John Johnston

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding public servant and my friend, Cletis Wagahoff. On March 31, 1996, Cletis will retire from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers after serving selflessly for nearly 27 years and after a total of 35 years of Government service. Cletis Wagahoff has served as the deputy district engineer for Project Management in the corps' New Orleans District Office since 1988. If the daily challenges of managing several of our Nation's largest civil works projects were not enough to ask of someone Mr. President, the job of deputy district engineer also requires that Cletis be the liaison for all congressional inquiries from the Louisiana Congressional Delegation. For this alone, he deserves our deepest gratitude, not to mention a medal. In fact, Cletis was recently awarded the Meritorious Civilian Service Award for his performance as a highly skilled engineer and proven leader in his field. I have had the pleasure of working with Cletis on many of Louisiana's navigation, hurricane, and flood protection projects and have often sought his counsel and advice on critical problems like coastal erosion and protecting our valuable wetlands. His reputation as a consensus builder and a man of unwavering integrity is well known by Louisiana's elected officials and our community and business leaders. Mr. President, Cletis Wagahoff and his wife, Betty, have given much to Louisiana and our great Nation during their many years of service, and for this we are eternally grateful. On behalf of the Louisiana congressional Delegation and all Louisianians, we wish them every success, good health, and much happiness as they turn the pages of life to begin a new chapter.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, when the matter originally came up, I strongly opposed the resolution because it seemed to be a shift of ground away from the Shanghai Communique which has been the basis for almost a quarter of a century of our relationship to China. Mr. President, we are deeply grateful, Senator Nunn, Senator Feinstein, and I, and others, who had serious objection to the resolution in its original form. With Senator Thomas, Senator Murkowski, and others, we are now working this out in a balanced way that makes clear that this Nation continues to adhere to the one-China policy, as enunciated in the Shanghai Communique and the communiques since that time under five American presidents. I believe it is not a perfect resolution, but it is a balanced resolution. On that basis, I can vote for it. I thank the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce a measure to designate the visitor center at 419 Rue Decatur in New Orleans, LA, as the ``Laura C. Hudson Visitor Center.'' For almost 24 years I have been privileged to serve in the U.S. Senate. For some 20 of those years I have been blessed with the able assistance of Laura Hudson, who completed her Senate service last August, as my legislative director and indispensable right hand. In so many ways, Laura personifies the best tradition of Senate service--beginning in one capacity and growing into so many more. The young history postgraduate, who took a legislative- correspondent position in my office in 1975, quickly grew beyond that and has been my invaluable counsel on a variety of legislative challenges over the years. There are parks and preservation projects, in Louisiana and beyond which exist solely because of the personal commitment and legislative skill of Laura Hudson, whole regions of the globe, such as Micronesia, routinely neglected by many in the Congress, receive a respect and recognition in Washington due heavily to Laura's devotion. That component closeup program, which brings hundreds of students and teachers each year from the former trust territories of Micronesia, is but one example of Laura's passion. Moreover, I am convinced that the relationship between our country and many of the developing and emerging economies, such as China, Vietnam, and Indonesia, profit in immeasurable ways from the understanding and leadership of staff persons such as Laura. This is a woman, Mr. President, who has forsaken many opportunities in the private sector because of a deep belief in the merits of public service, and a belief in the simple tenet that she could make a difference. More often than we acknowledge, it is the Laura Hudsons who made a qualitative difference in our daily work product. In honor of her unparalleled contributions, I am introducing this legislation today. I know that Laura will continue to contribute, as only she can, to public policy. But I will miss her in a way immediate and direct, as will so many of her longtime colleagues in the Senate. But I know they join me in expressing appreciation and best wishes as Laura enters an exciting new chapter of her life. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill appear in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce a measure to designate the visitor center at 419 Rue Decatur in New Orleans, LA, as the ``Laura C. Hudson Visitor Center.'' For almost 24 years I have been privileged to serve in the U.S. Senate. For some 20 of those years I have been blessed with the able assistance of Laura Hudson, who completed her Senate service last August, as my legislative director and indispensable right hand. In so many ways, Laura personifies the best tradition of Senate service--beginning in one capacity and growing into so many more. The young history postgraduate, who took a legislative- correspondent position in my office in 1975, quickly grew beyond that and has been my invaluable counsel on a variety of legislative challenges over the years. There are parks and preservation projects, in Louisiana and beyond which exist solely because of the personal commitment and legislative skill of Laura Hudson, whole regions of the globe, such as Micronesia, routinely neglected by many in the Congress, receive a respect and recognition in Washington due heavily to Laura's devotion. That component closeup program, which brings hundreds of students and teachers each year from the former trust territories of Micronesia, is but one example of Laura's passion. Moreover, I am convinced that the relationship between our country and many of the developing and emerging economies, such as China, Vietnam, and Indonesia, profit in immeasurable ways from the understanding and leadership of staff persons such as Laura. This is a woman, Mr. President, who has forsaken many opportunities in the private sector because of a deep belief in the merits of public service, and a belief in the simple tenet that she could make a difference. More often than we acknowledge, it is the Laura Hudsons who made a qualitative difference in our daily work product. In honor of her unparalleled contributions, I am introducing this legislation today. I know that Laura will continue to contribute, as only she can, to public policy. But I will miss her in a way immediate and direct, as will so many of her longtime colleagues in the Senate. But I know they join me in expressing appreciation and best wishes as Laura enters an exciting new chapter of her life. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill appear in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I would like to commend the distinguished chairman, Senator Specter, and the distinguished ranking member of the Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee on Appropriations, Senator Harkin, for their guidance and cooperative efforts in bringing this continuing resolution to the floor. There were extreme differences of opinion on a variety of subjects within this legislation, and both the chairman and ranking member deserve a great deal of credit for their efforts. Mr. President, I rise today to bring attention to a program that is providing an indispensable service to Americans living underserved rural areas. The committee has provided funding above request levels for the Office of Rural Health Policy, and I applaud this decision. Rural telemedicine is a novel initiative in that it provides people in rural communities across the country access to physicians and instant diagnosis. This is a particularly essential program given the declining numbers of doctors who practice general medicine in our Nation's small communities. Telemedicine research has been ongoing, with specific efforts to determine the best and most efficient methods of delivering these services to America's citizens. One of the excellent telemedicine research projects which would have been funded in 1995 was from Louisiana State University Medical Center in New Orleans. LSU went through the competitive process and was highly regarded on the merits, and I'm proud of their accomplishments, and the work that they are doing in southeast Louisiana. Mr. President, a number of telemedicine projects were approved last year, but did not receive funding as a result of rescissions. The LSU Telemedicine projects was just such a program. In order that LSU Medical Center might continue its outstanding work, I would ask the distinguished chairman and ranking member, and hope that they agree, that consideration would be given to those programs that, after the required peer review, should have received funding from the fiscal year 1995 appropriation, but were not based simply on timing.