Blanche Lincoln

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President. I rise today to honor the lives of three brave Arkansans and to pay tribute to the sacrifice they made on behalf of our freedom. Jimmy Buie, Joshua Marcum, and Jeremy McHalffey were all beloved by their families, admired by their friends, and respected within their communities. Today, they are remembered as heroes by the grateful Nation for whom they gave their lives. SPCs Buie, Marcum, and McHalffey were proud members of the Arkansas National Guard's 39th Infantry Brigade. Together, they served with the 2nd platoon of Bravo Company, 3rd Battalion of the 39th, a close-knit group who quickly earned a reputation for dependability and whose soldiers were known to do absolutely anything for each other. This was especially true for SPC Marcum, SPC McHalffey, and SPC Buie, who were all roommates at their company's base at Camp Gunslinger, just north of Baghdad. It was obvious to those who served with them that in addition to being outstanding soldiers, these three men were so much more. While the easy-going SPC Buie and SPC Marcum could always be counted on to brighten a mood with their humor and infectious smiles, the hard- charging SPC McHalffey often motivated his colleagues with his determination and focus. While the three had differing approaches to their service, they were united in the belief that they were doing what was right; helping rebuild the lives of a people they had never met and bringing stability to a nation they had never known. SPC Buie joined the military upon his graduation from high school in 1980. Later, while working for a dental products manufacturer, he met a woman named Lisa who would become the love of his life. The two were inseparable, and the natural chemistry between them soon led to marriage. SPC Buie quickly took to Lisa's two sons and found great pleasure in spending time with them, whether they were building a go- cart or playing catch. In his hometown of Batesville, SPC Buie worked as a mechanic at Mark Martin Ford Mercury, where he rightfully earned the reputation of a quiet, hard-working guy who always got the job done. He joined the National Guard in August of 2004 and was deployed to Iraq after spending a month of training at Fort Hood, Texas. While serving in Iraq, he spoke with Lisa every Sunday evening. During these conversations, he always remained upbeat and spoke of the joy he found in improving the lives of Iraqis, particularly the local farmers, whom he pitied for their poor living conditions. These words and actions spoke volumes of SPC Buie, a humble man who found comfort in knowing folks were praying for him back in Arkansas, and who used that inspiration to improve the lives of those around him. SPC Marcum was from the small northern Arkansas town of Evening Shade, where he lived with his wife, Lisa, and their five children. Friends and family describe him as one of the nicest people you could ever meet, a unique individual who disliked cursing, avoided arguments, and had a special calming effect on those around him. He was also the type of person who found pleasure in bringing joy to others; a gift of his that was attributable to his sense of humor and his loving heart. While serving in Iraq, SPC Marcum, who had always wanted to be a soldier, was remembered by his comrades as a quiet guy who naturally went out of his way to lend a helping hand to those in need. He kept in frequent contact with his wife throughout his deployment and sought to comfort her by keeping her up to date on his welfare and relaying his positive experiences along the way. With his time in Iraq nearing its end, he was looking forward to returning to his friends and family back in Arkansas and often spoke of taking a float trip down the Spring River soon after. SPC McHalffey was born in the small northeastern Arkansas town of Paragould but later moved to Springfield, MO, where he graduated from high school in 1995. Throughout his life, he had a love for the outdoors and if you ever needed to find him during hunting season, he was most likely in the woods with his father, looking for turkey or deer. At the age of 18, he joined the United States Marine Corps, and would proudly serve for 4 years. Upon his return to Springfield, he worked for the Greene County Sheriff's Office and later for Showcase Building Supply. In 2002, he met a dispatcher named Lacy Tindele at a firefighters' training camp. The couple quickly fell in love and their engagement soon followed. SPC McHalffey's deep love for his country is what originally motivated him to enlist in the Marine Corps and it is also what later motivated him to serve in Iraq. As his brother Mike reflected, ``He was the type of guy to volunteer. If something needed to be done, Jeremy would jump in.'' SPC McHalffey initially wanted to re-enlist in the Marines but was told the process could take months. As a result, he and Lacy chose to move to Little Rock, to continue his career in law enforcement and to join the Arkansas National Guard, because he was told it had a significantly shorter waiting time. The couple chose the nearby community of Mabelvale, where SPC McHalffey commuted to his new job as a detention deputy at the Pulaski County Jail until his deployment. Lacy spent much of her time planning the couple's small wedding, which was to take place upon her fiancee's return from Iraq in a few months. The lives of these three Arkansas soldiers was forever intertwined when, tragically, they were killed on January 4 when their humvee was struck by a roadside bomb. Their vehicle, which was traveling as part of a convoy, was leaving an Iraqi National Guard bunker in the al-Shaab district of Baghdad. The loss of these heroes will be felt by not only their comrades in Iraq, but by the many friends and loved ones they have left behind. At the memorial service of SPC Marcum, Linda Beckham reflected on her brother; ``He wanted to honor his country. It was his dream and he fulfilled it.'' These words ring true not only for SPC Marcum, but also for SPC McHalffey and SPC Buie. The courageous and selfless way in which they served in uniform brings honor to our Nation. The impassioned and generous way in which they led their lives, brings honor to us all. On behalf of a grateful Nation, my thoughts and prayers go out to the family and friends of Jimmy Buie, Joshua Marcum, and Jeremy McHalffey. Although they may no longer be with us, we must find some solace knowing that they died for a cause in which they believed. Their legacy and their spirit will forever live on in our hearts. Army Private Cory R. Depew

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today, to honor a young man from Arkansas who had a passion for life, a gift for bringing smiles to the faces of those around him, and a sense of duty toward the country and the people he would serve with honor. Jason Scot Clairday was a loving husband, son, brother and friend. He was also a brave soldier who died a hero, trying to bring freedom to a people he had never met in a country he had never known. Cpl. Clairday was the type of person others were naturally drawn to. He showed a genuine interest in their well-being and his gentle nature and infectious smile could brighten the darkest of moods. It was apparent to everyone around him that he approached every day with a rare enthusiasm and love for life. The youngest of three boys was often found playing sports or fishing and hunting along a nearby creek, enjoying the outdoors and the time spent with his friends and family. After moving to the small northern Arkansas town of Salem, he did what he did best, made friends, and quickly distinguished himself by excelling in high school athletics and becoming an active member of the First Baptist Church. Cpl. Clairday enlisted in the United States Marine Corps shortly after graduating from Salem High School in 2001. It was a decision he was proud to make and members of the First Baptist Church remember the pride with which he wore his Marine dress blues while attending service. On July 30, just weeks prior to his deployment to Iraq, Cpl. Clairday married the love of his life, Sarah. After his military service, he looked forward to returning home to be with her, attending Arkansas State University at Mountain Home, and building a family life. He felt his experience in the Marine Corps was a way to better prepare him for that future. While in Iraq, Cpl. Clairday sometimes spoke with friends and loved ones of liberating the war-torn country and making a better life for the Iraqi people. While he never talked much about the war, he preferred instead to talk about the end of his enlistment in the spring, the future and coming home to be with his new wife and his family. Sarah last spoke with her husband on December 3rd, when he was scheduled to enter Fallujah for 10 days with his fellow marines in an attempt to bring greater stability to the city prior to the Iraqi national elections slated for January. At the conclusion of the 10 days, he was to be granted a 2-day leave. Tragically, he was killed by enemy fire on December 12th, a day before he was to leave the area. At his memorial service in Camp, Arkansas, more than 600 people would come to pay their respects to their fallen Arkansas soldier. At the conclusion of the service, Cpl. Clairday was buried with full military honors. The flag that had draped his casket was presented to his young widow with the Purple Heart that he had posthumously earned for his gallant service on behalf of a grateful nation. When we think of Jason Clairday, we will remember that he gave himself completely to every aspect of his life; his family, his community, and his country. The legacy of his 21 years is a testament to who he was. The love, the humor, the selflessness, and the passion with which he taught us to live our lives, will remain with us forever. My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife, Sarah, to his family, and to all those who knew and loved him. sergeant michael a. smith Mr. President. Today, I humbly rise to pay tribute to the life of Michael A. Smith and to honor the sacrifice he made on behalf of a grateful nation. Sergeant Smith was a friendly, easy-going young man who had one of those rare personalities that allowed him to quickly make friends with everyone he met. He was also a brave soldier, who died a hero, fighting for the beliefs, the people and the country he cared for deeply. Sgt. Smith was born and raised in the small, southern Arkansas town of Camden. There, he is remembered by those who knew him best as a good and gentle soul, who was always concerned about the welfare of others, and often went out of his way to help them whenever they were in need. Upon his 1999 graduation from Camden Fairview High School, Sgt. Smith set his sights on Southern Arkansas University Tech. Attending the university would allow him to stay close to his family in Camden while pursuing his interest in computers. To help pay his way through college, Sgt. Smith joined the Arkansas Army National Guard. Once he completed his military service, he had plans to return home and begin his education. Sgt. Smith became a member of the Guard's 39th Support Battalion. He was later called up to serve in Operation Iraqi Freedom, where he was stationed at Camp Taji, about 16 miles northwest of downtown Baghdad. To his comrades in the 39th, ``Smitty'' quickly became one of the guys; a dedicated soldier who never complained, always did his duty, and could be entrusted with the lives of those around him. This November, family and friends of Sgt. Smith were excited with the news that he would be taking his leave of service, and would possibly be home before Thanksgiving. Tragically, 5 days before he was set to return to Arkansas, he was shot by a sniper while conducting patrols in Baghdad. As a result of the injury, he was flown to Landstuhl Army Medical Center in Germany and then to Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, DC. His parents, Donald Ray and Deborah and his sister, Lai, came to visit him in the hospital's intensive care unit. Although Sgt. Smith never regained consciousness in his 2 weeks at Walter Reed, his family was with him in his final moments before he passed away on November 26. At his memorial service in Camden, Sgt. Smith's coffin, surrounded by red, white, and blue flowers, was placed at the front of his high school gymnasium. Throughout the service and in the aftermath of his son's passing, Donald Ray Smith described the outpouring of love from the community as ``remarkable.'' It was a testament to the gratitude of a community fully aware of the ultimate sacrifice paid by their fallen Arkansas soldier in the name of freedom. In the 24 years Michael Smith was with us, the impressions he made and the lives he touched will never be forgotten. Although he will be deeply missed by us all, it is his selflessness, his courage, and his heart that we will remember when we think of him. My thoughts and prayers go out to Donald Ray, Deborah, Lai, and the rest of his family, friends and loved ones.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I accept the decision voters made on November 2 to elect George W. Bush as the President of the United States. I do not come to the floor today to challenge the outcome of the election. However, I do have concerns about the process. I believe there are some valid issues raised with the Ohio electoral votes regarding the legitimacy of our Nation's voting procedures, and I take these issues very seriously. In this modern, computerized age and in our magnificent, democratic country, there is absolutely no excuse for database errors, lack of polling-place education and training, equipment malfunctions, or voter disenfranchisement. I supported the Help America Vote Act, HAVA, and have consistently supported adequately funding this law so that States can achieve its requirements and improve voting procedures to ensure every valid vote is counted. In addition, I helped introduce the Restore Elector Confidence in Our Representative Democracy, RECORD, Act, S. 2313, last year. This act contains a provision to strengthen security measures for electronic voting devices to prevent outside tampering and requires a paper printout of votes cast at electronic voting machines. The right to vote freely and without intimidation is the foundation of democracy and we must do all we can to ensure every vote is counted and recorded accurately. I believe voters must have faith in the electoral process for our democracy to succeed, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming year to ensure that our Nation's election system is fair and effective.