Floor Statements

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

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

Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of James Wolf, a fellow Nebraskan and Specialist in the United States Army. Specialist Wolf was killed on November 6, 2003, in Mosul, Iraq, when a bomb exploded near the convoy he was traveling in. He was 21 years old.

Specialist Wolf was an engineer assigned to the Headquarters and Headquarters Company of the 52nd Engineer Battalion of the 43rd Area Support Group, based in Fort Carson, CO. He was one of thousands of brave American service men and women serving in Iraq who confront danger everyday. Their tremendous risks and sacrifices must never be taken for granted.

In October, Specialist Wolf spent 2 weeks of leave with his family in his hometown of Scottsbluff, NE. While there, he visited his alma mater, Scottsbluff High School, and thanked students for writing to him in Iraq. Specialist Wolf leaves behind parents, Bob and Chris; brother, David; and sisters, Elli and Rachel. Our thoughts and prayers are with them all at this difficult time.

In Iraq, Specialist Wolf assisted with the construction of housing and schools for U.S. soldiers and Iraqi citizens. He will be remembered as a dedicated soldier with an optimistic outlook on life.

For his service, bravery, and sacrifice, I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring Specialist Wolf.

Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of Daniel Bader, a fellow Nebraskan and staff sergeant in the United States Army. Sergeant Bader was killed on November 2 near Fallujah, Iraq when the Chinook helicopter he was aboard was shot down. Sergeant Bader was one of 15 soldiers killed and 25 wounded en route to the United States for two weeks of leave. He was 28 years old.

Sergeant Bader served in the 3rd Armored Cavalry, Tiger Squadron, based in Fort Carson, CO. He was deployed to Iraq on April 4, 2003.

A York, NE, native, Sergeant Bader was a dedicated soldier who was committed to his family and country. He

joined the military shortly after graduating from high school and ``absolutely loved'' his career in the Army, said his wife, Tiffany. In addition to his wife, Sergeant Bader leaves behind a 14-month-old daughter, Taryn Makenzie. Our thoughts and prayers are with them both at this difficult time.

Sergeant Bader and thousands of brave American service men and women confront danger every day in Iraq. Their tremendous risks and sacrifices must never be taken fro granted. For his service, bravery, and sacrifice, I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring SGT Daniel Bader.

Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of Daniel Bader, a fellow Nebraskan and staff sergeant in the United States Army. Staff Sergeant Bader was killed on November 2 near Fallujah, Iraq when the Chinook helicopter he was aboard was shot down. Staff Sergeant Bader was one of 16 soldiers killed and 20 wounded en route to the United States for 2 weeks of leave. He was 28 years old.

Staff Sergeant Bader served in the 3rd Armored Cavalry, Tiger Squadron, based on Fort Carson, CO. He was deployed to Iraq on April 4, 2003.

A York, NE native, Staff Sergeant Bader was a dedicated soldier who was committed to his family and country. He joined the military shortly after graduating from high school and ``absolutely loved'' his career in the Army, said his wife Tiffany. In addition to his wife, Staff Sergeant Bader leaves behind a 14-month-old daughter, Taryn Makenzie. Our thoughts and prayers are with them both at this difficult time.

Staff Sergeant Bader and thousands of brave American service men and women confront danger every day in Iraq--their tremendous risks and sacrifices must never be taken for granted. For his service, bravery, and sacrifice, I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring Staff Sergeant Daniel Bader.

I very much appreciate the leadership of the chairman on this issue and on this important debate.

I am here this morning to discuss the United States response to global climate change. How our Nation addresses global climate change may prove to be one of the most important economic and environmental decisions of our time. As we debate the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act of 2003, it is important to keep in mind this is not a debate about who is for or against the environment. There is no Member of Congress who wants dirty air, dirty water, a dirty environment, or declining standards of living for their children and grandchildren. We all agree on the need for a clean environment. We all want to leave our children a better, cleaner, more prosperous world.