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, there has been some conversation here on the floor which I caught on my television as I went home about the so- called Taiwan resolution. Since I was the one who put an objection into the unanimous-consent consideration of that resolution, I wanted to tell my colleagues what my problems were with that issue and why I object to the unanimous- consent consideration of that resolution. Mr. President, with the thrust of the resolution, I have no problem. I do not agree, really, with all of the wording of it. But you never can always embrace every jot and tittle in words and mood swings. But with the general thrust--which is to strongly condemn the People's Republic of China for, in effect, saber rattling in the Strait of Taiwan--Mr. President, with that I have no problem. But, Mr. President, we have gotten into a situation where the United States now has two of our largest aircraft carriers in the Strait of Taiwan. We have the largest country in the world, one of the fastest growing countries in the world, soon to be the largest market in the world, clearly the linchpin of stability in all of Asia, and we are in a very dangerous situation with them. How in the world did we get there, Mr. President? We got there, in my judgment, because of the fault of the United States Congress, because of the fault of the People's Republic of China, because of the fault of this administration, and because of the fault of Taiwan and their President Li Teng-hui. The fact that this fault is shared does not diminish or ameliorate the fact that we have two carrier groups in the Strait of Taiwan in a situation that could lead, probably not to war, but, Mr. President, it could lead to great difficulties. It could lead to an incident--two ships bump in the night, a rocket goes astray and hits on Taiwanese territory. And there will be those in the Congress who would say, ``Let us go. Let us attack. Let us get the smell of grapeshot. Boy, the blood is running. Let us go over and fight.'' Mr. President, we are playing with fire with the largest country in the world. I am old enough to remember when we egged on the people in Hungary to revolt. Remember those broadcasts? Some of you will remember. They went across the border. We wanted them to revolt, and they revolted. They wanted to know where the United States was, and we were nowhere to be found. I remember women pulling open their shirts in front of tanks and daring them to shoot. Mr. President, before we get our macho up too much, I believe we ought to rationally consider this question. I believe we ought to consider the basis of our relationships with China and with Taiwan and cool our rhetoric a little bit--and yes; condemn the People's Republic of China for what they are doing, but at the same time realize that it is the Shanghai Communique with its reaffirmations which was begun by President Richard Nixon, to the applause of Republicans, to the applause of Democrats, and to the applause of the country back in 1972, and reaffirmed by five Presidents. We have to understand that that communique, a one-China policy, two systems, peaceful reunification, is the basis of our relationship with China. My problem with this resolution is not that it condemns the People's Republic of China. for saber rattling. I agree with that. But it misstates, I believe, the basis of our relationship with China. In paragraph 5 on page 2, it says, ``Relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China rest upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be settled solely by peaceful means.'' As far as that goes, it is correct. It has always been our expectation that it be by peaceful means, and we ought to reaffirm that. But by leaving out the Shanghai Communique we are suddenly shifting ground. Mr. President, I believe anyone who thinks that we can shift ground from the Shanghai Communique, the one-China policy to which Taiwan has repeatedly adhered and stated that they were for, that anyone who thinks we can go to a two-China policy and independent Taiwan without a great deal of difficulty does not know anything about the Far East and about what is going on. If we are to do that, Mr. President, let us do it with our eyes wide open, and let us also do it with our pocketbooks wide open because here comes the new cold war if we are going to do that. That is my objection to this, Mr. President. It is a subtle shift. I asked the author, could we put in some words there, keep everything the same and just put in some words that say, in effect, we recognize the Shanghai Communique. The author told me he had no objection. But the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Helms, does, and other Members on that side of the aisle have objection to that. You see, that is the problem. There is an intention in this body to shift ground to retreat from the Shanghai Communique, to go to a subtle recognition of Taiwan as an independent country. That is why I voted against the visit of Li Teng- hui to this country, Mr. President. I was the only Member of either body to vote against that visit. Oh, it was a sentimental return to his alma mater, Cornell, and we like Li Teng-hui. I met him, and I like him very much. I find him to be a very attractive leader. He is entitled to a lot of credit. He has brought Taiwan to a democratic system. It is a prosperous country. They do business with my State. I am for him. I think he is great. But anybody who thinks that was an innocent little visit to the old alma mater and that is all it was about, Mr. President, did not read the press. You know he promised no press conference. But they put out the word subtly that, ``If you reporters will be hiding behind the bushes when he walks around the Elipse, you just may be able to get an answer to your questions.'' When he campaigns in Taiwan, he is stating things that, on the one hand, are ambiguous and, on the other hand, are promoting or moving his country in the direction of independence. Maybe, Mr. President, at some time this body will consider that question and come to a different answer. I do not think so. I think if we had hearings and fully considered the question, we would say that President Nixon was right, President Carter was right, President Ford was right, President Bush was right, President Reagan was right, and now President Clinton is right. Indeed, Taiwan was right to go along with the Shanghai communique. Mr. President, I do not propose to fight this resolution because to fight the resolution itself would be to indicate that I somehow have some approval of what the People's Republic of China is doing in the strait. I do not. I think it ought to be condemned. When Vice Foreign Minister Liu was here 3 days ago and the distinguished Senator from California and I had a luncheon for him and had a long discussion with 10 Senators there, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Liu made it clear that the friendship of the United States and Taiwan is indelible, there should be no cause for alarm. China does not mean to go to war. But the United States needs to understand, Vice Minister Liu said, that independence for Taiwan is inadmissible, that all other issues are simple compared to this issue. I think it bears repeating every time we have a chance that we should not by indirection allow ourselves to get into a situation where we are shooting out there in the strait of Taiwan and people are scratching their heads and saying, ``How did we get there?'' Now, I said the administration was at fault, and they were because they indicated to Foreign Minister Qian Qichen that there would be no visit by Li Teng-hui, and they changed, and after the Congress almost unanimously agreed with the resolution inviting Li Teng-hui to the United States we might understand that, but the Chinese, frankly, did not, because they had been assured, they thought, that there would be no such visit. I believe the Congress was at fault, even though I am the only one apparently, only one who voted that way and one of only a few who shared the view that I thought it was a political visit because Li Teng-hui treated it as a political visit, the world treated it as a political visit, and indeed the Foreign Relations Committee chairman and other members there have put in resolutions saying that we ought to admit Taiwan to the United Nations--that is reserved only for independent countries--that that ought to be done. So, Mr. President, I do not plan to oppose this resolution, but if it is brought up tonight I will want to question the authors of it as to their intent with respect to the Shanghai communique. It is very important that the Shanghai communique not be departed from. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I will yield to the Senator from Georgia for a question.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the Senator from Georgia has captured precisely the point, precisely the point. It is not what it says. It is what it leaves out. It is a subtle shift of ground. It is the mood of abandonment of the Shanghai communique and its progeny that are the problem here, and I wish we would just take some time in committee, as the Senator from Georgia points out, to carefully word on a bipartisan basis a resolution that, yes, condemns the use of force in Taiwan; yes, reaffirms our commitment to a peaceful settlement of this problem but, Mr. President, one that, as the Senator from Georgia says, fully reveals the content of our policy with China. We are in this soup right now with two carrier groups in the Strait of Taiwan because we acted hastily and treated the visit of Li Teng-hui as if it were simply a visit to the alma mater. I think we realize now that it was a whole lot more. It has gotten us with two carrier groups over there. That is what led to it. And so, Mr. President, I say let us go slowly. I do not oppose what it says. But let us work it out so it truly reflects American policy. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I will yield to the Senator.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. I would hope that the Senator would ensure that this matter is clarified when this bill reaches conference and the final conference agreement reflects that the terms and conditions of the local law enforcement block grants do not preclude the Puerto Rico Commonwealth Police Department from being eligible for community policing funds?

