Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank my colleagues. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Daschle and Senator Coverdell as original cosponsors of the resolution.

Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent to add the junior Senator from Nebraska as well, Senator Hagel, as an original cosponsor.

Mr. CONRAD. We will leave it open for other Senators that might also wish to cosponsor it. Let me just say that the publisher, Mike Maidenberg, and the editor, Mike Jacobs, did truly a remarkable job in having this newspaper produced every single day even though their building was destroyed by flood and fire, and to produce a remarkable product that has won this prestigious Pulitzer Prize. We are very, very proud of what they have done, of what they have done to help hold that community together, and we are especially proud that it bring home this remarkable honor that I think all of us would say is absolutely justified. I yield the floor. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank the ranking member. We have just seen a proposal unveiled on the floor of the Senate which has some interesting aspects. I must say some of the concepts here are ones that I am interested in. But I am concerned about the specifics of the proposal that is before us in this regard. The chairman of the Finance Committee suggests we ought to devote the budget surpluses to building private accounts in Social Security. I am on record as one member of the Finance Committee who favors moving towards private accounts over time. But I must say, I am concerned about the specifics of the proposal of the Senator from Delaware in that it is based on, I think, a false assumption. I see the false assumption as being that we have budget surpluses. I am certain there are people listening here, here in the Senate Chamber and people listening at home, who wonder what is this talk about budget surpluses and Social Security surpluses? What does this all mean? It is confusing. Unfortunately, the language we use here in Washington, I think, contributes to that confusion. We talk about budget surpluses but what we do not tell people is the way we have calculated their surpluses is that we have included the Social Security trust fund surpluses. This year that amounts to over $100 billion. And by throwing that money into the pot, by, in effect, raiding Social Security, we say there is a $8 billion surplus in the budget. There is not a surplus in the budget. The truth is there is a significant deficit. Oh, yes, on a unified basis--if you take all the funds of the Federal Government and throw them into the pot and look at all of the expenditures of the Federal Government, we are in balance. That is what they call the unified budget. But the problem with that is, and the little dirty secret here, is that $100 billion of the Social Security surplus is being put into that calculation. If any private company tried to balance their books in this way, they would be headed for a Federal institution all right, but it would not be the Congress of the United States. They would be headed for a Federal facility all right. It would be a Federal prison, because that is fraud. That is fraud. To take money for one purpose and use it for another is fraud. Unfortunately, that is the pattern and practice here and has been for 30 years. We are taking Social Security trust fund surpluses, throwing those into the pot, and this year we are saying we have balanced the budget. If any company tried to take the retirement funds of its employees and throw those into the pot and say they balanced the operating budget of the company, they would be in violation of Federal law. So I think we want to be cautious when we have a proposal that in many ways is attractive. I want to say to the Senator from Delaware, I am on record as favoring a partial privatization. I like the idea of individuals being able to have several percentage points of Social Security trust fund payments that they make be reserved in private accounts that they could invest. I like that basic concept. But how do you fund it? How do you fund it? It seems to me the first thing we have to do is stop the practice of looting Social Security. If we are going to secure the long-term prospects for Social Security, we ought to stop raiding it. We ought to stop looting it. And we ought to stop the talk that we have a budget surplus. Because the only way we got a budget surplus is by counting those Social Security trust fund surpluses, which we are going to need for the day when the baby boom generation starts to retire. We have a demographic time bomb just over the horizon, and it is the baby boom generation. When they start to retire in the year 2012, all of a sudden everything that looks rosy now is going to change and change quickly. In fact, by the year 2029 we anticipate the Social Security fund will have run through these massive surpluses that are being built now. They are not built up in terms of money actually in the bank, but built up in terms of IOUs that are being registered and accumulated based on borrowing by the other parts of Government that are spending those moneys, even though we know we are going to need those funds when the baby boomers start to retire. I think the basic concept the Senator from Delaware has merit. But I am very concerned about the specifics that he has proposed, because to take these so-called budget surpluses that we have on paper that only exist because we are raiding Social Security and use those funds before we use them to preserve and protect Social Security, has the prospect of undermining our first responsibility and our first obligation. Our first responsibility and our first obligation is to keep the promise to the tens of millions of people who are relying on that Social Security check. Before we go off and raid the Social Security trust fund surpluses in order to claim we have a budget surplus, we ought to stop that practice. We ought to clean up our act, stop raiding Social Security, stop looting Social Security, and then we can move in the direction proposed by the Senator from Delaware. But I think the proposal that he has before us at this moment is based on a misnomer. And the misnomer is that there are budget surpluses. There are only budget surpluses because we are taking $100 billion a year from Social Security surpluses and throwing those into the pot when we make the calculation of budget surpluses. So we say we have a budget surplus next year of $8 billion, but we are taking $100 billion from Social Security surpluses in order to make that claim. So I just say to my colleagues, I favor the notion of having some portion of Social Security in an account where people control their own investment. I like that idea. But we have to work through the transition costs of this very carefully or we will undermine and threaten the solvency, the long-term solvency, of the Social Security trust fund itself. That should not be anything that we do. Our first obligation, I believe, is to stop raiding the Social Security trust fund, stop raiding those funds, and move to secure the long-term solvency of Social Security and then have a chance to move in the direction the Senator from Delaware has asked for. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield back my time so the distinguished Senator from New York has a chance to comment on the issue before us.

