Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to state that I object to proceeding to the consideration of executive nominee James Comey to be Deputy Attorney General at the Justice Department.

I have placed a hold on this person because I have been unable to resolve outstanding issues with the Justice Department. I have been working with the Justice Department to get a satisfactory promise to ensure there are no reprisals against certain Justice Department employees in connection with testimony before the Senate Finance Committee. Although I support Mr. Comey's nomination, I intend to reserve my right to object to the Senate proceeding with this nominee of this legislation at this time.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

I yield to the Senator whatever time he needs.

I yield the Senator whatever time he wants.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Democrats' filibuster of President Bush's judicial nominees. The Senate Democrats still think it is Halloween and are trying to spook us into believing that President Bush has nominated a bunch of extremist individuals that cannot be good judges. The Democrats are claiming that these nominees are ``outside of the mainstream''. The truth is that these individuals will not implement a liberal agenda on the bench. The truth is that these individuals will follow the law, rather than bend to the will of the political left. But these inside the Beltway, left wing groups have gotten the Democrats to do their bidding. They have hijacked the judicial confirmation process in an unprecedented filibuster of judicial nominees, and they are denying these good men and women an up or down vote. Federal judicial seats will remain unfilled, and litigants seeking justice from those courts can expect further delays.

The reality is that the Constitution of the United States gives the President the power to appoint individuals to seats on the Federal judiciary. The Constitution gives the Senate the responsibility to advise the President in this process. And the Constitution requires the Senate, by a simple majority

Mr. President, I rise today to add my comments to those of Senator Hatch and Senator Biden on the re-authorization of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Drug use in America may not be on the front page of the New York Times or Washington Post, but remains a deep concern for many people in small towns and local neighborhoods where the effects of drug abuse are painfully felt. Drugs pose an immediate threat to their lives, and the lives of their children.

The re-authorization of ONDCP is about the leadership role we expect the Federal government to play in confronting the issue. I want to take a moment to highlight a few revisions we have proposed in an effort to strengthen the leadership role that ONDCP should play.

The legislation we are introducing today will improve the capacities of the Office to coordinate our Federal efforts against drug use. We have strengthened the role of the Deputy Director of State and Local Affairs, because we recognize that the coordination of activities, information sharing, and resource allocations between Federal, State, and local law enforcement is increasingly critical.

As everyone is this body knows, there isn't enough money to go around to fully fund all of the worthy causes that are out there, and part of our job is making these tough choices. By increasing the coordination between resources that are already deployed, we can increase the effectiveness of these efforts without having to reinvent how business gets done. ONDCP is an ideal place to play broker over these efforts and move this forward.

We have also included provisions clarifying the authorities and responsibilities of the offices of Demand Reduction and Supply Reduction. Much of ONDCP's responsibilities involves coordinating the activities and focus of other Departments. There is no one simple solution to our drug problem, and ONDCP has a responsibility to ensure that Federal prevention, law enforcement, treatment, and interdiction initiatives cover the full spectrum of opportunities available. Accordingly, our bill clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the various Deputies at ONDCP to strengthen their ability to coordinate the counterdrug activities both within ONDCP and those of other Departments.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy also has responsibility for the execution and effectiveness of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program, or HIDTA program. The HIDTA program has proven to be an effective

mechanism for getting multiple law enforcement agencies from multiple levels of government to work together. For a relatively modest amount, participating law enforcement agencies have benefited tremendously from the increased information sharing and coordination that HIDTAs generate.

However, there was legitimate concern over the lack of performance measures for the HIDTA program. In addition, there seemed to be some confusion over what the overall purpose of a HIDTA designation was. finally, funding for the HIDTA program has been stifled because of a fear that ONDCP may cut the amount for one particular HIDTA in favor of another. Our legislation addresses these concerns in ways we believe will improve the effectiveness, accountability, and transparency of the program.

First, this legislation establishes that the purpose of the HIDTA program is fourfold: facilitating cooperation among Federal, State, and local law enforcement; enhancing intelligence sharing; providing reliable intelligence to law enforcement agencies for the design of effective enforcement strategies and operations; and supporting coordinated strategies designed to reduce the supply of illegal drugs within a designated area. By focusing the purpose of a HIDTA on improving the capabilities and capacities of those within the HIDTA, we will strengthen the effectiveness of these designated areas to go after drugs.

Second, the legislation creates an evaluation mechanism which requires ONDCP to first establish specific purposes and measures for each HIDTA, and then evaluate the performance of each HIDTA based on the purposes and measures that were established. Because threats each HIDTA faces are unique, the performance of each HIDTA will be evaluated against the goals which are established for that particular HIDTA, rather than an undefined National standard. Not only should this give Congress a better understanding of the performance of this program, but it should give ONDCP a mechanism to better evaluate and support the particular needs of individual HIDTAs.

Third, this legislation requires ONDCP to itemize how much it believes each HIDTA should be funded when the budget request is submitted, rather than waiting until after the appropriations process is complete. Combined with the previous two changes, these changes will combine to give ONDCP the flexibility it needs and the HIDTA program the credibility it needs to expand its leadership and funding for the coordination of law enforcement counterdrug operations.

The final section of this legislation that I would like to mention is the National Media Campaign. I will be honest: I am still not convinced that this program makes the best possible use of drug prevention dollars. But I am in the minority here. Almost everyone I've talked to believes our prevention efforts will be better with the campaign than without it--even if the evidence that the campaign makes a difference is questionable, at best. If the campaign is going to continue, and this legislation does extend the Campaign, I think it's important that it get back to the parameters that were established when it was initially pitched to and authorized by congress.

I think what we have here is a good start in this direction, and I appreciate my colleagues' willingness to take my concerns into consideration. The legislation we have drafted refocuses the campaign toward its initial, buy-one-get-one-free hypothesis. We've proposed enhancing the capacity of the campaign to measure its effectiveness, in an effort to move beyond the 6-month time lag that has hampered past measurements of performance. We have also included a clearer outline of what should, and should not, be paid for by the campaign. And we have created a clear role for the Partnership for a Drug Free America, who has been working on this effort for much longer than Congress has funded it.

