Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the new deficit numbers came out today from the Congressional Budget Office. They show that we will now run the largest deficit in the history of the country--some $422 billion. That is nearly $50 billion more than last year, and it should alarm every Member of this body and certainly every Member of the Congress. We are headed in a direction that is utterly unsustainable. When the President was asked about this in a recent interview on NBC, the questioner said this to him: Let me ask you about deficits. This year, $445 billion, ballpark. Do you think that's pretty good? The President said: Yes. I do. I do. When you are running the worst deficits in the history of the country, to think that is good news I find unusual. This is not good news. It reminds me a little of the captain of the Titanic when the ship is going down saying: Well, there is good news here because the ship is not sinking as fast as I thought it would. We can't continue with deficits of this magnitude. This President ran on the promise that he was going to be fiscally responsible. But look at his record compared to the previous three Presidents: President Reagan ran a large deficit; President Bush 1 ran large deficits--in fact, the largest deficit in history in his final year; under President Clinton, we had deficit improvement each and every year. We climbed up out of the red ink, and for several years--in fact, 4 years--we were deficit free. Now President Bush took over, and each and every year the deficits have gotten worse. In fact, we can all recall that he inherited a substantial budget surplus--$127 billion. Then each and every year the deficits have gotten much worse. One of the things that is most alarming and ought to concern people the most is that the amount of deficit this year--$422 billion--is not the amount by which the debt will increase. I think there is a lot of confusion. I taught economics classes at the universities in my State during the break. I find there is a lot of confusion between the deficit and the debt. The deficit, of course, is the annual difference between what we raise and what we spend. That is the annual difference. The debt is the accumulation of all the deficits over time. But it is also true that the deficits printed in the newspapers badly understate how much the debt is increased. The biggest reason for that is they leave Social Security in the calculation. Of course, Social Security is supposed to be separate, it is supposed to be apart, and even by law Social Security is supposed to be separate. But that is not the way we have it treated in the newspaper. They put everything into one pot. When you do that, you hide the fact that they are going to borrow this year nearly $150 billion from Social Security. That gets added onto the debt, but it doesn't count as deficit. It is kind of a bizarre way we do accounting here in Washington. There is no other institution in the country that would be able to do what we do here--take retirement funds of employees and use it to pay the operating expenses of the Federal Government--but that is what we are doing under the President's plan. That is what we will do every year for the next 10 years under the President's plan. In fact, we will not just borrow $149 billion from Social Security; over the next 10 years under the President's plan, $2.4 trillion will be borrowed from Social Security with no plan to pay it back. If you look at just this year, the official deficit now they are estimating at $422 billion, but what will be added to the debt will be well over $630 billion. I hope someone is listening out there. The debt of the United States in 1 year is going to increase by over $630 billion, $422 billion of deficits plus $149 billion borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, every penny of which has to be paid back. The President has no plan to do it. On top of that, another $60 billion from other trust funds the President is borrowing. That is not the only place the President is borrowing. He has borrowed over $600 billion from Japan, over $150 billion from China. He has even borrowed tens of billions of dollars from South Korea. This is a course that is utterly unsustainable. If we look to the future, the President is telling the American people he has a plan to cut the deficit in half over the next 5 years. My advice to the American people is, do not believe it, because it will not happen. The only way the President comes up with that calculation is he leaves big chunks of spending out of the calculation. He leaves out the war cost beyond another $25 billion. We all know it will be much more than that. On top of that, he leaves out the necessity of fixing the alternate minimum tax which right now affects 3 million people. By 2010, the Congressional Budget Office says it will affect 30 million people. Boy, are they in for a big surprise. They thought they would get a tax cut, but they have coming at them a big tax increase. It costs over $600 billion to fix it. The President does not have any money in his budget beyond next year to deal with it. If we put back in all these things the President is leaving out, here is what we see is the long-term outlook for the deficit. We do not see it being cut in half because we put back the need to fix the alternative minimum tax, the war costs, the President's proposal for more and more tax cuts. What we see by 2014 is the operating deficit of this country will be approaching $800 billion. That is an utterly unsustainable course. There was an item in this morning's Washington Post that I thought was a bit of a warning shot across the bow. This was a report from the U.S. Navy that says they plan to buy fewer ships. In fact, many fewer ships because of the budget pressure. It is time to connect the dots. It is time to recognize these large budget deficits that are mushrooming as we look ahead to future years under the President's plan, because the President says spend more on defense, spend more on homeland security, both of which, undoubtedly, are necessary, but he couples with that massive additional tax cuts when we already have record deficits. How is it possible for any of this to add up? It does not add up, and it threatens fiscally our long- term economic security. The Navy is planning to buy fewer ships. That is only the Navy. We will find the Air Force will be under pressure, the Army will be under pressure. In fact, every element of Federal operations will be under pressure because fundamentally we cannot be strong if we are financially weak. This country now is running such massive deficits and adding such enormous sums to the debt--the biggest numbers we have ever seen in the history of the country--that it fundamentally threatens the long-term economic security of this country. I submit to my colleagues and the American people that the President has us on the wrong course. It is time for everyone, on a bipartisan basis, to get together, to come up with a plan to get us back on fiscal track, a fiscal track that will ultimately lead to balanced budgets. There is no time to spare because the baby boom generation will start to retire in 2008. It is hard to believe, but those baby boomers who were born after World War II are getting ready to retire. They will dramatically increase the number of people eligible for Social Security and Medicare. That is one reason Chairman Greenspan has urged us to cut Social Security and Medicare. Is that the course we want to go down? That is where the President's budget plan is taking us. He has run up the biggest deficits in the history of the country and there is no end in sight. All of this at the worst possible time, right before the baby boomers retire. What are the results? What are the implications of this plan and policy? In the warning of Chairman Greenspan we see the implication that the natural conclusion, the natural result of the President's policies is to force cuts in Social Security and Medicare and much of the rest of the Government as we know it. That is because the President's plan is so badly out of balance. The difference between revenue and expenditure is so big--and that is before the baby boomers retire; that is before the number of people eligible for Social Security and Medicare double-- this is a course that cannot be sustained. The quicker we deal with it, the better. Everyone knows when you have a problem, the faster you deal with it, the easier it is to solve. The more time you delay, the more time you wait, the bigger the problem becomes. I am here in the Senate to say the Congressional Budget Office has sent us a very clear signal. We have the biggest deficit this year we have ever seen in the country's history. And we can see for the future, if the President's plan is followed, these deficits can only grow as the baby boomers retire. This President may have left town by that time. But the rest of us who are here--maybe some of us will be gone, as well--but those who are here are going to inherit an extraordinary problem. It is our obligation now to begin to address it. That is the right thing to do for the country. It is the honorable thing to inform the country of how big this challenge is, how deep this deficit chasm has become, and how threatening it is for our future economic security. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

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

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I want to discuss the Defense Appropriations conference report. I want to say upfront this legislation is extremely important. At a time when our soldiers are still in harm's way in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world, this legislation provides resources they need. This bill is all the more important because costs of war in Iraq are spiraling upward. The GAO has just reported that there is a shortfall of over $12 billion in funding for war costs for fiscal year 2004. This is on top of the $87 billion supplemental that we passed last year. This year's Defense Appropriations bill makes $25 billion in emergency reserve funding for war costs available immediately, helping to cover this shortfall and ensure that our troops have what they need in Iraq. It is important to note that much more is likely to be needed in 2005. CBO recently estimated that military operations in 2005 could cost $55-$60 billion. These estimates demonstrate that the Bush administration has failed to budget properly for the war in Iraq and continues to understate the likely cost of these operations. While this Defense conference report is extremely important, I want to make clear that I am deeply disappointed with the budget provisions that were added to this conference report behind closed doors by the majority, without any debate in the House or Senate. In what I believe is an unprecedented move, the majority has inserted deeming language into this defense conference report--setting the overall fiscal year 2005 discretionary spending level at $821 billion. This deeming language should have been debated in the Senate. It is entirely inappropriate to add this language outside the scope of conference without any debate by the Senate or by the Budget Committee. Clearly it was added because the majority knows that members of the Senate will not want to oppose a defense bill while our troops are in harm's way. This is no way to govern. It sets a terrible precedent. Since a conference report is not amendable, the majority is effectively stifling the ability of the Senate to fully debate and amend the deeming language. But that seems to be the point here. The majority does not want to give the Senate the opportunity to fully debate and amend this language. We wouldn't be in this position if the majority had passed a budget resolution this year. That is where the overall spending and revenue amounts are supposed to be determined. Yet, because the majority's leadership has refused to restore a strong paygo rule that applies to both tax cuts and spending, the Senate has been unable to get an agreement on a budget. Despite the record deficits we now face, the majority and the Bush administration are still fixated on passing more and more unpaid-for tax cuts. The Bush administration's fiscally irresponsible leadership is driving our nation's finances right off the cliff--and at the worst possible time, on the brink of the retirement of the baby boom generation. I mentioned that there was no debate on this deeming language. Governing this way is bound to lead to mistakes. In drafting this deeming language, the majority has left out the firewall provisions that guarantee that the gas tax contributions of our Nation's motorists will be used to finance the Nation's highway and mass transit. We have had highway and mass transit firewalls in place for the last 6 years to ensure that funding for those programs is not diverted to other areas. But now, under this deeming language, the firewalls will be eliminated and those highway and mass transit funds could be pilfered to cover shortfalls in other areas of the budget. I think this is a significant mistake--a horrible precedent to set in advance of a highway reauthorization bill. As I said earlier, the funding for our troops contained in this bill is very important. But I want to be clear how disappointed I am in the way the majority is operating here and in the way they, along with the Bush administration, are dangerously undermining our Nation's fiscal and economic security.