Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Blanche Lincoln, to honor Dr. Bart Barlogie.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to publicly commend Dr. Barlogie for his unyielding dedication and stalwart leadership in the field of oncology research and treatment. His hard work has led to the development of innovative and comprehensive approaches to treatment of patients with multiple

myeloma, which has translated better therapies, prolonged remission rates for cancer survivors and improved the quality of life for many of his patients. Moreover, his commitment may ultimately lead to a cure for the most challenging and misunderstood of all cancers.

On May 8, 2004, Dr. Barlogie was awarded the International Myeloma Foundation's Second Robert A. Kyle Lifetime Achievement Award. This award, which is being given for only the second time, recognizes the significant and revolutionary work of his professional career. This award follows an already long and distinguished line of accomplishments.

Arkansas was well on its way to becoming the center for myeloma clinical research and treatment when Dr. Barlogie accepted the position of director of hematology/oncology, and director of research at the Arkansas Cancer Research Center, (ACRC), at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, (UAMS, and founding director of the Myeloma and Transplantation Research Center, MTRC, within the ACRC. His research team has developed innovative and comprehensive approaches to the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma. Because of his leadership role in the area of myeloma research and treatment, he was named the first director of a newly established Myeloma Institute for Research and Therapy.

During Dr. Barlogie's 15-year tenure at UAMS, more myeloma patients have been treated in Arkansas than anywhere else in the world. Yet, despite his gains in this area, myeloma continues to affect thousands. This year, approximately 15,000 Americans will be diagnosed with myeloma. Looking to the future, Dr. Barlogie envisions a satellite- based intensive training program which will reach physicians worldwide so that many of these patients treated at the institute will have access to specialized medical care upon returning to their home States or countries.

Of paramount importance to Dr. Barlogie are his wife Kathleen and their three children, Britta, Eva, and Bart. He loves them dearly and credits their support for his success. They have made their home in Little Rock, AR, and have added a number of their own contributions to our community and State.

We thank Dr. Barlogie for making Arkansas the center of his professional and personal life. His past and future achievements have truly helped make the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, the Arkansas Cancer Research Center, and the Myeloma Institute for Research and Therapy very respectable among the premier health care institutions in the State. More importantly, through his work, Dr. Barlogie has had concrete and positive impacts on the everyday lives of thousands of his patients. His commitment to this cause is incredible: he is saving lives and providing hope for millions more.

Mr. President, this week marks the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court decision that ultimately ended legal segregation in schools and helped catalyze a better education for all of America's children.

This landmark decision was the first significant action by an institution of national government in the struggle for equality. However, it would be naive to believe that Brown erased the hatred and ignorance that black families faced when testing their rights to a better education. One of the most dramatic examples occurred on September 24, 1957 when President Eisenhower ordered federal troops to Little Rock, AR to allow nine black children, the Little Rock Nine, to attend the all-white Central High School.

Of her experience, Melba Pattillo Beals of the Little Rock Nine recalls: ``I had to become a warrior. I had to learn not how to dress the best but how to get from that door to the end of the hall without dying.'' Her act of courage, and those of the other eight students who integrated Little Rock Central, helped change history for all Americans in a tale that continues to have immediacy.

Another one of those students was Ernest Green, who best explains why the Little Rock Nine sacrificed their innocence for a chance at a better education. He said, ``We wanted to widen options for ourselves and later for our children.'' Mr. Green was the first black student to graduate from Central High School. He later served as Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Affairs under President Jimmy Carter and now serves as the vice president of Lehman Brothers.

Turning opportunity into achievement is what civil rights pioneer Daisy Bates had in mind when she helped the Little Rock Nine break down the barriers that stood between them and an equal education. Despite threats on her life and financial ruin, Daisy Bates made significant strides in the courtroom and increased public awareness through her newspaper.

Mr. President, as a former student of Central High, I can tell you the impact of the Little Rock Nine is still felt in the hearts of its student body and teachers past and present. In 2007, Central High will commemorate the 50th anniversary of its desegregation crises. The National Park Service plans to build the Little Rock Central High School Visitors Center in time for this watershed anniversary, and I will be urging my colleagues to support funding for this endeavor later this year.

What we know today is that children all over America have the right to learn--whether their ancestors came to America on slave ships or the Mayflower. What we know today is that we all benefit when we learn together and work together for a common purpose. What we know today is

there are more black doctors, lawyers, judges and elected officials than ever before. What we know today is that there is more equality and more opportunity for all children.

But what we don't know, what we still question is whether we have really achieved the inclusion, equality and diversity in our schools that the Court intended when it struck down the ``separate but equal'' doctrine and required the desegregation of schools across America. I do not believe we have met the promise of Brown yet.

I am concerned that many public schools in Arkansas and around the country remain segregated by race and class, still unequal in regard to performance and resources. Today, a fourth-grade Hispanic child is only one-third as likely to read at the same level as a fourth grade white child. Only fifty percent of African-Americans are finishing high school, and only 18 percent are graduating from college.

We must do better, and President Bush and the Congress can do better by keeping the promises made to parents and students when it passed the No Child Left Behind Act. We must live up to this promise, and provide every child access to a quality public education. Daisy Bates, the Little Rock Nine and countless civil rights leaders did not endure hardship and sacrifice for us to fail now.

Mr. President, on this landmark anniversary, let us stand together to celebrate how far we have come. But let us also acknowledge the problems that stand in the way to a better education for all children. And let us commit ourselves to preparing our children for today's expectations and tomorrow's challenges.

Mr. President, I rise to indicate my full support for the passage of this legislation, H.R. 3104, which requires the President to establish separate campaign medals for service members who participate in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom. My good friend and colleague, Congressman Vic Snyder of Arkansas, has worked tirelessly to pass this measure in the House. Congressman Snyder is a man of character and conviction, and he has worked to develop a bill that rightly recognizes the service of our men and women in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

This bill truly is a credit to his leadership and his ability, and once again he is demonstrating his effectiveness in the Congress.

I am a cosponsor of S. 2262, the Senate companion measure offered by Senator Bingaman, who has also shown great leadership on this issue. I want to acknowledge that and thank him for championing this measure in this distinguished body.