All in all, I think we have a good bill. Not a perfect bill, but a good bill. I look forward to continue working with the Committee, our colleagues in the House, and the Administration with the hope that we can re-authorize ONDCP expeditiously.

Mr. President, I rise today to add my comments to those of Senator Hatch and Senator Biden on the re-authorization of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Drug use in America may not be on the front page of the New York Times or Washington Post, but remains a deep concern for many people in small towns and local neighborhoods where the effects of drug abuse are painfully felt. Drugs pose an immediate threat to their lives, and the lives of their children.

The re-authorization of ONDCP is about the leadership role we expect the Federal government to play in confronting the issue. I want to take a moment to highlight a few revisions we have proposed in an effort to strengthen the leadership role that ONDCP should play.

The legislation we are introducing today will improve the capacities of the Office to coordinate our Federal efforts against drug use. We have strengthened the role of the Deputy Director of State and Local Affairs, because we recognize that the coordination of activities, information sharing, and resource allocations between Federal, State, and local law enforcement is increasingly critical.

As everyone is this body knows, there isn't enough money to go around to fully fund all of the worthy causes that are out there, and part of our job is making these tough choices. By increasing the coordination between resources that are already deployed, we can increase the effectiveness of these efforts without having to reinvent how business gets done. ONDCP is an ideal place to play broker over these efforts and move this forward.

We have also included provisions clarifying the authorities and responsibilities of the offices of Demand Reduction and Supply Reduction. Much of ONDCP's responsibilities involves coordinating the activities and focus of other Departments. There is no one simple solution to our drug problem, and ONDCP has a responsibility to ensure that Federal prevention, law enforcement, treatment, and interdiction initiatives cover the full spectrum of opportunities available. Accordingly, our bill clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the various Deputies at ONDCP to strengthen their ability to coordinate the counterdrug activities both within ONDCP and those of other Departments.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy also has responsibility for the execution and effectiveness of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program, or HIDTA program. The HIDTA program has proven to be an effective

mechanism for getting multiple law enforcement agencies from multiple levels of government to work together. For a relatively modest amount, participating law enforcement agencies have benefited tremendously from the increased information sharing and coordination that HIDTAs generate.

However, there was legitimate concern over the lack of performance measures for the HIDTA program. In addition, there seemed to be some confusion over what the overall purpose of a HIDTA designation was. finally, funding for the HIDTA program has been stifled because of a fear that ONDCP may cut the amount for one particular HIDTA in favor of another. Our legislation addresses these concerns in ways we believe will improve the effectiveness, accountability, and transparency of the program.

First, this legislation establishes that the purpose of the HIDTA program is fourfold: facilitating cooperation among Federal, State, and local law enforcement; enhancing intelligence sharing; providing reliable intelligence to law enforcement agencies for the design of effective enforcement strategies and operations; and supporting coordinated strategies designed to reduce the supply of illegal drugs within a designated area. By focusing the purpose of a HIDTA on improving the capabilities and capacities of those within the HIDTA, we will strengthen the effectiveness of these designated areas to go after drugs.

Second, the legislation creates an evaluation mechanism which requires ONDCP to first establish specific purposes and measures for each HIDTA, and then evaluate the performance of each HIDTA based on the purposes and measures that were established. Because threats each HIDTA faces are unique, the performance of each HIDTA will be evaluated against the goals which are established for that particular HIDTA, rather than an undefined National standard. Not only should this give Congress a better understanding of the performance of this program, but it should give ONDCP a mechanism to better evaluate and support the particular needs of individual HIDTAs.

Third, this legislation requires ONDCP to itemize how much it believes each HIDTA should be funded when the budget request is submitted, rather than waiting until after the appropriations process is complete. Combined with the previous two changes, these changes will combine to give ONDCP the flexibility it needs and the HIDTA program the credibility it needs to expand its leadership and funding for the coordination of law enforcement counterdrug operations.

The final section of this legislation that I would like to mention is the National Media Campaign. I will be honest: I am still not convinced that this program makes the best possible use of drug prevention dollars. But I am in the minority here. Almost everyone I've talked to believes our prevention efforts will be better with the campaign than without it--even if the evidence that the campaign makes a difference is questionable, at best. If the campaign is going to continue, and this legislation does extend the Campaign, I think it's important that it get back to the parameters that were established when it was initially pitched to and authorized by congress.

I think what we have here is a good start in this direction, and I appreciate my colleagues' willingness to take my concerns into consideration. The legislation we have drafted refocuses the campaign toward its initial, buy-one-get-one-free hypothesis. We've proposed enhancing the capacity of the campaign to measure its effectiveness, in an effort to move beyond the 6-month time lag that has hampered past measurements of performance. We have also included a clearer outline of what should, and should not, be paid for by the campaign. And we have created a clear role for the Partnership for a Drug Free America, who has been working on this effort for much longer than Congress has funded it.

All in all, I think we have a good bill. Not a perfect bill, but a good bill. I look forward to continue working with the Committee, our colleagues in the House, and the Administration with the hope that we can re-authorize ONDCP expeditiously.

I too want to thank Senator Landrieu, and I would like to recognize Senator Bunning's efforts on this legislation.

Today we are passing the Adoption Incentives Reauthorization Act of 2003. It is particularly appropriate that we are doing so during National Adoption Month. Since the original Adoption Incentives Act was passed in 1997, the number of adoptions has doubled in 33 states. I am proud of this achievement and pleased that we are today continuing the authorization of this effective program.

I am pleased that this bill focuses on older children, thanks to the leadership of President Bush, and I hope when we revisit this legislation during the next reauthorization we will have seen the same remarkable results that we have seen over the past 5 years.