The debate on climate change, however, has moved beyond the Kyoto protocol. In 1997, by a 95-0 vote, this body, the Senate, adopted the Byrd-Hagel resolution which stated the United States would not sign any international treaty that excluded action on the part of developing nations or that would cause serious economic harm to the United States.

However, the concerns about our climate have not abated. We should recognize the efforts of Senators McCain and Lieberman and others on this particular issue. Although I disagree with the approach they have proposed, I understand and share their concerns. It is important to keep the debate moving forward in order to develop and implement practical policies to deal with climate change.

The McCain-Lieberman bill would create mandatory emissions reductions for greenhouse gasses here in this country. The consequences of such mandates are severe. This bill would raise energy prices for consumers, agricultural producers, business, and industry, and have a very negative impact on our economy. The mandates would also be very difficult to reach.

The Department of Energy's own independent Energy Information Administration projects the greenhouse gas emission levels in 2010 would have to be reduced by 14 percent in order to achieve the 2000 emission level quota set by this bill, not the 1.5 percent reduction that supporters of this bill are claiming.

This means utilities and manufacturers will have to find alternatives to coal, the predominant fuel used in this country. In most cases, this means switching to natural gas. That would mean higher costs for homeowners, businesses, industry, and farmers, as well as possible natural gas shortages.

A fuel shift of this magnitude demanded by this bill for the utility industry would require natural gas production and pipeline capacity this country simply does not have nor will have in 2010.

We have recently seen the effects of high natural gas prices in this country. A recent GAO report concluded the natural gas price fight in the years 2000 to 2002 led to a 25 percent reduction in domestic production of nitrogen fertilizer and a 43 percent in nitrogen imports. This was a significant blow to this country, especially to our agricultural producers.

Record demands and higher prices for natural gas caused America's farmers and ranchers to spend an additional $1.5 billion just to plant and fertilize their crops this past spring.

The question we are faced with is not whether we should take action but what kind of action would best address the climate change challenge we face now and into the future. Our actions should be focused on incentivizing and achieving voluntary emissions reductions in developing and disseminating clear technologies.

I supported such actions in the past in addressing our national climate change policy: The establishment of a voluntary registry for carbon emissions reductions; tax credits for emissions reductions; and research into climate change science and carbon sequestration. Closing the gaps in our knowledge, our science, our industry, and our technology builds a solid foundation for a wise climate policy for the future.

Although there are inconsistencies in the science, there has been a human impact on the Earth's atmosphere--we all accept that--and we should consider steps to mitigate that impact. The sooner we begin, the smaller and less painful the changes will have to be in the future. Global warming does not recognize national borders. The changes under consideration today are proposed solely for the United States, but our global warming policy must be broader. The United States alone cannot improve the Earth's climate. The only way forward is through international cooperation and collaboration--engaging, helping, partnering with all nations, especially developing nations. Developing nations are quickly becoming the major emitters of greenhouse gasses, but they are exempted from international agreements to reduce these emissions. There are some good reasons for this. These nations cannot achieve greenhouse gas reductions until they achieve higher standards of living. They lack clean energy technology, and they cannot absorb the economic impact of the changes necessary for emissions reductions. Our partnerships with developing nations can help increase the efficiency of their energy use and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Industrialized nations must help less developed nations by sharing cleaner technology so developing countries can leapfrog over the highly polluting stages of development that the United States and other countries have already been through. The Bush administration has taken the initiative in developing these public-private partnerships and projects with all developing nations.

The United States Chamber of Commerce has called for a Marshall plan for developing emissions-free technologies. Part of that plan includes the dissemination of those technologies to developing nations. This will take time. We should be thinking and planning 20 to 50 years out.

By partnering with developing nations, we will export American technology and expertise, and improve all economies along the way.

These are the types of plans the U.S. should be reviewing. Investments can be spread over time and gradual and effective change is the least painful to individuals, industries and nations--and it is the most lasting. It also allows all nations to participate in workable climate change policies. It is the only way to ensure both global climate change success and global prosperity.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida addressed the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Tatyana Goryachova for her contributions to journalism and her strength in the face of extreme adversity. Ms. Goryachova is a Ukrainian newspaper editor who, as a result of her unbiased reporting and journalistic integrity, has suffered threats and physical assault.

