Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

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

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, the third amendment is on behalf of Senator Carol Moseley-Braun. Amendment No. 2175 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding elementary and secondary school modernization and construction; improving the educational environment for the 14 million children who attend severely dilapidated schools, the millions of children in overcrowded classrooms, and the 19 million children who are denied access to modern computers because their schools lack basic electrical wiring; relieving overcrowding in our Nation's classrooms; and generally helping States and school districts bring their school buildings into the 21st century)

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, the second amendment is on behalf of myself, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Bingaman and Senator Reed. This is to ensure that the tobacco reserve fund in the resolution protects public health. Amendment No. 2174 (Purpose: To ensure that the tobacco reserve fund in the resolution protects public health)

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. I thank the Chair. The first amendment is on behalf of Senator Dodd of Connecticut. It is an amendment to establish a deficit- neutral reserve fund for child care improvements. Amendment No. 2173 (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for child care improvements)

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be laid aside so I may offer 4 amendments on behalf of Democratic Senators and that these amendments be sequenced between the Republican amendments when we vote.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, earlier, Senator Kennedy raised concerns about the tobacco legislation that is moving through Congress. Obviously, tobacco legislation is part of the budget resolution as well. The budget resolution provides a special reserve fund so that, in fact, if the tobacco legislation moves, it will be possible to use those funds for a number of purposes. Senator Kennedy had indicated that at the same time there is legislation moving through the Commerce Committee. He raised a number of concerns about the legislation as it has been described in the press. Madam President, just let me add my voice of concern to what we have heard about that legislation moving through the Commerce Committee. One of the major issues on comprehensive tobacco legislation is, Will this industry be given special, unprecedented protection-- protection that has never been granted any other industry at any time? That is, special protection against suits by victims of the industry, whether they be individuals or third parties who have had costs imposed on them by the use of tobacco products. Madam President, the bill going through the Commerce Committee at this point is silent on the question of liability--liability for the tobacco industry. Being silent on liability in tobacco legislation is like having a discussion of the Titanic and failing to mention the iceberg. This is central to any discussion that anybody can have about tobacco legislation. How can you be silent on the question of liability? Many of us believe that there should be no special protection granted this industry. Many of us believe it is inappropriate to give this industry, of all industries, the kind of unprecedented protection that they seek. It is troubling that we saw this industry come before Congress and swear under oath that their products caused no health problems, swore under oath that they had never targeted our kids for marketing and advertising, swore under oath they had never manipulated nicotine levels in order to make their products more addictive, and that their products were not addictive. Now the documents have come out. The documents show that, without question, in fact, these products cause the health problems that they have sworn they do not cause. We know, based on the release of the documents, that they have targeted our kids for marketing and advertising. In fact, they have targeted kids as young as 12 years old in their marketing and advertising. The documents disclose it. The documents also disclose that they knew their products were addictive. The documents disclose that they knew they were engaged in these efforts, which they absolutely denied when they were before Congress. And now they come to us and they say, well, look, if we are going to be involved in this, you have to give us special protection. The Senator from New Hampshire sent an amendment to the desk that says we ought not to give this industry immunity, we ought not to give them special protection, and we ought to deal with this industry the way we have dealt with every other industry; we ought to address head- on the problems that they create and do it without giving them some kind of special deal. I think the overwhelming majority of Americans would say that is exactly the right thing to do. We should not be giving them special protection. They don't deserve it. They don't need it. It is not necessary in order to accomplish the result. So at some point very soon we are going to have a chance to debate and discuss the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire. I just want to commend him this afternoon for offering that amendment. I look forward to the debate. I want to hear on the floor of the Senate the argument advanced that this industry should be given special protection. I want to hear people in public defend the position that this industry should be given special treatment. I want to hear on the floor of the Senate how somebody rationalizes and defends this industry. I don't think it is possible. I don't think it will stand the light of day. Out here in the back room someplace when nobody is around and nobody is reporting, all of a sudden there is a lot of grave talk about, oh, we have to give this industry special protection. I want to hear those arguments made out here in the cold light of day. I want to see our colleagues have a chance to vote on the question of whether we are going to give special protection to this industry or not. Madam President, I very much look forward to our debate and discussion on that question. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for offering that amendment. Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD. Now we go to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. CONRAD. I understand Senator Sessions would like to get the yeas and nays on his amendment.

Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent I be added as a cosponsor to the amendment that has been sent by the Senator to the desk.

Mr. CONRAD. We are prepared to yield back, and the Senator is prepared to yield back.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the leadership of Senator Kennedy on the critical issue of protecting the public health and the tobacco legislation. He has been one of the most valued members of the task force on tobacco in the Democratic Caucus. No one has worked harder to make certain that we keep our eye on the ball of what are the important priorities. Over and over, he has reminded our colleagues that the priority is to protect the public health and to reduce teen smoking. Those are the things that I think all of us want to accomplish. I thank him publicly for the extraordinary leadership he has brought to the cause.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, today is a historic day. For the first time in 30 years, the Budget Committee is able to present a budget that is balanced on a unified basis. I think all of us have looked forward to the day when we would be able to say to our colleagues, ``The deficit has been erased.'' That is what we are able to come to the floor and say today. We all understand that there is more to do, because we all understand we are continuing to use the Social Security trust fund surpluses. So that is the next challenge that faces us. But on that front, we are making progress as well, because in this budget resolution, we are saving the surpluses until Social Security can be strengthened, and we are doing it on both sides. The Republican budget resolution and the alternative Democratic resolution will both be balanced on a unified basis and also preserve all of the surpluses generated by the 5-year spending plan until Social Security is strengthened. I thought it might be useful to recount for our colleagues and those who might be watching how we got to the position we are in today, what it took to get here, what is the history, how did it happen, because I think it is an important story. In 1993, President Clinton was inaugurated, came into office and laid down an economic plan to reduce the deficit. It was a controversial plan, one that cut spending and also raised income taxes on the wealthiest 1.5 percent of the people in this country. Many said that plan would not work. In fact, our friends on the other side of the aisle said it would crater the economy. How well I remember the debate we had on the floor of the Senate. How well I remember the description that came from our colleagues on the other side who told us, ``If you pass this plan, it will not reduce the deficit, it will increase the deficit.'' They said it would increase unemployment; that it would increase inflation; that it would increase the debt; that it would stifle economic growth. Mr. President, the record is now clear. Our friends on the other side of the aisle were simply wrong. They were wrong on every single count. The plan that we passed in 1993 not only reduced the deficit, it has done it each and every year since the 1993 plan was passed. It has also led to a remarkable economic resurgence. It has led to the lowest unemployment in 24 years, the lowest rate of inflation in 31 years, the strongest