Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to talk about the underlying bill and the Kerry amendment that is pending. This is, obviously, the most serious effort ever by any Congress to address the critical public health issue of smoking. Now, what has brought us to this point? Obviously, the historic settlement negotiated last year by the States and the tobacco industry provided the most incentive for this, but the tremendous success of several States--and I particularly note the State of Minnesota and their attorney general, Skip Humphrey, in aggressively pursuing their claims against the tobacco industry--has revealed what has been the massive deception that underlies the tobacco industry's traditional position. It has been now conclusively demonstrated that tobacco is, in fact, addictive. That is a claim which the tobacco industry had consistently denied and, frankly, covered up. We have learned that the tobacco industry has targeted children to addict them to tobacco products, another claim that the tobacco industry has lied and covered up. We have also learned if you do not start smoking when you are underage, it is unlikely that you will ever become addicted to tobacco. All the more reason, then, all the more incentive, then, for some to try to addict children to this product. I support adult choices and adult responsibility, but when an industry targets kids, knowing full well the children are vulnerable to addiction, and then argues for adult choice, it is time for this Congress to step up and protect our kids. I don't need to recite the statistics that everyone in this Chamber has heard the past couple of weeks now. Let me just say this: 3,000 children start smoking every day; 1,000 of them will die prematurely due to this addiction. Every day we delay this process, we sentence another 1,000 children in America to die early. There are many critical amendments to be reviewed and debated, but let us not lose sight of the fact that we have to act now. There is an urgency to act now. Any further delay would be unconscionable. The lives of our children are at stake, literally. We must protect them from the predatory industry that views youth as ``our replacement smokers'' good for many decades of addiction to their deadly product. Cigarettes are one of the most heavily marketed consumer products in our country. Tobacco companies currently spend almost $6 billion a year to promote and advertise products, and they have increased their spending by more than 12 times since 1971, when advertising on radio and television was banned. Children are, obviously, the most vulnerable to tobacco company tactics. They have targeted kids because of this vulnerability to nicotine addiction, and they are the most easily affected by slick advertising and promotional ploys. The evidence is overwhelming that smoking is a pediatric disease. I support a comprehensive approach to ensure success in our efforts to protect kids. For every 10 cents added to the price of cigarettes, approximately 700,000 fewer teens will begin smoking. To further promote public health, I have supported investment in public health and research. We must maintain and support FDA authority to restrict advertising directed at teens. Finally, we have to strengthen the look-back provisions and, ultimately, hold tobacco companies responsible for their efforts to addict kids. These important decisions will influence companies to stop marketing to children with advertising and promotional techniques. I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have supported our efforts to address this critically important issue. My own State of South Dakota holds the dubious distinction of having the second-highest rate of underage tobacco use in America. Now, I am committed to doing what I can to see these rates reduced. Almost one out of every nine high school boys in my State will die prematurely from tobacco use. Of the teenagers in our State, we can now expect 15,000 South Dakota teenagers to die early because of their tobacco use. These odds are way too high to be permitted or to be tolerated by this body. The expeditious passage of this tobacco bill will have a real and immediate impact on releasing those rates. We cannot delay any longer. I am also pleased that as we debate this issue, Senator Kerry, Senator Bond, and others, have joined in an effort, which I have joined in as well, to direct a modest portion of the revenue generated for child care purposes. I appreciate that there has been a significant debate on the floor of this body on the use of revenue generated by this legislation. I think it is correct that this legislation ought to be directed at cessation of smoking and tobacco use and not as a revenue generator. However, the reality is that any realistic bill that has a chance of reducing tobacco usage will generate revenue, and this body has a responsibility of determining how best, then, to use that amount of revenue generated--some $62 billion over the first 5 years. It makes sense to me the first emphasis ought to be on health care, reimbursing the States, clearly, for the health care expenses they have incurred. It makes sense to me that there ought to be a high emphasis on medical research, on cancer, lung cancer, heart disease, and other diseases that are smoking-related. There ought to be a huge effort in that direction. There ought to be an effort and a priority for smoking cessation programs. But it also seems to me that some of these dollars ought to roll back to families and to children through some tax relief. No doubt, that will be a part of the package. But I think it is a mistake to include a tax package that is so enormous that it drains, overall, the revenue, or a large share of the revenue that could otherwise have been utilized for medical research, help for the States, smoking cessation, or for child care. I think there needs to be a balance in that regard. I am particularly troubled by the amendment that was passed yesterday, which would, in fact, not only drain these resources away, but would ultimately dip into the budget surpluses and, in fact, Social Security surpluses to make good on its obligation. But I believe that if we can use the revenue that Senators Kerry and Dodd have proposed, it would go a long way toward promoting at least a portion of the goals of our Early Childhood Development Act, which I have cosponsored with them. This amendment, if adopted, would go a significant way toward assisting working families, recognizing the reality that more and more families now have both parents in the workforce, and in the case of single-parent families, quality child care is all the more essential. Each day, an estimated 13 million children younger than 6 years old, including 6 million toddlers, spend all or part of their day in child care of some form, and child care experts tell us it easily costs between $4,000 and $10,000 a year for a child. Now, augmenting the block grants to the States where we do not create a Federal bureaucracy, we do not federalize child care, we do not run things from Washington, but we give the resources necessary for States to devise their own innovative, strong child care strategies, makes all the sense in the world, particularly given the fact that, as I have held child care meetings all around the State of South Dakota, it has become obvious to me that not only do people have too few choices-- quality choices--but all too often the child care providers themselves find themselves on the economic edge, with good people leaving that particular profession because of the low salaries and the high stress of that particular occupation. So we have children at the most vulnerable point in their lives, where the greatest share of brain development is taking place in the course of their lives, with a patchwork system that has simply not received the national attention it deserves. This amendment would go a long way toward augmenting the child care options, the affordable quality options that working parents in our country deserve to have. I appreciate that there are people in this body and around the country on the far political right who seem to lie awake nights worrying that somehow this legislation may generate the resources essential for the Government to actually do something for kids. I don't lie awake nights worrying about that. I worry about how can we work on a partnership basis with States, local governments, and private organizations to provide more affordable and quality options for child care and improve the health of the next generation of Americans. I think that is the underlying concern. For that reason, I am very supportive of this amendment and the underlying bill. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senator for 15 minutes on the bill and the underlying amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I returned Wednesday night from my second tour of what is left of the small community of Spencer, SD, which was devastated, as many know, by a tornado this past Saturday night. Many of you may have seen the media reports and the pictures of the utter destruction in Spencer. After touring the site for the second time on Wednesday, I can honestly say the pictures simply do not do the site justice, and it is almost impossible to fathom the indiscriminate totality of the destruction. This tornado, which hit this small town, has been classified as an F4 on the Fujita rating scale of the National Weather Service. The rating means winds have been estimated between 207 to 260 miles an hour. As I toured the remains of this small town, the wind literally blew the bark off the trees--what trees still remained standing. To the community of Spencer, the rating means that the tornado was powerful enough to destroy 80 to 90 percent of their town. The grain elevator, service station, post office, and library were all destroyed, as were all four churches, an antique store, the fire hall, and water tower. The town had no sewer, water or power. All that is left of Spencer's 120-foot tall water tower is the crumpled metal on the side of the street with the word ``Spencer'' written upside down now. A tan car hung suspended 5 feet off the ground in the tower's mangled legs. The grain spilled from the Spencer Grain Company elevator out onto a field. Spiky tops of tree trunks stuck up out of the ground, their branches stripped of leaves--and furniture, bedding, miscellaneous items stuck in the tree tops of what trees did remain. Most tragically, the tornado was powerful enough to injure, out of the 300-some in the community, 150 people--almost half the population-- and to take the lives of 6. The victims were Bev Bintliff, Elizabeth Burnham, Mildred Pugh, Gloria Satterlee, Ron Selken, and Irene Yost. Bev Bintliff was 68, a Spencer native. She and her husband, Robert, moved back to Spencer after living in Oklahoma for a number of years. She worked for several local businesses before becoming the city's finance officer. Her husband is a painter. And they also operated a music shop in the nearby community of Mitchell. Elizabeth Burnham was 85, lived in Spencer most of her life. She was a widow, and lived alone in her home. She is survived by two daughters. Mildred Pugh, 93, a widow, moved from her home of 60 years in Spencer to an apartment in the mid-1980s. She was born on the family homestead northeast of Spencer and lived in the area all of her life. Her husband was a rural mail carrier, and she was a homemaker. Friends say that she loved her garden and she loved to deer hunt with her husband. Mildred had lived through other disasters. She survived floods, cyclones, famine, the Depression, wars, but could not survive this tornado. She is survived by a great-nephew, a grandson, and two granddaughters, and a sister. Ron D. Selken, 62, has been described as a quiet man who enjoyed spending time with his family. Selken was born in 1936. He attended Hawthorne Elementary in Sioux Falls. He served in the Korean War. He worked as a laborer at Gage Bros. Concrete in Sioux Falls until becoming disabled because of back problems. In his spare time, Selken liked to work on his cars, watch sports and fish. He recently became a grandfather for the third time and tragically did not get to hold his new granddaughter who was born May 2. On my first trip to the tornado site last Sunday, I met Ron's daughter, Kris Roelfs, of Sibley, Iowa. I have to say, it was a very touching meeting and I felt inadequate that I could only give her my heartfelt condolences. Her father had moved to Spencer about eight years ago from Sioux Falls. In addition to his daughter, Kris, Ron Selken is survived by another daughter, Vicky Selken of Sioux Falls, a son, Kelley of Lake Benton, MN. Three grandchildren, two brothers and four sisters. Gloria Satterlee, was in her mid 70's and was an organist and pianist at the Nazarene Church where her husband, Ward Sr. has been pastor for the tiny congregation. Reverend Ward Satterlee was hospitalized at Queen of Peace Hospital in Mitchell with broken ribs and cuts but on my second visit to the tornado site yesterday, I had the chance to speak briefly with Ward as he explained his predicament to Vice President Gore. The Satterlees celebrated their 50th anniversary last year and had lived in Spencer for more than 20 years. Mrs. Satterlee was a homemaker who was interested in music and caring for elderly people. In addition to her husband she is survived by two children one in Kansas and one in northern Minnesota. Irene Yost, in her mid 70's was retired and living in a downtown apartment complex in Spencer. She had been ailing and had just been getting back on her feet when it happened. She was a lifelong resident of Spencer, and once owned a business establishment in the community, worked as a telephone operator and in a Salem factory and operated a Bingo Gas Station for a number of years. While we mourn the tragic loss of these people and pray for their families, we are grateful for those who survived. Many descriptions of the terror the residents felt last Saturday night and of different individual's determination to survive have been shared with me personally over the past few days or have been shared with the public through the news media. Linda Morehead's first thought was, ``Oh God don't let it be a tornado.'' As the tornado hit, Linda tried to open her basement door, but it stuck. She finally got it open and made it down one step when the wall between her dining room and the staircase fell and her roof blew off. She said that the roof flew off like a frisbee then it was all over and that she was down in a pit with stuff all around me like a