I am aware that that method has been put on the table. However by adjusting the base year to 2002 and adding a new category of older children, we made it much easier for states to qualify for an adoption incentive bonus. Throughout the course of this reauthorization we talked to child welfare advocates and listened to their concerns about the way the incentives are awarded. The method we arrived at was reached through consensus and we have received very strong bi-partisan, bi-cameral support for the bill before us today. In fact, the House has already passed this legislation without opposition. By passing the same language here in the Senate, we are ensuring that President Bush will sign this important legislation into law sooner rather than later.

I am also looking forward to a through study of this issue that can inform the next reauthorization.

I have seen those reports and I disagree with their premise. The primary goal of the Adoption and Safe Families Act is to make the safety and well-being of children paramount in child welfare decisions. In addition, in order to receive funds under the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program, states must develop a plan to assure safety and permanency for children who enter the state's foster care system.

Adoption assistance is minimal especially when you think about the cost of raising a child. Families who adopt are highly unlikely to adopt children for the financial benefit. Nationally payments made on behalf of an eight-year-old average only $14 per day. This is a fraction of what the Department of Agriculture suggests is needed to raise a child.

I agree that we have to focus on the full range of adoption services. We have not improved the lives of abused and neglected children if they are adopted only to be returned to foster care because the families that adopted them didn't have the support they needed to care for them. This is not good for these kids.

I agree that funds appropriated for the Adoption Incentives Program should be spent on child welfare. While we may disagree about how exactly those funds should be spent, we are in agreement that they should be used to improve the lives of abused and neglected children. I know that there is interest among members of the Finance Committee to see that these unspent funds are used to improve the lives of children and I hope we can all work together to address this in the future.

Mr. President, I rise to honor this day and the men and women for whom it was established. On the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918, the armistice was signed ending the first modern global conflict.

World War I was an exceptionally bloody conflict that required tremendous sacrifices. It was therefore appropriate for President Wilson to establish Armistice Day as a time to recognize those who served in that war.

Unfortunately, the hope for a new, more peaceful world after the Great War was shattered as we found ourselves embroiled in a life or death struggle against tyranny. Americans again rose to the challenge. Over 405,000 American soldiers lost their lives and over 671,000 were wounded. That's over three times the casualties of World War I. Still, the bravery and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform showed the world the extent to which the United States of America was prepared to go to preserve liberty.

Then, after our soldiers and sailors were called upon again to fight aggression in Korea, it became evident that it was necessary to set aside a day to recognize all American veterans. To encourage Americans to pay respects to all those who have served in America's Armed Forces, President Eisenhower signed into law a proclamation in 1954 changing the name of the November 11 holiday to Veterans Day.

Today, we thank all those who have risked life and limb in service to their country, including those who served in Vietnam and the Persian Gulf war, as well as Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and other smaller conflicts. It is particularly appropriate today to pay tribute to the new generation of veterans who are serving their country so bravely in the global war on terrorism.

Americans have never hesitated to answer the call of duty and this generation is no exception. America continues to owe an immeasurable debt of gratitude to the brave men and women who respond to the call of duty. Following in the footsteps of those who served in the 20th century, our men and women in uniform are living up to a heritage of service, loyalty, honor, sacrifice, and patriotism passed down for generations.

Members of the active duty military, National Guard, and Reserves selflessly put their country first. They serve to protect the American people, defend national security, preserve freedom and safeguard our way of life.

This Veterans Day, let's remember the patriots who are putting their lives on hold while they put their lives on the line. Their sacrifices guarantee America's promise for generations to come. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice while serving in the Armed Forces. Their irreplaceable loss of life reminds us that freedom isn't free.

It is important for younger generations to appreciate the service and sacrifice made by those serving their country. Awareness and appreciation for veterans has decreased in recent times as fewer individuals and families in America have a personal connection with the Armed Forces.

Now that family members, friends, neighbors, and other fellow citizens are again putting themselves in harm's way in service to their country, I hope all Americans will take the opportunity this Veterans Day to remember and honor all veterans, to whom we owe our freedom.

Today I salute the patriotism, courage, and sacrifice of all American veterans who have answered their country's call in times of need.

Mr. President, it is with great pride that I honor and congratulate the Drug Enforcement Agency on its 30th Anniversary. This is an important milestone for the DEA and for our country. Over the last thirty years the men and women of the DEA have worked in communities around the Nation to improve the quality of life for all Americans.

The Drug Enforcement Agency was established on October 4, 1973, soon after John R. Bartles, Jr., was confirmed by the Senate as the DEA's first Administrator. Since then, the men and women of the DEA have continued to serve our Nation with courage and dedication in the face of great odds.

In recognition of this thirty year milestone, it is fitting that we pay tribute to the work and sacrifices of the men and women of the DEA and also acknowledge the organizations many accomplishments.

Currently the DEA operates 173 domestic offices and 78 overseas offices with over 8,800 employees. The DEA continues to lead task forces throughout our Nation's communities in a cooperative effort to control both the consumption and flow of illegal drugs.

Between 1986 and 2002, DEA agents seized over 10,000 kilograms of heroin, 900,000 kilograms of cocaine, 4,600,000 kilograms of marijuana, 113,000,000 dosage units of hallucinogens, and 1,500,000,000 dosage unites of methamphetamine, and made over 443,000 arrests of drug traffickers.

Let me also express my deepest thanks to the DEA for their work and commitment to protecting the communities of Iowa. Although Interstates 80 and 35 cross Iowa providing a ready smuggling route for many drug trafficking organizations, their work has had a tremendous effect on our efforts to squeeze the flow of illegal narcotics through the state. During 2002 the DEA participated in 28 highway interdictions in Iowa, leading to the seizure of approximately 56 kilograms of cocaine, 40.5 pounds of methamphetamine, 2,075 pounds of marijuana, and nearly $1.9 million in cash. Additionally they assisted in the seizure of 871 clandestine laboratories.

Throughout its history, the DEA has proven steadfast in their commitment to bringing drug traffickers to justice. Their service to our country has indeed made a tremendous difference in our nation's communities. However, these accomplishments did not come without a price. Many men and women of the DEA have given their lives and many others wounded and injured in the defense of our Nation.