business expansion in any of our memories, and put this country on a sound financial footing. But, again, I think we must all recognize the challenge is not over, because the next step is to stop using the Social Security trust fund surpluses. Again, the budget resolution offered by our friends on the other side of the aisle this year and the alternative that will be offered by our side recognize the Social Security surpluses should no longer be used in the calculation of the budget deficit and that we will preserve all budget surpluses until the time Social Security is strengthened. Mr. President, this first chart shows that the unified budget is balanced for the first time in 30 years. Here is the record since 1969. Thirty years ago is the last time we were able to achieve unified balance--30 long years ago. And in between, we saw deficits rising inexorably, until in 1992 they reached $290 billion. Then, as I indicated, President Clinton came into office and proposed the 1993 budget plan, a 5-year economic blueprint that has made dramatic progress. You can see what has happened since: The deficit has been in steep decline, until this year when we anticipate we also may run a small unified surplus, but clearly we are on the right track. I thought I might also help to put in perspective what has happened in the last three Presidencies, what the record has been on the question of budget deficits, because those budget deficits weighed down on this economy and prevented the kind of economic growth that we have now enjoyed since progress has finally been made. This chart shows from 1981 through 1999 the budget deficit record. We can see during the Reagan administration, he came in and inherited a deficit of $79 billion. That promptly skyrocketed so that we were running on almost a consistent basis deficits of $200 billion a year, absolutely unheard of before that time. In the last years of the Reagan administration, some improvement was made. We were still running budget deficits of $150 billion a year. Then we had the 4 years of the Bush administration, and the deficits took off like a scalded cat. Deficits went up, as I indicated before, so that at the end of the Bush administration, the deficits were running $290 billion a year. And with the election of President Clinton, a Democratic Congress passed a budget plan in 1993 that has succeeded in reducing the deficits every year of that 5- year plan. The deficit went down in 1993 to $255 billion; the next year was down to $203 billion; then $164 billion; then $107 billion; then down to $22 billion and, as you can see, additional progress is being made so that in 1999, we are now anticipating a unified budget surplus. As I indicated, the 1993 plan was controversial: Cut spending, raise taxes, income taxes on the wealthiest 1.5 percent in this country. Some told the American people that all of their income taxes were going up. It was not true. But they were able to confuse an awful lot of people, make an awful lot of people believe that was what was happening. The fact is income taxes went up on the top 1.5 percent, but others actually had their taxes cut because of the expansion of the earned income tax credit. In fact, many more people had their taxes cut as a result of the 1993 plan than had their income taxes increased. The news media never told that story. But that is a fact. Yes, we increased the income taxes on the wealthiest 1.5 percent, but we also reduced taxes by expanding the earned income tax credit for more modest wage earners in this country, and millions of them received a tax reduction. But this shows what has happened to both the spending and the revenue of the Federal Government since 1980. The blue line represents the spending of the Federal Government. The red line represents the receipts, and these are all stated as a percentage of our national income or, as sometimes said by the economists, our gross domestic product, because that is probably the most realistic way to look at the trends in spending and revenue. What you can see is that the spending, as a percent of our national income, has come down; the revenue has come up. And it is that combination--reduced spending, increased revenues--that has allowed us to achieve unified balance. And it is that unified balance that has taken the pressure off interest rates, that has improved the economic climate in this country, so that we now enjoy very healthy economic growth, low inflation, low unemployment, and all of the other benefits that flow from a strong national economy. This chart shows how we achieve a balanced unified budget. Looking back to 1992, looking at the savings from the 1993 deficit-reduction package that I have previously referenced, and looking at the additional savings that will be achieved as a result of the 1997 bipartisan budget deal--I think it is very important that we be direct with everybody. In 1993, the Democrats did the heavy lifting. In 1993, there was not a single Republican vote for the budget plan that year--a 5-year economic plan to get us back on track. And we understood it was controversial. We did cut spending. We did raise income taxes on the wealthiest 1 percent. And the Republicans all voted no. Again, I think they were simply wrong. They were wrong in their anticipation of what it would mean to this economy. But in 1997, we had a bipartisan budget deal. That made further progress at getting our fiscal house in order. Now, I prepared this chart to show the relative size of the two plans. The 1993 budget package had $2.5 trillion of savings between 1992 and 2002, that 10-year timeframe. The 1993 budget package will account for $2.5 trillion of the savings. The 1997 bipartisan budget deal, between 1997 and 2002, will account for $600 billion of budget savings. So there is no question in terms of the 10-year period, part of that is attributed to the bipartisan budget deal of 1997, $600 billion. But most of it can be attributed to the 1993 package--$2.5 trillion of savings. As I have indicated, Federal spending has been declining under the budget agreement of 1993 and the follow-on bipartisan budget agreement in 1997. And if we look at Federal spending as a percentage of gross domestic product for national income, we can see in 1992 the Federal Government was spending 22.5 percent of our national income. In each and every year under the budget plan that was passed by Democrats in 1993 and the follow-on plan that was a bipartisan plan in 1997, Federal spending has been coming down as a percentage of our national income. In 1993, it was down to 21.8 percent; in 1994, 21.4 percent; in 1995, 21.1 percent; in 1996, down under 21 percent to 20.7 percent; in 1997, 20.1 percent. In 1998 we are now anticipating Federal spending will be down to 20 percent of our national income--a dramatic improvement under the budget plan first passed in 1993, the 5-year plan passed by the Democrats, and the follow-on bipartisan budget plan passed last year. The result has been a dramatic improvement in the economic health of this country. Economic performance has been sustained, it has been strong, and it has produced the third largest postwar expansion in our history. You can see from 1961 to 1969, we had 106 months of economic expansion. From 1982 to 1990, we had 92 months of economic expansion. From 1991 to now, 84 months of economic expansion. The economy has grown at a very healthy rate. This chart shows the real growth of our gross domestic product, and the growth in 1997 was the best in a decade. The central, underlying reason is the budget plan passed in 1993 that led to the deficit reduction, that allowed interest rates to come down, that made this economy much more competitive, much stronger, put us in a position to be the most competitive nation in the world. Mr. President, I think this record is now becoming very clear. Deficit reduction, fueled by the 1993 budget plan, has led to reduced interest rates, stronger economic growth, and that has meant many positive things for the U.S. economy. The first, perhaps most important, is job growth. We have now seen 15 million jobs created since the Clinton administration came into office. That is the first 61 months. We compare that to the first 61 months of the Reagan administration. We can see during that period about half as many jobs were created--about 7.7 million. And that is why we see such strong economic performance across the country. Well, it is not just job growth where we have seen dramatic results of getting our fiscal house in order. In other areas of the economy, we have also seen a dramatic improvement. This chart shows what has happened to investment in business equipment. One of the real strengths of the national economy, one of the reasons the United States is performing so well in competition with others around the world is because our economy is improving its productivity. One of the reasons we are improving our productivity is because of the computerization of our businesses. One of the key investments they make is in business equipment. That has been growing at an 11 percent annual rate for 4 years. You can see, going back to 1985, we were going along at between $300 and $400 billion, in 1992 dollars, of business equipment investment. Once we got that 1993 budget plan in place, business investment took off, and we are now approaching $700 billion a year in business investment in this economy. It is one of the key reasons this economy is performing so well. Again, it is not just business investment that shows the power of the economic plan that was put in place in 1993 and the follow-on bipartisan plan of last year. We can see in unemployment--here is what has happened with unemployment, looking back to 1991. Our unemployment rate is now the lowest since 1973. In over 24 years, we have the lowest level of unemployment in this country. In my home State of North Dakota, we