Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to call the Senate's attention today to two young men from my state who are making their marks this year where few North Dakotans have before: in major league baseball. They are Darin Erstad of the Anaheim Angels and Rick Helling of the Texas Rangers. A few weeks ago, ESPN referred to Darin Erstad as ``the all-star no one's heard of.'' That will change after his introduction tonight at the Major League Baseball All-Star Game in Denver. Although baseball fans did not elect Darin to the all-star team, the American League coaching staff recognized his brilliant play and named him as a reserve. So far this season, the Jamestown, North Dakota, native is batting .313, and his 115 hits ranks second in the American League. He currently leads his Angels' teammates in home runs (18) and runs batted in (59). I am sure that few who watched him play as a youngster in North Dakota, or as a college player with the Nebraska Cornhuskers, are surprised at his success at the major league level. He is clearly a disciplined, hard-working player, and his election to this year's all-star team is well deserved. Rick Helling's success in Texas this summer has been no less spectacular. As a starting pitcher with the Rangers, the Devils Lake, North Dakota, native finished the first half of the season with an impressive record of 11 wins, 4 losses, and an earned run average of 4.40. Only two pitchers in the American League have posted more wins this season. Unfortunately, Rick was not chosen to the all-star squad. That is a shame, but the rosters for the game are limited and each year deserving players are left out. Rick deserved to be on the team and his omission should not overshadow what has so far been an outstanding year. He is well on a pace to win 20 games, the benchmark all starting major league pitchers strive for. I know he has the talent to do it and I wish him continued success. Considering how few North Dakotans have ever played in the major leagues, my state is understandably proud that two of them are achieving such terrific success at the same time. But it is even more fitting that Darin Erstad and Rick Helling are having breakthrough seasons this year. Those who follow baseball know that the summer's biggest story has been the attempt by several players, most notably Mark McGwire, Ken Griffey, Jr., and Sammy Sosa, to break the single season record for most home runs. That enduring record of 61 home runs, which has stood for nearly four decades, was set by the New York Yankees' slugger Roger Maris. Roger Maris, I am very proud to say, was raised in Fargo, North Dakota.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the 321st Missile Group at Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota, as it prepares to deactivate. As my colleagues may be aware, the 321st is one of the longest- serving and most decorated ICBM units in the United States Air Force. After flying B-25 bombers in the Mediterranean theater during the Second World War as the 321st Bombardment Group, this fine unit undertook several aircraft and basing changes before coming home to the prairies of North Dakota at Grand Forks AFB in 1964. As the 321st Missile Wing, this unit was the very first to deploy the Minuteman II ICBM during the mid-1960s, and became one of the first to upgrade to the Minuteman III missile in the early 1970s. The 321st consistently won awards, being often regarded as the best ICBM wing in the Air Force. After this unit was selected for closure, its personnel ably continued the strategic deterrence mission, while also--ahead of schedule--realigning the 321st Missile Group's assets. North Dakotans have always had a special attachment to the 321st. Unlike other military units which are sometimes seen at a distance, at air fields and barracks behind chain-link fences, the 321st Missile Group has literally been based in North Dakota's backyards. Its roots of steel and concrete are sunk deep into the prairie soil of the Flickertail State. One hundred and fifty ICBM silos and fifteen missile alert facilities dot the fields of eastern North Dakota, covering an area larger than the state of New Jersey. As the missileers and their hardware stood at the very frontlines of the Cold War, we North Dakotans in our nearby farms and communities knowingly and proudly stood with them. For over three decades, we have been pleased to open our small town coffee shops to personnel on their way to inspect a launch facility, or to groups of officers returning to base after pulling long strategic alerts in launch control facilities beneath the wheat fields of the Red River Valley. Mr. President, the men and women of the 321st have been a part of North Dakota in a very special way. To everyone who has served in the 321st over its long history at Grand Forks, I say this: you will always have a home in North Dakota. You are part of the family. There is no question that we are sad to see the 321st go. Even so, I think it is important that we put the departure of this unit in its proper context. The 321st is being realigned because our country won the Cold War. The triumph of America and its ideals over communism and tyranny is worth celebrating. As we celebrate this victory, however, we must not forget that it was the men and women of the 321st who provided America the strategic deterrence and stability that allowed the Cold War to end peacefully. Around the clock, year after year, the 321st stood ready to deliver 450 nuclear warheads to targets throughout the Soviet Union in just a few minutes time. This made it clear to Moscow that a thermonuclear war with the United States would be a conflict they could never hope to win. I would urge my Colleagues in the Senate not to forget that the motto of the Strategic Air Command was ``Peace is Our Profession.'' Truly, the 321st has been an organization of ``peace professionals.'' It is good to know that the spirit of the 321st Missile Group will live on at Grand Forks AFB with the 319th Air Refueling Wing, a ``core'' tanker unit of KC-135 Stratotankers. I hope that the 319th and the Air Force will be with us in North Dakota for many years to come. Today, Mr. President, as the 321st prepares to retire its colors, I would send to the 321st Missile Group, all who have and do serve her, and the Untied States Air Force that has protected us so well, a message of thanks and congratulations. The Senate--and all Americans-- owe you a deep debt of gratitude.