Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. And I add that I joined in the unanimous consent on the naming of the Reagan building downtown as a Member of the other body during that time, and I am proud of that.

Mr. JOHNSON. Obviously, I do not speak for my colleagues on either side of the aisle. I speak only as this Senator, expressing, one, my conviction that there ought to be a very significant memorial to Ronald Reagan. There is one that has been built. The doors, the ribbons have not yet been cut. They soon will be. And this is an extraordinary memorial in one of the most prominent locations of all of Washington. I applaud that. The only other question I raise is whether there ought to be yet another memorial before the ribbon has even been cut on the first large one, which would have an effect on the airport that memorialized George Washington and which has not gone through what seems to me, from this Senator's point of view, an orderly, thoughtful process. The Board of Trade in the Washington area, other groups think this is a poor idea, that perhaps there ought to be other memorials to Ronald Reagan. I would say probably that is true. The suggestion is there ought to be one in every State. Perhaps there ought to be. Perhaps there ought to be more in Washington, DC. However, I simply raise as this Senator's point of view that I think we are getting carried away in a nonsystematic and not terribly thoughtful process about how we name and pull names off of memorials to great Americans. So I have nothing but great respect to express for President Reagan and his family, and I regret that any of this debate that has been caught up in exactly how best to memorialize great Americans would by anyone be perceived as somehow negative or otherwise undermining respect for this past President. However, I think there are legitimate concerns expressed by some that have nothing to do with partisan politics, that have nothing to do with respect or lack of respect for past Presidents, particularly this past President. I simply want to raise that issue, that there are concerns among those who I think in good faith are expressing some concern not about memorialization but about a specific renaming. The issue, I think, in that sense is narrow. I personally feel that there is room for improvement in the process that we use for the naming of institutions. That isn't to say, however, that the naming of any particular institution wouldn't be approved by what I think ought to be a nonpartisan commission of some sort, which I think would greatly strengthen our current rather hodgepodge way of naming institutions and buildings and facilities that will be that way for hundreds of years--unless, of course, there are changes in power in Congress and we develop this precedent that whoever is in the majority comes in and changes the names of buildings. That would be a terrible mistake. I hope the Reagan building downtown stays that way virtually forever and that there is never a thought of renaming that. I simply raise this point to hopefully lend a bit of thoughtfulness and recognition that at stake here is not the honor of the Reagan family or President Reagan nor is it necessarily partisan politics. I do not necessarily join in with others who may see other political agendas here. This is an institution of 100 individuals, and there are probably 100 agendas on this floor on a given day, but I do want to share those observations with my friend and my colleague about the concerns that came to my mind on this issue.

Mr. JOHNSON. If the Senator will yield back.

Mr. JOHNSON. I want to thank the Senator from New York for calling our attention to this extraordinary event. Could you share with us again, one, what the timing is of the ceremony?

Mr. JOHNSON. I certainly yield.

Mr. JOHNSON. The Senator from New York controls the time.

Mr. JOHNSON. What will be involved in this ceremony?

Mr. JOHNSON. I wonder if it isn't fair to say--there has been some harsh rhetoric here and knocking down of straw men as we have gone about discussions this afternoon in the United States Senate relative to memorializing former President Reagan. And I wonder if it isn't fair to say that the issues that have been raised are not questioning whether to suitably and appropriately memorialize President Reagan's administration. The questions are not partisan in nature. We have memorialized Presidents of both political parties, as we always will and always should. There is no opposition, certainly, to the largest building I believe on all of Pennsylvania Avenue, America's main street, the avenue that is used for our inaugural parades, the largest building, a very prominently located building--and it has yet even to have the ceremony for its opening, but it passed by unanimous vote, the Senator tells us, in both the House and Senate; bipartisan on both sides of the aisle--but there was no resistance to memorializing in a very prominent and very focal, high focal point of our Nation's most important street an enormous building named for President Reagan. So it would seem that the issues that have been raised here are not petty, are not meant to demean or in any way undermine the recognition of the contributions that President Reagan made--and he made very significant contributions to this Nation--but that there are legitimate points being raised, one, about the process, rather than the politics, of naming and especially renaming where the name George Washington has always been tied to National Airport--in fact National Airport, I believe, was designed with the terminal intended to be evocative of Mount Vernon and located in a community very near Mount Vernon and where he is very closely associated with the Arlington and Alexandria communities--and whether there ought to be a more systematic process for especially renaming institutions that have been previously named for other great Americans.

Mr. JOHNSON. So the question is not one of whether President Reagan should be memorialized. Certainly he should be.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Children's Inn of Sioux Falls, SD, and to pay tribute to two women, Connie Kolbrek and Marlene Weires, whose dedicated service has enlightened the lives of many South Dakota women and children. This fall, the Children's Inn is celebrating its 20th anniversary of providing emergency outreach services to women and children in the greater Sioux Falls community. When the Children's Inn first opened its doors in an unfurnished two-bedroom bungalow, its primary directive was to provide emergency shelter for children who are victims of abuse and neglect. Staff members realized that an unsafe environment for children was also unsafe for adult victims of abuse, and the inn extended its outreach to all victims of domestic violence. Shortly thereafter, it became apparent that the inn's services were in high demand, and the inn moved to larger facilities and expanded its staff. Currently, the inn serves as many as 3,000 people annually and employs 39 staffers. While the inn continues to function under its founding purpose, it has expanded its services to include a crisis phone line, drop-in counseling, support groups for women and children, parenting classes, and classes for abusers. Mr. President, the Children's Inn clearly has filled a significant void in the lives of many Sioux Falls women and children, and the 20th anniversary is a true milestone. However, none of its success would be realized today if it were not for the tireless work of Connie Kolbrek and Marlene Weires. Connie served as the first executive director from 1977 to 1984. Her dedication and commitment to children helped to transform the inn from a simple idea on paper to a mainstay in the Sioux Falls nonprofit community. Marlene has served as the inn's executive director from 1985 until present, and her selfless service has produced many of the extension services which are available to the public today. Although Marlene is planning her retirement, I am confident that she will maintain her peripheral support. The Children's Inn and the women and children of Sioux Falls were blessed with her many years of service. Again, I applaud the Children's Inn on its 20th anniversary, and recognize the selfless work of the staff. Mr. President, I yield the floor today, knowing that the Children's Inn is a beacon of hope for many victims of abuse and neglect.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business immediately following the remarks of the Senator from Michigan. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas) Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I was extremely pleased that recently President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton hosted a White House Conference on Child Care. The conference was not only informative, but also very effective, I believe, in drawing nationwide attention to the widespread difficulties that most parents have in finding child care that is both affordable and of high quality. It is estimated that each and every day 3 million children under the age of 6 will spend time being cared for by someone other than their parents, including one-half of all babies younger than 12 months of age. We all know that these early years are critical years for child development and that we need to be concerned about the quality of care that these children are receiving. Unfortunately, for too many children, the quality is simply not high enough. One national study, which was published in 1994, rated the majority of child care centers as mediocre or poor. One out of eight child care centers were found to actually jeopardize children's safety and development. Not surprisingly, Mr. President, children in substandard care have delayed language and reading skills, they are more aggressive than other children their age, and we should, therefore, recognize that raising the quality of care has long-term benefits not only for these kids but for our society as a whole. Clearly, strong families and strong parenting comes first, but we need to complement that with a greater emphasis on quality, affordable child care. We understand and we recognize that child care can be extremely expensive, costing thousands of dollars per year for each child, and over $8,000 a year in some parts of our country. Many parents struggle with paying these bills, which are frequently larger than their rent, mortgage, or car payment. In the case of middle- and lower-income families--especially single-parent families--child care costs can easily consume more than one-quarter of a family's annual income. I have been holding a series of meetings with child care providers in my State of South Dakota. We face some special challenges in our State. Among these challenges is the fact that we have the highest percentage of working mothers in America. For more than 70 percent of the children in South Dakota, both parents work; or in the case of a single-parent family, the sole parent works. Another item discussed at these meetings was the negative impact of cuts in the child and adult care food program that were part of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. Many child care providers have relied on this assistance to provide affordable care, and many families now face increasing costs and reduced access to child care. One of the consequences of the change in the nutrition program was to actually create a disincentive for child care providers to remain licensed and certified. Mr. President, I believe that the evidence is abundantly clear that we need to do more to provide more affordable and higher quality child care. This can be accomplished, I believe, without the creation of some new bureaucracy. Instead, working in partnership with the States, local governments, and nonprofit organizations, the Federal Government, working in Federal-State-local and a public-private partnership can achieve a great deal. In an effort to seek constructive solutions, I have recently cosponsored two bills, the CIDCARE Act and the Early Childhood Development Act. These bills would work together in a complementary fashion. I would like to congratulate Senators Jeffords and Dodd for their efforts in authoring the CIDCARE Act, S. 1037. I am pleased to join them as a cosponsor. The bill contains several provisions that would be a very positive step forward for all forms of child care. First, the bill would refocus the existing child and dependent care tax credit by making it refundable for low-income families and by increasing the credit for families with incomes under $55,000. These steps will provide much-needed assistance to families with the costs of whichever kind of quality care they choose. Second, the bill contains a number of provisions to encourage child care providers to offer higher quality care by boosting training levels. Child care providers would be eligible for more generous tax deductions for education and training that helps them receive professional credentials. Additionally, States would receive grant funding to operate training programs and to offer scholarships to providers who receive training. One aspect of the child care quality problem is the extremely high turnover among child care workers, which is not surprising when one realizes that most child care center workers make barely more than the minimum wage. The CIDCARE Act approaches this problem in creative ways. First, the bill would create a problem for student loan forgiveness of child care workers who earn degrees in early childhood education, or who receive professional care credentials. Additionally, grant money would be made available to the States under this bill, which could be used for programs to provide salary increases for providers, who receive professional credentials. We should do all we can to encourage more private sector businesses to offer child care benefits. The CIDCARE Act would provide tax credits to employers to reduce the costs of starting up a child care center, for the professional development expenses of child care staff, and for cost also related to getting a child care facility accredited. All in all, the CIDCARE Act contains a number of innovative nonbureaucratic provisions, and I believe it would be a great step forward in increasing child care quality and in making it more affordable. The second piece of legislation that I have cosponsored is the Early Childhood Development Act, S. 1309. I became an original cosponsor of this legislation when it was introduced just 2 weeks ago. I congratulate Senator John Kerry and Senator Bond for their work on this bill. One of the more critical needs in my State of South Dakota is for after-school programs. More than half the school-age children in my State have no parent at home in the hours after school lets out. From nationwide statistics, we know that juvenile crime is at its highest between the hours of 3 p.m. and 6 p.m., the hours between when kids get out of school and before parents, all too often, get home from work. The Early Childhood Development Act contains provisions to expand Federal financial assistance to innovative programs that target at-risk children by providing constructive activities and care after school lets out. The bill does not create some new Federal bureaucracy. Instead, it offers grant money to States who will, in turn, make grants to local after-school programs that are typically run by nonprofit organizations, such as the Boys and Girls Clubs. We need more of these after-school programs, and we need more resources to expand the number of children that these programs can reach. The Early Childhood Development Act would also strengthen programs that offer care to our youngest kids, aged 0 to 6. The more we learn about early childhood development, the more we realize how critically important it is that these children receive quality care. This bill would supplement the Federal child care and development block grant for at-risk infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. Along the same lines, the bill would increase funding for the new Early Head Start Program, which provides comprehensive child development and family support services to infants and toddlers. This program not only offers a high-quality educational component for young children, but also parent education, parent-child activities, and health services. Mr. President, I believe that these two important bills--the CIDCARE Act and the Early Childhood Development Act--will go a long, long way toward addressing the critical child care needs that we have throughout America today. I look forward to working on them in a bipartisan fashion during this next session of the 105th Congress. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome home the men and women of the 452d Ordnance Company, an Army Reserve Unit based in Aberdeen, SD, and congratulate them on successfully completing their recent mission to Hungary in support of Bosnian peacekeeping efforts. The 452d is one of only six direct support ordnance units in the entire U.S. Army. The 452d is also a tier 2A high priority unit, which means that the members of this unit are well-trained, have adequate manpower, and have a high level of readiness. The men and women of the 452d pride themselves on their ability to quickly and effectively mobilize when their country calls upon them. The 452d has an impressive history of serving the Nation. The 452d Ordnance Company was the first unit in the 6th Army to be deployed during Operation Desert Storm. The members performed extremely well during this mobilization and received the Meritorious Unit Commendation from the Secretary of the Army for their outstanding service. As you know, Mr. President, this is an extremely prestigious award with only a handful of National Guard and Reserve units having ever received it. Furthermore, the 452d was recently inspected and found to be performing at such an outstanding level that the unit is being recommended for the Meritorious Unit Commendation once again. Most units would be honored to simply be nominated for this award, and it is truly a sign of the 452d's excellence that it may receive the award twice. In addition to helping lead coalition forces to victory in the Middle East, the 452d brought relief to many in their hometown of Aberdeen, SD, by aiding emergency management efforts in recent winter storms and flooding. The 452d is a shining example of how reserve units across the country are being called upon more frequently to serve their country both at home and abroad. The men and women of the 452d began their most recent, and perhaps most demanding, mission in March of this year when 83 members of the unit were mobilized for duty in Europe. For the past 8 months, these individuals were stationed at Taszar Air Base, Hungary, supporting peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia. Unit members were rotated into Bosnia from time to time, venturing inside one of the most politically volatile areas in the world. Of course, the soldiers who were mobilized were not the only ones who sacrificed in service to their country. The families of these servicemembers also exhibited extreme courage in facing new challenges and additional responsibilities in the absence of their loved ones. To help with that transition, the 452d