Floor Statements

Mr. President, I plead with my colleagues to take a very serious look at the amendment before us. I know they are hearing differently from downtown perhaps, but I want them to take a look at a recent CBO study that has indicated to us there is negligible impact in giving parity to the fallback plan.

CBO has given us a recent study that indicates there is negligible impact on the private plans in allowing parity with the fallback plans that may be needed in some of our rural areas to ensure that all of our citizens across this great land get the same benefit in a prescription drug package.

Fifteen of our States have no Medicare+Choice or private plans currently. We know it is going to be difficult. Let's make sure a fallback plan is there for seniors, that the continuity is there for them. All we want to do is make sure they will have the same 2-year contract cycle that the private plans will have.

Again, approximately 80 percent of the people in this country are in fee-for-service plans. Let's make sure those who are in our rural States are going to see the parity in these two plans. Just remember, if the private plans are not there or happen to be there, there will be no fallback plan, so you do not have any problem with that.

I thank the Chair.

I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. President, I begin by complimenting my colleagues from the Finance Committee: Senator Grassley, our chairman; the ranking member, Senator Baucus; and all of the other members on the committee who have really focused on what is most important to the American people, and that is to get a good, commonsense product out of the Senate that encourages our seniors and lets them know that we do understand that this is a critical issue. It is critical not only in terms of the quality of life for our seniors but also in regard to economics. We want them to understand we can provide cost savings not only to our Nation but to our aging families by providing a prescription drug package which will allow them to be healthier individuals; to not cause or create greater costs for this country and for the other parts of the health care system in this great Nation through acute care or difficulties in long-term care, in nursing homes and emergency rooms, but being able to have a quality of life and providing a good economic way to deal with the aging process.

As we went through this bill in committee, we talked an awful lot about ways that we could improve Medicare; looking at coordination of care, at how we could provide a better, commonsense way of administering health care to our elderly in this country not only through a prescription drug package but recognizing that disease management is an enormous part of what we are doing for our elderly, and that with the multiple diseases they are dealing with, if we can manage that disease management of multiple diseases and have a coordination of care, we are going to get a better bang for our buck in Medicare.

I am excited about the possibilities and want to compliment my colleagues on a lot of hard work that has been done, particularly recognizing that rural areas of our Nation also have great needs. I certainly applaud the chairman and the ranking member on that.

Today I bring up several of the amendments I have to offer. Many of these amendments we discussed in the committee. In my approach in the committee I was willing to visit with the chairman and the ranking member and say I hoped we could work through whatever we needed to in order to get these passed and get them in part of the bill. Those discussions are ongoing and I compliment my colleagues for working with me on these critical issues.

Hopefully we can resolve them without going to a vote, but I want these amendments placed and filed and in the queue so my colleagues have an opportunity to comment on them and work with me in order to get them done.

Amendment No. 934, as Modified

First is amendment 934 which has already been filed. Medicare Part B does not currently cover insulin or syringes used to inject insulin for the majority of enrollees in the Medicare Program. This is a horrific oversight in a program that should be designed to deal with our elderly but, more importantly, dealing with, again, some of these diseases that are predominantly in our aging population, especially when we see that of the 7 million or so Americans over 65 with diabetes, 40 percent inject insulin every day to control their diabetes.

Providing syringes for insulin will go a long way to helping seniors keep their diabetes in control. It is a fabulous preventive measure. It is obviously a critical area of need for our seniors. The management of blood glucose levels for diabetes helps prevent long-term complications like kidney failure, blindness, amputation, and a multitude of other chronic illnesses and problems that arise when diabetes is not kept in check.

Syringes are required to inject insulin because there is no oral or inhaled form of insulin. The lack of coverage for syringes means syringe purchases will not count toward their yearly maximum out-of- pocket expenses and their copayments. This will lead to the reuse of syringes that are not FDA approved for more than one use. We recognize it is a very minimal cost to the overall package and makes a huge difference.

I encourage my colleagues to take a look at this amendment. I compliment the ranking member and the chairman for being willing to work with me as we go through this process. I hope it is something we can get accepted. If it is not, I hope my colleagues will recognize for this very small amount of money we can make an enormous difference in a huge population of our elderly who are suffering from diabetes. I look forward to working with my colleagues on that.

I call up amendment 934 as modified.

I ask unanimous consent to lay that amendment aside to proceed to the next amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that amendment be laid aside for my next amendment.

The next amendment is amendment numbered 959. I am offering this amendment that authorizes a 3-year, five-State demonstration project of direct access to outpatient physical therapy services within the Medicare Program without the sometimes burdensome requirement of seeking a physician referral.

This is not a new concept. Several health professionals currently enjoy practice without referral under Medicare for their respective scopes of practice--dentists, podiatrists, chiropractics, optometrists, nurse practitioners. They all practice independent physician referral.

Non-Medicare citizens in my State of Arkansas and 36 other states, including Iowa, Utah, Maine, Arizona, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, the home State of our Presiding Officer, Tennessee, Oregon, Kentucky, Montana, West Virginia, South Dakota, North Dakota, Florida, New Mexico, and Massachusetts, all of which have Senators represented on this committee, allow direct access to licensed physical therapists as authorized by their State law.

However, Medicare requires its beneficiaries in my home State and yours to obtain a referral in order to access the services of a physical therapist. I certainly believe it is time to study the example of the States in a demonstration project to see if the referral requirement is indeed necessary. We are talking about seniors who are striving so diligently to claim the final years of quality of life. Physical therapy, occupational therapy, vocational therapy, all of these therapies are the tools that allow these individuals to go back into their home and to live their life, with the quality of life, with the dignity they want in their end-of-life years. It is so critical they can get the necessary access to these services in order to be able to do that.

I encourage my colleagues and certainly the ranking member, Senator Baucus, and our chairman, Senator Grassley, to work with me on this program. I believe it is budget neutral. It simply is moving forward on the concept that many of our States have already embarked on. It is very practical on behalf of the aging community that we are working on right now.

With that, I call up amendment 959.

I ask unanimous consent that amendment be laid aside so I can bring up my final amendment.

Before I get to my final amendment, I want to touch on one other issue and that is the issue of our rural ambulance providers. I see my colleague, Senator Thomas. He and many others who are in the rural health caucus have done a tremendous job in working through this bill and providing great access issues for our rural areas. I am encouraging my colleagues, as well as the ranking member and the chairman, to work with us on the issue of the rural ambulance providers.

