Floor Statements

Yes.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I thank all of my colleagues. This is such an important issue as we look at the budget in the confines of the budget of this country, really in the context of priorities. We have a lot of choices and we have a lot of priorities in this country. Each of us as Americans, here in the Senate, our constituents who depend on us tremendously to make sure that the priorities of this country are recognized--each of us in our own homes and families has to set priorities within the confines of our own family budgets. We have to look at the year, the circumstances, and we have to figure out what is important to us as a family, important to us as part of a community, and what is important in terms of long range goals that we have for ourselves, our families, our communities and, in this instance, our Nation.

We also have to recognize that the priorities and choices that we make regarding those priorities have consequences. They have immediate consequences on our families, communities, and our country. They also have long-term consequences on the things that we want to achieve as individuals and collectively as a group. That is why I rise today to offer an amendment to the budget resolution to provide $60 billion over 5 years to reduce the growing number of uninsured Americans and to reduce the high cost of health care.

I do not know about the other Members of this body, but I do know, almost to the individuals who come into my office, whether they represent corporate America, whether they represent their families, whether they represent the interest of their community and the small businesses that make up that community, but to a person, almost every one of them mentions the cost of health care in this country, its escalation, and the concern it brings to them as an individual and to their families, to their businesses, and to their communities.

What are we going to do about it? How much of a priority are we going to make this issue in terms of the high cost of health care in this country?

One of the most incredible contributors to this high cost of health care is the number of Americans who are uninsured, those who are unprepared for what may happen to them or to their family members. It affects them, it affects their families, it affects their jobs, their employers, their communities, their health care providers--it affects absolutely everyone.

This amendment I offer today will dedicate funding to address this critical issue and to do so in a way that is fiscally responsible. Unfortunately, the budget resolution before us does not specify either an amount to promote expanding health insurance coverage or a way to pay for it, which leads me to believe it simply is not a priority, and I am here today to make it one.

The fact is, the number of uninsured in our country is alarming and should be a national priority. Based on the statements of HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson last week, it is clear President Bush's administration does not recognize the severity of this crisis. Secretary Thompson was quoted as saying:

Even if you do not have health insurance in America, you

get taken care of. That could be defined as universal health

care.

With all due respect to Secretary Thompson, I do not know where he is getting his information. Just look at these simple facts: 20 percent of the working-age adults in Arkansas are uninsured. Nationwide an estimated 44 million Americans do not have health insurance.

Uninsured families have less access to important screenings, state- of-the-art technology, and prescription drugs.

Uninsured adults have a 25-percent greater mortality risk than adults with health insurance coverage. An estimated 18,000 deaths among people younger than 65 are attributed to lack of health insurance coverage every single year.

Uninsured adults with chronic conditions, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, HIV infection, and mental illness, have less access to preventive care and have worse clinical outcomes than insured patients.

Uninsured adults negatively affect our health care providers and the local economy, too. A community's high rate of uninsured can adversely affect the overall health status of the entire community, the financial stability of its health care institutions and providers, and access to emergency departments and trauma centers.

My hospitals in Arkansas will tell you how expensive uncompensated care can be. These facts make it clear. People without health insurance do not get taken care of, as Secretary Thompson said. Those who lack health insurance do not get access to timely and appropriate health care.

The fact is Americans without health insurance--children and adults-- suffer worse health and they die sooner than those who do have health insurance.

The fact is people who lack health insurance are sicker and they die sooner. You do not get taken care of if you have no health insurance. You simply fend for yourself.

Working families need help with this problem. In Arkansas, the No. 1 cause of bankruptcy is high medical bills. If what we want to do is put our economy back on track, let us work to provide small businesses and industry the ability to access health insurance and health care for their workers. We know that works.

Last week, I introduced legislation with Senator Durbin and Senator Carper to help small businesses gain access to affordable health insurance for their employees. Small businesses are the No. 1 source of jobs in Arkansas. Small employers say offering health insurance has a positive impact on recruitment and retention, employee moral, their performance, and the overall success of their business, their ability to succeed and to grow the jobs that will help make this economy strong.

What better way to get our economy going again than to help small businesses to succeed? More than half of the workers in firms under 100 people make less than $25,000. I ask my colleagues, How in the world can someone afford health insurance in the open marketplace on an income at that level? Firms with a high proportion of low-wage workers are much less likely to offer insurance, and the fact health insurance for individuals, low-income working families to afford it on their own does not exist.

This budget resolution does not prioritize this growing problem. It fails working families because it does not put any money aside.

In President Bush's budget, he suggested he wants to work with Congress on an offset for this proposed plan. Guess what, Mr. President. I have one. Let's eliminate the abusive tax loopholes corporations have taken advantage of for years. How long do we have to wait, anyway?

This amendment is about priorities. Are we going to choose to help working families afford health insurance? Are we going to continue to allow corporations to get away with these abuses? We have investigated Enron's tax shelters activities, but we have done nothing. We have done nothing in those circumstances.

We must make the growing number of uninsured in our country a priority. It is clear working families are not getting the health care they need. No one can argue with that point. I challenge any one of my colleagues. If they are not hearing the same concerns in their offices, I would be surprised.

There are a number of bipartisan proposals introduced in the Senate to address the high number of uninsured. Let's come together and do something good for the hard-working folks in this country who cannot afford health insurance, those who cannot get access to the most basic of preventive medicine. Congress needs to address this issue.

The high cost of health care in the United States is giving other developed countries an advantage in keeping and attracting jobs. If we want to talk about losing jobs, look at one of the highest costs to industry and to small businesses. It is providing quality health care and health insurance that is going to allow them to keep those workers and provide them what they need to be good workers and good family members.

For each car they build, DaimlerChrysler AG pays out $1,300 in employee health care costs. When they make that car in Canada, they pay hardly anything. They depend on a government program to provide that health care. That is why the big three automakers actually lobbied the Canadian Government to maintain their national health care system. If we want to keep jobs in America, let's make it worth their while. Let's make their quality of life comparable in those instances.

At a time when jobs are leaving our country, at a time when health insurance premiums are rising by leaps and bounds and working families are losing their jobs and what health insurance they may have, Congress must do something.

I do not claim my amendment will address every health care need in our Nation. Some want to do more, and some think we should do less. I believe my amendment is a balanced, commonsense approach that will advance this important cause in a meaningful way. I ask my colleagues for their support.

We cannot assume people are getting the health care they need, because they are not. All we have to do is listen to corporate America, listen to small business, listen to our health care providers, most importantly, listen to our constituents.

Mr. President, we cannot continue to turn a blind eye. Let's get it done. I urge all Senators to vote for my amendment and vote on behalf of quality health care for all Americans.

I thank the Chair.

I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment, and I send my amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I draw my colleagues' attention to the amendment offered earlier today by myself and many others. I cannot think of anything that could help us in this Nation redirect our economy, rebuild the fabric of our country, help our families, our working families, our military families, our children across this Nation, than looking at what we can do for the uninsured in this country. The number of uninsured in our country is alarming. It should be a priority in this budget debate.

As we look at the budget debate we are dealing with, we should think about priorities and the choices we have to make and the consequences down the road if we do not make the right priorities and the right choices.

I encourage all of my colleagues to take a look at what we are doing. We are providing for the uninsured. We are making sure it is not paid for by increasing taxes, but cutting loopholes, cutting corporate loopholes that have existed, which we have all agreed are wrong. We need to do something about it. Redirecting those resources to the uninsured is the correct thing to do.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kentucky for raising this issue. I have been very concerned about our small businesses and how they fare as well. That was one of the reasons I requested information from the IRS on this very issue concerning how our small businesses are affected.

Addressing this argument about small business and cutting the top rates: According to the IRS statistics we received back from the IRS, only 3.8 percent of small business and farm returns have income over $200,000. So you have to earn $319,100 before you even make it to the top tax bracket. All of your income up until that amount is taxed at the lower rate.

If you look at the statistics that the IRS brings to us, 62 percent of small businesses and farm returns in this country have incomes of $50,000 or less.

They do not fall into this top category of income that is being discussed.

I appreciate the Senator bringing this up so we can really talk about who falls into this category.

I ask my colleagues to recognize we are talking about taxable income, which is after expenses. This is take-home pay, take-home pay for these companies. This is the money that is not being invested in new plants or new equipment, this is not money that is going to employment, increasing jobs which we know our small businesses are capable of if they have the resources to invest there. This is taxable income after expenses, so it is taxable income that has really gone to the bank already. I think it is very important for us to recognize what we are talking about.

It also might be of interest to my colleagues tonight to know that after I had a very similar discussion about these statistics with the Secretary of the Treasury, he called me the other day and told me he had reviewed my charts and found them accurate.

He said they were hard to read but they were accurate. They are a little bit small. But I think it is so important for us to recognize. The reason it hit home for me is because Arkansas finds itself actually in a little bit higher circumstance than that. Well over 62 percent of our small businesses in Arkansas are our largest employers. Roughly upwards of 70 percent find themselves in that 50 percent or less category. Again, this is after expenses. This is what they are taking home.

I know my colleague in his amendment talks about individual income tax returns as a partnership, or a sole proprietor, or subject chapter S corporation.

But I encourage my colleagues to understand that these are flowthrough entities. If you are talking about these individuals and these groups, they are very small as a percentage of what we are talking about in small businesses.

These are individuals who might file schedule C or schedule S.

I think it is so important for us to look at the numbers. I agree wholeheartedly with my colleagues that small businesses are the engine of this economy. They are the ones that provide the most jobs. Most of the jobs in Arkansas are provided by our small businesses.

It is important we accurately look at the resources we are trying to put back into the hands of small businesses so they can reinvest and grow the jobs we know we need to continue to build on this economy. I hope we will take a look at the numbers which have been provided. We talk some about upward mobility. I know that has been discussed as well by many of our colleagues about the opportunity that Americans want to have, the potential they want in order to reach those upper brackets.

But, quite frankly, if you look at the upward mobility in my State, in 1991 the per capita personal income was about $15,175. Today, it is $22,750. That is an increase of about 33 percent over the decade. But Arkansans, on average, are still earning less than $23,000 a year. Less than 10 percent of our Arkansans earn over $200,000 a year. I just try to make this point.

