Floor Statements

I yield myself time.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I obviously do not rise in opposition to the goals the Senator from Maryland seeks, because I, along with Senator Graham of Florida--the two of us are sponsors of an amendment that would provide a $3,000 tax credit for family caregiving. But what we are involved with here is taking money from the tax reduction fund to put into another program. What we need to do is keep the tax reduction fund very strong because it is a growth package, it is a job package. We want to create jobs. We want an economic environment so when our men and women come home from Iraq there are jobs for our men and women. There is no job creation now. We want to create jobs. It is going to take a tax cut to create jobs.

Mr. President, obviously we need to be very bold in our response to the flagging economy. It is our obligation to the folks who sent us here. We need to respond. Both sides agree on that need, as do the centrists led by Senators Breaux and Snowe. The question is a difference of the size of the tax cut. I say be bold. We want American businesses, small and large, to grow. We want every American who wants a job to be able to get a job. We don't want to take any chances.

I understand the concerns of my friends from the centrist coalition. They are worried about long-term deficits. I am as well. I am more worried, though, about the spending side of the ledger. Senators Breaux and Snowe have a long history of trying to secure bipartisan consensus. We need more than $350 billion in tax relief to do the job the right way.

Don't get me wrong. If $350 billion is the number, that is the number that, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I will work with. The Finance Committee will develop the best package we can. My point is, the Finance Committee can do more growth incentives with a number above $350 billion.

There is a war going on. When those men and women come home from the battlefield, we want a growing economy so that those folks will have jobs.

Mr. President, I rise to address Senators Lautenberg and Corzine's proposed amendment to the budget resolution. Superfund and the cleanup of pollution sites should be an important concern to all of us. We must be concerned that our future generations are not jeopardized by past inactions. But this amendment has been offered in an inapproprate forum, at an inappropriate place, using an inappropriate procedural method and I have voted no. As chairman of the Finance Committee, we will be able to consider this issue under more appropriate circumstances.

Mr. President, last night the President addressed the Nation to announce that coalition forces were in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people, and to defend the world from grave danger.

This action was taken as a last resort against an evil dictator, Saddam Hussein, who for 12 years has continued to defy and evade his commitments and responsibilities set out for him by 17 United Nations Security Council resolutions.

I believe Saddam Hussein must be disarmed, and for this reason I supported the resolution authorizing the President to take military action if diplomatic efforts were unsuccessful.

And, while some Members of this body did not support the authorization for the use of force back in October, I am confident that we here, Republicans and Democrats, stand united in our support for our uniformed personnel now in harm's way.

During the past few weeks and months, I have seen and heard communities all across my State send off, with tearful eyes, their sons and daughters, husbands and wives, and moms and dads who have been called to serve.

These brave men and women, from Decorah to Muscatine, Red Oak, to Mason City, Pocahontas to Davenport, stood proud while high school bands played the ``Star Spangled Banner,'' and local religious leaders prayed for their safe return.

Over 3,700 Reserve and National Guard troops in Iowa have been called up for active duty. They come from all professions and all economic backgrounds.

I commend them, and all those serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, for their courage, bravery and patriotism. I am grateful for the enormous sacrifice made by these men and women and their families. I could not be more honored by their commitment to freedom, and I will continue to pray for their quick and safe return home to their loved ones.

I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment, not because Medicare is not a very legitimate subject of discussion; it is. The difference between this year and last year, last year we did not have a budget resolution. The process this year is a very orderly process toward getting us a prescription drug program as part of Medicare. That very orderly process is, first of all, to have a budget resolution. It is a very orderly process. We are going to have a budget resolution this year. We are going to have $100 billion more for Medicare/prescription drugs than the last time we debated this.

Most of the people on the other side of the aisle 2 years ago helped us get a $300 billion figure. We have a $400 billion figure. We have a Senate majority leader who is committed to the committee process working. Out of the Finance Committee in June, we will produce a good prescription drug program for the Senate to debate this summer.

I urge Members to vote against the amendment. I move to table the amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I start by congratulating the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Nickles, on his fine work.

One of the reasons for the problems of last session was the absence, for the first time in a generation, of a budget resolution. Chairman Nickles has carried the President's budget to the floor and been a loyal lieutenant for our Commander in Chief. It looks as if much of the President's budget may remain intact, but it is also true that the budget will change somewhat.

Let me make it clear. I support the President's budget, including the tax cut number and the growth package.

I believe we need a bold response to the flagging economy. It is our obligation to the folks that sent us here. We need to respond. Both sides agree on that need, as do the centrists, led by Senators Breaux and Snowe. Where the Democratic caucus, the Republican caucus, and the centrists differ is on the number we allocate for growth proposals.

The debate we have this afternoon is about that number. Really, though, the debate is about whether we should be bold, cautious, or timid. The President and most of the Republican caucus want to be bold. We want American

businesses, small and large, to grow. We want every American who wants a job to be able to get a job. We don't want to take any chances.