I am pleased to submit a resolution honoring the men and women of the DEA on their 30th anniversary for their efforts to defend the American people from illegal drugs. I encourage my colleagues to join with me in congratulating and honoring the men and women of the DEA for their many accomplishments and sacrifices throughout their first thirty years. I have every confidence that these men and women will continue in that same tradition of excellence. To those in the DEA both past and present, I offer my sincerest gratitude for your courage, dedication, and service.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on an amendment that I think is coming up this afternoon. The reason I would like to have permission of the Senate to speak about it now is that I will not be able to be in the Chamber because of the Medicare conference.

Amendment No. 2078

Mr. President, I am speaking on the issue of the sense- of-the-Senate resolution by Senators Daschle, Enzi, Johnson, and Thomas on the legislation that is now on the books called country-of-origin labeling.

I believe the American consumer has a right to know the country of origin of the meat they are purchasing, just as consumers know the origin of their clothes, their cars, and their cameras. Even the U.S. Department of Agriculture cites in its rule that recently came out that the survey findings show that country-of-origin labeling is of interest to the majority of consumers.

I said even the U.S. Department of Agriculture has said this because I happen to believe, in observing the U.S. Department of Agriculture over the last 12 months, that it has worked against the country-of- origin labeling legislation ever since it passed into law as part of the 2002 farm bill.

The initial cost estimates of the U.S. Department of Agriculture were outlandish, and thankfully the General Accounting Office called the U.S. Department of Agriculture on the basis of its claims. The U.S. Department of Agriculture then revised its cost estimates by lowering the potential cost of the program. This newly revised figure allowed for an overall cost range of between $582 million and $3.9 billion in the first years.

Upon closer examination, even the revised cost estimates of the Department of Agriculture appear to consistently overestimate the costs involved in implementing the country-of-origin labeling law due to the estimate's reliance upon industry-provided sources of material--not independent but from industry.

Clearly, the industry which is vehemently opposed to this legislation, it

seems to me, would provide information which is self-serving. For that reason, I have a hard time accepting even the newest range of cost estimates even though it is far less than what came out last spring.

I am not here to say that everything the U.S. Department of Agriculture has done on this legislation is bad. The recently published proposed rules allow for the potential use of self-certification through affidavits to transfer original origin information from one level of the supply chain to the next. That leniency on self- certification is a good decision by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Also, the Department estimates producers will have the least recordkeeping burden, with estimates that range between $180 to $443 per facility.

The reason I am giving U.S. Department of Agriculture credit for in part doing the right thing is that I want this process to continue. Clearly, I don't agree with every aspect of the recently published mandatory country-of-origin labeling law proposed rule, but at least the Department of Agriculture has given us something on which to chew. It is a decent start. We now have a 60-day comment period to improve the proposed rule.

I intend to not only do that myself but I intend to also let the Department know my views on it, and I am inviting Iowans--or let us say citizens from any State--to send in their information to the Department of Agriculture. They ought to even let their Congressmen and Senators know what they have told the Department about their view of this rule. This gives all of us a chance to get it even closer to the intent of the authors of the original legislation and to ensure that these rules and regulations aren't overly burdensome to the family farmer.

I believe we need to let the process go forward. The only way to do it is to protect funding for the mandatory country-of-origin labeling. That funding is in dispute because of action taken by the House of Representatives.

I hope through this sense-of-the-Senate resolution, we send a clear signal to the conferees that we should fund this program; in other words, funds going forward and the enforcement of the law that this Congress adopted in 2002 on the labeling of meat products.

It will be an awfully serious situation if we don't fund these rules and move forward with the enforcement of this law. People who don't want to fund it do not like the law, but it puts our entire food chain into jeopardy, on the one hand having to meet a law that went into effect in September 2002, and then in the next 12 months not having money to provide for the regulations to be carried out and make sure everybody knows exactly how this law is going to be enforced.

People who are opposed to this legislation ought to, if they do not like the law--obviously, I do like the law, and that is why I am for their sense-of-the-Senate resolution--introduce legislation and have it debated to see if they can repeal the old law. But they should not put the farmers, the processors, the wholesalers, the retailers, and eventually our consumers in jeopardy because of not having the money to move forward.

Not funding this is--as the other body has not funded it--subterfuge for the legislation not moving forward. Yet everybody is going to be involved with having a law on the books that is going into effect next year. The law is still the law. It is our job, if we put a law on the books, to make sure that it is enforced. If we don't want to enforce that law, we ought to repeal the law.

This issue of self-certification is very important. Originally, the idea from some people in the Department or the industry was that there ought to be third-party verification of the origin of the meat that the consumer is going to eat. Did it come from another country or did it come from America? Was it raised and processed here?

If you have third-party verification, you can understand why it costs the economy billions and billions of dollars. But that isn't how the Federal Government deals with the family farmers of America.

For all of the decades of farm programs we have had, the Federal Government has always dealt with the individual family farmer as an honest person. They would ask for certification from the farmer's point of view as to the law as he farmed, as he raised his crops, as he qualified for whatever help that might be involved from the Federal Treasury, and that the farmer was abiding by that law. There were always periodic and random audits that a farmer, including this farmer, would have to comply with, just as there might be a random audit of your income tax by the IRS. But the Federal Government has always assumed the farmer was honest when he certified something.

If that principle has been good for farm programs for the last 60 or 70 years, why isn't it good enough for a farmer claiming that livestock was raised in America and processed in America or whether it came across the line from some other country?

The last point I make is for the consumers of America and for the retailers of America.

For all of the years I have been in Congress, I have never heard from Montgomery Ward, Sears & Roebuck, Kohl Department Stores, or from Wal- Mart--I have never heard from anybody in America who processes or sells retail products--saying that products which come into this country from some other country shouldn't be labeled. I have never heard those business people complain about that. But all of a sudden, there is something to protect food for the consumer--just as we do with the consumer and any other retail product, not just to protect the consumer but to inform the consumer. Where does this product come from? T-shirts from Taiwan, South Korea, and China--you know it; it is on the label.

