Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that my entire Washington staff, as well as Tracie Spingarn, an interpreter for the learning impaired, be granted floor privileges for the duration of my remarks this morning.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking you for presiding this morning, for your leadership in the Senate, and for the friendship I think you epitomize when friendships are created, that grow and take root, and that bloom in the Senate. I am proud to call you a friend. Let me say at the very outset that it has been an enormous privilege serving for the last 6 years in this great body. I want to express my gratitude this morning, in the few minutes that I am going to take, to a number of individuals who mean a lot to me and my service in the Senate. I want to begin by expressing my gratitude to my wife Randi, who has been a great fellow mate, an encourager, a partner, and, most of all, my best friend. I am so appreciative to have her here this morning. I wanted to express that. I also want to thank Chaplain Ogilvie. I appreciate so much his prayer this morning, and his prayers every day--and more than the prayers that he offers for the Senate, the prayers that he offers for our country. But I am especially grateful for his friendship and for his spiritual counsel that he offers to other Members. He is going to be greatly missed in this institution, and I think the country is going to miss his service here. While we all understand that he is making the right decision, he is going to be sorely missed. As I look back on the last 6 years, I thank you, Lloyd, for the many hours that you gave to me in counsel and encouragement. And I am very appreciative and very grateful. I also want to express my appreciation to people in the State of Arkansas--the great State of Arkansas, all 2.7 million of them. I thank my staff--not 2.7 million, but it seems like it sometimes. I want to thank the people of Arkansas. I am forever grateful to them for allowing me the privilege of serving them in the Senate. Of course, those who are familiar with the State of Arkansas know that it is a very diverse and very beautiful State from a physical standpoint, but it is also very different as you go to the various parts of it. I hail from northwest Arkansas. I come from the Ozark Hills--being a State legislator for 8 years, representing a small district in northwest Arkansas, being elected to Congress from the Third District, and coming to the Senate and serving the entire State of Arkansas has been an enormously gratifying experience. I have learned that not only are the people wonderful and great in those hills of northwest Arkansas, but also the people of the delta with their very different culture and very different background from the Ozark Hills are wonderful people with tremendous values who love this country of ours as much as my native area in the northwest; or the opportunity to represent the one real urban area of Arkansas, Little Rock, our capital city. To be able to represent every area and every region of the State has been an enormously enriching experience--to work not only for the Ozark Hills but for the Mississippi Delta, and our many vast areas. I discovered the cultural diversity of my State, and I discovered that there are great and wonderful people in every section of Arkansas. It has been an experience that has far surpassed my wildest dreams and my greatest ambitions. I thank the people of Arkansas for letting me walk in the footsteps of some great predecessors such as J.W. Fulbright, John McClellan, or the individual whose portrait hangs just outside the Senate Chamber, Joe T. Robinson. I thank the people of Arkansas. I also want to thank my colleagues. What a great group--that I believe is dedicated to doing what they believe is right for America. I served for 4 years in the House of Representatives. Oftentimes down in the House we would usually good-naturedly make fun of the Senate. So when I was elected to the Senate, I recall a number of them coming up and saying: We hope you enjoy your time down at the retirement home at the other end of the Capitol. That was, of course, the kind of outlook that we had down there; that this was the place where nothing got done, and everyone was a little older and a little slower down there. The rambunctiousness and sometimes wild passions that characterized the debate in the House were not as evident in the Senate. But it is not a retirement home. People work immensely hard in this body. But one of the things that has impressed me more the last 6 years is, in fact, the Senate works just as our Founding Fathers had planned for it to work; that of which Madison said, the popular passions would be cooled and tempered by the deliberative debates in the Senate. So though sometimes we are frustrated and sometimes we call the Senate dysfunctional, the reality, in my mind, is, it works, and it works just as it is supposed to work, and as it continues to work. That is one of the great miracles of our experiment in a republican form of Government. It is that this bicameral legislature and our three branches of Government operate just as our Founding Fathers envisioned they would: to check one another's power, to be a check on an over-concentration of power, and to ensure there would be a body such as the Senate, with such continuity that popular passions and emotions, overreactions at times, would be tempered by the debate that would take place in this body. But it is a very hard-working group. My colleagues work harder than most people in the country ever realize. It always used to irritate me, during the August recess, to go back to the State and have people ask me how the month-long vacation was going. So here is this image, I guess, that will always be there. But I know, as anybody who has gotten very close to the workings of the Senate, that this is a very hard- working group. Edgar Guest put it this way: ``He has found real greatness--who does his task from day to day and meets whatever comes his way.'' That is what I have tried to do these past 6 years. And that is what my colleagues do every day. I found among my colleagues courage. Courage, in my mind, is facing a choice in which there is a clear right and a clear wrong, and in which choosing the right involves a price, involves a cost, involves something, a consequence, and the willingness to go ahead and make the right choice in spite of the fact there is going to be a price to pay. Maybe we don't see it as often as we would always like in the Senate, but I have seen over the last 6 years on numerous occasions where my colleagues knew in their heart what was the right thing to do, or at least as they understood to the best of God's revelation to them and God's light to them what was right and wrong, and they--in spite of what might be a political risk or other risk--were willing to take a courageous stand and make a courageous decision. And then, I am thankful for my colleagues' friendship. The old adage in Washington is: If you want a friend, buy a dog. My experience in the Senate disproves that. My experience is, that is not really true, that there are real and genuine friendships that develop and grow in this body. I mentioned, at the beginning of my remarks, Danny Akaka. I think Senator Akaka epitomizes the kinds of friendships that cross party lines, cross the aisle, and that are genuine on a human basis and on a human level, and that has immensely impressed me: that amidst important debates about life-and-death issues, war and peace, and votes that impact millions of Americans, and, indeed, impact the entire world-- that in the midst of those kinds of debates, there are relationships that transcend, and the very personal needs of friends take precedence and are there. So I am grateful for those friendships that have taken root and have grown and have blossomed in my own life. And then I am very grateful, as I look back over the past 6 years, for some very special staff people. I remember, after President Bush was elected, I was invited to the first bill signing. It was the bill--well, the bill is not important. I went over, and it was in the Roosevelt Room. A couple of things struck me: One was there was a handful of chairs that had been set up, so it was a very humble kind of signing ceremony. The President walked into the room, and he said: ``Now, the chairs are for the staff. The Members can stand.'' And he kind of chuckled, and then he said: ``Because I know who really does the work on legislation.'' He was right, recognizing that it is the staff who makes this place operate. It is the staff who keeps the gears and machinery of Government operating and working. It is the staff who was here late last night and is back in here early this morning. And their contributions, I think, are often overlooked. I just want to thank my personal staff for their great work these past 6 years; and a few people I want to mention by name. To my right is my chief of staff, Todd Deatherage. I have just a handful on my staff who have served with me a decade, my entire time in Washington-- my 4 years in the House and one term in the Senate--and Todd is one of those who goes back the full 10 years. He served as my district director when I was in the House, and when I came to the Senate, he took his family, uprooted them, and moved them to Washington, and has served as my chief of staff in the Senate. So how do you sum up a decade in a few sentences? You cannot. That is the conclusion I came to. But, Todd, I appreciate so much your loyalty. I appreciate the wisdom you have brought to the office. I appreciate your hard work. And I appreciate, most of all, your friendship. Todd is, as are most of us in the Hutchinson Senate office, a great devotee and admirer of Ronald Reagan, and no one more so than my chief of staff because every year, on Ronald Reagan's birthday, we would have this celebration in our office, celebrating Ronald Reagan's birthday. But it was Todd's self-assumed role to remind us that birthday was coming, and he would send out the e-mails. And Todd--I don't know if he actually baked the birthday cake--but he assured there was a birthday cake brought to the office, and we would have a little party honoring Ronald Reagan. On Ronald Reagan's last birthday, he sent the e-mail out, and with the e-mails he included one of Ronald Reagan's famous speeches: ``A Time For Choosing.'' ``A Time For Choosing'' was the 1964 speech that really was the launching pad for Ronald Reagan's national political career. Of course, Barry Goldwater was the nominee of the Republican party. I was 14 years old, living in Springdale, AR, and I remember sitting in front of the black-and-white television in Springdale, watching Ronald Reagan address the Nation in the speech ``A Time For Choosing,'' known to most conservatives as simply ``The Speech.'' That was the speech that led to his run for the Governorship of California and ultimately the Presidency. So Todd, in sending out the announcement about the Ronald Reagan birthday, included the speech ``A Time for Choosing'' with a little postscript: ``You might want to read this speech because this speech had a big impact on our boss's life and thinking.'' And it did. Todd, as I express my appreciation to you today, one of your roles in our office was to be a reminder of first principles. Every office needs somebody who will be the reminder of first principles, and to be a reminder to all of us as to why we got into this in the first place. In fact, in 1984, when I first made my run for State representative, that speech, that treatise, that conservative manifesto, reminding us of what our view of Government is, and what our view of man is, and what the relationship of our Government should be to our society--those first principles are important, and they are important to me and important for us to remember. Todd, thank you for being the one to remind us of that time and time again. I thank my deputy chief of staff, Lisa Goeas. Lisa has been with me also for 10 years. She was one of the first hires I made when I was elected to Congress. I hired her as a scheduler, and