Mr. CONRAD. We are saying, in addition, tobacco revenues need to be used for counteradvertising. The resolution says no, none of the money can be used for that purpose. We say some of the money needs to be used for tobacco-related research. The resolution says no, none of the money can be used for that purpose. We think some of the money needs to be used to fund smoking prevention and cessation programs. The resolution says no, none of the money can be used for that purpose. We think some of it should be used to assist farmers in the transition. The resolution says no, none of the money. We will be told that, in fact, there is money in other parts of the budget, but all of us who are budgeteers understand that those are assumptions. There is no assurance whatever that 1 penny will be available for these purposes from these other funds. And even if they were available, under the assumptions of the Budget Committee, they are woefully inadequate. They only provide about $100 million a year when the health community tells us we need at least $2 billion a year if we are really going to have a chance to reduce youth smoking and protect the public health. We have an opportunity now to respond and broaden the use of the reserve fund so we can have comprehensive tobacco legislation pass in this Chamber. The only way any of the bills that are before us now will be in order on the floor of the Senate is if my amendment passes. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, my amendment is designed to allow the reserve fund for possible tobacco revenues to be used for more than just Medicare. My amendment is cosponsored by the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Bingaman of New Mexico, and Senator Reed of Rhode Island. While we acknowledge Medicare is an important priority, we understand it is not the only priority. We all understand if tobacco legislation passes, there are other things that are necessary for a national tobacco policy. The health community has told us very clearly we need to fund smoking cessation, smoking prevention. We need to promote and support additional health research. We also need to be able to fund counteradvertising and also ease the transition for farmers. All of those are things that need to be funded by a possible tobacco settlement. Unfortunately, under the terms of the budget resolution, none of those things are possible, none of them, even though every bill that has been introduced on the floor, every comprehensive piece of legislation, by Republicans and Democrats, has said that these other priorities also need to be funded. Here are the priorities in each of the comprehensive bills that have been introduced: Tobacco revenue should be provided for smoking education initiatives, to educate our young people. The Republican budget resolution says no, not one dime.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act, and I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Johnson amendment, which expresses the sense of the Senate about the need to address the Bureau of Indian Affairs school construction backlog. The conditions at the schools on America's Indian reservations are some of the worst in the nation. They are truly deplorable. In January, I accompanied the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs on a tour of the Standing Rock Community School at Fort Yates, North Dakota. I wish every one of my colleagues in the Senate could see the conditions at this school. The school was built in an open-classroom design, without walls between the classrooms. The noise at the school can be deafening at times, and this is not an environment in which students can learn. How is it that we can have a school in which the physical conditions actually prohibit learning from happening? In addition, the heating and cooling system at the school is grossly inadequate, so it can be 50 degrees in one wing of the school, and 80 degrees in another. As bad as this is, things have recently gotten worse: the lights at this school and the local elementary school have begun to leak an oily substance that has been found to contain PCBs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is in the process of removing these lights and conducting additional testing for further contamination. They are also testing the ceiling tiles, which preliminary tests show may contain dioxin. To protect the health of the students, the schools were shut down for weeks. The BIA is in the process of reopening the schools' classrooms and other facilities, as clean-up is completed. These conditions pose serious threats to the health of the children of the Standing Rock Reservation. How can we ask families to sent their children to be educated in such deplorable conditions? In looking at conditions at schools throughout Indian Country, the Standing Rock Community is not an anomaly. In January, the GAO released a report on conditions at BIA schools and the costs to repair these schools. The BIA estimates that the costs of total inventory repair need for BIA education facilities is $754 million. Data from a 1994 National Schools Facilities Survey conducted by GAO show that BIA schools are generally in poorer physical condition, have more unsatisfactory environmental factors, more often lack key facilities requirements for educational reform, and are less able to support computer and communications technology, compared to other schools nationwide. Of the conditions found at BIA schools: 62 percent had at least one building in less than adequate condition, compared with 33 percent of all schools. 