Mark Pryor

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I would again thank my colleague from Arkansas. We have a great tradition in our State of sending strong Senators to Washington, and certainly Senator Lincoln is one of those. She shows great leadership not just for the State but for the Nation. I want to thank her for her contribution tonight.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I am not sure we have anybody in this Chamber or in this body who is more knowledgeable about the economy and economic principles than our colleague from New Jersey. He has proven himself on the field of battle on these economic issues. How much time do I have left?

Mr. PRYOR. I object, Mr. President.

Mr. PRYOR. I object, Mr. President.

Mr. PRYOR. I want to spend the next few minutes talking about a man who was one of President Bush's nominees for a judicial post in the Eastern District of Arkansas. He is from Arkansas. While I was not consulted on his nomination, I do support his confirmation. Actually, this ties in a little with Senator Talent's question of a few moments ago. I notice Senator Talent did not accuse the Democrats of being obstructionists. Some have, of course, but I know he did not do that tonight. This is, as Paul Harvey might say, the rest of the story, or at least a part of the rest of the story. Leon Holmes is a very distinguished lawyer in Little Rock. His academic accomplishments and his love of academia are more than evident when you look at his background and qualifications for office. He has been a clerk for the Arkansas Supreme Court. He has worked for some very prestigious, very well known Little Rock law firms. He has been appointed judge on a couple of occasions for the Arkansas Supreme Court. In fact, I had the privilege of practicing with Leon Holmes in Little Rock in a law firm called Wright Lindsay & Jennings, which is truly a wonderful place to practice law. I got to know Leon well there and saw his legal acumen up close. I understand Leon's qualifications for office. He has won different awards. The American Bar Association gave him a well qualified/ qualified stamp. He and I may differ on some issues; nonetheless, he is very broadly supported by members of the Arkansas bar, and I support him. Let me tell you a little bit about the nomination. He was nominated by President Bush on January 29 of this year. He went to the Judiciary Committee. He got out of Judiciary on May 1--over 6 months ago. He got out of Judiciary and he has been languishing on the Executive Calendar ever since. In fact, today I sent a letter to the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, and the Judiciary chairman, Orrin Hatch, inquiring about the status of Leon Holmes' nomination, asking them to bring his nomination forward. If I may, I would like to read a portion of this letter into the Record. It says: I am writing to express my concerns regarding the nomination of Leon Holmes to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Mr. Holmes has garnered overwhelming support from the Arkansas State Bar, of which I am a member, and received the rating of Qualified/Well Qualified from the American Bar Association. He possesses the skill, ability, and experience to enable him to serve as a member of the judiciary. While Mr. Holmes and I may differ on some issues, I believe he is well able to carry out his duties according to the Constitution and that he will apply established precedent as judicial canons require. The letter goes on basically asking the majority leader and chairman of the Judiciary Committee to bring his nomination to an up-or-down vote. There is no effort on the Democratic side to filibuster Mr. Holmes' nomination, even though I have no doubt a number of my Democratic colleagues will vote against him. I remain perplexed as to why he has not come to the floor yet. I am puzzled why the Republican leadership has yet to bring up his nomination. I hope I will receive a response to the letter soon. So as Paul Harvey says, that is the rest of the story. One reason I wanted to tell this story is because I receive phone calls in our office from Arkansas and around the country asking me to vote for certain of President Bush's nominations. Our staff will tell them: Senator Pryor already voted for 67 of President Bush's judicial nominations, and their response is, ``no, he hasn't.'' Well, sure I have. See, the rest of the story is not being told. I think a lot of people around the country perceive we are blocking every single judicial nomination that comes down the pike, but that is not true. As Senator Corzine mentioned a few minutes ago, the 168 nominations is a historically high number, just like the 98 percentage number is a historically high percentage for approved judicial nominations. I don't think you will find that repeated in American history. We need to keep this in context. Here I am from Arkansas, and I support one of the President's nominees, but I cannot get him to the floor. There is no obstruction on Mr. Holmes, and there is not going to be a filibuster. I have talked to many Senators on our side and on the Republican side. Yet he has not come up for a vote yet. There is one other thing I want to mention in the time I have remaining, and that is, back in April, I signed a letter with a number of my Republican colleagues, freshman colleagues, about this judicial nomination process. I asked the leadership, Senator Frist and Senator Daschle, to try to work together with the White House to try to make sure we don't get to this point where we are this morning--that is, gridlock over some of these nominations. There is enough blame to go around, and the last thing I want is a 30-hour blame-a-thon. I don't want to participate in that. But I do think we need to revisit what we are doing. I think we need to put things in the past and leave them there and move forward on these nominations. If it is payback upon payback, we are never going to get anything done. Both sides have some responsibility there. Also, I say I believe a big portion of the responsibility rests with the White House. After all, the White House starts this process. The President is the one, under the Constitution, who does the nominating, and I know many of my Democratic colleagues feel they have not been consulted--I know I have not been. They feel they have not been consulted and, in fact, they have been deliberately shut out of the process. I think we need to work with the White House to try to make this better. I think the White House has a responsibility. We all have some responsibility. I think if we work hard, we can make this process work much better. How much time do we have on our side?

