Jean Carnahan

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk and ask that it be appropriately referred. Today I am introducing legislation to correct a flaw in our tax system that penalizes the families of those who die while serving in our Armed Forces. The Honor Our Heroes Act will restore compassion to the tax code. It exempts from taxation the money the government provides following the death of an active duty servicemember. This payment is known as the death gratuity benefit. Families are often crushed by the weight of funeral and other immediate expenses after a spouse, parent, or child is killed while serving in the military. Congress recognized that, at the very least, we owe these men and women assistance with this burden. In 1986, when the benefit was set at $3,000, Congress made this payment tax free. Over the years, rising costs led Congress to increase the payment to $6,000, but Congress did not make a corresponding change in the tax code. As a result, today, half of the payment is subject to the income tax. Now, bereaved families receive this money with a red flag. Families are getting get less than the $6,000 Congress meant for them to have. We end up giving with one hand and taking away with the other. Missouri has given two of her sons in the War on Terrorism. The families of these men made the greatest sacrifice possible. We should not be asking them to pay taxes on the benefit the government gives them to help pay for funeral expenses and other costs. But since 1991, thousands of families have had to pay these taxes. During this time, especially, when so many of members of the military are putting themselves directly in harm's way, we cannot let this unfair taxation continue. Our colleagues in the House have taken an important step toward repairing this flaw, but they neglect the families for whom a future increase in the death gratuity would lead to tax liability. My bill leaves no such doubt. The Honor Our Heroes Act makes the entire amount of the death gratuity payment exempt from taxes, immediately and permanently. This bill ensures that payments made to families of servicemembers are never taxed again. The legislation I am introducing today will make our Nation's gratitude tax-free to families coping with the death of a loved one. We owe this to our men and women in uniform, and pray that their families never have to face such a loss. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk and ask that it be appropriately referred. Today I am introducing legislation to correct a flaw in our tax system that penalizes the families of those who die while serving in our Armed Forces. The Honor Our Heroes Act will restore compassion to the tax code. It exempts from taxation the money the government provides following the death of an active duty servicemember. This payment is known as the death gratuity benefit. Families are often crushed by the weight of funeral and other immediate expenses after a spouse, parent, or child is killed while serving in the military. Congress recognized that, at the very least, we owe these men and women assistance with this burden. In 1986, when the benefit was set at $3,000, Congress made this payment tax free. Over the years, rising costs led Congress to increase the payment to $6,000, but Congress did not make a corresponding change in the tax code. As a result, today, half of the payment is subject to the income tax. Now, bereaved families receive this money with a red flag. Families are getting get less than the $6,000 Congress meant for them to have. We end up giving with one hand and taking away with the other. Missouri has given two of her sons in the War on Terrorism. The families of these men made the greatest sacrifice possible. We should not be asking them to pay taxes on the benefit the government gives them to help pay for funeral expenses and other costs. But since 1991, thousands of families have had to pay these taxes. During this time, especially, when so many of members of the military are putting themselves directly in harm's way, we cannot let this unfair taxation continue. Our colleagues in the House have taken an important step toward repairing this flaw, but they neglect the families for whom a future increase in the death gratuity would lead to tax liability. My bill leaves no such doubt. The Honor Our Heroes Act makes the entire amount of the death gratuity payment exempt from taxes, immediately and permanently. This bill ensures that payments made to families of servicemembers are never taxed again. The legislation I am introducing today will make our Nation's gratitude tax-free to families coping with the death of a loved one. We owe this to our men and women in uniform, and pray that their families never have to face such a loss. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, next week marks the 37th anniversary of the day the Medicare program was signed into law. President Johnson traveled to Independence, MO to sign the bill in the presence of Harry S. Truman, who began the fight for the Medicare program in 1945. I am sure that our effort today to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare is the type of common sense measure that President Truman would understand. Without this benefit, the Medicare program does not provide seniors with the security and protection its Founders intended. If you have expensive and debilitating surgery, Medicare will pick up virtually the whole cost. But Medicare will not pay a single penny for prescription drugs that would cure your condition and make the surgery unnecessary. That does not make sense. So today the Senate has an historic opportunity. People such as Annie Gardner from Columbia, MO will be watching us closely. She is an impressive 63-year-old, retired, mother of five adult children. But she suffers from diabetes and high blood pressure. She lost her health insurance and then could not afford her prescriptions. First she rationed her prescriptions by taking half the prescribed amount, even though she knew, as a former nurse, that this was a dangerous practice. Later she had to quit purchasing the drugs entirely because of other expenses, like fixing her car and paying increased taxes on her house. In 21st century America, no one should have to make this type of choice. Today we have the chance to make Medicare the kind of program that we all want it to be. But we have before us two very different plans. In my view, the benefit plan proposed by my colleagues Bob Graham and Zell Miller is the superior choice. Their bill would create a benefit program that seniors could afford and could count on regardless of where they live. Assistance begins with the very first prescription and is the same all year long. Senior will pay a monthly premium and then $10 for generic drugs and $40 for brand name drugs. There are no gaps or limits on the coverage. And once you hit the catastrophic cap of $4,000, you do not pay another dime for prescription drugs. The alternative plan before the Senate is riddled with complexities and gaps. Before getting any benefits, seniors pay a $250 deductible. After that, seniors must pay 50 percent of the cost of their prescriptions. And then, once seniors have paid $3,451 on drugs--which is a great deal of money for virtually all seniors in Missouri--the coverage simply stops. But seniors still have to continue paying their monthly premium. The coverage does not start up again until seniors have laid out $5,300. Under this plan, seniors will be paying a different amount almost every month. Some months they will get coverage--others they will not. I do not believe this is what seniors want from a prescription drug benefit. The same flaws occur in the alternative plan for the treatment of low income seniors. But our plan would give low income