The Democratic leadership's proposed growth package yields a net tax increase of $11.7 billion. That package also contains new spending of $118.7 billion. I call that a timid response to the flagging economy.

Now, let's turn to the Breaux-Snowe-Baucus-Voinovich amendment. I understand the concerns of my friends from the Centrist Coalition. They are worried about long-term deficits. I am too.

I am more worried about the spending side of the ledger. The Centrists are focusing on the tax cut side only. It is important that the Centrists' amendment does place the tax cut reduction into deficit reduction. There is, however, no guarantee that the $375 billion will not be spent in subsequent amendments on this resolution.

Senators Breaux and Snowe have a long history of trying to secure bipartisan consensus. In 2001, they, along with Senator Baucus, were critical supporters of the bipartisan tax relief package. They are widely known for their efforts to find bipartisan consensus on Medicare. I will be looking to this group when we take up Medicare legislation later this year.

Senators Breaux and Snowe suggest that the middle ground is splitting the difference between the President's number of $726 billion and the Democratic leadership's position.

I am opposed to this amendment because we need more than $350 billion to do the job the right way. Don't get me wrong. If $350 billion is the number, that is the number the Finance Committee will work with. The Finance Committee will develop the best package we can.

My point is that the Finance Committee can do more growth incentives with a number above $350 billion.

Now, some view the net $350 billion as a vote against the President's proposal to eliminate the double taxation of dividends.

I support the President's proposal to eliminate the double taxation of dividends. It is good tax policy and it is good economic policy.

This vote is not about the dividends proposal. The Finance Committee, in its bipartisan way, will decide the composition of the growth package.

To my moderate friends, let me say something in conclusion. No matter where the number ends up, I expect Senator Baucus and I will produce a bipartisan growth package.

The Breaux-Snowe amendment, while well intentioned, does not provide the Finance Committee with the tools necessary to do the job of delivering a bold growth package to the American people.

Amendment No. 363

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume. For the benefit of the people who are waiting to speak, I don't think I will take long on this subject.

I rise because I want to urge my colleagues to vote against the Dorgan amendment when the vote comes up tomorrow. I don't see anything wrong with the issue of Medicare being discussed because it is one of two or three of the most important issues this Congress will deal with. So it is very appropriate to have Medicare very much at the top of the agenda. It is very appropriate to have prescription drugs for seniors, as a part of strengthening and improving Medicare, be very high on the agenda. And it is very high on the agenda.

It is just a question, as it relates to the Dorgan amendment, of whether or not crafting a Medicare prescription drug program ought to be an issue on the budget, or whether you ought to let the will of Congress work and do that through the Senate Finance Committee.

We know Medicare is going to be a very important issue this year, not only because it has been very much an issue in the last election, but because the Senate majority leader has a long-time interest in Medicare and prescription drugs. He told me, as Chairman of

the Senate Finance Committee, that he would like to have the Senate Finance Committee put it very high on its agenda and have legislation prepared early for this summer's debate.

The Senate Finance Committee is going to meet that deadline. I hope Senator Frist will be able to keep his own calendar and bring it up at that particular time. What we are talking about on this issue is whether or not the $400 billion for prescription drugs in the budget resolution is enough and whether or not an extension beyond that $400 billion is needed at this particular time.

I am here to say it is not needed at this particular time for two reasons. One, I think I can show that $400 billion is an ample amount of money to present to the Senate a good prescription drug program; and two, taking money away from tax relief for working men and women, which this amendment does, to spend on Medicare is the wrong thing to do for the long-term benefit of Medicare. Because as the trustees of the Medicare and Social Security Program pointed out in their annual report, you see Medicare in a little worse situation this year than last year because there is less payroll tax coming in because the economy is not doing quite as well as it should be. If we want to preserve the long-term viability of the Medicare trust fund, obviously, the best thing we can do is create jobs. That is what the growth package, the jobs package, that we are going to be working on this spring--tax reduction for working men and women--is all about--the creation of jobs, to have the economy grow, so more payroll taxes will be coming into the Medicare fund.

Let me explain to my colleagues why we should vote this amendment down. I start with the premise that it is long past time for Congress to strengthen and improve the Medicare Program, and the No. 1 way in which we can improve and strengthen Medicare is the enactment of a prescription drug benefit for our Nation's seniors.

We all know that adding prescription drug coverage to the Medicare Program is an expensive endeavor. Given the rapidly rising costs of Medicare and the present challenge we have just to meet our current obligations in the program, adding prescription drug coverage must be done carefully and responsibly. You don't do it by just pulling a figure out of the air, reducing the tax relief package, and putting it over here in the Medicare trust fund.

As I have said, the Medicare trustees reported last year that the program already faces substantial challenges in the not-too-distant future. The Medicare trust fund will begin to run cash deficits in 2013 that grow larger and larger until the fund is bankrupt in the year 2026.

While we are working on adding a drug benefit to Medicare, prescription drug spending has grown an average of almost 15 percent annually from 1995 to the year 2000. And the Congressional Budget Office predicts that Medicare beneficiaries will spend about $1.8 trillion on prescription drugs over the 10-year budget window.

