Mark Pryor

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, our men and women serving in the military are the defenders of freedom and security around the world. The special role they play demands that they be ``on call'' to serve our Nation at points all over the globe. The unique nature of their job has resulted in a unique and, I must say, very complex compensation package. The various types of compensation and benefits oftentimes create an especially difficult burden, especially when it comes to filing their tax return. Through the years, Congress has periodically passed laws that recognize the special needs of our military and to lessen administrative burdens on them. During consideration of such a bill last year, I approached the distinguished chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley, and ranking member of that committee, Senator Max Baucus, and asked them to join me in an effort to get a fresh look at the overall picture of how the Tax Code treats our military. I was pleased when they agreed to join me in this work, and I was delighted to jointly request an expedited study by the GAO. It has been an honor to work with them and their staffs throughout this process, and I believe our work will produce good things for our military. Yesterday, GAO released a report as a result of our request. The report raises many interesting findings, but there is one especially important issue that demands our immediate attention. Mr. President, I want to discuss the problem identified by GAO, and then I will introduce a bill to correct the inequity that has been documented. The problem identified by GAO is the result of complex interactions between the combat zone exclusion under section 112 of the Internal Revenue Code and the earned-income tax credit and the child tax credit. Under the combat pay exclusion, a very important benefit provided by Congress, military pay earned--including basic pay, bonuses, special pay and allowances--is excluded from taxable income while members of the military are serving in a designated combat zone. That is right, Uncle Sam doesn't impose taxes on military pay for those serving our country in combat zones--and rightfully so. However, income excluded under the combat pay provision is also excluded from income for the purpose of computing the earned-income tax credit and the child care credit. As a result of this, thousands of men and women serving in combat, in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places around the globe, will see a reduction or elimination of their earned-income tax credit or the child tax credit and, in effect, because of how these interact, will lose money. In other words, the Tax Code has the impact of penalizing them because they are serving in combat zones. That is the opposite effect intended by Congress. The GAO report characterizes this result as an ``unintended consequence.'' I call it a wrong, and I urge my colleagues to join me in fixing this glitch as soon as possible. The urgency of this situation is highlighted especially when you focus on those of our troops which this affects. We are talking about troops who tend to be in combat for more than 6 months, who are not making much money, who have families to provide for and have little or no savings or little or no spouse income. I am going to repeat that. We are talking about a clear wrong in the Tax Code that takes money away from men and women serving this Nation heroically and in dangerous places such as Iraq and Afghanistan. The GAO analysis suggests the amount of the tax benefit loss enlisted personnel could face is up to $4,500 and $3,200 for officers. This is real money, make-or-break money, to many of these families who are already under an enormous amount of stress. This money will make a real difference and we need to get about the business of fixing this problem as soon as possible. To correct the unfairness of current law, I am introducing the Tax Relief for Americans in Combat Act. The bill allows men and women in uniform serving in combat to include combat pay for the purpose of calculating their earned income tax credit and their child tax credit benefits. In other words, they will be able to continue receiving their rightful combat pay exclusions while having the ability to take full advantage of other tax credits. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. It will make a real difference for thousands of military families across the Nation. I thank Liz Liebschultz and Christy Mistr of the Finance Committee staff for their advice and counsel in helping me sort through this matter in generating this GAO report. They did the work in drafting the provisions of this bill to make sure these provisions could be adopted by the Senate as soon as possible. Also I want to recognize the GAO team which put this report together, because they did a lot of work on this: Jim White, Derek Stewart, Lori Atkinson, Jennifer Gravelle, John Pendleton, Sonja Ware, and James Wozny. They did a great job in preparing this report and I appreciate their hard work. While we found this tax breakdown in the GAO report, there is also a lot of good news in the report regarding the compensation of our military personnel and I hope my colleagues will take time to review what the GAO says in all the information provided. During a time of war, I do not want to lose sight that the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Senator John Warner of Virginia, and the ranking member, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, are taking care of our troops financially. One thing we talked about in the Armed Services Committee is recruiting and retention. Are we going to be able to meet those two objectives for our military? Well, I think today with this bill we can send a clear message to our youth and our enlisted personnel that a military career is an amazing option, and the compensation is such that it can compete with the private sector. There is a real problem with our Tax Code that needs to be fixed immediately and the good news is, it can be. The bill corrects a problem and lets our troops risking life and limb know while they are away fighting for us, fighting for freedom and democracy, we will be in the Senate fighting for them and fighting for their families. I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation and also to consider cosponsoring this bill with me. I ask unanimous consent that a GAO summary, and the text of the bill, be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to commend my colleagues, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and the senior Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, for their work on a very important piece of legislation that is so vital to many parents, teachers, school administrators, and most importantly, children in the State of Arkansas and across this country. It is especially important that on issues such as this we have bipartisan cooperation, and I thank my colleagues for ensuring that cooperation and the quick action we have seen on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act yesterday and today. I have heard from many of my constituents about IDEA, and they have expressed a wide range of concerns about various aspects of the legislation, from discipline, to due process, to funding, to individualized education programs. And we all know that no one got everything they wanted from this reauthorization. But that is the nature of compromise. That is the nature of legislating in this body. It is my hope that we can find more opportunities to work in the bipartisan manner that Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg demonstrated in managing this bill. Just to remind my colleagues, though I know they do not need reminding, because so many of them hear the same concerns I do from their home States, we cannot overstate how important IDEA is to so many and how it touches the lives of our children every day. I would like to relate the comments of one of my constituents, Tracey Smith, of Springdale, AR. Ms. Smith's son, Kyle, is an 8-year-old who has been the beneficiary of IDEA since 2000. Kyle's family moved from Texas to Arkansas during the middle of a school year, and Ms. Smith called me to talk about how IDEA has helped Kyle and to talk about some of her concerns with the pending reauthorization. She stressed how important yearly IEPs were for her son and how short-term goals were so vital to her son's long- term achievement. It is important that IEPs continue to be revisited on a yearly basis, and I am encouraged that we have managed to ensure this important aspect of special education will remain in the Senate legislation. Furthermore, Ms. Smith was nervous that people in Washington, who do not experience on a day-to-day basis the trials parents and children have to face, would not understand how changes we make affect their daily lives. IDEA has provided much-needed flexibility for parents, and this legislation continues in that manner. As Ms. Smith told me: As a parent I appreciate and value the freedom that IDEA gives parents and educators to address an individual child's needs. And that is what this is about, individual children and individual parents. It is about addressing their educational needs and concerns, addressing their daily struggles in the hopes that we can make their lives a little more normal, even if it is only for 1 day. I admire parents like Tracey Smith, and I commend her for having the courage to remind us of the effect we have on persons we may not always know. I know there will be many issues related to civil rights, discipline, due process, and highly qualified teachers to address in the conference with the House of Representatives. I hope they are resolved in the same bipartisan manner in which this bill was crafted in the Senate and with parents and children in mind. We have worked hard to ensure civil rights protections for children and parents, and I hope they are not diminished. We have worked hard to craft discipline provisions that protect all of our children while understanding disabled children have special needs, and I hope we can continue to ensure the safety of our schools. We have worked hard to include protections for due process, and I hope any differences are resolved to ensure parents know and understand their rights under the law without giving unfair advantage to any one party. We have worked hard to make sure our children have proper instruction, and I hope we continue to ensure proper instruction without discouraging individuals from entering the field of special education. Most of all, I hope we have a finished product that all parents, educators, and, most importantly, children can benefit from. This is a bipartisan bill, and I am pleased with the progress we have made in the