seniors assistance with copayments and premiums, and 220,000 senior citizens in Missouri would qualify for this assistance. But under the alternative plan, low income seniors will have to pass rigorous assets test. Mr. President, the reason we are passing a drug benefit is so seniors do not have to sell the family possessions to pay for their prescriptions. I cannot understand why the alternative plan would require low-income seniors to sell off assets to qualify for additional help. My other concern is that seniors be guaranteed access to a benefit no matter where they live. Under the Graham-Miller plan, all seniors, regardless of whether they live in a rural or urban area, would have guaranteed access to a reliable, affordable benefit administered by the Medicare program. We all know that the Medicare system is not perfect, but it is reliable, has always been there for our seniors, and always will be there in the future. The alternative plan we are voting on today, however, creates a risky structure that does not guarantee that all seniors will be able to access the benefit. Seniors in rural areas would have the greatest risk of being left empty-handed. How do I know this? Because the Republican plan gives government subsidies to drug HMOs to administer the benefit. This is the same system that Medicare+Choice runs on. Seniors in rural Missouri know that Medicare+Choice programs have shut down all over the state. We do not want the same thing to happen to the prescription drug benefit. Our seniors deserve a dependable benefit, under Medicare, available to all. Today is the day when we can put this program in place. We have a choice between an affordable, secure, and reliable benefit that will work for seniors--and a confusing plan that will not provide security and stability. Mr. President, the Irish poet, Seamus Heaney, wrote that: Once in a lifetime, the longed for tidal wave of justice can rise up . . . and hope and history rhyme. Today we have a chance to perfect the Medicare Program, and I pray we have the courage to seize the moment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. I thank the Senator from Illinois. Mr. President, over the next 2 weeks, the Senate will address an issue that Americans have come to understand far too well--the high price of prescription drugs. We need to do all we can to lower the price of prescription drugs for consumers. Senator Stabenow's amendment is one example of a concrete action the Senate can take. Her amendment would give the State the flexibility to negotiate Medicaid drug discounts for non-Medicaid-eligible individuals. This amendment would help lower prices for all consumers. I am a cosponsor of the amendment and encourage my colleagues to support it. We need to do much more. We need to pass the underlying Schumer- McCain legislation. Today, pharmaceutical companies are making historic profits while average Americans are paying historic prices. Let's look at those profits. Earlier this year, Fortune magazine did a comparison of U.S. industries to see how profitable they were in the past year. The pharmaceutical industry ranked No. 1 in all three of Fortune's profitability measures. Almost 20 percent of its revenues were profits. But now let's look at the prices. In 2001, the prices of the 50 prescription drugs used most often by seniors increased on the average by nearly three times the rate of inflation. For example, Lipitor, which is used to treat high cholesterol, rose 13.5 percent, more than five times the rate of inflation. Paxil, which is used to treat depression, rose 11.6 percent. And Celebrex, used to treat arthritis, rose 10.4 percent. For seniors who are living on a fixed income, the high price of prescription drugs means making tough choices every day between lifesaving medication and food and rent and heat. The No. 1 issue which I hear about in Missouri from our seniors is prescription drugs. Whether people live in urban or rural or suburban areas, they are all feeling the pain of high prices. Recently, I visited the Terrace Retirement Community in Columbia, MO. While I was there, I led a roundtable on the topic of prescription drugs. If you could have heard some of those stories. They were definitely heart wrenching. One of the women I met that day in Columbia was Annie Gardner. She is an impressive 63-year-old mother of five children, but she suffers from diabetes and high blood pressure. Her hardship began after taking a buyout from her employer. In this transaction she lost her health insurance and was not able to afford insurance on the private market. This left her unable to afford her prescriptions. Often she had to ration them by taking half the prescribed amount so it would last longer. Ms. Gardner knows how dangerous this can be because she is a licensed practical nurse and has been for 40 years. Later, she had to quit purchasing the drugs entirely because of other expenses, such as fixing her car and paying increased taxes on her home. Ms. Gardner and thousands like her make these tough life-threatening decisions every day. But no one should have to make those kinds of decisions. Seniors are not the only ones who have been hit hard. For far too many families, the cost of prescription drugs is a budget buster. Working families without health insurance are paying the highest price of all because they do not get the benefits of the negotiated discounts. This issue also hits employers. They absorb the cost of high prescription drug prices in the health benefit packages they provide to their employees. For example, last year General Motors spent $1.3 billion for prescription drugs for its employees and retirees. This problem has reached such a crisis that companies, including General Motors, have joined the Governors to form the Business for Affordable Medicine Coalition. Their key issue is the one we are debating today--closing the loopholes in the current law so that generic drugs can compete fairly with brand name drugs. I am pleased that the Senate is considering ways to close these loopholes with the Greater Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals Act. I applaud Senators Schumer and McCain for authorizing this legislation. I, too, am proud to be a cosponsor of that bill. It is imperative that we close these loopholes in current law that prevents generics from coming on the market. Generics cost on the average one-third the price of brand name drugs. Generics bring competition into the market and lowers the price for drugs for all Americans. When a brand name drug is under patent, its manufacturer enjoys a monopoly. One company sells the drug; one company sets the prices. Now I support patents for drugs. Patents are there for a legitimate reason--to allow companies to recoup the cost of research and development that they invest in creating the drugs. But drug companies are abusing loopholes under the current law and extending their monopoly on prices sometimes for years at a time. A 1-year delay in a generic coming to market can translate into hundreds of millions of dollars in profit for the brand name company. In 1984, Congress passed the Hatch-Waxman act. This act was intended to strike a balance, a balance between brand name drug companies being compensated for their investments and generic companies eventually having access to the market. But the original purpose of the law has been distorted. The law is now being used to extend patent protections far beyond what Congress intended. Balance needs to be restored. American taxpayers deserve better than what they are getting. Over the next 5 years, a remarkable 26.7 percent of the entire 2001 pharmaceutical market is scheduled to face exposure to generic competition. If generics are allowed to come on the market, it would mean more choices and lower prices.