Now, is the $400 billion in the budget resolution before us enough to spend on improving Medicare and adding a prescription drug benefit? Well, first of all, we have to recognize that Congress has come a long way in how much it has allocated to a Medicare drug benefit. For example, in fiscal year 2001, the budget resolution had $40 billion over 5 years for a drug benefit. This budget, as I have said, proposes $400 billion over 10 years and is yet $100 billion more than we had in the last budget resolution, which was for fiscal year 2002, and had $300 billion for prescription drugs over the 10 years.

I say to people on the other side of the aisle that we had a lot of support in arguing for a $300 billion budget figure for prescription drugs in that fiscal year 2002 budget. Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle spoke in favor of that proposal on the Senate floor. These Senators believed then that $300 billion would provide a good drug benefit for seniors and be affordable for taxpayers. Now we are proposing $400 billion for Medicare and for a drug benefit. This amount is certainly adequate for developing a good Medicare drug benefit for our Nation's seniors.

I urge my colleagues to support the $400 billion in funding for Medicare and vote against amendments such as the Dorgan amendment to dramatically increase the cost of that drug benefit.

I ask those very same Senators on the other side of the aisle who may want to support their colleague that if they thought 2 years ago $300 billion was a good figure and they helped us get that passed, then they would think that $400 billion is adequate as we start down this road, a road that is going to lead us to the successful passage of a drug benefit program for seniors.

As for a comparable prescription drug benefit, one of the directions that the Dorgan amendment would give the Committee on Finance--a requirement that traditional Medicare and whatever enhancement of Medicare we develop for seniors which would give them the right to choose between more than one benefit plan would have comparable prescription drug benefits--I want my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to know I will work with other members of the Finance Committee to make sure Medicare beneficiaries in traditional Medicare have a good prescription drug benefit, as well as those who may choose to go to a new, enhanced plan.

This amendment wants to tie the hands of the members of the Senate Finance Committee. The budget bill is not the place to craft a Medicare prescription drug benefit. That is the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee. The committee will have its opportunity to function under my chairmanship, at the direction of Senator Frist, our majority leader, who said he did not want to make the mistake of last year when then-majority leader Senator Daschle brought the issue right to the floor, bypassing the committee.

We can in this body develop bipartisanship not on the floor of the Senate but in the committees of the Senate. That is no more true than in the Senate Finance Committee which has such a reputation for bipartisanship.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and let the Finance Committee do its work.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my good friend, Senator Baucus, to introduce the Tax Empowerment and Relief for Farmers and Fishermen Act, which I will refer to as the ``TERFF Act.'' I am pleased that Senators Roberts, Brownback, Lincoln, Burns, Craig, Crapo, Fitzgerald, Hagel, and Dorgan are joining Senator Baucus and me as cosponsors of this important legislation.

I am a farmer, like my father was before me. I understand farming and how policy decisions from Washington impact hardworking farmers, like my son Robin. Before I ran for elected office and after I leave, God willing, I'll still be farming. There is little that I feel more strongly about than providing the agriculture community with the potential to survive and to thrive. As far as I'm concerned, agriculture is my ``turf'' and as long as I'm in this town, I'll do all I can to serve my friends and neighbors in the agriculture community.

This legislation has already been adopted by the Senate multiple times. In the midst of a serious downturn in the agriculture economy, it seems to me we ought to be doing everything we can to help farmers, and this would provide significant assistance.

First, this legislation includes Farm, Fish, and Ranch Risk Management Accounts. These farmer saving accounts would allow farmers to contribute up to 20 percent of their income in an account, and deduct it in the same year. Farm accounts would be a very important risk management tool that will help farmers put away money when there's actual income, so that, in the bad times, there will be a safety net. This measure has strong bipartisan support and was actually sent to President Clinton, who vetoed it.

In addition, this legislation would exempt Conservation Reserve Program payments from self-employment tax. Under current law, farmers who participate in the CRP are unnecessarily struggling during tax season because of a case pushed by the IRS. The latest 6th Circuit court's ruling treats CRP payments as farm income subject to the additional self-employment tax rate of 15 percent.

Senator Brownback has taken the lead on fixing this problem. This unfair tax not only ignores the intent of Congress in creating the CRP, it discourages farmers from using environmentally pro-active measures. At a time when farmers are struggling to regain their footing economically and do the right thing environmentally, it's important that Congress support them by upholding its promise on CRP.

In addition, Senator Lugar has led the effort to expand the current program that allows companies to donate to food banks, so that farmers and restaurants can also donate surplus food directly to needy food banks. This will be a win for the farmers and a big win for people who depend on food bank assistance.

In addition, when we passed income averaging for farmers a few years ago, we neglected to take into account the problem of running into the alternative minimum tax, which many farmers are facing now. My bill will fix this growing problem.

My bill also expands opportunities for beginning farmers who are in need of low interest rate loans for capital purchases of farmland and equipment.

