Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Susan Hansen of my staff have floor privileges during my remarks.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to reiterate my support for S. 1645, the Child Custody Protection Act. I have long supported the right of states to enact and enforce parental notification laws with respect to a minor's access to abortion services, and I believe steps should be taken to prevent individuals from circumventing such laws. However, I voted against cloture on this bill today because such a vote would have had the effect of denying my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle an opportunity to offer amendments. While I do not necessarily support all of the amendments which might have been offered, I cannot in good conscience vote to circumvent what should be an open and fair debate on this important issue. The White House has threatened to veto this bill in its current form and I believe a vote for cloture today would have sealed the fate of this bill without consideration of compromise language toward the shared goal of preventing abortions. Every parent has the right to be involved in their minor's decision to terminate a pregnancy. The Child Custody Protection Act would promote parental participation in what must be the most difficult decision a young girl might face. The federal government can play a roll in protecting states rights in this regard, and should support minor and adult women in alternatives to abortion. I always have supported efforts to promote adoption to ensure that children grow up in a loving environment with a supportive family. I believe the federal government should promote adoption assistance and should encourage moving children from foster care into adoptive homes. I remain hopeful that my colleagues in both political parties and I can work together to create a system that reduces unwanted pregnancies and abortions, encourages adoption, and results in strong families. Mr. President, I will continue to work with the Senate leadership in an effort to move the Child Custody Protection Act forward so that the rights of parents are protected in the face of this most difficult decision, and that minor and adult women continue to be provided with alternatives to terminating a pregnancy. Cloture Motion

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I wish to touch on the status of agricultural disaster legislation this morning, which is pending in both the Senate and in the other body. As many know, for the last several months the northern plains--in particular including my home State of South Dakota--have suffered through an extraordinarily difficult time in the agricultural sector. We face extremely low prices in both the grain and the livestock side of agriculture. Many parts of the northern plains as well have suffered from grain disease, as well as flooding and other natural calamities that have further caused extreme stress on agricultural producers in general. Now we find prices at remarkably low levels. I received a report just recently from Winner, SD, indicating that corn there was bringing only $1.10 a bushel, and wheat in Alpena, SD, was bringing in around $2. Cattle in our State, as they are throughout much of the country, are bringing in the mid-$50 range. This represents a loss for each animal raised by our producers, and it creates a situation where hedging those losses with profitability in the grain sector is not possible either. It is a double-barreled hit. It is one that is unique--one that is not common. Even though we all understand that there are cycles of price in both the grain and livestock sector, for them to both be at the calamitously low level, complicated by further natural disasters at the same time, is just simply wreaking havoc across much of rural America and the United States. My farm State colleagues and I have twice brought up our legislative response. We have, frankly, had mixed success on the floor of this body and in Congress in general. The economic relief package that we earlier offered would have provided a lift in the caps on marketing loan rates and an extension of terms of those loans from 9 to 15 months, a strategy that I believe is the most effective strategy that has been debated on this floor relative to addressing the problem of grain prices. There is much that we can do in terms of disaster relief, and much of that is fine and good. But I think anyone who doesn't understand that the crisis we face both in livestock and grain is reflective of price simply doesn't get it. While disaster relief will tide some people over and address the cash flow problems that they face now over a short term, this body needs to be addressing the long-term problem of price in grain and livestock. And anything that doesn't do that is simply buying us time for yet another calamity to come down the road sometime soon. A second provision in our package that provided disaster indemnity to assist producers who suffered from multiyear disasters--natural and otherwise--is a provision to provide market transparency through mandatory price reporting of livestock sales and mandatory labeling of beef and lamb products for their country of origin. We were successful in incorporating several of these provisions into the agricultural appropriations bill when it was considered on the floor of the Senate. The one measure that we were not successful with, unfortunately, was the lifting of caps and the extension of the marketing loan rates on grain. We have twice now voted on that marketing loan provision, and twice we have been defeated. The Senate passed a $500 million indemnity program which, as is now agreed on by everyone essentially, is inadequate given the scope of the losses that have taken place, not just on the northern plains but in Texas, Louisiana, and other parts of the country that have suffered from the dire drought circumstance. This legislation now is tied up in conference committee. It is my hope that we will see sufficient bipartisanship and statesmanship on the part of the conferees that a final product will return to the House and Senate that will, in fact, be constructive. In the meantime, however, released this weekend and announced this morning is an initiative promoted by the administration that I think this body and the conferees need to look at with the greatest care. I applaud my colleague, Senator Daschle, in particular, for his unstinting work on the agriculture crisis problem and for his work with the administration to promote yet another constructive, positive approach to the kind of prices we face. Senator Daschle, who could well have been in our home State campaigning in his own reelection campaign, chose instead to remain here working around the clock and through the weekend with the administration, with our colleagues on the Senate Agriculture Committee, with both political parties, trying to see what we could do to augment the relief that had earlier been discussed and which had partially been passed by the Senate. I again applaud Senator Daschle's extraordinary leadership, his willingness to stick with the real business of getting this legislation into shape, for getting it to the floor of the Senate, and for working with the administration to make sure that it has both congressional and administration support. This relief package would come to slightly over $7 billion for 1 year. It would involve, again, uncapping of the marketing loan rate, which I have discussed and which I think we need to revisit, as the single best strategy available to us to address the issue of inadequate prices in the grain sector. It would lift these caps and extend the loan terms from 9 to 15 months. I think it would have an enormously positive economic impact all across rural America. Second, it would tie our relief to production agriculture, which I think is important. There is an alternative disaster package being talked about currently that would amount to augmenting the transition payments for producers-- actually not the producers so much as it would be for landowners. I applaud all efforts to go forward. I am not going to make the perfect the enemy of the good. I think there is urgency here that is critical. We need to proceed in an expeditious fashion as much as possible. I understand it may involve some give and take and will involve some of each side's strategy. But when I look at what the uncapping of the loan rates would do, even at this modest level, it is clear to me that it is a superior alternative. The wheat price, which is currently capped at $2.58 per bushel under the Democratic plan, goes to $3.22. That is up 64 cents per bushel. That is under the Democratic plan and the plan proposed by the Clinton administration. The alternative to that through the AMTA payments, if you were to equate it on a per bushel basis, would be not a 64-cent increase but a 23-cent increase. On corn, the current cap is at $1.89. The Democratic proposal would increase that to $2.25, up 36 cents. The