Kent Conrad

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.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Thank you, Mr. President. (The remarks of Mr. Conrad pertaining to the introduction of S. 1681 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy. He has been an outstanding member of this task force team. No member of the task force contributed more to the work of this group than Senator Kennedy. He has played an absolutely key role in the development of this legislation, through his own efforts and the efforts of his outstanding staff. He has been a leader for a lifetime on these issues, and I extend my deepest personal appreciation to him for his assistance and support. I would also like to recognize Senator Baucus, who is on the floor. Senator Baucus who is an original cosponsor of this bill has been enormously helpful as well. He is a member of the Senate Finance Committee and has a special understanding of the financial aspects of this legislation. I thank Senator Baucus for his commitment and his leadership as well. Let me conclude by thanking my staff who have worked very long hours to produce this legislation: Bob Van Heuvelen, my policy director and chief counsel; Tom Mahr who is the person on my staff who heads up all of the health issues who has worked incredibly hard and with great skill to craft this legislation; Monica Boudjouk who has spent many a long evening helping us to put together the many details of the proposal before us; and Mark Harsch, a fellow on my staff who has been enormously helpful as well. I thank them all for their contributions, as well as the staff of the other task force members who put a great deal of time and effort into working to produce this bill. I thank them all. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that we call the HEALTHY Kids Act. It addresses the question of how we form a national policy on tobacco. I am joined in cosponsorship by Senators Akaka, Baucus, Bingaman, Boxer, Breaux, Bryan, Bumpers, Daschle, Dodd, Dorgan, Durbin, Johnson, Kennedy, Bob Kerrey, John Kerry, Kohl, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Leahy, Moseley-Braun, Moynihan, Reed, Rockefeller, Torricelli, Wellstone, and Wyden. And we have additional Senators who are considering cosponsorship of this legislation as we speak. First of all, I thank the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, for his strong leadership and support of the work of the task force. Months ago he called me and asked me to head up an effort within the Democratic Caucus to draft tobacco legislation. We have engaged 21 members of this task force in a lengthy effort to listen to those affected and to try to craft a responsible national tobacco policy. We held 18 hearings. We heard over 100 witnesses. We held hearings across the country. We engaged in this level of effort because the subject is so important. Tobacco is the only product that when used legally--and as the manufacturer intended--addicts and kills its customers. For too long tobacco companies have waged war on our kids. It is time to counterattack. For too long big tobacco has hooked our kids on a lifelong addiction. It is time to stop it. For too long the tobacco industry has deliberately targeted kids as ``replacement smokers'' to fill the shoes of over 425,000 Americans killed by tobacco each year. Let me repeat that. Over 400,000 deaths a year in this country are caused by the use of tobacco products. Many more, as we have heard in our hearings, have suffered terribly. As we heard Monday at a hearing in Newark, NJ, when we heard from Pierce Frauenheim, a coach and assistant principal who had a laryngectomy because of throat cancer caused by the use of tobacco products. He told us of the terror and trauma of that illness. And we heard from a young woman named Gina Seagrave, a young woman who lost her mother to a massive heart attack when she was only 45 years of age because of using tobacco products. Her tears told the story of her family's pain and suffering. Mr. President, those stories are rewritten day in and day out because of the awful effects of tobacco. There is something we can do about it if only we have the political will and the courage to act. Witnesses told us repeatedly that we need a comprehensive plan to dramatically reduce the use of tobacco products in our country. That is what we present today--the HEALTHY Kids Act. Mr. President, the HEALTHY Kids Act is the work of the Senate Democratic task force on tobacco legislation. The HEALTHY Kids Act provides responsible tobacco policy. It protects children, promotes the public health, helps tobacco farmers, and resolves Federal, State and local legal claims, without providing immunity to the industry; it invests in children and health care; it provides savings for Social Security and Medicare; and it reimburses taxpayers for costs that have been imposed on them by the use of these products. The HEALTHY Kids Act protects children. It does that with a healthy price increase--a $1.50 a pack health fee phased in over 3 years. It protects children by providing the Food and Drug Administration with full authority to regulate these products. It provides strong penalties for those companies that fail to reach the targeted projection for the reduction of teen smoking--a 67 percent reduction in teen smoking over the next 10 years. Those penalties are a 10-cent a pack penalty industry wide if the goals are not met and a 40-cent a pack penalty for the individual companies for their failure to reach the objective. We also protect children by providing comprehensive antitobacco programs. Included in that are counteradvertising, prevention programs, smoking cessation programs and research. Finally, in protecting children, we provide for retailer compliance--State licensure of retailers and no sales to minors. The HEALTHY Kids Act also promotes the public health. It does so by addressing the question of secondhand smoke. Most public facilities in the country would be smoke free under our proposal. We would provide exemptions for bars, casinos, bingo parlors, hotel guest rooms--that is, hotels could have smoking and nonsmoking rooms as they do now-- nonfast-food small restaurants, that is, those restaurants with less than 50 seats would be exempt; prisons, tobacco shops, and private clubs. At the same time we provide those exemptions, we also provide for no State preemption. If a State or local unit of government wants to have more stringent provisions, it is free to do so. We also promote the public health by protecting the public's right to know. We provide for full document disclosure; all relevant documents go to the FDA. The FDA is able to make those documents public; and the public health interest overrides trade secret or attorney-client privileges when the FDA makes a determination that the public health is the overriding interest. We also provide for international tobacco marketing controls: no promotion of U.S. tobacco exports. I am proud to say that in this administration we are not doing that, but in previous administrations they have. This would codify the conduct of this administration and provide for no promotion of U.S. tobacco exports. It also provides a code of conduct. No marketing to foreign children. Any activities carried out in this country to market to children in another country would be illegal. It also has modest funding for international tobacco control efforts. And we require warning labels, warning labels of the country that is the recipient of products sent from this country. And if they do not have a system of warning labels, then our own warning labels would apply. The HEALTHY Kids Act also helps tobacco farmers. They were left out of the proposed settlement completely. Their interest was not addressed. We do not think that is fair. We provide $10 billion in just the first 5 years for assistance to farmers and their communities. We authorize funding for transition payments to farmers and quota holders. We provide for rural and community economic development retraining for tobacco factory workers and tobacco farmers and even college scholarships for farm families if the committees of Congress deem that appropriate. The HEALTHY Kids Act makes very clear that we will not provide immunity to this industry, no special protection for future misconduct, no special protection against individual lawsuits for past misconduct. We do resolve the outstanding Federal, State, and local government legal claims. States, however, can opt out of this national settlement if they so choose, and cities and counties are assured of getting a fair share of reimbursements that go to States. On the question of attorney's fees, we concluded that no monies from the HEALTHY Kids Act should be used for attorney's fees. With respect to the size of the fees, we deliberated long and hard, listened to all of the affected interests and concluded that the attorney's fees in these cases ought to be resolved by arbitration panels using ABA ethical guidelines. Those guidelines are set out with specificity in the legislation that I will introduce today. And so if we are in a circumstance like the controversy in Florida, if the parties cannot agree, an