now see an unemployment rate of under 2 percent. The economists said that was not possible. The economists said full employment was an unemployment rate of 3 percent because of people changing jobs in the economy and other structural factors. But in my State of North Dakota, we have now an unemployment rate of less than 2 percent, and, of course, nationally, the lowest level since 1973. There is not only good news on the unemployment front, there is also good news on the inflation front. And generally those two do not go together. Generally, if you have good news on unemployment, you have bad news on inflation. That is not the case with this economy. The inflation rate is showing its best sustained performance since 1967-- the best rate in over 31 years--and that inflation performance is anticipated to continue. So inflation is under control, with low levels of unemployment, high levels of business investment, and the budget deficit eliminated on a unified basis, and moving towards preserving the Social Security surpluses by preserving the budget surpluses. We have heard a lot of talk from some: ``Well, but you raised taxes in 1993. You raised income taxes on the wealthiest 1.5 percent.'' Yes, that is true, because that was important to balancing the budget, to getting these deficits behind us, to putting this country on a firmer economic footing. We also cut spending. And it is that combination that has made possible the deficit reduction we enjoy today. But it has also translated into tax relief for many of the people in this country because, as I indicated before, while we have raised income taxes on the top 1.5 percent, we also cut income taxes for millions of Americans through expansion of the earned income tax credits. In fact, as this chart shows, the tax burden is declining for a family of four. When you look at the payroll taxes they pay and the income taxes they pay, if you take those with a family income of $27,450 or less, you see they have had their tax burden reduced. In 1984, they were paying over 13 percent of their income in income taxes and payroll taxes. That has been reduced for 1999, under the budget plan we are offering, to 6.5 percent--a 50 percent reduction in the effective tax rate on payroll taxes and income taxes for a family of four earning $27,000, in 1999 dollars. Now, some of our friends on the Republican side say, ``Well, the Democrats just want to spend money.'' And there are places that Democrats believe we ought to spend some more money. We have the agreement from Republicans that we ought to spend more money on highways in this country. We also think more money ought to be spent on education. We think we ought to do something about the crumbling schools. We think we ought to do something to reduce class sizes, to add 100,000 teachers in this country just as we added 100,000 police in the crime bill in 1993 that has had such a remarkable effect in reducing the crime rate in the Nation over the last 5 years. Each and every year, the crime rate has come down once we put 100,000--the authorization, at least, for 100,000 additional police on the streets and took tough measures to strengthen the crime laws of this country. We also believe we ought to provide 100,000 additional teachers across America to improve the educational performance of our kids. So there are places that where think additional funds should be spent. The truth is, if you look at the next year or next 5 years in terms of spending, there is very little difference between the Republican plan and the Democratic plan--very little difference. This shows, in the 1999 budget, the red is the Republican spending plan, the blue is the Democratic spending plan. You will notice there is very little difference, indeed, hardly any. There is about a $12 billion difference between the Republican plan and the Democratic plan, out of a $1.7 trillion budget. In fact, the Republicans' spending plan is for $1.73 trillion for 1999; the Democratic plan is for $1.74 trillion. The difference is, Democrats believe we ought to put some more money into education. We believe we ought to put some more money into child care, because the vast majority of parents are both working and they tell us, we need some help; we are under enormous pressure. I just had a neighbor of mine come and tell me he is spending $17,000, he and his wife, this year--$17,000--for child care. Now, he is probably relatively highly paid, a hard-working guy. Both he and his wife work, have two kids. They are paying $17,000 for child care. All across the country, parents are coming to us and saying, ``Look, this is a part of our expenses that we really need some assistance on. Can't there be some tax relief for child care expenses that is above what we currently are provided?'' The Democratic response has been, yes, we have made dramatic progress on getting our fiscal house in order. We are preserving the budget surpluses until we get Social Security secured for the long term. But we have some additional revenue because of the proposed tobacco settlement, and we could use some of that money for smoking-related matters, health research, smoking prevention, smoking cessation, but we could also use some of it to strengthen child care in this country. We could use some of it to improve education in this country. So the Democrats say, yes, we will take a little bit of that money and use it for those purposes. For the 5-year spending plan, from 1999 to 2003, the Republican spending plan is in red --that is $9.16 trillion; the Democratic plan is in blue, $9.24 trillion. A little bit more money, $80 million more over 5 years in the Democratic plan as contrasted with the Republican plan. Again, why the difference? Because we believe we ought to invest a little more money in education. Yes, we believe we ought to invest a little more money in child care because working parents all across America tell us that is a priority for them. And yes, we ought to use a little of that money for increasing the investment in highway funds, a priority that our Republican friends on an overwhelming basis have agreed with us on. There are other areas of disagreement and perhaps the big area of disagreement is on the question of providing for the use of the tobacco funds. In the budget resolution, the Republicans say all of the money that comes from a possible settlement of tobacco, all of that ought to go to Medicare. Democrats disagree. Democrats say some of the money ought to go to Medicare, absolutely, that is appropriate. Some of the money, we believe, ought to be used to strengthen Social Security. The Republicans say no, not a dime should be used to strengthen Social Security. We disagree with that. We also believe some of the money ought to be used to fund smoking cessation and smoking prevention and counter tobacco advertising, and have health research, and improve the funding for the National Institutes of Health. The Republicans say no, none of the money, none of it, not a dime, from the tobacco settlement should go for those purposes; all of it, every penny, should go for Medicare. We just disagree. We don't think that is the appropriate set of priorities. Obviously, Medicare is important. No question about that. Democrats are the ones who helped pass it, the ones who helped preserve it, the ones who helped protect it. But we also recognize there are other critically important priorities from a windfall that might come from a tobacco settlement--shouldn't spend it all; some of it should be saved. That is why we say some of it should be used to strengthen Social Security. Yes, some of it should be for Medicare. We also recognize that if we are really going to be protecting Medicare, then we have to take steps to keep young kids from getting hooked and addicted to tobacco, because 90 percent of those who are smokers started before age 19; nearly half started before they were age 14. And the addiction of kids puts a later burden on Medicare and Medicaid and veterans' programs because of that addiction. We think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The Republicans just want to deal with it at the final result stage. They just want to deal with it once the people are addicted and diseased. We say let's prevent addiction and disease. Let's spend some of that money on smoking prevention, smoking cessation, counter tobacco advertising, so that we really prevent people from getting in those situations. The fact is the Republican plan in terms of revenue that might come from the tobacco settlement puts all the money into Medicare, none to these other purposes. They say to us, ``We are funding some of those tobacco control efforts other places in the budget.'' That is their answer. The problem with that answer, if you look at numbers what, is that what they have put elsewhere in the budget is nowhere adequate to meeting the need; it doesn't take care of the problem. We have had all the health experts come in and they have told us you need to be spending about $2 billion a year on tobacco control, smoking cessation, smoking prevention, counter tobacco advertising. Interestingly enough, every comprehensive bill introduced on this floor by Republicans or Democrats adopts a spending pattern on tobacco control efforts of about that magnitude, about $2 billion a year--some much more, some are as much as $4 billion a year. The proposed settlement itself contains $11.3 billion for these purposes. The Republican budget over this next 5-year period provides $600 million, about \1/20\th of what the experts say is necessary in order to really accomplish the goals of reducing teen smoking and of protecting the public health. The budget resolution that Republicans have offered also ignores FDA funding for tobacco. In all of the bills that are out there-- Republicans and Democrats--every comprehensive tobacco bill that has been offered says we ought to expand FDA