Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. That was fine.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the motion to strike by the Senator from West Virginia, and I thank, as well, the work and support from the Senator from Alaska on this matter. Mr. President, there is a tremendous amount of pain and suffering across many States of the Union. In my State of South Dakota, where thousands of people have been evacuated, many are still not back in their homes, contamination of flood water is present, hundreds of thousands of livestock have been lost, businesses have been shut down, roads are still under water, there has been incredible damage to culverts and bridges, and public schools have suffered. This is no time to use the suffering of these people as a point of leverage to compel this Congress and the President of the United States to accept an extraneous budget amendment. As a member of the Budget Committee, I welcome an opportunity to debate those who believe there ought to be a reduction in aid to schools, kids nutrition programs, law enforcement, environmental protection, or cancer research, among other items, that ought to be reduced. I welcome that debate. That is what this institution is for. But South Dakotans wonder, as I think Americans wonder, why can't this Congress handle one issue at a time rather than tying extraneous issues onto bills of incredible urgency? Let us deal with this disaster in a constructive, positive and bipartisan way, and then take up the budget issues that have been raised by the CR issue in a separate context, and have a full-blown debate on the real consequence of these budget priorities. Some, no doubt, will win, and some may lose, but let them be debated separately and not try to tie the President's hand, not try to use the suffering of thousands of people in this country as a point of leverage for an agenda that he cannot accept and which will only in the end delay the urgent assistance so badly needed in my State of South Dakota and in some 30 other States, as well, as a result of the natural disasters that we have faced over these last several months. I think this is simply a matter of equity and of fairness. We seem to be in the process of reaching a bipartisan budget agreement. That is a helpful step. We should take each process, one at a time, in its rightful order, and deal with this disaster now, and then deal in a timely fashion with the rest of the budget priority issues in their order. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON. Two minutes for now.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I have to my right a satellite image of the James River in South Dakota; on the left, depicting the river in its normal course prior to the flooding. On the right is a satellite image showing the current state of the James River--swollen, in places miles across, with water in a circumstance where less than 5 percent of the farmland in the James River Valley, from North Dakota to Nebraska, will be planted this year. This imagery was provided by the aerial data center in South Dakota. I think it very ably shows the dire circumstances that people in the James River area are facing. Amendment No. 70 is an amendment offered by myself and by my colleague, Senator Daschle, which addresses the extensive damage that has taken place in the James River Valley and which needs to be addressed. This amendment addresses the problem, where up to 75 percent of the trees in this area have been lost, where bank sloughing and levee sloughing has filled the channel and reduced its capability to handle water. The amendment would provide a $10 million appropriation through the Corps of Engineers to the James River Water Development District to use for the badly needed repair and restoration work on the James River. This is a 25 percent cost share. I am pleased that this amendment has been cleared and approved by the majority and the minority of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I thank Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus and their staffs for their willingness to work with us on these amendments. I also thank the appropriators, Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd, Senator Domenici and Senator Reid from the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittees and their staffs, for their willingness to work with us on the language of this amendment, and to accept it as part of the supplemental appropriations legislation being considered by the Senate today. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I have to my right a satellite image of the James River in South Dakota; on the left, depicting the river in its normal course prior to the flooding. On the right is a satellite image showing the current state of the James River--swollen, in places miles across, with water in a circumstance where less than 5 percent of the farmland in the James River Valley, from North Dakota to Nebraska, will be planted this year. This imagery was provided by the aerial data center in South Dakota. I think it very ably shows the dire circumstances that people in the James River area are facing. Amendment No. 70 is an amendment offered by myself and by my colleague, Senator Daschle, which addresses the extensive damage that has taken place in the James River Valley and which needs to be addressed. This amendment addresses the problem, where up to 75 percent of the trees in this area have been lost, where bank sloughing and levee sloughing has filled the channel and reduced its capability to handle water. The amendment would provide a $10 million appropriation through the Corps of Engineers to the James River Water Development District to use for the badly needed repair and restoration work on the James River. This is a 25-percent cost share. I am pleased that this amendment has been cleared and approved by the majority and the minority of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I thank Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus and their staffs for their willingness to work with us on these amendments. I also thank the appropriators, Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd, Senator Domenici and Senator Reid from the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittees and their staffs, for their willingness to work with us on the language of this amendment, and to accept it as part of the supplemental appropriations legislation being considered by the Senate today. Mr. President, this amendment will go a long way toward restoring the James River and its water-carrying capacity, to restore its wildlife, to restore the economic life of the area on either side of this river, and it will do a great deal to assure residents of this area that we will not see flooding of this magnitude, of this devastating scope, any time soon again. I had the opportunity to fly over the James River to take an aerial survey of this area this past month, flying out of Pierre, SD, flying over Mitchell, then back over Aberdeen, over Sand Lake Wildlife Refuge to gain a full appreciation of the magnitude of this flood. We have a great deal of flood problems in other areas of South Dakota, but this amendment addresses the dire circumstances that the people in the James River Valley face. I thank, again, my colleagues for their cooperation and their assistance with this amendment. It certainly is my hope that we can very expeditiously pass the supplemental appropriations bill, get it to the President's desk for his signature and to get on with rebuilding the lives of our communities, of our businesses and of our families, in this case, in the James River Valley. I yield back the remainder of my time, Mr. President. Amendment No. 225 to Amendment No. 70 (Purpose: A second degree amendment to amendment No. 70 making funds contingent upon a finding by the Secretary of the Army that channel restoration and improvements of the James River constitute an emergency)

