Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, my second-degree amendment is very simple. Instead of using $150 billion for a tax cut over the next 5 years, we take half of that money and dedicate it to further debt reduction. Every economist who has come before the Finance Committee and the Budget Committee has said the highest priority is to pay down the debt. The question is, What do we do to best secure a continuing economic expansion in our country? Every economist who has come before the Budget Committee and the Finance Committee, as well as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has said the highest priority is to continue to pay down this debt. We take half of the proposed tax cut and use it for further debt reduction. That ought to be our priority. That is what this amendment does. I hope my colleagues will support the second-degree amendment and oppose the underlying Allard amendment which defines a balanced budget as one that raids Social Security. Let's not go back to the bad old days. Let's pay down the debt.

Mr. CONRAD. I will respond briefly to my colleague from New Mexico on the question of our plan and what it can accommodate and what it can't. I start by saying I have great respect for the chairman of the Budget Committee. With respect to the marriage tax penalty, we do have sufficient resources to address the marriage tax penalty. The tax cuts we have provided out of the non-Social Security surplus are net tax reductions of $265 billion over 10 years. The plan we offered to address the marriage tax penalty in the Senate Finance Committee costs $150 billion. It is a very simple plan. It says we are going to give people the choice of filing as a married couple or filing separately. They can file and pay whichever is less.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. I thank Senator McConnell. Madam President, I rise today to support the McConnell-Bennett- Dorgan-Conrad effort to pass a statute to protect the flag, rather than to amend the Constitution of the United States for that purpose. It seems to me that anybody who advances an amendment to the Constitution has to clear a very high threshold. I personally believe the Constitution of the United States is one of the greatest documents in human history. It is not to be amended lightly. It is certainly not to be amended when there are other ways of addressing a problem. I believe in this circumstance the issue is really quite clear. Flag burning and flag desecration are unacceptable to me and I think unacceptable to a majority of Americans, certainly unacceptable to the people of the State that I represent. But the first answer cannot and should not be to amend the Constitution of the United States. In our history, more than 10,000 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed. Only 27 have been approved. Since I have been in the Senate, more than 850 constitutional amendments have been offered. Thank goodness we have not adopted them. Many of them would have made that document worse. Many of them would have taken positions that are really things that ought to be done by statute. The Constitution is a framework. It does not deal with specifics. It deals with the larger framework of how this Government should operate. Individual laws, individual statutes are meant to deal with the specific problems that we encounter as a society within the framework provided by the Constitution. Some would have us change that basic organic document to deal with this problem. I believe that would be a mistake, and we would look back on it in future years and say: My, that was an overreaction. Yes, it is unacceptable to engage in flag desecration. Yes, it is abhorrent to desecrate the flag. Those are obviously true statements and those are genuine feelings. But we have an alternative. The alternative is to pass a statute. The proponents of the constitutional amendment will say to you: But that will be ruled unconstitutional, as has the previous attempt to pass a statute. This statute has not been ruled unconstitutional, and the American Law Division of the Library of Congress tells us it would be upheld as constitutional. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the American Law Division addressed to me be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, here we have the American Law Division of the Library of Congress, which houses the Congressional Research Service, telling us this statute authored by Senator McConnell would be upheld as constitutional. That is the best advice we have available to us as Members of Congress. They are saying to us this statute would be upheld. Why ever would we go out and amend the Constitution when we have a statute that our own legal advisers inform us would be upheld as Constitutional. Why would we do that? It makes no sense to me. Not only does it make no sense to me, it makes no sense to veterans organizations. I ask unanimous consent that resolutions of support by veterans organizations in the State of North Dakota be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, these are resolutions in support of the Flag Protection Act of 1999 by AMVETS of North Dakota, by the AMVETS Ladies Auxiliary of North Dakota, and by the North Dakota State Council of the Vietnam Veterans of America. All of these veterans organizations, some of the finest in my State, have said this is the proper approach; that we ought to attempt to pass this statute rather than amend the Constitution of the United States. I just got word, moments ago, that the editor of the 164th Infantry Association Newsletter, of my State, has contacted my office and agrees with the position that I am taking, that it is not necessary to amend the Constitution of the United States. I think he is exactly right. I would just conclude by saying, not only do veterans organizations back home support the position I am taking, but many who are in the American Legion have contacted me and told me they support the position that I am taking. Finally, Gen. Colin Powell was quoted at length in a full page ad of a major newspaper in my State today as saying that he does not believe that the appropriate response is to amend the Constitution of the United States. Gen. Colin Powell, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the man who led us in Desert Storm, a man for whom I have profound respect, saying to us, yes, it is abhorrent to desecrate the flag, yes, it is abhorrent to burn the flag, but that flag is going to survive long after, as he describes it, these miscreants who desecrate the flag are long gone. Long after they are gone, that flag is still going to be flying proudly over this great Nation. One of the reasons this is a great Nation is because of the Constitution of the United States. What a brilliant document. I doubt very much anything we are going to be doing in the next 2 days would improve upon that Constitution that is the organic law for our country. I urge my colleagues to take a look--take a serious look --at the work Senator McConnell has done and that the four of us, on a bipartisan basis, are offering our colleagues as an alternative to taking the very drastic step of amending the Constitution of the United States. I hope my colleagues will support this approach. I commend my colleagues who have joined in offering this--with a special thanks to Senator McConnell, who has drafted this approach-- Senator Bennett, and Senator Dorgan. I believe this is the wiser course. It is the right course. It is one that will stand the test of time. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Exhibit 1 AMVETS Ladies Auxiliary, Department of North Dakota, Resolution To Support the ``Flag Protection Act of 1999'' Whereas: the delegates of the 15th Annual Convention of the AMVETS Ladies Auxiliary, Department of North Dakota, assembled in Minot on this 15th day of May, 1999, desire to support Senator Dorgan and Senator Conrad on ``The Flag Protection Act of 1999'' which they are co-sponsoring, therefore be it Resolved: We support the ``Flag Protection Act of 1999'' for the protection of the flag, free speech, and other purposes, to ensure our symbol of national pride and freedom be protected, that the embodiment of our democracy and unity be preserved, especially since our veterans fought for this freedom, it further be Resolved: That a copy of this courtesy resolution be spread upon the records of this annual convention and a copy be presented to the above mentioned. Angie Lekander, President. Vickie Trimmer, Secretary.