Mr. JOHNSTON. I want to thank my good friend from New Hampshire for this clarification. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, if I could I would like to engage the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] in a colloquy with respect to provisions in this bill which relate to funding under the Justice Department Violent Crime Reduction Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program. I am specifically speaking to the issue of the local law enforcement block grants. It is my understanding that in the case of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the authority to enforce felony crime statutes is vested solely in the Commonwealth Police Department. it is also my understanding that when the committee took up this provision that the committee did not intend to preclude the Puerto Rico Commonwealth Police Department, the only law enforcement agency with the authority to enforce our felony crime statutes, from being eligible for community policing funds. Is my understanding correct that the committee was unaware of this specific circumstance with respect to Puerto Rico?

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, politics or policy, that is the question. Mr. President, if there was ever anything that is clear as the noonday Sun on a cloudless day, anything that is obvious, it is that Whitewater is politics, pure and simple, and has nothing to do with policy. And the Senate should not continue this charade any longer. Mr. President, we have had 121 witnesses. We have had 40 days. We have had over 200 depositions. We have had 45,000 pages of documents that have been produced. We have had blah, blah, blah, blah, full of sound and fury, and absolutely signifying nothing. Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the Whitewater Committee, the last time he spoke--and I wanted to ask him some questions, and he did not yield for that purpose--spoke about the comparison of Whitewater with Iran-Contra. I wanted to draw with him the comparisons between the two. I think the comparison of these two hearings really draws in sharp focus, in sharp contrast, the difference between policy and politics. In the case of Iran-Contra, Mr. President, we had a matter of grave national concern, national issues involving a terrorist state, Iran, and involving the action of the administration, as an administration while in office, that involved the President of the United States, involved the National Security Adviser while he was National Security Adviser, involved employees of the White House and of the Government, involved in some of the most critical issues then before this Nation. They were issues as to which the Congress needed the information in order to make policy, in which the administration needed the information in order to make policy. With all of those important issues, Mr. President, Iran-Contra took half the time that the Whitewater hearing is taking. Mr. President, I confess I voted for this Whitewater investigation. Frankly, I search my mind as to why in the world I ever voted for it in the first place. What are we doing with Whitewater? Does that involve the President of the United States as President? Oh, no. Does it involve a recent event? Oh, no. This is more than 10 years ago. Does it involve a matter as to which the Congress needs information to make policy? Oh, no. I mean, look, whether Whitewater was a good development or whether the McDougals embezzled money from the RTC or whatever are not matters as to which we need to make policy. If they are, they have been fully brought out with 121 witnesses and 45,000 pages of information. By the way, we have a special prosecutor that has spent over $25 million and has a huge team down in Arkansas as we speak, looking into any lawbreaking. So it is not lawbreaking. It is not policy. It is not recent. Just what is it, Mr. President? What are all these things about, all these witnesses? I must confess to you, Mr. President, I hear all this stuff and it goes in one ear and out the other. I am a lawyer by training, as are many of my colleagues. You just cannot keep up with it because it is all, we know, irrelevant to anything except politics, this political season. We are told now that we need to go on for another 4 months or 10 weeks or whatever it is. For what? We have already had the First Lady come down and testify. We have already had these very broad subpoenas that have subpoenaed everything in the Western World. They wanted all the e-mail that has come out of the White House. They tell me it will cost $200,000 just to comply with their request for e-mail. Undoubtedly they will, among that $200,000 worth of e-mail, they will be able to bring up somebody from the White House and say, did you say such and such in an e-mail? They will say, no, I do not remember that. They will be able to produce it, and it will be another one of these great revelations. These great revelations about, ``Can you remember something you did 10 years ago?'' And maybe they cannot. I hope people will not pull me up before a witness stand in some way and ask me about things that happened 10 years ago, and ``Did you make these notes or not?'' The question is, are the notes significant? What do the billing records signify? Not much. And whatever they signify, it has already been brought out. The distinguished Senator from New York is free to argue all of these things. You know, did Susan Thomases--did Ms. Williams--did this person do this or that? It is all out there to the extent it has any relevance to anything. I submit it is not relevant to anything except the Presidential race. It is an attempt to get President Bill Clinton and the First Lady of this country to be put in an embarrassing position. That is all this is about. Everybody knows that, Mr. President. Everybody knows that. Give me a break. Are we trying to make policy here? Just what law is it that we will be able to amend or change or propose by virtue of Whitewater? Is the President charged with any wrongdoing, any violation of law? No, he is not. Is the First Lady charged with any violation of law? No, she is not. How about an ethical violation? No, they are not. But if they are, and if the evidence is there, we have a very partisan special prosecutor who has over $25 million already spent in a bottomless pit of money in order to be able to pursue that. That is a legitimate purpose. It may be illegitimately or partisanly pursued by the special prosecutor, but it is certainly legitimate and within the ambit of the law, and it is not going to be stopped by what we do here in the Congress. So if there is lawbreaking which has not been either charged or revealed so far, that special prosecutor can do it. What the special prosecutor cannot do is to have these hearings with all these accusatory looks and tones and dredging up pieces of paper, throwing them out with a flourish as if they signify anything. And, Mr. President, we know they have no significance beyond the political race that is presently occurring. We know that if Bill Clinton were not President of the United States, there would be no thought of going into this kind of thing, wasting these kinds of resources, wasting this much time of the Congress on this issue. It is politics, pure and simple, unvarnished, obvious and clear, and I hope we do not give another nickel to this boondoggle--not another nickel. I think my colleagues are proposing giving some more money to pursue it further. I hope they do not give a nickel. Whatever there is here-- and there is nothing of legitimate concern for us, because it does not involve the President as President--it does not involve policy that we need to know about, it does not involve charges of wrongdoing against the President and the First Lady. It involves innuendoes that can be useful only as political fodder in a political campaign, and that is all. I hope we do not continue it at all. I must say, the distinguished Senator from Maryland is a lot closer to this than I am. I trust his judgment. If he would say we have to continue for 2 days or 5 days or whatever, I may reluctantly vote for it. But, Mr. President, I am so sorry that I voted for this resolution in the first place. I do not know what we were thinking when we commissioned this Whitewater boondoggle investigation. I do not know what we were thinking, and I hope we will terminate it as soon as we can. I wish we would set a precedent that we do not do this kind of thing. Look, if the other party gains the White House this year--I will not be around here as a Member of the Senate, but I hope our side does not try to do that to their side when they get in office. It is a waste of time, it is a waste of resources, it is a diversion from the purposes of this country and of this Senate and of this Government. We ought to get about the business of running the Government as set forth in the Constitution and let the candidates run the campaigns. Enough is enough, and we have already had too much. I yield the floor. Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Electricity Competition Act of 1996. This bill is intended to establish a framework for the transition of the electric industry from a regulated industry to a competitive, and deregulated, industry. Where markets are competitive, society should be saved the costs of unneeded regulation. America's electric system is the most technologically advanced and operationally safe electric system in the world. There is no doubt today that electric service can be supplied to all consumers-- even retail consumers--in a fully competitive market. Our goal then, should be to ensure that electricity markets will become competitive so that regulation will be unnecessary. Our goal must be to ensure price competition for electricity, which will create savings, efficiencies, and innovation. This is not pie-in-the-sky economic theory. This bill will mean real savings for real people. For American families in the lowest 20-percent income bracket, a household's total utility bills are about equal to the total of mortgage/rent payments, taxes, and maintenance costs. Utility bills take slightly less of a middle-class family's disposable income, but the fact remains--a decrease in the average electric bill for the majority of middle-class Americans could achieve even greater benefits than a middle-class tax cut, without the drain on revenue which a tax cut would mean. We have the potential to gain these benefits, and we must seize this opportunity to do so. There are six main elements of this legislation: First, retail access. It's essential to clarify that the States are not preempted from ordering retail access. This clarification will enable the States to go forward with retail access programs without the fear of Federal preemption. Overlooking this clarification will bring years of litigation, impeding American consumers from receiving the benefits of lower electricity prices. Second, stranded costs. When this industry moves from regulation to competition, there will be created what industry insiders refer to as ``stranded costs.'' This means the high costs of serving all customers under the old regulatory system, which cannot be recovered in a competitive market. It is true that similar predicaments faced firms in other once regulated markets--railroads, airlines, natural gas, and telecommunications, for instance. But the electric utility industry is completely unique, and therefore, we must account for this difference. First, the electric industry transition cannot take the same course as deregulatory efforts in other industries due to the staggering capital requirements necessary to generate electricity. The electric industry is the most capital intensive industry by far. The Edison Electric Institute [EEI] estimates that for every dollar of electricity revenue, on average, $3.03 of capital assets is required. This is almost twice the amount of capital necessary for the next highest industry--mining, $1.74 and, three times higher than the communications industry--$1.09. Moodys Investors Service estimates that 87 of the largest investor owned utilities could lose $135 billion in stranded investment in the next 10 years. This is more than 80 percent of the total equity of these companies. Make no mistake about it. If we force the utilities to eat stranded costs, we will have a bankrupt industry. Second, the vast majority of potential stranded costs--nuclear generation and alternative energy contracts under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 [PURPA]--are the direct result of past Government energy policies. One analyst estimates that stranded cost potential for the nuclear industry is about $70 billion. This is just under two-thirds of the book value of the Nation's 108 nuclear operating plants. In addition, EEI estimates that PURPA contracts have committed utilities to pay at least $38 billion above market prices. Cambridge Energy Research Associates has estimated that standard costs attributable to PURPA in California alone are between $6.6 billion and $10.8 billion. The old regulatory compact almost guaranteed recovery of the costs of Government energy policies. With competition, however, the market--not regulators--determines cost recovery. It is simply unfair to leave utilities holding the bag for the energy policies of the past. It is clear that we need a healthy utility industry. One analyst surveying utility executives found that 50 percent of them believed that utility bankruptcies would increase in the near future. Under competition there will remain a very important role for utilities to serve core customers, including poor and rural customers. Many customers will want to stay with a traditional company, or will not shop for their electricity. Also, the market is best served by having many different players compete, including utilities. Because of the important role these companies play, the public interest is not served if utilities go bankrupt. The final reason for stranded cost recovery is the legitimate expectation of investors. Utility investors stand to lose billions of dollars if stranded costs are not recovered. Who are these investors? Not Wall Street sharks--they are ordinary citizens who considered utility stocks to be a safe investment. According to an EEI survey of shareholder demographics, the majority of utility investors are of retirement age, or are approaching retirement age. The economic effect on these investors of stranded cost losses must not be forgotten. We must encourage utilities to embrace competition. To do this, we must ensure that all costs incurred under the old regulatory compact are fully recovered in the transition to competition. Competition in this industry must be on a level playing field. Recovery of all stranded costs is imperative. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has taken the lead on wholesale stranded cost recovery, and has done a great job. I believe FERC has the authority to also permit recovery of retail stranded costs, but it is essential that we clarify this authority through legislation. It is important to mandate that FERC ensure recovery of legitimate, prudent and verifiable retail stranded costs--only to the extent those costs slip through the cracks at the retail level. I would note that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is primarily a licensing commission, certainly does not have the authority to require recovery of nuclear investments or nuclear decommissioning costs. In short, if we do not enact legislation ensuring stranded cost recovery, most utilities will be reluctant to embrace competition. If we do not enact legislation, the transition to competition and lower electricity prices will be slower. If we do not enact legislation, corporate risk becomes unmanageable, and bankruptcies may occur. This is not in the public interest. The third aspect of the bill is shared Federal and State responsibility. This bill respects the historical jurisdictional divide over the electric industry. The bill gives States the opportunity to structure their retail markets with programs suited to their local situations. Yet, the bill still holds State programs to one key Federal benchmark: competition. This gives a broad Federal policy ensuring competition, but leaves implementation to the States. This bill would require States to begin proceedings to examine their local markets. States have three choices. No. 1: set up a competitive wholesale procurement market. No. 2: establish a program of retail access for all consumers; or No. 3: devise their own program, as long as it ensures no self dealing and no unfair subsidies to alternative energy generators. Utilities who aren't regulated by FERC or State PUC's would be required to make similar decisions. Also, States which are already in the process of moving forward with their own competitive programs would not have to start all over again. The bill establishes a balanced framework. The Federal/State jurisdiction issue is a fine line to walk. Some will say the States should be given unfettered authority. Others will say that competition cannot wait, and that a federally mandated competitive market cannot come soon enough. In my view, a balanced policy which respects traditional federalism is the best policy. Fourth, we have to establish a timetable for the transition to competition. We need a date certain when retail access will be the law of the land, although that may be some years down the road. A definite timetable for restructuring would remove this uncertainty. The timetable in the bill--2010--recognizes the need for the States to implement their own competition programs, and for the industry to get comfortable with retail competition. Fifth, we must have a level playing field, and this means PURPA reform and repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act. The bill provides for prospective PURPA reform. Utilities relied on the old regulatory system, and their legitimate expectations of recovery should be respected. The same is true for the contractual expectations of non-utility generators. Reform of PURPA is therefore appropriate on a prospective basis. I believe PUHCA repeal is also essential even though it is not a part of this bill. I am the cosponsor of a bill with Senator D'Amato and others which is currently before the Senate Banking Committee. The goal of that legislation is to put all electric utility companies on a level playing field, and to remove regulatory barriers which are no longer appropriate. I believe PUHCA repeal, with certain consumer protections, can go forward on a stand alone basis, but must be a part of comprehensive restructuring. Sixth, the bill ensures nuclear decommissioning cost recovery, which is essential for the protection of public health and safety. Nuclear decommissioning costs are an extremely large percentage of many utilities' embedded costs. Several utilities have estimated their decommissioning liability to be in the billions of dollars. The law of the land should be that all nuclear decommissioning costs are recoverable. Moreover, no nuclear licensee should be able to avoid decommissioning liability. This Nation cannot afford to miss this opportunity. This legislation is needed to avoid a patchwork of state policies, to bring competition to consumers on a rational timetable, and to standardize stranded cost recovery. It is essential that we make this commitment now, and set competition in motion. Every year, every month, every day that we lose debating the fine points of this transition means a loss of prosperity for this Nation. We are now fighting tooth and nail in a global economy where every dollar counts. Accordingly, this legislation is essential. We all know that competition and deregulation have lowered prices in the national economy. What may not be so apparent is the huge ripple effect which lower electricity prices will create America. Consider these figures: Some 90 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product is produced by the residential, commercial and industrial sectors. These sectors use 99.9 percent of the Nation's electricity, and yet account for only 34 percent of the Nation's oil consumption The other 10 percent of the Nation's GDP-- transportation--uses 66 percent of the Nation's oil. In many ways, electricity is overwhelmingly more important to America's economy than oil. America recently spent $262 billion on electricity in 1 year. The data suggest that electricity consumption is almost three times the amount spent on the next highest commodity, natural gas. Also, electricity consumption is almost four times the amount spent on unleaded gasoline. In addition, the economy has become increasingly dependent on electricity. Between 1973 and 1993 the U.S. industrial sector grew 70 percent. Industrial electricity use increased 45 percent during that time period, while combustible fuel use declined 12 percent. This trend is expected to continue. The Energy Information Administration estimates that by the year 2010, 60 percent of all industrial, commercial, and residential fuel use will be consumed by utilities to generate electricity in order to meet electricity demand. In contrast, in 1973, only about 30 percent of all fuel use for these purposes went to generate electricity. As these statistics demonstrate, changes in electricity prices have profound economic consequences. Lower electricity prices mean more jobs, more economic output, and more personal income. States with the lowest electricity prices are the most likely to attract new businesses and jobs. The benefits of lowering electricity prices are staggering. Technological changes have enabled new generators to produce electricity at a price between 3 and 5 cent/kWh. However, costs in some regions of the Nation are anywhere between 9 and 15 cents/kWh. That's at least a factor of two, and at the most, a factor of five between regional delivered electricity prices. Considering that electricity makes up about 30 percent of production costs for steel manufacturing, to give an example, you can see that lower electricity prices will have a significant impact. From this point forward, competition must be the electric industry standard. This bill will accomplish that goal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Electricity Competition Act of 1996. This bill is intended to establish a framework for the transition of the electric industry from a regulated industry to a competitive, and deregulated, industry. Where markets are competitive, society should be saved the costs of unneeded regulation. America's electric system is the most technologically advanced and operationally safe electric system in the world. There is no doubt today that electric service can be supplied to all consumers-- even retail consumers--in a fully competitive market. Our goal then, should be to ensure that electricity markets will become competitive so that regulation will be unnecessary. Our goal must be to ensure price competition for electricity, which will create savings, efficiencies, and innovation. This is not pie-in-the-sky economic theory. This bill will mean real savings for real people. For American families in the lowest 20-percent income bracket, a household's total utility bills are about equal to the total of mortgage/rent payments, taxes, and maintenance costs. Utility bills take slightly less of a middle-class family's disposable income, but the fact remains--a decrease in the average electric bill for the majority of middle-class Americans could achieve even greater benefits than a middle-class tax cut, without the drain on revenue which a tax cut would mean. We have the potential to gain these benefits, and we must seize this opportunity to do so. There are six main elements of this legislation: First, retail access. It's essential to clarify that the States are not preempted from ordering retail access. This clarification will enable the States to go forward with retail access programs without the fear of Federal preemption. Overlooking this clarification will bring years of litigation, impeding American consumers from receiving the benefits of lower electricity prices. Second, stranded costs. When this industry moves from regulation to competition, there will be created what industry insiders refer to as ``stranded costs.'' This means the high costs of serving all customers under the old regulatory system, which cannot be recovered in a competitive market. It is true that similar predicaments faced firms in other once regulated markets--railroads, airlines, natural gas, and telecommunications, for instance. But the electric utility industry is completely unique, and therefore, we must account for this difference. First, the electric industry transition cannot take the same course as deregulatory efforts in other industries due to the staggering capital requirements necessary to generate electricity. The electric industry is the most capital intensive industry by far. The Edison Electric Institute [EEI] estimates that for every dollar of electricity revenue, on average, $3.03 of capital assets is required. This is almost twice the amount of capital necessary for the next highest industry--mining, $1.74 and, three times higher than the communications industry--$1.09. Moodys Investors Service estimates that 87 of the largest investor owned utilities could lose $135 billion in stranded investment in the next 10 years. This is more than 80 percent of the total equity of these companies. Make no mistake about it. If we force the utilities to eat stranded costs, we will have a bankrupt industry. Second, the vast majority of potential stranded costs--nuclear generation and alternative energy contracts under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 [PURPA]--are the direct result of past Government energy policies. One analyst estimates that stranded cost potential for the nuclear industry is about $70 billion. This is just under two-thirds of the book value of the Nation's 108 nuclear operating plants. In addition, EEI estimates that PURPA contracts have committed utilities to pay at least $38 billion above market prices. Cambridge Energy Research Associates has estimated that standard costs attributable to PURPA in California alone are between $6.6 billion and $10.8 billion. The old regulatory compact almost guaranteed recovery of the costs of Government energy policies. With competition, however, the market--not regulators--determines cost recovery. It is simply unfair to leave utilities holding the bag for the energy policies of the past. It is clear that we need a healthy utility industry. One analyst surveying utility executives found that 50 percent of them believed that utility bankruptcies would increase in the near future. Under competition there will remain a very important role for utilities to serve core customers, including poor and rural customers. Many customers will want to stay with a traditional company, or will not shop for their electricity. Also, the market is best served by having many different players compete, including utilities. Because of the important role these companies play, the public interest is not served if utilities go bankrupt. The final reason for stranded cost recovery is the legitimate expectation of investors. Utility investors stand to lose billions of dollars if stranded costs are not recovered. Who are these investors? Not Wall Street sharks--they are ordinary citizens who considered utility stocks to be a safe investment. According to an EEI survey of shareholder demographics, the majority of utility investors are of retirement age, or are approaching retirement age. The economic effect on these investors of stranded cost losses must not be forgotten. We must encourage utilities to embrace competition. To do this, we must ensure that all costs incurred under the old regulatory compact are fully recovered in the transition to competition. Competition in this industry must be on a level playing field. Recovery of all stranded costs is imperative. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has taken the lead on wholesale stranded cost recovery, and has done a great job. I believe FERC has the authority to also permit recovery of retail stranded costs, but it is essential that we clarify this authority through legislation. It is important to mandate that FERC ensure recovery of legitimate, prudent and verifiable retail stranded costs--only to the extent those costs slip through the cracks at the retail level. I would note that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is primarily a licensing commission, certainly does not have the authority to require recovery of nuclear investments or nuclear decommissioning costs. In short, if we do not enact legislation ensuring stranded cost recovery, most utilities will be reluctant to embrace competition. If we do not enact legislation, the transition to competition and lower electricity prices will be slower. If we do not enact legislation, corporate risk becomes unmanageable, and bankruptcies may occur. This is not in the public interest. The third aspect of the bill is shared Federal and State responsibility. This bill respects the historical jurisdictional divide over the electric industry. The bill gives States the opportunity to structure their retail markets with programs suited to their local situations. Yet, the bill still holds State programs to one key Federal benchmark: competition. This gives a broad Federal policy ensuring competition, but leaves implementation to the States. This bill would require States to begin proceedings to examine their local markets. States have three choices. No. 1: set up a competitive wholesale procurement market. No. 2: establish a program of retail access for all consumers; or No. 3: devise their own program, as long as it ensures no self dealing and no unfair subsidies to alternative energy generators. Utilities who aren't regulated by FERC or State PUC's would be required to make similar decisions. Also, States which are already in the process of moving forward with their own competitive programs would not have to start all over again. The bill establishes a balanced framework. The Federal/State jurisdiction issue is a fine line to walk. Some will say the States should be given unfettered authority. Others will say that competition cannot wait, and that a federally mandated competitive market cannot come soon enough. In my view, a balanced policy which respects traditional federalism is the best policy. Fourth, we have to establish a timetable for the transition to competition. We need a date certain when retail access will be the law of the land, although that may be some years down the road. A definite timetable for restructuring would remove this uncertainty. The timetable in the bill--2010--recognizes the need for the States to implement their own competition programs, and for the industry to get comfortable with retail competition. Fifth, we must have a level playing field, and this means PURPA reform and repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act. The bill provides for prospective PURPA reform. Utilities relied on the old regulatory system, and their legitimate expectations of recovery should be respected. The same is true for the contractual expectations of non-utility generators. Reform of PURPA is therefore appropriate on a prospective basis. I believe PUHCA repeal is also essential even though it is not a part of this bill. I am the cosponsor of a bill with Senator D'Amato and others which is currently before the Senate Banking Committee. The goal of that legislation is to put all electric utility companies on a level playing field, and to remove regulatory barriers which are no longer appropriate. I believe PUHCA repeal, with certain consumer protections, can go forward on a stand alone basis, but must be a part of comprehensive restructuring. Sixth, the bill ensures nuclear decommissioning cost recovery, which is essential for the protection of public health and safety. Nuclear decommissioning costs are an extremely large percentage of many utilities' embedded costs. Several utilities have estimated their decommissioning liability to be in the billions of dollars. The law of the land should be that all nuclear decommissioning costs are recoverable. Moreover, no nuclear licensee should be able to avoid decommissioning liability. This Nation cannot afford to miss this opportunity. This legislation is needed to avoid a patchwork of state policies, to bring competition to consumers on a rational timetable, and to standardize stranded cost recovery. It is essential that we make this commitment now, and set competition in motion. Every year, every month, every day that we lose debating the fine points of this transition means a loss of prosperity for this Nation. We are now fighting tooth and nail in a global economy where every dollar counts. Accordingly, this legislation is essential. We all know that competition and deregulation have lowered prices in the national economy. What may not be so apparent is the huge ripple effect which lower electricity prices will create America. Consider these figures: Some 90 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product is produced by the residential, commercial and industrial sectors. These sectors use 99.9 percent of the Nation's electricity, and yet account for only 34 percent of the Nation's oil consumption The other 10 percent of the Nation's GDP-- transportation--uses 66 percent of the Nation's oil. In many ways, electricity is overwhelmingly more important to America's economy than oil. America recently spent $262 billion on electricity in 1 year. The data suggest that electricity consumption is almost three times the amount spent on the next highest commodity, natural gas. Also, electricity consumption is almost four times the amount spent on unleaded gasoline. In addition, the economy has become increasingly dependent on electricity. Between 1973 and 1993 the U.S. industrial sector grew 70 percent. Industrial electricity use increased 45 percent during that time period, while combustible fuel use declined 12 percent. This trend is expected to continue. The Energy Information Administration estimates that by the year 2010, 60 percent of all industrial, commercial, and residential fuel use will be consumed by utilities to generate electricity in order to meet electricity demand. In contrast, in 1973, only about 30 percent of all fuel use for these purposes went to generate electricity. As these statistics demonstrate, changes in electricity prices have profound economic consequences. Lower electricity prices mean more jobs, more economic output, and more personal income. States with the lowest electricity prices are the most likely to attract new businesses and jobs. The benefits of lowering electricity prices are staggering. Technological changes have enabled new generators to produce electricity at a price between 3 and 5 cent/kWh. However, costs in some regions of the Nation are anywhere between 9 and 15 cents/kWh. That's at least a factor of two, and at the most, a factor of five between regional delivered electricity prices. Considering that electricity makes up about 30 percent of production costs for steel manufacturing, to give an example, you can see that lower electricity prices will have a significant impact. From this point forward, competition must be the electric industry standard. This bill will accomplish that goal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Does the majority leader expect we will have a small window where we might get home to get a bite to eat?

