Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The majority has had an opportunity to examine this legislation and has no objection to the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. I thank the gentleman for his comments. He has long played a constructive role relative to the Missouri River and development of the northern plains in general. Again I have some concern about legislative strategy at this point, but I do recognize the concern that the gentleman from Nebraska has. We share a concern about downstream flooding, erosion on the river banks and so on. I certainly do recognize that as a legitimate concern that he has. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the 5 minutes, and I will not ask for a recorded vote. I simply want to, however, express concern about legislative changes to the master manual, a process which already has been delayed some time here. There is great concern among Northern States, upstream States of the Missouri River about a long overdue change in the master manual, a concern about changes of priorities which have occurred since the Pick-Sloan plan was first established decades ago. While the gentleman from Nebraska's amendment, I do not believe, is by itself something to cause great concern in the State of South Dakota--it may in fact be neutral in many ways--I do want to express some concern about legislative efforts other places and here to address the master manual to head off the deliberation that is going on in the course of making long overdue modifications of that manual. Again while I do not have great resistance and I understand where the gentleman from Nebraska is coming from, I do want to express concern about short-circuits of that manual deliberation.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Myers of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Ranking Member Bevill, for their long standing support of water development in South Dakota. Mr. Myers and Mr. Bevill, the announcement of your retirements will be a great loss to water development efforts in South Dakota and across the Nation. The two of you have demonstrated leadership, bipartisanship and statesmanship as you have helped America develop critically important infrastructure. I am proud to have served with each of you. I look forward to having one more opportunity to work with both of you to move forward on important water development efforts in South Dakota. Sound water development is crucial to our State, whether it is rural water delivery, wetland and wildlife enhancement, irrigation or flood control. These projects stabilize the rural economy and greatly contribute to rural economic development since water is a vital component to ensure future growth. I appreciate the time and hard work the members of the subcommittee and subcommittee staff have devoted to developing water infrastructure, especially the efforts in meeting the needs of South Dakota and rural America. I look forward to continued close cooperation with the committee to meet the needs of our Nation. Again, my heartfelt thanks to Chairman Myers and Ranking member Bevill for their distinguished service in the House of Representatives.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, the management of the Missouri River has been an ongoing source of conflict between interest groups of States both upstream and downstream for many years. The current Master Manual for the Missouri River was written in 1970 with only minor revisions taking place in 1975 and 1979. While almost everyone agrees that the revision of the outdated Master Manual is long overdue, differences of opinion continue to exist about what changes to the operating plan should be included in the revised Master Manual. Downstream States contend that more water needs to be released from upstream reservoirs to ensure that navigation interests are served on a regular basis, while South Dakota and other upstream States press for dependable water levels to support fish and wildlife management and the recreation/tourism industry. I rise today in opposition to Representative Bereuter's amendment. The amendment essentially ensures that the so-called ``spring rise'' proposed by the Corps in the first revision of the Master Manual is never implemented. While I do not necessarily oppose the intent of the amendment because I am not a strong advocate of a so-called ``spring rise,'' I strongly object to the amendment because it circumvents the Master Manual revision process that all interested parties have been actively engaged in for several years. Further, I do not believe it is appropriate nor good policy for the Congress to establish water management policy with little or no debate during consideration of an appropriations bill--especially when the Corps of Engineers is currently completing a 6-year, $23 million study to update the Manual. I have offered to work with Mr. Bereuter to address his concerns regarding the spring rise by working with the Corps on this issue. Unfortunately, he prefers to offer this amendment and so I must oppose it and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Madam Chairman, I rise today in reluctant support of H.R. 3734 so that we may move forward with needed welfare reform in this country. While I preferred the bipartisan approach taken in the amendment by Mr. Castle and Mr. Tanner, which gives States more flexibility to develop and implement workfare programs, it is paramount that we no longer accept the status quo. The provisions in H.R. 3734 are much improved compared to H.R. 4 of last year, which I could not support and was also vetoed by the President. It is too late in the congressional session to start over, and my vote for H.R. 3734 is a vote to keep the debate and the possibility of a bipartisan agreement on welfare reform alive. The welfare reform bill which passed the House