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge and thank my colleague from South Dakota, who has done such an outstanding job tonight, and always. Tonight I would like to read a portion of a book that won the Pulitzer Prize recently. It is called ``Master of the Senate.'' It is about Lyndon Baines Johnson as a Senator, not as President. It was written by Robert Caro. It is 1,040 pages. I assure you I am not going to read all thousand pages tonight. I am just going to read a few excerpts from chapter one. Chapter one is entitled ``The Desks of the Senate.'' I am only going to read a small portion of chapter one. I will be starting on page 3. But I think it is important for us to all put this in context and remember what the Senate is all about and how it works and how it is designed to function within our constitutional system. So, if I may start midway down, on page 3. When a person stood on the floor of the Senate Chamber, however--in the well below the dais--the dais was, suddenly, not plain at all. Up close, its marble was a deep, dark red lushly veined with grays and greens . . . In fact, on this pilaster behind me you can see those colors Mr. Caro is referring to here. . . . and set into it, almost invisible from the galleries-- We have a number of people in the gallery tonight. . . . almost invisible from the galleries, but, up close, richly glinting, were two bronze laurel wreaths like the wreaths that the Senate of Rome bestowed on generals with whom it was pleased, when Rome ruled the known world--and the Senate ruled Rome. From the well, the columns and pilasters behind the dais were, suddenly, tall and stately and topped with scrolls, like the columns of the Roman Senate's chamber, the columns before which Cato spoke and Caesar fell, and above the columns, carved in cream-colored marble, were eagles, for Rome's legions marched behind eagles. From the well, there was, embroidered onto each pale damask panel, an ornament in the same pale color and all but invisible from above--a shield--and there were cream-colored marble shields, and swords and arrows, above the doors. And the doors--those seven pairs of double doors, each flanked by its tall columns and pilasters--were tall, too, and their grillwork, hardly noticeable from above, was intricate and made of beaten bronze, and it was framed by heavy, squared bronze coils. The vice presidential busts were, all at once, very high above you; set into deep, arched niches, flanked by massive bronze sconces, their marble faces, thoughtful, stern, encircled the Chamber like a somber evocation of the Republic's glorious past. And, rising from the well, there were the desks. Let me pause here because these desks have a lot of history. In fact, I think it is safe to say almost all of American history in some way or another has flowed through the Senate. I don't think that is an overstatement. The desks of the Senate rise in four shallow tiers, one above the other, in a deep half circle. Small and spindly individually, from the well they blend together so that with their smooth, burnished mahogany tops reflecting even the dim lights in the ceiling so far above them, they form four sweeping, glowing arcs. To stand in the well of the Senate is to stand among these four long arcs that rise around and above you, that stretch away from you, gleaming richly in the gloom: powerful, majestic. To someone standing in the well, the Chamber, in all its cavernous drabness, is only a setting for those desks--for those desks, and for the history that was made at them. The first forty-eight of those desks--they are of a simple, federal design--were carved in 1819 to replace the desks the British had burned five years before. When, in 1859, the Senate moved into this Chamber, those desks moved with them, and when, as the Union grew, more desks were added, they were carved to the same design. And for decades--for most of the first century of the Republic's existence in fact; for the century in which it was transformed from a collection of ragged colonies into an empire--much of its history was hammered out among those desks. Daniel Webster's hand rested on one of those desks when, on January 26, 1830, he rose to reply again to Robert Hayne. I am not going to go into that story because it should be known by most people who follow Senate history, one of the more famous exchanges in the history of the Senate. Let me skip on to page 7 and talk about what I really think is important for us to consider this morning: The long struggle of the colonies that were now become states against a King and the King's representatives--the royal governors and proprietary officials in each colony--had made the colonists distrust and fear the possibilities for tyranny inherent in executive authority. And so, in creating the new nation, its Founding Fathers, the Framers of its Constitution, gave its legislature or Congress not only its own powers, specified and sweeping, powers of the purse (``To lay and collect Taxes . . . To borrow Money on the credit of the United States . . . To coin Money'') and powers of the sword (``To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal . . . To raise and support Armies . . . To provide and maintain a Navy . . .'') but also powers designed to make the Congress independent of the President and to restrain and act as a check on his authority: power to approve his appointments, even the appointments he made within his own Administration, even appointments he made to his own Cabinet; power to remove his appointees through impeachment--to remove him through impeachment, should it prove necessary; power to override his vetoes of their Acts. And the most potent of these restraining powers the Framers gave to the Senate. While the House of Representatives was given the ``sole power of Impeachment,'' the Senate was given the ``sole power to try all Impeachments'' (``And no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of Two Thirds of the Members present''). The House could accuse; only the Senate could judge, only the Senate convict. The power to approve presidential appointments was given to the Senate alone; a President could nominate and appoint ambassadors, Supreme Court justices, and all other officers of the United States, but only ``by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.'' Determined to deny the President the prerogative most European monarchs enjoyed of declaring war, the Framers gave the power to Congress as a whole, to House as well as Senate, but the legislative portion of the power of ending war by treaties, of preventing war by treaties--the power to do everything that can be done by treaties between nations-- was vested in the Senate alone; while most European rulers could enter into a treaty on their own authority, an American President could make one only ``by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.'' I will skip to page 8. It is a discussion of James Madison, the primary designer of our constitutional system of government. Certainly it was a committee effort, but James Madison has been historically credited with playing the major role in its