Current law permits State authorities to issue tax exempt bonds and to lend the proceeds from the sale of the bonds to beginning farmers and ranchers to finance the cost of acquiring land, buildings and equipment used in a farm or ranch operation.

Unfortunately, aggie bonds are subject to a volume cap and must compete with big industrial projects for bond allocation. Aggie bonds share few similarities to industrial revenue bonds and should not be subject to the volume cap established for industrial revenue bonds.

Insufficient allocation of funding due to the volume cap limits the effectiveness of this program. We can't stand by and allow the next generation of farmers to lose an opportunity to participate in farming because of competition with industry for reduced interest loan rates.

In addition, the IRS recently determined that some cooperatives should be exposed to a regular corporate tax due to the fact that they are using organic value-added practices rather than manufactured value- added practices. This is unfair, and needs to be fixed.

It is also imperative that we not neglect the difficulties many producers are facing in light of persistent drought conditions. Under current law, a producer who loses livestock, or is forced to sell livestock, or is forced to sell livestock, is required to replace that livestock within two years. However, some parts of the country have already experienced two years of drought with no end in sight.

It goes against common sense for these producers to replace livestock until conditions improve. My legislation would extend the 2-year deadline to 4 years.

And of course my package wouldn't be complete without a provision leveling the playing field for ethanol producers.

The Small Ethanol Producer Credit will allow small cooperative producers of ethanol to be able to receive the same tax benefits as large companies. This provision provides cooperatives the ability to elect to pass through small ethanol producer credits to its patron.

The ``TERFF'' package will do more to reform taxes for the American farmer than any other measure in recent memory. I urge my colleagues to strongly support this measure.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the American people recognize the importance of the family farmer to our Nation, and the need to provide an adequate safety net for family farmers. In recent years, however, assistance to farmers has come under increasing scrutiny.

Critics of farm payments have argued that the largest corporate farms reap most of the benefits of these payments. The reality is, over 60 percent of the payments have gone to only 10 percent of our Nation's farmers.

What's more, farm payments that were originally designed to benefit small and medium-sized family farmers have contributed to their own demise. Unlimited farm payments have placed upward pressure on land prices and have contributed to overproduction and lower commodity prices, driving many family farmers off the farm.

The Senate agreed, by an overwhelming vote of 66 to 31, to a bipartisan amendment sponsored by Senators Dorgan and myself to target federal assistance to small and medium-sized family farmers. The amendment would have limited direct and counter-cyclical payments to $75,000. It would have limited gains from marketing loans and LDPs to $150,000, and generic certificates would have been included in this limit. That would have limited farm payments to a combined total of $275,000.

That amendment was critical to family farmers in Iowa. I feel strongly the farm bill failed Iowa when it failed to effectively address the issue of payment limitations. This is our chance to remedy the problem.

This bi-partisan legislation provides a limit of $40,000 for direct payments, $60,000 for counter-cyclical pavement, and $175,000 for LDPs and marketing loan gains. The combined limit is $275,000.

I urge my colleagues to support this bi-partisan legislation and to encourage the development of reasonable, legitimate payment limits.

I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my good friend, Senator Baucus, to introduce the Tax Empowerment and Relief for Farmers and Fishermen Act, which I will refer to as the ``TERFF Act.'' I am pleased that Senators Roberts, Brownback, Lincoln, Burns, Craig, Crapo, Fitzgerald, Hagel, and Dorgan are joining Senator Baucus and me as cosponsors of this important legislation.

I am a farmer, like my father was before me. I understand farming and how policy decisions from Washington impact hardworking farmers, like my son Robin. Before I ran for elected office and after I leave, God willing, I'll still be farming. There is little that I feel more strongly about than providing the agriculture community with the potential to survive and to thrive. As far as I'm concerned, agriculture is my ``turf'' and as long as I'm in this town, I'll do all I can to serve my friends and neighbors in the agriculture community.

This legislation has already been adopted by the Senate multiple times. In the midst of a serious downturn in the agriculture economy, it seems to me we ought to be doing everything we can to help farmers, and this would provide significant assistance.

First, this legislation includes Farm, Fish, and Ranch Risk Management Accounts. These farmer saving accounts would allow farmers to contribute up to 20 percent of their income in an account, and deduct it in the same year. Farm accounts would be a very important risk management tool that will help farmers put away money when there's actual income, so that, in the bad times, there will be a safety net. This measure has strong bipartisan support and was actually sent to President Clinton, who vetoed it.

In addition, this legislation would exempt Conservation Reserve Program payments from self-employment tax. Under current law, farmers who participate in the CRP are unnecessarily struggling during tax season because of a case pushed by the IRS. The latest 6th Circuit court's ruling treats CRP payments as farm income subject to the additional self-employment tax rate of 15 percent.

Senator Brownback has taken the lead on fixing this problem. This unfair tax not only ignores the intent of Congress in creating the CRP, it discourages farmers from using environmentally pro-active measures. At a time when farmers are struggling to regain their footing economically and do the right thing environmentally, it's important that Congress support them by upholding its promise on CRP.