79 percent had at least one inadequate building feature (such as roofs, floors, foundations, plumbing, heating, electrical power, and life safety codes). Nationwide, 57 percent of all schools had at least one inadequate building feature. 94 percent had at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition, compared with 50 percent of schools nationwide. Environmental conditions include lighting, heating, ventilation, indoor air quality, acoustics, flexibility of instructional space, energy efficiency, and physical security of building. These are serious school construction needs--about $754 million worth--that should be addressed, and should be addressed quickly. The Johnson amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that the BIA school construction backlog should be eliminated within five years. We need a serious, sustained effort to get the job done and provide a safe environment in which Native American children can get an education. The Johnson amendment also requires the Administration to submit to Congress a plan for how this construction backlog will be addressed. As a member of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I intend to work closely with Kevin Gover, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, to ensure that the job gets done. Assistant Secretary Gover visited North Dakota and quickly grasped the magnitude of the school construction problem. He has made a commitment to me and other members of the Committee to take action on this school construction backlog. We cannot let these conditions persist. We cannot let the BIA school construction backlog continue to grow out of control. And we cannot continue to ask parents to send their children to school where learning cannot take place and where serious health hazards exist. I hope that all of my colleagues will vote for the Johnson amendment and show their support for the will-being of Native American children.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this issue is simple. The question is, Are we going to have a reserve fund so that there is a solution to the tobacco controversy, that we can use the money in a way that accommodates every comprehensive bill that is before this body, introduced by Republicans or Democrats? Unfortunately, under the budget resolution, the money can only go for one purpose: Medicare. While that is an important priority, there are other priorities as well--smoking cessation, smoking prevention, health research, countertobacco advertising, easing the transition for farmers. We should not be creating supermajority hurdles in the way of tobacco legislation, and the only way we avoid that is to pass this amendment.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask for 1 additional minute. I ask for an additional 1 minute. I would go on to the amendment itself, that gives me an additional 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to add my voice to the strong voice of the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin. We are now facing an emergency with respect to the research bill. The research title is a bit of a misnomer because much more is involved here than agricultural research, although that is critically important. That is critically important because we have been hit all across the country with a set of diseases because we are in a wet cycle. That wet cycle has been devastating in my State. We lost 30 percent of the crop last year, over $1 billion of economic loss because of scab and vomitoxin, and those losses continue. Now we are in a situation where we desperately need research into those diseases, but it goes much beyond that. It goes to the heart of the crop insurance system in America. As the Senator from Iowa has indicated, there are 700,000 policyholders in America. They are about to get a notice that there is no crop insurance available for them. That is the danger that we risk if we fail to act, and act today. The crop insurance shortfall may result in farmers across the Nation receiving cancellation notices. This is a dire emergency.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first of all, I want to say to the chairman of our committee, he knows that I have the utmost regard for him for the way he conducts our committee. I have real respect for the chairman. I have, as well, an affection for the chairman. That really is not the issue before us tonight. We work together, and on the larger issues of where we are going for the long term, there is much more that unites us than divides us because we are both persuaded that if we don't address the long-term entitlement changes that are necessary in this country, we put this country at risk. We are talking about the national security of our Nation because, fundamentally, that cannot be preserved if we don't get our long-term fiscal house in order. We are united on that question. Mr. President, the issue before us tonight is a reserve fund in the budget for tobacco revenue. The chairman of our committee says that he believes if we get a tobacco settlement, all of the revenue ought to go for Medicare. I would be swift to acknowledge that Medicare is a priority, but it's not the only priority. Medicare does not represent the national tobacco policy. We have to do more with those tobacco revenues than just strengthen the Medicare Program. And, in fact, I think the chairman would be quick to acknowledge that even if we took all of the revenue from tobacco, we would not do the job that needs to be done with respect to Medicare. We need fundamental reform of Medicare, and I voted in the Finance