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about a very special photo exhibit entitled ``Come Hell and High Water,'' which is on display this week in the Rotunda of the Russell Senate Office Building. Through some of the most amazing photographs I have ever seen, the exhibit poignantly tells the story of the residents throughout the Red River Valley of North Dakota and Minnesota who struggled through the most devastating of circumstances during the winter and spring of 1997. From the most brutal winter in 50 years, which, when all was said and done, had dropped more than 100 inches of snow on the region; to the most significant flooding in recorded history that resulted in the Red River cresting 26 feet above flood stage at Grand Forks and forcing an evacuation of nearly all 50,000 residents in the middle of the night; to, when no one could imagine it getting any worse, the devastating fire that destroyed the heart of downtown Grand Forks; to the tremendous outpouring of assistance that brought hope from the Administration and organizations such as the American Red Cross, and the thousands of volunteers from throughout the United States; to the beginning of the recovery process, which continues to this day and will continue as the cities of Grand Forks and East Grand Forks rebuild bigger, better, and stronger than they were before these devastating events. Each of these 37 photographs is worth not only a thousand words, but thousands of lives--the lives that were so greatly impacted by these events. I am proud to say to my colleagues today that the City of Grand Forks has made tremendous strides in overcoming these seemingly insurmountable odds. The flood destroyed more than 800 homes in Grand Forks. Today, Grand Forks Homes, in partnership with several agencies and local lenders, have contracted to build 222 new homes in three new subdivisions. Fifty-four of these homes are complete, and 158 homes are in the framing stage. During the winter months, 287 families were housed in FEMA-provided mobile homes. Currently, only 119 mobile homes are occupied. Of the 41 historic downtown buildings destroyed by flood waters and 11 destroyed by fire, 20 properties have been acquired through the Central Business District Business Acquisition program, and 25 more have been targeted for buyout. The Business and Industry Disaster Assistance Program has committed more than $1.5 million to 76 businesses to help provide for post-flood economic development. The Noah's Ark building, a 170,000 square foot office and industrial building that will provide new economic development opportunities for the community, is slated to be finished July 1st. The Corporate Center, composed of two buildings currently under construction in downtown Grand Forks, will house three larger businesses and will provide economic vitality to this area. I commend the residents of Grand Forks for their strength, perseverance, and commitment to their wonderful community. I would like to take this time to thank the exhibit sponsors: the Bremer Foundation of St. Paul and the Knight-Ridder Corporation of Miami, who have allowed this exhibit to be displayed at the Newseum, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Kennedy Center, and throughout the State of North Dakota. Also, a special thank you to all the photographers who so dramatically captured the events, the lives, the emotions, and the heart of the Red River Valley. I urge my colleagues to take the time to view this exhibit and begin to truly understand not only the devastation of the events of 1997, but more importantly, the resilience, the spirit, and the strength of the citizens of the Red River Valley.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with my friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, in the introduction of the Biomass and Coal Facilities Extension Act. This legislation would extend by eight months the placed-in-service date under section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code. This change is necessary in order to alleviate the hardship suffered by taxpayers who relied on action Congress took almost two years ago, and made substantial commitments of resources to develop alternative fuel technology projects. These commitments were made in good faith pursuant to the 1996 Small Business Protection Act, in which Congress amended section 29 for synthetic coal and biomass by extending the ``binding contract'' provision for 12 months to December 31, 1996 and extending the ``placed-in-service'' provision for 18 months to June 30, 1998. That should have settled the matter. However, when the Administration's fiscal year 1998 budget was submitted in February 1997, it contained a proposal to shorten by a full year the placed-in- service date for facilities producing gas from biomass and synthetic fuel from coal. The Administration was concerned about what it characterized as rapid growth in the section 29 credit. Congress considered that argument and concluded that any concern about the growth in the credit had been dealt with adequately in the 1996 Act. In the tax legislative arena, even a mere proposal can have consequences, as