Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce legislation that will provide for tax changes to benefit farmers, ranchers, and small businesses. This legislation is entitled the ``Tax Fairness for Farmers, Ranchers, and Small Businesses Act.'' This bill contains three major changes in Federal tax policy which will help to support farmers and ranchers through bad years, support the entry into business of beginning farmers, ranchers and small businesses, and place family farmers, ranchers and small businesses on a level playing field with their corporate counterparts. The first change this bill would make is to create a form of income averaging under which farmers and ranchers would be permitted to carry forward any standard deductions and personal exemptions that go unused during a low-income year. This would help farmers and ranchers even out the cycle of ups and downs in agricultural income caused by the weather, giving them increased ability to recover after a devastating year. Second, this bill would help promote beginning farmers and small businesses, by allowing a one-time capital gains exemption up to $500,000 for farmers and ranchers over 55 who sell their farm or ranch to a qualified beginning farmer or a lineal descendent, and by allowing a similar exemption for owners of small businesses who sell the business to a lineal descendent. A retiring farmer would therefore have an incentive to sell his land to a beginning farmer, and because of the tax break he would be able to offer that land for sale at a lower price than he otherwise might demand. Third, this legislation would establish and make permanent a 100- percent deduction of health insurance premiums for self-employed persons. Corporations have the ability to deduct the full cost of their health insurance premiums, and it is only fair for farmers and small business owners to have the same right. It is time for this inequity to end. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and the rest of my colleagues join me in supporting this legislation, and work with me to bring tax fairness to our Nation's family farmers, ranchers, and small business owners.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Becky Fischer of Eureka, 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 ``My Vision for America,'' and of the more than 126,000 secondary school students who participated in this year's contest, Becky was also named a winner at the national level. Mr. Speaker, I'm inserting Becky's winning script in the Congressional Record. She deserves to be commended for her exceptional efforts in writing this script and participating in this contest. Becky's insights and enthusiasm will serve as a model to others her age: My Vision for America Picture a small child, and in his busy little hands, a fragile, crystal antique vase. Unless this child has been properly educated in the handling, care, and value of this vase, the owner of this treasure would be extremely nervous. Americans are permitting every child in the United States to grasp a vase--this ``vase'' is our future. These children must be prepared today to meet and conquer the challenges of tomorrow. The future of America is held in the hands of the children; therefore, my vision for America includes a brighter, bolder, well-educated society achieved by what the children are experiencing today. In order to fulfill my vision for America, we must take care of the children. Teaching children to take care of their bodies by following wise health habits will build their strength and endurance. If a child is not physically strong enough to hold the vase, it could drop and shatter. If the children of America are not physically sound, dreams for America's future could be crushed. We must also take care of America's children emotionally. A child must possess a strong sense of self-confidence, believing in himself and his ability to contribute to society. Henry Ford said, ``Don't find fault--Find a remedy.'' We must build a child's self esteem. Consider I Thessalonians 5:11, ``Therefore encourage one another and build each other up * * *'' If a child believes he can accomplish his goals, whether it be carrying a priceless antique or creating a better future for America, he will be prepared to meet these goals. A strong education in our schools and homes is also necessary for every American child to secure my vision for America. Teachers and schools play a vital role in the education of a child. With continued excellence in our nation's schools, opportunities are unlimited for a child to learn, adjust to change, and meet new challenges. By nature, a child has an open mind and a willingness to ask questions. A child will develop his own vision for America through a solid education. Parents and family have the chief responsibility for educating our children though. Children model themselves largely on their parents. A parent must act like the type of person they want their child to become since things parents do and say strongly influence a child. If parents teach a child how to support the vase by their own example, that child will be able to hold the vase with confidence. If a parent enstills a positive attitude in a child regarding the American spirit, that child will look to this country's future with energy and enthusiasm. My vision for America can be achieved in various ways. By setting a good example, children will have footsteps to follow. Along with their own experiences, future decisions these children make will be determined by what they have learned from our examples in their past. To preserve the safety of the ``vase,'' we have the opportunity and the responsibility to set a good example. Every American citizen must participate in preparing the children for a successful future. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow said, ``Give what you have, to someone it may be better than you dare think.'' Our nation is composed of unique individuals, each with their own talents. We need to focus these varied talents on the children; they need each and every one of us. All of us together will help prepare these children for the future. In conclusion, we are all now holding the ``vase,'' but we must pass it on to the children of America. If we continue to take care of the children, physically and emotionally, provide a superior education for them in the schools and in our homes, and set good examples, we are contributing together to prepare our children for tomorrow. The future of America is held in the hands of the children; therefore, my vision for America includes a brighter, bolder, well-educated society achieved by what the children are experiencing today.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the University of South Dakota for taking part in an effort to assist children with their pain and fear over the horrible and cruel bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. This monstrous act, which killed and injured so many of our fellow citizens and brought sadness to so many Americans, has also scared and altered the innocent minds of our children. In contrast to this heinous act of cruelty, countless men and women all over our country have unselfishly given their time and prayers to those affected by bombing, and I am particularly proud of the University of South Dakota's efforts to comfort and ease the pain of children who feel unsafe as a result of the Oklahoma City bombing. The University's Disaster Mental Health Institute has teamed up with the American Red Cross, the American Psychological Association, AT&T, and other health professionals from the region to operate the Children Heal Hotline, a 5-day nationwide crisis telephone line for children. I am extremely proud of USD's efforts to pull America together in order to help our children and I think the establishment of the crisis line for children is an excellent example of how people and organizations all over our country have come together to do what ever possible to offer assistance to our fellow citizens who are victims of the tragedy which took place in Oklahoma City. The Disaster Mental Health Institute at USD has reached out and helped countless South Dakotans deal with the floods and related difficulties associated with the floods of the past years and I am pleased that other Americans will benefits from the great work done at the Institute. It is organizations like USD, and their efforts, which give us hope for our future, and restore our faith in mankind. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and saluting the University of South Dakota for their outstanding service and devotion to our children.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Bernie V. Guthrie Squadron, a charter member of the Arnold Air Society, located on the campus of South Dakota State University in Brookings, SD. The Guthrie Squadron was established in 1951, and named in honor of Capt. Bernie V. Guthrie, an Air Force pilot who was shot down over Hamm, Germany during World War II. Since its establishment, the Bernie V. Guthrie Squadron has had an outstanding record of accomplishment and community service. The squadron instituted an annual veterans vigil, which began as a local project in the late 1980's and was expanded into a permanent nationwide project in 1991. In addition, the Guthrie Squadron sold POW/MIA bracelets at South Dakota State University to increase student awareness of POW/MIA issues, and instituted a POW/MIA name tracing project which included all area squadrons. The Guthrie Squadron has also served the community and the State by organizing blood drives, participating in the Big Brother/Big Sister Program, and working with handicapped children and adults. It has received numerous honors, including the Outstanding Squadron of 1992, the Outstanding State Service Award, and the Jaycees Community Service Award. I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing the achievements of the Bernie V. Guthrie Squadron, and to encourage the squadron to continue its long and proud tradition of service in South Dakota.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 961, the Clean Water Act amendments, even knowing that it is a flawed bill. While this legislation accomplishes a number of positive things, it also unnecessarily retreats on some important clean water initiatives. Nonetheless, no other clean water legislation can secure sufficient votes to pass this House and failure to address the inadequacies of the current Clean Water Act is not an alternative which I can support. It is important to continue to move the clean water debate forward, and it is my hope that the Senate and conference committee will improve this legislation so that the final version of this bill will be a more carefully deliberated and moderate legislative effort.