A free press is a defining characteristic of a democratic society. A free press in the U.S. is provided for and protected by our Constitution. In Ukraine before the fall of communism in 1991, newspapers were censored and only allowed to publish officially sanctioned positions. While a free press is taking hold in Ukraine, significant pressure remains to publish only stories favorable to government and business interests.

Ms. Goryachova and her husband, Sergey Belousov, have owned and edited the Berdyansk Delovoy in Berdyansk, Ukraine since 1998. As editor, Ms. Goryachova has insisted on evenhanded coverage. The newspaper has exposed corruption in the city government and covered challengers as well as incumbents in city elections--a decision that brought her into conflict with government officials.

Ms. Goryachova's professional choices have made her the subject of severe personal hardships. The Berdyansk Delovoy office was vandalized. Ms. Goryachova's life has been threatened. She was attacked and had acid thrown in her face, causing serious damage to her eyes and skin. Despite this, she has persevered and continued complete coverage at the newspaper.

Ms. Goryachova found an advocate in Hal Foster, an American journalist and Omaha World-Herald correspondent she met at a journalism seminar in Kiev, Ukraine. Mr. Foster arranged to have Ms. Goryachova's eye injuries treated in the United States. He secured an anonymous benefactor who paid for her care.

In addition, the Berdyansk Delovoy needed its own printing press to continue publishing. After hearing Ms. Goryachova's story, Omaha World- Herald Publisher John Gottschalk offered to donate a printing press to the newspaper. The generosity of an anonymous donor and the Omaha World-Herald has ensured that Tatyana Goryachova will have both her eyesight and a strong voice in her community.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote in 1913 that, ``Sunlight is the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.'' Ms. Goryachova understands that exposing corruption and illuminating Ukraine's darkest corners is the surest way to end abuse and promote democracy. A free press is not only a sign of a thriving democracy, it is an important tool of democracy.

Building a strong democratic tradition takes journalists and citizens like Tatyana Goryachova who are committed to transparency and integrity in government. For her commitment and sacrifices, her contributions to journalism and to democracy, Tatyana Goryachova deserves our recognition and respect.

Mr. President, I advise my colleagues to support Senator Reed's amendment. I rise to support the Reed amendment because, in fact, everything he has said about why it is important to enhance and enlarge our force structure is exactly right. Force structures are not developed over a year, 2, 3, or 4. Force structures are developed over a long period of time.

When we are looking at 125,000 activated National Guard and Army Reserve units now, and probably more to be activated, we cannot sustain that kind of activity for the long term. That means we are going to have to face up to reality--what the Senator from Rhode Island is talking about--and that is enlarge that force structure.

Currently in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Balkans, almost in the entire military police force, our civil affairs force is made up of National Guard and Army Reserves. We cannot sustain that situation. We need more light infantry; we need more special forces; and we cannot do this on the cheap. As the President of the United States has said, this is a long-term commitment, not just in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the challenges that face us in the 21st century are new challenges, different kinds of challenges that will require different force structures. That means we cannot use just laser-guided munitions. Someone has to govern--nation building--exactly what we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I know this is imperfect. This maybe is not the exact way to do this, but it is something this body, this Congress, this Nation needs to face up to, and they need to face up to it now.

I hope my colleagues take a serious look at this amendment. As my colleague from Rhode Island said, this does not come out of the President's $87 billion package.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of Christopher Swisher, a fellow Nebraskan and staff sergeant in the United States Army. Sergeant Swisher was killed last week when his squadron was attacked while on a mission in Baghdad, Iraq. He was 26 years old.

Sergeant Swisher was one of thousands of brave American servicemen and women fighting in Iraq. Our soldiers confront danger everday--their tremendous risks and sacrifices must never be taken for granted.