alternative through the AMTA payment increase would equate to about a 10-cent increase rather than a 36-cent increase. The soybean cap would be increased modestly--from $5.26 per bushel to $5.33 a bushel, up 7 cents. But under the alternative AMTA approach, soybean producers would stand a chance of getting nothing if their soybeans were not planted on former base acreages. The AMTA augmentation also suffers from the problem of what to do about renters. Some 43 percent of the crops being grown in America are being grown by farmers on rented land. It has been our experience in the past that if we do the AMTA payment approach, there may be a great many instances where the money will go exclusively to the landowner but nothing to the farmer who actually is growing the crop. The Freedom to Farm legislation touted in the 1996 farm bill delivered planting and management flexibility to farmers. They have been able to take care of that flexibility. I think that has been positive. It has been a positive step in the right direction. I applaud that. No one is suggesting that we back up and retreat from that level of flexibility, that we back into some sort of micromanaged world out of Washington. But the fact is when Freedom to Farm passed, wheat prices were nearly $6; not gaining--around $2 in many parts of the country. Corn was in the $3 range. It is far less than that; it is in the $1 range now. Circumstances have changed. Many of us would say, ``I told you so.'' There is a certain amount of foreseeability that those prices were not going to stay at that high level in perpetuity. Now we find that with Freedom to Farm, although it contains some positive things, it is, frankly, grossly inadequate in terms of providing the safety net, providing some kind of stability for family producers. Now we find that declining transition payments and then ultimately a pat on the back and a ``good luck,'' reducing America's commitment to family agriculture from $26 billion at a high water mark over a decade ago to $5 billion and ultimately to nothing, while our European allies spend $50 billion to sustain agriculture there, because they know what it is like to be hungry, puts U.S. producers at an incredible disadvantage. It is my hope, again, that we will find the bipartisan will to deal with this in an urgent manner in the coming week or two of this Congress. The administration and the Democratic proposal, on top of these past efforts at meat labeling, price transparency, disaster payments and raising the marketing loan cap--which, by the way, is a marketing loan and not the kind of loan that results in massive grain buildup in supplies and inventory we suffered under in previous years-- this disaster package also includes significant funds for Farm Service Administration operating loans for producers who have been hit by a disaster, for land compensation for flooded lands, for payment for crop losses on uninsured crops and for the additional FSA county staff support that will be necessary to implement all of this in an effective and efficient manner. The bottom line, in my view, is price. We need to address both, however--the long-term strategy of what to do about price, as well as the short-term cash flow crisis that we have in rural America. I believe that the previous package which was adopted only in part took us a long ways in the right direction. The current package, which was announced this morning by the administration, by Senator Daschle and Senator Harkin, I think moves us far beyond the debate that has taken place so far. It is far more constructive. It is far more helpful as we deal with this crisis in rural America. I again applaud Senator Daschle's extraordinary leadership, the work of Senator Harkin and other members of the Ag Committee, Secretary Glickman and the Clinton administration for focusing with this kind of intensity in a timely manner on what needs to be done relative to American agriculture this year; not next year, not 5 years down the road, but this year. I am hopeful, again, that the conferees will evaluate this proposal with the greatest amount of care and earnestness, and that when we adjourn this coming October, we will, in fact, have addressed this issue in a bipartisan fashion and in a cost-efficient fashion in this body and that it will be on the President's desk and that the President will have an opportunity to sign ag disaster legislation which, in fact, is meaningful and timely and sufficient to get our family producers down the road into another productive year in the coming planting season. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHNSON

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

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to give my full support for the Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act. This important legislation authorizes and allows for continued funding for important child nutrition programs for the next 5 years, until the year 2003. I want to commend Agriculture Committee Chairman Lugar and our ranking member, Senator Harkin, and my colleagues on the Senate Agriculture Committee for working cooperatively in what I believe is a very excellent bipartisan spirit to unanimously pass this bill out of committee. I also want to thank my Senate colleagues for passing this vital legislation unanimously on the floor this past week. Clearly, this legislation demonstrates our commitment to feeding our Nation's children in an effective and cost-efficient manner. The Child Nutrition Reauthorization legislation provides funding for the National School Lunch and Breakfast Program, for the Child and Adult Care Food Program, the Summer Food Service Program, the Women, Infant and Children (WIC) Program, along with many other nutrition food programs to feed our Nation's young people. One of the provisions in this legislation that I worked on with a particularly focused effort during this debate was a provision that provides for a detailed research and pilot project on how school breakfast programs impact a child's academic success and behavioral attitudes. This research provision is a modified version of S. 1396, the Meals for Achievement Act, which I introduced this last November. The research provision provides for the mandatory funding for a school breakfast research project to further test the impacts of school breakfast on children's academic and behavioral patterns. This provision will require the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a 5-year school breakfast study in six different school districts throughout the United States, involving approximately 15,000 schoolchildren. As I have stated before, the research on the impact of children eating school breakfast, so far, points overwhelmingly to a positive result. Not only do our research studies so far indicate that the academic scores in reading, writing, and math improve, but levels of hyperactivity and tardiness are greatly reduced. The purpose of the study contained in this legislation is to further analyze the existing data and to provide the additional research and data at a national level and to provide the positive impacts--to show what the positive impacts are, in general, of eating a school breakfast. It is important to note that the funding for the research provision will require no new additional expenses and maintains our balanced budget discipline. It is not my intention that this research project create any new Federal bureaucracy. However, once the researchers have completed a 5-year study and find, as I believe they will, that breakfast does indeed improve a child's academic success, we as Federal lawmakers can work with local and State officials to create guidelines of how school breakfasts can improve success in all of the schools throughout our Nation. The rationale for this provision is very simple: In order for the United States to compete effectively in the world, we must have an educated and productive workforce. We have far too many children who are simply not prepared at the beginning of each schoolday to succeed with their schoolwork. In 1994, the Minnesota Legislature directed the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning to implement a universal breakfast pilot program integrating breakfast into the education schedule for all students. The evaluation of the pilot project, performed by the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement at the University of Minnesota, showed that when all students are involved in school breakfast, there is a general increase in learning and achievement. Again, researchers at Harvard and Massachusetts General Hospital recently completed a study on the results of a universal free breakfast at one public school in Philadelphia and two in Baltimore. The study, published this week in the Archives of Adolescent and Pediatric Medicine, which is a journal of the American Medical Association, found that students who ate breakfast showed great improvement in math grades, in particular, but also in