Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2029, the Farm Credit System Regulatory Relief Act of 1995. I was pleased to have joined Chairman Allard in the introduction of H.R. 2029 and to have worked with both he and Chairman Roberts to bring the bill to the floor. This legislation would provide flexibility to the regulator of the Farm Credit System banks and institutions as well as removing some of the rigidity of the Farm Credit Act, which governs the activities of the System. I am hopeful that our efforts will provide the Farm Credit System with the ability to reduce their internal paperwork and bureaucracy, and in turn, pass that reduction in costs on to their farm and ranch borrowers. As one of the few members of the Agriculture Committee who was here in 1987, when we faced a crisis in agricultural credit, I am confidant that we have adequate protection and tools in place to ensure that the Farm Credit System will be able to weather any downswings in the agriculture sector. I supported the regulatory relief legislation for the commercial banking sector that moved through Congress in the last session and hopefully additional legislation that will move yet this year, and I am pleased to have been involved in this similar effort for the Farm Credit System. I want to assure my colleagues that this bill is not about expanded authorities or other contentious issues, but about cutting down on unnecessary redtape and ensuring balanced competitiveness of the Farm Credit System institutions with commercial banks. Included in the bill during full committee consideration were several provisions which should be of interest to our colleagues, including the specific inclusion of Farmer Mac in the section precluding the granting of golden parachutes to institutions considered to be troubled. I'm also pleased that Chairmen Roberts and Allard included an extension of the authority for the interest rate assistance program, so that commercial banks and farm credit institutions will have an assurance that the program will be available this spring to help farm and ranch borrowers receive guaranteed loans. It is also my hope that we will have reached a compromise on the issue of Financial Assistance Corporation stock purchase that will put the issue to rest. As the result of a request during the Resource Conservation Subcommittee hearing held on H.R. 2029, we heard from the Farm Credit Administration in regard to additional technical changes they would like to have changed in their statute. It is my hope that we can address these provisions during consideration of the credit title in the farm bill in the coming year. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation for the benefit of their farm and ranch constituents.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition both to the pending budget reconciliation bill and to the parliamentary rules under which it is being considered. It is wrong to consider this wide-ranging legislation without the opportunity for any amendment or even for an alternative bill or recommittal motion. While I am a strong supporter of balancing the Federal budget, I will not permit myself to be forced by these rigid rules to support the outrageous budget priorities contained within this bill. By spending $245 billion in tax favors, this legislation creates a situation where it has become necessary to cut deep into Medicare, Medicaid, education, and even to kill the entire farm program altogether. These are radical budget priorities that do not make sense to South Dakota families. It is particularly offensive to me that this legislation substantially increases income tax liabilities for families making less than $30,000 per year but provides a tax cut bonanza for millionaires. There is no doubt in my mind that President Clinton will veto this budget reconciliation bill, and it is my hope that we can then begin a serious bipartisan effort at balancing the Federal budget in a manner which is fair to middle class and working families, the elderly, veterans, and rural America.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the participants of the second AmeriCorps team in South Dakota. On October 24, 1995, at an Oath of Service ceremony in Rosebud, SD, 15 dedicated individuals committed themselves to 1 year of community service in South Dakota as participants in the AmeriCorps Program. I strongly support the concept of national community service, and I commend each of the participants who will provide much-needed assistance to communities all over the country. The AmeriCorps team will be working on two projects both of which will help rebuild rural America and protect the environment. The first project, headquartered at the Bad River watershed area in Ft. Pierre, SD, involves five members of the AmeriCorps team, and focuses on range and water quality improvements, as well as youth and adult education projects. The second project on the Rosebud Reservation involves a 10- member team which is helping with locally identified projects. These projects include range improvement, water quality activities, and other locally identified natural resource improvement projects. I am confident that the experiences of the participants as members of AmeriCorps will establish a lasting ethic of civic duty in each of them. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize each member of the second AmeriCorps team of South Dakota: Matthew Blumer, Ft. Pierre, SD; Kevin Boyd, Rosebud, SD; Roger Brush Breaker, Rosebud, SD; Michele Edelbach, Ft. Pierre, SD; Harvey Elk Looks Back, Rosebud, SD; Paula Hoerner, Ft. Pierre, SD; Kathy Knife, Rosebud, SD; Lester Leader Charge, Rosebud, SD; Joseph Nichols, Ft. Pierre, SD; Clarence Poorman, Rosebud, SD; Pat Buscher, Ft. Pierre, SD; John Sitting Bear, Rosebud, SD; Melvin Staples, Rosebud, SD; Richard Traversie, Rosebud, SD; and Emily White Hat, Rosebud, SD. I am confident that the work of these individuals will not only provide much-needed assistance to the Rosebud Reservation and the Bad River watershed project, but also that the next year will be immensely rewarding for each of the participants. I congratulate each participant on their commitment to service and to furthering their education--I firmly believe that education is essential to a productive life and vital to American efforts to remain a first-class economic power. Today, I would also like to commend the USDA for its innovative and extensive participation in AmeriCorps, and the members of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. AmeriCorp-Team USDA provides for a truly unique partnership involving tribal, State, and Federal Government, and this effort will address a lot of the traditional native concerns for the environment. So, as the GOP threatens to terminate funding for AmeriCorp, I am proud that rural enhancement and environmental protection is taking place in the great State of South Dakota and I believe that these programs are examples of why the continuation of the AmeriCorps program is critically important.