Committee very controversial votes to do precisely that, because I deeply believe we do need to reform the Medicare Program, to preserve it and protect it for the long term. Mr. President, the tobacco revenues won't do that job. In fact, in an odd way, they actually may retard our facing up to the long-term challenge of Medicare. But there are other challenges we face as well. One of them is, if we get the tobacco revenue, how should it be used? The Republican budget resolution says none of it should be used for youth-smoking-reduction-education programs. None of it should be used for public service advertising to counter the tobacco advertising of the industry. Their resolution says none of it should be used for tobacco-related medical research; that none of it should be used for smoking cessation and prevention programs; none of it should be used to assist tobacco farmers in their communities in the transition. That is an honest disagreement. In the bill I introduced, some of the money was used for Medicare, some of it was used to strengthen Social Security. But we also believe that, just as every comprehensive bill that is before this body by Republicans and Democrats has said, some of the money has to go for tobacco control problems, smoking cessation, smoking prevention. The chairman says he has money elsewhere in the budget. Let me just say that what he has elsewhere in the budget is wholly inadequate. That is not just my judgment; that is the judgment of the public health community on a united basis. In the budget resolution, there is $125 million a year for smoking cessation, smoking prevention, counter-tobacco advertising, and health research that is specific to the question of tobacco issues. That is apart from the NIH money. But in every comprehensive bill that is out here by Republicans, or Democrats, it is not $125 million for those purposes. It is $2 billion a year to $4 billion a year. The chairman elsewhere in the budget has provided for $125 million, and the truth is that under the budget resolution it may be the result that not a single dime is available for any of those programs because the Budget Committee doesn't make that decision. All the money goes in a pot and the appropriators determine what are their priorities. If they have a difference on that question, they may decide not to provide one thin dime for smoking cessation, smoking prevention, counter-tobacco advertising, or even health research. That is the hard reality. That is why some of us believe deeply that we have to broaden out this reserve fund to accommodate the other priorities, to have a chance to have comprehensive tobacco legislation without a supermajority requirement here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. A 60-vote point of order lies against any of these comprehensive tobacco bills that have been offered by three Republican chairmen on that side and every comprehensive tobacco bill on our side. We do not believe we should put supermajority hurdles in the way of accomplishing national tobacco legislation. I will just conclude by saying I respect our chairman, I respect the work of his staff, I respect the work of our ranking member, and his staff. Let me just say with respect to our ranking member that no one has been more dedicated on the question of reforming our Nation's policy with respect to tobacco than the Senator from New Jersey. If people on airplanes like the fact that they are smoke free, there is one person who is responsible for it--more responsible than any other individual--and that is the Senator from New Jersey. We can all thank him for the contribution he has made to try to do something to get our kids off the tobacco habit, off the addiction, and the diseases that it causes. I think we should recognize his leadership in this regard. Nobody has been a more forceful advocate of changing the tobacco culture than the Senator from New Jersey. At some point we are all going to be on the same page because I believe we are going to find a way to get together on national tobacco legislation. But I hope that we do not put in the way as a roadblock the budget resolution. We could broaden that reserve fund so that if we do get tobacco revenue it can be used, yes, for Medicare, and, yes, to help strengthen Social Security, as my bill also provides, but in addition to that provide for smoking cessation, smoking prevention, counter-tobacco advertising--all of the things that the public health community has told us is important to a comprehensive approach to protecting the public health. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from ENACT, a coalition of more than 45 major public health organizations with millions of volunteers and members who support comprehensive legislation that will prevent children from taking up tobacco and will dramatically reduce tobacco use among adults. They support the type of amendment which I have offered. I ask unanimous consent to also have printed in the Record a letter from the American Lung Association, who say in their letter, ``As you know, the budget resolution recently approved by the Budget Committee is a disaster for public health.'' I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Public Citizen making the same point; finally, a letter from Smoke Free 2000, a coalition interested in advancing the public health with respect to the question of tobacco policy. So, we will have those letters in the Record demonstrating the support of the public health community for broadening our tobacco reserve plan so that a comprehensive bill is possible.