We do not have an amendment as of yet and I am hoping we can work through some of those details as we move forward in this piece of legislation. I encourage them to work with us and hopefully we can finish that on Monday and move expeditiously on a piece of legislation that will benefit all of the seniors across the Nation.

Amendment No. 963

My last amendment is an amendment we have brought on the fallback issue, which is a critical piece of this bill. I think it is absolutely essential, as we look toward making sure private industry can play a role in providing a Medicare prescription drug package. We have seen, over the course of many past years, where private industry has certainly the option, even today, to participate in Medicare and the application of it. In some of our areas across this great Nation they are reluctant to do so because the profitability is not there for them.

We want to make sure there is every opportunity for private industry to come in and provide a product for everyone across this Nation. But if, in fact, in the time it takes to implement this program certain areas of our Nation find themselves in the same predicament they are today, which is private industry does not find it quite profitable enough to come in there, we want to make sure there is a fallback. We don't want anyone left behind. We think all seniors in this great Nation are equally important. We are going to make sure, across this great Nation, if for some reason there is an area that does not meet the test for private industry, there is a fallback.

In that fallback we want to make sure they have the same contract benefit the private industry does. We have talked a little about this issue in the past. We want to make sure, as we move forward on all these issues, again, that the fallback measure that is going to be there in some of our less populated areas is going to have that 2-year contract ability.

In the Finance Committee, when we brought the bill up, we found in many instances it primarily affects our rural States, and primarily rural areas. We want to make sure we offer them the same opportunity we do in private industry.

It improves stability, provides a more stable benefit by reducing year-to-year variability in premiums and cost sharing, and provides better assurances that needed medications and local pharmacists will be covered. It improves choice. After all, that is what we are here to do, to provide our seniors with as much choice as we possibly can.

It provides that once seniors are in a fallback plan, they have the option to remain in that plan for 2 years. One of the concerns we have had in our State is that when we have seen private plans come in, they come in and then they leave and then they come back. Seniors do not know what they can depend on. They have to make different decisions. Each year, because there is no standard design here, their choices are going to be different. They are going to have different premiums, different formularies, different pharmacies they can go to. So we want to make this the least confusing possible. Providing them the ability to have the same stability in the fallback as they do in the private plans I think is very important. And I think it is fair. Therefore, we do improve on fairness, providing the seniors in the fallback plan the same rights given to seniors who are in a drug-only plan, the opportunity to stay in for that same 2 years.

Continuing the first bidding rights for drug-only plans--maintaining first bidding rights for the drug-only plans, allowing fallback plans to enter a region only after it has been determined the two private drug-only plans will not be available--I encourage my colleagues to look at this. If there are two private plans, there is no fallback. You do not have to worry about a 2-year contract. You do not have to worry about a 1-year contract. That is because the fallback doesn't even exist. These are just emergency measures, to make sure individuals in rural areas are going to get the same benefit and they are going to be covered. We are not asking anything more of a Government fallback plan than we are of private industry. If private industry is there, you do not have to worry about it because the fallback is not going to exist.

I encourage my colleagues to take a look at this. It comes at a very minimal cost. It adds substantial stability to the system and, certainly, by not costing much more in dollars.

We again plead with our colleagues to make sure those seniors in rural States will have the same benefit there as have other seniors across this great country. We look forward to working with them if there are any concerns they have.

Mr. President, I appreciate your patience in allowing me to bring before the Senate my amendments to this very important bill and to encourage my colleagues. These are probably some of the most important policy decisions we will be making. As we embark on this journey to provide a critical component of health care to an enormous population in our Nation, as far as I am concerned, one of the most important as well as the most vulnerable, I think it is critical for all of us to look at ways we can improve this bill. Once this bill is passed, once it is signed into law, are changes going to be easy to make? No, they are not. So it is critical for each of us to take the time and recognize where we can make these slight changes and improvements in a bill. It is going to make a remarkable difference in the lives of the elderly of this Nation.

I encourage my colleagues to take a look at these very simple amendments that I think will be improving amendments to a bill that is moving down the pathway, something we encourage everyone to support in the coming days as we come to completion on a remarkable piece of legislation and a remarkable help to the seniors of this Nation.

I thank the Chair and my colleagues for their indulgence today and for being able to offer these amendments.

I do so now.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, there seems to be some confusion as to the last amendment which I submitted. At this point, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw that amendment, and I will reintroduce it on Monday.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Emergency Agriculture Assistance Act of 2003 on behalf of farmers throughout the state of Arkansas.

Last month, my State was hit with devastating storms that produced at least three dozen tornadoes and as much as 20 inches of rain fall. These natural disasters occurred at the worst possible time for farmers, at the beginning of the planting season, when they need to get their crops into the ground.

This is a particularly vulnerable time for farmers, since freshly planted crops are highly susceptible to severe weather conditions.

A single day of heavy rains and high winds can undo a months worth of hard work, forcing producers to start over from scratch and replant entire fields or even entire farms.

Recently I was home in east Arkansas and saw much of this damage firsthand. To take just one example: In Mississippi County in northeast Arkansas, where Clark Long farms with his two sons, Clark Jr. and Nathan, 11 inches of rain fell in a two day period. As a result, the Longs were forced to replant 1400 cotton acres. Other farmers I have talked to are on their second or even third plantings.

Similar conditions abound throughout Mississippi County and northeast Arkansas, where historic planting deadlines have now passed. As a rule of thumb, a cotton farmer wants to have his crop planted no later than May 20th in order to maximize yields and to avoid having to harvest his crop in October. Farmers can typically expect yield reductions of up to two percent per day beyond this deadline, since late crops are generally more susceptible to weed and insect infestation and harsher weather conditions.

Cotton farming, as well as farming commodities such as soybeans, wheat, and rice, is an expensive and labor intensive process. These severe weather conditions exacerbate that situation greatly and place our farmers at serious risk.

We're going to monitor conditions throughout the year, guarding against further threats from severe weather, such as further tornadoes or even drought.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Pryor and me in passing this bill and protecting our farmers in this time of need.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Emergency Agriculture Assistance Act of 2003 on behalf of farmers throughout the state of Arkansas.

Last month, my State was hit with devastating storms that produced at least three dozen tornadoes and as much as 20 inches of rain fall. These natural disasters occurred at the worst possible time for farmers, at the beginning of the planting season, when they need to get their crops into the ground.

This is a particularly vulnerable time for farmers, since freshly planted crops are highly susceptible to severe weather conditions.

A single day of heavy rains and high winds can undo a months worth of hard work, forcing producers to start over from scratch and replant entire fields or even entire farms.