past couple of days in regards to funding, ensuring services to our military families and homeless and foster children, and reducing burdensome paperwork for our teachers. I am, however, disappointed that we failed to make full funding mandatory. Senators Harkin and Hagel have worked very hard to ensure the Federal Government lives up to the promises we made to our disabled children, parents, and schools almost 30 years ago. I was very pleased to join in that worthy cause, and I will continue to work with my friends on both sides of the aisle until we meet our commitments. As we in this body are all aware, funding is not always the answer, and it is never the only answer. But many times we see that inadequately funding the mandates we force on States and local districts are such a large piece of the puzzle. We cannot honestly say we are doing all we can to advance education for disabled children unless we meet those funding commitments. It doesn't do us any good to educate some and leave others behind. Instead of providing opportunity for many of our children, we are closing doors to them. Instead of educating and instructing future productive citizens, we are, in some cases, neglecting those who will become dependent on Government and those who will live a life of despair. I believe fully funding IDEA is not just a commitment we have made, but also an investment in our children. By appropriating the necessary funds to fully fund IDEA, we can provide our teachers the tools and resources they need to do what they do best--educate all of our children to the extent that they not only participate in but contribute to society. It is an investment we should and we can afford to make. Several of my colleagues made the point that by making full funding mandatory, Congress would somehow lose the ability to revisit and change the adjustments we have made in this legislation. I disagree. I would ask my colleagues, when has Congress failed to address problematic aspects of any piece of legislation when it was so warranted? When has the Congress given up oversight of any area of responsibility? I would venture to guess that mandatory funding of IDEA would not prevent this body from revisiting IDEA if and when it becomes necessary. We have made progress toward living up to our commitments in recent years. We should be proud of that progress. In fact, when IDEA was brought into existence in 1975, Congress funded less than 7 percent of the excess costs to schools for special education. In 2004, we funded close to 19 percent of excess costs. We have made progress, no one denies that, but as the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, so eloquently pointed out: We should not be concerned with what we have done. We should be concerned with what we will do now to reach our commitments. I commend this body for realizing we need to do more for special education. But if we continue to make piecemeal increases in IDEA, we will never reach full funding under current law. I hope in the coming months and years we can make progress toward fulfilling the 40 percent commitment. We can do better. We can do more. And I commend and thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their leadership and commitment to this issue.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, our men and women serving in the military are the defenders of freedom and security around the world. The special role they play demands that they be ``on call'' to serve our Nation at points all over the globe. The unique nature of their job has resulted in a unique and, I must say, very complex compensation package. The various types of compensation and benefits oftentimes create an especially difficult burden, especially when it comes to filing their tax return. Through the years, Congress has periodically passed laws that recognize the special needs of our military and to lessen administrative burdens on them. During consideration of such a bill last year, I approached the distinguished chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley, and ranking member of that committee, Senator Max Baucus, and asked them to join me in an effort to get a fresh look at the overall picture of how the Tax Code treats our military. I was pleased when they agreed to join me in this work, and I was delighted to jointly request an expedited study by the GAO. It has been an honor to work with them and their staffs throughout this process, and I believe our work will produce good things for our military. Yesterday, GAO released a report as a result of our request. The report raises many interesting findings, but there is one especially important issue that demands our immediate attention. Mr. President, I want to discuss the problem identified by GAO, and then I will introduce a bill to correct the inequity that has been documented. The problem identified by GAO is the result of complex interactions between the combat zone exclusion under section 112 of the Internal Revenue Code and the earned-income tax credit and the child tax credit. Under the combat pay exclusion, a very important benefit provided by Congress, military pay earned--including basic pay, bonuses, special pay and allowances--is excluded from taxable income while members of the military are serving in a designated combat zone. That is right, Uncle Sam doesn't impose taxes on military pay for those serving our country in combat zones--and rightfully so. However, income excluded under the combat pay provision is also excluded from income for the purpose of computing the earned-income tax credit and the child care credit. As a result of this, thousands of men and women serving in combat, in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places around the globe, will see a reduction or elimination of their earned-income tax credit or the child tax credit and, in effect, because of how these interact, will lose money. In other words, the Tax Code has the impact of penalizing them because they are serving in combat zones. That is the opposite effect intended by Congress. The GAO report characterizes this result as an ``unintended consequence.'' I call it a wrong, and I urge my colleagues to join me in fixing this glitch as soon as possible. The urgency of this situation is highlighted especially when you focus on those of our troops which this affects. We are talking about troops who tend to be in combat for more than 6 months, who are not making much money, who have families to provide for and have little or no savings or little or no spouse income. I am going to repeat that. We are talking about a clear wrong in the Tax Code that takes money away from men and women serving this Nation heroically and in dangerous places such as Iraq and Afghanistan. The GAO analysis suggests the amount of the tax benefit loss enlisted personnel could face is up to $4,500 and $3,200 for officers. This is real money, make-or-break money, to many of these families who are already under an enormous amount of stress. This money will make a real difference and we need to get about the business of fixing this problem as soon as possible. To correct the unfairness of current law, I am introducing the Tax Relief for Americans in Combat Act. The bill allows men and women in uniform serving in combat to include combat pay for the purpose of calculating their earned income tax credit and their child tax credit benefits. In other words, they will be able to continue receiving their rightful combat pay exclusions while having the ability to take full advantage of other tax credits. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. It will make a real difference for thousands of military families across the Nation. I thank Liz Liebschultz and Christy Mistr of the Finance Committee staff for their advice and counsel in helping me sort through this matter in generating this GAO report. They did the work in drafting the provisions of this bill to make sure these provisions could be adopted by the Senate as soon as possible. Also I want to recognize the GAO team which put this report together, because they did a lot of work on this: Jim White, Derek Stewart, Lori Atkinson, Jennifer Gravelle, John Pendleton, Sonja Ware, and James Wozny. They did a great job in preparing this report and I appreciate their hard work. While we found this tax breakdown in the GAO report, there is also a lot of good news in the report regarding the compensation of our military personnel and I hope my colleagues will take time to review what the GAO says in all the information provided. During a time of war, I do not want to lose sight that the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Senator John Warner of Virginia, and the ranking member, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, are taking care of our troops financially. One thing we talked about in the Armed Services Committee is recruiting and retention. Are we going to be able to meet those two objectives for our military? Well, I think today with this bill we can send a clear message to our youth and our enlisted personnel that a military career is an amazing option, and the compensation is such that it can compete with the private sector. There is a real problem with our Tax Code that needs to be fixed immediately and the good news is, it can be. The bill corrects a problem and lets our troops risking life and limb know while they are away fighting for us, fighting for freedom and democracy, we will be in the Senate fighting for them and fighting for their families. I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation and also to consider cosponsoring this bill with me. I ask unanimous consent that a GAO summary, and the text of the bill, be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRYOR

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