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Generics can save consumers over 60 percent per prescription. Here are some examples of brand name drugs whose patents are supposed to expire in the next few years. Listen to the numbers on what consumers should be expected to save. The patent on Claritin, an allergy medication, is scheduled to expire in December. Annual savings after the generic becomes available are expected to be over $500 million. The patent on Zocor, a cholesterol- lowering drug, is scheduled to expire in December 2005. The annual savings after the generic becomes available is expected to be about $735 million. The patent on Zoloft, a drug for depression, is scheduled to expire in December 2005. The annual savings after the generic becomes available is expected to be $577 million. However, given the amount of money that is at stake, pharmaceutical companies have a lot of incentive to delay generics from coming on the market. Unfortunately, current law allows them to do this. If we in this Congress have the courage to act, American consumers will save billions of dollars. If we don't, the money will go directly from the pocketbooks of American families and on to the profit statements of the drug companies. Congress must move on yet another front. We will soon be considering a historic addition to the Medicare Program, a prescription drug benefit. The legislation I am supporting would create an affordable and accessible benefit administered through the Medicare Program. This Senate plan is simple. Assistance begins with the first prescriptions. There are no gaps or limits on coverage, and seniors will pay $10 for generic drugs and $40 for brand name drugs. There is certainty and there is stability. The House bill is the complete opposite. It is complicated. There is a $250 deductible before seniors get relief. There are months where seniors have to pay a premium, but they would not get assistance with their drug costs. Under the House plan, seniors will pay approximately a $35-a-month premium but still pay the full price at the drugstore. The House Republican plan would require seniors to use drug HMOs to get their benefit. However, there are no guarantees that private plans would provide a benefit in all geographic areas, or that a plan would even stay in business. Look at what has happened with Medicare+Choice, Medicare's HMO. Since 1998, nationwide, 2.2 million Medicare enrollees have lost Medicare+Choice as an option because of plans withdrawn from the market. In Missouri, from 1998 to 2001, eight health plans stopped providing Medicare+Choice options in the State. Furthermore, some options are available in only urban centers and not in rural areas. Why would we rely on this same type of system to give prescription drug coverage to rural areas? To me, what the House passed is unacceptable. It is an incomplete benefit with absolutely no effort to lower drug prices. It is unacceptable for Missouri's seniors and unacceptable for American seniors. We must do better in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, my amendment requires that when corporate insiders, such as CEOs, trade the stock of the companies they manage, they must take reasonable steps to disclose those transactions to their shareholders. Current law requires that insiders file disclosure forms with the Securities and Exchange Commission. However, almost all of these forms are filed on paper and average investors have no practical way of seeing these disclosures. My amendment requires that these disclosure forms be filed electronically and that the SEC make these disclosures available to the public over the Internet. This amendment also requires that corporations disclose insider transactions on their own Web sites. Investors have a right to know if corporate officers are dumping their stock. However, it is meaningless to require these disclosures if investors have no practical way of ever seeing these disclosures. Without this amendment, the disclosure forms simply sit in a file cabinet at the SEC in Washington. My amendment ensures that investors have access to this important information. In the 3 years leading up to its bankruptcy, as Enron's top officers touted the company's stock, they sold more than $1.1 billion worth of their own holdings. Ken Lay alone sold more than $100 million worth of Enron stock while telling others to buy it. Enron's vice president of human resources, Cindy Olsen, was asked by employees if they should invest 100 percent of their retirement funds in Enron. She replied: ``Absolutely.'' But within 3 months she personally unloaded $1 million worth of Enron stock. Had Enron employees only known, they might have been skeptical about this advice. Investors are entitled to know how executives are acting with their own shares of their company's stock, and my amendment will ensure they will. I yield my remaining time back to the Senator from Maryland.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Dodd, Dubbin, Levin, Harkin, and Corzine. The Senate is engaged in an important debate about how to improve our Nation's financial system. Today I am offering an amendment that is intended to provide more timely information to average investors. America has the most vibrant and dynamic economy in the world. Our robust and resilient capital markets are the foundation of our economy. But the success of those markets depends on the free flow of accurate, reliable information. Recent disclosures about the inaccuracy of some companies' financial reports have shaken that confidence. I am pleased the Senate has acted quickly to take up this important reform legislation. I believe that this bill makes tremendous progress in improving the quality of information available to the markets. In the interest of further improvement, I am offering an amendment to modernize the method of disclosure required when insiders trade in their own companies' stock. One warning sign that a company may be in trouble is when its executives are selling large amounts of company stock, as occurred at Enron. I have learned, however, that information about insider selling is not easily accessible. Under our current system a company's officers are required to file a disclosure form with the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, any time they sell securities of their company. Tens of thousands of these forms are filed annually. These are not complicated forms. I have a copy here. It is a simple 2-page form. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that the form should not take more than 30 minutes to fill out. With capital markets as sophisticated as they are in the U.S., information must be available quickly to be useful. However, insiders currently have up to six weeks to file their disclosure forms. And the overwhelming majority of these forms--95 percent--are filed on paper, rather than electronically. The Banking Committee has already addressed the issue of timely disclosure. This legislation would require disclosure of sales within 2 days, a vast improvement over the current deadlines. However, this legislation is silent on the issue of modernizing this arcane paper filing system. Right now, there is no way for an investor in Missouri to quickly learn that a company executive is selling off company stock. The only ways to get the information are to go to a reading room at the SEC in Washington, or to write a letter to the SEC. These written requests may take weeks to process. This is unacceptable in the electronic age. My amendment requires that information about insider sales of publicly traded companies be filed electronically. The SEC would then be required to make the forms available to the public over the Internet. Any company that maintains a corporate Web site would be required to post these disclosure forms on the Web site. The SEC, itself, has acknowledged the value of having these forms filed electronically. I have here a letter from SEC Chairman, Harvey Pitt. He wrote to me that ``expedited disclosure of trading by company insiders is imperative.'' In fact, he applauded the legislation I introduced earlier this year that requires electronic disclosure. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CARNAHAN. This is not a new idea. In fact, more than 2 years ago, in April 2000, the SEC published a rulemaking for its electronic data system. In that rulemaking, the SEC indicated that it ``anticipated'' making insiders file disclosure forms electronically. I applaud the SEC for recognizing the need to modernize, but I am frustrated by the delay. It has been over 2 years since the SEC made this proposal. An agency that is responsible for monitoring markets where trillions of dollars are electronically exchanged ought to be able to develop a fairly simple electronic database to make this information available. The Senate now has the opportunity to require the SEC to move quickly. I am very pleased that the bill I introduced earlier this year on this subject was included in the House accounting reform bill. The House has required that insiders file electronically, within one day of their transactions. The House has also required that corporations disclose insider sales on their corporate Web sites. I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment. We should not make investors wait any longer for these basic reforms. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, when I speak to people throughout Missouri, security continues to be their primary concern. They are concerned about threats from abroad and about security in their daily lives--job security, health care security, retirement security. In this day and age, when we are making extraordinary efforts to protect ourselves, people are more fearful than ever about shipments of nuclear waste through their neighborhoods and communities. In Missouri, this is especially a sensitive issue because of our recent history of nuclear waste shipments. Two summers ago, Governor Carnahan succeeded in getting a shipment rerouted around Missouri. But last year, the Department of Energy scheduled another shipment to go through Missouri. The route the Government selected went through the most populated areas in the State, through the heavily populated suburbs of St. Louis, straight through Columbia, past Independence, and then on through Kansas City. The Government's plan would ship nuclear waste along Interstate 70 and other roads that are crowded and in disrepair. Interstate 70 through Missouri is one of the oldest stretches of Federal interstate highway in the Nation. The newest stretch is 37 years old. The oldest stretch is 46 years old. But the original design life was only 20 years. I-70 is one of the most vital transportation corridors in the Nation. It is in need of more than just basic maintenance. It is in need of total reconstruction. Everyone who travels over I-70 knows it is in horrible condition. The number and severity of traffic-related accidents along I-70 between Kansas City and St. Louis have grown steadily in recent years and will continue to grow with projected increases in travel. Unless the road is repaired and expanded, conditions will continue to deteriorate, congestion will increase, and transportation costs will rise. There are two scenarios: Either I-70 will remain in poor condition or, as I would prefer, it will undergo massive reconstruction over the next decade. Either way, I-70 should not be the superhighway for nuclear waste. If Yucca Mountain is built, that is exactly what will happen. Preliminary estimates by the Department of Energy show that within a 25-year period, over 19,000 truck and 4,000 rail shipments of nuclear waste will go through Missouri on their way to Yucca Mountain. That is two trucks a day every day passing through St. Louis, Boone County, Jackson County, and many other counties across the State. Unfortunately, the manner in which last year's shipment of nuclear waste through Missouri was conducted does not inspire confidence in the way the Department of Energy handles these shipments. While the State of Missouri and the Department of Energy were negotiating about this shipment, the Department announced that it would not allow waste from a research reactor in Columbia, MO, to be shipped out of State. The linkage of these two issues was inappropriate. While Governor Holden was negotiating safety protocols, the Department was playing politics with nuclear waste. I intervened to ensure these issues would be handled separately so that the Governor could continue to insist upon proper safety arrangements for the shipment. After all this, the shipments showed up in St. Louis at rush hour and would have passed through Kansas City during a Royals baseball game. The shipment had to be held at the border for a number of hours. In my view, we have not focused enough on the transportation issue to approve the Yucca Mountain site at this time. The transportation casks have not been thoroughly tested for possible terrorist attack. The final transportation routes have not been selected, and security of the truck and train shipments has not been studied. There are no concrete plans for training emergency responders in local communities along transportation routes. And, as I mentioned, the roads remain in sad repair. All these issues need to be properly addressed before I will consider voting to approve the Yucca Mountain site. It is more important to make the right decision than it is to make a quick decision. Every nuclear reactor in the country has onsite spent fuel. These storage facilities will continue to be used even if the repository at Yucca Mountain is built because the spent fuel that comes out of the reactor must cool for approximately 5 years. Most of these facilities will be upgraded and expanded if and when necessary, and in Missouri our single nuclear powerplant will not experience shortage difficulties until 2024. So there is plenty of time to upgrade and further expand its storage facility if necessary. Before committing to ship tons of nuclear waste through the heartland, I believe we should spend much more time in determining whether we can transport this waste safely and keep these shipments away from our most densely populated communities. I am confident that is what the people of Missouri want.

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Madam President, for the Record, I want to correct the statement made earlier regarding the shipment of nuclear waste or spent fuel through Missouri. The Senator from Alaska stated that ``there is no proposed existing transportation route that will be taking the waste through Missouri.'' He also said that ``there is no logic to suggest that there would be movement of waste through the State of Missouri.'' These are simply untrue statements. In fact, a shipment of foreign research reactor spent fuel was shipped through Missouri on I-70 in June 2001. The Department of Energy has three highway routes selected for cross-country shipments of this spent fuel that we take back from foreign countries. I have the map right here. I got it from the Department of Energy. Two of the three routes go directly across Missouri. This map--not the one used on the floor by the Senator from Alaska--is a much better predictor for the potential routes for the spent fuel that will be shipped cross-country to Yucca Mountain because it is currently used for very similar nuclear waste. These are the facts. I wanted the Record to be clear for the people of Missouri.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate has agreed to accept an amendment to the Defense Department authorization bill which will protect small businesses that contract with our armed forces. I thank Senator Kerry for his leadership on this issue. I am proud to have worked with him on this amendment, on behalf of the men and women who are living the American dream by starting and growing their own businesses. The amendment that I cosponsored with Senator Kerry is very simple. It seeks to preserve opportunities for small businesses across the country to contract with the United States Army to provide goods and services for our soldiers. The Secretary of the Army recently developed a plan to consolidate procurement contracts. Our amendment requires the Secretary to report to Congress on the effect that this consolidation plan has on the participation of small businesses in Army procurement. I share the Secretary's goal of getting the most for taxpayers' money. And I want to ensure that our procurement policies are efficient. But I believe that the best procurement policies enable all businesses, large and small, to compete for contracts. After all, any economist will tell you that competition will drive prices down and quality up. When the Government consolidates many contracts into one enormous, unwieldy contract, it is nearly impossible for small or local businesses to compete. I have met with many small business owners from Missouri who have told me that they are anxious to provide quality goods and services to our military; but too often their businesses have been unable to compete because we have bundled together so many diverse procurement needs into one contract that only very large corporations have the capacity to fill the entire contract. Such a system does not benefit our