Recently I was home in east Arkansas and saw much of this damage firsthand. To take just one example: In Mississippi County in northeast Arkansas, where Clark Long farms with his two sons, Clark Jr. and Nathan, 11 inches of rain fell in a two day period. As a result, the Longs were forced to replant 1400 cotton acres. Other farmers I have talked to are on their second or even third plantings.

Similar conditions abound throughout Mississippi County and northeast Arkansas, where historic planting deadlines have now passed. As a rule of thumb, a cotton farmer wants to have his crop planted no later than May 20th in order to maximize yields and to avoid having to harvest his crop in October. Farmers can typically expect yield reductions of up to two percent per day beyond this deadline, since late crops are generally more susceptible to weed and insect infestation and harsher weather conditions.

Cotton farming, as well as farming commodities such as soybeans, wheat, and rice, is an expensive and labor intensive process. These severe weather conditions exacerbate that situation greatly and place our farmers at serious risk.

We're going to monitor conditions throughout the year, guarding against further threats from severe weather, such as further tornadoes or even drought.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Pryor and me in passing this bill and protecting our farmers in this time of need.

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

Madam President, I am rising today to encourage my colleagues. I have gotten an understanding that the Republican leadership will be meeting in the morning to talk about the conference with the House on the opportunity we have to provide 12 million children in this country some help through the tax relief package that was passed in the Senate.

I also thank my Senate colleagues for, in a resounding way, reaching out to this country and to those 12 million children, as well as their working families, and saying we do believe it is important that the tax relief package we provide be balanced both in its fiscal responsibility and in its ability to reach out to all working families in this Nation and give them the relief so that they, too, will have the opportunity to be able to participate in stimulating the economy of the country. After all, that is what we are really looking for, stimulating the economy and making sure we are strengthening our Nation. I think there is no better place to go than to the working American families.

So I encourage my colleagues today, as I come to the floor not to ask immediately but to request of the leadership, to really thoughtfully put together what it is we need to do in order to expedite moving to conference on this issue. I also plead with the President that his efforts and opportunities will certainly weigh in with the Members of the House, encouraging them to move forward. They have already voted in the House in a motion to instruct the conferees to the Senate position. This is something we can do, and do it quickly and in a very fiscally responsible manner by paying for it. But we can do something now that is going to help working families in the next several months.

It is critical, as we move forward with the previous tax package passed, to provide relief to all Americans across this great land by July 1, and that we, too, recognize not only those precious 12 million children who are out there, but the working families they are a part of, recognizing that these families are preparing in the late summer to get their children ready to go back to school. They certainly could use those resources in multitudes of ways--bringing their families together, preparing their children for the school year. We desperately want to make sure that happens.

I encourage our Republican leadership to come together to visit on moving forward in the conference, recognizing that we have a tremendous responsibility not only to the economy of this Nation, particularly in strengthening our country, but, more importantly, to the future of the country.

When you look at those who will be the future leaders of the workforce, the individuals who will be there to continue the great legacy of this land--the children of our country--we must give those working families the opportunity to take advantage of the same kind of tax relief that other families are going to be getting; they, too, have to take that opportunity to reinvest in this great country and, more importantly, in their families and their children.

So I encourage my colleagues, as well as the leadership on the other side, to make sure that in the morning they will meet in a wholehearted fashion looking for the opportunity we have before us to be fair and balanced for the multitudes of children and working families across this country.

I, too, encourage the President to weigh in on this issue. He has a tremendous opportunity to make a difference, and I hope he will choose to do so.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to Erica Buehrens, a fellow in Senator John Edwards' office, during the pendency of S. 1, the Medicare prescription drug benefit bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Improving Women's Health Act of 2003, which seeks to make Medicare, Medicaid, and S-CHIP better programs for women. I am pleased to be joined in this effort today by my friends Senators Murray, Landrieu, and Cantwell.

Women are the majority of Medicare recipients, and, at age 85, women make up 71 percent of the Medicare population. By adding several modern treatments to the list of Medicare benefits, we will begin to address some of the most prominent, underlying risk factors for illness that face women Medicare beneficiaries today. These new benefits represent the highest recommendations for Medicare beneficiaries in the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the Institute of Medicine. These benefits can help reduce Medicare beneficiaries' risk for health problems such as diabetes, stroke, cancer, osteoporosis, and heart disease.

This bill would also eliminate all cost-sharing for these and existing preventive health benefits to encourage women to get screened for diseases such as osteoporosis and breast cancer. We need to get rid of all barriers to preventative services. Studies have

shown that cost-sharing deters beneficiaries, especially those with low-incomes, from getting screened.

Because heart disease is the number one killer of women, this bill would add new preventive services to Medicare, such as cholesterol screening, medical nutrition therapy services for beneficiaries with cardiovascular disease, counseling for cessation of tobacco use, and diabetes screening.

In addition, this bill provides for coverage of annual pap smear and pelvic exams and boosts the payment amount for screening mammography under Medicare. Numerous reports in the media have indicated that screening mammography is not adequately reimbursed and, as a result, facilities are closing or ending their service. Facilities are saying that they are losing money on every patient that comes through the door, and patient load is rising.

Recognizing the role women play as caregivers for aging family members, this bill provides Medicare beneficiaries with a new option of receiving home health services in an adult day care setting. Adult day centers enable family caregivers to continue working or simply take a break from their caregiving duties. Most importantly, adult day care patients benefit from social interaction, therapeutic activities, nutrition, health monitoring, and medication management.

More than 22 million families nationwide, or nearly 1 in 4 families, serve as caregivers for aging seniors, providing close to 80 percent of the care of to individuals requiring long-term care. Nearly 75 percent of people providing care for aging family members are women who also maintain other responsibilities, such as working outside of the home and raising young children. The average loss of income to these caregivers has been shown to be over $650,000 in wages, pension, and Social Security benefits. The loss of productivity in U.S. businesses ranges from $11 to $29 billion a year. The services offered in adult day care facilities provide continuity of care and an important sense of community for both the senior and the caregiver. This important provision will benefit women of all ages.

Finally, this legislation provides States with the flexibility and Federal resources to improve and expand prenatal care for low-income pregnant women. It gives States new options to cover pregnant women under their State Children's Health Insurance Program, S-CHIP, to cover low-income legal immigrant pregnant women and children under Medicaid and S-CHIP, and to cover tobacco cessation counseling services for pregnant women under the Medicaid program. The bill also gives States the option to provide family planning services and supplies to low- income women. In recent years, a number of States, including Arkansas, have sought and received Federal permission in the form of waivers to provide Medicaid-financed family planning services and supplies to lower income, uninsured residents whose incomes are above the state's regular Medicaid eligibility ceilings. Under this section, States would no longer have to seek a waiver to extend Medicaid coverage for family planning services; instead they could establish these programs at their option.