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, today I rise to talk about the ongoing war in Iraq, but more importantly to recognize a few of those soldiers who sometimes get lost in the mounting rolls of casualty listings and to speak to the reality of war as seen through the eyes of a State that has a long tradition of sending young men and women onto the battlefield. I have been in every county in my State many times, and I cannot think of one county in Arkansas that does not have some sort of war memorial. In fact, most of those are at the county courthouse. In fact, War Memorial Stadium is in Little Rock; it is where the Razorbacks play their games. You can go all over the State and see memorials to men and women who have served and died in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam, and now we are adding memorials for those who have died in Iraq. In fact, in some parts of Arkansas, you can visit the graves of Revolutionary War soldiers who actually--even though Arkansas wasn't even a State or a territory during that time, we have taken those graves, honored them, and we are proud that they migrated to the area known as Arkansas. We feel connected to the Revolutionary War through them. Sometimes it is easy to feel disconnected from the war effort. Even though there is 24-hour news coverage dominated by visions of our men and women in uniform fighting for freedom in Iraq, the pictures, words, and stories can have a numbing effect. We start paying attention to other matters, and we try to live our daily lives and try to put the echoes of war in the background. But sometimes all it takes is one event to snap us back, to grab our attention and make us more attuned to the conflict we face. The tragic events in Iraq in April have brought with it 115 American military fatalities; major combat in Fallujah; and a rush of kidnapping, bombings, and other insurgent attacks that have terrorized not just American soldiers but innocent Iraqis. April has also brought our full attention as a Nation back to the war in Iraq. Almost a year later, we fully realize there is still work to be done militarily and diplomatically, and that our mission is not yet accomplished. As for the citizens of Arkansas, we have in the past few weeks experienced both the joy and pain that is associated with being a standard bearer for freedom and democracy. We are a country that has and will continue to risk life and limb, not only to protect our freedom and liberty but to extend those same opportunities to all people in all places. It is something of which we can and should be proud. But as we know, it often comes with the most precious sacrifice. On April 22, we were fortunate enough to welcome home 106 Army National Guard soldiers, members of the 1123rd Transportation Company based in Marked Tree, AR, and Blytheville, AR. Also, more than 60 Army Reserve soldiers from Company C of the 489th Engineer Battalion returned to their home bases in Arkansas last week after spending more than a year in Iraq. These units spent more than a year in Iraq helping rebuild Iraqi cities, providing protection and logistical support, and destroying enemy weapons. I commend these men and women for their brave service. Some of them were away from their families for far longer than they expected, but they are now home, and I, along with all Arkansans and all Americans, welcome them back. Mr. President, while Arkansans rejoiced in the news of having a collection of our men and women return safely, we at the same time faced the harsh reality that some of our men and women would pay the ultimate sacrifice for freedom. On Saturday, April 24, four soldiers, all members of the Arkansas Army National Guard's 39th Infantry Brigade, were killed in Taji, Iraq, as a result of hostile fire when rockets hit their camp. An additional soldier was killed a day later when a roadside bomb detonated near Sadr City. To let my colleagues know, there are approximately 4,200 troops in the 39th Infantry Brigade, including about 2,800 Arkansans from 47 hometown units. The balance of the troops are from 10 other States. The 39th was officially called to active duty last September, and I watched their progress as they trained and prepared to fulfill their mission. In January, I traveled to Fort Hood, TX, to visit troops from the 1st Cavalry Division and the 39th Infantry Brigade. During my trip, I witnessed demonstrations of topnotch training and cutting-edge equipment that will enable these soldiers to successfully carry out their mission in Iraq. I again visited them at Fort Polk, LA, with other members of Arkansas's congressional delegation. I was truly proud of what I witnessed. I saw Arkansans who had undergone long days of training and preparation and were aware of the dangerous conditions and challenges that lay ahead for them in Iraq. However, they remained in high spirits and were determined to carry out their mission. I am inspired by these men and women, patriots all, who have taken determination and commitment to a new level. I know the sacrifice and the dedication of the 39th will help bring stability and democracy to the streets of Iraq. We wished these soldiers well, knowing it was a matter of days before they would be sent to Iraq. In March, they were sent over. Since their departure, we have all gone to bed with prayers in our minds and hope in our hearts that all the members of the 39th would return home safely. The events of the past few weeks have prevented this from happening, although we remain hopeful. I stand here today to extend my deepest sympathies to their families and honor them for their commitment and sacrifice. The brave men and women who have surrendered their lives this weekend so others might enjoy freedom include: U.S. Army CPT Arthur ``Bo'' Felder, 36, of Lewisville, AR. He had served in the National Guard since 1986, a year after he graduated from Lewisville High School. Felder served as a youth director at St. Luke Missionary Baptist Church in North Little Rock. U.S. Army CWO 3 Patrick Kordsmeier, 49, of North Little Rock, AR, who died tending the soldiers injured in the first blast when he was killed by a second attack. He was up for retirement before the war in Iraq began, but he asked for an extension so he might serve. He was born in Little Rock. He reminds me of that phrase in the Bible where it talks about there is no greater love than one who lays down his life for a friend. That is exactly what he did; U.S. Army SSG Stacey Brandon, 35, of Hazen. He was a prison guard for the Arkansas Department of Correction and later worked at the Federal prison in Forrest City; U.S. Army SSG Billy Orton, 41, of Humnoke, AR. His wife and children reside in Carlisle, AR, and his mother in Hazen; U.S. Army SP Kenneth Melton, 30, of Batesville, AR. Melton was traveling as part of a protection team with battalion leaders when a roadside bomb exploded, taking his life. The events of this past weekend almost double the number of troops my State has previously lost during the war in Iraq. Arkansas has lost eight soldiers prior to this weekend. To put this in perspective, no single day during Vietnam saw as many Arkansans killed by hostile fire as this past Saturday. In fact, Saturday's events are the bloodiest for Arkansas's soldiers since December 2, 1950, when five Arkansans were killed during combat in Korea. I also honor the other eight soldiers who gave their lives during combat in Iraq. They include: U.S. Army SFC William Labadie, 45, of Bauxite, AR, who died 2 weeks after being deployed. Labadie was also assigned to the 1st Cavalry, 39th Brigade, Troop E-151 Cavalry, Camp Taji in Kuwait; U.S. Army SP Ahmed ``Mel'' Cason, 24, died on April 4 in Baghdad. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division in Fort Hood. Cason grew up in McGehee and many of his relatives now live in Maumelle, AR; U.S. Army 1LT Adam Mooney, 28, of Cambridge, MD. His helicopter went down in the Tigris River in Mosul, Iraq, during a search for a missing soldier. His wife now lives in Conway, AR; U.S. Army MSG Kevin Morehead, 33, a special forces soldier from Little Rock who had previously received a Bronze Star with valor in Afghanistan, died on September 12, 2003, from hostile fire in Ramadi, Iraq; U.S. Army SP Dustin McGaugh, 20, of Derby, KS, died on September 30 in Balad, Iraq. His mother resides in Tulsa, OK, and his father in Springdale, AR. McGaugh grew up in Springdale and joined the Army ROTC after he graduated from high school in 2001; U.S. Army PFC Jonathan M. Cheatham, 19, of Camden, AR, my father's hometown. He was assigned to the 489th Engineer Battalion, U.S. Army Reserve, North Little Rock, AR. He was killed while riding in a convoy that came under a rocket-propelled grenade attack on July 26 in Baghdad; U.S. Marine Corps PFC Brandon Smith, 20, of Washington, AR, died March 18, 2004, in Qaim, Iraq, on the eve of the anniversary of the war. He was trying to help comrades under attack when he was killed by mortar fire; U.S. Navy Hospital Corpsman Third Class Michael Vann Johnson, Jr., of Little Rock, AR. He was the first Arkansan to die during Operation Iraqi Freedom. In fact, one of my staff in Little Rock was visiting a doctor several days ago and it so happened he started talking to the woman who was assisting in the doctor's office, and it was Michael Vann Johnson's mother. It happened to be the 1-year anniversary of his death in Iraq. We have not lost nearly as many as other States, but our loss is just as real. The grieving is just as sorrowful, and the fear that there may be more coming is just as frightening, but our resolve is just as strong. This is a very real war for the people of my State. It impacts every community. It seems as if everybody in my State knows of someone who has served, is serving, or who will serve in Iraq. We might not all agree on how we got where we are. We might not all agree with all the decisions that have been made by this administration. But we stand behind our troops and are truly inspired by their dedication. We are proud of our professional soldiers, Guard members and reservists who left behind their families and way of life to fight in a land that is not theirs for people they do not know. The soldiers we have lost will never be forgotten. They, along with all our soldiers, will be remembered for their strength and dedication in bringing independence to the Iraqi nation, and they will be defined as heroes of the 21st century. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I just have one more observation to make, and I will be glad to yield the floor. It seems to me our economy is changing. As a Congress, we need to recognize that, we need to understand that, and try to harness that change in a positive way for our economy. One area our economy has changed quite a bit in the last several years is we have gone more and more to a service-oriented economy rather than just purely a manufacturing economy. Back in the 1960s, the Congress passed something called Trade Adjustment Assistance. What it did is it provided sort of a package of various programs for workers who had been dislocated--who had been downsized, in today's vernacular. What I think we ought to do, and what this amendment does--and I think it is very smart to do this and move in that direction--is it gives workers in the service industries those same TAA benefits. The reason I think that is important is because a much larger percentage of our economy is now based on the service industries, and what we are seeing is the trend that those service jobs are moving offshore. We have heard about call centers and other things going offshore. That is exactly what we are seeing. So, here again, the Boxer amendment acknowledges the economic reality today and tries to help people who need help most.