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong opposition to the so-called United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement. This is really not a free-trade agreement at all. This is a negotiated trade agreement, and our side, once again, lost the negotiation. I believe the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement is one more example of the United States trading away its economic strength for some other agenda. Somebody once said: The U.S. has never lost a war and never won a negotiation. That certainly is true of this agreement. First, I believe the focus of our trade policy should be opening markets to U.S. exports where we have the most to gain. We need to level the playing field for our producers, and we need to open major markets around the world that remain closed to us. Unfortunately, that is not the trade policy or agenda being pursued by this administration. Our current trade policy is completely off course. Our negotiators have failed to secure a good deal for agriculture in the WTO talks. Instead, they have opened trade talks with countries that offer few new export opportunities for the United States. Commercial gain should drive our trade policy. But it has become clear that foreign policy considerations are the primary factor influencing our trade agenda. It is no secret here in Washington what this agreement is about. It is not about a trade advantage for the United States. It is not about improving the economic strength of America. This is a payoff. This is a payoff to Australia for backing our Iraq policy. That is what this is about. Not surprisingly, the results of this flawed trade policy are abysmal. Our trade deficits are skyrocketing. Last year, the trade deficit hit an all-time record of $497 billion. And this year, what do we anticipate? Well, it is going to be much worse. Mr. President and colleagues, we can look back and see what has happened under this trade agenda. In 1997, we had a trade deficit of $108 billion. That was only 7 years ago, and look what has happened. Every year it has jumped, and jumped dramatically. From 1998 to 1999, it went up almost $100 billion; from 1999 to 2000, almost $100 billion; from 2001 to 2002, up, up, and away again, approaching $100 billion for 2002 to 2003. Goodness knows where it will be this year. These developments have serious consequences for our economy. This is not just numbers on a page. This is not just columns on a chart. This has real-world consequences for the U.S. economy. Earlier this year, the Washington Post carried an article expressing the concerns of economists about our trade and budget deficits and the falling value of the dollar. It reported: The twin trade and budget deficits are both approaching a half trillion dollars, and with U.S. consumer debt also at record levels, it is up to foreigners to keep the U.S. economy afloat. Let me repeat that: ``it is up to foreigners to keep the U.S. economy afloat.'' The U.S. economy now borrows $1.5 billion a day from foreign investors, said Sung Won Sohn, chief economist of Wells Fargo & Co., and that level could reach $3 billion a day in the near future. Where are we getting the money from? The Senator from South Carolina had it right. We are approaching $600 billion from Japan, $150 billion from China. We are even borrowing money from the so-called Caribbean banking centers--$80 billion from the Caribbean banking centers. And we have yet our tin cup out, even in South Korea. Who would have guessed that the mighty and powerful United States would have to go hat in hand to South Korea and borrow $40 billion? The Washington Post article went on to say: Currency traders fretting over that dependency have been selling dollars fast and buying euros furiously. The fear is that foreigners will tire of financing America's appetites. Foreign investors will dump U.S. assets, especially stocks and bonds, sending financial markets plummeting. Interest rates will shoot up to entice them back. Heavily indebted Americans will not be able to keep up with rising interest payments. Inflation, bankruptcies and economic malaise will follow. On agricultural trade, the story, regrettably, is much the same. Things are getting worse, not better. Our surpluses have gotten steadily smaller since 1996. Always agricultural trade has been one of our leading areas of surplus, but that surplus is shrinking and shrinking steadily. Last year we had the smallest agricultural trade surplus since 1987. We are going full speed in reverse in every sector. This is an ominous warning to the American people of the direction of this flawed and failed trade policy. The fact is, this administration is not leveling the playing field for our producers or opening major new markets for U.S. exports. Instead, it is opening our markets to a flood of agricultural imports unfairly traded that threaten American family farmers. To me, focusing on this free-trade agreement and more like it and neglecting a successful WTO agreement is a recipe for disaster for American agriculture. Mark my words, friends: We are going in the wrong direction. Those with whom we compete are not playing according to some fair set of rules. They are subsidizing at a rate, in Europe alone, five times our rate here. They account for over 87 percent of the world's agricultural export subsidy in Europe, 30 times the rate here. And the results are clear. They are gaining market share year after year after year and now rival our own share of the world market. America needs to wake up to the gathering threat. I regret to say, this agreement with Australia is a perfect example. On agriculture, the United States had almost nothing to gain and a lot to lose. The simple fact is that Australia is never going to be a large export market for U.S. commodities, but it poses a serious threat to certain commodities produced here at home such as beef and dairy. It is very clear. Any objective analyst can look and see what was the opportunity for America and what was the threat. The threat totally overwhelms the opportunity. In addition, Australia has an export state trading enterprise known as the Australian Wheat Board. Grain growers in my State have had a bitter experience with these State trading enterprises. Ever since passage of the so-called Canadian Free Trade Agreement--again, that was no free-trade agreement; it was another negotiated trade agreement, and our side lost the negotiation there as well, especially when it came to agriculture--the United States has been flooded with a tidal wave of unfairly traded Canadian grain, undercutting our producers, undercutting our prices, putting our people at risk, costing my State nearly half a billion dollars. Our neighbor to the north maintains a government-sponsored monopoly known as the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board is the only exporter of western Canadian grain. It is a monopoly. It uses this monopoly power to undercut prices to our producers, not just in my State of North Dakota but in Montana, in Idaho, in Minnesota, and all across the northern tier of the United States, undercutting through unfair trade practices the family farmers who are the heart of the heartland of America. We have been fighting for 15 years to resolve problems created by the Canadian Wheat Board, and we have learned a bitter lesson. We have learned that once something is permitted in a trade agreement, it is virtually impossible to fix. That is why I was disappointed to learn that the Australia Free Trade Agreement does nothing--I hope my colleagues are listening--to curb the unfair trading activities of the Australian Wheat Board. This was a priority for many farmers. The U.S. wheat industry has decided to oppose this agreement because of this one defect alone. Some will argue that we have a trade surplus with Australia, and, therefore, it is a good country with which to enter into a trade agreement. That argument sounds good, but history teaches us something quite different. I remember so well when we debated NAFTA. I want to make clear my own position on trade. I supported the agreement with China. I supported WTO. I opposed NAFTA. I opposed the Canadian Free Trade Agreement because in those cases, I believed our negotiators got taken to the cleaners. I will tell you, our negotiators got taken to the cleaners on this one as well. The record, I believe, will be clear. Back in NAFTA, remember what we were told. We were told: We have a trade surplus with Mexico, and if we just approve this agreement, the surpluses will grow. We can now go back and check the record. Did the $2 billion trade surplus that existed with Mexico before NAFTA increase? No. Did it stay the same? No. There is no trade surplus with Mexico anymore. Now we have a trade deficit, not a small trade deficit, not $2 billion, not $4 billion, not $8 billion, but $40 billion of trade deficit. And some come on this floor and call it a success. What would it take to call it a failure? I am amazed to hear people come out on this floor and call NAFTA a great success. We went from a $2 billion trade surplus to a $40 billion trade deficit, and they call that a success? What are they thinking of? We are full speed in reverse in this country in terms of our trade position in the world. Trade agreements are no guarantee of trade surpluses, and opening our market to further import competition without creating new export opportunities is a serious mistake. That is exactly what this agreement that is before us today does when it comes to agriculture. There will be virtually no new agricultural exports to Australia as a result of this agreement. But when it comes to the American beef and dairy industries, there will be significant increases in imports that they will face--and on an unfair basis--because we know of all the hidden subsidies they have in Australia for those industries. We know how they play the game. I have concluded that from the perspective of the farmers and ranchers I represent, this agreement is a bad deal. Second, the mistake has been compounded by a massive loophole in implementing this bill with regard to beef safeguards. Ever since the Australia Free Trade Agreement was signed, the administration has said over and over that the agreement had an automatic guaranteed safeguard to protect our U.S. beef industry against unfairly traded imports. That is what they told us. That is what they told American ranchers and farmers, that it was automatic, that it was guaranteed. But check the fine print. See what they have done in the final hours. They have slipped you a Mickey. It is not guaranteed. It is not automatic. It is all subject to a waiver and a decision by one person who doesn't happen to be in the Congress of the United States. We were told that the industry would not have to worry if imports of Australian beef surged or prices in this country plummeted. The safeguards were automatic and were guaranteed. But now we find the safeguard is not automatic and not guaranteed. In fact, this safeguard has a loophole big enough to drive a cattle truck through. The implementing bill before us specifies that the USTR can waive the beef safeguards whenever it determines that extraordinary market conditions make it in the national interest to do so. Here is what it says: The United States Trade Representative is authorized to waive the application of this subsection if the Trade Representative determines that extraordinary market conditions demonstrate that a waiver would be in the national interest of the United States. Who decides? The Trade Representative of the United States. That is not what the Constitution says. The Constitution doesn't say the Trade Representative decides these questions of international commerce. The Constitution of the United States says: The Congress shall have power . . . to regulate commerce with foreign nations. . . . Not the Trade Representative or Ambassador, but the Congress. And the Congress has given away its responsibility in these free-trade agreements with the fast-track procedure. We have done that based on a promise that is being violated in this agreement for the first time in a trade agreement. Listen well, my friends. Listen well. Understand what is about to happen on the floor of the Senate. For the first time, in an unprecedented way, the role of Congress is being further reduced. The legislation before us does not require the Trade Representative to even consider the effect on the beef industry of waiving the safeguards. If he or she determines that a lower price for hamburger is in the national interest, it can waive the safeguard, even if doing so clearly injures the U.S. beef industry, which the safeguards are supposed to protect. The legislation doesn't give Congress, the body charged in our Constitution with regulating tariffs, any meaningful say in this decision. As I show on this chart, Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says Congress shall have the power. In this agreement, it is the Trade Representative who has the power. The statement of administrative action says, ``The United States Trade Representative will notify Congress of its decision to waive the safeguard at least 5 days before the waiver goes into effect.'' The Congress shall have the power to get a 5-day notice of what the Trade Representative has decided. That is not what the Constitution of the United States intended. It didn't intend for a Trade Representative to give 5 days' notice to the Congress of the United States before their decision is made, with no role for the Congress of the United States. That is not what the Constitution says. This agreement does not in any way commit the USTR to even listen if the Congress expresses concerns or objections. I don't think that is right. I don't think that is how this agreement had been sold to the American people. I know that is not the way it was sold to the ranchers and farmers of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, and every other State. They were told there was automatic guaranteed protection for them. That is why, when the Finance Committee conducted its markup of the Australia agreement 2 weeks ago, I offered an amendment. My amendment insisted that Congress have a say before the Trade Representative decides unilaterally to waive this safeguard. This is where it gets interesting, because my amendment was adopted on a vote of 11-10. Here is the vote: 11 votes for the Conrad amendment, 10 votes in opposition. The Conrad amendment is not in the agreement that is before us. Have you ever heard of that happening before? Have you ever heard of an amendment passing in a committee that has jurisdiction and it is excluded when it comes out here on the floor? It is as though those 11 Senators never voted. The administration ignored the amendment passed in the Finance Committee and, as a result, the legislation before us contains the very same loophole that was rejected by a majority of the Senate Finance Committee. That is profoundly unfair to America's ranchers and cattlemen. It ignores the express will