right out of college. Of course, the big impediment--I am sure I am going to offend Californians--but the big impediment was, as I looked at her resume, I saw that she was a graduate of Berkeley. I had nothing against Berkeley, but as I scanned it, she could see the double take I took. I said: ``Lisa, you to know I am a conservative. I want you to be comfortable,'' I said. But she has been such an asset in the office. She went from scheduler to legislative assistant in the House, and then worked in the 1996 campaign so tirelessly, in the Senate race in which I became the first Republican the State of Arkansas ever elected to the U.S. Senate by popular election--she worked so very hard in that--and then she has become deputy chief of staff. She is gifted. She is incredibly industrious. She is bright. She is blessed with a great personality. And most of all, she is loyal, and she is a great friend. Nothing, to me, speaks more about Lisa than her involvement in the Cornerstone School in the District of Columbia. The Cornerstone School is a private Christian school that was started by a group of Hill staffers. They looked around the District, and they said: There are children who ought to have an opportunity to go to a Christian school and whose parents cannot afford it, or they don't have the opportunity, or there is no such school. These staffers set out on their own to start this school. They did so several years ago. I am not sure what the enrollment is, but it has grown. Lisa has poured herself into that school and raising money for it, providing scholarships for it, getting sponsors for the children, and to ensure not only their financial support, the tuition, but also to spend time and to be mentors, tutors for the children. I think that says a lot about her heart. Beyond being bright and industrious and energetic and all of the rest of the skills she brings to the office, she brings a great heart as well. I thank especially Nora Breidenbach, as well, for her 10 years of service. She has been with me ever since I came to Congress. She has headed up the entire constituent service operation. She has a kind of quiet efficiency. I always knew that if there was a problem that needed solving, Nora was the one who could solve it. She is also a great manager of people. She has gone through a lot of trials of her own during the last decade, but she always knew how to draw the best, not only from her own life but from those whom she was supervising. She brought the best from everyone who worked with her and for her. Also, I say a special thanks to Fay Ott, my office manager; Cortney Brown, my scheduler--every one of these staffers deserves a speech about them--Kate Hull, who has done such a wonderful job as my LA and is now working on the subcommittee staff, who shepherded through legislation that benefits thousands and thousands of nurses; Andrea Allen, who is my state director in Arkansas, a very wonderful human being, very great state director; Susan Carter, who has been with me for years, left and came back, who heads up projects; and Jim Hirni, my legislative director. I said last night, at one of our many farewell parties, that I think not only is he the best legislative director on the Hill, but going through a tough re-election campaign, no one had a better LD, to keep the shop going, but much more than that: to be there for me with encouragement, strength, and help. To all of my staff I say thanks. To me they are much more than staff. My DC staff consists of Nora Breidenbach, Joycelyn Belcher, Josh Benoit, Cortney Brown, Tim Chapman, Todd Deatherage, Jim Dohoney, Amy Gibson, Colonel Jim Garrison, Lisa Goeas, Michael Hilburg, Jim Hirni, Kyle Hicks, Kate Hull, Rebekah Hutton, Sally Lee-Kerns, Conan Krueger, David Manns, Chris Miller, Robbie Minnich, Tim Moore, Misty Murphey, D.J. O'Brien, Fay Ott, Brydon Ross, Marc Scheessele, Ben Sheldon, Brad Tashenberg, Dan Weaver, Jennie Wingad, Michael Zehr. My state staff consists of Andrea Allen, Carrie Bartholomew, Susan Carter, Jim Case, LaDana Emerson, Leslie Garman, Tammie Hall, Jared Haney, Ruby Henderson, Sarah Jones, Mitchell Lowe, Clint Reed, Julie Reynolds, Spencer Sessions, Jerry Sherrod, Don Travis, Kellie Wall, John Youngblood. They are much more than just staff. They are truly friends. As my colleagues have become good friends to me, so my staff are much more than employees, much more than service to the people of Arkansas. They are very good friends to me. I ran across this Henry Van Dyke quote on friendship. I would like to end my remarks this morning by quoting him: With such a comrade, such a friend, I fain would walk through journey's end, through summer sunshine, winter rain, and then? Farewell, we shall meet again. I thank the Chair for the opportunity to give these farewell remarks from this Senator. I thank my colleagues for the great honor it has been to serve with them these past 6 years. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for as long as I might consume.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I take a moment to pay my personal tribute to Paul Wellstone. Paul was a dear friend and someone for whom I had a great deal of respect, someone with whom I enjoyed working. We served on the Health, Education, and Labor Committee together. We served on the Workforce Protections Subcommittee together. We had many opportunities to deal on differing positions, obviously, on that committee, but always with great congeniality and with a great deal of affection for one another. He and I were both in very heated reelection campaigns, very tight reelection campaigns, and oftentimes discussed before the adjournment our mutual desire to be able to campaign in our States. I share the grief of my colleagues in the loss we have all experienced, the State of Minnesota has experienced, along with his family and what they are enduring. We also look back with a great deal of joy at the life he lived and the contribution he made not only to his State, to his country, but to each one of our lives. I recall so often Paul standing at his desk. He took the desk of one of my predecessors in the Senate, Dale Bumpers from Arkansas. He was a good successor for that position. Where Senator Bumpers would often walk up and down that aisle with great passion, so, too, Paul Wellstone would use the entire length as he wandered that aisle and as he spoke with such passion and such conviction. I remember often his referring to himself, as he would speak, ``as a Senator from the State of Minnesota.'' He would use that expression. I don't know if that is as commonly used as he used it--``as the Senator from the State of Minnesota''--and he stated his position and conviction. I thought that phrase, ``a Senator from the State of Minnesota,'' summed up an awful lot of Paul Wellstone. He was proud of the State of Minnesota, representing the State of Minnesota and the people of Minnesota. He was proud also of this institution, being a Senator. He never lost the love and the awe for serving in this great institution. In my mind, I will always be able to hear echoing Paul Wellstone as he spoke on issue after issue as a Senator from the State of Minnesota. The area in which we found mutual interest and, though from very opposite ends of the political spectrum, similar feelings was the area of human rights, especially on the cause of China and the people of China, telling the world about the human rights abuses that continue even to this day in China. Paul and I held many press conferences with Members, colleagues from the House, who shared concerns about China. He and I made many floor speeches about the remembrance of the Tiananmen Square massacre and some of the tragedies in the past. I speak today with great affection, great admiration, and a great sense of loss about Paul Wellstone. He was a person who had great convictions. He was a man of great conscience. He was a man who did not mind if he upset the political order. He did not care that it might disrupt someone's schedule if he needed to make a speech on a position about which he felt very deeply. As one who admired him for his conscience and his passion, I simply pause today to express my appreciation and admiration for the contribution he has made to all of us. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, freedom of speech does not exist in Iraq, and summary executions are commonplace. Torture is seen as a legitimate tool of control, and violence against women is not just condoned but perpetrated by the Iraqi government. Political opponents of Saddam Hussein are subject to unimaginable cruelty. They are jailed without cause. Amnesty International reports ``Detainees have been threatened with bringing in a female relative, especially the wife or the mother, and raping her in front of the detainee. Some of these threats have been carried out.'' In 1997, the UN reported that Iraq executed more than 1,500 people for political reasons. There are even reports that the victims families are forced to pay the cost of the execution. Saddam stays in power through fear. It is terror--sheer terror--that sustains his evil regime. Saddam Hussein has never been called to account for the Kuwaitis that are still missing from the Gulf War. There are still 609 cases of missing Gulf War POW/MIAs. Included in that number is one American Navy Pilot. The Iraqi government continues to refuse to provide full information about his fate. The passage of this resolution will provide the President with authority he requires in order to address the grave threat posed by Iraq. I fully support his efforts to rally the international community, and believe that a strong vote on this resolution will strengthen his case before the United Nations. It is the hope of all of us that military action will not be necessary. However, after a full decade of effort, we have almost completely exhausted diplomacy. There are some who believe that preemptive military action against Iraq represents a break from our nation's traditions. My colleagues, unfortunately, we are facing untraditional threats. We have tried containment. It was built upon the idea of inspection and sanction. The inspectors were thrown out, and the sanctions have been broken. Again, from Kenneth Pollack and from ``The Threatening Storm,'' he says: Unfortunately, it is difficult to know exactly what is going into Iraq. This is the main problem; if the United States and United Nations knew, they might be able to stop it. As it is, we know only that between the smuggling and the surcharges Saddam is making $2 billion to $3 billion per year that he can spend as he likes. In addition, we have been able to intercept some shipments and get intelligence on others that give at least a sense of what Saddam is using his illegal revenues to import. For instance, in June 2002, the Indian government brought charges against the executives of an Indian company for selling atomized aluminum powder and titanium engine parts to Iraq in such quantity and of such quality that India's Defense and Research Development Organization concluded they could only have been intended for chemical warfare and ballistic missile production. We tried inspections. The sanctions have been eroded, and deterrence only works with a rational person. It assumes rationality. And the fact that he can transmit weapons of mass destruction to terrorists who could inflict enormous damage upon the United States with no fingerprints--with Saddam's fingerprints not even being on it--is evidence that the idea of containment to no longer be a workable approach. The attacks of 9/11 tore our hearts and left us with a grief that will never be forgotten. At the same time, those acts of evil have brought forth a new resolve and a new commitment. It is the responsibility of the U.S. Government, and it is the responsibility of this Senate to ensure that the heartbreak of September 11 is not repeated. Our enemies have grown more cunning and their methods more sinister. We must move swiftly and decisively to deny them the opportunity to attack us. When the threat is real, preemption is not just tactically critical, but, I believe, it is a