the Administration's proposal to shorten the placed- in-service date illustrates. The Joint Committee on Taxation's analysis of the proposal, made in March 1997, warned Congress about just such a consequence as it noted that ``[b]ecause the binding contract date has already passed * * * the proposal might place an unfair financial burden on those taxpayers who are bound to contracts entered into prior to the Administration's announcement.'' Mr. President, that is exactly what happened--taxpayers in that situation lost their sources of financing because financial institutions had to treat the Administration proposal as a real possibility. Because the tax credit plays a significant role in the overall financial situation that lenders have to consider, its potential loss made securing necessary financing impossible for taxpayers who were proceeding under binding contracts made in good faith reliance on the Small Business Protection Act of 1996. The bill we offer today would simply restore some of the lost time that taxpayers endured as a result of the unintended consequences stemming from Congressional consideration of the Administration's 1997 budget proposal. It would extend the placed-in-service date from June 30, 1998 to a date eight months from the date of the bill's enactment. Taxpayers took Congress at its word in 1996 when it said that the development of environmentally friendly fuels from domestic biomass and coal resources was worth supporting. Their subsequent investment of large amounts of time, effort, and money should be allowed to fulfill its objectives rather than simply be forfeited as a result of circumstances over which these taxpayers had no control. This is a modest proposal; it would not disturb the ``binding contract'' date of the 1996 Act. Thus, no new projects would qualify because of its enactment. It seeks only to allow taxpayers who began projects under the 1996 Act to proceed in an orderly manner--an option that was effectively denied them as a result of the uncertainty created during consideration of the fiscal year 1998 budget. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the bill before us. In this bill the Armed Services Committee has--under unprecedented fiscal austerity--ably worked to balance the many important yet competing needs for scarce funding, maintaining a first-class military and providing important benefits for personnel, their dependents, and retirees. Allow me to highlight several particularly good provisions in this bill, for which Chairman Thurmond and Senator Levin should be congratulated. First, this measure wisely has full funding for National Missile Defense for FY99. Treaty-friendly, affordable, effective NMD has always had my strong support. I am also pleased that funds have been added to begin to make up the readiness funding deficit of the Army National Guard. The Guard Bureau informs me these accounts were more than half a billion dollars short in the FY99 budget request. I hope the funding added by the Committee can be supplemented during conference. Third, an additional $46 million has been included for Minuteman III ICBM upgrades. The Minuteman III force will be service for decades to come, and modernization must go forward. The Committee acted wisely regarding the Guidance Replacement Program. The Committee has also moved to accelerate key military construction projects for North Dakota. These include $8.5 million for repair of the taxiway at Minot AFB, and $3.65 million for renovation of a supply shop for the North Dakota Air National Guard. George Lauffer and Mike McCord on the Committee staff deserve thanks for their work on these items. Additionally, the Authorization bill calls for demonstration programs regarding allowing Medicare-eligible military retirees to enroll in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. Finally, but very importantly, I am pleased that the Senate has approved an amendment bringing the pay raise in this bill up to the level in the House bill, 3.6 percent. However, there are a number of matters in this bill of great concern. First, the Committee's bill would call for a cut of nearly $100M to the Air Force's budget request for the Airborne Laser, a revolutionary theater missile defense program, and top priority for the USAF. Second, this bill provides inadequate funding for the B-52H bomber force. Although I will not discuss this matter in detail at this time, let me say this: today's thoroughly upgraded B-52H can deliver a greater quantity and diversity of conventional and nuclear munitions a greater distance at a lower cost than any other airborne combat platform in the world today. Cutting the B-52 force doesn't make good national security or fiscal sense, and I applaud Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye--the distinguished leadership of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee--for acting to fund all 94 B-52s in the FY99 Defense Appropriations Bill. I hope that ABL and B-52 funding can be addressed in conference. Even so, I am pleased to support this bill, especially in light of the Committee's acceptance of my amendment regarding Russian tactical nuclear weapons. Mr. President, at this point I would like to speak briefly about the amendment. The recent nuclear tests by India and Pakistan serve as an unsettling reminder that nuclear weapons continue to be sought for their terrible destructive power and prestige. An equally serious, if not greater, nuclear threat still lies to the north of the Indian subcontinent, however--in Russia's enormous, ill-secured, and potentially destabilizing non-strategic, or ``tactical,'' nuclear arsenal. As my colleagues may be aware, Russia's tactical nuclear stockpile could be larger than ours by a factor of eight-to-one, and is not covered by any arms control accord. I believe