Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the Senator for his support. With the prediction of a highly volatile hurricane season expected in your region of the country, I am sure the Senator is aware of the immediate warning that NOAA Weather Radios provide emergency managers and residents of his state in preparing for an oncoming storm, and how invaluable this early warning is in mitigating the loss of lives and property. Mr. Chairman, will you support my proposed efforts to increase NOAA Weather Radio coverage in South Dakota?

Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the Chairman for his support, and I deeply appreciate your and the Senator from South Carolina's willingness to work with me on this critically important issue. shea's performing arts center

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by Senators Kyl and Bryan with respect to gambling on the Internet. I am an original cosponsor of S. 474, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1997, as introduced in March of last year. I also sponsored the House version of this legislation in the 104th Congress because I am committed to preventing children's access to gambling on the Internet and the harm to the American public in general that is sure to follow unregulated gaming. Gambling in this country has always been a very regulated activity no matter where it takes place. Unfortunately, we are now faced with a potential explosion of unregulated gambling--gambling on the Internet. States have become so concerned about this problem that state attorney's general nationwide have filed suits against gambling operators on the Internet. The Kyl-Bryan amendment clearly defines objectionable internet activity and establishes guidelines for law enforcement to crack down on those who solicit wagering on-line. The bill applies existing laws against telephone betting or wagering to all electronic communications. This Internet gambling ban will be applied to those who accept bets and those who do the betting. While the Internet provides our children with many educational opportunities, we must closely scrutinize the industry to ensure that children are not let into the world of unregulated gambling. Preventing children or addicted gamblers from being able to gamble in an unregulated fashion on their home computer must be one of our highest priorities as we venture into the new and dynamic area of regulating electronic commerce. However, as important as the Internet gambling ban legislation is to protecting this nation's children, I feel compelled to state my concerns about the impact of several provisions included in the pending version of the Internet gambling ban legislation as they may impact Indian tribes. I want to take this opportunity to express my strong support for Senator Craig's second degree amendment aimed at addressing several of these provisions. Under the Kyl amendment, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) would be amended without any involvement or input by the committee of jurisdiction, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, or any tribal consultation. Senator Craig's amendment would make certain that currently lawful activities fully regulated by the federal government and permitted under the IGRA are not impacted by the Kyl amendment. I believe the Craig amendment is not a carve-out or loophole for Indians, but merely aims to preserve the IGRA process. The Craig amendment does not allow for any new type of Indian gaming. Our emphasis today ought to focus on unregulated internet gaming. To the extent that Congress deals with regulated Indian gaming, it should do so in separate legislation with tribal input. Like Senator Craig, I do not want to encourage special treatment or special exemptions for Indian tribes. I just expect equitable treatment of currently lawful gaming activities by tribes and, most importantly, I expect the Senate to respect the committee of jurisdiction on this issue and invite the input of impacted Indian tribes. As the Indian tribes in my state will attest, Indian Gaming is a regulated industry. Poverty, unemployment, poor health and welfare dominate much of reservation life across the country. With budget cuts to the BIA and other federal support programs for Indians, Congress must continue to encourage economic self sufficiency at the tribal level. If there are shortcomings with the effectiveness of the current IGRA, they should be addressed with tribal consultation. I am troubled at the prospect of Internet gambling sites opened by any entity, but again, so far as this concern deals with already regulated Indian gaming, it ought to be addressed in separate legislation. Nationwide, approximately 98 percent of all tribes use the revenue generated by casinos and bingo operations to provide housing, health services, and education to tribal members. Federal law requires tribal governments to use gaming revenue to fund these essential services. It is properly up to each tribe to determine for itself whether it wants to permit regulated gaming within its boundaries. Frankly, I would prefer that other types of economic activity would take hold in Indian country, but I also recognize that in the eyes of many tribal leaders, gaming has proven to be the only successful economic growth option that has worked. Our nation must have tightly regulated Indian gaming, but the ultimate decision whether to permit gaming on a particular reservation should be with the tribe itself. I am committed to protecting the interests of tribes in my state and across the country as they explore economic development through lawful gaming ventures. Like many of my colleagues, I realize that this debate is clear evidence of the pressing need for Congress to revisit existing Indian gaming regulations and law. I will urge the Senate Indian Affairs Committee to continue moving forward on this matter. Mr. President, as an original cosponsor of S. 474, I am nevertheless committed to the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act because the bottom line of this legislation is protecting our citizens and especially our kids. I am aware that the Justice Department believes overall enforcement of this law will be difficult, but I feel strongly that the time has come for Congress to push this issue and instruct Justice to develop the necessary enforcement capabilities and end unlawful Internet gambling. I will support the Senators from Arizona and Nevada, and will work with the Senators and the conferees on this appropriations bill to address the remaining issues of concern to tribes.