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce legislation that would make our Tax Code fairer and more equitable for farmers and ranchers who are forced to sell their livestock prematurely on account of weather-related conditions. Our current Tax Code contains two provisions dealing with livestock sold because of drought conditions. One of these provisions allow producers to defer tax on any gain from these sales by reinvesting the proceeds in similar property within 2 years. The other provision permits producers who do not reinvest the proceeds from the sale in similar property to include these proceeds in their taxable income in the following year. While these provisions provide some assistance to producers who have experienced a drought, they do not apply to livestock sold on account of flooding. However, floods can be just as devastating to producers as drought conditions, and can cause the destruction of crops grown to feed livestock, damage to fences, and high losses of young stock. The heavy rains and flooding we have been experiencing in my State of South Dakota have caused calf losses as high as 40 percent in some areas. In addition, farmers who lose crops due to any natural disaster, including flooding, are able to benefit from certain provisions in the Tax Code. For example, farmers who receive insurance or disaster payments when their crops are lost or damaged due to severe weather conditions are often permitted to include these payments in the year following the disaster. Provisions such as this are designed to spread out the impact of taxes on farmers in these situations. I find it difficult to justify the fact that farmers who lose crops on account of flood conditions are covered by these provisions, while producers who are forced to sell livestock because of flooding are not. of the Tax Code regarding livestock, adding flooding and other weather- related conditions to drought as conditions allowing the use of the special rules relating to proceeds from livestock sales. It would also result in more equitable treatment of crops and livestock relative to tax payments after disasters. However, it would not reduce the total amount of taxes paid by livestock producers who suffer disasters, but instead would merely delay the payment of taxes under these circumstances. Mr. Speaker, I am certain that you and the rest of my colleagues would agree that it is unfair to deny the disaster-related provisions of the Tax Code to livestock producers just because the disaster involved is a flood and not a drought. I ask you to join me in making this commonsense change to the Federal Tax Code, and provide some needed assistance to our Nation's livestock producers.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, while I find many aspects of this rescission bill cold-hearted and callous, particularly where the children of this country are concerned, I rise today on behalf of all my constituents in South Dakota--young and old--to express my strong opposition to the Rohrabacher and Crane Amendments which further gut funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I simply cannot stand by and watch this heartless trouncing of an entity that has brought laughter, insight, and thought into the homes of countless South Dakotans and people all across this country. This rescission bill already strips CPB of much needed funding. Given these new funding limitations, CPB must now make decisions about which programs will remain, what staff must be cut, and which stations will receive less funding. Any additional funding cuts to this invaluable resource will dramatically and negatively affect millions of people in this country. At a time when commercial broadcasting is bringing an excess of sex, violence, and just plain schlock into our homes, we simply cannot afford to lose public broadcasting--the one source of quality programming that we have. Pulling the plug on public broadcasting hurts all of us, from those living in small rural communities to those surviving in inner city high rises to those residing in senior centers. For many people in South Dakota and across this country, public broadcasting is the only source of quality television and radio programming. Nearly 40 percent of American households do not have cable television. In my home state of South Dakota, nearly 60 percent do not have cable. Public television and radio are often the only source of world and national news to millions of Americans. It plays a vital role in thousands of communities. Rural States such as South Dakota will be particularly hard hit by the proposed cuts and any additional cuts--25 percent of South Dakota Public Broadcasting funds come from CPB. Don't kid yourself or the American people. Our states will not be able to pick up the slack when the gutting process begins. No one is opposed to having CPB look more aggressively for ways to profit from their occasional commercial success or to find ways to trim the fat from their overhead. But any attempt to make public broadcasting survive solely on its ability to the commercially successful should be thrown out the window. I intend to do what it takes to ensure this senseless slashing ends. Enough is enough. No more endangering Big Bird. No more silencing Lawrence Welk. No more gutting.