Mr. PRYOR. So it seems you are providing tax relief for companies that are trying to, in effect, stimulate the economy and trying to create jobs in this country. Again, as I understand economic principles and the reality of this economy, it is small businesses that create jobs in this country. With all due respect to the top 500 or 1,000 companies--we love to have them, and I am proud of what they do--it is the small businesses, when you are talking about the bread-and-butter job creation, that do that. I know the Senator's amendment would help small businesses considerably, not just in the manufacturing sector but in other areas. I would just like you to comment on that.

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

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

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, last year right about this time I stood in the Senate chamber questioning why an administration that talks so much about the importance of homeland security and first responders would submit a budget that so drastically shortchanges their needs. I find myself 1 year later still asking the same questions but hearing no good answers. Specifically as it pertains to community policing and other law enforcement programs, this budget shortchanges smaller communities and grossly under funds programs that have put more police officers on the street, reduced crime in rural areas, curbed drug abuse and put at-risk youth back on the right track. Instead of strengthening these programs--programs that we know work-- we are pulling the rug right out from under our communities' feet. Under the budget proposal, the COPS program would see a reduction from $756 million to $44 million--a staggering 94 percent cut. Let me be clear: Taking away COPS funding will mean less police officers on our streets; it will mean less resource officers in our schools preventing violence and drug abuse; It will also mean longer response times and higher crime rates. This is tradeoff we should never even consider, yet alone go through with. Since 1994, my State received $88.4 million in COPS grants, which has funded 1,289 additional police officers and sheriff deputies, 112 school resource officers and more than $11 million in crime-fighting technologies. Arkansas is not alone; I ask if there is a Senator among us that would contest that their State has benefited from the COPS program. We can't be serious about law enforcement by paring this successful program to $44 million. Texas alone received nearly $30 million from the COPS program last year. How are we going to fund the entire country's COPS needs using the budget of what just one State received last year? When I was the Attorney General of my State, I worked closely with law enforcement to make Arkansas a safer place to live and raise a family. One thing I know for sure, these police officers operate under tight budgets with smaller staffs than most of their urban counterparts. Nevertheless, they put their lives on the line every day and we need to make sure they have adequate resources to do their jobs properly. I recently talked with several Arkansas police chiefs about the proposed cuts to the COPS program. They told me how important this program was in their continuing battle to stop the production of methamphetamine throughout Arkansas. Chief James Allen of the Bentonville Police department said the COPS program has been the biggest single factor in helping his region fight the environmental and social problems created by methamphetamine use. Last year alone, Arkansas police shut down 1,208 meth labs, but more are popping up each day. Methamphetamine spreads so easily because it is cheap and easy to produce. It is also extremely addictive and it is tearing rural communities apart. Law enforcement officials have told me that if Congress reduces COPS funding by 94 percent, we would effectively decimate their ability to battle this deadly drug. These law enforcement officers are making a huge difference in our communities and on top of that, they play the integral part in our homeland defense as first responders. COPS grants have played a critical role in providing additional manpower, technology and training--all of which are necessary to enhance community security and contribute to the overall goal of national domestic preparedness. The Chief of Police in Pine Bluff, AR Daniel Moses characterized his Homeland Security Overtime grant as a godsend. September 11 made us acutely aware of the need of genuine partnerships that involve all segments of our communities and all levels of government--we all have a role in keeping our community safe. Our local law enforcement must be able to respond to whatever may confront them in the future, but how can they properly respond, when they are given a budget that cuts deep into their existence? I would also like to note that in my State, a number of police officers on the front lines of crime prevention are also fighting on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are pulling double duty for our country in the Reserves and National Guard. But at the same time, their absence has spread our police forces even thinner. We need to build on what we know works. These law enforcement programs work. But don't take my word for it. Take the word of Attorney General John Ashcroft who said not two years ago: Since law enforcement agencies began partnering with citizens through community policing we've seen significant drops in crime rates. Mr. President, our communities, the people we represent have truly benefited from these programs and taking away its funding would be a major step backwards in our efforts to fight crime.

Mr. PRYOR. If the Senator will yield for another question, I notice in all the statistics, small business is the sector of the economy that creates jobs and R&D is critical for creating jobs; also, the area we are struggling in in this country is manufacturing jobs. Again, the Senator from California is so passionate on this issue. I would like to hear the Senator's perspective and how this amendment will help those sectors.