moral imperative. In Saddam Hussein we are facing a menace that has long expressed hatred of the United States, established links to international terrorists, and has amassed large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. He has been accorded every opportunity to cooperate with the international community, and he has refused. Every day that goes by, the threat grows. He continues to amass his stockpile and strengthens his ties to terrorists. We cannot--we must not--stand by and allow this to continue. And we must not delay. There have been many people quoted in this debate, so let me add one more to the record. Winston Churchill said: There is no merit in putting off a war for a year if, when it comes, it is a far worse war or one much harder to win. The world is watching us. And freedom-loving people across the globe are waiting to see if America will answer the challenge that history has put before us. They are waiting to see if our Nation will assume the mantle of leadership in dealing with a tyrant with maniacal ambitions. Our enemies are hoping we falter. They hope we will continue to be mired in the web of deception spun by Saddam Hussein. They need to be shown that our resolve to protect the American people has never been stronger. While my greatest hope is that military action will not be necessary, it may be unavoidable. Others have come to this floor to talk about the cost of such an operation. They rightly cite estimates ranging in the tens of billions of dollars. Some may discuss the damage that might be done to our relationships with other nations. More gravely, some have spoken about the cost of human life that any military action would entail. These risks are real, but these risks must be weighed against the very real risks of delay. The price of inaction is far too high. Mr. President, 9/11 taught us that. We will never know the complete economic damage of the terrorist attacks of last year. Some have estimated it at more than $600 billion, but the true cost can only be seen by looking in the eyes of those who lost loved ones. The true impact is only realized with the understanding that over 3,000 families are still grieving. Saddam Hussein has the capacity to wreak even more destruction than that which we saw last year. He has weapons that could kill millions, and he consorts with terrorists who would unflinchingly do so if they had the means. So again, I remind you, opponents say this resolution sets a dangerous precedent of preemption. I remind my colleagues of sixteen U.N. resolutions defied, rejected, ignored by Saddam Hussein. The dangerous action would be to do nothing. The dangerous precedent would be to back down in the face of a tyrant who dares us. The resolution put forth by Senator Lieberman, and endorsed by our President, is a statement by this body that the risk posed by Iraq is unacceptable. It is a statement that we will not allow international outlaws to threaten our Nation. It is a statement that we will not sit back in the face of the growing danger that our country faces. Thus, I call on my colleagues for their support of S.J. Res. 46. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased this evening to rise in strong support of the underlying resolution. I am pleased this bipartisan resolution Senators Lieberman and McCain and Senator Warner have introduced is before the Senate. I am pleased to be able to cosponsor that. I believe after a full debate, the Senate will pass this resolution in its current version, and I urge it to do that. The decision to authorize the use of force is a very serious, grave decision. I will further acknowledge that some Members of Congress, men and women of good conscience, have very significant concerns about this resolution. They have been articulated well. They have been argued well. I also acknowledge that when we take a vote on anything that deals with war and peace and life and death, that it must be done in the most sober and serious manner. I have had a number of moms and dads who have come to me concerned about what this might mean for their children, their young men and women who may face war. I see the tears in their eyes. I have heard their anxieties and worries. I approach this with a great deal of serious contemplation and prayer. However, I believe this resolution is not only warranted but necessary in order to protect our Nation. We are rapidly reaching a point at which the risk of utilizing military force is far outweighed by the danger that Saddam Hussein poses to the American people. I have heard that we are setting a dangerous precedent. There are concerns about what this new strategic policy might mean, and how other nations might interpret it. I respond, with all respect, the case of Saddam Hussein, the case of Iraq, is in every way unique. It is unique in law because here is a man and here is a nation that has stood now for a decade in defiance of the world community; that is in violation and defiance of resolution after resolution from the United Nations. They are, as they have rightly been called this evening, an international outlaw. How is it that enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations, and in doing so defend our Nation, set a dangerous precedent? Not only is Iraq in violation of resolutions, and in defiance of the civilized world, but Iraq is also unique in the threat it poses to the civilized world in amassing weapons of mass destruction. It is not at all that the United States is some kind of international bully wanting to throw its weight around the world. It is, rather, we are the one Nation in the world that is capable of doing something about this threat to the civilized world. Not only do we have the ability to do it, but we have the will to do it. The President has come to Congress as he was asked. He believed, I believe, that he had the legal authority already from previous resolutions from this Congress to have acted without coming to us. But Congress said: We want to be involved in this, we want to be consulted. So he came to Congress and laid out his case. Administration officials have appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. Briefings have been provided for all Senators. Certainly, this issue has been a matter of public discourse now for months. It is time now for this distinguished body to act. As we continue debate on this resolution, we must remember this debate is not about arms inspectors, it is not primarily about United Nations resolutions, and it is not about assuaging the international community. History has not looked well upon those who fail to act for fear of provoking a tyrant. What this debate is about is the protection of the American people, the protection of our national security. The best way for the Senate to do that is to provide the President with the authority he has requested. It is helpful to recount what has brought us to this point, to the brink of being forced to use military force. For over a decade, the United States has pursued diplomatic and economic avenues to deal with the threat that Saddam Hussein poses. We have tried to contain, we have tried to deter. But in truth, we have been in a virtually unbroken state of conflict with Iraq since the beginning of the gulf war in 1991. After the American military along with coalition allies routed the Iraqi military, the international community pledged to ensure that Saddam Hussein would never have the capability to threaten the region again. Toward that end, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 687. This resolution, which Iraq accepted as part of the cease-fire, required Iraq to end its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, destroy its stockpile of chemical and biological weapons, and end its support of terrorism. As we convene this evening, more than a decade later, Saddam Hussein stands in violation of this agreement in virtually every point. To ensure that Iraq was complying with its commitments, the United Nations established a weapons inspection program. In recent times, there has been a great deal of discussion about the inspectors. Forgotten in the debate is the original purpose of the inspectors. Inspections were only supposed to confirm that Iraq was living up to its commitment to cease the development of weapons of mass destruction. Inspectors were not sent in to play a cat-and-mouse game. Saddam Hussein used every means at his disposal to thwart the inspections. In the past decade, Iraq has stood in violation of 16 different resolutions. The world community has spoken strongly and frequently against Saddam Hussein. Saddam's response has been continual deception and defiance. Saddam Hussein has made every attempt to accelerate his development of weapons, biological and nuclear weapons. Based on intelligence we have a very frightening picture of Iraq's capabilities. We have had the briefings. I had the most recent briefing this afternoon. We have solid information, public information, that Iraq currently has a large stockpile of chemical weapons. In the initial aftermath of the gulf war, the U.N. inspectors were able to ensure that some chemical weapons were destroyed. A disturbing amount were not uncovered. In fact, 31,600 chemical munitions, 550 mustard gas bombs, and 4,000 tons of chemical precursors were unaccounted for by the U.N. inspectors. Even more disturbing is the likelihood that Iraq retained the means to produce chemical weapons. The U.N. has stated Iraq has imported enough raw materials to produce 200 tons of the VX gas. Since inspectors were ejected from Iraq in 1998, there is a substantial body of evidence that Saddam Hussein has reconstituted his ability to produce VX and other chemical weapons. People question whether there is an imminent threat? People question the currency of the threat that faces us? They think we have time to burn? Time to delay? Perhaps even more terrifying, Iraq continued virtually unabated to produce biological weapons. Senator Frist spoke of this earlier today. In fact, the Iraqi Government has admitted in the past to the weaponization of anthrax, botulism, and aflatoxin on Scuds and on aircraft. United Nations inspectors never accounted for at least 4 tons of raw material that can be used to produce biological weapons. Recent reports are that the Iraqis are testing unmanned vehicles that could be used to deliver these weapons over wide territories. I am told these unmanned vehicles would be almost impossible to be detected or to be shot down. We also have reason to believe that Saddam Hussein has developed mobile biological weapon laboratories that would be virtually impossible for inspectors, were they to get back in, to detect, to locate, and to destroy. In this debate, it is important that we have an appreciation for the terrible power of these kinds of weapons. VX nerve gas is one of the most dangerous chemicals known to man. It operates by cutting off a person's nervous system, making it impossible for them to breath. Exposure to only a few drops can kill in minutes. The danger of anthrax was made shockingly clear during last year's attacks. Over 20 Americans were infected, and 7 were killed, and it could have been much, much worse. The letter that was sent to Senator Leahy's office contained enough spores to kill tens of thousands of people, in one single envelop. There is every indication that Saddam Hussein has enough anthrax to kill millions of Americans. Iraq has accelerated work on its missile development program. In fact, some of his chemical and biological weapons are deployable with 45 minutes warning. According to the dossier recently released by the British Government, Iraq currently has ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. He is actively working to extend the range of his armaments, with the ambition of being able to strike as far as Europe in the coming years. Even with his success in developing chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein continues to pursue the ultimate weapon of mass destruction . . . a nuclear bomb. He has scoured the world attempting to procure enriched uranium to finalize his development of a nuclear weapon. Estimates