Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business.

I come to the floor today to ask my colleagues to join me in supporting Federal funding for the Little Rock Audubon Nature Center. The Little Rock Audubon Nature Center is a collaborative private-public effort to provide tools and services to historically underserved children. Using the prestige of the Audubon Society's reputation, this project will pull together all stakeholders to promote national science and math goals, environmental education, and wildlife observation.

This isn't the nature center we grew up with. This is a new concept that creates a place to learn math, science, and other academic subjects in a nurturing environment reinforced by a hands-on, out-of- doors experiences. This is a chance to support what our children learn in the classroom and in the textbooks with stimulating reality. This model of learning will stoke our children's curiosity and provoke them to start asking the questions all great thinkers pose: Why does this work? How can that happen? What makes this possible?

Given current budget constraints, it is more important than even to use scarce resources wisely and I rise today to provide my colleagues with not only the numerous benefits associated with this innovative approach to educating our children, but also the costs. Specifically, I am seeking an appropriation of $1.2 million for the project but $1.2 million that will be leveraged by private funding on a better than 2 to 1 match. As Senator Lincoln pointed out, this Center will serve thousands of children and I believe that federal investment in the Little Rock Audubon Nature Center will produce broad returns that deserve the attention of this body.

I would be delighted to yield to the Senator from North Dakota and our ranking member.

I did. The Little Rock Audubon Nature Center will assist schools in teaching the sciences of ornithology, ecology, biology, botany and environmental health, to name a few; to excite young people's minds and prepare them for careers in the sciences; and to help improve state science scores. Senator Dorgan, are you aware that our childrens' math and science scores in America are continuing to decline throughout the country? As compared to 38 countries around the world the United States ranks 19th in Mathematics Achievement Scores, according to a 1999 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. I am particularly concerned about this decline in our students' performance in my home state of Arkansas. We need fresh ideas and new approaches to turn this situation around. So, I was very interested to learn of a recent study in Northwest Arkansas showed that nature education can be a very powerful tool for helping to address this problem.

I appreciate the comments from the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member and I would like to call to their attention other benefits associated with the Little Rock Audubon Nature Center which would benefit underserved minority communities. In fact, the nature center is located in a former federal housing site for African American veterans from World War II, which has been closed for years. The center is located in the Granite Mountain community in my home state of Arkansas that lies within the boundary of a Federal empowerment zone and would serve, in particular, the minority community and school children of southeast Little Rock.

The Nature Center also would provide access to a beautiful 450 acre park that is currently unavailable to the citizens of Arkansas due to inadequate city funds. This park represents one of the most unique natural areas in Southeast Arkansas because of its incredible biodiversity and a globally significant geological formation, making this site both ecologically important and of great educational value.

I am seeking $1.2 million which could be phased in over a multi-year programming plan with a private fund match. I want to point out the Audubon Society's great success in my home state of Arkansas in leveraging private funding to match federal outlays for conservation projects. For example, the Audubon Society successfully restored thousands of acres of Fourche Creek by leveraging private funds to match federal dollars at a ratio of more than 2-to-1. The track record has been established and the private community has made its pledge to allow this Federal

appropriation to be a catalyst for private additional investment in this worthwhile project.

I appreciate those remarks. I am making a personal request that the Senate give this project the initial funding needed to help it become a reality for the children of Arkansas. I thank the Senators for assistance in this matter.

fossil energy research

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the resolution to honor a great singer, a great songwriter, a great American, a man who truly lived the American Dream. J.R. Cash, otherwise known as ``the man in black,'' Johnny Cash, captivated all those who listened during a career that spanned four decades. The man in black was a man who embodied and lived the spirit of working class America and transformed that spirit into song. I speak today to honor the life and work of this Arkansas native and music legend, and I would like to thank the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, for his resolution and kind words.

A native of Kingsland and Dyess, AR, Mr. Cash was respected and idolized by many in my State. It is always a tragedy to lose a native son, but I know the people of Arkansas will especially mourn the loss of Mr. Cash, who passed away last Friday at the age of 71.

Johnny Cash's life reads much like that of many Arkansas born during the dark and dreary days of the Depression. He was born to a family of sharecropper in Kingsland, February 26, 1932, a small town in South Arkansas not far from where my own father was born.

When he was 3, his family moved to Dyess, AR--a farming colony established by Franklin Delano Rossevelt's New Deal to help lift displaced farming families out of the Depression and the crushing poverty that still permeates a large part of the Delta soil. The Cash's were especially poor. A neighbor, Earl Condra of Harrisburg, who knew the plight of many families of the region once said, ``We were poor, but the Cash's were about as poor as you could get.''

No one in the family escaped working on the farm. By the time he was 6, Cash was carrying water to workers in the field. By 10 he working almost a full day in the cotton fields, from, as he said, ``can `til can't''. When he was 12, his 14-year-old brother, whom young Johnny idolized, was killed in a saw accident while sawing oak logs into fence posts for the family farm. That same year, Cash's father told him he had reached ``the age of accountability . . . you're accountable as a man, to yourself and to others.''

For Cash, it seemed the only escape from his hard life was through music. After a long, hard day picking cotton in the fields, his family would often sit on their front porch and sing.

``I remember when I was a lad, times were hard and things were bad. But there's a silver lining behind every cloud. Just four the number of people, that's all we were, trying to make a living out of black land dirt. But we'd get together in a family circle singin' loud. Daddy sang bass, Momma sang tenor, me and little brother would join right in there. Singin' seems to help a troubled soul. One of these days, and it won't be long, I'll rejoin them in a song. I'm going to join the family circle at the throne,'' he recalled in one of his songs.

Indeed, by the age of 12, Cash was performing songs on the radio in Blytheville, AR.

Although he was one of few to graduate high school in post-Depression Arkansas, Cash knew his future lay in music.

``I think the first time I knew what I wanted to do with my life was when I was about 4 years old. I was listening to an old Victrola, playing a railroad song . . . I thought it was the most wonderful, amazing thing that I'd ever seen. That you could take this piece of wax and music would come out of that box. From that day on, I wanted to sing on the radio,'' he reminisced in a 1993 interview.

The quote under his picture in the 1950 Dyess Senior High School yearbook read, ``Be a live wire and you won't get stepped on.''

Within months of his graduation he enlisted in the U.S. Air Force and was assigned to Landsberg, Germany, where he was a radio intercept operator tasked with intercepting Soviet Morse Code. And it was also in Germany that he learned to play the guitar.

After his discharge from the Air Force in 1954, Cash moved to Memphis, TN, to take a job as an appliance salesman and to attend broadcasting school through the G.I. bill.

It was in Memphis where Johnny Cash would get his chance to sing to great audiences. After being turned away on numerous occasions, Johnny woke early one morning and went to the Memphis office of the famous Sun Records to meet Sam Phillips and he arrived for work. After a brief session, Mr. Phillips told Johnny to return the next day with a band. From that day forward, Johnny Cash reigned as the undisputed king of the downtrodden poor, a working man's savior in song.

