[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 158 (Monday, November 10, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12471-S12477]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   DAKOTA WATER RESOURCES ACT OF 1997

  Before turning to those tests, let me summarize the key components of 
the bill and their benefits to North Dakota. The bill provides:
  $300 million for municipal, rural and industrial [MR&I] water systems 
in North Dakota;
  $200 million to meet the comprehensive water needs of the Red River 
Valley;
  $200 million for MR&I projects for four Indian reservations; 1$40 
million for construction of Four Bears Bridge across Lake Sakakawea;
  $25 million for a natural resources trust to preserve, enhance, 
restore, and manage wetlands and associated wildlife habitat, 
grasslands, and riparian areas;
  $5 million for recreation projects;
  $1.5 million for a Wetlands Interpretive Center in North Dakota;
  Debt forgiveness for expenses associated with features of the 
Garrison project previously constructed with Federal funds, but which 
now will go unused, or only partially used;
  Authorization for the state to develop water conservation programs 
using MR&I funding;
  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 provision requiring the Federal Government to pay for operation and 
maintenance on mitigation lands;
  A provision that ``upon transfer of the Oakes Test Area to the State 
of North Dakota, but not later than 1 year after enactment of this Act, 
federal funds authorized by this Act may not be used to subsidize the 
irrigation of any crops at the Oakes Test Area'';
  A provision giving Indian tribes flexibility in determining 
irrigation sites within the reservations;
  A provision that the bill will not result in any rate increases for 
power generated by dams on the Missouri River; and
       Authorization for the following irrigation areas: Turtle 
     Mountain--13,700 acres, McClusky Canal--10,000 acres, 
     Missouri River Basin--28,000 acres, Stand Rock Sioux 
     Reservation--2,380 acres, Fort Berthold Reservation--15,200 
     acres, and New Rockford Canal--1,200 acres, provided user 
     fees pay for the cost of irrigation at this site.


             THE DAKOTA WATER RESOURCES ACT MEETS THE TEST

  Let me return to my prior thought and show how the Dakota Water 
Resources Act of 1997 meets the tests I noted before.
  First, it is fiscally responsible because it cuts nearly $200 million 
for irrigation projects and requires cost sharing by the State for the 
MR&I projects authorized by the bill. Further, it stretches Federal 
resources by allowing the State to make loans, rather than grants, 
under the MR&I program so that money can be recycled through a 
revolving fund and thereby benefit even more communities across the 
State. The MR&I programs for the State and tribes alike focus only on 
the highest priority water needs, which have been validated by the 
State Water Commission and the Bureau of Reclamation.
  Second, the act provides substantial environmental benefits. It 
includes incentives for water conservation and the creation of a 
natural resources trust. The bill provides additional incentives for 
the State to establish and meet specified conservation goals. Also, it 
allows for the creation of a separate account in an expanded national 
resources trust to maintain sensitive mitigation tracts. Perhaps more 
notably, the bill includes for the first time as one of the defined 
project purposes ``enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat and other 
natural resources.''
  Let me share with colleagues a letter and statement from the 
professional wildlife managers and biologists, the North Dakota Chapter 
of the Wildlife Society, which explains their support for the new 
legislation. The Society said, in part, that:

       We strongly believe the cooperative effort with the 
     Congressional Delegation and North Dakota's state political 
     leaders has strengthened the bill. Throughout this effort we 
     have sought to develop legislation that benefits North 
     Dakotans through water development and minimizes potential 
     impacts to our state's natural resources.

  I want to commend the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society 
for its strong and explicit support for this legislation. Its members, 
especially Mike Olson, Dick Kroger, and Bill Bicknell, have played a 
key role in developing this bill.
  Third test: This bill meets a third test by providing much more for 
economic development than natural resource enhancement alone. Water is 
necessary for all life, but in the semi-arid Plains States, such as 
North Dakota, it is often difficult to find a reliable supply of water 
to meet the needs of growing population centers and agriculture. 
Moreover, even where water is available, it often is undrinkable.
  I remember seeing a constituent from the Dickinson area hold a glass 
of what appeared to be tobacco juice only to be informed that it was 
tap water. Several communities in southwestern North Dakota, where I 
grew up, cannot even comply with Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] 
standards implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act. Western North 
Dakota communities clustered around Minot and Dickinson will gain the 
benefits of reliable drinking water supplies from the northwest area 
water supply and the southwest pipeline, which are authorized in this 
bill.
  The Dakota Water Resources Act of 1997 will assure an adequate and 
dependable water supply for at least one out of three North Dakotans in 
urban, rural, and native American communities. It will also promote 
industrial uses in North Dakota for manufacturing and agricultural 
processing and target water delivery to five project areas for 
agricultural development. Finally, the bill will enhance recreation 
through projects such as a Wetlands Interpretive Center.
  The fourth test this bill meets is project completion. A major 
provision of the bill is to allow the State to choose, in consultation 
with the Secretary of the Interior, how to meet the water needs of the 
Red River Valley--North Dakota's fastest growing region. The 
legislation will permit the State to either complete an existing water 
supply system or choose alternative methods to meet the comprehensive 
water

[[Page S12472]]

quality and quantity needs of Fargo, Grand Forks, Wahpeton, Grafton and 
other Red River Valley communities in both North Dakota and Minnesota. 
North Dakotans have waited 50 years to have this promise kept and this 
bill keeps the promise while meeting tough environmental standards, the 
requirements of the Boundary Waters Treaty with Canada and the test of 
fiscal responsibility.

  Finally, our bill represents a rare consensus among all the major 
participants in State water development and conservation. To insure the 
most balanced and representative bill, the North Dakota congressional 
delegation, the Governor, and State legislative leaders worked 
cooperatively with the many State interest groups to reach consensus on 
what are often contentious issues. Evidence of our success in building 
that consensus on this bill is provided in the many letters from 
community leaders, cities, native American tribes, water users, rural 
electric cooperatives, water resource districts, the North Dakota 
Education Association, Chamber of Commerce, industrial development 
commission, and the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society, as 
noted before.
  I ask that copies of all of these letters be entered into the Record 
at the end of my statement and that of my colleague, Senator Conrad. 
However, I would like to give my colleagues a flavor of the support 
that this bill enjoys in my State.