In addition, Senator Lugar has led the effort to expand the current program that allows companies to donate to food banks, so that farmers and restaurants can also donate surplus food directly to needy food banks. This will be a win for the farmers and a big win for people who depend on food bank assistance.

In addition, when we passed income averaging for farmers a few years ago, we neglected to take into account the problem of running into the alternative minimum tax, which many farmers are facing now. My bill will fix this growing problem.

My bill also expands opportunities for beginning farmers who are in need of low interest rate loans for capital purchases of farmland and equipment.

Current law permits State authorities to issue tax exempt bonds and to lend the proceeds from the sale of the bonds to beginning farmers and ranchers to finance the cost of acquiring land, buildings and equipment used in a farm or ranch operation.

Unfortunately, aggie bonds are subject to a volume cap and must compete with big industrial projects for bond allocation. Aggie bonds share few similarities to industrial revenue bonds and should not be subject to the volume cap established for industrial revenue bonds.

Insufficient allocation of funding due to the volume cap limits the effectiveness of this program. We can't stand by and allow the next generation of farmers to lose an opportunity to participate in farming because of competition with industry for reduced interest loan rates.

In addition, the IRS recently determined that some cooperatives should be exposed to a regular corporate tax due to the fact that they are using organic value-added practices rather than manufactured value- added practices. This is unfair, and needs to be fixed.

It is also imperative that we not neglect the difficulties many producers are facing in light of persistent drought conditions. Under current law, a producer who loses livestock, or is forced to sell livestock, or is forced to sell livestock, is required to replace that livestock within two years. However, some parts of the country have already experienced two years of drought with no end in sight.

It goes against common sense for these producers to replace livestock until conditions improve. My legislation would extend the 2-year deadline to 4 years.

And of course my package wouldn't be complete without a provision leveling the playing field for ethanol producers.

The Small Ethanol Producer Credit will allow small cooperative producers of ethanol to be able to receive the same tax benefits as large companies. This provision provides cooperatives the ability to elect to pass through small ethanol producer credits to its patron.

The ``TERFF'' package will do more to reform taxes for the American farmer than any other measure in recent memory. I urge my colleagues to strongly support this measure.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the American people recognize the importance of the family farmer to our Nation, and the need to provide an adequate safety net for family farmers. In recent years, however, assistance to farmers has come under increasing scrutiny.

Critics of farm payments have argued that the largest corporate farms reap most of the benefits of these payments. The reality is, over 60 percent of the payments have gone to only 10 percent of our Nation's farmers.

What's more, farm payments that were originally designed to benefit small and medium-sized family farmers have contributed to their own demise. Unlimited farm payments have placed upward pressure on land prices and have contributed to overproduction and lower commodity prices, driving many family farmers off the farm.

The Senate agreed, by an overwhelming vote of 66 to 31, to a bipartisan amendment sponsored by Senators Dorgan and myself to target federal assistance to small and medium-sized family farmers. The amendment would have limited direct and counter-cyclical payments to $75,000. It would have limited gains from marketing loans and LDPs to $150,000, and generic certificates would have been included in this limit. That would have limited farm payments to a combined total of $275,000.

That amendment was critical to family farmers in Iowa. I feel strongly the farm bill failed Iowa when it failed to effectively address the issue of payment limitations. This is our chance to remedy the problem.

This bi-partisan legislation provides a limit of $40,000 for direct payments, $60,000 for counter-cyclical pavement, and $175,000 for LDPs and marketing loan gains. The combined limit is $275,000.

I urge my colleagues to support this bi-partisan legislation and to encourage the development of reasonable, legitimate payment limits.

I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I again rise in support of the Comprehensive Child Protection Act. I am proud to be standing with Senator Hatch as a co-sponsor of a bill that represents one of the most comprehensive pieces of legislation ever drafted to protect children. The miracle that Elizabeth Smart was found safe and sound, reminds us of how important this bill is.

As a former chairman of the Youth Violence Subcommittee and Ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs during the 107th Congress, I have been greatly concerned with the increase in reports of child abductions and murders, so I am glad to be a part of this effort to address this growing problem. In my tenure on the Judiciary Committee, I have long fought for our Nation's children, and have ardently supported laws that bring them and their families greater protection.

This legislation comes at a critical time because we are hearing more and more about children being taken from their homes or schools and abused, or worse, murdered. Our children are a gift to us, are our national treasure, and are our future. We must do all that we can to protect these innocents and give law enforcement every tool possible to ferret out the criminals who would do our children harm. With this legislation, we will be ensuring a greater measure of protection for our children. The miracle that Elizabeth Smart was found safe and sound, reminds us of how important this bill is.