I have never heard any retailer or any wholesaler complain about that. But now that we are going to give the consumer the same knowledge about where their food comes from--from America or from some other country--somehow this is a big problem. You hear it from the packers, you hear it from the processors, and you hear it from the wholesaler and the retailer. For some ungodly reason, I am even hearing it from the national pork producers. I do not hear it from the Iowa pork producers. Are the national pork producers in bed with the big packers, the big processors, and the big retailers of America? Should the consumers of America not know whether that hog came from Canada or from a family farm in America?

The consumers are entitled to the same knowledge about the origin of the products they eat as what they wear on their body or what they use for a tool in their workplace. I think we need to move ahead with this country-of-origin labeling. That is why I hope my colleagues will support this sense-of-the-Senate resolution for a law that is on the books--a law that is going to go into effect in September of next year.

Why don't the people in the Congress of the United States who do not like that law and the interest groups outside that do not like that law have guts enough to come forward and repeal the law and have a clear- cut victory or a clear-cut defeat? Let us move on. Let us not have the subterfuge of not funding it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, prior to the 1996 farm bill, the annual cost-share assistance payment limitation for the Agricultural Conservation Program, ACP, was $3,500. With the advent of the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, EQIP, in 1996, the annual cost-share assistance payment limit was increased to $10,000 per year.

EQIP also instituted another change, rather than single year agreements, conservation agreements under EQIP were set at a minimum of 5 years to improve conservation benefits and increase farm payments. Hence, the 1996 law set a 5-year payment limitation of $50,000 for those rare instances in which a participant received the maximum $10,000 annual payment each of 5 years.

Between 1996 and 2002, the national average EQIP cost share amount per farm per 5-year contract was less than $10,000, or less than 20 percent of the $50,000 payment limitation.

Between 1996 and 2002, for animal waste storage structures, one of the most expensive practices eligible for EQIP assistance, the national average per farm per 5-year contract amount has been $13,573, also considerably below the $50,000 payment limitation at that time.

The 2002 farm bill increased the payment limitation nine-fold to $450,000 over the 6-year life of the farm bill.

The $450,000 limit was arrived at in the House-Senate conference committee. The Senate version of the farm bill had a 5-year $150,000 limitation. The House bill had a $200,000 limitation.

Amazingly, on the very last day of the farm bill conference the payment limit was increased to $450,000, three times greater than what the Senate had approved. This new number showed up out of nowhere, with virtually no discussion or debate in public.

The Senate bill contained an important provision related to the payment limit. All payments were made directly attributable to real persons by Social Security number. This direct attribution provision was intended to prevent participants from forming dummy corporations and partnerships for the purpose of getting around the payment limit and collecting multiple payments.

This provision was retained in the conference committee, so that at least the $450,000 limit was to apply to an individual or an entity regardless of the number of farming sites in an operation or the number or type of business arrangements the EQIP operator was engaged in.

In promulgating rules and guidance for the implementation of EQIP, however, USDA has decided to allow the $450,000 to be multiplied by the number of partners in a single farming operation. This essentially makes the limitation meaningless, since it allows business structures to be arranged to collect multiple payments.

While no single person could collect more than $450,000, relatives, employees, farmhands and others could be made partners that each could collect up to the maximum amount.

Farmer demand for EQIP remained very high throughout the 1996 farm bill period and its $50,000 multi-year limitation. Demand outstripped funding.

Congress responded in 2002 by increasing total funding for EQIP five fold, and I was heavily involved with that effort.

However, by simultaneously increasing the payment limit nine fold, the new $1 billion per year funding level may not result in more farmers being served, which was Congress' intention.

The ranking systems in many States being put in place to determine who wins EQIP contracts and who goes on the waiting list appears to be favoring the large farm/large contract applicants.

My amendment would scale the payment limit back to $300,000. This is still double the amount passed by the Senate in 2002, and more than adequate for 97.8 percent of EQIP participants.

My amendment does not scale back funding for EQIP. Rather, it provides that dollars appropriated by this bill cannot be used to pay USDA salaries and expenses to operate the EQIP program with payments greater than $300,000 per agricultural operation.

Adoption of this amendment will allow more farmers to participate in the program in the coming year. Adoption of the amendment will result in a fairer distribution of dollars within the program. Adoption of this amendment will prevent EQIP resources from being gobbled up by a few large contracts to mega farms.

This is a fair compromise, a good compromise. It provides access to the program by all types of farms and all sizes of farms, but it puts a limit on the amount of taxpayer support any one operation can receive.

If we do not pass this amendment, I think by the time of the next farm bill there will be lots of media attention focused on how this environmental quality cost share program has become a new subsidy program, paying out six and seven figure checks, for the Nation's biggest operations. And there will be questions about why an environmental program is leading to concentration and consolidation.

A $450,000 payment limit has no effect on 98.9 percent of all livestock operations. A $300,000 payment limit has no effect on 97.8 percent of all livestock operations. That means my amendment only affects 1.1 percent of livestock operations.

The 1.1 percent of mega-operations will still be eligible for $300,000. They just will not be able to take such a big piece of such a small pie. I do not think it is unreasonable to reduce full funding for the largest 1.1 percent of livestock operations so that more family farmers can participate.

So what I am saying is let's be careful. Let's be balanced. Let's increase the payment limitation, and avoid a ``sky's the limit'' approach.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of a bill that I am introducing today, the Combating Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act of 2003.

Money laundering is a significant threat to our country because it undermines our national security, promotes corruption and funds terrorism. Money laundering operations as a whole include such mechanisms as structured transactions, wire fraud, over- and under- invoicing, and other activities designed to defraud and hide profits from illegal activities. All of these transactions undermine legitimate financial institutions by promoting corruption, funding criminal and terrorist operations, and by providing a method of profiting from illegal transactions such as drug trafficking and weapons sales.