Mr. JOHNSTON. About 20, 25 minutes.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, on November 28, 1995, President Clinton [[Page S 18035]] signed into law the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 which will make a number of desperately needed changes to our Nation's transportation infrastructure. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to work with my colleagues to pass this legislation. More importantly, I want to take special notice of a particular section of this law and the Louisiana citizens who did their civic duty in bringing a serious problem to the attention of their representatives in Washington. The National Highway System Designation Act contains numerous specific projects that will benefit society and commerce and, as with all of the legislation we concern ourselves with in the U.S. Senate, proves the worth of our democratic process. Included in this law is a provision which I think most clearly demonstrates how important our system of representative democracy is and, hopefully, will help to renew our sense of civic duty and alleviate the apathetic attitude toward government that is so common today. In one of the fastest growing areas in Louisiana, Ascension Parish, there is a section of State Highway 42 known commonly as ``Dead Man's Curve.'' Unfortunately, this name truly reflects the road's history. On this section of the two lane highway which curves drastically and cannot accommodate its growing traffic load, nearly 50 serious automobile accidents have occurred in the last 4 years. When the road becomes wet, as roads often do in south Louisiana, this poorly designed road becomes a death trap causing numerous multiple car sideswipes and head-on collisions. One particularly tragic accident last year took the lives of three young people and galvanized public support for the effort to make LA 42 safe. On August 20, 1994, in a head-on collision on this dangerous S-curve, Mandy Acosta age 18, her cousin Brett Leggette age 13, and his friend Brett Frederic also age 13 died. In one horrible accident two sisters had lost their teen-aged children. An extended family and an entire community were devastated. When the grieving period had run its course, these sisters decided that they would not simply stand by and watch history repeat itself, but would become involved to make sure that this road would not take more of our sons and daughters. Ms. Templet and Ms. Leggette organized the community through public marches and petition drives. They contacted Parish President Tommy Martinez who immediately mobilized his resources. Engineers Mr. Glenn Shaheen and Mr. Mark DeBossier were called in to find out what needed to be done. Mr. David Young coordinated their message and worked with the Louisiana congressional delegation to find the surest way to get the Government to fulfill its duty in protecting the lives of its citizens. Mr. President, the dedicated and passionate work of these two sisters, Parish President Martinez, and their community did make a difference. As a result of their involvement, the Federal Government has now dedicated itself to finding the best way to fix Dead Man's Curve. I am pleased that the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 includes $250,000 for this problem. I am most pleased, however, that Congress and the President have proven that our system works and that civic duty has not lost its meaning.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, we knew that when the farm provisions of the reconciliation bill were agreed to, they were bad for the State of Louisiana, but we had no idea how bad these provisions were for the State of Louisiana when they were passed. The reason is, Mr. President, we had no opportunity to be involved in this, no input into the provisions of it, no ability to evaluate it, no ability to discuss it. It was in conference committee and the reconciliation bill. The chairman of the House Agriculture Committee met with the Speaker of the House and, boom, ipso facto, it was created out of the ashes in whole part without any input from anybody. Mr. President, now we have evaluated this bill. I can tell my colleagues that the agricultural provisions of the reconciliation bill will simply destroy the cotton industry and the rice industry in the State of Louisiana. Let me repeat that: The agricultural provisions of the reconciliation bill will destroy the rice industry and the cotton industry in the State of Louisiana. Mr. President, these are two of our largest crops. They contribute over $2 billion to the State of Louisiana, 7,000 direct jobs and 27,000 indirect agriculture jobs, according to Louisiana State University and the Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service. Mr. President, they have done an analysis of what the bill does for rice and cotton. They have taken a typical Louisiana rice tenant farm, which is 287 planted acres--and this takes up about 90 percent of our tenant farms in the State of Louisiana--and they have a whole series of calculations as to what the economic effect on that rice farmer will be. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the calculations which they have done in great detail both as to the comparison of net returns for cotton, net returns for rice under the conference committee, and rice gross returns under alternative farm program, that these figures be printed in the Record at this time.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, when you boil the figures down, what it shows is that the average rice farmer in 1996 has a net income of minus $13,314. The average rice farmer in Louisiana for 1996 loses $13,314. In 1997, it is $7,360. You say, why would he lose twice as much in 1996 as he would lose in 1997? The reason is, under this bill, incredibly, they have to pay back the payment they received for the last quarter of calendar 1996. They have to pay that back, so that you actually lose $13,314. It gets worse from there. In 1998, $8,162; in 1999, $11,092; in the year 2000, $15,157; in 2001, $21,070; and 2002, $23,991. Mr. President, these are not rich farmers but the average rice farmer in Louisiana who has planted 287 acres. Mr. President, this is not some Democratic Policy Committee who has come out with these figures; it is the Louisiana State University Agriculture Department. Mr. President, this is actually not going to happen. The reason is that they are not going to plant the rice. With these kind of economic figures shown to the bankers, no banker is going to lend any money to plant this crop. So you will not have these losses. You will not have a rice industry in the State of Louisiana because it shows a negative cash flow for each of these years through the year 2002. Again, Mr. President, this is the Louisiana State University who has come up with these figures. Mr. President, it is only slightly less bad for cotton. Under cotton--and all of the figures under which we calculated each one of these figures has now been put into the Record--for the average cotton farmer, that is 300 planted acres, he makes $3,708 in 1996, begins to lose the next year, and by the year 2002 he is losing a net of $20,944. This, again, Mr. President, is the average cotton farmer in the State of Louisiana. You say, how in the world could they have done such folly in this bill? Mr. President, they did it without hearings, they did it without consultation, they did it without input. The Speaker got together with the head of the Agriculture Committee in the House and, bam, here it came. Here is the result. Mr. President, this is an emergency. I think sooner or later this is going to be straightened out, because, as George Bush said about the invasion of Kuwait, this cannot stand. It just cannot be, Mr. President. This Congress has done some dumb things, Mr. President, but we have never that I know of intentionally wiped out an industry--the cotton industry, the rice industry--in a State. If this is happening in the State of Louisiana, it is going to happen elsewhere across the country. We cannot intentionally do this. Mr. President, it is an emergency that needs to be corrected now because if we wait, we are going to miss this crop year. Typically, Mr. President, the preparations for the crop year begin in