Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my good friend, Senator Baucus, to introduce the Tax Empowerment and Relief for Farmers and Fishermen Act, which I will refer to as the ``TERFF Act.'' I am pleased that Senators Roberts, Brownback, Lincoln, Burns, Craig, Crapo, Fitzgerald, Hagel, and Dorgan are joining Senator Baucus and me as cosponsors of this important legislation. I am a farmer, like my father was before me. I understand farming and how policy decisions from Washington impact hardworking farmers, like my son Robin. Before I ran for elected office and after I leave, God willing, I'll still be farming. There is little that I feel more strongly about than providing the agriculture community with the potential to survive and to thrive. As far as I'm concerned, agriculture is my ``turf'' and as long as I'm in this town, I'll do all I can to serve my friends and neighbors in the agriculture community. This legislation has already been adopted by the Senate multiple times. In the midst of a serious downturn in the agriculture economy, it seems to me we ought to be doing everything we can to help farmers, and this would provide significant assistance. First, this legislation includes Farm, Fish, and Ranch Risk Management Accounts. These farmer saving accounts would allow farmers to contribute up to 20 percent of their income in an account, and deduct it in the same year. Farm accounts would be a very important risk management tool that will help farmers put away money when there's actual income, so that, in the bad times, there will be a safety net. This measure has strong bipartisan support and was actually sent to President Clinton, who vetoed it. In addition, this legislation would exempt Conservation Reserve Program payments from self-employment tax. Under current law, farmers who participate in the CRP are unnecessarily struggling during tax season because of a case pushed by the IRS. The latest 6th Circuit court's ruling treats CRP payments as farm income subject to the additional self-employment tax rate of 15 percent. Senator Brownback has taken the lead on fixing this problem. This unfair tax not only ignores the intent of Congress in creating the CRP, it discourages farmers from using environmentally pro-active measures. At a time when farmers are struggling to regain their footing economically and do the right thing environmentally, it's important that Congress support them by upholding its promise on CRP. In addition, Senator Lugar has led the effort to expand the current program that allows companies to donate to food banks, so that farmers and restaurants can also donate surplus food directly to needy food banks. This will be a win for the farmers and a big win for people who depend on food bank assistance. In addition, when we passed income averaging for farmers a few years ago, we neglected to take into account the problem of running into the alternative minimum tax, which many farmers are facing now. My bill will fix this growing problem. My bill also expands opportunities for beginning farmers who are in need of low interest rate loans for capital purchases of farmland and equipment. Current law permits State authorities to issue tax exempt bonds and to lend the proceeds from the sale of the bonds to beginning farmers and ranchers to finance the cost of acquiring land, buildings and equipment used in a farm or ranch operation. Unfortunately, aggie bonds are subject to a volume cap and must compete with big industrial projects for bond allocation. Aggie bonds share few similarities to industrial revenue bonds and should not be subject to the volume cap established for industrial revenue bonds. Insufficient allocation of funding due to the volume cap limits the effectiveness of this program. We can't stand by and allow the next generation of farmers to lose an opportunity to participate in farming because of competition with industry for reduced interest loan rates. In addition, the IRS recently determined that some cooperatives should be exposed to a regular corporate tax due to the fact that they are using organic value-added practices rather than manufactured value- added practices. This is unfair, and needs to be fixed. It is also imperative that we not neglect the difficulties many producers are facing in light of persistent drought conditions. Under current law, a producer who loses livestock, or is forced to sell livestock, or is forced to sell livestock, is required to replace that livestock within two years. However, some parts of the country have already experienced two years of drought with no end in sight. It goes against common sense for these producers to replace livestock until conditions improve. My legislation would extend the 2-year deadline to 4 years. And of course my package wouldn't be complete without a provision leveling the playing field for ethanol producers. The Small Ethanol Producer Credit will allow small cooperative producers of ethanol to be able to receive the same tax benefits as large companies. This provision provides cooperatives the ability to elect to pass through small ethanol producer credits to its patron. The ``TERFF'' package will do more to reform taxes for the American farmer than any other measure in recent memory. I urge my colleagues to strongly support this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume. For the benefit of the people who are waiting to speak, I don't think I will take long on this subject. I rise because I want to urge my colleagues to vote against the Dorgan amendment when the vote comes up tomorrow. I don't see anything wrong with the issue of Medicare being discussed because it is one of two or three of the most important issues this Congress will deal with. So it is very appropriate to have Medicare very much at the top of the agenda. It is very appropriate to have prescription drugs for seniors, as a part of strengthening and improving Medicare, be very high on the agenda. And it is very high on the agenda. It is just a question, as it relates to the Dorgan amendment, of whether or not crafting a Medicare prescription drug program ought to be an issue on the budget, or whether you ought to let the will of Congress work and do that through the Senate Finance Committee. We know Medicare is going to be a very important issue this year, not only because it has been very much an issue in the last election, but because the Senate majority leader has a long-time interest in Medicare and prescription drugs. He told me, as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, that he would like to have the Senate Finance Committee put it very high on its agenda and have legislation prepared early for this summer's debate. The Senate Finance Committee is going to meet that deadline. I hope Senator Frist will be able to keep his own calendar and bring it up at that particular time. What we are talking about on this issue is whether or not the $400 billion for prescription drugs in the budget resolution is enough and whether or not an extension beyond that $400 billion is needed at this particular time. I am here to say it is not needed at this particular time for two reasons. One, I think I can show that $400 billion is an ample amount of money to present to the Senate a good prescription drug program; and two, taking money away from tax relief for working men and women, which this amendment does, to spend on Medicare is the wrong thing to do for the long-term benefit of Medicare. Because as the trustees of the Medicare and Social Security Program pointed out in their annual report, you see Medicare in a little worse situation this year than last year because there is less payroll tax coming in because the economy is not doing quite as well as it should be. If we want to preserve the long-term viability of the Medicare trust fund, obviously, the best thing we can do is create jobs. That is what the growth package, the jobs package, that we are going to be working on this spring--tax reduction for working men and women--is all about--the creation of jobs, to have the economy grow, so more payroll taxes will be coming into the Medicare fund. Let me explain to my colleagues why we should vote this amendment down. I start with the premise that it is long past time for Congress to strengthen and improve the Medicare Program, and the No. 1 way in which we can improve and strengthen Medicare is the enactment of a prescription drug benefit for our Nation's seniors. We all know that adding prescription drug coverage to the Medicare Program is an expensive endeavor. Given the rapidly rising costs of Medicare and the present challenge we have just to meet our current obligations in the program, adding prescription drug coverage must be done carefully and responsibly. You don't do it by just pulling a figure out of the air, reducing the tax relief package, and putting it over here in the Medicare trust fund. As I have said, the Medicare trustees reported last year that the program already faces substantial challenges in the not-too-distant future. The Medicare trust fund will begin to run cash deficits in 2013 that grow larger and larger until the fund is bankrupt in the year 2026. While we are working on adding a drug benefit to Medicare, prescription drug spending has grown an average of almost 15 percent annually from 1995 to the year 2000. And the Congressional Budget Office predicts that Medicare beneficiaries will spend about $1.8 trillion on prescription drugs over the 10-year budget window. Now, is the $400 billion in the budget resolution before us enough to spend on improving Medicare and adding a prescription drug benefit? Well, first of all, we have to recognize that Congress has come a long way in how much it has allocated to a Medicare drug benefit. For example, in fiscal year 2001, the budget resolution had $40 billion over 5 years for a drug benefit. This budget, as I have said, proposes $400 billion over 10 years and is yet $100 billion more than we had in the last budget resolution, which was for fiscal year 2002, and had $300 billion for prescription drugs over the 10 years. I say to people on the other side of the aisle that we had a lot of support in arguing for a $300 billion budget figure for prescription drugs in that fiscal year 2002 budget. Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle spoke in favor of that proposal on the Senate floor. These Senators believed then that $300 billion would provide a good drug benefit for seniors and be affordable for taxpayers. Now we are proposing $400 billion for Medicare and for a drug benefit. This amount is certainly adequate for developing a good Medicare drug benefit for our Nation's seniors. I urge my colleagues to support the $400 billion in funding for Medicare and vote against amendments such as the Dorgan amendment to dramatically increase the cost of that drug benefit. I ask those very same Senators on the other side of the aisle who may want to support their colleague that if they thought 2 years ago $300 billion was a good figure and they helped us get that passed, then they would think that $400 billion is adequate as we start down this road, a road that is going to lead us to the successful passage of a drug benefit program for seniors. As for a comparable prescription drug benefit, one of the directions that the Dorgan amendment would give the Committee on Finance--a requirement that traditional Medicare and whatever enhancement of Medicare we develop for seniors which would give them the right to choose between more than one benefit plan would have comparable prescription drug benefits--I want my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to know I will work with other members of the Finance Committee to make sure Medicare beneficiaries in traditional Medicare have a good prescription drug benefit, as well as those who may choose to go to a new, enhanced plan. This amendment wants to tie the hands of the members of the Senate Finance Committee. The budget bill is not the place to craft a Medicare prescription drug benefit. That is the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee. The committee will have its opportunity to function under my chairmanship, at the direction of Senator Frist, our majority leader, who said he did not want to make the mistake of last year when then-majority leader Senator Daschle brought the issue right to the floor, bypassing the committee. We can in this body develop bipartisanship not on the floor of the Senate but in the committees of the Senate. That is no more true than in the Senate Finance Committee which has such a reputation for bipartisanship. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and let the Finance Committee do its work. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my good friend, Senator Baucus, to introduce the Tax Empowerment and Relief for Farmers and Fishermen Act, which I will refer to as the ``TERFF Act.'' I am pleased that Senators Roberts, Brownback, Lincoln, Burns, Craig, Crapo, Fitzgerald, Hagel, and Dorgan are joining Senator Baucus and me as cosponsors of this important legislation. I am a farmer, like my father was before me. I understand farming and how policy decisions from Washington impact hardworking farmers, like my son Robin. Before I ran for elected office and after I leave, God willing, I'll still be farming. There is little that I feel more strongly about than providing the agriculture community with the potential to survive and to thrive. As far as I'm concerned, agriculture is my ``turf'' and as long as I'm in this town, I'll do all I can to serve my friends and neighbors in the agriculture community. This legislation has already been adopted by the Senate multiple times. In the midst of a serious downturn in the agriculture economy, it seems to me we ought to be doing everything we can to help farmers, and this would provide significant assistance. First, this legislation includes Farm, Fish, and Ranch Risk Management Accounts. These farmer saving accounts would allow farmers to contribute up to 20 percent of their income in an account, and deduct it in the same year. Farm accounts would be a very important risk management tool that will help farmers put away money when there's actual income, so that, in the bad times, there will be a safety net. This measure has strong bipartisan support and was actually sent to President Clinton, who vetoed it. In addition, this legislation would exempt Conservation Reserve Program payments from self-employment tax. Under current law, farmers who participate in the CRP are unnecessarily struggling during tax season because of a case pushed by the IRS. The latest 6th Circuit court's ruling treats CRP payments as farm income subject to the additional self-employment tax rate of 15 percent. Senator Brownback has taken the lead on fixing this problem. This unfair tax not only ignores the intent of Congress in creating the CRP, it discourages farmers from using environmentally pro-active measures. At a time when farmers are struggling to regain their footing economically and do the right thing environmentally, it's important that Congress support them by upholding its promise on CRP. In addition, Senator Lugar has led the effort to expand the current program that allows companies to donate to food banks, so that farmers and restaurants can also donate surplus food directly to needy food banks. This will be a win for the farmers and a big win for people who depend on food bank assistance. In addition, when we passed income averaging for farmers a few years ago, we neglected to take into account the problem of running into the alternative minimum tax, which many farmers are facing now. My bill will fix this growing problem. My bill also expands opportunities for beginning farmers who are in need of low interest rate loans for capital purchases of farmland and equipment. Current law permits State authorities to issue tax exempt bonds and to lend the proceeds from the sale of the bonds to beginning farmers and ranchers to finance the cost of acquiring land, buildings and equipment used in a farm or ranch operation. Unfortunately, aggie bonds are subject to a volume cap and must compete with big industrial projects for bond allocation. Aggie bonds share few similarities to industrial revenue bonds and should not be subject to the volume cap established for industrial revenue bonds. Insufficient allocation of funding due to the volume cap limits the effectiveness of this program. We can't stand by and allow the next generation of farmers to lose an opportunity to participate in farming because of competition with industry for reduced interest loan rates. In addition, the IRS recently determined that some cooperatives should be exposed to a regular corporate tax due to the fact that they are using organic value-added practices rather than manufactured value- added practices. This is unfair, and needs to be fixed. It is also imperative that we not neglect the difficulties many producers are facing in light of persistent drought conditions. Under current law, a producer who loses livestock, or is forced to sell livestock, or is forced to sell livestock, is required to replace that livestock within two years. However, some parts of the country have already experienced two years of drought with no end in sight. It goes against common sense for these producers to replace livestock until conditions improve. My legislation would extend the 2-year deadline to 4 years. And of course my package wouldn't be complete without a provision leveling the playing field for ethanol producers. The Small Ethanol Producer Credit will allow small cooperative producers of ethanol to be able to receive the same tax benefits as large companies. This provision provides cooperatives the ability to elect to pass through small ethanol producer credits to its patron. The ``TERFF'' package will do more to reform taxes for the American farmer than any other measure in recent memory. I urge my colleagues to strongly support this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the American people recognize the importance of the family farmer to our Nation, and the need to provide an adequate safety net for family farmers. In recent years, however, assistance to farmers has come under increasing scrutiny. Critics of farm payments have argued that the largest corporate farms reap most of the benefits of these payments. The reality is, over 60 percent of the payments have gone to only 10 percent of our Nation's farmers. What's more, farm payments that were originally designed to benefit small and medium-sized family farmers have contributed to their own demise. Unlimited farm payments have placed upward pressure on land prices and have contributed to overproduction and lower commodity prices, driving many family farmers off the farm. The Senate agreed, by an overwhelming vote of 66 to 31, to a bipartisan amendment sponsored by Senators Dorgan and myself to target federal assistance to small and medium-sized family farmers. The amendment would have limited direct and counter-cyclical payments to $75,000. It would have limited gains from marketing loans and LDPs to $150,000, and generic certificates would have been included in this limit. That would have limited farm payments to a combined total of $275,000. That amendment was critical to family farmers in Iowa. I feel strongly the farm bill failed Iowa when it failed to effectively address the issue of payment limitations. This is our chance to remedy the problem. This bi-partisan legislation provides a limit of $40,000 for direct payments, $60,000 for counter-cyclical pavement, and $175,000 for LDPs and marketing loan gains. The combined limit is $275,000. I urge my colleagues to support this bi-partisan legislation and to encourage the development of reasonable, legitimate payment limits. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the American people recognize the importance of the family farmer to our Nation, and the need to provide an adequate safety net for family farmers. In recent years, however, assistance to farmers has come under increasing scrutiny. Critics of farm payments have argued that the largest corporate farms reap most of the benefits of these payments. The reality is, over 60 percent of the payments have gone to only 10 percent of our Nation's farmers. What's more, farm payments that were originally designed to benefit small and medium-sized family farmers have contributed to their own demise. Unlimited farm payments have placed upward pressure on land prices and have contributed to overproduction and lower commodity prices, driving many family farmers off the farm. The Senate agreed, by an overwhelming vote of 66 to 31, to a bipartisan amendment sponsored by Senators Dorgan and myself to target federal assistance to small and medium-sized family farmers. The amendment would have limited direct and counter-cyclical payments to $75,000. It would have limited gains from marketing loans and LDPs to $150,000, and generic certificates would have been included in this limit. That would have limited farm payments to a combined total of $275,000. That amendment was critical to family farmers in Iowa. I feel strongly the farm bill failed Iowa when it failed to effectively address the issue of payment limitations. This is our chance to remedy the problem. This bi-partisan legislation provides a limit of $40,000 for direct payments, $60,000 for counter-cyclical pavement, and $175,000 for LDPs and marketing loan gains. The combined limit is $275,000. I urge my colleagues to support this bi-partisan legislation and to encourage the development of reasonable, legitimate payment limits. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I again rise in support of the Comprehensive Child Protection Act. I am proud to be standing with Senator Hatch as a co-sponsor of a bill that represents one of the most comprehensive pieces of legislation ever drafted to protect children. The miracle that Elizabeth Smart was found safe and sound, reminds us of how important this bill is. As a former chairman of the Youth Violence Subcommittee and Ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs during the 107th Congress, I have been greatly concerned with the increase in reports of child abductions and murders, so I am glad to be a part of this effort to address this growing problem. In my tenure on the Judiciary Committee, I have long fought for our Nation's children, and have ardently supported laws that bring them and their families greater protection. This legislation comes at a critical time because we are hearing more and more about children being taken from their homes or schools and abused, or worse, murdered. Our children are a gift to us, are our national treasure, and are our future. We must do all that we can to protect these innocents and give law enforcement every tool possible to ferret out the criminals who would do our children harm. With this legislation, we will be ensuring a greater measure of protection for our children. The miracle that Elizabeth Smart was found safe and sound, reminds us of how important this bill is. The bill does many important things. First, it helps law enforcement respond immediately to incidents of child abduction, because, as we've seen with the Amber Alert system, time is critical in any abduction case to thwart further injury or harm. The bill creates a National Crimes Against Children Response Center at the FBI that will integrate the resources and expertise of all Federal, State and local law enforcement sources to provide a rapid response for crimes involving child victims. The bill also helps law enforcement by making it possible to get wire taps for suspected sex trafficking and exploitation offenses, and will require that all Federal child sex crimes offenders have their DNA added to the national DNA registry. So the bill will help to centralize information about criminals and crimes, and makes the job of the criminal investigator easier and more accurate through wiretaps and DNA evidence. The bill also creates a website registry for convicted child sexual offenders so that parents, neighbors, and police know who in their communities is a convicted child predator. This website will supplement registries in all 50 States. This important tool will help families make better and fully informed decisions about their children's safety, and will greatly aid law enforcement's response to reports of child abductions and other offenses against children. The bill also gives new tools to prosecutors and the courts. It extends the statute of limitations for prosecuting child offenders, allows prosecutors to introduce