of the Senate Finance Committee, and it is yet another example of why I have concluded this legislation is a bad deal. Before moving on to discuss why I find this process so troubling, let me address one other issue that has been raised with respect to my amendment. Some have argued that my beef safeguard amendment was unconstitutional. That argument is simply a red herring designed to avoid a discussion of the merits of the amendment. I have yet to hear anyone argue that Congress should not have any say before the U.S. Trade Representative unilaterally waives the safeguard that was promised to America's cattlemen. The Finance Committee has a long history of considering conceptual amendments rather than requiring legislative language. That is how the Finance Committee of the United States does its work. We offer conceptual amendments that are later translated into legal language. That is the way it works. My amendment said fundamentally that Congress must act before the U.S. Trade Representative can waive the safeguards promised to the beef industry. I have consulted with the Congressional Research Service, because one of their staff members asserted there might be a constitutional problem with what I proposed. I now have a memo from the very same gentleman who raised the constitutional question saying there were at least two ways to take my conceptual amendment and make it constitutionally permissible. But that is not what happened. As I have said, CRS has concluded in a memo to me that the concept expressed in my amendment could have been implemented in at least two ways without raising any constitutional problems. First, the Conrad amendment could have been implemented through the statement of administrative action. The statement of administrative action is a document submitted to the Congress that explains the agreement on how the administration intends to implement it. Since the statement of administrative action is an executive branch document, it explains how the executive branch will choose to operate. No separation of powers problems would exist. Moreover, this is precisely how a commitment to Senator Baucus with respect to the beef safeguard was implemented. It was not included in the legislation. It was put in the statement of administrative action. Alternatively, it would have been entirely consistent with my amendment to implement it through a congressional disapproval process. This process is very familiar to Senators. For years, the Congress voted annually on a resolution extending normal trade relations, or most-favored-nation status, as it was then called, treatment for China. There has never been any question that this waiver process was fully constitutional. Thus, had there been any interest in making my amendment work, it would have been easy to find a way to do it. So I can only conclude that those who talk about the Constitution are simply avoiding the real issue. The real issue is whether the U.S. Trade Representative should be given the power unilaterally to revoke a safeguard that was sold to our beef producers as an absolutely automatic guaranteed protection against surges of unfairly traded Australian beef imports that would damage our U.S. beef industry. On that issue, a majority of the committee clearly said no. They didn't just say no, they voted no. I have yet to hear anyone make a persuasive argument why the USTR should be able to unilaterally take away this safeguard. It is unfair to those who supported my amendment. The process was short-circuited to drop the Conrad amendment. In particular, it is unfair to our ranchers and cattlemen to take away that safeguard. Let me address the process the Finance Committee followed in dropping my amendment, and why it is so troubling. The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee is a fine man. He is, in fact, a good friend of mine. But with all respect to the chairman, the process that was followed to subvert the will of the majority of this committee was egregious. It sets a very dangerous precedent that threatens the underpinnings of the fast-track process. As all Members of this body already know, the Constitution gives the Congress--not the President--the responsibility for regulating foreign trade. Yet in recognition that we cannot have 535 trade negotiators, the Congress has agreed to the fast-track process for considering trade agreements. In agreeing to fast track, each Senator gives up the most fundamental rights of a Senator. We give up our right to amend, the most fundamental right of all Senators. And we give up our right to extended debate, a second of the most fundamental rights of any Senator. In essence, we are giving up our right to protect our constituents. In return, there is supposed to be a detailed consultation--a detailed consultation--with the Congress throughout the process of negotiating trade agreements and developing the implementing legislation. In practice, the Finance Committee in the Senate is the focus of this consultation because the Finance Committee has jurisdiction over trade policy. In theory, the committee has extensive input during the process of negotiating trade agreements and developing the legislation to implement them. Theoretically, it does not then need to amend the implementing bill once it is formally introduced. Understand, here we are on the floor of the Senate. There is a treaty. Normally, every Senator would have the right to offer amendments to it. We would have the right to extended debate. We have given up those rights under the fast-track process. We do not have the right to amend. This bill will be considered in less than 20 hours. There is not the right to extended discussion, to illuminate, to educate so that people fully understand what is happening. Those fundamental rights of any Senator have been given up in the fast-track process. When it comes to developing the implementing bill, this consultation occurs through what is known as the mock markup process because it is not a real markup because we have given up those rights. Instead, we have what is called a mock markup. The mock markup is the Finance Committee's opportunity to amend the implementing bill before it is formally introduced, and then cannot be amended under fast-track rules. This informal process has a long history. For past agreements, the process has lasted months and produced a host of changes. To give just one example, 14 amendments were adopted during the mock markup of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The amendments added during mock markups were addressed in a mock conference and then included in the final formal implementing bill. I recall this history to make several points because people need to understand what is happening. Everything has changed. We have never dealt with a trade matter in the way we are dealing with it today. My colleagues need to understand the consequences of what is about to happen because they are enormously serious for every Senator, and they are enormously consequential for this country. First, in the past, the committees have always insisted on sufficient time for all members of the committee to review the draft implementing bill and have their concerns addressed. Second, it is not at all unusual for changes to be made, for amendments to be made during the mock markup process, including many that did not have the support of the administration. Third, when the mock markup process produced changes, it did not spell doom for the agreement. Fourth and finally, the chairman of the Finance Committee did not vote down the package simply because it included a provision with which the administration or the chairman disagreed. But what happened during the mock markup of this bill, the Australia free trade agreement, threatens to make a mockery--a mockery--of the process of congressional consultation. In the Australia agreement, we got the bum's rush. The agreement was completed on February 13, but we did not see implementing legislation until June 18. More than 4 months went by with no implementing bill to review. And then after 4 months of delay, we were told we would have 4 business days before the mock markup to respond to a provision on the beef safeguards that was totally unexpected. When I indicated my intent to offer an amendment, the Trade Representative made clear that my input was unwelcome. He simply did not want to entertain a serious substantive concern that is important to the ranchers and cattlemen whom I represent. Yet addressing these concerns before an unamendable fast-track bill is precisely the purpose of the mock markup process. That is the whole point of going through this exercise, is to give Senators a chance in the committee of jurisdiction to make changes if they prevail in a vote. I did prevail in a vote. My side won, but it is not in this agreement. That has never happened before. Mr. President, I say to Senators, they better think long and hard about what that means. They better think long and hard about what that means for the process. They better think long and hard about what that means for fast track because if this trade of giving up our right to amend and our right to extended debate is a hollow one without meaning, that there is supposed to be a congressional consultation, that there is supposed to be a parallel process that allows Senators to alter the package before it comes to this floor, if that is all hollow, if that is all a sham, if that is all a phony exercise, then Senators better think long and hard about giving up that power to amend and that right to extended debate because the rest of this process has become an absolute sham. I offered my amendment. It prevailed on an 11-to-10 vote, but the normal process was not allowed to play out. Instead, the committee followed the unprecedented course of voting down the amended recommendation in its entirety. Then the administration submitted its original proposal all over again without the amendment. That is good; that is arrogant. In essence, what the administration is saying is that voting down a recommendation is tantamount to approving it. They are ignoring the clearly expressed will of a majority of the members when it comes to the language on beef safeguards. It is like voting down a bill on the Senate floor after it has been amended and trying to claim that defeat is the same as adopting the bill that was originally brought to the floor. What a sham. That strikes me as dangerous. It opens the process to abuse, and it reduces the committee's role in crafting trade policy. It may have been expedient in this instance, but I believe that we will come to regret this precedent and this day. It invites a future President to ignore any recommendations made by the committee on future trade-implementing legislation. Remember what the Constitution says? The power is with the Congress on the question of regulating commerce with foreign nations. This is not a dictatorship. This is not a circumstance where the power was vested by the Constitution of the United States in the President of the United States. The Constitution of the United States says: The Congress shall have the power . . . to regulate commerce with foreign nations. . . . The Australia Free Trade Agreement promises few, if any, benefits to U.S. agriculture and has little or no positive effect on our overall economy or perilously large trade deficits. Instead, it puts certain sectors of American agriculture at extreme risk. Before I move on, I remind my colleagues that the fast-track process is up for renewal next year. To the extent that it becomes clear to colleagues that the consultation promised in the fast-track process is a sham, a snare, and a dilution, it will become infinitely more difficult to extend fast track. Who is going to want to give up their right to amend, who is going to want to give up their right to extended debate, if there is no right to serious consultation by the committees of jurisdiction; if it is all just a game and there is no meaning to votes that are cast? That is what is about to happen. It is a sham. Moreover, the safeguards that were supposed to protect ranchers and cattlemen from excessive and unfairly traded Australian imports turned out to be a false promise. They are not automatic or guaranteed as promised. Instead, they can be waived at any time without any input from Congress. That is unfair to our ranchers, our beef industry. Finally, the process that the Finance Committee followed sets a terrible precedent. No Senator should welcome the precedent that the administration can simply ignore the votes of the committee of jurisdiction on a particular trade issue important to the people we represent, secure in the knowledge that a trade-implementing bill can be pushed through as part of a larger take-it-or-leave-it package. For all of these reasons, I will strongly oppose the Australia Free Trade Agreement that is before us. I conclude by saying to my colleagues if anybody does not think we are setting a precedent that has enormous consequences down the road, think again. I have been here long enough to see what happens when this is done. For the purpose of expedient action one year, that precedent can grow like a cancer. Right now, I believe what is being done is so egregious and so wrong that it sows the seeds for undermining the entire fast-track procedure. When Senators awaken to what is being done, I think they will be very reluctant to give up their fundamental rights to amend legislation implementing a trade agreement. I think they will be very reluctant to give up their right to extended debate. Those are the most fundamental rights of any Senator. There is a reason those rights were extended to Senators. It is so they can protect the rights of the minority, so they could slow down a process so people could think carefully about the effects and the implications of legislation before this body. That is the fundamental constitutional role of the Senate. It is being jeopardized by this fast-track process that has become not just a fast track, it has become a railroad job. When votes do not matter, when consultation does not matter, when one person decides the commerce with foreign nations, this country and this body has gone off the track. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, in this discussion of farm policy and policy toward the rural parts of the country, I looked at the President's Web site for his campaign. It says, ``President Bush understands that America's farmers are the heart and soul of this country. That is why he has worked so hard to help protect the rural way of life. He has proven his commitment to rural America time and time again. He pushed for and signed the 2002 farm bill.'' I was one of the negotiators of the farm bill representing the Senate in the conference committee with the House. We spent well over 100 hours in negotiation. To say the President's assertion that he ``pushed for'' the farm bill is within hailing distance of the truth is to totally rewrite history. Those who were involved in writing the farm bill have quite a different recollection of the history of that period than the President now portrays it. Let's go back to the time when we were negotiating the farm bill and see what the administration said then and see if it stacks up to the claim he is making now that he pushed for the new farm bill. When the House of Representatives was working on the farm bill, on October 3, 2001, the President put out this Statement of Administration Policy: [T]he Administration does not support H.R. 2646 and urges the House of Representatives to defer action on the bill. Does that sound like pushing for the bill? Or is that pushing for delay of the bill? Then the statement of administration policy said: [N]ow is not the appropriate time for consideration of this bill. And More time is needed for the fiscal picture to clear. Then the administration said: The Administration believes that acting now on the significant fiscal and policy commitments of H.R. 2646 would be premature. Does that sound like they were pushing for the farm bill, or were they pushing for delay of the farm bill? Then when the Senate turned to the farm bill, the administration put out another Statement of Administration Policy. This is what they said: The Administration believes it is unwise, in this time of uncertain and changing federal resources and priorities, to enact policies that create unknown and potentially huge future demands on taxpayers. Was that pushing for the farm bill? Or was that pushing for delay of the farm bill? The President now claims he was pushing for the farm bill. The truth is, he was pushing for delay. He was pushing for deferment. He was pushing to wait. What would have happened had we followed that advice? What would have happened? First, the money that had been set aside in the budget for the farm bill would have run out. Then with the deteriorating fiscal condition of the Federal Government, resources for a new farm bill would have evaporated. In addition, a new estimate was about to come out about the cost of a farm bill that would have increased the cost and made it impossible to write the farm bill that was written. For those who are concerned about taxpayers, they should understand, the farm bill that was written has thus far cost significantly less than projected. That almost never happens around here. The farm bill was projected to cost $18 billion this year alone. Instead, it will cost $14 billion, dramatically less than forecast. But it is not just that savings. The even larger savings is to compare the current policy with the previous policy. If we make that comparison, we find the savings under this farm bill are even more dramatic, a huge reduction in expenditure, and yet this is a much more favorable piece of farm legislation for which the President now says he pushed. But at the time what he was pushing, he was pushing for delay. The fact is, delay would have killed the farm bill. I remember working feverishly to convince my colleagues to move ahead, telling them that from my position on the Budget Committee I could see where this was all headed. If we had followed the Secretary of Agriculture's advice in this administration, we would have waited and waited and waited and the opportunity would have been lost.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, over the past several months there has been much debate about the issue of gay marriage. My record as a steadfast supporter of traditional marriage and strong family values is clear and consistent. I believe marriage should be reserved to relationships between a man and a woman. That is why I voted for the Defense of Marriage Act which became Federal law in 1996. This law gives States the authority to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. North Dakota has already passed laws to make it clear that North Dakota will not recognize same-sex marriages. So have 37 other States. I strongly support these efforts by States to protect the important institution of marriage. States have historically regulated marriage, and I agree with Vice President Cheney's statement during the 2000 election that marriage should continue to be left up to the States. The question before us is not whether we support traditional marriage, as I do. It is not whether we support families and family values, as I do. The question before us is whether an amendment to the Constitution of the United States is necessary and appropriate to address the issue of gay marriage. I believe the Constitution of the United States is one of the greatest documents in human history. It is the framework and the foundation upon which all of our freedoms as Americans are based. The Founding Fathers deliberately made amending the Constitution a difficult and lengthy process to preserve the integrity of the document and the freedoms it embodies. Congress has amended the Constitution only 27 times in more than 200 years, although more than 10,000 amendments have been proposed. Throughout my career, I have held the principled position that the Constitution should be amended only when all other legislative and judicial remedies have been exhausted. Because the Defense of Marriage Act is the law of the land and has never been found to have any constitutional problems, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is needed. For that reason, despite my strong support for marriage, I will vote against the proposed constitutional amendment.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments today to publicly thank Lieutenant General Robert Flowers, who left his post as commander and chief of engineers of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on July 1. General Flowers is one of the finest individuals I have worked with as a U.S. Senator representing North Dakota. He is not only a fine, trusted public servant, he is also a good friend. North Dakota and the Nation owe General Flowers a deep debt of gratitude. He served as chief of engineers for 4 years, and he served admirably. During that period, he helped advance the construction of the Grand Forks flood control project and other important flood control projects in the Red River Valley. He also fought hand in hand with the North Dakota congressional delegation as we have worked to implement solutions to the chronic flood at Devils Lake. Throughout it all, he has always gone above and beyond the call of duty. General Flowers is one of the most capable leaders of the Corps of Engineers I have ever had the pleasure of working with. He is a true professional, and has a unique ability to walk into a difficult condition, assess the situation, and calmly, but decisively, take action. He listens carefully to people and has a leadership style that invites creative solutions to complex problems. General Flowers is also a man of tremendous integrity. He cares deeply about the people of this Nation, and his commitment to doing the right thing was unmatched. He was willing to fight for the needs of common citizens, even if it meant leading an uphill fight and challenging others within the Corps. To General Flowers, ``no'' was simply unacceptable. He worked diligently to turn over every stone and formulate solutions that are workable and responsive to the water challenges faced by communities across the country. I know that the General Flowers leaves the Corps a much better organization due to his leadership. The General set high standards for his team, and they delivered time and time again. I will not forget the contributions General Flowers has made to the people of my State and the country. I want to again express my deep appreciation and respect for General Flowers for his service to my state and to our Nation. We in North Dakota will miss you, General, but wish you all the best.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the End Stage Renal Disease Modernization Act, designed to improve the quality of care and quality of life for the more than 300,000 Americans with end stage renal disease (ESRD). To avoid death, patients with ESRD must receive a kidney transplant or undergo dialysis. As you know, the shortage of organs makes transplantation a limited option for the vast majority of patients. Therefore, most rely upon 3-4 hour dialysis treatments three times a week to save their lives. Congress must honor its commitment to Americans with ESRD by bringing the Medicare ESRD program into the 21st Century. As we recognized in other areas of health care, education serves as a valuable tool in the fight of any chronic disease. ESRD is no exception. This bill would establish educational programs to teach individuals about the factors that lead to chronic kidney disease, the precursor to kidney failure, and how to prevent it, treat it, and avoid kidney failure. It would also support programs for patients once they have kidney failure to assist them in developing self-management skills that could dramatically improve their quality of life. Another important factor that influences patients' quality of life is the method of dialysis they select. Although most patients must receive in-center hemodialysis, some can benefit from home dialysis. In rural communities, like so many in North Dakota, home dialysis proves an important option for patients who do not have dialysis facilities near their homes. In this measure, we would require HHS to determine how to provide incentives for home dialysis. The bill also incorporates provisions to provide for an annual update mechanism from legislation that my colleague Senator Santorum and I introduced at the beginning of this Congress. As we have discussed many times in this Chamber, the ESRD Program is the only major Medicare reimbursement system that does not have an annual update mechanism to adjust the payment rates for changes in input prices and inflation. Since the inception of the Medicare ESRD program, we have made enormous strides in extending the lives and the quality of life of patients with kidney failure. If we are to continue that course, we must allow the program to keep pace with advances and changes in the delivery of services. We must also ensure that patients receive the best information possible so they can make informed choices and provide incentives that promote the highest quality of care. The End Stage Renal Disease Modernization Act is a comprehensive bill that moves the program in that direction. Thus, I urge my colleagues to join with me in sponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the End Stage Renal Disease Modernization Act, designed to improve the quality of care and quality of life for the more than 300,000 Americans with end stage renal disease (ESRD). To avoid death, patients with ESRD must receive a kidney transplant or undergo dialysis. As you know, the shortage of organs makes transplantation a limited option for the vast majority of patients. Therefore, most rely upon 3-4 hour dialysis treatments three times a week to save their lives. Congress must honor its commitment to Americans with ESRD by bringing the Medicare ESRD program into the 21st Century. As we recognized in other areas of health care, education serves as a valuable tool in the fight of any chronic disease. ESRD is no exception. This bill would establish educational programs to teach individuals about the factors that lead to chronic kidney disease, the precursor to kidney failure, and how to prevent it, treat it, and avoid kidney failure. It would also support programs for patients once they have kidney failure to assist them in developing self-management skills that could dramatically improve their quality of life. Another important factor that influences patients' quality of life is the method of dialysis they select. Although most patients must receive in-center hemodialysis, some can benefit from home dialysis. In rural communities, like so many in North Dakota, home dialysis proves an important option for patients who do not have dialysis facilities near their homes. In this measure, we would require HHS to determine how to provide incentives for home dialysis. The bill also incorporates provisions to provide for an annual update mechanism from legislation that my colleague Senator Santorum and I introduced at the beginning of this Congress. As we have discussed many times in this Chamber, the ESRD Program is the only major Medicare reimbursement system that does not have an annual update mechanism to adjust the payment rates for changes in input prices and inflation. Since the inception of the Medicare ESRD program, we have made enormous strides in extending the lives and the quality of life of patients with kidney failure. If we are to continue that course, we must allow the program to keep pace with advances and changes in the delivery of services. We must also ensure that patients receive the best information possible so they can make informed choices and provide incentives that promote the highest quality of care. The End Stage Renal Disease Modernization Act is a comprehensive bill that moves the program in that direction. Thus, I urge my colleagues to join with me in sponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am joined by my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, in introducing legislation intended to address the twin natural disasters that are threatening the livelihoods of farmers and ranchers across our State. For much of North Dakota, the year began with great promise. Record high crop and livestock prices offered the potential for much needed improvement in farm income for producers throughout