Family Support Group provided guidance, assistance, and support. In fact, during the Persian Gulf conflict, the 452d Family Support Group received the Best Small Unit Family Outreach Program Award from the 96th Army Reserve Command. The 452d Family Support Group met every Wednesday to discuss the ways in which they could best support family members of the mobilized soldiers. On Saturdays, they frequently showed videos of the mobilized soldiers stationed in Hungary and provided access to e-mail for communication between soldiers and their family members. Each and every family member deserves recognition, but at the risk of leaving someone out, I would like to mention the following officers of the 452d Family Support Group: Sandy Robinson, South Dakota Reserve Family Support leader; Ronnie Evenson, unit leader; Becky Parker, group leader; Lois Beckner, group leader; Mary Ewalt, group leader; and Donna Schulte, assistant group leader. I would also like to mention the important service provided by the unit members who were not mobilized, but who remained in South Dakota and provided the ever-important moral support to their colleagues serving overseas. These individuals, including mechanics, administrative personnel, and others, continue to ensure that the unit is ready to serve their nation at a moment's notice. It is also important to recognize those employers who stood by their employees called upon to serve their nation. The commitment of employers like these allow our country to rely so heavily on its reserve and guard forces. It is with much relief and pride that I join the family members of the 452d and all South Dakotans in welcoming the following troops safely home from their mission. It is from this service that the 452d has formed a strong bond with the community of Aberdeen and the State of South Dakota, and I thank them for their service. Sgt. Brian Allmendinger, Spc. Joellen Allmendinger, Spc. J. Arlt, Spc. Travis Atkinson, 1st Sgt. Troy Beckner, Spc. Michael Bell, S.Sgt. Chad Bierman, Sgt. Kirk Bierschenk, Sgt. Scott Black, Pfc. Wileen Blacklance, Spc. Hollie Breitag, S.Sgt. Rodney Buck, CW2 Aaron Donat, Sgt. Eric Donat, S.Sgt. Joel Donat, S.Sgt. Mark Dunwoody, Sfc. Ronald Evenson, S.Sgt. Michael Ewalt, Sgt. Janel Fonder, Spc. Robin Freeland, Sgt. Calvin Gardner, Sgt. Chad Gardner, Sgt. Brian Grabowska, Sgt. Kevin Gustafson, Sgt. Daniel Haberling, Spc. Kristi Heintzman, S.Sgt. Brabdon Herold, Sgt. Adam Heyd, Spc. Joshua Horner, Sgt. Sean Johnson, S.Sgt. Stanley Kannas, Spc. Justin Kappes, Sgt. Daniel Karst, Sgt. Jyson Karst, S.Sgt. Daryl Kiefer, S.Sgt. Gary Kindle, Spc. Deric Knutson, Sgt. Deidra Kolb, S.Sgt. Gene Kopetsky, S.Sgt. Donald Kraemer, S.Sgt. Scott Lane, Sfc. Thomas Mailloux, S.Sgt. David Manning, Sgt. Philip Marnette, Spc. Rebecca McGannon, Pfc. Shawn Nash, Spc. John Naumann, Spc. Britt Nelson, Sgt. Jeffrey Norden, Spc. Benjamin Ochs, 1st Lt. Kritina Ochsner, Sgt. Lance Ordal, S.Sgt. Darrell Pfeifle, Sgt. Jerry Plank, Spc. Derrick Quitsch, Spc. Jammey Rawden, CW4 Freddie Robinson, S.Sgt. Kevin Roush, S.Sgt. Jason Rydberg, Spc. Joshua Ryowski, S.Sgt. Todd Salfrank, Sgt. Robert Sayer, Sgt. Justin Scepaniak, S.Sgt. Paul Schilling, Sgt. Dawn Schlotte, 1st Lt. John Schulte, Sgt. Jeffrey Severson, Spc. Cassandra Shaffer, Sgt. Michael Stofferahn, Sgt. Kenneth Sutton, Sgt. Wade Taylor, Sgt. Tonda Thomas, S.Sgt. Terry Thue, Sgt. Joseph Thyne, W0C David Trego, S.Sgt. Chad Vetter, S.Sgt. Tamera Voss, Sgt. James Welch, Spc. Charles Willis, Sgt. Shannon Wright, and S.Sgt. Kenneth Young.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity today to recognize Misty Hansen of Girl Scout Troop 1080. Misty is an outstanding young woman who has received the Girl Scout Gold Award from the Nyoda Girl Scout Council in Huron, South Dakota. The Girl Scout Gold Award is the highest achievement award in U.S. Girl Scouting. This award exemplifies her outstanding feats in the areas of leadership, community service, career planning and personal development. Misty is one of just 20,000 Gold Award recipients since the creation of the program in 1980. In order to receive this award, Misty completed the many Gold Award requirements. She earned three interest project patches: the Career Exploration Pin, the Senior Girl Scout Leadership Award and the Senior Girl Scout Challenge. Also, she created and executed a Girl Scout Gold Award project which included researching the history of the first 30 years of the Nyoda Girl Scout Council. Mr. President, I feel Misty deserves public recognition for her tremendous service to her community and her country. I offer my congratulations to her for her hard work and effort in reaching this milestone.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity today to recognize Hilary A. Holmes of Girl Scout Troop 7756. Hilary is an outstanding young woman who has received the Girl Scout Gold Award from the Nyoda Girl Scout Council in Huron, SD. The Girl Scout Gold Award is the highest achievement award in U.S. Girl Scouting. This award exemplifies her outstanding feats in the areas of leadership, community service, career planning, and personal development. Hilary is one of just 20,000 Gold Award recipients since the creation of the program in 1980. In order to receive this award, Hilary completed the many Gold Award requirements. She earned three interest project patches: the Career Exploration Pin, the Senior Girl Scout Leadership Award and the Senior Girl Scout Challenge. Also, she created and executed a Girl Scout Gold Award project which included service to area flood victims. Mr. President, I feel Hilary deserves public recognition for her tremendous service to her community and her country. I offer my congratulations to her for her hard work and effort in reaching this milestone.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Meals for Achievement Act. This bill, if enacted, is intended to expand the school breakfast program in elementary schools. In his State of the Union address earlier this year, President Clinton called education ``my number one priority for the next four years.'' Congress has echoed this sentiment with a variety of bills intended to improve the readiness of children to take their place in America's work force in order to secure our place in a strong economy. For the United States to compete effectively in the world we must have an educated and productive work force. In order to have an educated and productive work force, we must prepare our children to learn. In order to prepare our children to learn they must be well nourished, and that begins with a good breakfast. The best teachers in the world, with the best standards, cannot teach a hungry child. A child who begins his or her school day with their stomach growling because they either did not have time to eat breakfast or there was no breakfast to be served, is simply too distracted to focus on the lessons being provided by the teacher. In 1994, the Minnesota Legislature directed the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning to implement a universal breakfast pilot program integrating breakfast into the education schedule for all students. The evaluation of the pilot project, performed by the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement at the University of Minnesota, shows that when all students are involved in school breakfast there is a general increase in learning and achievement. Researchers at Harvard and Massachusetts General Hospital recently completed a study on the results of universal free breakfast at one public school in Philadelphia and two in Baltimore. The study, to be published in the Journal of Pediatrics in the near future, found that students who ate the breakfast showed great improvement in math grades, attendance, and punctuality. The researchers also observed that students displayed fewer signs of depression, anxiety, hyperactivity, and other behavioral problems. As reported by the Community Childhood Hunger Identification Project [CCHIP], hungry children are more likely to be ill and absent from school and are less likely to interact with other people or explore or learn from their surroundings. This interferes with their ability to learn from a very early age. School-aged children who are hungry cannot concentrate or do as well as others on the tasks they need to perform to learn the basics. Research indicates that low-income children who participate in the School Breakfast Program show an improvement in standardized test scores and a decrease in tardiness and absenteeism compared to low-income students who do not eat breakfast at school. According to the Tufts University Center on Hunger, Poverty, and Nutrition Policy, evidence from recent research about child nutrition shows that, in addition to having a detrimental effect on the cognitive development of children, undernutrition results in lost knowledge, brainpower, and productivity for the Nation. If we are serious about improving productivity in America through our education system, we must first prepare our children to learn. The time has come, therefore, to build upon the pilot program in Minnesota, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and other cities, and integrate school breakfast into the education day, at least at the elementary school level. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today would not mandate the school breakfast program. A local school could still decide whether or not to participate, and each parent can decide for themselves whether or not to have their child participate. I do appreciate that there is a cost involved with this initiative and, therefore, we may have to phase it in over a few years. However, the time has come to set the course for our future direction in the School Breakfast Program and take our first step forward. The Meals for Achievement Act raises an important policy question. The question is: What is the basic purpose and goal of the School Breakfast Program? Is the School Breakfast Program a welfare program? Or, Is the School Breakfast Program a nutrition and education program intended to prepare children for a successful educational experience? If the School Breakfast Program is a welfare program then my legislation would not make sense. I do not believe that we should be providing welfare to individuals who do not need assistance. If, on the other hand, the School Breakfast Program is a part of the education day, and is intended to prepare children to learn, then, in my opinion, it should include all children. School books are provided to all children without regard to their income; school buses are used by children without regard to their income; and that is how we should view the School Breakfast Program. I commend this legislation to my colleagues and to the administration. As many of you know the child nutrition programs must be reauthorized in 1998 and the Administration is currently drafting its proposal to send to Congress after the first of the year. I would hope Secretary Glickman and my friends at the Department of Agriculture, as well as those at the Office of Management and Budget, consider making the Meals for Achievement Act a part of their legislative initiative. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Meals for Achievement Act. This bill, if enacted, is intended to expand the school breakfast program in elementary schools. In his State of the Union address earlier this year, President Clinton called education ``my number one priority for the next four years.'' Congress has echoed this sentiment with a variety of bills intended to improve the readiness of children to take their place in America's work force in order to secure our place in a strong economy. For the United States to compete effectively in the world we must have an educated and productive work force. In order to have an educated and productive work force, we must prepare our children to learn. In order to prepare our children to learn they must be well nourished, and that begins with a good breakfast. The best teachers in the world, with the best standards, cannot teach a hungry child. A child who begins his or her school day with their stomach growling because they either did not have time to eat breakfast or there was no breakfast to be served, is simply too distracted to focus on the lessons being provided by the teacher. In 1994, the Minnesota Legislature directed the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning to implement a universal breakfast pilot program integrating breakfast into the education schedule for all students. The evaluation of the pilot project, performed by the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement at the University of Minnesota, shows that when all students are involved in school breakfast there is a general increase in learning and achievement. Researchers at Harvard and Massachusetts General Hospital recently completed a study on the results of universal free breakfast at one public school in Philadelphia and two in Baltimore. The study, to be published in the Journal of Pediatrics in the near future, found that students who ate the breakfast showed great improvement in math grades, attendance, and punctuality. The researchers also observed that students displayed fewer signs of depression, anxiety, hyperactivity, and other behavioral problems. As reported by the Community Childhood Hunger Identification Project [CCHIP], hungry children are more likely to be ill and absent from school and are less likely to interact with other people or explore or learn from their surroundings. This interferes with their ability to learn from a very early age. School-aged children who are hungry cannot concentrate or do as well as others on the tasks they need to perform to learn the basics. Research indicates that low-income children who participate in the School Breakfast Program show an improvement in standardized test scores and a decrease in tardiness and absenteeism compared to low-income students who do not eat breakfast at school. According to the Tufts University Center on Hunger, Poverty, and Nutrition Policy, evidence from recent research about child nutrition shows that, in addition to having a detrimental effect on the cognitive development of children, undernutrition results in lost knowledge, brainpower, and productivity for the Nation. If we are serious about improving productivity in America through our education system, we must first prepare our children to learn. The time has come, therefore, to build upon the pilot program in Minnesota, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and other cities, and integrate school breakfast into the education day, at least at the elementary school level. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today would not mandate the school breakfast program. A local school could still decide whether or not to participate, and each parent can decide for themselves whether or not to have their child participate. I do appreciate that there is a cost involved with this initiative and, therefore, we may have to phase it in over a few years. However, the time has come to set the course for our future direction in the School Breakfast Program and take our first step forward. The Meals for Achievement Act raises an important policy question. The question is: What is the basic purpose and goal of the School Breakfast Program? Is the School Breakfast Program a welfare program? Or, Is the School Breakfast Program a nutrition and education program intended to prepare children for a successful educational experience? If the School Breakfast Program is a welfare program then my legislation would not make sense. I do not believe that we should be providing welfare to individuals who do not need assistance. If, on the other hand, the School Breakfast Program is a part of the education day, and is intended to prepare children to learn, then, in my opinion, it should include all children. School books are provided to all children without regard to their income; school buses are used by children without regard to their income; and that is how we should view the School Breakfast Program. I commend this legislation to my colleagues and to the administration. As many of you know the child nutrition programs must be reauthorized in 1998 and the Administration is currently drafting its proposal to send to Congress after the first of the year. I would hope Secretary Glickman and my friends at the Department of Agriculture, as well as those at the Office of Management and Budget, consider making the Meals for Achievement Act a part of their legislative initiative. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee and thank him for his leadership on this extraordinarily important issue for our Nation. I rise in support of the motion to proceed on fast-track negotiating authority, and I rise as one who as a Member of the other body cast a vote ``no'' on NAFTA and ``yes'' on GATT, and one who appreciates that the judgment on the final merits of negotiated trade agreements is something that comes next; that what we have at hand here is a critical procedural issue about whether in fact this administration, as past administrations, will have the authority to go forward to at least be at the table on trade arrangements. So I am very mindful that today we are talking about process and not a final trade agreement, and that all of us as Members of this Senate will reserve our judgment on the merits of whatever negotiated agreement comes back to us for our ratification. The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1997 simply provides the same basic structure and authority for this President as has been provided for past Presidents of both political parties back to President Ford. And if anything, this act strengthens the hand of Congress. It provides for more notification, more consultation, and in fact explicitly restricts Presidential authority in areas not specified in the act. The ability to negotiate under fast track has in fact expired with the approval of the Uruguay round of 1994, and we find ourselves now with great urgency having to deal with this procedural issue. I think we need to understand, Mr. President, that we go forward or backward on trade. There is no such thing as the status quo. We live in a nation that historically has had very few restrictions on the import of products into our Nation. Most of the trade barriers that need to be dealt with in this world are barriers to the export of our goods abroad. If the United States does not lead on trade, the harsh reality is that others will displace our role with arrangements of their own that may very likely be harmful to the American economy, to American workers, to American jobs, and certainly to American agriculture. Even in this hemisphere there are others who seek to displace the American leadership role. The European Union currently is attempting to negotiate trade agreements with leading South American nations by 1990, claiming that their future is with Europe rather than with the United States. Other bilateral, other regional arrangements are in the process of being negotiated. All of this goes forward with the United States on the sideline unless we extend this authority to the President because it is only by being engaged in international