it is time for the Congress to do three things. First, go on record as concerned about the significant ``loose nuke'' dangers associated with Russia's tactical stockpile, and the growing strategic relevance of Moscow's tactical arsenal. Additionally, we must call for the Russians to make good on the 1991 and 1992 Gorbachev and Yeltsin promises to deeply reduce tactical weapons, just as the US has followed through in good faith on President Bush's similar promises in September 1991. And finally, the Congress needs a detailed report, and the benefit of the analysis of the Defense Department, the Intelligence Community, and the US Strategic Command. Today, I wish to thank the Armed Services Committee for accepting my amendment earlier this week that does just these things. I also wish to thank the following distinguished Members of the Armed Services Committee, who have cosponsored my amendment: Senators Kempthorne, Kennedy, Bingaman, and Levin. Glen Tait, Menda Fife, Bill Monahan, and Madelyn Creedon, in addition to Monica Chavez with the committee--deserve thanks for their good work. Before asking unanimous consent that the full text of my amendment be included after my statement, I would call the Senate's attention to the testimony of the Commander in Chief of the United States Strategic Command, Gen. Eugene Habiger. Gen. Habiger, testifying before the Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, responded to a question regarding Russia's tactical nuclear stockpile by Senator Kempthorne--a cosponsor of my amendment--by stating that ``it is time for us to get very serious about tactical nuclear weapons.'' My amendment responds to the General's sage advice, advancing the cause of getting deep reductions to Russia's non-strategic nuclear arsenal. At the very least, we should ask them to come down to our level--and prove it to us. Before closing, Mr. President, I would like to emphasize that my amendment should be properly viewed in context with the funding for the vital Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat program in the FY99 Defense Authorization bill. Senate passage of my amendment ensures that we send to Russia a message of concern and cooperation. Let me be clear: continuing the Nunn-Lugar program is absolutely critical. I can think of no better investment of national security dollars than simply expending money for the destruction of horrible weapons capable of killing millions of Americans. Continuing and fully funding the CTR program is especially important in light of the Russian tactical nuclear dangers I have discussed. Although there are arms control agreements requiring Russian strategic force reductions, there are no arms control agreements requiring reductions to Russia's tactical nuclear stockpile. In addition to the diplomatic pressure called for in my amendment, continuing and possibly expanding work under Nunn-Lugar on tactical nuclear weapons is the best bet we've got to put this aspect of the Russian nuclear genie back in the bottle. Funding for Nunn-Lugar is vital, and I congratulate the committee for fully supporting this program in their bill. Again, Mr. President, I would thank my colleagues for approving my amendment, and the amendment's cosponsors for their support. This is a good bill--but a better bill because we have taken this initial step toward eliminating the tactical nuclear dangers from the former Soviet Union.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I am out of time.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. I take just a minute to thank the senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd. I thank him for standing up to protect the Constitution of the United States. I don't think there is any higher responsibility for a Member of this body, because we all take a solemn oath when we are sworn in to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is the organic law of our country. It is a Constitution that is truly genius in what it has done for our country. We are a very young country, but already the rest of the world seeks to emulate us. And one of the reasons is the genius of that organic law, that document that has provided for the structure of this Government. Senator Byrd convinced me when we were debating the question of line- item veto, and I must say the constituency pressure from my State was all on behalf of supporting the line-item veto. I did not because I was convinced, after lengthy discussions with Senator Byrd, that it violated the Constitution of the United States and that, in fact, part of the genius of that document was the separation of powers and the power of the purse being put in the hands of the Congress of the United States to reflect the will of the people of this country. And to have that power diluted not because Members of Congress are seeking power but because the Constitution established the framework to protect the rights of the people, that is the extraordinary genius of our Constitution. And nobody has been more vigilant in defending that Constitution than the senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd. I thank him because it was not an easy task. It was not a popular task. But he was right to do it. And the rightness of his position has been confirmed by this ruling by the Supreme Court. It was not a close ruling. By a 6 to 3 vote, the Supreme Court of the United States has said, yes, Senator Byrd and others who made that judgment were correct. We would be doing damage and injury to the Constitution of the United States if we were to approve the line-item veto that had been passed by the Congress of the United States. So I say to Senator Byrd a sincere thank-you, because what he has done is in the finest tradition of the Senate. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. I am sure we will.