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report on Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 1996 (H.R. 1868). This bipartisan legislation passed the House last July 11 on a vote of 333 to 89 and passed the Senate on September 21 by a vote of 91 to 9. The overall bill appropriates $202 million more than the House bill, but $2.7 billion less than President Clinton's request and $1.5 billion less than the fiscal year 1995 appropriations level. As our Nation's only democratic ally in the region, it is important for the United States to continue to play a role in assisting Israel's fight against terrorism, radicalism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It should be noted that this assistance is of help not only to Israel, but 70 percent of the aid is spent in the United States, and thus creates new jobs, economic expansion and opens up new markets for United States exports. While being ever mindful of ways to find efficiencies within the Federal budget, the foreign operations budget consist of less than 1 percent of the Federal budget and yet helps create nearly 1 million domestic jobs. I also want to take time to congratulate both the House and Senate for its leadership and swiftness in overwhelming passage of S. 1322, The Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Implementation Act of 1995. With over 180 United States Embassies around the world, only Israel has been denied the right to have its American Embassy located in its capital city. While Jerusalem is a holy city for three major world religions and home to thousands of religious worshipers, the state of Israel has never denied people of any faith from worshiping in Jerusalem. Now that the peace process is progressing, relocating the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem will hopefully strengthen that peace process. Israel has been a trustworthy ally in a troubled and unstable region of the world, and it is my view that passage of these two bipartisan bills will help the United States reconfirm its strong commitment to Israel, to human rights, and to peace.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, we can balance the Federal budget without attacking education, the elderly, veterans and rural America--and for that reason, I must rise to express my strong opposition to H.R. 2491, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation bill. I must also express my opposition to the parliamentary rules under which this legislation is being considered. Under the rule passed by this House, no amendments to the reconciliation bill will be allowed other than for one alternative which is a better but still flawed bill. In this way, the House is being asked to vote on drastic and unecessary reductions in Medicare and Medicaid, farm programs, education, VA and other vital concerns without any ability to cast a vote up or down on any of these issues. It is time to get our priorities straight. I've been a strong supporter of a balanced budget amendment and line-item veto as well as for budget spending caps. But this bill raises income taxes on families making less than $30,000 per year, slashes our investment in education, cuts agricultural programs three deeper than is needed to balance the budget, and cuts Medicare three times deeper than is needed to stabilize the Medicare Trust Fund. If that weren't bad enough, this bill spends billions on defense weapon pork the Pentagon doesn't even want, and gives tax breaks that primarily benefit the wealthiest 1 percent of families. A recent analysis from our Joint Committee on Taxation finds that under H.R. 2491, families making less than $10,000 per year will pay a cumulative $879 million more in taxes, while families making more than $200,000 per year will get a $2.8 billion tax cut. This amounts to a $43 billion tax increase for families making less than $30,000--51 percent of all taxpayers. It is my hope that this bill is either defeated or vetoed by the President so that we can commence a meaningful bipartisan effort to balance the budget with sane priorities and values. I will continue to support tough choices on the budget, but I will absolutely not be a part of this reverse-Robin Hood budget effort. South Dakotans and the American public deserve better.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation to establish a trust fund within the Department of 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 percentage of hydropower revenues and would be capped at $27.5 million. The tribe would then receive the interest from the fund to be used according to a development plan based on legislation previously passed by Congress, and prepared in conjunction with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. The Flood Control Act of 1944 created five massive earthen dams along the Missouri River. This public works project, known as the Pick-Sloan Plan, has since provided flood control, irrigation, and hydropower for communities along the Missouri. Four of the Pick-Sloan dams are located in South Dakota. The Impact of the Pick-Sloan plan on the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe has been devastating. 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, the Missouri River wooded bottom lands, were inundated as a direct result of the Fort Randall and Big Ben dam construction. The tribal community has still not yet been adequately compensated for the economic deprivation brought about with 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. These directives were either carried out inadequately or not at all. The legislation I am introducing is the first step toward keeping the promises Congress made to the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe. Congress established precedent for this legislation with the Three Affiliated Tribes and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act of 1992. At that time, Congress determined that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers failed to provide adequate compensation to the tribes when their lands were acquired for the Pick-Sloan projects. There is little controversy on finding that the tribes bore an inordinate share of the cost of implementing the Pick-Sloan program. The Secretary of the Interior established the Joint Tribal Advisory Committee to resolve the inequities and find ways to finance the compensation of tribal claims. As a result, the Three Affiliated Tribes and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act set up a recovery fund financed entirely from a percentage of Pick-Sloan power revenues. 