military or our taxpayers. I am a cosponsor of the Small Business Federal Contractor Safeguard Act, S. 2466. This legislation addresses the problem of consolidated or bundled contracts. Of course, the Government should do all it can to take advantage of economies of scale in production or other benefits that can result from a large contract with a single supplier. Nothing in our legislation would prevent large contracts that serve a genuine economic purpose. However, I am concerned that too often contracts are bundled together simply for the sake of bureaucratic efficiency. This is a disservice to us all, and I am hopeful that the Senate will soon act on S. 2466. I am concerned that the Army's decision to proactively consolidate contracts is a step in the wrong direction. The Army has assured me that they have considered the interests of small businesses. Our amendment simply asks the Army to report back to Congress on their progress as they reform their procurement policies. I hope that the report will be filled with good news. I hope that we will learn of the Army exceeding small business participation goals. I look forward to reading such a report. But I believe that it is imperative that we follow this issue closely. We must ensure that our military is prepared to take full advantage of the tremendous opportunities available from contracting with small businesses across the country. I thank my colleagues for joining me in asking that the Secretary of the Army provide us with this important report.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support amendment No. 4009 to the Defense Authorization Act introduced by my colleague from New Mexico. This legislation is a significant step forward in the protection of our Nation from weapons of mass destruction. Since the end of the cold war, the United States has taken considerable steps to reduce the spread of these weapons. Senators Domenici and Lugar, along with former Senator Nunn, have been true visionaries in this field. Because of their efforts, we face less of a threat from the Soviet Union's nuclear legacy than we would have otherwise. The Department of Defense's Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and the related programs at the Department of Energy are truly ``defense by other means.'' While these far-sighted programs have been very successful, they were not designed to address some of the terrorist threats we now face. To address these shortcomings, I introduced the Global Nuclear Security Act. This legislation attacks the problem in three ways. First, it calls on the Departments of Energy, State, and Defense, to develop a plan to encourage countries to adhere to the highest security standards for all nuclear material. Second, it requires the DOE to develop a systematic approach to secure radiological materials outside the United States that could be used to create a so-called ``dirty bomb.'' Third, it directs the DOE, in consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency, to develop plans for reducing the threat of terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants outside the United States. I was pleased to work with Senators Landrieu, Roberts, Levin, and Warner to incorporate this legislation into the Defense Authorization bill. Now, I am pleased to join Senator Domenici, and many other colleagues in supporting legislation that will build on the accomplishments of our threat reduction programs and the Global Nuclear Security Act. This amendment would broaden and extend several existing threat reduction programs. Among its many provisions, it calls for the National Nuclear Security Administration to increase research efforts to identify technologies directed at protecting us from weapons of mass destruction. It echoes my call for the NNSA to produce a plan, and to move quickly on that plan, for expanding the nuclear material protection and control program outside of the former Soviet Union, and focusing on protection and control of material that could be used to create ``dirty bombs.'' This amendment also seeks to accelerate the disposal of highly enriched uranium and plutonium found around the world through a variety of methods. Senator Domenici's amendment greatly complements the Global Nuclear Security Act. And the combination of these two pieces of legislation makes this Defense Authorization bill stronger. Not only are we authorizing the Administration to develop strategies for curbing the spread of dangerous materials, but we are mandating swift action to implement these plans. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

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

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized to speak for up to 5 minutes as if in morning business.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I rise today--in great sadness--to mourn the loss of broadcasting legend Jack Buck. Jack Buck has been appropriately referred to as both ``the voice of the Cardinals'' and ``the soul of St. Louis.'' He has been a mainstay in the Cardinals broadcasting booth for nearly 50 years. He called games featuring Cardinal greats such as Stan Musial, Bob Gibson, Lou Brock, Ozzie Smith, and Mark McGwire. He was well known for wrapping up Cardinal victories with his trademark, ``that's a winner.'' Mr. Buck was a decorated war veteran, father of eight, and one of the most accomplished sports broadcasters of all time. He has been inducted into 11 halls of fame, including shrines for baseball, football, and radio. Jack Buck was accomplished out of the broadcasting booth as well. In fact, he was selected as St. Louis' Citizen of the Year in 2000 for his contributions to the community. He was dedicated to finding a cure for cystic fibrosis and raised well over $30 million toward that goal. ``Finding a cure would be the greatest thing to happen in my lifetime,'' he once said. Jack Buck was also a poet who enjoyed a well-turned phrase. When baseball resumed last year after the September 11 attacks, Buck, a tear in his eye, read a patriotic poem during a pregame ceremony at Busch Stadium. ``As our fathers did before, we shall win this unwanted war,'' he said. ``And our children will enjoy the future we'll be giving.'' Buck often told a story about the day his wife, Carole, asked what he would say to the Lord when they meet at the gates of heaven. He responded: ``I want to ask him why he's been so good to me.'' Today we join with all who knew and loved Jack Buck to say, ``Now that's a winner.'' I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I strongly support the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. The September 11 tragedy has affected our Nation in innumerable ways. One of the economic impacts has been that the availability and affordability of terrorism insurance has been severely limited. Uncertainty in the market is freezing commercial lending, preventing real estate transactions from going forward, and slowing various construction projects. Therefore I believe that we should move quickly to enact a federal terrorism insurance backstop. I have heard from businesses throughout Missouri--from various sectors of our economy--that are being adversely impacted by current market conditions. But the lack of terrorism insurance is hurting working families as well. As President Bush pointed out, ``If people can't get terrorism insurance on a construction project, they're not going to build a project, and if they're not going to build a project, then someone's not working.'' This legislation will promote investment and provide the certainty necessary to reinvigorate commercial lending activities. I have supported each of the unanimous consent requests that have been offered since December to bring a terrorism insurance bill before the Senate. I am pleased that we have finally been able to take up this bill. This meaningful Federal backstop is long overdue, and I hope that we can enact it expeditiously.