hill. Linda was trapped in her home after the storm because her left leg became pinned under cement and a radiator. Her leg was broken in two places and a chunk of flesh was ripped off when the cement was removed by rescue workers. Morehead's arms and shoulders were covered with bruises and cuts, but her face was untouched. As rain and marble-sized hail began to fall while she was trapped she covered her face with a nearby pair of sweatpants. In spite of the pain she continues to suffer and the long road ahead to recovery, Linda recognizes her good fortune to have survived and remembers moments when she didn't think she was going to live through it. Linda has mixed emotions as she said ``I am angry because everything you own is gone. Everything Mom and Dad worked for all their life is gone. I get so angry. And then I'm thankful the kids are all right. Late Sunday afternoon Linda was still finding debris in her hair-- rocks, pine needles, glass, wood splinters. Tammy Kreutzfeldt remembers that she and her family all screamed as the pressure built and the roof of their house blew off. She and her family looked up and could see the tornado and the sky from their basement. Tammy had cuts on her head inflicted from falling bricks as she huddled with friends and family members in the basement of her home during the tornado. Lucille and Jimmy Mone, 89 and 95 years old respectively, crawled over glass to safety. Jimmy who had been blown right out of bed crawled with Lucille on their hands and knees through shards of glass from blown out windows and broken pictures to their downstairs where they stayed until the storm had passed. Again, these two amazingly strong fighters recognized their good fortune as they looked back on their minutes of terror and acknowledged that, ``We're still alive and that's the important thing.'' Arnold Eldeen was driving Saturday night when he spotted the tornado that demolished much of his hometown. He raced home and arrived about 15 minutes after the tornado hit. While Arnold had been able to call his two sons before the tornado hit Spencer, it took almost three hours for him to find them to ensure they were both alive--thankfully, his sons had been able to make it out of Spencer before the tornado ravaged the community. Amanda Stevens, 85, was in a corner of her basement when the tornado struck and she prayed that she would not be pulled out of her basement. The tornado ripped the roof off her home, but miraculously the ceramic tile remained in place which she tediously laid on the walls 27 years ago as she and her now-deceased husband built their home. On Sunday, South Dakota's Governor William Janklow acted expeditiously to request a disaster declaration for the Spencer area from President Clinton. I was extremely pleased that the President acted swiftly and responded positively on Monday with a declaration for McCook County. While the declaration opens up a lot of assistance to help the victims start rebuilding their lives, the assistance certainly won't make anyone whole. I was also pleased that on Monday, Vice President Gore and FEMA Director James Lee Witt both announced they would tour the tornado ravaged area. I was pleased to join them on their tour Wednesday. I truly believe their visit helped lift the spirits of many of the victims. South Dakota has been hit by many devastating acts of Mother Nature in recent years. While the natural disasters South Dakota has faced in the recent past have all been different, two things are consistent in the wake of every disaster my state has experienced: First, the victims of the disaster always have a positive spirit and are determined to survive and rebuild their lives. Having met with residents of Spencer twice in the past 6 days, I have been moved by their resilence and their ability to remain focused on the future, after an act of Mother Nature wiped away the town they called home and a lifetime of personal possessions in a matter of minutes. The victims have shown a quiet determination to rebuild their lives and I commend them for their attitude. It can't be easy and I am committed to doing what I can to help each and every resident of Spencer move forward with their lives. I am always impressed and heartened by the selfless giving of concerned individuals coming to the aid of their fellow South Dakotans. South Dakotans have made it through tough times before and I think South Dakotans rush to reach out to our neighbors in need because we all realize that the next disaster could hit us. The response was tremendous. The tornado hit Spencer at approximately 8:45 pm on Saturday night. By 10 pm 300 emergency rescue workers and medical personnel were on the scene. Volunteers came from almost every city in the region to assist and help ease the shock from Kimball to Stickney to Dell Rapids. As a stream of ambulances entered city limits packed with volunteers, water, and blankets, other ambulances screamed out, loaded with wounded en route to hospitals in Mitchell and Sioux Falls. Members of the National Guard and the State Highway Patrol were also on the scene immediately to assist victims. While almost all families had their homes destroyed, very few victims have had to seek shelter provided by the Red Cross of FEMA because family and friends in the area have opened their homes to the victims. Within a day of the devastating tornado in Spencer, businesses and individuals from across South Dakota provided tornado victims with financial and moral support to help them rebuild their lives. I have been extremely touched--though I must say not surprised--by the many examples of generosity and compassion exhibited by individuals all over our state. The community is working together to assist victims, including collecting items needed by tornado victims. The Chapter of the American Red Cross has set up a fund. The United Methodist Church in Huron will give their entire offering of the next weekend to assist the victims. A television telethon raised over $500,000 in a matter of hours. Some 8,000 volunteers--more, frankly, than could be efficiently utilized-- showed up at the Spencer city limits to volunteer. Many other communities around the State have set up funds for the disaster victims. The South Dakota Community Foundation, which grants money to worthy causes, announced it will give $1,000 to every Spencer resident. Two nights ago, KELO TV conducted an impromptu telethon to collect funds for the victims. The effort collected over $500,000 in a matter of hours. Perhaps most impressive, in response to a request by Governor Janklow for volunteers to come to Spencer yesterday morning, again an estimated 8,000 people showed up to volunteer in this small town. Governor Janklow originally asked for 1,000 volunteers. The leaders of Spencer, South Dakota have continued their commitment and loyalty to their community all throughout the disaster. Mayor Rocky Kirby, owner of the destroyed grain elevator, has spent day and night dealing with not only his own personal loss of his business but working with Governor Janklow and FEMA officials to get their town back together. City Council member Donna Ruden stayed up the entire first night putting together a map of the community with the names and locations of all citizens to assist Governor Janklow, the National Guard, and the cleanup crews. As an employee of the Security State Bank, which was also destroyed with only the vault left standing, opened her home immediately as a make-shift bank, a meeting place for citizens and their insurance companies and a place to stop and share their accounts of the storm. She placed a sign on her front door, ``please come in''. The Red Cross and Salvation Army have done a remarkable job and I would be remiss if I did not recognize these people. In closing, Mr. President, I just want to again commend the victims for their resilience and positive spirit in the wake of this tragedy. I also want to assure them that in the coming weeks as the tv cameras and media leave and they are left to the day-to-day effort of rebuilding their lives, I will not forget about them. I am committed to working with individuals and with the different federal agencies offering assistance to ensure aid comes when people need it and with as few bureaucratic strings attached as possible. Again, my thoughts and prayers are with the families of those who lost their lives in this tragedy and my best wishes to all of the survivors during the next few critically important weeks as they take steps to rebuild their lives. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for such time as I may consume.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, like many of my colleagues I am deeply concerned about the recent nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan. The leaders of these two nations acted with disregard and both countries must be shown that such actions are unacceptable. No nation should think that it can conduct secret nuclear tests and not be held accountable. The United States and the international community will continue to impose sanctions on both countries, causing further economic hardship for these impoverished populations. However, I believe we can do much more to prevent further testing. India and Pakistan are two of the three nations who were suspected of having nuclear capability which had not joined the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Now, both countries should be pressured to sign the treaty immediately. In Tuesday's New York Times, Stanford Professor Sidney Drell stated a compelling argument for United States ratification of the CTBT, and I ask that the attached article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I agree with Drell's sentiment that, rather than pointing to India's and Pakistan's tests as reason for inaction, the Senate should immediately take up and approve the treaty. I feel strongly that Senate ratification would make our efforts to dissuade India and Pakistan from an arms race much more credible, and would send a message to any other nations considering tests of their own. Of course, the US and the international community should concentrate on facilitating the dialog necessary between Indian and Pakistan to diffuse the points of contention currently driving this arms race, and ratification of the CTBT will help to shift that focus. Additionally, the best way for India and Pakistan to address the sanctions resulting from their irresponsible nuclear tests is to sign the CTBT, without conditions. Instead of spending scarce resources on a nuclear arms race, we must convince the leadership of both countries to rebuild their economies and improve the standard of living for the people, something that obviously has not been the case for either India or Pakistan. Urging them to sign the treaty would be one step in the right direction. Treaty ratification is also a necessary step for restricting the flow of nuclear technology, from these emerging nuclear powers and nations worldwide. I urge Senator Lott to take up consideration of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and I urge all of my Senate colleagues to vote for a ban on nuclear testing by the United States. The United States must lead by example. We did not do enough to prevent the nuclear tests by India or Pakistan, and now we must do more to ensure that further testing is halted in South Asia and throughout the world. President Clinton is scheduled to travel to China and South Asia later this year. I believe such a diplomatic mission is extremely timely and must include visits to China, India and Pakistan for the distinct purpose of discussing global security in light of the round of nuclear capacity testing in the region. I encourage my Senate colleagues to support the President in this endeavor. The article follows: [From the New York Times, June 2, 1998] Reasons To Ratify, Not To Stall (By Sidney D. Drell) Stanford, Calif.--The nuclear tests by India and Pakistan have led some in the United States Senate to seek further delay on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which has already been awaiting ratification for more than a year and a half. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the majority leader, said on Friday that ``the nuclear spiral in Asia demonstrates that irrelevance of U.S. action'' on the treaty, calling the pact ``unverifiable and ineffectual.'' To the contrary, the treaty's international monitoring system, when used in combination with our own intelligence resources, provides the means to verify the test ban effectively. Moreover, a quick vote in the Senate approving the treaty is an essential response to the South Asian nuclear gambit. While it is true that American intelligence failed to provide imminent warning of India's first three nuclear tests on May 11, we were well aware that the technical preparations had been made for testing. Furthermore, the global network of seismic sensors that will form the core of the treaty's verification system did detect, locate and identify the main nuclear blast that day. It is evident that the system also proved effective in detecting Pakistan's tests, both on Thursday and on Saturday. And the treaty calls for the monitoring system to be beefed up. Also, the treaty would allow us to request a short- notice, on-site suggesting that a nuclear weapons test might have occurred. India has claimed that its last two announced tests, on May 13, had very low yields, in the subkiloton range. Whether or not we succeed in corroborating possible tests of such relatively small magnitude, we need to remember that very low yield tests are of questionable value in designing new nuclear weapons or confirming that a new design will work as intended. Any failure by the monitors to detect such tests is not the proper benchmark for determining the system's--or the treaty's--effectiveness. I know from my own work for the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, that the existing monitoring system did the job last summer, detecting a ``seismic event'' off Novaya Zemlya in Russia and eventually helping to determine that it was not from a nuclear test. Our intelligence services are rightly assigned the task of monitoring for nuclear explosions, with or without the treaty. But with the treaty, additional sensors would be deployed in a global network that would complement our own intelligence. Some of these additional sensors would be ``aimed'' at the subcontinent. And with the treaty, we could request onsite inspection of suspicious activities. The test ban treaty--which has already been signed by 149 nations and ratified by our nuclear allies, Britain and France--provides the legal framework for a long-term solution to the problem of nuclear testing in India and Pakistan. The best way for these two nations to begin addressing the international condemnation and sanctions that have resulted from their tests is for them to sign the treaty, without condition. Senate ratification would strengthen our hand in pushing India and Pakistan toward a responsible course, and it would help dissuade other states from going down the dangerous road of developing nuclear weapons. Senator Lott also expressed concern that the treaty ``will not enter into force unless 44 countries, including India and Pakistan, ratify it.'' Precisely for this reason, Article 14 of the treaty calls for a review conference in September 1999 to look for ways to put the treaty into effect if it has not been approved by all 44 nuclear-capable nations (i.e., those with nuclear weapons or with nuclear reactors for research or power). Only those nations that have ratified will have a seat at that conference. Thus the United States must ratify the treaty this year if we are to be a leader, as we must be, in an effort to put the treaty into force. Previous Senates have shown that they can act quickly and courageously on such matters. When President John F. Kennedy submitted the Limited Test Ban Treaty to the Senate in 1963, the Foreign Relations Committee held its first hearing four days later, and the treaty was approved by the full Senate in less than two months. Yet in the wake of the Indian and Pakistani tests, it would appear that the Senate will not act even to bring the treaty to a vote. Inaction will not help to deter further nuclear tests or reduce nuclear dangers. Rather than pointing to India's and Pakistan's tests as an excuse for inaction, the Senate should be approving the treaty without delay. Four decades ago President Dwight D. Eisenhower said that not achieving a nuclear test ban ``would have to be classed as the greatest disappointment of any administration--of any decade--of any time and of any party.'' It would be tragic if once more we fail to seize this opportunity.