                      SUPPORT ACROSS NORTH DAKOTA

  In western North Dakota, Dickinson Mayor Fred Gengler says that 
nothing has improved the quality of life for citizens in western North 
Dakota more than a reliable supply of water made possible through water 
delivery funded by grants through the State of North Dakota. On behalf 
of the city of Minot, Mayor Orlin Backes says: ``The proposal you have 
jointly and cooperatively developed will finish a project that has 
languished far too long.'' Williston's mayor, Ward Koeser, wrote that 
``Your efforts to address the water needs of the entire state, and in 
turn that of the Williston trade area, make it very easy to send this 
letter of support for your efforts.''
  Growing communities in eastern North Dakota, such as two of North 
Dakota's largest cities, Fargo and Grand Forks, need an assured supply 
of water to plan for their future growth. It may shock some of my 
colleagues to know that the Red River of the North, the source of 
catastrophic flooding last spring, is the major source of drinking and 
industrial water for nearly one-fourth of the State's population and 
that it has actually stopped flowing several times in the past 100 
years.
  For the past 20 years, Fargo has been an engine of growth in North 
Dakota and its population has grown by nearly 2 percent per year. If 
this rate of growth is sustained, its population would double in 36 
years. This population growth is essential to building the statewide 
economy, including Fargo's.
  The city of Fargo has just completed construction of a state-of-the-
art water treatment facility to address community needs into the 21st 
century. But even the best treatment facilities need an adequate and 
dependable supply of water to meet the current and future needs of a 
growing community. Not surprisingly, Mayor Bruce Furness of Fargo 
writes that this bill ``. . . will greatly enhance Fargo's and eastern 
North Dakota's potential as a growth area--for population, economic, 
and agricultural purposes . . . .''
  For her part, Mayor Pat Owens of Grand Forks said: ``I strongly 
support the approach taken of implementing a comprehensive package that 
will benefit the State of North Dakota.'' Many of you will remember 
Mayor Owens as the steady hand that guided her city through tumultuous 
events of last spring's historic flood and the ensuing relief and 
recovery. She indicated that it was essential that Grand Forks have a 
reliable drinking supply for its citizens for the future.
  The four native American tribes sent letters supporting the proposed 
legislation. Chairman Charles Murphy of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 
especially appreciated the Indian irrigation included in the bill. The 
three affiliated tribes of the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation at 
Fort Berthold, in a letter from Chairman Russell Mason, welcomed 
ongoing funding for MR&I water needs of the tribes. They are joined in 
support for the bill by the chairs of the Spirit Lake Nation and Turtle 
Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, Myra Pearson, and Raphael DeCoteau, 
respectively.
  It's rare for both water users and conservation groups to agree to 
support the same project. These groups are usually at loggerheads over 
policy. This legislation is a dramatic exception.
  The water users embraced the bill as a sound compromise between water 
development and environmental protection. Mike Dwyer and Jack Olin, 
leaders of the North Dakota Water Users Association, stated that ``We 
fully support the amendments that have been developed to enable the 
1986 Reformulation Act to be modified and implemented.'' The Garrison 
Diversion Conservancy District, the historic manager of North Dakota's 
major water project, indicated its support in a letter from its 
manager, Warren Jamison. The chairman of the State Water Coalition and 
executive director of North Dakota's Rural Electric Cooperatives, 
Dennis Hill, pledged support to finish our State's major water supply 
project. Meanwhile, the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society 
convened a special session of their executive board, which issued the 
statement supporting the legislation noted before.


                      ``WHAT GOOD WATER'S WORTH''

  Many of the participants in the discussions leading to the consensus 
in support of this legislation say that their economic well-being and 
quality of life depend on passing the Dakota Water Resources Act of 
1997. Perhaps I can illustrate this feeling with a picture and a quote.
  It's as familiar as a picture of a kid taking a drink of clear, clean 
water from a hose in summer time.
  It's as profound as Lord Byron speaking through ``Don Juan'': ``Till 
taught by pain, men really know not what good water's worth.'' I can 
tell my colleagues that in North Dakota we know both the pain and the 
worth of good water.
  This consciousness is what has brought such a wide array of North 
Dakota groups together behind the bill. Nearly everyone determined that 
solving this water problem was so important that we must rally behind a 
common approach. The supporters include Republicans and Democrats, and 
independents as well. The backers also number conservationists and 
water users, rural and urban communities, and tribal and State leaders 
who have joined together in the most impressive display of unity that I 
have seen this decade in North Dakota. Let me again say how much. I 
appreciate the efforts of my North Dakota colleagues in the 
congressional delegation and in State government, as well as all of our 
staffs, for their invaluable contributions in achieving this unity.
  So I urge my colleagues to consider favorably the Dakota Water 
Resources Act of 1997 as the consensus fulfillment of the Federal 
commitment to North Dakota and the acknowledged program for water 
development in our State.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                             North Dakota Chapter,


                                         The Wildlife Society,

                                    Bismark, ND, November 7, 1997.

                              [Memorandum]

     To: The Garrison Negotiating Team.
     From: The North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society.
     Subject: Statement Concerning The Proposed Garrison 
         Legislation.
       On November 6, 1997, the North Dakota Chapter of The 
     Wildlife Society convened a special session of the Executive 
     Board to discuss the proposed Garrison legislation and the 
     Chapter's position on current legislative amendments. As a 
     result of this meeting, the Chapter issued the attached 
     statement of support.
           Sincerely,
                                              William B. Bicknell,
                                          NDCTWS--Executive Board.
       Attachment.
                                                                    ____


   Statement Concerning the November 7th, 1997 Proposed Amendment to 
              Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act of 1986

       The North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society supports 
     the proposed amendments to Garrison Diversion Reformulation 
     Act as described in the November 7, 1997 Discussion Draft. We 
     strongly believe the cooperative effort with the 
     Congressional Delegation and North Dakota's state political 
     leaders has