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment along with my good friends, Senators Durbin and Dorgan. Our amendment will, as of January 2003, permanently exempt all small businesses and family-owned farms from the estate tax. Let me repeat that because I do not want there to be any confusion. The Dorgan-Durbin-Carnahan amendment will eliminate the estate tax burden on all small businesses and family-owned farms effective January 2003. The estate tax is having an impact that was never intended when it was first enacted. Those in line to inherit family-owned businesses and farms are having to sell them to pay the estate tax. That is not right. Parents who work hard for their whole lives building up a business want to pass the fruits of their labor on to their children. The same is true of farmers. We want family farms to be passed through the generations. We want children to be able to farm the land farmed by their parents and possibly their grandparents before them. The amendment that Senator Dorgan, Senator Durbin, and I are offering today would allow just that. It would ensure no family-owned business would ever have to be sold to cover estate taxes. So perhaps one is asking: What is the difference between our amendment and Senator Gramm's amendment? Well, there are big ones. First, Senator Gramm's amendment does nothing for family-owned enterprises until 2011. Under the Gramm amendment, they will have to continue to pay estate taxes for the next 7 years. Our amendment would end estate taxes on family-owned farms and businesses beginning next year. We have heard today concerns that the exclusion for family businesses is complex. I am more than willing to work with my colleagues to improve the family business exclusion, and I welcome their support for our proposal to truly protect family farms and businesses. Our amendment would also relieve family-owned enterprises from the burden of estate planning. Since there would be no estate tax, there would be no need for estate planning. Under Senator Gramm's amendment, the full estate tax will remain in effect until 2010. So family-owned enterprises would still have to pay a lawyer and an accountant to prepare for the possibility that they may be subject to the tax. The other key difference is that Senator Gramm's amendment would permanently eliminate the estate tax for multibillionaires. I do not believe this is good policy. The Gramm amendment would cost approximately $740 billion over 10 years and trillions of dollars in the decades after that. Ironically, the amendment would go into effect at the time the baby boomers will start to retire. So as the number of people drawing on Social Security and Medicare starts to increase dramatically, the Gramm amendment would be draining the funds necessary to support these programs. At a time when we are running budget deficits and Social Security and Medicare funds are being used to pay for other programs, it is not wise to take any action that would threaten the solvency of these programs. Who would the Gramm amendment benefit? The tax cut passed last year, which I supported, eliminating the tax on estates of less than $3.5 million, and our amendment would extend this provision permanently. By 2009, estates worth less than $4 million would owe no estate tax. There are very few American families who have to worry about having estates of more than $4 million. I only wish there were more of my constituents who had this problem. In reality, the very wealthiest Americans would benefit from the Gramm amendment, but the programs that middle Americans rely on for their retirement security would be harmed, as would our ability to provide a much-needed prescription drug benefit for seniors. So the choice is clear. If we want to make sure that parents will be able to pass their businesses and farms down to their children and we want to provide this relief right now, not in 2011, and we want to do this in a way that does not threaten the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare, we should vote for the Dorgan-Durbin-Carnahan amendment and against the Gramm amendment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I support the Byrd-Stevens amendment, which will preserve the loan guarantee program that we established last year. We acted swiftly and in a bipartisan fashion to respond to the September 11 attacks. We authorized the use of force, we appropriated funds to start rebuilding, we bolstered security efforts, and we took important action to assist the aviation industry. As part of our initiative to promote the ongoing stability of the aviation industry, we created the Air Transportation Stabilization Board, ATSB, to ensure that airlines would continue to have access to capital. Now, after the ATSB has approved just one airline's application, the bill before us is seeking to impose new limits on this extremely important program. I think this is unwise, and I am supporting this amendment to strike these new limits from the bill. When we enacted the airline stabilization bill last year we essentially made a promise of assistance to struggling airlines. Limiting this program now would be unfair to airlines that are counting on it to help them in their efforts to regain sound financial footing. One airline that is particularly in need of assistance is Kansas City-based Vanguard Airlines. As a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, I understand how important low-fare competitors are in our aviation system. As a low-fare airline operating out of Kansas City, Vanguard contributes substantially to keeping airfares competitive in Kansas City and throughout the Midwest. Not only did September 11 have a devastating financial impact on Vanguard, but it severely limited the company's ability to obtain private financing as well. Vanguard's approximately 1,000 employees have been fighting diligently to improve the company's financial standing. But securing additional capital is absolutely essential to the company's long-term health. I have been extremely frustrated and disappointed by the ATSB's reluctance to approve Vanguard's application. I am committed to ensuring that the loan guarantee program is maintained in its current form. Moreover, I plan to continue working with Vanguard as it re-submits its application in an effort to achieve a positive outcome.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. President, my discussions with Missourians reflect that their predominant concern these days is security security from the terrorist threat, and also security in their personal lives. Our seniors are deeply concerned about the price of prescription drugs, how to remain living independently in their own homes, and being able to afford their expenses living on a fixed income. May is Older Americans Month, and I want to take this opportunity to focus Congress' attention on the work that needs to be done to meet our commitment to seniors. That work includes passing a Medicare prescription drug benefit, providing seniors with the opportunity to live independently in their own communities, and increasing funding for the Older Americans Act. I am a proud member of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, which is charged with overseeing issues of importance to seniors. In my capacity as a member of that Committee, last summer I chaired a hearing in Jefferson City, Missouri on the high cost of prescription drugs. I want to share a story with you. At the hearing, a 92-year-old woman told me how ashamed she felt when she had written a check to cover her medication--knowing she did not have the money in the bank to cover it. Shame on us, I thought Shame . . . on us for allowing such indignities to be inflicted upon our senior citizens. It is wrong to force older Americans to choose between rent and food and the medications they need to stay healthy. That is why I am urging Congress to enact a meaningful, affordable, and universal Medicare prescription drug benefit this year. I have also written to the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee supporting $750 billion over ten years for the senior drug benefit. In addition, I am supporting legislation that would lower the price of prescription drugs for all Americans by closing loopholes in current law that allow brand name drugs to keep lower cost generic drugs from entering the market. I believe that it is important for seniors to live independently in their own homes and communities for as along as possible. That is why I fought to secure $1.28 million in last year's appropriations bill to establish a Naturally Occurring Retirement Community (NORC) pilot program in St. Louis. The funds will support medical care, nutrition assistance, social services, and caregiver supports to residents of NORCs in St. Louis. This approach will allow seniors to stay in comfortable, less expensive surroundings while maintaining their independence and dignity. Services are cost-effective because seniors are living in a centralized area. Finally, I would like to voice my support for increased funding for the Older Americans Act. This Federal program provides critical nutrition and support services to seniors across Missouri, as well as across the country. Earlier this year, I wrote the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee that oversees this program and requested a 10 percent increase in funding for the Older Americans Act, brining the total funding to $1.319 billion. This support for increased funding also applies to the National Family Caregiver Support Program and the Older Americans Act Nutrition Program. I will continue to work hard for this increase because of its importance to seniors. Once again, I want to recognize how vital it is that Congress continue to keep in mind the needs of our country's seniors as we move forward through the legislative process this year. There are many issues of importance that still need to be addressed.