today was an improvement over H.R. 4 because it does the following: First, deletes the elimination of Medicaid changes that threatened access to medical care for the most vulnerable in our country; second, deletes the block granting of the child nutrition program; third, adds resources for child care above the level in previous bills; fourth, includes a work performance bonus that gives States an incentive to move people from welfare to work; and fifth, preserves funding for foster care and adoption assistance programs. There are several things that I believe must and will be improved via Senate and conference committee action on this legislation. Among these, I believe we simply must further ensure that children who happen to have been born into difficult circumstances do not go hungry. Punishing innocent children is not a solution nor should it even be an option. We must require States to protect children if their parents are removed from the welfare rolls. As this bill moves to conference, it is my judgment that we must address the concerns raised recently by the National Governors Association regarding the restrictions on State flexibility and unfunded costs in the work requirements of H.R. 3734. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that most States would fail to meet the work requirements and that most would simply accept the penalties rather than implement the requirements for work. The most important reform we can enact in the welfare system is to move people to self- sufficiency. We must not fail in that regard and therefore I am hopeful that this bill is improved in conference to ensure adequate resources to States to implement solid work requirements. We must ensure that no families lose health care coverage when States change AFDC rules. Even though the Medicaid reconciliation provisions have been removed, we need to guarantee that families do not lose health care coverage even if they are removed from welfare rolls. Madam Chairman, our Nation demands that we reform our welfare system. This legislation moves a long way toward needed reform, but it can still be better. I offer my reluctant support and hope that the Senate and the conference committee address my concerns and make this bill the best that it can possibly be.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House how I would have voted on three votes held on June 20, 1996. On that day I was in meetings and the beeper provided by the House malfunctioned and did not properly alert me to the fact votes were being taken by the full House. Had I been present on rollcall vote No. 259, on the amendment offered by Mr. Parker I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 260, on the amendment offered by Mr. Sanders I would have voted ``yes''; and on rollcall No. 261, on the amendment offered by Mr. Shadegg I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in mourning the death of Bill Emerson. I was privileged to have worked with Bill on the Agriculture Committee for the 10 years that I have served in the House, including having him as my ranking member on the General Commodities Subcommittee during my time as chairman of that subcommittee. As was the nature of the Agriculture Committee in previous years, we worked on a bipartisan basis to ensure the competitiveness of American agriculture on many occasions. He was a tireless advocate of those less fortunate in our country, particularly the hungry in this Nation. With the bounty produced by his congressional district, I know it was frustrating for him to think that in this day and age that children still go to bed hungry. We are also aware that this concern spanned the continents as he joined our late colleague Mickey Leland and Congressman Hall in working to stamp out hunger in foreign lands as well. He served the constituents of his district well on the Public Works and Transportation Committee and on the Agriculture Committee. He, like I, represented a district which has a wide variety of agricultural commodities grown, sometimes with divergent views. He was always an advocate for the farmers in his district above all else and fought relentlessly to ensure that their interests were heard. His work on the Public Works Committee also underscored his understanding of the issues of importance to his district--safe drinking water and adequate transportation systems to allow his rural district to complete on an equal basis with their urban neighbors and enjoy the same quality of life. Mr. thoughts and prayers are with his family, his staff, and the constituents of the Eighth District of Missouri as they mourn their loss and remember the life and times that they shared with him. His death is a loss for all of us and for this institution that he loved, the U.S. Congress.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition to an amendment offered by Representative Shadegg which would further reduce funding for the National Endowment for Humanities. In fiscal year 1996, the Interior appropriations bill cut the NEH budget nearly in half; a cut which I believe will devastate many existing educational programs nationwide. Unfortunately, the Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997 maintains that inadequate funding level, with the end goal of elimination of the NEH by 1998. As the only voice for South Dakota in the House of Representatives, I must speak out against the elimination of programs which help the people of my State preserve the rich and unique cultural heritage of South Dakota and the surrounding great plains States. NEH programs exemplify the type of public-private partnerships that have traditionally fostered a collective dedication to cultural and historical education. The NEH gives State humanities councils the necessary freedoms to meet local educational needs. In the last 5 years, institutions in South Dakota