[[Page S12473]]

     strengthened the bill. Throughout this effort we have sought 
     to develop legislation that benefits North Dakotans through 
     water development and minimizes potential impacts to our 
     state's natural resources.
       Modification of the 1986 Reformulation Act will benefit 
     substantially more North Dakotans by emphasizing municipal, 
     rural, and industrial water needs of the State. The November 
     6, 1997 additions also place an equal emphasis on recognition 
     of the enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat and other 
     natural resources as a full project feature. We are pleased 
     to see the designation of Lonetree as a wildlife conservation 
     area. This change is consistent with the recognition of 
     natural resource conservation as a project feature that 
     benefits North Dakota and the State's economy.
       We are also encouraged by the addition of funds and the 
     increased opportunities for natural resource conservation in 
     North Dakota presented by the evolution of the Wetlands Trust 
     into the new Natural Resources Trust. We believe the 
     establishment of an account within the Natural Resources 
     Trust to operate and maintain wildlife development areas will 
     benefit wildlife resources in the state. This will ensure the 
     stated commitments of the project are met in the future.
       The findings of the Environmental Impact Statement written 
     by the Bureau of Reclamation will provide a framework for a 
     project which minimizes impact to North Dakota's natural 
     resources and provides for opportunities to meet the 
     comprehensive water needs of eastern North Dakota. We will 
     gladly be a full participant in this process to help ensure 
     that the water needs of Fargo, Grand Forks. and neighboring 
     communities are met in an environmentally sound cost 
     effective manner.
       Our involvement in this legislation has not ended. We look 
     forward to working with all parties involved to develop the 
     corresponding report language to capture all points of 
     agreement. Full involvement by all interested parties has 
     produced a final bill that North Dakotans can embrace. We 
     welcome the opportunity to cooperatively work on this and 
     other issues effecting North Dakota's natural resource 
     heritage.
                                                                    ____

         Mandan, Hidatsa, & Arikara Nation--Three Affiliated 
           Tribes, Fort Berthold Indian Reservation,
                                   New Town, ND, November 7, 1997.
     Re Final proposed amendments to the 1986 Garrison 
         Reformulation Act, dated November 7, 1997.

     Hon. Byron Dorgan,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dorgan: On behalf of the Three Affiliated 
     Tribes, I want to thank you for the opportunity to present 
     our views regarding the drafts of proposed legislation 
     amending the Garrison Reformulation Act of 1986 to you and 
     your staff over the past two weeks. We are especially 
     appreciative that the municipal, rural and industrial water 
     needs of the Tribes are being provided for through the new 
     funding authorization contained in the legislation, and that 
     funds are included in the legislation for a new Four Bears 
     bridge that will serve not only our communities but also all 
     of northwest North Dakota.
       It is our understanding that you plan to introduce the bill 
     in the few remaining days of this session of Congress, in the 
     form as submitted to us today, November 7, 1997, and we 
     strongly support your effort to do so. The bill, while it 
     does not address all of our concerns, as further explained 
     below, is a great step forward in the process of ensuring 
     that the water needs of the Tribe and its members are met. In 
     crafting this legislation, we especially applaud your efforts 
     to bring everyone to the table to discuss their views 
     concerning this proposed bill.
       We also want to thank you for the efforts you and your 
     staff have made to address the concerns mentioned below. We 
     recognize that significant changes have been made to the 
     Final Amendments to the Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act 
     of 1986 that you will soon introduce, and we thank you for 
     those changes, including the change that allows some 
     flexibility with regard to irrigation projects.
       We do, however, have several remaining concerns about the 
     bill as proposed. We know that there is insufficient time to 
     address these concerns before the bill is introduced, but we 
     are hopeful that with further discussion, these concerns can 
     be addressed either in language within the bill or in final 
     Committee Report language as the bill is being considered by 
     Congress.
       First, we would prefer that language be included in the 
     bill, or in a Committee Report, that would assure us that the 
     reserved water rights of the Three Affiliated Tribes to water 
     from the Missouri River and its tributaries that flow through 
     the Fort Berthold Reservation, expressed by the U.S. Supreme 
     Court in the Winters case early in this century, are 
     preserved in this legislation. This statement should be 
     similar to the purpose expressed in the legislation to 
     ``preserve any existing rights of the State of North Dakota 
     to use water from the Missouri River.'' We understand that 
     consideration is being given to include such language in any 
     Committee Report on the bill.
       Second, we would ask that language be included in the bill 
     which allows the Tribe the opportunity to seek Federal funds 
     for additional irrigation sites, other than those authorized. 
     While we do not now have additional sites in mind, additional 
     studies and advances in irrigation techniques over time may 
     well yield further areas which are suitable for irrigation.
       At the same time, we would like to see additional 
     authorization for funds for our irrigation projects. As your 
     staff has indicated to us, present law seems to provide that 
     all of the present Indian irrigation funds are earmarked for 
     the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. We do not in any way wish to 
     take away such funds from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, but 
     we believe our irrigation funding needs for the approximately 
     15,000 acres authorized under the present legislation are 
     being neglected in this process. We understand that other 
     opportunities may be present at in future legislation for 
     additional authorization of and appropriation of Federal 
     funds for these projects.
       Third, we would prefer that language be included, again 
     either in a Committee Report or in the legislation, which 
     would include the Tribe as a participant in the Natural 
     Resources Trust, as it has been renamed in Section 11 of the 
     bill. The Three Affiliated Tribes and the Standing Rock Sioux 
     Tribe lost significant wetlands and other wildlife habitat 
     with the construction of the Garrison and Oahe dams, and 
     should have just as much an opportunity for mitigation of 
     those lost acres with funds from the Natural Resources Trust 
     as does the rest of North Dakota.
       While we realize that the Equitable Compensation Fund 
     created for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and Three 
     Affiliated Tribes may also be used for the same purposes as 
     those of the Natural Resources Trust, the main thrust of 
     those funds are for education, economic development and 
     social welfare, as stated in the Equitable Compensation Act. 
     These funds, used for the above purposes, barely begin to 
     repair the economic and social losses to the members of the 
     Three Affiliated Tribes caused by the destruction of their 
     homelands along the Missouri River, and are unlikely to be 
     used to purchase additional lands in compensation for loss of 
     wetlands and other wildlife habitat.
       Finally, we would hope that in Committee Report language or 
     in the bill itself, language is included that will point out 
     that the benefits being provided in this bill help implement 
     the goals set forth in the Garrison Unit Joint Tribal 
     Advisory Committee Report, dated May 23, 1986. The language 
     should be similar to that already in the bill in the purposes 
     regarding the Garrison Diversion Unit Commission Final 
     Report, dated December 24, 1984. Such language simply 
     recognizes what the bill actually does and we believe will 
     assist in gaining political support for the bill both in 
     Congress and otherwise. We do recognize that the JTAC Final 
     Report is implicitly recognized by the mention of the 
     Garrison Diversion Unit Commission Final Report in the bill.
       As you know, we have provided suggested language to you and 
     your staff regarding these concerns. As always, we look 
     forward to working with you about moving the bill forward and 
     addressing our concerns as summarized above.
           Sincerely yours,
                                            Russell D. Mason, Sr.,
     Chairman, Three Affiliated Tribes.
                                                                    ____



