerge with a radically different approach, but to emerge with something looking more like what the President has recommended, more like what many of us on this side of the aisle would like to see happen. The veto threat is there and people can argue whether it ought to be there or not. I believe that the President is correct. I believe that the President is doing the responsible thing and doing the statesmanlike thing under these dire circumstances. In the end, it is going to require both sides coming together. I think that is what our constituents want to see. I think they want to see us during these closing days of this 105th Congress reach that consensus that would allow for some substantially higher level of disaster relief than is currently being posed, utilized in a way that more efficiently gets to the people who need it, which addresses the national nature of the disaster which we face, and which sets a framework for prosperity in future years rather than simply being a Band-Aid for now. Again, it is my hope that the issue of labeling country of origin on meat products--a compromise version which the Senator from Idaho and I subscribe to and went to great lengths to propose--could be revisited. Secondly, it is my hope that price transparency in the livestock industry can be revisited before we leave at the end of this week. Much remains to be done. There is too much to be done to fall victim to partisanship and to finger pointing. We need a greater level of statesmanship, a greater level of cooperation than, frankly, has been the case all these past months. We are dealing with the very lives and the very future of thousands of hard-working, honest people in rural America who want nothing more than an opportunity to survive the year and to live by the sweat of their brow and the hard work of their families in years to come. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998. The Higher Education Act has been of enormous benefit to millions of students over the past three decades in providing more affordable access to institutions of post-secondary education. Many of these students simply would not have gone to college or vocational school without the assistance provided through such programs as Pell Grants, student loans, and work study. With the increased competition faced by workers in the global economy, the importance of these programs is even greater today, not only for students, but also for our nation's economy. The Higher Education Act programs account for 68 percent of all financial aid available to students. In FY 1999, the student aid programs authorized under the Higher Education Reauthorization Act will provide $50 billion of aid to over 8.8 million students. The cost of a college education continues to grow far faster than inflation, leaving more and more students with a large debt once they finish. Last fall, the College Board released a nationwide survey of tuition costs, finding that tuition and fees would rise about 5 percent for the fifth year in a row. In contrast, inflation in the overall economy has been held under control during these years, hovering at, or below 2 percent. As costs have increased, student borrowing has expanded to make up the difference. Student loans now comprise about 60 percent of all financial aid, whereas in the 1980-81 school year, loans were just over 40 percent of the total. Given the increased reliance on borrowing, it is notable that this reauthorization legislation provides for a reduction in interest rates on new student loans from 8.25 percent to 7.46 percent, saving $11 billion for students over the life of their loans. The typical borrower at a 4-year college, who graduates with $13,000 in debt, will save about $700 over a ten-year repayment period. This is a major educational milestone, allowing student borrowers the lowest interest rate in 17 years. Nearly 84 percent of South Dakota students receive financial aid in some form, with an average annual award of $5,400 to students who receive aid at the six public universities. Approximately 16,000 students in South Dakota receive Pell Grants, accounting for $28 million in federal assistance. I am pleased that this bill gradually increases the size of the maximum Pell Grant to $5,800 in academic years 2003-4. In the 1970s, Pell Grants covered three-quarters of the costs of attending a four- year public school. Today, these grants cover only one-third of the cost. I realize that finding the budget resources to fund this maximum grant fully will be a struggle, however Pell Grants are the most effective program we have for helping low-income students afford post- secondary education. This legislation also continues the essential Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program. This program alone has enabled forty million Americans to attend college over the past thirty years. Although direct lending by the federal government has consumed a portion of the overall student loan volume, all of the colleges and universities in my state of South Dakota continue to use the FFEL program and remain satisfied with the services they receive. Accordingly, I have been skeptical of efforts that might destroy the balance that has existed between direct lending and the FFEL program. Federal policy should not be changed in ways to either favor direct lending or undermine the financial viability of lending by the private sector. There are some lesser-noticed provisions of this bill of which I am particularly proud. Promoting the availability and affordability of child care has been one of my highest priorities in the Senate. That is why I am so pleased that legislation I cosponsored earlier this year, the CAMPUS Act, has been incorporated into this bill. CAMPUS stands for Child Care Access Means Parents in School. This provision will establish a grant program to assist colleges with the costs of establishing child care centers to provide campus-based child care for low-income parents attending college. The obvious benefit of easy access to child care is that students with young children will have a much greater probability