Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Living American Hero Appreciation Act. This legislation honors those Americans that have exhibited the highest levels of courage. It ensures that the recipients of the Medal of Honor receive the recognition and support that they earned through their acts of bravery. As the war on terrorism progresses, I believe that it is important that we remember those that have already fought for our Nation, and placed themselves in peril in order to defend our freedom. As the senior Senator from Arkansas, I'm very proud that my State has produced over 20 Medal of Honor recipients. Three of these courageous individuals still live in Arkansas. Clarence Craft of Fayetteville and Nathan Gordon of Morrilton received their medals as a result of heroism in World War II. Nick Bacon of Little Rock was cited for his courage in Vietnam. Nick has continued his service to our Nation as the Director of the Arkansas Department of Veterans Affairs. This legislation will ensure that our Nation's Medal of Honor recipients receive the recognition that they've earned. It will raise their special pension to $1,000 a month. More significantly, though, it will ensure that recipients receive pension payment for the period between the act of heroism for which the individual was given the medal, and the actually issuance of the medal. These courageous individuals should not be penalized for administrative delays in issuing the decoration. Finally, this bill includes increased criminal penalties for the unauthorized purchase, possession of a Medal of Honor, and for false impersonation of a Medal of Honor recipient. I want to thank Congressman Curt Weldon for his hard work in getting this bill passed by the House of Representatives. It is my privilege to introduce the Senate version of this bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues for its swift passage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 2 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation along with Senator Lott and Senator Gregg which will protect the security of American workers retirement plans without chilling their growth. The Pension Security Act of 2002 is based on President Bush's proposal for pension reform made earlier this month. The President's proposal enhances protections for the 401(k) investments of 42 million American workers by providing individuals with better information about their accounts and significantly more control over their funds. The success of private pension plans has transformed worker retirement in America. Today, because of these plans, the majority of retirees can experience the comfortable retirement that was once available only to few. But as the Enron situation has shown us, there are flaws in the system. When Enron stock plummeted 98.8 percent in one year, thousands of workers lost their retirement nesteggs. What could have prevented such massive losses? For some workers, better information about the wisdom of a diversified investment strategy would have prevented such heavy investment in company stock. Our bill will give employees better investment information in two ways. First, it will require plans to send quarterly benefits statement to plan participants. This statement will include easy-to-understand information about the importance of a well-balanced and diversified portfolio and the risk of holding a substantial portion of the portfolio in one security. Second, our bill amends complex and outdated laws, although intended to protect workers retirement funds, actually prevent them from obtaining affordable financial advice. This legislation will help employers to provide their workers with access to professional investment advice. This benefit would require full disclosure of any fees or potential conflicts and put strict safeguards in place to ensure that workers receive advice solely in their best interests. What else could have prevented the loss of so many Enron employees' retirement savings? Many were unable to control what was in their portfolio. Even when they wanted to sell off their company stock, they could not. Our bill addresses this problem as well. Under our proposal, workers could no longer be locked into a portfolio half-filled with company stock until retirement age. Rather, employees would be allowed to control 100 percent of their investment once they have participated in their plan for three years. Some Enron employees could not diversify their stock when they wanted to because of the well-publicized ``black-out'' or ``lockdown'' period. The Department of Labor is investigating several aspects of the practice of instituting black-out periods for necessary record-keeping adjustments and improvements. However, what has become obvious is that this practice needs legislative guidance. Our bill provides that guidance by requiring 30 days prior notice of any black-out period and codifying definitions associated with the practice. We are also proposing another measure to give workers more control over their investments. During these black-out periods, the law will place the entire burden of liability on the plan. This means that the plan providers would be personally liable for losses to the place caused by a breech of fiduciary duty, and this will be a powerful incentive to keep black-out periods as short as possible. One of the most infuriating spectacles of the Enron disaster was the Enron executives selling off their own personal shares of company stock while employees were prevented from doing the same during the black-out period. This was unconscionable, and our bill will put a stop to it. If this bill is enacted, what is good for the goose will be good for the gander. If workers cannot control their retirement investments due to a black-out period, neither can the company's owners, directors or officers purchase, acquire, transfer or sell company stock. That change will be a major incentive for companies to keep the necessary periods of time when employees do not control their investments