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I am happy to enter into a colloquy with the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. JOHNSON. It is my understanding, as the sponsor of the legislation, that it would have no impact what-so-ever on meat prepared and served by a restaurant. It is not our intent to require labeling of meat prepared and served by a restaurant.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, renewable alternative fuels benefit energy security, the environment, and our overall economy. The amendment being offered today by Senator Craig and myself is critically important to soybean farmers across the country, and will do a great deal to give the ag economy a shot in the arm in states which produce soybeans. Since the Farm Bill took affect two years ago, soybean prices have dropped 15 percent, costing soybean producers in South Dakota about a hundred million dollars in lost revenue. The Craig/Johnson amendment could help offset these losses by boosting soybean prices an average of 11 cents a bushel and generating about $10 million in additional revenue for South Dakota soybean farmers and more than $300 million for soybean farmers nationwide without costing taxpayers one dime. This amendment makes changes to the Energy Policy Act of 1992. As most know, EPACT was enacted to stimulate the research and development of technologies which can potentially shift the focus of national energy demand away from imported oil and toward renewable or domestically produced energy sources. One component of energy consumption on which EPACT focuses is significantly reducing the amount of imported oil used by the transportation sector. The stated goal in EPACT is to replace 10 percent of petroleum by the year 2000 and 30 percent by the year 2010 with alternative fuels. This amendment is necessary because unfortunately, EPACT's current mandates and incentive structure essentially exclude some alternative fuels, such as biodiesel, from being an option for controlled fleet owners and operators. Further, the amendment will aid in the achievement of EPACT's goals of strengthening America's energy security through the substitution of domestically produced alternative fuels for imported petroleum products in the transportation sector. The latter point is important because this country is making extremely poor progress toward meeting the petroleum displacement goals of EPACT, and even federal fleets are not in compliance with the requirements of this statute. However, it is my understanding that Senators Bumpers and Rockefeller have some concerns about the impact the amendment will have on other alternative fuels currently eligible under EPACT. Is that correct?

Mr. JOHNSON. Certainly, and I very much appreciate your willingness to work with me on this issue. Senator Rockefeller, would you be willing to accept the amendment today knowing that we will be sitting down between now and the completion of the conference committee to work out a compromise to address your concerns?

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Rockefeller. I look forward to working with you on this specific issue in the coming weeks, and on the larger issue of more effectively promoting the use of all alternative fuels in the coming months and in future congresses. I also want to thank Senator Craig and Chairman Cochran for their leadership on this amendment, and look forward to working with them during the coming weeks to find a compromise on this important issue prior to completion of action by the conference committee. amendment no. 3186 [The text of the amendment will appear in a future issue of the Record.] amendment No. 3187 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Agriculture to submit a plan to Congress for the lifting of the ban on interstate distribution of state inspected meat) The Secretary of Agriculture shall present to Congress a report on whether to recommend by March 1, 1999, lifting the ban on the interstate-distribution of state inspected meat.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce the Senate has accepted the Meat Labeling Act of 1998 as an amendment to S. 2159, the Agricultural Appropriations Bill of 1998 which provides appropriations for FY 1999 for the United States Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and other related agencies. As we all know, we can easily determine which country manufactured the automobiles we drive through country of origin labeling. We can easily tell where our clothing was made by simply looking at the label or tag on our shirts or trousers. And also, we can easily determine where our computers, stereos, and telephones were made by simply looking at the products' label. But, surprisingly, 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 products--whether it be for automobiles, clothing, technological, or food 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. After many years of effort to pass meat labeling legislation, we have finally succeeded. I would like to thank Senator Craig for his strong support and willingness to work with me, as well as Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Cochran and Ranking Member Bumpers. In April of 1997, I introduced, along with Senators Craig, Daschle, Burns, and Baucus S. 617, the Meat Labeling Act of 1997, which would require that beef and lamb products be labeled for country of origin so consumers