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 375, S. 2179, that the bill be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. CARNAHAN. I find it unbelievable that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would object to a bill, unanimously passed by the Judiciary Committee, to honor the law enforcement and public safety officers who risk their lives daily to keep us safe. The bill I introduced provides a small amount of money to honor those who have been injured or killed in the line of duty. As we celebrate Police Officers Memorial Week, it is troubling to me that anyone would want to deny them the recognition that they are due. I hope whoever is blocking this bill from passing will reconsider their opposition and let us honor these brave men and women.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, as we emerge from last year's recession, we must remain focused on promoting economic opportunities and creating jobs. Expanding international trade can help our economy. Our small and large companies, and our workers benefit when we open foreign markets to American goods. Our farmers and ranchers benefit when they can sell their agricultural products overseas and our families benefit when reduced tariffs lower the price of consumer goods. However, as we look to expand economic opportunities through international trade, we should remember the Hippocratic oath that all physicians must take: ``First, do no harm.'' While we should strive to expand international trade, we must first do no harm to our economy and our workers. Now more than ever as our Nation continues to lose manufacturing jobs. We must not allow our trading partners to gain unfair advantages at the expense of American workers. Fair trade expands opportunities and creates jobs. Unfair trade ships opportunities and jobs overseas. My State alone has lost nearly 40,000 manufacturing jobs since 1998. In fact, in fiscal year 2001 alone, Missouri lost 25,000 jobs. Jobs were lost in every region of the State. Springfied, MO, used to be home to a Zenith Electronics facility that manufactured molded cabinets. Four-hundred and thirty residents of that community lost their jobs when the company closed down and moved to Mexico in 1994. Lamy Manufacturing had been making pants in Sedalia, MO, for 132 years. They made pants for the army during World War II. The company was forced to close its doors and lay off approximately 350 workers in 1999 because of a flood of inexpensive imports. Eight-hundred and twelve people lost their jobs last year when GST Steel shut down its plant in Kansas City. That closing marked the end of a plant whose history dated back to 1888. And earlier this year, Ford Motor Company announced that it was closing its manufacturing facility in Hazelwood, MO. This plant employs nearly 2,600 people. It has been open since Harry Truman was in the White House. The jobs we have lost are good jobs, the type of jobs that come with health benefits, and a pension, the type of jobs that enable you to pay the mortgage and put some money aside to pay for college or care for an elderly parent. On April 2, the Los Angeles Times ran an article about this phenomenon entitled ``High Paid Jobs latest U.S. Export.'' The article told of the efforts of several U.S. manufacturers to lower their costs by moving facilities abroad. Our government should not encourage these moves, which result in thousands of American jobs being exported to foreign countries. But this is precisely what happens when we sign trade agreements with countries that do not allow workers to form labor unions, countries that allow children to work in unsafe factories, and countries that produce cheap goods because their factories can wantonly pollute the environment. I firmly believe that expanded international trade can benefit American companies, American farmers, and American workers. But unless we ensure that our trade agreements contain real labor standards, working families will continue to suffer and we will continue to lose American jobs. President Bush has announced that he wants to expand NAFTA to the rest of the hemisphere and cared a Free Trade Area of the America. If we want to prevent even more jobs form being lost, we must ensure that an agreement to expand NAFTA contains meaningful protections for American workers. That is why I support Senator Durbin's alternative. His proposal strikes the appropriate balance between promoting trade and protecting jobs. It would give the President the authority he needs to pursue international trade agreements. And at the same time, it would ensure that those agreements do not threaten working families. Workers in this country fought for years to gain the rights they currently enjoy: the right to organize; the ban on child labor; the 40- hours work week; and the minimum wage. The Baucus-Grassley Amendment concerns me because it does not adequately protect working families. It doesn't require our trading partners to have any laws or regulation to protect workers. The amendment only requires that a country enforce its existing labor laws--regardless of how weak those laws may be. How can we possible engage in fair trade with a country that permits 14-year-olds to work in factories? How can we engage in fair trade with a country where the hourly wage is mere pennies an hour? We cannot. And if we sign trade agreements with countries like this, and don't demand basic protections, we will continue to see American jobs evaporate. To make matters worse, the Baucus-Grassley amendment contains a provision that actually allows a country to weaken its labor and environmental laws in order to attract investment. This flies in the face of the concept of fair trade. In order for fair trade to truly exist, all of the nations involved must meet and maintain certain minimum requirements so American workers can compete fairly. The proposal that Senator Durbin has offered provide real protections. His amendment requires countries to implement and enforce five core standards. Those standards include: One, the right of association; two, the right to collectively bargain; three, a ban on child labor; four a ban on forced labor; and five, a ban on discrimination. Ensuring that these minimum labor standards are included in our trade agreements will enable American workers to compete on a level playing field and help stop the loss of American jobs. I believe in America's workforce. And I am confident that, given the chance to compete fairly, American workers will thrive. I believe that the alternative that Senator Durbin has put forward strikes the right balance. This common-sense approach will enable all the working families of this Nation to enjoy the benefits offered by expanded international trade.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, child pornography is an affront to the inherent decency of our society. Creating and distributing this revolting material causes severe damage to the children involved. Those who purchase this material also harm children by creating a demand for production of more child pornography, leading to a greater number of victimized children. Congress has enacted strong criminal laws outlawing the production, distribution, and possession of child pornography. But the advent of the internet and advances in imaging technology have made enforcing these laws more difficult. The problem is twofold. First, child pornography can now be created using digital technology such that the subjects of the images are virtual, not real, children. Second, child pornographers facing criminal prosecution now claim that the materials at issue contain computer-generated, virtual image, and claim that such images are constitutionally protected free speech. The technology is now so advanced that it is difficult for expert witnesses to determine whether the pornographers' claims are true, giving real pornographers the ability to escape prosecution. Congress attempted to address this problem in 1996 by expanding the scope of federal child pornography statutes to cover sexually explicit images that appear to depict