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to strongly endorse the crop insurance bill that is before us. It is a product of a bipartisan effort. I especially want to congratulate my colleague, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, who has labored hard and long in order to produce this result. Senator Roberts of Kansas is a cosponsor. We are all indebted to them for their leadership on this issue because this bill brings a new measure of stability to rural America. From the Northeast, to the great heartland, to the South, this bill is going to make a difference in the lives of farmers who we know are too hard pressed. For those who are listening, crop prices are the lowest they have been in 50 years. We have just had a rally on the Mall that went on for 2 days with thousands of participants from all over America with farmers telling us they simply have to have help or they are going to go under in unprecedented numbers. That is the message that has been delivered. Our first response is the crop insurance reform bill--to say we are ready to help and this Congress is prepared to respond. I also want to thank my colleague, Senator Grassley, a member of the Budget Committee and the Agriculture Committee, who joined me on the Budget Committee to reserve the funds so that this bill could go forward. We achieved $6 billion in funding last year for crop insurance reform. That is what this bill provides. This bill reforms crop insurance by making coverage more affordable, by fixing an unintended consequence of our effort to reform crop insurance in 1994 that unfairly lowered coverage for producers facing unexpected circumstances with repeated natural disasters. It requires USDA to implement new quality adjustment procedures. It eases qualification for noninsured crop disaster assistance. It provides for the development of improved specialty crop policies and brings livestock into the crop insurance system. This bill also provides a pilot program to test an alternative risk management approach. With respect to the question of multiple years of disaster, let me explain, in brief, the problem. In areas of the country that have experienced multiple years of disasters, under the current crop insurance law, the formula under which they recover damages is dramatically altered by repeated years of disaster. This legislation offered by our colleagues, Senator Kerrey, Senator Roberts, and a number of other of us on a bipartisan basis, addresses that problem. I am grateful for it. My State has been affected by multiple years of disaster. I pray that our time of suffering is over. But other States may have a similar experience. They shouldn't have to suffer unduly. Crop insurance should work for them. That reform is included in this bill. We can be proud of it. I want to respond, if I can, to an editorial that was in the Washington Post this morning. That editorial, which makes the assertion that crop insurance promotes production on marginal acres, or so-called ``environmentally sensitive lands,'' requires a response. I believe the facts do not support that claim. I believe the Washington Post in their editorial is precisely wrong about the effect of crop insurance. The fact is meaningful crop insurance did not exist until 1994. Has crop acreage increased in that period? Let us review the record because I think the facts speak in direct contradiction to the fundamental assertion in the Washington Post editorial. This chart shows the number of acres being planted in this country from 1996 to 1999. One can see the blue bar. Those are the acres farmed. You can see the acreage hasn't expanded. The acreage has been reduced under an expanding crop insurance program. The fundamental assertion by the editorial writers in the Washington Post is wrong. They may assert, well, it is not fair to look at just acres planted and acres taken out of production. You have to look at insured acres. Let's do that. This chart, again, is from 1996 through 1999. Again, the acres that are insured are the blue bars. You can see that we are down from 1996. We have not had an increase. The acres insured are down. One has to ask this question: If farmers are taking acreage out of production, are they taking out their most productive acres? Is that what they would do? I don't think so. I think just the opposite would occur. As farmers take acres out of production, they would take out their most marginal acres. They would take out those acres that are most environmentally sensitive. That is the record. I wish our friends who write editorials down at the Washington Post knew a little more about agriculture because I frequently find them in error, but they are never in doubt. I say to my friends that they need to get out in the heartland of America. They need to get out of Washington. They need to get outside the beltway to find out what is really going on in agricultural America because over and over, as I read their editorials, they have almost no relationship to the reality of what the people I represent are experiencing. We had a breakthrough today in terms of an agreement with our colleagues from the Northeast. The fact is they had an unfair result in the disaster bill of last year. I acknowledge that. I regret that occurred. I can say my own State has been dealt with generously in disaster programs. We had a horrible disaster in 1997. We had the worst winter storm in 50 years, the most massive flood in 500 years, and the largest mass evacuation of American cities since the civil war. This Congress responded generously to the needs of the people I represent. I will be forever in the debt of my colleagues. When similar disasters hit the Northeast last year, they were not dealt with as generously. I think we must all acknowledge that. Hopefully, this is a step toward recognizing the very real economic hurt that occurred there. I conclude by thanking the chairman and the ranking member of our committee. Especially, I direct my comments to the chairman. This is not a bill he favored. He had an alternative approach. But he graciously allowed Members to debate and discuss in the committee. He was eminently fair in the consideration of this bill in the committee. When his side did not prevail, he was a gentleman, and he has come out on the floor of this Senate to help pass the final product of a democratic process. I thank the chairman very much for his fairness and also his patience. His patience is quite remarkable as we fight and joust about issues that matter an awful lot to Senators as individuals representing different parts of the country, many from States in very deep financial trouble. Let me finish by again thanking my colleagues, Senator Roberts of Kansas and Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, for truly outstanding leadership in bringing this reform bill to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support it. I think it is something of which they can be proud. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is taking action on the H.R. 5, the Senior Citizen's Freedom to Work Act of 2000. This legislation eliminates the earnings test for Social Security recipients between the full retirement age (currently 65) and age 69. The measure will be retroactive to January 1, 2000. I have long supported changing the Social Security earnings test, which the amount of income recipients may earn before their benefits are reduced. Under current law, recipients aged 65 through 69 can earn up to $17,000 per year without penalty. But beyond that, benefits are reduced by $1 for each $3 of earnings. This year, approximately 800,000 seniors will lose benefits. Repealing the earnings test will allow older Americans who have skills and expertise to continue working and making a contribution to society and to our economy. I am concerned about the Social Security earnings test and realize the difficulties that many older Americans experience because of it. For many seniors, working beyond the age of 65 is necessary just to make ends meet. Changing the earnings limit will allow them to earn extra income without losing hard-earned Social Security benefits. They have spent a lifetime working for these benefits and they should get them, whether they choose to continue to work or not. I have supported past legislation to raise the earnings test limit. Today, I fully support this legislation to eliminate the earnings test for all individuals who have reached full retirement age. This bill is especially important to North Dakota because we have one of the highest rates of seniors receiving Social Security benefits. I am also pleased because this bill is fiscally responsible. In the long term, it will not have any financial impact on our Social Security trust fund. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of legislation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate today will take action on the H.R. 1000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century. The Federal Aviation Administration has been without a long-term authorization for some time, and airports in my state need to be able to move forward with construction projects soon. There are three components of this bill that I strongly support: the increase in funding for the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), the budgetary treatment of the Aviation Trust Fund, and a provision to stabilize essential air service (EAS) in Dickinson, North Dakota. I am very pleased that this conference report provides for $3.2 billion in 2001 for the AIP program, and that funding will increase by $100 million each year. As air travel continues to increase, it is important that we invest in our nation's airports to ensure the safety of the traveling public and expand capacity for the future. This program provides federal grants for airport development and planning and these dollars are usually spent on capital projects supporting operations such as runways, taxiways, and noise abatement. This substantial increase in funding will go a long way in maintaining the quality of air travel in North Dakota and across the country. In addition to the increase in funding, the fact that we now have long-term FAA reauthorization instead of the extensions our airports have been operating under is an important improvement. Short-term extensions had the effect of leaving airport managers and community leaders unable to develop and move forward with airport improvement projects. Because in North Dakota the construction season is short, the ability to plan and schedule projects is critical to maintaining our state's aviation system. Secondly, this conference report contains a very important provision for Dickinson, North Dakota. This legislation will allow this small community to retain essential air service without paying a local share. Currently, Dickinson and Fergus Falls, Minnesota are the only communities with this requirement. EAS is vital to smaller communities, and the difficulties encountered by many of the communities in retaining EAS warrant increased federal attention. The report also requires the Department of Transportation to report on retaining essential air service, focusing that report on North Dakota. This is an extremely serious problem in my state and I believe it needs greater attention. The residents and businesses of small communities, especially in a rural state like North Dakota, depend heavily on this service and we need to find a way to consistently serve these small markets. Finally, I am pleased that conferees agreed to budgetary guarantees of increased funding for aviation. The conference report provides for a budget point of order against any legislation that fails to spend all of the Airport and Airways Trust Fund (AATF) receipts and interest, and does not appropriate the total authorized levels for capital programs (AIP and Facilities and Equipment). After allocations to the capital programs occur, remaining AATF funds can be used for general operations, and can be augmented by monies from the general fund. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important and long overdue legislation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by Senator Robb. During consideration of S. 1134, the Affordable Education Act last year in the Finance committee, I joined my colleague in offering a similar amendment during the markup. Regrettably, that amendment was not adopted. Under the Robb amendment, an allocation of $24.8 billion in bonds would be authorized to permit states and local school districts, over the next 5 years, to issue bonds to modernize and renovate approximately 6,000 schools. Sixty-five percent of the bond authority would be allocated to states based on their title I allocation, and 35 percent to the 100 school districts with the largest number of low- income students. Additionally, $1.3 billion would be authorized for a new grant and zero-interest loan program to fund the most urgent school repair needs in local schools. There is also $400 million set aside for Bureau of Indian Affairs schools. Today we are considering our first major education measure of the 21st century. It is critical that we weigh carefully the direction of that education policy. What should our priorities be as we enter the 21st century? How should we allocate our limited Federal resources in education? How do we respond to growing concerns about the digital divide, and what is the role of education in that debate? Under S. 1134, the major provision of the bill would expand tax-free expenditures from the current higher education individual retirement account to permit student expenses for elementary and secondary education including private, parochial, or public education. S. 1134 would increase the limit on the annual contribution for an education IRA for a four-year period (2000-2003) to $2,000. Expenses authorized for IRA expenditures would include traditional expenses including tuition, books, supplies, computer equipment, tutoring services, as well as student expenses for room, board, transportation and supplementary items. Additionally, S. 1134 makes a number of important changes, which I support, in prepaid tuition plans, employer-provided educational assistance, and student loan interest deduction. There is no question, of the merits of encouraging families to save to meet the educational needs of their children. Education IRA's are one way to encourage this savings, and we know it has been very helpful to families planning for higher education expenses. As we debate this legislation, however, it is critical that we define our national education priorities, and allocate our limited Federal resources to meet those objectives. Does an expansion of education IRA's respond to our national education priorities? Does the allocation of limited Federal resources for education IRA's respond to the education needs of our children into the 21st century? In the past 5 years, a number of very respected organizations have alerted us to the critical elementary and secondary school infrastructure needs. In 1995, the GAO reported that $112 billion was needed to bring the nation's schools into good overall condition. The report cited that one-third of schools--about 25,000--were in need of extensive repairs. More recently, the National Center for Education Statistics released a report stating that the average public school in America is 42 years old. Many of these schools are also lagging in technology infrastructure and their effort to connect to the Internet. I know the need for repairs in our schools is great from my visits to North Dakota schools and conversations with educators, and state officials. North Dakota State Superintendent of Schools, Wayne Sanstead, informed me last year during consideration of the markup of S. 1134, that costs associated with school modernization in the North Dakota would exceed $420 million. 88 percent of schools reported need to upgrade or repair facilities, and 62 percent reported unsatisfactory environmental conditions. I ask unanimous consent Mr. President, that a letter from the N.D. Department of Public Instruction which outlines the critical school infrastructure needs in North Dakota be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. CONRAD. It is critical that we ask whether an expansion of education IRA's for elementary and secondary education expenses is the best use of our limited Federal education dollars and responds to our national education priorities. We need to examine who will benefit from this IRA expansion as opposed to who will benefit from meeting school infrastructure needs. According to the Department of Treasury, 70 percent of the proposed education IRA benefit would go to 20 percent of all taxpayers. Higher income families would derive the most benefit. Many families with incomes less than $55,000 would receive little benefit. Additionally, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the average annual benefit for children attending private and parochial schools would be limited to approximately $37. On the other hand, 90 percent of our children attend public schools, and public school enrollments are increasing. According to the National Council on Education Statistics, a record 52.7 million children are enrolled in public schools, and that number is expected to increase to 54.3 million by 2008. It is estimated that at least 2,400 new school facilities will be needed to meet this student enrollment increase. Studies also show that building conditions and overcrowding in school facilities are linked to student achievement. There is no question where our education resources should be directed. Although it is important to encourage families to save for their children's education, we have a more urgent need to ensure that a majority of our children have the best educational environment for learning. Regrettably, that is not the case in too many of our local school districts. Local school districts face many challenges in school modernization efforts. Interest payments on bonds are already a major expense for local taxpayers. Additionally, taxpayers are burdened with many unfunded Federal mandates and it becomes difficult to finance new construction or repairs through an expansion of bond authority. Also, many of our rural communities across the nation, including North Dakota, are experiencing declining enrollments in local school districts leaving many of these smaller, rural schools with more limited education resources, and very limited ability to undertake bond initiatives. It is clear where Federal support for education should be directed. The importance of school modernization is underscored by the emphasis on technology in our economy in the 21st century. Information technology will play a key role in our continued economic growth. The condition of our public school facilities, including technology infrastructure and the ability to connect to the Internet, is critical in sustaining our current economic growth. It is also important in ensuring that our children are equipped to enter the job markets in the 21st century, and able to benefit from the extraordinary growth that we have experienced in recent years. School modernization is critical for our children's success, and should be one of our key national education priorities as we enter the 21st century. Local communities cannot face the task of funding the necessary school building and technology infrastructure improvements on their own. They urgently need our help. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in support of the amendment offered by Senator Robb. Exhibit 1 Department of Public Instruction, Bismarck, ND, March 2, 1999. Hon. Kent Conrad, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Conrad: I am writing this as a follow-up to our recent conversation concerning the Senate Finance Committee's plans to conduct hearings regarding funding for school modernization. I am attaching the executive summary of a school facilities inventory completed by the Department of Public Instruction with assistance from the Barton Malow Company. The study was done in the fall of 1994 and the report was issued in January of 1995. While some school construction has taken place since that time there is no reason to believe that the basic assumptions outlined in the executive summary about North Dakota's needs for school building renovation and upgrading have changed significantly. As the executive summary indicates the total projected costs to bring North Dakota's 453 public school facilities up to state-of-the-art facilities would be approximately $420 million or nearly one million dollars per building. Our small rural North Dakota school districts in particular have extensive and potentially expensive school renovation needs which have been consistently deferred because of budget constraints due to fluctuations of our agricultural economy and the impacts of significant declining enrollment which further erodes school districts funding base. Even in those few circumstances where some of these rural districts consider consolidation school renovation would still be needed. In fact, consolidation that appears to be required in some rural areas to sustain school programs will in turn require construction of updated larger facilities to accommodate consolidation enrollments. Clearly, North Dakota, and in this case, especially rural North Dakota would benefit from federal financial assistance for school renovation and construction. In addition, North Dakota's Native American reservation schools are in some cases in desperate need of renovation and upgrading. While they have access to some funding through other federal programs, our experience is that the money available through those programs is not adequate and not available in a timely fashion. These districts would also benefit from a general federal infusion in the area of school construction and renovation. In sum, I am encouraged and strongly support your efforts to pursue this source of funding to help our hard-pressed agricultural areas. If I can provide further information or be of advocacy assistance in this congressional effort please do not hesitate to contact me at any time. I look forward to visiting with you and your staff when I once again preside over Council of Chief State School Officers Legislative Committee deliberations on March 15 and 16. With best wishes, Dr. Wayne G. Sanstead, State Superintendent.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to recommend the confirmation of Kermit Bye for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and I ask my colleagues to join me and Senator Dorgan in supporting his nomination. Kermit Bye is a native North Dakotan. He was born in the middle of a North Dakota blizzard, in a railroad section house in Hatton, North Dakota. He has distinguished himself in his career, and is widely recognized as one of the best trial lawyers in our state. Kermit Bye will be an excellent addition to the federal judiciary, and he has my strong support. Kermit Bye would bring a wide range of experiences to the bench. Before receiving his law degree from the University of North Dakota in 1962, he worked as a milk truck driver, a radio advertising salesman, and in catalog sales at Montgomery Wards. Soon after completing law school, Mr. Bye worked as North Dakota Deputy Securities Commissioner, and later served as Assistant United States Attorney for the District of North Dakota. Since 1968, Mr. Bye has worked for the Vogel Law Firm and was named President of the firm in 1981. Mr. Bye has over 30 years of experience in Federal and state trial and appellate litigation. His long and distinguished career includes representing individual and corporate clients. He has tried more than 100 cases, representing both plaintiffs and defendants. He has also argued numerous appeals, including more than 20 before the Eighth Circuit. Mr. Bye has served on the Board of Governors and as the President of the State Bar Association of North Dakota. Through his broad experience and success he has earned an excellent reputation. As an experienced litigator, Mr. Bye also has a full understanding of the appropriate role of the judiciary. My colleague, Senator Dorgan, and I have heard from individuals across our home state, from both sides of the aisle and from all sections of the legal community, recommending Mr. Bye for this position. According to his colleagues and fellow bar members, Mr. Bye is a man of great character and qualifications. One of his supporters is Judge Frank Magill, who Mr. Bye has been nominated to succeed on the Eighth Circuit. Judge Magill has been on senior status since April 1, 1997, and was appointed to the Eighth Circuit by President Reagan in 1986. He states in a letter to Senator hatch: ``I have had a longtime professional association with Kermit Bye. His professional competence and integrity are of the highest order. He has several decades of trial experience. I know from personal experiences that he will be an easy fit for your criterion of judicial temperament.'' Mr. President, I am confident that Mr. Bye will be an outstanding addition to the federal bench. I support his confirmation and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have now reached a milestone in our economic history with the report the other day that our economic expansion is now the Nation's longest. We have now enjoyed economic expansion of 107 months. That is the longest economic expansion in our Nation's history. I thought it might be useful to reflect on some of the policies that have contributed to that success. First and foremost is the fiscal policy of the Nation. The policies that determine our economic success are the fiscal policy of the United States and the monetary policy of the United States. The fiscal policy of America is controlled by the President, working with the Congress of the United States. That is the spending policy and the tax policy of America. The monetary policy is controlled by the Federal Reserve Board. Of course, we had a vote this morning on the question of the continued leadership of Chairman Greenspan over the monetary policy of our country. With respect to the fiscal policy of the country, I thought it would be useful to compare and contrast the records of our last three Presidents. Under President Reagan, starting in 1981, we saw a dramatic increase in Federal budget deficits. In fact, they nearly tripled from $79 billion a year, when he came into office, to over $200 billion a year. Then we saw some improvement in the final 2 years of his administration. Then, with President Bush, we saw a dramatic increase in our Federal budget deficits, going from $153 billion in his first year to $290 billion in his final year in office. At that point, we were advised that we could expect red ink for as far into the future as anybody could project. In fact, they were expecting, at that point, this year we would have budget deficits of over $600 billion if there was failure to act. Thank goodness we did not fail to act because in 1993 President Clinton came into office, put forward an ambitious 5-year plan to reduce the budget deficit, and we were able to pass that plan. We were able to pass that plan; and for the next 5 years, under that 5-year plan, each and every year the budget deficit came down, and came down sharply, to $22 billion at the end of that 5-year plan. At that point, we passed, on a bipartisan basis--unlike in 1993, where nobody on the other side of the aisle in either Chamber supported the 