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, as we begin our second week of debate on the tobacco settlement legislation introduced by Senator McCain, we are faced with a cloture vote on H.R. 1270, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. As we all know, the issues surrounding nuclear waste storage are extremely complex, often contentious, and no simple solutions exist. While I do not agree with everything in the bill, I have supported legislative action on this critical issue in the past and hope to in the future. This country cannot afford inaction on this issue, and it is my hope that we will soon move to address this vital issue. That being said, I oppose the effort to invoke cloture on H.R. 1270 today. We concluded one week of debate on a national tobacco settlement prior to the Memorial Day recess. That legislation, which is absolutely critical to public health, and especially children's health, remains the pending business before the Senate, and I cannot support any effort to substitute other legislation before this body at this time. We all know the vital statistics surrounding underage tobacco use. Every day, 3,000 children will start smoking. One thousand of them will die prematurely from this addiction. It is time to pass comprehensive tobacco legislation that addresses the critical public health issues caused by tobacco use. Such an approach will reduce teen smoking, invest in public health research and programs to help smokers quit, and protect tobacco farmers and their communities. Let us keep in mind that the tobacco industry has carefully targeted children. They have done this because children are most vulnerable to nicotine addiction and they are most easily affected by slick advertising and promotional ploys. The evidence is overwhelming that smoking is a pediatric disease. Almost ninety percent of all people who ever try a cigarette, do so by age 18, and 71 percent of people who have ever smoked daily were smoking by age 18. My own state of South Dakota ranks second among all states in underage tobacco use. Almost 40 percent of our high school kids smoke cigarettes, and even more use smokeless tobacco. Almost a quarter of all expectant mothers in South Dakota report using tobacco during pregnancy; an appalling statistic that results in low birth weight and other natal difficulties. Mr. President, we face an historic opportunity to address a critical public health problem. I firmly believe that this legislation will be remembered as a dramatic change in our government's efforts and policies. This bill will be one of the most socially significant items this Congress tackles. Therefore, I will oppose cloture on H.R. 1270 at this time. The Senate should maintain focus on tobacco legislation that will help our children withstand the pressures and inducements of the tobacco industry to addict them to tobacco products. I must also express my frustration over a recent statement from the Speaker of the House. He has apparently determined that the nuclear waste conference report will not be considered by the House of Representatives. If that is the case, any further action on the Senate floor is obviously for partisan political purposes, and I will not support furthering that goal.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a very special South Dakotan--Mary Mooney-Keith. On July 1, 1998, Mary Mooney-Keith, of Rapid City, South Dakota will retire after many years of diligent service for the school children of South Dakota. Mary is retiring to a lifestyle where hopefully someone can serve her just like all the years she served children through her wonderful food service career. Mary's outstanding food service career allowed her to demonstrate her knowledge, leadership, and passion for nutrition at all levels. From her work at the small school district of Faith, South Dakota to her service at Meade, South Dakota (one of the largest geographical districts in the nation), to her role at the South Dakota Child and Adult Nutrition Services, Mary always strived to make it her goal to make the school nutrition program the best possible. Mary's nutrition expertise did not stop in the classroom. She also was very active in the School Food Service Association at the local, state, and national levels. She held elected offices at all levels within the Association--including Midwest Regional Director. Mary's passion for child nutrition came through in her teaching style. She wasn't the teacher who went in and just talked to her students. Instead, she went to a clown school in Wisconsin during the summers and developed Mario the Clown'' to assist with her instruction. Mary is the type of person whose career may not have made her famous or wealthy. But, for 32 years, Mary Mooney-Keith taught our most precious citizens, our school children, one of the most important lessons in life--good nutrition. And, the greatest thing about it all, she lived her life with one basic principle that sometimes we all forget, to simply be yourself.'' I am proud of Mary Mooney-Keith and offer her my best wishes in her upcoming retirement.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce legislation to authorize a critically important rural water system in South Dakota, the ``Perkins County Rural Water System Act of 1998.'' I am pleased to have my good friend and colleague from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, as an original cosponsor of this important legislation, which I had introduced during the 104th Congress as a Member of the House of Representatives. Congressman Thune of South Dakota is the sponsor of similar legislation in the House during this Congress. This legislation is also strongly supported by the State of South Dakota and local project sponsors, who have demonstrated that support by agreeing to substantial financial contributions from the local level. Like many parts of South Dakota, Perkins County has insufficient water supplies of reasonable quality available, and the water supplies that are available do not meet the minimum health and safety standards, thereby posing a threat to public health and safety. In addition to improving the health of residents in the region, I strongly believe that this rural drinking water delivery project will help to stabilize the rural economy as well. Water is a basic commodity and is essential if we are to foster rural development in many parts of rural South Dakota, including the Perkins County area. The ``Perkins County Rural Water System Act of 1998'' authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to construct a Perkins County Rural Water System providing service to approximately 2,500 people, including the communities of Lemmon and Bison, as well as rural residents. The Perkins County Rural Water System is located in northwestern South Dakota along the South Dakota/North Dakota border and it will be an extension of an existing rural water system in North Dakota, the Southwest Pipeline Project. The State of South Dakota has worked closely with the State of North Dakota over the years on the Perkins County connection to the Southwest Pipeline Project. A feasibility study completed in 1994 looked at several alternatives for a dependable water supply, and the connection to the Southwest Pipeline Project is clearly the most feasible for the Perkins County area. Mr. President, South Dakota is plagued by water of exceedingly poor quality, and the Perkins County rural water project is an effort to help provide clean water--a commodity most of us take for granted--to the people of Perkins County, South Dakota. I am a strong believer in the federal governments role in rural water delivery, and I hope to continue to advance that agenda both in South Dakota and around the country. I urge my colleagues to support this important rural water legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to move forward on enactment as quickly as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity today to recognize the Tulare, South Dakota High School concert band for their up-coming trip to Canada. The Tulare band will travel to Winkler, Manitoba, Canada on June 2, 1998 to perform concerts with the Canadian Garden Valley Collegiate School. I want to express my appreciation to Paul Moen, band director and Karl Redekop, principal from Garden Valley Collegiate School. These two individuals have worked very hard to plan and organize this exciting trip. I also want to thank Tulare's band director, Sam Glantzow, for his countless hours of dedicated work to see that this great learning experience for the band members from Tulare High School is a success. Mr. President, the band members from both schools will gain valuable knowledge about new cultures and will form international friendships. I am sure this will be an experience everyone will remember for a lifetime.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned that India conducted three underground nuclear tests in the western desert state of Rajasthan on Monday, May 11, and two additional tests at the same site on Wednesday, May 13. These tests were conducted without any advance warning to the rest of the world and are a dangerous precedent for future testing by other nations. No nation should think that it can conduct secret nuclear tests and not be held accountable for its actions. Furthermore, these tests run counter to an international campaign to pass the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), of which I fully support, and are both irresponsible and unacceptable. The United States and the international community must speak out against this action and act swiftly and justly. India, which has not signed the 1970 nonproliferation treaty, gave no advance warning about the nuclear tests on Monday and Wednesday. Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee said that the explosions in the desert, 330 miles southwest of New Delhi, did not result in the release of radiation into the atmosphere. However, this is simply untrue. Nuclear explosions, even when they are conducted underground, release deadly radioactive materials into the atmosphere and water table, posing health risks for generations to come. Treating the human race and the environment with such complete disrespect is unacceptable and will not go unnoticed. While many of India's leaders have applauded these tests, the people of India are hurt the most. India is a country of extreme poverty and all Indians will be harmed by this act. On one hand, international sanctions are imminent which will pose further economic hardship on the poorest of the poor. On the other, the radiation from these nuclear blasts has severe health impacts on all Indians including those closest to New Delhi. It was irresponsible for the leaders of India to sacrifice the economic and physical well-being of its people for a display of military might. Moreover, countries that break international law by detonating nuclear devices are subject to denial of U.S. credits and credit guarantees. Federal law also requires U.S. opposition to loan requests to international lending institutions and bars loans from any U.S. bank to the Indian government except those that provide food or other agricultural commodities. I will bring the issue of international sanctions and international lending up with my colleagues on the Senate Banking Committee, which overseas World Bank issues, to ensure that appropriate actions are taken with regard to countries who disregard international law and conduct nuclear tests. India, one of several nations widely suspected of nuclear capability which has not joined the 1970 CTBT treaty, now observed by 185 countries, should be pressured to sign the treaty immediately. India's leaders acted with disregard and India must be shown that its actions are unacceptable. The United States will be forced to impose sanctions on India, and I would urge swift action on this front. Nevertheless, this irresponsible act by India should not be an impetus to step up the arms race by Pakistan. Instead, Pakistan should exercise restraint and caution while the international community imposes sanctions. In the long-term, Pakistan will benefit most by responding to this action, not with military buildup, but with a higher level of dignity and morality. Mohandas Gandhi said, We must support friends even in their mistakes, however, it must be the friend and not the mistake we are supporting.'' India's decision to conduct nuclear tests was a mistake that was both irresponsible and unacceptable. Although I wish no ill on the people of India, the leaders of the country must accept responsibility for this mistake and the consequences that, no doubt, will follow.