A Lincoln native, Sergeant Swisher was a dedicated soldier who was committed to his family and country. His life-long interest in the military led him to overcome a learning disability and embark on a successful career in the Army.

On the frontlines of the war in Iraq, Sergeant Swisher demonstrated the courage of a leader and an American hero. Before his deployment, Sergeant Swisher told his mother, Sharon; ``I'm doing what I want to be doing because I'm protecting my family, my home, and my country.'' In addition to his mother, Sergeant Swisher leaves behind a wife, Kristen; daughter, Alexandria; brother, Terry; and sister, Lisa. Our thoughts and prayers are with them all at this difficult time.

For his service, bravery, and sacrifice, I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring SGT Christopher Swisher.

Mr. President, today is a day for remembrance and reflection. The attacks of September 11, 2001, affected all Americans as individuals, as families, and as a Nation. On that day, 2 years ago, I told the Omaha World Herald: ``America is forever changed.''

We remember today those who died 2 years ago in New York, at the Pentagon, and in Pennsylvania, as well as those who have since lost their lives to terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, Pakistan, the Philippines, Yemen, and elsewhere. Their sacrifices and service should reinforce our commitment to defeating this new scourge of mankind.

History has allowed America no quarter from the heavy burdens of leadership. The post-cold-war era of the 1990s now seems like an interlude between two epoch challenges: the cold war and the war on terrorism. Just as previous American generations defeated Nazi tyranny and contained Soviet expansion, today's war on terrorism requires new thinking, commitments, sacrifices, and responsibilities by a new generation of Americans.

Americans can take pride in the courage and determination we have shown over the last 2 years. Our young men and women have participated in the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan from brutal tyrannies, and we continue

to kill and capture al-Qaida leaders and terrorists and disrupt their cells and networks worldwide.

Our Foreign Service officers, policemen, firefighters, and health and immigration professionals are on the front lines, at home and abroad, in keeping our homeland safe. Their roles have been redefined, along with our understandings of personal and collective security. These are battles joined but not yet won.

Two years is but a blip in the span of generations. America is still finding its way, seeking a new center of gravity and balance between power and purpose in world affairs. America must approach its foreign policy with a principled realism that reflects our values, acknowledges the realities and challenges we face worldwide, and conveys an awareness of the costs and consequences of our actions. Decisions made today will have global implications for years to come, at a time when there is very little margin for error.

America is playing for the next generation around the world. The battle against terrorism cannot be considered in a vacuum from the breeding grounds of poverty and despair in the Islamic world. We need to turn the tide in our favor. Our military power and policies must be balanced with a nobility of purpose that conveys America's commitment to helping make a better world for all people.

The perception of American power will either enhance or diminish our influence, trust, and respect in the world. America's success will be determined not only by the extent of its power but by a judicious and wise use of it. America must enhance its relationships, not just its power. And America should not meet those world challenges alone.

At these historic junctures, international alliances and institutions will change and be redefined, as events unfold and realities demand. America must lead in reshaping these alliances, institutions, and relationships that have helped support peace and prosperity since World War II. America's interests are not mutually exclusive from the interests of our friends and partners. Our actions abroad cannot be separated from our priorities at home.

I have spoken across the country and to many Nebraskans about their concerns of the costs of the war on terrorism and building Iraq and Afghanistan at the expense of America's economy, health care, agriculture, and environment. But we have to understand all of this is connected. Our commitments abroad will require resources and sacrifices. But America cannot prosper at home in the absence of security and stability abroad. Issues critical to Nebraskans, to America, such as trade and economic growth, do not flourish in conflict; they wither and die.

In thinking of the post-9/11 world, I think of my children and the world that they and all of our children will inherit. The stakes could not be higher.

Today America looks upon a world of danger, of risk, but yet opportunity. The world looks upon an America that stands astride the globe as no other nation in history. How will the future of the world play out? That is up to us. The world is made up of 190 nations. These 6.2 billion people represent many religions, cultures, traditions, histories, and ideas. But there is a fundamental common denominator among all people--the desire to be free. America's course in the world will be guided by the hallmarks of our national character: courage, compassion, humility, and respect for others.

