Mark Pryor

Mr. PRYOR

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

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise to address the Chamber about my proposed amendment that fits very neatly with an amendment that passed last week 62 to 28. It is a fallback amendment to that Dorgan-Cochran proposal. The way I view this amendment--I hope the way my colleagues will understand it--it is really an antiprice gouging amendment as we go through the process and hopefully add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare that so many people in the country want and deserve. We all know the stories about drugs that are produced in this country that are made at certain plants and certain places. And when they leave the plant, one truck will go to one of our home States and the other truck will go to Canada. Unfortunately, what happens all too often is when the drugs get to Canada, they are about one-half or one-third or one-quarter the price that people can buy those drugs in the United States. In my opinion, there is no valid reason for that. There is no valid justification for those drugs to be priced in that way. We also know the Senate has tried to address this problem on at least a couple occasions--in the year 2000 and in the year 2002. This very Chamber voted to allow the reimportation of pharmaceuticals from other countries. Of course, the reimportation of drugs would be FDA-approved drugs coming out of FDA-approved facilities. In fact, for the third time in 4 years, the Senate voted this past Friday to allow the same thing. Currently, the law is reimportation can come from a list of countries. There is a designated list. That has been somewhat cumbersome. And the FDA has not seen fit and has not been able yet to approve this process because they can't certify or verify that the drugs are safe. One thing I like about the Dorgan-Cochran amendment is it limits the scope of reimportation only to Canada. That is a significant advancement because we all know that Canada has very high medical standards and that they are very concerned about their populous and the veracity of medication in their society. My proposal also is limited just strictly to Canada. One advantage is that they have a very similar, almost identical set of standards for handling drugs to make sure that there is a chain of custody, proper testing, et cetera. They build in the safeguards just as we do. A lot of countries don't do that. But with Canada we have a certain degree of confidence--maybe not absolute; I guess you can never have an absolute degree of confidence--that drugs are going to be safe. We have a very high degree of confidence that the drugs will, in fact, be safe and they will meet U.S. standards. Let me briefly address my amendment. It is only three pages--very simple, very straightforward. In terms of the definition of covered product, we adopt the existing law. Therefore, there is no surprises, no monkey business or games played with the definition. When it comes to the prohibition in section B, which is found on page 2 of the amendment, in summary--I will delete all the commas and the parenthetical phrases, but in summary it says: It shall be unlawful for the manufacturer of a covered product to refuse to sell to any wholesaler or retailer--and that is key--on terms that are not substantially the same as that of any purchaser in Canada. Let me run through that very quickly, if I may. One of the keys is that it is for wholesalers and retailers. What that means is that wholesalers and retailers in this country can reimport from Canada. We all know if our local pharmacist could somehow work out an arrangement with wholesalers and retailers in Canada, they could actually buy the products in Canada, have them shipped to the United States, and sell them cheaper here than they can buy them wholesale in this country. One of the keys is that American wholesalers and retailers are subject to all the FDA rules and regulations and requirements. Therefore, this amendment will only allow the reimportation of safe FDA-approved products made at FDA-approved facilities. When it comes to enforcement, this amendment would allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services, as well as any wholesaler or retailer in this country that is aggrieved by some unfairness--the thing I like about that and I hope my colleagues understand--it allows both the Government sanction, the ability to enforce this, but also the free market. We all know the free market works very well, and when a free market can regulate itself, I think we are all better off. It has the ability for the Government to enforce this if necessary. In the last bit, on page 3 of the amendment, it deals with the timeframe. That is a 2-year provision from the enactment of this act that this will take effect. In other words, the way this works is, once we pass this legislation, the President signs it, it becomes effective 2 years after it is enacted. Then it will trigger this act if the FDA has not issued its final regulations. Then we will be able to purchase these drugs at the same prices they get in Canada. In other words, it is an antiprice-gouging mechanism that I think is critical to this legislation and to its long-term success. I very much applaud the leadership in this Chamber, especially coming from Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus, Senator Frist, Senator Kennedy, Senator Daschle, Senator Graham, and, of course, Senators Dorgan and Cochran have shown leadership not just on this issue but on prescription drugs generally. I thank them for getting this to the Senate floor and allowing this very important debate and allowing these important amendments to be considered. I do believe very strongly that when the bill came to the floor, it was a bill definitely worth our consideration. But I also think and believe very strongly that the bill has improved since it has been on the floor. I think these amendments are making the bill stronger and better for the American public. For example, the Enzi amendment, which I like quite a bit, makes sure that people will still have access to use their local pharmacists. Not only are many pharmacists pillars of the community, not only do they do great things in their communities, but so often patients getting prescription drugs need to talk to their pharmacist about drug interactions, expiration dates, and details of how to take it. It is very important for the effectiveness of the drug that people talk to a local pharmacist and have access thereto. So I thank Senator Enzi for doing that. The Gregg-Schumer-McCain-Kennedy amendment closes loopholes to allow name-brand drug manufacturers to unfairly extend their monopolies and overcharge American patients. This has been going on for a long time and it is something, when I was Attorney General, we worked on very hard to try to stop from the litigation standpoint. But now Congress has taken action, and I am so pleased that they are stopping this legislatively. We have mentioned the Dorgan amendment, with the Cochran second- degree amendment, and how that has strengthened the bill and how, hopefully, that will cause prices to stabilize and, in fact, hopefully, come down over time. I think there is still some work to be done on this bill, and I think during the course of this week there will be a lot of great amendments to consider. I hope I can vote for some of those. When I believe it will make this bill better, I will support it. Let me run through the chart very quickly. What we see is a graph with two lines. You can see that this lower line says ``health.'' If you were to look at the consumer price index, or one of the other indexes, it would be even lower than this green line, but it would go up slightly. That is, of course, the inflation rate, and it goes up 2, 3 percent a year. Right here, we see the health care costs. If you go back to 1994--our baseline year--the price, the cost of health care, in just these 7 or 8 years has gone up 63.6 percent. One thing we all hear from our constituents is how much health care costs are increasing. For a lot of people, they have increased 10, 15 percent--sometimes more--a year. It is strangling people. If you look inside the numbers and you look at the No. 1 cause of health care costs going up, it is the cost of prescription drugs. That is what this red line indicates. Again, you can see the rapid growth that is outpacing the costs of health care and inflation, and it is pulling health care costs up and in a very dramatic fashion. I think pretty much everyone who has looked at this nationally agrees that it is the high cost of prescription drugs that is the primary reason--there are other factors--why health care costs are going up so dramatically. In this proposal--not in my amendment but in the actual bill--we are talking about having a $250 deductible and a stop loss protection that kicks in, paying 90 percent of drug costs after $3,700 of out-of-pocket spending. Well, one thing the American public needs to understand, and all of us Senators need to remember, is that these are percentages and they will go up as the costs of prescription drugs go up. So one thing we need to be very mindful of is, as we watch this red line, the top numbers on this particular chart, go up--in fact, CBO says about 12 percent a year, and they are taking average numbers. They have been going up more than 12 percent per year in the last few years. If we say more than 12 percent a year, after 5 years that deductible of $250 becomes a deductible of $485. In fact, the stop loss threshold goes from $3,700 to $6,521. Both of these adjust based on cost of prescription drugs--not based on the cost of health care or on the cost of an increase in inflation but based on the cost of prescription drugs. What that means is that in 10 years the deductible will go to $854, and the stop loss in 10 years will be $11,492. Now, what this amendment is designed to do is to try to get ahold of these runaway costs of prescription drugs. As long as these numbers go up like this, the problems in this bill--things that we as Senators don't like about this bill, like the gap in coverage, the deductibles, and the stop losses--are going to get worse. It is going to do nothing but get worse over time. So what this amendment and what the Dorgan-Cochran amendment are designed to do is to try to somehow keep prescription drug costs down in a very reasonable way. That is why reimportation is so critical because reimportation, in the strange world of prescription drugs, introduces competition into the marketplace. Suddenly, the drug costs here are competing with the drug costs in Canada, and what that will result