of staying in school and completing their degree. More and more students today are non-traditional students, and the need for campus-based child care is greater than ever before. Additionally, this bill establishes an innovative new program to offer student loan forgiveness for those who earn a degree in early childhood education and become full-time child care workers in a child care facility. Child care, unfortunately, is one of the lowest-paying professions that one can find, and this low level of pay is completely incommensurate with the value of those who are caring for young children. Not surprisingly, turnover in this field is very high, as workers find better paying jobs elsewhere. It is especially tragic when highly-trained graduates, those who have earned a degree in early childhood education, are forced to leave the child care profession because they cannot pay their student loans. We still need to do all we can to raise wages for child care workers, but helping with student loan repayment is a remarkable step forward. This concept was included in child care legislation I cosponsored last year, and I am very pleased that it has been included in this bill. I am pleased this bill develops new distance education partnership models through the Learning Anytime Anywhere Partnership (LAAP) program. This creative initiative provides partnerships grants between schools and other entities to assist in the expansion of student achievement in distance education. LAAP, combined with the expansion of student aid for distance learners, will allow more nontraditional students to obtain higher education, including full-time workers, parents, people in rural areas, or individuals with disabilities. In addition to meeting the needs of rural America through distance learning, the Higher Education Act speaks to an equally important population of students: Indian Country. This bill includes a new initiative to provide grants and related assistance to Indian Tribal Colleges and Universities to improve and expand their capacity to serve Indian students. The bill authorizes $10 million for FY 1999 and such sums as may be necessary in the years beyond FY 1999. This new initiative for Tribal Colleges will provide much-needed funding to strengthen academic programs, develop faculty, and improve student services. Finally, I support the extension of the Special Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership Program (LEAP), formerly known as the State Student Incentive Grant (SSIG) program. SSIG provides funding on a dollar-for-dollar match to help states provide need-based financial aid to students through grants and community service work study awards. Without this federal incentive, many states would not have established state financial aid programs. As a cosponsor of the LEAP Act, I am pleased that states will now gain new flexibility to use these funds for activities such as increasing grant amounts, carrying out academic or merit scholarships programs, community service programs, and early interventions programs. This program is yet another example of a federal-state partnership developed to create maximum opportunities for students seeking higher education. While I am pleased with the inclusion of numerous programs that will benefit students pursing higher education, I am deeply disappointed the conference report failed to include an important amendment to count higher education as a work requirement for purposes of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program. I was a proud cosponsor of this amendment which enjoyed a bipartisan majority in the Senate-passed bill. Throughout this Congress, the leadership has echoed the importance of taking personal responsibility and achieving independence. As a supporter of welfare reform, I support imposing work requirements on individuals who receive cash assistance. However, to not allow students to earn a degree, a certifiable ticket to self-sufficiency, is irresponsible and thoughtless. I have heard from a number of my constituents that the current system has had the unfortunate effect of forcing TANF recipients out of college or vocational school and into dead-end, entry-level jobs. It seems obvious that enabling these individuals, which are usually single mothers, to complete a degree would be far more effective in achieving long-term benefits. Education leads to higher income levels, helping move these families out of poverty for good and making them productive taxpayers. Federal requirements should not be so rigid and inflexible that states are prevented from exercising this option. Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful in addressing this need in the Higher Education Act of 1998, however, I am committed to working with Senator Wellstone and other advocates to revisit this issue in the future. Passage of the Higher Education Reauthorization Act of 1998 was absolutely essential for the continuation and improvement of a system that helps keep post-secondary education within the reach of typical American families. I was pleased with the expeditious manner by which Congress responded to the conference report and President Clinton's prompt signing of the bill.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to again express publicly my profound dismay and disappointment in President Clinton's personal behavior relative to the Monica Lewinsky affair. I cannot state in terms too strong the disapproval I feel. There can be no meaningful line of distinction between wrongful and immoral personal conduct on the part of the President and the expectations the American public rightfully has over his role as a public official. The President's conduct was wrong. The response of Congress must be deliberate and carefully consistent with the requirements of law and the Constitution, but at the very least, President Clinton owes the American citizenry an apology and good faith cooperation in bringing this sorry episode to an expeditious conclusion.