Mr. PRYOR

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

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I have an amendment today that deals with IRA accounts. I would like to set up a situation where people who have exhausted their unemployment benefits--they are entitled to no more unemployment benefits--could access up to $15,000 in their own IRA account--it is their own money--in order to meet whatever short-term needs they have. We have already done this in other context. We have done this when it comes to first-time homeowners. We have done this sending your children to college. But now the Senate needs to give strong consideration to expanding this for people who have exhausted their unemployment benefits. Right now you have a fairly hefty penalty, and there are tax consequences for doing that. I would like to suspend those. But today, because the hour is late and because we are working with everybody here, I want to just announce to my colleagues that I will be working on this and be looking for the very next available legislative vehicle to get this done. Hopefully at some point in the next few weeks I will offer this amendment. I will ask for a rollcall. I will not do it tonight. But I want to ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider it. I think it is something that has value and something that we can do to possibly help thousands, maybe tens of thousands or more Americans get through this very difficult time. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, in the year 2000, there were 38 million families in this country who owned an individual retirement account or participated in an employer-sponsored retirement savings plan. Since then, unemployment has climbed to 8.3 million people, with more than 1.9 million individuals unemployed more than 6 months. Six months without work is a long time, and it is enough time for people to lose their homes, give up their health care, run through their savings, and ruin their credit for many years to come. I know this because I hear from people in Arkansas who have gone from living the family dream, to living off of their families, and eventually living off of Government help. To add salt to the wound for many unemployed Americans, those individuals who are fortunate enough to have an individual retirement account are penalized a minimum of 10 percent if they withdraw funds from their account. Recognizing that some significant events might require people to withdraw money from their retirement accounts earlier than expected, Congress has on previous occasions provided exceptions to the 10- percent early withdrawal penalty; for example, buying their first home or maybe even sending their children to college. I am offering a commonsense amendment that could make a real difference for individuals who have invested in their IRA but have exhausted all of their unemployment benefits while searching for a job. I am asking Congress to make another exception because our job creation figures continue to disappoint, economic growth continues to linger, and our manufacturing jobs continue to leave the country. I think these are significant events as well. My amendment is a sense of the Senate and allows individuals who have exhausted their unemployment benefits a one-time withdrawal of up to $15,000 from their IRAs, tax free and without penalty, within 1 year after their unemployment benefits end. In many cases, my amendment would free up enough money for a few months of rent or mortgage payments, child care expenses, groceries, and other living expenses. Regardless of what you believe, regardless of your party affiliation, we cannot dismiss these new numbers by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that indicate the average length of unemployment in this country is at a 20-year high. We cannot expect Americans to be patient as they watch their bills pile up, and we cannot tell these families to keep their fingers crossed any longer while we do nothing to help them. After all, this money in their IRA accounts is their money. Imagine a family whose breadwinner is now on the unemployment rolls, and he or she has this retirement nest egg sitting there and they have some real needs in the family but they cannot touch their own money without penalty or paying taxes on accessing that money. Madam President, I ask my colleagues to express their support tomorrow for the individuals who are in a tough position because of tough times and allow them to use funds from their own IRAs without penalty. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, 1 year ago this month, a powerful new force joined together and it has since swept through the neighborhoods in Arkansas. Its members said enough to the homicides plaguing our streets, enough to the violence in our schools and homes and enough to standing by to watch our communities crumble. Members of the community saw that although African Americans comprised 12 percent of the national population, a staggering 45 percent of all murder victims in 2002 were black. A resounding 91 percent of those murders were incidents of black on black crime. Homicide was and is still literally tearing apart African-American families, serving as the leading cause of death for black men ages 15 to 24, and the second leading cause of death for black women of the same age group. Black-on-black crime remains an epidemic, having a devastating impact on our families and ultimately compromising the safety and quality of life in my great State of Arkansas. One year ago this month, community leaders, faith leaders, government officials, community organizations, and businesses did more than just say enough is enough. They formed the Black on Black Crime Coalition to inform and educate the citizens of Little Rock about black-on-black crime, but also to implement programs and initiatives to reduce homicides, reduce violent crimes and take back their streets and neighborhoods. I am proud to be a partner of this coalition, to join with coalition members and its wide array of partners and raise public awareness about black-on-black crime. The coalition has spent its first year creating and supporting intervention and mentoring programs, conducting workshops for community organizations, supporting neighborhood associations, implementing youth programs and lobbying elected officials to implement policies for effective change. The coalition is working through the statistics, trying to understand the systemic causes, determining the solutions and reversing this epidemic that is stealing away our future leaders. This January, in Arkansas, we celebrate Black on Black Crime Prevention Month. The coalition has organized a month filled with ceremonies, roundtable discussions, town meetings, and prayer to help meet its mission. By all means, these efforts are contributing to a better understanding of the challenges that Arkansas' black communities face each and every day, but we are also learning and implementing strategies to beat back and overcome these challenges. As the former attorney general of my State, I have worked closely with law enforcement officers and the community to make Arkansas a safer place to live and raise a family. As a Senator, I have continued to fight for legislation, programs, technology and budgets to accomplish this goal. And I pledge to continue this commitment. It is a tremendous responsibility that the Black on Black Crime Coalition has accepted. I commend the members of this coalition for their dedication and teamwork, and congratulate them for several meaningful and successful events during this year's Black on Black Crime Prevention Month and for their unyielding efforts throughout the year.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, yesterday we celebrated the life and legacy of a great man, a bold leader who inspired courage, unity and compassion. He changed the path of America's conscience, and he left his mark on Arkansas in so many ways. Dr. King time and time again came to the aid of Arkansans and supported others who were making significant sacrifices for civil rights. In May of 1958, Dr. King stood in the audience at Central High School to witness the graduation ceremony of Ernest Green from Little Rock Central High. Ernest was the first of the nine black teenagers who integrated Central High School in 1957. Ernest, along with Elizabeth Eckford, Gloria Ray Karlmark, Carlotta Walls LaNier, Minnijean Brown Trickey, Terrence Roberts, Jefferson Thomas, Thelma Mothershed Wair and Melba Pattillo Beals shaped history by valiantly attending a previously all-white school. Of her experience, Melba Pattillo Beals recalls: I had to become a warrior. I had to learn not how to dress the best but how to get from that door to the end of the hall without dying. These students' selfless act of courage changed history for all Americans in a tale that continues to have immediacy today. As a student of Central High, I can tell you the impact of the Little Rock Nine is felt in the halls and in the hearts of its student body and teachers today. Central High was designated as a unit of the national park system in 1998. In 2002, over 24,000 people visited the historic site with estimates of a potential 60,000 visitors by 2007. Incidentally, 2007 will be the 50th anniversary of the 1957-1958 Little Rock desegregation crises. Dr. King was a man of eloquent and powerful words, and he exemplified his principles of love, tolerance, reconciliation and equality. As we all know, he sacrificed his life to usher in opportunity and freedom for all individuals. I remind my colleagues that we must do more than quote the empowering words of Dr. King. We must do more walking and less talking. As we honor Dr. King, I must approach a subject that has been so heavy on my mind. I am disappointed to learn that the $267,000 that I requested for planning the National Park Service's Little Rock Central High School Visitors Center was not funded in the Interior Appropriations bill, as I and other members of the Arkansas congressional delegation had hoped it would be. The conference report notes that Central High was authorized in 1998 and that the general management plan was completed in 2002 and recommended a visitor facility. But then it goes on to say generally that this project is not a construction priority. I am putting my colleagues on notice that I am going to fight for funds for not only planning but building this visitors center in this year's budget, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting a proposal that will complete the Little Rock Central High Visitors Center in time for the 50th anniversary in 2007. The Little Rock Nine brought us closer to realizing Dr. King's dream of ``the promised land,'' but we are not there yet. The visitors center will remind us where we once were, but also how much farther we need to go if we are to truly open the doors of opportunity for all individuals. Join me in supporting a message that is as important today as it was in 1957. Join me in supporting Dr. King's teachings and the bravery of nine black children.