in, necessarily, is lower drug costs if free market principles are allowed to apply. While I am 100 percent convinced the administration can and should implement Senator Dorgan's and Senator Cochran's amendment, I am not 100 percent sure they will do it. Recently, we received a letter in the Senate from the FDA from one of the Commissioners, Mr. McClellan. Let me quote, if I may, from Mr. McClellan's letter. I may have to put on my reading glasses to do this because that is what happens when you get old, Mr. President. I know I am quite a bit older than the occupant of the Chair. When you get my age, you need these. This is a letter to Senator Thad Cochran, and it is from Mark B. McClellan, FDA Commissioner, sent earlier this month, on June 19, 2003. It says: The overall quality of drug products that consumers purchase from the United States pharmacies is very high, and the American consumer can be confident that the drugs they use are safe and effective. That is a key point because we have a very safe marketplace for drugs. In fact, one of the things I did when I was attorney general of my State--and I left there 6 months ago--I sent out periodical consumer alerts to Arkansans about being very careful about buying drugs over the Internet, using mail order companies, and toll-free numbers because sometimes, under some circumstances, you are not sure what you are getting. We always advise people to be very careful when they do that. I have a bias and a preference for using a local pharmacist. Let me continue. I am skipping around: In FDA's experience, many drugs obtained from foreign sources that either purport to be or appear to be the same as U.S.-approved prescription drugs are, in fact, of unknown quality. That is something we found in the attorney general's office in Arkansas when I was there. The letter goes on to say: These outlets may dispense expired, subpotent, contaminated, or counterfeit products, the wrong or contraindicated product in an incorrect dose or medication unaccompanied with adequate direction for use. The labeling of the drug may not be in English and important information regarding doses and side effects may not be available. In addition, the drugs may not have been packaged and stored under proper conditions to avoid degradations. That is true. That definitely happens. We have seen that time and again around this country. But that is one of the great points about the Dorgan amendment. In fact, the Dorgan amendment that was adopted last week with 62 votes has a provision--I am not going to read it all--on page 3 that makes it very clear that we can only reimport FDA- approved drugs at FDA-approved facilities. There has to be documentation; there has to be testing. The safeguards are there. Also what Mr. McClellan is talking about here is a very serious problem, but by the very same standards he is referring to in his letter, he cannot guarantee that American drugs are safe because we all know in the marketplace there are some problems--a very small percentage in the United States but there are some problems. He goes on to say FDA cannot guarantee the safety of Canadian drugs. As I said, really in a true sense, we cannot guarantee the safety of American drugs either, but the FDA does a very good job. Interestingly enough, my staff, as we were preparing to be here this afternoon, went on Lexis-Nexis and did a search to find all the reported cases in recent years from Canada related to counterfeit drugs. They could not find one case, one newspaper article, one incident, anything that was reported about counterfeit drugs in Canada. That is using the Lexis-Nexis search. The truth is, we found a number of those in the United States, but we did not find any in Canada. Lastly, Mr. McClellan's letter to Senator Cochran says: At this time, the agency simply cannot assure the American public that drugs imported from foreign countries are the same as products approved by the FDA and that they are safe and effective. Again, our bill fixes this problem because my amendment, along with Senator Dorgan's and Senator Cochran's amendment, says it only applies to FDA-approved drugs and it is only from Canada. We have a much more confident sense about the Canadian marketplace for prescription drugs than we do about a number of other countries. Back when President Bush was running for office in 2000, he had the same impression as most of us when we think about this issue for the first time. He said ``it made sense'' to allow prescription drugs that were sold overseas to come back. I think he was right about that. It does make sense, as long as we build in the proper safeguards. Again, I think the amendment Friday and my amendment today will do that. Some say that doing anything to make prescription drugs more affordable will reduce investment in research and development. I disagree. There are many factors that go into research and development, and two of those--and I hope people understand this--two of the major reasons drug companies come here to do their research and development are: First, we make a huge public investment through the NIH, the National Institutes of Health. They do a lot of the basic research that the drug companies then build on and actually produce prescription drugs. Second, this country provides a research and development tax credit, and the drug companies take advantage of that, and they should. It is there for them to take advantage. That is why we have it. It is good for the country. It is good for the economy. It is good for our health. I am supportive of those tax credits. But those are two taxpayer-funded--I do not know if you want to call them subsidies. Call them what you want but those are two taxpayer incentives for these big drug companies to do research and development: The huge public investment we make for NIH, and the research and development tax credit. One item I read recently that is a little disturbing to me is that the research and development dollars by the big pharmaceutical companies went up by 8 percent. That is good. It is good they are increasing their dollars for research and development. But did you know that their lobbying budget went up by 23 percent? Right now in this country, in this city, there are more lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry than there are Members of Congress, and they have increased it another 23 percent. I am a little bit disturbed by that. My sense is, the only groups out there, as far as I know-- maybe I am wrong; I have not seen anything to the contrary. As far as I know, the only groups out there opposed to reimporting safe drugs from Canada, FDA-approved drugs and FDA-approved facilities from Canada, the only group I know opposed to that is the pharmaceutical industry. I read a recent story in the New York Times that said somewhere between $2 million and $2.5 million the pharmaceutical industry is giving out to research and policy organizations ``to build intellectual capital and generate a higher volume of messages from credible sources.'' We saw this happen many years ago with the tobacco industry. I give a little bit of caution here to the pharmaceutical industry. I hope they do not repeat some of what tobacco did that got them into so much trouble. Tobacco actually went out and funded sham research. They funded research that actually said tobacco was not harmful to their health when they knew it was and they had the research to say it was. They funded research to come out and say to the contrary, even though the research could not be validated. I certainly hope that is not what the pharmaceutical industry is doing today, but it sounds as if they are drifting in that direction. It is definitely in the interest of the American public and of patients who need medical care in this country that we allow the safe importation of drugs from Canada. I think it will help people afford drugs, and it will help make drugs more affordable in this country. As long as I am talking about the pharmaceutical industry, let me be very clear. I am proud of the pharmaceutical industry. I am proud of what they do. It is amazing some of the accomplishments we have achieved in medicine in the last 100 years. It is even more dramatic than the aeronautics industry. One hundred years ago, the Wright brothers launched at Kitty Hawk. Now, today, you know what we have been able to accomplish in the last 100 years. The gains have been even more dramatic in the world of prescription drugs. It is amazing. It is critical for the United States to have an industry that is high tech, such as that industry, and that is on the cutting edge, is innovative, and is the world leader. We want to try to be the leader in anything we can. I will continue to support NIH funding for research and development of prescription drugs. I think that is critical. I think that helps everybody. It is a win/win. It is not always cheap, but it is a win/win. It helps the industry. It helps the public. It helps medicine. I will continue to support the tax credit for research and development. In fact, I am a cosponsor of a bill that will do that because I believe very strongly American business should have the incentive to invest in research and development because it helps the economy so much in the long term. I see the prescription drug industry as in a little bit different category than most industries because they have a patent. The fact is that the Federal Government gives them a patent--another word for that would be a ``monopoly''--the Federal Government gives them a monopoly for a certain number of years to sell their drugs, but implicit in that monopoly is a public trust. I think it is incumbent upon the people who hold those patents and the companies which hold those patents that they understand they have a special relationship with the public, because nothing less than the public's health is at stake. Also, when I am looking at the pharmaceutical industry, I have to observe what Fortune Magazine came out with in the last I think it has been 3 or 4 years running now, that there are three different ways to measure the profitability of an industry. All three ways it is measured, the pharmaceutical industry by any standard is the most profitable industry in America. The other thing about these companies is we talk about them as if they are our own companies but in fact many of them--maybe the majority, the big guys--are actually foreign corporations doing business in America. Most of these big companies are huge conglomerates that have different divisions and product lines. We need to remember most of these are global companies. They are doing research all over the world and they are selling these drugs all over the world, not just to