Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I rise to express my extreme disappointment in President Bush's agriculture budget proposal as well as his budget proposal for all of rural America. We worked very hard in this body, and in conjunction with the other body, to come up with a good farm bill.

Three years ago, President Bush signed that farm bill. It took us a while to get him there, but he finally signed it. As a member of the Agriculture Committee and a farmer's daughter, I was proud of the job we had done on behalf of the many hard-working farming interests in this great country.

I can remember growing up on our farm in Arkansas and how my father had great trepidation over whether he would be able to be successful with the kind of crop he had worked so hard to produce, because he knew so many variables were completely out of his control, whether it was drought, whether it was flooding, whether it was world market prices. Everything out of his control had such a great bearing on whether he could be successful.

I was especially proud of the agreement we made with the Arkansas farmers to support them because of those things they are faced with that are out of their control. It was an agreement we made with the farmers, their families, and their communities.

The 2002 farm bill was a great deal for farmers and consumers, for all of America. However, not everyone agrees. This past weekend, the New York Times ran an op-ed outlining proposals to undercut the 2002 farm bill by cutting aid to our farmers in this Nation. It seems that the President has been taking his agricultural advice from the New York Times because, lo and behold, on Monday morning he sent a budget over to Congress that mirrors the piece in the New York Times.

I would like to suggest first and foremost that he turn to a more reliable source to get his advice on agricultural policy. Because, for the life of me, I still cannot figure out what it is that they grow or oversee growing, looking down out of those skyscrapers in New York City, that would merit them providing that kind of advice to the President of the United States over the hard-working men and women who produce the food and fiber not just for this country but for the people of this globe.

If the President would like, I will be happy to offer him some advice on agricultural policy. I certainly hear from his administration officials and friends here in Congress who are not shy about sharing with me their opinions on issues such as tax reform and trade policy and Social Security. Well, agricultural policy is important to this Nation as well. If the President does not want my opinion, then I suggest he sit down with some real farmers from my home State of Arkansas or other farming States across the Nation and get their opinions.

When we were debating the 2002 farm bill, there was a lot of misinformation about farmers and farming that was floating around us all. I, for one, am determined to ensure that those perceptions are challenged. Most importantly, I want to ensure that the uninformed judgments about farmers are never used in setting our agricultural policy in this country.

Let's look at a few of the things that critics of farming said would happen if we were to enact the 2002 farm bill.

First, they said it would bust the budget. I heard my colleagues on the other side down here earlier this week describing how in the first 2 years the farm bill has come in more than $15 billion cheaper than was expected or projected.

Second, folks said it would lead to overproduction. They were wrong again. According to USDA, production remains steady.

Third, those naysayers said it would interfere with trade. Last year, our exports were at an all-time record high. In fact, the only people I know who believe our farm policy interferes with trade is our trade competition from other countries, the same people who sit across from us and from our negotiators during trade talks and ask us to take away our support for our farmers while they hang on to the very support they provide their agricultural producers. Does it sound like a good deal? You bet it does--to our competitors. We fight long and hard to make sure there is a fair playing field for our agricultural producers in this country, and they deserve it.

Finally, the critics made clear what they thought about farmers. They said that farming is no longer a matter of importance to the American economy. I say to the Presiding Officer, farming is important to the economy of your great State of Louisiana and many others. I want this body to think about that for a few minutes. I want those critics to take a trip to the South and to the Midwest. I want them to take a trip to my home State of Arkansas where one in every five jobs is tied to agriculture. Better yet, I want them to think about agriculture's contribution to our Nation's security and well-being.

So the critics are all wrong about farm policy, and they are certainly wrong about farmers, the hard-working families that produce food and fiber so each of us can lead that healthy life. They are also wrong to think that farm policy does not affect Main Street USA.

To doubters, I point out the 1980s and the farm financial crisis that existed then. During that time, we saw entire communities and towns dry up and blow away.

Now I would like to mention how our farm support compares to the rest of the world, how critical it is that we maintain those producers we have. We give our farmers $40 per acre in aid, while Europeans enjoy a $400 per-acre subsidy. Apparently, the President wants French farmers to have a competitive edge over our American producers. It seems to me we should be asking them to bring their support down before we unilaterally reduce ours.

At the end of the day, we need to take the recommendations of experts. We spend money, time and time again, to come up with these commissions, to come up with these reports. We need to take a look at them, the recommendations of experts we commission to look at the farm bill. This panel of experts made a clear recommendation that we should not change the 2002 farm bill until it is time to deal with that in 2007.

Time and again, we see the critics misuse facts and figures to make their case in an attempt to villainize farmers and drive public opinion against them. For the sake of time this morning, I will spare my colleagues from refuting point by point the numerous inaccuracies in the stories President Bush is reading about huge farms getting massive payments.

I tend to get a little passionate about this issue. Maybe it is because I am a farmer's daughter. Maybe it is because I believe in the farm families of this country. Maybe it is because I still go home and remember what it is like in those rural communities.

But if you listened to the critics, you would believe that Long Farms--which is a great example--in Blytheville, AR, was about to be publicly traded on the

New York Stock Exchange. Clark Long and his two sons are probably wondering how they missed out on all the benefits of these huge agribusinesses that are talked about in these stories.

The fact is, we have payment limitations in our farm policy already. We accepted them as a part of the compromise we struck in the 2002 farm bill, a bill that was debated for 2 years and should be viewed as a contract between the Federal Government and the hard-working farm families of this country, their lenders, and others they do business with all the way up and down Main Street, the entire communities that depend on these hard-working farm families that produce the food and fiber for this world.

The bottom line is, changing payment limitations midway through the deal has the real potential to put Arkansas farm families and other farm families across the South and in other places in a terrible spot.

In closing, despite the President's willingness to listen to the critics on the New York Times editorial board and break his contract with America's farmers, I still believe in farmers and farming communities. I still believe in those people who get up at 4:30 every morning to go out and work that farm, to make sure I and the rest of America can enjoy the safest, most abundant and affordable food supply in the world.

Per capita, we pay less for our food than anybody else out there. Is that not worth something to us in this Nation, to recognize the diversity across our great land, and understand that those who farm in different regions of the country and farm different crops have to use different economies of scale in order to compete in a global marketplace?

I want the farming communities in Arkansas to know exactly where my loyalty lies. It lies with them. I will stick with the rock-solid values and hard work of those farm families across Arkansas and other areas of our Nation. And I will never forget it, even after I am reelected. I encourage the President to relook at what he has done to the viability of many of these farm families across the Nation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. I especially thank my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, who has just been a tremendous mentor to me and so many others with her great leadership. I very much appreciate all of the female Senators who are here to join with us today--to join our voices and make sure that as we begin this discussion on Social Security, which is such a vital program for not just the elderly of our Nation but the disabled, as well as the survivors, that we do it with thoughtfulness, that we do it in reflection of the people we represent, not only their hardships but, more importantly, the dedication they have given to raising the families of this great Nation, and providing the kind of unconditional love and support that makes up the fabric of this great country.

We are proud to be here on the floor of the Senate. I am proud to rise today to speak about the enduring commitment that the American people have made to themselves and to future generations through the Social Security Program.

We find oftentimes that people like to grumble and gripe about government. And we know that government can at times be a little bit rusty, that it is sometimes awfully large. We find that it in many ways may not be a one-size-fits-all, but there is one thing for sure, we know what this country has done right. That is Social Security. It is a program that we can all be proud of and which has allowed us as a nation to espouse the values that are at the core of our being.

I have heard my colleague from Maryland say all the time, honor thy father and thy mother.

Here we have designed a program in years past to allow us to espouse those values that are so important to us; that is, to care not only for our seniors, our mothers, fathers, grandfathers, and grandmothers but also those who might be less fortunate; those who are in dire need of us being able to wrap ourselves around them and provide them the kind of quality of life that we as Americans are proud of--the disabled, the survivors. This is one program we got right. Government got it right.

Has our Nation changed over the last 70 years? Absolutely. And we have an opportunity in a very thoughtful way to look at how we can build upon this program to make sure it meets the demands of today and tomorrow.

Almost 70 years ago, the Social Security Act was signed into law. This law did embody the will of the American people to make sure those who are near and dear to us--the elderly, the sick, the widowed, the orphaned--would not lapse into poverty or deprivation on our watch. That is our charge again today. We are up to the job if we are willing to work together and remind ourselves what our purpose is.

We are now faced with long-term challenges to this very successful program in part because our Nation is

growing older. Folks are living longer. My husband's precious grandmother, who turned 107 last year, sat in front of me in church on Sunday, a remarkable woman with an unbelievable quality of life. She does the crossword puzzle every morning, plays bridge 4 days a week, and I make sure she has a good balanced diet of fruits and vegetables. She is remarkable. There are many more centenarians in this country living healthy lives. They need assurance they will not have to live in poverty.

How we deal with these challenges will affect millions of Americans for generations. It is not just those in the present day, the working individuals of today and the children of today who will be the adults of tomorrow, but it is just as important to me as a young mother of small children that the elderly in my community--my mother, my mother- in-law and father-in-law--have the advantage of this program to provide them the assistance they were promised.

I grew up in a small community within walking distance of both sets of my grandparents. It was easier for us then in those circumstances to go over and care for them, to be able to be a part of their lives. Our worlds are not like that anymore. How many live far distances from our parents or our children? How difficult is it to care for them?