as short as possible. The proposal we are introducing here today will give workers better information, more choice in their investment options, and more security with their retirement funds. In order to prevent a knee-jerk reaction to the Enron tragedy, which could cause more harm than good, the President has given us a plan which makes retirement savings more secure while also preserving the ability of individuals to make their own choices, based on their own situation, when investing for their retirement. This bill not only preserves this right, it enhances it. Finally I would like to thank my colleagues Senator Gregg and Senator Lott for joining me in introducing this bill. This bill is important, and we will work tirelessly to see that America's workers and their retirement security are protected. I thank the President for his leadership on this issue and I commend Congressmen John Boehner and Sam Johnson for introducing this bill in the House. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation along with Senator Lott and Senator Gregg which will protect the security of American workers retirement plans without chilling their growth. The Pension Security Act of 2002 is based on President Bush's proposal for pension reform made earlier this month. The President's proposal enhances protections for the 401(k) investments of 42 million American workers by providing individuals with better information about their accounts and significantly more control over their funds. The success of private pension plans has transformed worker retirement in America. Today, because of these plans, the majority of retirees can experience the comfortable retirement that was once available only to few. But as the Enron situation has shown us, there are flaws in the system. When Enron stock plummeted 98.8 percent in one year, thousands of workers lost their retirement nesteggs. What could have prevented such massive losses? For some workers, better information about the wisdom of a diversified investment strategy would have prevented such heavy investment in company stock. Our bill will give employees better investment information in two ways. First, it will require plans to send quarterly benefits statement to plan participants. This statement will include easy-to-understand information about the importance of a well-balanced and diversified portfolio and the risk of holding a substantial portion of the portfolio in one security. Second, our bill amends complex and outdated laws, although intended to protect workers retirement funds, actually prevent them from obtaining affordable financial advice. This legislation will help employers to provide their workers with access to professional investment advice. This benefit would require full disclosure of any fees or potential conflicts and put strict safeguards in place to ensure that workers receive advice solely in their best interests. What else could have prevented the loss of so many Enron employees' retirement savings? Many were unable to control what was in their portfolio. Even when they wanted to sell off their company stock, they could not. Our bill addresses this problem as well. Under our proposal, workers could no longer be locked into a portfolio half-filled with company stock until retirement age. Rather, employees would be allowed to control 100 percent of their investment once they have participated in their plan for three years. Some Enron employees could not diversify their stock when they wanted to because of the well-publicized ``black-out'' or ``lockdown'' period. The Department of Labor is investigating several aspects of the practice of instituting black-out periods for necessary record-keeping adjustments and improvements. However, what has become obvious is that this practice needs legislative guidance. Our bill provides that guidance by requiring 30 days prior notice of any black-out period and codifying definitions associated with the practice. We are also proposing another measure to give workers more control over their investments. During these black-out periods, the law will place the entire burden of liability on the plan. This means that the plan providers would be personally liable for losses to the place caused by a breech of fiduciary duty, and this will be a powerful incentive to keep black-out periods as short as possible. One of the most infuriating spectacles of the Enron disaster was the Enron executives selling off their own personal shares of company stock while employees were prevented from doing the same during the black-out period. This was unconscionable, and our bill will put a stop to it. If this bill is enacted, what is good for the goose will be good for the gander. If workers cannot control their retirement investments due to a black-out period, neither can the company's owners, directors or officers purchase, acquire, transfer or sell company stock. That change will be a major incentive for companies to keep the necessary periods of time when employees do not control their investments as short as possible. The proposal we are introducing here today will give workers better information, more choice in their investment options, and more security with their retirement funds. In order to prevent a knee-jerk reaction to the Enron tragedy, which could cause more harm than good, the President has given us a plan which makes retirement savings more secure while also preserving the ability of individuals to make their own choices, based on their own situation, when investing for their retirement. This bill not only preserves this right, it enhances it. Finally I would like to thank my colleagues Senator Gregg and Senator Lott for joining me in introducing this bill. This bill is important, and we will work tirelessly to see that America's workers and their retirement security are protected. I thank the President for his leadership on this issue and I commend Congressmen John Boehner and Sam Johnson for introducing this bill in the House. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Arkansas for her excellent statement in opposition to this amendment. I rise in strong opposition. This past weekend I was in Lawrence County, AR, at a farm auction in Portia where three farmers were selling out. They were selling their equipment. They put it up for auction. As I stood there and heard their stories, these were not--and I emphasize to my colleagues these were not--small farmers, depending on how you define ``small.'' They had a lot of acreage but did not have a lot of income. In fact, the story was they could not make the cash flow, and they were calling it quits. They told me that within a 6-mile radius of where that farm auction was going on there had been 10 other farmers who had auctioned their farms off, they had gone out of business in the previous month. So when we hear what my colleague calls plutocrats, a few getting these vast amounts of money, it simply does not reflect the reality of rural Arkansas. It does not reflect the reality of what my constituents are facing when we see these Web pages and see how much was received in payments. It does not reflect their net income. It does not tell us what their input cost was. It does not tell us the reality farmers in the delta, the poorest part of this country, are facing today. Farm programs are not and they have never been considered means testing programs. They were never supposed to be for the benefit of a certain economic class or based upon the size of the farm or upon the size of a person's house or what their bank account balance might be or how much they paid in income taxes or some other measure of financial condition. That is not the way our farm program was intended to operate. It was to ensure that Americans have a safe, reliable, and affordable food supply and that our farmers, who are some of the most technologically advanced and environmentally sound producers in the world, are able to compete. It has worked. Is it perfect? No. Are there inequities? Yes. Are there competitions between regions of the country? Yes. But it has provided this country a cheap, affordable, reliable, safe, and environmentally protected food supply. And what the proponents of this amendment are seeking to do is to absolutely pull the rug out from under the producers who have provided this great condition in this country. In Arkansas, agriculture is 25 percent of the State's economy, but that does not even tell the story because it does not account for the thousands of jobs that are related to agricultural production, such as bankers, car dealers, implement dealers, schools, restaurants, and may I say even churches that are dependent upon the survival of the farm economy. Farming is the lifeblood of my State, as it is with many rural States. The farm program and the subsidies have been made necessary by a market that is not functioning properly for several reasons: due to high foreign subsidies, high foreign tariffs, and very strict domestic environmental regulations. Senator Conrad has reminded us many times that in the European Union producers receive an average of about $360 per acre while U.S. producers receive an average of about $60 per acre, one-sixth what they get in Europe. U.S. agricultural products are subjected to an average tariff of about 60 percent, whereas agricultural products coming into the U.S. are only subjected to an average tariff of 14 percent. Whether it is subsidies, whether it is the tariffs, or whether it is the environmental regulations--the very stringent environmental regulations, the most stringent in the world with which our producers must comply--they are at this great disadvantage in competition. That is why we have to sustain and preserve these programs. The United States has two choices: We can support our farmers and retain our position as the world's most productive and environmentally sound producer of agricultural products or we can cede this important market to our European competitors or Third World developing nations and become as reliant on foreign food as we are right now on foreign oil. In my mind, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, this is not just saving rural Arkansas, this is not just preserving a farm economy; it is a national security issue because if we rip the heart out of our agricultural programs, our farm programs in this country with the kind of payment limitation amendment before us today, we will eventually subject ourselves and make ourselves reliant upon and dependent upon foreign agricultural products, suppliers, and producers. It appears many of the environmental groups have chosen to support this effort in the hope that if you get the commodity title of the farm bill through this amendment, more money will be available for conservation programs. We need to think about that a little bit. If we take our productive lands out of production or force our producers into bankruptcy, other countries that are more highly subsidized or Third World developing nations that do not have any type of environmental regulations in place will simply put more land in production, and the end result for our world will be a less environmentally safe place. It is very shortsighted to adopt this amendment. Basically, taking our producers off the land will cede an important market to our competitors, will lead to more land going into production, will not result in better prices, and, in fact, will lead to greater threats to our environment. Conservation programs are very good and very practical, but taking our most productive lands out of production and putting our best producers out of business is a misguided and improper policy. In Arkansas, my farmers, both large and small, my constituents have been very clear that this amendment will spell disaster for farmers in Arkansas. What I saw on Saturday in Portia, AK, will be replicated over and over. The Dorgan-Grassley amendment diverts attention from constructive debate about how to improve farm policy and restore the opportunities for farmers to regain profitability. This