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to S. 1260, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. This bill seeks to prevent states from protecting their own citizens from unscrupulous actions by a small minority in the securities industry. We must allow states to protect their own investors, and this further intrusion into states rights is unwarranted by the evidence. Preempting state remedies now--and requiring fraud victims to seek relief solely under the federal standards promulgated in 1995--could leave investors with severely limited ability to protect themselves against fraud. We should permit the 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act to be interpreted by the courts before we embark on this effort to anticipate future problems with the PSLRA that have not yet arisen. Several federal district courts have issued rulings on the 1995 law that are so restrictive that they threaten almost all private enforcement of securities law--including holding that reckless wrongdoers are no longer liable to their victims under the PSLRA. The SEC has warned in briefs filed in these cases that such a result would essentially end private enforcement of the federal securities laws. By eliminating state remedies for fraud before knowing whether the courts will finally interpret the PSLRA in a way that provides victims with a viable means to recover their losses, S. 1260 risks not only harming innocent investors but undermining public confidence in our securities markets. There is no need for any federal action inasmuch as there have been few state securities class actions filed since the PSLRA passed, and most have been in one state. Preemption proponents cite an imaginary ``explosion'' of state suits filed to ``circumvent'' the PSLRA in the two years since its enactment. But the mere handful of state securities class actions filed in 1997--only 44 nationwide--represents a one-third decrease since 1996 and is less than in the three years before the PSLRA was passed. It also is an infinitesimally small percentage of the roughly 15 million civil cases filed in state courts each year. No state other than California has had more than seven securities class actions filed in the two years since enactment of the PSLRA. Given these small numbers, there is no reason why states should not be left free to decide how best to protect their own citizens from fraud. State laws against securities fraud are part of a dual enforcement system that has served the country exceptionally well since the Depression. States enacted protections against financial schemes in the early 1900s. Congress passed federal securities laws in 1933 and 1934 to complement--not replace--state laws and to stop abuses that caused the 1929 crash. Many states have chosen to provide more expansive investor protections than federal law currently provides--through accountability for aiders and abettors, realistic time limits for filing a fraud claim, and the ability to recover fully from professionals who help perpetrate frauds (like lawyers and accountants) when the main wrongdoer is bankrupt, in jail, or has fled the country. For example, according to the SEC, 49 of the 50 states provide liability for aiders and abettors now unavailable under federal law and 33 states provide longer statutes of limitations for securities fraud actions than current federal law. S. 1260 would take away these important state remedies. This effort has been underway virtually since the PSLRA passed. It is not based on the new realities created by the PSLRA, but rather to eliminate another form of protection for investors. The SEC has repeatedly expressed concern that federal legislation to preempt state laws is premature. In an April 1997 letter to the President forwarding a lengthy SEC report on the operation of the PSLRA, Chairman Arthur Levitt stated, ``The Commission endorses the ultimate conclusion of this report: it is too early to assess with great confidence many important effects of the [PSLRA] and therefore, on this basis, it is premature to propose legislative changes. . . The one-year time frame has not allowed for sufficient practical experience with the Reform Act's provisions, or for many court decisions (particularly appellate court decisions) interpreting those provisions.'' The SEC reiterated this view in October 1997 testimony before both the House and Senate and has specifically criticized the pending preemption legislation, stating that it ``would deprive investors of important protections.'' SEC Commissioner Norman Johnson, a Republican, has been especially critical: ``Given the possible adverse affect on investor confidence, as well as the long history of effective and concurrent federal and state securities regulation, and the strong federalism concerns raised by preemption . . . extreme caution should be exercised before state courthouse doors are closed to small investors through the preclusion of state class actions for securities fraud.'' While three of the five SEC Commissioners no longer oppose S. 1260, there has been no change in any of the underlying facts that led to the SEC's earlier report and testimony. Commissioner Johnson continues to oppose S. 1260. With more and more Americans participating in the stock market boom, it is more imperative that we maintain these investor protections, not weaken them. According to a front-page article in the November 30, 1997, New York Times, ``Investment Fraud Is Soaring Along with the Stock Market.'' This was only one in a long line of recent articles reporting on widespread fraud in the financial markets--a fact acknowledged by federal and state enforcement officials nationwide. The National White Collar Crime Center reports that corporate financial crime costs $565 billion annually, nearly 12 times the amount of street crime. The New York Attorney General has reported that investor complaints have risen 40% per year in the past two years; the U.S. Attorney in New York City has stated that she has witnessed an ``explosion'' of securities fraud; and the mob has now infiltrated Wall Street. Yet, federal and state enforcement resources are shrinking. As SEC Chairman Levitt observed in December 1997: ``In a market like this, parasites crowd in to feast on the bull's success.'' In light of all this, Congress should strengthen, not weaken, existing deterrents. This premption of state law is opposed by a broad coalition, including the American Association of Retired Persons; American Federation of State County and Municipal Workers; Consumer Federation of America; Consumers Union; Gray Panthers; Government Finance Officers Association; Municipal Treasurers' Association; National League of Cities; National Association of Counties; National Association of County Treasurers and Finance Officers and many, many others. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this unnecessary and unwarranted federal intrusion into what should appropriately be state law.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the importance of passing the Conference Report on the Agricultural Research Bill, S. 1150. This bill has the overwhelming support of over 70 Senators, yet we have continued to struggle here in the Senate to get this critically important legislation passed. In recent years, American agriculture has greatly changed. Because of the 1996 Farm Bill, our producers rely greatly on the crop insurance program to protect them from production risk. The reforms in agricultural research programs included in S. 1150 provide a roadmap for the future of agriculture. As importantly, it includes a funding stream to fund important new investments in agricultural research and rural development by creating and funding The Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems and by extending the Fund for Rural America. And yes, to the chagrin of some, this legislation reinstates food stamp benefits for our most vulnerable legal immigrants. I would hasten to point out that these provisions are modeled on sections of last year's Balanced Budget Act that restored eligibility for Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid to some legal immigrants. I applaud the Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee and Senator Harkin for their leadership in crafting the balanced compromise inherent in this legislation. Attempts to derail this compromise put at risk the important investments in agriculture and the sound research and crop insurance reforms included in the bill. Living in a state like South Dakota, I know first hand, and as most of you saw during last year's disaster, what continual flooding can do to our precious farm land. Again, this year, eight counties in northeastern South Dakota are again experiencing severe flooding conditions. Without a strong safety net, crop insurance remains as the only safety net for producers to protect them from the vagaries of nature. This bill provides nearly $500 million for partial funding for this important risk management tool. I have been informed by several crop insurance agents in South Dakota that the Agricultural Research Bill must be passed soon or many producers face the possible cancellation of their policies. Keep in mind, these policies, are in many cases, the only protection producers have from disasters which are not of their acts of mismanagement but as acts of nature. The bill covers all facets of federally funded agricultural research, including: the Agriculture Research Service of USDA; the Cooperative Extension Service; Land Grant Universities such as South Dakota State University and competitive research and extension programs open to other entities. S. 1150 includes comprehensive research provisions for our nation's land grant universities. For example, South Dakota State University (SDSU) and other small state schools are protected in this bill by allowing a great deal of flexibility in how SDSU will meet new requirements that direct a percentage of all research and extension funds toward multi-state, disciplinary, and integrated research and extension activities. For example, if SDSU is working on a project that may need expertise from the University of South Dakota, they will be able to include that toward meeting the multi-state research component. I am also pleased that the conferees have agreed to authorize a competitive research program for tribal colleges, otherwise known as the 1994 institutions. Unlike the significant research programs that have existed for decades for 1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions, the 1994 institutions currently do not have authorization for an agriculture research program, and thus are not full partners in the land-grant system. This legislation mitigates this inequity by establishing a modest, competitive research program for the 1994 institutions. Funded research would address high priority concerns of local tribal, national, and multi-state significance and would be conducted through cooperative agreement with 1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions. Although it is true that some tribal colleges are not yet ready to conduct research, many of them have the capability. Some current research includes: (1) Water quality research: Conducted through contracts with Indian Tribes, which are required to meet certain standards under the federal Clean Water Act. (2) Wildlife research: Conducted by a handful of tribal colleges to evaluate and find solutions for the adverse impact of pesticides on local wild bird and deer populations, and to research problems associated with amphibians and irrigation project lines. (3) Native plant research: Conducted because new development on and near tribal lands is taking a serious toll on wetland areas. This impacts the niche environment of native plants, which are traditionally used for medicinal and other purposes. This is an example of the kind of research that most larger institutions would not focus on because it will not lead to large-scale production agriculture. Without the research currently being conducted at Salish Kootenai College in Pablo, Montana, the nation risks losing some of our native plants. (4) Range cattle research: Currently underway at several tribal colleges, to address problems of range cattle traversing streams and impacting water quality (and possibly impacting native trout and other fish populations). In addition, one tribal college is conducting research and development on a new strain of more rigorous cattle. This is just a sampling of the kind of research currently ongoing at the tribal colleges. The primary focus of this research is on the use of niche products to develop and expand reservation economies; the preservation and cultivation of land; and the strengthening of families and communities. The tribal colleges have not asked for millions and millions of dollars to conduct costly basic research. Rather, they ask for research authority to protect and improve the earth on which they live and to ensure the viability of the plants and animals with which they co- exist. Another provision of this legislation addresses an inequity in the 1994 land-grant extension program. Under the reauthorization, 1994 institutions would be permitted to enter into cooperative agreements with any 1862 or 1890 institution in the United States, rather than being limited to agreements with only the 1862 in their state. This provision is important to the effort to create productive, cost- efficient extension programs in Indian Country. Under current law, to participate in extension programs, 1994 institutions are required to enter into cooperative agreements with the 1862 institution in their state, and funding for the program goes to the 1862 institutions rather than the 1994 institutions. In the case of Sitting Bull College, which straddles the border of North and South Dakota, and Din College, which has campuses in Arizona and New Mexico, this restrictive language could seriously hamper efforts to create the most productive extension program possible for the relevant service area. This clarification simply makes good business sense. Why should a 1994 or an 1862 institution be prohibited, for fiscal or bureaucratic reasons, from partnering with an institution that has the expertise and resources that are most beneficial to the students and communities the institution serves? To correct this problem, the legislation states that 1994 institutions may enter into cooperative agreements with any 1862 or 1890 institution in the United States, rather than being limited to an agreement with only the 1862 in their state. Further, the bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to fund the 1994 institutions directly, rather than passing the funding through mainstream institutions. Again, Mr. President, passage of the Agricultural Research Bill is crucial to the future of American agriculture. Our Nation's farmers and ranchers work hard each and every day. Not only do they produce an abundant supply of food, they produce it at the most inexpensive price to consumers in the entire world. With the support of over 70 Senators, this bill has enough support to pass with wide-ranging support. This bill enjoys the support of constituencies--both urban and rural, both--nutritional advocates and crop insurers. It would be a great travesty to allow this bill to fall victim to the philosophical ideologies of a very few. If we do not act on this immediately, it will show our lack of leadership to help some of our most valuable as well as our most vulnerable members of our society. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York and the Senator from California for their extraordinary work on this important legislation. Mr. President, frankly, I have to share a great level of frustration, and to be candid, anger at where we find ourselves this morning: unable to move forward with the breast cancer legislation for which there is broad bipartisan support and little controversy. I have more than simply a public policy concern about this issue. I have a personal concern in my own family, having gone through my wife's breast cancer challenge over the past 2 years. She is doing very well. But we had a situation where she remained in the hospital for one night following surgery. She went home with the drains, and the other complications. We were able to do that all right because we don't have small children at home. We had no complications. But I know of other women in my State of South Dakota who have small children at home who cannot take a great amount of time from work, who have no extra help, who have extra complications, and who have all sorts of matters that are debilitating that cause complications. And 24 hours for many of them is simply not adequate. We have an opportunity here to correct that problem. This doesn't correct everything. I share the support of the Senator from California for the Patients' Bill of Rights. I am frustrated, as well, that we haven't made greater progress there. I hope that before this session is over we will in fact deal with the more comprehensive health care reform legislation. I applaud Senator Daschle's leadership on the Patients' Bill of Rights legislation. But I do not want to make the perfect the enemy of the good. What we have here is a piece of legislation which we should be able to pass this very day. It is certainly my hope, while we have the continued discussion about a more comprehensive approach to managed care and ensuring the rights of all patients, that before this session of the 105th Congress expires--and we are running out of time quickly--that, in fact, we get this breast cancer bill to the floor and deal with it in an expeditious fashion. Again, I simply want to applaud the leadership of the Senators from California and New York on this issue, one that we really should not allow to be delayed longer than it already has. I yield my time. Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I share the widespread support for this important legislation. This bill would consolidate and reauthorize job training and vocational education programs. This bill enables states to create a unified plan for all social services related to job training and vocational and adult education. Job training and vocational education are vital programs which prepare individuals to compete in today's changing global economy. An estimated 346,000 high-tech jobs are going unfilled nationwide. The increasing shortage of highly trained workers threatens our nation's economic growth and our productivity. This measure will help address these short-comings and prepare more of America's workers, and thus America's businesses, for the Twenty-first century. We live in a capitalist society with a free market economy. Employers seek to hire the best qualified job candidates. S. 1186 simply provides a means to help individuals acquire the skills necessary to compete. The acquisition of these skills will best help individuals thrive as our economy continues to grow. Too many of our citizens have been left behind the growing economy of the past years, and this measure will help them keep up with the new economy. I believe that S. 1186 also supports our commitment to move individuals from welfare to work. Job training prepares individuals to compete in the marketplace, and remain free from government assistance. For all of the foregoing reasons, I support this bill. One important part of this legislation is the reauthorization of the programs under the Carl D. Perkins Vocation and Applied Technology Education Act. I have heard from constituents across my state that these programs are a very critical component of our vocational and technical education system. As we in the Congress work to help our nation prepare for the Twenty- first century, there are few challenges more fundamental to our success than ensuring that our work force has the education and training necessary to compete in the global economy. More and more jobs require technical skills, training that is not offered in our traditional four- year colleges. Our vocational and technical schools, accordingly, are absolutely essential for the students and workers of today. Technical skills lead to higher wages for workers and more competitive businesses. That is why the federal-state-local partnership for vocational and technical education, which has been very successful to date, must be continued. The highest priority for the moment is to get the reauthorization of the Perkins Act programs through the Senate and into conference. The legislative session this year is very short, and we cannot afford to delay passage of this bill any further. That said, however, there are a number of provisions of this bill which need improvement. Foremost among the needed changes, in my view, is that the Senate should accept what the House has proposed in terms of a separate bill for vocational-technical education. This difference is very crucial, for it is essential to preserve the independent mission and funding stream for vocational education. For some time, it appeared that the Senate bill was headed in the wrong direction, removing the separate designation for vocational and technical education and placing these programs into the mix of the overhaul of our job training and retraining programs. That would have been a serious mistake, and I am pleased with the improvements that the managers of this bill have agreed to offer to this legislation. Among the expected changes is an assurance that funding appropriated for vocational-technical education programs will be directed to school- based programs and not diverted to other areas. Additionally, the amendment is expected to ensure that governance for vocational education will remain at the state and local level, and that a strong focus will remain on professional development for teachers and administrators. The House, on the other hand, has proposed a separate legislative authorization for the Perkins Act programs. Despite the forthcoming changes to the Senate bill, I urge the Senate conferees to accept the position of the House with respect to reauthorization. Today, however, I believe that we should send this bill to the conference committee, where I hope that the remaining issues can be resolved, and I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill as expeditiously as possible. Workforce Investment Partnership Act

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I ask unanimous consent to speak for such time as I may consume.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member, Senator Moynihan of New York, and the chairman, Senator Roth of Delaware, for their excellent work on this legislation and for bringing this to the floor. I rise today to express my qualified support for this legislation that is long overdue, the IRS Reform and Restructuring Act. When I say ``qualified,'' that qualification is primarily over the question of paying for this legislation in full. As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, it is a matter of great importance to me. I am very heartened that Chairman Roth has expressed very clearly on the floor here today that there will, in fact, be offsets sufficient to pay for this legislation not only during the first 5 years but the remaining 5 years as well. I look forward to reviewing those offsets, of course. But I am very heartened by that, because I think that is a key underlying requirement for this body to responsibly take up IRS reform legislation. The road bringing us to this day has been long indeed. It was, after all, in the fall of 1995 that the legislation was enacted calling for the establishment of a commission on restructuring the IRS. Nearly 1 year ago, this commission submitted its report to Congress. After a period of congressional hearings and negotiation, compromise legislation was agreed upon by President Clinton, Secretary of Treasury Rubin, and the minority leadership of both Houses of Congress. With this support, it is not surprising that the House passed H.R. 2676 last November by an overwhelming margin of 424-6. The administration, since that time, has appointed former FBI and CIA Director William H. Webster to review the practices of the IRS and its Criminal Investigation Division. I think that is a very important and responsible step on the part of the administration, which is consistent with the direction and concerns expressed by both the House and the Senate. It has been frustrating that it has taken so long to bring this legislation to the floor. During the State of the Union Address at the beginning of the year, President Clinton called for passage of this bill as his first item of business. One week later, the majority leader pledged that IRS reform would be considered on this floor by March 30. Once again, unfortunately, the Senate did nothing. We spent days debating such items as renaming airports, but there was no action on this critical legislation. March 30 came and went, and so did an even more significant date for over 100 million Americans, and that was April 15, tax day. As the American people met the deadline for filing their tax forms, the Senate had not yet taken this legislation up on the floor. Finally, after much delay, this measure has reached the Senate floor. It has often been said that, ``It is better late than never.'' This week's Congressional Quarterly, a respected nonpartisan political publication, observes that one reason for the delay may have been a desire to raise campaign money. I certainly hope that was not the case. I believe that this legislation could, in fact, go a long way toward addressing many of the fundamental organizational problems that we see in the IRS today. That agency, as we all know very well, has antiquated computer systems, customer service phone lines that typically have busy signals, and many other operational inefficiencies. Furthermore, we have all heard about the large number of complaints about overzealous enforcement, rude service, and simple inability to get a clear answer. These are problems that clearly must be addressed. Of course, it should be recognized that during the course of Senate hearings, the IRS was not in a position to refute individual cases brought before the committee because of their confidentiality restrictions, and so the ``rest of the story,'' as is sometimes heard, went untold. Nonetheless, it is clear, both through hearings and individual complaints to our respective offices, that there have been abuses. There is no room for that, and there ought to be zero tolerance for that abuse. This bill will create an IRS governance and oversight board, which will be charged with overseeing the long-term strategic and operational plans for the agency. Personnel policies will be made more flexible. Expanded use of electronic filing will become a significant goal, with the hope that by the year 2007 only 20 percent of the tax returns will be filed on paper. Additionally, this bill will expand taxpayer rights. The burden of proof in Tax Court proceedings will lie with the IRS rather than with the taxpayer. Penalties will be allowed for IRS collection activities that negligently violate the Internal Revenue Code. Relief will be granted to spouses who are innocent of an underpayment filed on a return. Taxpayers will be granted expanded confidentiality protection as well as explicit notice of their rights. One of the more overlooked provisions of this bill, however, is perhaps one of the most important. The bill states--albeit in a sense of the Congress, nonetheless an important expression of the point of view of this body--that front-line IRS technical experts should be heard during congressional consideration of tax legislation in an effort to avoid additional complexity to the Tax Code. It has been Congresses and Presidents, after all, not the IRS, that have been responsible for creating a Tax Code which is overly complex and difficult to enforce. In a sense, the IRS has been an easy target for this whole debate, as has always been the case, I suppose. Few people like an agency responsible for collecting taxes. We must instead recognize, however, that a great deal of the responsibility for this problem rests on the doorstep of Congress itself. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, for example, while an excellent piece of legislation in very many respects, contains hundreds of new tax provisions, most of which increased the complexity of the Tax Code. We have in this debate the remarkable inconsistency of those who decry the complexity of the Tax Code on the one hand, but never miss an opportunity to worsen the situation by supporting every conceivable tax provision complication that comes along. I do have a serious reservation already expressed at the outset, and that is the Senate version of the bill as it now stands is expected to cost the Treasury $19.3 billion over the next 10 years. The proposed offsets are nearly $10 billion short of paying for this cost, meaning this bill, until it is amended, is in violation of the pay-as-you-go rules in the Budget Act, and costing three times the cost of the House- passed IRS reform legislation. As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I believe it is extremely important that we maintain the budget discipline that has brought us the first balanced unified budget in three decades, and not jeopardize even as worthy a cause as this. I look forward, again, to reviewing the chairman's offers that he will raise later on in this debate. Additionally, I would be remiss if I failed to point out there are, in fact, a great number of IRS employees who deserve to be recognized for the exemplary service they provide for this Nation. Although I have certainly heard my share of complaints about the IRS, I have also heard from constituents who relate their stories of problems they have had. I am also very much aware of IRS employees who go about their duties every day as public servants in a professional and competent and able manner. We in Congress must be careful not to use too broad a brush in the heat of this debate. The vast majority of IRS employees are good and capable public servants with a tough job on their hands. The fact is that fact has been lost as we listened to one side of the story, one side that does indeed, however, need to be corrected. But I think it is important for us to go about this debate and recognize that on the one hand elected officials have created a complex Tax Code, though we want aggressive tax collection in order to address the problem of tax evasion in this country, which costs the taxpayers $100 billion a year in uncollected taxes, an unfair tax on those Americans who fairly and legally pay their taxes. So on the one hand we want the IRS to be aggressive about making those collections, but on the other hand we also want an IRS with a human face on it that recognizes that intimidation and overaggressiveness has no place. This is a fine line to walk--a line that has been crossed in numerous instances about unfortunate situations with the IRS--but one that is difficult to walk in some instances. Mr. President, I look forward to the debate on this legislation. It is a positive step forward in our efforts to create a tax system that is simpler and less burdensome on taxpayers. We cannot rest with the debate on this bill, however, since the more difficult and more complex job lies ahead. To truly resolve this problem, we will need to get to the ultimate source, which is the complexity and the difficulty of the Tax Code itself, and there the guilty party is not the IRS but the Congress itself. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President I am pleased to introduce legislation today that will foster job growth and job creation in distressed communities. This important legislation, the ``Reemployment Tax Credit Act of 1988,'' will provide needed assistance to communities when they are impacted by significant job losses. Twice in the last year, communities in my state have suffered the difficult repercussions of massive job losses in the area. The circumstances in Huron and those in the Northern Hills region differed considerably, however, in both instances the job losses affected far reaching elements of the local economy. I proudly introduce this legislation to enhance the ability of distressed communities to address the challenges of sudden economic dislocation. This bill will extend the existing Work Opportunity Tax Credit to include dislocated workers affected by plant closings or other events resulting in extensive job losses. This tax credit accelerates opportunities for business growth and expansion in distressed communities therefore decreasing unemployment insurance expenditures, reducing the flight of dislocated workers, allowing families to remain in their community and in their homes. It serves to stabilize the local economy and minimize the negative impacts on other local businesses. The most successful and immediate action to address economic dislocation is to reemploy workers. The Reemployment Tax Credit Act of 1998 will make a serious and positive impact on the growth and prosperity of our communities. I urge my colleagues to support this effort to provide distressed communities with this critical assistance to help them recover from extraordinary economic hardship.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senate approval of extending North Atlantic Treaty Organization membership to Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. For me this issue is very clear, admitting these countries into NATO will strengthen the Organization, reinforce new democracies, renew the American commitment to European security, and reaffirm American leadership in international relations and diplomacy. The United States plays a pivotal role in international relations because of our position as the world's only military and economic superpower, and as the world's strongest democracy. The existence of NATO is one of our best hopes for relieving much of the burden of that role. NATO initiatives can prevent international incidents from becoming serious military conflicts by encouraging member nations to work together to resolve conflicts. The success of NATO initiatives depends entirely on the support and participation of member nations. Ratification of this NATO expansion resolution is a test of whether the United States will stay engaged in a changing and evolving Europe. If NATO was not regularly reinforced and reinvigorated, the world's only superpower, the United States, would necessarily be involved in every international conflict and crisis. There is overwhelming bipartisan support for the notion that the United States taxpayer should not be responsible for policing the world, and that this should increasingly be an international responsibility. While I share this belief, I also have a personal interest in NATO expansion. My oldest son Brooks is in Bosnia as part of a NATO support effort. As NATO becomes more inclusive, the chances of going to war for all countries decreases. Likewise, as more countries join NATO, spreading the burden of conflict resolution and peacekeeping, fewer American soldiers will be needed abroad. This is a positive blessing for all Americans. Nevertheless, there are some who oppose the expansion of NATO and others who would like to place limitations on expansion, eroding the body's effectiveness. Because Russia and the rest of the world know that NATO is a defensive peacekeeping body, not an offensive regime, the current fears that an expanded NATO will directly threaten relations with non-NATO member neighbors are inflated. Instead, including eastern European countries in NATO will lead to increased stability in the region, something good for all countries throughout the world. Additionally, efforts to preclude other countries from joining NATO over a specified time period and attempts to limit the powers of the Organization are not well thought out. Limiting the mission of NATO would not be wise, particularly because we would be limiting our own abilities in the future. And a mandated pause would undermine the open door commitment that NATO has had since 1949. All countries have always been welcome to join the fold of NATO and all countries should forever remain welcome to join an Organization committed to peace and security. The United States cannot walk away from the role of leadership in Europe. By what we have witnessed in Bosnia, Europe is at a very fragile stage. We must embrace the European countries that wish to be a part of a world alliance for peace and security, and we have a moral obligation to strengthen Europe and reduce the possibility of war in the region. The door to NATO must remain fully open, not half closed, to those nations equipped to shoulder the responsibility and reforms necessary to meet NATO membership standards. With regard to the cost of NATO expansion, I believe that equitable financial involvement of member nations should be enforced. The U.S. should do what it can to support NATO to an extent equal to efforts of other countries involved. It is imperative that NATO expansion costs be kept as low as possible, and I do not believe that substantial expenditures to upgrade the new entry militaries is necessary or wise. Instead, I applaud the efforts of NATO to prioritize communications infrastructure, language skills, and strategic training for new members over big ticket items as the immediate criteria for NATO membership. It should also be noted that the governments of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic estimate that they would spend more on defense, not less, if they remain outside NATO. Although the United States will have a proportional increase in overall NATO expenditures, I believe the cost of forgoing NATO expansion is much greater. For these reasons, I fully support Senate approval of extending North Atlantic Treaty Organization membership to Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Admitting these countries into NATO will strengthen the Organization and reaffirm American leadership in international relations and diplomacy. President Clinton announced his support for NATO enlargement in 1994 and in 1997 the Senate held over ten hearings on this issue. Debate on this issue has been extensive and thorough. NATO expansion is good for America and for the world.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President I am pleased to introduce legislation today that will foster job growth and job creation in distressed communities. This important legislation, the ``Reemployment Tax Credit Act of 1988,'' will provide needed assistance to communities when they are impacted by significant job losses. Twice in the last year, communities in my state have suffered the difficult repercussions of massive job losses in the area. The circumstances in Huron and those in the Northern Hills region differed considerably, however, in both instances the job losses affected far reaching elements of the local economy. I proudly introduce this legislation to enhance the ability of distressed communities to address the challenges of sudden economic dislocation. This bill will extend the existing Work Opportunity Tax Credit to include dislocated workers affected by plant closings or other events resulting in extensive job losses. This tax credit accelerates opportunities for business growth and expansion in distressed communities therefore decreasing unemployment insurance expenditures, reducing the flight of dislocated workers, allowing families to remain in their community and in their homes. It serves to stabilize the local economy and minimize the negative impacts on other local businesses. The most successful and immediate action to address economic dislocation is to reemploy workers. The Reemployment Tax Credit Act of 1998 will make a serious and positive impact on the growth and prosperity of our communities. I urge my colleagues to support this effort to provide distressed communities with this critical assistance to help them recover from extraordinary economic hardship.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, over the past year, some remarkable developments have taken place at the University of South Dakota (USD) involving the advancement of public service. The South Dakota Board of Regents has designated the University as a public service center of excellence,'' the Farber Fund which is committed to assisting students with experiences helpful to a future in public service has continued to grow, and the University's political science program has prospered. There are a great many people responsible for these positive developments, but undoubtedly the person who has contributed the most, both in terms of effort and vision, has been Dr. W.O. Farber. I have a special fondness for Bill Farber because he was chairman of the USD political science department (then referred to as the government department'') when I was completing my undergraduate work there, and later Dr. Farber was instrumental in assisting me with my graduate studies. But beyond personal friendship, Dr. Farber has become an unequaled institution in our state--a voice for reason, progress and integrity respected by all. Dr. Farber presented an important lecture this past year at the dedication of Farber Hall in the beautifully restored Old Main on the USD campus. I believe that all Americans would benefit from Dr. Farber's wisdom shared with us at that time and also by the Farber Testament'' which dates to our nation's bicentennial in 1976. Mr. President, I ask that excerpts of Dr. Farber's speech, ``The Challenge of Public Service'' and the Farber Testament be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to recognize the contributions Dr. Farber has made to the advancement of public service and I encourage all of my colleagues to take the time to read these important observations. The material follows: Excerpts of the Challenge of Public Service (By Dr. William O. Farber, Professor Emeritus (Political Science), University of South Dakota) Note.