We know that money laundering is the functional equivalent of a war industry for terrorist groups. Terrorist groups do not function in a bubble but will use whatever means available to obtain funding for their cause. Our attention and rhetoric are focused on identifying and halting those mechanisms used specifically by terrorist organizations such as charitable organizations, money service businesses and alternative remittance systems which are often referred to as hawalas. Frankly, the tools used to launder and disguise funds for terrorist organizations are similar, and quite often identical to, those used by many drug traffickers and criminal organizations to clean their own dirty money.

No matter how the funds are obtained and ultimately used, they are still dirty, and if we are ever going to get ahead of the curve, we must design a better way to identify and halt this flow of illegal funds. The bill I am introducing today includes several provisions that will strengthen our current money laundering and terrorist financing laws to enhance our ability to identify and eliminate various avenues used to launder money, whether it be for drug traffickers, criminal organizations or terrorists.

This bill adds several provisions to the list of specified unlawful activities within the RICO statute that serve as predicates for the money laundering statute including: burglary and embezzlement, illegal money transmitting businesses, alien smuggling, child exploitation and obscenity. It would close a loophole on securities fraud by including the purchase of securities with the sale of securities as a money laundering offense, and adds the unlawful use of Social Security numbers to the list of money laundering offenses.

It adds a provision to the civil forfeiture statute to include the forfeiture of property outside the U.S. territorial boundaries if it was used in the planning of the terrorist act that occurred within the jurisdiction of the United States and includes a parallel transaction provision which provides that all parts of a parallel or dependent financial transaction are considered a money laundering offense if one part of that transaction involves the proceeds of an unlawful activity.

Our best response to money laundering and terrorist financing threats is a comprehensive and coordinated response which must be laid out in an effective strategy. This bill also reauthorizes the National Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Strategy Act through 2006. This yearly strategy must identify the risks and threats we face. Without a comprehensive strategy, we cannot begin to implement laws and regulations that will effectively combat money laundering sources and shut down the system as a whole. Only when we have a systematic approach to money laundering will we be able to avoid the duplication and inconsistencies that currently plague our efforts.

This legislation is important to identifying particular money laundering operations and putting them out of business. I encourage you to pass this legislation to ensure our national security against the continued threat posed by terrorist financing and financial crimes.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of a bill that I am introducing today, the Combating Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act of 2003.

Money laundering is a significant threat to our country because it undermines our national security, promotes corruption and funds terrorism. Money laundering operations as a whole include such mechanisms as structured transactions, wire fraud, over- and under- invoicing, and other activities designed to defraud and hide profits from illegal activities. All of these transactions undermine legitimate financial institutions by promoting corruption, funding criminal and terrorist operations, and by providing a method of profiting from illegal transactions such as drug trafficking and weapons sales.

We know that money laundering is the functional equivalent of a war industry for terrorist groups. Terrorist groups do not function in a bubble but will use whatever means available to obtain funding for their cause. Our attention and rhetoric are focused on identifying and halting those mechanisms used specifically by terrorist organizations such as charitable organizations, money service businesses and alternative remittance systems which are often referred to as hawalas. Frankly, the tools used to launder and disguise funds for terrorist organizations are similar, and quite often identical to, those used by many drug traffickers and criminal organizations to clean their own dirty money.

No matter how the funds are obtained and ultimately used, they are still dirty, and if we are ever going to get ahead of the curve, we must design a better way to identify and halt this flow of illegal funds. The bill I am introducing today includes several provisions that will strengthen our current money laundering and terrorist financing laws to enhance our ability to identify and eliminate various avenues used to launder money, whether it be for drug traffickers, criminal organizations or terrorists.

This bill adds several provisions to the list of specified unlawful activities within the RICO statute that serve as predicates for the money laundering statute including: burglary and embezzlement, illegal money transmitting businesses, alien smuggling, child exploitation and obscenity. It would close a loophole on securities fraud by including the purchase of securities with the sale of securities as a money laundering offense, and adds the unlawful use of Social Security numbers to the list of money laundering offenses.

It adds a provision to the civil forfeiture statute to include the forfeiture of property outside the U.S. territorial boundaries if it was used in the planning of the terrorist act that occurred within the jurisdiction of the United States and includes a parallel transaction provision which provides that all parts of a parallel or dependent financial transaction are considered a money laundering offense if one part of that transaction involves the proceeds of an unlawful activity.

Our best response to money laundering and terrorist financing threats is a comprehensive and coordinated response which must be laid out in an effective strategy. This bill also reauthorizes the National Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Strategy Act through 2006. This yearly strategy must identify the risks and threats we face. Without a comprehensive strategy, we cannot begin to implement laws and regulations that will effectively combat money laundering sources and shut down the system as a whole. Only when we have a systematic approach to money laundering will we be able to avoid the duplication and inconsistencies that currently plague our efforts.

This legislation is important to identifying particular money laundering operations and putting them out of business. I encourage you to pass this legislation to ensure our national security against the continued threat posed by terrorist financing and financial crimes.

I thank the chairman for his interest in this issue. Additionally, I want to thank him for his concern regarding credit card abuse. Working together I'm confident we can help USDA remedy this issue.

As Chairman Bennett knows, the Department's own Office of Inspector General (OIG) has stated that USDA's travel card program is plagued with problems including fraud, abusive ATM usage, ``bounded'' check payments, and lack of specific travel card policies and penalties. Many of these problems still remain unchecked despite recommendations from an OIG audit over 5 years ago.

USDA employees accumulated over $5.8 million in fraudulent charges in a six-month period. The majority of these charges were racked up when individuals were not even on travel. Purchases were made at The Gap, Bath and Body, Cigarettes for Less, Tatoo and More Ink, and an Oregon Liquor Store. They also included 900 trips to Wal-Mart, K-Mart and Target; tickets to Ozzy Osbourne, and automotive payments including the purchase of a $6,000 vehicles.