I encourage my colleagues to join me by supporting this important legislation that will make Medicare, Medicaid, and S-CHIP better programs for all women.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Improving Women's Health Act of 2003, which seeks to make Medicare, Medicaid, and S-CHIP better programs for women. I am pleased to be joined in this effort today by my friends Senators Murray, Landrieu, and Cantwell.

Women are the majority of Medicare recipients, and, at age 85, women make up 71 percent of the Medicare population. By adding several modern treatments to the list of Medicare benefits, we will begin to address some of the most prominent, underlying risk factors for illness that face women Medicare beneficiaries today. These new benefits represent the highest recommendations for Medicare beneficiaries in the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the Institute of Medicine. These benefits can help reduce Medicare beneficiaries' risk for health problems such as diabetes, stroke, cancer, osteoporosis, and heart disease.

This bill would also eliminate all cost-sharing for these and existing preventive health benefits to encourage women to get screened for diseases such as osteoporosis and breast cancer. We need to get rid of all barriers to preventative services. Studies have

shown that cost-sharing deters beneficiaries, especially those with low-incomes, from getting screened.

Because heart disease is the number one killer of women, this bill would add new preventive services to Medicare, such as cholesterol screening, medical nutrition therapy services for beneficiaries with cardiovascular disease, counseling for cessation of tobacco use, and diabetes screening.

In addition, this bill provides for coverage of annual pap smear and pelvic exams and boosts the payment amount for screening mammography under Medicare. Numerous reports in the media have indicated that screening mammography is not adequately reimbursed and, as a result, facilities are closing or ending their service. Facilities are saying that they are losing money on every patient that comes through the door, and patient load is rising.

Recognizing the role women play as caregivers for aging family members, this bill provides Medicare beneficiaries with a new option of receiving home health services in an adult day care setting. Adult day centers enable family caregivers to continue working or simply take a break from their caregiving duties. Most importantly, adult day care patients benefit from social interaction, therapeutic activities, nutrition, health monitoring, and medication management.

More than 22 million families nationwide, or nearly 1 in 4 families, serve as caregivers for aging seniors, providing close to 80 percent of the care of to individuals requiring long-term care. Nearly 75 percent of people providing care for aging family members are women who also maintain other responsibilities, such as working outside of the home and raising young children. The average loss of income to these caregivers has been shown to be over $650,000 in wages, pension, and Social Security benefits. The loss of productivity in U.S. businesses ranges from $11 to $29 billion a year. The services offered in adult day care facilities provide continuity of care and an important sense of community for both the senior and the caregiver. This important provision will benefit women of all ages.

Finally, this legislation provides States with the flexibility and Federal resources to improve and expand prenatal care for low-income pregnant women. It gives States new options to cover pregnant women under their State Children's Health Insurance Program, S-CHIP, to cover low-income legal immigrant pregnant women and children under Medicaid and S-CHIP, and to cover tobacco cessation counseling services for pregnant women under the Medicaid program. The bill also gives States the option to provide family planning services and supplies to low- income women. In recent years, a number of States, including Arkansas, have sought and received Federal permission in the form of waivers to provide Medicaid-financed family planning services and supplies to lower income, uninsured residents whose incomes are above the state's regular Medicaid eligibility ceilings. Under this section, States would no longer have to seek a waiver to extend Medicaid coverage for family planning services; instead they could establish these programs at their option.

I encourage my colleagues to join me by supporting this important legislation that will make Medicare, Medicaid, and S-CHIP better programs for all women.

Mr. President, I give special thanks to my colleague from Montana. There are many people to thank today for moving forward in the right direction, recognizing the working families of this country. I thank Chairman Grassley, who worked tirelessly with us, as well as the ranking member, Senator Baucus; certainly the leadership on both sides, Senator Frist and Senator Daschle, who have both been willing to work with all of us to come together on this agreement.

I would also like to say a very special thanks to my colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe from Maine, who has been a wonderful colleague and certainly someone who has worked equally as hard as I have on this issue. I am very pleased to have worked with her, both now as well as in the past.

If people can go back as far as 2001, they will remember in that 2001 tax bill Senator Snowe and I worked hard to bring about the refundability of the child tax credit, recognizing and understanding working Americans all across this country, trying to raise their families, were in need of the kind of assistance that refundable child tax credit would bring to them. I am very pleased and honored to have worked with her in the great work she has done in this effort.

I am certainly pleased that we have reached this agreement to restore the advanced refundability for the child credit, for the hard work Senator Grassley has done in bringing about the uniform definition of a ``child'' in the Tax Code. To bring about those kinds of reforms are not easy steps. I think it is one of our first monumental moves in the right direction in which Senator Grassley will lead us in other reforms in the Tax Code.

Certainly this agreement is the culmination of years of effort. I would like to recognize, however, and emphasize particularly the fact that we are helping working parents and working families. I know there are some critics out there who have referred to these provisions as welfare. I just find that description so disheartening, since we are talking about 200,000 military families, hundreds of firefighters, and teachers, and other hard-working Americans. I don't think of them, or view them, as welfare recipients. I don't think they think of themselves that way.

These are taxpayers. They are hard-working families who pay sales tax, both State and local. They have payroll taxes that come out of their checks. They pay excise tax, and in

many of our rural States that is an awful lot when they travel for miles to get from their homes to their jobs.

It is so important for all of us to recognize that these taxes these individuals are paying are in equal proportion, many times, to many of the other people in different income and tax brackets, but these are taxes that never see cuts. Rarely do we see a cut in a sales tax or in the payroll tax, certainly, or in the State and local sales tax. In the excise taxes? We don't see cuts in these areas.

Therefore, it is so important that we provide the kind of assistance we can for these working families, to make sure they are going to be able to help stimulate this economy and certainly to help strengthen our country.

The news reports that followed the passage of the tax bill noted that families do receive a check of $400 in July. But they did neglect to mention those 12 million children who would not get those checks. I am so pleased that today we are recognizing it is not only an important issue to deal with, providing these 12 million children the kind of resources they need in their families to grow strong, to learn the values we want them to learn, to become good citizens and leaders and workers in this great Nation, but we are also recognizing the fairness of this issue in a timely way.