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. This legislation has broad support in South Dakota. South Dakota Governor Bill Janklow strongly endorses this funding mechanism to develop infrastructure at the Crow Creek Sioux reservation. I am including a letter of support from Governor Janklow to be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to strongly support this important legislation and correct this historic injustice against the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe. State of South Dakota, June 22, 1995. Hon Duane Big Eagle, Chairman of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, Post Office Box 50, Fort Thompson, South Dakota 57501 Dear Chairman Big Eagle: Thank you for giving me a copy of the proposed federal legislation that requires the federal government to fulfill the commitments made to the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe in the Big Bend Act of 1962. I wholeheartedly support this legislation and your efforts to develop Fort Thompson with the infrastructure and community facilities that the Crow Creek community should have received long ago. The method for funding in the bill is fair and I hope a majority of both houses of Congress and the President will realize the importance of passing this bill and signing it into law. In several different ways, all of the various groups of people who live in South Dakota have not received the benefits promised when the great dams were built in the 1950s. The persistence of the members of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe to right this wrong is worthy of high praise. Congratulations on creating an excellent proposal. If there is anything I can do to help you, please let me know. Sincerely, William J. Janklow, Governor.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2425, legislation designed to reduce Medicare funding by $270 billion over the next 7 years. While I support constructive efforts to stabilize the Medicare part A trust fund and other efforts to promote administrative efficiencies and simplification, the plain fact is that this bill does little to strengthen Medicare and is primarily designed to free up $270 billion in order to finance the cost of the $245 billion tax cut and $60 billion defense pork provisions contained in Speaker Gingrich's budget reconciliation bill. Seniors in South Dakota have always been willing to make some adjustments to assist with Federal budget deficit reduction and they realize the need for some health care reforms that will slow down the growth of health care inflation--but they are also wise and experienced enough to know when someone is trying to sell them the Brooklyn Bridge. I have been holding town meetings on the Medicare and Medicaid issue all around South Dakota, and the bipartisan opposition to H.R. 2425 is overwhelming. Seniors want Medicare reforms, but they absolutely do not want wealthy special interests laughing at them all the way to the bank at their expense. Mr. Chairman, I support alternative legislation which is designed to stabilize the Medicare part A trust fund and does so in a manner which does not raise premiums or reduce benefits to seniors. I cannot and I will not, however, support this misdirected, ``Reverse Robin Hood'' attack on Medicare and Medicaid.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce legislation that will direct the President to appoint a special commission on the concentration and potentially reduced competition in the meat packing industry. This legislation is necessary to ensure the existence of open and fair competition in the livestock and meat packing industry. Over the last year, livestock producers have faced devastatingly low prices that make it very difficult, if not impossible, to break even, let alone receive a reasonable return on their investment. Last spring, cattle and hog prices [[Page E 1975]] fell to levels that could threaten the very survival of our Nation's independent family livestock producers. Farmers and ranchers have questioned whether a free and open market operates in the livestock and meat packing industry, and the issues of packer concentration and market access are at the core of their concerns. This legislation will require the President to appoint a commission on concentration in the meat packing industry. The commission would be chaired by the Secretary of Agriculture and be comprised of cattle, hog, and lamb producers; experts in antitrust legislation; economists; corporate chief financial officers; and corporate procurement experts. The commission would be charged with achieving the following goals: First, determine if the upcoming USDA study on concentration in the red meat packing industry represents current market conditions. Producers are concerned that the study is based on outdated information and does not cover critical aspects of the livestock industry. This study was mandated by Congress in the fiscal year 1992 Agricultural appropriations bill. Producers and consumers need to have confidence that the findings of this study will apply to current market conditions. Second, review the adequacy of current antitrust laws with respect to the livestock industry. Four large packing companies control over 80 percent of the cattle slaughtered in this country. Fifteen years ago this level was only a third as much. Given this amount of market concentration, producers question whether current laws are adequate to ensure free, open, and competitive livestock markets. Third, make recommendations regarding the adequacy of price discovery in the livestock industry. Producers question whether the regulations governing price discovery in the livestock industry ensure the operation of a free and open market. Fourth, review the reasons for the large producer to retail price spread. Although producers have been receiving some of the lowest prices in recent history for their livestock, packers and retailers have been enjoying record profits. Both producers and consumers deserve to know the reasons behind this distressing price spread. Mr. Speaker, I invite you and my colleagues to join me in examining the underlying reasons behind one of the most difficult periods for livestock producers in recent memory. This legislation can accomplish this.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce legislation that would require that imported meat and meat food products containing imported meat be labeled as such and that certain eating establishments serving imported meat inform customers of that fact. 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 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. I think that American consumers deserve to know the source of their meat and meat food products. Because imported meat tends to be nongrain-fed beef that is lower in quality, it is doubtful that consumers will learn the source of such meat from vendors. The legislation that I am 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. Mr. Speaker, I am certain that you and the rest of my colleagues would agree that it is in the interest of free enterprise to provide solid information to American consumers. I ask my colleagues to join me in making this commonsense change to the Federal Meat Inspection Act.