The bill does many important things. First, it helps law enforcement respond immediately to incidents of child abduction, because, as we've seen with the Amber Alert system, time is critical in any abduction case to thwart further injury or harm. The bill creates a National Crimes Against Children Response Center at the FBI that will integrate the resources and expertise of all Federal, State and local law enforcement sources to provide a rapid response for crimes involving child victims. The bill also helps law enforcement by making it possible to get wire taps for suspected sex trafficking and exploitation offenses, and will require that all Federal child sex crimes offenders have their DNA added to the national DNA registry. So the bill will help to centralize information about criminals and crimes, and makes the job of the criminal investigator easier and more accurate through wiretaps and DNA evidence.

The bill also creates a website registry for convicted child sexual offenders so that parents, neighbors, and police know who in their communities is a convicted child predator. This website will supplement registries in all 50 States. This important tool will help families make better and fully informed decisions about their children's safety, and will greatly aid law enforcement's response to reports of child abductions and other offenses against children. The bill also gives new tools to prosecutors and the courts. It extends the statute of limitations for prosecuting child offenders, allows prosecutors to introduce evidence of past child sex crimes in sentencing hearings, removes the so-called ``spousal privilege'' so that a spouse can't stand silent in the prosecution of the other spouse for child sexual abuse, and increases the maximum sentences and probation periods for child sex offenders. These important tools will make our communities safer by helping to rid them of child predators, and by keeping a tight leash on predators when they get released from prison.

So this bill helps the public know about sexual predators in their communities, improves the nation's ability to respond to child abduction reports, and aids criminal investigators and prosecutors in their efforts to protect the public by identifying and locking-up child predators. I ask my fellow Senators to support this important bill.

Mr. President, today, I again rise in support of the Comprehensive Child Protection Act. I am proud to be standing with Senator Hatch as a co-sponsor of a bill that represents one of the most comprehensive pieces of legislation ever drafted to protect children. The miracle that Elizabeth Smart was found safe and sound, reminds us of how important this bill is.

As a former chairman of the Youth Violence Subcommittee and Ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs during the 107th Congress, I have been greatly concerned with the increase in reports of child abductions and murders, so I am glad to be a part of this effort to address this growing problem. In my tenure on the Judiciary Committee, I have long fought for our Nation's children, and have ardently supported laws that bring them and their families greater protection.

This legislation comes at a critical time because we are hearing more and more about children being taken from their homes or schools and abused, or worse, murdered. Our children are a gift to us, are our national treasure, and are our future. We must do all that we can to protect these innocents and give law enforcement every tool possible to ferret out the criminals who would do our children harm. With this legislation, we will be ensuring a greater measure of protection for our children. The miracle that Elizabeth Smart was found safe and sound, reminds us of how important this bill is.

The bill does many important things. First, it helps law enforcement respond immediately to incidents of child abduction, because, as we've seen with the Amber Alert system, time is critical in any abduction case to thwart further injury or harm. The bill creates a National Crimes Against Children Response Center at the FBI that will integrate the resources and expertise of all Federal, State and local law enforcement sources to provide a rapid response for crimes involving child victims. The bill also helps law enforcement by making it possible to get wire taps for suspected sex trafficking and exploitation offenses, and will require that all Federal child sex crimes offenders have their DNA added to the national DNA registry. So the bill will help to centralize information about criminals and crimes, and makes the job of the criminal investigator easier and more accurate through wiretaps and DNA evidence.

The bill also creates a website registry for convicted child sexual offenders so that parents, neighbors, and police know who in their communities is a convicted child predator. This website will supplement registries in all 50 States. This important tool will help families make better and fully informed decisions about their children's safety, and will greatly aid law enforcement's response to reports of child abductions and other offenses against children. The bill also gives new tools to prosecutors and the courts. It extends the statute of limitations for prosecuting child offenders, allows prosecutors to introduce evidence of past child sex crimes in sentencing hearings, removes the so-called ``spousal privilege'' so that a spouse can't stand silent in the prosecution of the other spouse for child sexual abuse, and increases the maximum sentences and probation periods for child sex offenders. These important tools will make our communities safer by helping to rid them of child predators, and by keeping a tight leash on predators when they get released from prison.

So this bill helps the public know about sexual predators in their communities, improves the nation's ability to respond to child abduction reports, and aids criminal investigators and prosecutors in their efforts to protect the public by identifying and locking-up child predators. I ask my fellow Senators to support this important bill.

Mr. President, there will be a period for morning business until 2 p.m. At that time, the Senate will begin consideration of S. Con. Res. 23, the budget resolution. By statute, there will be 50 hours of debate. So Senators should expect late nights and numerous votes throughout this week.

As previously announced, there will be no votes today. However, it is the leader's intention to complete action on this matter of the budget this week.

There will be a cloture vote on Mr. Estrada's nomination tomorrow. Senators will be notified as to the precise time of that vote as soon as the majority leader and minority leader have consulted.

Mr. President, we have an opportunity this week, as we do every year, to celebrate American agriculture. This is the week we traditionally recognize. It is called National Agriculture Week.

Ask any friend or neighbor what is eating them and you are likely to get an earful about rising gas prices, military action in Iraq, the high cost of health care, prescription drugs, or the downturn in the U.S. economy.