The memory of September 11, 2001, will focus our prayers, lift our spirits, and renew our purpose. That is the way those Americans who gave their lives on that day would have wanted it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I request 4 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise tonight in support of an amendment I have offered, along with my colleagues, Senators Dodd and Jeffords and others, to increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Act, IDEA, part B, by an additional $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2004. This amendment would bring the total IDEA fiscal year 2004 increase to $2.2 billion, which was the level approved by the Senate in the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution earlier this year.

For the past 3 years, I have worked with Senators Harkin, Dodd, Jeffords, and many of my Republican colleagues to increase funding for IDEA. I have argued that no education funding priority is as important or will do more for States in this time of budget crisis than meeting our Federal commitment to IDEA.

As we all know, in 1975 Congress guaranteed children with disabilities the right to free and appropriate education. This meant that, whatever the cost, States and local school districts would be mandated by Federal law to provide the necessary services to educate a child with a disability. Congress understood that this Federal mandate would be costly. As a result, they agreed to provide States with 40 percent of the cost of educating these children. That was almost 30 years ago.

Unfortunately, Congress has not kept its end of the deal. While our schools continue to meet the necessary requirements under IDEA year after year, they also bear more than their fair share of the costs for complying with this law. Today, the Federal Government's commitment to IDEA is only 18 percent.

As in years past, I offered legislation with Senator Harkin and others to ensure that the Federal Government provides for special education by making funding increases for this program mandatory. But we will have this discussion on mandatory versus discretionary funding for this program when we take up the IDEA reauthorization legislation later this year.

We are here today because, again, as years in the past, this appropriations bill has failed. We failed to keep our funding proposition. That is why we need this amendment. The fiscal year 2004 budget resolution approved by this body allowed for a $2.2 billion increase for IDEA, part B funding. Unfortunately, the Senate Appropriations Committee underfunded this program, only providing an increase of $1 billion.

The Dodd-Hagel-Jeffords amendment provides an additional $1.2 billion for IDEA, meeting the approved budget increase of $2.2 billion already approved this year.

Additionally, the amendment would put us on a realistic path to reaching our obligation to provide States and local school districts with 40 percent of the cost of educating children with disabilities.

This is the responsible thing to do. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment when it comes up for a vote tomorrow morning.

Mr. President, I thank you and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleagues Senator Sununu and Senator Dole, the Federal Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2003. This is needed regulatory reform at a critical time for the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac).

There is no doubt that our housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) have been successful in carrying out their mission of creating a secondary market for home mortgages. The housing market has remained strong through tough economic times, and homeownership in this country is at an all-time high.

The housing GSEs, however, are uncommon institutions with a unique set of responsibilities and stakeholders. Fannie and Freddie are chartered by Congress, limited in scope, and are subject to Congressional mandates, yet they are publicly traded companies with all the earnings pressure that Wall Street demands. Additionally, Fannie and Freddie enjoy an implicit guarantee by the Federal Government that has aided them in developing substantial clout on Wall Street. With their influence in the markets, their ability to raise capital at near- Treasury Bill rates, and their use of the most sophisticated portfolio management tools, Fannie and Freddie today are no longer simply secondary market facilitators for mortgages.

Freddie Mac's recent disclosure of management failures and accounting deficiencies resulting in upwards of $4.5 billion in understated earnings precipitated the need for Congress to exercise its oversight of the GSEs. The Senate Banking Committee has held one hearing already and more are planned after our August recess.

If we are to continue to provide GSEs with the framework to operate under an implied government backing, I believe that they should be held to a higher standard than private organizations and subject to more scrutiny than the private sector. Furthermore, I believe it is possible to realign oversight and operating rules for Fannie and Freddie without jeopardizing the strong housing market that America enjoys today.