December. The farmers decide what kind of money they are going to need to borrow, what kind of crops they want to plant, how much it is going to cost, et cetera, and they begin those negotiations with the bank, typically, in December. Certainly by the middle of January, they must have their bank arrangements pretty well in line because they have to plant that crop in the spring. They have to not only order the seed, insecticide, pesticide, and the other things they will need for that crop, but their suppliers need to know sufficiently in advance how much they will need to order, how much seed to have on hand, how much insecticide. Mr. President, you cannot pass a rule one week and expect the crop to be planted the next week. Mr. President, you might ask, without support, if the Louisiana rice industry cannot survive, why is it that we plant rice in the United States? Why not just let the whole thing move overseas? The reason is, Mr. President, that the subsidy, the support which we have for agriculture in the United States for rice, is a fraction of what it is in the European market, Japan, and our other foreign competitors. The fact of the matter is the EU, the European Union, subsidizes their farmers three to five times more than they do in the United States. They place high tariffs on some U.S. agricultural products which create artificially high prices. I am informed, Mr. President--and I will get the exact figure and supply them for the Record later--I am informed that rice can fetch as high a price as $27 per 100-weight in Europe, compared to $6 in the United States. Mr. President, if we intentionally wipe out the rice industry and the cotton industry in the State of Louisiana and elsewhere in our country, then we will be subject to the manipulation of foreign suppliers who will dominate and monopolize the whole market. Mr. President, I do not believe there is time to legislate this year. Regulations must be put out under any new legislation that comes out, and regulations are going to take many weeks in order to determine how to interpret whatever law finally comes out. I believe it will be too late for the planting season even assuming that there is a [[Page S 18002]] veto of the reconciliation bill, which surely there should be if these are representative of the kind of provisions that are in that bill. If the Congress passes a new bill, I do not believe there is going to be time to get the regs out to borrow the money, to make the preparations in order to get the crop out this year. So, Mr. President, what I am saying is the Congress needs to act as in an emergency and to extend the present law. We need to extend that present law so we can get the crop in the ground this year. If we do not do that, and if we have the reconciliation bill as passed, then we are going to wipe out the cotton and rice industry in the State of Louisiana and elsewhere in this country.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I would like to remark at what a diminished place this will be because of the loss of Senator Simpson and Senator Hatfield, both of whom announced over the weekend that they would be leaving. There are no Senators in this body, any that I know of, who have served here who have been more distinguished than the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from Oregon. I might say that there are none for whom I have higher personal esteem and affection than both of these Senators. It was truly a historic weekend for both of them to announce that they were leaving the Senate. I must say, had I not myself announced that I was leaving, I would be much sadder than I am. Since I will be leaving, I will not miss them here. I despair, though, because of the vacuum that will be left in this Nation when these two very great public servants will be leaving the Senate. I did not come for that specific purpose, Mr. President. I will later talk about my two friends. But I could not miss the opportunity when the junior Senator from Wyoming brought up the subject to say how much I share his sentiments and how great I think the loss is for the country.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that will support research for a disease which disproportionately affects African-Americans and other minority groups. Sickle cell disease is a painful, life-threatening, genetic disease. Approximately 1 of every 12 African-Americans is born with the sickle cell genetic trait, and about 1 in every 600 is afflicted with sickle cell disease. Sickle cell conditions are also found, although less frequently, in other United States populations, including those of Puerto Rican, Cuban, and southern Italian ancestry. The disease has also recently been found in some Caucasians. Sickle cell disease is based in the circulatory system and is a painful and disabling disorder for which there is currently no cure. In a healthy body, red blood cells contain the substance hemoglobin which carries oxygen from the lungs to various organs and tissues. This role of hemoglobin is essential to life because all body components require oxygen to live and carry out their functions. Diseased bodies have an abnormal type of hemoglobin which interrupts the flow of oxygen to these vital organs. Red blood cells that contain normal hemoglobin remain round when they release oxygen. Cells with abnormal or sickle hemoglobin, upon releasing oxygen, become distorted into the shape of a sickle causing a chronic and painful anemia. Distorted, or sickled cells cannot traverse capillaries, further limiting oxygen supply to the body's tissues. Mr. President, the minority population in the State of Louisiana is about 1.29 million people. Of this number roughly 3,250 people are suspected of having the disease, and of this number, 25 percent will have the most acute and serious form, which is often fatal. Alarmingly, about 130,000 Louisianians carry the genetic trait for this illness. Mr. President, despite the fact that the cause of the sickle cell disease has been known for many years, progress has not been made in finding suitable treatment. Currently, the most common treatment for the illness is pain relief medication, treating only the immediate symptoms. Treating only the symptoms results in tissue damage, often to major organs, with each successive episode of oxygen deprivation. Consequently, many of those afflicted with severe forms of the disease often do not even live to see adulthood. Concerned with finding a cure for a disease that has such a devastating effect on the Nation's minority populations, Southern University in Baton Rouge, LA, the largest predominately African- American university in the United States, has committed itself to the creation of a center for sickle cell disease research. With a single purpose, this center will conduct multidisciplinary research to lead to the discovery of a cure for sickle cell disease. The center will conduct basic biomedical research to determine the types of drugs that can prevent, inhibit, or reverse the sickling process, along with clinical research and joint studies to conduct clinical trials on antisickling agents. In addition, the center will work with other institutions to promote and enhance scholarship and teaching knowledge in order to disseminate newly gained knowledge on the disease. Mr. President, it is important to note that the Louisiana State Legislature in recognition of the importance of such a center, and even in these exceedingly hard economic times, has committed $7 million to this project. To complete the center, and to be able to provide this valuable public health research, Southern University needs Federal assistance. To provide this assistance, I offer a bill to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award a grant for the creation of this center. This legislation will direct the Secretary to provide a grant to the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals for the establishment and construction of the National Center for Sickle Cell Disease Research at Southern University in Baton Rouge. Mr. President, sickle cell disease is a vital public health problem which this bill would assist in overcoming. Such funding can only aid in the development of this Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.