This is a solid measure. The Senate Armed Services Committee, whose chairman is in the Chamber today, Senator John Warner, my distinguished colleague from Virginia, has shown tremendous leadership over the last several months and even over the last years as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The committee has passed identical language in the Defense authorization during the committee markup. The committee also reported favorably H.R. 3104.

This bill was not intended to replace the administration's Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal. Instead, it complements the Global War on Terrorism Medals by providing additional separate campaign medals that would be awarded to qualified service members.

As we view and read about the difficulties that our troops are facing in Iraq, we see the camaraderie that exists between people who have served in the same war. There is definitely a unique bond. Separate campaign medals for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom honor those two distinct and separate military campaigns.

Separate campaign medals provide our men and women in uniform who serve in these operations with tangible acknowledgment of their duty to their country. I think this humble token of acknowledgment is the least we can do, and I urge my colleagues to support this very important bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend my colleagues, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and the senior Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, for their work on a very important piece of legislation that is so vital to many parents, teachers, school administrators, and most importantly, children in the State of Arkansas and across this country. It is especially important that on issues such as this we have bipartisan cooperation, and I thank my colleagues for ensuring that cooperation and the quick action we have seen on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act yesterday and today.

I have heard from many of my constituents about IDEA, and they have expressed a wide range of concerns about various aspects of the legislation, from discipline, to due process, to funding, to individualized education programs. And we all know that no one got everything they wanted from this reauthorization. But that is the nature of compromise. That is the nature of legislating in this body. It is my hope that we can find more opportunities to work in the bipartisan manner that Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg demonstrated in managing this bill.

Just to remind my colleagues, though I know they do not need reminding, because so many of them hear

the same concerns I do from their home States, we cannot overstate how important IDEA is to so many and how it touches the lives of our children every day. I would like to relate the comments of one of my constituents, Tracey Smith, of Springdale, AR.

Ms. Smith's son, Kyle, is an 8-year-old who has been the beneficiary of IDEA since 2000. Kyle's family moved from Texas to Arkansas during the middle of a school year, and Ms. Smith called me to talk about how IDEA has helped Kyle and to talk about some of her concerns with the pending reauthorization. She stressed how important yearly IEPs were for her son and how short-term goals were so vital to her son's long- term achievement. It is important that IEPs continue to be revisited on a yearly basis, and I am encouraged that we have managed to ensure this important aspect of special education will remain in the Senate legislation.

Furthermore, Ms. Smith was nervous that people in Washington, who do not experience on a day-to-day basis the trials parents and children have to face, would not understand how changes we make affect their daily lives. IDEA has provided much-needed flexibility for parents, and this legislation continues in that manner. As Ms. Smith told me:

As a parent I appreciate and value the freedom that IDEA

gives parents and educators to address an individual child's

needs.

And that is what this is about, individual children and individual parents. It is about addressing their educational needs and concerns, addressing their daily struggles in the hopes that we can make their lives a little more normal, even if it is only for 1 day. I admire parents like Tracey Smith, and I commend her for having the courage to remind us of the effect we have on persons we may not always know.

I know there will be many issues related to civil rights, discipline, due process, and highly qualified teachers to address in the conference with the House of Representatives. I hope they are resolved in the same bipartisan manner in which this bill was crafted in the Senate and with parents and children in mind. We have worked hard to ensure civil rights protections for children and parents, and I hope they are not diminished. We have worked hard to craft discipline provisions that protect all of our children while understanding disabled children have special needs, and I hope we can continue to ensure the safety of our schools. We have worked hard to include protections for due process, and I hope any differences are resolved to ensure parents know and understand their rights under the law without giving unfair advantage to any one party. We have worked hard to make sure our children have proper instruction, and I hope we continue to ensure proper instruction without discouraging individuals from entering the field of special education. Most of all, I hope we have a finished product that all parents, educators, and, most importantly, children can benefit from.

This is a bipartisan bill, and I am pleased with the progress we have made in the past couple of days in regards to funding, ensuring services to our military families and homeless and foster children, and reducing burdensome paperwork for our teachers. I am, however, disappointed that we failed to make full funding mandatory. Senators Harkin and Hagel have worked very hard to ensure the Federal Government lives up to the promises we made to our disabled children, parents, and schools almost 30 years ago. I was very pleased to join in that worthy cause, and I will continue to work with my friends on both sides of the aisle until we meet our commitments. As we in this body are all aware, funding is not always the answer, and it is never the only answer. But many times we see that inadequately funding the mandates we force on States and local districts are such a large piece of the puzzle. We cannot honestly say we are doing all we can to advance education for disabled children unless we meet those funding commitments. It doesn't do us any good to educate some and leave others behind. Instead of providing opportunity for many of our children, we are closing doors to them. Instead of educating and instructing future productive citizens, we are, in some cases, neglecting those who will become dependent on Government and those who will live a life of despair.

I believe fully funding IDEA is not just a commitment we have made, but also an investment in our children. By appropriating the necessary funds to fully fund IDEA, we can provide our teachers the tools and resources they need to do what they do best--educate all of our children to the extent that they not only participate in but contribute to society. It is an investment we should and we can afford to make. Several of my colleagues made the point that by making full funding mandatory, Congress would somehow lose the ability to revisit and change the adjustments we have made in this legislation. I disagree. I would ask my colleagues, when has Congress failed to address problematic aspects of any piece of legislation when it was so warranted? When has the Congress given up oversight of any area of responsibility? I would venture to guess that mandatory funding of IDEA would not prevent this body from revisiting IDEA if and when it becomes necessary.

We have made progress toward living up to our commitments in recent years. We should be proud of that progress. In fact, when IDEA was brought into existence in 1975, Congress funded less than 7 percent of the excess costs to schools for special education. In 2004, we funded close to 19 percent of excess costs. We have made progress, no one denies that, but as the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, so eloquently pointed out: We should not be concerned with what we have done. We should be concerned with what we will do now to reach our commitments. I commend this body for realizing we need to do more for special education. But if we continue to make piecemeal increases in IDEA, we will never reach full funding under current law. I hope in the coming months and years we can make progress toward fulfilling the 40 percent commitment. We can do better. We can do more. And I commend and thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their leadership and commitment to this issue.