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, we have reached an extraordinary point in our Nation's contemporary history with the finding of the Office of Management and Budget that we will, in fact, at the end of this fiscal year, be running a significant budget surplus. I think there are a great number of causes for that, a great number of people who could be commended for that, but I think to put this in some perspective, it is worthwhile to note that some 6 years ago when President Clinton took office, the annual deficit each year by the U.S. Government was running in the range of $292 billion each year. We were spending $292 billion more revenue than we had coming in. The size of the Federal deficit had exploded through the 1980s, and we had reached, finally, this terrible point in 1992. Since that time, we have had 6 years of successive declines in the Federal budget deficit until, finally, this year for the first time in 30 years we are now at least in a unified budget in surplus. What an extraordinary accomplishment. At a time when other nations' economies are suffering, this country has reduced its debt relative to its gross domestic product to a lower level than any other industrialized nation on Earth. Again there are a great many people who can take some credit for this. But I think that the leadership of this White House has been a key part of it. Now, the Senator who preceded me had a chart showing one of President Clinton's plans. It did not show the plan that actually was acted upon which has led to this decline in the deficit. It did show the alternative competing Republican plan that was offered in 1992 which, as many of us recall, was premised on plundering the Medicare fund, education, and the environment. One of the constructive steps that this President took was to lead the way, ultimately with a budget plan which brought us to a balanced budget--in fact, to a surplus--and showed, in fact, we did not need to plunder education, Medicare, and health care in order to get to this point. So we have had 6 years of declining deficits. That is the good news. However, there is a point of great concern that I have as a member of the Senate Budget Committee. That is, we reached this point because there was an agreement between Congress and the President that we would put our country on a pay-as-you-go basis. That is, no tax cuts unless it is simultaneously explained who is going to pay more taxes or whose programs will be cut to pay for those tax cuts, and no spending increases unless it is simultaneously explained who is going to pay more taxes or have their programs cut to pay for those increases. Every step had to be budget neutral, scored over a 5-year period by the Office of Management and Budget and by the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO. After years of wandering in the wilderness of faulty and unsuccessful mechanisms that go back over a decade, we finally reached a formula that put this country on a commonsense, pay-as-you-go basis, something we should have been doing for 200 years but which we have been doing now for about 6 years. Because we now have this unified budget surplus, we find there are those in Congress who grow giddy about this projected surplus. By some projections it could run as high as $1.6 trillion over the next decade. Keep in mind that those projections are not money in hand, they are simply projections, and they are premised on the notion that our country will continue to have economic growth in the range of 2.2 GDP growth annually from here to the horizon, and that we will never stumble into a recession and that our economy will never slow down again. Well, while we have had a remarkable run of good fortune over the years of the Clinton Presidency, with record low unemployment, low inflation and high economic growth, I think it would be foolhardy for any of us to assume that somehow business cycles have been abolished, that we are on an upward plain and that economic growth will never end. So I think we need to approach these projections with a great deal of caution and some skepticism, given what is going on today with the economies in Asia, Russia, and increasingly in Latin America. Secondly, the other point of caution that I think needs to be stated with great emphasis is that the budget surplus that we have today, as noteworthy as it is, and as worthy of applause as it is, is a unified budget surplus; that is, our operating budget is still in the deficit. That is, the surplus that we have is only a surplus if you count revenue flowing into the Social Security trust fund. I think the chart that I have with me here graphically shows the circumstances we face today. The Federal surpluses--and it is simply amazing that we are even talking about surpluses, given where we have been over the last decade--the Federal surpluses are projected to grow steadily all the way out through the year 2008, and that is the farthest out anyone has dared make a projection. That is a positive thing. Before we get carried away about how to spend the surplus, whether for tax cuts or for new programs, the red line represents where we are without counting Social Security money. If you look at that, we will not be in the black until the year 2002. That is even assuming continued economic growth. We are not in the black--we have nobody's money to spend other than the Social Security revenue until the year 2002. We will dip back into deficit, in fact, briefly, under current projections, in 2003. It is approximately 2005 before we will be consistently in the black, without counting Social Security surplus dollars and the interest earnings that are attributable to Social Security. Finally, in about 2005, if we behave ourselves and continue to go on pay-as-you-go, if the economy continues to grow, we will be in the black, without counting the money that needs to be reserved for Social Security. So the President was exactly right as he talked to both the House and the Senate this year, saying, ``do not be thinking about how to spend this surplus this year when we have not yet decided what we are going to do about our long-term reform for Social Security.'' That issue will be up next year in the 106th