creation, in its design: How, Madison asked, is ``the future danger''--the danger of ``a leveling a spirit''--``to be guarded against on republican principles? How is the danger in all cases of interested coalitions to oppress the minority to be guarded against? Among other means by the establishment of a body in the government sufficiently respectable for its wisdom and virtue, to aid on such emergencies, the preponderance of justice by throwing its weight into that scale.'' This body, Madison said, was to be the Senate. Summarizing in the Constitutional Convention the ends that would be served by this proposed upper house of Congress, Madison said they were ``first to protect the people against their rulers; secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.'' ``The use of the Senate,'' Madison said, ``is to consist in its proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the popular branch.'' It should, he said, be ``an anchor against popular fluctuations.'' He drew for parallels on classical history, which, he said, ``informs us of no long-lived republic which had not a Senate.'' In two of the three ``long-lived'' republics of antiquity, Sparta and Rome, and probably in the third--Carthage (about whose governmental institutions less was known)--senators served for life. ``These examples . . . when compared with the fugitive and turbulent existence of other ancient republics, [are] very instructive proofs of the necessity of some institution that will blend stability with liberty.'' Thomas Jefferson had been in Paris during the Convention, serving as minister to France. When he returned, he asked George Washington over breakfast why the President had agreed to a two-house Congress. According to a story that may be apocryphal, Washington replied with his own question: ``Why did you pour your tea into that saucer?'' And when Jefferson answered, ``To cool it,'' Washington said, ``Just so. We pour House legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.'' The resolution providing for a two-house Congress was agreed to by the Constitutional Convention with almost no debate or dissent. And to ensure that the Senate could protect the people against themselves, the Framers armored the Senate against the people. One layer of armor was bolted on to allay the fears of the states with fewer people, that the more populous states would combine to gain a commercial advantage or to control presidential appointments and national policies; the small states were determined that all states should have an equal voice in the Congress, so, in what became known as the ``Great Compromise,'' it was agreed that while representation in the House would be by population, in the Senate it would be by states; as a result of that provision, a majority of the people could not pass a law; a majority of the states was required as well. But there were other, even stronger, layers. One was size. ``Numerous assemblies,'' Madison explained, have a propensity ``to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions.'' so the Senate would, in Madison's phrase, be ``less numerous.'' Each state, the Farmers decided, would be represented by only two senators; the first Senate of the United States consisted of just twenty-six men. Now I am going to skip to page 10. Senators would also be armored against the popular will by the length of their terms, the Framers decided. Frequent elections mean frequent changes in the membership of a body, and, Madison said, from a ``change of men must proceed a change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change of measures. But a continual change even of good measures is inconsistent with every rule of prudence and every prospect of success.'' What good is the rule of law if ``no man . . . can guess what the [law] will be tomorrow?'' Guarding against ``mutable policy,'' he pointed out, requires ``the necessity of some stable institution in the government.'' Edmund Randolph, as usual, was more blunt. ``The object of this second branch is to control the democratic branch,'' he said. ``It it not be a firm body, the other branch being more numerous and coming immediately from the people, will overwhelm it.'' Senators, he said, should ``hold their offices for a term sufficient to insure their independency.'' The term sufficient, the Farmers decided, would be six years. Senators would hold office three times as long as the members of the ``democratic branch.'' They would hold office longer than the President held office. And around the Senate as a whole there would be an additional, even stronger, layer of armor. Elections for senators would be held every two years, but only for a third of the senators. The other two-thirds would not be required to submit their record to the voters (or, to be more accurate, to their legislatures) at that time. This last piece of armor made the Senate a ``stable institution'' indeed. As a chronicler of the Senate was to write almost two centuries after its creation: ``It was so arranged that while the House of Representative would be subject to total overturn every two years, and the Presidency every four, the Senate, as a Senate, could never by repudiated. It was fixed, through the staggered-term principle, so that only a third of the total membership would be up for re-election every two years. It is therefore literally not possible for the voters ever to get at anything approaching a majority of the members of the Institution at any one time.'' Now I'm going to skip to page 11. The coat of constitutional mail bolted around the Senate was sturdy indeed--by design. Under the new Constitution, the power of the executive and the power of the people would be very strong. So to enable the Senate to stand against these powers--to stand against them for centuries to come--the framers of the Constitution made the Senate very strong. Wanting it to protect not only the people against their rulers but the people against themselves, they bolted around it armor so thick they hoped nothing could ever pierce it. And for many years the Senate made use of its great powers. It created much of the federal Judiciary--the Constitution established only the Supreme Court; it was left to Congress to ``constitute tribunals inferior,'' and it was a three-man Senate committee that wrote the Judiciary Act of 1789, an Act that has been called ``almost an appendage to the Constitution.'' The Judiciary Act established the system of federal and district courts, and the jurisdictional lines between them, that endure to this day, and established as well the principle, not mentioned in the Constitution, that state laws were subject to review by federal courts. And when, sixteen years later, this new creation was threatened by a concatenation of the very forces the Framers had feared--presidential power and public opinion--the Senate saved the Judiciary. By the way, Mr. President, the Senate has a history of saving the judiciary in critical times. That should be a discussion for a later time. But there is no question that the Senate has served as protector of the judiciary in our system of government. The desks (there were