Blanche Lincoln

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to announce my support for the Energy Policy Act of 2003. I want to thank Chairmen Grassley and Domenici and Senators Baucus and Bingaman for working with me to include renewable energy and energy efficiency provisions important to my home State of Arkansas. While some may say this bill is not perfect, it is a step toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing the use of renewable resources in this country. Nine months ago, I stood before this body and spoke on the dangers of continued reliance on foreign sources of energy. Today, I am pleased to stand here in support of a bill that includes several provisions I believe will take our country's energy policy in the right direction. I know this bill is not perfect, and I am disappointed that some of my colleagues who have been leaders on this issue for many, many years were excluded from the drafting of this bill. But I am pleased that those who did draft this bill made an effort to address energy concerns in every sector of this industry. In Arkansas, we have investor owned utilities and co-operatives. This bill will help both of these providers serve their customers in a more efficient and reliable manner. And while this bill may not go as far as some would like in the direction of renewable energy, there are many provisions in this package which will help the United States begin the long process of eliminating our dependence on foreign oil. I believe the renewable fuel standard, requiring our government to purchase at least 5 percent of its energy from renewable sources, represents a positive step toward this goal. I personally fought to include provisions that will encourage greater use of renewable resources, increased production of efficient appliances, and greater investment in delivering fuels to rural America. In Arkansas, we recognize the importance of renewable fuels in helping the United States to become more energy-independent. That's why I am excited about the provisions in this bill that will encourage greater use of a valuable new alternative fuel, biodiesel. Biodiesel, which can be made from just about any agricultural oil, including oils from soybeans, cottonseed, or rice, is completely renewable, contains no petroleum, and can be easily blended with petroleum diesel. It can be added directly into the gas tank of a compression-ignition, diesel engine vehicle with no major modifications. Biodiesel is completely biodegradable and non-toxic, contains no sulfur, and it is the first and only alternative fuel to meet EPA's Tier I and II health effects testing standards. Biodiesel also stands ready to help us reach the EPA's new rule to reduce the sulfur content of highway diesel fuel by over 95 percent. These tax credits are necessary as biodiesel is not yet cost-competitive with petroleum diesel. This legislation will provide tax incentives for the production of biodiesel from agricultural oils, recycled oils, and animal fats and will ensure that biodiesel becomes a central component of this Nation's automobile fuel market. This legislation is identical to language authored by myself and Senator Grassley included in the last Congress's Energy Bill. It is intended to be a starting point for our debate and discussion as we draft an energy bill for consideration in this Congress. This legislation will provide a partial exemption from the diesel excise tax for diesel blended with biodiesel. Specifically, the bill provides a one-cent reduction for every percent of biodiesel from virgin agricultural oils blended with diesel up to 20 percent. The legislation will also provide a half-cent reduction for every percent of biodiesel from recycled agricultural oils or animal fats. With today's depressed market for farm commodities, biodiesel will serve as a ready new market for surplus farm products. Investment now in the biodiesel industry will level the playing field and create new opportunities in rural America. This bill also contains a provision I fought for that will provide a tax credit for production of fuels from animal and agricultural waste. Thanks to new technological developments, we can now produce significant quantities of alternative fuels from agricultural and animal wastes in an environmentally-friendly manner. The production incentives included in this bill will assure implementation and commercialization of this new generation of technology. I am also pleased this bill includes language to encourage additional collection and productive use of methane gas generated by garbage decomposing in America's landfills. Landfill gas is a renewable fuel that can be used directly as an energy source for heating, as a clean burning vehicle fuel, and as a hydrogen source for fuel cells. Furthermore, it can power generators to produce electricity. There are compelling environmental reasons to encourage these projects. Even the large landfills that are required under the Clean Air Act to collect their gas and control non-methane organic compounds often find it more cost-effective to simply flare or otherwise waste the gas rather than use the methane to produce electricity. Some smaller landfills are not required to collect the gas, and may continue to emit it for decades under the Clean Air Act. Thus, landfill gas projects will not only reduce local and regional air pollution while yielding a renewable source of energy, they will also reduce the country's yearly emissions of greenhouse gases by a very substantial amount at a relatively small cost. I also worked to include a provision that will encourage new waste-to-energy facilities to produce electricity directly from the combustion of our trash. Arkansas stands with other environmentally conscious States in understanding that waste-to-energy technology saves valuable land and significantly reduces the amount of greenhouse gases that would have been released into our atmosphere without its operation. The volume of waste generated in this country could be reduced by greater than 90 percent by utilizing waste-to- energy