5-year plan put forward by President Clinton--but in 1997, we joined hands, on a bipartisan basis, to finish the job. Indeed, we did finish the job, so that in 1998 and 1999 we saw unified budget surpluses. In fact, in 1999, we had a surplus of $124 billion, on a unified basis--that means counting all of the accounts of the Federal Government. And even better news; we were able to balance that year without counting Social Security. This year, the year we are currently in, we anticipate a $176 billion unified budget surplus, again, without counting Social Security. Those are very dramatic improvements that we have had in the fiscal policy of the United States. I will go to this chart first because it shows the changes that were made in the two key elements in determining whether or not you have a budget deficit. The blue line is the outlays of the Federal Government; that is, the spending. The red line is the revenues. You can see, we had a big gap between the two for many years. That is why we had a budget deficit. We were spending more than we were taking in. In 1997, when we passed that 5-year plan to close the gap, you can see from the chart we reduced expenditures and we raised revenue. That combination has eliminated the budget deficit. That is why we are in surplus today. Let's go back to the chart that shows, on the spending side of the ledger, how things changed. We are now at the lowest level of Federal spending in 25 years as measured against our gross domestic product, as measured against our national income, which is the fairest way to measure these things so you see changes over time, so that you are able to put in context the time value of money. What you see is, we are now spending 18.7 percent of our national income on the Federal Government. That is, again, the lowest level since 1974, 25 years ago. If we stay on this course, you can see we will continue to see declines down to about 17 percent of our national income going to the Federal Government. That is a dramatic improvement over where we were back in 1992, when we were spending over 22 percent of our national income on the Federal Government. Some have said: We have the highest taxes in our history. Let me go back to the chart that shows revenue and spending. This, again, is measured against our gross domestic product, our national income. The red line is the revenue line. It is true that the revenue line has gone up, just as the spending line has come down. That is how we balance the budget. We cut spending and we raised revenue so we could eliminate the deficit. One of the key reasons we have more revenue is because the economy is doing well. It has been revived because we got our fiscal house in order in this country. Some say that translates into the highest taxes individuals have paid. That is not the case. The fact is, the tax burden is declining for a family of four. This is not the Senator from North Dakota's analysis. This is the respected accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche, that compares the tax burden for a family earning $35,000 a year in 1979 to 1999. This chart shows their overall tax burden. This includes payroll taxes, income taxes. It shows that their tax burden has declined. The same is true of a family income of $85,000 a year. Their taxes have not gone up. Their taxes have gone down. Their taxes have been reduced. Overall, revenue has increased because the economy is strengthened. Goodness knows, anybody who looks around at America's economy understands we are in the best shape we have been in in anybody's memory. How do we keep this successful economy going? I think it is useful to reflect on how very important the successful economic policy we have been pursuing has been. It has produced the lowest unemployment rate in 41 years. This chart shows the dramatic improvement in the unemployment rate in this country. We have also experienced the lowest inflation rate in 33 years. You remember we used to talk about the misery index. We used to combine the unemployment rate and the inflation rate and look at the so-called misery index. The misery index would be as favorable as it has been in almost anybody's lifetime because we have seen unemployment and the inflation rate come down dramatically. The fact is, this economic policy has been working--a policy of balancing the budget and getting our fiscal house in order. Now the question is, What do we do going forward? We have these projections that say we are going to be experiencing substantial surpluses in the future. Chairman Greenspan, who we voted for overwhelmingly on the floor of the Senate, has given his recommendation. As recently as January 27, he told Congress: ``Pay down the debt first.'' That is what he is urging. He is saying: Continue the policy that we have pursued to eliminate deficits, reduce debt because that lifts an enormous burden off of the American economy. We reduce the interest costs; we reduce the competition for funds; we reduce the Government's call on money that is available in this economy; and there is more money available for the private sector at lower interest rates. That means higher rates of investment. That means stronger economic growth. We ought to pay attention to what Chairman Greenspan is telling us: ``Pay down the debt first.'' I wish to talk a little about these projections of surpluses we have heard about. When the Congressional Budget Office released their projections, they put out three different calculations of what the surpluses might be over the next 10 years. The first one was based on an assumption that we have a so-called capped baseline; that is, we go back to the 1997 agreement. That would mean very sharp cuts in spending this year over the spending we had last year. In fact, this baseline assumes that we would cut spending this year by $66 billion over last year's spending. Now, that is not going to happen. We have had a Republican-controlled Congress the last 2 years. They have not been reducing spending from the previous year. They have been increasing the spending, even though the caps existed. In fact, we shattered the caps last year. So it is an unrealistic expectation to suggest that all of a sudden we are going to start following them this year. In fact, that would require a $66 billion cut in spending to get the projection of a non-Social Security surplus over the next 10 years of $1.9 trillion. The second estimate put out by CBO was, if we froze all domestic spending for the next 10 years, that would give us a non-Social Security surplus of $1.8 trillion. Again, how realistic is that? Are we really going to freeze for the next 10 years all the spending on education? Are we going to freeze for the next 10 years all the spending on defense? Are we going to freeze for the next 10 years all the spending on law enforcement? Are we going to freeze for the next 10 years all the spending on parks in this country, roads, and highways? That is not a realistic projection. That is not an honest projection. The third estimate put out by the Congressional Budget Office is if we adjusted for inflation each of the years going forward for the next 10 years. That resulted in a non-Social Security budget surplus of $838 billion. In order to evaluate how reasonable that forecast is, I think you have to look at what has happened the last 2 years. This Republican-controlled Congress has been increasing spending by higher than the rate of inflation, which would reduce this number even further. That means instead of a $1.9 trillion Social Security surplus that has been bandied about in the press, or a $1.8 trillion surplus over the next 10 years that has been discussed in some circles, we are much more likely to face a surplus over the next 10 years in the non- Social Security accounts of about $800 billion. That is reality, that is facing the most likely prospect, instead of the kind of dreamworld anticipations we have had in the first two scenarios. In the proposal of Governor Bush and the Republican side over the next 10 years, he is proposing a tax cut of $1.3 trillion, when we only likely will have a non-Social Security surplus of $800 billion. That means Governor Bush would have to take $500 billion out of Social Security to pay for his tax cut scheme, a tax cut scheme that gives 60 percent of the benefit to the wealthiest 10 percent in this country. That is a dangerous plan for this Nation's economy. Instead of further reducing the debt with this non-Social Security surplus, he would devote every penny of it to a tax cut disproportionately going to the wealthiest 10 percent in this country. That is a dangerous plan. It is especially dangerous in light of what Chairman Greenspan has told us, which is that the highest priority ought to be to pay down the debt--not to have a massive tax cut scheme, not to have a massive new spending scheme, but to have our first priority being to pay down the debt. Goodness knows, our generation ran up this debt. We have a responsibility to pay it down. Not only do we have a