Mr. CONRAD. That would be acceptable.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Reed. He has been one of the most dedicated members on our task force on tobacco. He has been absolutely committed to the effort to form sound national tobacco policy. Nobody worked harder in our task force. Nobody is more thoughtful, more creative about how we approach this set of challenges and problems than the Senator from Rhode Island. I thank him personally and publicly for the role that he has played. If we ultimately succeed in passing comprehensive national tobacco legislation, in no small measure it will be because of the contribution of the Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Reed. I especially thank him for his contribution to the debate on this amendment, because I think this goes right to the heart of the question. Are we going to have a chance to write comprehensive national tobacco legislation or are we going to be foreclosed and that effort endangered because the Republican budget resolution puts at risk any chance of passing a comprehensive bill? They would create supermajority vote requirements to pass any comprehensive tobacco bill. Instead of requiring 50 votes or 51 votes, we would have to have supermajority votes of over 60 because they have created points of order against any of the major bills that have been introduced by Republicans or Democrats. This is a matter that must be fixed. This amendment that Senator Lautenberg and Senator Reed and Senator Bingaman and I have introduced is the key to unlocking the chance to have national tobacco legislation. So I especially thank my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the amendment on behalf of myself; Senator Lautenberg, the ranking member on the Budget Committee; Senator Bingaman of New Mexico; and Senator Reed of Rhode Island. Mr. President, this amendment will address one of the problems with the budget resolution that was passed out of the Senate Budget Committee. The Senate budget resolution says that if any tobacco revenues are forthcoming as a result of a conclusion to the tobacco controversy, that money can only be used for the Medicare Program. I would be the first to acknowledge the critical importance of Medicare and to say that some of the tobacco revenues ought to go for that purpose. In fact, the measure that I have introduced, which has 32 cosponsors in the U.S. Senate, provides for some of the funds to go to strengthen the Medicare Program. But there are other important priorities as well. Under the budget resolution passed by the Republican majority in the Budget Committee, none of the funds can go for other purposes to address the tobacco challenge facing our country. In fact, none of the funds that could come from a resolution of the tobacco issue could be used for smoking cessation, smoking prevention, counter-tobacco-advertising programs, to expand health research on tobacco-related issues, to provide for additional funding for FDA increased regulatory authority over the tobacco industry. That just seems to be a serious mistake. Every single expert that came before our task force on the tobacco legislation said that if you are going to be serious about protecting the public health, if you are going to be serious about reducing youth smoking, you need a comprehensive plan, a plan that raises prices to deter youth from taking up the habit; you need to have smoking cessation and smoking prevention programs; you need to have counter-tobacco advertising. You also need to expand FDA's regulatory authority. And, yes, you should have expanded health research into the diseases caused by tobacco addiction and tobacco use. The resolution from our friends on the other side of the aisle says no to all of those other priorities. It says there is only one priority. It says all of the money should go for only one purpose. Mr. President, that is just a mistake. If we look at all of the comprehensive bills that have been introduced in this Chamber by Republicans and Democrats, every single one of those comprehensive bills provides funding for matters other than just Medicare. They provide money for smoking cessation, for smoking prevention, for counter-tobacco advertising, for expanded FDA regulatory authority, for increased health research into the problems caused by the addiction and disease brought on by the use of tobacco products. I brought this chart that compares reality to rhetoric. If we look at the policy goals in all of the comprehensive bills that have been introduced in this Chamber, bills by three Republican chairmen--Senator McCain, chairman of the Commerce Committee; Senator Hatch, chairman of the Judiciary Committee; and also Senator Lugar, chairman of the Agriculture Committee--all of those bills provide for funding for these other priorities. In addition to my own bill, the HEALTHY Kids Act, Senator Lautenberg's bill and Senator Kennedy's bill, all of them use tobacco revenue for anti-youth-smoking-education initiatives--every single one of them, Republicans and Democrats, provide for using some of the funds for that purpose. The Republican budget alternative available on the floor says no money for that purpose. All of the bills, Republicans' and Democrats', that have been introduced on the floor, use some of the tobacco revenue for public service advertising to counter the industry's targeting of our kids. But the Republican budget that is before the Senate says no money can be used for counter- tobacco advertising. Mr. President, all of the major bills that have been introduced say use some of the tobacco revenue to fund tobacco-related medical research. That just makes common sense. But the Republican budget alternative