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Arkansas's and America's preeminent educators, Dr. Tom Goodwin of Hendrix College. Dr. Goodwin was honored last week with a United States Professor of the Year Award as the Outstanding Baccalaureate College Professor of the Year by the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. He was one of four, in the entire Nation to be honored for their dedication to undergraduate education and teaching and their commitment to students. It is not often, that one gets recognized for one's life's work. It is even less often that the recognition comes when the recipient is still at the height of his career. I wish to congratulate Dr. Goodwin on behalf of all Arkansans for this wonderful accomplishment. Dr. Goodwin has dedicated his entire professional life, over 25 years, to the education of young people. During a time when many are concerned with publishing, research, and the advancement of their own careers, Dr. Goodwin has remained focused on the reasons he entered academia-- the fostering and development of the leaders and great thinkers of the next generation. And I, for one, agree with him. He has done what so many teachers try to do. Some are more successful than others. Some are outstanding researchers who make wonderful discoveries that further the scientific knowledge of mankind. Some are great administrators who manage the machinery from which these great discoveries are churned. Still, Dr. Goodwin has made the greatest discovery of all. He has discovered that all of the advancements of the human race, all of the great mechanizations from which these advancements come mean nothing without the continuity of people teaching other people. Knowledge in a vacuum, doesn't further the human condition. For the human condition to move forward, to change for the betterment of all, we must learn. We must teach. ``For the end of man is to know.'' That's one of my favorite literary quotes, from Robert Penn Warren's All The King's Men. The end of man keeps moving farther, just beyond the outstretched reach of our hands. To reach the ends, man must continue to know. Dr. Goodwin has found the best way to accomplish this; the best way to achieve the end is through a partnership between teacher and student. The disbursement of knowledge; what it is, how to get it, where to find it, becomes the primary objective for a multigenerational team working together. Dr. Goodwin has achieved this elusive goal. A seamless partnership between professor and student, with both benefiting from the contributions of the other, both contributing toward the end of man. But don't take it from me. His colleagues and his students realize the impact Dr. Goodwin has had on the minds and motivations of young people. They refer to him not only as teacher and scholar, but also as mentor and friend. Dr. John Churchill, secretary of the Phi Beta Kappa Society and former Dean of Hendrix College notes, ``To see Tom Goodwin with students is to feel the power of his expectations. It is also to feel the warm, personal support, extended toward their efforts. He epitomizes the tension of the best undergraduate liberal arts professors: demanding rigor and providing support. He takes a wide- ranging interest in his students' education. He helps them grow into well-rounded intellects.'' His colleagues in the Chemistry Department at Hendrix College, Dr. Liz Gron, testifies to the amount of time and attention Dr. Goodwin gives his work. ``He wants every student to succeed and he provides a number of different venues in order to support different learning styles. Tom schedules four help sessions a week, as well as time-independent exams to accommodate students that synthesize concepts more slowly.'' His students agree. ``Dr. Goodwin offered many, many hours of his personal time, both in the laboratory and the classroom, to help me conquer the very difficult subjects I was studying,'' says Daniel Mwanza, a former student at Hendrix. Many other former students agreed and wrote statements similar to Mr. Mwanza's in support of his nomination for this award. So you see, this man is important to his students, important to his colleagues and institution, and important to education across this country. I am proud to serve him and I am proud he is my constituent. Dr. Goodwin represents the highest tradition of education in this country. He inspires his students to achieve more than they would alone. He is deeply deserving of this award, and I wish to congratulate him for this monumental achievement.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to this bill, a Medicare prescription drug benefit in name only that has very few benefits for the seniors in my State. In June of this year, I voted for a bipartisan Senate bill which, while not perfect, was a good step toward providing our seniors with the prescription drug help they need. Let us be clear. This legislation does nothing to lower the cost of prescription drugs. The Congressional Budget Office says this legislation will actually cause prescription drug prices to increase by 3.5 percent. Under this legislation, Arkansans will not be able to reimport cheap FDA-approved drugs from other industrialized countries, and this legislation expressly prohibits the Federal Government from negotiating with drug companies to bring down the high cost of prescription drugs. This means that our seniors will continue to pay more for their prescription drugs than anybody else in the world. It means they will continue to pay much more for their drugs than do our neighbors in Canada. This means that a woman in America suffering from breast cancer will continue to be charged over $90 a month to take tamoxifen, while the same drug, made by the same company, can be bought in Canada for $22 for a month. This means that people in my State will continue to pay: 37 percent more for cholesterol controlling Lipitor; 50 percent more for the anti- depressant Paxil, and 58 percent more for the arthritis drug Vioxx. For the last decade drug spending has been driving up the cost of health care and placing affordable coverage out of reach for many Americans. We finally got our chance to help these seniors by lowering the cost of prescription drugs, but this bill wastes that opportunity. It is bad enough our seniors are getting gouged by artificially high prices in the United States. I strongly believe we need to fix that. But now, with the passage of this bill, if indeed it passes, we are talking about taxpayers' dollars. Not only is it the right thing to fix it, it is our duty that we fix it. Under this legislation, thousands of Arkansans will be worse off than when they started. According to the CBO, 2.7 million Americans are expected to lose their retiree health care benefits as a result of this legislation. That includes 19,000 Arkansas seniors. In addition, under this bill, 109,100 Arkansas Medicaid beneficiaries will receive worse coverage than what they get now and they will face considerable new restrictions on the drugs they can take. Mr. President, 40,750 fewer seniors in Arkansas will qualify for low- income protections against the assets test and lower qualifying income levels. I, for one, do not believe that rural Americans living on a farm should be penalized because they own a tractor or other farm equipment. And 11,020 Medicare beneficiaries will pay more for Part B premiums because of income. This bill also starts us down the treacherous path to dismantling Medicare as we know it. It takes $12 billion away from Medicare and gives it to private insurers and then forces Medicare to compete with heavily subsidized HMOs. This allows private insurers to cherry-pick the healthiest and wealthiest people to their plans while leaving the poorest and the sickest in Medicare to pay more in premiums. People need to know that this bill was written to accommodate 400 corporate lobbyists, many of whom work for the pharmaceutical industry. It amazes me that we would seek permission from the pharmaceutical lobby before we would do the right thing for the people we represent. It amazes me even more that 400 lobbyists have more influence over Congress than the 40 million people who are currently enrolled in Medicare. People need to know that the pharmaceutical industry is going to be handed a taxpayer-subsidized windfall with the passage of this bill. Analysts at Goldman Sachs project the new Medicare benefit could increase industry revenue by 9 percent or about $13 billion a year. And it is no coincidence that as details of this legislation began leaking out, pharmaceutical stock prices have risen steadily. In the last week alone, the value of Pfizer's stock increased by $19 billion. I direct my colleagues to this bar graph behind me. The large bar represents Pfizer and the $19 billion they have increased in worth over the last week. Now look at the other bar, this little bitty bar, this small bar that you may have to squint and look closely to see because there isn't much there. This bar represents the entirety of the cost savings provisions related to generic drugs and reimportation. Seniors will save over the next 10 years $.06 billion. To reiterate, we have a $19 billion increase in the value of a company over 1 week, and a $.06 billion savings for seniors in the Medicare system over 10 years. It is very easy to figure out who are the real winners and who are the real losers in this bill. Let me say in conclusion, there are some people in this body who believe we need this bill right now because the seniors have been waiting such a long time. They have. But from the seniors I have talked to personally when I was home in Little Rock over the weekend, to the hundreds who have called my office in the last week, they don't just want to get it done. They want us to get it done right. There is a big difference in just getting this bill done and getting it done right. They want more than hollow promises that this legislation offers. My plea is simple: Let's get it right so that our seniors can finally have a real benefit. The bill we are voting on today will wind up doing more harm than good. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Absolutely.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Let me read part of a letter from Robert Caro. He is the man who wrote the Pulitzer Prize winning book, ``Master of the Senate.'' ``Master of the Senate'' is the story of Lyndon Johnson when he was a Senator. In June of this year, Robert Caro wrote a letter, not to me, but to Trent Lott and Chris Dodd, the two leaders of the Rules Committee. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print this letter in the Record.