have received $2.7 million from the NEH and the South Dakota Humanities Council for library programs and exhibits, literary publications, and cultural heritage visitor centers. The South Dakota Humanities Council relies on the NEH for 90 percent of its funding. That support goes directly to schools and small communities for projects like the ``Women Missionaries and Teachers in South Dakota'' Program at the Siouxland Heritage Museum, and ``Lakota Culture; Interactive MultiMedia'' at the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. At the same time, broader educational projects continue the literary legacy of many of this Nation's most acclaimed authors and long time South Dakota residents, including Laura Ingalls Wilder, who gave us the ``Little House'' series, and L. Frank Baum, author of the classic ``The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.'' The many NEH-funded heritage fairs and events held throughout my State every year are endorsed by the South Dakota State Arts and Humanities Councils, as well as State and local tourism authorities. These and countless other worthy public education programs will disappear in my rural State, and the creativity behind this type of education programming will be thwarted if efforts to gut or eliminate the NEH continue. In the face of severe cuts to the Institute for Museum Services, the only other Federal funding mechanism specifically chartered to work with States in recording, preserving, and educating our children on the American experience, we cannot stand by and allow the complete elimination of the programs vital to public education that are funded through the National Endowment for Humanities.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Gene McCue, a South Dakotan whose career has been dedicated to rural development, and to improving the quality of life in rural South Dakota. After more than 34 years of admirable service to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Gene McCue will retire on June 22, 1996. Gene McCue is a true South Dakotan. Upon serving honorably in the U.S. Navy, Gene attended South Dakota State University and received a bachelor of science degree in agriculture. Using his hands-on knowledge of farming and ranching, Gene jump-started his successful career with the USDA as an assistant disaster loan supervisor. However, Gene's spirit of leadership led him to an accomplished career in rural development and farm credit, eventually culminating as the District III rural development manager in Rapid City. In addition to his career accomplishments, Gene's character enriched the lives of his coworkers. His leadership at the Department inspired his colleagues to emulate his performance and good judgment. I commend Gene for his dedication, and I personally appreciate the support that he has given to me, my staff, and his fellow South Dakotans. Although Gene is retiring from the Department, I am confident that his legacy of leadership and dedication will thrive in the hearts of his colleagues and all South Dakotans who have benefited from jis judicious work. Gene McCue is a selfless man. In addition to his service to the Federal Government, Gene is the chairman of the board of directors for the Sky Ranch For Boys, a safe house for troubled and impoverished boys. As Gene embarks on this new chapter in his life, I congratulate him on a job well done, and wish him all the best.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give high praise to a man who has dedicated his life to government service and the operation and management of fish hatchery operations in the United States. Arden Trandahl has provided over three decades of expertise at hatchery operations in South Dakota, Minnesota, and Ohio. The past 18 years has been spent as manager of the DC Booth Fish Hatchery in Spearfish, SD. Nestled in the beautiful Black Hills of South Dakota, the fish hatchery operations became a labor of love for Arden Trandahl. When the hatchery was closed by the Federal Government in 1983, the city of Spearfish requested and received permission to manage the hatchery. Arden, who has served as manager of the Spearfish hatchery since 1978, left government service at this time to work for the city managing hatchery operations. Renamed the DC Booth Fish Hatchery after its first superintendent, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service took an active interest in the hatchery and began operations in 1989, hiring Arden back as its manager of the site. Since 1989, Arden has been a driving force in efforts to renovate and expand the DC Booth Fish Hatchery. Due in part to the leadership and oversight of Arden, the hatchery has been renovated and will serve the educational and informational needs of the viewing public for generations to come. I stand to commend the efforts of Arden Trandahl on the occasion of his formal retirement from 32 years of dedicated government service and wish him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, President Clinton delivered a speech which I believe significantly advances the national debate over reforming our welfare system. The President applauded and endorsed the general idea behind the welfare reform plans in the States of Wisconsin and Maryland. In doing so, the President has, in his own words, given ``us hope that we can break the vicious cycle of welfare dependency.'' I'm heartened by this move and the clear evidence that the White House, Congress, and the States are finally coming together on the best possible way to take people off the national dole and put them to work at the same time strengthening families and protecting innocent children. Most of us agree that the Federal Government still has an indispensable role to play in the welfare system by setting guidelines that ensure able-bodied citizens work for their checks and that children are