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Depository Institution Disaster Relief Act of 1997 as a noncontroversial and bipartisan amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill being considered on the floor of the Senate today. I want to particularly extend thanks to Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd for their assistance on this amendment and support of this amendment, as well as their very timely action on the underlying supplemental appropriations legislation. And thanks to Senator D'Amato and Senator Sarbanes of the Banking Committee for their support as well, and, of course, to Senator Grams, my colleague from Minnesota, who has done extraordinary work on this legislation. I am proud to join him as a cosponsor of S. 652. We have had an incredible series of catastrophic events in the Northern Plains, in Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota. It is absolutely essential that this body move expeditiously to provide as much assistance as possible to get individuals, families, businesses, and local governments back on their feet. This amendment would give the banking regulators the authority to cut through red tape to expedite the handling of loans and deposits for banks, credit unions, and savings and loans in order to move along the rebuilding of our part of the country as quickly as possible. This legislation has the support of both FDIC and the Federal Reserve. In our three States we have suffered vitally over these last several months. Hundreds of thousands of livestock have been lost, roads are under water, schools closed, hospitals closed. Family businesses are in tremendous stress right now. It is absolutely essential that we provide every element of assistance we possibly can. I share Senator Grams' belief that this legislation will be one more piece of the puzzle necessary to reach that goal. The predecessor of this legislation was a similar amendment enacted in 1992 and 1993. So this is a step that has been taken in the past when our Nation has been undergoing stressful disaster circumstances. It is very, very appropriate during this year that we reintroduce this amendment to provide this kind of temporary but very important relief. Again, this amendment is bipartisan. It should be noncontroversial. I again commend Senator Grams for his leadership in bringing this amendment to the floor. I yield back. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. JOHNSON. First, the Senator from Minnesota has done yeoman work in trying to bring relief to the tremendous, catastrophic disaster that has taken place in Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota over the recent months. We have 125,000 people rendered homeless in those States currently. I have visited all three States, and I have seen families, even those who can get back into their homes, who have no sewage, have no water, the roads are broken up. They are doing dishes in campers and using port-o-johns that are temporarily installed in the front yard, and sandbags are everywhere. It is chaos in so many of these areas. Livestock have been lost, equipment has been lost, buildings have collapsed under the weight of snow, culverts are out of place, bridges are down. The loss is a mess through this part of the northern Great Plains. It has been a disaster that has visited 22 States, although the Senator and I are most familiar with the problems, obviously, of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota. We have tremendous urgency for assistance, as this country has always done during times of this level of distress. It appears that if extraneous language is added to this disaster legislation, for which there is broad-based bipartisan support, that will jeopardize the passage of the legislation and, even if it were to pass, would subject it to a veto and we would be back to square one. Timeliness will have been lost and we will have delayed the level of assistance that is so badly needed on an urgent basis. I ask the Senator from Minnesota, does it appear to the Senator that among the most egregious things trying to be added or forced on to this legislation are proposals that, while they are referred to as a 98- percent CR, which to many people would sound reasonably innocuous, but the real consequence of that would be, would it not, over the coming year that we would in fact see college aid cut by $1.8 billion, 400,000 students would lose Pell grants, 52,000 children would be cut from Head Start, we would have to end the Crop Insurance Program--one of the very vehicles that is being used to provide some level of relief for the farmers and ranchers who have been badly hit by this disaster--200,000 veterans would lose medical care, 700,000 mothers and infants per month would lose Women, Infants and Children Nutrition Program services, Indian health services would be cut, there would be 500 fewer air traffic controllers and 173 fewer security officers hired for purposes of air security. Is it not correct that not only would we have to buy into this, but I would have to ask the Senator from Minnesota, procedurally, is it not also correct that we would not be permitted a vote up or down and there would be no debate on policy initiatives of such enormous consequence if we were to allow this kind of extraneous language onto the emergency legislation that we so badly need to pass immediately?

Mr. JOHNSON. If the Senator will yield, would the Senator agree that there is an appropriate time and place for a debate about whether Head Start should be continued or whether crop insurance should be continued or nutrition programs should be continued and at what level, and that the timeliness of that debate ought to be in the context of the appropriations process, rather than doing an end-run on the normal process and tying it to this badly needed legislation?

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Senior Citizen Home Equity Protection Act introduced by Senator D'Amato, and to thank Chairman D'Amato for moving so quickly in response to the needs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in efforts to crack down on the exploitation of our vulnerable low-income senior citizens. The Senior Citizen Home Equity Protection Act will assure that a homeowner pursuing a HUD home equity conversion mortgage, or reverse mortgage, is not charged unnecessary or excessive costs for obtaining that mortgage. The median age of reverse mortgage applicants is 76 years. Most of these borrowers are very low-income, Social Security dependents, typically seeking additional funds for basic needs and medical expenses. Information on the program and the application process is provided by HUD free of charge. Yet, some businesses have been convincing seniors of services and counseling required before reverse mortgages can be secured. Many of these middlemen charge up to 10 percent for services that seniors do not realize are unnecessary. S. 462 clarifies HUD's authority to appropriately restrict unnecessary or excessive costs related to the origination of a reverse mortgage. I believe it necessary to grant this regulatory authority to end fraudulent business activity so that legitimate business interests can be protected and the loan program can remain a viable alternative for seniors to turn to in the financial marketplace. My State of South Dakota recently remedied State law to allow for participation in HUD's reverse mortgage program, at the urging of the South Dakota AARP and the South Dakota Bankers Association. While we have been fortunate not to have felt the impact of these deceitful businesses in South Dakota, I am a strong supporter of this legislation to prevent the spread to my State, now that seniors can pursue these reverse mortgages. Senator D'Amato worked closely with HUD Secretary Cuomo to ensure that seniors can be protected while the viability of the loan program remains intact, and I urge my colleagues to support the Senior Citizen Home Equity Protection Act.