Mr. President, our men and women serving in the military are the defenders of freedom and security around the world. The special role they play demands that they be ``on call'' to serve our Nation at points all over the globe.

The unique nature of their job has resulted in a unique and, I must say, very complex compensation package. The various types of compensation and benefits oftentimes create an especially difficult burden, especially when it comes to filing their tax return.

Through the years, Congress has periodically passed laws that recognize the special needs of our military and to lessen administrative burdens on them.

During consideration of such a bill last year, I approached the distinguished chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley, and ranking member of that committee, Senator Max Baucus, and asked them to join me in an effort to get a fresh look at the overall picture of how the Tax Code treats our military.

I was pleased when they agreed to join me in this work, and I was delighted to jointly request an expedited study by the GAO. It has been an honor to work with them and their staffs throughout this process, and I believe our work will produce good things for our military.

Yesterday, GAO released a report as a result of our request. The report raises many interesting findings, but there is one especially important issue that demands our immediate attention. Mr. President, I want to discuss the problem identified by GAO, and then I will introduce a bill to correct the inequity that has been documented.

The problem identified by GAO is the result of complex interactions between the combat zone exclusion under section 112 of the Internal Revenue Code and the earned-income tax credit and the child tax credit.

Under the combat pay exclusion, a very important benefit provided by Congress, military pay earned--including basic pay, bonuses, special pay and allowances--is excluded from taxable income while members of the military are serving in a designated combat zone.

That is right, Uncle Sam doesn't impose taxes on military pay for those serving our country in combat zones--and rightfully so.

However, income excluded under the combat pay provision is also excluded from income for the purpose of computing the earned-income tax credit and the child care credit.

As a result of this, thousands of men and women serving in combat, in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places around the globe, will see a reduction or elimination of their earned-income tax credit or the child tax credit and, in effect, because of how these interact, will lose money. In other words, the Tax Code has the impact of penalizing them because they are serving in combat zones. That is the opposite effect intended by Congress.

The GAO report characterizes this result as an ``unintended consequence.'' I call it a wrong, and I urge my colleagues to join me in fixing this glitch as soon as possible.

The urgency of this situation is highlighted especially when you focus on those of our troops which this affects.

We are talking about troops who tend to be in combat for more than 6 months, who are not making much money, who have families to provide for and have little or no savings or little or no spouse income.

I am going to repeat that. We are talking about a clear wrong in the Tax Code that takes money away from men and women serving this Nation heroically and in dangerous places such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

The GAO analysis suggests the amount of the tax benefit loss enlisted personnel could face is up to $4,500 and $3,200 for officers. This is real money, make-or-break money, to many of these families who are already under an enormous amount of stress. This money will make a real difference and we need to get about the business of fixing this problem as soon as possible.

To correct the unfairness of current law, I am introducing the Tax Relief for Americans in Combat Act. The bill allows men and women in uniform serving in combat to include combat pay for the purpose of calculating their earned income tax credit and their child tax credit benefits. In other words, they will be able to continue receiving their rightful combat pay exclusions while having the ability to take full advantage of other tax credits. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. It will make a real difference for thousands of military families across the Nation.

I thank Liz Liebschultz and Christy Mistr of the Finance Committee staff for their advice and counsel in helping me sort through this matter in generating this GAO report. They did the work in drafting the provisions of this bill to make sure these provisions could be adopted by the Senate as soon as possible.

Also I want to recognize the GAO team which put this report together, because they did a lot of work on this: Jim White, Derek Stewart, Lori Atkinson, Jennifer Gravelle, John Pendleton, Sonja Ware, and James Wozny. They did a great job in preparing this report and I appreciate their hard work.

While we found this tax breakdown in the GAO report, there is also a lot of good news in the report regarding the compensation of our military personnel and I hope my colleagues will take time to review what the GAO says in all the information provided.

During a time of war, I do not want to lose sight that the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Senator John Warner of Virginia, and the ranking member, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, are taking care of our troops financially.

One thing we talked about in the Armed Services Committee is recruiting and retention. Are we going to be able to meet those two objectives for our military? Well, I think today with this bill we can send a clear message to our youth and our enlisted personnel that a military career is an amazing option, and the compensation is such that it can compete with the private sector.

There is a real problem with our Tax Code that needs to be fixed immediately and the good news is, it can be. The bill corrects a problem and lets our troops risking life and limb know while they are away fighting for us, fighting for freedom and democracy, we will be in the Senate fighting for them and fighting for their families.

I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation and also to consider cosponsoring this bill with me.

I ask unanimous consent that a GAO summary, and the text of the bill, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, our men and women serving in the military are the defenders of freedom and security around the world. The special role they play demands that they be ``on call'' to serve our Nation at points all over the globe.

The unique nature of their job has resulted in a unique and, I must say, very complex compensation package. The various types of compensation and benefits oftentimes create an especially difficult burden, especially when it comes to filing their tax return.

Through the years, Congress has periodically passed laws that recognize the special needs of our military and to lessen administrative burdens on them.

During consideration of such a bill last year, I approached the distinguished chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley, and ranking member of that committee, Senator Max Baucus, and asked them to join me in an effort to get a fresh look at the overall picture of how the Tax Code treats our military.

I was pleased when they agreed to join me in this work, and I was delighted to jointly request an expedited study by the GAO. It has been an honor to work with them and their staffs throughout this process, and I believe our work will produce good things for our military.

Yesterday, GAO released a report as a result of our request. The report raises many interesting findings, but there is one especially important issue that demands our immediate attention. Mr. President, I want to discuss the problem identified by GAO, and then I will introduce a bill to correct the inequity that has been documented.

The problem identified by GAO is the result of complex interactions between the combat zone exclusion under section 112 of the Internal Revenue Code and the earned-income tax credit and the child tax credit.

Under the combat pay exclusion, a very important benefit provided by Congress, military pay earned--including basic pay, bonuses, special pay and allowances--is excluded from taxable income while members of the military are serving in a designated combat zone.