This is a program that ensures, whether you live next door or you live 10 States away, that your parents, the elderly of that community, will have what they need.

I am certainly proud, again, that it is not just the elderly we take care of but the survivors as well as those who are disabled. A young woman on my staff mentioned to me the other day her father died the year she was born and she received those benefits, which was the vision of this Nation and its values, wrapping its arms around her mother and those children to say: Your Nation will be there for you to help you care for these precious children.

Today I will take a few moments to speak on behalf of the millions of women who never made much money during their working lives perhaps, who now depend heavily on their Social Security benefits and could be especially hurt by privatization.

In my home State of Arkansas, more than 272,000 women rely on Social Security benefits. Without Social Security, virtually two-thirds of the elderly women in Arkansas would be forced to live in poverty. Many of those women use Social Security as their only source of income.

I can remember going to the store with my mother and being a bargain shopper. I find myself as a young mother doing the same thing. But it would break my heart to think that my mother had to choose between food, utilities, or pharmaceuticals. Many women find themselves in that position even today. If we privatize Social Security, that will explode. Many of these women do not have trust funds or stocks or bonds to rely on. Their money was spent in different ways. They did not have a lot of expendable money to put into savings accounts. It was used to feed their children, to place a roof over their heads, to educate them, to send them out into the world with hope for a brighter future. They spent their time, their money, their energy, and their soul in creating the lifeblood of this Nation. They also may have spent down their resources to care for a spouse or perhaps a disabled child. These women went to work, and they played by the rules. They baked cookies for the Cub Scout meetings, they paid their taxes on time, they supported their husbands, and they supported their families. And when they became eligible to receive their benefits, Social Security was there for them.

I have heard the rhetoric that those who are close to or in retirement will still receive their full benefit under privatization. What we never hear, however, is that under privatization proposals, younger workers will have their benefits cut significantly. When we talk about privatization and allowing the diversion of payroll taxes into private accounts, we have been told by the Congressional Budget Office and actuaries that there is no way we can do that without cutting benefits, increasing taxes, or creating an enormous debt. We know that when we borrow dollars and we create debt, we are increasing taxes on someone. It will be the children down the road who have to pay that debt.

We have to take seriously the consequences of the decisions we make on this program. Each Member in this body knows our decisions are based on our values and our priorities. But those decisions have real and substantive consequences, and we must remember that every stretch of this debate and understand what those consequences could be. It is not acceptable to tell retired women that we will support you in your golden years, but your daughter and your granddaughter are on their own. We will privatize this system, and we do not know what will happen, so your daughters and granddaughters will be on their own.

Seventy years ago, the American people made a promise to protect future generations of Americans from poverty, and for 70 years the American people have kept their word. We are going to do no less. That promise has allowed hundreds of thousands of low-income elderly women in Arkansas to live lives of dignity. That is what we are here to ensure.

Many women in Arkansas who receive those Social Security benefits live in rural areas. The money they receive is used to buy groceries, to have lunch at the local diner, or to pay their light bills. It might sound like a small amount to some, but Social Security benefits brought almost $5 billion of revenue to small towns in Arkansas. If we cut back those benefits, remember what it is going to do to Arkansas and other rural States where there is a disproportionate share of elderly low income who are spending every nickel of that Social Security check to make sure they can keep body, soul and mind together. It is a tremendous amount of revenue to our States, and they are heavily indebted to those citizens who participate.

Addressing only a couple of issues here is going to be our downfall. We have to focus on everything. We need to make sure we solve Social Security and shore it up for future generations and current beneficiaries, but we cannot fail to see this is a dual path and we have to provide the incentives for personal savings. We must continue to work to make sure that beneficiaries continue to receive 100 percent of the benefits they are due and that future generations are assured that the program will be able to provide the economic security and insurance for them and for their grandchildren. The promise of Social Security should be as good as the promise of a better life that a mother gives to her child.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President. I rise today to honor the lives of three brave Arkansans and to pay tribute to the sacrifice they made on behalf of our freedom. Jimmy Buie, Joshua Marcum, and Jeremy McHalffey were all beloved by their families, admired by their friends, and respected within their communities. Today, they are remembered as heroes by the grateful Nation for whom they gave their lives.

SPCs Buie, Marcum, and McHalffey were proud members of the Arkansas National Guard's 39th Infantry Brigade. Together, they served with the 2nd platoon of Bravo Company, 3rd Battalion of the 39th, a close-knit group who quickly earned a reputation for dependability and whose soldiers were known to do absolutely anything for each other. This was especially true for SPC Marcum, SPC McHalffey, and SPC Buie, who were all roommates at their company's base at Camp Gunslinger, just north of Baghdad.

It was obvious to those who served with them that in addition to being outstanding soldiers, these three men were so much more. While the easy-going SPC Buie and SPC Marcum could always be counted on to brighten a mood with their humor and infectious smiles, the hard- charging SPC

McHalffey often motivated his colleagues with his determination and focus. While the three had differing approaches to their service, they were united in the belief that they were doing what was right; helping rebuild the lives of a people they had never met and bringing stability to a nation they had never known.

SPC Buie joined the military upon his graduation from high school in 1980. Later, while working for a dental products manufacturer, he met a woman named Lisa who would become the love of his life. The two were inseparable, and the natural chemistry between them soon led to marriage. SPC Buie quickly took to Lisa's two sons and found great pleasure in spending time with them, whether they were building a go- cart or playing catch.

In his hometown of Batesville, SPC Buie worked as a mechanic at Mark Martin Ford Mercury, where he rightfully earned the reputation of a quiet, hard-working guy who always got the job done. He joined the National Guard in August of 2004 and was deployed to Iraq after spending a month of training at Fort Hood, Texas. While serving in Iraq, he spoke with Lisa every Sunday evening. During these conversations, he always remained upbeat and spoke of the joy he found in improving the lives of Iraqis, particularly the local farmers, whom he pitied for their poor living conditions. These words and actions spoke volumes of SPC Buie, a humble man who found comfort in knowing folks were praying for him back in Arkansas, and who used that inspiration to improve the lives of those around him.

SPC Marcum was from the small northern Arkansas town of Evening Shade, where he lived with his wife, Lisa, and their five children. Friends and family describe him as one of the nicest people you could ever meet, a unique individual who disliked cursing, avoided arguments, and had a special calming effect on those around him. He was also the type of person who found pleasure in bringing joy to others; a gift of his that was attributable to his sense of humor and his loving heart.

While serving in Iraq, SPC Marcum, who had always wanted to be a soldier, was remembered by his comrades as a quiet guy who naturally went out of his way to lend a helping hand to those in need. He kept in frequent contact with his wife throughout his deployment and sought to comfort her by keeping her up to date on his welfare and relaying his positive experiences along the way. With his time in Iraq nearing its end, he was looking forward to returning to his friends and family back in Arkansas and often spoke of taking a float trip down the Spring River soon after.

SPC McHalffey was born in the small northeastern Arkansas town of Paragould but later moved to Springfield, MO, where he graduated from high school in 1995. Throughout his life, he had a love for the outdoors and if you ever needed to find him during hunting season, he was most likely in the woods with his father, looking for turkey or deer. At the age of 18, he joined the United States Marine Corps, and would proudly serve for 4 years. Upon his return to Springfield, he worked for the Greene County Sheriff's Office and later for Showcase Building Supply. In 2002, he met a dispatcher named Lacy Tindele at a firefighters' training camp. The couple quickly fell in love and their engagement soon followed.

SPC McHalffey's deep love for his country is what originally motivated him to enlist in the Marine Corps and it is also what later motivated him to serve in Iraq. As his brother Mike reflected, ``He was the type of guy to volunteer. If something needed to be done, Jeremy would jump in.'' SPC McHalffey initially wanted to re-enlist in the Marines but was told the process could take months. As a result, he and Lacy chose to move to Little Rock, to continue his career in law enforcement and to join the Arkansas National Guard, because he was told it had a significantly shorter waiting time. The couple chose the nearby community of Mabelvale, where SPC McHalffey commuted to his new job as a detention deputy at the Pulaski County Jail until his deployment. Lacy spent much of her time planning the couple's small wedding, which was to take place upon her fiancee's return from Iraq in a few months.

The lives of these three Arkansas soldiers was forever intertwined when, tragically, they were killed on January 4 when their humvee was struck by a roadside bomb. Their vehicle, which was traveling as part of a convoy, was leaving an Iraqi National Guard bunker in the al-Shaab district of Baghdad. The loss of these heroes will be felt by not only their comrades in Iraq, but by the many friends and loved ones they have left behind.

At the memorial service of SPC Marcum, Linda Beckham reflected on her brother; ``He wanted to honor his country. It was his dream and he fulfilled it.'' These words ring true not only for SPC Marcum, but also for SPC McHalffey and SPC Buie. The courageous and selfless way in which they served in uniform brings honor to our Nation. The impassioned and generous way in which they led their lives, brings honor to us all.

On behalf of a grateful Nation, my thoughts and prayers go out to the family and friends of Jimmy Buie, Joshua Marcum, and Jeremy McHalffey. Although they may no longer be with us, we must find some solace knowing that they died for a cause in which they believed. Their legacy and their spirit will forever live on in our hearts.