Johnny Cash sang with a scowl of determination. The darkness of the songs he sang was only brightened by the hope of the audiences he addressed. That this man, this legend, this poor kid from Arkansas, could succeed on the grandest scale by putting his experiences and his emotions into song, gave the poorest sharecropper and the most oppressed worker that hope. There are no parameters in song. No boundaries, no borders, no confinements. For in a song, a man may truly express the deep well of thought not to be expressed in polite society. Song crisscrosses through time with an ease and a fluidity that gives true freedom to those who are not free, whether they are beholden to debt, their family, society or their own shortcomings. Johnny Cash understood the nature of song like few before or after. He understood its power over people. He understood the hope it could give, the happiness it could bestow, the sorrow it could impart. He knew these things about music. He used this understanding to give voice to those that had none.

As he said in explaining his propensity to wear black clothes, ``I tried to speak for the voices that were ignored or even suppressed by the entertainment media, not to mention the political and education establishments.'' As he put it, black clothes symbolized the dispossessed people of the world.

Johnny Cash achieved a level of success equal to that of the Beatles and Elvis. The legacy he left will be a lasting one in country and rock music. From jazz to blues to country music, to the rock and roll that was nurtured in its early years in the juke joints of the Delta South and the urban ghettos of the north, Johnny Cash contributed his own particular interpretation to this musical legacy: one that will forever be enshrined in the memories of his friends, colleagues, and thousands of fans.

Johnny Cash sold more records than anyone in the world in 1967. He was so popular that he had his own ABC television series. He won eleven Grammys and was the youngest person ever inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame. He has also been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, has been honored with a Kennedy Center Award, and has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. President Bush honored him with the National Medal of the Arts this past April.

Despite all of the professional accomplishments and accolades, I think Mr. Cash would rather us celebrate his life in terms of the people he touched with his music and his philanthropic work. In addition to his music, Mr. Cash endowed a burn research center, campaigned for prison reform, counseled former inmates transitioning to society, and donated and worked for the Mental Health association, Home for Autistic children, Refugees for Battered Women, the American Cancer Society, YWCA, and the Humane Society, among others.

Johnny Cash rose from nothing to everything on the strength of an iron will, gritty self-determination, and an unflappable faith in God, his family, and his music. Nothing he earned in his life came at the expense of others. Yet all he gave to all. Johnny Cash learned from his mistakes and ascended to a level higher than those who preceded him. He taught us to learn from our mistakes. He taught us to never give up, that the dreams of a small boy on a small farm in a small town can be big, and that they can come true. He taught us how to be free through the words and melody of a song. The lessons from his music are applicable today and will be for generations to come. Nothing captures the imagination of the heart like a great song. Mr. Cash captured the hearts of many. And his song will be missed.

Mr. President, 2 years have past since the tragedy of September 11, 2001, but the visions of smoke rising out of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the pain and terror on the faces of those who lost family members, friends and colleagues remain vivid in our minds. Within seconds, America realized that it was not invincible.

More than a thousand of miles away from Manhattan's ground zero, the Pentagon, and the field in Shanksville, PA, Arkansans felt the vibrations of this tragedy. Families in Batesville, Pine Bluff, Jonesboro and throughout the State learned about the deaths of friends and family members. Just a few months later, thousands of families would celebrate Thanksgiving and Christmas without the moms, dads, sons and daughters who had been deployed in the fight against terrorism. Soldiers began to guard the Little Rock National Airport and Arkansas Nuclear One. And we all began to care for our neighbors a little bit more. On September 11, 2001, life for Americans changed forever.

September 11 is made bearable only by the true heroism displayed on that day and everyday thereafter. We will never forget the selfless acts demonstrated by our firefighters who ran into burning buildings; police officers who went the extra mile to help the frightened and frail; EMTs, doctors and nurses who cared for the injured; and everyday individuals who raised money for the victims of this tragedy.

Along with these heroes, we have hundreds of thousands of servicemen and women who continue to risk life and limb in places such as Afghanistan, Turkey and Iraq in the name of democracy and all it embodies. They put themselves in harm's way not for personal aggrandizement or advancement but for immense love of country, liberty, and family. I ask all Arkansans to join me with continued support for our men and women in uniform.

I ask also that Arkansans pray for the families who lost their loved ones in the tragic terrorist attacks. The healing process is a long and difficult road, and these families need our support and compassion.

Finally, we must ensure that the more than 3,000 innocent Americans did not die in vain on September 11. We must continue taking those steps necessary to protect our homeland. This means ensuring that our first responders have the tools they need to confront terrorism at home. It means ensuring that our servicemen and women have cutting-edge equipment, training and technology they need to complete their mission. It means working together by placing our safety and our children's safety above politics.

Americans have endured great hardship and heartbreak as a result of the terrorist attacks, but this has not broken our faith, courage and an unshakable commitment to freedom, democracy and each other. Today, we remember the tragedy of September 11, and we honor its victims. We will never forget them.

Madam President, I rise today in support of Mr. Dodd's amendment, as well as Mr. Jeffords' and Mr. Hagel's. I know Senator Dayton, my seatmate here, has been a strong advocate of IDEA funding and fully funding IDEA, and I want to mention Senator Dayton because he is such a great advocate on this issue.

There is no commitment we can make, no investment we can make, no service we can perform that is more important to the domestic well- being of this country than to educate our children. It truly is an investment in the future.

I quote a statement from Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS, in 1954:

When I say in these days it is doubtful that any child may

reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the

opportunity for an education, such an opportunity is a right

which must be made available on equal terms.

That is what IDEA is all about--providing a quality, equal education to our children who are disabled.

This proposal by Senator Dodd will increase the funding for IDEA-- unfortunately, not up to the 40 percent threshold the Federal Government committed to several years ago but, nonetheless, a sizable increase in IDEA funding. I am very supportive of Senator Dodd and his efforts.

I also believe that for 27 years, we have found excuse after excuse to break our promise when it comes to IDEA. If it is not one thing it is another. There is always some reason. There is always some explanation. There is always a promise to do better next year. Senator Dodd's leadership and this great amendment he is offering is getting us closer to fulfilling our commitment and our promise this year in this bill.

In 2003, we appropriated only 17.6 percent of the funding for IDEA. We promised to fund 40 percent. We have never come close. In my State of Arkansas, we have 58,000 disabled children who will benefit from Senator Dodd's amendment.

Again, I thank him for his leadership and for his courage in standing up on this issue. It is very critical for this country that we educate our disabled children.

The last point I wish to make before I turn the floor back over to my colleague from Connecticut is that when I was attorney general of my State, many of the cases dealt with IDEA. Not in all cases, but in many instances, the fundamental problem and the reason the State was being sued was because we were not providing enough money and resources to educate our handicapped children. Today, we are taking a step in the right direction to do that.

I thank the Chair, and I yield back the remainder of my time to my colleague from Connecticut.

Mr. President, I rise today to support the efforts of Mr. Dodd, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Hagel, to increase funding for the education of disabled children.

I will also note that a few days ago, Senator Dayton offered an amendment to increase Federal funding for the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act to its full amount of 40 percent of excess cost to local education agencies.

I was proud to support that effort, although it failed, and I want to thank him for his tireless efforts on behalf of those who cannot always help themselves. I was proud to support it if for no other reason than to call attention to what is right and what is fair and to where our priorities should lay.

There is no commitment we can keep, no investment we can make, no service we can perform that is more important to the domestic well- being of this country than educating our children.