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I rise to celebrate the life of an authentic American hero who fought to defend his Nation. Tragically, Sgt. Russell L. Collier of Harrison, AR, died October 3, 2004, in Taj, Iraq, while trying to rescue a fellow soldier also serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was a member of 1st Battalion, 206th Field Artillery Regiment, Arkansas National Guard, from Russellville, AR. Sgt. Collier exhibited tremendous courage and strength in the face of great peril. When his unit came under enemy fire while detaining insurgents suspected of building improvised rocket launchers for use against U.S. forces, his friend and fellow soldier, Sgt. Chris Potts of Tiverton, RI, was shot. Sgt. Collier, who as the unit medic was known as ``Doc,'' gave up his rifle to run to Sgt. Potts' aid. Both men died trying to save their fellow soldiers. Indeed, Sgt. Collier risked his life to save another, and, in the end, lost his own life. The Crossett native was embraced by Sgt. Potts' 103rd Field Artillery of the Rhode Island National Guard, which has fought alongside Sgt. Collier's own regiment. While speaking about the fallen hero, fellow medic Spc. Tommy Rich said, ``He took care of the Rhodys. He was a Rhody. They wouldn't give him up, and he wouldn't leave them. They've been a team from the beginning. He loved his guys.'' Sgt. Collier's attempt to rescue a fellow soldier illustrates his strong commitment to his unit and his truly selfless nature. Sgt. Collier loved the military, said his sister, Carolyn Pfaus. His long military career began in 1975 when he enlisted in the U.S. Army after graduating from Wuerzburg High School in Germany. In 1978, he joined the U.S. Navy and then the Arkansas Army National Guard in 1999. His wife, Rocky, said, ``The military was his whole life.'' Yet to Sgt. Collier, who also worked full-time at night at Tyson Foods in Green Forest, the most important aspect of his life was his family. He had sent his 9-year-old son, Hunter, an Army action figure for his birthday last July from Iraq. Sgt. Collier is survived by his wife, Rocky, and their son, Hunter, both of Harrison; two adult children, Mary Virginia and Wayne, who both live in North Carolina; and sister, Carolyn Pfaus, of Conway. His family and friends will remember a man dedicated to his family and the military, and we will remember a man who died a hero. Our prayers and gratitude go out to his family for the great service that Sgt. Collier rendered to our Nation. sergeant thomas c. rosenbaum Mr. President. I am honored to rise today in tribute to the life of Sergeant Thomas Chad Rosenbaum. Above all, Sgt. Rosenbaum was a beloved son, brother, friend and father. He was also one of the brave souls valiantly serving our Nation in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Tragically, he was killed on September 18, 2004, when his convoy came under attack while moving through Baghdad. Sgt. Rosenbaum was born in the small town of Prescott, AR, and grew up in nearby Hope. He spent his youth, as many children do, participating in athletics and various extracurricular activities, playing pranks with his friends and collecting small turtles from the banks of nearby rivers with his parents and his brother. Today, he is remembered by his family and loved ones as an outgoing, fun-loving, and fearless young man who loved God, his family and his country. This love of country motivated him to enlist in the U.S. Army during his senior year of high school. He was assigned to the 1st Cavalry Division out of Fort Hood, Texas, and was deployed to Iraq in March. In Iraq, Sgt. Rosenbaum served as a chemical specialist who also helped train Iraqi security forces in the use of firearms. Although he was originally scheduled to depart Iraq in May, his duty was extended until December. Weeks before his death, Sgt. Rosenbaum had the opportunity to return home on leave for 15 days to spend with his friends and family. Most of this time was spent with the person he called ``the love of his life,'' his 4 year-old son, Ty. Father and son would return to those same Caddo River banks he had known as a child and together they searched for small turtles. Today, Ty still has one of those turtles, whom he has named ``Milkshake,'' and whom he has kept as a reminder of the time spent with his father. The loss of Thomas Rosenbaum is a tragic and sobering reminder of the terrible human sacrifice that war brings, and I am eternally grateful for his service to our Nation. Although he may no longer be with us, his spirit and his legacy lives on in each of us through the examples he set and the many lives he touched. My thoughts and prayers are with his son, Ty, his parents, Jackie and Donna, and the rest of his family, friends, and loved ones. sergeant ronald w. baker Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to the life of Sergeant Ronald W. Baker and to honor his sacrifice on behalf of a grateful Nation. Sgt. Baker was a loving man who cared deeply for his family and his friends. He was also a native Arkansan who cared deeply for his state and his country. Today, he is remembered as a devoted husband, father, brother, son, and friend. He is also remembered as a brave soldier who died a hero. Sgt. Baker was born in the small Arkansas town of Searcy and later moved with his family to nearby Cabot. Wherever he went, Sgt. Baker quickly made friends and those who knew him best often talked of how his personality always seemed to draw others to him. His strong sense of family and community is what contributed to his decision to enlist in the Arkansas Army National Guard a month after the tragic events of September 11, 2001. He served as a member of the Guard's 39th Support Battalion based out of Lonoke and was later called up to serve as a specialist in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Along with many of his comrades in the 39th, he was stationed at Camp Taji, about 16 miles northwest of downtown Baghdad. On October 7, Sgt. Baker volunteered for a supply mission that would convoy from Camp Taji to another camp nearby. While en route, a roadside bomb concealed in a parked car exploded as the convoy rode by with Sgt. Baker in the gunner's turret of a humvee. As a result of the blast, he sustained serious injuries and was immediately flown to Landstuhl Army Medical Center in Germany. Sgt. Baker's wife, Joanne, and his father, Wayne, were quickly flown in from Arkansas so they could be there to share in his last few moments. Although Sgt. Baker was never baptized, he had previously told his wife that he wanted to leave the world as a Christian. Before he passed away on October 13, Joanne would watch as an Air National Guard Chaplain baptized her husband and, in her words, permitted him to pass into a better place. The day of his funeral was proclaimed as ``Sergeant Ronald Baker Day'' in his hometown. Those en route to his memorial ceremony at the Arkansas Veterans' Cemetery in North Little Rock drove under an arch made of ladders over the highway that hung a large American flag. It was a touching and fitting tribute, created by the Sherwood Fire Department, to honor one of Arkansas' fallen who paid the ultimate sacrifice in order to make those around him safer. Along with a grateful Nation, my thoughts and prayers go out to Joanne; their 7-year-old daughter, Alexis; Harold and his mother Carolyn; his brother and sister; and to the rest of his family, friends and loved ones. Although Ronald Baker may no longer be with us, the lasting relationships he formed and the principles he fought for live on in all of us. airman jesse m. samek Mr. President, today, I am honored to rise in tribute to the life of Jesse M. Samek and am humbled to pay tribute to his service to our Nation. Friends and family would remember Airman Samek for living a life of fun and happiness. While growing up in Missouri and Arkansas, he spent much of his time, as most children do, hanging out with his friends and playing sports. He also had a great love of the outdoors and enjoyed camping, hiking, hunting, fishing and snow- and waterskiing with friends and family. He would go on to graduate from Rogers High School in 2001 and attended the University of Arkansas. It was clear to those who knew Airman Samek that he would succeed regardless of whatever path in life he chose to follow. He decided that path would ultimately be service to his country and he joined the United States Air Force in February of 2003. He was assigned to the 66th Rescue Squadron at Nellis Air Force Base, just outside of Las Vegas, and was deployed to Afghanistan in September. While serving in Operation Enduring Freedom, Airman Samek never lost his perspective on life and was proud to do his part to bring security and freedom to a Nation that had seen nothing but war and instability. His family later said that he worked for months to become a member of an elite group that qualified him for rescue duty as a flight engineer on an HH-60 Para Rescue helicopter. Tragically, he died on October 21 from injuries he received when his helicopter crashed during a medical evacuation mission in northwestern Afghanistan. The aircraft was carrying a wounded Afghan election worker who was being transported for medical treatment and Airman Samek was treating him when the aircraft went down. David Dezarov would make the final trip home with his friend's body. ``The hardest thing I've ever had to do was spend the last four days with him and not saying a word.'' On that flight from Atlanta to Tulsa, the pilot of the plane circled above Rogers for 10 minutes in tribute to that community's fallen hero. During the burial ceremony at Bella Vista Memorial Cemetery, Airman Samek's fellow Airmen would pay their last respects by flying over his casket in the same type of helicopter he once flew so proudly. My thoughts and prayers are with his parents, Gavin and Julie; his brother, Benjamin; his grandparents, David and Jenny Burkemper; and the rest of his family and friends. Although he is no longer with us, may we find solace in the many lives he touched and the sacrifice he made on behalf of a grateful Nation. In the words of his mother, Jesse Samek was a hero; not for what he did, but for who he was.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, it has been 50 years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1954 landmark decision of Brown v. Board of Education that separate was not equal when it came to our children's education. That ruling changed the way that Americans are educated and opened up countless opportunities for all children, both black and white, to learn about and from one another. Hoxie, AR, is a small town in the northeast corner of my state, with a population of just about 3,000 people. Prior to 1954, like many other schools in Arkansas and across the South, the Hoxie School District was segregated. To get an education, black children had to travel thirty minutes by bus to the neighboring town of Jonesboro where they attended Booker T. Washington School with other black students from around the region. Following Brown, the Hoxie School Board unanimously voted to become one of the first schools in the South to begin integration. In the fall of 1955, Hoxie School Board members, faculty, students, and citizens stood together with 21 black children who enrolled and became the first black students to attend the Hoxie School system. This courageous step, in the face of opposition from around the state and across the Nation, helped open doors for future generations of students in Arkansas. I recently had the honor of attending a reunion for the Hoxie Twenty- One, as they have come to be known in Arkansas. It was a wonderful event in which the community gathered to commemorate the integration of Hoxie School District. We paid tribute to the Hoxie Twenty-One and their families, as well as to the school officials and community leaders who paved the way for integration at Hoxie. The courage and resolve that the citizens of Hoxie showed in 1955 is an example of those who are willing to embrace the spirit of equality and to do what is right for every child in the community. Today, Arkansas' children go to school in a different environment than that confronted by the Hoxie Twenty-One back in 1955. We certainly have more work to do to ensure that all of our children receive the best possible education, but I am pleased with the progress we have made over the last 50 years. It is my hope that America can continue to build on the foundation that Hoxie School District helped to create to ensure that all of our nation's children, no matter their race, are provided with the best educational opportunities available.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for bringing up for consideration legislation providing multiyear reauthorization of the Economic Development Administration. EDA provides critical resources to communities experiencing significant economic distress and dislocation. The partnership between the planning and development districts in my State of Arkansas and the EDA has been a successful one. It is my hope that this partnership will continue to provide the flexibility that is needed to respond to constantly changing economic conditions.

Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the chairman for his strong leadership and attention to this important matter.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, there is another aspect of the recent softwood lumber NAFTA panel process that deserves our attention. As you know, NAFTA Chapter 19 is a unique form of international dispute settlement that applies to antidumping and subsidy cases involving Canada and Mexico. Normally, U.S. Government decisions to impose duties on unfairly traded goods are reviewed by the U.S. Court of International Trade, a Federal court with judges appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. For dumped and subsidized goods from Canada and Mexico, however, court review is often replaced with review by a panel of private citizens--mostly members of the bar or other private citizens who are experts in various capacities, but who are not themselves U.S. jurists. Chapter 19 empowers these panelists to review U.S. legal decisions according to whether they are consistent with NAFTA obligations. Unlike any dispute settlement system in any other trade agreement to which the U.S. is a party, Chapter 19 also empowers these panelists to review cases according to whether they are consistent with U.S. law. NAFTA inherited this particular power from the preceding U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. Unfortunately, as in the softwood case, this system has led to panel judgments that actually overturn valid U.S. legal decisions. I find this state of affairs to be extremely troubling. In my view, Chapter 19 is clearly in need of reform, and the Senate must be prepared to act to revise this system to prevent unjust situations. If we hope to maintain confidence in, and public support for, our system of trade, then we have to repair the system when it doesn't work. The NAFTA panel in the softwood case has dealt a major blow to our faith in the system. It is time we did something about it.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank my colleague.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his remarks today. I have tremendous respect for his belief and his knowledge of the Constitution. I share that belief and I only hope my knowledge can at some time reach the level his is in terms of understanding and being able to expound on the Constitution that is such a treasure and a blessing for this country. More importantly, I share in his belief and his execution in the teachings of the Bible. Like the Senator from West Virginia, I try very hard each and every day to follow the Ten Commandments, which are a cornerstone in the faith that we both practice in our Christian religion. I try hard to witness my faith each and every day in my actions and in my words. Among the Commandments, ``thou shalt not bear false witness'' is one I work desperately on. In our modern language, we know it as ``do not tell lies,'' something we were taught by our parents and we were taught by our faith. Now, I have not been in public service nearly as long as the Senator from West Virginia, but I have been around long enough to know that people say things in campaigns that come awfully close to breaking that Commandment. I have learned to turn the other cheek and brush aside the little white lies of political commercials and direct mail pieces. I do not know if brushing aside and turning that cheek at this juncture is the most appropriate thing to do, because I think we find ourselves at a time when that has definitely been taken to the extreme. The mailing the Republican National Committee sent to the people living in my home State of Arkansas, as well as those in the State of West Virginia, goes beyond any political smear I have witnessed. I hope my colleagues in this great body, as members of that committee, would denounce such abusive action because I think it is completely inappropriate. To insinuate that members of the Democratic Party, simply because they are Democrats, would ban the Bible is absolutely absurd. It is outrageous, and it is outrageous that we in this Nation would stand for that. I am a Democrat. I was raised in a Democratic family. But I also grew up with the opportunity and encouragement to find my own belief and to reach out and find out, Who am I? What do I stand for? What is it that I want to contribute to this great world? I realized, not only as a Democrat but at a very early age, that I was first and foremost a Christian. I take that very seriously. I take my witness and my commitment to my faith as a part of my everyday walk. I try hard to walk my talk each and every day. I fight hard, both personally and professionally, every day to fulfill my witness to my faith, to care for those who are less fortunate than I am, to reach out and be kind to those who need kindness, to be able to look beyond the cover of what I might see in someone and look for the best of what God created in that human being as well. I know that we are all a part of God's creation on this Earth. I know that my God is a loving God, one who believes in me and who wants everyone in this body to reach their potential. But I also know, through my faith, that reaching that potential means being able to have that same kind of unconditional Christian love for my fellow man. It is amazing to me that we would see such action, such assumption, and such disregard for the intelligence of the people of our States. My faith has always been an important part of my life because I was raised in a Christian family, with parents who had strong principles, who had tremendous love, and continue to, and an ability to share with me what that love could produce in my life if I, too, were willing to share it with others. I worked as a youth group director while I was in college. I taught Sunday school while I worked here on the Hill as a staffer--in Washington, DC. I contribute time to homeless shelters here in DC, and at home, working with the Red Cross through many kinds of devastating natural disasters in my home State--finding incredible opportunities where I could provide that love and that assistance to my fellow man. My husband Steve and I make sure our family is regularly at church, whether we are here in the Washington area or at home in Arkansas with our family. There is rarely a meal that goes by in my home where we don't all join hands and say a prayer of thanksgiving and gratefulness for all of the many blessings in our life. We end each day saying prayers with our boys when they are tucked into bed. We talk about the day's events and how, through those prayers, we can ask for the assistance for others and to improve ourselves and provide the unbelievable talents God has given us to be a great part of making this world a better place. I am not the only one, as a member of my political party, whose faith is important to them. There are other members of my political party who are of other faiths who take their faith very seriously. There are other Christians in my political party who take their faith very seriously and act it as a real part of their everyday life. It is unbelievable to me that the Republican Party would try to claim that members of my party would want to ban the Bible. What do they base that on? Where is their credibility to say that? What evidence is there that would lead them to say that and to use that in such an important part of what we stand for in this Nation, the political process of being able to elect our leaders? I don't know. I don't know where that comes from. The Senator from Massachusetts, who is running for President, has told the American people that his faith is important to him as well. He says he is a man of God, and I believe him. Unlike some other political candidates, he has not sought to gain political advantage by boasting of his faith or wearing it on his sleeve, but I do believe his actions in defending so many of his fellow men, children, low-income families, the elderly, are certainly clear examples of how important his responsibility to his faith is to him. Maybe he was raised in a region of the country where people are not so outspoken about their faith, just as they are more reserved in most other aspects of their lives. I was raised in the South where we love to talk about it, where it is an important part of who we are and we want to talk about it, where we like to hug and we like to be close. There is no doubt that there are differences in the regions of our country in how we express things. Sometimes my colleagues say I even need a translator because my accent is so thick. There is nothing wrong with the differences in the regions of this country. There is nothing wrong in the different ways we choose to show our faith. But there is something deeply wrong with people using the political process to accuse people of not being true to their faith. The man from Massachusetts, maybe he is quiet, but less visible expressions of faith do not warrant such judgmental political statements from the Republican Party. I hope, I hope deeply, that the Republican Party, which has produced this pamphlet that was so well described by my colleague from West Virginia--I hope there will be an apology for their claims that Democrats want to ban the Bible and the inferences that Democrats, for some reason, cannot have a faith as close or as deeply held as the other party. I find that to be the pit, the absolute bottom of what is wrong in the political process. I thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to come to the Senate floor and, even as a southerner, express something that maybe I am not as well equipped to express as others, but I promise you, it is not less heartfelt than any other Christian Member of this body. I yield the floor.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. President, and a special thanks to my colleague, Senator Baucus, who has been a great mentor and great friend to me on the Senate Finance Committee, and a special thanks to our chairman, Senator Grassley, for his transparency and his willingness to work with us always. We are very grateful for that. I think the conference we held under his leadership was certainly a conference where people were able to offer their ideas, bring their ideas and their passions to the table and express them. There are a few we were disappointed in not being able to succeed with, but I know the chairman knows I will be back at that another day, as I usually am, to try and see if we cannot move some of those things along. But I appreciate his graciousness and certainly his willingness to work with all of us. And, again, I thank Senator Baucus for all of his hard work and gracious support of me. I rise today in support of the Working Families Tax Relief Act that is before the Senate today because it does provide tax relief to low- and middle-income families who are struggling to make ends meet by making this child tax credit fully refundable beginning this year. If there is anything I noticed in the time I spent in Arkansas, in my home State, over the month of August, it was the unbelievable stress that working families in this great country find themselves under. Workers are concerned about their job, whether they are going to keep their job. Maybe they have lost their job. Workers are certainly looking at what they are responsible for, such as can they pay for what their children's needs are, the taxes, the cost of gasoline, the expensive cost of health care. They are concerned about the availability of health care, access to it. They are looking at all of those concerns, including the unbelievable increase they have seen in higher education. Are their children going to be able to go to college? Can they put aside enough money for that? Will there be the resources they need? Our working families are under unbelievable stress. If we want to strengthen families and, in turn, strengthen the fabric of our Nation, we have to work together to relieve some of that stress through the Tax Code, through lowering the tax responsibility of low- and middle-income working people and giving them the same ability to utilize the Tax Code for the benefit of supporting their families. We see a lot of upper income people who can use the Tax Code for that purpose, whether it is mortgage deductions or the fact they have more expendable income that they can set aside in an IRA or a 401(k), or using that Tax Code to help them support their families and the dreams they have for their families and their children. Giving that same capability to low- and middle-income working people is essential for all Americans to reach their potential and to at least have a shot at the American dream. This bill is a huge step in bringing relief to working families who are putting so much of their resources into the economy. As my colleagues may recall, the conference report we are debating today is the byproduct of legislation I spearheaded in the Senate over a year ago. I compliment my colleague Senator Olympia Snowe. Olympia and I worked very hard together on this issue, along with Senator Baucus and Chairman Grassley. It was approved by an overwhelming vote in the Senate, 94 to 2. The Senate believed it was important enough to provide for low-income working families to take care of their children. Yet it has taken us this long to get to this point. I don't want to sound ungrateful because I am tremendously grateful that we are here today to address this issue. But I hope as we look at the issues still before us, the ones we did not address in this bill, that it won't take us that long again to make the commonsense decisions that are required to reinforce the heartland of America and the working families who make up this great Nation. We introduced back then and pushed passage of that proposal to ensure that working parents who were left out of the 2003 tax bill were able to fully benefit from tax provisions Congress had enacted to help families meet the demands of raising children. I have a Cub Scout meeting in about an hour and a half. I may not make it. But there are multiple demands on working families. Whether it is time, resources, our ability to give our children all of the things that we know, both as parents and having been children ourselves, they are critical in making the kind of people we want to be the leaders of tomorrow. And a huge part of that is having the resources to provide to your children just the basics. Specifically, the tax package before us will restore provisions that were stripped from the 2003 bill that I had fought to include to allow working families to fully benefit from a $400 increase in the child tax credit. This legislation will also extend critical tax provisions set to expire for married couples, which Senator Hutchison has talked about, and for all taxpayers who will benefit from the 10-percent bracket--again, putting resources back into the working families who are the stability of this country. I stress that low-income working parents who benefit from the refundable child tax credit included in this bill must have earned income to qualify. This is not welfare. You sit down at the kitchen table with any of these families who are working and let me tell you, if you are working 5 days a week, 52 weeks out of the year, and you are making the minimum wage, you are making a little over $10,000, you are working hard. This is not welfare. It is your Government and your Nation reinforcing who you are and what you stand for; that is, that you would use whatever your talents happen to be. They may not be as much as somebody else's, but you have talents, too. And you are using those talents to put back into this Nation and back into this economy. It is so important for our colleagues to understand, because some of our colleagues have suggested that we should not expand eligibility for the child tax credit for lower income workers because they don't pay Federal income tax. These individuals work hard, and they do pay taxes. They pay sales taxes. They pay excise taxes. They pay property taxes, gas taxes, and payroll taxes on every one of those dollars they earn. They should benefit from the tax relief that we pass in Congress because they suffer from all of the taxes that continue to increase, but they hardly ever benefit from the tax cuts that we produce here in Washington. Are these families any different? They also struggle to meet the demands of providing for their children, just as others do--more than most, actually. I am confident this is the right thing to do for our Nation and its children. As I said, we are talking about families who work hard and play by the rules. When they buy their blue jeans for school and their tennis shoes, their tires, their washing powder, it doesn't cost them any less than it costs us. Think about it, a family making $20,000 a year doesn't get a special bargain at the store anymore so than the family making $100,000. While this tax relief package achieves fairness for millions of families with children who would otherwise be left behind, it doesn't include everything that I fought for during the negotiations in the conference committee this week. Once again, I appreciate the chairman allowing me to offer my amendments and come before the conference committee and express my desires. First, I believe we can and should have paid for this bill by eliminating tax shelters and loopholes. Why would we wait until tomorrow to do something constructive that we could do today? Why wouldn't we pay off part of our note today instead of continuing to accrue the interest on the debt that is about to swallow us up? For the life of me, I don't understand why some of my colleagues think that it is important to pay for the JOBS bill we hope to complete this year--I certainly do; it affects my State as much, if not more than any--but not this bill. Why is this bill not important to pay for? I think we should pay for both of them. I supported an amendment in conference that was offered by my good friend and colleague Senator Baucus to pay for the tax provisions we are debating today. Unfortunately, it was defeated on party lines. Even though we were not successful in that attempt, I will renew my efforts to restore fiscal discipline next year by working with like-minded Members in a new Congress and hopefully with an administration that will take deficits seriously as well as their serious effect on our children. It is critical that we look at the good policy of closing these loopholes and make certain the confidence of the American people in the economy of this country and the way we deal with those who choose to abuse the Tax Code. Another issue I don't think we resolved appropriately involves the tax treatment of military families. Senator Baucus mentioned it. Last night, I offered an amendment to make sure that we take care of the men and women in the military who we depend on to take care of us. These are people who put their families on hold. They put their life in harm's way. You might think there are not a lot of people out there who fall into this category, in the low-income category, of needing the ability to choose where to put their combat pay for the purposes of calculating EITC. But there are more than 10,000. These are infantrymen, troops, members of our Armed Forces who could benefit greatly if given the opportunity as to whether they want to choose to put their combat pay into their taxable income for the purposes of EITC. The conference report, in effect, imposes a tax increase on military personnel in the year 2006 and beyond because it only excludes combat pay in the calculation of the earned-income tax credit for low-income soldiers for only 2 years, 2004 and 2005. These brave men and women who risk their lives to defend our freedom are the last people we should burden with uncertainty in the Tax Code. My colleague from Texas talked about the uncertainty and what it does to families if they cannot depend on the Tax Code to give them the relief and continue to do that. How do they plan? It is unbelievable to me that in 2006--and we don't know where we will be in our conflict in Iraq in 2006--we would give certainty to every other category in here. Yet we would not give that certainty to the military men and women serving this country. I think it is wrong, and I will be working very hard with Senators Pryor and Baucus and others on legislation that will fix it, and fix it in a timely way. I also offered an amendment to address an inequity in the refundable portion of the child tax credit. Under current law, the threshold to be eligible for the child tax credit is $10,750, and it increases annually based on inflation. Unfortunately, for many low-income families, wages and income are not increasing. They are not keeping pace with inflation, and they will be unfairly denied tax relief under this approach in the years ahead. Again, you might think this is just a small number of people, but the fact is that it is 4 million low-income people. Thirty million get the child tax credit in this country--30 million families. Eleven million of those are refundable. So 4 million of those 11 million families will not be able to access the full benefit of this child tax credit because we have not adjusted what we set into place. My amendment would have returned the eligibility threshold to $10,000, which is where it started when originally enacted in 2001 and would have removed the annual inflationary increase. What we have seen is that we have indexed that base, and we continue to see it increase so those who make below that are not eligible for that full benefit. Why would we not want to take it back to the original $10,000 and take away that index and give the benefit to the very families who are working hard, who are not seeing any increase in their wages or in their income, to make sure they have that same ability to take care of their children? The taxpayers who are most at risk of losing this benefit are the very ones who need it the most. I hope we will reconsider this issue in the near future. Even though this bill doesn't include everything, I think it should and I would like to amend certain provisions. I believe, on balance, it is an achievement for low- and middle-income families who need economic relief today. We made several attempts to try to make better those provisions that we were offering. I also offered an amendment of the President's EITC simplification, which was in the President's budget, hoping that maybe that, coupled with what we were asking, would make Members feel comfortable that we, too, wanted to eliminate the fraud and abuse that existed to make sure we could reassure the American people that those who are working hard to earn their income would see the benefits that their Government could provide them, just as the higher income people could use that Tax Code to help them care for their families. We also worked hard and I was pleased to see included the simplification or uniform definition of a child. I worked with Senator Hatch in committee very early on with that. We wanted to see more simplification of the Tax Code. It is amazing to think a child could be designated six or seven different ways under the Tax Code. Here, we realize that a child is a child, and I think that simplification was very important. I am grateful for all the work that has gone into it. I thank again Chairman Grassley, Senator Baucus, Senator Snowe, and others for working with me to advance the provisions that I have fought for throughout my term in the Senate to strengthen families and children in Arkansas and across this Nation. Before I yield the floor, I would be remiss if I didn't also thank my tax counsel, Mac Campbell, for his invaluable assistance, as well as the wonderful staff of both the minority and the majority of the Senate Finance Committee. These are unbelievably brilliant people who work hard day in and day out. I am appreciative of the hard work they put in and grateful for their help. I am grateful for this day and that we have come to the point where we can provide relief for working families. I strongly believe that as we move forward in strengthening our Nation, we must begin with the fabric of our families and giving our families the means to strengthen themselves, looking at ways we can relieve the stress that they find themselves under every day. This bill will go a long way toward doing that. I yield the floor.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to an authentic American hero who gave his life in the defense of his Nation. Cpl Tommy L. Parker, Jr., 21, of Heber Springs was one of four marines killed June 21 in Ramadi, Iraq. He was serving with a sniper platoon of the First Marine Division out of Camp Pendleton, CA. Tommy was a 2001 graduate of Triple S Christian Academy. The Rev. John Bishop, who taught Tommy, praised his devotion to his faith, saying that even when surrounded by tough marines he was not too shy to give witness to his beliefs. As Tommy prepared to leave for Iraq, Bishop said Parker's wife told him, he remarked that the experience was bringing him closer to God. Tommy is survived by his wife, Carla Parker; his daughter, Lara; and his parents, Tommy and Renatta. Tommy's sacrifice is a shining example of the commitment that is necessary to keep this Nation free. When his Nation called, he answered. Our prayers and gratitude go out to his family for the great service that Tommy rendered to our Nation. Staff Sergeant Dustin W. Peters Mr. President, today I also wish to pay tribute to a brave Arkansan who gave his life for the cause of freedom. Air Force SSgt Dustin W. Peters was killed July 11 when his convoy was hit by homemade bombs about 150 miles north of Baghdad. Dustin was born August 22, 1978, in Texarkana, TX. He attended high school in El Dorado, KS, and in Shirley, AR, before going into the Air Force in 1997. Dustin received the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart posthumously. The Bronze Star Medal is given to individuals who distinguish themselves by heroism, outstanding achievement or meritorious service while serving in a combat theater, according to base officials. Dustin received his for heroism. Dustin is survived by his son, Dalton, of El Dorado, KS; his mother, Linda Benning, of Shirley, AR; and his father, Dennis, of Enid, OK. His fellow airmen said of Dustin that ``you could count on . . . his service to our country and others always came ahead of his own needs and desires. His loss has touched us deeply, and we will miss him.'' Not only will his fellow airmen miss him but a grateful Nation will miss him. His sacrifice will never be forgotten. Private Van Ryan Marcum Mr. President, today I also wish to pay tribute to a brave young Arkansan who lost his life training to become a member of the United States Army. PVT Van Ryan Marcum, 21, a native of Prescott, AR, was electrocuted June 19 during an infantry basic training exercise when he touched a metal structure electrically charged by a faulty light fixture. Van Ryan Marcum was memorialized at Fort Benning, GA. Joining the 220 soldiers from Charlie Company, with whom Marcum served, were his mother, grandmother, uncle and other family members invited to witness the tribute to the young man so interested in becoming an Army Ranger. As the ceremony unfolded, some soldiers grieved silently with bowed heads; others could not suppress quiet sniffles as the music played and the tributes were delivered. CPT Kevin Salge, commander of Charlie Company, was quoted as saying that it was an honor to count among his unit's soldiers a trooper such as Marcum, who had a bright future in the military. ``As soon as he completed a task he was ready for another. He carried his weight and more,'' Salge said. ``He would have been a great addition to the Army.'' Van's desire to defend his Nation is a tribute to his courage and dedication. We honor the sacrifice he made in the service of his country.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to correct a problem that is impairing the efficiency of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program. As my colleagues know, the low-income housing credit has been a remarkably successful incentive for encouraging investment in residential rental housing for low-income families. Under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code, a tax credit is available for investment in affordable housing. The credit is claimed annually over a period of ten years. Qualified residential rental projects must be rented to lower-income households at controlled rents and satisfy a number of other requirements throughout a prescribed compliance period which is generally 15 years from the first taxable year the credit is claimed. Today, virtually all of the equity for housing credit investments comes from publicly-traded corporations investing through housing credit funds. An investor wishing to dispose of an interest in housing credit property during its 15-year compliance period is subject to a recapture of housing credits previously claimed unless a bond or U.S. Treasury securities are posted to the Internal Revenue Service. The amount of the bond to be posted is based on the amount of housing credits claimed and the duration remaining in the compliance period. The purpose of the bond is to guarantee to the IRS that it can collect the appropriate recapture tax amount in the event that the property is no longer in compliance with the requirements of the housing credit program. At the time the housing credit program was enacted in 1986, the drafters of the statute were concerned that owners would claim the benefits of the tax credits and then avoid the continuing compliance requirements by transferring the credits to a straw party with minimal assets that the IRS could go after to collect recapture tax liability. This was a potential concern because housing credits are provided on an accelerated basis in the sense that they are claimed over a ten-year period, while the property must remain in compliance with the targeting rules over a minimum 15-year period. However, the experience with the housing credit over the past 15 years demonstrates that this concern no longer has any validity. When the housing credit program was enacted, policymakers were thinking in terms of previous affordable housing tax incentives that supported an aggressive tax shelter market dominated by individual investors. As it turns out, over 99 percent of the investment capital in the housing credit program comes from publicly-traded corporations that pose none of the risks of noncompliance that motivated enactment of the recapture bond rules in the first place. Ironically, sales of individual partnership interests in low-income housing fund public partnerships with more than 35 investors are exempt from the recapture bond rules. There are also a number of other provisions in Code section 42 that adequately address potential noncompliance. In 1989, Congress added the requirement that all state allocating agencies adopt ``extended use agreements'' to be recorded as restrictive covenants on housing credit properties, which require the property to remain in compliance. In addition, the State allocating agencies were given oversight responsibilities to ensure continued compliance through site inspections and property audits. The requirement to purchase recapture bonds forces investors to incur unnecessary costs and has produced a complex administrative burden on the IRS. Because bond filings are done building-by-building, and single sales transactions frequently involve hundreds of properties, each with dozens of buildings, bond filings may involve thousands of separate filings. Worse yet, the few remaining surety companies writing this type of business operate in a very inefficient market. Recapture surety bonds are priced in a fashion that does not measure the true risk of non-compliance, but rather relies solely on the credit rating of the company requesting the bond. This is a function of the fact that surety underwriters do not understand the housing credit program in general or the risk of non-compliance in particular. At the same time, the incidence of non-compliance with housing credit program rules is exceedingly rare. Meanwhile in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist acts and the spate of corporate accounting scandals that occurred in 2002, the surety market has been in turmoil. Recapture bond premiums, even for highly rated public companies, have more than tripled over the past two years. This has imposed dead weight costs on the housing credit program. By making it more difficult to transfer credit investments, the recapture bond rule impairs the liquidity of housing credit investments, reducing credit prices generally, and undermining the overall efficiency of the program. In the absence of the recapture bond requirement, more dollars would flow into affordable housing itself and less into the higher rate of return that must be paid to investors to compensate for the dead weight costs that the bonds impose on the program. The IRS recently responded to a series of questions posed about the recapture bond requirement. According to the IRS, between 1997 and 2003, recapture bonds covering approximately $1.8 billion of tax credits have been posted with the Treasury but in the 17 years since the requirement was enacted, the Service has never made a single claim on a recapture bond. That works out to bond premium payments in excess of $150 million to ensure against an event that has never occurred. These costs are unnecessary and are imposing a real drag on the market for investments in housing credit properties. My bill will solve this problem by repealing the recapture bond requirement effective for disposition of interests in LIHTC properties after the date of enactment. An owner of a building, or interest therein, that has been the subject of a disposition and is still within the remaining 15-year compliance period with respect to such building would be required to submit a report to its former investors when a recapture event with respect to such building occurs. A copy of recapture event forms sent to investors would be required to be filed with the IRS in order to provide the Service with the information necessary to ensure that all recapture liabilities are timely paid. The general statute of limitations applicable to taxpayers would also be modified so that investors who dispose of a building after the effective date of the legislation would remain liable for any potential recapture liability for a period extending through the compliance period for such building to provide the IRS with additional time to audit the partnership's return to ensure the building's continuing compliance with the credit's requirements. Taxpayers who disposed of a building (or interest therein) prior to the date of enactment would not be required to maintain existing recapture bonds (or other alternative security), but cancellation of existing bonds would trigger an extension of the statute of limitations provided for in the legislation. These changes will improve the overall efficiency of the housing program and ensure that more dollars actually flow into affordable housing. This is a very important improvement in an otherwise excellent program, and I encourage my colleagues to join with me in cosponsoring this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The legislation is identical to a bill that Congressmen Houghton, Johnson, Neal, and Rangel have introduced in the House. I also ask unanimous consent to include a copy of a letter from 12 national housing organizations to Chairman Bill Thomas endorsing the House bill, H.R. 3610.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to correct a problem that is impairing the efficiency of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program. As my colleagues know, the low-income housing credit has been a remarkably successful incentive for encouraging investment in residential rental housing for low-income families. Under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code, a tax credit is available for investment in affordable housing. The credit is claimed annually over a period of ten years. Qualified residential rental projects must be rented to lower-income households at controlled rents and satisfy a number of other requirements throughout a prescribed compliance period which is generally 15 years from the first taxable year the credit is claimed. Today, virtually all of the equity for housing credit investments comes from publicly-traded corporations investing through housing credit funds. An investor wishing to dispose of an interest in housing credit property during its 15-year compliance period is subject to a recapture of housing credits previously claimed unless a bond or U.S. Treasury securities are posted to the Internal Revenue Service. The amount of the bond to be posted is based on the amount of housing credits claimed and the duration remaining in the compliance period. The purpose of the bond is to guarantee to the IRS that it can collect the appropriate recapture tax amount in the event that the property is no longer in compliance with the requirements of the housing credit program. At the time the housing credit program was enacted in 1986, the drafters of the statute were concerned that owners would claim the benefits of the tax credits and then avoid the continuing compliance requirements by transferring the credits to a straw party with minimal assets that the IRS could go after to collect recapture tax liability. This was a potential concern because housing credits are provided on an accelerated basis in the sense that they are claimed over a ten-year period, while the property must remain in compliance with the targeting rules over a minimum 15-year period. However, the experience with the housing credit over the past 15 years demonstrates that this concern no longer has any validity. When the housing credit program was enacted, policymakers were thinking in terms of previous affordable housing tax incentives that supported an aggressive tax shelter market dominated by individual investors. As it turns out, over 99 percent of the investment capital in the housing credit program comes from publicly-traded corporations that pose none of the risks of noncompliance that motivated enactment of the recapture bond rules in the first place. Ironically, sales of individual partnership interests in low-income housing fund public partnerships with more than 35 investors are exempt from the recapture bond rules. There are also a number of other provisions in Code section 42 that adequately address potential noncompliance. In 1989, Congress added the requirement that all state allocating agencies adopt ``extended use agreements'' to be recorded as restrictive covenants on housing credit properties, which require the property to remain in compliance. In addition, the State allocating agencies were given oversight responsibilities to ensure continued compliance through site inspections and property audits. The requirement to purchase recapture bonds forces investors to incur unnecessary costs and has produced a complex administrative burden on the IRS. Because bond filings are done building-by-building, and single sales transactions frequently involve hundreds of properties, each with dozens of buildings, bond filings may involve thousands of separate filings. Worse yet, the few remaining surety companies writing this type of business operate in a very inefficient market. Recapture surety bonds are priced in a fashion that does not measure the true risk of non-compliance, but rather relies solely on the credit rating of the company requesting the bond. This is a function of the fact that surety underwriters do not understand the housing credit program in general or the risk of non-compliance in particular. At the same time, the incidence of non-compliance with housing credit program rules is exceedingly rare. Meanwhile in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist acts and the spate of corporate accounting scandals that occurred in 2002, the surety market has been in turmoil. Recapture bond premiums, even for highly rated public companies, have more than tripled over the past two years. This has imposed dead weight costs on the housing credit program. By making it more difficult to transfer credit investments, the recapture bond rule impairs the liquidity of housing credit investments, reducing credit prices generally, and undermining the overall efficiency of the program. In the absence of the recapture bond requirement, more dollars would flow into affordable housing itself and less into the higher rate of return that must be paid to investors to compensate for the dead weight costs that the bonds impose on the program. The IRS recently responded to a series of questions posed about the recapture bond requirement. According to the IRS, between 1997 and 2003, recapture bonds covering approximately $1.8 billion of tax credits have been posted with the Treasury but in the 17 years since the requirement was enacted, the Service has never made a single claim on a recapture bond. That works out to bond premium payments in excess of $150 million to ensure against an event that has never occurred. These costs are unnecessary and are imposing a real drag on the market for investments in housing credit properties. My bill will solve this problem by repealing the recapture bond requirement effective for disposition of interests in LIHTC properties after the date of enactment. An owner of a building, or interest therein, that has been the subject of a disposition and is still within the remaining 15-year compliance period with respect to such building would be required to submit a report to its former investors when a recapture event with respect to such building occurs. A copy of recapture event forms sent to investors would be required to be filed with the IRS in order to provide the Service with the information necessary to ensure that all recapture liabilities are timely paid. The general statute of limitations applicable to taxpayers would also be modified so that investors who dispose of a building after the effective date of the legislation would remain liable for any potential recapture liability for a period extending through the compliance period for such building to provide the IRS with additional time to audit the partnership's return to ensure the building's continuing compliance with the credit's requirements. Taxpayers who disposed of a building (or interest therein) prior to the date of enactment would not be required to maintain existing recapture bonds (or other alternative security), but cancellation of existing bonds would trigger an extension of the statute of limitations provided for in the legislation. These changes will improve the overall efficiency of the housing program and ensure that more dollars actually flow into affordable housing. This is a very important improvement in an otherwise excellent program, and I encourage my colleagues to join with me in cosponsoring this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The legislation is identical to a bill that Congressmen Houghton, Johnson, Neal, and Rangel have introduced in the House. I also ask unanimous consent to include a copy of a letter from 12 national housing organizations to Chairman Bill Thomas endorsing the House bill, H.R. 3610.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, throughout my public service, I have been a supporter of free but fair trade. Trade is important to the Arkansas economy because it creates jobs by opening new foreign markets to Arkansas' largest exports. In 2003 alone, Arkansas employers and farmers benefitted from over $2.9 billion in manufacturing and agricultural exports sold around the world. From 1999 to 2003, Arkansas exports to Australia totaled some $246 million, according to data compiled by the International Trade Administration within the Department of Commerce. With numbers like these, it is easy to recognize the benefits of freer trade. It is also easy to see that as tariffs are reduced and trade barriers are removed, these numbers can grow. The benefits of trade don't stop there. Through trade we can improve economies throughout the world, not only making the world an even better customer to all the good products Arkansas has to offer, but improving the lives, working conditions, and environmental standards for millions of people around the globe. However, while there are certainly benefits, there are usually other important factors that must be considered. As a supporter of freer and fairer trade, I remain passionate that our trade policies must be crafted to ensure that all U.S. industries remain competitive in a world marketplace that is not always free and, all too often, not always fair. I remain passionate that each step towards freer trade must also be a step towards fairer trade and a more level global playing field. As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to influence our Nation's trade agreements. In fact, jurisdiction of international trade is a large reason why I sought a seat on the committee, because while I certainly recognize the benefits that free trade creates, I also know the concerns we must address. All too often, we are faced with the news of the loss of more manufacturing jobs. For Arkansas, the pictures of plant closings and news articles of job loss are more than just stories in the media, they are a harsh reality. Since July 2000, my State has encountered an enormous loss of manufacturing jobs--nearly 35,000 to be exact, according to data provided by the National Association of Manufacturers. I am deeply troubled that so many Arkansans have lost their jobs, not because they can't compete on a level playing field but because the cards have been stacked against them. That's what the jobs bill is all about--keeping jobs where they belong here at home. Does that mean that we should shy away from a pro-trade agenda completely? The answer is no. Without a progressive agenda we are left with the status quo, which simply doesn't work. With the status quo international labor and environmental standards remain low while tariffs and barriers for goods produced here in the United States remain unacceptably high. Agriculture is a great example of this. When U.S. farmers look out at the world around them, they see an average bound tariff of 62 percent against their products while foreign farmers see just 12 percent imposed against their products coming into the United States. And when U.S. farmers look around the world, they see Europeans with subsidies as high as $400 per acre while our help to our farmers sit at less than $40 per acre. That is why we need a strong domestic farm policy. The bottom line is that under the status quo jobs don't stay here in the United States where they belong. They move overseas. Throughout the negotiation of the Australia Free Trade Agreement, it became clear that this was a very unique agreement that presented both opportunities and challenges. A snapshot of Australia shows a highly developed country with comparable environmental and labor standards. Additionally, Australia is one of the few countries with which the United States enjoys a trade surplus--some $6 to 7 billion annually. With the reduction of tariffs and the elimination of other trade barriers we can look forward to sending more U.S. manufactured and agriculture products to Australia. And that is exactly what happens in portions of this agreement. In the Australia FTA, 99 percent of the tariffs on manufactured goods go to zero on day one. I have heard this agreement called the best agreement for manufacturers. With immediate free trade for 99 percent of U.S. manufactured goods, I would have to agree, especially when 93 percent of what we sell to that country is manufactured goods. In addition, U.S. agricultural exports to Australia, totaling $400 million annually, would also gain immediate duty free access, benefitting Arkansas soybean farmers, for example. However, given that total U.S. agriculture sales to Australia account for less than 1 percent of our worldwide sales, my message to United States Trade Representative Robert Zoellick has been that the United States' No. 1 responsibility to Arkansas farm families is, first do no harm. There is a significant upside for Arkansas manufacturers and the more than 200,000 Arkansas families who make a good living because of this industry. However, there was not as much to be gained under this agreement in the area of agriculture, and there could have been some risk, particularly to my cattlemen who are very important to me and my State. Now, Arkansas cattlemen can take on any country around the world in a fair global market, but a bilateral agreement like this cannot create that kind of fairness. That is why the Doha Round of the WTO is so important. In the meantime, as the Senior Senator from Arkansas, my priority throughout this bilateral agreement was simple--ensure protections to safeguard the interest of Arkansas cattlemen and, second, get assurances from Australian trade negotiators that they will assist the United States in our effort to reform government export programs around the world. While I still have concerns that I intend to continue to work to address with Arkansas cattlemen, my colleagues in the Senate, and Ambassador Zoellick in addressing, the Australia FTA does work to minimize any adverse impact on U.S. agriculture, and beef in particular. Specifically, Australian access to U.S. markets for beef is opened slowly over an 18-year transition period. Increased imports from Australia are estimated to be limited to about 0.17 percent of U.S. beef production and 1.6 percent of beef imports to the U.S. In addition, several important safeguards are included to ensure that additional Australian beef imports will not disrupt the domestic beef industry or depress American beef prices. For example, while the proposed FTA would gradually phase up Australia's quota of duty-free beef imports over 18 years, this phase up cannot begin until American beef exports return to levels seen prior to the discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE in the U.S. last January. Moreover, the first reduction in the tariff will not occur for 9 years and not reach zero for 19 years after enactment of the FTA. Our trade officials also worked to include two additional safeguards in this agreement that will further protect the domestic beef industry. The first safeguard is ``volume-based'' and would be in effect during the 18-year transition period. This means that Australian beef imports cannot exceed 110 percent of total imports coming in ``duty-free'' at any point during this time period. If this does occur, the tariff rate will automatically snap back to the higher tariff we currently impose on imports from other countries with which we do not have free trade agreements. The second safeguard--and the most important in my view--is ``price- based'' and goes into effect at the end of the 18-year period. This means that a tariff is reimposed on Australian beef imports if domestic beef prices drop to a certain level after tariffs have been eliminated. Both of these safeguards are automatically enforced at our borders based on the established import volume or domestic price levels. No additional review by Congress or the Administration is required to enforce these protective safeguards. In short, I feel that our trade officials did a fair job of accentuating the positives for Arkansas while minimizing any negatives. I am supporting this agreement because on the whole I believe our trade team showed sensitivity to Arkansas farm families. I am supporting this agreement because I am willing to find common ground with our negotiators when I feel they have listened to my concerns and acted on them. And I am supporting this agreement with the understanding that our negotiators will now turn to the WTO and other agreements whose benefits to my cattlemen will be substantial and certain. I have been proud to work with my Arkansas cattlemen on a wide range of issues over the years. Whether it has been on disaster assistance, animal identification, trade, conservation, food safety, taxes or regulations, we have stood shoulder to shoulder. With the passage of this agreement we must now turn our attention to these and other important issues, starting with the opening of market places around the world that will be truly beneficial to the Arkansas cattlemen. With the passage of this agreement, I am committed to doing exactly that. Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't briefly touch on the pharmaceutical provisions in this trade agreement and my concern for the precedent that they may set. While I am told, and I trust, that this will have no implication on the reimportation legislation that I and many of my colleagues support; while I am told, and I trust, that this will have no implication on how our Medicare and Medicaid programs operate; while I am told, and I trust, that this agreement will have no implication on the way the Department of Veteran's Affairs purchases their prescription drugs, I must restate that I am concerned. Nonetheless, I want to reiterate that I am fully committed to pursuing Federal policies that will make prescription medications in the United States sale and affordable through legislation and future trade agreements. We have a crisis here in America when it comes to the price of prescription drugs and I'm looking for solutions. Furthermore, I'm putting the Administration on notice that efforts to block access to cheaper drugs for my constituents will be met with resistance by this Senator until we make some real progress of our own here in this country.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. In making my decision to support Mr. Holmes' nomination, I have considered many factors. There is no question he has the necessary legal skills and intellect to perform the duties of the position. More importantly, I have been impressed with the overwhelming support Leon has received from his friends, coworkers, and colleagues in Arkansas' legal community who have firsthand knowledge of his temperament, his character, and abilities as a lawyer. I have received countless letters, e-mails, and phone calls from all over the State expressing strong support for Leon's nomination. Many of these contacts are from people I know personally and several, if not most, are from very active, self-described, very strong Democrats. Those from Arkansas who have contacted me and the Judiciary Committee in support of this nomination include a past president of the American Bar Association, a former president of the Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association, a founder of the Arkansas affiliate of the ACLU, sitting Federal judges who are familiar with Leon's work, female attorneys who have argued cases with and against Leon, and many others. One letter from a self-described liberal Democrat who is also decidedly pro-choice summed up how Mr. Holmes is viewed in Arkansas' legal community when he wrote that after litigating ``with and against Leon for a number of years'' he had so much faith and trust in him that he would ``shoot dice with him over the telephone.'' Now that might not sound too common to folks up here, but in Arkansas it is a pretty good saying, and it certainly indicates a great deal of trust on that gentleman's part of the gentleman with whom he was dealing, and that was Mr. Leon Holmes. In conclusion, I do not determine my support or opposition to a nominee based solely on whether we share the same philosophy, ideology, or beliefs. Fundamentally, I am interested in knowing a judicial nominee can fulfill his or her responsibility under the Constitution to apply the law fairly without political favor or personal bias. I am satisfied Mr. Leon Holmes has met that standard based on the strong support he has received from those who know him the best and his assurances to me when we met personally. He assured me personally he is willing and able to set aside his personal beliefs to fulfill his duties as a Federal district court judge. Senator Pryor and I are here to support Leon Holmes. He has done a good job in Arkansas. He is a good man, a good friend, and a well-trusted lawyer among his colleagues. We encourage our colleagues in the Senate to look at the evidence we have presented and certainly judge this man on the basis of all of these incredible character witnesses, as well as his own testimony, in being sure that we can all have the confidence that Mr. Holmes will, without a doubt, implement the law, the rule of law, according to the rule of law, and not based on his own personal views. I thank my colleagues for their attention, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, as the senior Senator from Arkansas, I am proud to come to the floor and join my colleague Senator Mark Pryor today to introduce Leon Holmes to my colleagues here in the Senate and express my support for his nomination. Mr. Holmes is a native of Hazen, AR, in Prairie County, which is not too far from my hometown of Helena. He is the fourth of seven children and the first in his family to go to college. He has been married to his wife Susan Holmes for 32 years, and he is the proud father of five children and has seven grandchildren. Most of us having been home not only working during the Fourth of July recess but hopefully spending some time with our families understand how important our families and our children and future generations are to all of us. I know Mr. Holmes has certainly expressed that to me. After high school, Leon graduated with special distinction from Arkansas State University in 1973. He continued his education by earning a law degree from the University of Arkansas where he graduated first in his class. Mr. Holmes later received a master's degree in political philosophy from Northern Illinois University and a doctorate in political science from Duke University where he was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa. Leon's professional career is equally impressive. In addition to being named a partner in the law firm of Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull, and Burrow in Little Rock, Mr. Holmes has held a variety of positions, including law clerk for Justice Frank Holt on the Arkansas Supreme Court, assistant professor at Augustana College in Rock Island, IL, and adjunct faculty member of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock School of Law. As an attorney in private practice, Leon has had a wide-ranging legal practice, representing large corporations, small businesses, and individual litigants, and although I am not a part of the legal community in my home State of Arkansas as a lawyer like my colleague Senator Pryor is, I have heard from a number of practicing lawyers, judges, and others throughout our State who have worked with Leon and have the utmost confidence in his ability to administer the rule of law. But Leon has not spent his whole life in the library or at a law firm. As you well know, Mr. President, that certainly is something that is important to me. You may be interested to know that in his youth, Leon actually chopped and picked cotton over in our part of the State in eastern Arkansas. He worked as a farm laborer in the fields of Prairie County and served as a carpenter's helper. While pursuing his education, he worked as a door-to-door salesman and as a newspaper carrier to help make ends meet. In short, during his academic and professional career, Leon has distinguished himself as a scholar and an accomplished lawyer. In the process, he has earned the trust, admiration, and respect of his friends and colleagues with whom he has lived and worked. As a farmer's daughter from eastern Arkansas, I believe the fact that Mr. Holmes knows the value of an honest day's work both as a lawyer and a laborer is a good indication that he has the life experience required to administer the law in a very fair and impartial manner, regardless of who the litigants are before him. If that were the only part of the record before us, the debate we are having today would be a very short one. As some of my colleagues have said or will say during the consideration of this nomination, Leon is also a devoutly religious man who has written articles and made statements that are a reflection of his faith, but they are also somewhat controversial. We all know that for many of us our faith is very important. It is important for us to have an opportunity to express our faith, to talk about it, to speak about it, to live it in a way that is very important to us and reflective of our own ministry. There is no doubt I have been troubled by some of the statements attributed to Mr. Holmes, particularly one regarding the role of a woman in a marital relationship. As a mother and a wife, I can assure you, I consider myself equal in every way to my husband. Our marriage is based on mutual love and respect, which sustains our union as a man and a wife. I think it is so important in this day and age as we talk about marriage and its importance to our family, to our children, to the stability of the fabric of this great country, that we understand marriage does not just happen; it has to be those two individuals who come together, a man and a woman, working equally as hard at making sure that union is strong and that it is working. However, I fully respect the right of Mr. Holmes to practice and express his religious beliefs freely, even those with which I may not agree, just as I expect others to respect my right to do the same. Mr. Holmes also made a comment 20-plus years ago about how women who were raped do not get pregnant, which I think most would agree was inappropriate and offensive. But Mr. Holmes has apologized for that comment. He has acknowledged it was wrong and said he regrets saying it. We have all said things we should not and wished we had not said in our lives and I, for one, accept his apology. I do believe it is very critical we understand the complications, the emotions, and everything else that are wrapped up in the circumstances when women find themselves in those circumstances of rape or incest or being abused. Again, I do accept Mr. Holmes' apology. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Leon Holmes to me apologizing for this remark and responding to the criticism of other statements be printed in the Record.