That is right, Uncle Sam doesn't impose taxes on military pay for those serving our country in combat zones--and rightfully so.

However, income excluded under the combat pay provision is also excluded from income for the purpose of computing the earned-income tax credit and the child care credit.

As a result of this, thousands of men and women serving in combat, in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places around the globe, will see a reduction or elimination of their earned-income tax credit or the child tax credit and, in effect, because of how these interact, will lose money. In other words, the Tax Code has the impact of penalizing them because they are serving in combat zones. That is the opposite effect intended by Congress.

The GAO report characterizes this result as an ``unintended consequence.'' I call it a wrong, and I urge my colleagues to join me in fixing this glitch as soon as possible.

The urgency of this situation is highlighted especially when you focus on those of our troops which this affects.

We are talking about troops who tend to be in combat for more than 6 months, who are not making much money, who have families to provide for and have little or no savings or little or no spouse income.

I am going to repeat that. We are talking about a clear wrong in the Tax Code that takes money away from men and women serving this Nation heroically and in dangerous places such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

The GAO analysis suggests the amount of the tax benefit loss enlisted personnel could face is up to $4,500 and $3,200 for officers. This is real money, make-or-break money, to many of these families who are already under an enormous amount of stress. This money will make a real difference and we need to get about the business of fixing this problem as soon as possible.

To correct the unfairness of current law, I am introducing the Tax Relief for Americans in Combat Act. The bill allows men and women in uniform serving in combat to include combat pay for the purpose of calculating their earned income tax credit and their child tax credit benefits. In other words, they will be able to continue receiving their rightful combat pay exclusions while having the ability to take full advantage of other tax credits. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. It will make a real difference for thousands of military families across the Nation.

I thank Liz Liebschultz and Christy Mistr of the Finance Committee staff for their advice and counsel in helping me sort through this matter in generating this GAO report. They did the work in drafting the provisions of this bill to make sure these provisions could be adopted by the Senate as soon as possible.

Also I want to recognize the GAO team which put this report together, because they did a lot of work on this: Jim White, Derek Stewart, Lori Atkinson, Jennifer Gravelle, John Pendleton, Sonja Ware, and James Wozny. They did a great job in preparing this report and I appreciate their hard work.

While we found this tax breakdown in the GAO report, there is also a lot of good news in the report regarding the compensation of our military personnel and I hope my colleagues will take time to review what the GAO says in all the information provided.

During a time of war, I do not want to lose sight that the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Senator John Warner of Virginia, and the ranking member, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, are taking care of our troops financially.

One thing we talked about in the Armed Services Committee is recruiting and retention. Are we going to be able to meet those two objectives for our military? Well, I think today with this bill we can send a clear message to our youth and our enlisted personnel that a military career is an amazing option, and the compensation is such that it can compete with the private sector.

There is a real problem with our Tax Code that needs to be fixed immediately and the good news is, it can be. The bill corrects a problem and lets our troops risking life and limb know while they are away fighting for us, fighting for freedom and democracy, we will be in the Senate fighting for them and fighting for their families.

I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation and also to consider cosponsoring this bill with me.

I ask unanimous consent that a GAO summary, and the text of the bill, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I notice that today we have a number of schoolchildren watching the proceedings. It is always great to have people here watching in on us and watching what we do and hopefully keeping us accountable. I hope they realize and appreciate the greatness of the Senator from West Virginia and his wisdom and counsel. I hope they also will recall the teaching in the Bible about respecting your elders. I can say that there is no Senator in this body that we, the body,

have more respect for than the Senator from West Virginia. So we thank him for those comments.

Mr. President, today I rise to talk about the ongoing war in Iraq, but more importantly to recognize a few of those soldiers who sometimes get lost in the mounting rolls of casualty listings and to speak to the reality of war as seen through the eyes of a State that has a long tradition of sending young men and women onto the battlefield.

I have been in every county in my State many times, and I cannot think of one county in Arkansas that does not have some sort of war memorial. In fact, most of those are at the county courthouse. In fact, War Memorial Stadium is in Little Rock; it is where the Razorbacks play their games. You can go all over the State and see memorials to men and women who have served and died in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam, and now we are adding memorials for those who have died in Iraq. In fact, in some parts of Arkansas, you can visit the graves of Revolutionary War soldiers who actually--even though Arkansas wasn't even a State or a territory during that time, we have taken those graves, honored them, and we are proud that they migrated to the area known as Arkansas. We feel connected to the Revolutionary War through them.

Sometimes it is easy to feel disconnected from the war effort. Even though there is 24-hour news coverage dominated by visions of our men and women in uniform fighting for freedom in Iraq, the pictures, words, and stories can have a numbing effect. We start paying attention to other matters, and we try to live our daily lives and try to put the echoes of war in the background. But sometimes all it takes is one event to snap us back, to grab our attention and make us more attuned to the conflict we face.

The tragic events in Iraq in April have brought with it 115 American military fatalities; major combat in Fallujah; and a rush of kidnapping, bombings, and other insurgent attacks that have terrorized not just American soldiers but innocent Iraqis.

April has also brought our full attention as a Nation back to the war in Iraq. Almost a year later, we fully realize there is still work to be done militarily and diplomatically, and that our mission is not yet accomplished.

As for the citizens of Arkansas, we have in the past few weeks experienced both the joy and pain that is associated with being a standard bearer for freedom and democracy. We are a country that has and will continue to risk life and limb, not only to protect our freedom and liberty but to extend those same opportunities to all people in all places. It is something of which we can and should be proud. But as we know, it often comes with the most precious sacrifice.

On April 22, we were fortunate enough to welcome home 106 Army National Guard soldiers, members of the 1123rd Transportation Company based in Marked Tree, AR, and Blytheville, AR. Also, more than 60 Army Reserve soldiers from Company C of the 489th Engineer Battalion returned to their home bases in Arkansas last week after spending more than a year in Iraq. These units spent more than a year in Iraq helping rebuild Iraqi cities, providing protection and logistical support, and destroying enemy weapons.

I commend these men and women for their brave service. Some of them were away from their families for far longer than they expected, but they are now home, and I, along with all Arkansans and all Americans, welcome them back.