the American marketplace. I think it is important we not segment the American marketplace at the expense of everything else. I will talk about three of my experiences as attorney general for Arkansas. I know there are 49 other attorneys general who have had similar experiences, but these were important experiences I had with the pharmaceutical industry. Again, I am proud of the industry. I am very supportive of some of the things they do, but when I was attorney general we had one case where we found out they had secured a monopoly on certain key ingredients to two or three drugs. Without these key ingredients the drugs could not be made, and even the generic companies were buying these key ingredients from this one manufacturer. They purchased that manufacturer and before long, guess what, generic drugs went up because the name-brand company was jacking up the prices to the generics. That is not fair. That is not right. That is not allowing the marketplace to work in the way it should. We had another case where a pharmaceutical company out and out lied about research. They told the Government they had tests that showed their name-brand product was better than the generic product. Another test came in later and showed they were absolutely the same. Unfortunately, for a number of years they were able to charge more for their product, much more than the generic, because people were convinced the generic was not as good. When I was attorney general, we found there were a few companies that were playing games with the patent laws and with the FDA regulations and through various maneuvers they were able to extend the life of their patents and monopolies. Again, I did not come to name names and embarrass companies for some of the wrongdoings. I will be glad to visit with any Senator individually who would like to talk about these things. The pharmaceutical industry is a great industry overall. It does great things and I am very supportive of most of the things they do, but sometimes we have to call it like we see it. They do not always come into this debate with the cleanest of hands. In my amendment, I am proposing a 2-year period of time in which to allow the Health and Human Services Department to establish their regulations in final form. I believe that is ample time. In fact, if it were up to me I would give them 30 days, but I think realistically they need time to verify and certify that the Canadian market is safe. I think they have actually been working on this since the year 2000. The fact the Dorgan amendment passed last week will really narrow their focus. Now that they only have to focus on Canada, I think that will help them quite a bit to bring veracity to these tests and to the marketplace. Again, my proposal would not take effect if the regulations are finalized, and even if it does take effect in 2 years and then the regulations are finalized at a later time, mine immediately goes out of effect. What it would, in effect, do is make sure we are not paying more for drugs in America than they are in Canada. That is really not too much to ask, considering the U.S. Government will be far and away the largest purchaser of prescription drugs in the world. The amendment says if the FDA has not implemented reimportation within 2 years of implementation of this law, it will become illegal for drug manufacturers to discriminate against American purchasers compared to our Canadian counterparts. Really, that is what it is all about. It is about price discrimination. I said a few moments ago it is about price gouging. If the prices are justified in Canada, then they are justified here, and we need to make sure we get a price we are comfortable with. In closing, I say that the consequences of not protecting American patients are too high. Uninsured patients cannot afford the prescription medicines they need today. Drug prices are fueling health care costs in a way we have seen on that previous chart. One thing we see time and time again is employers dropping health care coverage because they cannot afford prescription drugs. The skyrocketing drug costs have a tremendous potential to make the Medicare coverage we are considering erode significantly over time. What I mean by that is, as these deductibles go up, as the stop losses go up, as the gap in coverage widens, this proposed prescription drug benefit is going to make less sense over time because it is going to have so many problems. Lastly, I want to show my colleagues this chart. We have seen bits and pieces of this already in this debate from last week, but in the first column this chart lists I believe it is nine of the most popular drugs in this country. It lists what they are used for. There are a lot of folks who are looking at this list and seeing big name-brand drug names. They probably use these drugs. Probably a lot of people in this Chamber use these drugs. This column shows what they are used for and then this third column is really critical. It is the U.S. price. It is what people pay in the U.S. We are basing this on some Web sites. We know these are prices that can be charged here. This next column shows the price in Canada, what we know they can be charged there because we looked at Web sites that sell them. We can see the big difference on every single one of these nine drugs. The drug in Canada is much cheaper--in fact, 39 percent cheaper, 33 percent cheaper, on down the line. This one is 43 percent cheaper in Canada. Bear in mind that a lot of these drugs are made in the very same plants. They are made in the very same places. One drug goes up to Canada and the other goes to Arkansas, Texas, Georgia, or wherever it may be. These are the very same drugs coming out of the very same plants. They meet all the same standards. In Canada, they are a lot cheaper. What we are trying to do is get these prices in this column to go down to be a lot closer to the price in the Canadian column. It is not only good for the citizens but good for the taxpayers because as we add this prescription drug benefit we want to see these lower prices because that means tax dollars will go a lot further, and we, as a Nation, will be able to provide many more drugs through Medicare than we otherwise could. I ask the Senate very respectfully to support this amendment to simply ensure Americans are treated fairly. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask one additional question. A few moments ago--I know the Senator was being facetious--you talked about the nasty pharmaceutical companies and how easy it is for some to come in and impugn them and pick on them and try to punish them in some way. I don't know if you heard my comments earlier in the day, but I talked about how proud I was of a lot of what the pharmaceutical industry does in this country and around the world. In fact, I compared the advances in medicine to the advances in aeronautics in the last 100 years. The advances in medicine have been more remarkable than those of aeronautics. It is critical to have a robust industry on the cutting edge but at the same time two of the reasons the pharmaceuticals like to do their research in this country is because of the large amounts of money we fund to NIH. They do very valuable research that the pharmaceutical companies operating here can take advantage of, and we give them a very hefty research and development tax credit. I am for that credit. I am a cosponsor to continue that credit. I think it is critical for the industry. I hope the Senator was not implying that I am a big critic of pharmaceutical companies. Bear in mind, I don't think they always have clean hands. I have seen in my work as attorney general and reading the newspapers some business practices I wish they would change. We dealt with those at the State level when I was attorney general. The Senate is starting to deal with some of those.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today along with my good friend and colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln, in support of the Emergency Agricultural Assistance Act of 2003 to assist those in the agriculture community who have been devastated by natural disaster across our country. I hold in my hand a June 19th article from the Arkansas Democrat- Gazette that describes one of the countless stories of farmers across my State and the hardships they have faced due to unusually large amounts of rainfall their farms have received during the absolute worst possible time. In the past month, some areas have received in excess of twenty inches of rain. Arkansas, along with many other States across the Midwest and South, has been pelted continuously by rain and numerous tornadoes. As many as three dozen tornadoes have touched down in Arkansas alone. Bob Bevis, a farmer in Lonoke County, AR hasn't been able to work for three weeks due to soggy fields. In the meantime, wheat crops that were expected to bring record yields rot in the field, waiting for water to recede before the wheat can be harvested. Over fifty percent of Arkansas' wheat crop remains in the field, and with every passing day, the prospects for a successful harvest of wheat diminish. If current weather conditions abate, our farmers may be able to harvest five hundred fifty thousand acres, the lowest total in over seventeen years. The harvest of winter wheat has been greatly affected by weather. But winter wheat, generating $112.1 million in sales last year, represents only the fourth largest field crop in Arkansas. Rice, soybeans, and cotton represent our top three field crops. During the time wheat is being harvested, these other crops are being planted. Thus, while wheat has been affected, soybeans, cotton, rice, and numerous other crops have been devasted just as they are being put into the ground. Fields are under water. Crops that were planted early have been wiped out. Over 1.3 million acres of farmland across Arkansas have been affected by the excessive rainfall. Many of these acres had to be replanted, and just as quickly as our farmers began to have hopes of a decent crop, those hopes were dashed by disasters beyond their control. As you and many of our colleagues know, this is the critical time for planting crops. The later crops get in the ground, the later they will be harvested. The later they are harvested, the greater the chance insect problems, weed problems, and a whole host of other problems will damage these crops become likely. Yields will be dangerously low. Our farmers cannot suffer this burden alone. Our farmers provide our citizens around the country with an abundant food supply, greater than any other country in the world. We have the safest, least expensive food in the world, because farm families who are suffering through excessively tough times now work from dawn to dusk in the fields to make sure that we do. As a country, and as a government, I hope that my colleagues will show these dedicated Americans the support they deserve. They need our help, and they have asked for our help. I consider this a matter of national and homeland security, and I hope that my colleagues will see it this way as well. This bill will provide farmers in disaster areas designated by the President who experience a thirty-five percent yield loss with disaster assistance. I would like to thank my colleague from my home state for her hard work and collaboration on this bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure our farmers get the support and help they need to keep America's food supply safe, inexpensive, and the best in the world.