--This lecture, presented August 1, 1997, was the first to be given in the newly dedicated Farber Hall in Old Main. Dr. Farber was introduced by President James Abbott. USD Alumni and Friends: As you may well imagine, this moment has been on my mind for a long time. H.G. Wells, the fabled historian of my generation, once described the eternal tragedy of a teacher to be that a teacher is a sower of ``unseen harvests.'' Today, I have the greatest of good fortune. For I am able to witness a ``seen harvest.'' In my wildest fantasy I never thought that some day, on a single spot, I would witness such an assembly of those who, during a sixty-year period, would have brought me such inspiration, challenge, and satisfaction. It is a great day, in this building, in this hall, for us to celebrate. This is certainly a special event for me for more than one reason. There had been a rumor that there had never been a Farber family, that I had appeared out of nowhere. Here this afternoon are seven Farbers, including two brothers, my special critics. I am especially happy they are here. The presence of all of you makes me realize the extraordinary nature of USD. The credentials of a university are its alumni and, as I survey this audience, I appreciate that the University of South Dakota has much of which to be proud. There are those who think that ``politics'' is a dirty word and ``government'' is synonymous with incompetence. But you know and I know better, that ``politics'' is determining the problems facing the world and deciding what can be done to improve humankind's lot, and ``government'' is the agency through which, when individual efforts fail, we collectively make our nation and world a better place in which to live. And that is what democracy and public service are all about. While you were a student and, even now, I think of us as partners in a goal to improve government and the world. We know that if government is bad, all other human endeavors will fail. We subscribe to the Athenian oath that we will seek to transmit our community to the next generation greater, better, and more beautiful than it was transmitted to us. We are here today then as partners in an especially important enterprise, as contributors, indispensable contributors, who have made this renovation of Old Main and this event possible. Many of you, like myself, have great memories of this building. I believe a superior restoration job has been done. I am especially proud of the Governors' Balcony. The idea came to me in June 1996, when, on the retirement of Bob Dole from the Senate, the decision was made to designate a Senate Balcony as the Dole Balcony. USD has had ten of its alumni serve as Governor of South Dakota-- Norbeck, Gunderson, Jensen, Sharpe, the two Mickelsons, Anderson, Foss, Farrar, and Janklow. I have been fortunate in knowing six of them. They serve as models of what can be done. Students of the future can receive their inspiration in this room as well as this building. We owe much to many. Fortunately, USD now is at the threshold of what can be a great future. It reminds me of Shakespeare's ``tide in the affairs of men, which taken at the flood leads on to fortune.'' We are now lucky to have a USD graduate as president. I was tempted to say a ``coyote'' for president but somehow that didn't seem quite right. Jim Abbott was a political science major and is a member of the Farber Fund Executive Board. One wonders why we didn't place more emphasis on selecting one of our own sooner. Jim knows the territory. There are three other developments which bode well for USD in achieving its goals. The Farber Fund is now approaching $1 million in assets and it takes only my death to put it there. (This is not a suggestion.) The Fund has done much to stimulate ambition among our students and cause them to heighten their goals. The second development, thanks to Ray Aldrich, is the Chiesman Fund for Civic Education, which has over $400,000 to promote civic education through research and public forums. The third is the selection, by the Board of Regents of the Political Science Department's proposal, for a Leadership Training program as a Center of Excellence providing some $340,000 annually, including the recruitment of new staff. Thus the Political Science Department and the University as a whole have some unusual opportunities in the near future. Already planned for next year is a lecture program, which involves some of you. The initial response from alumni has been excellent. Old Main is to be the center of student activity, an emphasis much to my liking. * * * * * the background to know What is this business about? It's about preparing ourselves and others. There is an awful lot of garbage out there being passed around as information, on the tube, on the web, on the newsstand, and, indeed, in the classroom. We need to ask the right questions. We need to determine priorities. We need to help others to take little for granted. I had a jolting experience with respect to the background to know. I took a minor in education at Northwestern where I received my BA and MA. To complete the minor, I took ``practice teaching'' and had the luck to do my ``practicing'' at New Trier High School in Winnetka, Illinois. I was an understudy to Laura Ullrich. Although she was a high school teacher, she had a Ph.D. In my evaluation session with her, she was very laudatory, said I had good command of the class, etc. But then she said, ``You have one fault. You don't know your subject.'' That stinging rebuke I have never forgotten. You do need to know your subject. The need for the background to know is imperative. As part of the background to know, you must learn and love to read and write. * * * * * My favorite quote is from Elizabeth Barrett Browning: ``Every common bush is afire with God, but only he who knows, takes off his shoes. The rest sit round it and eat blackberries.'' The point is that it is possible to see in every situation intriguing and challenging forces. But you need to see. And that is what education is all about. In addition to giving a stimulating lecture for all to hear collectively, the teacher must provide individual recognition. If a student calls for an appointment, I do my best to say, ``Can you come over now.'' The student calls when the problem is disturbing him. I like to go to class early, walking down the aisle in large classes, to invite access. I came from a family with a strong work ethic. My dad, for some 50 years, owned and worked in a grocery store. . . . I worked in the store on Saturdays and summer during high school and during summers through seven years of college. The experiences in the grocery store taught me many things. the first is the constant need to be a salesman, including of yourself. When Mrs. Peterson came in the store with her list of needs, I always thought, what does she really need that is not on her list, and I made the applicable suggestion. Now, when a student comes into my purview, I think what is a potential career he or she has not thought about, which might be even better than present goals? In attaining goals it is important to give encouragement. Some time ago, I was going to Pierre by plane from Sioux Falls. A good looking fellow sat down beside me and said, ``Do you remember me?'' I fumbled and said ``Your face is familiar, but I do not recall your name.'' He identified himself and then said, ``I want to tell you what you did for me. Inside the cover of a bluebook, a test I had taken, you wrote `It begins to look as though you are getting the hang of it.' You have no idea how encouraged I felt at a time I felt discouraged. I have gone on, graduated, and have a successful business in Sioux Falls and Denver.'' I was happy with the compliment, but then I thought of all the other bluebooks that had deserved a similar statement. The position of a teacher is a delicate one. One of the things I have done at graduation time has been to encourage students by rewarding them with a token gift. Originally, it was a marble owl from Italy, later an onyx turtle from Mexico, and more recently a Dedo gargoyle from Notre Dame. This past year a former student called me from Boston. ``Doc,'' he said, ``when you gave me a turtle, you said, like the turtle you will only make progress when you stick out your neck. Doc, I've made it, and I want you to know I have kept that turtle in sight for twenty years.'' The background to know, fortunately is now easier to acquire, but at the same time there is much more to know. Thanks to technology we have greatly expanded our ability to know. We have access to global knowledge almost instantly. The shortcuts in acquiring knowledge are many and in this fast world the shortcuts are necessary. If you wanted to, you could get up from your seat, walk out on me here and read parts of my speech later on the Farber Fund web page. In the background to know, you must learn and love to read and write and cherish the value of both. As educators and public servants, we must not only acquire and dispense information, but also develop in ourselves and in others the inner hunger and imagination to use information meaningfully. Thus research in all areas including political science is a must and thankfully the USD Governmental Research Bureau, established in 1939, still exists and continues to provide needed studies in government. The Chiesman grant will make it possible to expand our research activities. It is a wonderful opportunity also for USD to promote civic education through public forums not only in Vermillion but throughout the state. the vision to see The second important point is for one to have the vision to see. The background to know provides the pieces of the puzzle; as with a jigsaw puzzle, the vision to see puts the pieces in their rightful places. Vision often comes easily. There are obvious reforms that should be made. In the early thirties Jane Addams, the founder of Hull House in Chicago, pointed out the ridiculousness of the American policy of killing little pigs to decrease supply when we had a nation of 12,000,000 unemployed and people starving. Justice Brandeis used to plead for ``education in the obvious.'' I have been enchanted with how the devil took Jesus to the top of a mountain to show him the kingdoms of the earth. Thus from time to time we need to get to the mountaintops and examine our own problems. Look at South Dakota. The single most important political fact is our population size, only a bit over 700,000, less than the population of cities like Indianapolis, Phoenix, or San Antonio. Yet here we are to govern the 700,000 saddled with 66 counties, 300 municipalities, 900 township governments, and an increasing number of special districts. It is just plain nuts. Compared to Arizona with 16 counties, we should have 10 at most. Cities with populations of under 500 should be disincorporated. And townships have long since lost their reason for being. E.A. Ross, a prominent University of Wisconsin sociologist, once said, ``Rural Wisconsin resembles a dried up fish pond with nothing but the bullheads and the suckers left behind.'' I wouldn't put rural South Dakota in the same category as Wisconsin, but there is no doubt that the drain out of population with two-thirds of our counties losing population every census for the past thirty years has caused a loss of leaders. * * * * * It doesn't take too much vision to see that on the national level we should make certain that every child up to age 18 has adequate medical attention. And the tuition costs of college students are a national disgrace. Even our best and brightest are graduating with debts in many cases of more than $50,000. If China and Cuba can provide free educational and health costs, we, at least, could drastically reduce tuition costs. In 1935, when I came to South Dakota, I was impressed by the vision of many of the local leaders. Governor Peter Norbeck was still alive and his record of accomplishment and his belief in what government could do was still remembered. In Vermillion, in the midst of a depression, the town could boast of a recently completed municipal swimming poll, a new Union Building, and a new hospital. I had the good fortune to know Doane Robinson quite well. His vision of South Dakota included the building of the Missouri River dams, widespread irrigation including much of the land east of the Missouri and west of the Jim, extensive electrical power almost certain to attract a Henry Ford plant, and the use of the Missouri for transportation. Many of these dreams have not been realized, but some have been. I am impressed with the great potential South Dakota has today. Look at Vermillion. The bridge to the south will open up new economic possibilities along the river itself. The example of Gateway stands out as an example for other industries to emulate. The caliber of our labor supply, the low crime rates, the quality of our labor supply, the low crime rates, the quality of living, the educational system, all make the state and its cities attractive places in which to live. Now is the opportune time to set up think tanks in South Dakota. Some of you have expressed a willingness to serve. What we need for many of our problems is thus the vision to see. It is absurd to think that the governmental structure the founding fathers created in 1787 in Philadelphia, scared by a pending French revolution, is the best possible for the year 2000. And that much of state and local government should remain, two centuries later, relatively unchanged. But there is another important ingredient to the vision to see. It is to secure human rights and equality of opportunity. One of the memorable events in my life was sitting beside Phil LaFollette at a graduate political science student session. We were considering at length First Amendment rights. He turned to me and said, ``We are discussing the wrong rights. More important than these are the right to feel secure, have a decent job with just compensation, the right to an education, a home and a family.'' Thus, I think we can conclude that while education is the basis of what we need to know and see, there is another important ingredient, to think of human values and the need to be caring. Life is not worth living if there is not a constant concern for others. I am reminded of one of Senator Karl Mundt's favorite quotes: ``The hermit of God who shuts himself in, shuts out more of God, than he shuts in.'' One of the best ways to provide a new dimension to one's vision to see is to be acquainted with a different culture. That is why the encouragement given to students to travel with funds from the Farber Fund has been so significant. One of my favorite quotes, an inscription on the old Pennsylvania Station in Washington, DC, is: ``He who would bring back the wealth of the Indies must first take the wealth of the Indies with him.'' The requirement of a report upon the student's return has helped to implement that advice. the will to do This brings me to my third and final point, the will to do. Without action, without implementation, all else becomes pointless. But most of us, burdened by needs of everyday life, are reluctant to do more than will make our own life more comfortable. The lesson from Toynbee is the need to insure that our civilization, our government, reflects citizen involvement, so that future developments of the Hitler type can be and will be resisted. That demands participation of a high order, the lack of which even now threatens our government. What I am pleading for is a will to do, not only for one's own self but as well for one's community, one's state, one's nation, and indeed, the world. None of us attains his fullest potential. We can be more than we are. We should sacrifice what we are for what we can become. Winston Churchill said, ``we shall never surrender, never, never, never.'' And, ``There are no hopeless situations, only people hopeless about them.'' There is a need for all of us to continuously explore alternatives. There are many ways to skin the proverbial cat. George Bernard Shaw's famous quotation provides an important clue: ``You see things as they are, and ask `Why?' But I dream things that never were and ask `Why not?' '' I am confident that most of you present here today are ``Why not'' leaders. Part of the will to do is to accomplish through others. I have always believed, as you know, that a college education