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I am proud to be an original sponsor, along with my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Grams, of the Depository Institution Relief Act of 1997. This act represents a small measure that we in Congress can undertake to help alleviate some of the suffering caused in South Dakota, North Dakota, and Minnesota by the natural disasters of this past winter and spring. South Dakotans are a hearty stock, and during my years serving the people of South Dakota, I have repeatedly witnessed their ability to overcome any obstacle Mother Nature throws their way. However, I don't believe I have ever seen South Dakotans rise to the occasion in quite the manner they are right now. I recently toured the disaster areas of South Dakota, North Dakota, and Minnesota with both President Clinton and Vice-President Gore and viewed terrible scenes of cattle stranded in fields, dead cattle across the area, flooded highways, communities lining up to pile sandbags, and people forced to stay in motels because their homes are in such danger. The devastation caused to Grand Forks, ND will not soon be forgotten by those who witnessed nature's awesome fury first-hand. The situation in South Dakota also was far worse than I expected. During my recent tour, I saw a compelling combination of the furor of Mother Nature and the determination of South Dakotans, North Dakotans, and Minnesotans to survive yet another battle with this awesome force. Mother Nature--as only she can do--had changed the rules of the game and given the residents of our region more water than initially anticipated and more than we could safely handle. But, through it all--through all the heart-wrenching, indiscriminate loss of property, possessions, and livestock--folks in our South Dakota communities have pulled together. The scene in my home State, and across the region, is something that nearly defies description, but clearly will not be forgotten for many years to come. As the flood waters begin to recede, and these hard-working folks begin to rebuild shattered lives, I rise to seek the support of my colleagues in providing certain regulatory relief that will greatly enable this process. As we did in response to previous tragic flooding along the Mississippi River in 1992 and 1993, let us now undertake to do for the residents of South Dakota, North Dakota, and Minnesota through the Depository Institution Disaster Relief Act of 1997. This act will enable lending institutions--banks, credit unions, and thrifts--to help the people most severely affected by this disaster to begin the arduous process of recovery. The bill permits the regulatory agencies to waive some of the regulations which delay the procedures for helping these people. The major provisions will allow consumers to receive loan proceeds 3 days faster than they ordinarily would, helps lending institutions reopen for business quicker even though the disruption from the flooding may require more than 1 day to process cash deposits and government checks, and loosens capitalization requirements that will be buffeted by the large amounts of insurance deposits that will shortly be flowing through the region. We also call upon Federal regulators to use their ability to waive certain appraisal standards for real estate loans in the disaster areas. These actions will enable the regulating agencies to work with the primary lending institutions to make it easier for the impacted citizens to begin the strenuous and extremely difficult process of recovery. Mr. President, my region has just suffered a 500-year flood right on the heels of the worst winter in memory. As the valiant residents of South Dakota, North Dakota, and Minnesota begin to rebuild their lives and homes, I urge the Congress to take these minimal steps to help that process. The Depository Institution Disaster Relief Act of 1997 represents an immediate, concrete step we can and should take in that direction. I urge my colleagues to support our efforts to attach this important disaster relief bill to the supplemental appropriations bill which will be considered by the Senate in the near future.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I am proud to be an original sponsor, along with my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Grams, of the Depository Institution Relief Act of 1997. This act represents a small measure that we in Congress can undertake to help alleviate some of the suffering caused in South Dakota, North Dakota, and Minnesota by the natural disasters of this past winter and spring. South Dakotans are a hearty stock, and during my years serving the people of South Dakota, I have repeatedly witnessed their ability to overcome any obstacle Mother Nature throws their way. However, I don't believe I have ever seen South Dakotans rise to the occasion in quite the manner they are right now. I recently toured the disaster areas of South Dakota, North Dakota, and Minnesota with both President Clinton and Vice-President Gore and viewed terrible scenes of cattle stranded in fields, dead cattle across the area, flooded highways, communities lining up to pile sandbags, and people forced to stay in motels because their homes are in such danger. The devastation caused to Grand Forks, ND will not soon be forgotten by those who witnessed nature's awesome fury first-hand. The situation in South Dakota also was far worse than I expected. During my recent tour, I saw a compelling combination of the furor of Mother Nature and the determination of South Dakotans, North Dakotans, and Minnesotans to survive yet another battle with this awesome force. Mother Nature--as only she can do--had changed the rules of the game and given the residents of our region more water than initially anticipated and more than we could safely handle. But, through it all--through all the heart-wrenching, indiscriminate loss of property, possessions, and livestock--folks in our South Dakota communities have pulled together. The scene in my home State, and across the region, is something that nearly defies description, but clearly will not be forgotten for many years to come. As the flood waters begin to recede, and these hard-working folks begin to rebuild shattered lives, I rise to seek the support of my colleagues in providing certain regulatory relief that will greatly enable this process. As we did in response to previous tragic flooding along the Mississippi River in 1992 and 1993, let us now undertake to do for the residents of South Dakota, North Dakota, and Minnesota through the Depository Institution Disaster Relief Act of 1997. This act will enable lending institutions--banks, credit unions, and thrifts--to help the people most severely affected by this disaster to begin the arduous process of recovery. The bill permits the regulatory agencies to waive some of the regulations which delay the procedures for helping these people. The major provisions will allow consumers to receive loan proceeds 3 days faster than they ordinarily would, helps lending institutions reopen for business quicker even though the disruption from the flooding may require more than 1 day to process cash deposits and government checks, and loosens capitalization requirements that will be buffeted by the large amounts of insurance deposits that will shortly be flowing through the region. We also call upon Federal regulators to use their ability to waive certain appraisal standards for real estate loans in the disaster areas. These actions will enable the regulating agencies to work with the primary lending institutions to make it easier for the impacted citizens to begin the strenuous and extremely difficult process of recovery. Mr. President, my region has just suffered a 500-year flood right on the heels of the worst winter in memory. As the valiant residents of South Dakota, North Dakota, and Minnesota begin to rebuild their lives and homes, I urge the Congress to take these minimal steps to help that process. The Depository Institution Disaster Relief Act of 1997 represents an immediate, concrete step we can and should take in that direction. I urge my colleagues to support our efforts to attach this important disaster relief bill to the supplemental appropriations bill which will be considered by the Senate in the near future.