arbitration panel would resolve the matter and determine what the attorney's fees were in the case that has been settled. That is also the case in other States. If the parties at interest reach agreement among themselves, there would not be an arbitration panel. But where there is disagreement as to what the appropriate attorney fees should be, an arbitration panel would be empowered to make the determination. I do not think any of us want to see unjust enrichment of anybody based on a resolution of these tobacco issues and tobacco lawsuits around the country. Mr. President, the HEALTHY Kids Act invests in children, in health, in savings for Social Security and Medicare, and reimburses taxpayers who have had costs imposed on them. The distribution of the funds raised by the act is as follows: Payments to States are 41.5 percent of the revenues. The States would get 14\1/2\ percent of the money unrestricted; 27 percent would go to the States for children's health care, child care and improved education. We would also provide 15.5 percent for antitobacco programs. That includes counteradvertising campaigns as well as smoking cessation and smoking prevention programs. NIH health research would be increased. They would receive 21 percent of the funds provided. Medicare would get 4 percent of the money initially but over time that would grow to 10 percent. Similarly, Social Security would get 6 percent of the money initially and that would grow to 12 percent over time. We believe it is appropriate when you receive a windfall not to spend it all, and so we are providing that when the program is fully phased in, over 20 percent of the money, instead of being spent, will be used to strengthen Medicare and Social Security for the future. That is what the American people want to see happen, and we have provided for it in this legislation. Farmers initially get 12 percent of the revenues to ease their transition. Obviously, they are going to take an economic hit here, and it seemed fair to us that they be included in any package to resolve these controversies. Over time their part of this package would be phased out and then the Medicare and Social Security parts of the legislation would see their share increased. Mr. President, we have provided here a comparison of the tobacco revenue and spending, a comparison between what the President's budget called for and what The HEALTHY Kids Act calls for. First of all, in terms of total revenue, our plan would raise $82 billion over the next 5 years, some $500 billion over the next 25 years. In the first 5 years, the States would get in an unrestricted way $12 billion. They would get $22 billion for children--$14 billion for child care, $3 billion for health care for children and $5 billion for education. The research component of the plan would provide $17 billion to the National Institutes of Health for increased health research. Medicare initially would get $3 billion in the first 5 years. The farmers would get $10 billion. That is a 5-year figure. The antitobacco efforts would receive $13 billion, and savings for Social Security would be $5 billion. Mr. President, The HEALTHY Kids Act is supported by the American public. We did extensive national polling to make certain that what we are proposing is in line with what the American people want and the polling data shows a high level of support for a significant per pack price increase which we have termed a health fee, significant public support for strong lookback penalties for failure to meet the goals of reducing teen smoking and no special protections for this industry. That is what the American people want. That is what The HEALTHY Kids Act provides. With respect to the question of a $1.50 per pack health fee for youth smoking deterrence and health programs, the American people support that by more than a 2-to-1 margin--65 percent in favor, 30 percent opposed. By the way, this is across party lines, across regional lines. The American people support a $1.50 a pack health fee. The price increase support for youth smoking deterrence and health programs cuts across party lines. The poll shows if it is termed tax support it is very strong all across the country, even stronger if it is for a health fee. In fact, 69 percent of Democrats support the $1.50 health fee, 67 percent of Republicans. There is also strong public support for a lookback penalty of 50 cents a pack if the industry fails to meet the goals for the reduction of teen smoking. By 54 percent to 34 percent the American public supports lookback penalties of 50 cents a pack or more. In fact, a significant majority of the 54 percent support a dollar a pack lookback penalty. Voters are also strongly opposed to providing special protections to the tobacco industry. When we asked the American people: Do you want to give immunity to this industry? Do you want to give them special protection going forward? By 55 percent to 32 percent, they oppose any special protections being given to this industry. They say no to immunity. The HEALTHY Kids Act says no to immunity. The HEALTHY Kids Act accomplishes the objectives laid out by President Clinton. He laid out five. He said you have to reduce teen smoking by providing tough penalties and a health fee or price increase that will deter youth smoking. We have full FDA authority. We are changing the industry culture. We meet the additional health goals laid out by the President, and protect tobacco farmers and their communities. As the Vice President said yesterday when we unveiled this proposal in a press conference here on Capitol Hill: The administration strongly supports this bill. The Vice President reported that if this bill comes to the President's desk, he will sign it and sign it without hesitation. I expect that big tobacco will fight these initiatives. Indeed, we saw yesterday they came out swinging against the proposal that I am offering here today. We will hear from the tobacco industry, its lobbyists and its supporters in Congress, that we cannot have a health fee of $1.50 a pack, we can't fund public health programs or hold the industry and tobacco companies accountable if they sell to kids. We will hear from them that we cannot give FDA the same authority it has over prescription drugs and our food supply. I submit, if we care about our kids' futures, we must do all of these things. This legislation lays down a marker for good, responsible, national tobacco policy to protect our kids and promote the public health. It sets a clear, unambiguous test against which other legislation can be measured. And it sets a challenge for those who say they want to protect our kids but have so far not produced effective tobacco control legislation. The HEALTHY Kids Act recognizes that tobacco is causing addiction, disease and death. It also recognizes that there is something we can do about it. HEALTHY Kids affirms life and health and our commitment to our children. It tells you we can make a difference. I invite my colleagues to join in a bipartisan effort to pass legislation like we are offering here today. We can do it and we can make a difference. We can reduce the addiction, the disease and the death that is being caused by the use of tobacco products. Now is the time to act. The public supports it. Again, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in this effort. There is no reason for this to be a partisan issue. There is every reason for us to work together to resolve the challenges posed to our society by the use of these products. Mr. President, I note a colleague of mine, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, is on the floor. Senator Reed played a critical role in the development of this legislation. He was one of the most active participants on the task force who has worked for months to fashion these legislative proposals. I commend Senator Reed publicly for his contributions to this effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that we call the HEALTHY Kids Act. It addresses the question of how we form a national policy on tobacco. I am joined in cosponsorship by Senators Akaka, Baucus, Bingaman, Boxer, Breaux, Bryan, Bumpers, Daschle, Dodd, Dorgan, Durbin, Johnson, Kennedy, Bob Kerrey, John Kerry, Kohl, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Leahy, Moseley-Braun, Moynihan, Reed, Rockefeller, Torricelli, Wellstone, and Wyden. And we have additional Senators who are considering cosponsorship of this legislation as we speak. First of all, I thank the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, for his strong leadership and support of the work of the task force. Months ago he called me and asked me to head up an effort within the Democratic Caucus to draft tobacco legislation. We have engaged 21 members of this task force in a lengthy effort to listen to those affected and to try to craft a responsible national tobacco policy. We held 18 hearings. We heard over 100 witnesses. We held hearings across the country. We engaged in this level of effort because the subject is so important. Tobacco is the only product that when used legally--and as the manufacturer intended--addicts and kills its customers. For too long tobacco companies have waged war on our kids. It