Mr. President, while Arkansans rejoiced in the news of having a collection of our men and women return safely, we at the same time faced the harsh reality that some of our men and women would pay the ultimate sacrifice for freedom.

On Saturday, April 24, four soldiers, all members of the Arkansas Army National Guard's 39th Infantry Brigade, were killed in Taji, Iraq, as a result of hostile fire when rockets hit their camp. An additional soldier was killed a day later when a roadside bomb detonated near Sadr City.

To let my colleagues know, there are approximately 4,200 troops in the 39th Infantry Brigade, including about 2,800 Arkansans from 47 hometown units. The balance of the troops are from 10 other States.

The 39th was officially called to active duty last September, and I watched their progress as they trained and prepared to fulfill their mission.

In January, I traveled to Fort Hood, TX, to visit troops from the 1st Cavalry Division and the 39th Infantry Brigade. During my trip, I witnessed demonstrations of topnotch training and cutting-edge equipment that will enable these soldiers to successfully carry out their mission in Iraq.

I again visited them at Fort Polk, LA, with other members of Arkansas's congressional delegation. I was truly proud of what I witnessed. I saw Arkansans who had undergone long days of training and preparation and were aware of the dangerous conditions and challenges that lay ahead for them in Iraq. However, they remained in high spirits and were determined to carry out their mission.

I am inspired by these men and women, patriots all, who have taken determination and commitment to a new level. I know the sacrifice and the dedication of the 39th will help bring stability and democracy to the streets of Iraq.

We wished these soldiers well, knowing it was a matter of days before they would be sent to Iraq. In March, they were sent over. Since their departure, we have all gone to bed with prayers in our minds and hope in our hearts that all the members of the 39th would return home safely. The events of the past few weeks have prevented this from happening, although we remain hopeful.

I stand here today to extend my deepest sympathies to their families and honor them for their commitment and sacrifice. The brave men and women who have surrendered their lives this weekend so others might enjoy freedom include:

U.S. Army CPT Arthur ``Bo'' Felder, 36, of Lewisville, AR. He had served in the National Guard since 1986, a year after he graduated from Lewisville High School. Felder served as a youth director at St. Luke Missionary Baptist Church in North Little Rock.

U.S. Army CWO 3 Patrick Kordsmeier, 49, of North Little Rock, AR, who died tending the soldiers injured in the first blast when he was killed by a second attack. He was up for retirement before the war in Iraq began, but he asked for an extension so he might serve. He was born in Little Rock. He reminds me of that phrase in the Bible where it talks about there is no greater love than one who lays down his life for a friend. That is exactly what he did;

U.S. Army SSG Stacey Brandon, 35, of Hazen. He was a prison guard for the Arkansas Department of Correction and later worked at the Federal prison in Forrest City;

U.S. Army SSG Billy Orton, 41, of Humnoke, AR. His wife and children reside in Carlisle, AR, and his mother in Hazen;

U.S. Army SP Kenneth Melton, 30, of Batesville, AR. Melton was traveling as part of a protection team with battalion leaders when a roadside bomb exploded, taking his life.

The events of this past weekend almost double the number of troops my State has previously lost during the war in Iraq. Arkansas has lost eight soldiers prior to this weekend.

To put this in perspective, no single day during Vietnam saw as many Arkansans killed by hostile fire as this past Saturday. In fact, Saturday's events are the bloodiest for Arkansas's soldiers since December 2, 1950, when five Arkansans were killed during combat in Korea.

I also honor the other eight soldiers who gave their lives during combat in Iraq. They include:

U.S. Army SFC William Labadie, 45, of Bauxite, AR, who died 2 weeks after being deployed. Labadie was also assigned to the 1st Cavalry, 39th Brigade, Troop E-151 Cavalry, Camp Taji in Kuwait;

U.S. Army SP Ahmed ``Mel'' Cason, 24, died on April 4 in Baghdad. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division in Fort Hood. Cason grew up in McGehee and many of his relatives now live in Maumelle, AR;

U.S. Army 1LT Adam Mooney, 28, of Cambridge, MD. His helicopter went down in the Tigris River in Mosul,

Iraq, during a search for a missing soldier. His wife now lives in Conway, AR;

U.S. Army MSG Kevin Morehead, 33, a special forces soldier from Little Rock who had previously received a Bronze Star with valor in Afghanistan, died on September 12, 2003, from hostile fire in Ramadi, Iraq;

U.S. Army SP Dustin McGaugh, 20, of Derby, KS, died on September 30 in Balad, Iraq. His mother resides in Tulsa, OK, and his father in Springdale, AR. McGaugh grew up in Springdale and joined the Army ROTC after he graduated from high school in 2001;

U.S. Army PFC Jonathan M. Cheatham, 19, of Camden, AR, my father's hometown. He was assigned to the 489th Engineer Battalion, U.S. Army Reserve, North Little Rock, AR. He was killed while riding in a convoy that came under a rocket-propelled grenade attack on July 26 in Baghdad;

U.S. Marine Corps PFC Brandon Smith, 20, of Washington, AR, died March 18, 2004, in Qaim, Iraq, on the eve of the anniversary of the war. He was trying to help comrades under attack when he was killed by mortar fire;

U.S. Navy Hospital Corpsman Third Class Michael Vann Johnson, Jr., of Little Rock, AR. He was the first Arkansan to die during Operation Iraqi Freedom. In fact, one of my staff in Little Rock was visiting a doctor several days ago and it so happened he started talking to the woman who was assisting in the doctor's office, and it was Michael Vann Johnson's mother. It happened to be the 1-year anniversary of his death in Iraq.

We have not lost nearly as many as other States, but our loss is just as real. The grieving is just as sorrowful, and the fear that there may be more coming is just as frightening, but our resolve is just as strong.

This is a very real war for the people of my State. It impacts every community. It seems as if everybody in my State knows of someone who has served, is serving, or who will serve in Iraq.

We might not all agree on how we got where we are. We might not all agree with all the decisions that have been made by this administration. But we stand behind our troops and are truly inspired by their dedication. We are proud of our professional soldiers, Guard members and reservists who left behind their families and way of life to fight in a land that is not theirs for people they do not know.