I hope my colleagues will look at incomes in their own States. When you find in other States such as ours that 50 percent of the people have an adjusted gross income of less than $25,000 and over 80 percent roughly have an adjusted gross income of less than $50,000 a year, we have to look at putting money into the pockets of people who are going to grow this economy. We have to keep a balance.

I hope my colleagues will look at what is happening. If you talk about upward mobility, it will take a 1,400-percent increase in income to reach those upper margins that are being talked about from where most of our small business and other income earners in our State are. I hope my colleagues will take a second look at what he is trying to propose.

I hope my other colleagues realize, if what we want to do is make sure we are growing the economy and protecting small businesses, we need to look at the statistics the IRS has given us about where those small businesses are and where those resources lie.

Madam President, I thank my colleague, the minority leader.

I stand today to speak in strong support of Senator Daschle's amendment to the budget resolution that would ensure the U.S. Veterans Administration has the funding it needs to provide the best services possible to our Nation's veterans.

My father passed away about a year and a half ago. He was an infantryman in the Korean war. Both of my grandfathers served in World War II.

I believe probably one of the most important values those men instilled in me when I was growing up was the need to respect and honor our Nation's veterans, those who had put their lives on the line to ensure our freedoms and this incredible Nation we are a part of could be sustained.

I have always treasured that lesson, and my father's example has guided me throughout my career in public service, as well as the examples of those I have met along the road of the very strong and determined and willing Arkansans who have also served this country.

That lesson has always been important, but it is particularly poignant today. With the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq, a new generation of young people has stepped forward to defend our Nation and the world against threats to our security, peace, and stability. Many have given their lives in this cause. A great many more, who rarely get mentioned, have been wounded in action, and they will need our support in the years to come.

We often hear people talk about the American military's superiority in weapons and technology, which is the most advanced and powerful in the history of the world. I know every Member in this body is proud of that. But there is also no getting around the fact our most important military strength resides in our people, in the men and women who serve, and in the officers who lead them. No weapon and no technology is as valuable to our military as our military personnel.

One of my top priorities has been to ensure our military personnel gets the support they need, whether it is equity in pay, health care, housing, or child care.

With an all-volunteer military, it follows you are going to have more career soldiers, and more of those soldiers are going to be married and have families. We should recognize this and provide for their needs. Particularly with the demands placed on our soldiers in the war on terror and in Iraq, we need to find new ways to better serve them and their families in recognition of their service and their sacrifice to this country. Their sacrifice today reminds of us of the sacrifices of earlier generations. It reminds us of the service and sacrifice of those who are here today. It should remind us we owe our veterans a much greater debt than just gratitude and respect. We also have an obligation to support the health and well-being and dignity of our veterans and their families when they need health care or when death, disability, and economic hardship leave them in distress.

The cornerstone of this commitment is our Veterans Administration, with its numerous support programs for health care, homelessness, and veterans with special needs. But as many of you know all too well, our veterans programs have not always lived up to their promise. While things have improved in many respects, we still have some distance to travel to make our

veterans programs the most effective they can be.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.

One of my priorities as a Senator has been to seek ways we can make our Government work better. I believe one important place to begin is with our programs for our veterans. It is particularly true as our population ages, the Veterans Administration must adapt to new demands. Over 45 percent of American veterans are now over the age of 60.

In addition, the largest group of veterans, the Vietnam-era veterans, are nearing retirement. We are going to need innovative approaches to meet the needs of these veterans. A top priority should be to ensure our veterans benefits are more fair and equitable. The amendment Senator Daschle and I, as a cosponsor, offer today would increase funding for veterans health care by $2.7 billion. We would accomplish this by reducing tax cuts for people making over $1 million per year, so this measure would not add to the Nation's budget deficit, the budget deficit our children will be paying.

One measure of a nation's greatness is how well it cares for those who have fought and sacrificed to protect its citizens, its values, its freedoms, and its interests.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this amendment to ensure our veterans have health care they so richly deserve, and that we do so without putting an enormous burden on our children.

I would like to also comment on some of the talks we have had, both in the Finance Committee and here, about where those dollars are actually going to come from and who actually gets harmed, and remind our colleagues today these dollars do not come out of the small business arena. We have had information from the IRS which indicates that. We have charts which help us show that.

I hope my colleagues will look at what is most important: The priorities and the choices we have to make today, and the consequences we will see from those choices we make. Let us support our veterans.

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, today I rise to pay tribute and to honor a young man who was recently killed in action in Iraq--1LT Adam G. Mooney, a soldier in the U.S. Army who was killed during a search and rescue mission on January 25. First Lieutenant Mooney was 28 years old.

Adam Mooney was a native of Cambridge, MD, assigned to the 3rd Squadron, 17th Cavalry, 10th Mountain Division of the U.S. Army, stationed at Fort Drum, NY. After graduating from high school in Dorchester County, MD, in 1993, Adam attended the University of Maryland Eastern Shore. He left college to enlist in the Army, but returned to the university soon after to complete his degree in aviation management science. Adam was a lifelong enthusiast of aviation and flying--in fact, he earned his pilot's license at about the same time he earned his driver's license. In the Army, Adam was able to further pursue the challenges of aviation while flying the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior helicopter. His unit was deployed to Iraq late last year, where Adam flew helicopter missions to provide support, security, and intelligence to ground troops.

On January 25, 1LT Adam Mooney was flying a rescue mission near Mosul, Iraq, in search of soldiers whose boat had capsized on the Tigris River. According to witnesses, Mooney's helicopter hit a power line and plummeted into the river. The bodies of both Mooney and his co-pilot, CWO Patrick Dorff, were missing in the aftermath of the crash--Dorff's body was found 4 days later, and Mooney's 3 weeks later. We extend our deepest sympathies to their families, who certainly suffered under great strain and emotional stress while they awaited news of their loved ones' welfare.

Adam Mooney's wife, Katie, lives with her parents in Conway, AR, where she moved to work on her nursing degree while her husband was serving overseas. Our deepest condolences and prayers go out to her, as well as to Adam's parents, friends, and loved ones, in this time of great loss for their family. Adam was a courageous young man, lost to us far too soon, but we remain confident that his sacrifice was in a noble and honorable cause.

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to a group of Arkansas who are demonstrating true leadership and commitment in facing down one of the gravest problems facing African-American communities today--black on black crime.

Many people are unaware of the extent of black on black crime. Consider: African-Americans constitute 12 percent of the U.S. population. But in 2002, 45 percent of all murder victims nationwide were black. Of those murders, fully 91 percent were incidents of black on black crime. For young black men, homicide is the leading cause of death; for young black women, the second leading cause of death.

It's clear that we need to address this epidemic. The good news is that, in Arkansas, we're trying to do just that. Last year, a group of community leaders, business leaders, government officials, and religious leaders banded together to form the ``Black On Black Crime Coalition,'' dedicated to raising public awareness of this important issue and developing solutions to mitigate this epidemic of crime and violence that is destroying lives, families, and communities every day. The coalition is just over one year old, and I'm proud to say that they are making great progress in developing new solutions, programs and plans to reduce the incidence of violent crime in the black community. These range from community workshops to neighborhood associations, from youth programs to public awareness campaigns.

The coalition is working with government leaders and law enforcement officials to develop fresh, innovative solutions to the problem of black on black crime. I've worked with the coalition as a partner, and I've been impressed with the energy, seriousness, and dedication that members of the coalition display. Given the commitment I've seen so far, I'm confident that we will see outstanding results from this vital organization. Even if we can't completely eliminate black on black crime, we can significantly reduce their frequency. That will be good news for all of our communities.

We recently observed ``Black On Black Crime Prevention Month'' to mark the coalition's founding in Arkansas and to continue raising public awareness about this epidemic of violent crime. I thank them for their commitment, and I ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing their leadership. It's been a great year, and I look forward to working with the Black On Black Crime Coalition for many years to come.

Madam President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Durbin, to introduce the Small Employer Health Benefits Program Act of 2004.

This legislation seeks to address an enormous problem facing small businesses in Arkansas and all across the country: accessibility and affordability of health insurance. I have talked with many small business owners in Arkansas who have been forced to drop or dramatically reduce health insurance for their employees even though they desperately want to offer it. Small employers say that offering health insurance has a positive impact on recruitment, retention, employee attitude, performance, health status, and the overall success of the business. What better way to get our economy going again than to help small businesses succeed?

Small businesses are the number one source for jobs in Arkansas. And the smaller the businesses, the less likely they will offer health insurance. Nationally, 58 percent of all private sector employers offer health insurance. Only three States fall below this average: my home State of Arkansas, Mississippi, and Montana. Arkansas, rate for private coverage is 43 percent.

That is why I am proud to introduce legislation today that will offer small employers a real solution to the problem of accessing affordable, comprehensive health insurance for their employees. Our legislation calls for the creation of a new Small Employers Health Benefits Program which will offer small employers affordable choices among private health insurance plans by giving them access to a large purchasing pool and negotiated rates. Our bill combines the best of what government-run health care, but harnesses the power of market competition to bring down health insurance costs by using a proven government negotiator.

Under our bill, small businesses across America would be able to pool their risk and purchasing power together to offer affordable health insurance options for their employees. Based on the successful Federal Employees Health Benefits program, which has provided quality benefit choices to Federal employees for decades, our program would offer small businesses a range of benefit packages from a variety of insurance companies, ensuring them a choice of affordable products.

All small employers with under 100 employees could voluntarily participate in the new SEHBP. Why only 100 employees or less? We target help to those who need it the most. Take Arkansas as an example. 87 percent of the businesses in Arkansas with 100 to 200 employees do offer health insurance. However, most businesses in Arkansas, 76 percent to be exact, have less than 50 employees and less than one- third of them are able to offer health insurance to their employees.

Also under our bill, if employers agree to pay a minimum percentage of the premium for workers making under $25,000, they would receive a refundable tax credit in return. Why only low-wage workers? Studies show that more than half of workers in firms under 100 people make less than $25,000. And firms with a high proportion of low-wage workers are much less likely to offer insurance.