attendance and punctuality. The researchers also observed that students displayed fewer signs of depression, anxiety, hyperactivity, and other behavioral problems. This study is reflected in an article in this week's Economist Magazine, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, The Economist notes that: The researchers found that kids who started eating significantly more breakfast . . . were doing better at school, particularly in mathematics. This result confirms earlier studies on the benefits of breakfasting on academic performance. But Dr. Murphy and his colleagues also found that those children who started eating more breakfast were significantly less likely to feel anxious or depressed, or to be described by their teachers as hyperactive or disruptive . . . less likely to play truant or be late for school. . . . Breakfast is no panacea, but it may be a cost-effective way to help children who most need help. And so the provision of the Johnson school breakfast amendment, in our overall nutrition authorization, will build on already-existing research in individual school districts around the country and create a more comprehensive research strategy. But I believe that the facts that will be found are already apparent to us in the smaller research studies that have already been conducted. It is my hope that we will be able to build further on this information and this broader research from this larger pilot program contained in this legislation, to what ultimately will be a universal free breakfast program for all schoolchildren throughout the Nation. I think the research already is very apparent that this could be a very cost-effective, efficient way of enhancing academic performance and minimizing behavioral difficulties throughout all the schools in the United States. Obviously, this program would be constructed, as I envisioned, on a voluntary basis, from school district to school district, so there is no federalization or mandate. Yet, there is an opportunity for a constructive partnership to exist between the Federal Government and its nutrition programs and our individual school districts.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I commend my colleagues, Senator Daschle, Senator Harkin, Senator Dorgan, Senator Conrad, Senator Wellstone, and others who have devoted a great amount of time, energy, and talent to crafting this amendment. I rise in strong support of this comprehensive farm relief package being debated on the Senate floor today. Madam President, I have been in communication with my home State just this morning. Local cash prices for corn now, as we are approaching harvest, have collapsed to a new record low. Cash corn in Winner, SD, is bringing $1.10 per bushel today as we speak. Wheat prices have collapsed to $1.70 per bushel. Land values across my State are beginning to falter. In a communication with a farmer near the Aberdeen, SD, area today, I am apprised of land values that have been valued at $800 an acre bringing only $400 an acre in actual sale this week. This has a rippling effect. As I talk to farm implement dealers, those providing feed, chemical dealers, veterinarians, mechanics, and all the people who prosper when farmers and ranchers in our Nation prosper, they say we need now, more than ever, not only comprehensive legislation, but urgent legislation, to deal in a constructive fashion with the crisis we face in farm country. Now, Senator Conrad, I think, made an excellent point in pointing out how the European Community is spending roughly $50 billion per year sustaining family agriculture in the E.C. In the United States, where only 10 or 12 years ago we were spending $26 billion ourselves, we are now down to $5 billion, and we are headed to zero, to the point where we sustain family agriculture, in the greatest food-producing mechanism the world has ever known, with far less than one-half percent of the Federal budget. Is there a reason our European friends sustain their family agriculture at such a high level? Well, yes, there is. The reason is obvious. In Europe, they have been hungry a couple of times in this century. They know the dilemma that every society faces when agriculture is on its knees, when people are leaving the farm, when food production is inadequate. They value highly the reliability and sustainability and high quality of agriculture in their part of the world. We in the United States, I am afraid, have grown complacent with the thought that somehow, no matter what we do, fields will be planted and the livestock will be raised, the food will remain inexpensive at the grocery mart, even while we destroy the roots of our agricultural production in this country. I fear that we are going to reach the point some day when we are going to have an experience something similar to what the former Soviet Union found when they destroyed family agriculture, thinking that they could find a new, more efficient way of growing food, only to find the results catastrophic for their society. Now Russia is trying to reestablish family agriculture. But guess what? Once family agriculture has been pulled up by the roots, it is not so easily reestablished. It is very difficult to do. I fear that indirectly we are going down some of that same road of the destruction of family-based agriculture in this country. I appreciate that there are some who have such a commitment to the current farm bill that it borders on a theological commitment that nothing could be changed in that farm bill. There is much in the Freedom to Farm legislation that is constructive. And it is positive. I think most of us applaud the flexibility and the lessened degree of micromanagement that came with that farm bill. Yet, at the same time, I think there is a growing recognition that all is not well. In fact, portions of the farm bill need a desperate and urgent revisit. We understand that with the collapse of prices that we have now that we need to give farmers a better opportunity to weather these down cycles, both in the grain side, in the farm bill's case, and in terms of livestock production. For the past few months, I have joined my farm State Democratic colleagues in working on ways to improve economic conditions for farmers and ranchers. As you may remember, during this year's Agriculture appropriations bill, we introduced legislation to assist farmers. We offered amendments which would lift the caps on marketing loans for grain farmers, provide disaster assistance for farmers who suffered losses, provide for mandatory price reporting for livestock sales, and the labeling of imported beef and lamb products. We were successful to some degree with those amendments. We passed three of those proposals through this Senate: a $500 million disaster relief assistance package for farmers, a pilot project for mandatory price reporting on captive supplies of live cattle and boxed beef, and an amendment which I offered that will label beef and lamb products for country of origin. However, now that we have gone through the August recess, we are into September, and we still have to convince the House conferees of the importance of these proposals. So we are back today because the economy in farm country and ranch country is getting, frankly, desperate. Since July, prices for cattle and crops have fallen further, and it seems at this point that there is almost no end in sight. My recent conversations with farmers and ranchers across my State have been alarming. Ranchers have been selling off their cattle herds. Farmers are applying for off-farm jobs in preparation of losing their farms. And farm-related businesses are laying off employees. Implement dealers are laying off mechanics. Sale barns and veterinarians are laying off their hired help as well. The ripple effect of this economic crisis has already hurt farmers and ranchers. But it is moving now quickly into our rural communities-- and not just the small communities but the larger cities and towns as well. With that, my farm State colleagues and I are offering this farm relief legislation--this amendment. This legislation is crucially needed if we are going to improve, if we are going to step in the right direction with our farm economy. The first measure included in this package lifts the caps on marketing loans and extends the terms from 9 to 15 months. Again, we voted on this very same amendment earlier on on this Senate floor. We were defeated on a party-line vote at that time. But this amendment is the best way to provide farmers with an immediate economic impact for the grain products they produce. It would amend the Agriculture Marketing Transition Act--Freedom to Farm. As many of us know, it gives the President of the United States the authority to declare a state of emergency for producers affected for 1 year, removing the current loan rate caps, and extending the loan period from 9 to 15 months. Wheat would have the cap increased from the current $2.58 to $3.22, up 64 cents per bushel; corn from $1.89, the current cap, to $2.25, up 36 cents per bushel; and soybeans from $5.26 to $5.33, up 7 cents per bushel. This would build on the existing marketing loan that is in the current farm bill. This is not a revolutionary departure from the current farm bill. It simply extends and expands the caps to a point where they become meaningful. The Freedom to Farm, touted in the 1996 farm bill, did deliver the planting and management flexibility to farmers who are able to take advantage of that flexibility, but it failed to deliver freedom for farmers to market in a flexible manner and at a profitable manner. When the farm bill passed, wheat prices stood at nearly $6. Now, in some cases, it is down to $1.70. When the farm bill passed, corn was $5. Now it is $1.10 in some places. The financial progress and future viability of our farm and ranch operations depends on the profits that can be gained from our agricultural products. I think all of us support short-term disaster relief. And that is part of our package, too. But the long-term underlying challenge that we have is to create an environment in which the attendant market prices can be gained. Our farmers want, in the long run, to have a decent price for their products. They are not looking for government checks. They are not looking to go back to the old days of $26 billion a year in the farm program expenditures, although even that is only around half of what the European Community is spending today. But they want an environment where profitability is at least possible. When cash flow projections were developed last fall by farmers and creditors, better commodity prices were relied upon than what we see today. Keeping in mind the incredible, terrible prices that the farmers are now seeing, it is likely that we will see increased loan delinquencies and default rates in the coming months. So while producers are now essentially receiving prices comparable to what they received in the 1940s, their input and production costs reflect the modern-day realities of the 1990s. How many of us could make a decent living on 1940s wages and 1990s costs? We could not, and neither can the farmers nor the ranchers. So we are witnessing another devastating bout of farmers and ranchers going out of business. Second, this package will provide short-term disaster assistance. It will provide funding for income losses to farmers in the Dakotas, Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana--all of the hard-hit rural areas of our Nation. We successfully passed a $500 million proposal as part of the coming fiscal year's Agriculture appropriations debate. But it is still tied up in conference and it doesn't take into account the recent disasters we have had in Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana, the devastating drought circumstances that currently exist there. Third, this package would provide for emergency storage payments. It provides for commodities placed under the marketing loans. It will allow farmers to store their grains during these low price cycles so they will be able to market them with an eye toward more profitability over a longer window every time. It would provide for mandatory price reporting creating a 3-year pilot program that requires meat packers to report prices on live cattle and boxed beef; allows the Secretary of Agriculture to define and prohibit anticompetitive practices. It strengthens the 1921 Packers and Stockyards Act; provides whistle-blower protection for smaller producers who speak out against captive supplies from business discrimination in the livestock industry; and, it would create a commission to study credit availability to determine if current lending practices on the part of the Federal Government contribute to the growing problem of concentration in agriculture. Lastly, and importantly to me, it would again reinvestigate the issue of labeling beef and lamb meat products. The Meat Labeling Act of 1998 was unanimously approved by the Senate during its deliberations of the 1999 Agriculture appropriations bill. The House, however, did not include it in its version of its Agriculture appropriations bill. Currently, we are tied up in conference. Again, this is commonsense legislation. We label virtually every product Americans purchase, whether it be T-shirts, auto parts, shoes, whatever. The one thing that is not labeled by country of origin is the food products we feed our families. This 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. It has broad bipartisan support, and I am proud that the original Senate bill had the support of eight Republicans and nine Democratic Senators. Our livestock producers across this country have invested heavily in approved genetics, in marketing efforts, and in food safety in order to provide the best quality and safest food in the world to American consumers. But all too often they don't gain the benefit of those investments. With the Canadian producers sending over half their beef production into the United States today, I believe more than ever the time is ripe for American consumers to at least have the ability to judge for themselves whether or not they wish to buy a foreign product. They may choose to do so. That is their prerogative. There is nothing in the food labeling amendment that would prohibit imported meat products into the United States, but it would put us on par with what other countries in the world are doing. The European Community is going to be mandating country of origin food labeling by the year 2000 for all of their nations. Most other major consuming nations in the world also apply country of origin labeling to food as well as to other consumer products. This legislation, in short, is more than simply help for our livestock producers. It is endorsed by the National Consumers League, the Nation's oldest consumer organization. Once again, American consumers have a right to know the source of the food products they feed their families. Madam President, this particular effort is not anti free trade; it is common sense. I know there are some who say, on the one hand, that Americans may choose a foreign meat product. If they do so, that certainly is their prerogative. There are others who say no, Americans will choose American meat products. If they do so, again, it is their prerogative. There are those who are concerned that other nations will label country of origin on their food products. They already have. But even so, I have enough confidence, and obviously the American agricultural organizations, the key organizations that are in support of this amendment have equal confidence, that if any nation anywhere in the world wishes a stamp ``Made in USA'' on an American meat product, more power to them. We have confidence in our product. We think we can market with the country of origin label right now. Currently, Argentina, Australia, Bosnia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Korea, Latvia, Malaysia, Mexico, Philippines, Russia, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela have some sort of meat labeling, with the E.C. soon to follow comprehensively by the year 2000. I have been meeting with Secretary Glickman as well as with Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, Senator Conrad Burns of Montana, Senator Max Baucus of Montana, and Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota to discuss the importance of this legislation to our farmers and ranchers as well as our consumers. I am pleased that Secretary Glickman has exhibited his willingness to work with us on this legislation to make country of origin meat labeling a reality. With these steps in the right direction, I do not believe that we will have resolved all of the crises that we have in American agriculture, but it will go a long way toward addressing both the short- and the long-term problems we face. We need, obviously, to address trade issues, we need to address rural development issues, ag research--all of them go together--if we are going to have the kind of comprehensive strategy that is necessary to maintain a strong rural America and an underlying strong level of support for a qualitative and abundant food supply for this Nation. At this time, there is no other package that comes as close as this does to addressing the urgent crises that we have in American agriculture. So I enthusiastically rise in support of this amendment and again commend ranking member Harkin for his tremendous leadership, as well as Senator Daschle for his work in making this amendment a reality. This is an opportunity to address this crisis. We are running out of time. We have 5 to 6 weeks remaining of this Congress. There are farmers and ranchers leaving the land as we speak. There are small businesses going broke as we speak. There is no time to wait. We need to move now on this legislation and get this to the President's desk as quickly as possible. I yield the floor. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a critical issue which I fear has not received the attention it deserves. I am speaking about the Year 2000 computer problem which will strike in a mere sixteen months. The year 2000 holds potential problems for all Americans. At numerous hearings by the Senate Banking Subcommittee on Financial Services and Technology, on which I serve, witnesses have testified that the year 2000 problem involves more than just computers--it is a pervasive problem for which there is no quick fix. But fix it we must, because there can be no extension of time. I commend the efforts of Senator Bennett, Chairman of that Banking Subcommittee, for his tireless efforts to raise the profile of Y2K issues. Senator Bennett now chairs the joint task force on Y2K, and he will be a forceful advocate for the necessity of addressing this issue. Government, businesses, farms and homes rely on computers for nearly every aspect of their operations--from paying Social Security, to operating vehicles and equipment, to calculating interest, to conducting elections, to launching missiles. A failure in one computer system could not only be devastating to that particular operation, but could also have a domino effect. For these reasons, it is vitally important that government and the private sector work together to avoid a potential disaster. According to a recent General Accounting Office (GAO) study, the federal government is extremely vulnerable to year 2000 problems because of its widespread dependence on computer systems. The GAO study found uneven progress and made a number of recommendations for federal agencies to implement. Among them are the need to establish priorities, solidify data exchange agreements, and develop contingency plans. GAO testimony before the Senate Agriculture Committee, on which I also serve, focused on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) computer systems. The GAO concluded that if not properly fixed, severe consequences could result such as: Payments to schools, farmers and others in rural communities could be delayed or incorrectly computed. The economy could be adversely affected if information critical to crop and livestock providers and investors is unreliable, late or unavailable. The import and export of foodstuffs could be delayed, thus increasing the likelihood that they will not reach their intended destinations before their spoilage dates. Food distribution to schools and others could be stopped or delayed. Public health and safety could be at risk if equipment used in USDA's many laboratories to detect bacteria, diseases, and unwholesome foods is not compliant. These are a few of the potential year 2000 computer problems in just one agency of the federal government. Many federal agencies have made tremendous progress in solving their computer problems, but many more have been remiss. Therefore, the role of the Administration through the President' Council on Year 2000 Conversion becomes even more important in ensuring the federal government's readiness for year 2000. I am encouraged by President Clinton's recent initiatives to increase national and global awareness of the Y2K problem and to facilitate private sector attempts to address it. The President's ``Year 2000 Good Samaritan'' legislation is designed to promote private sector exchange of year 2000-related information and would help our national preparedness for 2000. Y2K will not just impact the United States. In today's global economy, no area can remain isolated from any other. The United States also will contribute $12 million to assist the World Bank's plan to raise awareness of the problem in developing countries. I am also encouraged by the recent testing of Y2K compliance by Wall Street firms which are conducting a series of tests to see whether U.S. markets will face Y2K difficulties. These firms represent the type of foresight which will limit any dislocation caused by the Y2K glitch. This is the first known comprehensive effort to check the compliance of corporate America for the Y2K bug, and I hope more sectors of the economy quickly follow suit. The potential difficulties are almost incalculable, when we consider the tremendous role computers play in our everyday lives. From food distribution to air traffic control. From our monetary infrastructure to electric power grids. Telecommunications systems and traffic lights. All of these necessities we take for granted could be impacted on January 1, 2000. Congress must continue it's oversight to make certain that the necessary resources are brought to bear on this critical issue. We have made progress, but there is still a tremendous amount of work to be done. The clock is running, and we cannot afford to fail to meet the year 2000 deadline.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. The two parties have met with a mediator appointed by the Justice Department and have had several subsequent meetings to continue negotiating an agreement. I have been told that the next meeting between the Air Force and HBC will be next week. Although some progress has been made, it is critically important that the negotiations between the Air Force and HBC result in a timely, workable resolution that guarantees the expeditious repair of the housing units and the return of military personnel to the homes. While it is my understanding that the Department of Justice has been looking into this matter for some time and is considering litigation against HBC if no resolution can be found through the mediation process, I am hopeful that action by the Department of Justice can be avoided.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I want to thank both the distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Inouye, and the distinguished Chairman, Senator Stevens, for your willingness to help Senator Daschle and me monitor this situation, which is of critical importance to the quality of life at Ellsworth Air Force Base. We will keep you apprised of progress made through the negotiating process.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, Senator Daschle is correct. In fact, the extensive damage in these units includes: severe racking due to the unit's design not holding up to wind; unlevel floors, sticking windows and doors, and cracking due to badly designed and constructed rim joists; collapse of interior ceilings caused by defective garage eaves, which allow heavy snow and rain to enter some attics; sewer gas back up due to improperly vented plumbing; deck and porch supports and stairs that have separated from the units and become unlevel because caissons supporting these structures were not placed below the frost line; and other problems both with the work done and problems resulting from work required by the contract but never completed by the Corporation. Despite these serious problems, the Air Force continues to pay rent on these units.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, and I would like to engage the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, and the distinguished Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Defense, Senator Inouye, in a colloquy regarding a housing project at Ellsworth Air Force Base.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to ask unanimous consent that my name be added as a cosponsor to amendment number #3388 to the FY 1999 Treasury-Postal Appropriations legislation currently under consideration. This amendment is a combination of several amendments aimed at increasing support for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas administered by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The Midwest HIDTA program has been extremely helpful to cracking down on drug trafficking in my rural state by coordinating federal, state and local law enforcement efforts to combat methamphetamine trafficking. While the Campbell-Kohl amendment addresses HIDTA programs nationwide, the Midwest HIDTA will be increased by $3.5 million, bringing the total methamphetamine elimination funding to $13 million for the Midwestern States of South Dakota, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska and Kansas. The amendment will also add North Dakota to the Midwest HIDTA program which is crucial to tightening law enforcement's grip on meth traffickers in the area. I appreciate the efforts of my colleagues from Colorado and Wisconsin for recognizing that drug trafficking is not a uniquely coastal or urban problem, and that federal coordination and assistance is necessary for fighting drug use and trafficking nationwide. denver courthouse