                                            Spirit Lake Tribe,

                                Fort Totten, ND, November 7, 1997.
     Byron Dorgan,
     Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Dorgan: The Spirit Lake Tribal Council has 
     reviewed, and approves of the introduction of proposed 
     Amendments to Garrison Diversion Reformation Act of 1986.
       If you should need further assistance, please call my 
     office at (701) 766-1226.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Myra Pearson,
     Chairperson.
                                                                    ____



                                    Fargo Chamber of Commerce,

                                      Fargo, ND, November 7, 1997.
     Senators Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan,
     Congressman Earl Pomeroy,
     Governor Ed Schafer.
       Gentlemen: This is written to provide you with information 
     regarding our Chamber's legislative agenda, which includes 
     the important issue of water development.
       In recognition of the unique and varied water issues we 
     face throughout North Dakota, the Fargo Chamber of Commerce 
     became a member of the North Dakota Water Coalition. We 
     support the Coalition's water development plan, which 
     includes increasing the availability of quality water 
     resources to support continued population and industrial 
     growth across the state.
       One of two primary goals of the North Dakota Water 
     Coalition is to provide an adequate water supply across North 
     Dakota through a workable and achievable Garrison Diversion 
     Project. We believe that a completed water infrastructure in 
     our state will benefit all North Dakotans. Thus, we endorse 
     the proposal to amend the 1986 Reformulation Act to compete 
     Garrison Diversion.
       An adequate, reliable water supply is essential to 
     sustaining communities and supporting economic development 
     activities throughout our state. Thank you for your efforts 
     on behalf of water development in North Dakota, including 
     completion of the Garrison Diversion Project.
           Sincerely,
                                                  David K. Martin,
                                           Public Affairs Manager.

[[Page S12474]]

     
                                                                    ____
                              City of Williston, North Dakota,

                                  WIlliston, ND, November 7, 1997.
     Governor Schafer,
     State Capitol,
     Bismarck, ND.
     Senator Kent Conrad,
     Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Senator Byron Dorgan,
     Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Representative Earl Pomeroy,
     Longworth Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Senator Gary Nelson,
     Casselton, ND.
     Senator Tim Mathern,
     Fargo, ND.
     Representative Merle Boucher,
     Rolette, ND.
     Representative John Dorso,
     Fargo, ND
       Dear Gentlemen: It is with great pleasure that I 
     communicate my support for your efforts in developing our 
     water resources through the ``Dakota Water Resources Act of 
     1997''.
       Historically, water has been a central part of the economy 
     of the Williston trade region. We recognize water as North 
     Dakotas greatest natural resource and the Missouri River as 
     the greatest source of water in the state. Your efforts to 
     develop this natural resource should be commended.
       The ``Dakota Water Resources Act of 1997'' is a bold move 
     to utilize Missouri River water throughout the entire state 
     and its passage would be a great step towards the goal of 
     developing a strong and balanced economy in North Dakota.
       Your efforts to address the water needs of the entire 
     state, and in turn that of the Williston trade area, make it 
     very easy to send this letter of support for your efforts.
       Thanks for your initiative and support to amend the 1986 
     Garrison Reformulation Act to address the major water 
     concerns of the state of North Dakota.
           Sincerely,
                                                   E. Ward Koeser,
     Mayor.
                                                                    ____



                                            City of Dickinson,

                                  Dickinson, ND, November 7, 1997.
     Governor Edward Schafer,
     State Capitol,
     Bismarck, ND.
     Senator Kent Conrad,
     Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Senator Byron Dorgan,
     Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Representative Earl Pomeroy,
     Longworth Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Senator Gary Nelson,
     Casselton, ND.
     Senator Tim Mathern,
     Fargo, ND.
     Representative John Dorso,
     Fargo, ND.
     Representative Merle Boucher,
     Rolette, ND.
       Dear Gentlemen: Nothing has improved the quality of life 
     for citizens of Dickinson and southwest North Dakota more 
     than the Southwest Pipeline Project.
       This project would not be possible without Garrison 
     Diversion, Rural and Industrial funding and grants through 
     the State of North Dakota Resources Trust Fund.
       On behalf of the citizens of Dickinson, we support the 
     proposal to amend the 1986 Reformulation Act and complete the 
     Garrison Diversion water facilities.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Fred S. Gengler,
     Mayor, City of Dickinson.
                                                                    ____

         Souris River Joint Water Resource Board: Renville County 
           Water Resource District; Ward County Water Resource 
           District; McHenry County Water Resource District; 
           Bottineau County Water Resource District,
                                                 November 7, 1997.

                              [Memorandum]

     To: Governor Edward Schafer, Senator Kent Conrad, Senator 
         Byron Dorgan, Rep. Earl Pomeroy, Senator Gary Nelson, 
         Senator Tim Mathern, Representative John Dorso, and 
         Representative Merle Boucher.
     From: Glenn Wunderlich, Chairman.
       On behalf of the Souris River Joint Board, we want you to 
     know that we support the introduction of the Garrison 
     Diversion Amendments as the ``Dakota Water Resources Act of 
     1997.''
       The jointly and cooperatively developed proposal will meet 
     the water needs of North Dakota and provide affordable, high 
     quality water to a large portion of the state. The economic 
     well-being and quality of life in North Dakota depends on 
     this proposal.
       We truly appreciate your efforts to achieve consensus on 
     this legislation. We stand ready to provide support and 
     assistance as needed.
                                                                    ____

                                                    THE WEST RIVER


                                   JOINT WATER RESOURCE BOARD,

                                   Bismarck, ND, November 7, 1997.