Further, current health tax-credits are not targeted to those who need help the most. A recent study shows that only 28 percent of current health benefit tax expenditures will go to families with incomes below $50,000 this year. This is bad considering that these families account for more than half of all families in our country. In contrast, families with incomes of $100,000 or more comprise 14 percent of the population but will account for 26 percent of all health benefit tax expenditures.

By giving small employers a refundable tax credit to defray part of the employer contribution for low-income workers, we provide help to those struggling families who need it the most.

One of the best aspects of our program is that every person working for a small business anywhere in the country--rural or urban--would have access to a choice of plans. And workers who move from one SEHBP- participating company to another anywhere in the Nation would be able to maintain their same health coverage.

For example, a florist working in Helena, AR, who is enrolled in an SEHBP nationwide plan could move to Carbondale, IL, without changing her health insurance. It's that easy.

Consumers are protected because plans in SEHBP will be subject to the same strict regulatory and solvency standards applied to plans in FEHBP. And small employers would be relieved of the burden of comparing insurers, benefit packages, costs and negotiating contracts.

I hope that our colleagues will take a careful look at our legislation and present it to the small businesses in their States. I hope they will ask them about their struggle to find affordable health insurance in today's market and see if they'd view this as a better alternative.

The number of uninsured in our country is alarming and should be a national priority. It is apparent by the statements of HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson yesterday that President Bush's administration doesn't recognize the severity of this crisis. Secretary Thompson said: ``Even if you don't have health insurance in America, you get taken care of. That could be defined as universal health care.''

With all due respect to Secretary Thompson, I don't know where he's getting his information. Just look at the facts:

Twenty percent of the working-aged adults in Arkansas (who are between 19 and 64 years of age) are uninsured. Forty-four million Americans nationwide don't have health insurance.

Uninsured families have less access to important screenings, state- of-the art technology, and prescription drugs. We just passed a Medicare prescription drug benefit because we know how important access to prescription drugs are in improving health.

Uninsured adults have a 25 percent greater mortality risk than adults with coverage. About 18,000 deaths among people younger than 65 are attributed to lack of health insurance coverage every year.

Uninsured adults with chronic conditions like diabetes, cardiovascular disease, HIV infection and mental illness have less access to preventive care and have worse clinical outcomes than insured patients. They try to buy insurance, but it is virtually impossible to get in the individual market.

Uninsured adults negatively affect our health care providers and local economies too. A community's high rate of uninsurance can adversely affect the overall health status of the community, the financial stability of its health care institutions and providers, and access to emergency departments and trauma centers. My hospitals in Arkansas will tell you how expensive uncompensated care can be.

These facts make it clear: people without health insurance don't ``get taken care of'' as Thompson said. Those who lack health insurance don't get access to timely and appropriate health care. The facts are that Americans without health insurance--children and adults--suffer worse health and die sooner than those who do have health insurance.

In Arkansas, the number one cause of bankruptcy is high medical bills. These working families need help with this problem.

The fact is that people who lack health insurance are sicker and die sooner. You ``don't get taken care of'' if you have no health insurance. You fend for yourself.

That's why our small businesses employers--who make up most of the businesses in Arkansas--want to offer health insurance to their employees. And that is why our bill that Senator Durbin and I are introducing today is good for America.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a program that provides an important service to the men and women serving in our military. With our Armed Forces deployed for extended tours of duty in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the pressures placed on family members left behind can be enormous. While the military is dedicated to taking care of its own, the need continues to escalate.

Today, more than 140,000 troops are fighting the war on terrorism in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and around the world.

Many of our brave men and women have now been deployed much longer than expected. Some active units served in Afghanistan, returned home for 6 months, and were immediately redeployed to Iraq

Reservists are facing extended deployment as well. Arkansas reservists in the 39th Infantry Brigade, for instance, were recently called up for what could be a 1-year rotation in Iraq beginning early next year. In many cases, the sole breadwinner in a family is deployed, making it difficult for the families left behind to cope with medical bills or other unexpected expenses.

Today, I would like to recognize an effort undertaken by local radio and television stations to help address these issues. The National Association of Broadcasters is leading its local television and radio stations in a partnership with the Armed Forces Relief Trust to raise funds for military families in need.

By producing, distributing, and airing radio and television public service announcements, the NAB and its radio and television broadcast members are helping raise funds for those military families in need.

Last year, the four emergency assistance programs representing the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps distributed more than $109 million in interest free loans and grants to military families. Now that the four programs have joined together into the one trust, and more importantly, now that the trust is receiving generous access to the airwaves to get out its message, they will undoubtedly be able to provide yet more assistance.

All of us count on our service people who are far from home protecting us. Their families are enduring hardship enough in waiting for them to return. It is incumbent upon all of us to ensure their families do not want financially during this most difficult time. I would like to compliment the local radio and television stations that are involved in this effort. As small business people, they are dedicating a valuable resource--airtime--to a timely and important cause. I salute their efforts.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Medicare prescription drug coverage conference report before the Senate today.

I do strongly believe this is a historic opportunity. I believe we should not let it pass by. This proposal represents a $400 billion expansion of the Medicare Program, the largest expansion of Medicare since it was created nearly 40 years ago.

While I intend to support this measure, I think what is most important at this juncture is to be honest with the American people. For me, it means being honest particularly with the people of Arkansas and the Arkansas seniors. This bill cannot be and will not be all things to all people. The bill will not provide free drugs for everyone. Some seniors, because we have talked about this for so long, have come to their own conclusion that what we were trying to get was free drugs for all seniors in this country.

I have to remind people we are in debt in our country up to our eyeballs, as far as the eye can see. We did not have an opportunity to provide free prescription drugs to all seniors in this country. Therefore, we have to do the best we can do right now with what we have. I am not pleased about the debt. I didn't support the last tax bill and I am scared to death of the debt we are creating for my twin boys who are 7 years old right now.

The fact is, in this year's budget we have $400 billion dedicated to American seniors. We have to do the best job we can to make that productive for them in this current circumstance because next year and the year after that, it will not be there; we will still be in debt up to our eyeballs.

We have a tremendous amount to do. This bill starts that. It is unfortunate the issue of adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare has become so politicized. Several Democratic conferees, many of them experts on this issue in their very own right, were not permitted the opportunity to negotiate the final bill. They were conferees in name only. I join them in their frustration and how they feel. They have a right to be angry. It was wrong and unjust. They were prohibited from being part of this very important conference. This bill would have been better had they been involved.

Despite the flaws in this legislation and the partisan process we witnessed over the last few months, Democrats and seniors should be pleased that many of the principles we fought for are contained in this bill.

Is this the bill I would have written? Absolutely not. But there are components in this bill that are productive and move us forward. On behalf of our seniors, we must seize that opportunity.

The bill before the Senate today will provide all of the 453,438 Medicare beneficiaries in Arkansas with access to a Medicare prescription drug benefit for the first time in the history of the Medicare Program. Every senior will have access to a drug benefit to help them with the extraordinary cost of prescription drugs. Extraordinary.

Again, it is not all things to all people. If you find yourself in a position where you are well off and you do not have a lot of prescription drug costs, there may not be in here the most advantageous drug program for you, but for the sickest and the neediest of this country we have come a long way in this bill.

While the benefit is somewhat meager, I am confident we will improve on it in the future for those who maybe do not get the best return from this package. But this bill targets the sickest and the neediest of seniors, those with the highest drug costs and those who are in the lowest income category.

Because of the $400 billion limitation, that is where we have gone. When fiscal times improve, we should eliminate the gap in coverage. I am concerned about those seniors who will be hit with the gap in coverage and have to continue to pay their premiums. But the point is, every senior in Medicare in Arkansas will be able to choose to enroll in a new voluntary drug benefit while staying in the traditional Medicare Program. This is a huge victory. Seniors will not have to leave the Medicare they love to get a prescription drug benefit.

That is because the bill contains a fallback plan--a Government guaranteed plan or safety net--that will provide drug coverage should private, drug-only plans not come into their area.

We in Arkansas know a lot about that. We have seen what happens when Medicare+Choice comes in.

I am concerned that the fallback provision in this bill is not as strong as that which was passed in the Senate bill because it allows one prescription plan and one integrated plan to provide the drug benefit instead of two prescription plans.

I intend to work with my colleagues to fix this flaw before the drug benefit is enacted. I am glad that the conference agreement requires a national fallback contract, so that the Government fallback will always be there when necessary.

I thank the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. President, I have a lot more to say, and I hope I will have an opportunity to do it at some point.

I think the most important point to be made today is to talk about those who will be served. Over 170,700 beneficiaries in Arkansas will pay no premium for their prescription drug coverage and a nominal copay of no more than $2 for generic drugs and $5 for brand name drugs. They also will not have a gap in their drug coverage.

We are addressing some of the neediest individuals in our country at this juncture. Over 40,200 additional seniors in Arkansas will qualify for reduced premiums, lower deductibles and coinsurance, and no gaps in their drug coverage. All told, over 40 percent--over 40 percent--of Medicare beneficiaries in Arkansas will receive the much-needed special help.

This low-income assistance is of special importance to Arkansas' older women. Medicare seniors are disproportionately women and disproportionately poor, and will be served well by this special assistance.

There is much I would have done to strengthen the low-income provisions, such as not having an assets test for everyone and ensuring that Medicare could wrap around the cost-sharing requirements in the Medicare bill and that Medicaid could pay for prescription drugs not on the private plan's formulary.

I fought to include a new benefit providing screening for diabetes. The new diabetes screening benefit will help with the fact that approximately one third of the 7 million seniors with diabetes--or 2.3 million people--are undiagnosed.

They simply do not know that they have this very serious condition--a condition whose complications include heart disease, stroke, vision loss and blindness, amputations, and kidney disease.

This bill takes a number of steps to protect seniors' access to community pharmacies.

I worked hard to ensure that private PBMs must disclose any price concessions made available by manufacturers, that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the authority to audit the financial statements and records of plans to ensure that they are complying with these disclosure requirements, and that the Federal Trade Commission study whether the PBMs that own their own mail order pharmacies have created higher drug prices for consumers.