authority to control this drug like they were given authority and responsibility to control every other drug in our society. Obviously, there is a cost to that. The proposed settlement says that cost is $1.5 billion over 5 years. The Republicans haven't given a dime for that purpose. It really makes you wonder if our friends on the other side of the aisle are at all serious about accomplishing the goals for the reduction of teen smoking and protecting our citizens from addiction, disease, and death caused by this industry. These are the matters that will be central to this debate as we go forward. It is important to define differences between us because those differences are real and we have seen the difference they have made over the last 5 years. We believe the record has proved the Democrats were right when they cast a courageous vote in 1993 to really get our fiscal house in order. The results are undeniable. They are just as clear as they can be: deficit reduction, strong economic growth, the best performance on inflation and unemployment in nearly a quarter of a century. That is the record. It is a powerful one. It is one of which we are proud. Now the question is, what do we do going forward? The Democratic answer is we have to maintain fiscal discipline. Yes, we have to achieve that unified balance in our budget, but we have to go further and preserve budget surpluses until we have secured the future of Social Security. As the President said to us, ``Save Social Security first.'' The Democrats agree to that position. In addition, we believe with the windfall that may be anticipated as a result of any tobacco agreement, we ought to use some of that funding to accomplish the goals of protecting the public health, reducing teen smoking, and also we ought to put some of it toward strengthening Social Security, we ought to use some of it for preserving Medicare, and yes, we ought to improve health research in this country and children's health care. Those are things that the American people think are important, and we agree. No higher priority can be attached to anything than improving the education of the children of our country. That is something we simply must do. If we are going to preserve the competitive position of the United States, we must have the best educated work force in the world. That is one reason we are doing well. If we are going to continue to do well, we must make certain that educational excellence is at the top of our priority list. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I especially thank her for locating me properly in North Dakota. We are very sensitive about that up our way, as you can imagine. I also thank the leader for accommodating me in this way. Moments ago, we heard the Senator from Iowa speak on the budget and the fact that we are considering the budget in the Budget Committee. I wanted to make just a few observations on what is occurring there and what has led us to this point. In 1993, the Democrats passed an economic plan that was a 5-year plan. That plan cut spending and it also raised income taxes on the wealthiest 1.5 percent of the people in this country. Many criticized us for that plan at the time, doubting that it would reduce the deficit as we believed, doubting that it would strengthen the economy as we believed, and doubting that it would reduce unemployment and inflation as we believed. But now we are able to look back and see the record and the record is clear. The 1993 economic plan has worked and worked remarkably well. It worked so well that this year we are actually contemplating a balanced budget on a unified basis. That will be the first time in 30 years that the United States has had a balanced budget on a unified basis. When I use those words ``on a unified basis,'' that simply means that we are looking at all of the spending and all of the revenue of the Federal Government. All of them are put together. They are accumulated in order to determine balance. As a result of that economic policy and economic plan that was put in place, we have enjoyed a remarkable economic resurgence in this country. We have very strong economic growth, the lowest unemployment in 24 years, the lowest inflation in 30 years. The size of the Government in relationship to the size of our entire economy has been coming down steadily. We have the smallest size of Government in this country in 30 years. But the job is not yet done, because it is also true that we continue to use Social Security trust fund surpluses in order to achieve balance. So the next great challenge is to stop using the Social Security trust fund surpluses. That is why the President has called on us to save Social Security first, before we use any of those surpluses for any other purpose. The Democrats subscribe to that position. I am pleased to report in the budget that has been put before us by the chairman of the Budget Committee, he, too, has subscribed to the notion of saving Social Security first and not using the surpluses for any other purpose until we resolve the long-term solvency of the Social Security system. But we do have a problem with the budget resolution laid down by the chairman today. The problem that we have is that many of us believe that it endangers comprehensive tobacco legislation, comprehensive national tobacco policy. The reason for that is in the chairman's mark he has provided that if we do get revenues from tobacco, that they can only be used for the Medicare system. Madam President, I would be the first to acknowledge the great importance of the Medicare system. But I do not believe that the chairman's mark solves the Medicare problem. I do not think he makes any representation that it does. What is required to save Medicare for the long term is Medicare reform. That is why we have a bipartisan commission that worked this year to prepare us an outline as to how we strengthen Medicare for the long term. But I think it is also fair to say that Medicare is not a national tobacco policy, and we need a national tobacco policy. If we are going to have comprehensive legislation, if we are going to have a resolution of the tobacco controversy, the experts have told us we need a comprehensive plan, one that has as its highest priority protecting the public health, one that has as its highest priority the reduction of teen smoking, because we all know that 90 percent of smokers start before they are 19, fully half start before age 14. So if we are really going to do something to protect the public health, we need to act to prevent people from taking up the habit. That means if we get tobacco revenues, we should use part of that money for smoking cessation programs, smoking prevention programs, countertobacco advertising programs, health research, and, yes, Medicare, and we Democrats also believe, yes, Social Security. We believe some of the money should be saved for strengthening both Medicare and Social Security, but we don't believe that it is appropriate to limit the use of the funds for only one purpose--strengthening Medicare. We don't believe that is appropriate. We believe if we are going to have a national tobacco policy, that some of the funds, a relatively modest amount of the total, be reserved for smoking cessation, smoking prevention, countertobacco advertising, health research, and other programs that have been advocated by the experts that have come before us. The irony is, every comprehensive bill that is before this body uses the funds not just for Medicare but for these other purposes as well. The bill presented by Senator McCain, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, the bill presented by Senator Lugar, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the bill put before us by Senator Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee--all Republicans, all committee chairmen--they have not said in their comprehensive bills we just use the money for Medicare. No; they have said, to have a comprehensive national tobacco policy, we have to do more than that; we have to have a tobacco control program that really helps us stop the 400,000 deaths that occur every year in this country because of the use of tobacco products. Madam President, we urge our colleagues to listen to Dr. Koop, who wrote to us today that the approach of the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee is inadequate--in fact, he used the words ``woefully inadequate''--to counter the scourge of tobacco. We should listen to the American Cancer Society that wrote to the committee today and said just using the money for Medicare is not adequate. We should listen to the American Lung Association that said in a letter to the committee today, just using the money for Medicare is not going to help us solve the challenge of addiction, disease, and death brought to this country by the use of tobacco products. Madam President, hopefully, before this matter is resolved out here on the Senate floor, we will be able to get together on a comprehensive plan. I hope we are able to do that. I dedicate myself to that purpose, and I hope other Senators will as well. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I submit an amendment to S. 1133, the Parent and Student Savings Account Plus Act. The amendment that I am offering today would extend tax credits to businesses that train workers in information technology skills. The credit would be equal to twenty percent of the information training expenses provided by a company; however, these expenses could not exceed $6,000 in a taxable year. The percentage of the credit would increase by five percent to twenty five percent for a business that operates a training program in an empowerment zone or enterprise community, a school district where fifty percent of students are eligible for the school lunch program, or in an area designated by the President or Secretary of Agriculture as a disaster zone. This amendment would be paid for by reducing the top of the phase-out range of the education IRA to $90,000 for joint filers and $75,000 for individuals. The intent of my amendment is to encourage businesses to retrain current employees who may be about to be discharged, to retrain unemployed workers, and to encourage businesses to enter into partnerships with schools, job training programs or universities to train students and workers in computer and information technology skills. As I noted earlier, a higher tax credit would be extended to a business that establishes a training program or partnership in an area where unemployment or poverty is high. Mr. President, several months ago--January 12, 1998--Vice President Gore, while meeting with information technology executives in California, announced a series of Administration actions to meet the growing demand for information technology workers. The Vice President cited reports by several federal agencies including the Department of Commerce, that the demand for computer scientists, engineers, and systems analysts will double over the next decade. Industry spokesmen representing the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) confirm that the current shortage of information technology workers is approximately 346,000. This shortage includes programmers, systems analysts and computer engineers. For the information technology industry this shortage is threatening the competitiveness of U.S. companies. As ITAA President Harris Miller commented in January, ``Technical talent is the rocket fuel of the information age. As an information-intensive society, we cannot afford to stand by as the next wave in our economic future departs for foreign shores. Empty classroom seats, a poor professional image, and other factors are conspiring to rewrite an American success story. We must solve this problem''. Mr. President, this matter is critical for the IT industry as further evidenced by a hearing held last month in response to industry concerns over this critical shortage of workers. The hearing focused on the need to amend current immigration law to raise the annual cap--currently set at 65,000--for temporary visas for highly skilled workers. This may be a short term solution to the IT worker shortage; however, it is not the long term answer to this problem. American workers and students must have opportunities to learn these new skills whether through partnerships, education or retaining programs. Mr. President. That is the purpose of my amendment--to encourage more opportunities for American students and workers in the IT field. I hope that my colleagues will support this critical amendment. We can no longer rely on merely adjusting immigration quotas to meet the skilled IT worker shortage.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. We appreciate the interest of the Ranking Member in our request to provide an official designation to the Red River Trade Corridor. We look forward to working with them on this designation, which is critical to the future of our state and the Northern Great Plains region.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, my fellow senator from the State of North Dakota and I would like to engage the Ranking Member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works in a colloquy regarding the importance of the transportation infrastructure of our region and our states to interregional, national, and international trade. Mr. President, we have followed with interest the development of S. 1173, the ISTEA II legislation. We have been especially interested in Section 1116, which provides planning and border project implementation grants to improve the movement of products and at international border crossings with Mexico and Canada, and along significant transportation trade corridors. As you will recall, in 1994, Congress established the Northern Great Plains Rural Development Commission to develop a ten-year plan for the economic future of our region. One of the priorities of the Commission is developing a transportation strategy for the region. One important aspect of that strategy is the proposal to designate the Red River Trade Corridor--a multi-state corridor that includes Interstate 29 and Interstate 35--as an official national trade corridor under Section 1116. We think it is wise to discuss our objective with the Committee so that our region is not overlooked when these corridors are selected--or in the event that the Committee makes recommendations for recognizing specific corridors. Our objective is clear: if we in North Dakota and the rest of the Northern Great Plains are going to keep our rural communities and businesses thriving, we must have the transportation infrastructure necessary to reach local, regional, and international markets. We are at an important stage in our economic development. We are poised to take advantage of the new trade created by NAFTA, which places our region of the country within a new era as a geographical crossroads for international trade. The importance to the economy of our states cannot be overlooked. To take advantage of the benefits that can be derived from the changing global economy, our highway transportation infrastructure must be capable of serving those international trade and transportation needs.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am coming to the floor this morning to address the question of national tobacco policy. I was asked last year by the Democratic leadership to chair the Senate Democratic task force on tobacco legislation. Today, we have 31 cosponsors of our bill called the HEALTHY Kids Act. The purpose of this legislation is, first of all, to reduce teen smoking, because we believe that is the overarching priority, and to protect the public health. The HEALTHY Kids Act represents responsible tobacco policy. As I have said, it protects children; it promotes the public health; it helps tobacco farmers who are completely left out of the proposed settlement. It resolves Federal, State, and local claims against the tobacco industry. It invests in children and health care, and it provides savings for Social Security and Medicare, and it reimburses taxpayers for the costs that were imposed on them by the use of these tobacco products. Importantly, the HEALTHY Kids Act also does not provide special protection to the tobacco industry. The HEALTHY Kids Act protects children in several different ways. First, it provides for a healthy price increase on tobacco products. The reason for that is, all of the experts that came and testified before our task force--and we had 18 hearings and we heard from over 100 witnesses--said that first and most important in any comprehensive strategy to protect the public health is to have a healthy price increase, that children who are the most vulnerable, children who, after all, are the people who keep the tobacco industry going because if you don't start when you are young, you don't start--ninety percent of smokers start before the age of 19. Nearly half start before the age of 14. Once started, it is very hard to quit. So if you are going to have an effective, comprehensive strategy, you have to do lots of different things. One of them is to have a healthy price increase. Second, we provide for full FDA authority. The Food and Drug Administration ought to have the ability to regulate this product just as they regulate other drugs that are brought to market. Third, our legislation provides for strong look-back penalties. Look- back penalties is a simple way of saying you set a goal for reduction of teen smoking, and if there is a failure to reach those goals, the industry pays a penalty. In the proposed settlement, the goal is to reduce teen smoking by 60 percent over 10 years. In our legislation, our goal is to reduce teen smoking by 67 percent over 10 years. As an incentive to the industry to accomplish those goals, we put in these so-called look-back penalties in our legislation, and that is 10 cents a pack industrywide. If the industry fails to achieve the goals, it is 40 cents a pack on the individual companies that fail to meet the goals that are set in the legislation. We also provide for comprehensive antitobacco programs because, again, the experts who came before our task force said: You have to have a comprehensive plan. It is important, yes, to increase price, to have strong look-back penalties, but it is also critically important that you have counteradvertising and smoking cessation and smoking prevention programs. All of those are included in the HEALTHY Kids Act. Then we have a section on retailer compliance, and we have a provision for State licensure and no sales to minors. The HEALTHY Kids Act promotes the public health. It does that in a series of ways. First of all, it addresses the issue of secondhand smoke. We cover most public facilities, providing that they will be smoke free; although, if you are in a building and it is properly ventilated, a special place for smokers which is separate from others who don't choose to be exposed to secondhand smoke, that is something that is in the legislation. So there is a provision for smoking areas in public facilities. We also have broad exemptions. We exempt bars, casinos, bingo parlors, hotel guest rooms. Let me be clear. That simply means not all hotel guest rooms are exempt. If you have a hotel and you have some rooms that are smoking rooms and some that are nonsmoking, that is certainly acceptable. We exempt non-fast-food small restaurants with seating for less than 50 people, non-fast-food franchise type restaurants. We did that because the experts told us that compliance would be an issue. It is very difficult on an economic basis for some of these very small restaurants to adjust to a smoke-free requirement. We have also exempted prisons, tobacco shops, and private clubs. We have also said