amendment will not help farmers, but it will delay or reduce assistance to them as we will have to at that point oppose a bill that will be counterproductive to agriculture in this country. This amendment will only result in a divisive debate over which farmers should be eligible for benefits, what constitutes ``need,'' and how large should farms be. They may be issues we need to consider, but this is not going to improve rural communities or address the issues facing our Nation's producers. I found it interesting that the sponsor of this amendment spoke of the size and the growth of the Department of Agriculture. I say to my colleagues, this amendment will increase USDA's administrative costs, require more Government employees, cause our farmers to spend scarce financial resources on compliance with redtape rather than making them more competitive. This is going to result in the growth of the Agriculture Department and more bureaucracy and redtape for cotton farmers, rice farmers, and peanut farmers. The adoption of the Grassley amendment will mean the Senate's farm bill will offer far less assistance than current law, which, in itself, has proven to be woefully ineffective in times of low prices. This is not a free vote for Senators who expect the House is going to fix it. House and Senate conferees will be under extreme pressure to finish the conference quickly, compromise in such a way that we will not see the elimination of this amendment in conference, and it will be disastrous for Southern agriculture. The means test this amendment includes would require every farmer to take his or her tax return to an FSA office to prove eligibility. Adding another level of redtape and bureaucracy will only compound the problem, limit the support, and make the implementation of a new farm bill almost impossible. Who is that going to benefit? Certainly not the farmers. This amendment will overwhelm FSA employees who will be asked to implement new farm laws in record time and administer these new limitations. There are different regions of the country with different needs, but this arbitrary limitation is nothing less than war on Southern farmers. It is aimed at Southern farmers. I end my remarks by saying we must not turn our backs on rural America. This amendment will gut our Nation's most productive farmers and force rural America into a financial crisis that our Nation has not experienced in decades. I am glad I was in Lawrence County this weekend. I was glad I was there to see firsthand the suffering, to see farmers who are calling it quits, to see the ads in the newspapers saying four more farmers quitting today; to see hundreds of farmers lined up to see if they could buy a bargain, because they cannot afford new implements, to see if they could buy from those who are going out of business. I do not know what they may face in Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, or South Dakota, but I know what they are facing in Arkansas. I know what they are facing in the South, and it is not as it has been portrayed by the Washington Post. I ask my colleagues to take a second look before they support a misguided, though well-meaning, amendment. I ask my colleagues to vote against the Dorgan-Grassley payment limitation amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I commend Senator Carnahan for her excellent statement and for introducing this amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor. Earlier today I filed amendment No. 2828 which did precisely this, making permanent chapter 12 provisions and making them retroactive. Obviously, there is no need to pursue that amendment. I am very pleased to be able to cosponsor this amendment with Senator Carnahan. I look forward to its quick passage as well. I was very disappointed earlier today in the payment limitation amendment being adopted and the consequences I believe it will have for southern agriculture. I know other parts of the country do not face that problem and will not see the impact we will see in Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, and across the South. Consequences will be real and severe. That is why the permanent extension of the chapter 12 bankruptcy for farmers is so essential. It is unfortunate it is so essential. We talk of our farm bill having a safety net. That safety net expired last year, and the enactment of chapter 12 bankruptcy is critical. The temporary basis of past law has Members again seeking to protect our Nation's farmers. This law was enacted on a temporary basis because Congress did not know whether it would work. We now know it does work and it should be permanently enacted. It was passed back in 1986. In the past 14 years, 20,000 American farmers have filed to reorganize their debts under its protection. It was designed to help farmers who receive more than half of their income from farming and have total debts of less than $1.5 million. It hopefully allows them to stay in farming. It has worked very well. It is unfortunate so many of our farmers are being forced into bankruptcy. I join my colleagues in pointing out this disturbing fact. I ask those same colleagues to join me in doing something. Between 1999 and 2001, the Farm Service Agency in Arkansas has seen a 28-percent increase in filings for chapter 12 bankruptcy. I mentioned earlier I attended one of those farm auctions this weekend. The newspaper ad announcing the auction said: Three more farmers calling it quits. That is what we are seeing over and over again across the South-- calling it quits, not being able to make a go of it under the current commodity prices and in the absence of a predictable farm policy. There has been a 28-percent increase in filings for chapter 12 in Arkansas. Chapter 12 helps farmers get through bad times without having to give up the farm and helps them, hopefully, to get on their feet. Before chapter 12, banks would not negotiate with farmers and they would be forced to sell the farm. Chapter 12 provides farmers the ability to have more flexibility to