thirty-four of them by 1805) had been removed for this occasion, and the Old Senate Chamber had been arranged as if it were a tribunal. In the center of one wall stood the chair of the presiding officer, Vice President Aaron Burr, as if he were the chief judge, and extending on his right and left were high-backed, crimson-covered benches, on which the senators sat, in a long row, judges in a court from which there was no appeal. Mr. Caro goes on to explain the impeachment trial of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase; here again, the rule of law and the fact we are a nation of laws and not men built up by the Senate. It is the Senate's tradition to stand up for our liberty and for our law. I wanted to bring this to the Senate's attention. I know my time is drawing to an end. At this point, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I want to again remind this Senate and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle about one of the judicial nominees who happens to be from my State of Arkansas, Mr. Leon Holmes. Leon and I practiced law together in Little Rock for a few years in the late 1980s or early 1990s. He is a very fine person, a very fine man, and a very fine lawyer. I am proud to count him as a friend. Let me emphasis that Leon Holmes and I don't agree on every single issue. There is no doubt that there are some things he and I disagree on. But I am very respectful of his views because I know that he has arrived at those views through long consideration. He is a man of great integrity and great judgment. President Bush nominated him in January of this year to be a district judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Mr. Holmes is a practicing lawyer in Little Rock, and has been with a number of very prestigious law firms in his legal career. He is considered probably by most people one of the best lawyers in Arkansas, and certainly on certain types of cases would be considered among the best, if not the best. But at any rate, President Bush nominated him in January--if my memory is correct, January 25--and his nomination went to the Judiciary Committee. He came out of the Judiciary Committee on May 1. For over 6 months now, Mr. Holmes has been languishing on the Executive Calendar. I am troubled as to why he has been languishing like that. I have talked to the Republican leader many times, to the Republican chairman of the Judiciary many times, and I have talked to my colleagues many times. Both Senators from Arkansas are quite puzzled as to why. We have had 30-plus hours of filibuster led by the Republican Party on some of these judicial nominations, and here we have a nomination that we want to proceed on. We want to move forward on that today. To date, there has not been anything scheduled. Unanimous Consent Request With that in mind, I would like to ask unanimous consent--I know that we will need a moment to allow someone to come out on the Senate floor--that at a time to be determined by the two leaders, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 165, the nomination of J. Leon Holmes of Arkansas to be U.S. district judge, that it be considered under the following time limitation: 5 hours for debate equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member, or their designees; that when the time is used or yielded, the Senate without any intervening action or debate vote on confirmation of the nomination; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I would like to reiterate what the minority leader has just said. There is no hold on the Democratic side on this nomination. All systems are go on this side. I have talked to my Democratic colleagues and we are ready to vote Mr. Holmes up or down. Quite frankly, I know on a personal level that Mr. Holmes is ready to be voted up or down. Again, thank you, Mr. President, for the time. I yield the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR. Thank you, Mr. President. I have worked for months on this nomination. Let me emphasis that Mr. Holmes was not my nomination. He is President Bush's nomination. I wasn't consulted in any form or fashion before the nomination was put forward. I wasn't brought into the loop at all. The nomination was handed to me. Unfortunately, I continue to work on this and for whatever reason my efforts seem to be falling on deaf ears on the Republican side.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, basically what Robert Caro points out in this letter is: Several members of the Senate have asked me whether my research on the history of the Senate sheds light on the current debate over the role of the Senate with respect to President Bush's judicial nominations. Defining the right of extended debate is always tricky. If it is being used against you, it is a vicious weapon of obstruction whose use in a democracy is unconscionable. If it is you who is using that weapon, it is a great one to have in your arsenal. I think right there we see the tension Mr. Caro captured so well in his book, but here again he has captured it and framed up the issue very well for us. The right of the filibuster or unlimited debate is something that is viewed very differently, depending which side of the filibuster you are on. It has historically in this country been used time and time again for almost everything under the Sun--sometimes successfully, sometimes not successfully. One thing he talks about is: Nonetheless, great care should be taken in placing new restrictions on that right. Senators who are considering doing so should understand that they will be taking a step that has significant implications for the balance of powers created under the Constitution, and also for another very fundamental concern in a democracy: the balance between majority and minority rights. I have no doubt some of my colleagues on the Republican side genuinely feel the Democrats are out of line in using the filibuster in this context. Also, I have no doubt many of my colleagues on the Democratic side feel we are perfectly within our rights to use the filibuster. Here again, I encourage my colleagues to look at this letter from Robert Caro dated June 3, 2003, which brings a historical-- not a political, not a partisan, but a historical--perspective to what we are talking about tonight and what we will be voting on in the morning. Again, I thank all my colleagues for being here. It is late-night duty. It is not easy. The staff has just done a fantastic job. My legislative director, Walter Pryor, has been with me every step of the way. I know he would like to get some normalcy back in his life, as do so many of us. Has my time expired, Mr. President?

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, again, I thank you and thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for all their hard work in bringing these issues to the forefront. I see my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, walk in. We went to Walter Reed Hospital today. I know he has had a long day. I look forward to listening to his remarks. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, how much time remains on the Democratic side?