By the same token, it doesn't do us any good to educate some while leaving others behind. Instead of providing opportunity for all of our children, we are closing doors. Instead of educating and shaping future productive citizens and leaders, we are, in some cases neglecting those who need our help the most. Those, who if we do not help now, will surely revisit us in the future disguised as another societal problem-- ill prepared for life and solely dependent on the Government.

I quote, Mr. President: ``In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.''

That excerpt comes from the decision of Brown v. Board of Education, 1954.

The amendment offered today by the distinguished Senators from Connecticut, Vermont, and Nebraska remind us of our commitment to those children who need our help the most, those children who have been left out and left behind, those who have been denied this right.

They propose to raise funding for IDEA in the Labor-Health Education appropriations bill by $1.2 billion to the budget authorized increase of $2.2 billion.

This was a budget, incidentally, that we authorized only several short months ago. The IDEA authorization, a bright spot in an otherwise misprioritized budget, was agreed upon by a vast majority of this body. Now we find ourselves taking a step back from that vote, from that commitment. A vote, I am sure many of us trumpeted in our press releases and in trips back home.

I realize that a lot has happened since we debated and voted on a budget resolution. In the coming days, we will be looking at another war supplemental, revenues are down, and deficits are soaring through the roof.

We have many priorities and little money to meet them. These facts are not lost on me. But, I also believe that for 27 years, we have found excuse after excuse to break our promise. If it wasn't one thing it was another. There

was always some reason, always some explanation and always a promise to do better next year. We can start doing better by this Nation's children this year, right here, right now with this vote.

This is a highly necessary step to continue us on the path toward fully funding IDEA, toward fulfilling the promise made by this body 27 years ago. And I say continue because I recognize that we have increased funding in recent years in this body. I recognize that the level of funding we have provided to Part B of IDEA has increased by over 200 percent since 1996. Even so, if you look at where we started with this legislation, funding less than 7 percent of excess cost, we have woefully shortchanged those whom we have sworn to protect. In addition our current funding levels fail to keep pace with escalating special education costs.

To listen to some of our colleagues speak about the ``revolutionary increases'' and massive gains we have made in education funding and special education funding in specific, one might think that we have fulfilled those commitments.

But in the history of this legislation, appropriations have never neared the 40 percent promise we made to our schools back in 1975. In fact, in 2003, appropriations only funded 17.6 percent of the excess cost to States. And this is at a time when we are asking our States to shoulder more burdens than ever before. This year, the Economic Policy Institute estimates that local communities and States will take on approximately $10 billion in unfunded mandate, Federal special education costs.

In my State of Arkansas, there are roughly 58,000 disabled children. With adequate Federal funding to IDEA we can provide these children more teachers, we can provide those teachers better training, we can reduce class size, and we can create more efficiency in diagnostics. We can do all this while alleviating the pressure to States and localities not to mention lessening the tax burden on individual taxpayers.

Some of my colleagues might tell us we cannot afford to fund IDEA at the levels it needs to be funded. I would say we can't afford not to. If this is not a priority for us now, I ask if it will ever be?

It was once said by Hubert H. Humphrey that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.

Well, this is a discussion about those in the dawn of their lives and we in this body, we in government have an opportunity to save these children from being cast in the shadows of life.

I am not sure if there is anyone in this body that disagrees to whether or not IDEA works.

Prior to IDEA's passage, nearly half of all children with disabilities were not allowed to enroll in public schools. The remaining half were segregated in inadequate classrooms.

Today, over 6 million children with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education, because of IDEA. Since IDEA was enacted, the number of young disabled adults in college has tripled. The disabled child dropout rate has decreased by more than 50 percent.

These are wonderful results. Imagine the results we could attain, if we funded this legislation to the appropriate levels.

We made a commitment; we should keep it. I think we owe our children that much. They reap the rewards or pay the price for the policies we enact today. They are the ones who cannot defend themselves.

As I prepared to speak on this issue I read the debate that preceded the passage of the `Education for All Handicapped Children Act,' in 1975. I tried to perhaps shed some light on the intent of Congress in passing this legislation. Immediately I saw the importance members of that distinguished body placed on funding special education.

In fact, Senator Javits from New York, a Republican, said ``Again, I point out, Mr. President, that we have only appropriated $100 million under the present law, part B of the Education of the Handicapped Act, which authorizes $666 million yearly. Mr. President, this shows our lack of the right priorities and our deficiencies.''

Senator Stafford, a Vermont Republican, said ``If enacted into law, this bill will finally begin to bring to all the handicapped children of our Nation what has always been their right--a free appropriate public education.''

A beginning. Both of these distinguished Senators from the other side of the aisle understood where we were, where we had to go, and how we had to get there. They knew that we could do better by our children. And so do Senators Dodd, Jeffords, Hagel, and Dayton.

I appreciate their leadership on this issue, and I wish to join them in making sure that we do better by our children, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, more than half a century ago, America answered the call to defend freedom in South Korea. Today, we continue to defend democracy and freedom in over 100 countries around the world.

This war against communism is sometimes referred to as the ``Forgotten War'' because it came at the heels of World War II and was overshadowed by the Vietnam War. Indeed, there are fewer pages in our children's textbooks about this war than that of other wars. But the cause of freedom was no less important. The bravery of the Nation's Korean War veterans was no less significant. And the sacrifices of these veterans and their families were no less meaningful.

Twenty-two nations joined 1.8 million Americans in risking life and limb to defend a country they did not know and a people they had never met. Included were the young men and women who fought on the mountains of Korea in places such as Pork Chop Hill and Bloody Ridge. The United States suffered 36,934 casualties and 103,284 wounded during the Korean War; another 8,000 were taken prisoner or met an unknown fate. In my state of Arkansas, 466 brave servicemen and women paid the ultimate sacrifice. These are our Nation's heroes and they acted selflessly to bring forth freedom and opportunity for generations.

July 27 marks the 50th Anniversary of the armistice with North Korea. I take this opportunity to thank our Korean War veterans and their families for their great service and dedication to our Nation. We owe our Korean War veterans a debt of gratitude that we can never repay.

The Korean War veterans defined ``new opportunity for all.'' They defended and promoted the virtues of democracy abroad, providing an emerging Nation a chance to develop and flourish into the viable country it is today. I can not begin to imagine how different Southeast Asia and the world would be if it was not for the true determination and unbelievable courage demonstrated by our soldiers, airmen, marines and sailors.

American servicemen and women remain on-point in Korea to protect freedom along what is referred to as the world's most dangerous border. I commend them also for their bravery and commitment to democracy.

From Korea to Iraq, let us not forget the sacrifices that our men and women in uniform have made on behalf of our great country.

Mr. President, last night was a difficult night for me because I was lying in bed worrying about the insurance companies and how we were not getting them enough money during this Congress. Of course, I am being facetious because I think we have a very clear choice.

I commend Senator Dorgan, Senator Durbin, and a number of others who have shown national leadership on this effort to try to make this bill better. I think there is a broad consensus that we want to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. We want to help seniors all over this country, but at the same time we have to make sure it is set up the right way. It has to make sense.

Quite frankly, one of the things that to me does not make sense, and probably to most people around the country does not make sense, is that we might give a pretty healthy sum of money to the insurance industry.