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, recently it became publicly known about an e-mail directive from the leadership of the Republican Party that sheds light on the political methods being used as we work on our agricultural portion of reconciliation. It lays bare political methods which, frankly, are destructive to this institution, destructive far beyond simply the agricultural issues which it directly addresses. It is the leadership saying, ``You've got to pass our version of agricultural reconciliation, one that involves three times the cuts that are needed to reach a zero deficit, and if you don't, individual Members will lose committee memberships. The committee chairmanships will be lost. In fact, the entire House Committee on Agriculture could be abolished.'' This is the sort of heavy-handed leadership that does not serve this institution well. We have difficult decisions to be made, but if we pull together in a bipartisan fashion, using the strengths of House Committee on Agriculture, I am confident that through the course of the debate this year we can in fact arrive at a point where we are helpful to family farms, helpful to the budget deficit, and it is done in a fair and open manner.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce legislation that would amend a technical error in the expiration date for refunds of excise tax on gasoline blended with alcohol fuels. Although the exemption from the excise tax for alcohol fuels clearly does not expire until September 30, 2000, the provision in Internal Revenue Code allowing businesses who routinely blend alcohol with gasoline and other fuels expires on September 30, 1995. Businesses still qualify for refunds for the excise tax paid, but the expiration of the provision for routine refunding of the excise tax paid requires Herculean efforts on the part of blenders and likely will cause some to quit blending alcohol fuel altogether. Extending the refund to coincide with the expiration dates for the exemption from excise tax is fair and budget neutral, as businesses using this refund procedure clearly do not owe the tax. Failing to extend the expiration of this refund will be negative for the environment, negative for the truly American industry of ethanol production, and negative for America's farmers as a significant market for grain will be reduced. Mr. Speaker, I am certain that you and the rest of my colleagues would agree that it is good policy to fix technical errors in Internal Revenue Code. The alternative is the policy of unintended consequences. This serves no public interest. I ask you to join me in making this technical correction to the Federal Tax Code.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for continued funding for the Civil-Military Cooperative Action Program [CMCAP] of the Office of Reserve Affairs at the Department of Defense, and to voice my strong opposition to the level of funding included for this important office in the House version of the fiscal year 1996 Department of Defense appropriations bill. Thankfully, the Senate chose to fund this Office at a level significantly higher than the funding included in the House bill and I plan to urge my colleagues in conference to accept the level of funding adopted by the Senate. CMCAP, which provides training opportunities for our military personnel and allocates surplus materials to States and local communities, was initially authorized by Congress in 1993 as a means of enhancing military readiness for the Reserves, while helping to address important domestic needs at the same time. As we continue downsizing and reorganizing our national defense, I cannot emphasize strongly enough the importance of appropriate reallocation of surplus materials which result from base closures both at home and abroad. The benefit of civil-military program cooperation can be readily seen in native American communities around the country and in my State of South Dakota. This year $6 million in excess equipment was distributed to 136 native American communities in 26 States. In South Dakota, much needed medical and construction equipment was delivered to communities on and off Indian reservations, including Rapid City, Eagle Butte, Sisseton, McLaughlin, Ft. Thompson, Flandreau, Lower Brule, Pine Ridge, Pierre, and Rosebud. Federal expenditures for social programs continue to exceed investments for economic growth in Indian country. I feel strongly that the role of the Federal Government must be to encourage tribal self- sufficiency at every opportunity. I believe the Federal Government must prioritize programs which develop infrastructure on reservations and enhance economic growth for tribal communities. I have been contacted by tribal organizations in my State regarding a CMCAP project currently being developed to repair and refurbish substandard housing on the Oglala and Rosebud Sioux Indian reservations. The project, Operation Walking Shield, would also provide recreational fields for youth risk prevention programs, transport excess medical equipment and supplies to Indian health centers, and employ local labor to work with military personnel in this important community development effort. Without continued funding for civil- military programs, Operation Walking Shield and other such projects critical to economic development in Indian communities will likely not proceed. As I stated previously, I plan to contact the House conferees and urge their acceptance of the Senate funding for the CMCAP. As we downsize our military, I feel strongly that adequate funding for the cooperative programs maintained by this Office is critical to ensuring that excess equipment and materials are distributed to communities in need as efficiently as possible.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation, the Retiree Continuation Coverage Act of 1995, to help address the terrible problem that occurs when health care benefits are eliminated for retirees and their dependents. A very tragic situation occurred in my home State of South Dakota earlier this year when the John Morrell and Co. canceled insurance benefits for more than 3,300 former employees and their dependents, 1,200 of whom live in South Dakota. This heartless and irresponsible action has had a direct and immediate impact on those retirees who have lost health care benefits they thought were guaranteed for life. Many of these retirees have preexisting conditions, making private insurance either unaffordable or simply unattainable, since many private insurance plans refuse to provide coverage. And a number of these individuals do not yet qualify for the Medicare Program, as they have yet to turn 65. My legislation would extend COBRA coverage to retirees, their spouses, and dependents in situations where health care benefits sponsored by a retirees' former employer are either eliminated or substantially reduced. This extension of COBRA would remain in effect until the retiree, spouse, or dependents reach Medicare eligibility. In doing this, early retirees--those under the age of 65--would be able to purchase health insurance coverage at group rates until they become eligible for the Medicare Program. There is a great need for this legislation, unfortunately, I am afraid that many more early retirees who are counting on their health insurance benefits for the rest of their life will instead have their hard work and dedication rewarded with a letter from their former employer saying their insurance has been canceled effective immediately. This simply cannot continue to occur. It isn't fair, and it isn't right. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and help address this serious and growing situation of early retirees losing their health insurance benefits. Similar legislation is being introduced in the Senate by Senate minority leader Daschle of South Dakota.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I must express my serious concern with a provision included in the fiscal year 1996 Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill which eliminates line-item funding for Native American populations within the Legal Services Corporation. In the bill, the Appropriations Committee has not only reduced funding of the Legal Services Corporation by 30 percent--from $400 million to $278 million, but the committee also eliminated the separate line item for native American population funding, which last year provided $10 million for native American programs nationwide. The elimination of this line-item funding will lead to the termination of legal services for some of America's most underserved population, our low-income native Americans. Because our Nation's Founders made the establishment of justice the first specific function of the new government, justice is the historic mandate of a free society. The Legal Services Corporation provides justice to people who could otherwise not afford it, ensuring equal access to justice. On countless Indian reservations across the nation, Indian legal services are the only source of legal aid to the poor and underrepresented. Presently there are 33 Indian legal services programs in existence. The $10 million in fiscal year 1995 funding made possible the work of approximately 150 attorneys, paralegals, and tribal court advocates serving clients on over 175 Indian reservations as well as 220 Alaska Native villages. The work of these attorneys has helped tribes develop tribal courts, and create programs for the prevention of domestic abuse and violence. On remote reservations with unique cultures and needs, legal services attorneys are the first line of contact and counseling for families in crisis. They enforce child support, and help ensure the delivery of health care services to the poor, elderly, and disabled. In my State of South Dakota, there are nine federally recognized tribes 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. Dakota Plains Legal Services, serving North and South Dakota, employs 10 attorneys, 8 paralegals, and roughly 10 support staff in 7 offices, all but 1 on reservations. Dakota Plains helps low-income Indians in tribal as well as Federal courts with civil and criminal disputes. If the line-item for Native American populations is not restored, Dakota Plains Legal Services would lose 70 percent of their operating budget--virtually shutting down services to Indians in my State. Additionally devastating is the bill's requirement that Indian legal services programs compete for the remaining LSC funding under a census- based formula--a scheme that will result in even further cuts to Native American programs. The current legal services line-item funds Indian legal services programs at a level that is three to four times greater than the actual number of reservation-based individuals listed in the 1990 census. Since the inception of the Legal Services Corporation in 1974, it has been conceded by both Democrats and Republicans that effective legal services for Indians cannot be provided strictly on census-based numbers because: First, many tribes are not large enough to justify the funding of even one lawyer; and second, actual operating costs for Indian legal services attorneys are much higher than for other legal services programs because of geographic remoteness, and the availability and high costs of goods and services on reservations. Increased funding on a non-census basis helps overcome these and other factors, such as language and cultural barriers. Past studies have justified the need for increased funding for Indian legal services by as much as seven times the numbers that a straight Census-based formula would yield. For the past 30 years, Indian legal services have become an integral part of this Nation's promise of equal access to justice. The elimination of the line item for Native American populations will deny justice to Native Americans in my State and across the country. I urge my colleagues in the eventual conference on this measure, and on the appropriate authorizing committees to closely consider the ramifications of this poorly thought out provision.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my serious concern about the Committee Report accompanying H.R. 1976, the fiscal year 1996 Agriculture appropriations bill, which contains a provision that will seriously affect the availability of food on Indian reservations nationwide, and will dramatically increase hunger and hardship for some of America's most underserved population, our low- income Native Americans. In the report, the Appropriations Committee directs the Secretary of Agriculture to begin the termination of the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, commonly known as the commodities program. Indians who benefit from the commodities program will be transferred to the Food Stamp Program. This small non-controversial program has not been a target for cuts under any previous administration. The administration requested $78.6 million for reservation commodities in fiscal year 1996. The Committee's bill provides for $65 million for commodities, a difference of $13.6 million (17 percent). Should this severe underfunding and eventual phaseout proceed, more than 110,000 Native Americans on reservations in 24 States will be virtually cut off from monthly food supplements. This misguided shuffling of programs would result in increased costs to the Federal Government and add to our ever- increasing deficit. When Congress and the Nixon administration instituted the Food Stamp Program nationwide in 1974, one exception was made. Then, as now, the supply of commodity food items directly to Indian tribes for distribution among low-income tribal members made better economic sense than the State-administered Food Stamp Program. Indian reservations are some of the most remote and sparsely developed areas in this country. Currently, Indians can participate in either the commodities or food stamps programs but not both. The Food Stamp Program requires individuals to trade food coupons for food at grocery stores. In many reservation areas, there are not many stores. Travel to stores may take hours by car. In addition, the prices for foods at on-reservation stores are generally higher than in urban or suburban areas. Thus, food stamps buy less food at reservation stores than off-reservation stores. In addition, while tribes operate the distribution of commodities, States operate the Food Stamp Program. Conversion to the Food Stamp Program will require Native Americans to travel vast distances to the nearest State food stamp office. Other problems with the Food Stamp Program include a differing set of eligibility rules, and the likelihood that nonperishable foods, which make up the bulk of the commodities programs, will be less available under the Food Stamp Program because stores are less likely to stock them. Without a continued commodities program, food shortages will result and people will go hungry. Finally, it appears that conversion to the Food Stamp Program will result in increased costs to the Federal Government. In fiscal year 1994, the average per month cost of food stamp benefits was $69.01, compared to $33.51 for commodities. 