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Veterans Day, our national day of remembrance established to solemnly honor the sacrifices of American men and women who have served in military actions in behalf of our country. We recognize these men and women for preserving our liberty, freedoms and democratic way of life. For me, as a first-year Senator representing the men and women of Arkansas, this is an especially noteworthy Veterans Day. Since September 11th, numerous Arkansans have engaged in our battle against terrorism, serving in Afghanistan and other points abroad. This fall, over 3,000 men and women of Arkansas, members of our 39th Infantry Brigade of the Arkansas National Guard, are preparing to travel to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Every day my prayers include the brave men and women of Arkansas who serve, and have served, in our armed forces. I pray that every single one of our brave Americans in uniform will return safely home to the loving arms of their families. Sadly, many of our veterans have not returned safely home. Many of our veterans have paid the ultimate price, sacrificing their lives on the altar of freedom. We must never forget their sacrifices. We must never forget the cost of freedom paid by our veterans. As he gazed on the battlefield at Gettysburg in 1863, Abraham Lincoln uttered, ``The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.'' I am in a similar situation today, unable to articulate anything which even comes close to capturing the debt of gratitude each and every one of us owes our veterans. No words can capture my gratitude, or the gratitude of Arkansas, towards our veterans. Yet, as I mentioned, Veterans Day is a day of remembrance. This is a day to honor and remember those who have served in our armed service. Last week, I had the distinct pleasure and unique opportunity to talk with Johnie ``Chick'' Matthews. Chick, at 102 years old, is Arkansas's oldest living veteran. Mr. Johnie ``Chick'' Matthews, a resident of Greenbrier, Arkansas, first answered the call to duty to serve this country in 1917. That was 86 years ago. He was given the nickname Chick because he enlisted into the United States Army when he was only 16 years old. He was the youngest at his training facility at Camp Pike, AR. His mother was a widow with mouths to feed and he realized that he needed to help shoulder the financial responsibilities of caring for his mother and brothers. He went to Little Rock to enlist in the Army. He lied about his age. The recruiter said: We are not sure we believe you, so go home and get your mother to sign this document. When he went back home, he was scared to take it to his mother because he was afraid she would not sign the age waiver so he went to a neighbor woman and said: Mother hurt her hand and she cannot sign this. Can you sign this on her behalf? She did, and he was enlisted in the U.S. Army. At the age of 16, he was the youngest soldier in his unit, probably one of the youngest in the Army. But when it was all said and done, as he ended his military career, Chick had completed 46 years of military service spanning World War I through Vietnam. That is truly remarkable. In addition, he served in four branches--the Army, Navy, Coast Guard, and the Merchant Marine. When I talked to Chick, I was entertained and captivated by his stories, but most of all I was impressed by his sense of duty. In fact, when I asked him if he would recommend military service to others, he said: If they would let me in, I would be there tomorrow morning to sign up. In addition to Chick Matthews, I recognize another veteran who is a bit younger, but no less committed, to his country and to the State of Arkansas. Randy Massanelli is a native Arkansan who dutifully served in the U.S. Army for 15 years. While in the Army, he rose to the rank of major and served in Desert Storm where he was awarded the Bronze Star. Now he serves as my State director in Little Rock. I am grateful for the knowledge, experience, and perspective he brings to the office as I work to do what is best, not just for veterans and the troops around the country and around the world, but also for the people of Arkansas. I have known Randy since we were both at the University of Arkansas as undergraduates. I thank him today. He has shown me time and time again what true devotion to his country really is. I am lucky to have him on my team and I am proud to call him a friend. I honor him today as a great veteran. Last, I want to recognize another veteran on my staff, Wayne Palmer, who also served in Desert Storm. Wayne is a tremendous asset to my office. I thank him for his service to our country. Arkansans throughout the years have followed Chick's, Wayne's, and Randy's lead. I am proud to boast about my State's tradition of military service. As veterans continue to risk life and limb for us, I will work as hard as I can to make sure they are taken care of before, during, and after their mission is completed. In the coming days, we will vote on the Defense authorization conference report. As a conferee, I was proud to work on this legislation, which includes a 3.7 percent across-the-board military pay increase, expands TRICARE coverage for the Guard and Reserve personnel and their families, and provides benefits and programs to improve the overall quality of the pay for our service men and women. This legislation also authorizes disabled military retirees to collect their retirement pay and disability compensation, otherwise known as concurrent receipt. This measure would benefit millions of Americans who have served our country for years but have been prohibited from receiving both retirement compensation and VA disability benefits. Correcting this inequity for our veterans is long overdue--in fact, 110 years overdue. I made a promise to take care of our service men and women who put their lives on the line for our country. This provision indicates Congress's intention to finally honor its word. I am also looking forward to debating the VA/HUD appropriations bill where I have an understanding we will be looking to add $1.3 billion to veterans health care. We cannot discount the importance of this funding, especially as more veterans come home from Afghanistan and Iraq and the global world on terrorism. We must ensure that the Veterans' Administration has the resources it needs to look after those men and women who look after us. Mostly, this Veterans Day fills me with a sense of security and pride because of my faith in the ability and skills of our men and women in uniform. This faith nourishes my hope for a peaceful future for my children and the children of Arkansas. I know our men and women in uniform are the most capable fighting force on Earth. I know these individuals will willingly endure personal sacrifice and danger to defend our democratic values, just as our veterans of yesteryear endured personal sacrifice and danger to provide us the freedom and democracy we enjoy today. I know our Armed Forces will be victorious in their mission. On this Veterans Day, I extend my gratitude and the gratitude of every Arkansan to our veterans and their families. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, it has recently come to my attention that there is urgent need to construct a new medical facility with the associated water and sewer capability in Heber Springs in my home State of Arkansas. Heber Springs is located in the medically underserved rural part of north-central Arkansas. It is the only hospital in Cleburne County and surrounding areas providing treatment for local citizens.