facilities, and EPA has confirmed that more than 33 million tons of greenhouse gases can be avoided annually by the combustion of municipal solid waste. Municipal solid waste is a sustainable source of clean, renewable energy and I am proud to see this measure enacted into law. Another provision I am extremely proud of is one that will provide a tax credit for the production of super energy-efficient clothes washers and refrigerators if those appliances exceed new Federal energy efficiency standards. Conservation and efficiency are the most effective and immediate ways to limit our energy consumption and reduce pollution. I am confident this provision will spur manufacturers to develop super-efficient appliances that will be affordable for consumers. Another provision of which I am particularly proud relates to the clean-up of Southwest Experimental Fast Oxide Reactor, a decommissioned nuclear reactor near the community of Strickler, Arkansas, in the northwest corner of my State. The site is contaminated with residual radiation, liquid sodium, lead, asbestos, mercury, PCBs, and other environmental contaminants and explosive chemicals. I have been fighting to rehabilitate this site since I came to the Senate, and now we know that persistence pays off. SEFOR was built by the Southwest Atomic Energy Associates, a consortium of investor-owned electric utilities, and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for testing liquid metal fast breeder reactor fuel. SEFOR began operations in 1969 and was permanently shut down in 1972. After the reactor's useful life, the ownership of the site was transferred to the University of Arkansas. The Federal Government helped create these contaminants, and therefore should pay to help clean them up. This is great news for northwest Arkansas, because this site has threatened public health and the environment in one of our state's most beautiful areas for too long. I thank the conferees for retaining my provision related to cleaning up this site. The final provision I would like to praise relates to improving our country's natural gas infrastructure. I am proud that this bill contains provisions to make it easier for natural gas companies to deliver clean-burning natural gas to this Nation's rural homes, by decreasing the depreciation time for natural gas pipelines. America's demand for energy is expected to grow by 32 percent during the next 20 years and consumer demand for natural gas will grow at almost twice that rate, due to its economic, environmental, and operational benefits. That level of natural gas use is almost 60 percent greater than the highest recorded level. To satisfy this projected demand, we must substantially expand our existing gas infrastructure and this provision will do that. These are provisions in this bill that I am very proud of, but there are also provisions in this bill that I am not proud of. I am very disappointed by the way in which the issue of MTBE liability is handled in this bill. I am also disappointed by the lack of a renewable portfolio standard in this bill and I will continue to work to see that a RPS is enacted in coming years. Our current global situation shows us just how important it is that we takes steps to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I hope that this bill is taken for what it is: not a comprehensive solution, but a certain step in the right direction. Much more work needs to be done if we ever expect this country to lose its dependence on fossil fuel and foreign sources of energy and I urge my colleagues to continue to work hard until we achieve this goal.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. I rise today to offer a few thoughts on the Medicare prescription drug conference report that will soon be brought before the Senate. As I look back on the 10 years I have served in the Congress and I think about probably one of the most important issues we have dealt with, it has been looking toward trying to provide a component to Medicare that, had we seen or known the importance of prescription drugs when Medicare was designed, we would have included. As we move forward in the discussion and the debate on the pending legislation or the conference report that is being formalized right now, I hope we will not lose sight of our original objective; that is, to do no harm to a program that has been incredible in this country. It has kept seniors out of poverty. It has provided insurance for health care in our senior community when private industry would not come to the table to provide insurance and health benefits for our aging population. I hope we will keep our focus on doing no harm to a program that has done so much for the well-being of the elderly of this country, that we will look to the ways we can improve it and, more importantly, provide a prescription drug piece that is actually going to enhance our ability to keep down the costs of health care, providing health care to the elderly in this country, and improving the quality of life which, after all, is, has been, and should be our main objective. First, I thank our chairman on the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, and the ranking member, Senator Baucus, along with their staffs, for their tireless effort in bringing this package together thus far, both in the committee when we marked up the bill and we worked hard to bring about a good, bipartisan measure we felt did provide reforms and improvements to Medicare but did no harm to the basis of a program that has provided so much to so many in this country. The chairman and the ranking member have really bent over backwards to do all they could to keep this conference together and to keep a package together that was going to be beneficial for the elderly in this country. I know the negotiations at times have been contentious, but I am sure my colleagues join me in expressing our heartfelt gratitude for their leadership and patience on this critically important issue to all elderly Americans and to all American families because, as many of us know, it is not just the elderly