trade that we can expect to lead toward not only our economic prosperity but democracy, security, and improvement of the environment, dealing with drugs, dealing with terrorism, dealing with weapons of mass destruction. The United States cannot be a leader for human rights but neglect its role on trade. I think it is important for the Members of this body to recognize that what we have before us is not a referendum on NAFTA. It is not a referendum on any previous trade agreement. It is, in fact, an acknowledgement that we live, however, in an interglobal economy, that we live in that reality, and that reality requires us to become involved in engagement and in a leadership role. Cowering behind walls of fear about trade does a disservice to us all, including workers, the environment and human rights. The United States represents only 4 percent of the world's population but 21 percent of the world's gross domestic product. It ought to be obvious to us all how critically important trade is to the United States. In my home State of South Dakota, 1 of every 3 acres of land throughout the State planted to crops is in effect planted for the export market. We simply cannot allow other nations to forge regional and bilateral trade arrangements without the United States even being at the table. And that is the question, that is the fundamental question before this Senate: will we bring the United States to the table to be a player, to be a leader, or will the United States cower on the sidelines and allow other nations to go forward with arrangements that may or may not be beneficial to American workers and the American economy? Fast track is not about a particular trade agreement. It is not about politics, although there are, admittedly, some in the other body who would tie this agreement to collateral, unrelated issues involving international family planning or even antipublic school agendas, and so on. Hopefully, this will not be brought down by those kinds of irrelevant side issues. We should not be involved in ideology. What in fact we have here is an issue that is about jobs, about economic growth, about world competitiveness. Other nations simply will not put forth their best offers at the table with our trade representatives if they know they will then have to renegotiate the entire matter with coalitions of Members of Congress and unending domestic political turmoil in our own Nation. Trade is critically important to my own State of South Dakota. Its export trade has increased from $700 million to $1.2 billion in the past 5 years. Demand continues to grow. But, in fact, so does competition from suppliers, and the need for fair trade and fair access continues to be great. I am pleased with the administration's agricultural initiatives. I am pleased with their support for S. 219, of which I am a cosponsor, the Value Added Agricultural Products Market Access Act of 1997, which would allow for the U.S. Trade Representative on a annual basis to identify nations that deny market access for value added U.S. agricultural products or that apply standards for import from the United States not related to protecting human, animal, or plant life or health and not based on science. Our red meat exports are now at a record level of $2.4 billion. I am pleased that the administration has directed the Secretary of Agriculture to improve the availability of livestock import data, and the Secretary of Agriculture, in cooperation with the livestock industry, to work on guidelines for voluntary labeling of meat and meat food products. Agricultural exports nationally have grown 50 percent from 1990 to 1996, from $40 billion to a now record $60 billion. And in the current environment where we no longer have a farm price support system in place, it is all the more important that every possible tool be brought to bear to expand farm income, farm prices, and the competitiveness of one of America's great economic sectors. I am pleased that agriculture will, in fact, be an explicit goal of the President's negotiating authority. So again, Mr. President, this is not a referendum on past trade agreements, but it is a referendum on whether the United States will continue to be a leader or even a participant in international trade or whether we will succumb to fear, whether we will in fact enter the 21st century in retreat rather than as the global leader in economic issues, which this Nation deserves and which this Nation needs. I yield back my time to the distinguished chairman.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the conference report on the fiscal year 1998 appropriations for VA, HUD and related agencies. While this bill continues to focus on the commitments this Nation has made to our veterans, and provides for the important scientific and environmental protection priorities that the administration has put forth, I want to take a moment to express my support for the steps the conferees have taken to address a serious and pressing issue facing low income housing assistance in this country. Since its inception, the HUD section 8 housing program has provided rental assistance for low-income individuals through project-based contracts as well as vouchers which help to preserve low income housing availability. This conference report not only includes funding for the renewal of section 8 contracts, but contains the extremely important mark-to-market contract restructuring program which, beginning in 1999, will preserve affordable housing for millions of low-income tenants while saving the taxpayers billions over time as well. I want to commend my Banking Committee colleagues, particularly Senator Mack who authored the initial section 8 restructuring bill, for their tireless efforts to insure that this restructuring program was accepted. Nationwide, section 8 contracts covering 1.8 million assisted units are expected to expire in fiscal year 1998. The mark-to-market program is a mortgage and rent restructuring program to reduce the costs of over-subsidized section 8 multifamily housing properties insured through the FHA. Under this restructuring program, FHA insured properties with above market rents are eligible for debt restructuring to bring the rent levels in line with market rate rent levels, or the project-based rents needed to support operation and maintenance of the housing facilities. The bill directs the HUD Secretary to work with State and local housing entities to reduce expiring section 8 contract costs, address troubled projects, and correct management and ownership deficiencies. Because Congress has been unsuccessful in past attempts to move the type of section 8 overhaul necessary for the preservation of low-income housing assistance in this climate of budget cuts, HUD has been renewing all longer term expiring Section 8 contracts with quick-fix, 1-year contracts. The short-term renewals have led to confusion and fear among recipients of housing assistance in my State and across the country. Many assisted housing residents in South Dakota have been worried for several months as to whether they will continue to have a roof over their heads in the coming year. As these residents received notice of expiring short-term and long-term section 8 contracts, families were concerned they would be forced from their homes. Some of these families have spent half their lives in these homes. Many of these residents are senior citizens. Many are widows and widowers. Many are disabled. These residents were told that unless Congress acted, they may be forced from their two-, three-, and four-bedroom homes or one- and- two-bedroom apartments and displaced into smaller sized units or homes. For many residents in communities such as Northgate Community Homes and Lakota Homes in western South Dakota, this is not an option. Housing at every level of affordability is extremely scarce in my rural State. After raising families in these homes, senior citizen couples living in two- or three-bedroom homes have been told that they would have to downsize to one-bedroom homes. However, at the Northgate and Lakota developments, there are no one bedroom options. Thus these individuals and families have feared displacement into the surrounding area, with great uncertainty about their futures. I have been informed by city officials that the low-income housing stock currently available is inadequate to absorb the extra burden of these individuals and families forced from their section 8-subsidized homes and complexes. Already, many elderly and disabled couples and individuals have left the developments over uncertainty about their homes. They are leaving behind years of improvements they made in their homes, as well as the cherished memories of raising families in these communities. They have been forced out because of confusion and expiring contracts. People like Hazel Holmes of Sturgis, SD, who raised her family in a small two-bedroom home at Northgate Community Homes have been threatened by uncertainty. Hazel's husband died almost 10 years ago and she has continued to live independently in her home. With the expiring section 8 contract, she became very worried--like her neighbors--that she would be forced to leave her home and the neighbors she cherished. Couples like Ruth and Carl Kittleman and Ralph and Dorothy Iverson have already moved from Northgate due to inaction and confusion over this issue. Others fret on a daily basis about their futures. Seniors like Chuck Alberts have persevered each day with the pressure and stress of having his beloved wife Bev in a nursing home. He should not have the added worry about whether he will be able to stay in his home. These are