This is a clear abuse of government-issued cards and the trust embodied in these employees. Despite individuals signing an agreement acknowledging that the travel card is solely for work-related travel this abuse continues. The travel card is not meant to be a line of credit for employees, or to be used by individuals as a personal credit card. There is no excuse for this type of abuse.

When I was first made aware of this abuse I asked how this was allowed to occur at USDA. What I found was outdated or non-existent internal controls that do nothing more than provide lip-service to the concept of accountability. USDA's travel card program is operating under 19-year old regulations. Nineteen years ago our banking infrastructure was fundamentally different than it is today. Nineteen years ago we didn't even have ATM's!

In fact, ATM's pose the single most significant vulnerability to travel card misuse due to cash advances fees and other bank surcharges. During the six month review by the OIG, ATM transactions cost the government more than $137,000 in advance fees. There is chronic and intentional misuse with ATM withdrawals, for example, nearly $200,000 was withdrawn to pay personal debts during the six-month review period.

If that isn't bad enough, when individuals leave the department they don't always surrender their travel card! So individuals are out using the travel card as a personal credit card. OIG found that 1,549 individuals still had cards that could be used despite their departure from the Department. One individual was using his travel card nearly 2 years after he left the department!

OIG identified $650,000 in returned checks, stop payment fees and returned check fees in just a six-month period. A little diligence up front could prevent millions of dollars in fraudulent purchases.

I would point out that USDA has made recent efforts to limit abuse. USDA has attempted to reduce the number of credit card holders, revised

departmental regulations on purchase cards, and instituted new system alerts to catch abusive transactions.

With Chairman Bennett's help I plan to monitor the new efforts being made by USDA to remedy these problems I'm cautiously optimistic that USDA will recognize that the reforms must be successful, or we will establish new, more stringent reforms for USDA next year.

Mr. President, the State of Iowa has a blossoming viticulture industry, but the demand for technical assistance far exceeds the State's current resources. I have discussed this problem with the Senator from Utah and I appreciate his interest in the issue.

A viticulture technician would help new producers with the basic knowledge needed about the industry. Such assistance will enable growers to benefit from increased production, and in turn, produce more successful vineyard businesses in Iowa.

This proposal has tremendous support from the Iowa Grape Growers Association, the Mississippi Valley Grape Growers Association, the Western Iowa Grape Growers Association, and the Iowa Wine and Grape Development Commission.

study on north carolina horticulture industry

Mr. President, I rise today to state that I object to proceeding to the consideration of an executive nominee to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The nominee is Joseph Timothy Kelliher, who is listed as a ``senior policy advisor'' to the Secretary of the Energy Department.

I have an outstanding document request at the Energy Department, and I must be certain that it will be answered in a timely and complete manner. I am also concerned that some Department of Energy officials are, among other things, misconstruing an amendment that I offered to H.R. 2754. My amendment is section 316 of the Energy and Water Appropriations Act, H.R. 2754, and it transfers claims processing responsibilities for ``Subtitle D'' of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, EEOICPA, from the Department of Energy to the Department of Labor. I am trying to get some answers and straighten that out as well.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the CARE Act. The CARE Act is the President's initiative to strengthen the work of charities in this country by providing greater incentives to give to nonprofits. Recent newspaper accounts have noted that charitable giving has declined in the recent year. Clearly, the President is right to seek additional tax benefits for charitable giving.

I cannot improve upon the Democratic leader's own assessment at the time the CARE Act was passed by the Senate, when he said this:

This legislation, the CARE Act, expands our Nation's

capacity to respond to the needs of its citizens who need

help.

These are very fine words. Unfortunately, these words are not being translated into action. The Finance Committee passed the CARE Act on February 27 and it was passed by the full Senate on April 9. The other body passed the CARE Act earlier this fall. However, the Senate has been prevented from going to conference on this important legislation. The other side has repeatedly blocked efforts to take the traditional step of going to conference with the House to resolve outstanding matters and, in turn, then put the President's good goals into law.

While there have been many arguments and claims made by the other side about why we cannot go to conference on the CARE Act, they seem to have settled now on one, that the CARE Act is not going forward because of concerns that Democrat conferees from the Senate will not be able to meaningfully participate in this conference.

I think, at least in the case of any legislation coming out of the Finance Committee, that sort of argument is pure nonsense. There is nothing in the history of this specific act, the CARE Act, or my dealings with the other side, that would give the other side cause to suggest that they have justification to be concerned they would be shut out.

The CARE Act has at all times been a bipartisan effort, beginning with Senators Santorum and Lieberman as the prime sponsors of this CARE Act. In addition, I have worked closely with Senator Baucus on this matter as well as other members of the Democratic side of the aisle. Many of the provisions of this bill are due to priorities and concerns voiced by the minority. I think it is fair to say that, as chairman, no one has gone further in working with and listening to the other side on matters that are of concern, not only in the CARE Act but in all legislation considered by the Finance Committee.

The relationship between Senator Baucus and I working cooperatively is too well known for the leadership on the other side to ignore. I intend that tradition of bipartisanship to continue in conference on the CARE Act. In fact, let me make it very clear. I give my word at this time, as at other times, that all conferees from the Senate will be meaningfully participating in the conference, and I am confident we will come back from conference with a bill that will enjoy similar strong bipartisan support enjoyed by the CARE Act when it first passed the Senate.

I cannot make a stronger statement or commitment. To reject it is to suggest that the Democratic leadership does not think that I and Senator Baucus will continue our tradition of working in a bipartisan spirit on this bill. I cannot believe the leadership of the other side harbors such a view.

So if that is the true reason, concern that Senate Democrats will not be able to meaningfully participate, I have given my word that will not be the case. So we should now be able to go forward with a conference on the legislation that the minority leader stated, when it passed,

. . . will get meaningful aid to organizations and

institutions that are equipped to help those who need help

the most.

I am worried that even though I have addressed the stated concern, we will still not see movement on the CARE Act for unspoken reasons.