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support as a cosponsor of S. 1905, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act of 1998. This extremely important issue is the highest priority for the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe and will have a positive and lasting impact on the Cheyenne River reservation community and the entire State of South Dakota. I have worked closely with the Indian Affairs Committee to insure that this legislation protects the future interests of tribal members, and I am pleased that the bill reported by the Committee reflects these concerns. I am committed to seeing that the bill receive strong Senate support, and look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that the bill moves forward for approval by the full Senate. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act would establish a trust fund within the Department of the Treasury for the development of certain tribal infrastructure projects for the Cheyenne River Tribe as compensation for lands lost to federal public works projects. The trust fund would be capitalized from a small percentage of hydropower revenues and would be capped at $290 million. Independent research has concluded that the economic loss to the tribe justifies such a compensation fund. The tribe would then receive the interest from the fund to be used according to a development plan based on legislation previously passed by Congress, and prepared in conjunction with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. This type of funding mechanism has seen unanimous support in the Congress though recent passage of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Infrastructure Development Trust Fund Act as well as the Crow Creek legislation passed last Congress. Precedent for these infrastructure development trust funds capitalized through hydro-power revenue was established with the Three Affiliated Tribes and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act of 1992, which set up a recovery fund financed entirely from a percentage of Pick-Sloan power revenues to compensate the tribes for lands lost to Pick-Sloan. I believe it is important for the Senate to understand the historic context of this proposed compensation. As you may know, the Flood Control Act of 1944 created five massive earthen dams along the Missouri River. Known as the Pick-Sloan Plan, this public works project has since provided much-needed flood control, irrigation, and hydropower for communities along the Missouri. Four of the Pick-Sloan dams are located in South Dakota and the benefits of the project have proven indispensable to the people of my State. Unfortunately, construction of the Big Bend and Fort Randall dams was severely detrimental to economic and agricultural development for several of South Dakota's tribes, including Cheyenne River. Over 100,000 acres of the tribe's most fertile and productive land, the basis for the tribal economy, were inundated, forcing the relocation of roughly 30 percent of the tribe's population, including four entire communities. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act of 1998 will enable the Cheyenne River Tribe to address and improve their infrastructure and will provide the needed resources for further economic development within the Cheyenne River reservation community. However, the damage caused by the Pick-Sloan projects touched every aspect of life in South Dakota, on and off reservation. The economic development goal targeted in this approach is a pressing issue for surrounding communities off reservation as well, because every effort toward healthy local economies in rural South Dakota resonates throughout the State. Language included in this bill would prohibit any increase in power rates in connection with the trust fund. This legislation has broad support in South Dakota. South Dakota Governor Bill Janklow has endorsed this type of funding mechanism for the compensation of South Dakota tribes, and fully supports S. 1905. Mr. President, the tribes in my State experience some of the most extreme poverty and unemployment in this country. Under the current Chairman, Gregg Bourland, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe has been a leader in economic development initiatives within the reservation community and I believe this bill will reinforce and further the economic development successes of the tribe. I look forward to educating my colleagues about the importance of this bill to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and I encourage swift Senate action on this bill.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I share the sentiment of the Senator from Montana. This is a profoundly bad piece of public policy that should never have appeared on the floor of this body in the first place. The question is not whether we are for tax reform or not tax reform. There is no such strawman to knock down. The question is not only where will we go at the end of 4\1/2\ years, for which the sponsors and supporters of this amendment seem to have utterly no answer, but what happens in the intervening years? The answer has been clearly laid out by the business community of this country, which is overwhelmingly opposed to this legislation, and by the thoughtful analysts, who also are overwhelmingly opposed to this legislation. What happens during the intervening 4\1/2\ years of debate as we struggle with whatever might come next is that business cannot make an investment in a knowing fashion--whether it is concern about capital gains, or depreciation tables, investment deductions, whether it is individual citizens with their home mortgage, whether it is questions about research and development tax credits, whether it is questions about the future of pension law. The uncertainty will freeze the American economy in a way that will assuredly slow down economic growth, lead to lost income, and lead to deficit spending once again. Mr. President, there is a good reason why the business community and responsible business groups all across this country have so vigorously opposed this legislation. They recognize this amendment for the bumper sticker sloganeering that, frankly, it is. There was a time early on in this debate when supporters of this legislation noted that they felt this is a absolute political winner, an opportunity to beat up on the Tax Code, which has no real supporters, and on the IRS besides, without having to be accountable, at least in the course of this election, for the ultimate results of this legislation. An interesting thing happened in the meantime, however. Some poll work was done by the Republican National Committee showing that a majority of voters in America already recognize this as a reckless move--reckless. That is the finding of the American public which already understands the political nature of what we have here--a bumper sticker to abolish the Tax Code. It sounds good, if you are at the coffee shop. We are not at the coffee shop. We are Members of the U.S. Senate. And it is our responsibility to chart the economic welfare of this Nation into the next century in a responsible fashion that continues our economic growth in the coming years and which recognizes that business needs certainty. We can talk about tax reform, and we will do tax reform. I invite additional debate on that issue. But to simply abolish a Tax Code with no utter idea of what comes next in the meantime, during which American business is left to fend for itself figuring out how to invest billions and billions of dollars, is a sure recipe for disaster. I have a sense that this amendment is not intended to pass. The reason we are here is not to make public policy. The reason, frankly, we are here debating this issue is because there are some who want a slogan for the coming election in November. I think that is regrettable. I think the American people deserve better than that. Our economy needs better than that. I think this is irresponsible legislation. I see a colleague of ours on the floor, Senator Kohl of Wisconsin. I see others who have significant business success in their own careers. I have to wonder whether Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey, who spoke against this amendment, who created a massively successful business enterprise in his home State of New Jersey, whether he could possibly have gotten off the ground in his business with the kind of uncertainty that would, in fact, be created by this legislation. Mr. President, the question is not tax reform, or not tax reform. We all agree, I believe, that we need tax reform, and we need to push in that direction. But this is sloganeering. This is pandering. This is sham reform. The American public deserves better than this. It also violates the Budget Act. I need not remind my colleagues that it is the Budget Act that is responsible for bringing us 5 years in succession of declining budgets. Budget deficits, which were $292 billion a year, are now a budget surplus because we abided by the Budget Act. Now, to violate that and to set up a recipe for the destruction of our economy is utter irresponsibility. We deserve better than that. The American public deserves better than that.

Mr. JOHNSON. This deserves to die here in the Chamber tonight. Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON. It is not going to pass. It is going to produce 30- second television spots, no doubt, in November. But that is the reason the American public has become so incredibly cynical about the American political process.