are that, should Iraq be successful in getting this material, a nuclear weapon would take no longer than a few months to produce. We can't be sure he hasn't succeeded already. It is evident that Saddam Hussein has the capabilities to inflict great devastation. His intentions are even clearer. His hatred of the United States is only matched by his hunger for power. The Iraqi Government has repressed its own people, committed acts of aggression against its neighbors, and been an active supporter of international terrorism. In a very unstable region, Saddam Hussein has taken every opportunity to add to the turmoil in the Middle East. He has plotted to assassinate a former U.S. President. In 1993, the Iraqi Government plotted to kill former President George Bush during his trip to Kuwait. American pilots are taking fire from the Iraqi military virtually every day during patrols of the no-fly zones. Unprovoked? Hardly. It does not set a dangerous precedent to act in a preemptive way in light of his violations of international law and his continual firing upon American aircraft. So far this year, American and British aircraft have been fired on over 406 times. In the past 2 weeks alone they have been fired on over 60 times. Until his recent death, Iraq harbored Abu Nidal, who masterminded terrorist attacks in 20 countries, resulting in the deaths of 900 people. There are credible reports that members of al-Qaida have found sanctuary in Iraq. It is becoming increasingly clear that Iraq has provided training to al-Qaida, including instruction on the use of chemical weapons. Earlier this year, Saddam Hussein offered $25,000 to each of the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. The only condition is that the bomber has a full belt of explosives when he blows himself up. This despicable offer essentially provides a bounty for the deaths of innocent Israelis and establishes a perverse incentive program for terror. His invasion of Kuwait is well-documented. However, I would like to take a moment to discuss the atrocities he has committed against his own people. I believe that it will shed further light on the horrors of which Saddam is capable. The U.N. Commission on Human Rights and the U.N. General Assembly has issued a report criticizing ``systematic, widespread, and extremely grave violations of human rights,'' and cited ``all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror.'' That is the diplomatic language of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. In ``The Threatening Storm,'' Kenneth Pollack puts it a little plainer. He said: This is a regime that will gouge out the eyes of children to force confessions from their parents and grandparents. This is a regime that will crush all of the bones in the feet of a two-year-old girl to force her mother to divulge her father's whereabouts. This is a regime that will hold a nursing baby at arm's length from his mother and allow the child to starve to death to force the mother to confess. This is a regime that will burn a person's limbs off to force him to confess or comply. This is a regime that will slowly lower its victim into huge vats of acid either to break their will or simply as a means of execution. This is a regime that applies electric shocks to the body of the victims, particularly their genitals, with great creativity. This is a regime that in 2000 decreed that the crime of criticizing the regime, which can be as harmless as suggesting Saddam's clothing would not be matched, would be punished by cutting off the offender's tongue. And on and on it goes. I ask unanimous consent that this citation from ``The Threatening Storm'' by Kenneth Pollack be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, today, many of my colleagues have joined me in submitting a resolution urging the President to invoke the Taft Hartley emergency dispute resolution procedures in response to the complete shutdown of twenty-nine West Coast ports due to a labor dispute. I deeply regret that this legislation is necessary, but the grave economic consequences of the shutdown and the serious ramifications on our country's ability to improve homeland security have made it so. It is estimated that 7 percent of our Nation's gross domestic product flow through these ports. However, that does not begin to calculate the cost to the workers and families who are and will be affected by this impasse. Transportation of products to West Coast ports has been shut down. The jobs of railroad employees, barge employees, and independent truck drivers, whose livelihoods all depend upon the flow of goods in and out these ports, are being endangered by this dispute. In addition, manufacturers who are unable to move products are facing unexpected storage costs that have already resulted in thousands of layoffs. In the agriculture sector, the inability to ship grains, vegetables, livestock, and other perishables is having a catastrophic effect on farmers and ranchers, many of whom are already facing consecutive years of drought and economic hardship. The ability to move agricultural products and sell them to foreign markets when prices are best is essential to the health of rural communities across our country. In addition, the inability to move these products off our own domestic market threatens to push commodity and livestock prices even lower. Agricultural producers and marketers have spent millions of dollars to open and develop Asian markets amidst heavy competition from Canada, Australia, and many other countries vying for access. This dispute is threatening thousands of jobs and years of work to increase trade with these emerging markets. At a time when the country is already experiencing economic hardships, this shutdown is jeopardizing the jobs and livelihoods of thousands of citizens across our country. From auto-workers in Michigan and Missouri to rice and wheat farmers in Arkansas and Kansas, the human cost of this dispute far exceeds the financial and technical issues that have provoked it. This resolution calls on the Pacific Maritime Association and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union to adopt 24-hour extensions of the expired collective bargaining agreement and end the current lockout while they go through mediation. It also urges the President to appoint a board of inquiry and begin the emergency dispute settling procedures called for under the Taft Hartley Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, if he determines that mediation has failed. My colleagues and I have taken this action out of concern for our home states and the safety and health of the nation. Much of the industry in my home state of Arkansas relies on product import and export, and much of it travels through west coast docks. Arkansas is already feeling the effect of the shutdown, and it is critical that labor dispute be solved before even more damage is done. Mr. Craig. Mr. President, I rise to commend my colleague, the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson, and an happy to join him as an original cosponsor, upon his submission of a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate about the recent shutdown of shipping that has occurred on the West Coast. We are at war with terrorism. The Senate is now debating action on another front in that war. We are at a critical moment in our economic recovery, when we are eager for that economy to continue to grow, and we want to protect and resume creating good jobs for American workers. At such a time, frankly, I am at a loss to understand how such a dispute has ever come about in these 29 ports on the West Coast. I would hope the partied involved understand that they risk strangling an estimated 7 percent of our Nation's economy. I would hope they realize the implications a prolonged dispute would have for millions of workers and their families, as well as for our Nation's health and safety. This shutdown already is hurting agriculture, one of the largest sectors of Idaho's economy. I have been in touch with farmers and ranchers in Idaho. The impact of this shutdown has been immediate and it threatens to be devastating. I know it is affecting other industries as well. We have all heard the estimates that it will cost the Nation's economy $1 billion a day, but I understand that is the cost in the early days of the shutdown. The harm will grown, and it is something that workers, families, farmers, and employers in Idaho and across the Nation should not be forced to bear. So, I commend Senator Hutchinson for his leadership in the submission of this resolution. I join him in imploring the disputing parties to work with urgency to resolve differences and reach a settlement, while adopting twenty-four extensions of the expired collective bargaining agreement, allowing the ports to reopen, and restoring the full, brisk, efficient flow of American goods to markets overseas. I also appreciate the fact that the adminsitraiton already is working to resolve this problem. A Federal mediator has gotten engaged. Now it is time for the Senate to add its voice to the constructive efforts of the administration. With my colleagues, I call on the disputing parties to consider the good of the country at a critical time; to recognize the responsibilities of a good neighbor to employers and labor across our land; and to come back to the table and come back to work.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5063, the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act. As a cosponsor of the Senate companion, S. 2816, I believe that this legislation will provide well- deserved tax benefits for those in service to our nation. With the ongoing war on terrorism, it is critical that we do everything in our power to support members of our military, and their families. This legislation ensures that the entire benefit of $6,000 paid to the family of those individuals killed on active duty is made tax-free. Previously, only half of this benefit was exempt from taxes. H.R. 5063 also ensures that members of our military can receive the tax treatment they deserve from the sale of their home. Because those in our armed forces are required to move frequently, many are unable to take advantage of the aspect of the tax code that allows the exclusion of gains from the sale of a person's home from the capital gains tax. This legislation ensures that they will qualify for this benefit. As the Ranking Member of the Personnel Subcommittee on the Senate Armed Services Committee, my top priority has been to improve the quality of life for members of our military and their families. H.R. 5063 is an important step toward that effort.