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today along with my good friend and colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln, in support of the Emergency Agricultural Assistance Act of 2003 to assist those in the agriculture community who have been devastated by natural disaster across our country. I hold in my hand a June 19th article from the Arkansas Democrat- Gazette that describes one of the countless stories of farmers across my State and the hardships they have faced due to unusually large amounts of rainfall their farms have received during the absolute worst possible time. In the past month, some areas have received in excess of twenty inches of rain. Arkansas, along with many other States across the Midwest and South, has been pelted continuously by rain and numerous tornadoes. As many as three dozen tornadoes have touched down in Arkansas alone. Bob Bevis, a farmer in Lonoke County, AR hasn't been able to work for three weeks due to soggy fields. In the meantime, wheat crops that were expected to bring record yields rot in the field, waiting for water to recede before the wheat can be harvested. Over fifty percent of Arkansas' wheat crop remains in the field, and with every passing day, the prospects for a successful harvest of wheat diminish. If current weather conditions abate, our farmers may be able to harvest five hundred fifty thousand acres, the lowest total in over seventeen years. The harvest of winter wheat has been greatly affected by weather. But winter wheat, generating $112.1 million in sales last year, represents only the fourth largest field crop in Arkansas. Rice, soybeans, and cotton represent our top three field crops. During the time wheat is being harvested, these other crops are being planted. Thus, while wheat has been affected, soybeans, cotton, rice, and numerous other crops have been devasted just as they are being put into the ground. Fields are under water. Crops that were planted early have been wiped out. Over 1.3 million acres of farmland across Arkansas have been affected by the excessive rainfall. Many of these acres had to be replanted, and just as quickly as our farmers began to have hopes of a decent crop, those hopes were dashed by disasters beyond their control. As you and many of our colleagues know, this is the critical time for planting crops. The later crops get in the ground, the later they will be harvested. The later they are harvested, the greater the chance insect problems, weed problems, and a whole host of other problems will damage these crops become likely. Yields will be dangerously low. Our farmers cannot suffer this burden alone. Our farmers provide our citizens around the country with an abundant food supply, greater than any other country in the world. We have the safest, least expensive food in the world, because farm families who are suffering through excessively tough times now work from dawn to dusk in the fields to make sure that we do. As a country, and as a government, I hope that my colleagues will show these dedicated Americans the support they deserve. They need our help, and they have asked for our help. I consider this a matter of national and homeland security, and I hope that my colleagues will see it this way as well. This bill will provide farmers in disaster areas designated by the President who experience a thirty-five percent yield loss with disaster assistance. I would like to thank my colleague from my home state for her hard work and collaboration on this bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure our farmers get the support and help they need to keep America's food supply safe, inexpensive, and the best in the world.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, on May 29, 2003, the National Trust for Historic Preservation named Bathhouse Row in Hot Springs National Park, AR, one of America's 11 Most Endangered Historic Places. I come to the floor today to applaud the National Trust's efforts to preserve these bathhouses. I also want to bring the dire condition of these historic sites to the Senate's attention and urge my colleagues to support my and Senator Lincoln's work to provide critical funding this year to save the eight bathhouses in Hot Springs. During the early 1900s, a variety of bathhouses were built in Hot Springs, AR, to accommodate the thousands of travelers who sought the curative waters from 47 natural thermal springs. These bathhouses were elaborately constructed with remarkable architectural design, including stained-glass skylights and patterned mosaic floors and walls. The bathhouse provided restful baths and services--some peculiar and bizarre--that inspired the resort nickname ``The American Spa.'' In short, Bathhouse Row shaped America's ``Golden Age of Bathing'' and was internationally renowned, with the likes of Babe Ruth and the infamous Al Capone visiting the resort. Arkansans have long known what the National Trust for Historic Preservation has announced to the Nation: that these one-of-a-kind historic treasures are on the verge of disappearing due to neglect. These amazing buildings are literally falling apart. But the story for the bathhouses doesn't have to end there. We have a plan that works for both preservationists and budget hawks. Reasonable Federal investment into reconditioning these buildings will be leveraged by private leasing agreements. Once restored, private ventures will breathe new life and usher a new generation of use into Bathhouse Row for all Americans to enjoy. Lastly, I think that it is important to note that Congress has recognized the national importance of Hot Springs for 171 years. On April 20, 1832, the Congress had the foresight to establish Hot Springs Reservation--making it the oldest park currently in the National Park System. On March 4, 1921, Congress changed the name to Hot Springs National Park. Today, Congress has the opportunity to act again in support of Hot Springs. I believe that our predecessors in Congress intended for the park to protect Bathhouse Row and the unique glimpse that it provides into our Nation's social and historic past. I urge my colleagues to support funding in the fiscal year 2004 Interior appropriations bill for Bathhouse Row in Hot Springs National Park.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Bingaman- Inhofe amendment to strike language requiring certain communities enrolled in the Essential Air Service to provide a local cost-share. We are asking our towns and communities, our local governments, hardest hit by difficult economic times to suddenly find thousands of dollars in their already overstretched budgets to replace a significant source of Federal funding, for a critical economic function. In this time of economic uncertainty, rural communities are struggling to maintain their daily ways of life. With an added burden placed upon them, survival and the opportunity for further rural development will be nearly impossible. Local airports and the commercial air service they provide are extremely important to small towns, and a strong component of a State's economy. By enacting a cost-share provision, we run the risk of losing these airports, and cutting off a vital economic lifeline to rural America. In my State, airports in Jonesboro, Hot Springs, and Harrison provide affordable and reliable service to over 10,000 customers a year. The EAS funding they receive is a sound investment in our State's transportation network. Cost share provisions, however, could put those airports out of business. We are already putting enough strain on our small towns and local governments. We do not need to add to that by eliminating a vital source of funding for a vital function. This amendment would prevent that from happening, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I stand before you today in tribute of the Company C 5th Battalion 112th Armor currently stationed at the Pine Bluff Arsenal. Along with the people of my State as well as those across the Nation. I would like to offer my sincere appreciation and farewell to this group of 238 personnel that will be relieved of their duty at the Arsenal in a transfer of authority on June 11, 2003. This exceptional group of young men and women hailing from Arkansas and Texas came together in an unusual display of diversity in September of 2002 in order to provide extensive base security as a Chemical Site Defense Force. Under the creed, ``One flag, One Team, One Fight,'' this company is a combination of 169 men and women from five Army Companies in Northeast Texas, as well as 69 personnel from my home State of Arkansas. For those not schooled in the procedures of the National Guard, this interstate combination is rare. On top of this is the fact that within ``Tank Fantillery,'' which is the adopted nickname of the company, there is also an unusual mixture of tankers, infantrymen and an artillery battery. Under the direction of CDR Robert Eason, ``Tank Fantillery'' has shown their dedication, unity, and diversity as they have joined in the fight against terrorism by successfully fulfilling their protective duties at the Pine Bluff Arsenal Chemical Munitions facility. Now, coming to the end of their term of duty, I feel that it is appropriate for us to offer them our gratitude and congratulations on the completion of their objective. Later this month the transfer of authority will take place, and this group of personnel will be relieved of the protective duties that they have held for the last 10\1/2\ months. Such an occasion offers the chance to honor these men and women that display a level of dedication to their country that too few of us share. All of the world should be so lucky as to have such dedicated and honorable soldiers committed to their protection. It is with a warm heart that I salute these men and women and wish them luck in all of their future endeavors.