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce legislation that would require that imported meat and meat food products containing imported meat be labeled for country of origin so that consumers can make the choice to buy meat produced from livestock raised on American ranches and farms. This act would require that these products be labeled for country of origin prior to their sale at the retail level in the United States. Senator Craig, Senator Daschle, Senator Burns, and Senator Baucus join me today in introducing this needed policy change. I welcome and applaud their support. I would also point out to my colleagues the support this legislation has received from the National Farmers Union, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and the American Sheep Industry. From my State, this legislation is supported by the South Dakota Farmers Union, South Dakota Farm Bureau, South Dakota Livestock Auction Markets Association, and the South Dakota Cattlemen's Association. I hope that other Senators join us in support of this measure and help us to quickly pass this bill. America's livestock producers are proud of their record of producing quality meat and meat food products from American raised livestock. While labeling products from other industries for country of origin is commonplace, imported meat and meat food products containing imported meat are often not labeled at all. With the passage of the Canadian Free-Trade Agreement, NAFTA, and GATT, we are moving toward more imported meat. Exports of American meat are high quality, value added items that American exporters are proud to advertise as American produced. On the other hand, meat imports into the United States tend to be of lower quality and importers generally do not advertise the country of origin. American consumers deserve to know the source of their meat and meat food products. The legislation that my colleagues and I are introducing will allow America's consumers to know the source of their meat and meat food products. Considering that food safety and the wisdom of production systems in other countries are concerns that consumers consistently have, this legislation allows the competitive free market to determine the prices and demand for imported meat and meat food products. Finally, American taxpayers have invested heavily in our food safety system--and it is undoubtedly the safest in the world. It just makes good sense for these same taxpayers and consumers to know the origin of the meat they buy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the complete text of the legislation printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I ask unanimous consent to extend morning business, Mr. President.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today to commend and recognize the strength and tenacity of the residents of my State of South Dakota, and also to further emphasize the importance of this body in expediting the President's request for supplemental appropriations for disasters occurring in the Great Plains and other parts of our country. I returned to Washington yesterday after spending 6 days touring the devastation occurring in virtually every corner of my State. South Dakotans are a hearty stock and during my years serving the citizens of South Dakota I have repeatedly witnessed South Dakotans' ability to overcome any obstacle Mother Nature has given us. However, I don't believe I have ever seen South Dakotans rise to the occasion in quite the manner they are doing right now under extraordinary circumstances. I traveled to South Dakota last week expecting to see widespread residual damage from the severe winter weather the State experienced over the past several months and subsequent high water from the ongoing snowpack melt. Relentless sub-zero temperatures and continual snowfall in January forced South Dakota Governor William Janklow to request a major disaster declaration from President Clinton to ensure roads could remain clear for emergency services and basic travel and access to livestock. President Clinton responded positively to the Governor's request and granted the declaration which gave the State additional tools to help meet its basic transportation needs. Farmers and ranchers began facing hard times last fall with normally available grazing and unharvested row crops being buried with snow. The subsequent extreme cold increased the nutritional requirements of livestock and depleted winter feed supplies. This already tough situation became a crisis when the early January blizzards literally killed livestock and put most producers' livestock at risk because of access to feed being cut off. No one yet knows how many livestock were killed, but estimates top at least 100,000. In addition, many livestock suffered frostbite and were significantly weakened. During this time, ordinary activities became extremely and increasingly difficult because of the excess snow. Wintertime expenses likely tripled as just getting livestock feed became a Herculean task. The continued stress on livestock, especially cattle, meant that the most important time of the year for ranchers--calving season--was approached with trepidation if not outright fear. Nutritional stress during late gestation makes for weak and dead calves. I toured the State during this winter storm disaster and was struck by the dramatic impact, particularly in the northeastern region of the State, of the winter weather. Snowdrifts as high as buildings, roads with only one lane cleared with snow piled high on either side, homes without heat for days in the bitter cold, tens of thousands of dead livestock, schools closed for a week at a time, and the depletion of our indigenous wildlife populations were commonplace. I vividly remember watching a cow climb to the top of a snowdrift as high as the roof of the barn so that he could eat the shingles from the roof. And, I also remember the positive, stubborn attitude of the residents of South Dakota in the face of this disaster. South Dakotans knew that what they were facing was tough, but they also knew that they were tougher. As if surviving the severe winter cold of December, January, and February was not challenge enough, residents and State and local officials knew they could not rest from fighting the forces of Mother Nature. Once all of the roads were cleared, emergency services were no longer threatened, and it appeared that the worst of the winter weather was over, focus turned to the next challenge: potential flooding problems the State could experience once the snowpack began to melt. Governor William Janklow provided exceptional leadership with his comprehensive and aggressive efforts to get every community as ready as it could possibly be for the impending floods. Governor Janklow set up a state task force to monitor the flows of the rivers and to work with local governments in their preparations. State and local governments worked with the Corps of Engineers and the National Weather Service to predict precipitation and runoff levels, identify areas where additional flood protection measures should be undertaken, and design and implement additional flood control measures. The efforts made by communities were considerable. For example: In Sioux Falls, the largest city in South Dakota, the Big Sioux River flood protection system was temporarily bolstered to hold up to 41,000 cubic feet of water per second. It was designed in the 1950's and 1960's to hold 24,000 cubic feet--5,600 in the main river channel in western Sioux Falls and 18,400 in the diversion channel in the northeast corner of the city. Sioux Falls also aggressively sandbagged and used over 60,000 sandbags in its efforts. The small community of Davis filled and placed over 8,000 sandbags. Residents of the town of Hecla, population 400, built two dikes at the west and north ends of town to hold back the James River. In Aberdeen, the city built a levee about 2 feet high around the northern edge of the city in just 6 days. These are just a few examples of the mitigation efforts undertaken by communities all over South Dakota. Because of these efforts, from all reports, South Dakota communities could not have been better prepared for the anticipated flooding. I traveled to South Dakota early last week expecting to see high water fairly well controlled by these mitigation efforts with some areas faring worse than others. Unfortunately, the situation was worse than I anticipated because Mother Nature, as only she can do, had changed the rules of the game and given the residents of the State of South Dakota more water than initially anticipated and additional severe winter weather. The devastation I witnessed and subsequent destruction in the short time since my touring ended is heart-rending in its thoroughness and in its indiscriminate taking of property and possessions. Let me give just a few examples of the ways in which our communities have pulled together: In a relatively small community near Huron, 150 students, volunteers, and State inmates joined together to save the James Valley Christian School from the waters of the James River. Their efforts were absolutely inspiring. These individuals labored for days to stem the rushing James River with a sandbagged dike and sandbags all over the area to protect the school. Unfortunately, the James Valley Christian School lost its fight just days after I