says not one dime from a resolution of the tobacco controversy can be used for that purpose. What sense does that make? All of the major bills that have been introduced by Republicans and Democrats say some of the tobacco revenue should be used to fund smoking cessation programs. The Republican budget says no. The Republican budget says not one penny out of the tobacco revenues for the purpose of funding smoking-cessation programs. What sense does that make? All of the major bills say use part of the tobacco revenue to assist tobacco farmers. The Republican budget resolution says no; not one dime to ease the transition for tobacco farmers that would result from the passage of tobacco legislation. Mr. President, the Republican budget resolution would hold every comprehensive tobacco bill that has been introduced by Republicans or Democrats to be out of order on the floor of the Senate--all of them. They would all be out of order under the Republican budget resolution. What sense does that make? I submit that we can do better. We should do better. We have the opportunity to respond by taking what is in the Republican budget resolution with respect to the funds that would be taken in, the revenue that might result if we are able to resolve the tobacco question, and, instead of only allowing those funds to be used for the Medicare Program, to broaden the use of those funds to allow them to be spent in a way the American people want to see them spent, and the way every bill which is comprehensive which has been introduced by Republicans or Democrats provides. It is in my amendment; that is, not only should the money go for Medicare; yes, some of the money should go for that purpose; but some of the money should go for public health efforts to reduce the use of tobacco products by children, including tobacco control, education, and prevention programs, counteradvertising, research, and smoking cessation. Every expert who came before our task force--we heard from over 100 witnesses--said you have to have a comprehensive plan, you have to do some or all of these things, if you are going to be successful at protecting the public health; you have to do some or all of these things if you are really going to be successful at reducing youth smoking. We should also provide the chance, at least for comprehensive tobacco legislation, to provide assistance for tobacco farmers. The budget resolution before us says no; no help for tobacco farmers. Not only are we not going to have any money from tobacco revenues for smoking cessation, for smoking prevention, or for health research, we have no money to assist tobacco farmers and their communities. We also provide increased funding, or at least the chance for increased funding, for the Food and Drug Administration, which, under virtually every bill that is out here, would be asked to take on a greater role and more responsibility. If they are going to be given more obligations, they ought to be given the funding to match those obligations. They ought to be told yes, those additional resources to regulate the tobacco product will be provided. Virtually every bill that has been introduced here by Republicans and Democrats says that is an appropriate outcome. The Republican budget resolution says no--not one thin dime for that purpose, or for the purpose of the farmers, or for the purpose of smoking cessation, smoking prevention, health research, or countertobacco advertising--no tobacco revenues to be used for that purpose. Mr. President, it just doesn't make sense. Yes, we provide that the funds which would be set aside taken from the tobacco revenues could also be used for expanded health research. If there is one thing we have heard from the experts, it is that we need to know more about the causes of the diseases which flow from the addiction and the use of these tobacco products. The National Institutes of Health need additional funding to look into the cancers caused by the use of tobacco products, to examine the heart problems caused by the use of tobacco products, to examine the emphysema which is caused by the use of tobacco products. We need to do more research to understand the role of addiction in causing the diseases which flow from the use of tobacco products. But the budget resolution which is before us says no; not one thin dime for any of those purposes out of tobacco revenue. That contradicts every single public health organization and every single public health leader in America. Dr. Koop and Dr. Kessler have pleaded with us: If you are going to have an effective program of protecting the public health, if you are going to have an effective program to reduce use of smoking, you have to have a comprehensive plan; you have to have one which addresses every one of these aspects. You can't just limit it to Medicare. Yes, Medicare is very important. There is no question about it. Our legislation would provide some of the funding for Medicare. Our legislation would provide some of the funding for Social Security, which the Republican budget resolution also precludes. They wouldn't provide a penny to strengthen Social Security. They oppose providing any help to Social Security, even though we know it faces a demographic time bomb, the same demographic time bomb that Medicare faces. But they say no for any money to strengthen and protect Social Security. And they say no to any funding for smoking prevention, smoking cessation, countertobacco advertising, and additional health research out of the tobacco revenues. It does not make sense. Mr. President, I am going to turn now to my colleagues, my leading cosponsor, Senator Lautenberg, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, and Senator Reed of Rhode Island, who is here as well. I don't know--Senator Reed has been waiting--if he would like to comment now, or if Senator Lautenberg would like to take this opportunity.