children, but were created without using actual children. Unfortunately, last month the Supreme Court determined that parts of the statute were unconstitutional. The Court concluded that the law was drafted too broadly and covered speech that is protected by the First Amendment. Unless Congress takes further action, future prosecutions of child pornographers will be in jeopardy. According to Associate Deputy Attorney General Daniel Collins, if prosecutors can only obtain convictions when the have affirmative proof that actual children were used, the ``[g]overnment may be able to prosecute effectively only in very limited cases, such as those in which it happens to be able to match the depictions to pictures in pornographic magazines produced before the development of computer imaging software.'' The legislation I am introducing today, along with my colleague Senator Hutchison, will cure this problem. It is companion legislation to H.R. 4623 and contains the Justice Department's recommendations on how to draft a constitutional statute that will facilitate prosecution of child pornographers. The legislation strikes a balance between the government's compelling interest in protecting children while not infringing on First Amendment rights. The bill has a number of features. First, it narrows the definition of virtual child pornography and includes an affirmative defense that places the burden of proof on defendants to establish that the materials at issue were created without using real children. Second, it prohibits all real or virtual child pornography that depicts preteens. These sexually explicit materials involving young children are obscene and, in my view, do not enjoy any first amendment protection. The bill also creates new ways to crack down on pedophiles by outlawing showing pornography to children. It also encourages greater voluntary reporting of suspected child pornography found by internet service providers on their systems. This legislation is progressing quickly through the House of Representatives. I hope that we can move expeditiously in this body as well to give the Justice Department the tools it needs to continue its campaign against the exploitation and degradation of children.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to honor and recognize an outstanding gentleman, Mr. Alvin Brooks, on his 70th birthday. Mr. Brooks, Kansas City, MO, Mayor Pro Tem and 6th District at-large City Councilman, is truly extraordinary. His fifty years of tireless commitment to public service in Kansas City, devotion to community activism, civic participation, and youth advocacy are an inspiration to us all. Mr. Brooks was elected to serve as the 6th District at-large Councilman in 1999. After his election, Mayor Kay Barnes appointed Brooks as Mayor Pro Tem. In addition to serving as Mayor Pro Tem, he is vice chair of the Legislative, Rules and Ethics Committee, a member of the Finance and Audit Committee, and chair of the Public Facilities and Safety Committee. In 1991, Brooks was selected as President of the Ad Hoc Group Against Crime, a grassroots community organization he founded in 1977. Former President George Bush honored Brooks in November 1989 for his work with the Ad Hoc Group Against Crime and named him one of America's 1,000 Points of Light. President Bush also appointed him to a three-year term on the President's National Drug Advisory Council. Former Drug Czar William Bennett recognized Brooks as being one of the nation's ``front- line soldiers in our war against drugs.'' Prior to serving as President of the Ad Hoc Group Against Crime, Alvin Brooks already had a distinguished career in public service. He was a Kansas City, MO police officer for 10 years, where he held the rank of detective. During that time, Alvin worked extensively with runaways and gang members, demonstrating his commitment to improving social conditions for young people, especially inner-city youth. He also served as assistant city manager for seven years and was the first African American to serve as a department head for the city of Kansas City, MO. Though it is possible to list Alvin Brooks' professional accomplishments, it is impossible to measure the immense impact this man has had, and continues to have, in Kansas City. He has touched and improved the lives of countless Kansas Citians. His voice can still be heard on the radio urging community action, not as Mayor Pro Tem, but as the respected community elder whose commitment to others is unquestioned. He is truly the voice of moral authority in Kansas City. I commend Mr. Alvin Brooks for his selfless dedication to the improvement of Kansas City and wish him all the best on his 70th Birthday. Kansas City is certainly fortunate to have such a dedicated public servant. On behalf of all those you have served, Alvin, I thank you.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, the farm bill conference report we are considering today is good for American agriculture. Historically, what has been good for American agriculture has been good for America. I raised my family on a farm in rural America. I have traveled throughout rural Missouri for many years. I believe rural America's future can be limitless if we make the proper investments now. Because our farmers feed the world, the destiny of our Nation and rural America are intertwined. It troubles me to see our rural communities struggle to compete in the 21st century. Too often dwindling populations and lack of opportunity leave our rural communities contemplating a future much different from their proud past. Many youth leave and do not return to their family farms or family businesses, the communities that generations before them had called home. Those who determine to remain and farm the land deserve a safety net for their labors, and they have not had one for the past 6 years. We have told rural America that help is on the way. Here it is at last. The farm bill conference report will play a large role in helping rural America and American agriculture to reach its full potential. The strong commodity title will give our entire agricultural industry a degree of certainty when making business decisions, and it will provide additional support for farmers when times are lean. This farm bill's strong energy and rural development titles will help our farmers add value to their products, while decreasing our reliance on foreign oil. I have visited many innovative Missouri farmers who now are forming new-generation cooperatives for ethanol production. Their efforts help us create sustainable jobs in rural areas. This farm bill places our reliance less on the Middle East and more on the Middle West. The rural development title provides our communities with more opportunities to enhance basic services such as fire protection, wastewater and drinking water programs, and much needed rural business investment programs. I am also pleased this bill commits $100 million toward broadband access, to improve telecommunications in underserved areas. It is important that those who live, work, and raise families in rural areas have access to the technology of the 21st century. Missouri is the confluence of American agriculture. Parts of northern Missouri resemble the Great Plains. Southeast Missouri's agriculture has much in common with the Deep South. Missouri ranks second nationally in the number of farms in the State and second in beef cattle production. We rank among the top 10 in production of soybeans, corn, rice, cotton, and hay. Farmers and business people all across Missouri support this farm bill because it is fair to all segments of our agriculture industry. A farm bill that is equitable to Missouri's diverse agricultural base is fair to the Nation. I joined my colleagues from States with traditionally southern crops in urging the conferees to produce a compromise that is fair to all regions. Southern crops, namely rice and cotton in my State, are highly capital intensive. Family farmers growing these crops would not be competitive if the payment limitations provisions were to stand as passed in the Senate. The payment limitations compromise will preserve the viability of Missouri's rice and cotton producers while denying benefits to millionaires and others whom farm prices are not intended to benefit. I commend the farm bill conferees for producing a fair compromise. I also commend Senator Harkin and Senator Daschle for their outstanding leadership. Agriculture and a vibrant rural economy are critical to my State and to the entire Nation. I will be pleased to vote for the farm bill that I sincerely believe marks a new beginning for American agriculture. I yield the floor.