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly express my opposition to the passage of H.R. 956. There is no doubt that some reforms of the American civil justice system are needed, despite the fact that this area of the law has historically been largely the province of the individual States. It is true that the courts are too often slow and overburdened, and that jury awards sometimes seem inconsistent and instances of apparent excessive awards are well known. I am particularly concerned over problems involving medical malpractice claims and I have supported State and Federal legislative initiatives in that area. Nonetheless, this bill is not well thought through and too little serious and reasoned deliberation has gone into its formulation. It makes little sense to me that a corporate CEO might be able to recover $1 million or more punitive damages under this bill but a typical working family in my State would have punitive damages capped at $250,000. It doesn't make sense to me that the punitive damage limit is the same for small business as it is for Fortune 500 corporations, much to the advantage of the largest corporations. I am not pleased that over 60 proposed amendments were not made in order for debate on the House floor and an inadequate amount of time is allowed for debate even for those amendments which were made in order. I am not pleased that the House was not permitted to debate or vote on an amendment which would have prevented Federal preemption of State laws to punish sexual predators and drunk drivers. This legislation preempts State laws, not just in the product liability arena, but relative to all civil litigation, and increases the likelihood that injured individuals will not be able to collect compensation for their legitimate injuries bill is opposed by, among others, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, the National Conference of State Legislators, YWCA, National Women's Health Network, and the American Association of Retired Persons as well as the American Bar Association.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, once again the House Republican leadership has brought us a bill in H.R. 925, the Private Property Protection Act, which addresses a legitimately important issue, but which is overly broad, ill-considered and poorly drafted. I believe the debate on this important issue should continue, and so I will for now support this legislation in order for the Senate and the conference committees to have an opportunity to revise and improve the legislation. If no such significant improvement is forthcoming from those bodies, however, I am very doubtful that I will be able to vote for this bill on final passage.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of talk of reform and of change in this body over the past month. Some of it real; much of it for show; much of it cynical; and even some of it counterproductive, such as the current talk about cutting child nutrition programs not to reduce the deficit but to provide tax cuts for the very wealthy. But there has been one issue of change that there has been too much silence about, and that is the most fundamental need of all, and that is to reform our campaign spending laws in this country so that we have meaningful, real democratic elections rather than auctions, which is the direction this country is going now. I am proud to join several of my colleagues in introducing legislation this week which would break the gridlock that currently exists over campaign spending reform by following the military base closure commission model in creating a bipartisan commission to recommend campaign reform legislation. In 1 year Congress would have to vote on its recommendations up or down, no excuses. Let us clean up the political process and return it to the people of the United States.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to express my strong support for our Federal nutrition programs--especially the school breakfast and lunch programs and the WIC program. I am very concerned about the Republican proposals to dismantle these programs, decrease their funding, and change their very nature. It is inexcusable that so many children in this Nation live in poverty and that we have one of the highest infant mortality rates of any industrialized country in the world. We must make an aggressive effort to direct our limited resources towards our most precious resource--our children. The WIC program is one of the very few Government programs that has been recognized as a success by people from all parts of the political spectrum. Studies have shown that WIC reduces low birthweight babies, premature births, and infant mortality. Every dollar spent on WIC produces a savings of between $1.77 and $3.13 in Medicaid expenses. Similarly, the school breakfast and lunch programs have been proven to be very effective. It has long been recognized that hungry children are unprepared to learn, and for this reason school nutrition programs have enjoyed bipartisan support for years. Mr. Speaker, while I am well aware of the fact that we need to examine all Government programs to ensure that Federal funds are being spent effectively and to work towards our goal of a balanced budget, I am quite concerned about the Republican proposals affecting nutrition programs. I am very concerned about the effect of replacing Federal programs such as these that are recognized as effective with 50 different State programs. If our goal is to reduce bureaucracy, how does creating 50 new programs help meet that goal? In addition, if we are seeking to reduce costs, why does the Republican proposal repeal the competitive-bidding requirement for the selling of infant formula to WIC? This provision has contained costs in