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, today I have introduced legislation to stop the illegal sales of cigarettes over the Internet, an escalating problem which has had a particularly negative effect in my home State of Arkansas. While every State in the union has enacted laws prohibiting minors from purchasing or possessing tobacco products, this law is easily evaded when minors purchase cigarettes over the Internet. Disreputable websites flagrantly break the law, even advertising that they do not check identification. In the first quarter of 2002, the number of Internet site selling cigarettes had already increased by over 10 percent from 2001, and the number of those based overseas increased almost 20 percent. In addition to putting cigarettes in the hands of minors, these websites also fail to pay the sales and tobacco taxes many states levy on these products. The Government Accounting Office released a study in August 2002 which reports that by 2005 states will be losing as much as $1.4 billion annually due to this tax evasion. This is revenue states cannot afford to do without. Current federal laws must be updated and strengthened to address this growing threat. My bill, the Eliminating Profiteering through Illegal Cigarette Sales, EPICS Act, addresses both aspects of the problem. It is designed to both strengthen domestic security by giving law enforcement agencies additional tools they need to choke off this source of terrorist income, and to ensure that legitimate Internet sites selling cigarettes take significant steps to prevent their orders from falling into the hands of our kids. The EPICS Act prohibits online sales of cigarettes to minors. It also ensures that minors are not able to purchase cigarettes online using a false identification by enacting strict identification verification requirements. In order to assist states enforcement of age requirements and collection of taxes, this bill will dramatically strengthen the Jenkins Act. This law requires anyone who ships or sells tobacco products over state lines other than to licensed dealers to report those sales to the state tax administrator. When this is done, states can ensure that sales are not being made to minors and that due taxes have been collected. Currently, there is very little enforcement of the Jenkins Act. This bill remedies this by establishing much harsher penalties for those who do not comply and by allowing a State's Attorney General to enforce the Federal law. Following the recommendation of the GAO, the bill will give the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms concurrent authority with the Justice Department to enforce the amended Jenkins Act. It also updates the law to make it clear that the Jenkins Act reporting requirements apply to all sales by Internet, mail and phone. Additionally, this bill will improve current laws to prohibit the trafficking in contraband cigarettes. The EPICS Act lowers the number of unstamped cigarettes required to trigger the law from 60,000 to 2,000, adds reporting requirements and allows a State's Attorney General and Federal tobacco permit holders to bring causes of action to enforce the federal law. With numerous reports of terrorist organizations transporting contraband cigarettes across State lines to reap profits right here in the U.S., it is especially important that this law be effective. Terrorists and others who seek to profit by illegal means have discovered the goldmine of Internet sales. The number of Internet sites selling untaxed cigarettes or selling to minors is increasing almost daily. Heightened media coverage has pointed out the problem, but also advertised their availability to minors and tax-evaders. I hope my colleagues will act quickly to prevent illegal tobacco profits, keep cigarettes out of the hands of minors and stop tobacco tax evasion. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record. There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, today I have introduced legislation to stop the illegal sales of cigarettes over the Internet, an escalating problem which has had a particularly negative effect in my home State of Arkansas. While every State in the union has enacted laws prohibiting minors from purchasing or possessing tobacco products, this law is easily evaded when minors purchase cigarettes over the Internet. Disreputable websites flagrantly break the law, even advertising that they do not check identification. In the first quarter of 2002, the number of Internet site selling cigarettes had already increased by over 10 percent from 2001, and the number of those based overseas increased almost 20 percent. In addition to putting cigarettes in the hands of minors, these websites also fail to pay the sales and tobacco taxes many states levy on these products. The Government Accounting Office released a study in August 2002 which reports that by 2005 states will be losing as much as $1.4 billion annually due to this tax evasion. This is revenue states cannot afford to do without. Current federal laws must be updated and strengthened to address this growing threat. My bill, the Eliminating Profiteering through Illegal Cigarette Sales, EPICS Act, addresses both aspects of the problem. It is designed to both strengthen domestic security by giving law enforcement agencies additional tools they need to choke off this source of terrorist income, and to ensure that legitimate Internet sites selling cigarettes take significant steps to prevent their orders from falling into the hands of our kids. The EPICS Act prohibits online sales of cigarettes to minors. It also ensures that minors are not able to purchase cigarettes online using a false identification by enacting strict identification verification requirements. In order to assist states enforcement of age requirements and collection of taxes, this bill will dramatically strengthen the Jenkins Act. This law requires anyone who ships or sells tobacco products over state lines other than to licensed dealers to report those sales to the state tax administrator. When this is done, states can ensure that sales are not being made to minors and that due taxes have been collected. Currently, there is very little enforcement of the Jenkins Act. This bill remedies this by establishing much harsher penalties for those who do not comply and by allowing a State's Attorney General to enforce the Federal law. Following the recommendation of the GAO, the bill will give the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms concurrent authority with the Justice Department to enforce the amended Jenkins Act. It also updates the law to make it clear that the Jenkins Act reporting requirements apply to all sales by Internet, mail and phone. Additionally, this bill will improve current laws to prohibit the trafficking in contraband cigarettes. The EPICS Act lowers the number of unstamped cigarettes required to trigger the law from 60,000 to 2,000, adds reporting requirements and allows a State's Attorney General and Federal tobacco permit holders to bring causes of action to enforce the federal law. With numerous reports of terrorist organizations transporting contraband cigarettes across State lines to reap profits right here in the U.S., it is especially important that this law be effective. Terrorists and others who seek to profit by illegal means have discovered the goldmine of Internet sales. The number of Internet sites selling untaxed cigarettes or selling to minors is increasing almost daily. Heightened media coverage has pointed out the problem, but also advertised their availability to minors and tax-evaders. I hope my colleagues will act quickly to prevent illegal tobacco profits, keep cigarettes out of the hands of minors and stop tobacco tax evasion. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record. There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to make permanent a provision included in last year's tax bill, the Coverdell education savings accounts. Congress took an important step last year in providing real options for parents to save for their children's elementary, secondary, and postsecondary educations. It is important now that we ensure that these options do not disappear in the future. Coverdell education savings accounts provided a new way for parents to save for their child's education. Accounts were increased to a maximum of $2,000, and parents can now use the tax-free savings for not only a college education, but also for elementary and secondary school expenses, including tuition, books, computers, and tutoring. Earnings on contributions to this plan are tax-free due to the tax bill that was passed last year. Now, it is time to continue this commitment to our children. Parents who want to open an education savings account this year for their child who is five years old have no guarantee that those accounts will exist beyond 2010. Last year's tax bill, as we know, sunsets in 2010. But for this program, parents need to be assured that money they are saving now will be available for college tuitions in 2011 and beyond. With the cost of higher education rising faster than family income, we need to ensure that these saving tools will be available for years to come for families who are preparing for their future and being smart about their money. The average cost of tuition and fees between the 1989-1990 and 2001-2002 school years rose by 8 percent a year at 4- year private colleges and 10 percent a year at 4-year public colleges, while family income rose by only 5 percent annually during that same time period. Parents should have the assurance that accounts that are started now, and that would not be tapped into for ten to fifteen years, would still be around at that time. I have started education savings accounts for my grandchildren, who are all infants and toddlers, and I want to know that they will be able to use this money years down the road for elementary or secondary schools or for their college education. We need to make this benefit permanent now to ensure savings incentives for years to come. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to make permanent a provision included in last year's tax bill, the Coverdell education savings accounts. Congress took an important step last year in providing real options for parents to save for their children's elementary, secondary, and postsecondary educations. It is important now that we ensure that these options do not disappear in the future. Coverdell education savings accounts provided a new way for parents to save for their child's education. Accounts were increased to a maximum of $2,000, and parents can now use the tax-free savings for not only a college education, but also for elementary and secondary school expenses, including tuition, books, computers, and tutoring. Earnings on contributions to this plan are tax-free due to the tax bill that was passed last year. Now, it is time to continue this commitment to our children. Parents who want to open an education savings account this year for their child who is five years old have no guarantee that those accounts will exist beyond 2010. Last year's tax bill, as we know, sunsets in 2010. But for this program, parents need to be assured that money they are saving now will be available for college tuitions in 2011 and beyond. With the cost of higher education rising faster than family income, we need to ensure that these saving tools will be available for years to come for families who are preparing for their future and being smart about their money. The average cost of tuition and fees between the 1989-1990 and 2001-2002 school years rose by 8 percent a year at 4- year private colleges and 10 percent a year at 4-year public colleges, while family income rose by only 5 percent annually during that same time period. Parents should have the assurance that accounts that are started now, and that would not be tapped into for ten to fifteen years, would still be around at that time. I have started education savings accounts for my grandchildren, who are all infants and toddlers, and I want to know that they will be able to use this money years down the road for elementary or secondary schools or for their college education. We need to make this benefit permanent now to ensure savings incentives for years to come. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, there are 39 million uninsured people in America, and that number is predicted to grow to 50 million by 2010. Surprisingly, 80 percent of the uninsured are members of working families, who work hard everyday but simply cannot afford the rising cost of health care. According to a recent survey by Hewitt Associates, the average insurance premium will increase more than 20 percent in 2003. This is a sharp increase from earlier forecasts. Such an increase is in addition to the double digit increase in premiums anticipated this year. I am pleased today to introduce the Securing Access Value and Equality in Health Care Act, or SAVE Act. This bill will provide every American with a pre-payable, fully refundable tax credit toward the purchase of health insurance. The tax credit will be $1,000 for individuals, $2,000 for married couples, and $500 per dependent, up to $3,000 per family. An additional 50 percent will be added for any additional premiums to assist those with higher costs. By being pre-payable, the credit will be available to individuals at the time of purchase, instead of when they receive their annual tax return. A study by Professor Mark Pauly at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania showed that a credit like that contained in the SAVE Act would remove 20 million Americans from the ranks of the uninsured. The SAVE Act will provide direct assistance to millions of Americans, and over 498,000 uninsured Arkansans, in affording health insurance. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, there are 39 million uninsured people in America, and that number is predicted to grow to 50 million by 2010. Surprisingly, 80 percent of the uninsured are members of working families, who work hard everyday but simply cannot afford the rising cost of health care. According to a recent survey by Hewitt Associates, the average insurance premium will increase more than 20 percent in 2003. This is a sharp increase from earlier forecasts. Such an increase is in addition to the double digit increase in premiums anticipated this year. I am pleased today to introduce the Securing Access Value and Equality in Health Care Act, or SAVE Act. This bill will provide every American with a pre-payable, fully refundable tax credit toward the purchase of health insurance. The tax credit will be $1,000 for individuals, $2,000 for married couples, and $500 per dependent, up to $3,000 per family. An additional 50 percent will be added for any additional premiums to assist those with higher costs. By being pre-payable, the credit will be available to individuals at the time of purchase, instead of when they receive their annual tax return. A study by Professor Mark Pauly at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania showed that a credit like that contained in the SAVE Act would remove 20 million Americans from the ranks of the uninsured. The SAVE Act will provide direct assistance to millions of Americans, and over 498,000 uninsured Arkansans, in affording health insurance. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Conference Agreement on Trade Promotion Authority. Since 1994, when trade promotion authority lapsed, America has been on the sidelines while other countries have negotiated free trade agreements beneficial to those countries and harmful to us. Our trading partners around the world have sealed deals on approximately 150 preferential trade compacts, many within our own hemisphere. Yet the United States is party to only three. Encouraging trade has been an undeniable benefit for Arkansas' economy. Arkansas export sales of merchandise for the year 2000 totaled $2.07 billion, up over 13 percent from 1999 and 86 percent higher than the State's 1993 total of $1.11 billion. Arkansas exported globally to 134 foreign destinations in 2000. More than 69 percent of Arkansas's 1,456 companies that export are small- and medium-sized businesses, and 61,700 Arkansas jobs depend on manufactured exports. Wages for those jobs are 13 to 18 percent higher than the national average. For 8 years the United States has missed out on opportunities to increase trade, opportunities we frankly could not afford to miss. Today the Senate will complete our debate on granting the President trade promotion authority. This critical legislation gives the President the authority to negotiate and bring trade agreements to Congress that will eliminate and reduce trade barriers relating to manufacturing, services, agriculture, intellectual property, investment and e-commerce. Most importantly, this legislation ensures that Congress can fulfill its constitutional role in U.S. trade policy and fight for the interests of U.S. workers as well as industry. One area of the conference agreement that deserves special recognition is the treatment of trade remedy laws. Our Nation's trade laws are essential to U.S. manufacturers, farmers, and workers. I am strongly committed to preserving U.S. trade laws, as are many of my colleagues. Many of us have written to the President, stating our opposition to trade agreements that would weaken trade remedy laws. The Senate commitment to preservation of the U.S. trade law is unequivocal. The conference agreement speaks very clearly to this commitment. The legislation before us upgrades, as a ``Principal Negotiating Objective,'' the preservation of the ability of the United States to vigorously enforce its trade remedy laws. This agreement officially codifies our commitment to the preservation of these laws and to avoid weakening measures. It also includes provisions directing the President to address and remedy market distortions that lead to dumping and subsidization. Additionally, the conference agreement provides for close consultation between the administration and Congress throughout ongoing trade negotiations. It requires the President to report to Congress 180 days, before entering into a trade agreement, describing the trade law proposals that may be included in that agreement and how these proposals fulfill the principal negotiating objectives. After that report has been submitted, Congress may consider a resolution under special rules expressing disapproval of any trade law weakening provisions that may be included in a trade agreement. As the administration moves forward with trade negotiations, I urge our negotiators to view the measures adopted today as a clear signal that Congress will take seriously any attempts to weaken our domestic trade laws in the context of these negotiations. The laws currently in place, particularly the antidumping and countervailing duty laws, ensure that free trade is also fair. These laws are of critical importance to U.S. manufacturers, farmers, and workers, and they must be preserved. I plan to follow our multilateral trade negotiations very closely with an eye toward assuring the integrity of these laws.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, nearly 482,000 seniors in Arkansas desperately need a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Per capita, Arkansas has one of the poorest senior populations in the Nation, which means, more often than not, Arkansas seniors must choose between putting food on the table and buying much needed prescription medicines. I voted in favor of the Graham-Smith-Lincoln Medicare prescription drug compromise today, which has the full support of the AARP, because I believe in providing prescription drug assistance to as many people as possible and to those seniors who need it most. I regret, however, that it leaves out nearly 40 percent of Arkansas seniors and lacks measures to strengthen and protect Medicare. Rather, I believe that a universal benefit, accompanied by responsible Medicare reforms, is the most sensible approach to addressing the rising cost of drugs for our seniors and ensuring the long-term stability of the Medicare program. But most importantly, I am concerned about the impact of the Graham-Smith-Lincoln compromise on local pharmacies. Seniors need a Medicare prescription drug benefit just as much as they need access to their local pharmacies, particularly in rural states like Arkansas. The discount drug card established under the Graham-Smith-Lincoln compromise is a concept I opposed last week when I voted against the Hagel drug card amendment. Requiring pharmacies to accept discounts while doing nothing to reduce the price at which drugs are bought could force local pharmacies to foot the bill of a Medicare prescription drug amendment. This is simply not right. To help fix these problems, I filed an amendment to the Graham-Smith- Lincoln compromise which would have struck the drug discount card provisions in the bill as well as a provision giving special treatment for mail order pharmacies. If the Graham-Smith-Lincoln compromise garnered the 60 votes necessary for passage, I was prepared to offer my amendment so the Senate could have an open debate and vote on the impact of such legislation on local pharmacists. Since the Graham- Smith-Lincoln compromise was rejected, this debate will have to wait until another day. In the meantime, I will continue to work for a bipartisan solution that provides Medicare prescription drug coverage for all seniors, and particularly low-income seniors, while also preserving access to local pharmacies.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, it is my distinct privilege to recognize and pay tribute to the heroes of Arkansas who have been awarded the Purple Heart. This distinguished group of Americans are the recipient of our nation's earliest military decoration and the oldest in the world in present use. The Purple Heart is a combat decoration awarded in the name of the President of the United States to members of the armed forces who are wounded by an instrument of war in the hands of the enemy. The Purple Heart was originated by General George Washington in 1782 to recognize ``instances of unusual gallantry.'' Referred to then as the Badge of Military Merit, the decoration was awarded only three times during the Revolutionary War. The modern Purple Heart was brought into existence by Army Chief of Staff, General Douglas MacArthur. The medal was designed by Miss Elizabeth Will, in the Office of the Quartermaster General, and was introduced by the War Department on February 22, 1932, the bicentennial of George Washington's birth. The Military Order of the Purple Heart provides a loud and clear voice on behalf of veterans and the issues that concern them. The crucial work that they do reminds us of just how precious freedom is, and that those who have unselfishly risked everything in freedom's name are worthy of every benefit a grateful nation can afford. On behalf of the United States Senate, I thank the Arkansas members of the Military Order of the Purple Heart for the sacrifices that they have made in defense of this great nation.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, it is my distinct honor and privilege to recognize the Texans from San Antonio. Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 141st Infantry, commanded by CPT Scott M. Mac Leod, distinguished themselves as a premier force protection unit in providing flawless security for one of the U.S. Army's chemical munitions stockpiles. Captain Mac Leod's Texas Army National Guard Unit was federalized in October 2001 and has provided force protection to a homeland security mission at Pine Bluff Arsenal, the only active Army installation within the State of Arkansas. Soldiers of Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 141st Infantry headquartered in San Antonio, TX, along with other elements of the 141st Infantry Brigade were mobilized as part of President Bush's homeland defense initiative and the war on terrorism. Under the professional and effective leadership of CPT Scott Mac Leod, First Lieutenant Joaquin Campos and First Sergeant Jose Villarreal, the Chemical Site Defense Force surpassed their mission requirements from predeployment, through deployment, to postdeployment. During predeployment, these citizens quickly and selflessly assumed their role as full-time soldiers, and while deployed these soldiers braved the elements 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. All the while, the unit's morale remained high, and after 1 year, several soldiers volunteered for another year. This impressive accomplishment is particularly noteworthy since these citizen-soldiers were given a critical and extremely grueling assignment that kept them away from home for an entire year. When called on by their Commander in Chief, this proud group of Texans came to Arkansas, carved out defensive positions in the Arkansas wilderness, and put forth an inexhaustible effort toward the defense of our homeland. They literally have lived up to their motto, ``Remember the Alamo.'' It is with great pride that I have risen today to pay tribute to the more than 130 soldiers who make up the Texans from the Alamo. They have selflessly put their private lives on hold to answer the call of duty. Their presence at the Pine Bluff Arsenal has been a powerful deterrent to domestic terrorism and contributed immeasurably toward the domestic assurance of peace. The people of Arkansas are grateful for each soldier's dedication, and we are extremely proud to have had these great Americans as guests in our State over the last year. Alpha Company's remarkable performance in this critically important mission reflects great credit on the State of Texas and the U.S. Army.