can make the choice to buy meat produced from livestock raised on American ranches and farms. Since my introduction of S. 617, the Meat Labeling Act of 1997, received the strong bipartisan support of 16 of my colleagues--8 Democrats and 8 Republicans. Also, it has enjoyed the enthusiastic support of every major agricultural organization including the National Farmers Union, the American Farm Bureau, the National Cattlemens Beef Association, and the American Sheep Institute. The amendment that has been accepted by the Senate, the Meat Labeling Act of 1998, has the same country of origin labeling spirit in mind but has been modified slightly from S. 617. My amendment requires beef and lamb meat products to be labeled as imported and allows for voluntary labeling of those beef and lamb products for their country of origin. The Meat Labeling Act of 1998 is designed in the following way. My amendment requires beef and lamb meat products to be labeled as imported beef or imported lamb, and it permits imported beef and lamb to bear a label identifying the country-of-origin. US beef and lamb would also bear labels of designation. Finally, beef and lamb products blended with beef or lamb from the US and another country would bear a blended label. Also, the Meat Labeling Act of 1998 creates a voluntary labeling study for ground beef or lamb. As you may know, ground beef (hamburger) and lamb are the remains of meat carcasses after they are utilized for the prime cuts. My legislation recognizes the difficulties in determining the exact country of origin status of the ground beef or lamb and therefore, does not mandate it to be labeled for country of origin immediately. Instead, my legislation is designed to allow a study of the impact and costs to producers, processors, and consumers of labels for ground beef or lamb. After one year of voluntary labeling, the United States Secretary of Agriculture will then take six months to determine the costs, benefits, and impacts of voluntary labeling and if the Secretary deems it to be cost effective and beneficial to all involved then the labeling of ground beef and lamb will become effective. As we all know, America's ranchers and farmers are very proud of the fine beef and lamb products they produce. This legislation reflects that pride our ranchers and farmers have in their products. In fact, ranchers and farmers throughout South Dakota tell me over and over that when America's consumers have a choice between US beef or imported beef, consumers will chose US beef because of its quality and its nutritional value. The benefits to consumers are many. First of all, consumers have the right to know where their food is produced because of prices, quality, taste, safety, etc. If passed, this legislation will finally permit the competitive free market to determine the demand and price of beef and lamb meat products through consumer choice. Also, a national survey in December 1995 found 74 percent of consumers favored labeling; 51 percent would buy American produce, even if it cost more than imports of equal quality and appearance. Furthermore, an April 1997 survey conducted in Florida showed that 96 percent consumers surveyed strongly agreed that food products should have a country of origin. Clearly, this evidence shows that American consumers want country of origin labeling for the food they eat. Labeling is affordable. Preliminary estimates from USDA show that labeling meat may cost an estimated 20 CENTS per customer per year. This legislation is consistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT.) Most of our major trading partners, including Canada, Japan, Australia and the EU, require country of origin labeling for produce and meat products. This legislation simply levels the playing field for our producers and consumers. Clearly, the Meat Labeling Act of 1998 is broadly supported by American producers and consumers. It enjoys strong bipartisan support in Congress, is endorsed by every major agricultural organization, incurs zero costs to taxpayers, and benefits consumers in numerous ways. I would like share from you part of a recent letter I received from the major agricultural organization supporting my legislation: ``Consumers demand quality and consistency, and producers are continually working to meet consumer demands. With the current system, there is limited ability to identify the source of product that does not meet consumer demands. Import labeling will help differentiate products in the retail meat case and increase competition among product lines. With labeling, consumers will have the ability to make informed decisions when purchasing meat and meat products an the relative value of meat from different product lines will be determined through competitive forces in the marketplace.'' Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the following documents be printed in the Record: A letter addressed to me from the National Farmers Union, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and the American Sheep Industry Association, a July 15, 1998, letter from the National Consumers League the largest and oldest consumer organization in the United States, and a September 16, 1997 editorial from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the Chairman for this support, and I deeply appreciate your and the Senator from Maryland's willingness to work with me on this critically important issue.

Mr. JOHNSON. I deeply appreciate the Senator's support. The number of tornados experienced each year throughout the '90s has remained consistently high. Data available from the National Climatic Data Center shows that in every year in the '90s our country has experienced close to or over 1,100 tornados each year. Mr. Chairman, do you agree that the pilot program I have proposed would be useful not only in terms of meeting the needs in South Dakota, but also in terms of providing this nation a model for the future to be used to increase emergency alert capabilities across the country?