who are going to be affected by this program; it is those of us who have aging parents and grandparents. It is those of us who ourselves in years to come will be a part of that aging community. It is not just the elderly of today, it is the elderly of tomorrow and the young of today who feel so involved and think it is such a critical issue to provide that quality of care for our patients and for our seniors. It is with that that I urge the conferees to keep working and to remain committed to the bipartisan principles contained in the legislation we passed in the Senate last summer, that we poured over and really gave heartfelt consideration and debate to bringing about a program that would enhance Medicare and again would do no harm to a program that has done so much. The bill we passed in the Senate gives all Medicare beneficiaries, no matter where they live, access to a Medicare drug benefit. For those of us who come from rural States, we find ourselves oftentimes at the low end of the totem pole. We find ourselves in a predicament where our seniors tend to be certainly living in more challenging demographic areas, where their needs and their concerns are more difficult to meet. We find our seniors tend to be more low income. It is critical we do not put a face on this bill that makes one demographic or one geographic area of this country more important than the other. Most importantly, our Senate bill preserves the traditional Medicare Program as a viable option for seniors by ensuring there is a level playing field between the private sector and Medicare. As many of us know, the private sector can participate in Medicare today. They choose not to. Why? Because we have, over the years, crafted and improved a Medicare Program that is most efficient. The fact is, it is difficult for them to compete, to come in and to provide the same services, the same programs in a cost-effective way where they can actually make money. Again, we want to do no harm in a program we have begun now to mold and shape in a way that is so productive to the seniors and is cost- effective for our Government. I believe it is important we be honest with our Nation's seniors, with the taxpayers of this country, and with ourselves, so everyone understands what is in this bill, both good and bad, what have we accomplished in this conference report and what have we not, so we can honestly call this conference report what it is. After all, this is more than just a prescription drug package. It includes a wide range of other provisions that will affect health care for seniors. Over the last several months, I have consulted with Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus on this bill. They have been very kind and gracious with their time in listening to me as I offered my own advice and feedback on the contents of what was materializing as a conference report. Today I would like to take this opportunity to present some of the questions I have asked of them in these recent weeks, because this is not the bill I would have produced. As we look at this conference report, it is not the bill the Senate produced or that Senators would like to have before us, but it may be the best we are going to be able to get in this Congress under the leadership we have, both in the White House, in the administration, as well as in the House and in the Senate. If that is the case, do we hold hostage some seniors because we do not have a perfect bill? We are going to have to weigh that out in the course of the next 6 to 7 days as we go through the motions of bringing that conference to a close and looking at what is actually going to be in that conference package. I would like to make it very clear I asked these questions as someone who wants very much to support a prescription drug package. It is something I can see clearly as a tool that can aid this country, not only in the quality of care and the quality of life our seniors need and deserve in this Nation. The advancement of what pharmaceutical drugs and prescription drugs can do in making the aging loved ones in our families have a better quality of life is so apparent. It is such a critical part of what we must do. We also have to know there are other things that are in this package. The questions so many of us have asked in looking for what we want to see happen--as I said, I want very much to support a prescription drug package. I have worked hard on this in the 10 years I have been in Congress. I see the importance of it. We want to be able to move forward. It is an issue I have championed throughout the years in my career in Congress. It is why I have worked hard to secure a seat on the Senate Finance Committee so I could have more influence on the shape of the final bill. In fact, this bill contains several strong provisions which I shall address shortly, but I also think it is so important we be honest with ourselves in terms of what we are actually going to be dealing with. Furthermore, I asked these questions on behalf of my constituents in Arkansas, along with the millions of other seniors in this Nation who will be affected by this legislation and who have been waiting so patiently for us to at least begin this process. They deserve to know about all of the components of this bill and how it will affect them, wherever they may live in this great country. Like us, they want to know this package will make Medicare stronger for the future, not weaker. We have not worked these some 40-plus years to now take a step in the wrong direction to weaken Medicare. We want to know even if this may not be the end-all, be-all package for Medicare, at least it is the beginning, the first step in looking at how we can strengthen Medicare, both through providing a prescription drug component in a way that reaches every senior in this country in a fair and equitable way, as well as looking at the ways we can reform and reinforce Medicare through coordinated care, through multiple-disease diagnosis and physician programs, where our physicians can look and see the multiple diseases our elderly are dealing