just a few examples of the serious section 8 scare that recipients of low-income housing assistance have faced in my State. I am extremely thankful that throughout consideration of the section 8 restructuring proposal my colleagues took special notice of the unique needs of rural housing contract restructuring. Because of continued pressure from myself and other rural members, the mark-to-market proposal contains language for a more flexible approach to determining market rents in rural communities--communities where market is difficult to determine, where the project in need of contract restructuring might be the only market for hundreds of miles. The broadened definition of market included in this bill will help to insure appropriate restructuring throughout my State. In rural South Dakota, the 244 project-based section 8 contracts provide 6113 housing units, primarily for elderly South Dakotans. With full funding up to $8.2 billion provided through the fiscal year 1998 VA HUD bill, 1070 housing units up for renewal in South Dakota in the immediate future will continue to receive section 8 rental assistance. This volume pales in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of section 8 housing units in jeopardy in states like New York and Illinois, and I appreciate my colleagues' continued sensitivity for awareness of the unique needs of rural States. Additionally, I commend my colleagues for relying on the qualified existing State housing finance agencies for the administration of contract restructuring, and on local housing entities for management and planning decisions, both subject to the approval of the HUD Secretary. With public input at every level, HUD will be able to reign in excessive subsidies to appropriate levels so that our Federal housing assistance funds go further, and maintain assistance for low- income individuals for the long term. While the majority of current project-based Section 8 will remain available, local communities will be involved in determining whether tenant-based assistance is more practical in certain communities. This freedom at the local level is important, yet I applaud my colleagues for including distinct protection for elderly and disabled project-based assistance, which will eliminate the type of fear and uncertainty that seniors in my state have been subject to in recent years. Without the commitment to fund section 8 for the coming year, and the inclusion of the mark-to-market restructuring program, cuts in other programs for the elderly and disabled, and for preserving available low-income housing would be required. By addressing section 8 restructuring and providing adequate funding, this bill reaffirms the Congress' long term commitment to low-income housing assistance. HUD and the States have a daunting task ahead, as thousand of projects under contract throughout the country are pending restructuring. In all cases, I am confident that the involvement and participation of local ad State housing interests at every level will protect the public interest, and all affected parties, including tenants, will have a voice in the future of low-income housing assistance. Again, I commend my colleagues for including the section 8 restructuring program in the fiscal year 1998 VA, HUD appropriations bill, and I look forward to working toward continued security for low- income housing in the coming years. funding for the health care needs of veterans in northern california

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I am very pleased that the Senate has finally taken up the discussion of the McCain-Feingold campaign reform legislation. I very much appreciate the efforts of Senator Daschle in pushing this process forward. His role in demonstrating that all 45 Senate Democrats support the revised version of McCain-Feingold I think was essential. And I hope that it becomes clear to all Americans that with the one additional Republican vote necessary that we will in fact achieve historic reform of the campaign funding system in our Nation. But I also want to applaud Senators McCain and Feingold for what has been a tireless effort on their behalf in forging this bipartisan compromise legislation. We have seen many good bills fall by the wayside over the years. But this seems to be one of the best opportunities in recent years to actually achieve real reform. That said, I have to express disappointment on my part that this legislation has been stripped down to a more modest level from its original version. In particular, I am disappointed that the system no longer creates a system of voluntary spending limits in the way that the original bill did. I believe that kind of limitation, that kind of restraint that will slow the nuclear arms race of campaign fundraising and spending in the long run, will in fact be essential. Madam President, I have been a long-time supporter of campaign reform legislation. My experiences over these past 2 years have made it even more apparent to me that passage of this campaign finance reform legislation is absolutely critical to the health of our democracy. There are those who would suggest that any restraint on spending of any kind is somehow a dumbing down of our democracy when in fact the reality is just the opposite. The quality of our democracy, the integrity of our democracy, is not a function of how much money we spend. It is a function of how well the debate is conducted. There are those who have legitimate philosophical problems. There are those who simply see the status quo as being supportive of their own current election to the body, and to the House of Representatives. But I think that there are a great many of us here--and I believe a majority, if the opportunity were afforded to us to actually cast a vote on the merits of campaign finance reform--who would actually support this sweeping legislation. I personally have just been through one of the longest and, frankly, one of the most expensive per voter Senate campaigns in the history of America. My opponent and I spent a total of $24 for every vote cast. And, if one were to include the money spent by the national party organizations and the various independent groups, total spending would rise to around $29 per vote. All of this money produced one of the longest political campaigns the Nation has ever seen. My opponent began running campaign commercials 17 months from the election, then 13 months before the election--an attack ad campaign, one that I had to respond to, although I was not yet even formally an announced candidate in the race. That is the kind of campaign negative--vitriolic, long-winded, longstanding--that did nothing to improve the confidence of the American public in our political process, and did nothing to restore confidence that in fact the system reflects their values and their ideals and their values. It was simply a system awash in too much money. Put in perspective, in South Dakota, our small State, with statewide television advertising relatively inexpensive, for a race like this, if one were run in a State like California at $29 per vote cast, the cost would be staggering. The equivalent cost in the State of California would be a $250 million Senate campaign. Some argue that the money is good for democracy, that the voters will be more educated by this kind of enormous financial overkill. Last week, the Washington Post quoted the House Speaker saying that ``If you have enough resources on both sides, you can actually communicate rationally.'' In his view, the more money spent by candidates the better. But I can tell you with utmost certainty, given my own experience, that these arguments are utterly wrong. Voters in fact over recent years have been turned off by campaigns of this duration and of this negative quality because of unending commercials. As I speak to South Dakotans in every corner of my State, there is a fervent wish that we could return to the days when campaigning began with great seriousness around Labor Day of the election year--not Labor Day of the year prior. The appearance of this amount of money, the appearance of the raising of this amount of money, is one that gives rise to attitudes that the entire system is corrupt, the entire system is unresponsive, and the American public, that there is too much time spent raising the money. Madam President, how long is it going to be that Members of this body and Members of the other body vacate their offices daily to go to their private campaign offices in the row houses and the streets off the Hill to make their fundraising phone calls, to do this ``dialing for dollars,'' as it is referred to around here, trying to raise the amount of money necessary to run one of these campaigns? The typical U.S. Senate campaign, if it were raised in an equal level of energy throughout the 6-year term, would require the incumbent to raise $14,000 a week, every week, 52 weeks a year, for 6 years. Madam President, that is not the kind of money that can be raised casually. That is not the kind of money that can be raised with a barbecue in your backyard back home in South Dakota, or whatever State you are in. That is not the kind of money that can be raised in small increments. That requires a concerted, sophisticated, methodical effort. And it is corrupt and demeaning to the service in this body. And it is destroying the public's confidence in the quality of the deliberations that take place here, and in the kind of accountability that this body has. As the amount of money rises, what we have seen last year in the last cycle becomes only more so in the future. The amount of money to raise to win a congressional seat has continued to