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, on the night of May 30 a powerful tornado devastated the small community of Spencer, South Dakota. The tornado destroyed ninety percent of the town, injured 150 people, and, most tragically, killed six South Dakotans. I am pleased to say the positive determination of the residents of Spencer to rebuild their lives has been inspirational and all of the surviving victims are making progress toward returning their lives to some semblance of normality. Unfortunately tornadoes are all too common in my state, however one aspect of the Spencer tornado caught my attention right away--that is the fact the warning siren did not sound because the electricity had been blown out. I recognize that the tornado which hit Spencer was so powerful that sounding a warning siren may not have spared the residents of Spencer the total destruction of their community. However, reports of the lack of a warning from the siren in Spencer prompted a statewide focus on the quality of the emergency alert capability around my state of South Dakota. Unfortunately, almost every county in my state has acknowledged that it urgently needs some sort of emergency alert upgrade. Mr. President, my guess is that South Dakota is not unique in that the emergency alert system for tornadoes is inadequate in virtually every part of the state. I suspect many states have never systematically examined their emergency alert systems and how needs have changed since the civil defense sirens were initially erected and technology advanced. I am hopeful that at least one positive development to come out of the devastation of the Spencer tornado can be legislative action to address the emergency alert needs across the state of South Dakota and this nation. Consequently, I have proposed the creation of Tornado Preparedness Pilot Program to be administered by Region VIII of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Mr. President, this pilot program would provide $1 million from the Emergency Planning and Assistance appropriation for grants directly to local and county emergency management officials in South Dakota to provide 75% of the cost of purchasing emergency alert equipment. Examples of emergency alert equipment eligible for purchase under this Tornado Preparedness Pilot Program includes: new sirens with back-up capability, siren upgrade equipment, weather radio transmitters, weather radios and other emergency alert equipment. This pilot program would be an excellent first step in establishing a nationwide Tornado Preparedness Program much like the Hurricane Preparedness Grant Program and an Earthquake Hazards Reduction Grant Program which currently exist. Further, I think South Dakota is the appropriate state to conduct this pilot program because in the wake of the tragic Spencer tornado, awareness has been elevated all over the state of South Dakota about the critical importance of high quality, effective emergency alert capability. Our state is now ready to aggressively deal with this problem. Additionally a large, rural state like South Dakota has unique needs. For example, many South Dakotans need a different kind of alert system than sirens because they live in a remote area. Most small communities lack the tax base to fully fund a siren upgrade or the purchase of additional sirens. Also, the terrain of the Black Hills of South Dakota presents challenges for transmitter coverage and also for adequate siren coverage. Senator Mikulski, do you support my proposal to create a Tornado Preparedness Pilot Program in the State of South Dakota?

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, may I ask the Senator from North Dakota--I applaud his work on this amendment. I have long supported his concept of targeted assistance for family producers in this context and various others. We have discussed this over the years. But when we expand the loan period from 9 to 15 months, if the producers are required to sell their product within a shorter window of time, does that depress the price further? And who gains by producers having to sell their grain within a shorter window of time than over a longer window of time? Who are the winners and who are the losers when all of the farmers are required, within a relatively short window, to dispose of their grain at one time? Who wins and who loses by that policy?

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, may I direct a question to the Senator from North Dakota?

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I will be very brief. I commend my colleague from Indiana for his sponsorship of this amendment to the agriculture appropriations bill. In my view, it is long overdue that this Senate develops a more thoughtful, more deliberative, a more analytical approach to our sanctions strategy on the part of the United States. An observer noted during this discussion last week that Congress is in general opposed to sanctions, but in specific supports each one of them that comes along--all too often, sanctions that are contradictory, that are counterproductive, that do not, in fact, carry out the goals of the sanctions themselves. So I think the framework that Senator Lugar of Indiana has developed, which would cause us to approach this in a much more analytical perspective--to see to it that we have a cost-effectiveness that results from our sanctions, or even if it doesn't, that we deal with the sanction from that perspective--I think makes all the sense in the world. It is true that sanctions most often are effective when they are multinational in nature. There is nothing, as I understand Senator Lugar's amendment, that says we can only engage in multinational sanctions. We can engage in unilateral sanctions if we so choose. We can engage in sanctions that may not be cost-effective, if we so choose. But we ought to be fully cognizant of the nature of the sanctions and their consequences if, in fact, we are going to go down those roads. It is not tying our hands, it is not tying the hands of American foreign policy or trade policy or economic policy, to know with certainty what it is we are doing and to approach it in the kind of thoughtful manner that Senator Lugar suggests. There is nothing in this amendment, as I see it, that constitutes the development of an entitlement for foreign aid or anything of that nature. I think that is a gross misreading, not only of the intent, but the actual effect of this amendment. There is nothing that would restrict the ability of the American Government to impose sanctions as a response to terrorism or genocide or the development of weapons of mass destruction. It does not tie our hands in that regard. I want to say that I think we made a step in the right direction this past week with the handling of the sanctions that were about to be imposed on Pakistan in terms of agricultural sales. I think it is appropriate that this amendment be brought up in the context of this particular bill. Again, I thank the Senator from Indiana for a great deal of work, a great deal of thought and care that has gone into this. The foreign policy of the United States and oversight that this body, the U.S. Senate, can exercise will be enhanced and not detracted from by the adoption of this amendment. I yield back my time. Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON. As I understand the immediate amendment before the Senate having to do with marketing loans, it strikes me, and I wonder if the Senator shares this view, that we need to put this in some perspective. There are some who view this as a debate on Freedom to Farm, and certainly there are those of us who have widely and varied opinions on that underlying legislation. But the amendment that is pending, does the Senator agree, does not unravel or turn inside out or otherwise dispose of the Freedom to Farm legislation? The amendment, as I see it before me, builds on what is already in the existing farm bill; that is, a marketing loan provision that is already there, at an inadequate level, but it is there, and the amendment that is pending simply gives the President of the United States the authority in a state of emergency for 1 year to remove the current loan caps and raise the cap on wheat from $2.58 a bushel to $3.22, on corn from $1.89 to $2.25, on soybeans from $5.26 to $5.33 and extend the loan period from 9 months to 15 months? Would the Senator agree that this is not a radical amendment? This is not an amendment that somehow sweeps away the previous legislation--and we have different opinions about what ought to happen--but this amendment, it would seem to me, is a very modest, in fact, very narrowly crafted and a very modest change in what is already existing law. Would the Senator agree with that point on this issue?