with and deal with them in a comprehensive way. My first question concerns the premium support model, of which we have heard an awful lot. Premium support carries a lot of different visions that people have put on it. The model I would like to question is the one which the conferees want to add as a demonstration project. I would like to ask the conferees to explain to me and to the American people: How would this premium support policy make Medicare stronger? That is our question. I am not coming to the floor with a preconceived idea. I really want to know, and I think the American people want to know how it is going to make Medicare stronger. My concern is that the premium support would force our traditional Medicare Program to compete with private insurance plans in an arena where the rules greatly favor the private plan. That is not true competition. That is asking a program that we have built over these many years to compete with a plan out there that might be able to provide something in a more cost-effective way. But we don't know because we have too many subsidies going there. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services said this model would lead to wide variations in premium rates for Medicare beneficiaries living in different parts of the country and even, perhaps, within the same State. This could be devastating for seniors in Arkansas, especially in our rural areas. And Arkansas is not the only State that is concerned with a lot of rural areas. Why should a senior living in the rural delta of Arkansas pay a higher premium than a senior living in Little Rock, for the same benefit? That is the question I am asking our conferees. Seniors have paid into Medicare all their lives and they deserve to pay the same premium no matter where they live. Premium support would end this uniformity that has always existed in Medicare. The CMS Office of Actuary also determined that premium support would significantly increase premiums for traditional Medicare. Healthier seniors would leave the traditional program for private plans, thus increasing the cost for traditional Medicare. This would mostly impact seniors in our rural areas where private plans are not likely to go, and where seniors are less healthy. Why are they not likely to go there? They are not there now. They have come in; they tried it; they left because it is not profitable for them. Without substantial subsidies, they are not going to come there again. As to using this as a demonstration, we pretty much had a demonstration out in rural America to see what is going to happen. It is simply unfair to punish these seniors with a premium increase that estimates say could surpass 25 percent. The privatization advocates say it is only a demonstration of premium support and there are numerous exceptions to the policy. That just simply makes me wonder: If the policy is so great, why make all of these exceptions? I urge the conferees to take a serious look at this controversial proposal. Look at the ways we can make it much more clear, much more beneficial, and certainly much more economical to the American taxpayer, as well as providing the uniform benefit, across the country, to all seniors who deserve it equally. It is clear to me that its inclusion is based on privatization ideology alone rather than sound evidence that it saves money or improves the program for seniors. There are way too many studies that indicate the other way. I encourage these conferees, when we have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to be able to do something productive, make sure we are not wasting our time and energy and efforts, and most importantly our resources, on demonstration programs that we know because of past experience are not going to be profitable for anybody if we use our resources that way. Why drain those precious resources from the drug benefit for all on a demonstration that would affect only a few? The premium support demonstration could destabilize the Medicare Program for all seniors, and it certainly has the possibility of threatening the integrity of Medicare for seniors in Arkansas and around the Nation. The Senate bill we passed, with a great bipartisan margin, did not include this provision, and it was a strong bipartisan bill. My second question is, Why does the final agreement not retain the Senate's more generous low-income assistance provisions? I am enormously grateful because I know Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus worked very hard on the low-income assistance, and it is a good piece of this bill, so much better than what happened on the House side. So many of us who come from States with a large percentage of low-income seniors are very grateful. The conferees, however, apparently decided to lower the income eligibility level from the 160 percent of poverty to 150 percent of poverty, and to subject all low-income seniors to somewhat humiliating asset tests. When we talk about 150 percent of poverty around here, people just assume that everybody knows what that is. But most people don't. Most people don't know that 150 percent of poverty, which is what we are talking about to be the high end of low-income seniors, is only an annual income, for a couple, of $18,000--$18,000 for seniors to live on as a couple. For singles, it would be $13,470. One hundred-fifty percent of poverty is what we are talking about as being the high end of low-income seniors, in terms of support for these low-income individuals. I don't know about you, but that is a tough annual income to live on as a senior when you are talking about all the different expenses they have. This would help 3 million fewer people. Going from 160 percent of poverty to 150 percent of poverty would help 3 million fewer people with their copays than the Senate bill. So I urge the conferees to allow Medicaid to wrap around the cost-sharing requirements in the Medicare bill and allow them to pay for prescription drugs, not on the private plans formulary. This is another component that is going to be very advantageous to our low-income seniors. This