In addition, private plans must allow any willing pharmacist to be a provider under its plan. And for the first time, local pharmacists will be allowed to offer 90-day prescriptions just like mail-order pharmacists.

These provisions are vital to rural hospitals, physicians, ambulance providers, home health providers, and rural health clinics in Arkansas. I have worked with my colleagues for a number of years on these provisions, and long-sought rural equity is finally achieved.

This bill also contains several good additions to the traditional Medicare Program that seeks to improve the health and well-being of seniors.

Among the provisions that I fought to include is my demonstration program on chronic care management that will help determine the healthy outcomes that result when a geriatrician is paid appropriately for caring for a patient with multiple chronic conditions.

I also fought to include coverage for insulin syringes. Roughly 40 percent of the senior population with diabetes--or 1.8 million seniors--use syringes to inject insulin into their bodies to control their diabetes every day.

Without coverage, syringe purchases--which can be especially expensive for seniors on fixed incomes--would not count towards cost- sharing and yearly maximum out-of-pocket expenses.

The low-income assistance in the Senate bill was much more generous. It helped 3 million more seniors. And I pledge to these seniors that I will continue to work on strengthening these provisions in the future.

I am pleased that the conference agreement provides financial incentives for employers to continue offering prescription drug coverage for their retirees.

I have received many calls this week from constituents who want to ensure they don't lose the health coverage they worked for their entire lives. It is frustrating that employers are already dropping retiree health coverage.

So I am glad this bill provides tax incentives to employers and unions so they don't drop drug coverage. Employer groups have told me that this bill will actually encourage them to retain rather than drop coverage in the future.

This bill also creates the most comprehensive rural package we've seen in years. By significantly decreasing or eliminating the disparities in Medicare payments that exist between rural and urban health care providers, seniors in rural areas will have better access to the care they need.

To conclude, we must seize this opportunity before it is too late. This is not the bill I would have written, but it is a step forward.

Yesterday, I talked with Cecil Malone, the president of the Arkansas AARP. We both agree that this moment must not be wasted. We must act now to get a benefit started. Once it is there, it can only get better.

I promise the seniors of Arkansas that I will work day in and day out to make this prescription drug plan better.

I will also work to preserve and protect the Medicare Program so it can continue to be a safety net for all those who are uninsurable in the private market--millions of seniors, individuals with disabilities, and people with kidney failure.

The Medicare Program has prevented these most vulnerable individuals from being uninsured. We must remember the Medicare Program's origins and mission as we proceed--and do no harm to it.

Finally, Mr. President, I thank Finance Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Baucus, Senator Breaux, and the members of their staffs who worked so hard over the last several months to bring us to this historical moment.

This bill also ensures that seniors have convenient access to pharmacies

by adopting the same standard that TRICARE uses to determine access.

The bill also includes my provision to waive temporarily the late enrollment penalty for military retirees and their spouses who sign up for Medicare Part B and to permit year-round enrollment so that retirees can access the new benefits immediately.

I am glad that this bill takes some steps to contain the skyrocketing price of prescription drugs. One provision in the bill would help bring generic drugs to the market faster, and another provision would give the Government authority to create a system for the importation of drugs from Canada by pharmacists, wholesalers, and individuals once safety standards are met.

I have long supported drug reimportation but both the Clinton and Bush administrations have refused to implement drug reimportation authorized by Congress, citing concerns about drug safety.

I am glad this bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a comprehensive study that identifies current problems with implementing the current reimportation law we already have on the books so Congress can enact a law that will allow reimportation to go forward.

Mr. President, there is a lot to be talked about here. I hope we will continue to work together to improve upon the shortcomings in this legislation as we work to see it implemented to make it a better program for current and future beneficiaries of the Medicare Program.

Mr. President, I rise today to announce my support for the Energy Policy Act of 2003. I want to thank Chairmen Grassley and Domenici and Senators Baucus and Bingaman for working with me to include renewable energy and energy efficiency provisions important to my home State of Arkansas. While some may say this bill is not perfect, it is a step toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil and

increasing the use of renewable resources in this country.

Nine months ago, I stood before this body and spoke on the dangers of continued reliance on foreign sources of energy. Today, I am pleased to stand here in support of a bill that includes several provisions I believe will take our country's energy policy in the right direction. I know this bill is not perfect, and I am disappointed that some of my colleagues who have been leaders on this issue for many, many years were excluded from the drafting of this bill.

But I am pleased that those who did draft this bill made an effort to address energy concerns in every sector of this industry. In Arkansas, we have investor owned utilities and co-operatives. This bill will help both of these providers serve their customers in a more efficient and reliable manner. And while this bill may not go as far as some would like in the direction of renewable energy, there are many provisions in this package which will help the United States begin the long process of eliminating our dependence on foreign oil. I believe the renewable fuel standard, requiring our government to purchase at least 5 percent of its energy from renewable sources, represents a positive step toward this goal. I personally fought to include provisions that will encourage greater use of renewable resources, increased production of efficient appliances, and greater investment in delivering fuels to rural America.

In Arkansas, we recognize the importance of renewable fuels in helping the United States to become more energy-independent. That's why I am excited about the provisions in this bill that will encourage greater use of a valuable new alternative fuel, biodiesel. Biodiesel, which can be made from just about any agricultural oil, including oils from soybeans, cottonseed, or rice, is completely renewable, contains no petroleum, and can be easily blended with petroleum diesel. It can be added directly into the gas tank of a compression-ignition, diesel engine vehicle with no major modifications. Biodiesel is completely biodegradable and non-toxic, contains no sulfur, and it is the first and only alternative fuel to meet EPA's Tier I and II health effects testing standards. Biodiesel also stands ready to help us reach the EPA's new rule to reduce the sulfur content of highway diesel fuel by over 95 percent. These tax credits are necessary as biodiesel is not yet cost-competitive with petroleum diesel.

This legislation will provide tax incentives for the production of biodiesel from agricultural oils, recycled oils, and animal fats and will ensure that biodiesel becomes a central component of this Nation's automobile fuel market. This legislation is identical to language authored by myself and Senator Grassley included in the last Congress's Energy Bill. It is intended to be a starting point for our debate and discussion as we draft an energy bill for consideration in this Congress.

This legislation will provide a partial exemption from the diesel excise tax for diesel blended with biodiesel. Specifically, the bill provides a one-cent reduction for every percent of biodiesel from virgin agricultural oils blended with diesel up to 20 percent.

The legislation will also provide a half-cent reduction for every percent of biodiesel from recycled agricultural oils or animal fats. With today's depressed market for farm commodities, biodiesel will serve as a ready new market for surplus farm products. Investment now in the biodiesel industry will level the playing field and create new opportunities in rural America. This bill also contains a provision I fought for that will provide a tax credit for production of fuels from animal and agricultural waste.

Thanks to new technological developments, we can now produce significant quantities of alternative fuels from agricultural and animal wastes in an environmentally-friendly manner. The production incentives included in this bill will assure implementation and commercialization of this new generation of technology. I am also pleased this bill includes language to encourage additional collection and productive use of methane gas generated by garbage decomposing in America's landfills. Landfill gas is a renewable fuel that can be used directly as an energy source for heating, as a clean burning vehicle fuel, and as a hydrogen source for fuel cells. Furthermore, it can power generators to produce electricity. There are compelling environmental reasons to encourage these projects.

Even the large landfills that are required under the Clean Air Act to collect their gas and control non-methane organic compounds often find it more cost-effective to simply flare or otherwise waste the gas rather than use the methane to produce electricity. Some smaller landfills are not required to collect the gas, and may continue to emit it for decades under the Clean Air Act. Thus, landfill gas projects will not only reduce local and regional air pollution while yielding a renewable source of energy, they will also reduce the country's yearly emissions of greenhouse gases by a very substantial amount at a relatively small cost. I also worked to include a provision that will encourage new waste-to-energy facilities to produce electricity directly from the combustion of our trash. Arkansas stands with other environmentally conscious States in understanding that waste-to-energy technology saves valuable land and significantly reduces the amount of greenhouse gases that would have been released into our atmosphere without its operation. The volume of waste generated in this country could be reduced by greater than 90 percent by utilizing waste-to- energy facilities, and EPA has confirmed that more than 33 million tons of greenhouse gases can be avoided annually by the combustion of municipal solid waste. Municipal solid waste is a sustainable source of clean, renewable energy and I am proud to see this measure enacted into law.

Another provision I am extremely proud of is one that will provide a tax credit for the production of super energy-efficient clothes washers and refrigerators if those appliances exceed new Federal energy efficiency standards. Conservation and efficiency are the most effective and immediate ways to limit our energy consumption and reduce pollution. I am confident this provision will spur manufacturers to develop super-efficient appliances that will be affordable for consumers.

Another provision of which I am particularly proud relates to the clean-up of Southwest Experimental Fast Oxide Reactor, a decommissioned nuclear reactor near the community of Strickler, Arkansas, in the northwest corner of my State. The site is contaminated with residual radiation, liquid sodium, lead, asbestos, mercury, PCBs, and other environmental contaminants and explosive chemicals. I have been fighting to rehabilitate this site since I came to the Senate, and now we know that persistence pays off.

SEFOR was built by the Southwest Atomic Energy Associates, a consortium of investor-owned electric utilities, and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for testing liquid metal fast breeder reactor fuel. SEFOR began operations in 1969 and was permanently shut down in 1972. After the reactor's useful life, the ownership of the site was transferred to the University of Arkansas. The Federal Government helped create these contaminants, and therefore should pay to help clean them up. This is great news for northwest Arkansas, because this site has threatened public health and the environment in one of our state's most beautiful areas for too long. I thank the conferees for retaining my provision related to cleaning up this site.

The final provision I would like to praise relates to improving our country's natural gas infrastructure. I am proud that this bill contains provisions to make it easier for natural gas companies to deliver clean-burning natural gas to this Nation's rural homes, by decreasing the depreciation time for natural gas pipelines.