                              [Memorandum]

     To: Governor Edward Schafer, Senator Kent Conrad, Senator 
         Byron Dorgan, Rep. Earl Pomeroy, Senator Gary Nelson, 
         Senator Tim Mathern, Representative John Dorso, and 
         Representative Merle Boucher.
     From: Alfred Underdahl, Chairman.
       The West River Joint Board would like to express its full 
     support for the proposal to amend the 1986 Reformulation Act 
     and complete the Garrison Diversion water facilities.
       The proposal you have jointly and cooperatively developed 
     is critical to the future of the state of North Dakota and 
     will help us meet our many statewide water needs.
       We want you to know that we greatly appreciate your efforts 
     to achieve consensus.
                                                                    ____

                                       North Dakota Water Resource


                                        Districts Association,

                                   Bismarck, ND, November 7, 1997.
     Governor Edward Schafer,
     State Capitol,
     Bismarck, ND.
     Senator Kent Conrad,
     Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Senator Byron Dorgan,
     Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Representative Earl Pomeroy,
     Longworth Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Senator Gary Nelson,
     Casselton, ND.
     Senator Tim Mathern,
     Fargo, ND.
     Representative John Dorso,
     Fargo, ND.
     Representative Mike Boucher,
     Rolette, ND.
       Dear Gentlemen: The North Dakota Water Resource Districts 
     Association strongly supports the proposal to amend the 1986 
     Reformulation Act and complete the Garrison Diversion water 
     facilities.
       The proposal you have jointly and cooperatvely developed 
     will finish a project that has languished far too long and is 
     critical to the future well-being of our state.
       You efforts to achieve consensus are greatly appreciated. 
     Feel free to call on us to provide necessary support and 
     assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Arden Haner,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____

                                                Garrison Diversion


                                         Conservancy District,

                                 Carrington, ND, November 7, 1997.
     Hon. Kent Conrad,
     U.S. Senator,
     Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Earl Pomeroy,
     U.S. Congressman,
     Longworth Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Byron Dorgan,
     U.S. Senator,
     Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Edward T. Schafer,
     Governor of North Dakota,
     Bismarck, ND.
       Senator Conrad, Dorgan, Congressman Pomeroy, Governor 
     Schafer: I have reviewed the Garrison Diversion Amendments 
     and support their introduction as the ``Dakota Water 
     Resources Act of 1997.'' I believe, if enacted, this 
     legislation will go far toward relieving the federal 
     government from the onerous ``trail of broken federal 
     promises.'' While the promise of economic opportunity through 
     federal irrigation has been decimated, this legislation will 
     bring affordable, high quality water to a large portion of 
     North Dakota. Indian and non-Indians will benefit from the 
     water supplies provided by this legislation. In many cases, 
     these amendments will restore spirits nearly broken by the 
     drudgery of hauling poor quality water for many miles through 
     severe weather conditions. Affordable access to a portion of 
     North Dakota's rights to Missouri River water will be 
     possible, and the 120 miles of canals and pumping stations 
     that remain a scar on the belly of the prairie will finally 
     be put to limited use.
       The Amendments provide assurances that the Boundary Waters 
     Treaty, with our Canadian friends, will not be violated. 
     Environmental benefits for fish and wildlife resources are 
     also included. The project is already referred to as a model 
     for wildlife nutigation and enhancement. This legislation 
     will further that reputation. Finally, thus legislation 
     reduces the overall cost of the authorized project features 
     while providing for returning on the existing investment.
       I will submit this legislation to the Garrison Diversion 
     Conservancy District's full board at their next meeting, with 
     a strong recommendation that they adopt a resolution in 
     support of its passage.
           Sincerely,
                                                Warren L. Jamison,
     Manager.
                                                                    ____



                             Greater North Dakota Association,

                                   Bismarck, ND, November 7, 1997.
     Governor Edward Schafer.
     Senator Kent Conrad.
     Senator Byron Dorgan.
     Representative Earl Pomeroy.
     Senator Gary Nelson.
     Senator Tim Mathern.
     Representative John Dorso.
     Representative Merle Boucher.
       Dear Gentleman: We were informed that an agreement has been 
     reached regarding the Garrison Diversion Project. On behalf 
     of the

[[Page S12475]]

     Greater North Dakota Association, we support the proposal to 
     amend the 1986 Reformulation Act and complete the Garrison 
     Diversion water facilities. We understand this amendment will 
     be introduced as the ``Dakota Water Resources Act of 1997.''
       Water--quality and quantity--is the most limiting and 
     valuable resource throughout the state. We believe that 
     passage of the proposal you have jointly and cooperatively 
     developed will assist North Dakota in developing its water 
     resources so that water can best facilitate the growth of the 
     state's four part economy and best serve the needs of our 
     citizens, business, agriculture, industry and tourism.
       The members of GNDA express their appreciation for your 
     enlightened leadership to achieve consensus on the Garrison 
     Diversion Project! We pledge our support in working 
     cooperatively toward completing the Garrison Diversion 
     project for the benefit of all North Dakotans.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Dale O. Anderson,
                                                        President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BENNETT:
  S. 1518. A bill to require publicly traded corporations to make 
specific disclosures in their initial offering statements and quarterly 
reports regarding the ability of their computer systems to operate 
after January 1, 2000; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.