the program by cutting the cost of providing formula by nearly $1 billion in 1993--nearly a two-thirds reduction in the program's expenses. Repealing this provision will take a billion dollars of the taxpayers' money and turn it over to four pharmaceutical companies. Is this really the best use of our limited resources? I am also concerned about the elimination of Federal nutrition standards. These standards have improved the nutrition and health of low-income families and help ensure that our children have access to healthy meals at school. We have no assurance that these standards will continue to be met at the State level--what will keep us from returning to the days of ``ketchup as a vegetable?'' Finally, I am concerned that the block grant approach to school breakfast and lunch programs will shut needy children out of the program and reduce the ability of the program to respond to increases in the school-age population, inflation of food prices, and/or changes in the economy. USDA estimates that my State of South Dakota stands to lose over $28 million from child nutrition programs from fiscal year 1996-2000. I ask my colleagues to think long and hard about making such drastic changes to programs that work--is it really good policy to experiment with the health and well-being of our children to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy?

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to give high praise to the men and women of Ellsworth Air Force Base who participated in the congressionally mandated B-1B bomber readiness test appropriately named ``Dakota Challenge `94.'' The test was conducted from June 1-November 30 of last year, and during most of the test the 28th Bomb Wing at Ellsworth flew training missions at an accelerated peacetime rate. During the final month of the assessment, the 28th Bomb Wing deployed a squadron to Roswell Industrial Air Center, NM to simulate flying from an austere location at wartime sortie rates. Earlier this week, the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center issued its final report on Dakota Challenge and the report reveals that the B-1B bombers exceeded all test expectations. As a long-time supporter of the B-1B, I am pleased with this outcome and incredibly proud that the men and women of Ellsworth can take some credit for the impressive results. Throughout the 6 months of the test, the men and women of the 28th Bomb Wing faced the challenges and demands of the assessment with ardent determination. The commitment and top notch performance of the men and women at Ellsworth Air Force ensured that the B-1B bomber exceeded all of its performance goals during Dakota Challenge. I am hopeful that this impressive performance will resolve long-standing disagreements over the B-1B's capabilities and help secure the future of the B-1B bomber which Secretary of the Air Force Widnall has called the backbone of the bomber fleet. The outcome of the test is a rock-solid testimonial to the B-1B's capabilities and I am proud of the men and women of the 28th test. I commend all of the men and women at Ellsworth who made Dakota Challenge a success through their commitment and discipline.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act is flawed legislation and needs to be much improved by the Senate and by the conference committee before I could vote for it on final passage. Nonetheless, I support the general thrust of requiring risk assessment and cost-benefit tests for Federal regulations and I will vote for this bill today as a means of allowing the debate to continue. The current version of this legislation would lead to costly increases in Federal bureaucracy, an enormous increase in litigation and possibly a risk for health and safety concerns. I am disappointed that the House leadership seems to be more concerned over making political statements with this bill than in crafting legal language which would actually serve the public interest. I do, however, believe that this issue should be moved on to the Senate and conference committees for, hopefully, more deliberate and responsible consideration. I will not vote for this legislation at that time unless it has been significantly improved.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support, for now, for this deeply flawed legislation, with the understanding that I will not be able to support the conference report which will return from the Senate unless this legislation is significantly improved by the Senate or by the conference committee. I am concerned that the legislation as it stands could cause confusion and an enormous amount of litigation. It is also possible that the current language, if contained in the final version of this bill, could interfere with a wide range of needed agricultural rulemaking involving beef, sheep, hogs, and soybeans in particular. I also have a real concern that the existing language would interfere with rulemaking needed on behalf of the ethanol fuels industry. In short, I want to send a message that I believe that Federal rulemaking has too often been heavy-handed, rigid, and cost- inefficient. I am hopeful that this legislation can be modified as it progresses through the legislative process so that its shortcomings are corrected. Nonetheless, I want to make it very clear that I will not be able to vote for this bill when and if it returns to us from the Senate unless the existing language problems are corrected.