It is my view that the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) has not been given the tools needed to effectively regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Our legislation would create a new, stronger regulator in the Department of the Treasury. Treasury regulates banks and other financial institutions through the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), and it has the experience and expertise needed to supervise Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Our bill also would provide the new regulator with enhanced regulatory flexibility and enforcement tools like those afforded to OCC and OTS. Furthermore, the bill would: give OFES oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's ``mission'' as well as safety and soundness; give OFES authority to regulate the type and amount of non-mission related assets Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can hold; give OFES enhanced enforcement powers much like those of other financial regulators; fund OFES through assessments instead of through Congressional appropriations; require several government studies, including one on the risk implications of GSEs purchasing their own mortgage backed securities, one on the feasibility of merging OFES with the Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB), and one on the feasibility of consolidating OFES with the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS).

This reform is important to restoring and maintaining the confidence that investors and the markets require. In light of the recent problems at Freddie Mac, it is even more important. I urge my colleagues to support this reform effort and invite them to cosponsor our bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleagues Senator Sununu and Senator Dole, the Federal Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2003. This is needed regulatory reform at a critical time for the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac).

There is no doubt that our housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) have been successful in carrying out their mission of creating a secondary market for home mortgages. The housing market has remained strong through tough economic times, and homeownership in this country is at an all-time high.

The housing GSEs, however, are uncommon institutions with a unique set of responsibilities and stakeholders. Fannie and Freddie are chartered by Congress, limited in scope, and are subject to Congressional mandates, yet they are publicly traded companies with all the earnings pressure that Wall Street demands. Additionally, Fannie and Freddie enjoy an implicit guarantee by the Federal Government that has aided them in developing substantial clout on Wall Street. With their influence in the markets, their ability to raise capital at near- Treasury Bill rates, and their use of the most sophisticated portfolio management tools, Fannie and Freddie today are no longer simply secondary market facilitators for mortgages.

Freddie Mac's recent disclosure of management failures and accounting deficiencies resulting in upwards of $4.5 billion in understated earnings precipitated the need for Congress to exercise its oversight of the GSEs. The Senate Banking Committee has held one hearing already and more are planned after our August recess.

If we are to continue to provide GSEs with the framework to operate under an implied government backing, I believe that they should be held to a higher standard than private organizations and subject to more scrutiny than the private sector. Furthermore, I believe it is possible to realign oversight and operating rules for Fannie and Freddie without jeopardizing the strong housing market that America enjoys today.

It is my view that the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) has not been given the tools needed to effectively regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Our legislation would create a new, stronger regulator in the Department of the Treasury. Treasury regulates banks and other financial institutions through the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), and it has the experience and expertise needed to supervise Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Our bill also would provide the new regulator with enhanced regulatory flexibility and enforcement tools like those afforded to OCC and OTS. Furthermore, the bill would: give OFES oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's ``mission'' as well as safety and soundness; give OFES authority to regulate the type and amount of non-mission related assets Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can hold; give OFES enhanced enforcement powers much like those of other financial regulators; fund OFES through assessments instead of through Congressional appropriations; require several government studies, including one on the risk implications of GSEs purchasing their own mortgage backed securities, one on the feasibility of merging OFES with the Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB), and one on the feasibility of consolidating OFES with the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS).

This reform is important to restoring and maintaining the confidence that investors and the markets require. In light of the recent problems at Freddie Mac, it is even more important. I urge my colleagues to support this reform effort and invite them to cosponsor our bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss S. 1464, legislation I recently introduced with Senator Dorgan to provide a capital gains tax incentive to agricultural producers on the sale of their farm or ranch land.

Agriculture is a vital engine that helps drive this Nation's economy. But this engine is only as powerful as the next generation of producers. The relentless financial problems facing the agricultural sector, particularly for beginning farmers, are daunting. It is often difficult for beginning farmers to compete for land with large capital- based operations. S. 1464 helps level the playing field by easing the transfer of land between the old and new generations of farmers and ranchers.

S. 1464, the Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Tax Incentive Act, would provide all agricultural producers selling their property to a beginning farmer or rancher a 100-percent reduction of their capital gains tax rate. Producers selling their land to someone who pledges to keep the land in agricultural production would receive a 50-percent reduction of their capital gains taxes. All producers selling their land would receive an automatic 25-percent reduction of their capital gains taxes. These incentives would encourage repopulation of the rural landscape with a new generation of young, energetic agricultural producers.