Mr. CONRAD. I would be very happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Indiana very much for his courtesy. Let me just say I have found the Senator from Indiana to be among the most courteous of our colleagues, and we are very much going to miss him. I think he is an outstanding U.S. Senator, an extraordinarily decent person, and I am personally going to miss him from this body.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to join in thanking----

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senate has often heard me speak about the people of North Dakota, and at times I have been compelled to speak about the injustices North Dakotans have been forced to endure because of something our Federal government has done to them. Today, the Supreme Court handed down a decision which should mark the beginning of the end for the reachback tax, which has been a terrible burden for the largest lignite producer and largest coal industry employer in our state. This very important part of our economy was unfairly and unjustly saddled with the reachback tax under the 1992 Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act. The Coal Act has been draining millions of dollars from this company every year. The Supreme Court, while agreeing that Congress has the power to help fund retired unionized bituminous coal miners' health benefits, held that Congress did so improperly. We subjected honest, tax-paying corporate citizens to a truly onerous levy without an adequate basis for doing so. If the Senate had taken the time either in committee or in a floor debate to consider fully the scope of this reachback tax, perhaps the rebuke Congress received this morning from the Supreme Court could have been avoided. In the opinion of the Court, the Act places a ``severe, disproportionate, and extremely retroactive burden'' on the reachback company that brought the action. As such, the Court held that the tax imposition it reviewed violates the Constitution's takings clause. In short, Mr. President, the Supreme Court has affirmed the arguments that many of us have pursued in this body for some time--namely, that Congress needs to revisit the whole problem of how to fund the health benefits for retired unionized bituminous coal miners. Since its inception, I have fought for reform of the Coal Act. Many of my colleagues over the years have joined me in this bipartisan fight. With the impetus of today's decision by the Supreme Court, the Senate should commit itself to fixing the Coal Act soon. I am confident that we can devise a plan that assures benefits for affected retirees and their families, treats the industry fairly, and passes Constitutional muster.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the fact is there are no new bureaucracies in this bill. Those have been taken out. Our friends on the other side talk about taxes. They talk not at all about the taxes that are being imposed on every American to pay for the costs that are imposed on society by the use of this industry's products. This is a defining moment. The question is, Are we going to protect kids or are we going to protect the profits of the tobacco industry? The estimates by the experts are that this legislation would save 1 million children's lives. The costs for the reduction in industry profits are $4 billion. That is the question before the Members of this body. Do we protect our kids' lives or do we protect the profits of the tobacco industry?

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, obviously, there is more to the program than those elements, because we have to remember how this all started. It started with the States bringing legal actions against the tobacco industry. They are the ones that had the initial settlement with the tobacco industry. So, obviously, the States have to be compensated for the legal actions that they have pending. In addition, the Federal Government has potential actions against the tobacco industry, because Federal taxpayers are paying for Medicare and Medicaid and veterans' health programs, all of them that have had costs imposed on them because of the use of tobacco products. Mr. President, it was those concerns that led this Congress to take action. It was those concerns that led the Commerce Committee to consider the legislation sponsored by Senator McCain, and they reported out a bill on a 19-to-1 vote, an overwhelming vote. In the Senate, we have considered a series of amendments that have somewhat altered the work that they did in the Commerce Committee. We have considered amendments to provide a significant tax reduction in addition to the other provisions that were in the bill. About a third of the money now will go for a tax reduction. But there is more than that. There has also been amendments added that deal with the question of illegal drug use in this country. The Coverdell amendment that was adopted here on a very strong vote is included in this legislation. What we now have before us is really a comprehensive package. A lot of people say, ``Gee, this isn't my idea of a perfect bill.'' It is not my idea of a perfect bill either, but we have not yet completed action on it. That is the legislative process--to take a package, to work on it, to offer amendments and to have the votes of Senators dictate the outcome. That is the way it works. So far, that process has gone reasonably well. Again, we certainly don't have a perfect bill, but it is one which is comprehensive in nature and does offer the prospects of protecting the public health and reducing youth smoking. We have 420,000 people dying every year in this country because of tobacco-related illness. That is a statistic, but it is a statistic that has 420,000 different stories behind it. In hearing after hearing, we heard those stories. We heard the suffering of families and of individuals who have been hooked on tobacco products and have suffered the consequences. I remember so well a Pierce Fravenheim, big tough guy in Newark, NJ, a former football player, football coach, assistant principal. When he came to testify, you could barely hear him speak. You could barely hear him speak because after a lifetime of smoking, he developed cancer of the larynx. He had undergone a laryngectomy. He told us of the terror he felt when the doctor told him he was going to die unless they did this procedure, and even if they did it, he might not survive. In a way, he is lucky because he did survive, and he is there to tell the story. He told us how deeply he hoped that others could be dissuaded from taking up the habit, how deeply he hoped that others would not experience the terror he felt when the doctor told him he might die. There are hundreds and thousands of stories just like Pierce Fravenheim's that we heard as we went around the country listening to people, many of them begging us to pass legislation that would do something to deter others from taking up a habit that would addict them, that would create disease in them and that would ultimately kill them. Again, nobody is out here proposing that we have prohibition, make the product illegal. Nobody is proposing that. But we are proposing comprehensive legislation to try to do something to lessen the hurt, the pain, the suffering and the loss of life that occurs directly because of the use of these products. Mr. President, there are those who will take this bill and flyspeck it, and they will have 100 reasons to be against it, maybe several hundred reasons to be against it. That is the nature of a comprehensive bill. I could probably point to dozens of different provisions that I don't particularly like in this bill, but that isn't the question. The question before this body is whether or not we are going to advance, whether or not we are going to move forward, whether or not we are going to give this legislation a chance or whether or not we are going to snuff it out right here today on the floor of the U.S. Senate and say, ``No, we give in; the big tobacco industry advocates and defenders win.'' I hope that is not the outcome here today, Mr. President. The tobacco industry does not exactly come to this Chamber with its credibility intact. The tobacco industry came before Congress and said, ``Oh, no, our products don't cause health problems.'' At the time they said it, they knew, and the documents reveal that their products cause serious health problems. And that same industry came before this Congress and said, ``Oh, no, we don't target children; we wouldn't do that. It is illegal to sell to children.'' We now know from the documents of the industry itself that, in fact, they have targeted children. In fact, they have targeted kids as young as 12 years old, and I have shown the charts and the quotes day after day on the floor of the Senate that demonstrate conclusively that they have targeted our kids. This industry has come before the Congress and said, ``We don't have nicotine in there to addict people. It is not addictive.'' And yet, again, their own documents reveal that nicotine is addictive. In fact, their own documents compare it to cocaine and to morphine. These are their words, not my words. This same industry has come before Congress, and they have told us, ``Look, we have not manipulated nicotine levels to further addict our customers,'' and when you look at the record, when you look at the documents, what you find is that is precisely what they have done. This industry does not come with a great deal of credibility to this Chamber in arguing on behalf of this legislation. Rather, I should say in opposition to this legislation, because they have made it clear, although they supported a version early on that would have basically taken their settlement and made that into a legislative vehicle, they supported that, but as soon as we started stripping away the special protection that was in that proposed settlement, an amendment by the occupant of the Chair, an amendment that was adopted overwhelmingly in the U.S. Senate and stripped out all the special protection that this industry was seeking, special protection that was unprecedented, special protection never provided any other industry in the history of our country, all of a sudden they said, ``Oh, no, we don't want anything to do with this legislation. If we can't get special, unprecedented protection, we're out of here.'' That is what the tobacco industry said. Now the tobacco industry is in total opposition. And day after day, hour after hour, we hear their adds in the national media opposing this legislation, attacking this legislation. Mr. President, it is important, I think, for us to understand what is here and what is not. We have, I think, the best indication: The recent polling that has been done that shows the American people strongly support this bill. It is different than saying this legislation is their top priority, because it is not. The American people have lots of things to be concerned about. They are concerned about their jobs; they are concerned about getting their kids into college and paying for it; they are concerned about having their families safe and secure in their neighborhoods; they are concerned about the health care of their parents and of themselves and of their children. Mr. President, they are also concerned about doing something to protect their kids from the addiction, disease, and death brought by the use of tobacco products. Most recent polling shows very clearly the American people support this legislation. When they are asked to choose between this legislation and no legislation, they say, ``Pass this bill.'' By 2-to-1 margins they say, ``Pass this bill.'' This is a poll that was just taken by the ENACT Coalition. It shows the voters in the United States support this bill by 66 percent to 32 percent. It is interesting, because we are going to have a vote, perhaps today, on the question of whether or not we move forward. Some will say, ``Let's just kill the bill.'' That is what the tobacco industry wants. That is their argument. And their defenders and their apologists will be making that argument. The American people say, ``Pass this bill.'' Let us have a chance to protect the public health and reduce youth smoking. Mr. President, I am very hopeful that my colleagues will let us move to conclusion on this legislation. We are now in the fourth week of consideration on the floor of the Senate--4 weeks. We ought to complete our work. We ought to send this bill to the House of Representatives, give them a chance to do their work, and then go to the conference committee to work out the differences and produce legislation that can be brought back to both Chambers for a final decision. But we should not end the process now. We should not kill this bill before it has even cleared the first hurdle. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will say yes to protecting our kids' health and say no to the tobacco industry that has waged a campaign of deception and diversion in an attempt to delay and ultimately derail this bill. I yield the floor. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his remarks. I thought maybe it would be useful to come to the floor and just review how we got to where we are, why this legislation is important, and why it matters to American families. Months ago, I was called by our leader, Senator Daschle, and he asked me to head up the task force for Democratic Senators on the issue of tobacco. He did so after the settlement was agreed to in June of last year between the attorneys general, representing about 40 States, and the tobacco industry. That settlement, which was advertised as a settlement of close to $400 billion over a 25-year period, was also a settlement which was designed to not only raise prices to discourage consumption, but was also designed to have countertobacco advertising, smoking cessation, smoking prevention programs--all of it designed, really, to safeguard the public health and to reduce youth smoking. The focus was on reducing youth smoking, because we all know the vast majority of smokers take it up as teenagers; about 90 percent of smokers start before they are age 19. Nearly half start smoking before the age of 14. As the tobacco industry has revealed in the documents that have come out in the court cases, if somebody is not hooked when they are young, they do not get hooked. That is why the tobacco industry has put such a focus on young people. That is why they have marketed to young people. That is why they have advertised to young people. Because they know that is the future of their business. I have read on the floor of the Senate quote after quote of the industry itself that have demonstrated that was the rationale behind the tobacco industry strategy. It was a business strategy: You target young people because people don't start smoking when they are older. They don't start smoking later in life because they have seen enough to know that it is not a very pretty habit, and they also get a sense of the health risk involved. So this is really a question of trying to encourage young people not to take up the habit. The industry has to get some people to be replacement smokers because they are losing over 400,000 customers a year. They are losing them to death. This is the only legal product sold in America that, when used as intended by its manufacturers, addicts and kills its customers. That is strong language. Those are strong words. But they are the truth. After accepting Senator Daschle's assignment to head up the task force on tobacco, we held about 25 hearings across the country. Many of them were here in Washington. We listened to every point of view from any people who wanted to have a chance to express themselves. We listened to the tobacco industry. We listened to those who are in the distribution chain. We listened to the convenience store owners. We listened to the vending machine operators. We listened to tobacco farmers. We listened to Dr. Koop and Dr. Kessler. And we listened to the public health community: The Cancer Society, the Lung Association, and many more. We listened to those who are advocates of strong legislation. We listened to those who said Government ought not to be involved, let this go through the courts. We concluded that it was best if the Government did take action, that it was best not to leave it to a free-for-all in the courts that might ultimately bankrupt these companies. Nobody is out here advocating that we stop the use of tobacco products in this country. After all, there are nearly 50 million smokers in America. We have had a bitter experience with prohibition. It does not work. But what could we do that would discourage youth smoking and protect public health? In holding these hearings and listening to the experts and listening to just common citizens all across the country, over and over they said: Look, you need a comprehensive package. Don't just leave this to the courts. If you do, you wind up perhaps bankrupting these companies. That will not end the use of tobacco products in America. Simply, what will happen is we will wind up with a circumstance in which new companies come and fill in the gap, and the companies that are bankrupted will have no capability to cover the costs that they have imposed on society. Those are very, very significant costs. Those costs are variously estimated at $130 billion of costs being imposed on this society--$130 billion a year. The legislation before us would require the industry to pay $18 or $20 billion a year when fully phased in. That in no way covers the costs they are imposing on society. But that is not all the people who came before our task force told us. They said: You have to have a comprehensive plan. Yes, you have to raise prices to discourage consumption, but you need to do much more than that. You have to have the Food and Drug Administration have regulatory authority over this product, just like they have regulatory authority over other drugs in this society. But you have to go further than that. You have to have a comprehensive plan of public health. You have to have countertobacco advertising, so people hear a message other than the message they get from the tobacco industry, with the billions of dollars a year they spend in advertising and marketing. And you also have to have smoking cessation and smoking prevention programs to help those who are about to start, to give them a chance not to be hooked; and for those who are addicted, to give them every assistance in stopping. (Mr. GREGG assumed the chair.)

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CONRAD. Yes.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is a well-intentioned amendment but it is a profound mistake--absolutely profound. The Senator from Alabama said the courts would have to justify paying the $4,000 an hour provided for in this amendment. We have just provided the justification. If you read the amendment, it says, ``The amendment sets the following limits on attorney's fees: $4,000 an hour for actions filed before 12/31/94.'' Well, guess what? If you file an action before 12/31/94, you just hit the gusher, you get $4,000 an hour. And the U.S. Senate has said that is OK. I don't think the Senate of the United States should say OK to $4,000 an hour for every case filed before 12/31/94. How can we possibly justify that on the floor of the U.S. Senate? This amendment says that you get $2,000 an hour for any action filed between 12/31/94 and 4/1/97--$2,000 an hour. Again, you hit the jackpot. It is almost like playing instant lotto and you are a guaranteed winner, because if you filed a case before 12/31/94, you get $4,000 an hour, and the U.S. Senate says that is an appropriate fee. Well, this Senator is not going to say that is an appropriate fee, and this Senator is not going to say it is an appropriate fee to provide $2,000 an hour if you filed any time between 12/31/94 and 4/1/97-- absolutely not. The Senator from Washington argued persuasively on the last amendment, which had a $1,000 cap, that it might be too much or it might be too little. Now we have $4,000. Well, I can guarantee you that, in most cases, that is far too much. Yet, the U.S. Senate will be on record as saying that is an appropriate legal fee. I don't think it is an appropriate legal fee. As one Senator, I am not going to endorse that.

Mr. CONRAD. The Senator from North Dakota believes that the Senate is ill equipped to reach into the thousands of cases across the country and determine what is an appropriate fee. The Senator from North Dakota is the author of the arbitration provisions that are in this bill because I concluded after listening to witnesses on all sides that we could see truly outrageous returns to attorneys, windfall profits for attorneys under the cases that are across the country. The best way to stop that was arbitration panels. Any time we fix an arbitrary fee amount, it may be way too much or may turn out to be too little. I must say, I can't imagine any circumstance in which $4,000 an hour is too little. I can imagine a circumstance in which, as a previous amendment had $250 an hour proposed, I can imagine for those firms that went out on their own nickel and took on the tobacco industry, that they faced a very tough circumstance, $250 an hour may be too little. I really am very concerned when we say $4,000 an hour and we put our stamp of approval on that. For every case that was filed back before 1994, we will wind up with a circumstance where people get unjustly enriched.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I say very briefly that what the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Massachusetts have said is exactly on point. We really now have one major outstanding issue, and that is the question of how tobacco farmers are treated in this legislation. Hopefully, that could be resolved in a way that would be acceptable to both sides. We understand discussions are under way, and we hope that they could be concluded. But really that is the one major issue left. Then we get on to a whole series of amendments that many Senators would like to offer. I can say for myself I have a number of amendments pending that I am willing to withhold in the interest of advancing this legislation. I have had lots of colleagues come to me this morning and say they, too, would be willing to withhold their amendments if that would advance actually reaching conclusion on this bill. We are in the fourth week. We have dealt with contentious issue after contentious issue. Now is the time to reach conclusion. I urge our colleagues on both sides, if they can, withhold amendments that they have pending so that after the farmer issue is resolved we can move to final passage. I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleagues who have been so patient.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to clear up this confusion about the arbitration panel. On page 438 of the bill it says: * * * the arbitration panel shall consist of 3 persons, one of whom shall be chosen by the plaintiff-- In this case, the State, who has hired the attorney-- one of whom shall be chosen by the attorney-- That would be the claimant for the fees-- and one of whom shall be chosen jointly by those 2 arbitrators. That is the standard method of setting up an arbitration panel. Nothing new, nothing unusual here. That is the way of setting up an arbitration panel to get a result that is fair to both parties. I say to my colleague from Washington, for us to decide we have better judgment than the State courts that administer the cases that are before them, I think, is a huge mistake. We talk about micromanagement. When we start deciding legal fees in this Senate Chamber, we are making a mistake. We do need to be worried about windfalls to attorneys; absolutely we do. That is why arbitration panels were included in the legislation that came out of the Commerce Committee on a 19-to-1 bipartisan vote. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent, so I can get recognition, that the Senator from Minnesota be recognized right after I finish. I will take 1 minute.

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator from Minnesota yield for just one moment?

Mr. CONRAD. I think the Senator misspoke himself. The Senator indicated in the arbitration panel one would be appointed by the plaintiff, one by the plaintiff's lawyer, and then one by the two. I am sure the Senator will acknowledge it is one by the defendant, one by the plaintiff, and the two of them determine the third member. Section 1413 provides how the arbitration panel will work. Obviously, the two sides at issue each pick one, and the two of them pick the third. That is the standard means of establishing an arbitration panel.

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield for a quick point?