is time to counterattack. For too long big tobacco has hooked our kids on a lifelong addiction. It is time to stop it. For too long the tobacco industry has deliberately targeted kids as ``replacement smokers'' to fill the shoes of over 425,000 Americans killed by tobacco each year. Let me repeat that. Over 400,000 deaths a year in this country are caused by the use of tobacco products. Many more, as we have heard in our hearings, have suffered terribly. As we heard Monday at a hearing in Newark, NJ, when we heard from Pierce Frauenheim, a coach and assistant principal who had a laryngectomy because of throat cancer caused by the use of tobacco products. He told us of the terror and trauma of that illness. And we heard from a young woman named Gina Seagrave, a young woman who lost her mother to a massive heart attack when she was only 45 years of age because of using tobacco products. Her tears told the story of her family's pain and suffering. Mr. President, those stories are rewritten day in and day out because of the awful effects of tobacco. There is something we can do about it if only we have the political will and the courage to act. Witnesses told us repeatedly that we need a comprehensive plan to dramatically reduce the use of tobacco products in our country. That is what we present today--the HEALTHY Kids Act. Mr. President, the HEALTHY Kids Act is the work of the Senate Democratic task force on tobacco legislation. The HEALTHY Kids Act provides responsible tobacco policy. It protects children, promotes the public health, helps tobacco farmers, and resolves Federal, State and local legal claims, without providing immunity to the industry; it invests in children and health care; it provides savings for Social Security and Medicare; and it reimburses taxpayers for costs that have been imposed on them by the use of these products. The HEALTHY Kids Act protects children. It does that with a healthy price increase--a $1.50 a pack health fee phased in over 3 years. It protects children by providing the Food and Drug Administration with full authority to regulate these products. It provides strong penalties for those companies that fail to reach the targeted projection for the reduction of teen smoking--a 67 percent reduction in teen smoking over the next 10 years. Those penalties are a 10-cent a pack penalty industry wide if the goals are not met and a 40-cent a pack penalty for the individual companies for their failure to reach the objective. We also protect children by providing comprehensive antitobacco programs. Included in that are counteradvertising, prevention programs, smoking cessation programs and research. Finally, in protecting children, we provide for retailer compliance--State licensure of retailers and no sales to minors. The HEALTHY Kids Act also promotes the public health. It does so by addressing the question of secondhand smoke. Most public facilities in the country would be smoke free under our proposal. We would provide exemptions for bars, casinos, bingo parlors, hotel guest rooms--that is, hotels could have smoking and nonsmoking rooms as they do now-- nonfast-food small restaurants, that is, those restaurants with less than 50 seats would be exempt; prisons, tobacco shops, and private clubs. At the same time we provide those exemptions, we also provide for no State preemption. If a State or local unit of government wants to have more stringent provisions, it is free to do so. We also promote the public health by protecting the public's right to know. We provide for full document disclosure; all relevant documents go to the FDA. The FDA is able to make those documents public; and the public health interest overrides trade secret or attorney-client privileges when the FDA makes a determination that the public health is the overriding interest. We also provide for international tobacco marketing controls: no promotion of U.S. tobacco exports. I am proud to say that in this administration we are not doing that, but in previous administrations they have. This would codify the conduct of this administration and provide for no promotion of U.S. tobacco exports. It also provides a code of conduct. No marketing to foreign children. Any activities carried out in this country to market to children in another country would be illegal. It also has modest funding for international tobacco control efforts. And we require warning labels, warning labels of the country that is the recipient of products sent from this country. And if they do not have a system of warning labels, then our own warning labels would apply. The HEALTHY Kids Act also helps tobacco farmers. They were left out of the proposed settlement completely. Their interest was not addressed. We do not think that is fair. We provide $10 billion in just the first 5 years for assistance to farmers and their communities. We authorize funding for transition payments to farmers and quota holders. We provide for rural and community economic development retraining for tobacco factory workers and tobacco farmers and even college scholarships for farm families if the committees of Congress deem that appropriate. The HEALTHY Kids Act makes very clear that we will not provide immunity to this industry, no special protection for future misconduct, no special protection against individual lawsuits for past misconduct. We do resolve the outstanding Federal, State, and local government legal claims. States, however, can opt out of this national settlement if they so choose, and cities and counties are assured of getting a fair share of reimbursements that go to States. On the question of attorney's fees, we concluded that no monies from the HEALTHY Kids Act should be used for attorney's fees. With respect to the size of the fees, we deliberated long and hard, listened to all of the affected interests and concluded that the attorney's fees in these cases ought to be resolved by arbitration panels using ABA ethical guidelines. Those guidelines are set out with specificity in the legislation that I will introduce today. And so if we are in a circumstance like the controversy in Florida, if the parties cannot agree, an arbitration panel would resolve the matter and determine what the attorney's fees were in the case that has been settled. That is also the case in other States. If the parties at interest reach agreement among themselves, there would not be an arbitration panel. But where there is disagreement as to what the appropriate attorney fees should be, an arbitration panel would be empowered to make the determination. I do not think any of us want to see unjust enrichment of anybody based on a resolution of these tobacco issues and tobacco lawsuits around the country. Mr. President, the HEALTHY Kids Act invests in children, in health, in savings for Social Security and Medicare, and reimburses taxpayers who have had costs imposed on them. The distribution of the funds raised by the act is as follows: Payments to States are 41.5 percent of the revenues. The States would get 14\1/2\ percent of the money unrestricted; 27 percent would go to the States for children's health care, child care and improved education. We would also provide 15.5 percent for antitobacco programs. That includes counteradvertising campaigns as well as smoking cessation and smoking prevention programs. NIH health research would be increased. They would receive 21 percent of the funds provided. Medicare would get 4 percent of the money initially but over time that would grow to 10 percent. Similarly, Social Security would get 6 percent of the money initially and that would grow to 12 percent over time. We believe it is appropriate when you receive a windfall not to spend it all, and so we are providing that when the program is fully phased in, over 20 percent of the money, instead of being spent, will be used to strengthen Medicare and Social Security for the future. That is what the American people want to see happen, and we have provided for it in this legislation. Farmers initially get 12 percent of the revenues to ease their transition. Obviously, they are going to take an economic hit here, and it seemed fair to us that they be included in any package to resolve these controversies. Over time their part of this package would be phased out and then the Medicare and Social Security parts of the legislation would see their share increased. Mr. President, we have provided here a comparison of the tobacco revenue and spending, a comparison between what the President's budget called for and what The HEALTHY Kids Act calls for. First of all, in terms of total revenue, our plan would raise $82 billion over the next 5 years, some $500 billion over the next 25 years. In the first 5 years, the States would get in an unrestricted way $12 billion. They would get $22 billion for children--$14 billion for child care, $3 billion for health care for children and $5 billion for education. The research component of the plan would provide $17 billion to the National Institutes of Health for increased health research. Medicare initially would get $3 billion in the first 5 years. The farmers would get $10 billion. That is a 5-year figure. The antitobacco efforts would receive $13 billion, and