is a partnership between teachers and students and the success of much of life depends on partnerships. And as Pat O'Brien has noted in his essay in Dig Your Well Before You Are Thirsty, Farber Fund contributors have been an amazingly successful network. An essential ingredient of leadership is enthusiasm. A teacher not sold on the importance of the subject is doomed to be a poor stimulator of students. The key to Nelson Rockefeller's success as New York governor was described as his ``exuberance.'' I like Eisenhower's statement: ``It is not the size of the dog in a fight that counts, it is the size of the fight in the dog.'' The will to do involves leadership. I feel this afternoon that I am surrounded by leaders. The challenge today for professors and students has changed mightily since 1935. The complexity of modern problems demands a higher degree of expertise. Computers have opened up vast areas of information heretofore not available. In some ways, we are swamped. Leadership with guidance is increasingly important. In this world we need to speak out. In politics, if you don't blow your own horn, there is no music. I have great confidence in South Dakota's potential. But I am equally convinced that without governmental changes of the sort outlined in the Vision to See, that potential will not be realized. I know that the conventional wisdom dictates that it is difficult to make changes in South Dakota. But we have, in my opinion, a population that can be sold. Remember, in 1936 the size of South Dakota legislature was reduced by public vote from 180 to 105 with the loss of 75 legislative seats--an astounding public victory. I was a participant in the constitutional revision effort from 1969-1975. From a governmental point of view, the reorganizations of the executive and judicial branches of government were remarkable events that received popular approval. It is amazing what little things can help to bring about reform. Ted Muenster recalls that it was a letter from the State Snake Exterminator, who held office with no other employees, asking for a new pickup that made him realize the stupidity of a state administrative organization with over 100 reporting units. Action followed. In 1982, I had the good fortune to head the successful drive, using the initiative, which changed the basis of our system, of electing legislators, abolishing the block system. It took time and effort but we did the job. What is needed is leadership. I am convinced that we have the ability to change our outmoded method of taxation. There are those in this room who could do it. This emphasis on leadership is why, as we look to the future, the opportunities now open to USD and especially in political science are indeed attractive. Key to this program is the recruitment of a core group of superior students whose leadership has been demonstrated in high school. As you can readily appreciate this is why scholarship money is a critical need. * * * * * With rising tuition costs, few superior students can afford university training without scholarship aid. South Dakota can well afford the investment in such aid. At the present time this state, of its total revenue, devotes 6.5 percent to higher education, the lowest of any state in the region. North Dakota provides 10 percent, Iowa 8.4, Minnesota 6.8 and Nebraska 8.3. As a consequence, compared to surrounding states, our in-state tuition is the highest with the exception of Minnesota. * * * * * And thanks to many of you, the support of the Farber Internship and Travel Fund has made possible funding that has enabled more than 500 eager political science students to receive internships, attend state national conferences, and study overseas. It has raised their sights, stimulated their study, and attracted many to careers of public service.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the ``Railroad Car Visibility Act,'' requiring that all railroad cars have some form of visible marker such as reflectors or reflective tape. The purpose of this legislation is to reduce the number of accidents with both moving trains at rail crossings, and with rail cars parked on sidings. In South Dakota a number of such accidents have occurred recently at rural and small town rail crossings and sidings which are often unprotected or unlighted. Such accidents occur in rural areas across the country. As a result, last year I urged the Department of Transportation (DOT) to take appropriate measures to improve railroad car visibility. While DOT has begun enforcing rules governing locomotive visibility, rail cars are still not required to have reflective lighting. However, DOT research concludes that ``retroreflective materials are useful and satisfactory for enhancing the visibility of railroad cars.'' This legislation has the support of both South Dakota's legislature and Governor Janklow. For relatively little cost, this legislation will improve railroad car visibility and thereby reduce the number of accidents, unnecessary injuries and deaths at rail crossings and sidings. Therefore I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and work with me to secure its passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this bill printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California and applaud her great leadership on what I think is one of the critical issues in our Nation today. I think it needs to be emphasized that the after-school program amendment being offered by Senator Boxer is not an alternative to the underlying Coverdell bill. Unlike other amendments that we have considered today, this is an add-on that is independent of the funding that is committed to the Coverdell legislation. I have been holding meetings all around my State of South Dakota, which is an overwhelmingly rural State. The Senator from California represents a State with large urban areas. One of the things that we share is a very strong sense from parents, from child care providers, teachers and school administrators, and from everyone who follows this issue that after-school programs are among the most important items on which we should focus our attention. In fact, the Republican Governor of my State has played a leading role in our State in trying to better utilize our school resources, recognizing that working moms are a larger and larger percentage of the work force. Welfare is pushing more and more people, mostly working moms, into the workplace because we have provided bipartisan support for that goal. We have increasing numbers of latchkey kids in all of our communities, large and small. After-school programs for these children are either nonexistent or far too expensive. We have studies from our law enforcement officials indicating overwhelmingly that between the hours of 3 to 6 in the afternoon is the greatest amount of juvenile crime, alcohol and drug experimentation, and sexual experimentation. All this takes place because we have an entire generation of young people in unsupervised settings, and these problems are becoming more widespread. I applaud Senator Boxer and her effort to come up with an amendment that not only addresses this key issue but does it in a way that does not create new Federal bureaucracy, does not federalize anything but instead utilizes local resources, leaves the options and the administration and the decisions at the local level. Because of all of these strong reasons, I think this is a very positive and constructive contribution to the underlying legislation, and I certainly again applaud the Senator's leadership, and yield back the time to her.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I express my strong support for the sense of the Senate resolution commemorating the efforts of the Ziolkowski family over the past fifty years in their endeavor to honor the great Oglala Sioux leader Tasunke Witko, or Crazy Horse, through creation of the Crazy Horse Memorial. The Crazy Horse Memorial is a nonprofit cultural, educational, and humanitarian project dedicated to Native Americans throughout North America. The 50th anniversary of the first blast at the memorial site will occur on June 3, 1998, in my home state of South Dakota. Crazy Horse was one of this nation's greatest Native American warriors and spiritual leaders, who fought to defend the rights and lives of his people and all Native Americans throughout his short life. He is widely remembered for leading a force of Cheyenne and Oglala Sioux warriors to victory over George Armstrong Custer in the Battle of Little Big Horn. Crazy Horse was born on Rapid Creek in 1840, and was killed when he was only 37 years of age. During his life he was a great leader of his people. Native Americans agree he did not have an equal as a warrior or a chief. He gave submissive allegiance to no man, white or Indian, and claimed his inalienable rights as an Indian to wander at will over the hunting grounds of his people. He wanted only peace and a way of living for his people. In 1940, several Sioux Indian chiefs invited the late sculptor Korczak Ziolkowski to create a memorial to their great leader, Crazy Horse, by carving a tribute to him in the Black Hills on what is popularly known as ``Thunderhead Mountain.'' The Memorial was dedicated on June 3, 1948 with the first blast on the Thunderhead Mountain at which time Mr. Ziolkowski vowed that creation of the Memorial would be a nonprofit educational and cultural project, financed solely through private means, and wholly without government funding. Korczak Ziolkowski dedicated his life to creation of the Crazy Horse Memorial, up until his death on October 20, 1982. Once complete, the Crazy Horse Memorial will be the largest sculpture in the world standing 563 feet high and 641 feet long. I am pleased that the Senate will recognize June 3, 1998, as the 50th anniversary of the first blast on Thunderhead Mountain, the first step towards completion of the Crazy Horse Memorial. I would like to congratulate the fifty years of efforts of Korczak Ziolkowski, his wife Ruth Ziolkowski, and their children in creating the Crazy Horse Memorial and notethat the creation of the Memorial from its inception on June 3, 1948 to the present day was accomplished through private donations and completely without federal funding. One of many great and patriotic Indian heroes, Crazy Horse's tenacity of purpose, his modest life, his unfailing courage, and his tragic death set him apart and above the others. Completion of the Crazy Horse Memorial will serve as a lasting tribute to the great Oglala Sioux warrior and spiritual leader, Crazy Horse, and to all Native Americans.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity today to recognize the one year anniversary of one of the worst natural disasters to hit Watertown, South Dakota, and the amazing fact that, only one year later, Watertown continues to grow and prosper. Referred to by South Dakotans simply as ``the flood,'' the events surrounding April 5 and 6, 1997, had the potential to cripple one of the state's fastest growing cities. Instead, battling rising waters and a late season snowstorm, the residents of Watertown, South Dakota, overcame adversity and forged a true community, defined by selfless acts of caring, cooperation, and good will. Few South Dakotans will forget the winter and spring preceding the April floods. Snowdrifts as high as buildings, roads with only one lane cleared, homes without heat for days, hundreds of thousands of dead livestock, and schools closed for a week at a time were commonplace. As if surviving the severe winter cold was not challenge enough, residents of Watertown could hardly imagine the extent of damage Mother Nature had yet to inflict with a 500-year flood. Watertown residents could sense the impending flood. The first snow of the season fell in October, and six consecutive months of record- breaking snowfall covered ground that was already saturated from years of unusually wet winters. As the first warm days of spring slowly melted layers of the snowpack, Watertown residents began planning for flooding. Sandbags and earthen berms ringed Lake Kampeska and the Big Sioux River. However, despite careful planning, on April 5, an unexpected blizzard hit the state, devastating the area. Everything froze, creating further concerns about what was going to happen once the water began flowing again. The unusual weather mix caused water levels to surge in a few hours. Record levels on the Big Sioux River and Lake Kampeska forced over 5,000 residents of Watertown, or one-fourth the city's population, to evacuate their homes. Over one-third of the city was without sewer and water for three weeks. The headline of the Watertown Public Opinion on April 6 read ``Watertown in Peril,'' and I will never forget the image of homeowners and neighbors, shrouded in a late-season snow storm, sandbagging against the rising waters of the Big Sioux River and Lake Kampeska. A number of individuals and organizations in Watertown are responsible for the amazing fact that, despite causing millions of dollars of damage to property, the 1997 flood failed to claim any lives. The work of Mayor Brenda Barger and other community leaders held Watertown together with their strength and direction. The city's ad-hoc crisis center brought together local and county officials, volunteer agencies including the Red Cross, Salvation Army, Lutheran Social Services, and others, to brainstorm and compile ``resource lists'' of expected needs including equipment, people, and funds. Local volunteers, students, prisoners, and National Guard personnel were recruited to first fight the rising waters with sandbags and then help clean-up as the waters receded. In the following days, over 750 port-a-potties were deployed on the lawns of those families who could return to their homes. Water trucks were brought in to provide people with a fresh water supply, and repairs to the damaged water treatment plant were completed ahead of schedule. While those of us from South Dakota will never forget the destruction wrought by ``the flood,'' I was heartened to witness first-hand and hear accounts of individuals coming together in Watertown to protect homes, farms, and lives from rising flood waters. Mr. President, April 6 marks the one year anniversary of this terrible natural disaster in Watertown. However, residents of Watertown should look back on April 6, 1997, and be proud of the way they and their neighbors came together and worked side by side to see their community survive. It is this community spirit and pride that will continue to make Watertown ``South Dakota's Rising Star.''

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; I did.