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to establish a Wounded Knee National Tribal Park in the State of South Dakota. The purpose of this memorial is to acknowledge the historic significance of the sites of the 1890 Wounded Knee tragedy. In December of 1890, Chief Big Foot and his band of Minneconjou Sioux journeyed from the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. A tragic incident ensued which claimed the lives of over 300 Lakota--Sioux--Indian men, women, and children, and 31 U.S. soldiers, marking the last military encounter of the Indian Wars period. During the 101st Congress, the House adopted House Concurrent Resolution 386, which recognized the 100th anniversary of the Wounded Knee tragedy. This resolution also expressed support for the establishment of a suitable and appropriate memorial to those who were so tragically slain. This legislation will bring reality to those words of support. The Wounded Knee National Tribal Park Establishment Act of 1995 will recognize the sites relating to the 1890 Wounded Knee tragedy and Ghost Dance Religion located on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation. The act will establish appropriate national monuments at both units of the Wounded Knee National Tribal Park. In addition, the act will authorize feasibility studies to establish as a national historic trail the route of Chief Big Foot from the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation to Wounded Knee, and a visitor information and orientation center on the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation. It is my hope that enhancing a national awareness of the Wounded Knee tragedy will promote a greater understanding between Indian and non- Indian cultures and people. This legislation is the culmination of years of study and input from the many interested parties, including the tribes and other supporters of this long-overdue recognition. I appreciate the fact that Congress has shown support for recognizing the historical importance of the Wounded Knee site over the past few years, and I look forward to the continued support of my colleagues and the Congress.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] who has very ably explained the complication, the difficulty we have with the two-thirds vote. If in fact this Congress appropriated specific funds for a weapons systems or for a defense appropriations purpose and the President line- item vetoed that expenditure, the President plus one-third and one vote would in fact overrun the will and the priorities of this Congress. The same could be said for any area of the Federal budget. However, let me say that while all of us are here on the floor today ostensibly to talk about ways to reduce the size of the Federal budget deficit, it distresses me that as this discussion has gone on, it has become very apparent that there are those on the other side, on the Republican side, who have consistently said ``Let's subject children's and veterans' and senior citizens' programs to reductions in spending,'' but have been unwilling to subject special tax favors that benefit largely the very wealthy contributors to Congress to the same kind of discipline. I think that is unfortunate. Here we are again, talking about ways to save money, to reduce the size of the deficit, when in fact the tax favors contribute as much to the deficit as any of the spending programs. Therefore, I do see this as a one-sided debate. Even so, however, I think it is important that we go forward as best we can. Mr. Chairman, one of the issues that it seems to me needs greater stress is this reference to the two-thirds vote as somehow being the stronger version. The two-thirds vote approach is not the stronger version, unless we are simply talking about enhancing the power of the President. If we are talking about cutting spending, the Wise amendment is the stronger version. The two-thirds vote results in a massive shift of authority to the executive branch, of whichever party that President might be. It will be used, as has often been the case at the State level, not to cut spending but in fact to enforce the budget agenda of the executive. I can imagine President Bush telling Members, individual Members of Congress, that ``Either you support my increase in foreign aid, or you will lose every increase in foreign aid, or you will lose every project in your State.'' I can imagine President Clinton saying ``Support my health care plan, or you will lose every project in your State.'' It is vote extortion that the two-thirds rule permits and in fact encourages. Better that we have the majority vote so the President can lay individual spending items on the table, say ``Congress, if you think this is a good thing to spend money on, you vote up-or-down. Go home and tell your constituents that you took a recorded rollcall vote that you thought that was a good thing to spend money on.'' If the projects in my State are not meritorious enough to gain a majority vote, they should not be passed, but I do not think that a two-thirds vote is the proper shift of power. I think that it is something that this institution will rue for years to come. The question is, what is pork? I think that is fundamental to this entire debate. Pork is not something, a budget expenditure, the Congress favors over the President. A pork item is a project that is nonmeritorious, that would not stand on its own two legs. It would not stand a majority vote. What we are saying