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, today is a day of great significance and a turning point for the future of nursing in our country. We are about to pass the final version of the Nurse Reinvestment Act, after months of negotiations between the House of Representatives and the Senate. Eighteen months ago, I held the first hearings in the Senate examining the severity of the nursing shortage and its impact on our health care delivery system. I subsequently worked with Senator Mikulski to introduce S. 721, the Nurse Education and Employment Development Act, which served as a basis for the legislation the Senate is about to pass today. Nurses are the foundation of our Nation's health care system. Our nation has one of the best health care systems in the world the quality of health care that we have come to expect is a direct result of the hard work and commitment of nurses. However, the profession as a whole is shrinking. Nurses and nurse faculty are retiring or leaving the profession, perhaps for a better paying job, and fewer new nurses are there to replace them. According to recent surveys, working nurses are on average 45 years old. Less than 10 percent of the nurse workforce is under age 30, and just about 5 percent of the workforce consists of men. The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that over 560,000 new nursing jobs will be created in the next decade due to continued demand for health care services and the retirement of the Baby Boomers. During this same time period, over 440,000 nursing jobs will open due to nurses retiring from the profession. Despite this incredible need, overall enrollments in Registered Nurse programs reached a high of nearly 270,000 in 1993, and have declined by over 50,000 by 1999. In Arkansas, nursing enrollments have declined by over 40 percent over the last decade. Unless this trend is reversed by encouraging more people to enter the field of nursing and developing a diverse workforce, studies indicate that by the year 2020, 20 percent of nursing needs will go unmet. The provisions of the Nurse Reinvestment Act, all of which reflect those contained in the original legislation introduced by Senator Mikulski and myself, aim to attract and retain more nurses and to ensure quality care. First, the legislation establishes a National Nurse Service Corps, which consists of scholarships and expanded loan repayments for nurses who agree to serve for at least two years in a health care facility with a critical shortage of nurses. Hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies, and health centers are all experiencing shortages of qualified health care personnel. Up to 168,000 hospital positions are unfilled today, and 75 percent, or 126,000, of those vacancies are Registered Nurse positions. Of the 106,982 direct care nursing positions now vacant in nursing homes, 16,196 are Registered Nurse jobs. The goal of the National Nurse Service Corps is to inspire individuals to obtain nursing education at all levels and to fill the need. Compassion, intellect and courage are all terms that come to mind when I think of the nursing profession. Unfortunately, negative stereotypes, that nursing is only for women, or that nursing just involves changing bedpans, have invaded our culture. The Nurse Reinvestment Act provides for a national awareness campaign, through public service announcements, to show all Americans, men, women, and young children, how rewarding and noble a career in nursing can be and about opportunities for assistance in obtaining a nursing education. In the areas of training and recruitment, the Nurse Reinvestment Act compromise retains the Senate provision relating to geriatric training for nurses, a critical provision in light of the growing number of older patients with complex medical histories and multiple chronic conditions. Provisions to encourage mentoring and specialty training through internships and residencies, career ladder programs to encourage nursing professionals of all levels to seek further education and professional development, and grants for nurse retention activities, all have been incorporated into the existing structure of Title VIII in the Public Health Service Act. With all of the new measures in the Nurse Reinvestment Act to recruit and train nurses, it is essential to have adequate nurse faculty to teach these students. The shortage of nurse faculty is especially evident in my home state of Arkansas and the surrounding southern region. In 1999, 153 eligible nursing students in Arkansas were turned away because of inadequate faculty to teach them. Eighty-six schools of nursing in the southern region have reported insufficient faculty. Compounding this problem is the increasing number of nurse faculty retirements. In the 2000, 2001 academic year, 144 nurse educators retired in the southern region alone, 784 more nurse educators are expected to retire in this region between 2002 and 2006. Our schools of nursing must have the capacity to teach new nurses in order to overcome the nursing shortage. I am therefore extremely pleased that the Nurse Reinvestment Act final compromise includes a modified nurse faculty development provision which provides loans to nurses pursuing their masters and doctoral degrees and provides for loan cancellation up to 85 percent upon service as a nurse educator at a school of nursing. In all, the Nurse Reinvestment Act is a solid step forward in addressing the nursing shortage in our country. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, so we can send it to President Bush for signature.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I wish to take a moment to respond to some of the comments by my distinguished colleague from Michigan regarding the process. I agree that the process in many cases does not matter. Normally, the American people do not care about process. Instead, they care about results. They care about their pains and their families' pains, and they are concerned about the future. But if you have a process that is a prescription for failure, then process matters. If you have a process that is set up to ensure there is no result, then process matters. I say to my distinguished colleague from Michigan that it is easy to ridicule concerns about the process, but when the process results in 60 votes needed for passage instead of 51 votes--a process which is going to guarantee that we don't get a prescription drug benefit for our seniors, and that is exactly the situation--then process matters. If the fact that we didn't go through the Finance Committee, and the fact that we didn't have a markup in the Finance Committee results in a point of order that sets the bar so high that we are not going to get a bill through, then it matters. If the process ensures that we are going to pass a bill with a pricetag that CBO has not even given us yet, perhaps in the range of $800 billion, and we send it to conference with the House bill that is much, much smaller, and it assures we are not going to have a result, then process matters. I would suggest that the process we have been given--for legislation that provides for an enormous change in policy and the most significant legislation that some of us will vote on and many of us will debate in our entire careers--is less than adequate because we are being given a bill that has not had the benefit of a markup in committee. As an Arkansan, I have colleagues in this body who serve on the Finance committee who are being denied their right to have input into the product that comes out. It is my understanding that members of the Finance Committee are ready to vote on a prescription drug bill, and the votes are there; that we could send a product to the Senate floor right now that we could debate and use as our vehicle. But instead we are going to have a bill presented that no one on this side has had the opportunity to read and that has not yet been scored by the Congressional Budget Office. It is a moving target. That is no way for us to do significant and important legislation. My colleague from Pennsylvania said he has the second highest per capita senior population in the Nation. He is accurate in that, I am sure. But I would point out to him that in my home State, unfortunately, we have one of the highest percentages of low-income seniors per capita. This is an issue that is very important to seniors in Arkansas. And it is important not so we have a political issue for the campaigns that are less than 4 months off. It is important because there are millions of seniors who are making do with a Medicare system that is out of date and that is headed towards obsolescence. Medicare today was a wonderful system when it was developed in the 1960s. But health care has changed. Insurance has changed. It would be like going back to a 1960 model automobile. Prescription medicines today are an integral part of patient care. Medicare denies seniors those needed drugs. These are drugs to ease the symptoms of Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and arthritis--drugs to control cholesterol, blood pressure, and to fight other life-threatening diseases such as cancer. Many seniors, even though they are prescribed these drugs, simply go without because they cannot afford them. My colleague from Michigan is right about that. Seniors are what this debate is about. It is not whether or not at the end of next week, when all the dust has settled, we can campaign on an issue as we go into the election season. It is about whether or not millions of seniors are going to get the help they need. Mary McDaniel from Crossett, AR, wrote and said: I am in favor of a program that promises affordable medication to all senior citizens but not a Medicare pharmacy policy that may take away my rights to choose my pharmacy and one that offers false promises. I want to be able to get the medication my doctor prescribes and not something the Government says I can have. The fact is that prescription drugs improve lives and in many cases they save lives. Coverage for prescription drugs needs to be a part of our Medicare system. The 21st Century Medicare Act--called the tripartisan bill--creates a prescription drug benefit which is permanent, available to all seniors, and does not jeopardize the stability of Medicare for future generations. That is so important. What benefit are we giving our seniors if we pass a prescription drug benefit that is so expensive that it is like a barnacle on the ship that is the Medicare system, dragging it down to bankruptcy? A responsible benefit must be one that does not jeopardize the stability of the system for future generations. Seniors will be able, under the tripartisan bill, to voluntarily sign up for this prescription drug benefit, which has an affordable monthly premium of $24, the lowest premium of any of the prescription drug bills introduced so far. For low-income seniors, the bill provides additional support. Madam President, 11.7 million lower income beneficiaries with incomes below 150 percent of poverty will receive a generous subsidy for their prescription drug costs. Those below 135 percent of poverty will have 80 to 98 percent of their drug costs covered with no premium at all. For the State of Arkansas, that means for those beneficiaries under 135 percent of poverty--there are 179,378 such seniors in Arkansas out of 453,598 total Medicare beneficiaries--these seniors will have their entire premiums paid for and most of their drug costs covered as well. This legislation also provides catastrophic coverage to protect seniors against extremely high out-of-pocket drug costs that exceed $3,700 per year. The 21st Century Medicare Act also seeks to modernize Medicare benefits by allowing seniors to choose a new, enhanced benefit called Medicare Part E. This new benefit eliminates copays for important preventative health benefits such as mammograms, prostate cancer screenings, bone mass measurements, and medical nutrition therapy. It also streamlines hospital benefits, eliminating per-day copays and other limits. If seniors do not like this option, they can