America's demand for energy is expected to grow by 32 percent during the next 20 years and consumer demand for natural gas will grow at almost twice that rate, due to its economic, environmental, and operational benefits. That level of natural gas use is almost 60 percent greater than the highest recorded level. To satisfy this projected demand, we must substantially expand our existing gas infrastructure and this provision will do that. These are provisions in this bill that I am very proud of, but there are also provisions in this bill that I am not proud of. I am very disappointed by the way in which the

issue of MTBE liability is handled in this bill. I am also disappointed by the lack of a renewable portfolio standard in this bill and I will continue to work to see that a RPS is enacted in coming years.

Our current global situation shows us just how important it is that we takes steps to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I hope that this bill is taken for what it is: not a comprehensive solution, but a certain step in the right direction. Much more work needs to be done if we ever expect this country to lose its dependence on fossil fuel and foreign sources of energy and I urge my colleagues to continue to work hard until we achieve this goal.

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

I rise today to offer a few thoughts on the Medicare prescription drug conference report that will soon be brought before the Senate. As I look back on the 10 years I have served in the Congress and I think about probably one of the most important issues we have dealt with, it has been looking toward trying to provide a component to Medicare that, had we seen or known the importance of prescription drugs when Medicare was designed, we would have included.

As we move forward in the discussion and the debate on the pending legislation or the conference report that is being formalized right now, I hope we will not lose sight of our original objective; that is, to do no harm to a program that has been incredible in this country. It has kept seniors out of poverty. It has provided insurance for health care in our senior community when private industry would not come to the table to provide insurance and health benefits for our aging population.

I hope we will keep our focus on doing no harm to a program that has done so much for the well-being of the elderly of this country, that we will look to the ways we can improve it and, more importantly, provide a prescription drug piece that is actually going to enhance our ability to keep down the costs of health care, providing health care to the elderly in this country, and improving the quality of life which, after all, is, has been, and should be our main objective.

First, I thank our chairman on the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, and the ranking member, Senator Baucus, along with their staffs, for their tireless effort in bringing this package together thus far, both in the committee when we marked up the bill and we worked hard to bring about a good, bipartisan measure we felt did provide reforms and improvements to Medicare but did no harm to the basis of a program that has provided so much to so many in this country.

The chairman and the ranking member have really bent over backwards to do all they could to keep this conference together and to keep a package together that was going to be beneficial for the elderly in this country. I know the negotiations at times have been contentious, but I am sure my colleagues join me in expressing our heartfelt gratitude for their leadership and patience on this critically important issue to all elderly Americans and to all American families because, as many of us know, it is not just the elderly who are going to be affected by this program; it is those of us who have aging parents and grandparents. It is those of us who ourselves in years to come will be a part of that aging community. It is not just the elderly of today, it is the elderly of tomorrow and the young of today who feel so involved and think it is such a critical issue to provide that quality of care for our patients and for our seniors.

It is with that that I urge the conferees to keep working and to remain committed to the bipartisan principles contained in the legislation we passed in the Senate last summer, that we poured over and really gave heartfelt consideration and debate to bringing about a program that would enhance Medicare and again would do no harm to a program that has done so much.

The bill we passed in the Senate gives all Medicare beneficiaries, no matter where they live, access to a Medicare drug benefit. For those of us who come from rural States, we find ourselves oftentimes at the low end of the totem pole. We find ourselves in a predicament where our seniors tend to be certainly living in more challenging demographic areas, where their needs and their concerns are more difficult to meet. We find our seniors tend to be more low income. It is critical we do not put a face on this bill that makes one demographic or one geographic area of this country more important than the other.

Most importantly, our Senate bill preserves the traditional Medicare Program as a viable option for seniors by ensuring there is a level playing field between the private sector and Medicare. As many of us know, the private sector can participate in Medicare today. They choose not to. Why? Because we have, over the years, crafted and improved a Medicare Program that is most efficient. The fact is, it is difficult for them to compete, to come in and to provide the same services, the same programs in a cost-effective way where they can actually make money.

Again, we want to do no harm in a program we have begun now to mold and shape in a way that is so productive to the seniors and is cost- effective for our Government.

I believe it is important we be honest with our Nation's seniors, with the taxpayers of this country, and with ourselves, so everyone understands what is in this bill, both good and bad, what have we accomplished in this conference report and what have we not, so we can honestly call this conference report what it is. After all, this is more than just a prescription drug package. It includes a wide range of other provisions that will affect health care for seniors.

Over the last several months, I have consulted with Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus on this bill. They have

been very kind and gracious with their time in listening to me as I offered my own advice and feedback on the contents of what was materializing as a conference report. Today I would like to take this opportunity to present some of the questions I have asked of them in these recent weeks, because this is not the bill I would have produced. As we look at this conference report, it is not the bill the Senate produced or that Senators would like to have before us, but it may be the best we are going to be able to get in this Congress under the leadership we have, both in the White House, in the administration, as well as in the House and in the Senate.

If that is the case, do we hold hostage some seniors because we do not have a perfect bill? We are going to have to weigh that out in the course of the next 6 to 7 days as we go through the motions of bringing that conference to a close and looking at what is actually going to be in that conference package.

I would like to make it very clear I asked these questions as someone who wants very much to support a prescription drug package. It is something I can see clearly as a tool that can aid this country, not only in the quality of care and the quality of life our seniors need and deserve in this Nation. The advancement of what pharmaceutical drugs and prescription drugs can do in making the aging loved ones in our families have a better quality of life is so apparent. It is such a critical part of what we must do.

We also have to know there are other things that are in this package. The questions so many of us have asked in looking for what we want to see happen--as I said, I want very much to support a prescription drug package. I have worked hard on this in the 10 years I have been in Congress. I see the importance of it. We want to be able to move forward. It is an issue I have championed throughout the years in my career in Congress. It is why I have worked hard to secure a seat on the Senate Finance Committee so I could have more influence on the shape of the final bill.

In fact, this bill contains several strong provisions which I shall address shortly, but I also think it is so important we be honest with ourselves in terms of what we are actually going to be dealing with.

Furthermore, I asked these questions on behalf of my constituents in Arkansas, along with the millions of other seniors in this Nation who will be affected by this legislation and who have been waiting so patiently for us to at least begin this process. They deserve to know about all of the components of this bill and how it will affect them, wherever they may live in this great country. Like us, they want to know this package will make Medicare stronger for the future, not weaker. We have not worked these some 40-plus years to now take a step in the wrong direction to weaken Medicare. We want to know even if this may not be the end-all, be-all package for Medicare, at least it is the beginning, the first step in looking at how we can strengthen Medicare, both through providing a prescription drug component in a way that reaches every senior in this country in a fair and equitable way, as well as looking at the ways we can reform and reinforce Medicare through coordinated care, through multiple-disease diagnosis and physician programs, where our physicians can look and see the multiple diseases our elderly are dealing with and deal with them in a comprehensive way. My first question concerns the premium support model, of which we have heard an awful lot. Premium support carries a lot of different visions that people have put on it. The model I would like to question is the one which the conferees want to add as a demonstration project. I would like to ask the conferees to explain to me and to the American people: How would this premium support policy make Medicare stronger? That is our question. I am not coming to the floor with a preconceived idea. I really want to know, and I think the American people want to know how it is going to make Medicare stronger.

My concern is that the premium support would force our traditional Medicare Program to compete with private insurance plans in an arena where the rules greatly favor the private plan. That is not true competition. That is asking a program that we have built over these many years to compete with a plan out there that might be able to provide something in a more cost-effective way. But we don't know because we have too many subsidies going there.

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services said this model would lead to wide variations in premium rates for Medicare beneficiaries living in different parts of the country and even, perhaps, within the same State. This could be devastating for seniors in Arkansas, especially in our rural areas. And Arkansas is not the only State that is concerned with a lot of rural areas. Why should a senior living in the rural delta of Arkansas pay a higher premium than a senior living in Little Rock, for the same benefit? That is the question I am asking our conferees. Seniors have paid into Medicare all their lives and they deserve to pay the same premium no matter where they live. Premium support would end this uniformity that has always existed in Medicare.

The CMS Office of Actuary also determined that premium support would significantly increase premiums for traditional Medicare. Healthier seniors would leave the traditional program for private plans, thus increasing the cost for traditional Medicare. This would mostly impact seniors in our rural areas where private plans are not likely to go, and where seniors are less healthy. Why are they not likely to go there? They are not there now. They have come in; they tried it; they left because it is not profitable for them. Without substantial subsidies, they are not going to come there again.

As to using this as a demonstration, we pretty much had a demonstration out in rural America to see what is going to happen. It is simply unfair to punish these seniors with a premium increase that estimates say could surpass 25 percent. The privatization advocates say it is only a demonstration of premium support and there are numerous exceptions to the policy. That just simply makes me wonder: If the policy is so great, why make all of these exceptions?

I urge the conferees to take a serious look at this controversial proposal. Look at the ways we can make it much more clear, much more beneficial, and certainly much more economical to the American taxpayer, as well as providing the uniform benefit, across the country, to all seniors who deserve it equally.

It is clear to me that its inclusion is based on privatization ideology alone rather than sound evidence that it saves money or improves the program for seniors. There are way too many studies that indicate the other way. I encourage these conferees, when we have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to be able to do something productive, make sure we are not wasting our time and energy and efforts, and most importantly our resources, on demonstration programs that we know because of past experience are not going to be profitable for anybody if we use our resources that way. Why drain those precious resources from the drug benefit for all on a demonstration that would affect only a few?

The premium support demonstration could destabilize the Medicare Program for all seniors, and it certainly has the possibility of threatening the integrity of Medicare for seniors in Arkansas and around the Nation. The Senate bill we passed, with a great bipartisan margin, did not include this provision, and it was a strong bipartisan bill.

My second question is, Why does the final agreement not retain the Senate's more generous low-income assistance provisions? I am enormously grateful because I know Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus worked very hard on the low-income assistance, and it is a good piece of this bill, so much better than what happened on the House side. So many of us who come from States with a large percentage of low-income seniors are very grateful.

The conferees, however, apparently decided to lower the income eligibility level from the 160 percent of poverty to 150 percent of poverty, and to subject all low-income seniors to somewhat humiliating asset tests.