there will be no State or local preemption. The Federal Government is not going to go into a jurisdiction and say, ``You do it our way and that's it.'' We have allowed local jurisdictions to have stronger regulations if they so choose. The second major element of promoting the public health is to provide for document disclosure. This is an area of real controversy. What documents ought to be disclosed? We believe there is a public right to know, that the public ought to be able to have access to the documents that are being revealed. We see in Minnesota a major controversy now about what documents are going to be released. We hope and trust that ultimately all of the relevant documents will be made available for the public, so that they know what has happened in the past, what has been the behavior of this industry, and what has been the effect of their products. We provide that all documents be disclosed to the FDA. We believe that is an appropriate policy. The FDA would make public all documents. The public health interest overrides trade secret or attorney-client privileges. We do understand that there are special categories, such as attorney-client privilege and trade secrets. We have provided for those things, if in the FDA's judgment they can be protected and not in any way compromise the public health for those documents to remain privileged. We also provide for international tobacco marketing controls and no promotion of U.S. tobacco exports. I think it's important to acknowledge that the Federal Government is not doing that at this time. But it has done it in previous administrations. We think it ought to be codified, the current policy, so that we are not promoting tobacco products overseas. We also provide for a code of conduct that the industry would be asked to make a commitment that they would not have marketing to foreign children. We also have modest funding for international tobacco control efforts, and we require warning labels. If the country that is having tobacco products from the United States marketed in their country has their own warning labels, then that applies. If they have no requirement for a warning label, then the U.S. label applies. The HEALTHY Kids Act helps tobacco farmers. In the settlement, the tobacco farmers were just left out. Clearly, if you are going to reduce smoking in this country and reduce it, hopefully, substantially over time, that is going to have an effect on tobacco farmers. They deserve to have some consideration of their economic plight. We provide $10 billion over 5 years for assistance to farmers and their communities, and we authorize funding for transition payments to farmers and quota holders, rural and community economic development efforts, retraining for tobacco factory workers and tobacco farmers. It's even authorized to have college scholarships for farm families who are adversely affected by this tobacco legislation. The HEALTHY Kids Act provides for no immunity for the tobacco industry. This is also an area of great controversy and great debate. The tobacco industry is coming to us and saying, look, we will not agree to any restrictions on our advertising or marketing unless you give us special legal protection--legal protection, by the way, that has never been granted to any other industry ever. That is what they are asking for. They are saying they have to be given a special shield. They are saying that they want a whole series of legal actions to be barred, such as government actions--all government actions barred under the terms of this proposed settlement; all actions that involve addiction or dependency are barred under the provisions of the proposed settlement; they bar all class actions under the proposed settlement, such as consolidations and other measures to make legal actions move more efficiently through the courts; all third party claims are barred under the proposed settlement. And the list goes on. Special protections are afforded this industry not only for their past wrongdoing, but also for any potential future wrongdoing--special protections never afforded any other industry at any time. That is wrong. That is wrong. It is not just my view that it is wrong; it is the view of the American people that it is wrong. They don't think this industry ought to be given special protection. They remember the history of this industry. They remember the tobacco executives coming before Congress and putting up their hand and swearing under oath that their products have not caused health problems, when we now know that they do. They remember the tobacco industry coming before Congress and swearing under oath that their products were not addictive, when we now know they are. They remember the tobacco industry coming before Congress and saying their products were never manipulated to have even greater addiction, when we now know they did that precisely. And the American people remember this industry coming to Congress and saying they have never targeted kids, when we now know that they have. American people remember that full well. So when the tobacco industry comes now and says to us, unless you give us these special protections, we will not agree to restrictions on advertising and marketing, the American people are very skeptical. And they should be, because the fact is you don't need to give this industry the kind of special protection that it seeks in order to restrict advertising. That is abundantly clear from the research of our task force. Mr. President, when I say it is abundantly clear you don't have to give them those kinds of restrictions, let me say why that is the case. First of all, many advertising restrictions are constitutional without any agreement from the industry. Those restrictions provided for in the FDA rule, for example, were crafted to withstand any constitutional challenge. So those restrictions clearly could be put in place and withstand constitutional challenge. Second, additional restrictions could be put in place and also withstand any constitutional scrutiny. For example, in Baltimore they went beyond the restrictions on billboard advertising that are contained in the FDA rule. In fact, they banned outdoor advertising for alcohol and tobacco products. That has been upheld in the fourth circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a review of that case. So it is clear that additional restrictions beyond those contained in the FDA rule could also be put in place and withstand constitutional challenge. Third, I think it should be kept in mind that it is possible for the industry to sign consent agreements without giving them the special protection that they are seeking. For example, the HEALTHY Kids Act says that we will resolve the State and local claims that are outstanding; we will resolve any potential Federal claim. And I believe on that basis the industry, when presented with the choice, if this legislation were to pass, would sign those consent agreements, and they would sign them ``Jimmy crack quick,'' because they would have resolved the legal actions that have, after all, brought us to where we are today. Fourth, I think it is important also to remember that what we are faced with here is an unusual circumstance. We have, I believe, a situation where, in signing a consent decree, we could wind up having the industry sign consent decrees in exchange for restricting their advertising. We might be buying a pig in a poke. Let me say why that is the case. The legal experts that came before our task force were very clear. They said yes, it would improve the chances of advertising restrictions--at least some advertising restrictions--to have the industry sign consent decrees. So they were agreeing to those limitations. But they also told us, and they warned us, that even if the manufacturers signed those consent decrees, third parties could come and challenge the constitutionality of some of these restrictions. Again, I want to make clear that many of the restrictions that are proposed in our legislation and in the proposed settlement will withstand any constitutional challenge. Some may not. They would be helped by having consent decrees signed by the industry. But we need to understand that even if the industry signs them--the manufacturers, and others affected by those consent decrees--they may challenge their constitutionality. For example, the advertising industry could go to court and challenge the constitutionality of some of the restrictions; the convenience store industry could challenge the constitutionality of some of these restrictions. So, ironically, we could be faced with the worst of both worlds. If we buy what the industry is telling us and we give them the special protections that they seek in exchange for restrictions on advertising and their consent to those restrictions, and later those restrictions are challenged by third parties and found to be unconstitutional, Congress will have bought a pig in a poke. We will have given special protection, and then we could face the prospect of those restrictions being held unconstitutional. And we would have lost on both ends of the bargain. Mr. President, I submit to you, that would be a profound mistake and it is a mistake we should not make. I was very pleased to see that Speaker Gingrich yesterday was reported to have said that he didn't think we needed to pay the tobacco industry to prevent them from continuing to advertise and addict our kids. He is right. He is exactly right on that score. We don't need to be giving special protection to this industry, of all industries, in order to get something that in the end may prove to be illusory. Mr. President, I point out to you that the American people feel strongly about these issues as well. Voters are opposed to providing special protection to the tobacco industry by 55 to 32. Let me say that the question that was put to them was a good deal more favorable