Mr. PRYOR. How much time?

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their zealousness on the issues that are present here with regard to these judicial nominations. I know my colleagues on the Republican side have very strongly held opinions and viewpoints they are very sincere about holding. I may differ with them on some of the particulars and some of the conclusions, but I respect their opinions and I respect their zealousness and their commitment to their cause. Likewise, on the Democratic side, I have a number of colleagues over here who have done a very good job of poignantly discussing these issues and trying to present the other side of the story. I think they are equally passionate. In some of the finest traditions of the Senate, this august body, this Chamber, is like an arena where maybe two great competitors come in, hash it out and fight it out. That is how the Senate is designed. It is almost like in the Bible, the Book of Proverbs, as iron sharpens iron, one man sharpens another. I just hope that is the process we are going through, that we are sharpening the other, that we are making this engine better and we are progressing as a people and as a nation. I appreciate the Presiding Officer being here. It is the second night in a row the Senator has had the graveyard shift. Someone with your seniority, I am surprised to see down here two nights in a row. I know you are doing your duty for your colleagues and for your Nation. Certainly there are untold numbers of staff people who work for the various Senators, who work for the Senate itself, the Capitol Police, the C-SPAN team. I have been watching some of this at home or in my office and C-SPAN has done a great job. Periodically when a term will come up that may be unfamiliar to the viewers around the country, they will flash up a definition of that term, such as what a filibuster is, what a hold is, whatever the case may be. They have been taking this opportunity to use this as an instructional time for viewers back home to help understand their Government and help understand their Congress. I thank the cloakroom staff on both sides. I could go down the long list. The stenographers are doing double duty. There are so many people who should be thanked for allowing this marathon to go on. It has put strains on people. I am very sensitive to the fact they have families they need to get home to and they have lives outside of what goes on here on Capitol Hill. I express a deep and sincere debt of gratitude to those people. Let me talk about the judicial nomination process. Both my colleagues across the Chamber know I signed on to a letter with them this spring about trying to make this process work better. One thing I was concerned about in signing that letter is we might come to this point today where we would lock horns and have some gridlock on a few nominees. I hope we do not get to the point of gridlock overall in this process. As to the numbers, since we have been here this Congress, I believe we have confirmed 68 of President Bush's nominees and 4 have been blocked. Last Congress, there were an additional 100, so I believe the grand total is 168. We have seen a lot of charts with numbers and percentages, but I hope the whole process does not bog down. So the people around the country understand, we are talking only about a select few of the nominations, not the overall nomination process. One thing I was concerned about and one reason we wrote that letter several months ago was because we wanted to try to make the nomination process better. We want to try to make it more constructive and more productive. To me, a lot of that responsibility rests with the White House. We talked about that very briefly in that letter. I feel strongly that since the President, under the terms of the Constitution, is the one who begins the process of nominating, he and the White House staff need to try to get the Democratic and Republican leaders involved and sit down to try to work through some of these controversial nominations and try to figure out how we can do this better as we move forward. One thing I am concerned about is we, around here in the Congress, particularly in the Senate, probably more than the House, are so focused on tradition and history and how things have been done in the past that it is human nature, I guess, that we oftentimes cannot put aside the things that happened in the past. Sometimes those things are perceived to have been ill-willed or for whatever reason perceived to have been unfair, unjust, whatever the case may be. Of course, I have said many times that I have a concern that in this judicial nomination process there is sort of partisanship and gamesmanship, and it is just counterproductive for the people. So, again, I hope we can move forward. I want to try to continue to work with President Bush on his nominations. I believe I voted for 66 of his nominations of judges. In fact, I was talking to my staff the other day, and I said: Well, the people who are calling in about some of these controversial judgeships, what are they saying to you? They say they want Senator Pryor to vote for candidate X, whoever that may be. The staffer will say: We appreciate your call. But we also want you to know he voted for 66 or 67 of President Bush's nominees. Invariably, the person on the other end of the line says: No, he hasn't. Because they are not hearing the other side of the story, that, again, we are only talking about a small percentage of the nominees who are not getting through. If you look at the numbers and the percentages that President Bush has accomplished since he has been President, they are historically high numbers. So I want to continue to work with the President and find that common ground. I believe we all have the constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on judicial nominations. Mostly what I am hearing on the other side--mostly--people believe the Senate should not be a rubberstamp. I think the vast majority of Senators believe the Senate should not be a rubberstamp and an automatic approval process for the President. I think we have a responsibility to the Nation to look at these-- again, the concept of iron sharpens iron, the President and the Senate sharpening each other, because he knows we will review and look very carefully at the nominations he puts forward. He puts forward a higher quality nomination than if it was just a rubberstamp. That accountability is a positive thing for the people and for the Government. I take this responsibility seriously. I know all Members of the Senate do take their responsibility very seriously. Another thing I wish to say is that when I look at judges I kind of have a criteria. I have kind of broken it down into four parts. We try to be consistent in our office when we look at these four factors. One is just a starting point: Is the nominee qualified? Most of the people who make it through the committee are qualified. I think, again, there is a weeding out process there, but I start with the presumption that if they get to this stage in the process they are qualified. The second thing I ask myself is, can they be fair and impartial? I think that is an extremely important criteria. Admittedly, it is somewhat subjective. Reasonable minds can differ about if someone can be fair and impartial, and reasonable minds do differ. Again, that is one thing we get back to in the Senate. Someone like either of my two colleagues, who have spoken here in the last few minutes, who are so articulate and so good, they look at some of those nominees and there is no doubt in their minds, they are going to be fair and impartial. I look at them and I have some doubts. Again, that is how the process works. I am proud that their two States have sent them to the Senate. They are here to do their duty as God gives them the right to do it. I feel like I am here to do the same. So reasonable minds can differ about being fair and impartial. But regardless of how you come out on the conclusion, that is one of the criteria I use. I think it is extremely important for a judge. There is another, a third, element I look at; that is, has the nominee demonstrated an ability to exercise and to show the proper judicial temperament? For all the lawyers out there, and all the parties out there, if you have been in court before, you understand how important the judicial temperament can be in cases. Literally these judges oftentimes hold life or death in their hands for a criminal defendant. Or they may hold a business's solvency or whatever the case may be. It is very important. Their temperament oftentimes is determinative in how the case will come out. So again it is subjective, but I try to look at their judicial temperament. Then the fourth criteria is sort of the elastic clause. The Constitution has an elastic clause, so part of my criteria is kind of an elastic standard--and I don't say standard but elastic consideration--and that is, are there other factors or other circumstances, when you look at these nominees, that should be considered? And, boy, that is just open-ended. But I think, as Senators, we should consider the totality of the circumstances. We should look at these nominees in a historical context; it may be a social context; it may be something unique to that region or that State or that person. I think it is incumbent on us to look at those carefully. Here again, it is subjective. Is that something you can really write down as criteria of how it is going to work in every single case? No. Maybe it should not be. Maybe it should be left elastic so it can be changed and be looked at from different perspectives with each particular nominee. But regardless of that, I do take my role and my duties as a Senator very seriously. One of those roles that I believe very strongly about is the people of Arkansas sent me here to work with everybody else who is up here. If the people of this country want to elect George Bush as President, I am here to work with President Bush. Mississippi sends their set of Senators and Texas sends their set of Senators, and Massachusetts and California, and I believe my responsibility, as a Senator for Arkansas, is to work with who is here. That is what I have tried to do, and I will continue