reorganize their financial affairs. Farming requires a tremendous amount of capital investment. Under most other provisions of bankruptcy, farmers would be required to sell a lot of their machinery and oftentimes sell their property also. This sends these farmers spiraling toward collapse because it nearly eliminates the chance farmers could work themselves out of their financial situation. This legislation is currently tied up in the bankruptcy reform conference. It has been there now for 6 months. All the while, farmers are going out of business, forced to sell their equipment, and sell their assets, and sell their property. Our country is in a recession. The agricultural community has been in a recession for several years. Many commodity prices are at their lowest point in nearly 50 years. In the past, we have supported short- term, short-sighted extensions. It is time to permanently enact these bankruptcy provisions. In this time of economic uncertainty, forcing farmers to liquidate their assets is not the answer. The answer is permanent enactment of chapter 12 bankruptcy, allowing farmers the ability and freedom to reorganize their debt and stay in farming. Once again, I thank Senator Carnahan for filing and offering this amendment. I am glad to cosponsor the amendment. I hope for its quick passage this afternoon.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Elder Fall Prevention Act of 2002, along with my colleagues Senator Mikulski and Senator Enzi. Many people do not realize that over 60 percent of fall-related deaths in our country occur among persons 75 or older. Fall victims, especially the elderly, are prone to sustain hip fractures which can be devastating to their health--in fact, 25 percent of individuals who sustain hip fractures die within one year from the time the injury occurred. In Arkansas, falls are the second leading cause of deaths from unintentional injuries. Based on data collected by the Centers for Disease Control, 91 Arkansans died because of a fall-related injury in 1998 alone. Not only is this a serious public health issue, it is also a fiscal issue, because billions of Medicare and Medicaid dollars are spent each year to treat fall victims. It is estimated that over $32 billion will be spent by the Medicare and Medicaid programs for fall related injuries in the year 2020. The Elder Fall Prevention Act will provide needed resources for education, research and demonstration projects aimed at reducing the risk of falls, identifying vulnerable populations, and preventing repeat falls. The congressionally chartered National Safety Council, which is a leader in fall prevention efforts, will be spearheading several of these initiatives, along with the Centers for Disease Control, the Administration on Aging, the Agency for Health Research and Quality, and other qualified organizations. Falls are preventable. I urge my colleagues to support the Elder Fall Prevention Act of 2002 in order to make seniors, family members, caregivers, and employers more safety conscious, to prevent unnecessary deaths, and to provide seniors with peace of mind and a safe environment. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Elder Fall Prevention Act of 2002, along with my colleagues Senator Mikulski and Senator Enzi. Many people do not realize that over 60 percent of fall-related deaths in our country occur among persons 75 or older. Fall victims, especially the elderly, are prone to sustain hip fractures which can be devastating to their health--in fact, 25 percent of individuals who sustain hip fractures die within one year from the time the injury occurred. In Arkansas, falls are the second leading cause of deaths from unintentional injuries. Based on data collected by the Centers for Disease Control, 91 Arkansans died because of a fall-related injury in 1998 alone. Not only is this a serious public health issue, it is also a fiscal issue, because billions of Medicare and Medicaid dollars are spent each year to treat fall victims. It is estimated that over $32 billion will be spent by the Medicare and Medicaid programs for fall related injuries in the year 2020. The Elder Fall Prevention Act will provide needed resources for education, research and demonstration projects aimed at reducing the risk of falls, identifying vulnerable populations, and preventing repeat falls. The congressionally chartered National Safety Council, which is a leader in fall prevention efforts, will be spearheading several of these initiatives, along with the Centers for Disease Control, the Administration on Aging, the Agency for Health Research and Quality, and other qualified organizations. Falls are preventable. I urge my colleagues to support the Elder Fall Prevention Act of 2002 in order to make seniors, family members, caregivers, and employers more safety conscious, to prevent unnecessary deaths, and to provide seniors with peace of mind and a safe environment. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am proud to be a lead cosponsor of the legislation we are introducing today to address the critical shortage of nurses in our country. After holding two hearings earlier this year to examine the nurse shortage and its impact on our health care delivery system. I introduced S. 721, the Nurse Employment and Education Development Act, NEED Act. This bipartisan legislation seeks to encourage individuals to enter the nursing profession, provide continued education and opportunities for advancement within the profession, and to bolster the number of nurse faculty to teach at our nursing schools. Most importantly, its legislation would establish a Nurse Service Corps, which would provide financial assistance to individuals for nurse education in exchange for 2 years of service in a nurse shortage area. The NEED Act won unanimous approval by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on November 1, and I am pleased that it has served as the basis for the legislation we are introducing today. The nursing profession is suffering from a serious