toured it. It now sits in 6 feet of water. I visited the farm of Gary and Diane Foster near Bruce, SD, where 30 head of cattle were calving on a small island surrounded by flood water. I will not soon forget this tragic sight. It was evident that our farmers will once again face a financially devastating problem in regard to springtime planting. Flooded fields prevent any field preparation, let alone planting. And there probably is not enough time for drying before it will simply become too late to plant this years' crops. In 1995, another very wet year, less than 40 percent of my State's crops were planted on time. The current flooding means that we probably will not even match 1995's slow performance. This is going to deal a tough blow to the agricultural economy of my State--and, in the end, it will deal a blow to consumers and businesses on Main Street. I was amazed by the reality that many South Dakotans who normally travel 10-15 miles to work, now have to drive 50-90 miles to work to avoid washed out or water covered roads, which often times are our major highways. The Sioux Falls Argus Leader reported that Janice Mellema, a nurse who lives west of Platte but works at the Gregory County Hospital, is forced to leave her home at 3:30 in the morning to arrive at work by 6. She now has a 90-mile commute. Some 100 people in north central South Dakota have already spent 30 days in a motel after they were evacuated from their homes because of rising water. This last weekend 5,000 people in Watertown, SD, have had to leave their homes. Essential services in many communities such as wastewater treatment plants are threatened. Many communities' systems have been overwhelmed and have been forced to release untreated water. Vital infrastructure has been dramatically impacted. During my tour, we drove on roads covered with water and saw many, many county roads completely washed away by a deluge of water. In McCook County every road that goes into the county from both the east to the west and from the north to the south are closed at some point. Just as South Dakotans were accepting and successfully fighting the increased flows of water, Mother Nature hit the State with yet another blizzard over the weekend. Some areas received 34 inches of snow accompanied by 60-mile-per-hour winds. This winter storm resulted in sub-zero wind chill temperatures and zero visibility in much of the State for an extended period of time. A 100-mile stretch of Interstate 90 was closed and many communities were forced to prohibit all travel. I was stranded in Wall, SD for over 24 hours because of this winter storm. This winter storm would have been a lot to handle as an isolated incident but coupled with the flooding already experienced all over the State, the impact of the winter weather has been unprecedented. The added precipitation and severe weather has led to unparalleled devastation. Last weekend's blizzard is truly salt in the wound for producers in my State. Our producers are in the middle of calving season now and trying to prepare for springtime field preparations. The blast of cold and more snow on top of already treacherous conditions will surely mean that the number of dead livestock will continue to rise. This may well put many producers over the edge financially--after all, they only get one chance per year to successfully complete calving season. This storm severely impacted the city of Watertown, causing the situation to escalate from a 100-year flood event to a 500-year flood event. Earlier this week, Mayor Brenda Barger, who I must commend for her effective leadership during this crisis, poignantly observed that, ``It's a humbling thing when you see people out sandbagging in 60-mile- per-hour winds, in a blizzard, knee-deep in water.'' I think her statement sums up a lot of what everyone has felt over the last few weeks and, in particular, the last few days. Everyone banded together to save and minimize damage to both public and private property regardless of the weather conditions. In a State that covers 80,000 square miles, it is both rare and unfortunate to have a situation where regions across the entire State are so disastrously affected by severe weather. The widespread nature of this disaster has devastated the agribusiness economy of our entire State and assistance in the coming months is absolutely critical to ensuring the future existence of many small businesses in South Dakota. The combined impact of the weather disasters over the last 5 months on agriculture is the gravest threat South Dakota farmers and ranchers have faced from nature in probably 100 years. Additionally, the damage done by the prolonged flooding has jeopardized the long-term viability of parts of South Dakota's infrastructure. Prior to the extensive damage done from this year's severe weather to South Dakota's roads, the State of South Dakota had an excess of $500 million in backlog needs on its State Highway System alone. And, the damage to personal property is as yet uncalculated in monetary or sentimental value. Our State has been fortunate enough to receive an outstanding response from President Clinton and FEMA in the past. I am grateful that, once again, the President has responded expeditiously with much needed assistance for South Dakota. Yesterday, the President made a major disaster declaration for the entire State which will supplement the efforts of the State and local governments during this difficult time. As I mentioned previously, the spirit of South Dakotans, even in this incredibly difficult time, never ceases to amaze me and this weekend's trip reemphasized that impression in my mind. I am committed to doing everything I can do to assist the State and communities as much as possible to ensure South Dakotans can get back to living their normal lives at the earliest possible time. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Daschle, Representative Thune, Governor Janklow, and local communities in the coming weeks and months as we clean up from this disaster. After all South Dakotans have endured over the past few months, they need all we can give. We need expeditious action on this floor on the supplemental appropriations requests.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 1, a version of a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution currently pending before the Senate. Throughout the more than 10 years that I have had the honor and opportunity to represent the people of South Dakota as a Congressman and now as a U.S. Senator, I have consistently supported a policy of fiscal prudence and restraint. I have supported, among other initiatives, a line-item veto and enhanced line-item rescission, the 1990 budget agreement initiated by President Bush and the 1993 budget agreement initiated by President Clinton. The latter two budget agreements having played a very significant role in capping discretionary spending, placing our Government on a must-pay-as-you-go basis and contributing to over a 60-percent reduction in the annual Federal budget deficit. I am pleased that these and other efforts taken by the Clinton administration, though almost universally opposed by the Republican congressional caucuses have led to economic growth, prosperity, and now a deficit that is smaller relative to our economy than in any industrial nation on Earth. Even so, we have farther to go to bring our Federal expenditures and revenue into greater equilibrium. To that end, I have also voted in favor of various balanced budget amendments while serving in the other body. I do not take the amendment of our Nation's Constitution lightly. I am mindful that this is the legislative body that served as the forum for Clay and for Webster and many other great names of American history. Unlike ordinary legislation, a constitutional amendment cannot be easily changed if it proves faulty--it must be crafted in such a manner that serves the interests of our Nation not only now, but for 200 years and more from now. We must of necessity approach such a difficult task--that of drafting a constitutional amendment for the ages--with some humility and with a full recognition of the great care that is required if future generations are to look to our deliberations with the same respect that we today hold for the Founders of our Republic. Over the past 4 years, we, and in particular the Clinton administration, have taken an exploding deficit that