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, Baucus, Conrad, Bryan, Kerry, Bumpers, Snowe, Boxer, Daschle, Burns and Inouye. 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 text of 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, Baucus, Conrad, Bryan, Kerry, Bumpers, Snowe, Boxer, Daschle, Burns and Inouye. 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 text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Capitol Police Officers Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson who sacrificed their lives last Friday safeguarding our nation's Capitol, Members of Congress, our staffs and the thousands of Americans who were visiting the Capitol on that tragic day. We are privileged to work in these hallowed buildings that are central to the greatest democracy in the world. We are equally privileged that Officers Chestnut and Gibson and their colleagues are willing to risk their lives to defend us from harm and keep democracy alive. Capitol Police Officers protect more than 7 million visitors who come to our Nation's Capitol every year. Often, they are the first to welcome these visitors to our Capitol. I thank all the officers who secure our grounds and dedicate their lives to our safety. Officers Chestnut and Gibson and their families are in our thoughts and our prayers, but we also should remember to pray for the safety of hundreds of other men and women who protect us everyday as we do the business of the American people. This tragedy should remind all of us that our democracy and our nation's security are ultimately dependent upon the courage and commitment of individuals such as Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to address the overall issue of the legislation before the Senate, H.R. 1151. I want, first, to commend Chairman D'Amato and the ranking member, Senator Sarbanes, for their help in this legislation getting to the floor in a timely fashion. I will not address the issue raised by my colleague from Texas. I know there are others who will want to talk about that at much greater length. There is an underlying legitimate debate there about whether an industry that benefits from Federal insurance, Federal regulation assuring that industry's stability and long-term viability, should, in turn, have to commit itself to making investments back into its own community or not. That debate can go forward. But I want to talk briefly about the underlying bill. As we all, I think, understand, following the Supreme Court's decision earlier this year, the credit union membership of some 20 million credit union members all across America has been in some jeopardy. There was initially legislation offered in the other body that was designed simply to overturn the Supreme Court decision. The other body chose not to do that. Nevertheless, they did reach a compromise bill that passed in April on an overwhelmingly vote of 411- 8. Following that debate, and passage of that legislation, the Senate Banking Committee took up our version of credit union legislation, with the understanding that prompt action was in fact needed. But again, rather than simply choosing to overturn the Supreme Court decision and rather than simply choosing to pass the legislation passed in the House, the Senate Banking Committee crafted its own version, strengthening significantly the language of that original H.R. 1151. Now, there is a compromise involved here. Most Members in this body, and many Americans, are members of both credit unions and banks. It is important that they both be viable, strong contributors to our national economy. It has always been--and it is the nature of compromises--that some will go away not entirely satisfied, but, on the other hand, we can reach that balance that will allow both the banking and credit union industries to go forward in a fair and competitive fashion. That certainly, at least, is the goal of this legislation. So in the course of crafting this bill, we were able to arrive at bipartisan agreements on the level of restraint on expansion of credit unions that ought to be put into legislative language. There are some who would rather have no restraint whatsoever; others would rather have much greater restraint on what definition of ``common bond'' is used. We did reach a level of restraint in our legislation that, for the first time, now exists. I think perhaps, most importantly, the Senate Banking Committee adopted the Treasury Department's recommendations on safety and soundness. I think one of the greatest concerns all of us have had in this body is to make sure that if we are going to have an industry that is growing and prosperous, that it have underlying regulatory safety and soundness provisions that are really necessary for its long-term viability and for the confidence of the American consumers--not to mention the confidence the taxpayers ought to be able to have that they will not be called upon at some future time to bail out an industry that may have failed for lack of adequate safety and soundness provisions. I think one of the most important parts of the Senate response to the crisis that we have faced this year is stronger safety and soundness provisions and the adoption of the Treasury's recommendations. The committee also took up the issue of restraint on commercial lending--or member business loans, as they are sometimes referred to-- which now, for the first time, is in place. Again, there are those who would have much more severe restrictions and those who would have no restrictions and ask why any restrictions ought to exist over and above our safety and soundness standards. But this compromise was reached, and I think it is one that is supported by the credit union industry and is supported by the consumer groups as well. And the Senate committee chose to retain language on CRA--or ``CRA-light'' as it is sometimes referred to--that was instituted by the other body when they took up H.R. 1151. Again, there are those who would like to see a much more rigorous, aggressive approach to CRA taken, and there are those who are simply philosophically disinclined to support any kind of CRA, even though this ``light'' version is simply a direction to the regulator of credit unions to come up with some assurance that, in fact, credit unions are investing in their local communities, which certainly has always been the case, although now there are larger credit unions with billions of dollars of capital, and some question is raised there. In any event, this is a provision that is accepted by the industry. We need a strong banking industry and we need a strong credit union industry. They both have legitimate, important roles to play in the provision of credit across America. In my State of South Dakota, with some 700,000 citizens, almost 200,000 of them belong to credit unions. We have historically a long track record of utilization of cooperative ventures, whether it is our rural electric, telephone co-ops, or other agricultural cooperatives across the State. We have that long tradition, one that has contributed significantly to affording more options, a greater level of economic prosperity, to a great number of people across rural America. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter in support of this legislation from the National Farmers Union and a letter from the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Scott Swanjord, a staff member of mine, may have floor privileges during this debate.