low-income assistance is of special importance to our Nation's older women. Those of us, as women in the Senate, recognize how the aging population is disproportionately reflected in the number of women. I have watched my own mother, as a caregiver, taking care of my father until his death last year, and watched how she put the stresses and strains on her own health care needs, as well as her own finances, to find herself now in the aging population category, more dependent on programs than she has ever been before. So, disproportionately, when we talk about our low-income seniors and their needs, there is a disproportionate amount of those individuals who are women. Medicare seniors are disproportionately women and they are disproportionately poor, and will be far better served by the Senate's low-income provisions on which we worked so hard to come to a bipartisan agreement. I am concerned that private drug-only plans may not provide the stability or the predictability that seniors want and need. The insurance companies have told me they don't want to offer a prescription-drug-only plan. The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has said such a plan doesn't exist in nature. Quite frankly, I believe we have proven that through the Medicare- Medicaid veterans programs the Government can do it in a much more cost-effective manner. But the point is, we are trying to create something that has not existed in nature, and really, quite frankly, those who are going to be there to create it don't want to do it. I urge the conferees to take a good look at what we are providing there. That is why I am glad the Senate contains a Medicare-guaranteed drug plan, or safety net, called a fallback. I urge the conferees again to retain the fallback and ensure that a contract is made available for at least 3 years. But the concern to come, if you are a senior out there in rural America and you choose to stay with Medicare fee for service, you have to go to one of these drug-only plans. There has to be two in your region, but one of those two could be a PPO, which means you have to shift your traditional fee for service into an overall PPO in order to qualify for that drug plan or you can go with one of those two plans. If one of them should leave, you have the option of going to the Government fallback. If one of those plans or another plan comes back next year, you immediately have to go out of the Government plan and go back into one or the other of the private plans. Seniors are going to find from year to year those changes in their premiums, their deductibility, their formularies. They are going to find the list of physicians changing. It is really critical. I urge our conferees to ensure the fallback is available for seniors as an option, even if the private insurers decide to test whether they want to offer a benefit in a community. Seniors should not have to have fallback plans, especially if the new private plan is significantly more expensive for them and it is more restrictive. My third question is with regard to consistency and reliability in the Medicare Program. Based on what we know about the details of this agreement--we still have a lot of time ahead of us to be able to read and digest what has actually been negotiated out and put down on paper--it appears that the drug plans will vary throughout the country, meaning that seniors in Arkansas may have different premiums, cost sharing, and formularies than seniors in other States and in other parts of the country. Even worse, these plans can change their premiums, cost sharing, and formularies for other years. My question is, How does it strengthen Medicare to make the program less consistent and less reliable for our seniors? If what we are trying to do is strengthen Medicare with a drug benefit and in the reforms we are trying to make, how does it strengthen that program if we make it more confusing for our seniors, if we make it less consistent and we make their choices less reliable? I urge the conferees to make the prescription drug benefit less volatile for seniors. If there is anything I know about the seniors in my life, it is the confusion they see right now or which they may have to address in a package such as this. It is devastating to them. It gives them a sense of distrust. That is the last thing we want for our loved ones and those for whom we are working so hard to provide quality of life. This includes limiting variations in the amount seniors have to pay in premiums to only $10 above the national average, no matter where they live. I, for one, think we should give seniors, most of whom live on fixed incomes, some assurance that their premiums will not vary or increase unreasonably. I urge the conferees to ensure that those seniors who have employer- sponsored retiree coverage be able to retain it. It is pure and simple. We urge the conferees to ensure that the conference report preserve a level playing field between traditional Medicare and private insurance plans. I am concerned--and have been--that the proposed agreement unfairly tips the deck against Medicare through the $12 billion stabilization fund that the Secretary of Health and Human Services can use to encourage private plans to participate in areas where they don't want to go. If they wanted to go, they would be there now. But we are going to use $12 billion to try to stabilize these plans to go into areas where they haven't wanted to go and where they aren't currently practicing. The Senate bill, which we worked on in a bipartisan way, by contrast, provided billions of dollars for private plans to be able to help them in terms of incentives to come into these more difficult areas. We also have $6 billion in there for Medicare enhancement and improvements in the traditional Medicare Program that all beneficiaries can use--not just those who happen to live in an area where private plans decide to go. The conference agreement would allow private plans to be paid at a much higher rate than traditional Medicare with no enhancement added for beneficiaries. I urge the conferees