fed, clothed, and cared for while their parents are on the job. But most of us also agree that it makes good fiscal and common sense to give the States and their Governors greater flexibility and incentives to find the most effective and efficient local solutions to problems in the welfare system. I've long supported reforming our welfare system in a way that promotes work, protects children, and empowers States. That's why I'm so encouraged by the initiative of States like Maryland and Wisconsin and the President's approval of welfare system waivers for 38 States-- including one for my home State of South Dakota. States are demonstrating that we can move forward in reforming our welfare system without too heavy a hand from the Federal Government. Their ingenuity should be praised and their plan should be used as an example for all of us to finally come together and find a sensible, effective approach to taking care of our kids, putting people to work, and moving Americans out of poverty. If we put our children first and partisan politics aside, I believe we can do this.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act offered as an amendment to the U.S. Housing Act of 1996 by Representative Hayworth. I am an original cosponsor of this bill because I believe there is a pressing need to assess and reorganize Native American housing programs in this country. This amendment is a strong step in the right direction. Chairman Lazio and his staff have put forth a great deal of effort to ensure that the needs of Native Americans in my State and across the country have been given serious attention and consideration throughout the crafting of this bill. I agree with Chairman Lazio and the Native American Indian Housing Council that Indian housing should be divorced from public housing programs because of the unique needs of Indian country and the many economic challenges that must be overcome. The U.S. Housing Act does not address these unique needs, and I believe including the Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act as an amendment to H.R. 4206 will guarantee that quality housing for Native American communities is not neglected as Federal housing programs are revamped in Congress. Housing is an integral and most basic component to economic development for Indian and non-Indian communities alike. I support the premise of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determination Act because Congress must prioritize programs which develop infrastructure on reservations and enhance economic growth for tribal communities. Additionally, the extreme health problems that many Indian communities face can be linked directly to inadequate housing, problems that can begin to be addressed through this Indian self- determination legislation. The flexibility in funding and in the administration of housing programs that this bill promotes is the key to tribal self-sufficiency and self-determination in housing management. Ultimately, this self-determination will result in increased access to safe, affordable housing for Native American people nationwide. The unique housing needs of Indian country warrant a continued Federal commitment to successful tribal housing programs. I look forward to working with Chairman Lazio, my colleagues, and Indian tribes nationwide to make the Native American Housing and Self- Determination Act a reality, with the health and welfare of Indian tribes our foremost priority. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for the Hayworth amendment on Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determination.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I have long advocated the importance of the U.S. role in responsible trade in conventional arms and nuclear technologies, and I feel strongly that, as the world's remaining superpower, the United States can and should set an international example of positive political change through monitoring trade in nuclear technologies. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, I believe that stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons should be our highest priority in international relations. I am a strong supporter of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty [NPT] and its member nations. The NPT has helped prevent dramatic increase in nuclear weapon-capable states. I was encouraged by last year's indefinite extension of the NPT by consensus over 175 nations, and I actively encourage the recognition of nonproliferation at every level as the key to global security. Since its implementation in 1970, however, many nations that have remained outside of the NPT have concentrated on the buildup of their own nuclear capabilities. These threshold nuclear states view the NPT as discriminatory, because the treaty divides the world into the nuclear haves and have nots and, as they see it, unfairly places nonnuclear nations at a strategic disadvantage relative to the nuclear states. At the same time, several of these nations have stated that, without significant steps toward reducing stockpiles for all member nations, the NPT cannot be the foundation for an end to the arms race and complete nuclear disarmament. Nowhere is this attitude more alarming that in South Asia. Regional religious and political history, particularly with India and Pakistan, has encouraged heightened military unease in the region, and an association of nuclear capability with regional dominance. Pakistan, a nation of 130 million, has long feared being overwhelmed militarily by India, with its population of over 900 million. Historical alliances and relations with nuclear and nonnuclear nations elsewhere in the region have contributed to forcing these two countries in a race toward nuclear weapon capacity. I believe the nuclear arms race saps the strength of any developing country, and I have repeatedly expressed my concern about the nuclear direction in which these two nations have been headed. The future of our national, as well as global, security depends more than anything on our ability to restrain the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and to enhance the breadth of opportunities for every citizen of the world.