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. In fiscal year 1994, 11,600 low-income individuals living on or near reservations in my State were served through this program. This poorly thought out reshuffling of existing successful programs will severely impact the health and well-being of Native Americans in my State and across the country.

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 Crane which would eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. As presented, the Interior appropriations bill cuts the NEA budget nearly in half; a cut which I believe will devastate many existing educational arts programs nationwide. As the only voice for South Dakota in the House of Representatives, I must speak out against the outright elimination of programs which bring the benefit of theater, music, dance, and visual art to the people of my rural State. While many opponents of Federal funding for the arts expound on the monopoly on arts funding that more urban States supposedly enjoy, the invaluable benefits that NEA funding brings to rural States like South Dakota continually go unnoticed. Almost 50 percent of the grant applications to the NEA from South Dakota are approved and funded by the NEA, compared to roughly 20 percent of applications from New York and California. NEA programs exemplify the type of public-private partnerships that have traditionally fostered a collective dedication to arts education and cultural enrichment. The NEA gives State and local arts councils the necessary freedoms to meet local arts and educational needs. In fiscal year 1994, the NEA provided organizations like the South Dakota Arts Council and American Indian Services, Inc. with $779,500 dollars to develop theater, dance, and other visual arts programs. With these funds, children's theater companies from Minneapolis, MN and Richmond, VA toured several of South Dakota's smaller cities. While larger urban areas have the benefit of multiple theaters and art museums, many South Dakotan's only exposure to theater and dance is through touring groups funded by NEA grants. In addition to fulfilling its mission of expanding the cultural and artistic horizon for every American, the NEA serves as an impetus for local economies and contributes to the Nation's fiscal well being. The nonprofit arts industry alone contributes $36.8 billion to the U.S. economy and provides over 1.3 million jobs to Americans nationwide. Business, tourism, restaurants, and hotels thrive on the arts. Nonprofit theaters serve annually an audience that has grown from 5 million in 1965 to over 20 million in 1992. In South Dakota alone the economic impact of the arts can be seen both locally and statewide. In Aberdeen, a town of 27,000, the arts provide an average of $8,867 in local revenues annually. Additionally, 18 full time jobs were supported by the nonprofit arts industries in Aberdeen between 1990 and 1992. As belts are tightened at the Federal, State, and local levels, we cannot stand by and allow the complete elimination of the seed money for programs vital to cultural enrichment and education funded through the National Endowment for the Arts.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House that I inadvertently missed two votes, rollcall Nos. 516 and 517, earlier today due to a malfunction in the House electronic pager system. Had I been present I would have voted ``nay'' in each instance. parliamentary inquiry

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 Chabot which would eliminate funding for the National Endowment for Humanities. As presented, the Interior Appropriations Bill cuts the NEH budget nearly in half; a cut which I believe will devastate many existing educational programs nationwide. As the only voice for South Dakota in the House of Representatives, I must speak out against the outright 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 types 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. In one example, more than 49,000 visitors have seen Proving Up: The History of South Dakota, a long-term exhibition sponsored by the South Dakota State Heritage Fund, and a recipient of more than $200,000 in support funds from the NEH. In just the first 3 months of the exhibition, attendance at the Cultural Heritage Center in Pierre increased by 49 percent. Additionally, because of money provided by the NEH, A Literary History of the American West, considered the standard reference work in the field since its publication in 1987, will be updated through a $71,000 grant to Augustana College in Sioux Falls. The supplement will include such authors as Tony Hillerman, Willa Cather, and John Steinbeck. 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 the Chabot amendment becomes law. 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 in opposition to the elimination of funds for the Indian Arts and Crafts Board at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Board is the primary Federal advocate for American Indian and Alaska Native art and its interconnected economic, cultural, social, and spiritual purposes. I feel strongly that the activities of the Board are in large part responsible for the explosion of interest in contemporary Native American arts and crafts in recent years, laying the ground work for long-term economic benefits to Indian tribes. The Board is the only Federal program concerned with increasing the economic benefits of American Indian creative work. According to a 1985 Congressionally-mandated Commerce Department study, annual sales of Indian handicrafts and other artwork are over $1 billion. Many producers reside on their own reservations, however American Indians and tribes control only a small portion of this market. The Board engages in a variety of promotional efforts to change that. For example, the Board's source directory publication is the primary means of establishing direct contact between consumers and Indian producers at an annualized cost of $50,000--this publication will end with the termination of the Board. Federal expenditures for social programs continue to exceed investments for economic growth in Indian country. I feel strongly that the role of the Federal Government must be to encourage tribal self- sufficiency at every opportunity and to prioritize