When it comes to unspoken reasons, it is just a matter of guess, or maybe responding to whispers in the hallways.

It has been discussed widely in the media that many people ``hate'' President Bush. I fear this hatred is being translated into stopping the President's signature initiative of strengthening our charitable arena.

The sad thing is that the zeal to keep the President from having a ``win'' will mean, as well noted by the minority leader, ``fewer meals for the hungry, fewer beds for the homeless, fewer safe havens for battered wives and children.'' I think this is most unfortunate.

When I questioned President Clinton's AmeriCorps Program 10 years ago, I did not seek to end that program. I sought to reform it and to make it work the way President Clinton intended that it work. I thought then that President Clinton had a right to a small program for which he had campaigned so aggressively. President Bush deserves the same courtesy by allowing these tax initiatives for chartable giving to go through.

I am also concerned that overlooked is that the CARE Act contains many other provisions Members are stopping. Let us not forget that the CARE Act is paid for by the most sweeping efforts to stop tax shelters in a generation. Those who stop the CARE Act are certainly being cheered on by the hucksters selling tax shelters so that corporations can continue to avoid fair taxation.

In addition, the CARE Act also now includes legislation that will provide tax relief for our military as well as low-income families with children. I have never seen such hand-wringing in this Chamber as has been the case regarding the need to pass military tax relief and expanded child credit for low-income families. Now that we have a chance to have these matters go to conference on a bill that has a real chance of becoming law, we are being stopped by the Democratic minority. I am worried that what is desired by some is an issue--not a solution to the child credit for low-income families and tax relief for military personnel.

Let me close by saying I have addressed the other side's stated concerns. I have given my personal commitment that Democratic Members will be meaningful participants in the conference on the CARE Act. If that is their only reason, then I have put that to rest. If they continue to object, I fear it is for a small reason, maybe a petty reason, a reason that puts partisanship before the welfare of those most in need. If that is the case, I can only state that I am saddened and certainly disappointed.

At this point, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 7, the charitable giving bill. I further ask unanimous consent that all after the enacting clause be stricken; that the Snowe amendment and the Grassley-Baucus amendments which are at the desk be agreed to en bloc; that the substitute amendment which is the text of S. 476, the Senate-passed version of the charitable choice bill, as amended by the Snowe and Grassley-Baucus amendments, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; further, that the Senate insist upon its amendments and request a conference with the House; and, lastly, that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees with the ratio of 3 to 12, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I will object--first of all, we have advanced this bill according to the rules of the Senate with the provisions that are necessary to go to conference. I am disappointed we don't have that opportunity to go to conference. This will not be our last effort to try to get to conference.

I appreciate the unanimous consent request by my friend from Nevada, the assistant minority leader, because I know he is sincere in proceeding along the lines he would like to proceed. But I think it does suggest that there is a nervousness on the other side as to the rightness of my original request and that we ought to get this to conference.

The conference could be settled very quickly. We could get the bill back here and for charitable organizations and for military families, and also try to help low-income families with refundable tax credits, as has been the position of the Senate for a long period of time.

I also suggest he may be legitimately concerned about how the other body handles conferences. I appreciate his understanding that I try to be fair. But in the process, comity dictates that what the other body does the other body does, and we have to work within the environment of what we can control. What we can control is what the Senate does. Along those lines, I have made my commitment that there be full Democrat participation, and that is about as far as I can go.

So I object to the unanimous consent request by the Senator from Nevada, the assistant minority leader.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. President, we are tonight adopting long overdue legislation to rectify a number of inequities faced by members of our Nation's armed services.

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, these brave men and women have been called upon to make terrific sacrifices. They have left their families and friends behind for months at a time to willingly cast themselves into harm's way. Whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, or on whatever battlefield the war against terrorism must be fought, these courageous patriots have put their lives on the line to defend our freedoms.

While I realize that we could never begin to fully repay these fine young Americans--not to mention the loved ones they leave behind--the Senate has an opportunity tonight to show our gratitude for their sacrifices.

The legislation before us, which the Finance Committee first developed during the 107th Congress, will ensure that members of the uniformed services, the National Guard, and the foreign service are treated fairly in all aspects of the tax code.

First, this legislation ensures that the families of military personnel called into active duty are not disadvantaged under the home sale exclusion. Unlike most Americans, military personnel who are called to active duty or asked to relocate often lack the flexibility to meet residency requirements under the exclusion and are adversely impacted by these rules. This legislation would suspend the residency test for periods of active duty aggregating no more than 10 years.

We should not punish members of our military and their families who are asked to relocate in the name of service to their country.

This legislation also clarifies that dependent care benefits provided to families of the uniformed services will not be treated as taxable compensation. The provision of affordable childcare is an important function of the military during peacetime; but it is never more critical than during periods of conflict--families.

We must also not forget about the increasing role that Reserve and National Guard members fulfill in our Nation's defense. Currently, more than 157,000 reservists and National Guard are on active duty status-- most assisting in Operation Iraqi Freedom. We have begun to rely increasingly on these service personnel to defend our borders and to serve and protect in other areas of the world.

This legislation will allow an above-the-line deduction for travel expenses that these men and women incur related to training assignments. This provision will at least partially reimburse national guard members and reservists for the expenses they incur when they travel for weekend drills.

The Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act also ensures that military personnel serving in Secretary of Defense designated ``contingency operations'' receive appropriate relief from the administrative burdens of our tax laws during participation in those operations.

What's more, this legislation is completely offset. All of the military tax fairness provisions in this legislation are fully funded by extending Customs user fees.

As we consider this legislation tonight, the men and women of our armed forces remain in hostile situations, battling terrorism wherever that battle may lead. At the same time, their loved ones--wives, husbands, parents, children--remain at home, making equally demanding sacrifices as they struggle to make ends meet. It is deeply regrettable that Congress has delayed so long to enact this commonsense legislation.

We must delay no longer. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to provide the tax relief that our military personnel need and deserve.