savings for Social Security would be $5 billion. Mr. President, The HEALTHY Kids Act is supported by the American public. We did extensive national polling to make certain that what we are proposing is in line with what the American people want and the polling data shows a high level of support for a significant per pack price increase which we have termed a health fee, significant public support for strong lookback penalties for failure to meet the goals of reducing teen smoking and no special protections for this industry. That is what the American people want. That is what The HEALTHY Kids Act provides. With respect to the question of a $1.50 per pack health fee for youth smoking deterrence and health programs, the American people support that by more than a 2-to-1 margin--65 percent in favor, 30 percent opposed. By the way, this is across party lines, across regional lines. The American people support a $1.50 a pack health fee. The price increase support for youth smoking deterrence and health programs cuts across party lines. The poll shows if it is termed tax support it is very strong all across the country, even stronger if it is for a health fee. In fact, 69 percent of Democrats support the $1.50 health fee, 67 percent of Republicans. There is also strong public support for a lookback penalty of 50 cents a pack if the industry fails to meet the goals for the reduction of teen smoking. By 54 percent to 34 percent the American public supports lookback penalties of 50 cents a pack or more. In fact, a significant majority of the 54 percent support a dollar a pack lookback penalty. Voters are also strongly opposed to providing special protections to the tobacco industry. When we asked the American people: Do you want to give immunity to this industry? Do you want to give them special protection going forward? By 55 percent to 32 percent, they oppose any special protections being given to this industry. They say no to immunity. The HEALTHY Kids Act says no to immunity. The HEALTHY Kids Act accomplishes the objectives laid out by President Clinton. He laid out five. He said you have to reduce teen smoking by providing tough penalties and a health fee or price increase that will deter youth smoking. We have full FDA authority. We are changing the industry culture. We meet the additional health goals laid out by the President, and protect tobacco farmers and their communities. As the Vice President said yesterday when we unveiled this proposal in a press conference here on Capitol Hill: The administration strongly supports this bill. The Vice President reported that if this bill comes to the President's desk, he will sign it and sign it without hesitation. I expect that big tobacco will fight these initiatives. Indeed, we saw yesterday they came out swinging against the proposal that I am offering here today. We will hear from the tobacco industry, its lobbyists and its supporters in Congress, that we cannot have a health fee of $1.50 a pack, we can't fund public health programs or hold the industry and tobacco companies accountable if they sell to kids. We will hear from them that we cannot give FDA the same authority it has over prescription drugs and our food supply. I submit, if we care about our kids' futures, we must do all of these things. This legislation lays down a marker for good, responsible, national tobacco policy to protect our kids and promote the public health. It sets a clear, unambiguous test against which other legislation can be measured. And it sets a challenge for those who say they want to protect our kids but have so far not produced effective tobacco control legislation. The HEALTHY Kids Act recognizes that tobacco is causing addiction, disease and death. It also recognizes that there is something we can do about it. HEALTHY Kids affirms life and health and our commitment to our children. It tells you we can make a difference. I invite my colleagues to join in a bipartisan effort to pass legislation like we are offering here today. We can do it and we can make a difference. We can reduce the addiction, the disease and the death that is being caused by the use of tobacco products. Now is the time to act. The public supports it. Again, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in this effort. There is no reason for this to be a partisan issue. There is every reason for us to work together to resolve the challenges posed to our society by the use of these products. Mr. President, I note a colleague of mine, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, is on the floor. Senator Reed played a critical role in the development of this legislation. He was one of the most active participants on the task force who has worked for months to fashion these legislative proposals. I commend Senator Reed publicly for his contributions to this effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy. He has been an outstanding member of this task force team. No member of the task force contributed more to the work of this group than Senator Kennedy. He has played an absolutely key role in the development of this legislation, through his own efforts and the efforts of his outstanding staff. He has been a leader for a lifetime on these issues, and I extend my deepest personal appreciation to him for his assistance and support. I would also like to recognize Senator Baucus, who is on the floor. Senator Baucus who is an original cosponsor of this bill has been enormously helpful as well. He is a member of the Senate Finance Committee and has a special understanding of the financial aspects of this legislation. I thank Senator Baucus for his commitment and his leadership as well. Let me conclude by thanking my staff who have worked very long hours to produce this legislation: Bob Van Heuvelen, my policy director and chief counsel; Tom Mahr who is the person on my staff who heads up all of the health issues who has worked incredibly hard and with great skill to craft this legislation; Monica Boudjouk who has spent many a long evening helping us to put together the many details of the proposal before us; and Mark Harsch, a fellow on my staff who has been enormously helpful as well. I thank them all for their contributions, as well as the staff of the other task force members who put a great deal of time and effort into working to produce this bill. I thank them all. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Connecticut for his gracious assistance, as we move to introduce the tobacco legislation. I also want to thank him for his forceful advocacy. That is what this place is all about. And there is no more forceful advocate for children in this Chamber than the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Dodd. He cares deeply about this subject. He fights for what he thinks is an appropriate allocation of resources to make the changes that are desirable. So it is not a matter of irritation. It was a matter of tough negotiation, and he is a darned good negotiator. Anybody who is able to increase an allocation they care about by 100 percent--there is only one person in that category: The Senator from Connecticut. But it was for a good cause, and we very much appreciate his support for the legislation. (The remarks of Mr. Conrad, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Baucus pertaining to the introduction of S. 1638 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. No need to apologize. We often get mixed up with our sister State. They sometimes call us the four amigos, the four Senators from North and South Dakota. So we are always glad to be put in the class of our friends from South Dakota.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I will make one correction, if I can. North Dakota.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, last night we heard the President's State of the Union Address. It was an important review of where the country stands. I want a chance to discuss today what I think are some of the most important points that were made last night, the most important points with respect to the fiscal condition of our country. I came here to the U.S. Senate 12 years ago. The thing that compelled me to run was the fact that fiscal conditions in the country were a disaster. I was convinced that unless steps were taken to get us back on a sound fiscal track, the future economic security of our country was threatened, which would have an adverse effect on the people that I represent in the State of North Dakota. We are very much affected by the national economy. But I was also concerned about where we were headed in terms of a national legacy. What were we going to leave to our children? Remember those times when we were running massive deficits? It looked like there was no end to red ink. So I came here with a commitment to get our fiscal house in order. I wanted not only to balance the budget, as it is called in Washington, but I also wanted to see us stop the practice of looting the Social Security trust funds in order to make the deficit appear smaller than it really was. So last night was a very special night for me. I was able to hear a President say he was going to submit a balanced budget for the first time in 30 years. I