Congress. It is not for certain it will be resolved in 1 year, either. We have some reforms that no doubt will have to be made for the long-term viability of Social Security. If we do nothing, the Social Security trust fund will eventually be drawn down and today's baby boomers will receive only about 75 percent of today's buying value of Social Security. It is not as if Social Security will go away. It is not as though the system will collapse, but as you get far out into the 2032 range, today's boomers and today's younger people, who are also relying on Social Security, will find that the buying power of that program has been reduced by about one-fourth. So there is a need to make changes, and the sooner they are made to preserve the full 100-percent buying power of Social Security for those outyears, the better off we are. But in the meantime, to use money that has been raised and collected from the American taxpayers for the purposes of a strong Social Security system, and to use it for another purpose, is simply wrong. If we approach this with the kind of responsibility that I think is needed, and with the kind of bipartisanship I believe is needed, we will reject the tax proposal coming to this body from the House of Representatives, which calls for a tax cut paid for out of Social Security revenue. Now, the Senator who preceded me was making reference to a $6.6 billion tax cut. That is only the cost to the Treasury next year. It is an $80 billion tax cut over 5 years, $170 billion over 10, and it goes into perpetuity, forever, constantly taking more and more money out of the Social Security surplus fund--all the more reason to nip that in the bud, stop now and take a deep breath, albeit an election year and there is a temptation on the part of our friends in the other body to offer what looks like a free giveaway. There is a need in this body, I think, to respond responsibly to that kind of proposal coming to us from the House. There may be room for some tax relief this year. I applaud the leadership of Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader, and others who have worked with him, including those from the White House, in suggesting that we could find in the range of a $25 billion tax relief package, which could be focused on the needs of the middle class and working families, and it could be done through savings in the existing budget, through new efficiencies in the existing budget, from the closure of loopholes in the existing Tax Code. That could free up in the range of $25 billion to be utilized for tax relief for middle class and working families. So it is not a question of are you for tax relief or not; I think there is room for some tax relief. But it has to be financed out of the existing budget, rather than going the easy route and that is raiding the Social Security trust fund. I think something needs to be said as well about the requests for emergency funds. Much has been said about the requests from the President for emergency funding. I think there is a possibility that some of those requests could be offset from within the existing budget, but I think it also needs to be clear that the needs being presented to the Congress by the White House were not foreseen either by the White House or by the Congress in either political party. It was not foreseen that we would have expenses at the scope that they are for dealing now with the year 2000 computer problem, and the delay of addressing that problem will only cost the taxpayers and the economy potentially enormous sums later down the road. Congress did not foresee, nor did the White House, when the original budget was presented last year, the full cost of our Bosnia role, or the need to upgrade security at our embassies, or the scope of the farm crisis today. Again, it is my hope that perhaps some of this could be offset by reductions elsewhere in the budget. But the fact is that the budget agreement that was agreed to, which led us on the track toward the reduction of that $292 billion deficit to a surplus today, was premised on the assumption that we would, from time to time, have emergency needs that would have to be funded outside of the budget. There is no surprise to that. I think we need to use discipline so we don't wind up denominating everything that comes along that we would like to do as an emergency. But it is in the nature of emergency funding, and it is one time only that it could not be reasonably foreseen, as these were not either by the White House or by the Congress, and that they have some extraordinary level of urgency about them. The budget agreement that led to this elimination of the budget deficit did foresee that we would have these emergencies come up from time to time. So nobody should be surprised today that we do, in fact, have a need to address some issues that may have to be outside the pay- as-you-go framework that has, overall, led us to the budget deficit. But what we cannot afford to do is to use Social Security surpluses as a source of funding for nonemergency, in perpetuity-type expenditures, whether it be domestic spending programs or for tax relief that could not otherwise be funded. I, for one, think that the next priority, after preserving Social Security, probably ought to be to begin to pay down the existing accumulated debt that this country has in the $5 trillion range, or more. To the extent that we do that, we are, in fact, hoping that every taxpayer in this country--to the extent that the U.S. Government is not competing for credit dollars and that we bring down interest rates--buying a car, buying a home, sending a kid to college, or expanding a business and creating jobs, is made easier and all the more affordable for the private sector of our economy to do. If we act with budget responsibility here, keep our Federal budget in equilibrium with the pay-as-you-go mechanism that was passed initially in the 1993 budget agreement--legislation which has passed and has contributed more than any other single legislative policy step taken in Congress, passed without a vote of a single Republican Member, passed