Family farmers and ranchers often do not benefit from some tax incentives already in place for other Americans. In 1997, Congress enacted a $500,000 capital gains tax exclusion for home sales. Unfortunately, this provision often does not benefit family farmers since their homes are typically included as part of the larger farmstead. S. 1464 would correct this inequity by extending the $500,000 exclusion to farmers and ranchers.

It is imperative that we do more to ensure that beginning farmers and ranchers are given opportunities to succeed in strengthening rural communities. S. 1464 helps do this by reducing the tax burden on retiring farmers and ranchers, so that the continuity of agricultural production remains unbroken from one generation to the next.

Mr. President, I rise today to support the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreements, which are now before the Senate. These agreements are the first to be considered under the expedited Trade Promotion Authority, TPA, procedure that Congress passed last year. Ratification of these agreements will provide significant benefits to agricultural producers and the U.S. economy. Strong bipartisan votes will send an important message that the U.S. Congress is strongly committed to growing the U.S. economy and helping American farmers and workers succeed in an ever-growing competitive global marketplace.

Both the U.S.-Singapore and U.S.-Chile free trade agreements will level the playing field for U.S. products and farm goods. Specifically, both agreements will eliminate the use of subsidies on agricultural exports, a major step forward for U.S. agriculture in WTO negotiations. There is a clear link between a healthy agricultural sector and trade. More than 43,000 Nebraskans hold jobs related to agriculture exports. Nebraska ranks fourth nationally in exports of agricultural products-- an estimated $3.14 billion in 2002. In 2002, Nebraska farmers and ranchers saw increased international sales of corn, soybeans, and wheat, and depend on the ability to export their products to the rest of the world for continued growth.

The U.S.-Singapore free trade agreement will strengthen an important relationship and serve as our first free trade agreement with an Asian nation. Singapore is a critical ally in Southeast Asia in the global war on terrorism. Singapore is also an important economic ally. It is our 12th largest trading partner. This free trade agreement will provide expanded opportunities for trade and investment and will increase job opportunities here at home. It will benefit American firms in many sectors, including those in the banking/financial industry and in professional services. Under the agreement, 100 percent of U.S. goods and 92 percent of Singaporean goods will have duty-free status immediately. The free trade agreement further ensures that Singapore cannot increase its duties on any U.S. product.

The U.S.-Chile Free Trade agreement will be the first between the U.S. and a South American nation. Under this agreement, American farmers, workers, and businesses will benefit from improved and expanded access to the Chilean market. More than 75 percent of U.S. farm goods will enter Chile tariff-free within 4 years, with all tariffs being phased out within 12 years. This agreement will eliminate tariffs on corn and most distilled spirits in 2 years. It will immediately eliminate tariffs on pork and pork products, soybeans, and many other agricultural products. Access for beef on both sides will be completely liberalized over 4 years. Overall, this agreement will immediately remove tariffs on more than 85 percent of U.S. exports. The U.S.-Chile agreement will provide momentum to the ongoing negotiations in the Free Trade of the Americas and global trade talks. Bilateral agreements, such as this agreement with Chile, are essential because they provide benefits immediately and help the U.S. keep pace with the 16 global competitors, including the EU and Canada, who already have preferential trade agreements with Chile.

Free trade provides the basis for economic growth and democratic governance in developing countries. Free trade promotes American values around the world. It underpins a global economic order that is essential to our own economic security. Agreements like those before us today will help the U.S. to reap the benefits of free trade and gain access to emerging markets, creating new jobs and higher incomes for Americans. Ninety-six percents of the world's consumers are outside of U.S. borders. Foreign market access is essential for the continued growth and viability of the U.S. economy. International trade is an essential component of growth and opportunity in our global economy. The U.S. must be a leader, not a follower, in the global marketplace.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreements.