Jim Talent

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise today to mourn the passing of a great businessman and a pioneer in the Hispanic community, Mr. Hector Barreto, Sr. The story of his life and his accomplishments are truly inspiring, and his leadership will be sorely missed. Hector Barreto, Sr. was born in Mexico City and raised in Guadalajara, Mexico. In his early twenties, he immigrated to Kansas City, MO, where he met and married his wife, Maria Luisa. He started out digging potatoes on a farm near Corning, MO, for 80 cents an hour. After saving money from years of work, he was able to start his own restaurant, Mexico Lindo, which means ``Beautiful Mexico.'' Though Mexican restaurants were rare in Kansas City in the 1950s, Hector's business thrived, and its success allowed him to open a second and third restaurant as well as an import company and a construction firm. In 1979, Hector founded the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce along with several other Hispanic business leaders. For the last 25 years, the Hispanic Chamber has represented the interests of the Nation's more than 1.2 million Hispanic-owned businesses and harnessed the vast economic potential of Hispanic Americans. Also in 1979, Hector decided to delve into politics, supporting Ronald Reagan's successful Presidential bid and eventually working on his transition team. President Reagan addressed the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in 1983, becoming the first sitting President to address such a conference. Hector was also quite proud of his son, Hector Barreto, Jr., who like his father has made a name for himself in both business and politics. Hector Jr. delivered a speech at the Republican National Convention nominating George W. Bush for President, and President Bush later appointed him the administrator of the Small Business Administration. Hector leaves behind Maria Luisa, his wife of 43 years, his children Hector Jr., Anna, Gloria, Rosa, and Mary, and 12 grandchildren. His efforts opened doors for millions of Hispanics and other Americans, and his legacy as a successful entrepreneur who lived the American Dream will live on.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 515, S. 1721.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:45 a.m. on Thursday, June 3. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, the Senate then begin a period of morning business for up to 60 minutes, with the majority leader or his designee in control of the first 30 minutes, and the Democratic leader or his designee in control of the final 30 minutes; provided that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of Calendar No. 503, S. 2400, the Department of Defense authorization bill.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Tomorrow, following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill. Under the previous order, when the Senate resumes consideration of the bill, the pending Crapo and Graham amendments will be adopted, and Senator Cantwell will be recognized to offer an amendment. There will be up to 4 hours of debate on her amendment prior to a vote. It is anticipated that the vote in relation to the Cantwell amendment will occur at approximately 2:30 p.m. Immediately following the vote in relation to the Cantwell amendment, the Senate will vote on three judicial nominations. Therefore, for the information of Senators, there will be up to four stacked votes beginning in the early afternoon. For the remainder of the day, the Senate will continue the amending process to the Department of Defense authorization bill.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the vote in relation to the Cantwell amendment, on Thursday, the Senate proceed to executive session and there be 10 minutes equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to three consecutive votes on the following nominations: Calendar No. 559, Sandra Townes, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York; Calendar No. 560, Kenneth Karas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York; Calendar No. 561, Judith Herrera, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Mexico. I further ask consent that following those votes, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, it is with honor that I recognize Mr. William Greenblatt of St. Louis, MO, in the celebration of his 50th birthday on May 9, 2004. Mr. Greenblatt has made significant contributions to the public and the media through his photography services. His photos have appeared in many well-known newspapers, magazines and periodicals from The New York Times to Sports Illustrated to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. In his personal photography business, he has assisted many prominent customers and used his talents to earn the role of official photographer for public officials and popular recording artists. Mr. Greenblatt is affiliated with numerous professional groups and serves on a variety of community boards. He is also the recipient of many awards and commendations in his professional career. I congratulate Mr. William Greenblatt on reaching the landmark year of 50, and I wish him many future years of happiness and enjoyment in his personal and professional endeavors.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise today to salute Mr. Dennis Martin, a native Missourian and retiring Director for the Single Family Housing Division in the St. Louis, MO, HUD/FHA Field Office. On March 7, 1969, Mr. Martin joined the St. Louis Area Office of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, St. Louis, MO, as a Single-family Construction Analyst. Mr. Martin has been recognized for his outstanding contributions to the housing industry throughout his career by both private industry and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. He has received several awards, including a ``Special Housing Recognition Award'' for his accomplishments in the Housing Industry, the Patriotic Service Award and the Secretary's Award of Excellence. Dennis and his wife, JoAnn, have two children, Deanna and Christopher. Deanna is a Chiropractic Doctor and is married to Dr. Jeremiah Freedman. Christopher is in law school at the University of Tulsa. Dennis and his wife are active in their church in Dardenne Prairie, MO, and he is active in a number of civic and Masonic organizations. Dennis also achieved the rank of Sergeant while serving in the U.S. Army from 1966 to 1968. His parents are Clarence H. and the late Grace Martin of Dixon, MO. I commend Dennis for his service to the community over the past 35 years. I am honored to share his accomplishments with my colleagues, and I wish him and JoAnn the best for the future.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the efforts of an outstanding organization which has dedicated itself to aid in the development of our Nation's children. The Gift of Time Foundation is a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing community service, academic, and physical fitness programs for children between the ages of four and eighteen. The mission of the Gift of Time Foundation is: ``To provide children with resources, opportunities and assistance that help them develop high self-esteem, self confidence, socially acceptable value systems, diverse cultural appreciation and family values by providing them with structured environments for membership in mandatory participation in physical fitness, academics, and community service programs. To provide children with personal character development assistance for self expression through structured positive activities alternatives.'' The Gift of Time Foundation was spearheaded by E. Douglas McFarlin. His vision was to build a youth complex in St. Louis that would provide children with the proper direction to meet the challenges of our modern society. Mr. McFarlin has worked closely with business, community, and civic leaders to launch this important project. He is hoping that the St. Louis complex will be the first of many across the country. Mr. President, organizations such as the Gift of Time Foundation can help a community in building character and values in its children. The efforts of Mr. McFarlin and his organization are to be commended for taking this challenge head on. I ask that you join me in recognizing this fine organization and wishing Mr. McFarlin the very best on his endeavors to bring this program to the children of our nation.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise today to as a cosponsor of legislation to modernize our aging waterways infrastructure on the Upper Mississippi River and the Illinois River. I am glad to join my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond as well as Senators Harkin and Grassley in introducing a bill to upgrade and modernize the failing infrastructure on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. This $2.9 billion authorization will also bring great benefits to the fish habitat along the river through construction of fish passages, floodplain restoration and side channel restoration. I commend Senators Bond and Harkin for working to find some balance in this important issue. I have always said, navigation and habitat restoration do not have to be mutually exclusive. The locks and dams that are in place today are vital to our national economy. These national waterways serve as our competitive advantage to our overseas competitors, and this a clean and efficient way to move goods and commodities for export. The Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway carry approximately 60 percent of the country's corn exports and 45 percent of our soybean exports, providing a significant positive balance of trade benefit for the Nation. Over half of the Soybeans produced in Missiouri head down the Mississippi River to the Gulf where they are shipped to markets overseas. To me, this issue is a question of common sense. Water transportation is safe, clean and efficient. One medium barge tow can carry the same freight as 870 tractor trailer trucks. This relieves highway congestion, reduces shipping costs, and reduces fuels consumption and air emissions. Despite this, we'll still have opponents to this bill saying that it isn't good for the environment. This bill is a win-win. It will take steps to reduce some of the burdens on our transportation systems, as well as providing more opportunities for our agricultural producers to export their products. These locks are old and outdated. The current 600-foot lock system was designed for streamboats, at a time when 4 million tons moved on the Mississippi River and a total of 2 billion bushels of corn were produced nationally, compared to today, when 100 million to 120 million tons are shipped and the national production of corn exceeds 10 million bushels. We need to bring these locks into the 21st Century. If we don't fix this aging infrastructure now, it will only become more costly. If I get a hole in the roof of my house, my wife and I may discuss how to fix it, but we know we will make the repair. If you don't make the repairs and upgrades, the problem only gets worse. That is what we have done to the locks and dams on the Mississippi River. I don't want this to be a situation where the roof actually falls in--we must modernize the system. I commend my colleague from Missouri and his leadership on this issue. This is a good bill and I am happy to join him as a cosponsor. I look forward to continuing to work with him on this important issue.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, United States Attorney Ray Gruender has had a distinguished career as a public servant and practicing attorney. He is an outstanding and highly qualified candidate as evidenced by his professional and academic credentials. From humble beginnings, Mr. Gruender has risen to the top of the legal profession. Neither of his parents graduated from high school; his father painted houses; his mother worked in a factory as a bookbinder and is now a prison guard. He has worked since age 10 with his father and he continued to work all through school. Mr. Gruender obtained three degrees from Washington University in less than 6 years, all while working and paying his own way through school. By 1987, he had obtained Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, Master of Business Administration and Juris Doctoris degrees. Not only did he work twenty hours per week during the 6 years in which he obtained these degrees, but he also ranked near the top of his class in each program. In law school, Mr. Gruender served on the Washington University Law Quarterly and is a member of The Order of the Coif. In December 2003, he was awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws degree by William Woods University in Fulton, Missouri. Since May 1, 2001, Ray Gruender has served as the United States Attorney for the Easter District of Missouri. As United States Attorney he oversees an office of 60 Assistant United States Attorneys actively engaged in both civil and criminal matters. During his tenure, the number of Federal firearms prosecutions in his district has increased dramatically. In 2003, the City of St. Louis experienced 69 homicides, the first time it had fewer than 100 homicides in more than 40 years. Prior to serving as the United States Attorney, Mr. Gruender served as an Assistant United States Attorney--AUSA--between 1990 and 1994 and again between 2000 and 2001. As an AUSA, he specialized in fraud and public corruption matters. He was one of the AUSAs who handled the Second Injury Fund prosecutions involving several lawyers, physicians and an administrative law judge who were defrauding Missouri's workers' compensation system. In addition to his experience as a Federal prosecutor, Mr. Gruender has spent 9 years in the private practice of law. Between 1987 and 1990, he was an associate with the large St. Louis law firm of Lewis, Rice and Fingersh. Between 1994 and 2000, he as a partner with Thompson Coburn, LLP, another large Missouri firm. He has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in a broad array of civil matters such as admiralty, antitrust, contracts, employment, securities, fraud, banking and various torts claims. He is a member of the Missouri and Illinois bars, the Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis, and has been a member of the Eastern District of Missouri's Criminal Justice Act Lead Counsel Panel, making himself available to accept criminal appointments. Mr. Gruender also has been active in civil affairs. His numerous civic contributions include serving as a volunteer on the Allocations Committee of the Variety Club of St. Louis to help raise and distribute funds to disadvantaged and disabled children in the St. Louis area. He also served on the Board of Directors--including as board president of--ALIVE--Alternatives to Living in Violent Environments--a not-for- profit entity dedicated to eliminating domestic violence and helping its victims. I urge all of my colleagues to vote to confirm Raymond Gruender, of Missouri, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise today to as a cosponsor of legislation to modernize our aging waterways infrastructure on the Upper Mississippi River and the Illinois River. I am glad to join my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond as well as Senators Harkin and Grassley in introducing a bill to upgrade and modernize the failing infrastructure on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. This $2.9 billion authorization will also bring great benefits to the fish habitat along the river through construction of fish passages, floodplain restoration and side channel restoration. I commend Senators Bond and Harkin for working to find some balance in this important issue. I have always said, navigation and habitat restoration do not have to be mutually exclusive. The locks and dams that are in place today are vital to our national economy. These national waterways serve as our competitive advantage to our overseas competitors, and this a clean and efficient way to move goods and commodities for export. The Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway carry approximately 60 percent of the country's corn exports and 45 percent of our soybean exports, providing a significant positive balance of trade benefit for the Nation. Over half of the Soybeans produced in Missiouri head down the Mississippi River to the Gulf where they are shipped to markets overseas. To me, this issue is a question of common sense. Water transportation is safe, clean and efficient. One medium barge tow can carry the same freight as 870 tractor trailer trucks. This relieves highway congestion, reduces shipping costs, and reduces fuels consumption and air emissions. Despite this, we'll still have opponents to this bill saying that it isn't good for the environment. This bill is a win-win. It will take steps to reduce some of the burdens on our transportation systems, as well as providing more opportunities for our agricultural producers to export their products. These locks are old and outdated. The current 600-foot lock system was designed for streamboats, at a time when 4 million tons moved on the Mississippi River and a total of 2 billion bushels of corn were produced nationally, compared to today, when 100 million to 120 million tons are shipped and the national production of corn exceeds 10 million bushels. We need to bring these locks into the 21st Century. If we don't fix this aging infrastructure now, it will only become more costly. If I get a hole in the roof of my house, my wife and I may discuss how to fix it, but we know we will make the repair. If you don't make the repairs and upgrades, the problem only gets worse. That is what we have done to the locks and dams on the Mississippi River. I don't want this to be a situation where the roof actually falls in--we must modernize the system. I commend my colleague from Missouri and his leadership on this issue. This is a good bill and I am happy to join him as a cosponsor. I look forward to continuing to work with him on this important issue.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I wish to take a few moments today--at least a few moments are justified--in offering some words to help the Nation celebrate the Brown v. Board of Education decision that occurred 50 years ago. It is a good thing we remember and honor that decision. That case was the culmination of a strategy by the NAACP and others that attacked racial segregation at its heart and, by the way, also a decision that redeemed the Supreme Court's record in cases of this kind because we should not forget the Court had earlier placed its imprimatur on slavery in 1856 in the Dred Scott decision and had subsequently placed its imprimatur on the Jim Crow decision in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. It was, indeed, time in 1954 for the Supreme Court to stand up for the Constitution and live up to the promises of the Declaration of Independence, specifically the promise that all of us are created equal, at least in this sense: that we are equal in our right to enjoy the inalienable rights that Almighty God gives us simply by virtue of the fact that we are people and have human dignity. The history of the United States is, in one sense, a history of a progressive realization of that promise that in fact had been made in theory in the Declaration and also an understanding by the American people that unless that promise is realized and enjoyed by everybody, it is secure for nobody. Brown v. Board of Education was a milestone in that realization. I do want to make the point that the Supreme Court's decision in Brown was not an isolated act of courage by nine Justices, although it was certainly a courageous decision. It was, as I said before, the culmination of a strategy by the NAACP, but also years of advocacy by that group and other groups around the country and thousands of Americans on their own who refused to accept the assumptions underlying racial segregation and, indeed, refused to let the American people go on year after year quietly and in an unthinking way accepting those assumptions. That activity by thousands and thousands of people in protests, in op-ed pieces, in books they wrote, in appearances on mass media, and just the way they conducted their day-to-day lives changed public opinion, by no means entirely in 1954 but enough so that the Brown v. Board of Education decision became possible, in a way that it would not have been possible--clearly was not possible in 1934 or even 1944. The same Supreme Court, staffed by the same nine Justices, would not and did not issue a decision such as Brown v. Board of Education 20 years earlier or 10 years earlier because those people had not yet done enough of their work to move enough of the American people toward the right conclusion that that decision became possible. In that sense, I suggest that people such as Jackie Robinson and others around the country probably did more to desegregate the schools than the Supreme Court did in Brown v. Board of Education, and certainly people such as Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King did more to ensure the implementation in practice of the Brown v. Board of Education than the Federal courts did. I want to dedicate this day on which we justly celebrate the decision to the thousands of people, some who are recorded in history and some who have remained anonymous, who made that decision possible and helped correct a tremendous injustice and redeem America's honor before the bar of history. The Supreme Court, in Brown v. Board of Education, changed laws, and that is hard, as we know in the Senate. Those other folks, in standing up for the rights of their fellow citizens, changed hearts, and that is even more difficult.

Mr. TALENT

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

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time spent in the previous quorum call be charged equally to both sides, and all other quorum calls during today's morning business period be equally divided.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, thank you for recognizing me. I came out on the floor to talk for a few minutes about the health care task force, and particularly about association health plans or small business health plans. I am very pleased that we are talking about the health care task force report. I want to talk a little bit about the drug discount card in part because I think it is important that we talk about it. I want my senior citizens to be aware of this benefit and to use it. I think it is something everyone ought to consider. For many of them, it is going to be the relief they have been looking for many years. I want to say that it is hard for me to understand these attacks which are occurring on a fundamental level against the discount card. Without question, this card is going to provide relief to tens and tens of thousands of people who have been choosing between the other necessities of life and their prescription drugs. There are 200,000 senior citizens in the State of Missouri today who are buying prescription drugs entirely out of pocket. It is not very good for them for two reasons: In the first place, they are buying entirely out of pocket. They are paying for it entirely on their own. In the second place, they are paying the highest price entirely on their own. When they walk into the pharmacy to get prescription drugs, they are facing the prescription drug companies alone. They are not part of a broader pool that has purchasing power and is able to negotiate a discount over the sticker price of the drugs. So they are paying the highest price, and they are paying it entirely out of pocket. Many of them are the poorest senior citizens. As a result, they do not get the prescription drugs. They get sick, or they take every other pill. I have talked personally to scores of people like that over the years. I had a hearing of the Aging Committee that Senator Gregg was kind enough to let me hold in Missouri. I had senior citizens come and testify. Everybody in the Senate is familiar with this. This discount card is going to provide relief. Seniors are going to have access to a variety of cards that will give them discounts off the prescription drugs. For lower income senior citizens, those receiving retirement of less than $1,000 a month, they will get $600 from the Government toward the price of the discounted drugs. The average price, which it is for prescription drugs, for senior citizens is about $1,400 a year for prescription drugs. That person in Missouri right now is paying the entire $1,400 out of pocket, and probably more than that since they are paying the highest price. With a card, they will go into the pharmacy, the pharmacist will swipe the card through the machine and say: For your Lipitor, which was costing you $80 a month, under this card it costs you $65 a month. The first $600 of that this year the Government is paying for it. Instead of paying $1,400, which you couldn't pay--they get nothing, is what it comes down to-- they end up getting a $200 or a $300 discount, and the Government pays $600 off of that, and they can afford not to get sick anymore. I think that is pretty important. I understand the concerns on the other side of the aisle that this bill isn't Government-dominated enough. I recognize that. They are saying basically this is federally subsidized, but they are buying the prescription drugs from private organizations. That is not a good thing. It is true. This is federally subsidized, but we are buying the prescription drugs from private companies. There is a word for a Federal health care plan that pays for health care costs of senior citizens so that they can go to private companies and get health care services or goods. Do you know what the word for that is? Medicare. That is what Medicare is. When Medicare was set up in 1965, the Government could have gone on and done what it has done with the VA health care system--buy or build new hospitals, hire physicians, and run the whole thing as a Government organization. We didn't do that. What we did instead was set up a system where we would pay for the cost of Federal health care, but seniors would have a choice of private providers if they wanted. That is what this prescription drug plan is about, what it is modeled after. It is going to help tens of thousands of people in my State of Missouri at a minimum. I hope we can get behind it and make it work as well as we can possibly make it work. Let me switch now to talk a little bit about the health care task force which addresses another huge problem; that is, the rising cost of health insurance premiums. There are a number of things in this health care task force report. I recommend it to every Member of the Senate. One of the key things about it is that it is designed to attack the trends in the system which are driving those costs up. I really like this. It is time for us to stop concentrating on how we can keep feeding this beast and start getting the beast on a leash, if you will. It is fine to subsidize the cost of health care for people who can't afford it. I certainly support it. I just talked about prescription drug costs. But we also need to bring down the costs of health care. There are a lot of things in this report that are designed to do that. Liability reform is one of them. Another is the emphasis in the report on the use of information technology, which is very important. Health care is behind in information technology. If we can get the same kind of architecture of technology in health care that we have in other parts of the economy, we have the potential to save tens of billions of dollars. There is important regulatory reform in the bill that will lower cost. I met with a bunch of nurses and nursing students at Southeastern Missouri University and asked them what their big concerns were about health care. I was really surprised. The thing that bothers them the most is the amount of time they have to spend in filling out forms to comply with the oversight of one group or another. It is very demoralizing, and it raises costs. The task force also includes associated health plans, which I want to talk about briefly. Of the people who are uninsured--there are about 43 million--two- thirds either own a small business, work for a small business, or are a dependent of someone who owns or works for a small business. We can ask ourselves, why is that? Is it because small businesspeople are more chintzy than big businesspeople? Small businesspeople and farmers do not care about their employees as much as the larger businesses? They do not want to buy health care? That is one possibility. But I don't think it is true. The reason many of these people, working people who work for small businesses, are not getting health insurance is that costs for buying health insurance are higher for small businesses than they are for bigger businesses because the administrative costs cannot be spread across as big a pool. The costs of getting health insurance for someone who runs a small business are about three times per employee what they are for someone who runs a big business. Small business health plans allow small businesspeople to pool together through a national trade association and get health insurance as part of a big national pool. My brother owns a Little Tavern restaurant. It is a great place. I have talked about it before in the Senate. If anyone is ever in the St. Louis area and wants a good hamburger, give me a call and I will give a recommendation. My brother has a little restaurant. He could join the National Restaurant Association and become like a little division of a big company. He would get health insurance then as part of a 10,000, 20,000 or 30,000-person pool, the same as the employees of Anheuser- Busch, which is located in St. Louis, or the employees of Hallmark, which is located in Kansas City. It will lower his costs 10 to 20 percent by reducing the administrative costs. It would not cost the taxpayers anything because we are not feeding that beast with tax dollars. We are empowering people to put the beast on a leash to reduce costs that are driving up health insurance premiums without adding anything to quality or accessibility. There is no reason we should not do this. I am pleased it was included in the task force report. We worked on it. I hope we can get it, along with the other things in this report. We have to remember that as the Democratic leader was saying, if Americans are working and do not have health insurance, or they have health insurance and these costs continue to go up, this is the No. 1 thing employees worry about as far as their job is concerned. I have had a lot of folks in the last recession--and I am pleased we are coming out of this now--who lost jobs and said to me, We have families; we have to get our health insurance back. It is very difficult to provide it when premiums go up and up and up all the time. We can do something about it. There are a number of different ideas out there. Many of them are in this task force report. I commend it to the Senate. It is time to get these things done. We can all come down here and talk about stories back home of people who are suffering because of this situation. We need to get something done. It would be a huge step forward if we all said we are going to sit down as a group, we will work something out, we will agree beforehand we will not filibuster everything because we do not like this particular aspect of the package or that particular aspect of the package. We are not going to take small things we disagree with in a bill and treat them as if there is some enormous attempt by people--whom we disagree with honestly--to do something that is venal or wrong. These problems are big enough to solve if we try to stick together and agree where we can agree and disagree reasonably where we do disagree. They will be impossible to solve if everything becomes a subject of some kind of a political attack. I appreciate the time of the Senate and I yield the floor.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I wish to honor Hugh Robinson of southeast Missouri, who is retiring today after a long career in farm broadcasting. I am honored to share his successes with my colleagues. Hugh followed a path from Washington, DC to Missouri. Growing up in Washington and graduating from Anacostia High School, Hugh has been interested and involved in agriculture most of his life. He knew about U.S. Department of Agriculture through his father, who had been an agricultural attache for the Foreign Agricultural Service in Sweden and Germany. With that experience he had the opportunity to observe farm and livestock operations in other countries firsthand. Since 1998, he has been at KBXB, where he has been the only live, local, farm director in southeast Missouri doing 10 reports a day, 4 news and 6 market reports. He is a voting member of the National Association of Farm Broadcasters, and has been involved in the organization since 1978. Hugh has received numerous awards including: The Missouri Farm Bureau's Outstanding Service to Agriculture, the Missouri House of Representatives' Meritorious Service Award and awards from the Missouri Corn Growers Association, Missouri Soybean Association, as well as FFA and 4H. More than that, he is widely admired by his colleagues in farm broadcasting and among Missouri's agriculture leaders. I have known Hugh for many years now and I have always appreciated his diligence and great sense of humor. His interviews were tough but fair and you could always count on him to get the story right and to tell it humbly. I know our State's agriculture community will miss his agriculture reports. We will all miss hearing his voice on air. Hugh never said goodbye at the end of an interview. He always said, ``Keep smiling.'' We are smiling with him today as he celebrates his retirement.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a much anticipated health care benefit that will help millions of our Nation's seniors--the new Medicare prescription drug discount card. There are approximately $900,000 Medicare beneficiaries in Missouri; of these about one-fourth doesn't have prescription drug coverage. The new Medicare drug law provides these people with access to a prescription drug benefit for the first time in the history of the Medicare program. Medicare recipients--people 65 and older and some disabled people--are eligible, unless they receive drug coverage through Medicaid. A person with a discount card can get the price breaks by simply going to the participating pharmacies and presenting the card. Seniors know that these cards are a good deal--about 7.3 million Medicare recipients are expected to sign up for them. Applications for the cards will be available May 3, and the discounts begin June 1. The cards have an annual enrollment fee of up to $30, and offer an average savings of about 17 percent and for some drugs up to 25 percent off. The average savings on generic drugs is even higher--35 percent to 40 percent. These discounts are for at least one drug in each of 209 categories of medicines commonly used by seniors. Beneficiaries with annual incomes less than $12,569 per year for individuals or $16,862 for couples are eligible for a $600 annual subsidy for their prescription drug costs. Also, these folks won't have to pay any enrollment fees for the next 2 calendar years. That's a total of $191 million in additional help for the 159,000 beneficiaries in Missouri who are currently eligible to participate in this program. These lower income seniors will also get price discounts of up to 25 percent on brand-name drugs and up to 40 percent of generic drugs. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expect 65 percent of the low-income beneficiaries nationally to participate in this program. This means that a total of 103,000 Missourians are expected to enroll in the Medicare drug discount card and to save a total of $124 million over the next two calendar years. You can see why this is a good deal for America's seniors to help them lead longer, healthier lives through medication therapy. I have traveled all over my home State of Missouri and have visited with dozens of seniors who've told me about the high price of medicine, and how they are making tough choices between paying for their needed drugs and paying for other essentials of life. I want to take a minute to tell you about Audrey Vallely, a senior from Pacific, MO, who testified at an Aging Committee hearing that I held in St. Louis last August. Audrey has osteoarthritis, a degenerative bone disease and another sinus disease that causes her to become dizzy. Her medicine costs over $100 a month for 15 or so pills to treat these conditions. But because she is living on a limited income, she cannot afford to pay for these medicines. Audrey told me how sometimes she must choose between buying prescription drugs or paying rent, buying food or just living with air conditioning in the summer. These are choices that no one should have to make. I made a promise to Missouri seniors like Audrey that I would help them get access to quality, affordable health care, and today I am pleased to deliver on that promise. I want to share with you some of the questions that seniors have asked me about the drug card as I visited with them during my Medicare town hall meetings in Missouri. First, folks wanted to know whether they had to enroll in the drug discount card. The answer is no, these discount cards are completely voluntary. That means enrolling is their choice. Importantly, seniors and not the Government will have the power to choose which card is best for them depending on their health care needs. Seniors also wanted to know who can get one of these discount cards. I told them that almost anyone with Medicare can get a discount card. The only people who aren't eligible are those who have outpatient prescription drug coverage through Medicaid when they apply. Thinking that these drug discount cards could be a very good thing, seniors wanted to know how soon they could get these cards and how long the discounts would last. I told them that they could begin enrolling in the drug discount cards this month, and the cards will be good until at least December 31, 2005, when Medicare's new prescription drug benefit starts. Seniors also asked me whether there was only one Medicare-approved drug discount card that they could get. Last March, HHS approved 28 providers that will offer about 49 different discount cards to Medicare beneficiaries. This means that seniors will have a choice of more than one discount card and this is a good thing since seniors with a certain type of disease like diabetes or heart disease may choose a card with deeper discounts on medicines that treat that disease. Also, there may be some seniors who prefer specific name brands or generic drugs, and they may want to choose a card from that manufacturer. Missouri has a combined total of 43 individual drug cards. This includes 36 national drug cards, 4 regional cards, and 3 Medicare Advantage exclusive cards. With all these choices, seniors can choose which card is best for their particular health care needs. The cards are completely voluntary, so those seniors who don't want a card don't have to have one. But for those seniors who choose to take advantage of the drug discounts, I look forward to helping them get started and putting them in touch with people and resources to help them make informed decisions. Beginning today, 1-800-Medicare will be staffed with 1,400 operators around the clock to field questions about which discount card is best for that particular senior. Or folks can go online at www.Medicare.gov and search prescription drug and other assistance programs to prepare for the May 3 enrollment. There is much to be excited about, and I am pleased to support this benefit to help our Greatest Generation live longer, healthier lives. I also thank Chairman Grassley for his leadership on the Medicare law, and recognize his hard work to build strong bipartisan support for this legislation to help America's seniors.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise today in the Senate to honor 15 year-old Michael Schopp, from Creve Coeur, MO. In a ceremony honoring his achievement on May 2, 2004, Mr. Schopp will receive the Eagle Scout Award, which is the highest advancement rank a young man may earn in scouting. To earn his Eagle Award, Mr. Schopp designed, planned and supervised the construction and landscaping of a planter and two dugout benches for the Ballwin Athletic Association baseball fields where he played ball for several years. Mr. Schopp began his scouting experience as a Cub Scout in elementary school and has been a member of Troop 631, sponsored by St. Mark Presbyterian Church in Ballwin, MO, since March 2000. Mr. Schopp's dedication to the values of scouting and his leadership ability are demonstrated in his many scouting activities over the years: he has served his boy scout troop as Patrol Leader and Assistant Patrol Leader, and is currently one of the leaders of his troop as a member of the Executive Patrol and as Assistant Senior Patrol Leader. Mr. Schopp participated in the Junior Leader Training Camp and also attended three Boy Scout High Adventure Camps: Northern Tier in Ely, MN; Sea Base in Florida; and OKPIK Winter Camp in Northern Minnesota. The rank of Eagle Scout has always carried with it a special significance since it was first awarded in 1912 and its rigorous standards have been maintained over the years. That rigor is demonstrated in the fact that only 4 percent of young men across America who join the boy scouts earn this prestigious award. Mr. Schopp will be in good company as there are leaders in every walk of life who have endeavored to earn this coveted award. Indeed, many Eagle Scouts have gone on in life to excel in professional athletics, business, space exploration, entertainment, scientific discovery and public service in government. President Gerald Ford is an Eagle Scout as well as two of my distinguished colleagues in this chamber, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana. The people of Creve Coeur, MO are fortunate to have Mr. Schopp living and growing in their community. I congratulate Mr. Schopp for his success in earning his Eagle Scout Award. But also, I congratulate all of his peers, members of his troop, coaches, teachers, and parents for all the support and encouragement they have given that has helped Mr. Schopp reach his goals. I know that all of my colleagues in the Senate will join me in offering congratulations to Mr. Schopp on a job well done and to extend best wishes for all of his future endeavors.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Madam President, I rise today to express my appreciation for the service and the sacrifice of the service men and women of the 1139th Military Police Company of Moberly, MO, for their contributions to Operation Iraqi Freedom. The 1139th was mobilized in January 2003, and served in Iraq from May to December 2003. Their missions included convey security, securing the flow of personnel and material to sustain the U.S. mission in Iraq; ensuring the security of fixed-site locations in Iraq, performing law enforcement and presence missions to maintain law and order, and to train Iraqi police as they prepare to assume an ever-greater share of the day-to-day duties of stabilizing the country. Their efforts, and their willingness to leave their families and homes, to assist in the larger effort to stabilize and return Iraq to the family of freedom- and peace-loving nations, says much regarding their understanding of the word service, and their appreciation for the obligations of citizenship. The United States is a wealthy and powerful Nation, but it is the willingness of young men and women such as these that makes us great. In a dangerous world, they make the difference, both here and overseas. Their efforts will set men free. Their efforts will break the shackles of despotism. Their efforts will secure the safety of Americans here at home. To the 65 service men and women of the 1139th, you have my respect and my heartfelt thanks for your service. May God bless these fine young men and women and their families. And may God bless the United States of America.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Reverend and Mrs. Charles Chatman, who are the founders of the Charles Chatman Evangelistic Association. Reverend Chatman accepted the call into ministry at the age of 16 in 1958. He and Jean were married in 1960 and have ministered together for the last 44 years. Reverend Chatman served as the senior pastor in churches throughout Missouri until he and Jean entered into full time evangelistic work in 1975. Since that time, the Chatmans have traveled to many countries leading mission teams and crusades. They have ministered in Haiti, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Trinidad and India. In over 29 years of work in Haiti, the Chatmans' ministry has built 30 churches, one medical clinic and a children's orphanage. Immanuel Orphanage, in the village of Bombardopolis, is home to 250 children. The Chatmans have led over 3,000 people from across the United States on mission trips overseas. The Chatmans are committed to bringing hope to all those they encounter. Reverend Chatman and his wife Jean are dedicated to the glorious service of their Lord and Savior. Charles and Jean Chatman are proud parents of Darla, husband Brian, Cindy, husband Dan, and Bryan. They have five wonderful grandchildren: James, Ashley, Brandy, Jessica, and Wilna. I commend Reverend Chatman and his wife Jean for their outstanding years of service. Their message of hope is an inspiration and blessing to all of us. I am honored to share their successes with my colleagues, and I wish them the best for the future.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Madam President, the hour is getting late. I am going to take a few minutes of the Senate's time to talk a little bit about welfare reform. It is a subject that has been close to my heart for a long time. I was a freshman in the House when I introduced, along with then-Congressman Tim Hutchinson who subsequently served in this body, what we called the real welfare reform act. The idea behind that bill was to stop talking about welfare reform in terms of whether we could save money or whether we could stop fraud in the welfare system and start talking about what was really at stake, which was replacing a system that had punished work, that had discouraged marriage, that had torn down neighborhoods, and had mired people in despair and replaced it with a system that encouraged work for able-bodied people, required it in some cases, that supported community-based solutions, and built up neighborhoods. We talked about that bill for several years. Welfare reform gained steam. There were some who opposed it the whole time, who fought a last ditch effort on behalf of the status quo; a pretty lousy status quo it was, too. But eventually we passed the bill by very large majorities in both Houses. President Clinton signed it. There were predictions of doom. It has turned out to be--I guess now by consensus--the most successful legislation of the 1990s, and the most significant social reform passed in the last generation in this Congress. Now the extension of that bill, the new welfare reform bill, the attempt to extend the benefits of work and marriage to more and more people around this country, is being filibustered. That is not a new thing in this Senate. I made a quick list. We can't approve nominations for judges; that is being filibustered. The Energy bill was filibustered. The liability relief bill was filibustered. The tax break for manufacturers to try and keep manufacturing jobs in the United States was filibustered. Now welfare reform is being filibustered in the name of passing a minimum wage increase. Of course, there are varying opinions in the Senate and around the country about the minimum wage. I have supported it in the past, when it was linked to tax benefits or other kinds of support for small business because whatever you think of it, it is a mandate on small business. We ought to support small businesspeople, the ones who are creating the jobs in the country, if we are asking them to increase their payments. Whether you do or you do not support the minimum wage, though, it is a terrible mistake to filibuster the welfare reform bill in the name of passing the minimum wage bill. As a matter of fact, my understanding is the leadership has offered to take votes on that and several other measures that Senators on the other side want to offer, if we can have some assurance the bill will pass, some assurance that going through these amendments that are not germane to the bill will allow us to pass the bill and then get to conference and finally pass the bill and send it to the President. That does not seem to me to be an unreasonable request. Why is it so important that we pass welfare reform? What has happened since 1996? Mr. President, 3.6 million fewer Americans live in poverty now; 2.9 million fewer children live in poverty. Child poverty is at its lowest rate. Kids are not as poor as they were. In June 2002, there were 5 million welfare recipients, which was a 65-percent decrease from the 1994 level. The poverty rate of single moms is the lowest rate in U.S. history. Even the out-of-wedlock birth rate has stabilized and gone down slightly since 1996. I was at a press conference earlier today when a lady talked about the effect of this on her life. Because of welfare reform, she is now working and supporting her family. She talked about what it meant to her kids. The first day she came home from work with a paycheck, they waited for her, and they wanted to go to the store and pay cash at the grocery store instead of having to use food stamps. They were proud of their mother. There are stories such as this all over the country. Now in the name of helping the poor, some Members are holding up the welfare reform bill. There is an irony in that. Let me talk a little bit about history. Poverty in the United States in the immediate postwar era was about 30 percent. It declined steadily for 20 years until 1965; reached about 15 percent in 1965. And that is when the Federal Government declared war on poverty, which was a good thing. One of the frustrations about this whole experience is there is a consensus. If we look beyond the politics of the 24-hour news cycle and look where the two great parties in this country have come from, what their mainstream beliefs are, there should be a consensus about welfare reform. There is on final votes. Liberals, in 1965, got the Federal Government aggressively in the business of trying to do something about poverty. That was a good impulse. What went wrong with it was that they did it in such a way that showed a disrespect for the basic values that have always gotten people out of poverty. The two best antipoverty programs, historically, in the United States, the way people get out of poverty have been work and marriage, family. They work and they marry somebody who works. They get out of poverty. Poverty is not that unusual an experience for Americans. Most Americans either grew up in poverty or they have a parent who grew up in poverty or at least a grandparent who grew up in poverty. That is how they got out of poverty. For 30 years, from 1965 to 1995, in the name of fighting poverty, the Federal Government conditioned assistance to poor people on them not doing the two things that get people out of poverty. They offered a package of benefits that, to somebody coming from a low-income background, looked like a lot of money--cash benefits, Medicaid, housing subsidies, food stamps--but only on the condition they not get a job, they not get married, and they have children anyway. That is how we ran the welfare system for 30 years. The poverty rate, which was 15 percent in 1965, 30 years later was 15 percent. But it was intractable poverty because if you are 18 or 19 years old, you have a child without being married, you don't have your education yet, a couple years later you realize it is hard now to climb the ladder. It is hard now to realize the American dream. Well, we fixed that in 1996. We introduced a system where if you are able bodied, we are going to help you work. There is a constellation of benefits and supports in the bill to enable you to work. The other day, we passed an amendment increasing daycare in this bill. I supported that to enable people to work. The bill extends the benefits of work to more people and makes sure that the States around this country have to keep trying to help people get off welfare and into self-sufficiency. We should define success not by how many people we get on the welfare rolls, but by how many we get off. We can open opportunities for millions of people who currently don't have it. The bill contains a provision I strongly support. It was in a measure I had introduced, establishing a promarriage program. In 1996, we talked a lot about reducing the out-of-wedlock birth rate. That was a good thing to do. We wanted kids to have dads. I am glad we introduced that subject. In a sense, we were fighting the darkness by talking about what we were against. The bill we are debating today lights a candle. You cannot just fight the darkness; you have to let in the light. There is a $300 million grant program here, encouraging the States to go to people when they apply for welfare and talk to them about the benefits of healthy marriage. The surveys show that a majority of folks applying for welfare--or many of them--are living with the partner with whom they are having a child. Many of them, if not most, are thinking about marriage. There may be many reasons in their minds why they don't want to do it. Maybe their parents had bad experiences. Maybe they are not certain about the partner. Maybe they have fights and they don't know how to resolve that. What an opportunity we have at that point-- and often through community-based organizations that have grown up in the last 10 years--to approach them and say, here are the benefits to your children of being married, if you can do it in a healthy way. Here is how you can do it that way. We can help you learn how to resolve disputes, help you learn how to build healthy relationships. That is in this bill. There are a lot of things in this bill we know will make a difference for people because they have made a difference for the last 7 or 8 years. It is being filibustered in the name of helping the poor. Well, I don't really know what to say. It seems to me we ought to be able to come to some kind of an agreement here. I have been in meetings of Senators on this side of the aisle, when the Republican leaders have said, we are willing to give votes on some of these message amendments, but we want some assurance that we are going to have an opportunity to vote on the bill in final passage after a reasonable period of debate, and then go to conference. I know the Senate is different than other legislative bodies. I am new here and it is an honor to be here. I have had the privilege of meeting and working with people on both sides of the aisle that I read about and saw on television for years, and they are an extremely able group of people. But most legislative bodies are about actually doing something. We have measures before us that I know, if we can get to final passage, would have substantial majorities--bipartisan majorities. This is one of them. How come we cannot get there? It is hard not to reach the conclusion that politics is being played--not politics in the broadest sense because actually that is part of what democracy is about, not laying forward an agenda, presenting it to people, and driving distinctions between you and the people who disagree with you and getting support from the public so you can move an agenda that makes a difference, but the politics of controlling or shifting the discussion from an issue focus groups say doesn't help you on an issue, but the focus group says does help. I don't think that politics works. Here we are holding up legislation on behalf of--I am afraid to say it, but I think of politics that is not even very good politics and certainly will end up hurting a lot of people. I have worked on this subject for a long time. I have an underlying faith that we are going to get our act together at some point and get this done. I know too many people of good will in this body. I emphasize again how important this is to real people. I have been all over this country, all over my State of Missouri, and I have talked to so many people, recipients, people who work with welfare recipients, who are excited about what has happened in the last 7 or 8 years as a result of the passage of the 1996 bill. We did something good. Work and marriage can make a difference for people. We can have a Federal Government that is aggressive in helping people in a way that is consistent with the great values upon which we built this country. That is at stake with this bill. I hope we can reach some kind of conclusion. I am certainly willing to vote on these other issues. I might have a few extraneous amendments I would not mind offering myself. But at the end of the day, we need to get this bill done, send it to the House, conference on it, and get it to the President. We can all be certain that when we do that, the bill we produce is not going to be perfect in anybody's eyes, but it will be a step down the road we took in 1996, which made a difference in the country to those who are the most powerless. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Madam President, I very much appreciate the Senator yielding and also the courtesy of the Senator from South Carolina who, I know, was expecting to go next. For that reason, I am going to be very brief. I want to say a few words about what I understand us to be doing today and the importance of it. As I understand it, what we are doing today is conforming Federal law to the common understanding of people around the country, and certainly in the heartland where Missouri is and, indeed, the practice of most of the States. If a man takes a woman across State lines--let's say she is his girlfriend, and she has gotten pregnant, and he does not like that fact--and he assaults her, hits her in the stomach or something, with the intention of getting rid of the baby, and his act of violence has the intended effect and the baby dies, what we are saying is he has claimed two victims. He has hurt mom, or maybe done worse to her, and he has killed the baby, which is what his intention was to do. I think all of us recognize the seriousness of that kind of offense and acknowledge that an offense like that against a pregnant woman, and directed at the baby, is more serious because of the status of pregnancy and because of the existence of that child than it would otherwise be. So far I think we are agreed. My friend, the Senator from California, wants to call that second offense the ``interruption'' of a pregnancy rather than the claiming of the life of a child. I appeal to the Senate, and to the country, through the Chair, and ask what our understanding is, what our instinctual reaction is to that kind of a crime. When a woman loses a child in that kind of instance, she has not lost a pregnancy, she has lost a child. Earlier in our marriage, my wife had several miscarriages. She did not think of it as losing a pregnancy. She lost children. That is why people have memorial services sometimes--often--in cases like that. That is why they go through a grieving process. That is why they may get counseling. I do not see why, with the greatest respect to the substitute amendment and to the Senator from California, why we cannot conform Federal law to that common understanding. I think we should. I understand the sensitivity on the issue of abortion. I really do. I think the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from South Carolina have tried to structure this bill to avoid those sensitivities. It is hard to do. But just because--for overriding reasons of public policy that some here adhere to very strongly--we cannot recognize the status of this child when mom, for reasons that she thinks are justified, believes she must end the pregnancy, it seems to me, it does not mean we cannot accord the child the dignity of the status of a human being when the child has been the victim of a vicious act of violence against both mom and the child. I thank my friend again for allowing me to intervene for a moment. I yield the floor.