the State. The stage was set for increased returns from the marketplace, and a corresponding reduction in current costs under the 2002 Farm Bill. Then Mother Nature intervened. In early May, just as fieldwork was set to begin in earnest, many farmers in the northern part of the State were hit with a late snowfall and continued, unseasonably cool weather. That was followed by weeks of repeated rains, sometime several inches at a time. The deluge, and continued low temperatures, left fields soggy or underwater, and delayed and eventually prevented the planting of crops across huge swaths of the northern and northeastern part of the state, generating numerous reports of farmers being forced to abandon one-third, one- half, and even more of their crop ground. As one hard struck farmer described the situation to me: Our 2004 crop is late again, due to cold wet ground since May 10. Heavy snow on May 11 and 12 and continuous rain is delaying all field work. If we don't get some help we will be forced to sell out. Input costs--fuel, fertilizer, and repairs never end. We haven't been able to seed a kernel of grain yet for 2004 due to too much water. In the southwestern corner of North Dakota, the problem faced by livestock producers is just the opposite. Conditions are bone dry, and even though it's relatively early in the season, the land is parched, thanks to virtually no moisture since the start of the year and the lingering effect of a drought that has robbed the land of subsoil moisture and that, for many producers, goes back two years or more. Here's how one rancher explained what he's up against: I am a registered Angus Producer in SW North Dakota. Our moisture situation is bad. We have had approximately 1" of rain all spring if you count all the little showers together. The cool weather is the only thing that has saved what little forage there is in the pasture. There will be no hay crop and that includes trying to hay the ditches. Another one wrote me: I live in rural Sioux County North Dakota. I am a rancher. The drought situation is getting very serious. I am looking for options as far as feed & pasture for my cattle, but haven't found any yet. I have sold nearly half of my cattle since the dry conditions started in 2002. We appreciate any and all help that you can give us. This is cow country & I think we need to retain as much of our cattle numbers as we can. These producers need real help and they need it urgently. That's why the bill I am introducing today follows closely the outline of disaster assistance legislation enacted in recent years, all in an effort to speed the delivery of crop and livestock assistance to those who livelihoods hang in the balance. The essential provisions of the ``Agricultural Assistance Act of 2004'' are as follows: First, in the case of crop losses, eligibility for assistance would be triggered by production losses exceeding 35 percent of normal yields. Under the bill, producers who had purchased crop insurance-- which under the best of options covers only a portion of normal yields--would receive a payment equal to 50 percent of the ``established price'' for the crop. Those who did not purchase crop insurance would receive a payment equal to just 40 percent of the established price, and would be required to purchase crop insurance for each of the following two crop years. Assistance to individual producers would be limited as provided in previously-enacted disaster bills. In the case of ranchers suffering grazing losses of 40 percent or more during three consecutive months, they would be eligible for payments to help defray the cost of purchasing feed. Payments under this program would similarly be limited as provided in past legislation. Finally, I think it is important that in providing this assistance, we reinforce crop insurance as the foundation for agricultural risk management. This bill would do that. First, by not penalizing--as previous legislation did--those who had purchased crop insurance at higher coverage levels, and second, by decreasing the payment to those who purchased no crop insurance at all. The natural disasters facing our farmers and ranchers demand immediate attention, and I urge the Congress, and the President, to act.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am joined by my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, in introducing legislation intended to address the twin natural disasters that are threatening the livelihoods of farmers and ranchers across our State. For much of North Dakota, the year began with great promise. Record high crop and livestock prices offered the potential for much needed improvement in farm income for producers throughout the State. The stage was set for increased returns from the marketplace, and a corresponding reduction in current costs under the 2002 Farm Bill. Then Mother Nature intervened. In early May, just as fieldwork was set to begin in earnest, many farmers in the northern part of the State were hit with a late snowfall and continued, unseasonably cool weather. That was followed by weeks of repeated rains, sometime several inches at a time. The deluge, and continued low temperatures, left fields soggy or underwater, and delayed and eventually prevented the planting of crops across huge swaths of the northern and northeastern part of the state, generating numerous reports of farmers being forced to abandon one-third, one- half, and even more of their crop ground. As one hard struck farmer described the situation to me: Our 2004 crop is late again, due to cold wet ground since May 10. Heavy snow on May 11 and 12 and continuous rain is delaying all field work. If we don't get some help we will be forced to sell out. Input costs--fuel, fertilizer, and repairs never end. We haven't been able to seed a kernel of grain yet for 2004 due to too much water. In the southwestern corner of North Dakota, the problem faced by livestock producers is just the opposite. Conditions are bone dry, and even though it's relatively early in the season, the land is parched, thanks to virtually no moisture since the start of the year and the lingering effect of a drought that has robbed the land of subsoil moisture and that, for many producers, goes back two years or more. Here's how one rancher explained what he's up against: I am a registered Angus Producer in SW North Dakota. Our moisture situation is bad. We have had approximately 1" of rain all spring if you count all the little showers together. The cool weather is the only thing that has saved what little forage there is in the pasture. There will be no hay crop and that includes trying to hay the ditches. Another one wrote me: I live in rural Sioux County North Dakota. I am a rancher. The drought situation is getting very serious. I am looking for options as far as feed & pasture for my cattle, but haven't found any yet. I have sold nearly half of my cattle since the dry conditions started in 2002. We appreciate any and all help that you can give us. This is cow country & I think we need to retain as much of our cattle numbers as we can. These producers need real help and they need it urgently. That's why the bill I am introducing today follows closely the outline of disaster assistance legislation enacted in recent years, all in an effort to speed the delivery of crop and livestock assistance to those who livelihoods hang in the balance. The essential provisions of the ``Agricultural Assistance Act of 2004'' are as follows: First, in the case of crop losses, eligibility for assistance would be triggered by production losses exceeding 35 percent of normal yields. Under the bill, producers who had purchased crop insurance-- which under the best of options covers only a portion of normal yields--would receive a payment equal to 50 percent of the ``established price'' for the crop. Those who did not purchase crop insurance would receive a payment equal to just 40 percent of the established price, and would be required to purchase crop insurance for each of the following two crop years. Assistance to individual producers would be limited as provided in previously-enacted disaster bills. In the case of ranchers suffering grazing losses of 40 percent or more during three consecutive months, they would be eligible for payments to help defray the cost of purchasing feed. Payments under this program would similarly be limited as provided in past legislation. Finally, I think it is important that in providing this assistance, we reinforce crop insurance as the foundation for agricultural risk management. This bill would do that. First, by not penalizing--as previous legislation did--those who had purchased crop insurance at higher coverage levels, and second, by decreasing the payment to those who purchased no crop insurance at all. The natural disasters facing our farmers and ranchers demand immediate attention, and I urge the Congress, and the President, to act.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I am introducing the Water Infrastructure Revitalization Act, which authorizes $60 million through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to assist communities in North Dakota with water supply and treatment projects. Imagine if you went to turn on your kitchen faucet one day and no water came out. This scenario became true for thousands in the communities of Fort Yates, Cannonball, and Porcupine just days before Thanksgiving last year. The loss of drinking water forced the closure of schools, the hospital and tribal offices for days. About 170 miles upstream, the community of Parshall faces similar water supply challenges as the water level on Lake Sakakawea continues to drop, leaving its intake high and dry. These and other communities in the State have faced significant expenditures in extending their intakes to ensure a continued supply of water. In addition, the city of Mandan faces the prospect of constructing a new horizontal well intake because changes in sediment load and flow as a result of the backwater effects of the Oahe Reservoir have caused significant siltation problems that restrict flow into the intake. These examples barely scratch the surface of the problems faced by many North Dakota communities in maintaining a safe, reliable water supply. Since 1999, the Corps of Engineers has been authorized to design and construct water-related infrastructure projects in several different States including Wisconsin, Minnesota and Montana. The State of North Dakota confronts water infrastructure challenges that are just as difficult as those in these other States. In fact, many of these challenges are caused directly by the Corps of Engineers' operations of the Missouri River dams. As a result, it is only appropriate that the Corps be part of the solution to North Dakota's water needs. The Water Infrastructure Revitalization Act would provide important supplemental funding to assist North Dakota communities with water- related infrastructure repairs. Under the Act, communities could use the funding for wastewater treatment, water supply facilities, environmental restoration and surface water resource protection. Projects would be cost shared, with 75 percent Federal funding and 25 percent non-Federal in most instances. However, the bill reduces the financial burden on local communities if necessary to ensure that water rates do not exceed the national affordability criteria developed by the Environmental Protection Agency. This bill is not intended to compete with or take away funds for the construction of rural water projects under the Dakota Water Resources Act. Instead, it is meant to provide important supplemental funding for communities that are not able to receive funding from the Dakota Water Resources Act. I am pleased that the North Dakota Rural Water Systems Association has recognized the need for additional water project funding and endorsed this bill. It is my hope that this authorization will be included as part of the Water Resources Development Act that will be considered this year.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I am introducing the Water Infrastructure Revitalization Act, which authorizes $60 million through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to assist communities in North Dakota with water supply and treatment projects. Imagine if you went to turn on your kitchen faucet one day and no water came out. This scenario became true for thousands in the communities of Fort Yates, Cannonball, and Porcupine just days before Thanksgiving last year. The loss of drinking water forced the closure of schools, the hospital and tribal offices for days. About 170 miles upstream, the community of Parshall faces similar water supply challenges as the water level on Lake Sakakawea continues to drop, leaving its intake high and dry. These and other communities in the State have faced significant expenditures in extending their intakes to ensure a continued supply of water. In addition, the city of Mandan faces the prospect of constructing a new horizontal well intake because changes in sediment load and flow as a result of the backwater effects of the Oahe Reservoir have caused significant siltation problems that restrict flow into the intake. These examples barely scratch the surface of the problems faced by many North Dakota communities in maintaining a safe, reliable water supply. Since 1999, the Corps of Engineers has been authorized to design and construct water-related infrastructure projects in several different States including Wisconsin, Minnesota and Montana. The State of North Dakota confronts water infrastructure challenges that are just as difficult as those in these other States. In fact, many of these challenges are caused directly by the Corps of Engineers' operations of the Missouri River dams. As a result, it is only appropriate that the Corps be part of the solution to North Dakota's water needs. The Water Infrastructure Revitalization Act would provide important supplemental funding to assist North Dakota communities with water- related infrastructure repairs. Under the Act, communities could use the funding for wastewater treatment, water supply facilities, environmental restoration and surface water resource protection. Projects would be cost shared, with 75 percent Federal funding and 25 percent non-Federal in most instances. However, the bill reduces the financial burden on local communities if necessary to ensure that water rates do not exceed the national affordability criteria developed by the Environmental Protection Agency. This bill is not intended to compete with or take away funds for the construction of rural water projects under the Dakota Water Resources Act. Instead, it is meant to provide important supplemental funding for communities that are not able to receive funding from the Dakota Water Resources Act. I am pleased that the North Dakota Rural Water Systems Association has recognized the need for additional water project funding and endorsed this bill. It is my hope that this authorization will be included as part of the Water Resources Development Act that will be considered this year.