evidence of past child sex crimes in sentencing hearings, removes the so-called ``spousal privilege'' so that a spouse can't stand silent in the prosecution of the other spouse for child sexual abuse, and increases the maximum sentences and probation periods for child sex offenders. These important tools will make our communities safer by helping to rid them of child predators, and by keeping a tight leash on predators when they get released from prison. So this bill helps the public know about sexual predators in their communities, improves the nation's ability to respond to child abduction reports, and aids criminal investigators and prosecutors in their efforts to protect the public by identifying and locking-up child predators. I ask my fellow Senators to support this important bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I again rise in support of the Comprehensive Child Protection Act. I am proud to be standing with Senator Hatch as a co-sponsor of a bill that represents one of the most comprehensive pieces of legislation ever drafted to protect children. The miracle that Elizabeth Smart was found safe and sound, reminds us of how important this bill is. As a former chairman of the Youth Violence Subcommittee and Ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs during the 107th Congress, I have been greatly concerned with the increase in reports of child abductions and murders, so I am glad to be a part of this effort to address this growing problem. In my tenure on the Judiciary Committee, I have long fought for our Nation's children, and have ardently supported laws that bring them and their families greater protection. This legislation comes at a critical time because we are hearing more and more about children being taken from their homes or schools and abused, or worse, murdered. Our children are a gift to us, are our national treasure, and are our future. We must do all that we can to protect these innocents and give law enforcement every tool possible to ferret out the criminals who would do our children harm. With this legislation, we will be ensuring a greater measure of protection for our children. The miracle that Elizabeth Smart was found safe and sound, reminds us of how important this bill is. The bill does many important things. First, it helps law enforcement respond immediately to incidents of child abduction, because, as we've seen with the Amber Alert system, time is critical in any abduction case to thwart further injury or harm. The bill creates a National Crimes Against Children Response Center at the FBI that will integrate the resources and expertise of all Federal, State and local law enforcement sources to provide a rapid response for crimes involving child victims. The bill also helps law enforcement by making it possible to get wire taps for suspected sex trafficking and exploitation offenses, and will require that all Federal child sex crimes offenders have their DNA added to the national DNA registry. So the bill will help to centralize information about criminals and crimes, and makes the job of the criminal investigator easier and more accurate through wiretaps and DNA evidence. The bill also creates a website registry for convicted child sexual offenders so that parents, neighbors, and police know who in their communities is a convicted child predator. This website will supplement registries in all 50 States. This important tool will help families make better and fully informed decisions about their children's safety, and will greatly aid law enforcement's response to reports of child abductions and other offenses against children. The bill also gives new tools to prosecutors and the courts. It extends the statute of limitations for prosecuting child offenders, allows prosecutors to introduce evidence of past child sex crimes in sentencing hearings, removes the so-called ``spousal privilege'' so that a spouse can't stand silent in the prosecution of the other spouse for child sexual abuse, and increases the maximum sentences and probation periods for child sex offenders. These important tools will make our communities safer by helping to rid them of child predators, and by keeping a tight leash on predators when they get released from prison. So this bill helps the public know about sexual predators in their communities, improves the nation's ability to respond to child abduction reports, and aids criminal investigators and prosecutors in their efforts to protect the public by identifying and locking-up child predators. I ask my fellow Senators to support this important bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there will be a period for morning business until 2 p.m. At that time, the Senate will begin consideration of S. Con. Res. 23, the budget resolution. By statute, there will be 50 hours of debate. So Senators should expect late nights and numerous votes throughout this week. As previously announced, there will be no votes today. However, it is the leader's intention to complete action on this matter of the budget this week. There will be a cloture vote on Mr. Estrada's nomination tomorrow. Senators will be notified as to the precise time of that vote as soon as the majority leader and minority leader have consulted.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we have an opportunity this week, as we do every year, to celebrate American agriculture. This is the week we traditionally recognize. It is called National Agriculture Week. Ask any friend or neighbor what is eating them and you are likely to get an earful about rising gas prices, military action in Iraq, the high cost of health care, prescription drugs, or the downturn in the U.S. economy. In my most recent town meetings, I listened to Iowans express anxiety about job security, retirement security, health care security, energy security, national security, and homeland security. But never once did I have a single person in my State list as one of their concerns the concern of food security. That is because we in the United States are blessed with a rich agricultural bounty to provide more than enough food to feed U.S. consumers and a growing world population. American farmers are the most productive food producers in the world and, as a result, each American farmer can feed more than 120 people at home and abroad. That is reason enough to give Americans an extra peace of mind. Yet I guess a majority of Americans take their food and how it got to their fork somewhat for granted. That is, in fact, a shame. American agriculture serves an instrumental role in the life of every American. As George W. Bush has noted: A nation that can feed its people is a nation more secure. Beyond the benefits to national security, American agriculture also anchors the economy because the production of food and fiber from the farm to the consumer represents one-fifth of the U.S. economic pie. It props up our balance of trade. Agricultural exports exceed $1 billion per week. It creates jobs. Twenty percent of America's workforce is employed in the food chain from production to processing, marketing, and retailing. It saves the American consumer money because each American consumer spends only 9 percent of their income on food, the lowest percentage in the world. Every year in March those of us with interests in agriculture join forces to celebrate National Agriculture Week and spread the word about agriculture's affordable, high-quality abundance and its social, economic, and environmental influences on America. Located in the heart of America's breadbasket, Iowa's agricultural heritage goes back many generations. Iowans appreciate how significant our food system is, not only to basic human existence, but to the State's economy and also to our way of life. As the leading producer of corn, soybeans, hogs, and eggs in America, Iowa's high-quality agricultural bounty would make George Washington proud. The farmer and our first President, George Washington, once said: Agriculture is the most healthful, most useful, and most noble employment to man. At the turn of the 21st century, Iowa is working to stay on the leading edge of the research and use its bounty to benefit biotechnology and advances in life science. Whether growing crops for pharmaceutical use or raising cattle capable of producing proteins that can be used for human drug therapies, Iowa has significant potential to create good, high-paying jobs and reap economic benefits in ways unimaginable at the turn of the last century when the production of food was all that was on farmers' minds. With several farmer-owned ethanol plants up and running, Iowa also is fueling local economic activity and helping to increase our energy independence by turning home-grown corn into ethanol, lessening our dependence upon a foreign source such as Iraq, for instance. As a life-long family farmer, I take advantage of every opportunity in Washington, DC, in Congress, like now in this Senate Chamber, to serve as a farmer's advocate because I want to make sure that family farmers' voices are heard at the policy tables in Washington. Notwithstanding the need to keep our food production and supply system safe from sabotage, Americans are blessed to live in a Nation where food security does not mean wondering if there is enough food available to feed one's family every day. National Agriculture Week, March 16 to 22, is a good opportunity to showcase American agriculture and to give thanks to those who work hard to get high quality, affordable food from the farm to our table. I hope every one of those people living in urban America who might think that food grows in super markets rather than on farms would give a thought to the usefulness of the family farm and what it contributes to the quality of life of Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support for the Partial- Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. As a father of five, a grandfather of nine, and a proud great- grandfather, I regard life as a precious gift. During my tenure in the Congress--that is, since 1974--I have long supported policies that stand up for life and protect the unborn. We made great strides in the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses on banning partial-birth abortions. It was unfortunate that President Clinton vetoed the ban. Not once, but twice. Then, in 2000, the Supreme Court considered and struck down as unconstitutional the Nebraska State law making partial-birth abortion illegal. In Stenberg v. Carhart, the Court believed that the Nebraska law (1) did not contain an exception for the health of a mother, and (2) was too broad and could be construed to cover other types of procedures. The bill before us specifically addresses the Supreme Court's concerns. I am disappointed and sickened that these abortion procedures are legal in the United States of America. I'm not alone. According to a recent Gallup poll, 70 percent of Americans want a ban. My constituents want a ban on partial-birth abortions: A woman from Tabor, IA, wrote, ``I'm horrified that under current law, thousands of partial-birth abortions are committed in America every year.'' A man from Atlantic, IA wrote, ``I believe that when women would see that they would be terminating a life then they would opt `no' to abortion.'' A woman from Nora Springs wrote, ``Abortions are actually murder because even though the child may not be out of the womb, it's still developing into a person.'' A woman from Waverly, IA, wrote, ``Partial-birth abortions are never medically necessary.'' A young man in the 6th grade from West Union, IA, wrote, ``A child might die, and in the future that small child could grow up to create a cure for a disease, or be a fireman and save many lives. Just think, you could have been aborted.'' It's time for us to stand up against such an extreme medical practice that stops the beating heart of an unborn child. Most medical professionals would agree that this specific abortion procedure is outrageous. In fact, the American Medical Association supported a ban in 1999. You will hear many on the other side argue about a woman's health and reproductive rights. As the bill states, the physician credited with developing the partial-birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome. His testimony waters down their theory that this procedure is necessary in certain situations to preserve the mother's health. If we know that the procedure can pose a threat to both a woman's immediate health and future reproductive capacity, why do you want to expose women to the risks? Condoning partial-birth abortion is bad medicine, and bad policy. When abortion advocates say that abortion is a matter just between a woman and her doctor, they are rejecting the rights of an innocent human being. The unborn baby is alive from the moment of fertilization, the unborn baby has a heartbeat at 3 weeks and brain waves at 6 weeks, the unborn baby has 46 chromosomes in the cells of his or her body, the unborn baby is a living human being. Dr. Seuss said it just right: A person is a person, no matter how small. Let's pass this bill to protect the innocent and unborn.