Mr. PRYOR. Yes, this 34-year-old facility is the only one in this county and surrounding areas. Secondary facilities are approximately one hour in driving distance. Additionally, the population of Cleburne County and secondary service areas have grown more than threefold during the past thirty-four years.

Mr. PRYOR. I thank you for consideration of these requests. energy photovoltaics in rural areas

Mr. PRYOR. The emergency room experienced over 8,000 visits during 2001. This volume of patients cannot be managed safely or efficiently in a thirty-four year old emergency room with a four patient capacity. Additionally, the hospital operated on 851 patients in 2001 with only one small preoperative room available and three beds available for recovery. The volume of outpatients reached 13,649 in that year. The current facility has been found deficient by both the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations and the Arkansas Department of Health. I would request that this community be included in the conference report under the Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP) for the Community Facility Loan and Grant Program and the Water and Waste Loan and Grant Program for consideration of funding for a new facility with water and sewer assistance.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, last month, this body overwhelmingly voted to stop unwanted phone calls from telemarketers. We put our foot down and stopped these uninvited guests from barging into our home, interrupting our family time and invading our privacy. I would like to think that families can enjoy a peaceful dinner now that we have allowed the Do-Not-Call list to move forward. Today we address a similar problem--America's e-mail inboxes have been invaded by unwanted and deceptive e-mail solicitations. Not only is this practice annoying and frustrating to our constituents, but the practice is costing consumers and businesses valuable time and resources. In a report dated January 22, 2003, the Federal Trade Commission indicated that at least 40 percent of all e-mail is spam, with more than half considered to contain false and deceptive information. This has been a problem in my State of Arkansas. The FTC recorded 2,048 fraud and identity theft complaints from Arkansas consumers who reported having lost $1.3 million to these scams. In addition, businesses are losing money as employees spend time wading through unsolicited e-mail messages and are forced to continuously update their servers and software in an attempt to avoid spam and prevent worms and viruses that are submitted through spam. One thing I have learned as Senator is that this body does not agree often on the root of a problem. But I know for sure that each of us can agree that we have better things to do with our time than delete dozens of emails about the latest diet craze or money scheme. Even more, I know none of the mothers and fathers in this body want their children to receive emails that contain inappropriate sexual material. Neither do the mothers and fathers in Arkansas. Now is the time to crack down on deceptive and unsolicited spam once and for all. This bill which I support has two strong elements: First, it would require anyone sending unsolicited bulk e-mail directly, or through an intermediary, to provide each recipient with a valid ``opt-out'' process for declining any future spam. Second, it would outlaw transmitting high-volume unsolicited e-mail sources if they contain false, misleading or deceptive routing information, or forged e-mail addresses. I am pleased that this bill has been made even stronger with the inclusion of Senator Bill Nelson's RICO statute amendment. I am proud to be named as the provision's original cosponsor. This amendment encourages the prosecution of those people who use spam to seek money illegally or who engage in other illegal acts by making use of the civil Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly known as RICO. RICO makes it illegal to acquire or maintain a business through a pattern of racketeering activity. This law lets authorities seize the assets of such an operation and allows victims grounds for recovery in civil court. By adopting the amendment, this body has given the overall bill teeth, which will go along way toward punishing those scam artists who prey on the everyday trusting, law-abiding citizens of our land. As Attorney General I fought to curtail mail fraud and I think some of the spam being sent to Arkansans online is in that same category. The only difference is that this type of fraud reaches many more victims in a shorter period of time. I look forward to the completion of this bill, and I am pleased that we have again been able to work in a bipartisan matter to carry out the will of the populace.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President. I rise today to address the historic legislation before the Senate. I refer to S. 1689, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004. Let me begin with what seems to be the reaction of most Americans. I am captivated by the sheer sum of the bill--$87 billion. Once beyond the initial sticker shock, I began to look at the content of this package. I was sent to the Senate by Arkansans in part to watch over the Federal budget so I wanted to know what Americans were getting for their hard-earned $87 billion--$87 billion that will propel our Nation even further into debt. I want to go on record commending the work of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee. They did the best that they could given the circumstances. I think that I am a fair-minded American but this $87 billion request was dumped in Congress's lap by the President on September 17, 2003. Today is October 17 only 4 weeks since we have received this package. It takes most people longer to do their taxes than we have had to figure out an $87 billion package. And while we have heard testimony from the top brass in the Defense Department, we have not from any outside witnesses with views that might differ from the administration. For instance, would it not make sense to hear from the Iraqi Governing Council regarding this bill? Regardless, here we are, and I have made every effort to fairly examine this package. This is what I have found. The $87 billion package is broken down into two titles--National Security and International Affairs. Title I, the National Security section of the bill, provides $66.5 billion to carry out the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee report accompanying S. 1689 says that these funds are for increased operational tempo, military personnel costs, military construction, procurement of equipment, increased maintenance and military health care support. Title II, the International Affairs section of the bill, provides $21 billion to help secure the transition to democracy in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee states that these funds are for enhanced security and reconstruction activities including border enforcement, building a national police service