All over the country--and I know it is certainly true in my State-- insurance companies are raising premiums. It may be health care premiums--everybody knows those are going up. It may be property and casualty; it may be homeowners policies, auto policies, medical malpractice, legal malpractice. You name it, across the board, as far as I know, the price of every single kind of insurance in this country is going up.

Nonetheless, there are some in this Congress who want to actually give them a sizable chunk of money that could go to people who really need the help.

I take my hat off to Senator Dorgan for his leadership. One thing he has figured out is a way to make the monthly premium less for people. Now, saving $6 a month to someone at my income level, and all of our income levels, that is not a lot of money, but for those senior citizens all over this country who live below the poverty level--the only money they get every month is Social Security, maybe a little help from the family--$6 is a lot of money. Six dollars may make this program affordable for them. It is real money. It is money that at the end of the year, if you add it up, is only $72 a year, but that is real money to so many Americans all over this country.

The purpose of the bill, not just this amendment but the whole bill, is to help Americans afford their prescription drugs. I know that Senator Durbin, who is in the Chamber, and Senator Dorgan and a number of others in this Chamber have tried to make prescription drugs more affordable in this legislation. There have been different efforts tried in different ways. One of the things I tried was to strengthen reimportation from Canada to try to make prescription drugs more affordable, but certainly making the premiums more affordable makes the program more accessible to more Americans. That is a win/win/win for everybody.

So I thank the Senator from North Dakota for yielding me some of his time. I know he is frantically talking to colleagues to try to have them adopt this amendment when we vote on it this afternoon.

Let's run through the numbers very quickly one more time so we understand clearly what we are talking about. This amendment expends $2.4

billion per year to make premiums cheaper. It will reduce the typical premium--this is average--by $6 a month.

I take my hat off to the folks in this Chamber who worked out compromise after compromise after compromise trying to come up with solutions to make this bill something that will become law, something that the majority of Members can vote for, not just in this Chamber but the House, something the President can sign.

I believe strongly people in this country deserve to have access to these wonderful prescription medications that are in many ways miracle drugs. It is a shame for this country to have these drugs available on the marketplace but so expensive that people cannot afford them. That is what we are trying to accomplish.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, the United States may be the only country in the world that does not protect its population from price gouging when it comes to prescription drugs. Last week, the Senate took a very important step in eliminating that by adopting the Dorgan-Cochran amendment by a vote of 62 to 28 to allow the reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada.

This amendment gives that amendment teeth. It gives HHS 2 years to act, and if they do not act within 2 years, then it becomes illegal for prescription drug companies to sell their products in the United States for more than they sell them in Canada.

Some people call this price control. I respectfully disagree, but if you call it price control, that means 62 of us last Friday stood up for price controls. What it does in reality is introduce competition on prices.

There is one drug called tamoxifen. Tamoxifen is a fantastic breast cancer drug. One could buy it before it became generic for $241 for 60 pills in the United States, and for $34 for 60 pills in Canada. The difference between $241 and $34 is very significant, and that is what we are trying to fix.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I rise to address the Chamber about my proposed amendment that fits very neatly with an amendment that passed last week 62 to 28. It is a fallback amendment to that Dorgan-Cochran proposal.

The way I view this amendment--I hope the way my colleagues will understand it--it is really an antiprice gouging amendment as we go through the process and hopefully add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare that so many people in the country want and deserve.

We all know the stories about drugs that are produced in this country that are made at certain plants and certain places. And when they leave the plant, one truck will go to one of our home States and the other truck will go to Canada. Unfortunately, what happens all too often is when the drugs get to Canada, they are about one-half or one-third or one-quarter the price that people can buy those drugs in the United States. In my opinion, there is no valid reason for that. There is no valid justification for those drugs to be priced in that way.

We also know the Senate has tried to address this problem on at least a couple occasions--in the year 2000 and in the year 2002. This very Chamber voted to allow the reimportation of pharmaceuticals from other countries. Of course, the reimportation of drugs would be FDA-approved drugs coming out of FDA-approved facilities. In fact, for the third time in 4 years, the Senate voted this past Friday to allow the same thing.

Currently, the law is reimportation can come from a list of countries. There is a designated list. That has been somewhat cumbersome. And the FDA has not seen fit and has not been able yet to approve this process because they can't certify or verify that the drugs are safe. One thing I like about the Dorgan-Cochran amendment is it limits the scope of reimportation only to Canada. That is a significant advancement because we all know that Canada has very high medical standards and that they are very concerned about their populous and the veracity of medication in their society.

My proposal also is limited just strictly to Canada. One advantage is that they have a very similar, almost identical set of standards for handling drugs to make sure that there is a chain of custody, proper testing, et cetera. They build in the safeguards just as we do. A lot of countries don't do that. But with Canada we have a certain degree of confidence--maybe not absolute; I guess you can never have an absolute degree of confidence--that drugs are going to be safe. We have a very high degree of confidence that the drugs will, in fact, be safe and they will meet U.S. standards.

Let me briefly address my amendment. It is only three pages--very simple, very straightforward. In terms of the definition of covered product, we adopt the existing law. Therefore, there is no surprises, no monkey business or games played with the definition. When it comes to the prohibition in section B, which is found on page 2 of the amendment, in summary--I will delete all the commas and the parenthetical phrases, but in summary it says: It shall be unlawful for the manufacturer of a covered product to refuse to sell to any wholesaler or retailer--and that is key--on terms that are not substantially the same as that of any purchaser in Canada.

Let me run through that very quickly, if I may. One of the keys is that it is for wholesalers and retailers. What that means is that wholesalers and retailers in this country can reimport from Canada.

We all know if our local pharmacist could somehow work out an arrangement with wholesalers and retailers in Canada, they could actually buy the products in Canada, have them shipped to the United States, and sell them cheaper here than they can buy them wholesale in this country.

One of the keys is that American wholesalers and retailers are subject to all the FDA rules and regulations and requirements.

Therefore, this amendment will only allow the reimportation of safe FDA-approved products made at FDA-approved facilities. When it comes to enforcement, this amendment would allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services, as well as any wholesaler or retailer in this country that is aggrieved by some unfairness--the thing I like about that and I hope my colleagues understand--it allows both the Government sanction, the ability to enforce this, but also the free market. We all know the free market works very well, and when a free market can regulate itself, I think we are all better off. It has the ability for the Government to enforce this if necessary.

In the last bit, on page 3 of the amendment, it deals with the timeframe. That is a 2-year provision from the enactment of this act that this will take effect. In other words, the way this works is, once we pass this legislation, the President signs it, it becomes effective 2 years after it is enacted. Then it will trigger this act if the FDA has not issued its final regulations. Then we will be able to purchase these drugs at the same prices they get in Canada. In other words, it is an antiprice-gouging mechanism that I think is critical to this legislation and to its long-term success.

I very much applaud the leadership in this Chamber, especially coming from Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus, Senator Frist, Senator Kennedy, Senator Daschle, Senator Graham, and, of course, Senators Dorgan and Cochran have shown leadership not just on this issue but on prescription drugs generally. I thank them for getting this to the Senate floor and allowing this very important debate and allowing these important amendments to be considered.

I do believe very strongly that when the bill came to the floor, it was a bill definitely worth our consideration. But I also think and believe very strongly that the bill has improved since it has been on the floor. I think these amendments are making the bill stronger and better for the American public.