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

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, we have so much to do in this body and so much to talk about. But I can't think of anything more important for us to talk about than relieving the stress on working families and the American people. We had a joint session yesterday where we heard the President of Afghanistan who very joyously spoke of the brilliant spirit of the American people. I think if we look at that brilliant spirit and what composes us as American people and the things we are able to do, it ultimately depends on what makes us the kind of people we are. I rise today to pay tribute to the American people. For well over 200 years, the American people have proven their ability to overcome all manner of obstacles. At times they have done so with the help of their duly elected government officials, and at times they have done so in spite of their duly elected government officials. But either way, in the end, the spirit and character of the American people move this Nation toward a greater realization of the principle written about by Thomas Jefferson over 228 years ago. I am not normally a betting person, but I say that putting your money on the American people is about as close to a sure bet as you are going to get. In 1945, when millions of soldiers came home from the war, this Nation put its money on the American people, and it gave those who served this country the GI bill so they could educate themselves and make a better life for them and for their families. That investment helped to create an economic boom the likes of which this Nation has never seen--not to mention the talented minds that were nurtured and those who were given the opportunity to reach their potential. Millions of families were able to raise their economic standing and take part in the American dream. That economic expansion is one of the clearest examples that investments in education can pay off. As I mentioned, we have many issues to talk about, much to do for the security of our Nation and the people. One of the key factors in making sure we deal with these issues and we have the ability to provide the security--whether it be economic, whether it be social, or whether it be the values and simple security of families in this country--depends on the American spirit. It is simple. If we invest in the American people, the American people always bring this Nation a good return. Now we are faced with new economic realities and new challenges in an information age as well as an age where wars will be fought in many different ways than what we have seen in the past. The question is, Are we investing in the American people the way we once did in 1945? Are we providing for another of the greatest generations of Americans, or are we missing the opportunity to provide for the children of today who will be the future of this country? Last month I was in Garland County, AR, for the grand opening of the new Head Start Center there. It was a proud day for me. The center was named in my honor, but it was not just because the center would be associated with my name that I was proud, but more importantly because my name would be associated with a center of learning. I remarked that day that programs such as Head Start were practical ways we could provide opportunity for working mothers to raise their economic standing, to eliminate some of the stress on these working families, these working American families who are at the base of what this Nation is all about. Head Start can be the difference between a family becoming part of the economic mainstream. When mothers have a nurturing place to send their children, they can go to work or to school with the kind of confidence they need to reach their potential. They are not put in the terrible position of having to choose between employment and the safety or health of their children. With the rise we are seeing in both child abuse and neglect because of the cuts in so many vital assistance programs, the need for childcare is at an alltime high in this country. More than just relieving the stress of finding good childcare, a program such as Head Start helps to prepare children for a lifetime of learning. Everyone knows the more you learn, the more you earn. In seeing the children in that Head Start Program walking by, all of those little 4- year-olds with their Styrofoam cup, with their individual toothbrush in their hand, so proud they were learning something that was going to be a part of their life forever--good dental hygiene. It is not just teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic; it is teaching these children how to be a person who can then contribute their whole potential to their community and Nation. They returned from having brushed their teeth with this huge smile on their face about what they had learned. These are programs vital to this country and its well-being. Families in Arkansas recognize the hope that programs such as Head Start and childcare assistance programs provide. Right now, 800-plus Arkansas families are waiting for childcare assistance. Think of that. There are 800 families in line for hope in reaching the American dream. However, for some reason this administration does not want to give that hope a chance. In the President's budget request, almost 40 programs to help low-income working families make that transition into the economic mainstream through programs such as Head Start were not adequately funded. In addition to cutting programs to help working families, this administration has failed to fully fund the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act. Last year, No Child Left Behind was underfunded by as much as $9 billion. I supported No Child Left Behind because I believed that with proper funding it would give children an opportunity to reach their full educational potential. I still believe that it can be an effective engine of reform in our public education system. For that reform to be effective, it is going to require significant investment, which so far has not been forthcoming from this administration. Unless we make education a priority, an entire generation of Americans could miss out on the American dream. The fact is our economy has changed, but our approach to supporting and funding education has not. We are training our children to take on manufacturing jobs that no longer exist or are quickly disappearing. Not only are we losing manufacturing jobs, but now technical and highly skilled tasks are leaving our shores for cheaper highly educated workers. We can no longer settle for doing what we have always done. This administration believes we can have champagne for the price of beer. The reality is, if you poorly fund education, you get a poor educational system. But the good news is that if you properly fund education--from Head Start through high school--the chances of a world class education system go up exponentially. If we are to give working mothers, fathers and their children an opportunity to live the American dream we must invest in their future. As I said at the outset, every time we have put our money on the American people it has paid off. Let's take that bet and make the investment one more time. I believe the children of today who are the brilliant spirit of the American people of the future, are worth the investment.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to former President Ronald Wilson Reagan, our Nation's 40th President. Like many Americans, I admired President Reagan's eternal optimism and his belief in America and her people. I am struck by the numbers of mourners who have paid their respects to our former President. The outpouring of respect and grief is a testament to the great impact that he had on so many Americans. I am sure that one of the reasons so many have taken time to honor President Reagan is because of the great optimism and purpose that he showed. His trust in the fundamental decency and goodness of the American people is a guide and inspiration to us all. I admired his sense of civility and his ability to disagree with his opponents without being disagreeable. He fought hard for the policies in which he believed, but after the fight, he shook hands and moved on. We need more of that kind of statesmanship in Washington today. And I hope my colleagues will join me in trying to follow his example. During one of our Nation's greatest challenges--the cold war-- President Reagan was a strong voice against the enemies of freedom. His leadership and vision helped us to overcome our enemies. In the final years of his life, he and Mrs. Reagan were an example of the kind of sacrifice and love that we should all seek to emulate. Mrs. Reagan's quiet dignity and support for her husband during the most difficult of times should be an inspiration to us all. My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife, Nancy, his sons, Michael and Ronald, Jr., and his daughter, Patty. Ronald Reagan lived a full life and was a great American. His contributions to the American political system and to our way of life will not soon be forgotten.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to bring attention to the fact that it is National Hunger Awareness Day and to raise the visibility of issues of hunger in America. What is the face of hunger in America? A child. A mother. A father. A single working parent. A homeless person. A grandmother raising grandchildren. A grandfather. A senior citizen living off of social security. An unemployed person. A disabled worker. A military veteran. People of all races and ethnicities. These are the faces of the almost 35 million Americans that live in households that are food insecure. Food insecurity is not isolated to one region. These 35 million Americans live in the small towns of New England, in the large cities of New York, Boston, Chicago and Atlanta. They live in the deltas of Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi and the plains of the Dakotas down to Kansas. There is food insecurity and hunger in the timber regions of Washington and Oregon and on the beaches of California. Food insecurity affects the States of the four corners down into Texas and Oklahoma. No region of this country is without hunger. Today is National Hunger Awareness Day. I have come to the Senate floor to talk about hunger in America and to raise awareness about the complex issues surrounding hunger. When many Americans think of hunger they often think of starving people in developing countries around the world, and the number of hungry people living around the world is staggering. Eight hundred million people, including children, are hungry and food insecure in the world today. America must continue to lead in its generosity to aid the world's food insecure. But hunger is not just a distant problem for developing countries. Hunger exists among our own citizens here in America. Because today is National Hunger Awareness Day, I will focus my remarks on the less recognized face of hunger and that is the face of the Americans, our neighbors, and our fellow citizens who are hungry and food insecure. What does food insecurity mean? Food insecurity is limited or uncertain access to nutritional food. Food insecurity is not knowing from where the next meal is coming. Food insecurity is not unique among the homeless and unemployed. On the contrary, many food insecure households in America have at least one working adult. We need only compare the national unemployment numbers with the food insecurity numbers to see that they don't match up. There are far more food insecure individuals than there are unemployed people. America's working poor are finding it difficult to make ends meet and at times provide the most basic needs for their family--nutritious food. Perhaps our most vulnerable food insecure individuals are our children and seniors. Due to the high costs of healthcare and living expenses, many seniors often find themselves choosing between medicine and groceries because they may not be able to afford both. Programs such as Meals on Wheels and local community senior programs are so important to the health of our seniors. Children rely on parents to provide for their basic needs. Of the 35 million people who are food insecure in America, just over 13 million are children. This is the same number of children that are receiving free lunches through the National School Lunch Program. This vital program provides many children with the most nutritious meal they will receive in a given day. We must continue to find opportunities to fill in the gaps because the National School Lunch Program only covers Monday through Friday during the school year. The traditional three months of summer vacation from school is a critical time when many children are missing essential nutrition in their diets. One example of a successful program in my home State of Arkansas is helping feed children outside of school. The Arkansas Rice Depot's Food For