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I tell you, I have no idea. I will respond in this way. I find it the most curious thing that has happened all year--why you would provide a special reserve fund so that if there is tobacco legislation that passes, you can have the revenue flow to the Federal Treasury; but then you say, when we go to spend the money, none of it can be used for smoking cessation, smoking prevention, counter-tobacco advertising, expanded health research, funding the FDA so that they can attend to their added responsibilities under any of the bills that have been offered, by either Republicans or Democrats. The curious thing is that every single bill that has been offered out here, whether it is the bill of Senator Hatch, who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the bill of Senator McCain, who is chairman of the Commerce Committee, or Senator Jeffords' bill, all those bills would be out of order. So you have three Republican chairmen who have offered bills out here, and their bills would be out of order under what has been provided for under the budget resolution. Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD. Well, that is the convention of those who debated this issue in the Budget Committee. They said, ``Well, we have provided the funding elsewhere in the budget . . .''--not out of the tobacco revenues, which is a curious thing if you think about it. Since these are clearly tobacco-related expenses, you would think you would fund them out of the tobacco revenue. They said, ``Don't worry, we funded it somewhere else.'' Let me say to the Senator that there is not any assurance that there would be one thin dime anywhere else in the budget for that purpose because, as you know, the Budget Committee does not make those determinations. What has been set up by the Budget Committee is mounds of money that would be a jump ball. The appropriators would decide. You serve on the appropriation committee and you understand that the Budget Committee gives you an overall spending limit and you decide what the priorities are. If you decided that existing priorities were more important, there might not be any money for smoking cessation, smoking prevention, counter-tobacco advertising, and all the rest. So that is the problem with the budget resolution. They have an assumption in there. The assumption is that the appropriators will provide something over $100 million a year for these purposes, but every single major bill that is out here provides $2 billion a year for these purposes-- smoking prevention, smoking cessation, counter-tobacco advertising, expanded health research, FDA authority--and so there is no way that this comes anywhere close to meeting the need.

Mr. CONRAD. Yes.

Mr. CONRAD. Yes, exactly. It seems startling, but that is what the budget resolution provides. The resolution says that not one dime of any tobacco settlement money can go for tobacco smoking cessation, smoking prevention, or any of the other programs that all of the experts have said are required. We could not have any of this money go for the National Institutes of Health and Research. We could not use any of the money for the expanded FDA role in regulating tobacco products. None of the money could be used for counter-tobacco advertising programs. Every single expert that has come to us has said those are essential to a comprehensive plan to actually reduce teen smoking. So the budget resolution is clearly deficient in that regard.

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I will say a word on the amendment offered on behalf of myself, Senator Lautenberg, and others. The purpose of that amendment is to make possible comprehensive tobacco legislation on the floor of the U.S. Senate. As the occupant of the chair knows, in the Budget Committee a resolution came out that provides that the funding from any possible resolution of the tobacco issue can only go for Medicare. While Medicare is clearly a key priority, there are other priorities as well. Among those are the question of preventing kids from taking up a habit. The experts have all told us that we need to use some of the funds for the purpose of tobacco prevention programs, smoking cessation programs, counter-tobacco advertising programs, to increase health research, to provide some easing of the transition for tobacco farmers, and also to fund the expanded role of FDA and the question of regulating these products. The experts have told us, unanimously, that there is simply no way to have comprehensive tobacco control legislation without those priorities being included. In fact, every single bill that has been introduced that is comprehensive in nature on the floor of the Senate, by Republicans and Democrats, provides for taking some of that money for those purposes. Unfortunately, under the budget resolution, every single comprehensive bill--those introduced on the Republican side and those introduced on the Democratic side--is out of order. Not a single one of the bills would be in order under the budget resolution as it came out of the committee. So the amendment offered by myself, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Reed is to correct that deficiency, to allow the Senate to work its will on comprehensive tobacco legislation, so that we have a chance when we finally get to a discussion of the tobacco bills, that the budget resolution is not an impediment to passing national tobacco policy.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.