The soldiers we have lost will never be forgotten. They, along with all our soldiers, will be remembered for their strength and dedication in bringing independence to the Iraqi nation, and they will be defined as heroes of the 21st century.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to ask the Senator from California a question. I have been reading in the business magazines and the newspapers about the jobless recovery we are having and I wonder, if the Senator from California feels so passionately about creating jobs in this country, if she could give me a historical perspective about what we are talking in job creation in the last 3 years.

If the Senator will yield for another question, I notice in all the statistics, small business is the sector of the economy that creates jobs and R&D is critical for creating jobs; also, the area we are struggling in in this country is manufacturing jobs.

Again, the Senator from California is so passionate on this issue. I would like to hear the Senator's perspective and how this amendment will help those sectors.

Madam President, will the Senator would yield for another question?

So it seems you are providing tax relief for companies that are trying to, in effect, stimulate the economy and trying to create jobs in this country. Again, as I understand economic principles and the reality of this economy, it is small businesses that create jobs in this country. With all due respect to the top 500 or 1,000 companies--we love to have them, and I am proud of what they do--it is the small

businesses, when you are talking about the bread-and-butter job creation, that do that.

I know the Senator's amendment would help small businesses considerably, not just in the manufacturing sector but in other areas.

I would just like you to comment on that.

Madam President, I just have one more observation to make, and I will be glad to yield the floor. It seems to me our economy is changing. As a Congress, we need to recognize that, we need to understand that, and try to harness that change in a positive way for our economy.

One area our economy has changed quite a bit in the last several years is we have gone more and more to a service-oriented economy rather than just purely a manufacturing economy. Back in the 1960s, the Congress passed something called Trade Adjustment Assistance. What it did is it provided sort of a package of various programs for workers who had been dislocated--who had been downsized, in today's vernacular.

What I think we ought to do, and what this amendment does--and I think it is very smart to do this and move in that direction--is it gives workers in the service industries those same TAA benefits.

The reason I think that is important is because a much larger percentage of our economy is now based on the service industries, and what we are seeing is the trend that those service jobs are moving offshore. We have heard about call centers and other things going offshore. That is exactly what we are seeing.

So, here again, the Boxer amendment acknowledges the economic reality today and tries to help people who need help most.

Mr. President, last year right about this time I stood in the Senate chamber questioning why an administration that talks so much about the importance of homeland security and first responders would submit a budget that so drastically shortchanges their needs. I find myself 1 year later still asking the same questions but hearing no good answers.

Specifically as it pertains to community policing and other law enforcement programs, this budget shortchanges smaller communities and grossly under funds programs that have put more police officers on the street, reduced crime in rural areas, curbed drug abuse and put at-risk youth back on the right track.

Instead of strengthening these programs--programs that we know work-- we are pulling the rug right out from under our communities' feet. Under the budget proposal, the COPS program would see a reduction from $756 million to $44 million--a staggering 94 percent cut.

Let me be clear: Taking away COPS funding will mean less police officers on our streets; it will mean less resource officers in our schools preventing violence and drug abuse; It will also mean longer response times and higher crime rates. This is tradeoff we should never even consider, yet alone go through with.

Since 1994, my State received $88.4 million in COPS grants, which has funded 1,289 additional police officers and sheriff deputies, 112 school resource officers and more than $11 million in crime-fighting technologies. Arkansas is not alone; I ask if there is a Senator among us that would contest that their State has benefited from the COPS program.

We can't be serious about law enforcement by paring this successful program to $44 million. Texas alone received nearly $30 million from the COPS program last year. How are we going to fund the entire country's COPS needs using the budget of what just one State received last year?

When I was the Attorney General of my State, I worked closely with law enforcement to make Arkansas a safer place to live and raise a family. One thing I know for sure, these police officers operate under tight budgets with smaller staffs than most of their urban counterparts. Nevertheless, they put their lives on the line every day and we need to make sure they have adequate resources to do their jobs properly.

I recently talked with several Arkansas police chiefs about the proposed cuts to the COPS program. They told me how important this program was in their continuing battle to stop the production of methamphetamine throughout Arkansas.

Chief James Allen of the Bentonville Police department said the COPS program has been the biggest single factor in helping his region fight the environmental and social problems created by methamphetamine use.

Last year alone, Arkansas police shut down 1,208 meth labs, but more are popping up each day.

Methamphetamine spreads so easily because it is cheap and easy to produce. It is also extremely addictive and it is tearing rural communities apart. Law enforcement officials have told me that if Congress reduces COPS funding by 94 percent, we would effectively decimate their ability to battle this deadly drug.

These law enforcement officers are making a huge difference in our communities and on top of that, they play the integral part in our homeland defense as first responders.

COPS grants have played a critical role in providing additional manpower, technology and training--all of which are necessary to enhance community security and contribute to the overall goal of national domestic preparedness. The Chief of Police in Pine Bluff, AR Daniel Moses characterized his Homeland Security Overtime grant as a godsend.

September 11 made us acutely aware of the need of genuine partnerships that involve all segments of our communities and all levels of government--we all have a role in keeping our community safe.

Our local law enforcement must be able to respond to whatever may confront them in the future, but how can they properly respond, when they are given a budget that cuts deep into their existence?

I would also like to note that in my State, a number of police officers on the front lines of crime prevention are also fighting on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are pulling double duty for our country in the Reserves and National Guard. But at the same time, their absence has spread our police forces even thinner.

We need to build on what we know works. These law enforcement programs work. But don't take my word for it. Take the word of Attorney General John Ashcroft who said not two years ago:

Since law enforcement agencies began partnering with

citizens through community policing we've seen significant

drops in crime rates.

Mr. President, our communities, the people we represent have truly benefited from these programs and taking away its funding would be a major step backwards in our efforts to fight crime.

Mr. President, I have an amendment today that deals with IRA accounts. I would like to set up a situation where people who have exhausted their unemployment benefits--they are entitled to no more unemployment benefits--could access up to $15,000 in their own IRA account--it is their own money--in order to meet whatever short-term needs they have. We have already done this in other context. We have done this when it comes to first-time homeowners. We have done this sending your children to college. But now the Senate needs to give strong consideration to expanding this for people who have exhausted their unemployment benefits. Right now you have a fairly hefty penalty, and there are tax consequences for doing that. I would like to suspend those.