For example, the Enzi amendment, which I like quite a bit, makes sure that people will still have access to use their local pharmacists. Not only are many pharmacists pillars of the community, not only do they do great things in their communities, but so often patients getting prescription drugs need to talk to their pharmacist about drug interactions, expiration dates, and details of how to take it. It is very important for the effectiveness of the drug that people talk to a local pharmacist and have access thereto. So I thank Senator Enzi for doing that.

The Gregg-Schumer-McCain-Kennedy amendment closes loopholes to allow name-brand drug manufacturers to unfairly extend their monopolies and overcharge American patients. This has been going on for a long time and it is something, when I was Attorney General, we worked on very hard to try to stop from the litigation standpoint. But now Congress has taken action, and I am so pleased that they are stopping this legislatively.

We have mentioned the Dorgan amendment, with the Cochran second- degree amendment, and how that has strengthened the bill and how, hopefully, that will cause prices to stabilize and, in fact, hopefully, come down over time. I think there is still some work to be done on this bill, and I think during the course of this week there will be a lot of great amendments to consider. I hope I can vote for some of those. When I believe it will make this bill better, I will support it.

Let me run through the chart very quickly. What we see is a graph with two lines. You can see that this lower line says ``health.'' If you were to look at the consumer price index, or one of the other indexes, it would be even lower than this green line, but it would go up slightly. That is, of course, the inflation rate, and it goes up 2, 3 percent a year.

Right here, we see the health care costs. If you go back to 1994--our baseline year--the price, the cost of health care, in just these 7 or 8 years has gone up 63.6 percent. One thing we all hear from our constituents is how much health care costs are increasing. For a lot of people, they have increased 10, 15 percent--sometimes more--a year. It is strangling people.

If you look inside the numbers and you look at the No. 1 cause of health

care costs going up, it is the cost of prescription drugs. That is what this red line indicates. Again, you can see the rapid growth that is outpacing the costs of health care and inflation, and it is pulling health care costs up and in a very dramatic fashion. I think pretty much everyone who has looked at this nationally agrees that it is the high cost of prescription drugs that is the primary reason--there are other factors--why health care costs are going up so dramatically.

In this proposal--not in my amendment but in the actual bill--we are talking about having a $250 deductible and a stop loss protection that kicks in, paying 90 percent of drug costs after $3,700 of out-of-pocket spending. Well, one thing the American public needs to understand, and all of us Senators need to remember, is that these are percentages and they will go up as the costs of prescription drugs go up. So one thing we need to be very mindful of is, as we watch this red line, the top numbers on this particular chart, go up--in fact, CBO says about 12 percent a year, and they are taking average numbers. They have been going up more than 12 percent per year in the last few years. If we say more than 12 percent a year, after 5 years that deductible of $250 becomes a deductible of $485. In fact, the stop loss threshold goes from $3,700 to $6,521. Both of these adjust based on cost of prescription drugs--not based on the cost of health care or on the cost of an increase in inflation but based on the cost of prescription drugs. What that means is that in 10 years the deductible will go to $854, and the stop loss in 10 years will be $11,492.

Now, what this amendment is designed to do is to try to get ahold of these runaway costs of prescription drugs. As long as these numbers go up like this, the problems in this bill--things that we as Senators don't like about this bill, like the gap in coverage, the deductibles, and the stop losses--are going to get worse. It is going to do nothing but get worse over time.

So what this amendment and what the Dorgan-Cochran amendment are designed to do is to try to somehow keep prescription drug costs down in a very reasonable way. That is why reimportation is so critical because reimportation, in the strange world of prescription drugs, introduces competition into the marketplace. Suddenly, the drug costs here are competing with the drug costs in Canada, and what that will result in, necessarily, is lower drug costs if free market principles are allowed to apply.

While I am 100 percent convinced the administration can and should implement Senator Dorgan's and Senator Cochran's amendment, I am not 100 percent sure they will do it. Recently, we received a letter in the Senate from the FDA from one of the Commissioners, Mr. McClellan. Let me quote, if I may, from Mr. McClellan's letter. I may have to put on my reading glasses to do this because that is what happens when you get old, Mr. President. I know I am quite a bit older than the occupant of the Chair. When you get my age, you need these.

This is a letter to Senator Thad Cochran, and it is from Mark B. McClellan, FDA Commissioner, sent earlier this month, on June 19, 2003. It says:

The overall quality of drug products that consumers

purchase from the United States pharmacies is very high, and

the American consumer can be confident that the drugs they

use are safe and effective.

That is a key point because we have a very safe marketplace for drugs. In fact, one of the things I did when I was attorney general of my State--and I left there 6 months ago--I sent out periodical consumer alerts to Arkansans about being very careful about buying drugs over the Internet, using mail order companies, and toll-free numbers because sometimes, under some circumstances, you are not sure what you are getting.

We always advise people to be very careful when they do that. I have a bias and a preference for using a local pharmacist.

Let me continue. I am skipping around:

In FDA's experience, many drugs obtained from foreign

sources that either purport to be or appear to be the same as

U.S.-approved prescription drugs are, in fact, of unknown

quality.

That is something we found in the attorney general's office in Arkansas when I was there.

The letter goes on to say:

These outlets may dispense expired, subpotent,

contaminated, or counterfeit products, the wrong or

contraindicated product in an incorrect dose or medication

unaccompanied with adequate direction for use. The labeling

of the drug may not be in English and important information

regarding doses and side effects may not be available. In

addition, the drugs may not have been packaged and stored

under proper conditions to avoid degradations.

That is true. That definitely happens. We have seen that time and again around this country. But that is one of the great points about the Dorgan amendment. In fact, the Dorgan amendment that was adopted last week with 62 votes has a provision--I am not going to read it all--on page 3 that makes it very clear that we can only reimport FDA- approved drugs at FDA-approved facilities. There has to be documentation; there has to be testing. The safeguards are there.

Also what Mr. McClellan is talking about here is a very serious problem, but by the very same standards he is referring to in his letter, he cannot guarantee that American drugs are safe because we all know in the marketplace there are some problems--a very small percentage in the United States but there are some problems. He goes on to say FDA cannot guarantee the safety of Canadian drugs. As I said, really in a true sense, we cannot guarantee the safety of American drugs either, but the FDA does a very good job.

Interestingly enough, my staff, as we were preparing to be here this afternoon, went on Lexis-Nexis and did a search to find all the reported cases in recent years from Canada related to counterfeit drugs. They could not find one case, one newspaper article, one incident, anything that was reported about counterfeit drugs in Canada. That is using the Lexis-Nexis search. The truth is, we found a number of those in the United States, but we did not find any in Canada.

Lastly, Mr. McClellan's letter to Senator Cochran says:

At this time, the agency simply cannot assure the American

public that drugs imported from foreign countries are the

same as products approved by the FDA and that they are safe

and effective.

Again, our bill fixes this problem because my amendment, along with Senator Dorgan's and Senator Cochran's amendment, says it only applies to FDA-approved drugs and it is only from Canada. We have a much more confident sense about the Canadian marketplace for prescription drugs than we do about a number of other countries.