to consider this policy carefully. We want to make sure the traditional fee for service and the traditional Medicare that is there has the enhancement and the ability to improve itself so it can reach all of the seniors in this country, even those in the rural areas of my State and the State of the Presiding Officer and others who have multitudes of rural areas where seniors need health care. I wish the drug bill did not have a coverage gap or a donut. I am concerned about those seniors who will hit that gap in coverage and have to continue to pay their premiums. During debate on S. 1, I and many other Senators voted to allow employer-sponsored retiree health plan contributions to fill this gap. I also voted to eliminate the coverage gap altogether, and I voted to prevent seniors from paying premiums when they are in the coverage gap. Unfortunately, all of these amendments were defeated, but it doesn't mean we can't still address some of these concerns. It doesn't mean our conferees can't work together and come up with some provision that can help to assist us in making sure some of these gaps, some of these holes that have been left are closed for the benefit of the seniors of this country. I also voted for an amendment to try to contain the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. Every one of us in this Chamber knows that in the next 20 years or less we are going to almost double the number of seniors putting demands on the Medicare Program. We are going to go from 41 million seniors to over 70 million seniors in this country. It doesn't matter what kind of program we put together if we don't look at trying to have some kind of handle on the escalation in costs for whatever program we have. If we almost double our number of seniors who are putting pressure on this program, we are not going to be able to afford it. It is critical that we look at ways we can make more efficient the use of the dollars that we have. One measure I supported which passed seeks to increase access to more affordable and equally effective generic drugs--something on which I think most of us could agree. I also voted for an amendment which failed to help consumers better compare the cost effectiveness of prescription drugs. Finally, I also voted for a successful amendment to allow wholesalers and pharmacists to import prescription drugs from Canada which will provide substantial savings to consumers while ensuring their safety. These are just some of those components where we in the Senate made corrections and improvements to the bill, some of which were accepted, some of which were not, but most of which I hope, as a conference, they will look at, because the bill we are trying to produce out of this conference should be a bill that will enhance a program that has done so much for all seniors and all Americans. I urge our conferees to try to retain some of those positions that we took in the Senate; the provisions that we passed. I look forward to hopefully seeing us complete some of those things that I think will make the bill a better bill. I know reaching this point has been a long and difficult process. I compliment my Senate colleagues for fighting to include several good provisions that are contained in this bill. This agreement contains a comprehensive rural package that significantly decreases or eliminates the disparity of Medicare payments between rural health care providers. I was very involved in working with the chairman, Members, and others to move some of those provisions forward and certainly making sure that health care was available to seniors and to all people in rural areas. I can't tell how necessary these provisions are to rural hospitals and physicians and ambulance providers, home health providers and rural health clinics in Arkansas and elsewhere across the country. It is my hope that the conference agreement will also contain the Senate policy for Medicaid low-DSG States. I am glad the physicians won't receive a cut in payment but a small update as in this conference report. I encourage my colleagues to include a physician's demonstration on chronic care management that I helped to author in the Senate Finance Committee. If there is anything we know, it is that our seniors are having multiple chronic illnesses which they are having to deal with. If we don't look at how we manage the chronic care multiple diseases they are dealing with, we will never get the economic efficiency out of Medicare that we could. Many of my constituents have said when they finally have gotten a coordination for their elderly loved one, it is unbelievable. They were seeing five different doctors in five different places who were not talking to one another. They did not have a nutritionist or someone consulting on depression. When they got that coordination of care, they better understood all of the chronic illnesses their loved one was going through, not to mention getting more efficiency out of the dollars they were spending in Medicare. That individual, that loved one, that elderly person was getting the quality of care they deserve in a more cost-effective way. They were able to manage all of those things in a way that was making the quality of care the best it could be. One of the demonstrations should take place in a State that has a department of geriatrics with a rural outreach site. Rural areas are one of the most difficult areas to serve our elderly. Unless we have the knowledge of how we can coordinate the care for individuals in rural America, we will never see the efficiency we need. It is critical we have this demonstration so we can determine the healthy outcomes that result when a geriatrician is paid appropriately for caring for a patient with multiple chronic conditions. I am also pleased the drug bill will include coverage for insulin syringes and that there is a new benefit providing screening for diabetes. Roughly 40 percent of the senior population with diabetes, or 1.8 million seniors, uses syringes every day to inject insulin to control their diabetes. Without coverage, the syringe purchases, which