In my most recent town meetings, I listened to Iowans express anxiety about job security, retirement security, health care security, energy security, national security, and homeland security. But never once did I have a single person in my State list as one of their concerns the concern of food security. That is because we in the United States are blessed with a rich agricultural bounty to provide more than enough food to feed U.S. consumers and a growing world population. American farmers are the most productive food producers in the world and, as a result, each American farmer can feed more than 120 people at home and abroad.

That is reason enough to give Americans an extra peace of mind. Yet I guess a majority of Americans take their food and how it got to their fork somewhat for granted. That is, in fact, a shame.

American agriculture serves an instrumental role in the life of every American. As George W. Bush has noted:

A nation that can feed its people is a nation more secure.

Beyond the benefits to national security, American agriculture also anchors the economy because the production of food and fiber from the farm to the consumer represents one-fifth of the U.S. economic pie. It props up our balance of trade. Agricultural exports exceed $1 billion per week. It creates jobs. Twenty percent of America's workforce is employed in the food chain from production to processing, marketing, and retailing. It saves the American consumer money because each American consumer spends only 9 percent of their income on food, the lowest percentage in the world.

Every year in March those of us with interests in agriculture join forces to celebrate National Agriculture Week and spread the word about agriculture's affordable, high-quality abundance and its social, economic, and environmental influences on America.

Located in the heart of America's breadbasket, Iowa's agricultural heritage goes back many generations. Iowans appreciate how significant our food system is, not only to basic human existence, but to the State's economy and also to our way of life.

As the leading producer of corn, soybeans, hogs, and eggs in America, Iowa's high-quality agricultural bounty would make George Washington proud. The farmer and our first President, George Washington, once said:

Agriculture is the most healthful, most useful, and most

noble employment to man.

At the turn of the 21st century, Iowa is working to stay on the leading edge of the research and use its bounty to benefit biotechnology and advances in life science. Whether growing crops for pharmaceutical use or raising cattle capable of producing proteins that can be used for human drug therapies, Iowa has significant potential to create good, high-paying jobs and reap economic benefits in ways unimaginable at the turn of the last century when the production of food was all that was on farmers' minds.

With several farmer-owned ethanol plants up and running, Iowa also is fueling local economic activity and helping to increase our energy independence by turning home-grown corn into ethanol, lessening our dependence upon a foreign source such as Iraq, for instance.

As a life-long family farmer, I take advantage of every opportunity in Washington, DC, in Congress, like now in this Senate Chamber, to serve as a farmer's advocate because I want to make sure that family farmers' voices are heard at the policy tables in Washington. Notwithstanding the need to keep our food production and supply system safe from sabotage, Americans are blessed to live in a Nation where food security does not mean wondering if there is enough food available to feed one's family every day.

National Agriculture Week, March 16 to 22, is a good opportunity to showcase American agriculture and to give thanks to those who work hard to get high quality, affordable food from the farm to our table. I hope every one of those people living in urban America who might think that food grows in super markets rather than on farms would give a thought to the usefulness of the family farm and what it contributes to the quality of life of Americans.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support for the Partial- Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

As a father of five, a grandfather of nine, and a proud great- grandfather, I regard life as a precious gift. During my tenure in the Congress--that is, since 1974--I have long supported policies that stand up for life and protect the unborn.

We made great strides in the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses on banning partial-birth abortions. It was unfortunate that President Clinton vetoed the ban. Not once, but twice.

Then, in 2000, the Supreme Court considered and struck down as unconstitutional the Nebraska State law making partial-birth abortion illegal. In Stenberg v. Carhart, the Court believed that the Nebraska law (1) did not contain an exception for the health of a mother, and (2) was too broad and could be construed to cover other types of procedures. The bill before us specifically addresses the Supreme Court's concerns.

I am disappointed and sickened that these abortion procedures are legal in the United States of America. I'm not alone. According to a recent Gallup poll, 70 percent of Americans want a ban.

My constituents want a ban on partial-birth abortions:

A woman from Tabor, IA, wrote, ``I'm horrified that under current law, thousands of partial-birth abortions are committed in America every year.''

A man from Atlantic, IA wrote, ``I believe that when women would see that they would be terminating a life then they would opt `no' to abortion.''

A woman from Nora Springs wrote, ``Abortions are actually murder because even though the child may not be out of the womb, it's still developing into a person.''

A woman from Waverly, IA, wrote, ``Partial-birth abortions are never medically necessary.''

A young man in the 6th grade from West Union, IA, wrote, ``A child might die, and in the future that small child could grow up to create a cure for a disease, or be a fireman and save many lives. Just think, you could have been aborted.''

It's time for us to stand up against such an extreme medical practice that stops the beating heart of an unborn child.

Most medical professionals would agree that this specific abortion procedure is outrageous. In fact, the American Medical Association supported a ban in 1999.

You will hear many on the other side argue about a woman's health and reproductive rights. As the bill states, the physician credited with developing the partial-birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome. His testimony waters down their theory that this procedure is necessary in certain situations to preserve the mother's health.