Back when President Bush was running for office in 2000, he had the same impression as most of us when we think about this issue for the first time. He said ``it made sense'' to allow prescription drugs that were sold overseas to come back. I think he was right about that. It does make sense, as long as we build in the proper safeguards. Again, I think the amendment Friday and my amendment today will do that.

Some say that doing anything to make prescription drugs more affordable will reduce investment in research and development. I disagree. There are many factors that go into research and development, and two of those--and I hope people understand this--two of the major reasons drug companies come here to do their research and development are:

First, we make a huge public investment through the NIH, the National Institutes of Health. They do a lot of the basic research that the drug companies then build on and actually produce prescription drugs.

Second, this country provides a research and development tax credit, and the drug companies take advantage of that, and they should. It is there for them to take advantage. That is why we have it. It is good for the country. It is good for the economy. It is good for our health. I am supportive of those tax credits.

But those are two taxpayer-funded--I do not know if you want to call them subsidies. Call them what you want but those are two taxpayer incentives for these big drug companies to do research and development: The huge public investment we make for NIH, and the research and development tax credit.

One item I read recently that is a little disturbing to me is that the research and development dollars by the

big pharmaceutical companies went up by 8 percent. That is good. It is good they are increasing their dollars for research and development. But did you know that their lobbying budget went up by 23 percent? Right now in this country, in this city, there are more lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry than there are Members of Congress, and they have increased it another 23 percent. I am a little bit disturbed by that. My sense is, the only groups out there, as far as I know-- maybe I am wrong; I have not seen anything to the contrary. As far as I know, the only groups out there opposed to reimporting safe drugs from Canada, FDA-approved drugs and FDA-approved facilities from Canada, the only group I know opposed to that is the pharmaceutical industry.

I read a recent story in the New York Times that said somewhere between $2 million and $2.5 million the pharmaceutical industry is giving out to research and policy organizations ``to build intellectual capital and generate a higher volume of messages from credible sources.''

We saw this happen many years ago with the tobacco industry. I give a little bit of caution here to the pharmaceutical industry. I hope they do not repeat some of what tobacco did that got them into so much trouble. Tobacco actually went out and funded sham research. They funded research that actually said tobacco was not harmful to their health when they knew it was and they had the research to say it was. They funded research to come out and say to the contrary, even though the research could not be validated. I certainly hope that is not what the pharmaceutical industry is doing today, but it sounds as if they are drifting in that direction.

It is definitely in the interest of the American public and of patients who need medical care in this country that we allow the safe importation of drugs from Canada. I think it will help people afford drugs, and it will help make drugs more affordable in this country.

As long as I am talking about the pharmaceutical industry, let me be very clear. I am proud of the pharmaceutical industry. I am proud of what they do. It is amazing some of the accomplishments we have achieved in medicine in the last 100 years. It is even more dramatic than the aeronautics industry. One hundred years ago, the Wright brothers launched at Kitty Hawk. Now, today, you know what we have been able to accomplish in the last 100 years.

The gains have been even more dramatic in the world of prescription drugs. It is amazing. It is critical for the United States to have an industry that is high tech, such as that industry, and that is on the cutting edge, is innovative, and is the world leader.

We want to try to be the leader in anything we can. I will continue to support NIH funding for research and development of prescription drugs. I think that is critical. I think that helps everybody. It is a win/win. It is not always cheap, but it is a win/win. It helps the industry. It helps the public. It helps medicine.

I will continue to support the tax credit for research and development. In fact, I am a cosponsor of a bill that will do that because I believe very strongly American business should have the incentive to invest in research and development because it helps the economy so much in the long term.

I see the prescription drug industry as in a little bit different category than most industries because they have a patent. The fact is that the Federal Government gives them a patent--another word for that would be a ``monopoly''--the Federal Government gives them a monopoly for a certain number of years to sell their drugs, but implicit in that monopoly is a public trust.

I think it is incumbent upon the people who hold those patents and the companies which hold those patents that they understand they have a special relationship with the public, because nothing less than the public's health is at stake.

Also, when I am looking at the pharmaceutical industry, I have to observe what Fortune Magazine came out with in the last I think it has been 3 or 4 years running now, that there are three different ways to measure the profitability of an industry. All three ways it is measured, the pharmaceutical industry by any standard is the most profitable industry in America.

The other thing about these companies is we talk about them as if they are our own companies but in fact many of them--maybe the majority, the big guys--are actually foreign corporations doing business in America. Most of these big companies are huge conglomerates that have different divisions and product lines. We need to remember most of these are global companies. They are doing research all over the world and they are selling these drugs all over the world, not just to the American marketplace. I think it is important we not segment the American marketplace at the expense of everything else.

I will talk about three of my experiences as attorney general for Arkansas. I know there are 49 other attorneys general who have had similar experiences, but these were important experiences I had with the pharmaceutical industry. Again, I am proud of the industry. I am very supportive of some of the things they do, but when I was attorney general we had one case where we found out they had secured a monopoly on certain key ingredients to two or three drugs. Without these key ingredients the drugs could not be made, and even the generic companies were buying these key ingredients from this one manufacturer. They purchased that manufacturer and before long, guess what, generic drugs went up because the name-brand company was jacking up the prices to the generics. That is not fair. That is not right. That is not allowing the marketplace to work in the way it should.

We had another case where a pharmaceutical company out and out lied about research. They told the Government they had tests that showed their name-brand product was better than the generic product. Another test came in later and showed they were absolutely the same. Unfortunately, for a number of years they were able to charge more for their product, much more than the generic, because people were convinced the generic was not as good.

When I was attorney general, we found there were a few companies that were playing games with the patent laws and with the FDA regulations and through various maneuvers they were able to extend the life of their patents and monopolies. Again, I did not come to name names and embarrass companies for some of the wrongdoings. I will be glad to visit with any Senator individually who would like to talk about these things. The pharmaceutical industry is a great industry overall. It does great things and I am very supportive of most of the things they do, but sometimes we have to call it like we see it. They do not always come into this debate with the cleanest of hands.

In my amendment, I am proposing a 2-year period of time in which to allow the Health and Human Services Department to establish their regulations in final form. I believe that is ample time. In fact, if it were up to me I would give them 30 days, but I think realistically they need time to verify and certify that the Canadian market is safe. I think they have actually been working on this since the year 2000. The fact the Dorgan amendment passed last week will really narrow their focus. Now that they only have to focus on Canada, I think that will help them quite a bit to bring veracity to these tests and to the marketplace.

Again, my proposal would not take effect if the regulations are finalized, and even if it does take effect in 2 years and then the regulations are finalized at a later time, mine immediately goes out of effect. What it would, in effect, do is make sure we are not paying more for drugs in America than they are in Canada. That is really not too much to ask, considering the U.S. Government will be far and away the largest purchaser of prescription drugs in the world.

The amendment says if the FDA has not implemented reimportation within 2 years of implementation of this law, it will become illegal for drug manufacturers to discriminate against American purchasers compared to our Canadian counterparts. Really, that is what it is all about. It is about price discrimination. I said a few moments ago it is about price gouging. If the prices are justified in Canada, then they are justified here, and we need to

make sure we get a price we are comfortable with.