could be especially expensive for seniors on fixed incomes, would not count toward cost-sharing and yearly out-of-pocket expenses. The new diabetes screening benefit will help with the fact that approximately one-third of the 7 million seniors with diabetes, or 2.3 million people, are undiagnosed. They simply do not know they have this very serious condition with complications that include heart disease, stroke, vision loss and blindness, amputation, and kidney disease. I understand there is also a provision to temporarily waive the late- enrollment penalty for military retirees and their spouses who sign up for Medicare Part B and to permit year-round enrollments so retirees can access the new benefits immediately. It is important in seeking to strengthen Medicare we reflect on the program's origins and mission. Medicare provides health care for a special population of Americans: millions of seniors, individuals with disabilities, and people with kidney failure, those who are uninsurable in the private marketplace. Over 50 percent of them were uninsurable in the private marketplace when Medicare was started. Congress created Medicare in the first place because private insurance plans were failing to provide affordable health-care coverage for this high-risk population. Therefore, we should proceed cautiously when making major changes to the traditional Medicare Program. In my home State of Arkansas, over 400,000 people rely on Medicare for their health insurance. Without it, they likely would be among the ranks of the uninsured. This is why I want to ensure if this bill passes it is built upon policies that will make Medicare stronger and more reliable for all of its beneficiaries, that we know as we move forward there is no possible way we could do everything we needed to do in this bill. This is not the bill I would have written, but I was not in charge. I also do not want to see a missed opportunity for being able to move the ball down the field, to do something for which seniors in this country have been waiting patiently. Some of my colleagues will argue, don't worry, it does not take effect until 2006. Some of these things do not happen until 2010. There will be so many elections between now and then; you do not have to worry. We will change it and fix it and it will have a new appearance by the time we get there. I hope if that is what we are hanging our hat on, we can be sincere as these conferees come out with a plan that will leave intact the purpose of Medicare originally: to provide for those who were the uninsurable, the elderly, the loved ones for every one of us in this body, to make sure when the marketplace would not provide for them, there would be an honest standard benefit so they could get the quality of care, regardless of where they live in this country, that they are due for the great things they have done for our country. I look forward to reading the legislative language in the coming days to determine my ultimate support for this bill. I hope our conferees are not finished. I hope they continue to look at the ways this bill can be improved. Our work is never done in this Senate, whether we pass a bill into law and look toward 2006 or 2010 or whenever may be that we think some of the unreasonable things in here we can shut our eyes to and move forward with, but that we can make the changes now and we can create a bill that is the best we can do, knowing it is not perfect but that it will move us forward to provide a critical prescription drugs component in the 21st century to a program we started many years ago that has meant so much to so many. Ultimately, I must weigh whether the benefit contained in this bill to provide prescription drugs is better than no benefit at all. I hope that is not the case. I hope the case will be we have done everything we possibly could, looking at the bipartisan package the Senate passed, and how hard we worked to get there to make this final product the best it can be for some of the most special people in this country. I yield the floor.

Mrs. LINCOLN

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

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am proud to be here this morning to see that this age-old institution is acting as it should. We are looking at, reviewing, and exercising our constitutional responsibilities. I am not, however, proud of the fingerpointing that is going on--as we say to young children, I hope no one's eyes get put out--and all the fingerpointing that goes on in these 30 hours of discussion and debate, the warnings we have just heard: There's a payback; there's a payback. I do rise this morning, however, to express my extreme disappointment and dismay that we are expending such a large portion of our remaining time and energy on this unnecessary debate. We probably have only a few days left in this session to deal with important issues on which we have not yet completed action this year. How many seniors have my colleagues talked with in their travels back home to their States about the need for prescription drug coverage for our elderly? How many of them have they talked with as they traveled with Meals on Wheels and other programs and talked with these seniors who are telling you that they are cutting their medications in half, that they are not going to be able to afford their heating bill this winter and their prescription drugs? I implore my colleagues, how many have you talked with in your travels back home? Looking at education funding, how many teachers have my colleagues spoken with as they traveled back home--teachers who are telling them they are going to have to spend their own money on supplies come February because they don't have enough glue and construction paper for their children or that they are having to spend an undue amount of time meeting demands that we have put on these school districts and yet have been unwilling to provide the resources for them to meet those demands? How many of those single mothers who are working day and night to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, to