is let us cut them out. Let us have an opportunity for a recorded rollcall vote. Let us put the spotlight on them, so we reduce that kind of spending, and yet at the same time not give the authority to the executive branch, whether it be Republican or Democrat, to extort, to coerce votes out of the legislative branch. That is what is fundamental in this debate. Mr. Chairman, what we have here is a debate partly on reducing the deficit, although I think all of us who have looked at the budget carefully understand that pork barrel spending, however it is defined, is a relatively modest part of the problem; although I think we also would agree that if we can save a dollar, we ought to save a dollar, and we need to set about doing that. But the larger issue is congressional accountability: Will Congress be accountable to the people for its individual spending items? The Wise amendment does that. The other approach, the two-thirds vote approach, does not result in accountability. It simply results in greater authority for the executive branch to coerce votes for its legislative agenda, rather than for saving money, and rather than for enforcing congressional accountability. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Wise amendment, and encourage bipartisan support for this effort, which I think will be a very positive step in the direction of greater congressional accountability, reducing the Federal budget deficit. This is the approach which passed last year, which stands a chance of passing in the other Chamber. I think it is a badly needed reform.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to inform the House that I was inadvertently detained on Tuesday, January 17, 1995, from voting on final passage of S. 2, the Congressional Accountability Act, due to bad weather and flights which were postponed as I attempted to return to Washington from South Dakota. Had I not been detained yesterday, I would have voted in favor of final passage of the Congressional Accountability Act, just as I did on January 5, 1995 when the House passed H.R. 1 by a vote of 429-0.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, Fred Wertheimer, president of Common Cause, recently wrote House Speaker Gingrich a letter in which he urged the Speaker to schedule and support early action on comprehensive campaign finance reform legislation, as well as strong gift ban and lobby reform legislation. Attached to Mr. Wertheimer's letter were several statements that Speaker Gingrich has made in the last several years on this important subject, and I am submitting the text of the two documents into the Congressional Record today. Common Cause, Washington, DC, January 4, 1995. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Gingrich: On August 22, 1990, in a speech to The Heritage Foundation, you said: ``The first duty of our generation is to reestablish integrity and a bond of honesty in the political process. We should punish wrongdoers in politics and government and pass reform laws to clean up the election and lobbying systems. We must insure that citizen politics defeats money politics. This is the only way our system can regain its integrity. Every action should be measured against that goal, and every American should be challenged to register and vote to achieve that goal.'' We agree. As you become Speaker of the House of Representatives today, you have a unique moment in history in which to make good on your words. You have a unique opportunity to lead an effort to reform the corrupt system in Congress which you have criticized throughout your House career. As you also stated in your speech before The Heritage Foundation: ``Congress is a broken system. It is increasingly a system of corruption in which money politics is defeating and driving out citizen politics. * * * [H]onesty and integrity are at the heart of a free society. Corruption, special favors, dishonesty and deception corrode the very process of freedom and alienate citizens from their country.'' I am enclosing other examples of statements you have made over the years about the importance of integrity in government and the need for political reform. You and the newly elected Republicans in the House have told the country that you are committed to changing the way Washington works. But citizens throughout this nation clearly understand that there is no way to change the way Washington works without fundamental reform of the corrupt influence money system. This requires effective campaign finance reform and a tough gift ban for Members of Congress. In your words, ``The first duty of our generation is to reestablish integrity and a bond of honesty in the political process.'' In your words, ``We should punish wrongdoers in politics and government and pass reform laws to clean up the election and lobbying systems.'' In your words, ``We must insure that citizen politics defeats money politics. This is the only way our system can regain its integrity.'' In your new position of leadership, you now face a clear choice. You can make good on your words and lead the effort to clean up Congress. Or you can ignore your words and become the chief protector of the corrupt influence money system in Washington. Common Cause strongly urges you to make good on your words by supporting and scheduling early action on effective and comprehensive campaign finance reform legislation, a strong gift ban and lobby reform legislation. Sincerely, Fred Wertheimer, President