I encourage my colleagues in the House in that they have that same opportunity to recognize this is a timely issue. If we want these working families to have that same benefit, to be able to receive that tax credit, that child benefit credit in the same timely way that other individuals will receive that tax relief, then we have to do it immediately. We do have to move forward quickly.

I encourage my colleagues in the House to really take to heart the immediacy of this issue and help us move it forward quickly. The passage of this provision today is the first step in ensuring those 12 million children will also get that $400 check, or whatever check they are entitled to--and it might be more--in July, at the same time others do. Time is definitely of the essence. I call on the Members of the other body to act quickly on this bill and ensure that all of our working families will benefit.

The uniform definition of the child, as I mentioned, through Chairman Grassley's efforts and certainly those of many others, Senator Hatch and Senator Baucus, is a great inclusion in this measure.

In short, this is a targeted tax provision to help working families. It is what I have argued since we began this round of tax discussions in January, and I hope we can continue in that vein.

People ask, why is it so important? For me, that question is a very easy one to answer. Nearly half of the taxpayers in Arkansas have adjusted gross incomes of less than $20,000. Arkansas families were among some of the hardest hit when the refundable portion of the child credit was stripped from the bill. That is why it is important to me. It was important enough to bring up this issue and certainly to readdress something that did not happen in that original tax bill.

Mr. President, 76,000 Arkansas families, 132,000 Arkansas children, were left behind in that final tax bill when it was signed. If that is not reason enough for me to cause a ruckus or to be persistent, I don't know what is. I appreciate the accolades from my colleagues, but really what is more important--I think it is essential that we recognize, when we take actions such as the recent tax bill, there is a lot of importance in the details. We have to recognize that when we do not pay attention to the details, there are many individuals who get left behind, who are not going to receive those benefits. This is one of those cases.

I say to my colleagues, this is not about trying to create more debt for these children who will also inherit that debt later on; this is about taking something we could have done and we didn't, taking something we could do better, acknowledging it, and moving forward with the actions that will create that better circumstance for working families.

That is why I have been working so hard these past few weeks--and for the last 3 years--recognizing what it means to the families in Arkansas.

It is also important for all of us in the Senate, and in the Congress, as we move forward on very important legislation, such as the tax bill that was just signed into law, to put ourselves in the shoes of these families. We talk about raising our families. We talk about raising our children. We talk about what it takes to create a family atmosphere that is focused on values, that is focused on good manners, is focused on compassion and being part of a community, reaching out to one another. It means, too, that each of us has to recognize all of our families are faced with different circumstances, whether it is military personnel stationed in Iraq and leaving a wife and two children at home; whether it is a schoolteacher or a firefighter; whether it is a police officer, many of whom fall into this category that was left out--these who make $10,500 to $26,625. That doesn't seem to be a category that would include that many, but it does. These are essential people in our communities, those who are protecting us from fire and from criminal activity, those who are teaching our children, those who are stationed abroad and protecting our very freedoms. So it is so critical we put ourselves in their shoes and better understand what it is they are doing for their families.

I have to say I have a good opportunity because when I take care of my family, I try to stop and think: Are there other mothers out there doing the same thing I am? Is it any different for a mother who is in the Senate than it is for a mother who is making $20,000, when you go to the store and you have to spend that week's paycheck on blue jeans and tennis shoes, a set of tires to make your automobile safe to get your children to and from school or yourself to and from work? There is not a lot of difference, regardless of who you are. Giving these individuals the ability to take care of those family needs is critical.

We have not even talked about the aspect of how this can be a stimulative partner in what this overall tax bill was meant to do. It was meant to stimulate the economy. Why do we want to stimulate the economy anyway? We want to stimulate the economy because we want to strengthen our country, because we believe in this country and we believe in what makes up this country. There is no better place to look, in order to do that, than the American family.

So I praise my colleagues today for recognizing that there are a world of families out there we can help today--mothers and fathers, working hard, playing by the rules at their jobs. They are not eligible for these credits unless they are working, unless they are bringing home earnings, and unless they have children.

There is a whole group of individuals we could help here by giving them the opportunity to give something back to their country in strengthening this economy. Who else is going to be there to purchase the majority of items that will spur our economy and spur those companies that need to be driven?

In conclusion, I applaud all of my colleagues. This has been a unified effort among many people to try to do the right thing. I think, after all, that is what we are here in the Senate to do--the right thing on behalf of the working families of this great Nation.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in strong support of the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from Nevada. This proposal to overturn current law that prohibits concurrent receipt of retired pay and disability benefits for military retirees with 20 years of service is long overdue. I believe the current policy is unfair and that our military retirees should receive their entire benefits package, just as any other Federal worker would.

Last year, the administration and leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees negotiated a compromise that partially repealed the dollar-for-dollar offset for certain military retirees who also receive VA disability pension benefits. Although the passage of this provision represented a step in the right direction, I recognize that many veterans who sacrificed to defend our freedom did not benefit under the compromise signed into law last year. That is why I am proud to support, once again, the amendment before us today to fully repeal the dollar-for-dollar offset.

I have the highest respect for the men and women who have served our Nation in uniform. I congratulate the Senator from Nevada for his leadership on this important issue and I am pleased to join him and others today in honoring the sacrifice of the veterans in my State who have served our Nation so well.

Mr. President, first, I compliment my colleagues, the chairman and ranking member of the Energy Committee, for doing such an incredible job on an Energy bill that is so needed in this great country. For the last 25 years, I think we have really begun to see the growth in our Nation and recognized the need for a modernization of our energy policy in this country. I think these Senators have done an excellent job in bringing together a diversity of issues, certainly in recognizing the need for renewable fuels, in looking at how we can work with cleaner burning fuels, the diversity of energy sources and resources that we can use in this great Nation. I applaud them for their hard work and diligence in that.

It is so important in our State. In Arkansas, both as a consumer as well as producer of energy, and certainly in terms of the rural nature of our State, so much of what is in this bill is going to be very productive for what we want to see happening, not only in the State of Arkansas but across this great Nation in new and innovative energy policy.

Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 1308

Mr. President, I also would like to talk about something that has been on the minds of many of my colleagues as well as others across this great land. After we finished the growth package the week before we took our break, I had many concerns about what we were doing in that growth package and what we were trying to do, what supposedly was our objective in terms of stimulating the economy. I think it is so important to recognize the reasons why we wanted to stimulate our economy in this country. I think that really is to move forward the growth of this great Nation.