Army Private Cory R. Depew

Mr. President, I accept the decision voters made on November 2 to elect George W. Bush as the President of the United States. I do not come to the floor today to challenge the outcome of the election. However, I do have concerns about the process. I believe there are some valid issues raised with the Ohio electoral votes regarding the legitimacy of our Nation's voting procedures, and I take these issues very seriously. In this modern, computerized age and in our magnificent, democratic country, there is absolutely no excuse for database errors, lack of polling-place education and training, equipment malfunctions, or voter disenfranchisement.

I supported the Help America Vote Act, HAVA, and have consistently supported adequately funding this law so that States can achieve its requirements and improve voting procedures to ensure every valid vote is counted. In addition, I helped introduce the Restore Elector Confidence in Our Representative Democracy, RECORD, Act, S. 2313, last year. This act contains a provision to strengthen security measures for electronic voting devices to prevent outside tampering and requires a paper printout of votes cast at electronic voting machines.

The right to vote freely and without intimidation is the foundation of democracy and we must do all we can to ensure every vote is counted and recorded accurately. I believe voters must have faith in the electoral process for our democracy to succeed, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming year to ensure that our Nation's election system is fair and effective.

Mr. President, I rise today, to honor a young man from Arkansas who had a passion for life, a gift for bringing smiles to the faces of those around him, and a sense of duty toward the country and the people he would serve with honor. Jason Scot Clairday was a loving husband, son, brother and friend. He was also a brave soldier who died a hero, trying to bring freedom to a people he had never met in a country he had never known.

Cpl. Clairday was the type of person others were naturally drawn to. He showed a genuine interest in their well-being and his gentle nature and infectious smile could brighten the darkest of moods. It was apparent to everyone around him that he approached every day with a rare enthusiasm and love for life. The youngest of three boys was often found playing sports or fishing and hunting along a nearby creek, enjoying the outdoors and the time spent with his friends and family. After moving to the small northern Arkansas town of Salem, he did what he did best, made friends, and quickly distinguished himself by excelling in high school athletics and becoming an active member of the First Baptist Church.

Cpl. Clairday enlisted in the United States Marine Corps shortly after graduating from Salem High School in 2001. It was a decision he was proud to make and members of the First Baptist Church remember the pride with which he wore his Marine dress blues while attending service. On July 30, just weeks prior to his deployment to Iraq, Cpl. Clairday married the love of his life, Sarah. After his military service, he looked forward to returning home to be with her, attending Arkansas State University at Mountain Home, and building a family life. He felt his experience in the Marine Corps was a way to better prepare him for that future.

While in Iraq, Cpl. Clairday sometimes spoke with friends and loved ones of liberating the war-torn country and making a better life for the Iraqi people. While he never talked much about the war, he preferred instead to talk about the end of his enlistment in the spring, the future and coming home to be with his new wife and his family. Sarah last spoke with her husband on December 3rd, when he was scheduled to enter Fallujah for 10 days with his fellow marines in an attempt to bring greater stability to the city prior to the Iraqi national elections slated for January. At the conclusion of the 10 days, he was to be granted a 2-day leave. Tragically, he was killed by enemy fire on December 12th, a day before he was to leave the area.

At his memorial service in Camp, Arkansas, more than 600 people would come to pay their respects to their fallen Arkansas soldier. At the conclusion of the service, Cpl. Clairday was buried with full military honors. The flag that had draped his casket was presented to his young widow with the Purple Heart that he had posthumously earned for his gallant service on behalf of a grateful nation.

When we think of Jason Clairday, we will remember that he gave himself completely to every aspect of his life; his family, his community, and his country. The legacy of his 21 years is a testament to who he was. The love, the humor, the selflessness, and the passion with which he taught us to live our lives, will remain with us forever. My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife, Sarah, to his family, and to all those who knew and loved him.

sergeant michael a. smith

Mr. President. Today, I humbly rise to pay tribute to the life of Michael A. Smith and to honor the sacrifice he made on behalf of a grateful nation. Sergeant Smith was a friendly, easy-going young man who had one of those rare personalities that allowed him to quickly make friends with everyone he met. He was also a brave soldier, who died a hero, fighting for the beliefs, the people and the country he cared for deeply.

Sgt. Smith was born and raised in the small, southern Arkansas town of Camden. There, he is remembered by those who knew him best as a good and gentle soul, who was always concerned about the welfare of others, and often went out of his way to help them whenever they were in need. Upon his 1999 graduation from Camden Fairview High School, Sgt. Smith set his sights on Southern Arkansas University Tech. Attending the university would allow him to stay close to his family in Camden while pursuing his interest in computers. To help pay his way through college, Sgt. Smith joined the Arkansas Army National Guard. Once he completed his military service, he had plans to return home and begin his education.

Sgt. Smith became a member of the Guard's 39th Support Battalion. He was later called up to serve in Operation Iraqi Freedom, where he was stationed at Camp Taji, about 16 miles northwest of downtown Baghdad. To his comrades in the 39th, ``Smitty'' quickly became one of the guys; a dedicated soldier who never complained, always did his duty, and could be entrusted with the lives of those around him.

This November, family and friends of Sgt. Smith were excited with the news that he would be taking his leave of service, and would possibly be home before Thanksgiving. Tragically, 5 days before he was set to return to Arkansas, he was shot by a sniper while conducting patrols in Baghdad. As a result of the injury, he was flown to Landstuhl Army Medical Center in Germany and then to Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, DC. His parents, Donald Ray and Deborah and his sister, Lai, came to visit him in the hospital's intensive care unit. Although Sgt. Smith never regained consciousness in his 2 weeks at Walter Reed, his family was with him in his

final moments before he passed away on November 26.

At his memorial service in Camden, Sgt. Smith's coffin, surrounded by red, white, and blue flowers, was placed at the front of his high school gymnasium. Throughout the service and in the aftermath of his son's passing, Donald Ray Smith described the outpouring of love from the community as ``remarkable.'' It was a testament to the gratitude of a community fully aware of the ultimate sacrifice paid by their fallen Arkansas soldier in the name of freedom.

In the 24 years Michael Smith was with us, the impressions he made and the lives he touched will never be forgotten. Although he will be deeply missed by us all, it is his selflessness, his courage, and his heart that we will remember when we think of him. My thoughts and prayers go out to Donald Ray, Deborah, Lai, and the rest of his family, friends and loved ones.

Mr. President, today I rise to celebrate the life of an authentic American hero who fought to defend his Nation. Tragically, Sgt. Russell L. Collier of Harrison, AR, died October 3, 2004, in Taj, Iraq, while trying to rescue a fellow soldier also serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was a member of 1st Battalion, 206th Field Artillery Regiment, Arkansas National Guard, from Russellville, AR.

Sgt. Collier exhibited tremendous courage and strength in the face of great peril. When his unit came under enemy fire while detaining insurgents suspected of building improvised rocket launchers for use against U.S. forces, his friend and fellow soldier, Sgt. Chris Potts of Tiverton, RI, was shot. Sgt. Collier, who as the unit medic was known as ``Doc,'' gave up his rifle to run to Sgt. Potts' aid. Both men died trying to save their fellow soldiers. Indeed, Sgt. Collier risked his life to save another, and, in the end, lost his own life.

The Crossett native was embraced by Sgt. Potts' 103rd Field Artillery of the Rhode Island National Guard, which has fought alongside Sgt. Collier's own regiment. While speaking about the fallen hero, fellow medic Spc. Tommy Rich said, ``He took care of the Rhodys. He was a Rhody. They wouldn't give him up, and he wouldn't leave them. They've been a team from the beginning. He loved his guys.'' Sgt. Collier's attempt to rescue a fellow soldier illustrates his strong commitment to his unit and his truly selfless nature.

Sgt. Collier loved the military, said his sister, Carolyn Pfaus. His long military career began in 1975 when he enlisted in the U.S. Army after graduating from Wuerzburg High School in Germany. In 1978, he joined the U.S. Navy and then the Arkansas Army National Guard in 1999. His wife, Rocky, said, ``The military was his whole life.''

Yet to Sgt. Collier, who also worked full-time at night at Tyson Foods in Green Forest, the most important aspect of his life was his family. He had sent his 9-year-old son, Hunter, an Army action figure for his birthday last July from Iraq.

Sgt. Collier is survived by his wife, Rocky, and their son, Hunter, both of Harrison; two adult children, Mary Virginia and Wayne, who both live in North Carolina; and sister, Carolyn Pfaus, of Conway. His family and friends will remember a man dedicated to his family and the military, and we will remember a man who died a hero. Our prayers and gratitude go out to his family for the great service that Sgt. Collier rendered to our Nation.

sergeant thomas c. rosenbaum

Mr. President. I am honored to rise today in tribute to the life of Sergeant Thomas Chad Rosenbaum. Above all, Sgt. Rosenbaum was a beloved son, brother, friend and father. He was also one of the brave souls valiantly serving our Nation in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Tragically, he was killed on September 18, 2004, when his convoy came under attack while moving through Baghdad.

Sgt. Rosenbaum was born in the small town of Prescott, AR, and grew up in nearby Hope. He spent his youth, as many children do, participating in athletics and various extracurricular activities, playing pranks with his friends and collecting small turtles from the banks of nearby rivers with his parents and his brother. Today, he is remembered by his family and loved

ones as an outgoing, fun-loving, and fearless young man who loved God, his family and his country. This love of country motivated him to enlist in the U.S. Army during his senior year of high school. He was assigned to the 1st Cavalry Division out of Fort Hood, Texas, and was deployed to Iraq in March.