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, as you know, our Nation's cattle producers face an extraordinary combination of devastatingly low cattle prices and a fed cattle market that has had its competitive nature potentially compromised. With the price of fed cattle even lower than during the Great Depression--when adjusted for inflation--it is critical that Congress and the administration act to improve the competitive nature of cattle markets and the prosperity of our producers. I am pleased today to introduce legislation that will give the administration legal authority to enact the following reforms: One, direct the Administrator of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration to develop and implement rules that prohibit noncompetitive captive supply. These should address potential limitations on packer ownership and feeding of slaughter cattle and formula arrangements in which price is not determined competitively. Cattle producers from across the Nation, including the thousands who have recently offered testimony to Secretary Glickman's Advisory Committee on Agricultural Concentration, have clearly identified noncompetitive captive supply as harmful to producers. Two, direct the Secretary of Agriculture to devise and implement regulations that require mandatory reporting of the prices and terms of sale for slaughter liverstock--and the meat and byproducts of such slaughter--purchased by packers who have greater than 5 percent of the market for a given species. This information would be reported to USDA and be made public on an immediate basis. As we move toward an information-based society, the maxim that ``knowledge is power'' is especially true for our farmers and ranchers. Three, direct the Secretary of Agriculture to develop rules that require the reporting of export sales of meat to USDA on a weekly basis. This action would help to ensure that all market participants have the opportunity to a level playing field in regard to information about the market. Mr. Speaker, I am certain that you and the rest of my colleagues share my concerns regarding the concentration in agricultural processing that is ripping through rural American and the potential that this concentration may in fact deny competitive markets for independent producers. I ask my colleagues to join me in making possible these much-needed reforms.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to the Sioux Falls Skyforce for winning the Continental Basketball Association championship. By defeating the Fort Wayne Fury 4 games to 1, the victorious Skyforce returned home to Sioux Falls with the franchise's first championship in its 7 year history. Led by most valuable player Henry James, the Skyforce battled their way through the playoffs, gathering momentum with each closely contested game, and capping their season of a lifetime with Devin Gray's buzzer beater to give the Skyforce their cherished championship. I would like to congratulate coach Mo McHone, the Skyforce organization, and the players for their commitment to excellence during this championship season. I would also like to thank the people of Sioux Falls and the surrounding communities for their loyalty and support for the Sioux Falls Skyforce throughout the existence of the franchise. Skyforce players could always count on the fans to fill the arena, cheering them on through the last-second victories and the heartbreaking losses. On behalf of all South Dakotans, I extend to the Sioux Falls Skyforce my congratulations on winning the 1996 Continental Basketball Association Championship.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Nicole Sanderson of Wagner, SD, was recently selected as a State winner in the Voice of Democracy broadcast script writing contest conducted each year by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its ladies auxiliary. The contest theme for this year was answering America's call, and of the more than 116,000 secondary school students who participated in this year's contest, Nicole was also named a winner at the national level. Mr. Speaker, I ask that Nicole's winning script be reprinted in the Congressional Record. She deserves to be commended for her exceptional efforts in writing this script and participating in this contest. Nicole's insights and enthusiasm will serve as a model to others her age. Answering America's Call (By Nicole Sanderson, Post 7319, Wagner, SD) Alexander Hamilton once said, ``The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.'' Not in the course of human events would one discover a more substantial remark or a clearer understanding of the prospect of the American dream than that of Alexander Hamilton's. Hamilton truly believed that the so-called ``American experiment'' would succeed and over generations would prove to be a powerful existence. Hamilton realized that to simply live under the wrath of tyranny with no objections would be surrendering the very rights he deemed necessary, but to fight for the rule of one's own hand was justification for every rebellion in the cause for justice and freedom. In the two hundred years since our forefathers signed the Constitution, America has gained the respect of those very nations who believed we were a failing idea from the start. She has grown to be the strong, influential nation Hamilton and many others had foreseen, regarding with utmost respect those ideas we were founded on. Today, however, America is lacking the respect from her own citizens that we once so