In closing, I say that the consequences of not protecting American patients are too high. Uninsured patients cannot afford the prescription medicines they need today. Drug prices are fueling health care costs in a way we have seen on that previous chart. One thing we see time and time again is employers dropping health care coverage because they cannot afford prescription drugs. The skyrocketing drug costs have a tremendous potential to make the Medicare coverage we are considering erode significantly over time. What I mean by that is, as these deductibles go up, as the stop losses go up, as the gap in coverage widens, this proposed prescription drug benefit is going to make less sense over time because it is going to have so many problems.

Lastly, I want to show my colleagues this chart. We have seen bits and pieces of this already in this debate from last week, but in the first column this chart lists I believe it is nine of the most popular drugs in this country. It lists what they are used for. There are a lot of folks who are looking at this list and seeing big name-brand drug names. They probably use these drugs. Probably a lot of people in this Chamber use these drugs. This column shows what they are used for and then this third column is really critical. It is the U.S. price. It is what people pay in the U.S.

We are basing this on some Web sites. We know these are prices that can be charged here. This next column shows the price in Canada, what we know they can be charged there because we looked at Web sites that sell them. We can see the big difference on every single one of these nine drugs. The drug in Canada is much cheaper--in fact, 39 percent cheaper, 33 percent cheaper, on down the line. This one is 43 percent cheaper in Canada.

Bear in mind that a lot of these drugs are made in the very same plants. They are made in the very same places. One drug goes up to Canada and the other goes to Arkansas, Texas, Georgia, or wherever it may be. These are the very same drugs coming out of the very same plants. They meet all the same standards. In Canada, they are a lot cheaper.

What we are trying to do is get these prices in this column to go down to be a lot closer to the price in the Canadian column. It is not only good for the citizens but good for the taxpayers because as we add this prescription drug benefit we want to see these lower prices because that means tax dollars will go a lot further, and we, as a Nation, will be able to provide many more drugs through Medicare than we otherwise could.

I ask the Senate very respectfully to support this amendment to simply ensure Americans are treated fairly.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I have a lot of respect for my colleague from Pennsylvania, but I would like to ask if he is familiar with this statement by Gerald J. Mossinghoff, president of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. He says:

Canada, in a move away from the system that hindered

innovation, improved the patent law for medicines in 1988.

Two weeks ago, it further strengthened the law by eliminating

compulsory licenses for drugs approved after December 20,

1991. Drug research in Canada has increased sharply since

1988.

This is his testimony to Congress dated February 22, 1993.

What I ask the Senator is, in view of this statement, is he still maintaining that Canada can steal drug companies' patents?

If the Senator will yield for another question, Canada does take the position, as any nation would, that under its national sovereignty, it can in extreme situations take over a patent. I am sure the United States has the same provision in its law. I have not looked at the law books recently, but I know after September 11 and the anthrax scare, Canada did make the statement that it reserved the right to produce its own vaccines using existing patents.

I am guessing without knowing all the details of your statement, the policy and their intentions--by the way they did not do this--I am guessing they would have paid the pharmaceutical industry something based on manufacturing its patent, but they were doing it in their own national interest to protect their citizens.

So my question is, you pretty much imply that they routinely have the ability to steal patents; they routinely threaten that, but as best we know there has only been one example, extreme example after September 11, where they talk about the possibility of doing this.

Mr. President, I ask one additional question. A few moments ago--I know the Senator was being facetious--you talked about the nasty pharmaceutical companies and how easy it is for some to come in and impugn them and pick on them and try to punish them in some way. I don't know if you heard my comments earlier in the day, but I talked about how proud I was of a lot of what the pharmaceutical industry does in this country and around the world. In fact, I compared the advances in medicine to the advances in aeronautics in the last 100 years. The advances in medicine have been more remarkable than those of aeronautics. It is critical to have a robust industry on the cutting edge but at the same time two of the reasons the pharmaceuticals like to do their research in this country is because of the large amounts of money we fund to NIH. They do very valuable research that the pharmaceutical companies operating here can take advantage of, and we give them a very hefty research and development tax credit. I am for that credit. I am a cosponsor to continue that credit. I think it is critical for the industry.

I hope the Senator was not implying that I am a big critic of pharmaceutical companies. Bear in mind, I don't think they always have clean hands. I have seen in my work as attorney general and reading the newspapers some business practices I wish they would change. We dealt with those at the State level when I was attorney general. The Senate is starting to deal with some of those.

Mr. President, I rise today along with my good friend and colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln, in support of the Emergency Agricultural Assistance Act of 2003 to assist those in the agriculture community who have been devastated by natural disaster across our country.

I hold in my hand a June 19th article from the Arkansas Democrat- Gazette that describes one of the countless stories of farmers across my State and the hardships they have faced due to unusually large amounts of rainfall their farms have received during the absolute worst possible time. In the past month, some areas have received in excess of twenty inches of rain. Arkansas, along with many other States across the Midwest and South, has been pelted continuously by rain and numerous tornadoes. As many as three dozen tornadoes have touched down in Arkansas alone. Bob Bevis, a farmer in Lonoke County, AR hasn't been able to work for three weeks due to soggy fields. In the meantime, wheat crops that were expected to bring record yields rot in the field, waiting for water to recede before the wheat can be harvested. Over fifty percent of Arkansas' wheat crop remains in the field, and with every passing day, the prospects for a successful harvest of wheat diminish. If current weather conditions abate, our farmers may be able to harvest five hundred fifty thousand acres, the lowest total in over seventeen years.

The harvest of winter wheat has been greatly affected by weather. But winter wheat, generating $112.1 million in sales last year, represents only the fourth largest field crop in Arkansas. Rice, soybeans, and cotton represent our top three field crops. During the time wheat is being harvested, these other crops are being planted. Thus, while wheat has been affected, soybeans, cotton, rice, and numerous other crops have been devasted just as they are being put into the ground. Fields are under water. Crops that were planted early have been wiped out. Over 1.3 million acres of farmland across Arkansas have been affected by the excessive rainfall. Many of these acres had to be replanted, and just as quickly as our farmers began to have hopes of a decent crop, those hopes were dashed by disasters beyond their control. As you and many of our colleagues know, this is the critical time for planting crops. The later crops get in the ground, the later they will be harvested. The later they are harvested, the greater the chance insect problems, weed problems, and a whole host of other problems will damage these crops become likely. Yields will be dangerously low. Our farmers cannot suffer this burden alone. Our farmers provide our citizens around the country with an abundant food supply, greater than any other country in the world. We have the safest, least expensive food in the world, because farm families who are suffering through excessively tough times now work from dawn to dusk in the fields to make sure that we do. As a country, and as a government, I hope that my colleagues will show these dedicated Americans the support they deserve. They need our help, and they have asked for our help. I consider this a matter of national and homeland security, and I hope that my colleagues will see it this way as well.

This bill will provide farmers in disaster areas designated by the President who experience a thirty-five percent yield loss with disaster assistance. I would like to thank my colleague from my home state for her hard work and collaboration on this bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure our farmers get the support and help they need to keep America's food supply safe, inexpensive, and the best in the world.

Mr. President, I rise today along with my good friend and colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln, in support of the Emergency Agricultural Assistance Act of 2003 to assist those in the agriculture community who have been devastated by natural disaster across our country.