In Iraq, Sgt. Rosenbaum served as a chemical specialist who also helped train Iraqi security forces in the use of firearms. Although he was originally scheduled to depart Iraq in May, his duty was extended until December. Weeks before his death, Sgt. Rosenbaum had the opportunity to return home on leave for 15 days to spend with his friends and family. Most of this time was spent with the person he called ``the love of his life,'' his 4 year-old son, Ty. Father and son would return to those same Caddo River banks he had known as a child and together they searched for small turtles. Today, Ty still has one of those turtles, whom he has named ``Milkshake,'' and whom he has kept as a reminder of the time spent with his father.

The loss of Thomas Rosenbaum is a tragic and sobering reminder of the terrible human sacrifice that war brings, and I am eternally grateful for his service to our Nation. Although he may no longer be with us, his spirit and his legacy lives on in each of us through the examples he set and the many lives he touched. My thoughts and prayers are with his son, Ty, his parents, Jackie and Donna, and the rest of his family, friends, and loved ones.

sergeant ronald w. baker

Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to the life of Sergeant Ronald W. Baker and to honor his sacrifice on behalf of a grateful Nation. Sgt. Baker was a loving man who cared deeply for his family and his friends. He was also a native Arkansan who cared deeply for his state and his country. Today, he is remembered as a devoted husband, father, brother, son, and friend. He is also remembered as a brave soldier who died a hero.

Sgt. Baker was born in the small Arkansas town of Searcy and later moved with his family to nearby Cabot. Wherever he went, Sgt. Baker quickly made friends and those who knew him best often talked of how his personality always seemed to draw others to him. His strong sense of family and community is what contributed to his decision to enlist in the Arkansas Army National Guard a month after the tragic events of September 11, 2001. He served as a member of the Guard's 39th Support Battalion based out of Lonoke and was later called up to serve as a specialist in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Along with many of his comrades in the 39th, he was stationed at Camp Taji, about 16 miles northwest of downtown Baghdad.

On October 7, Sgt. Baker volunteered for a supply mission that would convoy from Camp Taji to another camp nearby. While en route, a roadside bomb concealed in a parked car exploded as the convoy rode by with Sgt. Baker in the gunner's turret of a humvee. As a result of the blast, he sustained serious injuries and was immediately flown to Landstuhl Army Medical Center in Germany. Sgt. Baker's wife, Joanne, and his father, Wayne, were quickly flown in from Arkansas so they could be there to share in his last few moments. Although Sgt. Baker was never baptized, he had previously told his wife that he wanted to leave the world as a Christian. Before he passed away on October 13, Joanne would watch as an Air National Guard Chaplain baptized her husband and, in her words, permitted him to pass into a better place.

The day of his funeral was proclaimed as ``Sergeant Ronald Baker Day'' in his hometown. Those en route to his memorial ceremony at the Arkansas Veterans' Cemetery in North Little Rock drove under an arch made of ladders over the highway that hung a large American flag. It was a touching and fitting tribute, created by the Sherwood Fire Department, to honor one of Arkansas' fallen who paid the ultimate sacrifice in order to make those around him safer.

Along with a grateful Nation, my thoughts and prayers go out to Joanne; their 7-year-old daughter, Alexis; Harold and his mother Carolyn; his brother and sister; and to the rest of his family, friends and loved ones. Although Ronald Baker may no longer be with us, the lasting relationships he formed and the principles he fought for live on in all of us.

airman jesse m. samek

Mr. President, today, I am honored to rise in tribute to the life of Jesse M. Samek and am humbled to pay tribute to his service to our Nation.

Friends and family would remember Airman Samek for living a life of fun and happiness. While growing up in Missouri and Arkansas, he spent much of his time, as most children do, hanging out with his friends and playing sports. He also had a great love of the outdoors and enjoyed camping, hiking, hunting, fishing and snow- and waterskiing with friends and family. He would go on to graduate from Rogers High School in 2001 and attended the University of Arkansas.

It was clear to those who knew Airman Samek that he would succeed regardless of whatever path in life he chose to follow. He decided that path would ultimately be service to his country and he joined the United States Air Force in February of 2003. He was assigned to the 66th Rescue Squadron at Nellis Air Force Base, just outside of Las Vegas, and was deployed to Afghanistan in September.

While serving in Operation Enduring Freedom, Airman Samek never lost his perspective on life and was proud to do his part to bring security and freedom to a Nation that had seen nothing but war and instability. His family later said that he worked for months to become a member of an elite group that qualified him for rescue duty as a flight engineer on an HH-60 Para Rescue helicopter. Tragically, he died on October 21 from injuries he received when his helicopter crashed during a medical evacuation mission in northwestern Afghanistan. The aircraft was carrying a wounded Afghan election worker who was being transported for medical treatment and Airman Samek was treating him when the aircraft went down.

David Dezarov would make the final trip home with his friend's body. ``The hardest thing I've ever had to do was spend the last four days with him and not saying a word.'' On that flight from Atlanta to Tulsa, the pilot of the plane circled above Rogers for 10 minutes in tribute to that community's fallen hero. During the burial ceremony at Bella Vista Memorial Cemetery, Airman Samek's fellow Airmen would pay their last respects by flying over his casket in the same type of helicopter he once flew so proudly.

My thoughts and prayers are with his parents, Gavin and Julie; his brother, Benjamin; his grandparents, David and Jenny Burkemper; and the rest of his family and friends. Although he is no longer with us, may we find solace in the many lives he touched and the sacrifice he made on behalf of a grateful Nation. In the words of his mother, Jesse Samek was a hero; not for what he did, but for who he was.

Mr. President, it has been 50 years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1954 landmark decision of Brown v. Board of Education that separate was not equal when it came to our children's education. That ruling changed the way that Americans are educated and opened up countless opportunities for all children, both black and white, to learn about and from one another.

Hoxie, AR, is a small town in the northeast corner of my state, with a population of just about 3,000 people. Prior to 1954, like many other schools in Arkansas and across the South, the Hoxie School District was segregated. To get an education, black children had to travel thirty minutes by bus to the neighboring town of Jonesboro where they attended Booker T. Washington School with other black students from around the region.

Following Brown, the Hoxie School Board unanimously voted to become one of the first schools in the South to begin integration. In the fall of 1955, Hoxie School Board members, faculty, students, and citizens stood together with 21 black children who enrolled and became the first black students to attend the Hoxie School system. This courageous step, in the face of opposition from around the state and across the Nation, helped open doors for future generations of students in Arkansas.

I recently had the honor of attending a reunion for the Hoxie Twenty- One, as they have come to be known in Arkansas. It was a wonderful event in which the community gathered to commemorate the integration of Hoxie School District. We paid tribute to the Hoxie Twenty-One and their families, as well as to the school officials and community leaders who paved the way for integration at Hoxie. The courage and resolve that the citizens of Hoxie showed in 1955 is an example of those who are willing to embrace the spirit of equality and to do what is right for every child in the community.

Today, Arkansas' children go to school in a different environment than that confronted by the Hoxie Twenty-One back in 1955. We certainly have more work to do to ensure that all of our children receive the best possible education, but I am pleased with the progress we have made over the last 50 years. It is my hope that America can continue to build on the foundation that Hoxie School District helped to create to ensure that all of our nation's children, no matter their race, are provided with the best educational opportunities available.

Mr. President, there is another aspect of the recent softwood lumber NAFTA panel process that deserves our attention. As you know, NAFTA Chapter 19 is a unique form of international dispute settlement that applies to antidumping and subsidy cases involving Canada and Mexico. Normally, U.S. Government decisions to impose duties on unfairly traded goods are reviewed by the U.S. Court of International Trade, a Federal court with judges appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. For dumped and subsidized goods from Canada and Mexico, however, court review is often replaced with review by a panel of private citizens--mostly members of the bar or other private citizens who are experts in various capacities, but who are not themselves U.S. jurists.

Chapter 19 empowers these panelists to review U.S. legal decisions according to whether they are consistent with NAFTA obligations. Unlike any dispute settlement system in any other trade agreement to which the U.S. is a party, Chapter 19 also empowers these panelists to review cases according to whether they are consistent with U.S. law. NAFTA inherited this particular power from the preceding U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. Unfortunately, as in the softwood case, this system has led to panel judgments that actually overturn valid U.S. legal decisions.

I find this state of affairs to be extremely troubling. In my view, Chapter 19 is clearly in need of reform, and the Senate must be prepared to act to revise this system to prevent unjust situations. If we hope to maintain confidence in, and public support for, our system of trade, then we have to repair the system when it doesn't work. The NAFTA panel in the softwood case has dealt a major blow to our faith in the system. It is time we did something about it.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman for bringing up for consideration legislation providing multiyear reauthorization of the Economic Development Administration. EDA provides critical resources to communities experiencing significant economic distress and dislocation. The partnership between the planning and development districts in my State of Arkansas and the EDA has been a successful one. It is my hope that this partnership will continue to provide the flexibility that is needed to respond to constantly changing economic conditions.

I thank the chairman for his strong leadership and attention to this important matter.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his remarks today. I have tremendous respect for his belief and his knowledge of the Constitution. I share that belief and I only hope my knowledge can at some time reach the level his is in terms of understanding and being able to expound on the Constitution that is such a treasure and a blessing for this country.