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy and I are happy to announce the introduction of the Family Opportunity Act of 2003, a bill to promote family, work, and opportunity. Every day, across the country, thousands of families struggle to obtain affordable and appropriate health care coverage for children with special health care needs, including children with conditions such as autism, mental retardation, cerebral palsy, developmental delays, or mental illness. Low and middle income parents who have employer sponsored family health care coverage often find that their private insurance doesn't adequately cover the array of services that are critical to their child's well-being, such as mental health services, personal care services, durable medical equipment, special nutritional supplements, and respite care. Because Medicaid, our nation's health care program for low-income individuals, offers the type of comprehensive care that best meets the needs of children with disabilities, it can become a lifeline on which many parents depend. Yet, Medicaid is a safety net program and one must be impoverished in order to be eligible. This presents a terrible choice for many low and middle income families who have a child with special health care needs: they must choose between work or impoverishment. Or, in the worst cases, parents consider the devastating choice of relinquishing custody for an out-of-home placement so their child can obtain services they so desperately need. Truly, there is nothing more heartbreaking for a parent than to be unable to provide for a child in need. Consider the following example: Mr. and Mrs. Jones have two daughters, Heather and Hannah. Hannah was born with cerebral palsy. The family earns $29,000 a year and is insured through employer sponsored health insurance. Mr. Jones recently lost his job because of down- sizing. Last year, even with insurance, the family spent nearly $9,000 on out-of-pocket medical expenses. Mr. Jones has found a new job; unfortunately, the family's insurance premium has risen to $200 a month and does not cover essential occupational and physical therapy. The family dipped into their 401K when Hannah was born. The family's earnings minus the health care premiums, minus out of pocket expenses puts this family at an annual income of $17,600. The federal poverty level for a family of four is $18,400. This hard-working family is being impoverished because of their commitment to care for their disabled child. Over the past three years, I have worked with Senator Kennedy and Representative Pete Sessions to advance this important legislation on behalf of thousands of families who need our help. Each year, more than 70 Senators have signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation. I understand the many pressing challenges facing our nation's health care system, but I urge the Senate to show its support for helping these families and pass the Family Opportunity Act this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy and I are happy to announce the introduction of the Family Opportunity Act of 2003, a bill to promote family, work, and opportunity. Every day, across the country, thousands of families struggle to obtain affordable and appropriate health care coverage for children with special health care needs, including children with conditions such as autism, mental retardation, cerebral palsy, developmental delays, or mental illness. Low and middle income parents who have employer sponsored family health care coverage often find that their private insurance doesn't adequately cover the array of services that are critical to their child's well-being, such as mental health services, personal care services, durable medical equipment, special nutritional supplements, and respite care. Because Medicaid, our nation's health care program for low-income individuals, offers the type of comprehensive care that best meets the needs of children with disabilities, it can become a lifeline on which many parents depend. Yet, Medicaid is a safety net program and one must be impoverished in order to be eligible. This presents a terrible choice for many low and middle income families who have a child with special health care needs: they must choose between work or impoverishment. Or, in the worst cases, parents consider the devastating choice of relinquishing custody for an out-of-home placement so their child can obtain services they so desperately need. Truly, there is nothing more heartbreaking for a parent than to be unable to provide for a child in need. Consider the following example: Mr. and Mrs. Jones have two daughters, Heather and Hannah. Hannah was born with cerebral palsy. The family earns $29,000 a year and is insured through employer sponsored health insurance. Mr. Jones recently lost his job because of down- sizing. Last year, even with insurance, the family spent nearly $9,000 on out-of-pocket medical expenses. Mr. Jones has found a new job; unfortunately, the family's insurance premium has risen to $200 a month and does not cover essential occupational and physical therapy. The family dipped into their 401K when Hannah was born. The family's earnings minus the health care premiums, minus out of pocket expenses puts this family at an annual income of $17,600. The federal poverty level for a family of four is $18,400. This hard-working family is being impoverished because of their commitment to care for their disabled child. Over the past three years, I have worked with Senator Kennedy and Representative Pete Sessions to advance this important legislation on behalf of thousands of families who need our help. Each year, more than 70 Senators have signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation. I understand the many pressing challenges facing our nation's health care system, but I urge the Senate to show its support for helping these families and pass the Family Opportunity Act this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I am aware that an amendment has been offered to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 that would provide coverage through the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) to pregnant women. The amendment is similar to a bill that passed out of the Finance Committee last July. The bill providing health care to low-income pregnant women was never enacted in the 107th Congress. I support caring for low-income mothers and their unborn children. It is sound health policy. It is a new Congress, and unfortunately, I can't support this amendment. This policy has not been properly debated in the 108th Congress. Policies that alter our Nation's safety net programs deserve the Senate's proper attention. We must address policy changes to the safety net through regular order. By accepting this amendment, we are not allowing for this process to work. Earlier this year, I worked with Senator Nickles, Senator Snowe and others to setup a process to address the need to redistribute unspent S-CHIP funds. Together we have set up a solid process to address S-CHIP redistribution through regular order. I assure my colleagues that, as Chairman of the Finance Committee, I am willing to address pertinent S-CHIP issues in the near future and discuss the possibility of extending S-CHIP coverage to pregnant women.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased that today we offer a bipartisan energy tax incentives package for the 108th Congress. I have been joined in this introduction by not only Ranking Member of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, but also the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senators Domenici and Bingaman as original sponsors of the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2003, which we are introducing today. This bill is substantially similar to the Energy Tax Incentives Bill which won overwhelming support on the floor of the Senate last April. It continues to represent a balanced package of alternative energy, traditional energy production and energy efficiency incentives. As we move forward towards a Mark-up of an energy tax bill by the Finance Committee, this bill represents a starting point. We hope over the next few weeks to be able to incorporate some of the new and improved versions of some of the provisions that we developed over the many months of conference during the last Congress. I remain committed to diverse sources of energy and electricity, to include the production of electricity for wind and agricultural waste nutrients. In addition this bill reflects my continued interest in biodiesel and provisions to support small ethanol producers. I look forward to working with the Sponsors to craft a responsive bipartisan energy tax package. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased that today we offer a bipartisan energy tax incentives package for the 108th Congress. I have been joined in this introduction by not only Ranking Member of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, but also the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senators Domenici and Bingaman as original sponsors of the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2003, which we are introducing today. This bill is substantially similar to the Energy Tax Incentives Bill which won overwhelming support on the floor of the Senate last April. It continues to represent a balanced package of alternative energy, traditional energy production and energy efficiency incentives. As we move forward towards a Mark-up of an energy tax bill by the Finance Committee, this bill represents a starting point. We hope over the next few weeks to be able to incorporate some of the new and improved versions of some of the provisions that we developed over the many months of conference during the last Congress. I remain committed to diverse sources of energy and electricity, to include the production of electricity for wind and agricultural waste nutrients. In addition this bill reflects my continued interest in biodiesel and provisions to support small ethanol producers. I look forward to working with the Sponsors to craft a responsive bipartisan energy tax package. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2003, a bill to allow media coverage of court proceedings. This legislation will provide Federal judges with the statutory authority to exercise their discretion to allow the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting and televising of federal court proceedings. During the 107th Congress, the Judiciary Committee reported identical legislation favorably, by a vote of 12 to 7. It's my hope that the full Senate will have the opportunity to act on this bill as early as possible in the 108th Congress. Sunshine bill will help the American people to become better informed about the judicial process. Moreover, this bill will help to produce a better judiciary. Increased public awareness and scrutiny will bring about greater accountability and help judges to do a better job. Allowing cameras in the Federal courts is consistent with the intent of our Nation's Founders that trials should be held in front of as many people as choose to attend them. In my view, the First Amendment to the Constitution requires that court proceedings must be open to the public and, by extension, to the news media. As the Supreme Court has said, ``what transpires in the courtroom is public property.'' Clearly, the basic American values of openness and education are served by allowing electronic media access to Federal courtrooms. There are many beneficial and no substantial detrimental effects to allowing greater public access to the inner workings of our federal courts. Fifteen States have conducted studies aimed specifically at the educational benefits that are derived from camera access to courtrooms. They all determined that camera coverage contributes to greater public understanding of the judicial system. Moroever, the experience of the States with electronic media access to judicial proceedings demonstrate that still and video cameras can be used without any problems, and that procedural discipline is preserved. According to the National Center for State Courts, all fifty States allow at least some degree of camera access to judicial proceedings under a wide variety of rules and conditions. My own State of Iowa, for example, has operated successfully in this open manner for more than 20 years. Furthermore, at the Federal level, the Federal Judicial Center conducted a pilot program in 1994 that studied the effects of allowing camera access to courtrooms. The study found ``small or no effects of camera presence on participants in judicial proceedings, courtroom decorum, or the administration of justice.'' Based on the experience of the States, as well as state and Federal studies, Senator Schumer and I are introducing this bill with a well- founded confidence that it represents sound public policy. Nevertheless, in order to provide a mechanism for Congress to study the effects of this legislation on our judiciary before making this change permanent, we have included a three-year sunset provision in our bill. The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that there is a strong public interest in electronic media access to important court cases. At my urging and that of Senator Schumer, Chief Justice Rehnquist permitted the delayed audio broadcasting of the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the historic 2000 presidential election dispute. The Supreme Court's response to our request was a major step in the right direction. It is important to emphasize, that this bill does not require any Federal judge in any Federal court to allow camera access to judicial proceedings. Rather, it simply gives Federal judges the discretion to allow cameras or other electronic media access if they see fit. The bill also protects the privacy and safety of non-party witnesses by giving them the right to have their faces and voices obscured. This piece of sunshine legislation will bring greater openness and accountability to the Nation's Federal courts. The best way to maintain confidence in our Federal judiciary, which has tremendous power, is to let the sun shine in by allowing judges to exercise their discretion in opening Federal courtrooms to public view through the broadcasting and televising of judicial proceedings. I urge my colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2003, a bill to allow media coverage of court proceedings. This legislation will provide Federal judges with the statutory authority to exercise their discretion to allow the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting and televising of federal court proceedings. During the 107th Congress, the Judiciary Committee reported identical legislation favorably, by a vote of 12 to 7. It's my hope that the full Senate will have the opportunity to act on this bill as early as possible in the 108th Congress. Sunshine bill will help the American people to become better informed about the judicial process. Moreover, this bill will help to produce a better judiciary. Increased public awareness and scrutiny will bring about greater accountability and help judges to do a better job. Allowing cameras in the Federal courts is consistent with the intent of our Nation's Founders that trials should be held in front of as many people as choose to attend them. In my view, the First Amendment to the Constitution requires that court proceedings must be open to the public and, by extension, to the news media. As the Supreme Court has said, ``what transpires in the courtroom is public property.'' Clearly, the basic American values of openness and education are served by allowing electronic media access to Federal courtrooms. There are many beneficial and no substantial detrimental effects to allowing greater public access to the inner workings of our federal courts. Fifteen States have conducted studies aimed specifically at the educational benefits that are derived from camera access to courtrooms. They all determined that camera coverage contributes to greater public understanding of the judicial system. Moroever, the experience of the States with electronic media access to judicial proceedings demonstrate that still and video cameras can be used without any problems, and that procedural discipline is preserved. According to the National Center for State Courts, all fifty States allow at least some degree of camera access to judicial proceedings under a wide variety of rules and conditions. My own State of Iowa, for example, has operated successfully in this open manner for more than 20 years. Furthermore, at the Federal level, the Federal Judicial Center conducted a pilot program in 1994 that studied the effects of allowing camera access to courtrooms. The study found ``small or no effects of camera presence on participants in judicial proceedings, courtroom decorum, or the administration of justice.'' Based on the experience of the States, as well as state and Federal studies, Senator Schumer and I are introducing this bill with a well- founded confidence that it represents sound public policy. Nevertheless, in order to provide a mechanism for Congress to study the effects of this legislation on our judiciary before making this change permanent, we have included a three-year sunset provision in our bill. The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that there is a strong public interest in electronic media access to important court cases. At my urging and that of Senator Schumer, Chief Justice Rehnquist permitted the delayed audio broadcasting of the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the historic 2000 presidential election dispute. The Supreme Court's response to our request was a major step in the right direction. It is important to emphasize, that this bill does not require any Federal judge in any Federal court to allow camera access to judicial proceedings. Rather, it simply gives Federal judges the discretion to allow cameras or other electronic media access if they see fit. The bill also protects the privacy and safety of non-party witnesses by giving them the right to have their faces and voices obscured. This piece of sunshine legislation will bring greater openness and accountability to the Nation's Federal courts. The best way to maintain confidence in our Federal judiciary, which has tremendous power, is to let the sun shine in by allowing judges to exercise their discretion in opening Federal courtrooms to public view through the broadcasting and televising of judicial proceedings. I urge my colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation intended to help states address the educational needs of gifted and talented students. There are approximately 3 million children in the United States who are considered gifted and talented. It is important to note that gifted and talented children are not simply the kids who do well in school and get good grades. In fact, not all gifted students get good grades and not all students who get straight A's are necessarily gifted learners. What makes a child gifted and talented is how he or she learns. Gifted and talented children actually look at the world differently and often have a different way of interacting socially. As a result, gifted and talented students have different educational needs than other students. I am reminded of an example from my home state of Iowa. I have learned of a third grade student from Iowa City named Jose. Jose was having trouble in school. He didn't always complete his assignments and he had trouble paying attention in class. He was also a bit of a loner and didn't interact much with his classmates. As a result, his teacher saw him as a problem student and struggled to get him to behave like the other children. Still, it was clear to Jose's parents that he had a hunger to learn. He loved to go to the library and was very inquisitive. Over the summer, Jose's parents had his IQ tested and he was found to have a high level of intelligence. As a result, when he started school again in the fall, his parents asked that he be identified as gifted and receive services. Jose now leaves his regular classroom a couple of times a week for what Iowa City schools call the ``extended learning program.'' As a result, he is finally receiving the stimulation he was lacking at school. Jose now enjoys school more, has made new friends, and is doing great with his regular school work. Gifted and talented children have enormous potential. Today's gifted and talented child may grow up to become a leader in the field of science or a world-renowned performer. However, this will not happen automatically. Gifted and talented children need to be challenged and their unique skills must be nurtured. Currently, many gifted and talented children do not receive the educational programs and services they need to live up to their potential. In fact, many gifted and talented children lose interest in school; they learn how to expend minimum effort for top grades, have low motivation, and develop poor work habits. Some may abandon their education altogether and drop out of school. This is a tragedy not only for the students, but also for our society. We hear a lot about how the United States has a shortage of individuals with the skills in math and science that are necessary for our Nation to continue to be competitive in today's global economy. Our security agencies are scrambling to find linguists who know or can quickly learn foreign languages. In fact, one of the findings included in my bill states, ``To meet the future economic and national security needs of the United States, it is important that more students achieve to higher levels, and that highly capable students receive an education that prepares them to perform the most highly innovative and creative work that is necessary to secure our Nation's position in the world.'' In times of national crisis or uncertainty, the United States has always turned to its best and brightest to solve whatever problems face us. The launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union brought to national attention for the first time the need to develop the special gifts and talents of young Americans. Once again, we find ourselves in a time of uncertainty, facing new threats and challenges that we are struggling to understand. In order to ensure that our country is prepared to face whatever unforeseen problems will come our way in the future, we must invest now in this vital national resource, gifted students. My legislation is not intended to make the education of gifted and talented students primarily a Federal responsibility. Education is, and should be, chiefly a State and local responsibility. Nevertheless, the Federal Government does have a role to play. The availability and quality of gifted and talented educational services currently varies widely from State to State. This situation has an especially adverse effect on disadvantaged gifted students whose parents cannot afford to pay for private programs or summer camps. Untimately, gifted and talented students in every public school should have access to specialized educational services that are designed to address their learning needs. Still, my bill would simply provide the seed money to help States begin to expand the availability of gifted education services. My gifted and talented initiative would distribute grants, based on a State's student population, to each State education agency. States will then provide grants to local school districts on a competitive basis to be used to identify and provide educational services to gifted and talented students from all economic, ethnic, and racial backgrounds, including students with limited English proficiency and students with disabilities. Rather than providing a steady Federal funding stream directly