  THE COMPUTER REMEDIATION AND SHARE HOLDER (CRASH) PROTECTION ACT OF 
                                  1997

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, there is a great adventure coming up. 
Everyone is looking forward to it and reservations are already being 
made. We are talking about the great New Year's Eve party on December 
31, 1999, the New Year's Eve party of the millennium. Join with me in a 
moment of fantasy and speculation and consider yourself at that party.
  You have made your reservations. You are in New York City so you can 
be part of the celebration in Times Square. This is going to be a 
wonderful event in your life.
  You are wearing a name brand digital watch, one of the fancy ones 
that records not only the time and the day, but the year. So you have 
your watch on, and you look at it to follow the time until we get to 
the magic moment. You are looking at your watch, and it says 11:59, 
December 31, 1999. At the stroke of midnight, your watch clicks over to 
midnight and goes blank.
  What has happened? We have already seen that. Someone has taken a 
watch and set it ahead to that date to see what would happen. At the 
moment it goes to the year 2000, a circuit freezes open, the watch 
display disappears, the power from the battery fries the chip and the 
watch becomes useless. So at the moment of midnight, as you look at 
your watch, your watch becomes useless.
  I know the Presiding Officer would not do this, but for the sake of 
the illustration, let's say you celebrate a little more than maybe you 
should, and you decide it is appropriate that you take a taxi back to 
your hotel. You don't have enough money for a taxi. No problem, there's 
an ATM machine and you have your ATM card with you. You put the ATM 
card in, push the buttons and wait for the money. Nothing happens, 
because the ATM machine is not geared to click over into the year 2000, 
and it won't give you any cash; it is frozen.
  Somehow, Mr. President, with the help of maybe some of your friends, 
you get yourself to your hotel. The elevators won't work in the hotel 
because at midnight of the year 2000, the chip in the elevator said 
this elevator has not been inspected for 99 years, and it goes 
immediately to the bottom and stays there until an inspector shows up. 
So you are forced to stagger up the stairs to find your room. We hope 
you are using a key and not some other high technology to get into the 
room so that you can get a good night's sleep.
  The next morning, you get up, go down and find the lobby filled with 
angry guests. None of them can check out because the hotel's computers 
that handle the checkout procedure are all frozen with the year 2000 
problem. You stand there getting more and more angry until finally with 
manual checkout procedures, you get out of the hotel and say, ``Can I 
get a car to the airport?''
  ``Unfortunately, Senator,'' says the manager of the hotel, ``our cars 
won't start. They have computer chips in them that are geared to the 
year 2000, and we can only get you to the airport in old taxi cabs that 
are so old they have no computers, and today they are in great 
demand.''
  You show up at the airport finally, hours and hours late, sure you 
have missed your flight, only to discover that no flights have gone 
because the computer program that controls the flights and the 
reservations is all shut down because of the year 2000 problem that has 
not been fixed.
  It is probably just as well that the flights are not flying, because 
the air traffic control system is managed by computers which have not 
been fixed for the year 2000 problem, and we would have no safety in 
the skies anyway. Whether you like it or not, Mr. President, you are 
stuck in New York for the foreseeable future.
  When Monday comes, the 3d of January, and the opening of the stock 
market in the new millennium. The stock market can't open because all 
of the stock market procedures are run by computers, and inadequate 
precautions have been taken to get the stock market ready for the year 
2000 circumstance and the computers have shut down everywhere.
  You write a check only to discover that the automatic deposit that 
goes by computer into your checking account hasn't worked, because the 
bank in which you have your money is not year 2000 compliant and your 
check won't clear. The money is not in your account.
  Every single circumstance that I have just described could easily 
happen if nothing is done between now and the year 2000. Some of the 
circumstances that I have just described inevitably will happen no 
matter how much we work to try to get the problem solved between now 
and the year 2000. Our challenge, as a society, is to see that as few 
of those problems that I have described happen. It is impossible to 
guarantee that none of them will happen. The one that you can be 
absolutely sure of, Mr. President, is that, if you're wearing the wrong 
brand, your watch will fry on that date.

  How big a problem is the year 2000 problem? We have held hearings in 
my subcommittee and asked this question, and we have come up with two 
numbers, both of them large.
  The first is the number that it will cost to fix the problem. The 
estimate that we have before our committee and in our subcommittee 
record is roughly $600 billion--$600 billion. That is a little less 
than 10 percent of our gross domestic product, which is currently 
running at $7 trillion. So 10 percent of that would be $700 billion. If 
we are $100 billion off, it is going to cost 10 percent of our gross 
domestic product to fix the problem--a very large number, a very large 
percentage.
  The other number is even bigger. We have asked the question: How big 
is the potential liability that can come from lawsuits that people file 
in the year 2000? The answer we have is $1 trillion.
  So we are looking at a problem in the economy that could cost us as 
much as 10 percent of GDP to fix, and if it is not fixed properly, it 
could cost us as much as one-seventh of the economy in lawsuits to deal 
with the liability.
  I don't know of a problem we have faced here on the floor that has 
that kind of certainty connected with it and that kind of urgency 
connected with it. We, in politics, always try to create a disaster so 
that the politicians then can pass a law to fix it and then take credit 
for having averted the disasters. Many times the disasters we were 
talking about weren't coming anyway. This one you can count on. It is 
coming; it is there; it is quantifiable; it is very real.
  A lot of folks have said to me, ``No, no, no, Senator, don't get 
excited, this is a simple problem and Bill Gates will fix it for us.'' 
The idea is Bill Gates, or some other smart computer jockey, will sit 
down, spend a weekend coming up with a solution, mail it out to 
everybody, and we will put it in our computers like a magic fix, press 
a few buttons and the whole problem will go away. That is not possible, 
because it is not that kind of a problem and if you don't believe me 
look at the Microsoft website, under frequently asked questions, FAQ. 
There will be no magic bullet.
  Here is the problem, Mr. President. The computer code was written 20, 
30, sometimes as recently as 10, 15 years ago. It was important for 
cost reasons to hold down the number of areas in a field. I am using 
the language the computer folks talk about, the bits and the

[[Page S12476]]