When we talk about 150 percent of poverty around here, people just assume that everybody knows what that is. But most people don't. Most people don't know that 150 percent of poverty,

which is what we are talking about to be the high end of low-income seniors, is only an annual income, for a couple, of $18,000--$18,000 for seniors to live on as a couple. For singles, it would be $13,470.

One hundred-fifty percent of poverty is what we are talking about as being the high end of low-income seniors, in terms of support for these low-income individuals. I don't know about you, but that is a tough annual income to live on as a senior when you are talking about all the different expenses they have.

This would help 3 million fewer people. Going from 160 percent of poverty to 150 percent of poverty would help 3 million fewer people with their copays than the Senate bill. So I urge the conferees to allow Medicaid to wrap around the cost-sharing requirements in the Medicare bill and allow them to pay for prescription drugs, not on the private plans formulary. This is another component that is going to be very advantageous to our low-income seniors.

This low-income assistance is of special importance to our Nation's older women. Those of us, as women in the Senate, recognize how the aging population is disproportionately reflected in the number of women. I have watched my own mother, as a caregiver, taking care of my father until his death last year, and watched how she put the stresses and strains on her own health care needs, as well as her own finances, to find herself now in the aging population category, more dependent on programs than she has ever been before. So, disproportionately, when we talk about our low-income seniors and their needs, there is a disproportionate amount of those individuals who are women.

Medicare seniors are disproportionately women and they are disproportionately poor, and will be far better served by the Senate's low-income provisions on which we worked so hard to come to a bipartisan agreement.

I am concerned that private drug-only plans may not provide the stability or the predictability that seniors want and need. The insurance companies have told me they don't want to offer a prescription-drug-only plan. The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has said such a plan doesn't exist in nature.

Quite frankly, I believe we have proven that through the Medicare- Medicaid veterans programs the Government can do it in a much more cost-effective manner. But the point is, we are trying to create something that has not existed in nature, and really, quite frankly, those who are going to be there to create it don't want to do it.

I urge the conferees to take a good look at what we are providing there. That is why I am glad the Senate contains a Medicare-guaranteed drug plan, or safety net, called a fallback.

I urge the conferees again to retain the fallback and ensure that a contract is made available for at least 3 years. But the concern to come, if you are a senior out there in rural America and you choose to stay with Medicare fee for service, you have to go to one of these drug-only plans. There has to be two in your region, but one of those two could be a PPO, which means you have to shift your traditional fee for service into an overall PPO in order to qualify for that drug plan or you can go with one of those two plans. If one of them should leave, you have the option of going to the Government fallback. If one of those plans or another plan comes back next year, you immediately have to go out of the Government plan and go back into one or the other of the private plans.

Seniors are going to find from year to year those changes in their premiums, their deductibility, their formularies. They are going to find the list of physicians changing. It is really critical.

I urge our conferees to ensure the fallback is available for seniors as an option, even if the private insurers decide to test whether they want to offer a benefit in a community. Seniors should not have to have fallback plans, especially if the new private plan is significantly more expensive for them and it is more restrictive.

My third question is with regard to consistency and reliability in the Medicare Program. Based on what we know about the details of this agreement--we still have a lot of time ahead of us to be able to read and digest what has actually been negotiated out and put down on paper--it appears that the drug plans will vary throughout the country, meaning that seniors in Arkansas may have different premiums, cost sharing, and formularies than seniors in other States and in other parts of the country.

Even worse, these plans can change their premiums, cost sharing, and formularies for other years.

My question is, How does it strengthen Medicare to make the program less consistent and less reliable for our seniors?

If what we are trying to do is strengthen Medicare with a drug benefit and in the reforms we are trying to make, how does it strengthen that program if we make it more confusing for our seniors, if we make it less consistent and we make their choices less reliable?

I urge the conferees to make the prescription drug benefit less volatile for seniors. If there is anything I know about the seniors in my life, it is the confusion they see right now or which they may have to address in a package such as this. It is devastating to them. It gives them a sense of distrust. That is the last thing we want for our loved ones and those for whom we are working so hard to provide quality of life. This includes limiting variations in the amount seniors have to pay in premiums to only $10 above the national average, no matter where they live.

I, for one, think we should give seniors, most of whom live on fixed incomes, some assurance that their premiums will not vary or increase unreasonably.

I urge the conferees to ensure that those seniors who have employer- sponsored retiree coverage be able to retain it. It is pure and simple. We urge the conferees to ensure that the conference report preserve a level playing field between traditional Medicare and private insurance plans.

I am concerned--and have been--that the proposed agreement unfairly tips the deck against Medicare through the $12 billion stabilization fund that the Secretary of Health and Human Services can use to encourage private plans to participate in areas where they don't want to go. If they wanted to go, they would be there now. But we are going to use $12 billion to try to stabilize these plans to go into areas where they haven't wanted to go and where they aren't currently practicing.

The Senate bill, which we worked on in a bipartisan way, by contrast, provided billions of dollars for private plans to be able to help them in terms of incentives to come into these more difficult areas.

We also have $6 billion in there for Medicare enhancement and improvements in the traditional Medicare Program that all beneficiaries can use--not just those who happen to live in an area where private plans decide to go.

The conference agreement would allow private plans to be paid at a much higher rate than traditional Medicare with no enhancement added for beneficiaries.

I urge the conferees to consider this policy carefully. We want to make sure the traditional fee for service and the traditional Medicare that is there has the enhancement and the ability to improve itself so it can reach all of the seniors in this country, even those in the rural areas of my State and the State of the Presiding Officer and others who have multitudes of rural areas where seniors need health care.

I wish the drug bill did not have a coverage gap or a donut. I am concerned about those seniors who will hit that gap in coverage and have to continue to pay their premiums.

During debate on S. 1, I and many other Senators voted to allow employer-sponsored retiree health plan contributions to fill this gap. I also voted to eliminate the coverage gap altogether, and I voted to prevent seniors from paying premiums when they are in the coverage gap.

Unfortunately, all of these amendments were defeated, but it doesn't mean we can't still address some of these concerns. It doesn't mean our conferees can't work together and come up with some provision that can help to assist us in making sure some of these gaps, some of these holes that have been left are closed for the benefit of the seniors of this country.

I also voted for an amendment to try to contain the skyrocketing costs of

prescription drugs. Every one of us in this Chamber knows that in the next 20 years or less we are going to almost double the number of seniors putting demands on the Medicare Program. We are going to go from 41 million seniors to over 70 million seniors in this country. It doesn't matter what kind of program we put together if we don't look at trying to have some kind of handle on the escalation in costs for whatever program we have. If we almost double our number of seniors who are putting pressure on this program, we are not going to be able to afford it. It is critical that we look at ways we can make more efficient the use of the dollars that we have.

One measure I supported which passed seeks to increase access to more affordable and equally effective generic drugs--something on which I think most of us could agree.

I also voted for an amendment which failed to help consumers better compare the cost effectiveness of prescription drugs.

Finally, I also voted for a successful amendment to allow wholesalers and pharmacists to import prescription drugs from Canada which will provide substantial savings to consumers while ensuring their safety.

These are just some of those components where we in the Senate made corrections and improvements to the bill, some of which were accepted, some of which were not, but most of which I hope, as a conference, they will look at, because the bill we are trying to produce out of this conference should be a bill that will enhance a program that has done so much for all seniors and all Americans.

I urge our conferees to try to retain some of those positions that we took in the Senate; the provisions that we passed.

I look forward to hopefully seeing us complete some of those things that I think will make the bill a better bill. I know reaching this point has been a long and difficult process.

I compliment my Senate colleagues for fighting to include several good provisions that are contained in this bill. This agreement contains a comprehensive rural package that significantly decreases or eliminates the disparity of Medicare payments between rural health care providers. I was very involved in working with the chairman, Members, and others to move some of those provisions forward and certainly making sure that health care was available to seniors and to all people in rural areas.

I can't tell how necessary these provisions are to rural hospitals and physicians and ambulance providers, home health providers and rural health clinics in Arkansas and elsewhere across the country.

It is my hope that the conference agreement will also contain the Senate policy for Medicaid low-DSG States. I am glad the physicians won't receive a cut in payment but a small update as in this conference report.

I encourage my colleagues to include a physician's demonstration on chronic care management that I helped to author in the Senate Finance Committee.

If there is anything we know, it is that our seniors are having multiple chronic illnesses which they are having to deal with. If we don't look at how we manage the chronic care multiple diseases they are dealing with, we will never get the economic efficiency out of Medicare that we could.

Many of my constituents have said when they finally have gotten a coordination for their elderly loved one, it is unbelievable. They were seeing five different doctors in five different places who were not talking to one another. They did not have a nutritionist or someone consulting on depression. When they got that coordination of care, they better understood all of the chronic illnesses their loved one was going through, not to mention getting more efficiency out of the dollars they were spending in Medicare. That individual, that loved one, that elderly person was getting the quality of care they deserve in a more cost-effective way. They were able to manage all of those things in a way that was making the quality of care the best it could be.

One of the demonstrations should take place in a State that has a department of geriatrics with a rural outreach site. Rural areas are one of the most difficult areas to serve our elderly. Unless we have the knowledge of how we can coordinate the care for individuals in rural America, we will never see the efficiency we need. It is critical we have this demonstration so we can determine the healthy outcomes that result when a geriatrician is paid appropriately for caring for a patient with multiple chronic conditions.

I am also pleased the drug bill will include coverage for insulin syringes and that there is a new benefit providing screening for diabetes. Roughly 40 percent of the senior population with diabetes, or 1.8 million seniors, uses syringes every day to inject insulin to control their diabetes. Without coverage, the syringe purchases, which could be especially expensive for seniors on fixed incomes, would not count toward cost-sharing and yearly out-of-pocket expenses. The new diabetes screening benefit will help with the fact that approximately one-third of the 7 million seniors with diabetes, or 2.3 million people, are undiagnosed. They simply do not know they have this very serious condition with complications that include heart disease, stroke, vision loss and blindness, amputation, and kidney disease.

I understand there is also a provision to temporarily waive the late- enrollment penalty for military retirees and their spouses who sign up for Medicare Part B and to permit year-round enrollments so retirees can access the new benefits immediately.