Mr. PRYOR

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

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

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

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, lying on the desk before us is a resolution relating to the Federal Communications Commission's June 2, 2003, ruling weakening the Nation's media ownership rules. I say very emphatically that those rules are not in the public interest and should be rescinded. I have laid that on the desk for my colleagues. I encourage all Members to get a copy of that and read it. I respectfully request that if anyone wants to be a cosponsor, I would love to have them cosponsor that today. As we all know, 2 days ago, the Federal Communications Commission by a vote of 3 to 2 rolled back longstanding rules governing media ownership. This ruling eases the ban on cross-ownership of newspapers, television stations, and radio stations, and allows media corporations to own more outlets locally and nationwide. The new rules have the potential of placing significant control over what the public sees and hears and reads in the hands of a small number of media conglomerates. Ultimately, having a few entities control a vast percentage of the American media market will stifle the diversity of ideas, viewpoints, and opinions. It reminds me a little bit of Henry Ford who at one point told his customers that could order any color they wanted as long as it was black. I feel the same way--that we may be getting to that point with regard to our media; that we can see and read and hear anything we want as long as it comes through them. The diversity of viewpoints is critical to our democracy. It is one of the foundations of American society and the American system of government. One thing we believe very strongly in America is the marketplace of ideas--a free and open and robust marketplace of ideas where people can exchange ideas and concepts freely and openly and not have that go through a national corporate conglomeration. I am very confident that this proposed rule change sets the stage for homegeniztion--not diversification but homogenization. That is not a good thing for this country. It is not a good thing for our system. Supporters of the FCC ruling say that the large media mergers do not stifle diversity. What they say is you can turn on cable right now and you get dozens--maybe hundreds--of channels in some systems, or you can turn on a radio station. But let me say this. Is it really diversity when the ideologies, the principles, and the viewpoints are being presented through the myopic lens of a singular, cookie-cutter point of view? I am concerned that is where we are getting to today with this ruling that will rush us headlong into this calamity. I think if the majority of Americans look at this issue they would understand that it does; that this ruling does not promote diversity but, in fact, limits it. There is a broad array of special interest groups, of consumer advocates, of civil rights and religious groups, small business, whatever--a broad array of interests--that are opposed. They are opposed to this ruling for very sound reasons. That is why I rise today to offer this resolution. I also wish to take this moment to publicly support the efforts of Senator Ted Stevens and Senator Fritz Hollings because they are taking the lead in trying to codify the 35-percent ownership cap. I am not only supportive of their legislation but I am also a cosponsor. This resolution is in no way competition to that but, in my view, this resolution is a logical extension of their efforts. It is unfortunate that we have to come here today to consider resolutions and legislation on this issue. The frustrations and the hostility out there in the public domain about this ruling and about corporate ownership of media outlets has been exacerbated by the FCC's inability to communicate to the public in rational terms and explain why this proposal is a good idea. In spite of 2 years of study, we need more time to study this. So far, the advocates of this position have made a very unconvincing case. One thing we need to understand in this country is that there is a fundamental difference in owning and operating a newspaper and in owning and operating regular television stations. Anyone today, if they chose to, could start a newspaper. All you really need in today's world is the ability to do some desk-top publishing and get out there and have a way to distribute your publication. But to have a radio station or a television station requires a license from the Government. That license is a sacred trust. It is a trust that they are going to have broadcasts in the community interest. They are going to have the programming that the community wants. They are going to play a vital role in our system when it comes to news and information and getting information out to the public which is important for them to have. One example of the FCC's shortcoming on this issue is the fact that the FCC has made no case for examining the Spanish language media as a separate market. I think everybody in this room understands it is a separate market. But because they have not seen it as a separate market, they look at mergers and acquisitions and their analysis is skewed in favor of the merger and the acquisition. Thank you, Mr. President and other Members of the Senate, for the indulgence and this time. I would like to remind everyone that this is out here for everyone to look at. I would very much appreciate as many cosponsors as we could have. I think it is important that the Senate send a very clear message on this topic.