More importantly, I share in his belief and his execution in the teachings of the Bible. Like the Senator from West Virginia, I try very hard each and every day to follow the Ten Commandments, which are a cornerstone in the faith that we both practice in our Christian religion. I try hard to witness my faith each and every day in my actions and in my words. Among the Commandments, ``thou shalt not bear false witness'' is one I work desperately on. In our modern language, we know it as ``do not tell lies,'' something we were taught by our parents and we were taught by our faith.

Now, I have not been in public service nearly as long as the Senator from West Virginia, but I have been around long enough to know that people say things in campaigns that come awfully close to breaking that Commandment. I have learned to turn the other cheek and brush aside the little white lies of political commercials and direct mail pieces. I do not know if brushing aside and turning that cheek at this juncture is the most appropriate thing to do, because I think we find ourselves at a time when that has definitely been taken to the extreme.

The mailing the Republican National Committee sent to the people living in my home State of Arkansas, as well as

those in the State of West Virginia, goes beyond any political smear I have witnessed. I hope my colleagues in this great body, as members of that committee, would denounce such abusive action because I think it is completely inappropriate. To insinuate that members of the Democratic Party, simply because they are Democrats, would ban the Bible is absolutely absurd. It is outrageous, and it is outrageous that we in this Nation would stand for that.

I am a Democrat. I was raised in a Democratic family. But I also grew up with the opportunity and encouragement to find my own belief and to reach out and find out, Who am I? What do I stand for? What is it that I want to contribute to this great world?

I realized, not only as a Democrat but at a very early age, that I was first and foremost a Christian. I take that very seriously. I take my witness and my commitment to my faith as a part of my everyday walk. I try hard to walk my talk each and every day. I fight hard, both personally and professionally, every day to fulfill my witness to my faith, to care for those who are less fortunate than I am, to reach out and be kind to those who need kindness, to be able to look beyond the cover of what I might see in someone and look for the best of what God created in that human being as well.

I know that we are all a part of God's creation on this Earth. I know that my God is a loving God, one who believes in me and who wants everyone in this body to reach their potential. But I also know, through my faith, that reaching that potential means being able to have that same kind of unconditional Christian love for my fellow man.

It is amazing to me that we would see such action, such assumption, and such disregard for the intelligence of the people of our States.

My faith has always been an important part of my life because I was raised in a Christian family, with parents who had strong principles, who had tremendous love, and continue to, and an ability to share with me what that love could produce in my life if I, too, were willing to share it with others.

I worked as a youth group director while I was in college. I taught Sunday school while I worked here on the Hill as a staffer--in Washington, DC. I contribute time to homeless shelters here in DC, and at home, working with the Red Cross through many kinds of devastating natural disasters in my home State--finding incredible opportunities where I could provide that love and that assistance to my fellow man.

My husband Steve and I make sure our family is regularly at church, whether we are here in the Washington area or at home in Arkansas with our family. There is rarely a meal that goes by in my home where we don't all join hands and say a prayer of thanksgiving and gratefulness for all of the many blessings in our life. We end each day saying prayers with our boys when they are tucked into bed. We talk about the day's events and how, through those prayers, we can ask for the assistance for others and to improve ourselves and provide the unbelievable talents God has given us to be a great part of making this world a better place.

I am not the only one, as a member of my political party, whose faith is important to them. There are other members of my political party who are of other faiths who take their faith very seriously. There are other Christians in my political party who take their faith very seriously and act it as a real part of their everyday life.

It is unbelievable to me that the Republican Party would try to claim that members of my party would want to ban the Bible. What do they base that on? Where is their credibility to say that? What evidence is there that would lead them to say that and to use that in such an important part of what we stand for in this Nation, the political process of being able to elect our leaders? I don't know. I don't know where that comes from.

The Senator from Massachusetts, who is running for President, has told the American people that his faith is important to him as well. He says he is a man of God, and I believe him. Unlike some other political candidates, he has not sought to gain political advantage by boasting of his faith or wearing it on his sleeve, but I do believe his actions in defending so many of his fellow men, children, low-income families, the elderly, are certainly clear examples of how important his responsibility to his faith is to him.

Maybe he was raised in a region of the country where people are not so outspoken about their faith, just as they are more reserved in most other aspects of their lives. I was raised in the South where we love to talk about it, where it is an important part of who we are and we want to talk about it, where we like to hug and we like to be close. There is no doubt that there are differences in the regions of our country in how we express things. Sometimes my colleagues say I even need a translator because my accent is so thick. There is nothing wrong with the differences in the regions of this country. There is nothing wrong in the different ways we choose to show our faith. But there is something deeply wrong with people using the political process to accuse people of not being true to their faith.

The man from Massachusetts, maybe he is quiet, but less visible expressions of faith do not warrant such judgmental political statements from the Republican Party. I hope, I hope deeply, that the Republican Party, which has produced this pamphlet that was so well described by my colleague from West Virginia--I hope there will be an apology for their claims that Democrats want to ban the Bible and the inferences that Democrats, for some reason, cannot have a faith as close or as deeply held as the other party. I find that to be the pit, the absolute bottom of what is wrong in the political process.

I thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to come to the Senate floor and, even as a southerner, express something that maybe I am not as well equipped to express as others, but I promise you, it is not less heartfelt than any other Christian Member of this body.

I yield the floor.

I thank my colleague.

Thank you, Mr. President, and a special thanks to my colleague, Senator Baucus, who has been a great mentor and great friend to me on the Senate Finance Committee, and a special thanks to our chairman, Senator Grassley, for his transparency and his willingness to work with us always. We are very grateful for that. I think the conference we held under his leadership was certainly a conference where people were able to offer their ideas, bring their ideas and their passions to the table and express them. There are a few we were disappointed in not being able to succeed with, but I know the chairman knows I will be back at that another day, as I usually am, to try and see if we cannot move some of those things along. But I appreciate his graciousness and certainly his willingness to work with all of us. And, again, I thank Senator Baucus for all of his hard work and gracious support of me.

I rise today in support of the Working Families Tax Relief Act that is before the Senate today because it does provide tax relief to low- and middle-income families who are struggling to make ends meet by making this child tax credit fully refundable beginning this year. If there is anything I noticed in the time I spent in Arkansas, in my home State, over the month of August, it was the unbelievable stress that working families in this great country find themselves under.

Workers are concerned about their job, whether they are going to keep their job. Maybe they have lost their job. Workers are certainly looking at what they are responsible for, such as can they pay for what their children's needs are, the taxes, the cost of gasoline, the expensive cost of health care. They are concerned about the availability of health care, access to it. They are looking at all of those concerns, including the unbelievable increase they have seen in higher education. Are their children going to be able to go to college? Can they put aside enough money for that? Will there be the resources they need?

Our working families are under unbelievable stress. If we want to strengthen families and, in turn, strengthen the fabric of our Nation, we have to work together to relieve some of that stress through the Tax Code, through lowering the tax responsibility of low- and middle-income working people and giving them the same ability to utilize the Tax Code for the benefit of supporting their families. We see a lot of upper income people who can use the Tax Code for that purpose, whether it is mortgage deductions or the fact they have more expendable income that they can set aside in an IRA or a 401(k), or using that Tax Code to help them support their families and the dreams they have for their families and their children. Giving that same capability to low- and middle-income working people is essential for all Americans to reach their potential and to at least have a shot at the American dream.

This bill is a huge step in bringing relief to working families who are putting so much of their resources into the economy. As my colleagues may recall, the conference report we are debating today is the byproduct of legislation I spearheaded in the Senate over a year ago. I compliment my colleague Senator Olympia Snowe. Olympia and I worked very hard together on this issue, along with Senator Baucus and Chairman Grassley. It was approved by an overwhelming vote in the Senate, 94 to 2. The Senate believed it was important enough to provide for low-income working families to take care of their children. Yet it has taken us this long to get to this point.

I don't want to sound ungrateful because I am tremendously grateful that we are here today to address this issue. But I hope as we look at the issues still before us, the ones we did not address in this bill, that it won't take us that long again to make the commonsense decisions that are required to reinforce the heartland of America and the working families who make up this great Nation.

We introduced back then and pushed passage of that proposal to ensure that working parents who were left out of the 2003 tax bill were able to fully benefit from tax provisions Congress had enacted to help families meet the demands of raising children. I have a Cub Scout meeting in about an hour and a half. I may not make it. But there are multiple demands on working families. Whether it is time, resources, our ability to give our children all of the things that we know, both as parents and having been children ourselves, they are critical in making the kind of people we want to be the leaders of tomorrow. And a huge part of that is having the resources to provide to your children just the basics.

Specifically, the tax package before us will restore provisions that were stripped from the 2003 bill that I had fought to include to allow working families to fully benefit from a $400 increase in the child tax credit. This legislation will also extend critical tax provisions set to expire for married couples, which Senator Hutchison has talked about, and for all taxpayers who will benefit from the 10-percent bracket--again, putting resources back into the working families who are the stability of this country.

I stress that low-income working parents who benefit from the refundable child tax credit included in this bill must have earned income to qualify. This is not welfare. You sit down at the kitchen table with any of these families who are working and let me tell you, if you are working 5 days a week, 52 weeks out of the year, and you are making the minimum wage, you are making a little over $10,000, you are working hard. This is not welfare. It is your Government and your Nation reinforcing who you are and what you stand for; that is, that you would use whatever your talents happen to be. They may not be as much as somebody else's, but you have talents, too. And you are using those talents to put back into this Nation and back into this economy.