in Iraq, standing up a new Iraqi army and continued building of the Afghan National Army, reconstituted judicial systems, rehabilitation of Iraq's oil infrastructure, and provision of basic electricity, water and sewer services and other critical reconstruction needs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let me tell you that once into the details, there is much in this bill that is straightforward and I wholeheartedly support. For example, under the National Security section, this bill contains $1.2 billion for enhanced Special Pays including Family Separation Allowance, Imminent Danger Pay, and Hostile Duty Pay. The Senate Appropriations Committee should be commended for their decision to support the continuation of the Family Separation Allowance and the Imminent Danger Pay at the levels authorized for all of fiscal year 2004, rather than the Defense Department's request. Title I contains other essential funding for personnel, operation and maintenance, procurement, the Defense Health Program, and military construction that one would expect to support our obligations to the uniform services totaling around $62-$63 billion. I support this funding. It is responsible. It is necessary and part of our obligation to our troops. The National Security section further provides funding for the Iraq Freedom Fund, the Overseas Humanitarian account, the Disaster and Civic Aid account, drug interdiction and counterdrug activities, and the intelligence community management account. While I wish we had greater details about these programs, I will put my trust in this administration who believes that these funds are needed to support the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, I can only extend so much good faith and trust--which brings us to Title II of the bill. Title II or the International Affairs section of the supplemental is intended to help secure the transition to democracy in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Its price tag is $21 billion. Some of this reconstruction request makes sense to me, such as the $35 million to establish a U.S. diplomatic presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and the $90 million for emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service which includes reward funds to be paid for information leading to the capture or whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. It is expensive, but we have to back the work that our troops have done and keep our commitment to the Iraqi people. But overall I, along with many Arkansans, struggle to embrace the administration's obtuse and costly approach to reconstruction in Iraq. I have followed the progress of the war in Iraq keenly. I have attended the administration's war briefings faithfully. I have gone to the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings consistently. I have had the benefit of firsthand accounts from Secretary Rumsfeld, Ambassador Bremer, and General John Abizaid, to name a few. Yet I was not prepared for the strategy, or lack thereof, of rebuilding Iraq. I was never told that the American people would be footing the entire bill for Iraqi reconstruction. Therefore, I understand the reaction of many Americans. I understand that they have questions and concerns. So do I, and they are reasonable questions: We must ask: One, what reconstruction efforts should the U.S. be solely responsible for and what should the Iraqis pay for? Two, what does Iraq need, and what does Iraq need right now? There are many reconstruction items that this administration is asking for that should be scrutinized so we can properly determine whether they are truly needed to stabilize Iraq. I fully understand that Iraq has needs, but Arkansas has needs, too. The Senate has just had an important debate on this bill and I have used this time to be open to fresh ideas. There have been a few good alternatives to consider and I have supported several alternatives. One such measure was Senator Byrd's amendment that would have split U.S. troop funding from the Iraqi reconstruction proposal and given Congress an opportunity to sort through some of the administration's more questionable funding requests. I want to hold this administration accountable but I do not wish to hold our troops hostage. By separating this money, we can ensure our troops get the support they need while making sure we are spending taxpayers' money in a wise and effective manner. I also supported Senator Dorgan's amendment that would have used Iraqi oil revenues to offset the U.S. direct grant payments. Unfortunately, both amendments failed. I came to Washington to protect the best interests of my constituents and all Americans. In spite of the rhetoric that many Americans hear every day about the partisan nature of Capitol Hill, last night a vote was held on the Senate floor that demonstrates that my friends on both sides of the aisle take their commitments very seriously. In the spirit in which this Nation was founded, last night the Senate adopted, with my support, a bipartisan agreement on Iraqi reconstruction. I am proud to support this bipartisan agreement sponsored by Senators Bayh, Ben Nelson, Ensign, Graham and Chambliss, to name a few. Under the bipartisan agreement, the proposed $20 billion grant to rebuild Iraq will be divided into two parts: One, a $10.2 billion grant for security efforts in Iraq; and, two, a $10 billion loan. Importantly, the $10 billion loan will be converted into a grant if 90 percent of Iraq's preliberation debts are forgiven. I am told that Iraq may have the largest oil reserve in the world, but is currently captive to more than $100 billion in foreign pre-war debt owed to countries such as Saudi Arabia, France and Russia. Even if the United States were to provide the $10 billion up front as a grant, Iraq will have a very difficult time recovering economically from the burden of the $100 billion debt. This amendment encourages the international community to forgive the debt incurred by Saddam Hussein by leveraging our negotiations for debt relief with the incentive that the United States will provide a $10 billion reconstruction grant--above the $10 billion already provided for in the supplemental--if the international community forgives 90 percent of its bilateral debt. I support this proposal. It would help the Iraqi people and it would provide a long-term solution to rebuilding Iraq. More importantly, it helps the United States to move forward on our own important domestic spending, as the Iraqi debt issue will hopefully be resolved. I hope that the administration will join in supporting this bipartisan plan. Wars must be paid for and I intend to honor our commitments. I will support the amended version of the $87 billion Iraq supplemental bill. It supports our troops and it starts to address a long-term solution for the economic viability of Iraq. I believe that this amended request offers a better solution than what was originally offered by administration. It is a small, but positive step toward meeting our obligations in Iraq while protecting the American taxpayer.