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator agree that while the track that we are on may not be as a consequence of a specific plan simply on the part of the Government or anyone else, but that any sector of the economy that is expected to generate profits based on prices that were consistent with 1940, as we are in the grain and livestock sector today, and yet to pay the input costs that reflect 1998 costs will lead ultimately, as certainly as night follows day, to the demise of that enterprise, that family agriculture capitalized in a modest way as it is cannot possibly sustain itself with the combination of these tragically low prices and the extraordinary high input prices?

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I have a question that I would like to ask of the Senator from Iowa at some point.

Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the Senator from Iowa for his extraordinary leadership under these very trying circumstances. One of the points that the Senator was making earlier struck me as particularly important in terms of the long-term future of rural America and the long-term capability of our Nation to feed not only our citizens but also much of the rest of the world. The Senator from Iowa was talking about what kind of structure we would have in rural America if we go particularly down the road of more and more concentration and vertical integration. It struck me that there may be other societies that have gone down that road from whom we can learn a lesson or two. I am reminded of the agricultural regime in the former Soviet Union and their efforts to turn agricultural workers into paid employees rather than people who have a personal family stake in the outcome of their agricultural enterprise, and what that led to in terms of taking a nation with enormous natural resources, that had historically been one of the bread baskets of the world and what that did to that nation in terms of destroying its infrastructure of small rural communities, what it did ultimately to destroy its ability to produce food shipments for itself and for its neighbors. I would wonder and question the Senator from Iowa whether he thinks there are some lessons to be learned from other societies that have destroyed family agriculture, then discovered it was a mistake, then discovered that turning family agriculture up by the roots is not so easily replanted and what happens after you have gone down that road, if you decide that you want to reestablish family agriculture after you have ripped it up by the roots in that manner? I wonder if the Senator will comment about the long-term structure that we are headed to if we continue down this road.

Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator agree that one of the things this institution needs to do is step back and recover its institutional memory, its recognition of why we arrived at the price support system in the first place, going back as long ago as the 1930s and the agricultural stabilization service? There was a recognized need then, generations ago. Family agriculture, it would seem to me, cannot sustain itself without some stabilizing force. Otherwise, they simply will not be capitalized well enough. They will be driven off the land, just as what was happening at that time, and we need that kind of a presence not to micromanage, not to deny the flexibility that our farmers need to meet the forces in the market, but that they need an opportunity to compete fairly with a more stable kind of environment. We, in fact, are losing sight of that--assuming that the $6 wheat when Freedom to Farm was passed would be here forever, that the $5 corn when Freedom to Farm was passed would be here forever--and we find it out only a few years later, conveniently after the next elections, when prices have declined. Does the Senator concur that a handful of years of declining transition payments, a pat on the back and a ``good luck, buddy,'' is not a reasoned, long-term strategy for family agriculture and the provision of food in this Nation, and now that there is great urgency, we need to step back and accept that that was misguided? We do not need micromanagement, we do not need bureaucracy-laden policies, but we do need something that will provide the kind of stability that, as long as 60 years ago, was recognized as necessary when, if anything, we are in a more volatile world market situation now than we were then? Does the Senator concur with those observations?