It is so important for our colleagues to understand, because some of our colleagues have suggested that we should not expand eligibility for the child tax credit for lower income workers because they don't pay Federal income tax. These individuals work hard, and they do pay taxes. They pay sales taxes. They pay excise taxes. They pay property taxes, gas taxes, and payroll taxes on every one of those dollars they earn. They should benefit from the tax relief that we pass in Congress because they suffer from all of the taxes that continue to increase, but they hardly ever benefit from the tax cuts that we produce here in Washington.

Are these families any different? They also struggle to meet the demands of providing for their children, just as others do--more than most, actually. I am confident this is the right thing to do for our Nation and its children.

As I said, we are talking about families who work hard and play by the rules. When they buy their blue jeans for school and their tennis shoes, their tires, their washing powder, it doesn't cost them any less than it costs us. Think about it, a family making $20,000 a year doesn't get a special bargain at the store anymore so than the family making $100,000.

While this tax relief package achieves fairness for millions of families with children who would otherwise be left behind, it doesn't include everything that I fought for during the negotiations in the conference committee this week.

Once again, I appreciate the chairman allowing me to offer my amendments and come before the conference committee and express my desires.

First, I believe we can and should have paid for this bill by eliminating tax shelters and loopholes. Why would we wait until tomorrow to do something constructive that we could do today? Why wouldn't we pay off part of our note today instead of continuing to accrue the interest on the debt that is about to swallow us up? For the life of me, I don't understand why some of my colleagues think that it is important to pay for the JOBS bill we hope to complete this year--I certainly do; it affects my State as much, if not more than any--but not this bill. Why is this bill not important to pay for? I think we should pay for both of them.

I supported an amendment in conference that was offered by my good friend and colleague Senator Baucus to pay for the tax provisions we are debating today. Unfortunately, it was defeated on party lines. Even though we were not successful in that attempt, I will renew my efforts to restore fiscal discipline next year by working with like-minded Members in a new Congress and hopefully with an administration that will take deficits seriously as well as their serious effect on our children.

It is critical that we look at the good policy of closing these loopholes and make certain the confidence of the American people in the economy of this country and the way we deal with those who choose to abuse the Tax Code.

Another issue I don't think we resolved appropriately involves the tax treatment of military families. Senator Baucus mentioned it. Last night, I offered an amendment to make sure that we take care of the men and women in the military who we depend on to take care of us. These are people who put their families on hold. They put their life in harm's way.

You might think there are not a lot of people out there who fall into this category, in the low-income category, of needing the ability to choose where to put their combat pay for the purposes of calculating EITC. But there are more than 10,000. These are infantrymen, troops, members of our Armed Forces who could benefit greatly if given the opportunity as to whether they want to choose to put their combat pay into their taxable income for the purposes of EITC.

The conference report, in effect, imposes a tax increase on military personnel in the year 2006 and beyond because it only excludes combat pay in the calculation of the earned-income tax credit for low-income soldiers for only 2 years, 2004 and 2005.

These brave men and women who risk their lives to defend our freedom are the last people we should burden with uncertainty in the Tax Code. My colleague from Texas talked about the uncertainty and what it does to families if they cannot depend on the Tax Code to give them the relief and continue to do that. How do they plan? It is unbelievable to me that in 2006--and we don't know where we will be in our conflict in Iraq in 2006--we would give certainty to every other category in here. Yet we would not give that certainty to the military men and women serving this country. I think it is wrong, and I will be working very hard with Senators Pryor and Baucus and others on legislation that will fix it, and fix it in a timely way.

I also offered an amendment to address an inequity in the refundable portion of the child tax credit. Under current law, the threshold to be eligible for the child tax credit is $10,750, and it increases annually based on inflation. Unfortunately, for many low-income families, wages and income are not increasing. They are not keeping pace with inflation, and they will be unfairly denied tax relief under this approach in the years ahead.

Again, you might think this is just a small number of people, but the fact is that it is 4 million low-income people. Thirty million get the child tax credit in this country--30 million families. Eleven million of those are refundable. So 4 million of those 11 million families will not be able to access the full benefit of this child tax credit because we have not adjusted what we set into place.

My amendment would have returned the eligibility threshold to $10,000, which is where it started when originally enacted in 2001 and would have removed the annual inflationary increase. What we have seen is that we have indexed that base, and we continue to see it increase so those who make below that are not eligible for that full benefit. Why would we not want to take it back to the original $10,000 and take away that index and

give the benefit to the very families who are working hard, who are not seeing any increase in their wages or in their income, to make sure they have that same ability to take care of their children?

The taxpayers who are most at risk of losing this benefit are the very ones who need it the most. I hope we will reconsider this issue in the near future.

Even though this bill doesn't include everything, I think it should and I would like to amend certain provisions. I believe, on balance, it is an achievement for low- and middle-income families who need economic relief today. We made several attempts to try to make better those provisions that we were offering.

I also offered an amendment of the President's EITC simplification, which was in the President's budget, hoping that maybe that, coupled with what we were asking, would make Members feel comfortable that we, too, wanted to eliminate the fraud and abuse that existed to make sure we could reassure the American people that those who are working hard to earn their income would see the benefits that their Government could provide them, just as the higher income people could use that Tax Code to help them care for their families.

We also worked hard and I was pleased to see included the simplification or uniform definition of a child. I worked with Senator Hatch in committee very early on with that. We wanted to see more simplification of the Tax Code. It is amazing to think a child could be designated six or seven different ways under the Tax Code. Here, we realize that a child is a child, and I think that simplification was very important.

I am grateful for all the work that has gone into it. I thank again Chairman Grassley, Senator Baucus, Senator Snowe, and others for working with me to advance the provisions that I have fought for throughout my term in the Senate to strengthen families and children in Arkansas and across this Nation.

Before I yield the floor, I would be remiss if I didn't also thank my tax counsel, Mac Campbell, for his invaluable assistance, as well as the wonderful staff of both the minority and the majority of the Senate Finance Committee. These are unbelievably brilliant people who work hard day in and day out. I am appreciative of the hard work they put in and grateful for their help. I am grateful for this day and that we have come to the point where we can provide relief for working families.

I strongly believe that as we move forward in strengthening our Nation, we must begin with the fabric of our families and giving our families the means to strengthen themselves, looking at ways we can relieve the stress that they find themselves under every day. This bill will go a long way toward doing that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to an authentic American hero who gave his life in the defense of his Nation. Cpl Tommy L. Parker, Jr., 21, of Heber Springs was one of four marines killed June 21 in Ramadi, Iraq. He was serving with a sniper platoon of the First Marine Division out of Camp Pendleton, CA.

Tommy was a 2001 graduate of Triple S Christian Academy. The Rev. John Bishop, who taught Tommy, praised his devotion to his faith, saying that even when surrounded by tough marines he was not too shy to give witness to his beliefs. As Tommy prepared to leave for Iraq, Bishop said Parker's wife told him, he remarked that the experience was bringing him closer to God.

Tommy is survived by his wife, Carla Parker; his daughter, Lara; and his parents, Tommy and Renatta.

Tommy's sacrifice is a shining example of the commitment that is necessary to keep this Nation free. When his Nation called, he answered. Our prayers and gratitude go out to his family for the great service that Tommy rendered to our Nation.

Staff Sergeant Dustin W. Peters

Mr. President, today I also wish to pay tribute to a brave Arkansan who gave his life for the cause of freedom. Air Force SSgt Dustin W. Peters was killed July 11 when his convoy was hit by homemade bombs about 150 miles north of Baghdad.

Dustin was born August 22, 1978, in Texarkana, TX. He attended high school in El Dorado, KS, and in Shirley, AR, before going into the Air Force in 1997. Dustin received the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart posthumously. The Bronze Star Medal is given to individuals who distinguish themselves by heroism, outstanding achievement or meritorious service while serving in a combat theater, according to base officials. Dustin received his for heroism.

Dustin is survived by his son, Dalton, of El Dorado, KS; his mother, Linda Benning, of Shirley, AR; and his father, Dennis, of Enid, OK.

His fellow airmen said of Dustin that ``you could count on . . . his service to our country and others always came ahead of his own needs and desires. His loss has touched us deeply, and we will miss him.'' Not only will his fellow airmen miss him but a grateful Nation will miss him. His sacrifice will never be forgotten.

Private Van Ryan Marcum

Mr. President, today I also wish to pay tribute to a brave young Arkansan who lost his life training to become a member of the United States Army. PVT Van Ryan Marcum, 21, a native of Prescott, AR, was electrocuted June 19 during an infantry basic training exercise when he touched a metal structure electrically charged by a faulty light fixture.

Van Ryan Marcum was memorialized at Fort Benning, GA. Joining the 220 soldiers from Charlie Company, with whom Marcum served, were his mother, grandmother, uncle and other family members invited to witness the tribute to the young man so interested in becoming an Army Ranger. As the ceremony unfolded, some soldiers grieved silently with bowed heads; others could not suppress quiet sniffles as the music played and the tributes were delivered.

CPT Kevin Salge, commander of Charlie Company, was quoted as saying that it was an honor to count among his unit's soldiers a trooper such as Marcum, who had a bright future in the military. ``As soon as he completed a task he was ready for another. He carried his weight and more,'' Salge said. ``He would have been a great addition to the Army.''

Van's desire to defend his Nation is a tribute to his courage and dedication. We honor the sacrifice he made in the service of his country.

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to correct a problem that is impairing the efficiency of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program. As my colleagues know, the low-income housing credit has been a remarkably successful incentive for encouraging investment in residential rental housing for low-income families. Under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code, a tax credit is available for investment in affordable housing. The credit is claimed annually over a period of ten years. Qualified residential rental projects must be rented to lower-income households at controlled rents and satisfy a number of other requirements throughout a prescribed compliance period which is generally 15 years from the first taxable year the credit is claimed.

Today, virtually all of the equity for housing credit investments comes from publicly-traded corporations investing through housing credit funds. An investor wishing to dispose of an interest in housing credit property during its 15-year compliance period is subject to a recapture of housing credits previously claimed unless a bond or U.S. Treasury securities are posted to the Internal Revenue Service. The amount of the bond to be posted is based on the amount of housing credits claimed and the duration remaining in the compliance period. The purpose of the bond is to guarantee to the IRS that it can collect the appropriate recapture tax amount in the event that the property is no longer in compliance with the requirements of the housing credit program.

At the time the housing credit program was enacted in 1986, the drafters of the statute were concerned that owners would claim the benefits of the tax credits and then avoid the continuing compliance requirements by transferring the credits to a straw party with minimal assets that the IRS could go after to collect recapture tax liability. This was a potential concern because housing credits are provided on an accelerated basis in the sense that they are claimed over a ten-year period, while the property must remain in compliance with the targeting rules over a minimum 15-year period.

However, the experience with the housing credit over the past 15 years demonstrates that this concern no longer has any validity. When the housing credit program was enacted, policymakers were thinking in terms of previous affordable housing tax incentives that supported an aggressive

tax shelter market dominated by individual investors. As it turns out, over 99 percent of the investment capital in the housing credit program comes from publicly-traded corporations that pose none of the risks of noncompliance that motivated enactment of the recapture bond rules in the first place. Ironically, sales of individual partnership interests in low-income housing fund public partnerships with more than 35 investors are exempt from the recapture bond rules.

There are also a number of other provisions in Code section 42 that adequately address potential noncompliance. In 1989, Congress added the requirement that all state allocating agencies adopt ``extended use agreements'' to be recorded as restrictive covenants on housing credit properties, which require the property to remain in compliance. In addition, the State allocating agencies were given oversight responsibilities to ensure continued compliance through site inspections and property audits.

The requirement to purchase recapture bonds forces investors to incur unnecessary costs and has produced a complex administrative burden on the IRS. Because bond filings are done building-by-building, and single sales transactions frequently involve hundreds of properties, each with dozens of buildings, bond filings may involve thousands of separate filings. Worse yet, the few remaining surety companies writing this type of business operate in a very inefficient market. Recapture surety bonds are priced in a fashion that does not measure the true risk of non-compliance, but rather relies solely on the credit rating of the company requesting the bond. This is a function of the fact that surety underwriters do not understand the housing credit program in general or the risk of non-compliance in particular. At the same time, the incidence of non-compliance with housing credit program rules is exceedingly rare.

Meanwhile in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist acts and the spate of corporate accounting scandals that occurred in 2002, the surety market has been in turmoil. Recapture bond premiums, even for highly rated public companies, have more than tripled over the past two years. This has imposed dead weight costs on the housing credit program. By making it more difficult to transfer credit investments, the recapture bond rule impairs the liquidity of housing credit investments, reducing credit prices generally, and undermining the overall efficiency of the program. In the absence of the recapture bond requirement, more dollars would flow into affordable housing itself and less into the higher rate of return that must be paid to investors to compensate for the dead weight costs that the bonds impose on the program.

The IRS recently responded to a series of questions posed about the recapture bond requirement. According to the IRS, between 1997 and 2003, recapture bonds covering approximately $1.8 billion of tax credits have been posted with the Treasury but in the 17 years since the requirement was enacted, the Service has never made a single claim on a recapture bond. That works out to bond premium payments in excess of $150 million to ensure against an event that has never occurred. These costs are unnecessary and are imposing a real drag on the market for investments in housing credit properties.

My bill will solve this problem by repealing the recapture bond requirement effective for disposition of interests in LIHTC properties after the date of enactment. An owner of a building, or interest therein, that has been the subject of a disposition and is still within the remaining 15-year compliance period with respect to such building would be required to submit a report to its former investors when a recapture event with respect to such building occurs. A copy of recapture event forms sent to investors would be required to be filed with the IRS in order to provide the Service with the information necessary to ensure that all recapture liabilities are timely paid.

The general statute of limitations applicable to taxpayers would also be modified so that investors who dispose of a building after the effective date of the legislation would remain liable for any potential recapture liability for a period extending through the compliance period for such building to provide the IRS with additional time to audit the partnership's return to ensure the building's continuing compliance with the credit's requirements. Taxpayers who disposed of a building (or interest therein) prior to the date of enactment would not be required to maintain existing recapture bonds (or other alternative security), but cancellation of existing bonds would trigger an extension of the statute of limitations provided for in the legislation.

These changes will improve the overall efficiency of the housing program and ensure that more dollars actually flow into affordable housing. This is a very important improvement in an otherwise excellent program, and I encourage my colleagues to join with me in cosponsoring this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The legislation is identical to a bill that Congressmen Houghton, Johnson, Neal, and Rangel have introduced in the House. I also ask unanimous consent to include a copy of a letter from 12 national housing organizations to Chairman Bill Thomas endorsing the House bill, H.R. 3610.

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to correct a problem that is impairing the efficiency of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program. As my colleagues know, the low-income housing credit has been a remarkably successful incentive for encouraging investment in residential rental housing for low-income families. Under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code, a tax credit is available for investment in affordable housing. The credit is claimed annually over a period of ten years. Qualified residential rental projects must be rented to lower-income households at controlled rents and satisfy a number of other requirements throughout a prescribed compliance period which is generally 15 years from the first taxable year the credit is claimed.

Today, virtually all of the equity for housing credit investments comes from publicly-traded corporations investing through housing credit funds. An investor wishing to dispose of an interest in housing credit property during its 15-year compliance period is subject to a recapture of housing credits previously claimed unless a bond or U.S. Treasury securities are posted to the Internal Revenue Service. The amount of the bond to be posted is based on the amount of housing credits claimed and the duration remaining in the compliance period. The purpose of the bond is to guarantee to the IRS that it can collect the appropriate recapture tax amount in the event that the property is no longer in compliance with the requirements of the housing credit program.

At the time the housing credit program was enacted in 1986, the drafters of the statute were concerned that owners would claim the benefits of the tax credits and then avoid the continuing compliance requirements by transferring the credits to a straw party with minimal assets that the IRS could go after to collect recapture tax liability. This was a potential concern because housing credits are provided on an accelerated basis in the sense that they are claimed over a ten-year period, while the property must remain in compliance with the targeting rules over a minimum 15-year period.

However, the experience with the housing credit over the past 15 years demonstrates that this concern no longer has any validity. When the housing credit program was enacted, policymakers were thinking in terms of previous affordable housing tax incentives that supported an aggressive

tax shelter market dominated by individual investors. As it turns out, over 99 percent of the investment capital in the housing credit program comes from publicly-traded corporations that pose none of the risks of noncompliance that motivated enactment of the recapture bond rules in the first place. Ironically, sales of individual partnership interests in low-income housing fund public partnerships with more than 35 investors are exempt from the recapture bond rules.

There are also a number of other provisions in Code section 42 that adequately address potential noncompliance. In 1989, Congress added the requirement that all state allocating agencies adopt ``extended use agreements'' to be recorded as restrictive covenants on housing credit properties, which require the property to remain in compliance. In addition, the State allocating agencies were given oversight responsibilities to ensure continued compliance through site inspections and property audits.

The requirement to purchase recapture bonds forces investors to incur unnecessary costs and has produced a complex administrative burden on the IRS. Because bond filings are done building-by-building, and single sales transactions frequently involve hundreds of properties, each with dozens of buildings, bond filings may involve thousands of separate filings. Worse yet, the few remaining surety companies writing this type of business operate in a very inefficient market. Recapture surety bonds are priced in a fashion that does not measure the true risk of non-compliance, but rather relies solely on the credit rating of the company requesting the bond. This is a function of the fact that surety underwriters do not understand the housing credit program in general or the risk of non-compliance in particular. At the same time, the incidence of non-compliance with housing credit program rules is exceedingly rare.

Meanwhile in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist acts and the spate of corporate accounting scandals that occurred in 2002, the surety market has been in turmoil. Recapture bond premiums, even for highly rated public companies, have more than tripled over the past two years. This has imposed dead weight costs on the housing credit program. By making it more difficult to transfer credit investments, the recapture bond rule impairs the liquidity of housing credit investments, reducing credit prices generally, and undermining the overall efficiency of the program. In the absence of the recapture bond requirement, more dollars would flow into affordable housing itself and less into the higher rate of return that must be paid to investors to compensate for the dead weight costs that the bonds impose on the program.