I hold in my hand a June 19th article from the Arkansas Democrat- Gazette that describes one of the countless stories of farmers across my State and the hardships they have faced due to unusually large amounts of rainfall their farms have received during the absolute worst possible time. In the past month, some areas have received in excess of twenty inches of rain. Arkansas, along with many other States across the Midwest and South, has been pelted continuously by rain and numerous tornadoes. As many as three dozen tornadoes have touched down in Arkansas alone. Bob Bevis, a farmer in Lonoke County, AR hasn't been able to work for three weeks due to soggy fields. In the meantime, wheat crops that were expected to bring record yields rot in the field, waiting for water to recede before the wheat can be harvested. Over fifty percent of Arkansas' wheat crop remains in the field, and with every passing day, the prospects for a successful harvest of wheat diminish. If current weather conditions abate, our farmers may be able to harvest five hundred fifty thousand acres, the lowest total in over seventeen years.

The harvest of winter wheat has been greatly affected by weather. But winter wheat, generating $112.1 million in sales last year, represents only the fourth largest field crop in Arkansas. Rice, soybeans, and cotton represent our top three field crops. During the time wheat is being harvested, these other crops are being planted. Thus, while wheat has been affected, soybeans, cotton, rice, and numerous other crops have been devasted just as they are being put into the ground. Fields are under water. Crops that were planted early have been wiped out. Over 1.3 million acres of farmland across Arkansas have been affected by the excessive rainfall. Many of these acres had to be replanted, and just as quickly as our farmers began to have hopes of a decent crop, those hopes were dashed by disasters beyond their control. As you and many of our colleagues know, this is the critical time for planting crops. The later crops get in the ground, the later they will be harvested. The later they are harvested, the greater the chance insect problems, weed problems, and a whole host of other problems will damage these crops become likely. Yields will be dangerously low. Our farmers cannot suffer this burden alone. Our farmers provide our citizens around the country with an abundant food supply, greater than any other country in the world. We have the safest, least expensive food in the world, because farm families who are suffering through excessively tough times now work from dawn to dusk in the fields to make sure that we do. As a country, and as a government, I hope that my colleagues will show these dedicated Americans the support they deserve. They need our help, and they have asked for our help. I consider this a matter of national and homeland security, and I hope that my colleagues will see it this way as well.

This bill will provide farmers in disaster areas designated by the President who experience a thirty-five percent yield loss with disaster assistance. I would like to thank my colleague from my home state for her hard work and collaboration on this bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure our farmers get the support and help they need to keep America's food supply safe, inexpensive, and the best in the world.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Bingaman- Inhofe amendment to strike language requiring certain communities enrolled in the Essential Air Service to provide a local cost-share.

We are asking our towns and communities, our local governments, hardest hit by difficult economic times to suddenly find thousands of dollars in their already overstretched budgets to replace a significant source of Federal funding, for a critical economic function.

In this time of economic uncertainty, rural communities are struggling to maintain their daily ways of life. With an added burden placed upon them, survival and the opportunity for further rural development will be nearly impossible.

Local airports and the commercial air service they provide are extremely important to small towns, and a strong component of a State's economy. By enacting a cost-share provision, we run the risk of losing these airports, and cutting off a vital economic lifeline to rural America.

In my State, airports in Jonesboro, Hot Springs, and Harrison provide affordable and reliable service to over 10,000 customers a year. The EAS funding they receive is a sound investment in our State's transportation network. Cost share provisions, however, could put those airports out of business.

We are already putting enough strain on our small towns and local governments. We do not need to add to that by eliminating a vital source of funding for a vital function. This amendment would prevent that from happening, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, on May 29, 2003, the National Trust for Historic Preservation named Bathhouse Row in Hot Springs National Park, AR, one of America's 11 Most Endangered Historic Places.

I come to the floor today to applaud the National Trust's efforts to preserve these bathhouses. I also want to bring the dire condition of these historic sites to the Senate's attention and urge my colleagues to support my and Senator Lincoln's work to provide critical funding this year to save the eight bathhouses in Hot Springs.

During the early 1900s, a variety of bathhouses were built in Hot Springs, AR, to accommodate the thousands of travelers who sought the curative waters from 47 natural thermal springs. These bathhouses were elaborately constructed with remarkable architectural design, including stained-glass skylights and patterned mosaic floors and walls. The bathhouse provided restful baths and services--some peculiar and bizarre--that inspired the resort nickname ``The American Spa.'' In short, Bathhouse Row shaped America's ``Golden Age of Bathing'' and was internationally renowned, with the likes of Babe Ruth and the infamous Al Capone visiting the resort.

Arkansans have long known what the National Trust for Historic Preservation has announced to the Nation: that these one-of-a-kind historic treasures are on the verge of disappearing due to neglect. These amazing buildings are literally falling apart. But the story for the bathhouses doesn't have to end there. We have a plan that works for both preservationists and budget hawks. Reasonable Federal investment into reconditioning these buildings will be leveraged by private leasing agreements. Once restored, private ventures will breathe new life and usher a new generation of use into Bathhouse Row for all Americans to enjoy.

Lastly, I think that it is important to note that Congress has recognized the national importance of Hot Springs for 171 years. On April 20, 1832, the Congress had the foresight to establish Hot Springs Reservation--making it the oldest park currently in the National Park System. On March 4, 1921, Congress changed the name to Hot Springs National Park.

Today, Congress has the opportunity to act again in support of Hot Springs. I believe that our predecessors in Congress intended for the park to protect Bathhouse Row and the unique glimpse that it provides into our Nation's social and historic past.

I urge my colleagues to support funding in the fiscal year 2004 Interior appropriations bill for Bathhouse Row in Hot Springs National Park.

Mr. President, I stand before you today in tribute of the Company C 5th Battalion 112th Armor currently stationed at the Pine Bluff Arsenal. Along with the people of my State as well as those across the Nation. I would like to offer my sincere appreciation and farewell to this group of 238 personnel that will be relieved of their duty at the Arsenal in a transfer of authority on June 11, 2003.

This exceptional group of young men and women hailing from Arkansas and Texas came together in an unusual display of diversity in September of 2002 in order to provide extensive base security as a Chemical Site Defense Force. Under the creed, ``One flag, One Team, One Fight,'' this company is a combination of 169 men and women from five Army Companies in Northeast Texas, as well as 69 personnel from my home State of Arkansas. For those not schooled in the procedures of the National Guard, this interstate combination is rare. On top of this is the fact that within ``Tank Fantillery,'' which is the adopted nickname of the company, there is also an unusual mixture of tankers, infantrymen and an artillery battery. Under the direction of CDR Robert Eason, ``Tank Fantillery'' has shown their dedication, unity, and diversity as they have joined in the fight against terrorism by successfully fulfilling their protective duties at the Pine Bluff Arsenal Chemical Munitions facility. Now, coming to the end of their term of duty, I feel that it is appropriate for us to offer them our gratitude and congratulations on the completion of their objective.

Later this month the transfer of authority will take place, and this group of personnel will be relieved of the protective duties that they have held for the last 10\1/2\ months. Such an occasion offers the chance to honor these men and women that display a level of dedication to their country that too few of us share. All of the world should be so lucky as to have such dedicated and honorable soldiers committed to their protection. It is with a warm heart that I salute these men and women and wish them luck in all of their future endeavors.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.