Kids program provides hungry children with a quick, high-energy snack during school and then provides a backpack filled with nutritious foods children can prepare for themselves at home. The Food For Kids program is serving 329 schools and 15,000 students in Arkansas. Founded in 1995, this program is the first of its kind in the Nation and now 20 cities across the Nation have established similar programs. Throughout my remarks I have mentioned the word nutrition. In the fight to end hunger, providing access to nutritious food is key. Many Americans are now waking up to the long-term health complications caused by obesity. It may seem strange to talk about obesity and hunger at the same time but the reality is that people with limited access to money and food typically consume the cheapest food that they can purchase in large quantities, and often these foods lack important nutrients for a balanced diet. We can fight obesity early on by educating children about nutrition and help provide opportunities for children to access nutritious foods at school and at after school programs. Additionally, through food assistance programs we must continue to encourage adults to access nutritious foods and help provide opportunities to learn about nutrition. For Americans, hunger does not mean entire towns and villages full of starving people--people literally starving and dying because they cannot eat. Fortunately, we are able to provide the citizens most in need with access to some kind of food to meet basic needs through Federal and State assistance programs such as Food Stamps, WIC, the National School Lunch Program, and thousands of non-profit organizations, churches, faith-based groups, and dedicated individuals. The challenges in America are to continue to find ways to provide Americans that are food insecure with access to nutritious meals and opportunities to gain skills to improve their economic situation and quality of life. To that end, today, along with my friend from Oregon, Senator Smith, I am pleased to announce the formation of the U.S. Senate Hunger Caucus. We are delighted that many of our colleagues are joining us in this bipartisan effort to work on national and international hunger issues. The Senate Hunger Caucus will be a vehicle through which Senators can work together to promote initiatives to help address the root causes of hunger and to help form partnerships with the many valuable organizations and programs that are committed to ending hunger. Just a few hours ago, I was joined by my good friends, Senators Smith and Dole, at the D.C. Central Kitchen where we announced the formation of the Senate Hunger Caucus and discussed many of the key hunger issues in America. The D.C. Central Kitchen is located just a few blocks from the U.S. Capitol and is a nationally known food rescue organization. The D.C. Central Kitchen converts rescued or donated food into 4,000 meals each day, 365 days a year, which feed the hungry in the Washington metropolitan area. As a part of the D.C. Central Kitchen program, unemployed people are trained to gain job skills that enable them to find work in the culinary arts industry. The D.C. Central Kitchen is a great model for taking wasted food and turning it into nutritious meals and economic opportunities for people in need. We were pleased to be joined at today's event by representatives of many of the national anti-hunger groups that we look forward to partnering with in this effort: Some of these groups include: America's Second Harvest, American School Food Service Association, Bread for the World, Congressional Hunger Center, Food Research and Action Center, Share Our Strength, the World Food Program and Heifer International. At this time, I want to recognize many of the Arkansas groups working to fight hunger and encourage nutritious living, and they include: Arkansas Hunger Coalition, Arkansas Foodbank Network, Harvest Texarkana, Potluck, Inc., Arkansas Rice Depot, Northwest Arkansas Foodbank, Northeast Arkansas Foodbank, North Central Arkansas Foodbank, Southwest Arkansas, Food bank, Bradley County Helping Hand, Ozark Foodbank, Memphis Foodbank, Winrock, Heifer International, Arkansas School Food Service Association, Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, Arkansas Community Action Agencies, Arkansas Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry, local food pantries, churches and many others who work to feed Arkansans in need. Many of these groups are also using today as a time to talk about hunger and food insecurity. In closing, it's easy for me to be passionate about the issue of hunger. As a farmer's daughter I was raised with an understanding of the value of having access to food--to good, safe and nutritious food. As the daughter of two compassionate, Christian parents I was taught to help others and to share my blessings with those in need. As a mother of two young boys I can empathize with the fear that a parent feels when they must answer a hungry child when there is no food to be eaten. Just the other day, one of my boys ran into the house and said ``Mom, I'm starving.'' And I replied, ``what would you like?'' Later on I thought about the mothers whose children ask the same question but they don't have food to offer, they can't just reach into the cabinet to pull out food. It was a devastating thought and my heart goes out to the mothers and fathers who at times are not sure where the next meal is coming from. My home State of Arkansas knows hunger. With almost 600,000 Arkansans living below the national poverty line, hunger, food insecurity, obesity and limited access to nutritious foods are key issues. With a State population of 2.6 million, approximately 380,000 Arkansans live in food insecure households. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate as well as hunger non-profit organizations in my State and across the Nation to find solutions to hunger problems plaguing our nation and world. And to dream of the day when globally, working together to harness our vast resources, we can end hunger.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Arkansas' finest who gave his life in the defense of his nation. SSG Troy ``Leon'' Miranda, 44, of Little Rock died on May 20, 2004, in Baghdad, Iraq, when a grenade was thrown near his patrol. According to his mother Bobby, Troy graduated from Wickes High School and went on to study business at Henderson State University. He joined the Army National Guard almost 20 years ago and was assigned to the Guard's counterdrug program. For the last 10 years he worked with the Arkansas State Police in the criminal investigation division's office of investigative support. Leon showed the kind of heroism that makes all Arkansans proud. He lost his life protecting other men in his unit. He has been awarded the Bronze Star and Purple Heart. The Associated Press reported that Troy's brother, Phillip Miranda, also stationed with the 39th in Iraq, would accompany his brother's body home to Arkansas. Our condolences and prayers go out to Troy's parents, Carlos and Bobby Miranda, and to his siblings. Troy's sister-in-law said of him that, ``He was the bravest person I knew.'' We honor the spirit of bravery that Troy exhibited while protecting his Nation from her enemies. His sacrifice will not soon be forgotten. Corporal Matthew C. Henderson

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a brave Arkansan who gave his life in the defense of his Nation. SSG Hesley Box, Jr., 24, of Nashville, AR, died on May 6, 2004, in Baghdad, Iraq, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Staff Sergeant Box died when a car bomb detonated near his guard post. Hesley, or ``Tanky'' as his family called him, joined the Guard in 1997. He was just 24 years old when he left for Iraq in March with the 39th Infantry Brigade. Even though he was a young soldier, Hesley was already a veteran of two other deployments in Bosnia and Saudi Arabia. Our condolences and prayers go out to Hesley's wife, Alexia; his two sons Zacheas and TaDarius; his parents, Hesley, Sr., and Barbie Box, and his brother, Tarcus Kyron Box. Hesly's wife Alexia recounted the impact he had on peoples' lives and the love he showed for their children. The Nation will long remember the impact this brave Arkansan has had on the safety and security of all Americans. I am honored to pay tribute to his sacrifice. Troy Miranda

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an Arkansan who has committed over a quarter of a century of his life creating programs that enhance access to higher education for Arkansans. During his tenure as chairman of the board of directors and then as executive director for the Arkansas Student Loan Authority, ASLA, Mr. R. Preston Woodruff, Jr., has unselfishly shared his knowledge and talents to ensure that students are equipped with the financial resources needed to become future leaders in our State and our Nation. Programs established under Preston's leadership include: EdLoan--a special loan for Arkansas teachers which offers incredibly low interest rates for those who choose to remain in Arkansas to teach in grades K through 12. Student Outreach Services--a program available to all Arkansas schools which provides materials and seminars to high school counselors and their students in order to promote the benefits of higher education and the means to achieve a higher education. Student Advantage Scholarships--25 scholarships awarded annually by ASLA. This program was formed as a means to create interest in the financial aid process and to provide funds to assist in gaining access to higher education. Honor Roll Student Loan Borrower Benefit Program--a program that offers the lowest student loan interest rates available to Arkansas students. Preston was also instrumental in establishing the Education Finance Council, EFC, an association of not-for-profit State student loan secondary markets that played an important role in influencing legislation regarding the Federal Family Education Loan Program. On June 30, 2004, Preston will officially retire from his position as executive director for ASLA. He is a living example of the many outstanding Americans who were born and educated in Arkansas, and I am privileged to recognize his tireless commitment to Arkansas students and outstanding leadership as executive director of the Arkansas Student Loan Authority.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Mark Pryor to honor Dr. Bart Barlogie, professor of medicine and pathology at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, UAMS, the Arkansas Cancer Research Center, ACRC, and director of the Myeloma Institute for Research and Therapy, MIRT. For his lifelong work to find innovative treatments for myeloma cancer, Dr. Barlogie received the International Myeloma Foundation's Second Robert A. Kyle Lifetime Achievement Award on May 8, 2004, in Little Rock, AR. Throughout his career, Dr. Barlogie has been recognized as one of the most innovative, creative, and knowledgeable minds in the field of myeloma clinical research and treatment. His leadership has made Arkansas home to the foremost center for myeloma research and treatment in the world. Innovations pioneered under Dr. Barlogie's leadership include the accepted use of bone marrow and peripheral blood stem cell transplants that have resulted in better clinical outcomes for myeloma patients. In fact, the MIRT has performed more than 4,400 bone marrow transplants, far more than anywhere else. Dr. Barlogie's work will thalidomide as a treatment for myeloma has dramatically changed how patients are treated. His use of anti- angiogenesis as a cancer treatment is now widely accepted and used in not only myeloma but many other forms of cancer. Over the last 10 years, Dr. Barlogie's work has led to the widespread use and acceptance of magnetic resonance imaging, MRI, and positron emission tomography, PET, scans for myeloma patients. His work is also on the forefront of the movement toward effective molecularly targeted therapies and treatments. These techniques continue to improve the means by which physicians can combat cancer. Dr. Barlogie is totally devoted to his patients. He is continually driven to find better therapies, prolonged remission rates, a better quality of life, and, ultimately, a cure to one of the most challenging and misunderstood of all cancers. I am proud to honor Dr. Barlogie today, and I am happy that he, his wife Kathleen, and their three children, Britta, Eva, and Bart, have made their home in Little Rock, AR. They have made significant contributions to our State and community. I know all Arkansas join me in thanking Dr. Barlogie for making Arkansas the center of his professional and personal life. His achievements have helped make our stellar medical institutions, the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, the Arkansas Cancer Research Center, and the Myeloma Institute for Research and Therapy, gain worldwide prominence in the fight against cancer.