But today, because the hour is late and because we are working with everybody here, I want to just announce to my colleagues that I will be working on this and be looking for the very next available legislative vehicle to get this done.

Hopefully at some point in the next few weeks I will offer this amendment. I will ask for a rollcall. I will not do it tonight. But I want to ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider it. I think it is something that has value and something that we can do to possibly help thousands, maybe tens of thousands or more Americans get through this very difficult time.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to allow my staff member, Derrick Freeman, the privilege of the floor.

Madam President, in the year 2000, there were 38 million families in this country who owned an individual retirement account or participated in an employer-sponsored retirement savings plan. Since then, unemployment has climbed to 8.3 million people, with more than 1.9 million individuals unemployed more than 6 months.

Six months without work is a long time, and it is enough time for people to lose their homes, give up their health care, run through their savings, and ruin their credit for many years to come. I know this because I hear from people in Arkansas who have gone from living the family dream, to living off of their families, and eventually living off of Government help.

To add salt to the wound for many unemployed Americans, those individuals who are fortunate enough to have an individual retirement account are penalized a minimum of 10 percent if they withdraw funds from their account.

Recognizing that some significant events might require people to withdraw money from their retirement accounts earlier than expected, Congress has on previous occasions provided exceptions to the 10- percent early withdrawal penalty; for example, buying their first home or maybe even sending their children to college.

I am offering a commonsense amendment that could make a real difference for individuals who have invested in their IRA but have exhausted all of their unemployment benefits while searching for a job.

I am asking Congress to make another exception because our job creation figures continue to disappoint, economic growth continues to linger, and our manufacturing jobs continue to leave the country. I think these are significant events as well.

My amendment is a sense of the Senate and allows individuals who have exhausted their unemployment benefits a one-time withdrawal of up to $15,000 from their IRAs, tax free and without penalty, within 1 year after their unemployment benefits end.

In many cases, my amendment would free up enough money for a few months of rent or mortgage payments, child care expenses, groceries, and other living expenses.

Regardless of what you believe, regardless of your party affiliation, we cannot dismiss these new numbers by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that indicate the average length of unemployment in this country is at a 20-year high.

We cannot expect Americans to be patient as they watch their bills pile up, and we cannot tell these families to keep their fingers crossed any longer while we do nothing to help them. After all, this money in their IRA accounts is their money. Imagine a family whose breadwinner is now on the unemployment rolls, and he or she has this retirement nest egg sitting there and they have some real needs in the family but they cannot touch their own money without penalty or paying taxes on accessing that money.

Madam President, I ask my colleagues to express their support tomorrow for the individuals who are in a tough position because of tough times and allow them to use funds from their own IRAs without penalty.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, 1 year ago this month, a powerful new force joined together and it has since swept through the neighborhoods in Arkansas. Its members said enough to the homicides plaguing our streets, enough to the violence in our schools and homes and enough to standing by to watch our communities crumble.

Members of the community saw that although African Americans comprised 12 percent of the national population, a staggering 45 percent of all murder victims in 2002 were black. A resounding 91 percent of those murders were incidents of black on black crime.

Homicide was and is still literally tearing apart African-American families, serving as the leading cause of death for black men ages 15 to 24, and the second leading cause of death for black women of the same age group. Black-on-black crime remains an epidemic, having a devastating impact on our families and ultimately compromising the safety and quality of life in my great State of Arkansas.

One year ago this month, community leaders, faith leaders, government officials, community organizations, and businesses did more than just say enough is enough. They formed the Black on Black Crime Coalition to inform and educate the citizens of Little Rock about black-on-black crime, but also to implement programs and initiatives to reduce homicides, reduce violent crimes and take back their streets and neighborhoods.

I am proud to be a partner of this coalition, to join with coalition members and its wide array of partners and raise public awareness about black-on-black crime. The coalition has spent its first year creating and supporting intervention and mentoring programs, conducting workshops for community organizations, supporting neighborhood associations, implementing youth programs and lobbying elected officials to implement policies for effective change. The coalition is working through the statistics, trying to understand the systemic causes, determining the solutions and reversing this epidemic that is stealing away our future leaders.

This January, in Arkansas, we celebrate Black on Black Crime Prevention Month. The coalition has organized a month filled with ceremonies, roundtable discussions, town meetings, and prayer to help meet its mission. By all means, these efforts are contributing to a better understanding of the challenges that Arkansas' black communities face each and every day, but we are also learning and implementing strategies to beat back and overcome these challenges.

As the former attorney general of my State, I have worked closely with law enforcement officers and the community to make Arkansas a safer place to live and raise a family. As a Senator, I have continued to fight for legislation, programs, technology and budgets to accomplish this goal. And I pledge to continue this commitment.

It is a tremendous responsibility that the Black on Black Crime Coalition

has accepted. I commend the members of this coalition for their dedication and teamwork, and congratulate them for several meaningful and successful events during this year's Black on Black Crime Prevention Month and for their unyielding efforts throughout the year.

Mr. President, yesterday we celebrated the life and legacy of a great man, a bold leader who inspired courage, unity and compassion. He changed the path of America's conscience, and he left his mark on Arkansas in so many ways. Dr. King time and time again came to the aid of Arkansans and supported others who were making significant sacrifices for civil rights.

In May of 1958, Dr. King stood in the audience at Central High School to witness the graduation ceremony of Ernest Green from Little Rock Central High. Ernest was the first of the nine black teenagers who integrated Central High School in 1957. Ernest, along with Elizabeth Eckford, Gloria Ray Karlmark, Carlotta Walls LaNier, Minnijean Brown Trickey, Terrence Roberts, Jefferson Thomas, Thelma Mothershed Wair and Melba Pattillo Beals shaped history by valiantly attending a previously all-white school.

Of her experience, Melba Pattillo Beals recalls:

I had to become a warrior. I had to learn not how to dress

the best but how to get from that door to the end of the hall

without dying.