It is important in seeking to strengthen Medicare we reflect on the program's origins and mission. Medicare provides health care for a special population of Americans: millions of seniors, individuals with disabilities, and people with kidney failure, those who are uninsurable in the private marketplace. Over 50 percent of them were uninsurable in the private marketplace when Medicare was started. Congress created Medicare in the first place because private insurance plans were failing to provide affordable health-care coverage for this high-risk population. Therefore, we should proceed cautiously when making major changes to the traditional Medicare Program.

In my home State of Arkansas, over 400,000 people rely on Medicare for their health insurance. Without it, they likely would be among the ranks of the uninsured. This is why I want to ensure if this bill passes it is built upon policies that will make Medicare stronger and more reliable for all of its beneficiaries, that we know as we move forward there is no possible way we could do everything we needed to do in this bill. This is not the bill I would have written, but I was not in charge. I also do not want to see a missed opportunity for being able to move the ball down the field, to do something for which seniors in this country have been waiting patiently.

Some of my colleagues will argue, don't worry, it does not take effect until 2006. Some of these things do not happen until 2010. There will be so many elections between now and then; you do not have to worry. We will change it and fix it and it will have a new appearance by the time we get there. I hope if that is what we are hanging our hat on, we can be sincere as these conferees come out with a plan that will leave intact the purpose of Medicare originally: to provide for those who were the uninsurable, the elderly, the loved ones for every one of us in this body, to make sure when the marketplace would not provide for them, there would be an honest standard benefit so they could get the quality of care, regardless of where they live in this country, that they are due for the great things they have done for our country.

I look forward to reading the legislative language in the coming days to determine my ultimate support for this bill. I hope our conferees are not finished. I hope they continue to look at the ways this bill can be improved. Our work is never done in this Senate, whether we pass a bill into law and look toward 2006 or 2010 or whenever may be that we think some of the unreasonable things in here we can shut our eyes to and move forward with, but that we can make the changes now and we can create a bill that is the best we can do, knowing it is not perfect but that it will move us forward to provide a critical prescription drugs component in the 21st century to a program we started many years ago that has meant so much to so many.

Ultimately, I must weigh whether the benefit contained in this bill to provide prescription drugs is better than no benefit at all. I hope that is not the case. I hope the case will be we have done everything we possibly could, looking at the bipartisan package the Senate passed, and how hard we worked to get there to make this final product the best it can be for some of the most special people in this country.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am proud to be here this morning to see that this age-old institution is acting as it should. We are looking at, reviewing, and exercising our constitutional responsibilities.

I am not, however, proud of the fingerpointing that is going on--as we say to young children, I hope no one's eyes get put out--and all the fingerpointing that goes on in these 30 hours of discussion and debate, the warnings we have just heard: There's a payback; there's a payback.

I do rise this morning, however, to express my extreme disappointment and dismay that we are expending such a large portion of our remaining time and energy on this unnecessary debate. We probably have only a few days left in this session to deal with important issues on which we have not yet completed action this year. How many seniors have my colleagues talked with in their travels back home to their States about the need for prescription drug coverage for our elderly?

How many of them have they talked with as they traveled with Meals on Wheels and other programs and talked with these seniors who are telling you that they are cutting their medications in half, that they are not going to be able to afford their heating bill this winter and their prescription drugs?

I implore my colleagues, how many have you talked with in your travels back home?

Looking at education funding, how many teachers have my colleagues spoken with as they traveled back home--teachers who are telling them they are going to have to spend their own money on supplies come February because they don't have enough glue and construction paper for their children or that they are having to spend an undue amount of time meeting demands that we have put on these school districts and yet have been unwilling to provide the resources for them to meet those demands?

How many of those single mothers who are working day and night to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, to leave the welfare rolls and bring dignity to their children and to put bread on the table--how many of those have my colleagues spoken with as they have traveled home to their States when we could be doing the welfare reauthorization bill and making it bigger and better than we did before?

The highway bill: How many people have they talked with when they go home to their States? I had a group come to me the other day who said: We come to you all in Congress begging every year for a few million dollars to try to create the infrastructure that we need in rural States, such as Arkansas, to improve our economy, and all of a sudden $87 billion falls out of the sky? What about us at home? Are you all going to talk about us? Are you going to bring us up? Are you going to do something about the things we need to make our lives stronger, to make our families better, to strengthen the fabric of this Nation?

Those are the issues about which we should be talking, Mr. President, and I wish we were. We have not yet completed action on all the appropriations bills. We have an Energy bill that should have been finished in 2002 to bring our country into the 21st century. For the last 25 years, we have needed a new energy policy in this country. Other countries are leaving us behind in the new and innovative ways they are looking to provide renewable fuels to improve not only their economy and their environment but to lessen their dependence on foreign oil.

These are the issues about which we should be talking, and genuine concern about what we want to do to strengthen our Nation.

We are still waiting. We are still waiting for these to be completed, time tonight that could be spent in dealing with those very important issues.

Faced with these and many other pressing issues and faced with a tight schedule, what does the leadership propose? They propose to spend 30 hours of our time, and far more time in preparation and staff hours, overtime for police officers and multitudes of others who are here for these 30 hours, debating four or five judicial nominees, all of whom have been debated, generated significant opposition where they live and work. All have been given adequate review time, and all of whom, in my judgment, should not be promoted to a lifetime appointment on the Federal bench.

Instead of focusing so much time and attention trying to promote a lifetime position for these individuals who already have very good jobs, my wish would be that President Bush and the Republican leadership would focus more of our time on issues that truly impact the lives of all of our constituents, and particularly the lives of the Arkansans I represent--issues such as creating good paying jobs in Arkansas, improving public education and expanding access to affordable health care and prescription drugs for our seniors, and, yes, providing something we all have agreed would make a big difference in people's lives: a refundable child tax credit, something that got overwhelming support in the Senate but is buried in a couple of conferences

and here, there, and yonder because it is not a priority.

Those people in this country who make between $10,500 and $26,650 are not important enough for us to deal with. Somehow they don't work hard enough, although they have to work, they have to bring home a paycheck, and they have to be raising children to be eligible for a refundable child tax credit. But for some reason, they are not a priority here anymore.

We could have done that months ago, but we didn't. Here we approach the holidays, people have been in school, a multitude of needs that families across this country have, and we fail once more to even look at the small ways we can be helpful.

There are any number of issues that merit careful and lengthy consideration in the Senate, but filling a handful of judgeships should not be given a priority given the backlog of pressing issues the Senate has yet to complete this year.

Unfortunately, this is a manufactured crisis to distract the American people from the very real crises that we are going through; the ones that we are facing, such as the fact that in the next 15 to 20 years, we are going to go from 41 million Americans over the age of 65 to over 70 million Americans over the age of 65. We as a nation are so completely underprepared for that crisis.

We have 126 medical schools in this country. Only three of them have a department in geriatrics. We are training less geriatricians, and we are training even less academic geriatricians who will teach those geriatricians who might be there to take care of me, and I am the youngest in this body.

We are so underprepared with health care, a reform in Medicare, and a prescription drug package to meet these unbelievable numbers that will cause a crisis in this country.

We are here tonight, tomorrow, until midnight tomorrow talking about four people who did not get a job they wanted. It is unbelievable.

What about our children? What about educating our children to be prepared in the 21st century, to be competitive in a global economy, teaching our children the skills they are going to need to be competitive? They are the future of this country. They are our future workers. They are our future leaders.

We came up with a great bipartisan bill to educate our kids, and we do not have the guts to pay for it. Out of the $8 billion for the education plan for our kids, we are only funding $2 billion of it from the President's budget, a quarter. I have to say, that is a misspent priority there.

We have record deficits that are going to be heaped on the shoulders of our children. Sixty-six percent of that debt comes due in 4 years. What happens to our constituents if all of a sudden somebody comes up and says, ``Guess what, your debt is due and I want it on demand. No, you cannot refinance, no way. I am going to call that debt on you''?

These are serious crises we should be addressing and we are spending our time pointing fingers and not addressing the issues of the American people.

We have a conflict in Iraq that is taking the lives of American soldiers every day, and there is no end in sight. These are crises, not the fact that four people who wanted a job did not have the support of enough Senators and that is what we are spending all this time on.

Today, 95 percent of Federal judicial seats are filled. This is the lowest number of judicial vacancies in 13 years. This 5 percent vacancy rate is lower than the U.S. unemployment rate and the poverty rate, and I know because I represent a State that is very high in poverty. I come from one of the 20 highest poverty counties in the country.

Today there are more lifetime-appointed Federal judges serving than at any time in our Nation's history. Furthermore, since President Bush was elected, the Senate has confirmed 168 Federal judges and rejected only 4--2 percent of his nominees.

By comparison, when Republicans controlled the Senate during President Clinton's administration, more than 60, or 20 percent, of his nominees never received a vote in the Senate.

Sadly, I think the Senate's record on this matter truly speaks for itself. I believe all executive and judicial nominations that come before the Senate are entitled to courtesy and respect, but I also believe the Senate's role of advice and consent is a very important check and balance our forefathers designed and instituted. It is an obligation I do not take lightly.

Senators are not elected to play a ceremonial role in the nomination process. This is not an issue of whether one likes the President or does not like the President. This is not an issue of whether one thinks these nominees are good people. They are all good people. Ours is not a ceremonial role in this nomination process. Instead, we have an obligation to carefully consider each nominee individually, to help ensure the judiciary is fair and balanced and to ensure the American public maintains faith in our judicial branch of Government. We have a responsibility to make sure these judicial nominees will not be partisan in their decisionmaking, that they will not be biased or partial to their own personal beliefs, but will institute the rule of law, the Constitution, and the precedent of the higher courts.

Given the undue attention that has been lavished on these four nominees, I certainly believe it is worth revisiting a bit of their cases just to reconsider why they have not been confirmed. In each case, it is clear each of the nominees who has not been confirmed has shortcomings that in my opinion disqualify these individuals for the important positions to which they have been nominated. This does not mean I do not think they are good people. It does not mean I do not like the President. It simply means I am doing the job the people of Arkansas sent me here to do, to evaluate these people.