programs which enhance economic growth for tribal communities. Without the Board, the Federal Government will no longer have the capacity to provide economic development assistance for Indian art to the 554 federally-recognized tribes and their thousands of artists and crafts people. Additionally, the Board has been charged by the Congress with developing regulations and administering, on an ongoing basis, the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-6440), which provides specific legal protection for Indian art producers. This congressional charge of responsibility reflects the unique expertise of the Board relative to marketing Indian arts and crafts. Abolishing the Board will deprive the Secretary of the Interior of the expertise necessary to fulfill this congressional mandate. The Board maintains outstanding collections of contemporary and historic American Indian and Alaska Native art (23,000 objects), which are a multi-million dollar promotional asset and include over 50 percent of the artwork managed by the Department of the Interior nationwide. The Board's collection's will require continued management and protection and should not be hastily dispersed, as they include objects that some tribes consider sacred, as well as objects of cultural patrimony under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (Public Law 101-601). Although the board's collections are well cared for, management of museum property in general is currently identified as one of the most critical department material weaknesses under the Federal Financial Manager's Integrity Act. Abolishing the Board will add to, not diminish, this departmental material weakness. Mr. Speaker, two thirds of these collections are located at the three Indian museums operated by the Board in reservation areas in Montana, Oklahoma, and my State of South Dakota. They are major economic, cultural and educational attractions in their regions. In Browning, MT, annual attendance at the Museum of the Plains Indians averages over 78,000. Annual attendance at the Southern Plains Indian Museum in Anadarko, OK, and the Sioux Indian Museum in Rapid City, SD, averages over 41,000. For $600,000 per year, the Board maintains its collections and operates these three museums with contemporary exhibitions and sales of the work of emerging Indian artists These museums, and the museum sales shops operated by local Indian organizations, will close their doors if funding for the Indian Arts and Crafts board is eliminated. Closing the Sioux Indian Museum in South Dakota will have an especially adverse effect, as the city of Rapid City has just voted $11,000,000 of local tax funds to build an innovative new museum facility which will include the Board's Sioux Indian Museum collection at no additional cost to the Federal Government. It would have a projected operating deficit of $169,000 without the Board's continued financial participation in maintaining the Board's own collection. That level of operating deficit will undermine Rapid City's plans to raise $1.6 million in additional capital from private foundations required to complete the project, which is expected to attract at least 182,000 annual visitors and to generate a direct spending impact of $3.6 million annually on the regional economy. 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. While the elimination of the Board would be a direct blow to the encouragement and development of native American arts and crafts in South Dakota as a sound source for economic growth, I believe the repercussions of the board's termination will be felt nationwide.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong support of the Obey amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, in an entire State, the State of South Dakota, nine Indian reservations, it has become apparent to me the one successful strategy to combat poverty and break away from dependence of the Federal Government, in fact has been quality education. Eliminating the Office of Indian Education would have a profound negative impact in my State of South Dakota. We would lose over $2.6 million in formula and discretionary funds, 49 South Dakota school districts would be negatively impacted, and 17,800 native American children would lose educational opportunities. This is the one area where we should not be retreating. Mr. Chairman, I again express my strong support for the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment before us proposed by the Representative from Wisconsin to restore funding for the Department of Education's Office of Indian Education, which has been targeted for elimination. Since 1972, the invaluable programs administered through the Office of Indian Education have helped over 1,200 school districts nationwide address the unique academic needs of millions of American Indian and Alaska Native children and adults. Mr. Chairman, 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 work force is pressing. I wish to use the remainder of my time to urge our continued bipartisan commitment to the Education Department's Office of Indian Education, and the hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged young people served annually by this Office. American Indians have been, and continue to be, disproportionately affected by both poverty and low educational achievement. In 1990, over 36 percent of American Indian children ages 5-17 were living below the poverty level. 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 under- served Indian population and are unacceptable. By eliminating the Office of Indian Education, there is little hope of breaking the cycle of low educational achievement, and the unemployment and poverty that result from neglected academic potential. This Office, unlike any other, provides educational services that directly address the unique learning needs and styles of Indian students, with sensitivity to Native cultures, ultimately promoting higher academic achievement. Eliminating the Office would have a particularly profound impact on Indian education in my State of South Dakota. More than $2.6 million in formula and discretionary funds assisted American Indian children and adults in South Dakota in fiscal year 1994. Grants were made directly to 49 South Dakota school districts. The education of almost 17,000 of our American Indian children in South Dakota would be significantly affected if the programs administered by the Office were eliminated. In addition, if funding were no longer available, every South Dakota school currently receiving a grant would have to release at least one staff person, resulting in almost 200 teachers and aides no longer working in Indian education in the State. This past year, almost $300,000 went to tribal schools to support innovative approaches to Indian education and more than $350,000 supported student fellows in teacher training programs in colleges throughout our State. The loss of these discretionary programs will not only adversely affect potential recipients of teacher training and professional development, but will virtually cut off those tribal communities which benefit from students returning to education professions on reservations. In terms of local empowerment, Native Americans remain at a distinct disadvantage. While the growth rate of native populations is accelerating rapidly, the nearly 2 million American Indians living in the United States in 1990 represented an increase of 39 percent over the 1980 total, American Indians and Alaska Natives still comprise less than 1 percent of the total U.S. population. With more than 500 American Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages, the population is also highly diverse in terms of culture and need. Small in numbers, isolated and diverse, this is a population that clearly needs and deserves our special attention. There are strong historical and moral reasons for continued support of this program. 