to the industry than the wording on this chart. They spelled out what the restrictions would be. If you ask them about giving special protection to this industry, the numbers are much more dramatic, because the American people are smart. They certainly don't know all the details of every bill that is up here on tobacco--they have other things to be doing in their lives--but they know the history of this industry, and they don't believe this industry ought to be given special protection. Mr. President, no immunity. That is what the HEALTHY Kids Act provides--no special protection for future misconduct; no special protection against individuals redressing grievances through filing legal actions of their own; we do resolve the outstanding Federal, State, and local legal claims; we also provide that States can opt out of the money at the Federal level and continue their own lawsuits; we provide that cities and counties get a fair share of any reimbursement that goes to the States. On the controversial question of attorney fees, we resolve that by concluding that attorney fees that are in dispute ought to be resolved by arbitration panels using ABA ethical guidelines for legal fees. Mr. President, there is no question that some law firms are in a place to potentially secure truly windfall fees. We concluded that is not right; that just cannot be the ultimate outcome here. But where there is an agreement between those who hired attorneys and the attorneys themselves, where there is an agreement, the Federal Government shouldn't intervene. But where there is a dispute and a difference, those disputes ought to go to arbitration panels, and they ought to make the determination based on the ABA ethical guidelines for what the fee conclusion should be. We believe in a case like Florida where you have a dispute, that ought to go to an arbitration panel, and they ought to be empowered to make a decision of what is a reasonable fee based on the difficulty of the case, based on the investment of those who brought the action, and based on the recovery, based on the ABA's own ethical guidelines for settling fee disputes. Mr. President, the HEALTHY Kids Act invests in children and health, savings for Social Security and Medicare, and reimburses taxpayers at the Federal and State and local levels for costs that have been imposed on them. Our legislation provides that 41.5 percent of all the revenue would go to the States; 27 percent would go for improving children's health care and child care and education; 14.5 percent of the total would go to the States on an unrestricted basis. After all, they brought these lawsuits and have negotiated with the industry to this point. We think it is appropriate that they should get this share of the total. We also provide that antitobacco programs would get 15.5 percent of the money. Those are smoking cessation programs, counteradvertising programs, smoking prevention programs, and we provide that NIH health research would get about a fifth of the money--precisely 21 percent. We also concluded that when you get a windfall, you don't spend it all; you don't go and spend all the money; some of it you save. So we have started by putting 4 percent of the money into Medicare. That grows to 10 percent over time as the demography of the country changes and more demands are put on the Medicare System and Social Security. We provide that 6 percent of the money initially goes to that use. That grows to 12 percent over time. So ultimately we are saving 22 percent of the money by putting it into Medicare and Social Security to strengthen those programs. We think that is a wise use of the money. Finally, initially farmers will get 12 percent of the money. That is phased out over time. But we acknowledge that they were left out of the proposed settlement and ought to be considered. In terms of a comparison of how the money is spent--the President's bill compared to what we have proposed--I would offer the following: Our total revenue is $82 billion over 5 years. The President's budget provides about $65 billion. Under our formula, $12 billion would go to the States unrestricted. That is just somewhat more than the President's $11.8 billion. The States, for improving children's health care and child care, education, would get $22 billion under our proposal compared to the President's $15.7 billion. Research under our proposal: NIH would get $17 billion over the 5 years; the President had $25.3 billion for research; $17 billion--the same $17 billion that we had--for NIH health research, but he had $8 billion for nonhealth research. And we believe that really more appropriately should be funded elsewhere, should not be funded out of this stream of revenue. Medicare: We provided $3 billion initially; the President, $800 million. Farmers would get $10 billion under our proposal in the first 5 years, and $13 billion would go for antitobacco programs, compared to the President providing $12 billion for both of those uses. So we have provided $10 billion for farmers and $13 billion for the antitobacco programs, for a total of $23 billion. The President didn't break that category down; he just provided a total of $12 billion for both. Finally, in Social Security: We put $5 billion in the first 5 years; the President doesn't use any of these proceeds for that purpose. Again, we start with the modest amount of money going to Social Security and Medicare, but we grow that over time as the demographics of the country change and require additional funding. The HEALTHY Kids Act accomplishes the five objectives that the President sent: Reduce teen smoking, including tough penalties. We provide the full FDA authority. We go a long way towards changing the industry culture. We meet additional health goals that the American people want addressed. And we protect the tobacco farmers and their communities. The HEALTHY Kids Act also accomplishes the eight goals set out by Drs. Koop and Kessler. They have called for full FDA authority to regulate this drug just as they regulate other drugs. We agree. They provide for protection of youth from tobacco influences. And we agree. They provide for adequate smoking cessation funding. We have provided for it. They ask, for secondhand smoke, expanded regulation. And we provide that. They say there should be no special immunity provisions, no special protection. And we agree. They say with respect to preemptions that local communities ought to judge and should not be preempted by Federal law. And we agree. We provide for no local preemption. We also are in agreement with them that there ought to be adequate compensation for tobacco farmers and that there ought to be strong international policies. We have met the five principles laid out by the President. We have met the eight goals laid out by Dr. Koop and Dr. Kessler. We believe that the provisions here are strongly supported by the American people. We did national polling to see if we were in sync with what, in fact, the American people believe. Let me show you what they told us. They want a significant per-pack price increase. They believe that it is a part of a comprehensive strategy. They support strong look-back penalties. And they say there should be no special protections for this industry. If you go to the polling data directly, what one finds is that the voters support a $1.50 health fee to reduce youth smoking and they support it on a very, very high level. Mr. President, 65 percent of the American people support a $1.50-a-pack health fee; 65 percent favor it, only about 30 percent oppose. Mr. President, 65 to 35 percent, people say yes, let's put in a $1.50-a-pack health fee. And this is on a completely bipartisan basis. There is almost no difference between Democrats and Republicans on this question. In fact, you can see here: Health fee, $1.50--the blue are Democrats; 69 percent of Democrats support that, and 67 percent of Republicans support a $1.50- a-pack-health fee. This was done by the well-known national polling firm, Lake, Sosin, Snell, Perry and Associates. There is also strong public support for a look-back penalty of 50 cents a pack or more. That is what we provide in our legislation. If the industry fails to meet the goals for reducing teen smoking, we put in place a 50-cent-a-pack penalty. By 54 to 34, the American public supports that. Mr. President, to sum it up, we believe the HEALTHY Kids Act--that has now been cosponsored by 31 Senators, 31 of our colleagues--is strong legislation to protect the public health and to reduce teen smoking. If there is one thing that came through loud and clear in all the hearings that we held, it is that that is what our priority should be. If we keep our eye on the ball, that is what we will do. Protecting the public health is so important. If you listened to those who came and testified, they are saying to us that's the priority. I remember very well, when we were in Newark we had a series of witnesses, some of them victims. As we went around the country, we made it a practice to listen to those who have suffered the ill-effects that tobacco products cause. I found two witnesses in Newark especially moving. One was a young woman named Gina Seagrave. She told the story of her mother dying prematurely because of the effects of a lifetime of tobacco addiction. She broke down during her testimony as she described the effects on her family of her mother dying at a young age, the incredible impact that had on their family. I do not think there was a person in that hall who was not moved by her story. She was then followed by a big tough guy, a coach. He was a big, tough strapping guy, but you could hardly hear him when he testified. He spoke in a raspy voice. This big, tough guy could hardly be heard because he spoke in a raspy voice, and he explained that he had a laryngectomy. His larynx had been cut out because it had been filled with cancer after a lifetime of smoking. He told the members of the committee of the terror he felt when he was given the diagnosis. He told those of us who were there listening the profound regret he had that he hadn't listened to the warnings of those who told him of the dangers of smoking. This man was a coach and an assistant principal, and he told us that every day he goes to school and sees young people doing what he did, taking up the habit. He recalled once he had taken it up how hard it was to quit, he would quit for awhile but he would always go back to it, and how he hoped that some of these young people would learn from his experience. Mr. President, when you listen to the victims you cannot help but be moved by how serious a threat tobacco usage is to the public health of our country. We ought to do something about it. We have that chance this year. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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, questions have been raised about the credibility of this President on the budget. If anybody in this town has credibility on the budget, it is this President. When he came to office, the deficit was $290 billion, and under the plan that was passed in 1993, the deficit is now down, on a unified basis, to zero or very close to that. That has been a dramatic improvement and a dramatic record of deficit reduction by this President. Now they raise questions about a new CBO score of the President's budget. The President did not have that available to him when he submitted his budget. He submitted his budget based on the Office of Management and Budget projections. By the way, both OMB and CBO have been overly conservative with respect to their projections. Neither of them have been close to right in projecting the dramatic decline in the deficit. The President used the numbers in his budget that were available to him at the time he submitted his budget, and his budget projections have proved to be far more accurate in terms of deficit reduction than some others. So I just say with respect to credibility on the budget, this President has a demonstrated record. He has done the heavy lifting. He has gotten the results that have put this country in such a strong position. Now we have a question of a difference of projections. Both of the projections of OMB and CBO have been off the mark. They have underestimated what a good job we have done in reducing the deficit. So when the President's credibility is called into question, I think in fairness we ought to say he based his budget on the projections that were available to him at the time he submitted his budget and he has a record and the record stands clearly as one that has produced the most dramatic deficit reduction we have ever seen. I hope when we start talking about people's credibility, we do not do it in a loose fashion on the floor of the Senate. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I ask the Senator from Rhode Island, since the other side has raised the issue, the leader has given me authority to take 3 minutes of leader time to respond, and I think just in fairness we ought to be permitted to do that.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold. Nobody has shown a greater commitment to try to change the system that is broken than the Senator from Wisconsin. He has worked diligently with Members on the other side of the aisle to fashion a plan that would command a majority of support. I am certain there are people watching today who wonder how can it be that a majority is in favor but it does not get passed, because we all learn in our civics classes that majority rules in America. Well, majority rules at election time; unfortunately, it does not rule on the floor of the U.S. Senate because, if it did, McCain-Feingold would be passed with votes to spare and we would have our first serious reform of the campaign financing system in this country in years. Is there any question that it is needed? Is there any American who seriously believes that the system that we have is the right system? I can tell you, as one who has run three times for the U.S. Senate, this system is broken, this system is rotten, this system is corrupting and it ought to be changed. Mr. President, last October we began this debate--last October. We resumed it on Monday. And once again we appear to be in gridlock on this important issue. During my 11 years in the Senate, there have been numerous attempts to address the problems that confront the financing of American elections. Unfortunately, all of these initiatives have failed. It is clear, I think, now more than ever that we need to change the system. Simply put, campaigns are too long and they are too expensive. I tell you, anywhere I go in my constituency, people say to me, ``Gee, do we really have to be subjected to ads for a year?'' In my last campaign, the campaign ads started almost a year before the election. And we are not the exception. People are saying, ``Wait a minute. That is too much.'' I saw last night on television, Presidential candidates are already in New Hampshire, and the election is 3 years away. Campaigns are too long and they are too expensive. That is why today I am introducing legislation that will reduce the length and the cost of campaigns. I think increasingly the electorate is saying to us, ``look, shorten these campaigns. That's the one sure way to reduce the money that is flowing into them.'' During the 1996 election cycle, we saw record amounts of money spent on campaigns. Total costs for congressional elections have increased sixfold since 1976. We can see back in 1976, all congressional campaigns, $99 million. Look at this, up, up, and away; every election, up, up, up--$765 million in the last election cycle. Where does this stop? We have Senators who are supposed to be raising $10,000 a day. It is the average for a Senator to run a campaign. There is talk now in California that a typical Senate race will cost $30 million. We are turning Senators into full-time fundraisers. Is that what we want in this country? I do not think so. I do not think that is what the American people want us to be doing with our time. Let me go to the next chart that shows the average cost of winning a Senate seat went from $600,000 in 1976--$600,000--to nearly $4 million today. Those increased costs are primarily due to the skyrocketing cost of campaign advertising. Let me go to the next chart. The total amount of money spent on campaign advertising jumped nearly eightfold during this period, from $51 million in 1976 to over $400 million in 1996. It has been estimated that television advertising accounts for nearly half of the funds spent on Senate campaigns. Clearly, candidates are being forced to spend too much time raising campaign money and not enough time debating the issues adn listening to the concerns of the voters. Our current system threatens to push average Americans out of the electoral process. I hear it all the time when we go out to recruit candidates--how can I possibly raise that amount of money to be competitive? Now, that should not be the determinant. The determinant on whether somebody is a candidate should be their qualifications, their skills and abilities to serve their constituents. In 1960, the total amount of money spent on all political campaigns in the United States was $175 million. In 1996, that figure increased to $4 billion. Here it is, $175 million in 1960, $4 billion in 1996. What has happened to participation? Participation was 63 percent of the American people who voted in 1960. In 1996, less than half of those eligible voted. People are turning off to this process. One of the big reasons is the money. They know money is dominating political campaigns in America and they are sick of it and they fell disenfranchised by it. Most people understand the corrosive effect of the current campaign system. The people of my State, and I believe the people of the Nation, want the system changed. My legislation addresses in a fair and reasonable manner the problems associated with the length and costs of campaigns. Under my bill, if candidates agree to limit their campaign ads to 2 months before a general election and 1 month before a primary election, they will receive reduced broadcast advertising rates. I have been advised by the Congressional Research Service that my proposal would be upheld as fully constitutional. Under current law, broadcasters must sell time to candidates at the lowest unit rate in the 45 days before a primary and the last 60 days before a general election. My bill modifies this provision by requiring broadcasters to sell time to eligible candidates at 50 percent of the lowest unit rate in the last 30 days of a primary election and in the last 60 days of a general election. This time cannot be preempted. In addition, for a candidate to qualify, the ads must be at least 1 minute in length. Broadcasters can't preempt this time. I want to emphasize that. Nonparticipating candidates will not be eligible for this lower rate. I would even support using broadcast spectrum revenues to offset the cost to broadcasters of these lower rates for candidates in order to provide an incentive for people to sign up for the shorter campaign period. I think that would be supported by not only both parties--I noted the majority leader indicated that he would strongly support reducing the length of campaigns, but I think it would also be welcomed by the American people who are tired of the deluge of political ads. My legislation will achieve this end in a constitutional manner and reduce the amount of money spent on campaigns. It is high time to change this system. I want to again commend the Senator from Wisconsin for his outstanding leadership on this subject and submit to my colleagues it is time for us to consider a radical restructuring of how we run our elections. I yield the floor.