These students' selfless act of courage changed history for all Americans in a tale that continues to have immediacy today.

As a student of Central High, I can tell you the impact of the Little Rock Nine is felt in the halls and in the hearts of its student body and teachers today.

Central High was designated as a unit of the national park system in 1998. In 2002, over 24,000 people visited the historic site with estimates of a potential 60,000 visitors by 2007. Incidentally, 2007 will be the 50th anniversary of the 1957-1958 Little Rock desegregation crises.

Dr. King was a man of eloquent and powerful words, and he exemplified his principles of love, tolerance, reconciliation and equality. As we all know, he sacrificed his life to usher in opportunity and freedom for all individuals. I remind my colleagues that we must do more than quote the empowering words of Dr. King. We must do more walking and less talking. As we honor Dr. King, I must approach a subject that has been so heavy on my mind.

I am disappointed to learn that the $267,000 that I requested for planning the National Park Service's Little Rock Central High School Visitors Center was not funded in the Interior Appropriations bill, as I and other members of the Arkansas congressional delegation had hoped it would be.

The conference report notes that Central High was authorized in 1998 and that the general management plan was completed in 2002 and recommended a visitor facility. But then it goes on to say generally that this project is not a construction priority.

I am putting my colleagues on notice that I am going to fight for funds for not only planning but building this visitors center in this year's budget, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting a proposal that will complete the Little Rock Central High Visitors Center in time for the 50th anniversary in 2007.

The Little Rock Nine brought us closer to realizing Dr. King's dream of ``the promised land,'' but we are not there yet. The visitors center will remind us where we once were, but also how much farther we need to go if we are to truly open the doors of opportunity for all individuals. Join me in supporting a message that is as important today as it was in 1957. Join me in supporting Dr. King's teachings and the bravery of nine black children.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to this bill, a Medicare prescription drug benefit in name only that has very few benefits for the seniors in my State. In June of this year, I voted for a bipartisan Senate bill which, while not perfect, was a good step toward providing our seniors with the prescription drug help they need.

Let us be clear. This legislation does nothing to lower the cost of prescription drugs. The Congressional Budget Office says this legislation will actually cause prescription drug prices to increase by 3.5 percent. Under this legislation, Arkansans will not be able to reimport cheap FDA-approved drugs from other industrialized countries, and this legislation expressly prohibits the Federal Government from negotiating with drug companies to bring down the high cost of prescription drugs.

This means that our seniors will continue to pay more for their prescription drugs than anybody else in the world. It means they will continue to pay much more for their drugs than do our neighbors in Canada.

This means that a woman in America suffering from breast cancer will continue to be charged over $90 a month to take tamoxifen, while the same drug, made by the same company, can be bought in Canada for $22 for a month.

This means that people in my State will continue to pay: 37 percent more for cholesterol controlling Lipitor; 50 percent more for the anti- depressant Paxil, and 58 percent more for the arthritis drug Vioxx.

For the last decade drug spending has been driving up the cost of health care and placing affordable coverage out of reach for many Americans. We finally got our chance to help these seniors by lowering the cost of prescription drugs, but this bill wastes that opportunity.

It is bad enough our seniors are getting gouged by artificially high prices in the United States. I strongly believe we need to fix that. But now, with the passage of this bill, if indeed it passes, we are talking about taxpayers' dollars. Not only is it the right thing to fix it, it is our duty that we fix it.

Under this legislation, thousands of Arkansans will be worse off than when they started. According to the CBO, 2.7 million Americans are expected to lose their retiree health care benefits as a result of this legislation. That includes 19,000 Arkansas seniors. In addition, under this bill, 109,100 Arkansas Medicaid beneficiaries will receive worse coverage than what they get now and they will face considerable new restrictions on the drugs they can take.

Mr. President, 40,750 fewer seniors in Arkansas will qualify for low- income protections against the assets test and lower qualifying income levels. I, for one, do not believe that rural Americans living on a farm should be penalized because they own a tractor or other farm equipment. And 11,020 Medicare beneficiaries will pay more for Part B premiums because of income.

This bill also starts us down the treacherous path to dismantling Medicare as we know it. It takes $12 billion away from Medicare and gives it to private insurers and then forces Medicare to compete with heavily subsidized HMOs.

This allows private insurers to cherry-pick the healthiest and wealthiest people to their plans while leaving the poorest and the sickest in Medicare to pay more in premiums. People need to know that this bill was written to accommodate 400 corporate lobbyists, many of whom work for the pharmaceutical industry. It amazes me that we would seek permission from the pharmaceutical lobby before we would do the right thing for the people we represent. It amazes me even more that 400 lobbyists have more influence over Congress than the 40 million people who are currently enrolled in Medicare.

People need to know that the pharmaceutical industry is going to be handed a taxpayer-subsidized windfall with the passage of this bill. Analysts at Goldman Sachs project the new Medicare benefit could increase industry revenue by 9 percent or about $13 billion a year. And it is no coincidence that as details of this legislation began leaking out, pharmaceutical stock prices have risen steadily. In the last week alone, the value of Pfizer's stock increased by $19 billion.

I direct my colleagues to this bar graph behind me. The large bar represents Pfizer and the $19 billion they have increased in worth over the last week. Now look at the other bar, this little bitty bar, this small bar that you may have to squint and look closely to see because there isn't much there. This bar represents the entirety of the cost savings provisions related to generic drugs and reimportation. Seniors will save over the next 10 years $.06 billion. To reiterate, we have a $19 billion increase in the value of a company over 1 week, and a $.06 billion savings for seniors in the Medicare system over 10 years.

It is very easy to figure out who are the real winners and who are the real losers in this bill. Let me say in conclusion, there are some people in this body who believe we need this bill right now because the seniors have been waiting such a long time. They have. But from the seniors I have talked to personally when I was home in Little Rock over the weekend, to the hundreds who have called my office in the last week, they don't just want to get it done. They want us to get it done right. There is a big difference in just getting this bill done and getting it done right.

They want more than hollow promises that this legislation offers. My plea is simple: Let's get it right so that our seniors can finally have a real benefit. The bill we are voting on today will wind up doing more harm than good.

I yield the floor.