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. The elimination of the Office of Indian Education would violate the Government's commitment and responsibility to Indian nations and only slow the progress of self-sufficiency. This question of eliminating the Indian education programs is not just about dollars and programs for a population in need. It is also about helping communities and cultures to survive.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the South Dakota School of Mines & Technology's solar car team for their outstanding efforts as first time participants in Sunrayce '95. Sunrayce is a 1,150-mile cross country race for solar cars, starting in Indianapolis, IN and ending in Golden, CO. The race is jointly sponsored by the Department of Energy and General Motors, and its efforts are twofold. First, to promote student interest in technology and the environment. The 36 university-sponsored solar cars represent the best and the brightest engineering students, who designed their solar powered cars from the bottom up using advanced environmentally sound technology. Second, Sunrayce, which draws a large crowd, helps increase public awareness for a clean environment. It enables the public to get excited about new technology and ideas. Additionally, Sunrayce allows students to show off their talent, and capture the attention of big names in the industry who are looking to recruit, by impressing them with their ideas and abilities. As a first time participant, the South Dakota School of Mines & Technology solar car team did exceptionally well. I am extremely proud of the School of Mines & Technology's efforts to participate in this worthy promotion of new technology, and the key role it will have on the environment in the turn of the century. It is truly a fantastic way to educate students and encourage public awareness. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and congratulating the South Dakota School of Mines & Technology for their outstanding participation in Sunrayce '95.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation, along with my colleague, Representative David Minge of Minnesota, to authorize the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System. I introduced similar legislation last year during the 103d Congress, with Representative Minge and then Representative Grandy of Iowa as original cosponsors. I look forward to again working closely with my colleagues for timely consideration of this important measure. The Lewis and Clark Rural Water System is made up of 22 rural water systems and communities in southeastern South Dakota, northwestern Iowa, and southwestern Minnesota who have joined together in an effort to cooperatively address the dual problems facing the delivery of drinking water in this region--inadequate quantities of water and poor quality water. This region has seen substantial growth and development in recent years, and studies have shown that future water needs will be significantly greater than the current available supply. Most of the people who are served by 10 of the water utilities in the proposed Lewis and Clark project area currently enforce water restrictions on a seasonal basis. Almost half of the membership has water of such poor quality it does not meet present or proposed standards for drinking water. More than two-thirds rely on shallow aquifers as their primary source of drinking water, aquifers which are very vulnerable to contamination by surface activities. The Lewis and Clark system will be a supplemental supply of drinking water for its 22 members, acting as a treated, bulk delivery system. The distribution to deliver water to individual users will continue through the existing systems used by each member utility. This regionalization approach to solving these water supply and quality problems enables the Missouri River to provide a source of clean, safe drinking water to more than 180,000 individuals. A source of water which none of the members of Lewis and Clark could afford on their own. The proposed system would help to stabilize the regional rural economy by providing water to Sioux Falls, the hub city in the region, as well as numerous small communities and individual farms in South Dakota and portions of Iowa and Minnesota. The States of South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota have all authorized the project and local sponsors have demonstrated a financial commitment to this project through State grants, local water development district grants, and membership dues. The State of South Dakota has already contributed more than $400,000. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe our needs get any more basic than good quality, reliable drinking water, and I appreciate the fact that Congress has shown support for efforts to improve drinking water supplies in South Dakota. I look forward to continue working with my colleagues to have that support extended to the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, the 1996 defense authorization bill before this House today repeals current law that limits the number of B-2 Stealth bombers that may be produced at 20 planes and lifting the current $44 billion spending limit. Mr. Speaker, witnesses on behalf of the Air Force, both civilians and uniformed service, have repeatedly indicated to us that they do not want these bombers, that the Joint Chiefs of Staff repeatedly have testified that they do not want to purchase more B-2's. There is no money programmed in anyone's budget plan to pay for the out-year costs that will be forced by the bill's provisions to build more B-2's. This will cost $38.2 billion over 20 years, and the highly regarded Institute for Defense Analyses has indicated that that money would be better spent on precision guided munitions and conventional munitions upgrades to the B-1 Bomber. Mr. Speaker, what could that same amount of money be better used for, if not for deficit reduction? Then, alternatively, that same amount of money would immunize every child in the United States, fully fund Public Broadcasting for 10 years, restore all education funds and be better used for the people of this country.