moral obligation, but it is the best economic policy for this country. It will take pressure off interest rates. It will mean greater economic growth. It will mean we are preparing for the baby boom generation, which all of us know is coming. I am a baby boomer; many of us are. We know there is a huge bulge in the population. When these baby boomers start to retire, they are going to put enormous pressure on Social Security spending, on Medicare spending, and we ought to get ready for that day. We ought to be responsible. The responsible thing to do is not to engage in some big new spending scheme, not to engage in some massive tax cut scheme, but to have a balanced approach, one that puts the priority on paying down this debt, one that puts a priority on strengthening Social Security, extending the solvency of Medicare, and also addressing certain high- priority domestic needs such as education and defense, which I think many of us in this Chamber believe needs to be strengthened. I come from agriculture country. I come from a farm State. Agriculture needs attention. That is a domestic priority for many of us. Finally, yes, we can have tax reduction as well, but we certainly shouldn't put that as the highest priority. We certainly should not take all of the non-Social Security surplus and devote it to that purpose. We absolutely must not take money out of Social Security to provide a tax cut. That is irresponsible. That is dangerous. That threatens our economic security and our economic expansion. Over 5 years, the Bush tax cut plan is even more dramatic in terms of its effect on Social Security. I talked about a non-Social Security surplus over 10 years of just over $800 billion. Over 5 years, it is about $150 billion. Yet the Bush tax cut plan over 5 years approaches $500 billion. Let me say that again. Over the next 5 years, the most realistic projection of surpluses is just under $150 billion. Yet the Bush tax cut plan over 5 years is over $480 billion. Where is the difference coming from? It can only come from one place. That is the Social Security surplus. That is profoundly mistaken, profoundly wrong. That is exactly what we should not do in terms of the fiscal policy of this country. The last thing we should do is put this thing back in the old ditch of deficits and debt. I end as I began. Chairman Greenspan has advised us that what we ought to do as the highest priority is pay down this debt--$5.6 trillion of total debt, $3.6 trillion of publicly held debt. Let us keep our eye on the ball. Let us put as our highest priority the paying down of this national debt. Our generation ran it up. We have an obligation to pay it down. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, during the recent congressional adjournment, I had many opportunities to meet with veterans across North Dakota and medical care professionals within the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Fargo regarding issues relating to veterans medical care and the VA budget. One concern raised repeatedly by veterans and VA health care professionals related to the lengthy waiting periods for service- connected, non-emergency speciality medical care. In many cases, the waiting period for a veteran between the initial consultation by a VA health care professional, and the scheduled appointment with a medical specialist was 6 to 10 months, and in some instances up to a year. Last year, Mr. President, the Independent Budget For Fiscal Year 2000 prepared by the Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, Veterans of Foreign Wars and Paralyzed Veterans of America, called attention to the specialized care concerns, particularly the impact of funding shortfalls on staffing to provide specialized medical services. The Independent Budget emphasized the need to provide adequate resources for veterans with speciality needs. More recently, surveys of VA medical facilities by the Disabled Veterans of America confirmed no significant improvement in waiting periods for medical care at VA facilities. Mr. President, veterans requesting speciality care at a DVA medical facility are entitled to speciality care within a reasonable period of time. They should not be required to wait months and months for this essential medical care. In response to these speciality care concerns, and the recommendations in the Fiscal Year 2000 Independent Budget, I am introducing legislation to make certain that service-connected veterans requesting speciality care at VA facilities receive that care within a reasonable period of time. Under this legislation, the VA would be required to automatically review a service-connected veteran's request for non-emergency speciality care if scheduling the appointment exceeds a three week period beyond the initial VA consultation. If an appointment for specialty care could not be provided at a veteran's VA facility in the local area, the VA would be required to provide the service-connected veteran with an appointment for care at another VA facility, or offer the veteran the opportunity for speciality care through a private physician in the veteran's home community. Additionally, the VA would be required to report to Congress annually on the waiting periods for various types of non-emergency speciality medical care for service-connected veterans, especially on any critical problems and staffing shortages that contribute to these waiting periods. The report also requires the VA to include recommendations for addressing waiting periods, any staffing shortages, including special pay adjustments, or any other modifications in pay authority that might be necessary to retain and recruit speciality medical personnel. Mr. President, I know that DVA officials and medical center personnel are very concerned about the waiting periods that veterans experience for certain speciality medical care. D.A. personnel are also acutely aware of speciality care staffing shortages. As reported in the Independent Budget for Fiscal Year 2000, it's critical that Congress provide the essential funding resources to ensure that these speciality care services are met promptly. I urge the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs to conduct hearings on VA speciality care and to incorporate the recommendations in my legislation in appropriate veterans medical care legislation that will be considered by the Senate in FY 2001. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, during the recent congressional adjournment, I had many opportunities to meet with veterans across North Dakota and medical care professionals within the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Fargo regarding issues relating to veterans medical care and the VA budget. One concern raised repeatedly by veterans and VA health care professionals related to the lengthy waiting periods for service- connected, non-emergency speciality medical care. In many cases, the waiting period for a veteran between the initial consultation by a VA health care professional, and the scheduled appointment with a medical specialist was 6 to 10 months, and in some instances up to a year. Last year, Mr. President, the Independent Budget For Fiscal Year 2000 prepared by the Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, Veterans of Foreign Wars and Paralyzed Veterans of America, called attention to the specialized care concerns, particularly the impact of funding shortfalls on staffing to provide specialized medical services. The Independent Budget emphasized the need to provide adequate resources for veterans with speciality needs. More recently, surveys of VA medical facilities by the Disabled Veterans of America confirmed no significant improvement in waiting periods for medical care at VA facilities. Mr. President, veterans requesting speciality care at a DVA medical facility are entitled to speciality care within a reasonable period of time. They should not be required to wait months and months for this essential medical care. In response to these speciality care concerns, and the recommendations in the Fiscal Year 2000 Independent Budget, I am introducing legislation to make certain that service-connected veterans requesting speciality care at VA facilities receive that care within a reasonable period of time. Under this legislation, the VA would be required to automatically review a service-connected veteran's request for non-emergency speciality care if scheduling the appointment exceeds a three week period beyond the initial VA consultation. If an appointment for specialty care could not be provided at a veteran's VA facility in the local area, the VA would be required to provide the service-connected veteran with an appointment for care at another VA facility, or offer the veteran the opportunity for speciality care through a private physician in the veteran's home community. Additionally, the VA would be required to report to Congress annually on the waiting periods for various types of non-emergency speciality medical care for service-connected veterans, especially on any critical problems and staffing shortages that contribute to these waiting periods. The report also requires the VA to include recommendations for addressing waiting periods, any staffing shortages, including special pay adjustments, or any other modifications in pay authority that might be necessary to retain and recruit speciality medical personnel. Mr. President, I know that DVA officials and medical center personnel are very concerned about the waiting periods that veterans experience for certain speciality medical care. D.A. personnel are also acutely aware of speciality care staffing shortages. As reported in the Independent Budget for Fiscal Year 2000, it's critical that Congress provide the essential funding resources to ensure that these speciality care services are met promptly. I urge the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs to conduct hearings on VA speciality care and to incorporate the recommendations in my legislation in appropriate veterans medical care legislation that will be considered by the Senate in FY 2001. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an important piece of legislation for my State of North Dakota. S. 623, the Dakota Water Resources Act, is legislation I introduced in the last Congress and early in this Congress to re-direct the existing Garrison Diversion project. This bill is designed to meet the contemporary water needs of the State of North Dakota, substantially reduce the cost of the project, and require compliance with environmental laws and our international treaty obligations with Canada. North Dakota has significant water quality and water quantity needs that must be addressed. In many parts of my state, well water in rural communities resembles weak coffee or strong tea. It turns the laundry gray after the first wash, and in many places is unfit even for cattle to drink. This bill is designed to address those situations and help provide clean, reliable water to families and businesses across North Dakota. This bill was favorably reported from the Senate Energy Committee earlier this year, after hearings were held in this Congress and in the previous Congress. During consideration in the Energy Committee, several amendments were adopted that reduced the cost of the bill by $140 million and strengthened environmental protections in the bill. I should also note that this bill reduces the cost of constructing the currently-authorized project by about $1 billion. The bill is now pending on the Senate calendar, and was packaged with a group of other bills reported by the Energy Committee to be considered by this body. Unfortunately, when the Senate attempted to consider this legislation in recent days, objections to its consideration were registered by other Senators from another state who had concerns about the bill. In response, Senator Dorgan and I have worked with those Senators to address their concerns. We have engaged in those discussions in good faith, believing that if we continued to work with other states we would be able to address their concerns. Unfortunately, those discussions have not yielded the results we were hoping for that would have allowed the bill to pass the Senate. Enacting this legislation will help my state overcome the tremendous water needs that are well documented, and I will continue to work in good faith with other Senators to pass this important bill. I am willing to address the concerns of other states, but it must be a two- way street. I look forward to our discussions under the auspices of the Energy Committee in February to resolve those issues. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to address an oversight in the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) brought to my attention by a constituent of mine in Grand Forks, North Dakota. On October 14, 1997, Betty Rambel disappeared. Two days later, the burnt-out shell of her car was found. Inside the trunk was an unrecognizable body. On October 24, 1997, using dental records, the body was identified as Betty. That day, her husband, Steve, was arrested for her murder. Steve Rambel's trial took place in November of 1998, roughly a year ago. After a week-long trial the jury found him guilty of murder in the second degree, assault with a deadly weapon, and arson. Steve was sentenced to life in prison on March 5, 1999. Even once is too often, yet this sort of situation occurs more frequently than that: people are killed by people they trust. We read the headlines, are bombarded with the lurid details, and our thoughts move to other matters when the killer is convicted and sentenced. However, for the other victims of these crimes--the family and friends of the victim--the nightmare drags on. In the midst of the shock, the anger, the inconsolable sorrow of their loss, these victims have to pick up the pieces of their lives and go through the business of getting back on their feet. I rise today to speak about the ``business'' of moving on. With her sister gone and her brother-in-law in jail, Phyllis Marden assumed responsibility for the care of her minor niece and nephew. In the midst of settling her deceased sister's estate, Phyllis was notified that she was named as the second beneficiary to Betty's pension benefits. When coming to agreement with her sister's employer on the award of benefits, Ms. Marden was upset to find that, although it is prohibited by state law, under ERISA her sister's killer can lay future claim to her pension benefits. Justifiably disturbed by this oversight in federal law, Phyllis contacted my office. ERISA preempts state laws that govern the award of pension benefits, even clear-cut rulings like those made against Steven Ramble. To correct this situation and others like it, we have drafted a bill which would waive the ERISA preemption in cases where a state's ``slayer statute'' applies to the application of benefits. This bill simply provides that individuals will not have access to ERISA benefits as a result of crimes they commit causing the death of pension plan participants. While many insurance plans already have language to this effect, ERISA does not. The aim of the bill is to codify the direction of the court in recent decisions of this issue and the Internal Revenue Service decision made on this matter in February 24, 1999, private letter ruling. While no one thinks that killers should benefit from their victims' pension plans, some suggest that waiving the ERISA preemption in these cases might start us down a ``slippery slope,'' where we begin waiving the ERISA preemption to support and enforce social policy. They would prefer to deal with these matters on a case-by-case basis. I understand this line of reasoning; however, I strenuously disagree. I side with the Phyllis Mardens of America. Individuals subjected to these tragic, uncommon circumstances have been through enough both emotionally and financially; they should not be responsible for added legal costs on a clear-cut issue. At a time like this, they should not be expected to realize that they need a lawyer familiar with the intricacies of ERISA. I have alluded to the fact that not all lawyers are familiar with the available legal remedies to these problems; ERISA is notoriously complex. A bright line should be drawn that--without affecting the ERISA preemption on the whole--allows survivors of this specific sort of crime relief from further emotional and financial hardship at the hands of the perpetrator. I feel that this bill makes that sort of clear distinction. A day does not pass that Betty is not on Phyllis's mind. Phyllis understands that this bill will not affect her situation--she is already paying her legal bills. However, she knows that someone else will have to go through the legal process she has been through. This bill will remove an obstacle from their path and get them on their way home.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I also appreciate the Senator's continued willingness to work with us. We will continue to work in good faith to develop a bill that can be passed by the Congress. I want to be absolutely clear that it is not our intent or that of anyone in North Dakota to harm any of our neighbors. This legislation significantly reduces the amount of irrigated acreage from that authorized by current law and completely eliminates any irrigated acreage from this project in the Hudson River drainage. We have significantly increased the levels of review by both the State Department to ensure compliance with the Boundary Water Treaty and by EPA to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act on any trans-basin diversion that might occur. There is no guarantee that such a diversion will actually occur. I also want to make it clear that we are willing to discuss the timing, amount, and source of any diversions to ensure that the legitimate needs of our neighboring Basin States are met. The Chairman's offer is helpful and I hope that with a full and frank discussion we will be able to fully resolve all concerns.