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of Senator Cantwell's Truth in Deployment amendment. This amendment supports our reserve forces and corrects an error in our deployment process. I am extremely proud of our reserve forces. The Arkansas Army National Guard's 39th Infantry Brigade is beginning their mobilization in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The 39th Infantry Brigade consists of over 3,000 soldiers who are ready to serve their country. The 39th Infantry Brigade soldiers are going to sacrifice time away from their family, place their civilian careers on hold, and place at risk the greatest gift provided by our Creator, their very life, to protect the freedoms and liberties we hold so dear. If the 39th Infantry Brigade and other reserve forces are willing to do so much without complaint, I believe it is not too much to ask that we provide them as much opportunity as possible to minimize the impact of overseas deployments on themselves, their families and their employers. This amendment provides for this opportunity. This amendment is straightforward. It starts the deployment period for members of the reserve component as the date of activation. This has always been the standard practice, prior to the administration's shift in policy on September 9th. This amendment simply asks our Nation to remain true to the standard practice, tradition of considering the date of activation as the date of deployment for reserve members. Nothing in this amendment weakens our ability to employ our reserve forces. In fact the exact opposite is the case. This amendment enhances the ability and effectiveness of our reserve forces by enabling them to plan their lives to reduce the inherent adverse impact of overseas deployment on their families, employers, and community. I thank my fellow Senators for supporting this amendment. It will enhance the ability and effectiveness of our reserve forces and support the men and women like those who serve in the 39th Infantry Brigade.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge our Nation's independent community pharmacists for their diligent work, expansion of services, and consistent high quality service. Independent community pharmacies are a strong part of our health care delivery system and a significant part of local economies. In fact, independent pharmacies, independent pharmacy franchises, and independent chains represent a $67 billion marketplace. Clearly, independent pharmacies create jobs while providing high quality services to consumers. Independent community pharmacies play a critical role in local communities, a role which has enhanced the level and quality of pharmacist-patient personal interactions and has led to high satisfaction rates from consumers. Independent pharmacies should be commended for their accessibility, immense knowledge about medications, and broad inventories of medications. These observations were validated by more than 32,000 readers surveyed by Consumer Reports, which found that ``more than 85 percent of customers at independent drugstores were very satisfied or completely satisfied with their experience.'' Pharmacists are health care professionals who consistently strive to improve care and promote the safe use of drugs. In addition to dispensing medications, many independent pharmacies offer other services to meet the needs of their customers. This includes providing health screenings, disease management information, and even home delivery. I am honored today to recognize the achievements of independent pharmacies for their excellent job in serving the pharmaceutical and other health care needs of consumers in their communities. As Congress moves forward with enacting a Medicare prescription drug benefit, it is essential that we preserve the quality care being provided by community pharmacies. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an article from the October 2003 issue of Consumer Reports.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, today the Senate will consider a bill that is very important to small business owners and their employees. I am referring to S. 1375, the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act. The purpose of this bill is to reauthorize the many needed initiatives at the SBA--from long-term loans and venture capital to help with accessing Government contracts-- that have helped create successful businesses that are now household names to many Americans. To name just a few, Callaway Golf, Ben & Jerry's, Winnebago, Apple Computer and FedEx. In Arkansas, last year, more than 305 businesses got loans through the SBA, and with them created jobs and contributed to the local tax base. We on the committee have worked hard to review the services available to small businesses through the SBA and its lending and counseling partners. As a result, this bill builds upon what works right at the SBA and improves upon areas that need to be updated. The changes are sensible and fiscally responsible. We also included an innovative provision to address workforce issues. I offer my thanks and appreciation to Senator Snowe and Senator Kerry for giving me the opportunity to address my concerns regarding some of the provisions in the SBA reauthorization bill. One of my initial concerns was that we continued to actively support the SBA's 7(a) guaranteed business loan and 504 certified business development company loans programs. Access to capital is one of the most critical issues facing new and small businesses alike, particularly for minorities and entrepreneurs in inner-city and rural areas who lack sufficient collateral or credit to get loans from banks, even when they have a good idea and repayment ability. I believe, and am hopeful, that the SBA Reauthorization Act will go far in satisfying this demand for capital to those who have traditionally been shut out. Additionally, I have endeavored to ensure that the SBA 7(a) and 504 programs continue unharmed. I encourage the SBA to work with the small business community--the trade associations for 7(a) and 504 lenders and borrowers, the National Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders and the National Association of Development Companies, to ensure they are not harmed. Small businesses employ millions of people and provide the fuel for our Nation's economic growth. Although most economists aver that the recession has ended, employment figures continue to lag behind other economic data at a rate that continues to cause me great concern--21 months of straight job losses means we should be using every tool we have to create jobs. With the assistance of Senator Snowe, the SBA Reauthorization Act should help to spur job creation and increase access to much needed capital for our Nation's small businesses. I ask my colleagues to support this bill because we need to enact this legislation before many of SBA's programs expire on September 30.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Yes. I yield 5 minutes of my time to the Senator from New York.