was also able to hear a President say that he was going to go further than that and he was going to move to stop the practice of raiding and looting Social Security trust fund surpluses. Madam President, I think that is critically important to the Nation's future. I want to describe what has happened, what is happening and why it matters to people. I brought this chart along to show precisely what has happened and what the differences are between the budget we talk about here in Washington and what I think any fair commentary would be on the budget. If we go back to 1992, the blue line shows what is termed the unified budget. What has happened to the so-called unified budget? That includes all of the resources of the Federal Government, all the revenues and all the expenditures. Of course, that means it also includes the Social Security surpluses. The red line shows the budget of the United States if you exclude the Social Security surpluses. What these lines show is that in 1992 we had a unified budget deficit of $290 billion--$290 billion. And the projections were that the deficits were just going to go up from there. That is where we were in 1992. The next year we passed an economic plan proposed by this President. And I might say all the votes were on this side of the aisle because none of our friends on the other side would vote for it. It was controversial. And it is controversial. Any time you really are going to take action and reduce the deficit, that means you are going to cut spending, and perhaps even raise taxes. That is what the 1993 plan did. It cut spending, and it raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.5 percent of the income-tax payers of the country. That plan has worked and worked remarkably well. You can see what has happened here to the unified deficit. It has gone down each and every year so that this year, fiscal 1998, the Congressional Budget Office is now projecting a budget deficit of only $5 billion. But let us remember that is the unified deficit. The President said for fiscal 1999 he is going to propose a balanced budget. That means all of the revenues of the Federal Government, when matched with all of the outlays of the Federal Government, are going to balance. That is dramatic progress. That is real progress. That is important. But we should never forget that that means we are still using Social Security trust fund surpluses. We ought to stop it. We ought to stop it because we have to get ready for the time the baby-boom generation starts to retire. It is coming sooner than any of us might think. In fact, I am one of the leading edge members of the baby-boom generation. I will be 50 years old in just a few short weeks. When I retire, along with millions of other baby boomers, that is going to put enormous pressure on the Federal budget. I call it a demographic time bomb. It is lurking just over the horizon. We have to get ready for that time. The way we get ready is to stop using the Social Security trust fund surpluses to fund the other aspects of Government. I said to my colleagues in the Budget Committee this morning, if any private company tried to do what we are doing, they would be in big trouble. Because if any private company took the retirement funds of its employees and threw those into the pot in order to balance its operating budget, they would be in violation of Federal law. They would be headed for a Federal institution, but it would not be the U.S. Congress. They would be headed for a Federal penitentiary because that is considered fraud. That is the reason we ought to stop it. It is wrong. But it is not just wrong in the sense of being illegal. It is also wrong in the sense of preparing the economic future for this country. If we do not take action now, we will face very draconian decisions as we get closer to the time when the baby boomers actually start to retire. So this blue line shows the so-called unified budget. It shows that we have made dramatic progress moving towards a so-called balanced budget. But it is not really balanced until or unless we also stop raiding the Social Security trust fund, until we stop looting the trust fund surpluses to pay for the other actions of governments. You can see that this year we will be using the difference between a $5 billion deficit and $106 billion. We will be using $101 billion of Social Security trust fund surpluses. Last night the President said, whoa, wait a minute. Let's not continue this practice. Let's not fool ourselves by saying we have surpluses when, in fact, we are taking trust fund money and using those moneys to make believe we have surpluses. So before anybody gets busy figuring out new spending or new tax cut schemes, let's make sure we have secured the future of Social Security. As the President said, save Social Security first. That should be the first order of business for this Congress and future Congresses to come. Now, one reason it is important to end this raid on Social Security is because that will better secure the economic future for our country. This progress that we have made, this dramatic progress on reducing the deficit, has led to remarkably good economic conditions. We have seen over these last 4 years real business fixed investment growing at 10 percent a year, one of the strongest rates we have ever seen in our history. We have seen the unemployment rate in the United States reduced to the lowest level since 1973. We have the lowest rate of unemployment in 24 years. The good news doesn't stop there. If you look at the inflation rate, that is the best sustained performance since 1967, the lowest rate of inflation on a sustained basis in 30 years. These are truly remarkable economic numbers. In addition to that, we know over 14 million jobs have been created. This has been one of the most successful economic policies ever put in place, and it was done at a time when there was great controversy about it. That is clear if you go back to 1993 and read the debate. Folks on the other side of the aisle said if you pass that plan, you will increase the deficit. They said you will increase unemployment. They said you will increase inflation. They were wrong. They were wrong on every single point. They had an economic theory called trickle down economics. When we pursued that theory in the 1980s, the deficit and the debt exploded. In 1993, we reversed course and said, no, we are going back to commonsense economics, which means you look at what you are spending and what your revenues are and you put them into balance. That is how you eliminate the deficit. You cut your spending, you increase your revenue, and you eliminate the deficit. In doing this you take pressure off of interest rates and relieve that debt burden on the economy and the economy will grow. And this economic course worked. It did precisely what we hoped it would do. In fact, the results have been even better than we anticipated. The deficit has come down dramatically. We have seen remarkably strong economic growth, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the lowest unemployment in 24 years, the biggest reduction in elderly poverty in our history. That is a record we can be proud of. Let me just say I heard the other night somebody on television saying it is not because of the fiscal policy that was passed in 1993, it is because of the monetary policy the Federal Reserve Board has been pursuing that we have had this economic success. Mr. Greenspan, the head of the Federal Reserve, doesn't even subscribe to that proposition. He has said that the 1993 economic plan has played a significant role in the good economic circumstances that we have seen since that time. He is exactly right. It is a combination of fiscal policy and monetary policy that has brought us to the strong economic position we are in today. The fiscal policy is controlled by the Congress and the White House. The fiscal policy that we put in place with the 1993 economic plan has worked and it has worked like a charm. In fact, it has permitted the Federal Reserve Board to follow the monetary policy they have pursued that has also helped create this very successful economic environment in which we are in. Madam President, I wanted this chance to review where we have been, where we are going, how we got here, and how we can continue to make progress that strengthens the economy of this country. In conclusion, I just want to say we have an unparalleled opportunity this year. We have a chance to build on the remarkable success that was started with the 1993 economic plan. We have a chance to take that, coupled with the bipartisan budget plan that was passed last year, and thankfully we now see we are 3 years ahead of schedule on that plan. We now can take the next step and stop the raiding and the looting of Social Security trust fund surpluses in a way that would strengthen this economy for decades to come. We shouldn't let this moment pass. We shouldn't allow ourselves to get caught up in new spending schemes or tax cut schemes that threaten and endanger this remarkable progress that we have made. I hope that my colleagues, as we go through the legislative agenda of this year, will pay special attention to doing all that we can to secure the economic future for our country. We have, really, very few responsibilities that are more important than laying the groundwork for the economic prosperity and opportunity of the people that we represent. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of commending the efforts of Michele Johnson, a legislative assistant on my staff who will be leaving the Senate at the end of this session. Michele's conscientiousness and exceptional work will be missed. Michele Johnson, a native of rural Michigan, ND, and graduate of the University of North Dakota, has served on my staff for almost 3\1/2\ years. Michele has distinguished herself by her meticulous attention to detail and her ability to tackle a wide range of issues critical to our State. She has been of great help in our work to bring change to the Nation's agricultural credit system in order to help farmers who are struggling financially. She has also played an instrumental role in efforts we have undertaken to bring much needed economic and rural development to every corner of North Dakota. Her accomplishments in these areas will have a positive impact for years to come. A lawyer by training, Michele has most recently tackled a very difficult assignment. In the wake of this year's millennium flood, she volunteered to go to Grand Forks to assist in the Red River Valley's disaster recovery efforts. Even before the floodwaters had receded, Michele had packed her bags and arrived in Grand Forks to be a part of the onsite assistance team. While in Grand Forks Michele brought a local perspective to the Federal disaster response and her firsthand experience was enormously helpful in our efforts to lay the groundwork for North Dakota's long- term recovery. In her work, she earned high praise and recognition from community leaders up and down the Red River Valley. We will miss Michele's contributions to the office, including her cheerful presence and enthusiasm. Thanks, Michele, for a job well done. We wish you well as you move on to your next assignment.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the leader for his efforts to bring this session to a close.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me just thank my colleague, Senator Dorgan. Senator Dorgan and his staff have worked tirelessly to produce this result. This isn't something we have just worked on the last few months. This has been an effort of 6 years to bring us to this point. It is remarkable to have brought together such a broad cross-section of the State of North Dakota in support of a project as significant as this one. I just want to thank my colleague for all of his efforts and all of his leadership. He was involved in the 1986 reformulation. He early on recognized that we had an additional opportunity here to have something develop that would secure the economic future of our State. I think we should also acknowledge that we understand we face a tough struggle to pass this legislation. We know that we have determined opponents downstream, that we have other opponents as well, certain national environmental organizations. And the State of Minnesota and our neighbors to the north in Canada all have expressed reservations. But we have done our level best to address their concerns. We have brought forward a project that is environmentally sensitive, that is fiscally sound, and does meet the current and long-term water needs of the State of North Dakota, all within the context of changing what has already been approved by Congress. Senator Dorgan made the point and made it well. We have an approved project that is even a bigger project than what we are proposing here today, but it is unlikely to ever be built. Now is the time to step forward and to propose reasonable alternatives that are alternatives that would secure the long-term interests of the State of North Dakota. So, again, I want to especially thank my colleague from North Dakota.

Mr. CONRAD. Yes.

Mr. CONRAD. I just respond by saying, I think it is very important that we have hearings--and have hearings in North Dakota--to be able to hear from all affected interests there. We already have heard from virtually every affected interest in the State of North Dakota. They have sent us letters in support of this project. There is absolutely an unprecedented degree of bipartisan support, virtually every affected interest in the State of North Dakota. But we also will look forward to hearings here because we understand there are people in opposition, there are tests in opposition. We want the opportunity to explain what we have done to respond to their concerns, because I think this is a remarkable effort to try to listen to what other people have said and to try to design a project that meets their concerns. So I think we are looking forward to the opportunity to tell our story and to make our case. We believe it is a powerful one. As I indicated earlier, we believe this project is environmentally sensitive, fiscally sound, and in the long-term interests of the State of North Dakota and of the Nation. So, again, I want to thank my colleague from North Dakota for all of his efforts in bringing us to this day.

Mr. CONRAD. If the Senator would just yield, I think we also want to acknowledge, I might say, the individuals from the State level that we have acknowledged in our statements. We should add Mike Dwyer, of the North Dakota Water Users, who played a critical role of shuttle diplomacy, going back and forth in the final days to reach conclusion here. So this has been a true team effort, with Dave Sprynczynatyk, the State water engineer, and Maj. Gen. Murray Sagsveen working on behalf of the Governor and Bob Harms, of the Governor's staff, and, as I have indicated, Mike Dwyer of the North Dakota Water Users. All of them played very important roles, as did Mike Olson, Bill Bicknell and Dick Kroger of the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society. In the final hours, in the final days, it took a real coming together to achieve this result. We certainly appreciate all of their efforts. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Exhibit 1 North Dakota, November 7, 1997. Sen. Frank Murkowski, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Sen. Dale Bumpers, Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Rep. Don Young, Chairman, Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Rep. George Miller, Ranking Member, Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington DC. Gentlemen: Today marks a significant milestone for the State of North Dakota. We, the elected political leaders of the state, have agreed to support the introduction and to urge the passage of the ``Dakota Water Resources Act.'' The attached legislation, if enacted, will play an integral part in the economic future of our state. We are proud that this legislation is the product of extensive and full consultation with people who represent nearly all aspects of the life of our state. It represents a cooperative effort which has not only reached across partisan political lines, but also has constructively engaged all affected interests of the state. It reflects the views of Republicans and Democrats, Tribal leaders, the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society, The North Dakota Water Users Association, and the Rural Electric Cooperatives. Accordingly, we urge you to give this legislation your early review and full support. Sincerely, Kent Conrad, U.S. Senator; Byron Dorgan, U.S. Senator; Carl Pomeroy, U.S. Representative; Edward Schafer, Governor; Gary Nelson, Majority Leader, State Senate; Timothy Mathern, Minority Leader, State Senate; John Dorso, Majority Leader, State House; Merle Boucher, Minority Leader, State House. Attachment.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. So we will have a 6-month extension.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair, and especially thank him for his characterization of my State.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I just respond by saying, I think it is very important that we have hearings--and have hearings in North Dakota--to be able to hear from all affected interests there. We already have heard from virtually every affected interest in the State of North Dakota. They have sent us letters in support of this project. There is absolutely an unprecedented degree of bipartisan support, virtually every affected interest in the State of North Dakota. But we also will look forward to hearings here because we understand there are people in opposition, there are tests in opposition. We want the opportunity to explain what we have done to respond to their concerns, because I think this is a remarkable effort to try to listen to what other people have said and to try to design a project that meets their concerns. So I think we are looking forward to the opportunity to tell our story and to make our case. We believe it is a powerful one. As I indicated earlier, we believe this project is environmentally sensitive, fiscally sound, and in the long-term interests of the State of North Dakota and of the Nation. So, again, I want to thank my colleague from North Dakota for all of his efforts in bringing us to this day.