to the local level, on which schools might become dependent, the competitive subgrants will allow States to target school districts that need to jump-start their gifted and talented program. At the same time, the local competitive grant process will encourage State education agencies to more closely examine the needs of gifted children in their respective States. At least 90 percent of the funds provided to a State must be subgranted to school districts and the funds must supplement, not supplant, funds currently being spent. Additionally, States must make their own commitment to gifted and talented students by matching 10 percent of the Federal funds, either in cash or in kind. All of this is intended to help gifted and talents programs and services take root in each State and in local school districts so that they can grow and develop to fully address the unique educational needs of this special group of students. I have intentionally included a broad range of authorized uses for the grants in my bill in order to allow States and local school districts the flexibility to address their specific needs. School districts can use these funds to provide professional development for personnel involved in the education of gifted and talented students, including gifted education teachers, general education teachers, and other school personnel like administrators and school counselors. The funds can also be used to provide direct educational services and materials. Or, school districts could use the funds to support items like innovative strategies for teaching gifted students, making materials available through regional centers, or providing high-level course work through distance learning technology. The Federal involvement in gifted and talented education is not new. The Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act has provided valuable information on strategies to meet the needs of gifted students since 1988 through the funding of demonstration grants and the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. In the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Congress expanded the Javits Act to authorize competitive grants to States to expand the capacity of States to meet the needs of gifted students. These new grants represent some potential to improve the ability of select States to address the needs of gifted and talented children, and I am pleased with the progress we have been able to make thus far. My legislation would build on the existing Javits Act to create a comprehensive approach to expanding the ability of States and school districts nationwide to meet the needs of gifted and talented students. Congress has rightly placed a renewed emphasis on making sure all children are successful learners. In our efforts to leave no child behind, we must not forget gifted and talented students. I would remind my colleagues of the example I cited earlier. Jose is a success story because his parents saw his potential and pointed it out to school officials, and because he attended a school where quality gifted education services are available. There are many more students like Jose across the country who have either not been identified as gifted or who attend a school where gifted education services are not provided. I would urge my colleagues to join me in seeing that these exceptional young people across our great Nation have the support and services they need to be successful. I ask for your support for the Gifted and Talented Students Education Act of 2003. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation intended to help states address the educational needs of gifted and talented students. There are approximately 3 million children in the United States who are considered gifted and talented. It is important to note that gifted and talented children are not simply the kids who do well in school and get good grades. In fact, not all gifted students get good grades and not all students who get straight A's are necessarily gifted learners. What makes a child gifted and talented is how he or she learns. Gifted and talented children actually look at the world differently and often have a different way of interacting socially. As a result, gifted and talented students have different educational needs than other students. I am reminded of an example from my home state of Iowa. I have learned of a third grade student from Iowa City named Jose. Jose was having trouble in school. He didn't always complete his assignments and he had trouble paying attention in class. He was also a bit of a loner and didn't interact much with his classmates. As a result, his teacher saw him as a problem student and struggled to get him to behave like the other children. Still, it was clear to Jose's parents that he had a hunger to learn. He loved to go to the library and was very inquisitive. Over the summer, Jose's parents had his IQ tested and he was found to have a high level of intelligence. As a result, when he started school again in the fall, his parents asked that he be identified as gifted and receive services. Jose now leaves his regular classroom a couple of times a week for what Iowa City schools call the ``extended learning program.'' As a result, he is finally receiving the stimulation he was lacking at school. Jose now enjoys school more, has made new friends, and is doing great with his regular school work. Gifted and talented children have enormous potential. Today's gifted and talented child may grow up to become a leader in the field of science or a world-renowned performer. However, this will not happen automatically. Gifted and talented children need to be challenged and their unique skills must be nurtured. Currently, many gifted and talented children do not receive the educational programs and services they need to live up to their potential. In fact, many gifted and talented children lose interest in school; they learn how to expend minimum effort for top grades, have low motivation, and develop poor work habits. Some may abandon their education altogether and drop out of school. This is a tragedy not only for the students, but also for our society. We hear a lot about how the United States has a shortage of individuals with the skills in math and science that are necessary for our Nation to continue to be competitive in today's global economy. Our security agencies are scrambling to find linguists who know or can quickly learn foreign languages. In fact, one of the findings included in my bill states, ``To meet the future economic and national security needs of the United States, it is important that more students achieve to higher levels, and that highly capable students receive an education that prepares them to perform the most highly innovative and creative work that is necessary to secure our Nation's position in the world.'' In times of national crisis or uncertainty, the United States has always turned to its best and brightest to solve whatever problems face us. The launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union brought to national attention for the first time the need to develop the special gifts and talents of young Americans. Once again, we find ourselves in a time of uncertainty, facing new threats and challenges that we are struggling to understand. In order to ensure that our country is prepared to face whatever unforeseen problems will come our way in the future, we must invest now in this vital national resource, gifted students. My legislation is not intended to make the education of gifted and talented students primarily a Federal responsibility. Education is, and should be, chiefly a State and local responsibility. Nevertheless, the Federal Government does have a role to play. The availability and quality of gifted and talented educational services currently varies widely from State to State. This situation has an especially adverse effect on disadvantaged gifted students whose parents cannot afford to pay for private programs or summer camps. Untimately, gifted and talented students in every public school should have access to specialized educational services that are designed to address their learning needs. Still, my bill would simply provide the seed money to help States begin to expand the availability of gifted education services. My gifted and talented initiative would distribute grants, based on a State's student population, to each State education agency. States will then provide grants to local school districts on a competitive basis to be used to identify and provide educational services to gifted and talented students from all economic, ethnic, and racial backgrounds, including students with limited English proficiency and students with disabilities. Rather than providing a steady Federal funding stream directly to the local level, on which schools might become dependent, the competitive subgrants will allow States to target school districts that need to jump-start their gifted and talented program. At the same time, the local competitive grant process will encourage State education agencies to more closely examine the needs of gifted children in their respective States. At least 90 percent of the funds provided to a State must be subgranted to school districts and the funds must supplement, not supplant, funds currently being spent. Additionally, States must make their own commitment to gifted and talented students by matching 10 percent of the Federal funds, either in cash or in kind. All of this is intended to help gifted and talents programs and services take root in each State and in local school districts so that they can grow and develop to fully address the unique educational needs of this special group of students. I have intentionally included a broad range of authorized uses for the grants in my bill in order to allow States and local school districts the flexibility to address their specific needs. School districts can use these funds to provide professional development for personnel involved in the education of gifted and talented students, including gifted education teachers, general education teachers, and other school personnel like administrators and school counselors. The funds can also be used to provide direct educational services and materials. Or, school districts could use the funds to support items like innovative strategies for teaching gifted students, making materials available through regional centers, or providing high-level course work through distance learning technology. The Federal involvement in gifted and talented education is not new. The Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act has provided valuable information on strategies to meet the needs of gifted students since 1988 through the funding of demonstration grants and the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. In the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Congress expanded the Javits Act to authorize competitive grants to States to expand the capacity of States to meet the needs of gifted students. These new grants represent some potential to improve the ability of select States to address the needs of gifted and talented children, and I am pleased with the progress we have been able to make thus far. My legislation would build on the existing Javits Act to create a comprehensive approach to expanding the ability of States and school districts nationwide to meet the needs of gifted and talented students. Congress has rightly placed a renewed emphasis on making sure all children are successful learners. In our efforts to leave no child behind, we must not forget gifted and talented students. I would remind my colleagues of the example I cited earlier. Jose is a success story because his parents saw his potential and pointed it out to school officials, and because he attended a school where quality gifted education services are available. There are many more students like Jose across the country who have either not been identified as gifted or who attend a school where gifted education services are not provided. I would urge my colleagues to join me in seeing that these exceptional young people across our great Nation have the support and services they need to be successful. I ask for your support for the Gifted and Talented Students Education Act of 2003. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to once again be the lead Republican cosponsor of the ``Training for Realtime Writers Act''. This legislation that Senator Harkin and I are introducing today will provide grants for the training of realtime reporters and captioners. While we ran out of time to address this matter in the 107th Congress, I would remind Senators of the looming problem related to a shortage of what are called ``realtime writers''. Realtime writers are essentially trained court reporters, much like the Official Reporters of Debates here in the Senate, who use a combination of additional specialized training and technology to transform words into text as they are spoken. This can allow deaf and hard of hearing individuals to understand live television as well as follow proceedings at a civic function or in a classroom. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress mandated that most television programming be fully captioned by 2006 in order to allow the 28 million Americans who are deaf or had of hearing to have access to the same news and information that many of us take for granted. Information provides a vital link to the outside world. Americans receive a large amount of their information about what is happening in the world and right in their communities from television. Whether it is an international crisis or a weather warning, information is necessary to fully participate in our society. In order for those who are deaf and hard of hearing to receive the same information as it is broadcast on live television, groups of captions must work around the clock transcribing words as they are spoken. Currently, video-programming distributers must provide an average of at least 900 hours of captioned programming. Starting in 2005, this will increase to 1350 hours. By 2006, 100 percent of new nonexempt programming must be provided with captions. At the same time, student enrollment in programs that provide essential training in captioning has decreased significantly, with programs closing on many campuses. In order to meet the growing demand for realtime writers caused by this mandate, we must do everything we can to increase the number of individuals receiving this very specialized training. Our bill will help address the shortage of individuals trained as realtime writers by providing grants to accredited court reporting programs to promote the training and placement of individuals as realtime writers. Specifically, court reporting programs could use these grants for item like recruitment of students for realtime writing programs, need-based scholarships, distance learning, education and training, job placement assistance, the encouragement of individuals with disabilities to pursue a career as a realtime writer, and personnel costs. The expansion of distance learning opportunities in particular will have an enormous impact by making training accessible to individuals who want to become realtime writers but do not live in metropolitan areas. Also, need based scholarships offered using these grants funds would be subject to an agreement with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to provide realtime writing services for a period of time. We must act quickly because the shortage of individuals trained as realtime writers will only grow more severe as the captioning mandate in the 1996 Telecommunications Act continues to take effect. Failure to act could leave the 28 million deaf or hard of hearing Americans without the ability to fully participate in many of the professional, educational, and civic activities that other Americans enjoy. Congress was not able to complete work on this urgent matter before the end of the 107th Congress, so we must redouble our efforts. I would urge all senators to support the swift passage of this legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Those denying the Senate an up-or-down vote on Mr. Estrada's nomination claim that he has not answered questions or produced documentation, and so he should not be confirmed to the Federal bench. I can think of a number of Democratic nominees who did not sufficiently answer question that I submitted to them, but that did not lead me to filibuster. As far as I know, Mr. Estrada has answered all questions posed to him by the Judiciary Committee members. His opponents claim that he has refused to hand over certain in-house Justice Department memoranda. What actually is happening is that the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have requested that the Department of Justice submit to the Committee, internal memoranda written by Miguel Estrada when he was an attorney in the Solicitor General's Office. These internal memos are attorney work product, specifically appeal, certiorari, and amicus memoranda, and the Justice Department has rightly refused to produce them. The Department of Justice has never disclosed such sensitive information in the context of a Court of Appeals nomination. These memoranda should not be released, because they detail the appeal, certiorari and amicus recommendations and legal opinions of an assistant to the Solicitor General. This is not just the policy of this administration, the Bush administration, a Republican administration. This has also been the policy under Democratic Presidents. The inappropriateness of this request prompted all seven living former Solicitors General to write a bipartisan letter to the Committee to express their concern regarding the Committee's request and to defend the need to keep such documents confidential. The letter was signed by Democrats Seth Waxman, Walter Dellinger, Drew Days III and Republicans Ken Starr, Charles Fried, Robert Bork and Archibald Cox. The letter notes that when each of the Solicitors General made important decisions regarding whether to seek Supreme Court review of adverse appellate decisions and whether to participate as amicus curiae in other high profile cases, they: relied on frank, honest and thorough advice from [their] staff attorneys like Mr. Estrada . . . and that the open exchange of ideas which must occur in such a context Simply cannot take place if attorneys have reason to fear that their private recommendations are not private at all, but vulnerable to public disclosure. The letter concludes that Any attempt to intrude into the Office's highly privileged deliberations would come at a cost of the Solicitor General's ability to defend vigorously the United States litigation interests, a cost that also would be borne by Congress itself. The Democratic committee member's request has even drawn criticism from the editorial boards of the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. On May 28, 2002, in an editorial entitled ``Not Fair Game'' the Washington Post editorialized that the request For an attorney's work product would be unthinkable if the work had been done for a private client. . . . [and] legal advice by a line attorney for the federal government is not fair game either. According to the Post editorial . . . In elite government offices such as that of the solicitor general, lawyers need to speak freely without worrying that the positions they are advocating today will be used against them if they ever get nominated to some other position. On May 24, 2002, the Wall Street Journal in an editorial entitled ``The Estrada Gambit'' also criticized the request, calling it ``one more attempt to delay giving Mr. Estrada a hearing and a vote.'' The Journal further criticized the Committee's request in a later editorial, entitled ``No Judicial Fishing'', calling the request ``outrageous'' and noting that the goal of the request ``is to delay, trying to put off the day when Mr. Estrada takes a seat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these two editorials also be printed in the Record after my statement.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. Estrada is not the only former deputy or assistant to the Solicitor General nominated to the Federal bench. In fact, there are seven others now serving on the Federal Courts of Appeals. None had any prior judicial experience, and the committee did not ask the Justice Department to turn over any confidential internal memoranda those nominees prepared while serving in the Solicitor General's Office. The seven nominees were: Samuel Alito on the 3rd Circuit, Danny Boggs on the 6th Circuit, William Bryson and Daniel Friedman on the Federal Circuit, Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner on the 7th Circuit, and A. Raymond Randolph on the D.C. Circuit. Why should Mr. Estrada be treated any differently? During Mr. Estrada's hearing, Judiciary Committee Democrats alleged that the committee has reviewed the work product of other nominees, including memos written by Frank Easterbrook, by Chief Justice Rehnquist when he served as a clerk to Justice Jackson, and by Robert Bork when he was an official at the Justice Department. For the record, there is no evidence that the Department of Justice ever turned over confidential memoranda prepared by Frank Easterbrook when he served in the Solicitor General's Office. There also is no evidence that the committee even requested such information. During Robert Bork's hearings, the Department did turn over memos Judge Bork wrote while serving as Solicitor General, but none of these memos contained the sort of deliberative materials requested of Mr. Estrada and the Justice Department. The Bork materials include memos containing Bork's opinions on such subjects as the constitutionality of the pocket veto, and on President Nixon's assertions of executive privilege and his views of the Office of Special Prosecutor. None of the memos contain information regarding internal deliberations of career attorneys on appeal decisions or legal opinions in connection with appeal decisions. Moreover, the Bork documents reflected information transmitted between a political appointee, namely the Solicitor General, and political advisors to the President, rather than the advice of a career Department of Justice attorney to his superiors, as is the case with Mr. Estrada. You see, the Judiciary Committee has never requested and the Department of Justice has never agreed to release the internal memos of a career line attorney. To ask that Mr. Estrada turn over his memos is unprecedented, and frankly unfair. No Member of this body would ever condone a request to turn over staff memos. What my staff communicates to me in writing is internal and private. I am sure every other Senator feels the same way as I do. This Democrat fishing expedition needs to stop. Miguel Estrada is a more than well qualified nominee and he deserves a vote on his nomination, today. In conclusion, we are again seeing an attack on another very talented, very principled, highly qualified legal mind. It all boils down to this, Mr. Estrada's opponents refuse to give him a vote because they say they do not know enough about him. They further contend that the Justice Department memos, which they know will never be released, are the only way they can find out what they need to know about Mr. Estrada. It is a terrible Catch-22. These obstructionist efforts are a disgrace and an outrage. We must put a stop to these inappropriate political attacks and get on with the business of confirming to the Federal bench good men and women who are committed to doing what judges should do, interpret law as opposed to making law from the bench, because it is our responsibility to make law as members of the legislative branch. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, Feb. 18, 2003] Just Vote The Senate has recessed without voting on the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Because of a Democratic filibuster, it spent much of the week debating Mr. Estrada, and, at least for now, enough Democrats are holding together to prevent the full Senate from acting. The arguments against Mr. Estrada's confirmation range from the unpersuasive to the offensive. He lacks judicial experience, his critics say--though only three current members of the court had been judges before their nominations. He is too young--though he is about the same age as Judge Harry T. Edwards was when he was appointed and several years older than Kenneth W. Starr was when he was nominated. Mr. Estrada stonewalled the Judiciary Committee by refusing to answer questions--though his answers were similar in nature to those of previous nominees, including many nominated by Democratic presidents. The administration refused to turn over his Justice Department memos--though no reasonable Congress ought to be seeking such material, as a letter from all living former solicitors general attests. He is not a real Hispanic and, by the way, he was nominated only because he is Hispanic--two arguments as repugnant as they are incoherent. Underlying it all is the fact that Democrats don't want to put a conservative on the court. Laurence H. Silberman, a senior judge on the court to which Mr. Estrada aspires to serve, recently observed that under the current standards being applied by the Senate, not one of his colleagues could predictably secure confirmation. He's right. To be sure, Republicans missed few opportunities to play politics with President Clinton's nominees. But the Estrada filibuster is a step beyond even those deplorable games. For Democrats demand, as a condition of a vote, answers to questions that no nominee should be forced to address--and that nominees have not previously been forced to address. If Mr. Estrada cannot get a vote, there will be no reason for Republicans to allow the next David S. Tatel--a distinguished liberal member of the court--to get one when a Democrat someday again picks judges. Yet the D.C. Circuit-- and all courts, for that matter--would be all the poorer were it composed entirely of people whose views challenged nobody. Nor is the problem just Mr. Estrada. John G. Roberts Jr., Mr. Bush's other nominee to the D.C. Circuit, has been waiting nearly two years for a Judiciary Committee vote. Nobody has raised a substantial argument against him. Indeed, Mr. Roberts is among the most highly regarded appellate lawyers in the city. Yet on Thursday, Democrats invoked a procedural rule to block a committee vote anyway--just for good measure. It's long past time to stop these games and vote.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise once again to speak in support of the confirmation of Miguel Estrada, an exceptionally well qualified nominee who does not deserve to have his nomination obstructed by this filibuster. I have been a strong supporter of Mr. Estrada's since he came before the Judiciary Committee last year. At that time, I argued that his nomination should come up for a floor vote, but we were not allowed to vote on his nomination then. Here we are a year later, and I am still strongly supporting Mr. Estrada, and I am still arguing for a floor vote, and that vote is still being refused. I think it is shameful to continue holding up the vote on this very qualified judicial nominee, who, by the way, will make an excellent member of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. I know my colleagues heard Mr. Estrada's credentials many times last week. In fact, I am pretty sure that some of my colleagues could quote his credentials in their sleep. However, I think it is important that the Senate is reminded of how qualified this nominee is who is being filibustered. Not only is he regarded as one of the Nation's top appellate lawyers, having argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, but the American Bar Association, which I think Democrats consider the gold standard of determination of the person's qualifications to be a judicial nominee, has given him a unanimous rating of, in their words, ``well qualified.'' This happens to be the highest American Bar Association rating. It is a rating they would not give to just any lawyer who comes up the pike. According to the American Bar Association, quoting from their standard: To merit a rating of well qualified, the nominee must be at the top of the legal profession in his or her legal community, having outstanding legal ability, breadth of experience, the highest reputation for integrity and either have demonstrated or exhibited the capacity for judicial temperament. We ought to demand that more qualified people like Miguel Estrada be appointed to the bench rather than fighting his nomination. As my colleagues know, I am not a lawyer. There is nothing wrong with going to law school, but I did not. I have been on the Judiciary Committee my entire time in the Senate. I know some of the qualifications that are needed to be a Federal judge, particularly a Federal judge on this DC Circuit that handles so many appeals from administrative agencies and is often considered, by legal experts, to be the second highest court of our land. Mr. Estrada's academic credentials are stellar. He graduated from Columbia University with his bachelor's degree magna cum laude and was also a member of Phi Beta Kappa. Then he earned his juris doctorate from Harvard University, also magna cum laude, where he was editor of the Harvard Law Review. Mr. Estrada did not just attend Harvard Law School; he graduated with honors. He also served as the editor of the Harvard Law Review. To be selected as the editor of a law review is a feat that only the most exceptional of law students attain. While Mr. Estrada certainly has the intellect required to be a Federal judge, his professional background also gives testament to his being qualified for a Federal Court of Appeals judgeship as opposed to just any judgeship. After law school, Mr. Estrada served as a law clerk to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and as a law clerk to Justice Kennedy, on the United States Supreme Court. Subsequently, he served as an Assistant US Attorney and deputy chief of the appellate section of the US Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York, and then as assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States of America. Mr. Estrada has been in the private sector as well. He is a partner with the Washington, DC, office of the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. In this exceptional career, Mr. Estrada has argued 15 cases before the United States Supreme Court. He won nine of those cases. Mr. Estrada is not just an appellate lawyer; he is one of the top appellate lawyers in the country. So for a young lawyer, I think I can give my colleagues a person who can truly be labeled an American success story. In fact, instead of degrading his ability to serve as a circuit court judge, we should all be proud of Mr. Estrada's many accomplishments. This is the nominee that the Democrats are filibustering. I fail to understand why a nominee of these outstanding qualifications, and who has been honored by the ABA with its highest rating, would be the object of such obstruction. In all my years on the Judiciary Committee--and that has been my entire tenure in the Senate-- Republicans never once filibustered a Democratic President's nominee to the Federal bench. There are many I may have wanted to filibuster, but I did not do it--we did not do it--because it is not right. In fact, as I understand it, in the entire history of the Senate neither party has ever filibustered a judicial nominee. Going back over 200 years, Republicans and Democrats have resisted the urge to obstruct a nominee by filibustering. Good men of sound judgment have come to the conclusion that to use this tool of last resorts to obstruct a nomination is, at best, inappropriate, and, at worst, just down right wrong. This nominee, like all nominees, deserves an up-or-down vote. Anything less is absolutely unfair. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will reconsider this filibuster. The Senate should not cross this Rubicon and establish new precedent for the confirmation process. Over 40 newspapers from across the country have published editorials advocating that the Senate give Mr. Estrada a vote. Even the Washington Post, which is not exactly a bastion of conservatism, published an editorial last week entitled, ``Just Vote.'' In that editorial, the Post correctly characterized the Democrats obstructionist efforts. With regard to the Democrat request for the internal memos Mr. Estrada drafted while he was in the Solicitor General's Office, the Post said that this filibuster of Mr. Estrada goes beyond the normal political confirmation games, because, Democrats demand, as a condition of a vote, answers to questions that no nominee should be forced to address--and that nominees have not previously been forced to address. I agree with the Post: It's long past time to stop these games and vote. I make a unanimous consent request that this Washington Post editorial, ``Just Vote'' be printed in the Record after my statement.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to once again be the lead Republican cosponsor of the ``Training for Realtime Writers Act''. This legislation that Senator Harkin and I are introducing today will provide grants for the training of realtime reporters and captioners. While we ran out of time to address this matter in the 107th Congress, I would remind Senators of the looming problem related to a shortage of what are called ``realtime writers''. Realtime writers are essentially trained court reporters, much like the Official Reporters of Debates here in the Senate, who use a combination of additional specialized training and technology to transform words into text as they are spoken. This can allow deaf and hard of hearing individuals to understand live television as well as follow proceedings at a civic function or in a classroom. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress mandated that most television programming be fully captioned by 2006 in order to allow the 28 million Americans who are deaf or had of hearing to have access to the same news and information that many of us take for granted. Information provides a vital link to the outside world. Americans receive a large amount of their information about what is happening in the world and right in their communities from television. Whether it is an international crisis or a weather warning, information is necessary to fully participate in our society. In order for those who are deaf and hard of hearing to receive the same information as it is broadcast on live television, groups of captions must work around the clock transcribing words as they are spoken. Currently, video-programming distributers must provide an average of at least 900 hours of captioned programming. Starting in 2005, this will increase to 1350 hours. By 2006, 100 percent of new nonexempt programming must be provided with captions. At the same time, student enrollment in programs that provide essential training in captioning has decreased significantly, with programs closing on many campuses. In order to meet the growing demand for realtime writers caused by this mandate, we must do everything we can to increase the number of individuals receiving this very specialized training. Our bill will help address the shortage of individuals trained as realtime writers by providing grants to accredited court reporting programs to promote the training and placement of individuals as realtime writers. Specifically, court reporting programs could use these grants for item like recruitment of students for realtime writing programs, need-based scholarships, distance learning, education and training, job placement assistance, the encouragement of individuals with disabilities to pursue a career as a realtime writer, and personnel costs. The expansion of distance learning opportunities in particular will have an enormous impact by making training accessible to individuals who want to become realtime writers but do not live in metropolitan areas. Also, need based scholarships offered using these grants funds would be subject to an agreement with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to provide realtime writing services for a period of time. We must act quickly because the shortage of individuals trained as realtime writers will only grow more severe as the captioning mandate in the 1996 Telecommunications Act continues to take effect. Failure to act could leave the 28 million deaf or hard of hearing Americans without the ability to fully participate in many of the professional, educational, and civic activities that other Americans enjoy. Congress was not able to complete work on this urgent matter before the end of the 107th Congress, so we must redouble our efforts. I would urge all senators to support the swift passage of this legislation.