rise astronomically. According to the Federal Election Commission, the typical candidate for an open seat in the House of Representatives raised nearly $600,000-- close to double what was required only 4 years ago. The growth in so- called soft money has been even more explosive. Data from the 1996 elections show that the amount of soft money that was raised and spent was more than three times what was spent in 1992, and 11 times more than was spent in 1980. It should be so fundamentally absolutely clear that something is wrong-- something is terribly wrong with our system of financing elections in this country. Campaigns have become in many ways little more than a campaign finance arms race. And the American public has understandably become disenchanted with politics in large part because of this process. There are people who suggested that all we need to do is to ban soft money raised by the political parties. Again, a mistake. Banning soft money without addressing the expanding role of independent groups and political campaigns would not go far enough, and it could create a whole new set of problems. We need to redefine the term ``soft money'' to include all forms of campaign spending that is presently unregulated. During the 1996 election cycle when we experienced a flurry of campaign activity by independent organizations and congressional races, independent expenditures accounted for $19 million of spending--most of it targeted to key congressional races. An even more pressing problem is the new phenomenon of issue advocacy advertisements. Last year's Supreme Court decision in the Colorado case opened the floodgates for this kind kind of activity. According to a study by the Annenberg Center at the University of Pennsylvania, one-third of all campaign advertising totaling $150 million came from these so-called issue ads. Just as influential as other ads, they are political ads. They are not subject to the same fundraising regulations as in reporting requirements. Nobody knows where the money comes from. They are utterly unregulated. The Annenberg study indicated that issue ads were the most virulently negative ads on the air. Overall, 81 percent of these ads were attack ads. We have also seen the last expansion in the political activity by tax-exempt organizations--organizations, in effect, using taxpayer dollars to further a very political agenda on the left and on the right. And 30 tax-exempt groups are not supposed to be engaged in partisan political activity. But the reality has become very apparent to everyone who has even had a casual following of what has transpired over these last 2 years. In particular, banning soft money to political parties without addressing the growing problem of third-party groups would merely cause more money to flow into these unregulated groups. One of my fears is, while we may limit spending that flows formally through the campaign structures of the respective candidates and their parties, that the money then as water flowing downhill washes increasingly into even more unregulated and less accountable mechanisms for running the campaigns, and the candidates will find themselves increasingly irrelevant to their own political campaigns, the political themes. And the political attacks and responses will be orchestrated and designed and organized by these so-called tax-exempt groups--groups that are, in fact, using taxpayer dollars in effect to run their partisan independent issue advocacy kinds of campaigns. That does a disservice to the political dialog in our Nation. That does a disservice to any hope that we have that political candidates will be accountable to the public for the positions they take. The American public deserves better than that, and that is why we need campaign finance reform and that is why we need a broadened sense of soft money regulation. It is not clear whether there are going to be any amendments allowed in the course of this debate. It is certainly my hope there will be. That is the nature of debate in this body. It is what we have done for 200 years on issues of great public significance. And yet we find a parliamentary procedure being used that may, unfortunately, stop amendments, stop debate and cause this whole exercise to come tumbling down. But if we have an opportunity for a full, meaningful debate, involving amendments, if we are allowed to offer amendments, I have two I want to pursue. One is an amendment that would deal with the problem of candidates spending their campaign funds for personal use. This is something I think has become out of hand, as reimbursement payments to elected officials are not itemized and there are literally thousand- dollar reimbursements coming back to candidates for their personal use. I think we need to clean this up. I think we need to take another step in the right direction to make the American public think that in fact this system is responsive to them, that campaign money is not some additional source of slush fund, not some additional source of personal financial wealth that is available to candidates. A recent study by the Gannett News Service last year showed that many candidates have reimbursed themselves thousands upon thousands of dollars from their campaign funds with virtually no explanation of where the money has gone, what it has been used to purchase. I believe the same itemization requirements ought to be applied to candidates as are applied to other areas. Second, I believe another matter in cleaning the system up and restoring a greater sense of integrity to the system is campaigns ought to pay the fair market value for use of private aircraft such as the corporate jets that transport Members from one corner of this continent to the other. Currently, candidates simply reimbursing the equivalent of first-class airfare, when in fact the cost of this transportation is often in the tens of thousands of dollars, and again going unrecorded, results in less accountability than I believe we should have. We have had a historic first session of the 105th Congress as we come down now to this final month in the sense I think we have dealt responsibly with the Federal budget, the Federal budget deficit, with the design of some tax relief, in placing I think a greater emphasis on education, preserving a commitment to the environment, doing I think some positive things. But this Congress cannot be deemed a success and history will treat this Congress poorly, in my view, if we miss this opportunity now to enact meaningful, significant campaign finance reform, reform that is supported by the nonpartisan reform organizations around the Nation, one that is not designed to tilt the playing field to one political party or the other because, frankly, in past years that has happened from time to time. We need to get away from that and, in fact, to pursue this kind of significant reform that has bipartisan support, that is supported on a very broad basis by the American public and to quit making excuses to the American public about why it could not get done, no more excuses about why the money will continue to mount, no more excuses why there will not be any greater accountability than in the past, about where the money is raised and how it is spent, no more excuses about why these campaigns are taking now years and years rather than months and months to transpire, no more excuses about where the money came from and who, in fact, has their interests best being considered by our legislative bodies in Washington. We have that opportunity now. We cannot allow this to escape from us. We have, today and tomorrow, an opportunity to cast a historic vote to get past some of the parliamentary abuses that are attempted to be used here, the poison pill parliamentary efforts, to get past that and to allow each one of us in this body to go home at the end of this session of the 105th Congress and to look our constituents in the eye and say, I voted for or I voted against campaign finance reform on the merits, up or down. Let us be permitted to cast that vote with the full breadth of debate. While I am worried that that may not in fact transpire today or tomorrow, during the remainder of this 105th Congress we have this great opportunity and it is certainly my hope we will not allow it to slip. I yield the floor. Mr. HAGEL addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the men and women of Ellsworth Air Force Base's 28th Bomb Wing and join them in their celebration of the Air Force's and the bomb wing's 50th anniversary. This is a wonderful time to reflect on the remarkable role the U.S. Air Force and the 28th Bomb Wing have played in our national security and to look toward the future at the growing importance air superiority will have in maintaining the peace around the world. These past five decades have provided countless successes and great memories for the men and women who piloted, maintained, and provided oversight to the numerous important missions of the U.S. Air Force. Our country owes all who have served a debt of gratitude. The 28th Bomb Wing was born in August 1947 when the Strategic Air Command organized the wing at Rapid City Army Air Field, later renamed Ellsworth Air Force Base, SD. In 1949, the 28th participated in the first of a long line of historical missions when B-29's flew a 90-day show-of force mission during the Soviet blockade of Berlin. At the start of the cold war, the B-29's gave way to B-36 Peacemakers in 1950 as the 28th provided an umbrella of security for NATO countries. The crews of the B-36 were dedicated to their missions--primarily reconnaissance and to gather photographic and electronic information. However, according