If we know that the procedure can pose a threat to both a woman's immediate health and future reproductive capacity, why do you want to expose women to the risks?

Condoning partial-birth abortion is bad medicine, and bad policy.

When abortion advocates say that abortion is a matter just between a woman and her doctor, they are rejecting the rights of an innocent human being.

The unborn baby is alive from the moment of fertilization, the unborn baby has a heartbeat at 3 weeks and brain waves at 6 weeks, the unborn baby has 46 chromosomes in the cells of his or her body, the unborn baby is a living human being.

Dr. Seuss said it just right: A person is a person, no matter how small.

Let's pass this bill to protect the innocent and unborn.

Mr. President, Senator Kennedy and I are happy to announce the introduction of the Family Opportunity Act of 2003, a bill to promote family, work, and opportunity. Every day, across the country, thousands of families struggle to obtain affordable and appropriate health care coverage for children with special health care needs, including children with conditions such as autism, mental retardation, cerebral palsy, developmental delays, or mental illness.

Low and middle income parents who have employer sponsored family health care coverage often find that their private insurance doesn't adequately cover the array of services that are critical to their child's well-being, such as mental health services, personal care services, durable medical equipment, special nutritional supplements, and respite care. Because Medicaid, our nation's health care program for low-income individuals, offers the type of comprehensive care that best meets the needs of children with disabilities, it can become a lifeline on which many parents depend.

Yet, Medicaid is a safety net program and one must be impoverished in order to be eligible. This presents a terrible choice for many low and middle income families who have a child with special health care needs: they must choose between work or impoverishment. Or, in the worst cases, parents consider the devastating choice of relinquishing custody for an out-of-home placement so their child can obtain services they so desperately need. Truly, there is nothing more heartbreaking for a parent than to be unable to provide for a child in need.

Consider the following example: Mr. and Mrs. Jones have two daughters, Heather and Hannah. Hannah was born with cerebral palsy. The family earns $29,000 a year and is insured through employer sponsored health insurance. Mr. Jones recently lost his job because of down- sizing. Last year, even with insurance, the family spent nearly $9,000 on out-of-pocket medical expenses. Mr. Jones has found a new job; unfortunately, the family's insurance premium has risen to $200 a month and does not cover essential occupational and physical therapy. The family dipped into their 401K when Hannah was born. The family's earnings minus the health care premiums, minus out of pocket expenses puts this family at an annual income of $17,600. The federal poverty level for a family of four is $18,400. This hard-working family is being impoverished because of their commitment to care for their disabled child.

Over the past three years, I have worked with Senator Kennedy and Representative Pete Sessions to advance this important legislation on behalf of thousands of families who need our help. Each year, more than 70 Senators have signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation. I understand the many pressing challenges facing our nation's health care system, but I urge the Senate to show its support for helping these families and pass the Family Opportunity Act this year.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Senator Kennedy and I are happy to announce the introduction of the Family Opportunity Act of 2003, a bill to promote family, work, and opportunity. Every day, across the country, thousands of families struggle to obtain affordable and appropriate health care coverage for children with special health care needs, including children with conditions such as autism, mental retardation, cerebral palsy, developmental delays, or mental illness.

Low and middle income parents who have employer sponsored family health care coverage often find that their private insurance doesn't adequately cover the array of services that are critical to their child's well-being, such as mental health services, personal care services, durable medical equipment, special nutritional supplements, and respite care. Because Medicaid, our nation's health care program for low-income individuals, offers the type of comprehensive care that best meets the needs of children with disabilities, it can become a lifeline on which many parents depend.

Yet, Medicaid is a safety net program and one must be impoverished in order to be eligible. This presents a terrible choice for many low and middle income families who have a child with special health care needs: they must choose between work or impoverishment. Or, in the worst cases, parents consider the devastating choice of relinquishing custody for an out-of-home placement so their child can obtain services they so desperately need. Truly, there is nothing more heartbreaking for a parent than to be unable to provide for a child in need.

Consider the following example: Mr. and Mrs. Jones have two daughters, Heather and Hannah. Hannah was born with cerebral palsy. The family earns $29,000 a year and is insured through employer sponsored health insurance. Mr. Jones recently lost his job because of down- sizing. Last year, even with insurance, the family spent nearly $9,000 on out-of-pocket medical expenses. Mr. Jones has found a new job; unfortunately, the family's insurance premium has risen to $200 a month and does not cover essential occupational and physical therapy. The family dipped into their 401K when Hannah was born. The family's earnings minus the health care premiums, minus out of pocket expenses puts this family at an annual income of $17,600. The federal poverty level for a family of four is $18,400. This hard-working family is being impoverished because of their commitment to care for their disabled child.

Over the past three years, I have worked with Senator Kennedy and Representative Pete Sessions to advance this important legislation on behalf of thousands of families who need our help. Each year, more than 70 Senators have signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation. I understand the many pressing challenges facing our nation's health care system, but I urge the Senate to show its support for helping these families and pass the Family Opportunity Act this year.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.