I think we need look no further than the American family if we want to understand why we want to stimulate growth in this great Nation to stimulate the economy. That is why I introduced the Working Taxpayer Fairness Restoration Act. I offered this bill on behalf of nearly 12 million children who were left behind when President Bush signed the 2003 tax bill. There were many of us who were very anxious to make sure we had a fairness in that stimulus package and in that tax bill; that there was a balance between fiscal responsibility and tax relief that would be available to all families.

I have introduced the bill with many of my good friends, including Senators Snowe, Warner, Jeffords, Rockefeller, Collins, Reed, Bingaman, Landrieu, Johnson, Harkin, Kennedy, Pryor, Breaux, Edwards, Clinton, Corzine, Durbin, Sarbanes, Kerry, Lieberman, Schumer, Lautenberg, Mikulski, Reid, Graham of Florida, Baucus, Leahy, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Levin, Carper, Hollings, Biden, Specter, Cantwell, Daschle, Stabenow, Dodd, Conrad, Voinovich, Akaka, Dorgan, Kohl, Chafee, Feinstein, and Boxer.

This bill would restore a provision left on the cutting room floor when the House and Senate leaders finalized the conference report on the tax cut.

Our bill will restore the advanced refundability of the child tax credit. My friend from Maine, Senator Olympia Snowe, and I have worked since 2001 to ensure all working families benefit from the child tax credit. We worked very hard to ensure in the 2001 tax cut that the child tax credit was refundable.

During the Finance Committee deliberations on this year's tax bill, I successfully offered an amendment that would have advanced the refundability of the child tax credit. Regrettably, that provision was dropped in conference.

Really, unless we pass this bill we have introduced soon, families with incomes between $10,500 and $26,625 will not get that $400 check that will be mailed in July as part of the 2003 tax bill. Since nearly half of the taxpayers in Arkansas have an adjusted gross income of less than $20,000, Arkansas families are among the hardest hit by this omission in the new tax law.

Consider this: The base pay for a private in the military, serving in Iraq, is just under $16,000 per year. The average Arkansas firefighter makes between $22,000 and $25,000 a year. Many of those enlisted men and women, who could be given a few days' notice before being shipped off to war, and those firefighters who could get no more than just a few minutes' notice before rushing into a terrorist attack--they all have families, or many of them do. They work hard to support their families and to protect us. Yet they got left out when negotiators shook hands over that final tax bill.

I was not in the room during those negotiations in the dark of night, and I understand very few of my colleagues were. But we are here today. We are all here in the Senate, working today, united, hopefully, in our effort to fight for these working families.

Advancing the refundable portion of the child credit to cover these families will cost only $3.5 billion--just 1 percent of the entire cost of that tax bill. This measure had strong bipartisan support in the Senate, I am proud to say. I was proud to play a leading role to expand the child tax credit in the Senate bill. I am glad to have bipartisan support in my efforts on the bill that we have introduced to restore this provision.

We will pay for this tax relief for working families by shutting down some of the Enron-related tax shelters. This pay-for was included in the Senate version of the 2003 tax bill that has already received the blessing of the majority of the Senate Members. Especially as our Nation contends with a sluggish economy, we should ensure that everyone benefits from the tax cut. After all, buying blue jeans for schoolchildren, washing powder for the laundry, or tires for the car costs just as much for a family making $20,000 a year as it does for a family making $100,000 a year. If we want to get our economy back on track, we need to make sure we are putting money into the pockets of consumers who will spend it.

This is not about partisanship. It is not about who is going to win here or lose here today or in the next coming days. That is certainly evidenced by the cosponsorship of this bill. What this is about is doing what is right for the families who may need a little extra help, families who are working hard, day in and day out, playing by the rules, bringing home a paycheck and trying to raise their children the best way they know how: with good values and good examples.

We should fix this problem--not in the future, not next year, not sometime down the road. We need to fix this and correct this inconsistency immediately. We have an opportunity to do what is right on behalf of the working men and women in this country who are working hard, creating a face for this Nation in the next 20 years.

What is our Nation going to look like in the next 20 years? What are the values of the leaders of tomorrow? These faces and these values are in the children we are raising today. It is not too much for this body, or the coequal body of the House, to say the time is right, to put our money where our mouth is, to give these hard-working families the opportunity to get a little extra--a little extra of the incredible amount they pay into the system, a little bit extra to raise those children the best way they know how.

I started by saying the initiative to stimulate the economy in this country was an initiative, I think, based on what we all wanted to achieve: Not just to stimulate the economy but to strengthen our Nation. And, once again, we have the opportunity, and we need to look no further than the faces of our children and the workers of the American family in order to be able to do that.

Let us make these American families our priority today.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to calendar No. 52, H.R. 1308, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to end certain abusive tax practices; that the Lincoln substitute amendment, which is at the desk and is a modified version of S. 1162, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to accelerate the increase in the refundability of the child tax credit, be considered and agreed to; that the bill H.R. 1308, as amended, be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or debate, on behalf of working American families.

Mr. President, with all due respect to my colleague, I reserve the right to object.

Yes. I object.

I would like to comment. I think I know what the chairman is doing. I would like to comment that we did provide pay-for in our bill. My concern for what he has offered is that it is going to add another $90 billion or $80 billion to unpaid debt in this country, for which I don't believe there is a pay-for.

I respectfully object.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman and my good friend, who is a diligent worker on behalf of children. I know his concern for the children of this country. I would like to express to him that in the counterproposal that has been offered, it was not my intent to look for an attempt or an excuse to reopen the tax package or to spend an additional hundred billion dollars. I simply felt very compelled--that with a small portion of this bill that could be rectified to make sure these working families in America could get the same benefit from this tax bill that everybody else will on July 1--to think this was an easy opportunity for us to do that. We had a pay-for that was reasonable and something that the rest of the Senate had already agreed to and that Senators probably felt very comfortable with. It was simply an opportunity to express to those families that we certainly believed they were a priority and that we could support them in this effort.

I appreciate the remarks of the Senator very much. I thank the Chair.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield? Not only do they pay payroll taxes, but they also pay sales tax when they buy new tires for that vehicle. They pay excise taxes. For people who live in States like ours which are predominantly rural, who have to drive great distances to their jobs, perhaps, when they pump gasoline, they are paying an excise tax. They pay property taxes and also they have to pay State income taxes in some instances that are different from Federal income taxes.

The Senator from North Dakota makes some very good points. These are taxpayers, hard-working people trying to raise a family, playing by the rules, and they are paying taxes.