Mr. PRYOR

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

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution I have at the desk be considered and agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. PRYOR. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I would like to bring the Senate's attention to a matter important to Blytheville in Mississippi County, AR. Blytheville is the former home of Eaker Air Force Base. In 1992, Eaker closed and ended a 50-year legacy between the U.S. Air Force and the people of Blytheville. During Eaker's 50 years, the Air Force benefited from local support of Eaker--support that ensured an atmosphere where the Air Force could complete critical missions. Today, a decade following Eaker's closure, the folks at Blytheville are trying to move forward and locate new businesses at the former base. Regrettably, abandoned, decaying buildings with asbestos siding and pipe insulation were left behind after the Air Force's departure and this environmental hazard is preventing any potential economic development on these lands. Our Federal Government regulations are clear concerning these types of hazards and the required remediation thereof. It is my understanding that many of these buildings were scheduled for demolition by the Air Force prior to the base closure. It is further my understanding that there is a potential for the asbestos to become airborne as these building begin to collapse. Mississippi County currently has the highest unemployment rate in the State. It was not the intent of the base closure process to leave a local community with environmentally hazardous waste, however, this is precisely what has occurred. The county cannot relocate new business in the facilities until the cleanup is complete. I want to bring closure to this issue and I hope that Chairman Warner and Senator Levin will join me in looking into this matter. I plan on contacting the Air Force to get a formal response to the environmental issues at the former Eaker Air Force Base. Again, I thank my colleagues for any support that they might provide in helping the people of Blytheville, AR.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, this Memorial Day is an especially meaningful time for our Nation. It comes as the images of defending freedom and democracy are still fresh in our minds. This weekend, we remember and honor the men and women who paid the ultimate price for their country. Flags fly at half-mast, relatives and friends place wreaths and flowers on the graves of their loved ones, and communities host parades adorned in red, while, and blue. In actuality, these tributes are small acts we perform in an effort to express our gratitude to those who have served the cause of freedom. Since the time of the Civil War, communities have paid tribute to fallen soldiers with spontaneous gestures of remembrance. In May of 1868, GEN. John A. Logan officially recognized the public's desire to honor those who died in pursuit of liberty by declaring May 30 of each year a day to decorate the graves of fallen soldiers. A century later, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed legislation declaring, in part, that Memorial Day be held the last Monday of May every year. Memorial Day weekend has since become a signal for family gatherings, barbeques, sales at the mall, trips to the beach, and the opening of community pools. We should celebrate our freedom but we must also remember that freedom is not free--it comes to us at a great cost. In our Nation's history, upwards of 40 million Americans have risked life and limb to defend our country and make the world a safer place. More than a million service men and women have died for our country. Moreover, 140,000 were taken as prisoners of war and many of them have never been accounted for. They are our Nation's heroes who acted selflessly throughout our history to bring forth freedom and opportunity for generations. We also honor the families who bear the heaviest burden of liberty. Our fallen and missing soldiers were moms, dads, brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters. They are not statistics but empty voids in their families' hearts. While the grief and pain for some may not have faded, I hope it is comforting for them to know that their fallen loves ones' cause was just. In addition, let us remember that thousands of service men and women will spend this Memorial Day stationed in other countries defending our freedoms far away from their families. I join Americans today in a prayer for peace so that we can reunite them with their loves ones soon. We take 1 day out of the year to honor our fallen soldiers but we benefit from their sacrifice each and every day. I hope that Arkansans will take a break from their Memorial Day activities to remember and honor our fallen soldiers. Let us display the noble patriotism for our country that our Armed Forces exemplify each day.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to pay tribute to our men and women in uniform serving at home and abroad and honor their service to this Nation. Our service men and women have risen to the call in the fight against terrorism. They have risen to the call to ensure peace and stability in the world. And they have risen to the call to provide humanitarian aid to those in need. One of the great aspects about America is our military. We have a history in our armed services, a rich and deep history of honor and integrity, and we see that firsthand in Operation Iraqi Freedom. I wish to acknowledge the ultimate sacrifice of two of our servicemen who fell in the line of duty: Hospital Corpsman Michael Vann Johnson, Jr., a 25-year-old Navy medic serving in the 3rd Battalion of the 5th Marine Expeditionary Force. Michael was born in Little Rock where his mother still lives. I talked with her by phone the other day. She is a soldier in her own right. LCpl Thomas Blair was a 24-year-old marine whose father, Al Blair, resides in Gravette, AR. They died very bravely, both serving their country and both trying to make life better for mankind. I pray for their families, and I honor them as brave and selfless men who put their lives on the line to make the world safer for others. I also pray for Iraq and the Iraqi people. I pray that after Saddam Hussein leaves power and that regime ends, the next government in Iraq will be peaceful; that it will not be oppressive of its own people; that it will not be aggressive toward its neighbors; that Iraq will become a solid rock in the Middle East and in that part of the world and a model of stability. I also honor the service of LCpl James, or as we know him, ``Jason,'' Smedley of the U.S. Marine Corps. Jason was wounded in combat and, by the grace of God, he is returning to us now. When not fighting for his country, he serves in the office of my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Blanche Lincoln, assisting Arkansans. We look forward to having Jason back, around and helping Arkansans in the many ways he does. Military service is not a job; it is a calling. It takes a special person to pledge to serve their country, risking life and limb in doing so. It takes courage, commitment, and a true sense of self to be prepared to deploy and fight for America. I have two young children, ages 7 and 9, and I think about the children of our military men and women. I think about the boys and girls whose fathers and mothers are far from home or working long hours in the United States. I want them to know we appreciate the sacrifices they are making, that we admire their valor in keeping their spirits up, and that their parents are doing a job that epitomizes the best in human character. I pray to God for peace, for world peace, and for the safe return of our troops, and I thank God. I thank God for allowing me to serve the people of this Nation in this way. As a Senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee, I stand ready to work with my colleagues and the President to provide any and all support possible to ensure the success of our military forces conducting these operations. Our Nation is one of diverse views, diverse ideologies, and diverse opinions. That is one of the aspects that make America great. We might not all agree on how we got to this point; nonetheless, we come together as one country to support the service men and women who are currently risking life and limb for this great Nation. They put themselves in harm's way not for personal aggrandizement or advancement but for immense love of country, liberty, and family. If they can hear me today, I say be assured that the American people are behind you. When appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee a few weeks ago, GEN John Keane, Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, testified to the courage of our military personnel. He said, when asked what is their greatest challenge, his division commanders replied: Keeping our soldiers from being too brave. They are brave, but we want them to return home. This is not just for our regular Armed Forces but also for our Reserves and our members of the National Guard. They all play a very key role in maintaining strong national defense. Just as we should thank our military overseas and at home, we should also thank our first responders who protect our hometowns. Firefighters, police, health care personnel, they risk their lives every day and sacrifice precious time with their families every day to keep us safe from those who would try to do us harm. Their commitment and contributions to national security and homeland security should not be forgotten. We all salute their spirit. I urge all Americans to pray for our troops, their families and our President, as we defend our Nation and the world from those who seek to do us harm. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I concur and join in the comments of my esteemed colleague from Arizona and my colleague from Colorado on this very important amendment the Senate is now considering. I believe the Senate needs to send a very strong signal that we will not tolerate sexual misconduct at our military academies. It is not only important for the cadets and their families but also for the Nation. Yesterday I received notice that a young woman in Arkansas has now been accepted to the Air Force Academy. I called her on the phone. She is excited, eager, ready to go. We talked about the situation at the U.S. Air Force Academy. I have no doubt it will be a great experience for her, it will be a great education, and she will excel and achieve great things in her military career. As I continue to recommend that young men and women go to our military academies, I want to proceed with confidence and know they are going into a healthy environment. These institutions are institutions of honor. There have been dozens of allegations of sexual misconduct at the U.S. Air Force Academy. It is time we stop and honor these victims, that we listen to them. One thing that became very clear the other day in the hearing we had was that there were a lot of facts we did not know. There is a lot of evidence we still need to uncover. We need a clear picture of the atmosphere at our military academies. We need to ensure this Nation, the Air Force, the cadets, and the families that when we send young men and women to the Air Force Academy, they are going to a constructive environment, they are going into a culture that will not tolerate sexual impropriety. This is not about a witch hunt. It is not about pointing fingers. It is about admitting to a problem, identifying the problem, and making sure it never happens again. I thank my colleague from Colorado for all of his hard work. The chairman of the committee also had a hand in this and is a cosponsor. We are honored to have him. I thank the Members of this body for their time and patience, especially Senator Stevens of Alaska, who has worked this in on short notice, along with Senator Byrd of West Virginia, who has been very kind with the time. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR. The only addition I would like to make is Senator Corzine would like to be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for up to 5 minutes on the pending bill.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, in these halls we often talk about the need to provide our military personnel with the resources they need to complete their missions. We all acknowledge how unique and important our military personnel and their needs are to us. It is our responsibility to have a comprehensive picture to know what we need to do to make life better for our men and women in uniform. By that I mean not only salary but that we need to understand their health care needs, their housing needs, pension needs, education needs, disability and employment benefits. It is very important, as we work in Iraq and around the world and as we keep America safe, that we, as Congress, have this important information. Not long ago, I was in a hearing of the Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member, and we began discussing the home mortgage deduction. One thing I realized was the home mortgage deduction is a very important part of America's financial picture, but also it is an important cornerstone to the American way of life. As I thought about the home mortgage deduction for military personnel, I realized that the Tax Code is cumbersome and complicated. I could not find one place, one document, that laid out all the provisions in the Tax Code designed to benefit our military personnel. And on comes the military tax bill, this very important piece of legislation. I commend Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus for all their hard work on this bill. But I looked, and I saw a maze of Tax Code provisions, mainly for short-term solutions. Those are important, there is no question about it. But still, I could not find a comprehensive view of tax treatment for our Armed Forces. So what I am proposing is very simple and very clear; that is, I would like to ask the GAO and the Departments of Defense and Treasury to provide us with a comprehensive study of the tax treatment of U.S. military personnel, along with a complete study of the financial conditions of our troops. And I would request they make recommendations on whether the Tax Code could be used to improve the unique financial conditions of our troops. This powerful information will help this Congress, help this administration, and also help our men and women in uniform. This one document could be a very powerful tool for us to help our men and women in uniform. However, at this juncture, I do not want to slow down, in any way, this very important bill on which Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus have spent so much time. I support their efforts to move this bill through quickly. We all understand how important that is. Therefore, I am not asking that my amendment be adopted. But what I am asking, very respectfully, is that Senators Grassley and Baucus join me in a letter asking the GAO to do what our amendment otherwise would accomplish. I thank them for their hard work, and I thank them for their leadership on these very important issues, issues the American people are very concerned with, and issues on which they have shown great leadership.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, yesterday our mission to disarm the Iraqi regime began. It is my hope that our actions will deliver the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator and help bring peace and stability to a volatile region. Our commanders in the field have developed an operations plan that will maximize the power of our forces, and I have no doubts about their capabilities to successfully achieve their military objectives. I commend the President for promptly addressing the Nation last night. It is important that he continues to keep Congress and the public informed of our military actions and the status of our mission. And I agree with his assessment that we should not view this war in terms of timetables. To speculate at this point would be counterproductive. Rather, we should view this conflict in terms of meeting our strategic and tactical goals. As a Senator and member of the Armed Services Committee, I stand ready to work with my colleagues and the President to provide any and all support possible to ensure the success of our military forces conducting these operations. Our Nation is a nation of diverse views, ideologies, and opinions. We might not all agree on how or why we arrived at this point; nonetheless, we must come together as a country and support those service men and women who are currently risking life and limb. As we stand here today, over 300,000 United States military personnel, including a number of Arkansans, are forward deployed in Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Turkey, and the waters and skies all around the world and at bases around the country. They put themselves in harm's way not for personal aggrandizement or advancement, but for immense love of country, liberty, and family. If they can hear me today, I say be assured, for the American people are behind you. When appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee a few weeks ago, GEN John Keane, Vice Chief of Staff for the U.S. Army, testified to the courage of our military personnel. He said when asked what their greatest challenge was, his division commanders replied ``keeping our soldiers from being too brave.'' We owe these men and women overseas and at home not only our gratitude, but also our very existence as the only country on Earth committed to promoting and spreading the ideals of democracy. Our military has kept us safe for over 200 years. We cannot thank them enough. Just as we should thank our military overseas and at home, we should thank our first responders that protect our hometowns. Firefighters, police, and health care personnel risk their lives and sacrifice precious time with their families every day to keep us safe from those who would try to do us harm. Their commitment and contributions to national security and homeland security should not be forgotten. Mr. President, I urge all Americans to pray for our troops, their families, and our President as we defend our Nation and the world from those that seek to do us harm.

Mr. PRYOR

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

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue that is important to many people throughout the State of Arkansas and indeed throughout this country. I rise to express my disappointment with the budget as it pertains to law enforcement programs and, in particular, community policing. I believe the budget shortchanges smaller communities and grossly underfunds 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. Mr. President, this budget cuts funding to the Community Oriented Policing Services--known by its acronym COPS--by 85 percent. That is 85 percent. This program was funded at $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2002. President Bush proposes only $164 million for the COPS program in fiscal year 2004. The administration's budget request for COPS represents a 100 percent cut to the COPS universal hiring program, and a 100 percent cut to the ``COPS in school'' program. In fact, the only program that is funded under this budget is the COPS technology program, and even that has been cut by 66 percent. From its inception, COPS has awarded just over $8 billion to local and State law enforcement agencies across the country. With grant money, departments have hired over 110,000 community police officers, in addition to purchasing technological upgrades and equipment. The COPS Program was established to focus on crime prevention and community engagement. This breaks with traditional notions of law enforcement by moving from reactive responses to proactive problem solving, focusing on the causes of crime and disorder. Community- oriented policing requires much more interaction on the neighborhood and community level than previous policing efforts. In Arkansas, we have been able to hire over 1,300 additional officers with the $83 million we have received. We have also used that money to combat methamphetamine use and to implement the COPS Program in schools. A February 3 article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, my State's largest newspaper, stated the reason given by this administration for cutting funding is that COPS has ``not produced conclusive results in lowering crime.'' I speak today not only as a Senator, but also as the former chief law enforcement officer of Arkansas, and I wholeheartedly disagree with this administration's assessment of these very important programs. I have worked closely with law enforcement officers of my State to make Arkansas a safer place and a better place to raise a family. They are strong leaders in their communities and demonstrate the character and the courage that define us as a nation. Together, we are able to keep over 1,000 criminals off the street due to their work on the front lines. Oftentimes, these police officers work in smaller rural communities. They operate under tighter budgets with smaller staffs than most of their urban counterparts. Nonetheless, they put their lives on the line every single day. They make real differences in people's lives, and they do it with professionalism and an attitude of public service. They do it because it is the right thing to do. They do not do it because it is easy or because it is pleasant, and, Lord knows, they do not do it for the money. They are not asking for much in return. I wish to take this time to thank all law enforcement officials for the work they do. I especially thank Sheriff Marty Montgomery of Faulkner County, Sheriff