eagerly prided ourselves on. Many Americans have turned to the idea of hatred, deceit, and revenge. But why? Has the American dream failed them or have they simply failed the American dream? With crime rate on a drastic increase and disregard for the law a common occurrence, Americans have lost the sense of direction that the founders of this great country so generously provided and intended for us. We must not sit back and watch as the destruction of our country continues, but we must speak out to those who are disrespectful to the constitution and to the American people. We must prove to them that America is not the villain they see, but merely one modest voice in the choir of heroes. When Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, that was not the dream intended for our country, and when the innocent people of the Oklahoma City bombing were so brutally victimized, that was not the dream America would one day prosper from either, but merely the blatant disrespect for human life and the rights of all who care for this country. Once again, I ask why? America is about freedom and responsibility. America is the dream of unity and everlasting respect. Why, then, are there demonstrations burning the very flag in which we should so gratefully salute, burning the very idea our forefathers worked, fought and died for. The authors of the Constitution did not attempt to establish a government and a symbol for all to honor so that one day their descendants could flagrantly burn and degrade their accomplishments. We must encourage those voices that they did not choose America, but America chose them, and now they must return her kind favor and participate in the Government which tries so very hard to guarantee their freedom, their responsibility, and their prosperity. Never have I been so disappointed with my fellow citizens as when I see such horrendous disregard for human rights. Does not the Declaration of Independence directly state that ``all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?'' Then why are people committing such acts of violence against one another, so unthinkable to our choice of freedom, hindering every possibility of justice among free, self- governed men? As a young citizen of this remarkable country, I feel it not only my privilege, but also my duty to protect and honor her at all times and to create within her the direction our fathers intended. We must not blind ourselves to the needs of our nation, but we must stand up and fight to regain the pride and honesty we once knew. America is calling us, pleading for us to help her. As the future of this great nation, we must not only believe in the ideas of unity among the people, freedom and equality for all men, and the pleasure and possibilities of good government, but we must also act on them. Answering her calls will not be easy, but it will be necessary to fight the hatred that is growing stronger every day. This nation calls to us from the graves of those long since gone, from the patriotic memorials of those we honor, and from the very idea we hold strong in our hearts, the idea of freedom, asking us kindly to remember those who gave so graciously to this country their lives and their freedom so that we might have ours. We must never forget how fortunate we are to be Americans and how wonderful it is to be free. America is calling out to you. Are you listening?

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act introduced by Housing Subcommittee Chairman Lazio. I am an original cosponsor of this bill because I believe there is a pressing need to assess and reorganize native American housing programs in this country. Chairman Lazio's bill is a strong step in the right direction. However, my primary concern in adding my name to this bill is to insure that the needs of native Americans in my State and across the country are given serious attention and consideration, and that Indian tribes have a leading role in the development of this lasting legislation. There are nine federally recognized tribes in South Dakota, whose members collectively make up one of the largest native American populations in any State. At the same time, South Dakota has 3 of the 10 poorest counties in the Nation, all of which are within reservation boundaries. Unemployment on these extremely rural reservations averages about 50 percent. Yet economic depression on rural Indian reservations is not unique to my State. I believe strongly that housing is an integral and most basic component to economic development for Indian and non-Indian communities alike. Federal expenditures for social programs continue to exceed investments for economic growth in Indian country. Tribal leaders in my State and elsewhere have struggled to break the cycle of dependence upon the Federal Government. In keeping with this Nation's special trust responsibility to sovereign Indian nations, I believe Federal programs must promote the self-determination and self-sufficiency of Indian communities. I support the premise of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act because Congress must prioritize programs which develop infrastructure on reservations and enhance economic growth for tribal communities. Additionally, the extreme health problems that many Indian communities face can be linked directly to inadequate housing, problems that can begin to be addressed through this Indian self-determination legislation. I agree with Chairman Lazio and the Native American Indian Housing Council that Indian housing should be divorced from public housing programs because of the unique needs of Indian country and the many economic challenges that must be overcome. I am particularly supportive of the funding initiative outlined in this legislation which is based on the section 108 loan guarantee for Community Development Block Grant funds. The flexibility in funding and in the administration of housing programs that this bill promotes is the key to tribal self-sufficiency and self-determination in housing management. Ultimately, this self- determination will result in increased access to safe, affordable housing for native American people nationwide. The unique housing needs of Indian country warrant a continued Federal commitment to successful tribal housing programs. I look forward to working with Chairman Lazio, my colleagues, and Indian tribes nationwide to make the Native American Housing and Self- Determination Act a reality, with the health and welfare of Indian tribes our foremost priority.