to B-36 crew chief Bill Shoemaker, they did everything from drop haybales to stranded livestock during the terrible winters of 1949 and 1950 for Operation Haylifts; transport Thanksgiving turkeys to soldiers in Greenland; attend the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, and take a member of the royal family on a short flight. The ability to perform any job, and do it well, was the hallmark of the B-36 crew and a trait that has been reflected in the personnel of the 28th throughout the years. Senior Master Sgt. Dave Sitch spent 6 of his 26 years of military service at Ellsworth Air Force Base as part of the 28th Bomb Wing-- 1951-55, 1974-76. ``In the days of the '36 and as part of the 28th, that was the closest group I had ever been in. There was a lot of competition among the squadrons, but there was a lot of camaraderie too. We looked out for each other.'' Jet technology changed the face of aeronautics, and the all-jet B-52 Stratofortress started replacing the Peacemakers in 1957. The 28th Bomb Wing played an important role in the Vietnam war, flying both bombers and tankers for 9 years. Over the next 20 years, Ellsworth Air Force Base became a vital component of our country's defensive strategy as the 28th assumed the bomber role in the Strategic Projection Force. The B-52 mission expanded to include sea reconnaissance, surveillance, and conventional operations from forward bases, and Ellsworth Air Force Base's reach extended to a number of hot spots overseas. Don Strachan spent 10 years as a member of the 28th Bomb Wing at Ellsworth Air Force Base. He recalls a time when the B-52's participated in an operation titled Airborne Alert, in which one-third of the entire B-52 fleet was expected to remain airborne at all times between 1957 and 1960. ``Some of the wings couldn't handle it, but the 28th filled in. We never failed to meet our commitment. It was like family. We supported everyone extremely well. The esprit de corps was unmatched. There was a great deal of sharing among the crews. People would come in and observe our operations.'' Strachan and Shoemaker recalled conducting maintenance on planes in desperately cold temperatures. While stationed with the B-36's in Greenland, Shoemaker recalled, ``It was so cold, you couldn't do anything. We worked under the lights on ramps. It was so dark all the time.'' Strachan said maintenance crews worked in chill factors that were 100 degrees below zero. ``Nothing stopped the 28th,'' said Strachan. Fred Hurst spent six different stints totaling 19 years at Ellsworth Air Force Base as a member of the 28th Bomb Wing. For many years, he served as president of the 28th Bomb Wing Reunion Association and was recently succeeded in the position by Strachan. Hurst spent 30 years of military service, working in maintenance on B-29's, B-36's, and B-52's and retired from military service as a chief master sergeant. He retired last year as a civilian worker and advisor on B-1B operations. Hurst says the 28th Bomb Wing has always been admired for its professionalism and efficiency. ``It is a good wing. It's been at the top for so many years as far as performance goes. It has a great safety record. Whenever someone had a problem, everyone and his brother tried to help him.'' Mike Isaman spent a total of 15 years at Ellsworth Air Force Base over two stints. As a member of the 28th Bomb Wing, Isaman said teamwork was key to the success of any operation, as well as to the success of the Wing and the Base. ``We were all friends. Everyone looked out after each other. It was a team. It worked together. They all stood together. We would do anything possible for other crews and squadrons.'' The Air Force introduced the next generation of bombers, the B-1B Lancer, in 1987, and once again, the 28th took the lead in housing the sleek new bombers. Adding to its already storied combat experience, the wing deployed both tanker and airborne command post aircraft to Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Following action in the Persian Gulf, B-1's were taken off alert, and the world began to settle into the post-cold war era. The 28th Bomb Wing, successful in protecting the United States for five decades began the transition from the strategic role to an all- conventional mission. Once again, the 28th shone brightly as the bomb wing successfully participated in the congressionally directed operational readiness assessment known as Dakota Challenge in 1994. The 77th Bomb Squadron was activated at Ellsworth Air Force Base in April 1997, and the 28th Bomb Wing will continue to stand tall as the ``Pioneer of Peace for the 21st Century.'' I strongly support the B-1B program and share the view of the Air Force that the B-1B is the backbone of our bomber force. It deserves this reputation because of the versatility, efficiency, and effectiveness of the craft. To the flight crews as well as the ground support, administrative staff, security personnel, base support, and hospital personnel who served and continue to serve as part of the 28th, I salute and commend your efforts. The active duty members, families, and retirees have forged an unbreakable bond with the communities of Box Elder and Rapid City. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those associated with Ellsworth and the Air Force for their impressive efforts and for their commitment to South Dakota and the United States. I know they have had an illustrious past, and I know they will continue their success in the future. Their missions will continue, although modified to fit the requirements of the post-cold war world, and I have no doubt that they will continue to be the ``first to fight with decisive combat airpower that achieves the aims of the combatant commander's campaign'' as their mission states. Best wishes for another 50 years of pride and success.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, a B-1 bomber from Ellsworth Air Force Base near Rapid City, SD, crashed last Friday killing all four of the flight crew members. All four men who lost their lives were highly decorated American airmen receiving such awards as the Meritorious Service Medal, the Air Force Commendation Medal, the Humanitarian Service Medal, the Combat Readiness Medal, and the National Defense Service Medal. The four men were Col. Anthony Beat of the 28th Bomb Wing, vice commander. He was from Attica, OH, and is survived by his wife, Delores Ann, and sons, James and Alan. Maj. Clay Culver was the 37th Bomb Squadron assistant operations officer and weapons systems officer. He was from Sulfur, LA, and is survived by his wife, Cynthia, his daughter, Ann, and son, Parker, all of Rapid City. Maj. Kirk Cakerice, the 37th Bomb Squadron assistant operations officer and instructor pilot, was from Eldora, IA, and is survived by his wife, Myra, son, Brett, and daughter, Kendra, all of Rapid City. Capt. Gary Everett was the 37th Bomb Systems weapons systems officer from Brooklyn, NY, and is survived by his parents, Joseph and Dorthy Everett, of Glasgow, KY, and several brothers and sisters and fiance. On Monday, over 1,500 friends, peers, colleagues, and family mourned the loss of these four brave men in a memorial service at Ellsworth Air Force Base. At this time of tragedy, thoughts and prayers and the attention of people of the Black Hills region and the State of South Dakota and our Nation are with the families and friends of these four crewmen. This tragic incident underscores how quickly lives of even our bravest and most skilled military personnel can be lost. It is important that the legacy of these four men live on as dedicated airmen, proud parents, loving husbands, grateful sons, and honorable men. Our loss reflects the fact that in peacetime, as well as during conflict, the men and women of our military, our friends, our spouses, our children, put their lives on the line each and every day to preserve and protect our liberty as Americans. Colonel Beat, Major Cakerice, Major Culver, and Captain Everett were decorated veterans and honorable men who approached their military service with extraordinary dedication, commitment, pride, and professionalism. In this time of tragedy, we must also acknowledge that our Nation is stronger and our liberties more secure because of the willingness of these patriots to commit their talent, their leadership, and ultimately their lives to the defense of our Nation. Colonel Beat, Major Cakerice, Major Culver, and Captain Everett were shining examples of the quality, the expertise and the talents of the men and women who put on the uniforms of our Armed Forces. And so again, Mr. President, our prayers are with the families of these four great American airmen. We know that every day of the week others embark on similar training experiences and similar endeavors. Lives are always at risk in times of peace as well as in conflict in order to protect our liberties as Americans, including our ability in this Senate to gather, to debate, to discuss policy issues affecting our Nation. So it is in the great effort of these airmen, and others like them in all of our branches of the military, that we owe great gratitude. All people in the State of South Dakota share the grief but also the pride of these families in the great contribution that these airmen have made to our Nation. I yield back my time.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I will not use the full 10 minutes.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member and ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a brief history of the Marty Indian School that has served the Yankton Sioux people of the Marty area so well for so long.