to try to do that. One thing also we need to keep in mind is that these judicial nominations we are talking about today and that we always have under consideration here in the Senate are lifetime appointments. Only under extreme circumstances will these people be removed from office. It is very rare that happens in American history, but it can happen. But these are lifetime appointments. I think it is critical that our judiciary is independent. I think that is the way our Founding Fathers set it up. We better get these nominees right on the front end because these people will serve for life. Like I say, they hold justice in their hands. Their application of the law will be determinative for so many things during the course of their careers. I think, simply put, people are entitled to know what nominees think. I think people are entitled to know about the qualifications. They need to have the assurance that these nominees under consideration by the Senate--the people need to have an assurance that if these people do put on the robe, do serve on the bench, that the integrity of the system will be there and that these people will do justice, as their responsibility requires. I personally believe the people of America want a moderate and balanced approach. Personally, I think most Americans do not want to see the courts packed with judges with a conservative agenda or judges with a liberal agenda. I think most Americans want to see moderate, fairminded people on the bench. Because people understand that if you go into this with an agenda, then the courts will not be balanced and that judge and the court will have one dominant point of view. That is not good for our justice system. I do think there has been a lot of discussion about some of these judges' records. Again, I think those are subject to interpretation. I am not going to try to get into all the particulars of those. We do not have time tonight, plus my colleagues, for the last several hours, the last 30-plus hours, have tried to do that. Many of them have done a very good job. What I would like to do, if I can, is talk about one thing that does bother me, and that is the fact we are getting toward the end of our calendar year in the Senate and this is crunch time for the Congress to get its work done. In fact, right now our colleagues in the House, down the hall, basically are only meeting about 1 day a week, maybe 2, for votes because they have taken care of a lot of their legislative business--not all. They still have some things pending. But they have gotten theirs down to the point where they do not have to be in very many legislative days. In fact, a lot of what they are doing is waiting on us to accomplish and to finish our business. Well, here we are spending 30-plus hours in a talkathon about these four judicial nominations that have been blocked. I think we need to keep it in perspective. Some of the Democrats have talked about 3 million jobs that have been lost in the last 3 years and what we are arguing about here are four judicial jobs. Well, that may be fair; that may not be. But I think there is some merit to that. To keep it in perspective, 98 percent of President Bush's nominees have been confirmed. That is a pretty good percentage. You try to find another percentage like that in history, I am not sure you will find it. Also, when you look at Government and we look at anything involving human events, 98 percent is a pretty high percentage. So again, I would encourage all of us to try to keep this in perspective. I heard one of my colleagues last night talk about 98 percent of this and 98 percent of that. In fact, it was Senator Chambliss of Georgia. He had a very humorous monologue about that. But the truth is, 98 percent in politics and in Government is a pretty doggone good success rate. In fact, I would go so far as to say I am not sure anybody in Washington ever gets 100 percent of what they want. Most people are happy to get 50 percent of what they want, if they can just get that done. But regardless of that, I think most people I talk to back home understand that judges are important, and they understand that it is important that we have an independent judiciary, but they also perceive that these four nominations are not urgent to the welfare of our Nation. So that causes me to question why we are doing this right now. If this is a big issue, can't we put it off until another time? But regardless, we find ourselves here. That is just where we are right now. I want to talk about one other thing that is a concern to people all over the Nation; that is, losing jobs in the manufacturing sector of our economy. It was announced the other day that one of the great companies in the world, I guess--Michigan-based Whirlpool--plans to move some of its refrigerator production, which is made in Fort Smith, AR--they plan to move those jobs from Fort Smith down to Mexico. Very sad news. Jim Pickens, who was, until very recently, Arkansas' economic development director, said that it is clear that some of the 4,500 Whirlpool jobs in Fort Smith will go. The problem with this is it is not an isolated incident. It is a trend. It is something to which we in the Senate should be devoting our time. It is something that folks back home are very concerned about, losing these manufacturing jobs. One thing that is of particular concern in the Whirlpool case is it was just a few months ago--about a year ago--when Whirlpool made an announcement they were going to actually add 700 jobs in Fort Smith. Of course, there was a lot of excitement about that announcement. Now there is a lot of disappointment about what Whirlpool has decided to do. I am not saying this to be critical of Whirlpool, but I am saying to my colleagues instead of spending this much time on these four judicial positions, let's spend this much legislative time in trying to figure out how to save our manufacturing sector. Because I think long term when you look at what is good for technology and good for this Government, good for this country, saving those manufacturing jobs is probably more important than these four judgeships we are talking about. Another thing that I must tell you I experienced today is I went to Walter Reed Hospital, the Army hospital here in the DC area, and talked to men and women who had come out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Very sobering, very serious. These are patriots of the first order. Some of them will have lifelong injuries due to their service to this country. One thing that was emphasized with us over and over is that Iraq is a very dangerous place right now. There again, I hope, and I sincerely hope, the Senate will spend this much time in deliberation and in consideration of how we should move forward in Iraq and what that future looks like for Iraq. Mr. President, it does not bother me to work late. This is the second night in a row that I have had a late night slot. But it does bother me a little bit that we may have lost some perspective in that we need to keep these other important issues in perspective. No question that our judiciary is important. That is our third branch of Government. But we also need to keep it in perspective. Mr. President, may I inquire, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. PRYOR. As I understand what just transpired, his additional 5 minutes or so will be applied to the next hour so I still have 30 minutes.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, in this 2\1/2\ minutes, I would like to thank some people for tonight. I would like to thank the staffers who are here on both sides. I would like to thank the Senate staff, the Sergeant at Arms staff, the doorkeepers, the cloakroom staff, all the various people who make the trains run on time around here, because I certainly understand they have families to go home to, that they have lives outside of these halls. I know the sacrifice they are making tonight to be here. I also want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their viewpoints. We may differ on some of these issues, but I appreciate their opinions and respect their viewpoints and the zealousness by which they approach the subject at hand. I want to thank colleagues on my side who are here in the wee hours of the night and will be here throughout the day tomorrow to talk about these issues that are very important to the people of this country. I know members of the Senate on our side of the aisle are equally passionate about these issues. Some of this is a matter of opinion. Some of it is a matter of fact and history and tradition. Certainly people on this side of the aisle are very passionate about this. In the couple of minutes I have remaining, I want to acknowledge some of the hard work the people in this institution and around this institution have put into this 30-hour filibuster or marathon debate, whatever one wants to call it, because it has come at quite a sacrifice to the members of the staff in this body. Do I have any time remaining?

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I rise today in support of the 2004 Defense authorization conference report. Even though there are some provisions I am disappointed in--some of the environmental matters and how those issues got worked out, and a few other issues, and I don't want to dwell on the negative--there are two reasons I signed on to the conference report and why I encourage my colleagues to vote for this conference report. Those two reasons are sitting right in the front, Senator John Warner and Senator Carl Levin. They have demonstrated a true spirit of bipartisanship. It has been a great model for me as a new Senator to sit on this committee and watch these two Senators fight for their causes but do it in a very fair and open manner and deal with each other in such a constructive way. I thank them for their leadership. They worked through dozens and dozens of very difficult issues. Nobody got their way completely. But they showed great leadership and great stewardship. I want to publicly acknowledge them and thank them, especially Chairman Warner because he has been extremely fair to the minority. Again, we don't always get our way, but I think he has demonstrated the camaraderie and the comity that we should have in the Senate.