exclusively with Democratic votes in both the House and the Senate. And there were many Members of Congress, many Democrats, frankly, who lost their seats in Congress, in the House and the Senate, over the controversy, over the contention, that the passage of that landmark legislation caused because it was a bold step. It was a courageous step. It reduced our Federal budget deficit from $292 billion to a surplus today. But as is often said in politics, no good deed goes unpunished. And that was certainly the case of many of our colleagues who are no longer here; who did the right thing and paid a dear price for it. But here we are with positive consequences of that legislation which has led us now to a surplus with a unified budget. The great danger we have is to abandon the discipline which that budget legislation set in place. I am hopeful as we finish up these closing weeks that we will reject this shortsighted and I believe somewhat demagogic, frankly, effort coming out of the other body to raid the Social Security trust fund. I hear people saying, ``Well, the President wants to address emergency crises. So we ought to just pile on and spend more money out of the Social Security trust fund.'' That is the logic that is not worthy of a third grader, in my view. We have some emergency crises of one time only that we will face, and we will decide how to finance that, whether it is out of the ordinary budget, or whether it is through an offset, or some combination of both. But to set us on track down the road in perpetuity for nonemergency, long-term expenditures out of the Social Security trust fund makes no sense whatever. Of the $1.6 trillion surplus projected over the next decade, virtually the entire sum is attributable to Social Security and the interest earnings due to Social Security. So let's resolve one problem at a time: Maintain the discipline that has made this much progress over the last half dozen years of the Clinton administration; preserve Social Security so we can make some difficult policy choices in the coming years about what we need to do further to maintain its viability on into the next generation. When we have done that, then we may be in a position ultimately, if we have surpluses at that point, to decide what combination of investments in our schools, in child care, in health care, in medical research and, yes, possibly in tax relief for American taxpayers might be able to come out of that surplus. But don't get put the cart before the horse. Do not be demagogic in an election year about this kind of issue. We need some statesmanship. We need some bipartisan responsibility as we deal with what I believe is one of the most fundamental most challenging responsibilities that our Congress has; that is, how do we sustain our economic growth? How do we sustain the pay-as-you-go discipline that has brought us to this good point after so many years-- after 30 years--of budget deficits? Mr. President, I conclude by saying that it is certainly my hope that statesmanship will rise to the top; that we will abide with the President's recommendation; that we not raid the Social Security trust fund during these closing days of this Congress; that we go home and tell our constituents that we did the right thing; we did the right thing by them; we did the right thing by our government; we did the right thing by our Nation by retaining fiscal responsibility; and by preserving the opportunity to have a strong Social Security program on into the future years, at least until we decide what future changes are needed. By doing that we will keep the cost of money down for the private sector, and we will do as much as possibly can be done to put us on track to sustain what has been record economic growth, low inflation, low unemployment, and increased opportunity for all of our citizens. I yield the floor. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I have a question for the Senator. One is, there has been a great deal said by the Senator from North Dakota about changing the farm bill and reopening the farm bill relative to taking the caps off the marketing loan rates. It is my understanding that the existing farm bill has marketing loan provisions in it; that the real discussion and the recommendation from the President has simply been that we raise the caps of an existing program within the existing farm bill; that, in fact, the initiative would not involve any significant change in the farm bill, certainly no more so than accelerating or increasing half the payments. Will the Senator share a view on that?

Mr. JOHNSON. If I may follow up on that, the Senator from North Dakota has been one of this body's leaders relative to budget responsibility, fiscal responsibility, and the overall effort that we have gone about in bringing the annual Federal budget deficit from $292 billion only 6 years ago to at least a unified budget surplus this year. I think the Senator from North Dakota was deeply involved in the crafting of the legislation that set up the framework that allowed us to bring this country to the current point of much greater fiscal responsibility. But it is my understanding, in the context of that debate and setting up the pay-as-you-go budget mechanisms that were established in the early 1990s, which have been so successful, that one of the underlying premises and understanding of that legislation was that there would be from time to time emergency needs that would be met with the request from the President with the concurrence of the Congress, and that it is not inconsistent with the underlying legislation and the progress that we have made towards reducing the deficit. So long as we use care to denominate emergencies as only things which are truly emergencies and are reasonably not foreseeable by either the White House or by the Congress, the funding of these emergency needs is not inconsistent with the effort we have made to reduce the deficit and to maintain the discipline of the 1990 and 1993 budget agreements. Is that the Senator's recollection relative to the context of this emergency budget request?