Ron Ball of Hot Spring County, and Sheriff Chuck Lange of the Arkansas Sheriffs' Association. They are in Washington today as part of their national association's meeting. I thank them not only for their commitment to public service and to keeping our communities safer--combined they have 87 years of law enforcement experience--but I also thank them for sharing with me their insights into the COPS Program and helping to demonstrate just how important the program is to them and other local law enforcement. You see, Mr. President, to them, this funding could mean the difference between life and death. This past Saturday at 7:30 p.m., Faulkner County sheriff's deputy, Brad Brocker, was called to investigate a suspicious person call in a high drug-use area. When Deputy Brocker arrived on the scene, he was met with three bullets to the heart in the upper chest. Luckily, he was wearing his bulletproof vest, but he risked his life to make his community and, yes, even his Nation, safer and better. But there is more to the story. The Kevlar vest he was wearing was paid for by Federal grant money, and Deputy Brocker was originally hired as a deputy under the COPS Program. Putting this Federal money back into our communities works. In fact, Faulkner County, with its 90,000 citizens and spanning 700 square miles, has used COPS funding to hire 12 officers in the past few years. Twelve may not sound like a lot, but it constitutes half of the Faulkner County sheriff's police force. It has made a difference. In the last 7 years, the arrest rates for burglary, robbery, and methamphetamine production have all gone up. Any one of my colleagues who lives in a rural State can surely tell you about their problems with the use and the production of methamphetamine. It has become an epidemic throughout rural America. Last year alone, the Faulkner County Sheriff's Office seized 44 labs and shut them down for good. Sheriff Montgomery is proud of that accomplishment, as he should be, but he warns that by cutting law enforcement programs, such as COPS, the steps they have taken forward will be lost, and they cannot sustain the manpower and law enforcement presence in their county. I believe we have a duty to support legislation, programs, and budgets to address the challenges facing law enforcement agencies in rural areas in Arkansas and all across the country, in communities such as Malvern, a small city in southwest Arkansas. Richard Taft is the police chief of the Malvern Police Department. Mr. Taft has 32 years of experience in law enforcement and 10 years as Malvern's police chief. When Chief Taft took over in 1993, the Malvern police force consisted of 14 people responsible for protecting a city of over 10,000 citizens. As Chief Taft put it to me one day: I didn't have enough officers to protect my officers, much less the citizens of Malvern. In 1993, according to Chief Taft, crime was rampant. Robberies, drive-by shootings, and burglaries occurred on a weekly basis. Since instituting the COPS Program and utilizing its grant funding, crime is down. The Malvern police force today is 22 people strong. With the additional manpower, Malvern has assembled a special crime team with the ability to respond to critical incidents, including chemical spills and missing persons. They did not have that ability before. COPS funding has allowed the Malvern Police Department to free up some of their money for other necessities, such as computers and radios. Chief Taft says: Without the COPS Program, I wouldn't have a police force. Yet this administration says there is no conclusive evidence that the COPS Program works? I disagree with that. More importantly, there are scores of law enforcement officials who would also stand up to dispute that claim. In 1993, Little Rock, AR, had the highest violent crime rate per capita in the country. By working with the Federal Government, using the COPS Program, and their own additional hires, the Little Rock Police Department bolstered their force and violent crime has dropped by 60 percent. Chuck Lange, the head of the Arkansas Sheriffs' Association, knows the significant impact the COPS Program has had statewide--and I am sure sheriffs in other States can tell you the same thing--by putting more police officers on the street. He knows that more officers have helped shorten response time. That is especially important in sprawling rural communities. He knows that time is not a luxury afforded to crime victims. I know it as well. It may be because my grandfather, my great-grandfather, and my great-great-grandfather were all sheriffs of Ouachita County. Hot Spring Sheriff Ron Ball told me that in his county the COPS Program has enabled him to direct more time and resources to curbing domestic violence. He knows that if his department doesn't do a better job of protecting the abused, they have nowhere else to turn. And these law enforcement officers all know and have all told me that if we let these drastic COPS funding cuts stand, rural America will suffer. The list of law enforcement officials opposed to these cuts is long, but the opposition is not only limited to law enforcement. There are many mayors, community activists, and school administrators who also realize the importance of this program; school administrators like Dr. Benny Gooden. Dr. Gooden is the superintendent of schools in Fort Smith, AR. He oversees 26 schools with 12,500 students. Dr. Gooden knows how successful the COPS in Schools program has been. He knows that COPS is an asset to this community and to his schools. The presence of friendly, approachable police officers, known as School Resource Officers, on their campuses and in their neighborhoods has had a calming effect on Fort Smith schools. Since the implementation of the COPS program in Fort Smith schools, Dr. Gooden has witnessed a decline in violent incidents. Over the past few years suspensions have decreased by 65 percent. Expulsions have been reduced by 80 percent. The drop-out rate has been cut in half. When talking about the positive effect of the COPS in Schools program, Dr. Gooden calls it a powerful relationship; a win-win for both the schools and the community. Because the police officers are in the community and in the schools and are connected to the students and their families, officers can better identify and proactively defuse any potential problems there may be. Often times problems that are found in schools begin in the neighborhood and in the home. Police officers in Fort Smith recognize this and are in a better position to resolve such problems. Dr. Gooden has also witnessed, first-hand, the affirmative impact of this program on a child's educational experience. The officers interact with students. Some officers have offices in the schools. They are invited to school activities. These officers do not just show up when there is trouble, they are positive role models for Fort Smith's children and are involved in their lives. They spend time with students and in the community when there is no trouble and that presence, can make all the difference. These positive results are not limited to Fort Smith nor are they only appreciated by the administrators. As Arkansas Attorney General, I spent a lot of time in schools talking to our young people, and move importantly listening. Over and over the students told me how much they liked having School Resource Officers on campus. It made them feel safer, it provided a needed role model and it oftentimes provided an adult they could talk to. It showed our children that their community cared about them and gave them a much better perspective on law enforcement. We must also not forget the importance of these police officers as an integral part of our homeland defense and as first responders in the case of terrorist attacks. September 11 changed a lot of things for our country. It woke us to 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, and overall when we talk about homeland security, we need to give serious thought to our law enforcement needs. Unfortunately, we saw how September 11 strained the resources, and the budgets, of many towns and cities. The administration's law enforcement budget does not help that problem. Our civilian authorities 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? The irony is that I have heard Secretary Ridge speak many times about how important local law enforcement agencies are to homeland security, but at the very moment when our Nation needs them most, we are drastically cutting assistance to them. The Federal Government must ensure that local governments are given the resources to complete their task and that we share the responsibilities for homeland security wisely and fairly. I know that Democrats and Republicans alike agree with this. I know Secretary Ridge agrees with this. I know that President Bush agrees with this. President Bush said on February 20 regarding the 2003 omnibus appropriations that he was concerned that the Congress had failed to provide over $1 billion in funds for State and local law enforcement and emergency personnel. He went on to lament that the shortfall for homeland security first responder programs was more than $2.2 billion. For the record, I share President Bush's concern, but shortchanging our local law enforcement efforts by under funding the critical, popular and effective COPS program is not the answer. I take a line from Chief Taft of the Malvern Police Department put it best when he said: ``Doing away with the COPS Program, when we are so concerned with homeland security is the wrong thing to do.'' I could not agree more. Much is made of the word ``hero.'' Before September 11, to pick up a magazine or to put on the television, hero was synonymous with professional athletes, movie stars, or musicians. But September 11 reminded us that real heroes are right in our own backyard. While everyone was rushing out of the World Trade Center, EMT, firefighters and police officers were rushing in. That is the definition of ``hero.'' Local law enforcement officers protect our communities, our homes and our families from the threat of violent crime. Simply put, they stand up for justice. I believe we must do more to stand up for them. They need funding to do their jobs properly and deliver the same quality service that our citizens expect and deserve, whether they live in New York City, or Des Arc, AR. During the upcoming budget debate, I will support increasing funding for the COPS program and other law enforcement programs. I would urge my colleagues to do the same. I also plan to be a proud co-sponsor of Senator Joe Biden's legislation to reauthorize the COPS program. We need to build on what we know works and develop initiatives that respond to the law enforcement needs of our communities. The COPS program works and deserves adequate funding. These communities who benefit from this program deserve it as well. I yield the floor.