decline in practicing nurses due to a shrinking pipeline. The nursing profession as a whole is aging, the average age of Registered Nurses is 43.3 years, while nurses under age 30 comprise less than 10 percent of today's nurse workforce. Large numbers of nurses are retiring or leaving the profession, and only a small number of nurses and nurse educators are taking their place. By the year 2020, when millions of Baby Boomers will retire, it is projected that nursing needs will be unmet by at least 20 percent. For this reason, we need to employ innovative recruitment techniques, including a Nurse Service Corps, public service announcements, and outreach efforts at elementary and secondary schools to promote nursing as a viable, fulfilling career option. To address the needs of the elderly, the bill will provide grants for gerontological education and training. Hospitals, nursing homes, community health centers and other health care facilities are desperately seeking nurses to fill vacant positions so they can continue to provide safe, quality health care. In Arkansas, hospitals have reported over 750 nursing vacancies. To encourage nurses to stay and advance within the profession, the nursing bill provides for a career ladder program and encourages hospitals and other employers to develop innovative retention strategies. The bill also encourages speciality training and mentors through an internship and residency program, in order to fill the void created by experienced nurses leaving the profession. Finally, the bill addresses the critical need for nurse educators. The number of nursing school graduates in Arkansas is at its lowest in a decade, and nursing students have been turned away because of the lack of faculty to teach them. There are approximately four hundred nurse faculty vacancies in nursing schools nationwide. Therefore we include two provisions, a nurse faculty fast-track loan repayment program and a stipend and scholarship program, both of which provide financial assistance to masters and doctoral students who will teach at an accredited school of nursing for each year of assistance. This has been a team effort. I want to thank Senators Mikulski, Kerry, and Jeffords for their contributions to this important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am proud to be a lead cosponsor of the legislation we are introducing today to address the critical shortage of nurses in our country. After holding two hearings earlier this year to examine the nurse shortage and its impact on our health care delivery system. I introduced S. 721, the Nurse Employment and Education Development Act, NEED Act. This bipartisan legislation seeks to encourage individuals to enter the nursing profession, provide continued education and opportunities for advancement within the profession, and to bolster the number of nurse faculty to teach at our nursing schools. Most importantly, its legislation would establish a Nurse Service Corps, which would provide financial assistance to individuals for nurse education in exchange for 2 years of service in a nurse shortage area. The NEED Act won unanimous approval by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on November 1, and I am pleased that it has served as the basis for the legislation we are introducing today. The nursing profession is suffering from a serious decline in practicing nurses due to a shrinking pipeline. The nursing profession as a whole is aging, the average age of Registered Nurses is 43.3 years, while nurses under age 30 comprise less than 10 percent of today's nurse workforce. Large numbers of nurses are retiring or leaving the profession, and only a small number of nurses and nurse educators are taking their place. By the year 2020, when millions of Baby Boomers will retire, it is projected that nursing needs will be unmet by at least 20 percent. For this reason, we need to employ innovative recruitment techniques, including a Nurse Service Corps, public service announcements, and outreach efforts at elementary and secondary schools to promote nursing as a viable, fulfilling career option. To address the needs of the elderly, the bill will provide grants for gerontological education and training. Hospitals, nursing homes, community health centers and other health care facilities are desperately seeking nurses to fill vacant positions so they can continue to provide safe, quality health care. In Arkansas, hospitals have reported over 750 nursing vacancies. To encourage nurses to stay and advance within the profession, the nursing bill provides for a career ladder program and encourages hospitals and other employers to develop innovative retention strategies. The bill also encourages speciality training and mentors through an internship and residency program, in order to fill the void created by experienced nurses leaving the profession. Finally, the bill addresses the critical need for nurse educators. The number of nursing school graduates in Arkansas is at its lowest in a decade, and nursing students have been turned away because of the lack of faculty to teach them. There are approximately four hundred nurse faculty vacancies in nursing schools nationwide. Therefore we include two provisions, a nurse faculty fast-track loan repayment program and a stipend and scholarship program, both of which provide financial assistance to masters and doctoral students who will teach at an accredited school of nursing for each year of assistance. This has been a team effort. I want to thank Senators Mikulski, Kerry, and Jeffords for their contributions to this important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, there is no question that we are now in the middle of a recession. Even before the terrorist attacks 3 months ago, economic growth had slowed dramatically and unemployment was rising. Since September 11, the number of payroll jobs has declined by an average of 314,000 per month, unemployment has increased by an average of 392,000 per month, and consumer confidence is at its lowest