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I strongly encourage the Conference Committee for the FY 1999 Agricultural Appropriations bill to recognize the need for a full-time APHIS/Wildlife Services district supervisor position located in South Dakota for the protection of agriculture and endangered species. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support of legislation passed by the Senate last evening, the Higher Education 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. 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 an average of just over 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. The average graduate of a four-year college today will have $14,500 in debt upon entering the working world. Given the increased reliance on borrowing, it is notable that this reauthorization legislation will provide for a reduction in interest rates on new student loans by approximately 1 percent from current rates. This provision will save students hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. 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 will provide legislative authority to increase the size of the maximum Pell Grant to $5,000. 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 difficult, but 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. 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's 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. 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 can't 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 contained in child care legislation I cosponsored last year, and I am very pleased that it has been included in this bill. Finally, advocates of a more effective welfare system won a significant victory with the passage of Senator Wellstone's amendment to give states the option of counting two years of post-secondary education as a work requirement for purposes of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program. I was proud to cosponsor this amendment. I have heard from a number of my constituents that 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 exercising this option. I will press to ensure that this amendment survives the upcoming conference. Passage of the Higher Education Amendments 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 am pleased with the Senate's overwhelming vote in favor of this bill, and I look forward to expeditious consideration of the conference report and to sending the bill to President Clinton for his signature.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden, and the Senator from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, for their work in helping expedite consideration of this very urgent legislation; also, a special commendation to my colleague, Senator Patty Murray of Washington State, for her extraordinary leadership on this legislation, as well as to Senator Roberts from Kansas. Over 10 percent of the world's wheat market is currently boxed out to our country's wheat farmers due to the current economic sanctions. The situation of wheat becomes all the more urgent as we consider sanctions against Pakistan and India, Pakistan being our third largest importer of wheat, at a time when wheat prices have fallen to less than $3 a bushel. I have to say, however, that our effort to address this issue today needs to be regarded, I think, as part of a much larger effort to revisit the entire matter of sanctions imposed by the United States, as well as taking a look at other protrade mechanisms available to us. In my view, it is inexcusable that the 105th Congress has not moved full funding of the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, and fast track continues to languish. I look forward to working with Senator Lugar and others who are looking at comprehensive reform of our entire sanctions regime. The fact is, Mr. President, that the United States has slapped economic sanctions on other countries about 120 times in the past 80 years, but over half of those instances have been since the Clinton administration came to power. This month, it is India and Pakistan, but no other country on Earth opts for sanctions as often as has the United States. Currently, our sanctions imposed by our Government affect more than 70 nations in one form or another, home to two-thirds of the world's population. What is worse is that this 105th Congress is considering, as we speak today, an additional 30 sanctions in other pieces of legislation. Frankly, it is often an emotional and short-term political calculation which drives these sanctions, rather than a longer term, reasoned, logical explanation of what kind of cost benefit would derive and what kind of diplomatic leverage actually is derived from the sanctions. It vents more outrage, but more often than not backfires, particularly in the case of food items, particularly in the case of grain where other nations have an opportunity to grow and to take our markets. It is America all too often, rather than the target nations, that becomes isolated and that becomes victims of our own sanctions. When other nations refuse to join with our sanctions, American business suffers. In 1995 alone, unilateral sanctions cost the U.S. economy an estimated $15 billion to $19 billion and up to 260,000 jobs, according to the Institute for International Economics. Sanctions beyond that also give American suppliers a reputation for unreliability and its effects can be long lasting. There are instances where sanctions, to some degree, have been effective. South Africa comes to mind. Some aspects or sanctions against Iraq come to mind relative to chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. But the successes we have had with sanctions in the United States, I think, points to a general rule, and that is, to be effective, sanctions must have broad international support and must target specific vulnerabilities. We need to be examining more alternatives to sanctions, whether agricultural or otherwise. The engagement with other nations, rather than isolation, is one that I think is coming upon this Congress and certainly this administration as a direction that we need to pursue. I am pleased that the Clinton Administration has organized a special State Department team installed to rethink our overall sanctions policy. The premise, I think, of our policy as we move in this direction--first with this bill and then, hopefully, with broader, more far-reaching sanctions legislation--is that it is multilateral sanctions, even if they are weaker in nature, that are usually preferable to unilateral sanctions. And secondly, any sanctions that we do impose should be subject to a cost-benefit analysis. Incredibly, in the past, few sanctions have been evaluated for their consequence on the American economy relative to what it does to the target nations. The focus, I believe, needs to be on a much more reasoned approach to sanctions in general. This is a good first step in the right direction. It is urgent because of the Pakistani offer to purchase 350,000 net tons of wheat as of July 15, and we have this urgency now. But I support this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent to be listed as a cosponsor and yield back what time I may have.