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce legislation that will prohibit all meat imports from the European Union [EU] unless and until the EU lifts its ban on American beef and eliminates the nontariff trade barrier imposed by their ``Third Country Meat Directive [TCD]. The EU ban on beef from cattle treated with hormones was put in place on January 1, 1989. Scientists throughout Europe and the world have repeatedly concluded there is no scientific basis for this ban. In fact, after legal challenges by the British Government in 1987 and the European animal health industry association in 1990, the EU admitted that the ban was introduced for political and economic reasons--to curb the growth of Europe's beef supply rather than to protect public health. The EU ban has resulted in lost American beef sales of nearly $1 billion. The TCD imposes meat inspection standards on U.S. meat exporting facilities that a wide majority of EU plants do not themselves meet. The United States has the most comprehensive and effective system of food safety management in the world. The TCD is designed and administered strictly to function as trade protection for higher cost, less competitive EU pork production. The failure of the EU to live up to the 1992 bilateral meat agreement and re-list U.S. beef and pork plants is deeply disturbing. Prior to 1988, over 400 beef and pork plants were certified to export to the EU. Because of the TCD, only a handful of beef and pork plants are currently able to export to the EU. In 1985, the EU was the destination of over 20 percent of U.S. pork exports. Today, U.S. exports to the EU are negligible. The U.S. pork industry conservatively estimates that U.S. producers will lose $60 million in export revenues during 1996 with losses jumping to approximately $157 million per year by the year 2000 as EU tariff rate quotas on pork are phased in. Since January 1, 1989, America has allowed meat imports of $2.1 billion from the EU while U.S. meat exports to the EU totaled only $342 million. At a time when our cattle producers are struggling with the lowest cattle prices in recent memory and beef and pork producers are becoming more reliant on export markets, it is unconscionable to allow stubborn European bureaucrats to insult our cattle and hog producers with these barriers to American beef and pork. We applaud Secretary Glickman and U.S.T.R. Kantor for initiating action against the EU hormone ban under WTO dispute settlement provisions and for their efforts to open export markets around the world for U.S. meat. However, EU Agriculture Commissioner Fischler has clearly indicated that even if the EU loses the WTO case, which might not be resolved until late 1997, the hormone ban will remain in place. Although reasonable and prudent negotiation would clearly be preferred to address these trade disputes, our Nation's livestock producers need access to EU markets now. They are demanding a much stronger negotiating tool. My bill will provide a clear and unequivocal message to the EU that further delay will no longer be tolerated. Unless the EU eliminates these unscientific sanitary trade barriers, this legislation will prohibit the entry of all EU meat within 15 days of enactment. Please join me in providing a simple, but very effective negotiating tool to Secretary Glickman and U.S.T.R. Kantor.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehlert-Barrett conservation amendment. It contains the backbone of a comprehensive conservation title that should be in the final version of the farm bill whenever that might come about. I am pleased that the authority for new enrollments in the Conservation Reserve Program is included. The CRP is of great importance in my State of South Dakota for several reasons, for its impact on cutting soil erosion, increasing water quality and enhancing habitat for wildlife. We have seen pheasant populations in South Dakota head back toward historical, record levels. The same is true of duck populations, which have increased by 30 percent, and songbird populations. Many of the songbirds documented on CRP acreage were previously headed toward decline and facing the possibility of being threatened under the Endangered Species Act. I am also pleased that the gentleman from Nebraska worked with agricultural interests and wildlife groups to come up with a compromise on the issue of early outs. The other component of this amendment is the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. I have been working with Chairman Allard on a similar provision in the Agriculture Committee. This program will be vital in ensuring the viability of livestock operations throughout the country. The livestock sector is facing devastating swings in market prices and the technical assistance and cost-share funds provided by EQIP may help keep many family operations from going out of business. I want to commend the livestock and commodity groups in their initiative in working to meet the environmental concerns facing their industry. They want to take an active role in ensuring their operations do not degradate the land they live on or the water their families drink. As I indicated, this is a start toward a conservation title that can balance the survival of family farms with protection of their land and resources for generations to come. I look forward to working with Chairmen Roberts and Allard to address the remaining important issues such as commonsense reforms to the Swampbuster provision that they included in H.R. 2973. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson].