Mr. CONRAD. Yes.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this outpouring of support is unprecedented. In essence, our citizens are saying to Washington, take note. This is essential for our future. Before I conclude, I would like to say that in addition to many fine people in North Dakota who helped in the crafting of this legislation, I want to recognize the special efforts of staff members of mine who worked long and hard to produce these results: Robert Van Heuvelen, Derik Fettig, Kirk Johnson, and Mary Knapp. Their dedication in getting amendments drafted has contributed tremendously to the positive product we are introducing today. They have been instrumental in forging the consensus which is a hallmark of this legislation. Through careful attention to detail, endless rounds of communications with all interested parties and preparation of myriad of drafts, these four professionals have made a real mark. As many in North Dakota will attest, Robert, Derik, Kirk, and Mary exemplify the finest that we find among congressional staff. I thank them for their contribution today. In addition to my own staff, I want to take this moment to also thank three other outstanding congressional staffers for their help in achieving this result: Doug Norell, the legislative director for Senator Dorgan, Andrea Nygren, Ruth Fleischer, and Mike Eggl of Senator Dorgan's staff, Karen Frederickson and Amy Goffe, the chief of staff and legislative assistant, respectively, for North Dakota Congressman Earl Pomeroy. This has been a collaborative effort among the delegation, the State's elected leaders and their staffs. And I thank them for it. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me just thank my colleague, Senator Dorgan. Senator Dorgan and his staff have worked tirelessly to produce this result. This isn't something we have just worked on the last few months. This has been an effort of 6 years to bring us to this point. It is remarkable to have brought together such a broad cross-section of the State of North Dakota in support of a project as significant as this one. I just want to thank my colleague for all of his efforts and all of his leadership. He was involved in the 1986 reformulation. He early on recognized that we had an additional opportunity here to have something develop that would secure the economic future of our State. I think we should also acknowledge that we understand we face a tough struggle to pass this legislation. We know that we have determined opponents downstream, that we have other opponents as well, certain national environmental organizations. And the State of Minnesota and our neighbors to the north in Canada all have expressed reservations. But we have done our level best to address their concerns. We have brought forward a project that is environmentally sensitive, that is fiscally sound, and does meet the current and long-term water needs of the State of North Dakota, all within the context of changing what has already been approved by Congress. Senator Dorgan made the point and made it well. We have an approved project that is even a bigger project than what we are proposing here today, but it is unlikely to ever be built. Now is the time to step forward and to propose reasonable alternatives that are alternatives that would secure the long-term interests of the State of North Dakota. So, again, I want to especially thank my colleague from North Dakota.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senator Dorgan, the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1997. This is landmark legislation for our home State of North Dakota. The legislation that we are introducing amends the 1986 Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act and fundamentally shifts the focus of the project from large-scale irrigation to delivery of drinking water to communities in our State and to our four Indian reservations. The Dakota water Resources project is necessary to assure the citizens of North Dakota an adequate supply of quality water for municipal, rural and industrial [MR&I] uses. In fact, without these amendments to the 1986 Garrison Act, many communities in North Dakota will be forced to be without clean and reliable water supplies. The importance of a clean, safe water supply cannot be overstated. The improvement of our water quality and the adequacy of future water supplies is critical to the economic future of North Dakota. I direct the attention of my colleagues to this chart, which shows the difference between water supplies that is not atypical for rural North Dakota. This is a jar that has the water in many rural parts of our State, because the ground water is just not of high quality. This shows the water delivered to rural North Dakotans via pipeline. I think this tells the story. North Dakota needs safe, clean, reliable water. The bill we are introducing today is designed to deliver it. Water development is essential for economic development, agriculture, recreation and improving the environment. This legislation will provide an adequate and dependable water supply throughout North Dakota, including communities in the Red River Valley. Water is an essential resource to sustain the population and economic growth of that region. A portion of the funding will also fund irrigation projects in North Dakota and on the Indian Reservations, as well as the development of fish and wildlife projects. The U.S. Senate is well aware of the history of failed promises on water development projects on the Missouri River. People of our State and on reservations have sacrificed 550,000 acres of land, including homes, farms, and in many cases their livelihoods, for flood protection downstream. The Federal Government has failed to live up to its side of the bargain. I ask the Senate today, please look at this legislation; let us have a debate and a discussion, but do not fail to honor the promises the Federal Government made to North Dakota. To compensate North Dakota for the loss of 550,000 acres of valuable Missouri River bottom land due to the construction of the Garrison and Oahe Dams, the Garrison diversion project was authorized in 1965. It was to provide affordable access to Missouri River water as a basic element of the State's long-range plans for water management and development. That promise has not been kept. The next chart I have here shows the areas of our State that would be benefited by the legislation we are introducing today. This chart shows the northwest area water supply project, the Southwest pipeline project, and the other areas of the State, including the Red River Valley, that would have safe, clean, dependable sources of water as a result of this legislation. Mr. President, North Dakotans are fully committed to a scaled back, modernized project. Within the State of North Dakota we have worked long and hard to produce a new project. The MR&I focus of the Dakota water resources project is the best way to move forward. It represents the best potential to meet North Dakota's water needs. We realized 6 years ago that the Garrison project of 1986 would never attain its original goals. Since that time the relevant interests in North Dakota have engaged in a bipartisan effort to reformulate Federal law to address the contemporary and future water needs of our State. I believe this legislation will provide water to communities in need in North Dakota in an environmentally sensitive manner. It is important to note that we have involved representatives of the conservation community from both the national and State level to develop the legislation we introduce today. We are especially pleased to have the support of the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society for this legislation. I also want to assure our neighbors to the north, in Canada, that we will abide by international obligations. The Dakota Water Resources Act contains provisions to ensure compliance with the Boundary Water Treaty of 1909 between the United States and Canada. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to highlight some of the provisions in the Dakota Water Resources Act. The Dakota Water Resources Act authorizes $300 million for MR&I projects across North Dakota and an additional $200 million for MR&I projects on the four Indian reservations within the State. These MR&I projects are essential to ensure a safe and clean water supply throughout North Dakota. This legislation also includes $200 million to meet the comprehensive water quality and quantity needs of the Red River Valley. Also, the bill stipulates that the State of North Dakota will select one or more project features from options identified to meet those needs, including the delivery of Missouri River water to the Red River Valley. This legislation includes debt forgiveness for the State of North Dakota for costs of previously constructed facilities that will not be utilized or will be only partially utilized. This legislation includes $40 million for the construction of the Four Bears Bridge across Lake Sakakawea within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. Lake Sakakawea is the body of water which was created by the construction of Garrison Dam. The resulting lake not only flooded valuable farmland on the reservation, but divided the reservation. The current bridge, which is the only route to cross Lake Sakakawea, is functionally inadequate and cannot handle current traffic flows. The structure poses a significant safety hazard and hampers access to emergency and medical services. The Dakota Water Resources Act contains numerous provisions to ensure that this project is constructed in an environmentally-sensitive manner. The legislation permits the State to establish a water conservation program, utilizing funds provided for MR&I. Also, this bill includes $25 million for a Natural Resources Trust, currently the Wetlands Trust, and an authorization of $1.5 million to fund a wetlands interpretive center. The purpose of the trust is to preserve, enhance, restore and manage wetlands and associated wildlife habitat, grassland conservation and riparian areas in the State of North Dakota. This legislation contains other important provisions, including: authorization of $5,000,000 for recreation projects in North Dakota; authorization for a study of bank stabilization along the Missouri River below Garrison Dam; designation of the current Lonetree Reservoir as a wildlife conservation area; a requirement for the Federal Government to pay for operation and maintenance on mitigation lands; deauthorization of certain irrigation areas; additional flexibility for the Indian tribes in determining irrigation sites within the reservations; ensures no increase for rural electric cooperatives using power generated by the dams on the Missouri River; and a provision that ``upon transfer of the Oakes Test Area to the State of North Dakota, but not later than one year after enactment of this act Federal funds authorized by this act may not be used to subsidize the irrigation of any crop at the Oakes Test Area.'' The Dakota Water Resources Act represents a significant bipartisan effort within North Dakota to meet the contemporary and future water quantity and quality needs of our State and provide for the long-term economic development of North Dakota. I look forward to working with the members and staff of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on this legislation, specifically Senator Murkowski and Senator Bumpers, the chairman and ranking member respectively. I also look forward to discussing the need for the Dakota Water Resources Act with my Senate colleagues and would invite their support for this legislation that is essential for the future of North Dakota. Mr. President, this legislation has the unanimous support of the congressional delegation, the Governor, state legislative leaders, tribal leaders, North Dakota water interests, and the North Dakota Rural Electric Cooperatives. It also has the support of a major state conservation group and mayors of the major affected cities. The Dakota Water Resources Act is the consensus product of an extensive negotiating process. I want to express my personal appreciation to each of the State elected leaders who served as the State negotiating team. I am deeply grateful for their efforts. They were undertaken in good faith, in a bipartisan spirit because we recognize the critical importance of the completion of this project for the future economic health and strength of our State. Our State leaders have come together in an unprecedented way. I am submitting for the Record, and I will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record after my statement and after the bill, the letters of support, including a letter signed by Senator Dorgan, Congressman Pomeroy, Governor Schafer, North Dakota Senate majority leader Gary Nelson, North Dakota Senate minority leader Tim Mathern, North Dakota House majority leader John Dorso, and North Dakota House minority leader Merle Boucher as well as myself. The eight of us served as the State negotiating team. In addition to that, I am proud to say we have letters of support of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the Spirit Lake Tribe, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, and three affiliated tribes. We will also submit for the Record separate letters from the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society, the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District, the North Dakota Water Users Association, the Cities of Grand Forks, Fargo, Minot, Dickinson, and Williston, the Southwest Water Authority, the North Dakota Water Resource Districts Association, the Souris River Joint Water Resource Board, the West River Joint Water Resource Board, the Devils Lake Basin Joint Water Resource Board, the North Dakota Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives, the Greater North Dakota Association, which is the North Dakota Chamber of Commerce, the Fargo Chamber of Commerce, the Industrial Development Association of North Dakota, and the North Dakota Education Association. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record following my remarks and before the legislation itself.

Mr. CONRAD. If the Senator would just yield, I think we also want to acknowledge, I might say, the individuals from the State level that we have acknowledged in our statements. We should add Mike Dwyer, of the North Dakota Water Users, who played a critical role of shuttle diplomacy, going back and forth in the final days to reach conclusion here. So this has been a true team effort, with Dave Sprynczynatyk, the State water engineer, and Maj. Gen. Murray Sagsveen working on behalf of the Governor and Bob Harms, of the Governor's staff, and, as I have indicated, Mike Dwyer of the North Dakota Water Users. All of them played very important roles, as did Mike Olson, Bill Bicknell and Dick Kroger of the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society. In the final hours, in the final days, it took a real coming together to achieve this result. We certainly appreciate all of their efforts. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Exhibit 1 North Dakota, November 7, 1997. Sen. Frank Murkowski, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Sen. Dale Bumpers, Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Rep. Don Young, Chairman, Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Rep. George Miller, Ranking Member, Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington DC. Gentlemen: Today marks a significant milestone for the State of North Dakota. We, the elected political leaders of the state, have agreed to support the introduction and to urge the passage of the ``Dakota Water Resources Act.'' The attached legislation, if enacted, will play an integral part in the economic future of our state. We are proud that this legislation is the product of extensive and full consultation with people who represent nearly all aspects of the life of our state. It represents a cooperative effort which has not only reached across partisan political lines, but also has constructively engaged all affected interests of the state. It reflects the views of Republicans and Democrats, Tribal leaders, the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society, The North Dakota Water Users Association, and the Rural Electric Cooperatives. Accordingly, we urge you to give this legislation your early review and full support. Sincerely, Kent Conrad, U.S. Senator; Byron Dorgan, U.S. Senator; Carl Pomeroy, U.S. Representative; Edward Schafer, Governor; Gary Nelson, Majority Leader, State Senate; Timothy Mathern, Minority Leader, State Senate; John Dorso, Majority Leader, State House; Merle Boucher, Minority Leader, State House. Attachment.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today for the purpose of recognizing the efforts of Derik Fettig, a legislative assistant on my staff who will be leaving the Senate at the end of this session. With his good humor and hard work, Derik has been a tremendous asset as we have worked on issues impacting North Dakota. A native of Bismarck, ND and graduate of Colorado College, Derik joined my Washington office in May 1995, and was immediately drawn into some of the most important issues that confront our State. His portfolio--which includes water projects and disaster relief--bears witness to the fact that he has served at a critical time in our State's history. Derik played a pivotal role in the aftermath of this year's historic disasters. He worked with the Corps of Engineers, as well as with the different mayors and local officials up and down the Red River Valley, to address the daily crises associated with what was dubbed ``Blizzard Hannah'' and the millennium flood. Even more significantly, he helped design and implement the Federal assistance strategy, which has provided the groundwork for North Dakota's long road to recovery and more than $770 million in Federal aid. Derik has also been of great help with the ongoing water problems facing North Dakota. He has worked to ensure that the Federal Government responds adequately to the unfolding tragedy in Devils Lake. In addition, he has been the point person on my staff for producing a reformulated Garrison Diversion project. With Derik's able assistance, we have forged an unprecedented political consensus among North Dakota's elected political leadership on a revised plan to address the State's long-term water needs. And in the middle of all of this, he ran Grandma's Marathon in Duluth, MN. We will miss you, Derik. I commend you for your tireless work and wish you the very best in your future endeavors. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.