bytes, and so on. They will have a field, and if they have two digits, 
it is a whole lot cheaper to put the field in the code than if there 
are four, at least under the old languages in the old code. So, to save 
time, to save money, they put in a two-digit field instead of a four-
digit field, assuming that no one needed to know the 19 of the year, 
they only needed to know the 61, 62, 71, 72, or whatever would come 
later.
  Many of them assumed that these programs would long since be phased 
out by the year 2000, and if they gave any thought to the year 2000 
problem at all, they were sure that their computer codes would not be 
in use at that time.
  In fact, Mr. President, many of those codes are in use, and they are 
in use in the largest computer systems that we have in the country, in 
the mainframe systems that run most of American business.
  Is it an easy problem to fix? Oh, yes, it is very simple; very 
simple. All you have to do is find that portion of the computer code 
where there is a two-digit field and change it to a four-digit field. 
That is not rocket science. What is not simple is finding where that 
field is in the first place.
  The analogy that I heard that best describes it is this: Fixing a 
line of code is as simple as changing a rivet on the Golden Gate 
Bridge. The Golden Gate Bridge is held together by hundreds of 
thousands, if not millions, of rivets. You have the responsibility of 
finding every one and changing every one during rush hour, and if you 
miss one or two, the bridge will fall down. That is the enormity of the 
problem that we have here.
  It is a simple, easy fix once you find it, but gargantuan in its 
size, because there are so many that must be found and, in many cases, 
with the older software, no one knows where the code is. Documentation 
was not an extended science at the time they were writing that code. No 
one knows where it is. You are on a search mission that can be 
tremendously frustrating. You can think you have everything, then you 
gear up the system and run it, only to discover there are still some 
rivets missing that you have not changed. There are still some fields 
of code that have not been expanded.
  Mr. President, we have held four hearings in my subcommittee on this 
issue. The first one we had the banks and the financial institutions 
come in and testify as to the size of the problem from their point of 
view. It was very revealing.
  They gave us this number which is what is driving my sense of 
urgency. They told us that if we do not have the year 2000 problem 
fixed by September of 1998 in the banking system, we are too late. 
September of 1998, that is less than a year away. Many people say, 
``Oh, 2000, this is 1997, we have 3 years to worry about it.'' No, Mr. 
President, we have less than 1 year to worry about it.
  I asked the question, why must it be fixed by September of 1998? Back 
to my analogy about changing the rivets on the Golden Gate Bridge 
during rush hour. You have to test this system once you have replaced 
all of the fields with two digits with fields with four digits to make 
sure you got them all. The banking system can't test its computer 
programs while it is running all of its checks and deposits and 
transfer payments. So by September of 1998, when you supposedly have 
your system done, you have about 50 weekends left to test it. The 
experts who have looked at it said you have to have at least 50 in 
which to test it to keep changing the problems as they come along.
  So I repeat, as far as the banking system is concerned, if people do 
not have their remedial program pretty well done by September of 1998, 
they are way behind the curve and, indeed, the witnesses who spoke to 
us said we are already in a circumstance where we are not talking about 
a total fix, we are talking about triage, the medical term that says 
when you bring in an accident victim or a gunshot victim, you do what 
is necessary to save the victim's life and then you worry about other 
things to restore him to health later on. Triage is the lifesaving 
activity; the return to health comes later on.
  So we are talking about triage activity with respect to the year 2000 
being in place by September of 1998. We are not talking about the total 
fix, because the total fix will have to take place for months and 
months after we pass the turn of the millennium.
  Obviously, when we are talking numbers this big if the problem is not 
property solved, it can have serious implications for the economy. Dr. 
Ed Yardeni testified in our last hearing. He is an investor analyst who 
has been looking at this problem, and his first reaction to it when he 
looked at it was, ``My gosh, if this thing isn't settled, this could, 
in fact, cause a recession.'' He put the chances of that happening at 
30 percent, a recession of worldwide proportions, Mr. President--30 
percent. That is enough to get our attention.
  Why does he say there is a 30-percent chance of a worldwide recession 
of the problem isn't fixed properly?
  He makes this very powerful point, going back to our last truly major 
recession which came as a result of the interruption in oil supplies in 
the early 1970's. The world runs on oil. If we cannot get a regular and 
dependable supply of oil, we cannot run our world economies. Today, the 
world still runs on oil, but it runs on information. And if there is an 
interruption in the flow of information, it will have implications far 
beyond your inability to get a taxi in New York on New Year's Day.
  If the information in the banking system and in the financial 
markets, information in insurance and loans is all interrupted in ways 
that cause things to fail, it could in fact trigger this trillion 
dollars worth of liability that we are talking about and create a 
recession.
  Many people said that to Dr.. Yardeni, ``You're an alarmist saying 
there is a 30 percent chance of recession. Study the problem more so 
you understand it better.'' He has done it and raised his prediction 
from 30 percent to 35 percent. At the time we had the hearing, he 
prepared himself for the hearings to that he would be very much up to 
date on everything that was going on.
  When he came before our subcommittee he said the chance of a 
worldwide recession occurring as a result of the year 2000 problem is 
now at 40 percent. The chances are going up as time runs out and people 
fail to react. The more time we have, the lower the chance. The less 
time we have, with a slow reaction time, the greater the chance.
  Mr. President, we have learned in the hearings in my committee that 
this is a pervasive business problem, not just limited to the financial 
markets. Businesses rely on computer systems for nearly every aspect of 
their operations from operating medical equipment that administers 
chemotherapy, to calculating interest on loans, to launching and 
tracking satellites.
  Failure in one computer system could not only devastate it, but we 
are so interconnected that it could have a ripple effect on other 
computer systems. So this brings us back to the fact that businesses 
are going to have to expend huge sums of money in order to deal with 
the risks connected with this. Some of the companies have already 
stepped forward and disclosed what they are going to do.
  American Airlines puts the cost at $100 million to solve their year 
2000 problem. GTE plans to spend $150 million. And outside of the 
business arena--my State of Utah has set aside $40 million to deal with 
their problems. The USAA group said they will spend as much as $75 
million.
  What about the companies in which you own stock, Mr. President? If 
you say you do not own any, then what about the companies that your 
pension funds own stocks? How much do they plan to spend in remediation 
or in contingency planning? If you check their disclosure statements, 
you probably will not find the answer, because more and more companies 
are saying, ``We don't want to disclose how big a year 2000 problem we 
have because we don't want to tip off your competitors, we don't want 
to hurt the stock price, to in effect say to our investors that we've 
got this huge cost coming, while our competitors are not disclosing 
it.''
  And some of the regulators have said to us, ``If a stockholder wants 
to know how big the problem is, he or she should call the company and 
ask.'' That is totally unacceptable, Mr. President. It is unfair and 
unrealistic to expect an individual shareholder in any company or a 
depositor at any financial institution to make the inquiries on his own 
and have any hope of getting a meaningful answer.