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments today to join my colleagues in celebrating the life of our 40th President, Ronald Wilson Reagan. In many ways, Ronald Reagan embodied the American dream. He was born in the small town of Tampico, IL, and grew up 30 miles down the road in Dixon, another small town. His was a normal, middle class American family, and he was the all-American boy-next-door: Good-looking, popular, an actor, and an athlete. And from that modest background he fulfilled the American democratic ideal that anybody can grow up to become President of the United States. That ideal--that anyone can grow up to become President--captures America's optimism, so it is fitting that the word that comes most to mind when remembering President Reagan is exactly that: optimism. President Reagan was an incurable and infectious optimist when it came to America. By insisting that, as he said, it was morning again in America, he connected with Americans, lifted their spirits, and restored their confidence in our future. This power to communicate and connect with Americans from all walks of life was central to his success as President. He could sway skeptics and charm supporters with his simple eloquence and self-deprecating wit. People came to know him and feel comfortable with him; and they were moved by his simple, clear messages. President Reagan perfected the art of selling his policies to the American people and using that ability to pressure Congress to work his will. Not surprisingly, the Great Communicator, as he came to be known, left office with the highest approval rating of any recent President. President Reagan was one of the truly larger than life figures of the post World War II era. He brought a new conservative philosophy to the White House, and he championed freedom at home and abroad. One of the reasons for his success, I believe, was his willingness to compromise, to put aside partisan politics and ideological purity to do what was right for the country. When his 1981 tax cuts caused deficits to skyrocket, President Reagan supported tax increases in 1982 and 1983 to contain the damage. After tagging the Soviet Union as the Evil Empire, he negotiated historic arms control treaties with the Soviets, coining the famous phrase ``trust, but verify'' in the process. He had, as his chief of staff Howard Baker once put it, ``a capacity to surprise.'' And throughout it all, he was a wonderful man, someone who you couldn't help but enjoy being with. I met with president Reagan several times during the last years of his presidency. The last time I was with him, President Reagan was telling two or three of us in the White House an Irish story full of warmth and wit. I believe that best describes President Reagan himself--a man of endearing wit and great personal warmth. As America mourns his passing, my thoughts and prayers are with Nancy and the rest of President Reagan's family and many, many friends. It is my hope that their memories of his life, laughter, and legacy will be of some small comfort in these days and weeks ahead.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Drug Discount Card Simplification Act, which will take needed steps to improve the Medicare-approved drug discount card program. The drug discount card program was designed to provide seniors with temporary relief from high drug costs until the full Medicare drug benefit starts in 2006. This program has the potential to give real help to low income seniors in particular, because it will give them up to $600 both this year and next year toward their prescription drug purchases. Unfortunately, the way the program has been implemented is unnecessarily confusing. In talking to North Dakotans, I have heard repeatedly that seniors are finding it extremely difficult to figure out which card, if any, is right for them. And no wonder. The media are full of stories detailing how difficult it is to get accurate information about the program. The 1-800-MEDICARE phone help line is continuously busy. When someone finally answers the phone, the operators often can't answer seniors' questions or, even worse, give incorrect information. The web site is easier to access, but many seniors don't have access to the Internet. Those who do have Internet access have found that the pricing information is often incomplete or out-of-date, or pharmacy access information is incorrect. The bottom line is that the program, as implemented, overwhelms seniors with too many choices. Don't get me wrong. I like choice. But when it comes to 60,000 different drugs purchased with 73 discount cards at over 50,000 pharmacies, the combinations seem endless for a senior with several different prescriptions to be filled. On top of that, the prices can change weekly. Besides the number of cards, seniors also hesitate to purchase a card because they are concerned about the lack of reliability in coverage and available discounts. Once seniors choose a card, they are locked into that card until the open enrollment period at the end of the year. During the time when they are locked in, the drug card program sponsor is allowed to reduce the discounts provided, drop coverage of a drug, or even drop its program altogether--leaving seniors without drug coverage and forcing them to go through the sign up procedure over again. I don't think this is fair for seniors or a wise policy for Medicare. Faced with this complexity, seniors are simply choosing not to sign up. So far, of the 15 million seniors estimated to be eligible for the drug card program, fewer than 500,000 have signed up voluntarily. Another 2.4 million have been signed up automatically by their HMO. If seniors want anything, it's simplicity, consistency, and reliability. That's why I am introducing the Drug Discount Card Simplification Act. My bill has three provisions. First, my bill would require the Secretary to select the best three discount cards in each region. The Secretary would choose among the existing approved cards and base his decision on the following three factors: (1) which cards give the deepest discounts; (2) which cards cover the widest range of drugs; and (3) which cards make it easiest for seniors to get their drugs by having the widest network of participating pharmacies. Second, my legislation would prohibit drug card sponsors from offering discounts that are less than the discounts seniors are promised during the sign-up period. Finally, the bill I introduce today will protect seniors' access to drugs by requiring discount drug card sponsors to continue offering coverage of a drug throughout the duration of the program. By simplifying the program, my bill will increase participation, ensuring that seniors can benefit from the discounts that are being provided. And it will help smooth the path for successful implementation of the drug benefit itself in 2006. Now, some may argue that my bill will eliminate competition. I disagree. My bill will increase competition by encouraging sponsors to offer the best discounts available in order to be approved as one of the three cards. In addition, my idea is not new; in fact it is consistent with the Administration's proposal to limit the PPO options in the Medicare Modernization Act MA to just three per region. I believe my legislation will provide better discount drug cards for seniors and make it easier for them to sign up for these benefits. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Drug Discount Card Simplification Act, which will take needed steps to improve the Medicare-approved drug discount card program. The drug discount card program was designed to provide seniors with temporary relief from high drug costs until the full Medicare drug benefit starts in 2006. This program has the potential to give real help to low income seniors in particular, because it will give them up to $600 both this year and next year toward their prescription drug purchases. Unfortunately, the way the program has been implemented is unnecessarily confusing. In talking to North Dakotans, I have heard repeatedly that seniors are finding it extremely difficult to figure out which card, if any, is right for them. And no wonder. The media are full of stories detailing how difficult it is to get accurate information about the program. The 1-800-MEDICARE phone help line is continuously busy. When someone finally answers the phone, the operators often can't answer seniors' questions or, even worse, give incorrect information. The web site is easier to access, but many seniors don't have access to the Internet. Those who do have Internet access have found that the pricing information is often incomplete or out-of-date, or pharmacy access information is incorrect. The bottom line is that the program, as implemented, overwhelms seniors with too many choices. Don't get me wrong. I like choice. But when it comes to 60,000 different drugs purchased with 73 discount cards at over 50,000 pharmacies, the combinations seem endless for a senior with several different prescriptions to be filled. On top of that, the prices can change weekly. Besides the number of cards, seniors also hesitate to purchase a card because they are concerned about the lack of reliability in coverage and available discounts. Once seniors choose a card, they are locked into that card until the open enrollment period at the end of the year. During the time when they are locked in, the drug card program sponsor is allowed to reduce the discounts provided, drop coverage of a drug, or even drop its program altogether--leaving seniors without drug coverage and forcing them to go through the sign up procedure over again. I don't think this is fair for seniors or a wise policy for Medicare. Faced with this complexity, seniors are simply choosing not to sign up. So far, of the 15 million seniors estimated to be eligible for the drug card program, fewer than 500,000 have signed up voluntarily. Another 2.4 million have been signed up automatically by their HMO. If seniors want anything, it's simplicity, consistency, and reliability. That's why I am introducing the Drug Discount Card Simplification Act. My bill has three provisions. First, my bill would require the Secretary to select the best three discount cards in each region. The Secretary would choose among the existing approved cards and base his decision on the following three factors: (1) which cards give the deepest discounts; (2) which cards cover the widest range of drugs; and (3) which cards make it easiest for seniors to get their drugs by having the widest network of participating pharmacies. Second, my legislation would prohibit drug card sponsors from offering discounts that are less than the discounts seniors are promised during the sign-up period. Finally, the bill I introduce today will protect seniors' access to drugs by requiring discount drug card sponsors to continue offering coverage of a drug throughout the duration of the program. By simplifying the program, my bill will increase participation, ensuring that seniors can benefit from the discounts that are being provided. And it will help smooth the path for successful implementation of the drug benefit itself in 2006. Now, some may argue that my bill will eliminate competition. I disagree. My bill will increase competition by encouraging sponsors to offer the best discounts available in order to be approved as one of the three cards. In addition, my idea is not new; in fact it is consistent with the Administration's proposal to limit the PPO options in the Medicare Modernization Act MA to just three per region. I believe my legislation will provide better discount drug cards for seniors and make it easier for them to sign up for these benefits. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Improving Access to Nurse-Midwife Care Act of 2004. For too many years, certified nurse midwives (CNMs) have not received adequate reimbursement under the Medicare program. My legislation takes important steps to improve reimbursement for CNMs. There are approximately 2 million disabled women on Medicare who are of childbearing age; however, if they choose to utilize a CNM for ``well women'' services, the CNM is only reimbursed at 65 percent of the physician fee schedule. In practical terms, the typical well-woman visit costs, on average, $50. But Medicare currently reimburses CNMs in rural areas only $14 for this visit, which could include a pap smear, mammogram, and other pre-cancer screenings. CNMs administer the same tests and incur the same costs as physicians but receive only 65 percent of the physician fee schedule for these services. Other non- physician providers, such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants are reimbursed at 85 percent of the physician fee schedule. This reduced payment is unfair and does not adequately reflect the services CNMs provide to beneficiaries. At this incredibly low rate of reimbursement, the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee (MedPAC) agrees that a CNM simply cannot afford to provide services to Medicare patients. In June of 2002, MedPAC issued a report titled, ``Medicare Payment to Advance Practice Nurses and Physician Assistants.'' In a 14-0 vote, MedPAC recommended to Congress that the percentage of reimbursement for CNM services be increased. Moreover, because practice expenses are much higher for CNMs--liability coverage costs for CNMs are 10-fold higher than for other non-physician providers--MedPAC signaled that CNMs should be paid more than 85 percent. My legislation would increase the level of reimbursement to 95 percent of the physician fee schedule, which more adequately reflects the cost of providing midwifery services. My legislation would also make several technical changes to current Medicare provisions that limit the ability of midwives to effectively serve the Medicare-eligible population. In particular, CNMs serve as faculty members of medical schools. For over 20 years, they have supervised and trained interns and residents. The bill guarantees payment for graduate medical education and includes technical corrections that will clarify the reassignment of billing rights for CNMs who are employed by others. Finally, my bill would establish recognition for a certified midwife (CM) to provide services under Medicare. Despite the fact that CNMs and CMs provide the same services, Medicare has yet to recognize CNs as eligible providers. My bill would change this. This bill will enhance access to ``well woman'' care for thousands of women in underserved communities and make several needed changes to improve access to midwives. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Improving Access to Nurse-Midwife Care Act of 2004. For too many years, certified nurse midwives (CNMs) have not received adequate reimbursement under the Medicare program. My legislation takes important steps to improve reimbursement for CNMs. There are approximately 2 million disabled women on Medicare who are of childbearing age; however, if they choose to utilize a CNM for ``well women'' services, the CNM is only reimbursed at 65 percent of the physician fee schedule. In practical terms, the typical well-woman visit costs, on average, $50. But Medicare currently reimburses CNMs in rural areas only $14 for this visit, which could include a pap smear, mammogram, and other pre-cancer screenings. CNMs administer the same tests and incur the same costs as physicians but receive only 65 percent of the physician fee schedule for these services. Other non- physician providers, such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants are reimbursed at 85 percent of the physician fee schedule. This reduced payment is unfair and does not adequately reflect the services CNMs provide to beneficiaries. At this incredibly low rate of reimbursement, the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee (MedPAC) agrees that a CNM simply cannot afford to provide services to Medicare patients. In June of 2002, MedPAC issued a report titled, ``Medicare Payment to Advance Practice Nurses and Physician Assistants.'' In a 14-0 vote, MedPAC recommended to Congress that the percentage of reimbursement for CNM services be increased. Moreover, because practice expenses are much higher for CNMs--liability coverage costs for CNMs are 10-fold higher than for other non-physician providers--MedPAC signaled that CNMs should be paid more than 85 percent. My legislation would increase the level of reimbursement to 95 percent of the physician fee schedule, which more adequately reflects the cost of providing midwifery services. My legislation would also make several technical changes to current Medicare provisions that limit the ability of midwives to effectively serve the Medicare-eligible population. In particular, CNMs serve as faculty members of medical schools. For over 20 years, they have supervised and trained interns and residents. The bill guarantees payment for graduate medical education and includes technical corrections that will clarify the reassignment of billing rights for CNMs who are employed by others. Finally, my bill would establish recognition for a certified midwife (CM) to provide services under Medicare. Despite the fact that CNMs and CMs provide the same services, Medicare has yet to recognize CNs as eligible providers. My bill would change this. This bill will enhance access to ``well woman'' care for thousands of women in underserved communities and make several needed changes to improve access to midwives. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am happy to join my friend and Finance Committee colleague, Mr. Smith, to introduce The Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit Modernization Act. This is a measure that will help expand access to capital for real estate investment across the nation and especially in rural areas like my home State of North Dakota. Growth in the commercial real estate market over the last decade has been fueled, in part, by a strong and growing secondary market for commercial mortgages. That market is structured through real estate mortgage investment conduits (REMICs). Created by Congress in 1986, REMICs are critically important to U.S. real estate finance, providing new capital and expanded access to that capital. They have proven to be a cost-effective method for the private sector to create pools of capital that are made available across the nation. It is time to modernize the REMIC law because many borrowers have been stymied in attempts to make improvements to the mortgaged properties. For example, if a property is in a REMIC, the property owner is effectively precluded from adding a parking garage to an existing building. That is because the 1986 tax rules treat that improvement as a collateral modification triggering a deemed exchange of a new loan for the old loan thereby violating REMIC regulations. Unlike home mortgages, which are rarely modified, commercial loans require flexibility in dealing with changing circumstances in order to support the borrower's ongoing business property. The bill we are introducing today will add this needed flexibility to the tax code, increasing the ability of property owners to invest in improvements. I urge our colleagues to help us harness the full potential of mortgage-backed securities to provide improved access to capital to America's businesses--big and small. Please join us in working to enact the Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit Modernization Act.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am happy to join my friend and Finance Committee colleague, Mr. Smith, to introduce The Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit Modernization Act. This is a measure that will help expand access to capital for real estate investment across the nation and especially in rural areas like my home State of North Dakota. Growth in the commercial real estate market over the last decade has been fueled, in part, by a strong and growing secondary market for commercial mortgages. That market is structured through real estate mortgage investment conduits (REMICs). Created by Congress in 1986, REMICs are critically important to U.S. real estate finance, providing new capital and expanded access to that capital. They have proven to be a cost-effective method for the private sector to create pools of capital that are made available across the nation. It is time to modernize the REMIC law because many borrowers have been stymied in attempts to make improvements to the mortgaged properties. For example, if a property is in a REMIC, the property owner is effectively precluded from adding a parking garage to an existing building. That is because the 1986 tax rules treat that improvement as a collateral modification triggering a deemed exchange of a new loan for the old loan thereby violating REMIC regulations. Unlike home mortgages, which are rarely modified, commercial loans require flexibility in dealing with changing circumstances in order to support the borrower's ongoing business property. The bill we are introducing today will add this needed flexibility to the tax code, increasing the ability of property owners to invest in improvements. I urge our colleagues to help us harness the full potential of mortgage-backed securities to provide improved access to capital to America's businesses--big and small. Please join us in working to enact the Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit Modernization Act.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Theodore Roosevelt Commemorative Coin Act, which would commemorate the centenary of the bestowal of the Nobel Peace Prize on President Theodore Roosevelt. This bill authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue coins bearing the likeness of Theodore Roosevelt. The sales of these coins would support programs to educate the public about the impressive achievements of our 26th President. As those of my colleagues who have studied Roosevelt's life are aware, my state has a special connection with Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt liked to say that the years he spent in the Badlands of North Dakota were the best of his life. He even attributed his success as President to his experiences as a hunter and rancher in western North Dakota. It is with great pride, then, that I introduce the Theodore Roosevelt Commemorative Coin Act, which honors President Roosevelt's foreign policy achievements and commitment to conservation in this country. In particular, the bill highlights his success in drawing up the 1905 peace treaty ending the Russo-Japanese War. This accomplishment earned him the 1906 Nobel Peace Prize--making him the first citizen of the United States to receive the Peace Prize. Moreover, the bill pays tribute to his enduring respect for our Nation's wildlife and natural resources. Over his tenure as President, Roosevelt established 51 bird reserves, 4 game preserves, 150 national forests, 5 national parks, and 18 national monuments, totaling nearly 230 million acres of land placed under public protection. It is fitting, therefore, that the proceeds from the surcharge associated with the coin be used for educational programs at two very important sites in the life of Theodore Roosevelt--his home in New York, Sagamore Hill National Historic Site, and the national park that bears his name and honors his conservation efforts, Theodore Roosevelt National Park, located in Medora, ND. These two sites played a significant role in the development of Teddy Roosevelt's policies and offered him refuge away from the stress associated with public life. In addition, the bill would provide funds for the maintenance and acquisition of the largest collection of Roosevelt's unofficial papers, which is housed in the Harvard Library. The Theodore Roosevelt Collection is second only to the Library of Congress's collection of Roosevelt's presidential papers, and the funds raised by this bill would aid in the Collection's goal of purchasing additional Roosevelt materials, which will be preserved and exhibited throughout history. As a North Dakotan and an American, it is my hope that this bill will renew interest in the life of Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt's courage, patriotism, optimism, and spirit reflect what is best about our country, and he is remembered not only as a great statesman, but also a friend to the environment. I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation to honor Theodore Roosevelt's contributions to U.S. foreign and domestic policy and build upon his efforts to promote respect for our nation's lands.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Theodore Roosevelt Commemorative Coin Act, which would commemorate the centenary of the bestowal of the Nobel Peace Prize on President Theodore Roosevelt. This bill authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue coins bearing the likeness of Theodore Roosevelt. The sales of these coins would support programs to educate the public about the impressive achievements of our 26th President. As those of my colleagues who have studied Roosevelt's life are aware, my state has a special connection with Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt liked to say that the years he spent in the Badlands of North Dakota were the best of his life. He even attributed his success as President to his experiences as a hunter and rancher in western North Dakota. It is with great pride, then, that I introduce the Theodore Roosevelt Commemorative Coin Act, which honors President Roosevelt's foreign policy achievements and commitment to conservation in this country. In particular, the bill highlights his success in drawing up the 1905 peace treaty ending the Russo-Japanese War. This accomplishment earned him the 1906 Nobel Peace Prize--making him the first citizen of the United States to receive the Peace Prize. Moreover, the bill pays tribute to his enduring respect for our Nation's wildlife and natural resources. Over his tenure as President, Roosevelt established 51 bird reserves, 4 game preserves, 150 national forests, 5 national parks, and 18 national monuments, totaling nearly 230 million acres of land placed under public protection. It is fitting, therefore, that the proceeds from the surcharge associated with the coin be used for educational programs at two very important sites in the life of Theodore Roosevelt--his home in New York, Sagamore Hill National Historic Site, and the national park that bears his name and honors his conservation efforts, Theodore Roosevelt National Park, located in Medora, ND. These two sites played a significant role in the development of Teddy Roosevelt's policies and offered him refuge away from the stress associated with public life. In addition, the bill would provide funds for the maintenance and acquisition of the largest collection of Roosevelt's unofficial papers, which is housed in the Harvard Library. The Theodore Roosevelt Collection is second only to the Library of Congress's collection of Roosevelt's presidential papers, and the funds raised by this bill would aid in the Collection's goal of purchasing additional Roosevelt materials, which will be preserved and exhibited throughout history. As a North Dakotan and an American, it is my hope that this bill will renew interest in the life of Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt's courage, patriotism, optimism, and spirit reflect what is best about our country, and he is remembered not only as a great statesman, but also a friend to the environment. I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation to honor Theodore Roosevelt's contributions to U.S. foreign and domestic policy and build upon his efforts to promote respect for our nation's lands.