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today in response to the decision by the Supreme Court striking down the Line Item Veto Act. Today's decision does not surprise many who have looked closely at the constitutional questions raised by this law. The fundamental flaw of the Line Item Veto Act was that it violated the Presentment Clause of the Constitution by attempting to give the President the power to amend legislation passed by Congress. In the words of Justice Stevens, who wrote for the majority of the Court, ``If the Line Item Veto Act were valid, it would authorize the President to create a different law--one whose text was not voted on by either House of Congress or presented to the President for signature.'' The majority opinion goes on to state that ``if there is to be a new procedure in which the President will play a different role in determining the final text'' of a law, such change can only result from amending the Constitution. Some of my colleagues, in reaction to today's decision, have already announced their support for a constitutional amendment giving the President this power. I hope that, in their haste, they do not overlook a legislative alternative that I am introducing in the Senate today to create a process for expedited consideration of presidentially-proposed rescissions. I have been a supporter of line-item rescission legislation since the beginning of my first term in the House of Representatives. I first introduced legislation in August 1987, and I was pleased to see support for this concept grow over the years. In November 1987, I wrote to President Reagan's Chief-of-Staff, Howard Baker, to request that line-item rescission be discussed during the Economic Budget Summit that was held during that year. Although the administration declined this request, President Reagan's budget proposal for Fiscal Year 1989 contained a proposal for line-item rescission that was very similar to the legislation that I had introduced. Support continued to grow, and a variety of versions of this legislation were introduced in the House. Eventually, the supporters of line-item rescission banded together in 1992 behind a common vehicle, H.R. 2164, which passed the House in October of that year. Insufficient time was available in the legislative year, however, for the Senate to take up the bill. After the momentous elections in the fall of 1992, I met with Karen Hancox of President-elect Clinton's transition team. I requested that Clinton support the line-item rescission concept. His endorsement helped win easy House passage of H.R. 1578 on April 29, 1993. To my disappointment, however, the Senate did not take up consideration of this bill, and the 103rd Congress adjourned without progress. The 104th Congress brought a change in control of the Congress. With that partisan shift came an inclination to support a new form of line- item rescission, the so-called legislative line-item veto. Unlike line- item rescission, the line-item veto stated that the president's rescissions were to be considered automatically approved unless overridden by a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate. Although still a cosponsor of line-item rescission, I voted for the new bill with the knowledge that it would receive constitutional scrutiny by the courts. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled, I believe that Congress should take another look at line-item rescission. The bill I submit today, S. 2220, does not cede power to the President to alter an act of Congress. Instead, it provides for an up-or-down vote in Congress of rescissions proposed by the President, thus exposing controversial items of spending to the light of day. If Congress believes the spending is merited, then it will vote to reject the rescission bill. Likewise, if the spending does not stand up to scrutiny, Congress can pass the rescission bill with a majority vote in each house and send it to the President for signature. The American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service has conducted a preliminary review of my bill. According to this review, S. 2220 would meet the standard outlined in today's Court decision since the bill would not cede to the President the power to alter the text of legislation passed by Congress. It seems clear that we still need a mechanism to highlight items of wasteful spending and to force a vote on this spending. Line-item rescission accomplishes this feat without unduly altering the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of government. Before running off to amend the Constitution, we should give line-item rescission a try.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island, my friend and colleague, Mr. Reed. I commend him for this particular amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment. If you were to talk to a typical South Dakotan and say, ``You know, the Federal budget is tight this year; we may not have the resources we need to do all we would like to do in terms of cancer or heart research at the National Institutes of Health; we may not be able to do all we would like to do for education, for health care; we may not be able to do all that we want for child care; and, oh, by the way, we do have some $1.6 billion of your tax money we are going to turn back to the tobacco industry as a subsidy for their marketing messages to our children,'' I guarantee you, the typical South Dakotan would be appalled. He would be amazed that any institution could possibly have come up with a priority as wrong-headed as that. And so, Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Reed amendment which would deny tobacco companies any tax deduction for their advertising and