I would like to ask the Senator, when was the last time you saw anybody offer up a tax cut on their sales tax or on their excise tax or on the other taxes they do suffer from or that they are burdened with?

In other words, they are going to see all the tax increases but never see any of the tax decreases or the tax benefits, if we do not look to making these child tax credits refundable to those 12 million children who are out there, in these families who are continuing to pay not only payroll taxes but the sales taxes and the excise taxes and everything else out there. The Senator makes an excellent point.

Yes.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from Nevada and California, and all of those who have come to the floor today to talk about a very important issue.

I also compliment my colleague, Chairman Domenici, as well as the ranking member, Senator Bingaman, for an incredible effort on our Energy bill. There is no doubt that we need to address the energy needs of this country. We have for the last 25 years tried to modernize what we do in energy. I think this bill is an incredibly important bill. I hope my amendment does not in any way diminish my support for what the chairman is doing in moving forward on the Energy bill. It is equally important to the working families of this great Nation that we address those issues and look at ways of finding alternative fuels. Lord knows, for those who pay the bill at home--the last time I paid my gas bill, it was enormously high, and for American families as well. When we look at an opportunity for an energy package, such as the chairman is bringing to us, we can certainly provide for our families some of their capabilities to raise their family and be productive and strengthen this great country in which we live.

I hope the chairman can understand. I noticed his disappointment as we shifted off that amendment. I, too, was disappointed. I was disappointed when this child credit bill was taken out of the bill in the dark of the night--something that was important to so many families across this Nation.

I also want to plead with those who are disappointed. We have shifted off only for a moment. We will return tomorrow and go vigorously at this Energy bill. We only have a limited amount of time.

This tax package was signed into law. Many individuals will reap its benefits come the first of July. But these 12 million children and their families will not get those benefits on July 1 unless we act quickly.

Certainly, we all know that when we have made mistakes, or when we have done something which we think we could have done better, what do we do? We immediately try to correct it. We don't sit around as it becomes worse; we deal with that issue.

That is all I have been asking. This is an appropriate bill. It is a revenue measure, and it is appropriate for me to bring up an amendment such as this.

Again, I don't want those who are working so hard and who have invested so much time, as I have, too, on the Energy bill to think we are trying to divert any of that attention. We are simply trying to correct something that was done incorrectly.

We only have a limited amount of time. We want to make sure that these families are given the same benefits and the same opportunities this tax bill will give other Americans to infuse the economy, to help grow the economy of this great country and, thus, strengthen our Nation.

We talk about it time and time again. I hope as we reflect on these families that we are actually trying to help those working families who are making between $10,500 and $26,625. These are the families who have been left out. I promise you, these people do pay taxes. Although they may not fall into the category of paying enormous income taxes, think of the sales taxes they pay, think of the excise taxes they pay, think of the property taxes they may pay, and think of some of the State taxes they may pay. They are paying taxes that are consuming a lot of their take-home pay. The problem we have is that they are trying desperately and passionately to raise their children with the same values you and I have.

Why does it come to my attention? It is because of the time I have spent at home over the past 2 years shadowing welfare moms as we were debating the welfare reform package, recognizing that it is as painful for that welfare mother leaving a crying child at daycare as it is for me, a Senator.

This past spring break, I spent my time traveling around the State of Arkansas visiting with workers. But then I, too, had to put on my hat and became a mom. I had to go and purchase blue jeans for my children. I had to buy tires for my car because my husband told me I had to--not because I wanted to spend my money there but because he told me it was for the safety of our family. We needed new tires. I had to put a new battery in my car--all of these things, none of which I did that was any different than any other working mom, no matter how much that working mom makes.

All we are doing is asking for fairness in a package that is there to stimulate the economy. And for what reason? So we can strengthen our country. Not only do we want to give these families the capability to provide for their children in a way that is going to make their children stronger Americans, smarter Americans, healthier Americans, more safe Americans, but we want to give them the opportunity to participate in strengthening this country. This is not a handout. This is reaching a hand to our neighbors--those who are doing the same things we are doing: Raising our children and strengthening our families.

I plead with my colleagues. If we notice something that we haven't done as best we could do it, let us fix it. Legislation is not a work of art; it is a work in progress.

A lot of my colleagues agree with me. I have 49 cosponsors since we introduced the bill yesterday. Six of them are Republicans. It is bipartisan. I don't want this to be a partisan issue. I want this to be a strengthening issue; that we in the Senate believe our working families mean enough to us that we are going to share with them less than 1 percent of this tax bill to help them raise their families, to buy those tires, that washing powder.

I paid the bill for my children's lunch tab at the school. None of these things is any different for these working families. We have to know that. We as a Senate have to know that. We can't sit on the pedestal and forget there are people out there trying to raise their families. We talk about values. We talk about how we want these children to be healthy, we want them to be tomorrow's leaders, we want them to have the compassion and the values that we talk about on the floor of this Senate.

My friends, the best way we can teach them that is to walk our talk, to

live these issues, to reach out to these working men and women of America, and say that our families are not just important to us, but your family is just as important; giving you this assistance to be the best families you can possibly be is a priority for us, a priority enough that we are going to take a few minutes out of our busy day on the floor of the Senate and correct something that we could have done better. We are going to take those few moments and make that happen. Then, we are going to resume our business with this Energy bill, and we are going to go back to our business of making the energy policy of this country even better for you, too.

So I hope my colleagues will not take this incorrectly. This is not about slowing down a train or missing the train stop. This is about reaching out to the working men and women of this country and saying: My children are not only important to me, but your children are equally as important to me. And I want to do all that I can to give you the ability to be the best parent and for you to have the best family that you possibly can.

To affect the lives of 12 million children--12 million children of working American families--is our opportunity this evening and tomorrow. These are people who are working. They are bringing home a paycheck, sometimes working two jobs, with both parents working perhaps. They have children.

I hope that as a body we will not miss that opportunity to move forward, show our great Nation--and other nations, too--that when we talk about our children and their future, when we talk about the future of this country and the role we have to play globally in the future workforce of America and the future leaders of America, that we do believe it is a priority, priority enough to stop for a few moments and correct something we could have done better.

Mr. President, I hope we will have multitudes of opportunities, as we move forward, to make a lot of things better, but in this opportunity here today and tomorrow as we begin to look at this issue and the bill that I have introduced, and that many of my colleagues have joined me in, I hope they will continue to join me in moving forward and doing what we can for the 12 million children who live in the working families of this great Nation, who have been left out of this tax package, to give them the relief and the opportunity to help grow and strengthen our country.