always stick with traditional Medicare. This bill does not weaken traditional Medicare, but it makes it better and stronger. It does not make it more expensive. It does not make it less accessible. To further ensure that seniors have choices, the 21st Century Medicare Act requires qualified providers of the prescription drug benefit to have ``bricks and mortar'' pharmacies in their network. Let me pause here to tell you just how important our Nation's pharmacies are to seniors and to all Americans. You can give seniors prescription drugs, but if they don't know how to use them, they don't get any benefit. Pharmacists play a critical role in counseling seniors and other patients about drug interactions and medication use in general. During the debate on how to structure a Medicare prescription drug benefit, we cannot forget that pharmacists will play, and must play, a critical role in making this a quality benefit. So I am very pleased to be one of the cosponsors of the 21st Century Medicare Act. I intend to work to enhance the bill in regard to the role of pharmacists in the future. I have received, as I am sure we all have, many examples of those who have written to express their support for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. I have also heard this sentiment expressed in town meetings across the State of Arkansas. During the Fourth of July recess, there was no issue more on the minds of my constituents than the rising cost of prescription drugs and how Congress is going to deal with it. Ruth Blair, from Rogers, AR, writes: Please vote for help with prescription drugs for senior citizens. We either eat or take medicine. It's a tradeoff. That is the sad situation for millions of Americans and tens of thousands of Arkansans on Medicare. In 2001, more than 15 million Medicare beneficiaries had no prescription drug coverage at all, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Almost 400 new drugs have been developed in the last decade alone to fight diseases such as cancer, arthritis, heart disease, and diabetes. While 98 percent of employer health plans offer coverage of these often lifesaving therapies, Medicare does not. That is the issue before us. That is what we must address. Dorothy Adams from England, AR, writes: Please support a prescription drug benefit. My husband and I have $300 to $400 drug bills every month. That adds up to $3,600 or $4,800 per year. Under the tripartisan bill, the Adams family would have 90 percent of their drug costs covered after reaching $3,700 in drug costs. That is the kind of help we can give. We have this phantom bill that is going to be brought to the floor by the Senate Democrats. It has not been scored by the Congressional Budget Office. We do not know what the pricetag is going to be. And there are different estimates out there as to what it is going to cost. The original Graham-Miller-Daschle-Kennedy bill, the temporary benefit bill that was introduced, has a sunset provision. So you have a benefit that is truly an illusion. It starts late and ends early. The Graham-Miller bill, which is the only bill we have to analyze right now, establishes a prescription drug benefit for seniors, and then it takes it away by terminating the benefit in 2010. That is the cruelest of all hoaxes. That is the ultimate use of a sensitive issue for vulnerable people for political purposes. And it is no way to fulfill our promise to America's seniors. They do not need a benefit that will disappear a few years after they sign up. This gimmick is intended for one reason, and that is to reduce the price tag of the Democrat proposal. AARP has said that a prescription drug benefit should be ``a permanent and stable part of Medicare.'' The key word is ``permanent.'' The benefit created under Graham-Miller bill is neither permanent nor a stable part of Medicare. The Graham-Miller bill supposedly costs $450 billion over 7 years, according to the bill's sponsors. But by others' calculations, the bill could cost as much as $600 billion or, without the sunset, easily $1 trillion. A benefit that costs $600 billion over the next 10 years would require cutting 10 percent of all Government programs other than Medicare. That includes education, health care, and national security programs. That is not responsible. If we want a bipartisan bill, if we want a bill that Republicans and Democrats have worked together on and have consulted on and cooperated on--then we have a tri-partisan bill that we can vote out, and we have the prospect of actually having a responsible, realistic, achievable prescription drug bill to give the President this year. But if the House passes a partisan bill, and if the Senate leadership insists that we are going to bypass the Finance Committee and bring a purely partisan bill to the floor of the Senate, it is a prescription for doing nothing this year. I suggest that in fact--though it will never be admitted--such failure is exactly what some people want to happen. The Graham-Miller bill is partisan and does not currently have the support of Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus. It is apparent that the Graham-Miller bill could not pass out of the Finance Committee, and I would suggest that may be why the Finance Committee was not allowed to mark up a bill. If the majority leader were serious about getting a prescription drug bill enacted into law this year, I would suggest that he would not bypass the Finance Committee. Is it a real accomplishment, achievement, that we want, or is it an election issue for November that is sought? The majority leader has, I believe, turned a blind eye to the fact that there is in fact a bipartisan bill--a tripartisan bill as it is being called; it was introduced on Monday by Senators Grassley, Jeffords, Breaux, Snowe, and Hatch--which I have cosponsored. It could pass out of the Finance Committee today if the committee were allowed to bring it up. If Democrats and Republicans are willing to work together, we could make meaningful progress for our seniors. In 1999, Republicans supported legislation based on the bipartisan Breaux-Thomas proposal which would have spent $60 billion over 10 years on a Medicare prescription drug benefit. That was 1999. But Democrats rejected this proposal and offered a $111 billion proposal. That was in 1999. In 2000, Republicans proposed a drug benefit that would have spent $140 billion over 10 years on a Medicare prescription drug benefit, but Democrats again rejected this proposal as inadequate and offered a $338 billion proposal. That was in the year 2000. In 2001, Republicans and Democrats agreed on a budget resolution which provided $300 billion for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. The House of Representatives has passed a $350 billion proposal, and there is a bipartisan bill in the Senate which is a $370 billion proposal. Yet the other side now says that is not enough. I suggest that nothing will be enough because they do not want an accomplishment, they do not want an achievement, they do not want a prescription drug benefit this year. They want a campaign issue. If we are serious about providing seniors with a Medicare prescription drug benefit, in the days ahead we should look at the only truly bipartisan bill that has a majority of support. Senator Grassley, Senator Breaux, Senator Jeffords, and others, who I have now joined as a cosponsor, have crafted a responsible, achievable, doable prescription drug benefit that can be conferenced, passed, and sent to the President. So if we really mean it--when we say that the issue is not process, but our seniors--then the time to act, on a bipartisan basis, is now, instead of going down the road of a purely partisan political exercise. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask the Senator from Massachusetts. I pose the question because as a member of the committee and someone who was very glad to join in a positive way the bipartisan vote for the legislation, it was my clear understanding as we came to that decisive vote that a point was reached in working out the two outstanding issues which Senator Gregg mentioned in his objection. There is no desire on anybody's part to slow this legislation down. But it was with the understanding that there would be that agreement. While it seems the issues are relatively minor and that it can be done in a very expeditious way, the fact is that Senator Frist and Senator Gregg have not yet signed off on that language. So I can't stand here and listen to my colleague being characterized as obstructing the progress of this legislation when in fact they want to honor the agreement that was made at the time that bipartisan vote took place. I ask the chairman if that is his recollection of the vote that occurred.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise to speak about Judge Lavenski Smith who has been confirmed this evening for the eighth circuit court of appeals. This is a great evening for him and his family. He is going to be a great jurist. I congratulate Judge Smith tonight. I thank President Bush for making an excellent choice, a choice that I think Arkansas can feel good about, the Eighth Circuit can feel good about, and, indeed, the country can feel good about. Judge Smith is an excellent choice. He is the first African American to represent the State of Arkansas in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. He will do so with great distinction. I will speak, very briefly, about his career. But the hallmark of Judge Smith's entire career has been one of service. It has been a storybook tale. He is a native of Hope, AR. He earned both his bachelor's degree and his law degree from the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. He worked his way through college. Following law school, he clerked for 3 years, and then he served the poorest citizens of Arkansas as the staff attorney for Ozark Legal Services, representing abused and neglected children. After working with Ozark Legal Services, he opened the first minority-owned firm in Springdale, AR, handling primarily civil cases. He then taught business law at John Brown University and took several positions in public service, including Regulatory Liaison for Governor Huckabee. Currently Judge Smith serves as the commissioner of the Arkansas Public Service Commission. In 1999, he was appointed to the Arkansas supreme court and served on the Arkansas supreme court with distinction for 2 years. As a supreme court justice, he presided over hundreds of cases and authored several dozen majority opinions. He was highly praised by all his colleagues in the Arkansas supreme court. In June of 2001, the American Bar Association reviewed Justice Smith's qualifications and made a ``unanimous qualified'' determination. Beyond all of his obvious legal qualifications, I want to point out that he has had a long history of community service. Whether it was as a board member of the Northwest Arkansas Christian Justice Center, a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing mediation and conciliation services, working with the Partners for Family Training, a group that recruits and trains foster parents, or whether it was raising funds for the School of Hope, a school for handicapped children in Hope, AR, at every stage of his life there has been this hallmark of service. This outstanding record of service is the most outwardly visible sign of something the people in Arkansas know well; that he is a good and honorable man who will serve his country well. We can all be proud of the vote that occurred this evening. It is a storybook tale, but it is a storybook tale that has not yet had the last chapters written. There are going to be a lot of wonderful chapters in the years ahead as he, as a young man, has a long time to serve on the Federal bench. It will be a wonderful culmination to what has already been a great story and a great career. I stand with Arkansas this evening in pride. I thank Senator Blanche Lincoln for her cooperation, for her support, and all that she has done over the last year to make tonight's vote possible. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.