had reached nearly $300 billion annually and a cumulative national debt that had quadrupled on the watch of Presidents Reagan and Bush, and cut that annual deficit by over 60 percent. Yet, despite this progress, I began my service in the Senate at the commencement of the 105th Congress with the assumption that I would cast a vote in favor of a constitutional amendment drafted in much the manner that Senate Joint Resolution 1 appears before us today. However, the findings of the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service later substantiated by an analysis of the Office of Management and Budget and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities have cast such grave doubts about the wisdom of Senate Joint Resolution 1 as it is currently drafted, that I cannot cast a vote for an unamended version with the confidence I need to have that it truly will achieve the goals its advocates claim. The CRS report makes it clear that Senate Joint Resolution 1 would prohibit the Federal Government from conducting its financial affairs in the same prudent manner that every South Dakota family attempts to achieve. It would effectively prevent the Federal Government from setting aside cash reserves in good times in order to have them available in times of crisis--a policy that flies in the face of common sense and one that certainly should not be imposed on all future generations of Americans. While the Social Security trust fund is the source of the greatest attention in this debate, and that is understandable since Senate Joint Resolution 1 would convert the Federal Government's largest effort to set aside resources for a future generation into a virtual fraud on the taxpayers, the implications of denying the Federal Government the ability to raise funds now for future needs goes far beyond damage to Social Security. Such a provision diminishes the usefulness of all our trust funds, especially those that have been designed to gain revenue during good times and to be available to fall back on during bad times. It makes any realistic effort to set aside funds now to be available for a future countercyclical economic strategy much more difficult--a criticism that has been the chief reason why Republican economic experts such as Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, 11 Nobel laureate economists, and even the conservative Wall Street Journal have condemned Senate Joint Resolution 1. While a few Members of this body may attempt to lecture me about what pledges I have made to the people of South Dakota during the past campaign, I will refrain from attempting to impugn their motives or to engage in self-righteous assertions about their responsibilities to their constituents or to their oath of office. I have pledged to the people of South Dakota that I would support a balanced budget and that I would vote for a balanced budget amendment-- one that works--one that would help achieve the goal of balancing the Federal budget without destroying Social Security or otherwise placing our Nation's economic growth and prosperity at great risk. What arrogance for anyone to suggest on this floor that a vote for any proposed amendment other than Senate Joint Resolution 1 constitutes a breach of honor. I have voted, and it is duly recorded in the Senate Journal, for a balanced budget amendment and for modifications to Senate Joint Resolution 1 which would promote a balanced budget without the disastrous flaws of Senate Joint Resolution 1. I am a fourth generation South Dakotan. My family homesteaded in our State and I'm proud that my children now represent the fifth consecutive generation of our family to claim Clay County, SD as home. With that background, I have a profound appreciation for the concerns and more importantly the values of the citizens of my State. During this past campaign I pledged to them the most important pledge of all-- that I would exercise my best judgment and greatest care in casting my vote in the Senate and that in doing so, I would ignore the immediate winds of political pressure and cast my votes in a manner consistent with the long-term needs of our State and Nation. There is no doubt that the easy thing for me to do would be to capitulate to the current political pressures ginned up and funded by the special interests promoting exclusively Senate Joint Resolution 1. That would be the path of least resistance, and, clearly, the negative impact of that particular version of balanced budget amendment would not be felt until after my next election where I too choose to run for another term in this body. It would take, frankly, several years to ratify any amendment and some years beyond that before the public would fully recognize the enormous wrong this body would have done to the Constitution. But I told my constituents that I would do the right thing, not the politically expedient thing. While I respect the integrity of everyone's professed views, as I look about this Chamber, I have to wonder if there would in fact be a close vote on Senate Joint Resolution 1 if the ballot were secret, and intellect and conscience the only driving forces in this debate. Mr. President, when this debate concludes tomorrow, I will have the satisfaction of knowing that I have honorably lived up to my pledges to the people of South Dakota and to my sacred responsibilities to this Nation and to the U.S. Senate. To cast a vote for this specific version of a balanced budget amendment knowing what I know today, would constitute a betrayal of the people of my State, and inasmuch as I am a U.S. Senator, it would be a betrayal of my commitment and my love for our Nation--that I will not and cannot do. I yield back the remaining time.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I would like you to join me in congratulating the accomplishments of a special program that benefits the students, educators, and communities of South Dakota. In 1993, the University of South Dakota [USD] started the Professional Development Center [PDC] with the hope of strengthening the important relationship between rural economic growth and the professional development of teachers. Even those in the PDC had no idea then that, 4 years later, this program would have impacted the State to such a large degree with unlimited potential for the future. A career in education is subject to a number of barriers including feelings of isolation as a new teacher and a sense of being stuck in a rut as an experienced teacher. These feelings can influence the overall effectiveness of teachers by not allowing them to achieve their potential as professional educators. The PDC is designed to counter these feelings by pairing first year teachers as interns with more experienced teachers as mentors. In addition, a member of the USD faculty is assigned to each pairing. This arrangement allows for the exchange of ideas, materials, teaching demonstrations, and technologies in a supportive social and professional environment. Interns benefit by learning from talented and experienced peers; mentors are rejuvenated with new ideas; and the university faculty provide both parties with a direct link to the resources and opportunities available at USD. The impact of this relationship is felt outside the classroom walls. By creating an environment of shared learning within a community, the PDC empowers teachers to come up with creative educational opportunities for their students and, most importantly, to act on these ideas. In the process of enhancing the curriculum, educators enhance their own professional development. Ultimately, the PDC benefits the children and communities of South Dakota the most. Students receive quality instruction and are challenged to develop their own new ideas from motivated teachers. In addition, students are exposed to positive role models in education, encouraging some to pursue a similar career. For their part, communities reap the rewards of an environment with higher educational standards for students, teachers with a strengthened commitment to their profession, and established links to USD. Mr. President, the Professional Development Center at the University of South Dakota is a perfect example of a program that enhances communities through education. It is a model for future efforts to improve the overall quality of life in rural America. I invite you to join me in congratulating the following members of the PDC for receiving the Distinguished Program in Teacher Education Award at the recent Association for Teacher Educators conference: University of South Dakota interim president, Dr. Paul Olscamp; dean of the College of Education, Dr. Larry Bright; Dr. Sharon Lee, Dr. Michael Hoadley, Dr. Don Monroe, Dr. Lana Danielson, Dr. Royce Engstrom, Donna Gross, Dr. Sharon Ross, Dr. Rosanne Yost, Dr. Roger Bordeaux, and Mindy Crawford.