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, we have minimal time remaining in this 105th Congress. The schedule is full. We have virtually the entire budget still to do, and other key issues are facing us. Frankly, we cannot afford to have this legislation held up with vetoes, veto threats, with ongoing, never-ending negotiations. So I think it is very important that we move forward with this legislation. A veto threat has been issued by the White House. If the CRA provisions are taken out--the ``CRA-light'' provisions--we will lose our bipartisanship, and it is a provision that is supported by the industry itself. It would appear to me that we need to move forward expeditiously with this legislation. We will be taking up bank regulatory relief legislation later on this coming week perhaps. There will be other vehicles in which to debate some of these extraneous matters dealing with the banking industry and, peripherally, the credit union industry. But I think it would be a mistake for us to be caught up in too many side issues on the underlying bill here. There is an absolute urgency that we move this bill forward. If we do not, the membership of some 20 million Americans will, in fact, be in very real and very great jeopardy. So with the legislation that passed 411-8 in the House, passed the Senate Banking Committee by a 16-2 vote, it would be my hope that this coming week we could conclude debate on this bill, obviously, with the adequate consideration of well-intended amendments, hopefully limited in number, but then get this bill in its current form onto the President's desk for signature. I yield the floor. Mr. SHELBY addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to update the Senate on my efforts to enhance statewide emergency warning systems in South Dakota. A person only has to open up a newspaper or watch the evening news to learn of the latest plight afflicting some region of the country. In recent years, our nation has been continuously ravaged by natural disasters, ranging from mudslides in California, massive flooding in the Midwest, as well as the annual hurricane and tornado seasons. These disasters have resulted in fatalities, enormous property damage, and has caused lingering disruptions of entire communities. This has never been more evident then this year, as our nation continues to feel the effects of the weather anomaly known as El Nino. Since August 1992, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has calculated that twenty-one weather-related disasters caused a staggering $90 billion in damages and resulted in over 900 fatalities. South Dakota has by no means escaped Mother Nature's destructive path. Last year, South Dakota was plagued by severe weather conditions, beginning with record snowfalls in January and February, and the worst flooding in the state's history in April and May. Many residents were displaced from their homes, and the final cost for clean-up and assistance total in the millions of dollars. This year has been no different. Heavy rains have once again flooded homes and farmland in the northeast part of the state. Recently, a tornado touched down with very little warning, completely destroying the town of Spencer, South Dakota. The Spencer disaster made me realize that additional efforts need to be made in order to provide citizens with the earliest possible warning of imminent danger. In my efforts to find new ways to update South Dakota's antiquated early warning system, it was brought to my attention that an immediate solution to upgrading the system would be the use of NOAA Weather Radios. NOAA Weather Radios broadcast National Weather Service (NWS) warnings, watches, forecasts and other hazard information 24 hours a day. These NOAA Weather Radios automatically sound an alarm and turn themselves on when a severe weather warning or emergency information is issued for a specific county. These radios receive a signal that is broadcast from NWS transmitters located throughout the state. Seventy percent of South Dakota's population currently can receive these NOAA Weather Radio warnings. However, due to the rural nature and dispersed population of South Dakota, there are not enough NWS radio transmitters to provide total NOAA Weather Radio coverage. Many small towns who would be the beneficiaries of this warning system do not reside within range of one of the five NWS transmitters presently in South Dakota. I have been working with NOAA and the South Dakota NWS to examine ways in which we can increase NOAA Weather Radio coverage so that 95 percent of South Dakota's population reside within range of a transmitter. I have met with Department of Commerce Under Secretary Dr. James Baker, who also is the Administrator of NOAA, to inquire about the requirements for attaining almost complete NOAA Weather Radio coverage for South Dakota. Following my discussions with Dr. Baker, I held several meetings throughout South Dakota with NWS representatives, emergency managers, and county officials to ascertain opportunities and resources already available in our state to augment our existing NOAA Weather Radio coverage. The South Dakota NWS expects that eight additional transmitters would provide sufficient coverage. The South Dakota NWS currently is examining locations to position these additional transmitters, and they will be submitting their final report to NOAA and my office forthwith. During consideration of the FY 1999 Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Appropriations bill, I have worked with Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings in examining all available options to acquire the funding necessary to purchase NOAA Weather Radio transmitters for counties that presently do not receive NOAA Weather Radio coverage, and to ensure that 95 percent of South Dakota's population is covered by NOAA Weather Radio. Mr. President, I strongly believe that the modest funding necessary to complete this goal would go a long way in augmenting South Dakota's NOAA Weather Radio coverage. Although South Dakota is extremely well- prepared to deal with the impending tornado season, I believe it is my responsibility to use every resource available to address the consequences of weather-related events and work the losses associated with them. I look forward to working with Senator Gregg, Senator Hollings and the conferees to locate funding for additional NOAA Weather Radio transmitters for South Dakota, and I appreciate their willingness to work with me on this critically important issue.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, recently, a tornado touched down with very little warning, completely destroying the town of Spencer, South Dakota. The Spencer disaster made me realize that every effort needs to be made in order to provide citizens with the earliest possible warning of imminent danger. In my efforts to find new ways to update South Dakota's antiquated early warning system, it was brought to my attention that an immediate solution to upgrading the system would be the use of NOAA Weather Radios. NOAA Weather Radios broadcast National Weather Service (NWS) warnings, watches, forecasts and other hazard information 24 hours a day. These NOAA Weather Radios automatically sound an alarm and turn themselves on when a severe weather warning or emergency information is issued for a specific county. These radios receive a signal that is broadcast from NWS transmitters located throughout the state. Seventy percent of South Dakota's population currently can receive these NOAA Weather Radio warnings. However, due to the rural nature and dispersed population of South Dakota, there are not enough NWS radio transmitters to provide total NOAA Weather Radio coverage. Many small towns who would be the beneficiaries of this warning system do not reside within range of one of the five NWS transmitters presently in South Dakota. I have been working with NOAA and the South Dakota NWS to examine ways in which we can increase NOAA Weather Radio coverage so that 95 percent of South Dakota's population reside within range of a transmitter. I have met with Department of Commerce Under Secretary Dr. James Baker, who also is the Administrator of NOAA, to inquire about the requirements for attaining almost complete NOAA Weather Radio coverage for South Dakota. Following my discussions with Dr. Baker, I held several meetings throughout South Dakota with NWS representatives, emergency managers, and county officials to ascertain opportunities and resources already available in our state to augment our existing NOAA Weather Radio coverage. The South Dakota NWS expects that eight additional transmitters would provide sufficient coverage. The South Dakota NWS currently is examining locations to position these additional transmitters, and they will be submitting their final report to NOAA and my office forthwith. I hope I will have an opportunity to work with members of the conference committee for the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Appropriations bill in order to acquire the funding necessary to purchase NOAA Weather Radio transmitters for counties that presently do not receive NOAA Weather Radio coverage, and to ensure that 95% population of South Dakota's population is covered by NOAA Weather Radio. Mr. President, I strongly believe that the modest funding necessary to complete this goal would go a long way in augmenting South Dakota's NOAA Weather Radio coverage. Although South Dakota is extremely well- prepared to deal with the impending tornado season, I believe it is my responsibility to use every resource available to address the consequences of weather-related events and work the losses associated with them. I ask Senator Hollings, do you support my efforts to enhance statewide emergency warning systems in South Dakota through the acquisition of additional NOAA Weather Radio transmitters?