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a fellow South Dakotan who served his country as a highly decorated soldier and prominent priest, Msgr. Francis Sampson. Monsignor Sampson, 83, died of cancer Sunday, January 28, 1996. Having been born on leap day in 1912, today would have been his 21st leap year birthday. The Sioux Falls community and all of South Dakota mourn the loss of a valuable friend, educator, and hero. Monsignor Sampson's interests and influence went beyond his efforts within the church and the military. As a strong supporter of O'Gorman High School in Sioux Falls, SD, he helped many students pay for their tuition. Monsignor Sampson briefly served as pastor at Notre Dame Cathedral and Dowling High School in Des Moines, IA, before he began his military career in the Army chaplaincy as a first lieutenant in 1942. He was captured twice and wounded by the Germans during World War II, and his efforts earned him the Distinguished Service Cross. Sampson continued to serve his country in Korea where he rescued American prisoners of war. Prior to his retirement from the Army, Sampson became a monsignor in 1963. He was named deputy chief of chaplains for the Army in 1966, and in 1967 was made chief of chaplains and promoted to major general. Sampson's outstanding military service was recognized with his many awards, including the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star. Monsignor Sampson continues to make investments in the lives of children through the Monsignor Sampson O'Gorman Fund. In doing so, he has given the Sioux Falls community a legacy that will live on in the successes of future generations. Monsignor Sampson's influence on our children and on so many others throughout the world should be remembered, as it will be missed.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2854, the Agricultural Market Transition Act, formerly referred to as the freedom-to-farm legislation. My objections are both procedural and substantive. First, Mr. Chairman, it is outrageous that 5 months after it was due, we are still on this floor debating a farm bill. There simply is no good excuse for this delay. The Republican leadership in this House insisted on discharging the House Agriculture Committee from its duty to formulate a 1995 farm bill and rolled the freedom-to-farm provisions into the massive budget reconciliation bill. To few observers' surprise, the key farm legislation for this last half decade of the 20th century languished while heated controversy over the future of Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, and other issues bogged down the reconciliation effort. When the majority leadership finally agreed to extricate the farm bill from the rest of its political agenda, it recessed for a 3-week vacation rather than complete the long-overdue debate. Mr. Chairman, if this process had not been distorted enough, we now find that contrary to long tradition in this House, only a limited number of amendments approved by the Speaker will be permitted. This substantially closed rule is an afront to the democratic process and is especially wrong headed given the minimal committee hearings on the workings or the consequences of this legislation. Second, Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned about the substance of this bill. An economist at South Dakota State University has already written that this bill is a recipe for lower grain prices in my State, and may lead to significant reductions in land values and local tax revenues. Only if you think that the solution to low farm income is low grain prices, should a legislator support this bill. It is not necessary to travel down the freedom-to-farm road in order to lighten the Federal regulatory load or to allow farmers far greater flexibility and simplicity in their planting decisions. It is not necessary to enact this type of radical legislation in order to promote a far more market oriented agriculture. This bill ends the farmer owned reserve [FOR] and it leaves a marketing loan mechanism in place that is wholly inadequate to serve as a useful marketing tool. This legislation pays farmers a payment unrelated to anything they plant or price they receive, but after 7 years, terminates all sense of a safety net in family agriculture. In the meantime, 2 percent of American farmers will receive 22 percent of the transition payments. This transition legislation is a transition to ruin for many family owned farming operations. While doing nothing to provide farmers with the long-term marketing tools they need, it expects our farmers to compete in a global economy that features heavily subsidized agriculture in many foreign lands. Our farmers are competitive and becoming more efficient every year--but it is unfair to ask any sector of our Nation's economy to compete against the national treasuries of foreign competitors. Mr. Chairman, the United States is currently the best fed and most cheaply fed nation on Earth. We spend has than 1 percent of the Federal budget on supporting farm incomes. While we can no doubt find still more savings in the USDA budget, and while we can certainly impose more simplicity and common sense on our agricultural programs, it is absolutely a disastrous mistake to pass this farm bill. Our farmers and our consumers deserve better than legislation which hands out checks unrelated to labor or risk for a few years, and then turns the Federal Government's back on family agriculture forever after.