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the long and distinguished career of Dean Schofield, deputy secretary of the Department of Transportation of the State of South Dakota. Dean consistently demonstrated utmost dedication and professionalism in his 35 years and 8 months of service to South Dakota. Throughout his years with the South Dakota Department of Transportation, Dean served as a mentor and model for all employees through his quiet, thoughtful style, strong work ethic and leadership. His commitment to family, profession, church and community was something that many within the department strived to emulate and his ability to balance all of his responsibilities was remarked on by many. My office always enjoyed working with Dean and my staff came to rely heavily on Dean's extensive knowledge and ability to always provide much needed information, even on short notice. Dean Schofield's hard work and extensive knowledge about South Dakota's transportation systems contributed to the passage of several pieces of major Federal legislation, including the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act and the National Highway System legislation, which are extremely beneficial to the State of South Dakota. Additionally, Dean was instrumental in developing the Department's Computerized Needs Data Book, the 5-Year Construction Program with its project prioritization system based on needs, the annual strategic Plan and the legislative program, and he served on numerous department, statewide, and special Governor's task forces. Through his knowledge, judgment, openness, thoroughness, and integrity over the last 35 years, Dean has earned the respect of everyone he has dealt with, both within and outside the South Dakota Department of Transportation. In recognition of his outstanding service, Dean was voted the Department's most considerate and genuinely caring employee and is a unique individual who will be sorely missed by the Department and by my office. South Dakota will truly benefit from the fruits of Dean's labor for many years to come. I am honored to have the opportunity to recognize him today.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation to establish an innovative funding mechanism to enhance the ability of Indian tribes to construct, repair, and maintain quality educational facilities. Representatives from tribal schools in my State of South Dakota have been working with tribes nationwide to develop an initiative which I believe will be a positive first step toward addressing the serious crisis we are facing in Indian education. The National Indian Education Bonding Authority Pilot Project Act is currently in draft form. I am introducing this legislation at this stage to begin dialog and debate among my colleagues on this important funding initiative. Mr. Speaker, 56 percent of the American Indian population in this country is age 24 or younger. Consequently, the need for improved educational programs and facilities, and for training the American Indian workforce is pressing. American Indians have been, and continue to be, disproportionately affected by both poverty and low educational achievement. The high school completion rate for Indian people aged 20 to 24 was 12.5 percent below the national average. American Indian students, on average, have scored far lower on the National Assessment for Education Progress indicators than all other students. In 1994, the combined average score for Indian students on the Scholastic Achievement Test was 65 points lower than the average for all students. These statistics reflect the continued neglect of America's underserved Indian student population and are unacceptable. By ignoring the most fundamental aspect of education; that is, safe, quality educational facilities, there is little hope of breaking the cycle of low educational achievement, and the unemployment and poverty that result from neglected academic potential. The National Indian Education Bonding Authority Pilot Project Act establishes a bonding authority to use existing tribal education funds for bonds in the municipal finance market which currently serves local governments across the Nation. Instead of funding construction projects directly, these existing funds will be leveraged through bonds to fund substantially more tribal school construction, maintenance and repair projects. The Bureau of Indian Affairs estimates the tribal school construction and repair backlog at $850 million. Confounding this backlog, inflation and facility deterioration increases this amount by an estimated $80 million per year. The administration's school construction request for fiscal year 1997 was $23 million, and the House-passed level was a mere $21 million. In this budgetary climate, I believe every avenue for efficiently stretching the Federal dollar should be explored. Tribal schools in my State and around the country address the unique learning needs and styles of Indian students, with sensitivity to Native cultures, ultimately promoting higher academic achievement. There are strong historical and moral reasons for continued support of tribal schools. In keeping with our special trust responsibility to sovereign Indian nations, we need to promote the self-determination and self-sufficiency of Indian communities. Education is absolutely vital to this effort. Allowing the continued deterioration and decay of tribal schools through lack of funding would violate the Government's commitment and responsibility to Indian nations and only slow the progress of self-sufficiency. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to closely examine the National Indian Education Bonding Authority Pilot Project Act and join me in working to make this innovative funding mechanism a reality.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to take this opportunity to publicly congratulate the Coteau des Prairies Hospital in Sisseton, SD on their new addition and remodeling project as they celebrate their 29th anniversary during the open house on Sunday, September 15, 1996. I regret that I cannot personally attend this ceremony, but I want to share my hearty congratulations to all associated with the Coteau des Prairies Hospital, as well as the entire Sisseton community. All of the effort and hard work that went into making this new addition and remodeling project a reality should be commended, and everyone who has participated has reason to be proud. I also would like to take this opportunity to commend the outstanding staff of the hospital and the Sisseton area citizens who have loyally committed themselves and their resources toward building the excellent reputation that the Coteau des Prairies Hospital so deservedly possesses today. This hospital addition and remodeling project is a clear sign of a thriving community which is continuing to provide important services for northeast South Dakota. A strong, economically viable hospital in Sisseton is absolutely essential for providing a high quality of life for people of the area, and for promoting economic development in the community. The people of the Sisseton area have much to be proud of today, and I am pleased to extend my best wishes and congratulations to Coteau des Prairies Hospital and its friends for continued great success.