The IRS recently responded to a series of questions posed about the recapture bond requirement. According to the IRS, between 1997 and 2003, recapture bonds covering approximately $1.8 billion of tax credits have been posted with the Treasury but in the 17 years since the requirement was enacted, the Service has never made a single claim on a recapture bond. That works out to bond premium payments in excess of $150 million to ensure against an event that has never occurred. These costs are unnecessary and are imposing a real drag on the market for investments in housing credit properties.

My bill will solve this problem by repealing the recapture bond requirement effective for disposition of interests in LIHTC properties after the date of enactment. An owner of a building, or interest therein, that has been the subject of a disposition and is still within the remaining 15-year compliance period with respect to such building would be required to submit a report to its former investors when a recapture event with respect to such building occurs. A copy of recapture event forms sent to investors would be required to be filed with the IRS in order to provide the Service with the information necessary to ensure that all recapture liabilities are timely paid.

The general statute of limitations applicable to taxpayers would also be modified so that investors who dispose of a building after the effective date of the legislation would remain liable for any potential recapture liability for a period extending through the compliance period for such building to provide the IRS with additional time to audit the partnership's return to ensure the building's continuing compliance with the credit's requirements. Taxpayers who disposed of a building (or interest therein) prior to the date of enactment would not be required to maintain existing recapture bonds (or other alternative security), but cancellation of existing bonds would trigger an extension of the statute of limitations provided for in the legislation.

These changes will improve the overall efficiency of the housing program and ensure that more dollars actually flow into affordable housing. This is a very important improvement in an otherwise excellent program, and I encourage my colleagues to join with me in cosponsoring this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The legislation is identical to a bill that Congressmen Houghton, Johnson, Neal, and Rangel have introduced in the House. I also ask unanimous consent to include a copy of a letter from 12 national housing organizations to Chairman Bill Thomas endorsing the House bill, H.R. 3610.

Mr. President, throughout my public service, I have been a supporter of free but fair trade. Trade is important to the Arkansas economy because it creates jobs by opening new foreign markets to Arkansas' largest exports. In 2003 alone, Arkansas employers and farmers benefitted from over $2.9 billion in manufacturing and agricultural exports sold around the world. From 1999 to 2003, Arkansas exports to Australia totaled some $246 million, according to data compiled by the International Trade Administration within the Department of Commerce.

With numbers like these, it is easy to recognize the benefits of freer trade. It is also easy to see that as tariffs are reduced and trade barriers are removed, these numbers can grow.

The benefits of trade don't stop there. Through trade we can improve economies throughout the world, not only making the world an even better customer to all the good products Arkansas has to offer, but improving the lives, working conditions, and environmental standards for millions of people around the globe.

However, while there are certainly benefits, there are usually other important factors that must be considered. As a supporter of freer and fairer trade, I remain passionate that our trade policies must be crafted to ensure that all U.S. industries remain competitive in a world marketplace that is not always free and, all too often, not always fair.

I remain passionate that each step towards freer trade must also be a step towards fairer trade and a more level global playing field. As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to influence our Nation's trade agreements. In fact, jurisdiction of international trade is a large reason why I sought a seat on the committee, because while I certainly recognize the benefits that free trade creates, I also know the concerns we must address.

All too often, we are faced with the news of the loss of more manufacturing jobs. For Arkansas, the pictures of plant closings and news articles of job loss are more than just stories in the media, they are a harsh reality.

Since July 2000, my State has encountered an enormous loss of manufacturing jobs--nearly 35,000 to be exact, according to data provided by the National Association of Manufacturers.

I am deeply troubled that so many Arkansans have lost their jobs, not because they can't compete on a level playing field but because the cards have been stacked against them. That's what the jobs bill is all about--keeping jobs where they belong here at home.

Does that mean that we should shy away from a pro-trade agenda completely? The answer is no. Without a progressive agenda we are left with the status quo, which simply doesn't work.

With the status quo international labor and environmental standards remain low while tariffs and barriers for goods produced here in the United States remain unacceptably high.

Agriculture is a great example of this. When U.S. farmers look out at the world around them, they see an average bound tariff of 62 percent against their products while foreign farmers see just 12 percent imposed against their products coming into the United States. And when U.S. farmers look around the world, they see Europeans with subsidies as high as $400 per acre while our help to our farmers sit at less than $40 per acre. That is why we need a strong domestic farm policy.

The bottom line is that under the status quo jobs don't stay here in the United States where they belong. They move overseas. Throughout the negotiation of the Australia Free Trade Agreement, it became clear that this was a very unique agreement that presented both opportunities and challenges. A snapshot of Australia shows a highly developed country with comparable environmental and labor standards. Additionally, Australia is one of the few countries with which the United States enjoys a trade surplus--some $6 to 7 billion annually.

With the reduction of tariffs and the elimination of other trade barriers we can look forward to sending more U.S. manufactured and agriculture products to Australia. And that is exactly what happens in portions of this agreement.

In the Australia FTA, 99 percent of the tariffs on manufactured goods go to zero on day one. I have heard this agreement called the best agreement for manufacturers. With immediate free trade for 99 percent of U.S. manufactured goods, I would have to agree, especially when 93 percent of what we sell to that country is manufactured goods.

In addition, U.S. agricultural exports to Australia, totaling $400 million annually, would also gain immediate duty free access, benefitting Arkansas soybean farmers, for example.

However, given that total U.S. agriculture sales to Australia account for less than 1 percent of our worldwide sales, my message to United States Trade Representative Robert Zoellick has been that the United States' No. 1 responsibility to Arkansas farm families is, first do no harm.

There is a significant upside for Arkansas manufacturers and the more than 200,000 Arkansas families who make a good living because of this industry. However, there was not as much to be gained under this agreement in the area of agriculture, and

there could have been some risk, particularly to my cattlemen who are very important to me and my State. Now, Arkansas cattlemen can take on any country around the world in a fair global market, but a bilateral agreement like this cannot create that kind of fairness. That is why the Doha Round of the WTO is so important.

In the meantime, as the Senior Senator from Arkansas, my priority throughout this bilateral agreement was simple--ensure protections to safeguard the interest of Arkansas cattlemen and, second, get assurances from Australian trade negotiators that they will assist the United States in our effort to reform government export programs around the world.

While I still have concerns that I intend to continue to work to address with Arkansas cattlemen, my colleagues in the Senate, and Ambassador Zoellick in addressing, the Australia FTA does work to minimize any adverse impact on U.S. agriculture, and beef in particular.

Specifically, Australian access to U.S. markets for beef is opened slowly over an 18-year transition period. Increased imports from Australia are estimated to be limited to about 0.17 percent of U.S. beef production and 1.6 percent of beef imports to the U.S.

In addition, several important safeguards are included to ensure that additional Australian beef imports will not disrupt the domestic beef industry or depress American beef prices. For example, while the proposed FTA would gradually phase up Australia's quota of duty-free beef imports over 18 years, this phase up cannot begin until American beef exports return to levels seen prior to the discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE in the U.S. last January.

Moreover, the first reduction in the tariff will not occur for 9 years and not reach zero for 19 years after enactment of the FTA. Our trade officials also worked to include two additional safeguards in this agreement that will further protect the domestic beef industry. The first safeguard is ``volume-based'' and would be in effect during the 18-year transition period. This means that Australian beef imports cannot exceed 110 percent of total imports coming in ``duty-free'' at any point during this time period. If this does occur, the tariff rate will automatically snap back to the higher tariff we currently impose on imports from other countries with which we do not have free trade agreements.

The second safeguard--and the most important in my view--is ``price- based'' and goes into effect at the end of the 18-year period. This means that a tariff is reimposed on Australian beef imports if domestic beef prices drop to a certain level after tariffs have been eliminated. Both of these safeguards are automatically enforced at our borders based on the established import volume or domestic price levels. No additional review by Congress or the Administration is required to enforce these protective safeguards.

In short, I feel that our trade officials did a fair job of accentuating the positives for Arkansas while minimizing any negatives.

I am supporting this agreement because on the whole I believe our trade team showed sensitivity to Arkansas farm families. I am supporting this agreement because I am willing to find common ground with our negotiators when I feel they have listened to my concerns and acted on them. And I am supporting this agreement with the understanding that our negotiators will now turn to the WTO and other agreements whose benefits to my cattlemen will be substantial and certain.

I have been proud to work with my Arkansas cattlemen on a wide range of issues over the years. Whether it has been on disaster assistance, animal identification, trade, conservation, food safety, taxes or regulations, we have stood shoulder to shoulder. With the passage of this agreement we must now turn our attention to these and other important issues, starting with the opening of market places around the world that will be truly beneficial to the Arkansas cattlemen.

With the passage of this agreement, I am committed to doing exactly that.

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't briefly touch on the pharmaceutical provisions in this trade agreement and my concern for the precedent that they may set.

While I am told, and I trust, that this will have no implication on the reimportation legislation that I and many of my colleagues support; while I am told, and I trust, that this will have no implication on how our Medicare and Medicaid programs operate; while I am told, and I trust, that this agreement will have no implication on the way the Department of Veteran's Affairs purchases their prescription drugs, I must restate that I am concerned.

Nonetheless, I want to reiterate that I am fully committed to pursuing Federal policies that will make prescription medications in the United States sale and affordable through legislation and future trade agreements.

We have a crisis here in America when it comes to the price of prescription drugs and I'm looking for solutions. Furthermore, I'm putting the Administration on notice that efforts to block access to cheaper drugs for my constituents will be met with resistance by this Senator until we make some real progress of our own here in this country.