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to address an oversight in the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) brought to my attention by a constituent of mine in Grand Forks, North Dakota. On October 14, 1997, Betty Rambel disappeared. Two days later, the burnt-out shell of her car was found. Inside the trunk was an unrecognizable body. On October 24, 1997, using dental records, the body was identified as Betty. That day, her husband, Steve, was arrested for her murder. Steve Rambel's trial took place in November of 1998, roughly a year ago. After a week-long trial the jury found him guilty of murder in the second degree, assault with a deadly weapon, and arson. Steve was sentenced to life in prison on March 5, 1999. Even once is too often, yet this sort of situation occurs more frequently than that: people are killed by people they trust. We read the headlines, are bombarded with the lurid details, and our thoughts move to other matters when the killer is convicted and sentenced. However, for the other victims of these crimes--the family and friends of the victim--the nightmare drags on. In the midst of the shock, the anger, the inconsolable sorrow of their loss, these victims have to pick up the pieces of their lives and go through the business of getting back on their feet. I rise today to speak about the ``business'' of moving on. With her sister gone and her brother-in-law in jail, Phyllis Marden assumed responsibility for the care of her minor niece and nephew. In the midst of settling her deceased sister's estate, Phyllis was notified that she was named as the second beneficiary to Betty's pension benefits. When coming to agreement with her sister's employer on the award of benefits, Ms. Marden was upset to find that, although it is prohibited by state law, under ERISA her sister's killer can lay future claim to her pension benefits. Justifiably disturbed by this oversight in federal law, Phyllis contacted my office. ERISA preempts state laws that govern the award of pension benefits, even clear-cut rulings like those made against Steven Ramble. To correct this situation and others like it, we have drafted a bill which would waive the ERISA preemption in cases where a state's ``slayer statute'' applies to the application of benefits. This bill simply provides that individuals will not have access to ERISA benefits as a result of crimes they commit causing the death of pension plan participants. While many insurance plans already have language to this effect, ERISA does not. The aim of the bill is to codify the direction of the court in recent decisions of this issue and the Internal Revenue Service decision made on this matter in February 24, 1999, private letter ruling. While no one thinks that killers should benefit from their victims' pension plans, some suggest that waiving the ERISA preemption in these cases might start us down a ``slippery slope,'' where we begin waiving the ERISA preemption to support and enforce social policy. They would prefer to deal with these matters on a case-by-case basis. I understand this line of reasoning; however, I strenuously disagree. I side with the Phyllis Mardens of America. Individuals subjected to these tragic, uncommon circumstances have been through enough both emotionally and financially; they should not be responsible for added legal costs on a clear-cut issue. At a time like this, they should not be expected to realize that they need a lawyer familiar with the intricacies of ERISA. I have alluded to the fact that not all lawyers are familiar with the available legal remedies to these problems; ERISA is notoriously complex. A bright line should be drawn that--without affecting the ERISA preemption on the whole--allows survivors of this specific sort of crime relief from further emotional and financial hardship at the hands of the perpetrator. I feel that this bill makes that sort of clear distinction. A day does not pass that Betty is not on Phyllis's mind. Phyllis understands that this bill will not affect her situation--she is already paying her legal bills. However, she knows that someone else will have to go through the legal process she has been through. This bill will remove an obstacle from their path and get them on their way home.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I would like to have that 5 minutes at this time, Mr. President.

Mr. CONRAD. Then I certainly do not object.

Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object, I repeat my request to have 5 minutes.

Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object. Mr. President, I would like 5 minutes before we go to the vote to have a chance to also respond to statements made by the Senators from Missouri over the last couple days with respect to the water project in North Dakota. If I could get that consent, I certainly would not object.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I thought this was part of the agreement. It is unclear to the Senator from North Dakota what the agreement was. My understanding was I would be recognized after this agreement was reached for the purpose of responding to the statements that have already been made on the floor. I was assured that was part of that agreement.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like the opportunity to respond to statements that have been made about the Dakota Water Resources Act over the last several days by the Senator from Missouri. Yesterday we were told that North Dakota is seeking somehow to steal water from our neighbors to the south. That is factually incorrect. It is untrue. We are not making any claim on anybody's water but our own. Under the current law, North Dakota has a right to water flowing through the Missouri River. That is in the law today. In the law today there is authorized a very large water project for North Dakota called the Garrison Diversion Project. The reason it is authorized is because North Dakota accepted the permanent flood of 550,000 acres of the richest farmland in North Dakota--permanently inundated to provide flood protection to downstream States, including Missouri. We have saved billions of dollars of flood damage in those States because North Dakota has accepted this permanent flood of over half a million acres. That is the fact. The new legislation before us is designed to substantially alter what is currently authorized in the law to reduce its costs by $1 billion to reduce dramatically the number of irrigated acres, and instead to have water supply projects for cities and towns that desperately need it. The assertion has been made that this would somehow deplete the water going to Missouri. The fact is, the flow of the Missouri River in Missouri is 50,000 CFS. We are talking about 100 CFS to meet the legitimate water needs of the State of North Dakota, water needs that are already recognized in the law. Today, in order to respond to the legitimate concerns of the Senators from Missouri, we offered to go even further and to put into law an assurance that they would not lose water at their key navigation time, during this key period when they are concerned with losing even half an inch. That is what this translates into: A reduction of one half an inch, the water level of the Missouri River in the State of Missouri. We are prepared to assure them they don't even lose that half an inch. This is in response to the documented need for water that is so desperately required in my State. We have people who are turning on their tap right now in North Dakota and what comes out looks filthy. It looks filthy because it is filthy. North Dakota was made a promise that, if you accept the permanent flood to provide flood protection for downstream States, we will compensate you by allowing you to improve the water supply for your citizens. That is what this bill is about. It is not designed in any way to hurt the State of Missouri. We are prepared to make changes in the legislation to make that clear. Let me conclude by saying we received a letter today that totally confuses this project with the Devil's Lake outlet which is required to solve another problem in another part of the State. These two projects are not the same. We hope officials in Missouri will get it straightened out in their own minds that these are two totally distinct projects. An outlet from Devil's Lake has nothing whatever to do with the Dakota Water Resources Act Project. I thank my colleagues for their patience, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, for point of clarification, this is a matter that has now been negotiated so that we could reach agreement on the negotiating objectives for our trade representatives at the WTO Round. I thank all the Members who have participated in this, certainly my cosponsor, Senator Grassley of Iowa, and a special thanks to the chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the committee for their assistance in working this out. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.