Thank you, Mr. President.

M. President, I am proud to introduce today the Working Taxpayer Fairness Restoration Act. I offer this bill on behalf of the nearly 12 million children who were left behind when President Bush signed the 2003 tax bill.

The bill that I am introducing, with many of my good friends, including Senators Snowe, Warner and Jeffords, will restore a provision left on the cutting-room floor when House and Senate leaders finalized the conference report on the tax cut. Our bill will restore the advanced refundability of the child tax credit.

My friend from Maine and I have worked since 2001 to ensure that all working families benefit from the child tax credit. We worked to ensure in the 2001 tax cut that the child tax credit was refundable. During Finance Committee deliberations on this year's tax bill, I successfully offered an amendment that would have advanced the refundability of the child tax credit. Regrettably, that provision was dropped in conference.

Unless we pass the bill that I am introducing today, families with incomes between $10,500 and $26,625 will not get the $400 checks that will be mailed in July as part of the 2003 tax bill. Since nearly half the taxpayers in Arkansas have adjusted gross incomes less than $20,000, Arkansas families are among the hardest hit by this omission in the new tax law.

Consider this: The base pay for a private in the military is just under $16,000 per year. The average Arkansas firefighter makes between $22,000 and $25,000 a year. Many of those enlisted men, who could be given a few days' notice before being shipped off to war, and those firefighters, who could get no more than a few minutes' notice before rushing into a terrorist attack, have families. They work hard to support their families and to protect us. Yet they got left out when negotiators shook hands over the final tax bill.

I wasn't in the room during those negotiations in the dark of night, and I understand that very few of my colleagues were. But we are here today, united in our effort to fight for these working families.

Advancing the refundable portion of the child credit to cover these families will cost only $3.5 billion--just 1 percent of the entire cost of the tax cut. This measure had strong bipartisan support in the Senate, and I was proud to play a leading role to expand the children tax credit in the Senate bill. I'm glad to have bipartisan support in my effort today to restore this provision.

We will pay for this tax relief for working families by shutting down some Enron-related tax shelters. This pay-for was included in the Senate version of the 2003 tax bill, so it has already received the blessing of a majority of the Senate.

Especially as our nation contends with a sluggish economy, we should ensure that everyone benefits from the tax cut. After all, buying blue jeans for schoolchildren, washing powder for the laundry or tires for the car costs just as much for a family making $20,000 a year as it does for a family making $100,000. If we want to get our economy back on track, we need to make sure that we're putting money into the pockets of consumers who will spend it.

This isn't about partisanship--as is evidenced by the cosponsors of this bill--it is about doing what's right for

families who may need a little extra help. We should fix this problem immediately. Let's make these families a priority now.

M. President, I am proud to introduce today the Working Taxpayer Fairness Restoration Act. I offer this bill on behalf of the nearly 12 million children who were left behind when President Bush signed the 2003 tax bill.

The bill that I am introducing, with many of my good friends, including Senators Snowe, Warner and Jeffords, will restore a provision left on the cutting-room floor when House and Senate leaders finalized the conference report on the tax cut. Our bill will restore the advanced refundability of the child tax credit.

My friend from Maine and I have worked since 2001 to ensure that all working families benefit from the child tax credit. We worked to ensure in the 2001 tax cut that the child tax credit was refundable. During Finance Committee deliberations on this year's tax bill, I successfully offered an amendment that would have advanced the refundability of the child tax credit. Regrettably, that provision was dropped in conference.

Unless we pass the bill that I am introducing today, families with incomes between $10,500 and $26,625 will not get the $400 checks that will be mailed in July as part of the 2003 tax bill. Since nearly half the taxpayers in Arkansas have adjusted gross incomes less than $20,000, Arkansas families are among the hardest hit by this omission in the new tax law.

Consider this: The base pay for a private in the military is just under $16,000 per year. The average Arkansas firefighter makes between $22,000 and $25,000 a year. Many of those enlisted men, who could be given a few days' notice before being shipped off to war, and those firefighters, who could get no more than a few minutes' notice before rushing into a terrorist attack, have families. They work hard to support their families and to protect us. Yet they got left out when negotiators shook hands over the final tax bill.

I wasn't in the room during those negotiations in the dark of night, and I understand that very few of my colleagues were. But we are here today, united in our effort to fight for these working families.

Advancing the refundable portion of the child credit to cover these families will cost only $3.5 billion--just 1 percent of the entire cost of the tax cut. This measure had strong bipartisan support in the Senate, and I was proud to play a leading role to expand the children tax credit in the Senate bill. I'm glad to have bipartisan support in my effort today to restore this provision.

We will pay for this tax relief for working families by shutting down some Enron-related tax shelters. This pay-for was included in the Senate version of the 2003 tax bill, so it has already received the blessing of a majority of the Senate.

Especially as our nation contends with a sluggish economy, we should ensure that everyone benefits from the tax cut. After all, buying blue jeans for schoolchildren, washing powder for the laundry or tires for the car costs just as much for a family making $20,000 a year as it does for a family making $100,000. If we want to get our economy back on track, we need to make sure that we're putting money into the pockets of consumers who will spend it.

This isn't about partisanship--as is evidenced by the cosponsors of this bill--it is about doing what's right for

families who may need a little extra help. We should fix this problem immediately. Let's make these families a priority now.

Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the remarks made by Senator Pryor. This is a matter that I discussed with Senator Inouye last year during the consideration of the Defense appropriations bill. For reasons unknown, environmental restoration of the former Eaker Air Force Base has languished for over a decade. It is past time to address this issue. It is time to clean up this land and enable the people of Blytheville to find new tenants that can contribute to the local economy.

The people of Blytheville deserve Federal assistance to clean up the asbestos left behind by the Air Force. For 50 years, residents of Blytheville proudly support Eaker Air Force Base as home to a group of strategic air command B-52 bombers and more than 3,000 military personnel, before its closure in 1992. Before the closure, the military accounted for 15.2 percent of personal earnings, the largest of any industry in the county.

Through industrial expansion at the Arkansas Aeroplex, I believe significant strides can be made to turn the economic situation in Blytheville around. The Aeroplex is home to a 2-mile runway. In fact, the runway could serve as an alternate landing site for the NASA space shuttle. The potential for new business is abundant, but the opportunities are hampered because of the asbestos-filled buildings.

I look forward to working with Senator Pryor on this matter, and I hope our colleagues from the Senate Armed Services Committee will assist us on this issue.