When we look at Ms. Owen, after reviewing the record and meeting with Judge Owen, discussing her tenure with members of the bar who practice in Texas and in Arkansas, I was not satisfied this nominee could set aside her personal views and give each side a fair hearing. She had not in the past. In some instances, it is not just me. Judge Owen's own colleagues have criticized her failing to understand and abide by the plain meaning of statutory provisions before her as a judge on the Texas Supreme Court.

Likewise, we look at the case of Alabama's Attorney General William Pryor. He is one of the most strident and outspoken nominees we have seen. After reviewing some of the statements General Pryor has made about sitting Supreme Court Justices and the decisions of that Court, I am concerned that he does not possess the necessary judgment and temperament to be a Federal judge, to oversee that element of the judiciary.

Judge Pickering of Mississippi, who I do think is a good man, has also been invoked in this debate and his record does bring me concern. His record raises serious questions about his ethical conduct on the bench. His repeated contacts with the Justice Department in an attempt to obtain a lesser prison sentence for a convicted defendant, and his solicitations of letters of recommendation from lawyers in Mississippi who had cases before him are well-known examples.

Finally, consider the case of Miguel Estrada, who withdrew himself from consideration earlier this year. By many accounts, Mr. Estrada was a distinguished attorney with a very talented legal mind. However, when we in the Senate attempted to verify this assessment by asking Mr. Estrada to come before the Judiciary Committee to answer additional questions and submit all of the relevant information that was necessary, and the burden of proof was in his court--we asked the same of President Clinton's nominees--Mr. Estrada indicated he would rather not. To me, and many of my colleagues, Mr. Estrada's response simply was not acceptable.

It is important to note there are good, solid reasons as to why these people were not confirmed. These reasons had nothing to do with any personal beliefs or characteristics. They had nothing to do with partisanship. They had nothing to do with working against the President. I opposed these nominees because I am not convinced they meet the requirements of what is expected of those who receive a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench. That is my job.

Again, these are 4 nominees. Out of 172, 4 have not been confirmed. Do 4

nominees constitute any sort of judicial crisis? Of course not. Of course they do not. If we do math, the Senate has confirmed 98 percent of President Bush's nominees. I do not know about you, but you are right in that we do not want our automobile to work at 98 percent, but let me tell you 98 percent is pretty good. It is not 100 percent, but that makes me think about my kids. If they come home from school after they make 98 on their test, am I going to send them to their room? Am I going to punish them for that? Am I going to say, well, I cannot believe you did not do 100? No.

What I am going to do for my children is what we should be doing. I am going to sit down with them and I am going to help them reach 100 percent. I am going to work with them. That last 2 percent may be the most difficult, but the most difficult is worth working towards. When we work together, we can get there. In working together, we could reach that. But the administration does not want to do that. No, telling them they had not done good enough is not what I would do. I would work hard with them to get to where we needed to be.

It is my sincere belief if President Bush would make a good-faith effort to work with Democrats in a spirit of cooperation, all of his nominees would be confirmed, with little or no controversy or opposition. Unfortunately, it has become apparent the President is more interested in staging a fight and casting blame, which is really a recipe for gridlock. In gridlock, the only ones who get hurt are the American people.

It is disappointing the President and the Senate leadership are expending so much time and energy to secure jobs for four people who already have good jobs, particularly considering the millions of people who are out of work and finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. The people who lose out in this fictional crisis are the American people. Tying up the Senate for 30 hours on 4 judicial nominees means we are not talking about the issues that matter most to the people we represent. It means we are not talking about how we are going to finish that prescription drug bill in order to help seniors cope with the rapidly rising cost of those prescription drugs. It means we are not spending our time focused on improving our schools and educating our children, so they can get the best possible start towards competing in that global marketplace. It means we are not doing all we can to create jobs and move our economy forward. It means we are not building that infrastructure that is so necessary in rural America and elsewhere across this country.

Just this week, I learned Arkansas has experienced its highest rate of unemployment in a decade. While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle point to the improving economic indicators as evidence that the doldrums are behind us, I can assure them that for most people in Arkansas those numbers are just abstractions. They want to see jobs, and they want to see real action in the Senate to get things done on behalf of the voters who sent us here.

Unfortunately, I think we have taken this time and used it most unproductively. Many Members have come to the floor tonight to talk about the past. I have heard some very eloquent speeches about their times as pages and debates they have heard, many quoting history from centuries ago. I think the most important thing we can talk about tonight is the future. I think we must talk about the future. I think we must talk about all of these crisis issues we are faced with, and I think we must come back to our children and let that be our focal point.

All of us in this body are so blessed. I started out speaking about how blessed I feel to even be in this body, to be in this place tonight, to be a part of an institution that is so incredible that it has lasted over 200 years. We are all blessed in many things, and for whatever faults some people may find in our Government, I believe, and I think the American people believe, we still live in the greatest country on the face of this Earth.

Tonight I looked at one of my greatest blessings, my children. I put them in bed before I came over. I tucked them in. I thought about what we were going to talk about tonight. I thought about this great country we live in. I thought about the conflict in Iraq. There were mothers who were putting their children to bed tonight whose husbands may be stationed abroad. There were children who were being put in bed tonight tucked in by their grandparents because their mothers had been called up and were in a strange and dangerous land. I thought about the fact my children are so blessed to live in this country under a rule of law that separates us from the rest, a rule of law that, when it is administered without bias, without the interjection of political issues or personal views, can create security and safety. It creates freedom. It creates a life I want my children to have.

I look in the eyes of mothers across the globe who do not put their children to bed in a nice, warm home, who have not been fed. They live in violence and terrorism. They live in a land that is stricken with famine because there is no rule of law, or what law exists is implemented through a political regime. That is what separates us from them, that we have a system designed specifically to separate the political from the rule of law.

I am proud to be here. I do not have the background many of my colleagues do, having been Governors and attorneys general, having served in this body for a long period of time, but I challenge any of them to match my pride, my pride of this country and in what that rule of law represents to me, not only as an American but as a mother and as a Senator.

I have no qualms in doing my job the people of Arkansas sent me here to do, to make sure these individuals we send to the Federal bench to implement the rule of law in this Nation, the Constitution, and the precedent of the higher courts do not interject their political views, their bias, or their personal views because we know that through these years a nonbiased judicial branch of government has served us well. It is what has separated us from those countries that right now we work so hard to change.

I yield time to my colleague who I am extremely proud to serve with, the other Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern about the status of minority farmers in the United States and to indicate my hope to the chairman and the ranking member that the final Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 will include meaningful increases in programs that are priorities to the minority farm community.

It is no secret that minority farmers in the United States are an endangered species. In the early 1920s, African Americans owned between 16 million and 19 million acres of land, most of it in the rural South, which includes my home State of Arkansas. At that time, there were over 920,000 farms operated by African Americans in the United States.

However, by the end of the 20th century, African Americans owned only a quarter of the land that they had held a century prior, and the number of African American farmers in the United States had fallen from a peak of almost 1 million to only about 20,000. Scholars estimate that, between 1920 and 1940, African Americans were losing land at a rate of 350,000 acres annually.

Sadly, USDA has done little to address this issue. In fact, many people believe, and I am inclined to agree with them that, if anything, USDA has contributed to the problem. Black farmers have long alleged discrimination at the hands of the Department of Agriculture. Because of this discrimination, thousands of farmers were denied access to USDA loans and other programs and many lost their farms because of the competitive disadvantage at which this placed them.

In the 1990s, these farmers filed a class action suit against USDA seeking redress for this discrimination. As a result of this suit, USDA and the claimants entered into a consent decree. Under that agreement, hundreds of millions of dollars have been paid to African American farmers who were discriminated against by the Department of Agriculture.

While this case was a start, it can never fully compensate black farmers for their losses. In addition, it did little to address the needs of minority farmers--African Americans, Hispanics, and others, who continue to seek to farm today. We can't just look back. We must look forward to keep minorities in farming and to encourage others to begin farming. We can start with the appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. Comparing the bill before us today with the bill passed by the House of Representatives, I must say that the House-passed bill is better for minority farmers. Recognizing that money is tight and that the chair and ranking member have worked arduously to craft a bipartisan bill, I have decided not to offer an amendment to this bill to increase funding for programs that affect minority farmers, such as the Office of Civil Rights and the 2501 Outreach Program for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers. However, it is my sincere hope that as this bill goes to conference committee, the chair and the ranking member will work with their counterparts in the House of Representatives to craft a final bill that closely resembles the House bill with regards to minority farmers and civil rights at the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. President, I wish to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture to highlight a USDA agency that does extremely good work in my home State of Arkansas. First, I want to commend the chairman's efforts to provide resources to our Nation's most important agricultural and rural development priorities. It has been a difficult task and I appreciate your dedication.

In particular, I want to thank the chairman for his efforts to continue the necessary support for agricultural research, both within the USDA and with the State university partners. The USDA Agricultural Research Service is a critical agency in this effort. With the leadership of the chairman, I am pleased to note that ARS research will continue to have the strong support of Congress.

The USDA ARS has a small, but vital presence in Arkansas. For example, is the chairman aware that my home State ranks seventh in the Nation in total net farm income?

Yes. In fact, few States in the Nation, and none in the South, are blessed with a higher percentage of their economic activity dependent upon agriculture than is Arkansas. I am also aware that traditionally, however, the ARS presence in Arkansas has been surprisingly small, especially in relation to the importance of agriculture to the economy and size of your contribution to the net farm income of the United States.

Yes, that is certainly true. We are proud of the ARS presence that we do have and the impact of its research on the Nation as a whole. The research that has been generated from Arkansas locations has been of great importance to the rice, poultry, small fruits, and aquaculture industries of the U.S. Additionally, the breakthroughs in human nutrition research that have come from the ARS human nutrition center in Arkansas have been remarkable. In light of the great importance of the research work being carried out at the ARS or ARS-supported research centers in Arkansas, I urge your continued support and ask that every effort be made, including in conference, to insure that the ARS units in Arkansas enter the 2004 fiscal year with no less than the same fiscal resources that they had in 2003. Additionally, I ask the chairman's assistance in working with Members of the House who will be on the conference committee to adopt the most favorable funding recommendations that are brought into conference by either House.