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for moving forward on this innovative legislation which is particularly important to the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe and to my State of South Dakota. I have been privileged to work with the tribe and with Senator Daschle on this bill and its companion in the Senate, and I am confident that my colleagues will support H.R. 2512. The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Infrastructure and Development Act would establish a trust fund within the Department of the Treasury for the development of certain tribal infrastructure projects for the Crow Creek Tribe. These projects were outlined in previous legislation but were never completed due to limited funding sources. The Crow Creek Development trust fund would be capitalized from a small percentage of hydropower revenues and would be capped at $27.5 million. Language included in this bill would prohibit any increase in power rates in connection with the trust fund. The tribe would then receive the interest from the fund to used according to a development plan based on legislation previously passed by Congress, and prepared in consultation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. The Flood Control Act of 1994 created six massive earthen dams along the Missouri River. Known as the Pick-Sloan plan, this public works project has since provided much-needed flood control, recreation, irrigation, and hydropower for communities along the Missouri. Four of the Pick-Sloan dams are located in South Dakota and the benefits of the project have proven indispensable to the people of my State. Unfortunately, construction of the Big Bend and Fort Randall dams was severely detrimental to economic and agricultural development for the Crow Creek Tribe. Over 15,000 acres of the tribe's most fertile and productive land were inundated as a direct result of construction. The tribal community has still not yet been adequately compensated for the economic deprivation caused by Pick-Sloan. Through the Big Bend Act of 1962, Congress directed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior to take certain actions to alleviate the problems caused by the destruction of tribal resources and displacement of entire communities. Yet, these directives were either carried out inadequately or not at all. Congress established precedent for the Infrastructure and Development Act with the Three Affiliated Tribes and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act of 1992, which set up a recovery fund financed entirely from a percentage of Pick-Sloan power revenues to compensate the tribes for lands lost to Pick-Sloan. The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Infrastructure Development Fund Act of 1995 will enable the Crow Creek Tribe to address and improve their infrastructure and will provide the needed resources for further economic development at the Crow Creek Indian reservation. I am proud to have introduced this legislation on behalf of the Crow Creek Tribe, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and correct this historic injustice against the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to introduce legislation to authorize two critically important rural water systems in South Dakota, the Perkins County Rural Water System Act of 1996, and the Fall River Water Users District Rural Water System Act of 1996. Both bills are strongly supported by local project sponsors who have demonstrated that support by agreeing to substantial financial contributions from the local level. Like many parts of South Dakota, these two counties have 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 these rural drinking water delivery projects will help to stabilize the rural economy in both regions. 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 and Fall River County areas. The Perkins County Rural Water System Act of 1996 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. Past cycles of severe drought in the southeastern area of Fall River County have left local residents without a satisfactory water supply and during 1990, many home owners and ranchers were forced to haul water to sustain their water needs. Currently, many residents are either using bottled water for human consumption or they are using distillers due to the poor quality of the water supplies available. After conducting a feasibility study and preliminary engineering report, the best available, reliable, and safe rural and municipal water supply to serve the needs of the Fall River Water Users District consists of a Madison aquifer well, three separate water storage reservoirs, three pumping stations, and approximately 200 miles of pipeline. The legislation I am introducing today authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to construct a rural water system in Fall River County as described above. The Fall River system will serve rural residents, as well as the community of Oelrichs and the Angostura State Recreation Area. Mr. Speaker, South Dakota is plagued by water of exceedingly poor quality, and the Perkins County and Fall River County rural water projects are efforts to help provide clean water--a commodity most of us take for granted--to the people of South Dakota. I am a strong believer in the Federal Government's role in rural water delivery, and I hope to continue to advance that agenda both in South Dakota and around the country. I urge my colleagues to support both of these important rural water bills, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the House Resources Committee to move forward on enactment as quickly as possible.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie], the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources of the Committee on Resources has been detained; however, I am advised that he is in full support of this legislation. The minority is in support of the legislation. The Clinton administration has expressed its support, and so we have no objection to this legislation. We support its passage. Mr. Speaker, I will submit a statement from the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] for the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal about the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 which is excellent, which is a very positive constructive piece of legislation. I have to join my colleagues, however, the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] and the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] in expressing my very strong opposition to one particular provision within this bill which frankly makes a mockery of the Missouri River management process that is currently taking place by the Corps of Engineers. Currently, Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of a 6-year, $23 million process in rewriting the Master Manual for the management of the Missouri River. Despite that, however, there is a provision within this legislation which gives priority to navigation, despite the fact that navigation accounts only for 1 percent of the economic benefit that flows from the uses of the Missouri River. It disregards flood control, recreation, drinking water, power production and wildlife, and our opposition is shared not just by the Northern Plains Members but by this administration, by the American Rivers Group, by the National Audubon Society, by the National Wildlife Federation, by the Environmental Defense Fund, by the Sierra Club, by Friends of the Earth, by the Bass Angler Sportsmens Society, the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and other recreation, wildlife and conservation organizations. There is no doubt that this provision, if it remains in place, would threaten water supply by mandating yearly extra releases of water from upstream reservoirs, drawing down water reserves needed in times of drought. It would increase flood risks by mandating releases of water in December after the Missouri River is frozen. It will increase power rates to western area power administration users by lowering water levels, especially during the winter, thus in turn lowering generating capacity. It will be an environmental disaster drawing down reservoir levels, pose a threat to endangered and threatened species of native fisheries, and, frankly, it will waste Federal resources already devoted to the Master Manual design. This Congress would be better served by allowing the Corps of Engineers to pursue their Master Manual, redesign a $23 million project rather than intervening legislative with no hearings, with no public input on this major change in the management of the Missouri River. If this bill were not on this calendar, I would be offering an amendment with my colleagues. Since it is not, and no amendments are permitted, I want to share with my colleagues that we will be working with the conference committee very carefully to see to it that this particular provision of this needed legislation is in fact stricken and that the Missouri River management can be conducted on the basis of science and proper management processes rather than by arbitrary legislative effort.