Mr. CONRAD

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

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. But I do believe we have a responsibility to bring stability and to give the Iraqi people a chance to make judgments about their own future. That, fundamentally, is what democracy is all about. It is not about America picking the leaders for Iraq. I must say, last week I was taken aback to read Mr. Bremer and others talking about how we are going to pick Iraq's new leaders. Think about that. How we are going to decide who Iraq's leaders are going to be? That is not democracy. That is not the role of America. Our job is not to pick Iraq's leaders. How arrogant is that, to say we can go into a country and designate the leaders and think that those people would have any credibility among their own people? If you want to set up a group for failure, have them chosen by the United States. And for us to tell the Iraqi people, these are your leaders, what does that have to do with democracy? Those are not the values of America. We would not permit for one moment another person to choose our leaders. What business do we think we have choosing theirs? I think the obligation we have is to help Iraq pick their own leaders and have a society where there is sufficient security for them to make those decisions and for them to be able to rebuild an economy that has been shattered by decades of despotic rule by Saddam Hussein, and now by this war. This is an important moment in history for our country. We are being tested, and we need to apply the best of American values and the high standards of morality that have made this country great. We need to send a signal to the rest of the world about what we really stand for. We need to show all those across the globe that America is fully committed to the fundamental values of democracy and freedom and for the ability of people to choose their own leaders free from fear and intimidation and terror. That is a test that we have faced many times in our history, and it is a test that we have passed with flying colors. At the same time, we should remind the world of the proudest moments in American history when, over and over, this country stood up against terrorism and fascism and communism and helped the rest of the world be free. That is in the finest traditions of America. Those are the values we embrace. That is the example we offer the world. Anything less detracts from America's greatness. I hope in the days ahead that this body and the other body and the President of the United States will reflect on a new direction for our country in Iraq and in the war on terror. We are faced with a grave threat. I believe the strategy that has been pursued is one that, instead of reducing the threat to our Nation, has actually increased it because when one humiliates, that creates anger, and anger breeds terrorism and strengthens those who wish to bring America down. So this is a turning point. We have an opportunity to choose which direction we take. So many times in our past we have been faced with these choices, and always America has responded with its best. I am confident that we will do the same now. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to reflect and respond to the reports of what has happened in Iraq over the last several weeks--the pictures emerging of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners, the appalling treatment of those in our custody. I have struggled over the last several days to put into words my own reactions to these images from half a world away. I have been angered by it, and I have been, in some ways, sickened by it. This has besmirched the reputation of our country, damaged the reputation of our soldiers serving in Iraq, the vast majority of whom have served honorably, many of them heroically. Yet, what is dominating the news not only in our country but around the world are images of American soldiers torturing and humiliating those we have captured. This does enormous damage to our cause against terrorism. It does enormous damage to America's standing in the world. Think of how we would feel if these images were of our soldiers and American citizens being treated this way by Iraqis. What would be the reaction in America if we saw our soldiers being humiliated and abused in the most immoral ways? This is, first and foremost, an issue of morality. What has happened is morally wrong. It is wrong to humiliate people. It is wrong to abuse people. It is wrong to torture people. Those are fundamental values. Those are American values. Those are values that are shared by virtually every person in this country. What has happened is not the America that I know, not the America that I love. If we think about the larger effects of what has occurred, nothing can be more clear than that it has done enormous damage to our cause against terrorism. Before this happened, 71 percent of the Iraqis had come to see us as occupiers rather than as liberators. That is before this occurred. What can be the reaction of Iraqis now? After all of the words about our intentions and what we hoped to do to help the Iraqi people emerge from under a dictatorship and move toward freedom and democracy and the most fundamental values that undergird this country, what can be their feeling about America now? I remember so well the President saying we had ended the torture chambers of Saddam Hussein. I must say that made me proud, that we had done something good in this war, that we had ended the torture chambers of Saddam Hussein. I think we now have to ask, Have we just created our own? That is what the pictures show. That is what the stories say. That is not America. That is not what we stand for. We cannot let that be the lasting image of what America has done. In the last few days, the papers across the globe and television stations around the world have been full of condemnation and anger directed at America because there has been a failure, a failure of values, a failure of leadership, a failure to put the best American foot forward. These results will be long lasting, make no mistake about it. I graduated high school from an American Air Force base in Tripoli, Libya, North Africa. I lived for 2 years in the Arab culture among Muslims. I know if one were to try to design something that would completely and totally enrage people raised in that culture, one could not have designed a scenario worse than what has happened. To have an American female in a prison where Iraqi men were naked, forced into homosexual positions, you could not design a circumstance that would more gravely enrage Muslim sensibilities than that. Think of what our reaction would be. Think of the anger we would feel. In their culture, there is nothing more profoundly humiliating than that, and humiliation breeds anger, and anger breeds terrorism. We have created a recruiting poster for al-Qaida that will plague us for years. Right at the heart of this is morality, fundamental morality, and it is imperative that we stand up with one voice and say this is wrong, it is morally wrong, and that we, first, admit to what occurred; that we pledge it will never happen again; that we move to make amends for those who have been injured and humiliated and tortured; and that we take steps to assure ourselves and others this will never happen again. Those are the basic steps of redemption under any moral code, and those are the steps that America must take now. After September 11, there was a wave of sympathy and support for America all around the world. Muslims condemned what had occurred--or at least a significant majority did--and all across the globe people rushed to America's side. Now, if you take public opinion soundings across the world, what one finds is we have dissipated that wave of sympathy and support and replaced it with a rising level of disrespect for America. That has serious consequences because, in the war on terror, we need allies, we need people who will help out, we need people who will provide information on threats to America. I think we have to seriously rethink how we are conducting this war on terror. I think the war in Iraq was an enormous diversion from the real war on terror. We must remind ourselves it was not Iraq that attacked the United States on September 11; it was al-Qaida. Their acts were directed by Osama bin Laden, not by Saddam Hussein. As evil and repugnant as Saddam Hussein, his sons and his regime were, they were not the masterminds of the September 11 attack on the United States. That was the dirty work of al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. They are the ones who ought to be our priority in holding people to account for the vicious murder of nearly 3,000 Americans on September 11. It was al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden who ought to have commanded top priority in our move to hold people accountable and responsible for those vicious attacks. Instead, I believe we have allowed ourselves to be diverted by a war in Iraq that had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks. I hope that as a nation we will rededicate our effort to go after those who were responsible for the attacks on this country. It is now over 950 days since the September 11 attacks on this country, and still Osama bin Laden threatens America and American interests and our allies. Still he is issuing threats. Just most recently, he has put a bounty on the heads of those who stand with us. If one looks at the priorities of our war on terror, we have 130,000 troops in Iraq and only 15,000 troops in Afghanistan. Many of our elite units were taken off the hunt for al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden and shifted to the Iraqi front to be replaced by units in Afghanistan searching for Osama bin Laden whose specialty was Spanish culture. What earthly sense does this make in the war on terror? Our top priority should have been to continue aggressively the search for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida and their network of supporters who continue to plan attacks on this country. As I have searched for some way to understand what has occurred in Iraq, I was reminded yesterday in the New York Times of a prison experiment that was conducted at Stanford University in 1971. The headline in the New York Times story is ``Simulated Prison in 1971 Showed a Fine Line Between Normal and Monster.'' These experiments were conducted by the man who was my professor of psychology at Stanford University, Dr. Zimbardo. He took volunteers and randomly split them into groups of ``guards'' and groups of ``prisoners.'' And he found within days of the prison experiment beginning that the guards had become swaggering and sadistic to the point of placing bags over the prisoners' heads, forcing them to strip naked, and encouraging them to perform sexual acts. This was not half a world a way in Iraq. This was on the campus of Stanford University in California. That experiment and studies like it have given, as the New York Times reports, insight into how ordinary people can, under the right circumstances, do horrible things. Professor Zimbardo said that when the news from Iraq emerged, he was not surprised that it happened. He said: ``I have exact, parallel pictures of prisoners with bags over their heads from the 1971 study,'' the prison experiment at Stanford University. He went on to say that it is not that we put bad apples in a good barrel; we put good apples in a bad barrel. That barrel corrupts anything that it touches. Maybe that is what occurred here. Maybe we put good apples, fundamentally decent people, in a bad barrel and that barrel has corrupted everything that it touched. One thing that has been learned from these experiments is that in situations where people have absolute power over others, it is critically important that there are others who are watching, others who are monitoring, others who are ensuring that there is not abuse. The fact that proper oversight was not present is a failure of leadership, and it is a failure of leadership that goes right up the chain of command in our country. I was asked yesterday, do I favor the resignation of the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld. I responded by saying, I want to see the full facts before I call for anyone's resignation or removal. I want to know what did he know, when did he know it, and what did he do about it. Those tests do not just apply to the Secretary of Defense; those tests apply to everyone in the chain of command. They apply to our commanders in Iraq. They apply to General Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Those tests apply to the Secretary of Defense and they apply to the President of the United States. What did they know, when did they know it, and what did they do about it? What has occurred here is wrong. It is morally wrong. It has done enormous damage to our country, damage that will last for a very long time. Those who are responsible should be held to account and we should make certain that nothing like this ever happens again. This is not America. These are not American values. This is not how America acts towards others. The behavior shown in these photos and on these tapes are not the best of America. They are the worst of America, and we can do so much better. We are so much better. I was also asked yesterday if I believe America should now leave Iraq immediately. Yesterday I had lunch with the young people working in my office for the spring semester, interns from all across my State. I asked them the question, What do you think we should do? Even those who felt passionately that America had made a mistake in going to war in Iraq believe that we simply cannot leave now; that we have an obligation to improve things; that we have an obligation to stabilize things; that we have an obligation to prevent the bloodbath that would certainly follow an immediate exodus by our country. I voted against authorizing this war in Iraq because I did not believe it was in the national security interest of the United States. I believed we should not open a second front before we had finished business with al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. I believed Iraq would be a distraction. I believed it would take us away from a successful prosecution of the real war on terrorism. As much as I feel strongly that that was correct, I also think it would be a mistake for the United States to exit precipitously from Iraq. The fact is, we are now responsible for what occurs there. We have an obligation to try to make this work. I do not believe that means the United States has an obligation to make a country in the image of America. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.