[[Page S12477]]

  What we need is disclosure that is mandated by the regulators that 
everybody responds to. The burden must be upon the institution to 
disclose its readiness in this circumstance.
  That is why, Mr. President, I am rising today to introduce the CRASH 
Protection Act of 1997. We love acronyms in Government. CRASH stands 
for ``Computer Remediation And Share Holder'' protection.
  I hope that it will make our transition into next millennium much 
smoother than it would currently be. My legislation will require the 
Securities and Exchange Commission to amend its disclosure requirements 
in five specific ways.

  First, it will require disclosure of a moving peg pinpointing any 
publicly traded corporation's progress with regard to the remediation 
of the five recognized phases of the year 2000 preparation. Awareness, 
these five are awareness, assessment, renovation, validation, and 
implementation. So there will be a disclosure of how a company is doing 
in those five areas.
  Second, my bill will require a summary of the costs incurred by the 
company in connection with any remediation effort. Both sums already 
expended and those that can reasonably be expected to be expended in 
the future. That is a cost that every shareholder deserves to know.
  Third, it will require the disclosure of likely costs associated with 
the defense of lawsuits against the company or its directors and 
officers due to any liabilities incurred as a result of year 2000 
problems.
  Fourth, it will require an estimate and a detailed discussion of 
existing insurance coverage for the defense of lawsuits or the specific 
occurrence of any year 2000 failure, large or small, and finally it 
will mandate the disclosure of all contingency plans for computer 
system failure.
  Mr. President, the SEC has commented on this issue. And I would like 
to read their appropriate paragraph. They say:

       It is not, and will not, be possible for any single entity 
     or collective enterprise to represent that it has achieved 
     complete Year 2000 compliance and thus to guarantee its 
     remediation efforts.

  Again, Mr. President, it will not be possible for anyone to do that. 
Back to the statement:

       The problem is simply too complex for such a claim to have 
     legitimacy. Efforts to solve Year 2000 problems are best 
     described as ``risk mitigation''. Success in the effort will 
     have been achieved if the number and seriousness of any 
     technical failures is minimized, and they are quickly 
     identified and repaired if they do occur.

  Mr. President, that statement more than any other reflects my concern 
that we must move forward to make sure that the year 2000 problem is 
taken seriously by publicly traded companies, their officers and their 
legal representatives.
  It will be my goal to move this bill as quickly as possible after the 
first of the year because again may I stress, Mr. President, it is not 
midnight, December 31, 1999, tht is our deadline, it is September, 
1998, in which the plans must be in place or they will not have the 
opportunity to be tested and get us out of the circumstance.
  Finally, Mr. President, let me stress that year 2000 problems are not 
limited to the private-sector businesses. Studies have shown that our 
Government is well behind the curve in its remediation efforts.
  As one of my staffers says that his grandmother, Maria Schwibinger, 
always told him ``sweep your own stoop first.'' Government ought to 
focus on its own year 2000 problems as well as require that others do 
that.
  The GAO has given many branches of Government unsatisfactory ratings 
in their management of the year 2000 problems. I have asked the GAO to 
report on the progress of the financial institution regulatory 
agencies. And they are doing that.
  So far I have only one of their reports, and it is not reassuring. 
They have completed their review of the National Credit Union 
Administration and expressed a myriad of concerns about its 
preparedness for the date change.
  Last Monday, I received NCUA's response to the GAO. And this response 
troubled me for several reasons.
  No. 1, it made no effort to refute the GAO assertion that ``For some 
credit unions, year 2000 problems could even result in their 
failures.'' We are not talking about expense here, we are talking about 
survival. And they do not refute that.

  No. 2, it implicitly agreed with the GAO's assertion that NCUA does 
not have qualified staff to conduct examinations in complex systems 
areas. They had better get going in getting that qualified staff as 
quickly as they possibly can.
  And, No. 3, its response plan for compliance on the part of the 
Nation's credit unions is all prospective in nature. They had no report 
of anything that they had done in the past.
  Now, lest anybody think I am beating up on the credit unions, let me 
make it clear that this is the only report I have. It is entirely 
possible that the GAO's review of bank, insurance, and securities 
regulators, would be equally as devastating. So others need not take 
comfort in the fact that I am talking about credit unions and not about 
them. Their time may very well be coming.
  So, Mr. President, I submit this bill and ask it be appropriately 
referred. I close with this final comment. I am doing everything I can. 
Chairman D'Amato, as chairman of the full committee, is cooperating 
fully and leading the charge at the full committee level and doing 
everything he can to see to it that our Nation's financial institutions 
are prepared and ready for the year 2000 problem.
  The Banking Committee and my subcommittee have no jurisdiction over 
the other areas of Government where this problem is real. We have no 
jurisdiction over the Defense Department, over the IRS, over the air 
traffic control system or any of the other myriad of agencies that have 
their own year 2000 challenges.
  I am currently putting together a letter to the President in which I 
am calling upon him to appoint, through the use of his Executive power, 
some coordinating figure within the entire executive branch whose sole 
responsibility between now and that great New Year's Eve party will be 
to monitor, hector, prod, push, and otherwise produce results in every 
area of the executive branch.
  I hope that if the Government will get involved in this at that kind 
of level, if the regulators in the financial areas will respond to the 
kind of prodding that is coming as a result of my bill, as shareholders 
react to the information that is made available to them if my bill 
passes, demand remediation efforts on the part of the companies that 
they own, that we will be able to look back on my opening comment on 
what the Presiding Officer could expect on New Year's Eve and say, 
instead of the disaster that Senator Bennett outlined back in November 
1997, we had some minor inconveniences.
  Nothing could make me happier in this area than to see that my 
prediction will not come true, to have Dr. Yardeni, and other 
thoughtful people examining this issue, begin to move down their level 
of concern so that instead of a 40-percent chance of a worldwide 
recession, they are talking about a 35- or 30- or a 25- or a 20-percent 
chance or finally saying, well, by virtue of the reaction that was 
created, the chance of a worldwide recession is now down to practically 
nothing.
  I would be very, very happy to be proven wrong by the reaction that 
is created as a result of the legislation that we will introduce today 
and the hearings that we have held. But I stress again in closing, Mr. 
President, this is the disaster that we can see. It is like the oil 
crisis in its size, but it can be prepared for and it can be mitigated 
against if we only will muster the will to recognize what we are facing 
and do the things we have to do. I am hoping that my legislation and 
the hearings held in my subcommittee will move us in that direction.

                          ____________________