promotional expenses when those ads are aimed at America's most impressionable group, its children. This amendment has the overwhelming support of the public health community, and it would greatly strengthen the underlying McCain bill. I congratulate my colleague from Rhode Island on this amendment. It is almost incomprehensible to me that taxpayers actually subsidize the tobacco industry's promotional efforts even as we go about forming a consensus on the dangers of smoking and the problems created by the industry's efforts to target children. Numerous studies have implicated the tobacco industry's advertising and promotional activities as the cause of continued increases in youth smoking rates in recent years. Research on smoking demonstrates that increases in youth smoking directly coincide with effective tobacco promotional campaigns. We simply have to address the industry's ceaseless efforts to market to children. It is time for this Congress to put a stop to the industry's practice of luring children into what is an untimely progression of disease and death. Under this amendment, if the tobacco manufacturers do not comply with the advertising restrictions as promulgated by the FDA, the manufacturer's ability to deduct the cost of tobacco advertising and promotional expenses will then be disallowed for that particular year. This approach has overwhelming support of the public health community, supported by Dr. C. Everett Koop, the American Lung Association, the Center for Tobacco-Free Kids, and ENACT Coalition, a coalition comprised of leading public health groups including the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, and many others. Mr. President, the importance of this issue is simply enormous. The facts speak for themselves. Today, some 50 million Americans are addicted to tobacco. One of every three long-term users of tobacco will die from a disease related to their tobacco use. About three-quarters, 70 percent, of smokers want to quit, but fewer than one-quarter are successful in doing so. Tobacco addiction is clearly a problem that begins with children. Almost 90 percent of adult smokers started using tobacco at or before the age of 18. The average youth smoker begins at age 13 and becomes a daily smoker by 14\1/2\. Each year, 1 million children in our Nation become regular smokers. One-third of them will die prematurely of lung cancer, emphysema, and similar tobacco-caused diseases. Unless current trends are reversed, 5 million kids currently under 18 will die prematurely from tobacco- related disease. So, Mr. President, this is a public health crisis. A recent survey by the University of Michigan found that daily smoking among 12th graders increased from 17.2 percent in 1992 to 22.2 percent in 1996 and continued to climb in 1997 to 24.4 percent. This represents a cumulative 43-percent increase in daily smoking among our Nation's high school seniors just over these past 5 years. One of the advertising campaigns most markedly aimed at young people is the now notorious Joe Camel campaign that my colleague has alluded to. After R.J. Reynolds introduced this campaign, Camel's market share among underage smokers jumped from 3 percent to over 13 percent in just 3 years. Although Congress had banned cigarette advertising on TV in 1970, tobacco companies routinely circumvented this restriction through sponsorship of sporting events that gave their products exposure through television. The Federal Government subsidizes advertising through a tax deduction, generally a 35-percent deduction, for advertising expenses. In 1995, this subsidy cost the American taxpayers approximately $1.6 billion. In terms of lost revenue to the Federal Treasury, this is a very significant sum of money. In effect, the Federal Government is subsidizing industry's advertising costs. For example, in 1995 the cost of the cigarette advertising deduction covered the total amount spent by the industry on coupons, multipack promotions, and retail value- added items such as key chains and other point-of-sale advertising, the kind of items that are most attractive to children. In 1995, the tobacco industry spent $4.9 billion on advertising, double the total Federal Government appropriation for the National Cancer Institute in fiscal year 1995, $2.1 billion, and almost four times the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute appropriation, which totaled $1.3 billion that year. In 1995, the tobacco industry spent this $4.9 billion on advertising, 40 times the amount spent by the NIH on lung cancer research during that year. It is certain that Congress has authority over the Tax Code. We understand the first amendment, free speech rights of any individual, and even in the case of commercial speech. We are very much aware of that. But there is no constitutional right to have the expense of a corporation's speech subsidized by the taxpayers. So, while I concur that within some limits, which the Senator from Rhode Island has outlined relative to commercial speech, there is a first amendment right that is at the heart of all of our concern about advertising, that certainly there is no constitutional right to taxpayer subsidy. When a message is designed to addict vulnerable youth to a deadly product, it is absolutely imperative for Congress to act with great urgency. So, again, I commend the Senator from Rhode Island for this amendment, for his excellent outline of the legal history of how we have arrived at where we are today. But it would seem in the course of all the contentious amendments that we have dealt with on this floor over the last several weeks, and will still in the week to come, that this ought to be an amendment around which there would be great bipartisan, commonsense support. I challenge any Member of this body to go home to his or her State and explain to constituents that at the same time we are trying to come up with ways to reduce youth addiction to tobacco products, that we continue to spend in the range of $1.5 billion of the taxpayers' dollars--dollars that could be better used for medical research, for education, that could go back into the pockets of the taxpayers in the form of tax cuts, for that matter. Almost any other use would be more productive than to use it in such a negative way as a subsidy for marketing techniques directed at our youth. Again, I commend the Senator from Rhode Island. I commend this amendment to my colleagues and yield my time back to the Senator from Rhode Island.