level in 7 years. In response to their pessimistic mood and uncertainty about the future, consumers stayed away from shopping centers and retail sales fell by 2.4 percent in September, the largest one-month drop since 1987. In Arkansas, more than three-fourths of employers indicate they have no plans to expand in the next 6 months, whether by adding jobs, making capital investments, or seeking new business opportunities. On October 5, the President publicly urged Congress to send him an economic stimulus package that encourages consumer spending, promotes business investment, and helps dislocated workers. The House of Representatives has now twice passed economic stimulus legislation. I ask you, Mr. President, how many more Americans have to lose their jobs? How many more businesses have to file for bankruptcy? How many more families do we have to see turned away from their own doctor's office because their medical insurance has run out before we put petty politics aside and do something to help those that so badly need our help. I have received hundreds of letters, e-mails, faxes, and phone calls from people all over my home State of Arkansas, as I'm sure have all of my colleagues, from people who need our help and need it now. Take for example an e-mail I recently received from a constituent in West Memphis who wrote: I am one of the 450,000 Americans who were laid off before the September 11th attack, and I am going to need extended unemployment benefits. My plant in Forrest City is in the process of closing. My last day was July 27. Since then, I have spent several hours a day trying to find another job. Things are tough right now. Plus, I have another problem--I am a few years away from retirement. I'm too young to retire but too old to get another job. I know that age discrimination is against the law (wink, wink), but the truth is that not even the government will hire a sixty year old. In a couple of months, my $300 a week unemployment will run out. When that happens, I will have to dip into my retirement funds--if there's anything left by then--to pay the bills. An extension of benefits will help some, and would be appreciated. What I want more than government help, however, is a job. If your staff knows of agencies, websites, etc., which specialize in senior jobseekers' need, I would appreciate knowing about them. I have a lifetime of knowledge and experience to offer a company, and I have kept up with the latest philosophies of manufacturing, as well. There are just more people than jobs right now. This is NOT how and when I expected to retire! Best Wishes--Mike Some simply write and say: ``Please, I urge you help get an economic recovery bill passed now.'' While each person has their own individual story to tell about the effects this recession is having on them, they are all saying the same thing: We need help now! We don't have time for you to play politics with this one. People's lives and livelihoods are at stake. One of, quite possible, the only good things to come out of the horrific terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11th is that we saw, even if for a limited time, real bipartisanship occur here on Capitol Hill. Well guess what . . . the American people saw bipartisanship in action and now expect it, and deserve it, every day. Bipartisanship was once a word that was only spoken by those in political office. It is now being used by nearly every person that contacts me. We need to listen to these people and do what they sent us here to do. We need to work together today, not a month from now, and send to the President an economic stimulus package before we go home for the year. A constituent of mine recently wrote me and said: ``Please quit bickering and pass an economic stimulus package. Senators, it seems that the `ball is in your court'. Thank you, and God Bless America.'' I think he summed it up rather nicely. Mr. President, the ball is in our court, and we need to do something with it. We need to pass an economic stimulus package today.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Well, the Senator has articulated it very well. If we are serious about getting a farm bill done this year--and people have said they want a bill this year--this is it; this is the last alternative. If we want a bill that is conferenceable, that can go to the President, this is it. I think those who have said, ``let's expedite the farm bill, get a bill passed this year,'' this is the litmus test. We are going to find out whether this is rhetoric or whether it is politics as usual, whether we want just an issue or a farm bill this year.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Not on my time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. The Senator is correct.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia, and I am grateful for that commitment of support. I inquire of the Senator, my colleague from North Dakota, how much time does he request?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. As I said, I have voted for cloture and I will again vote for cloture. But even if cloture were invoked and the Harkin- Daschle substitute were adopted, it is not possible to conference it and get a farm bill to the President this year.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I am sorry. I am not sure----

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I can't judge their motives and I do not seek to. I have urged them to vote for cloture. I think it is very important we have a farm bill this year. But time is running out and I urge they support cloture.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Regular order, Mr. President.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to visit. I inquire as to exactly how much time we have.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Judging from the fact this is not a wholehearted endorsement of my amendment, perhaps the----

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Perhaps the request can be granted from the other side.