leave the welfare rolls and bring dignity to their children and to put bread on the table--how many of those have my colleagues spoken with as they have traveled home to their States when we could be doing the welfare reauthorization bill and making it bigger and better than we did before? The highway bill: How many people have they talked with when they go home to their States? I had a group come to me the other day who said: We come to you all in Congress begging every year for a few million dollars to try to create the infrastructure that we need in rural States, such as Arkansas, to improve our economy, and all of a sudden $87 billion falls out of the sky? What about us at home? Are you all going to talk about us? Are you going to bring us up? Are you going to do something about the things we need to make our lives stronger, to make our families better, to strengthen the fabric of this Nation? Those are the issues about which we should be talking, Mr. President, and I wish we were. We have not yet completed action on all the appropriations bills. We have an Energy bill that should have been finished in 2002 to bring our country into the 21st century. For the last 25 years, we have needed a new energy policy in this country. Other countries are leaving us behind in the new and innovative ways they are looking to provide renewable fuels to improve not only their economy and their environment but to lessen their dependence on foreign oil. These are the issues about which we should be talking, and genuine concern about what we want to do to strengthen our Nation. We are still waiting. We are still waiting for these to be completed, time tonight that could be spent in dealing with those very important issues. Faced with these and many other pressing issues and faced with a tight schedule, what does the leadership propose? They propose to spend 30 hours of our time, and far more time in preparation and staff hours, overtime for police officers and multitudes of others who are here for these 30 hours, debating four or five judicial nominees, all of whom have been debated, generated significant opposition where they live and work. All have been given adequate review time, and all of whom, in my judgment, should not be promoted to a lifetime appointment on the Federal bench. Instead of focusing so much time and attention trying to promote a lifetime position for these individuals who already have very good jobs, my wish would be that President Bush and the Republican leadership would focus more of our time on issues that truly impact the lives of all of our constituents, and particularly the lives of the Arkansans I represent--issues such as creating good paying jobs in Arkansas, improving public education and expanding access to affordable health care and prescription drugs for our seniors, and, yes, providing something we all have agreed would make a big difference in people's lives: a refundable child tax credit, something that got overwhelming support in the Senate but is buried in a couple of conferences and here, there, and yonder because it is not a priority. Those people in this country who make between $10,500 and $26,650 are not important enough for us to deal with. Somehow they don't work hard enough, although they have to work, they have to bring home a paycheck, and they have to be raising children to be eligible for a refundable child tax credit. But for some reason, they are not a priority here anymore. We could have done that months ago, but we didn't. Here we approach the holidays, people have been in school, a multitude of needs that families across this country have, and we fail once more to even look at the small ways we can be helpful. There are any number of issues that merit careful and lengthy consideration in the Senate, but filling a handful of judgeships should not be given a priority given the backlog of pressing issues the Senate has yet to complete this year. Unfortunately, this is a manufactured crisis to distract the American people from the very real crises that we are going through; the ones that we are facing, such as the fact that in the next 15 to 20 years, we are going to go from 41 million Americans over the age of 65 to over 70 million Americans over the age of 65. We as a nation are so completely underprepared for that crisis. We have 126 medical schools in this country. Only three of them have a department in geriatrics. We are training less geriatricians, and we are training even less academic geriatricians who will teach those geriatricians who might be there to take care of me, and I am the youngest in this body. We are so underprepared with health care, a reform in Medicare, and a prescription drug package to meet these unbelievable numbers that will cause a crisis in this country. We are here tonight, tomorrow, until midnight tomorrow talking about four people who did not get a job they wanted. It is unbelievable. What about our children? What about educating our children to be prepared in the 21st century, to be competitive in a global economy, teaching our children the skills they are going to need to be competitive? They are the future of this country. They are our future workers. They are our future leaders. We came up with a great bipartisan bill to educate our kids, and we do not have the guts to pay for it. Out of the $8 billion for the education plan for our kids, we are only funding $2 billion of it from the President's budget, a quarter. I have to say, that is a misspent priority there. We have record deficits that are going to be heaped on the shoulders of our children. Sixty-six percent of that debt comes due in 4 years. What happens to our constituents if all of a sudden somebody comes up and says, ``Guess what, your debt is due and I want it on demand. No, you cannot refinance, no way. I am going to call that debt on you''? These are serious crises we should be addressing and we are spending our time pointing fingers and not addressing the issues of the American people. We have a conflict in Iraq that is taking the lives of American soldiers every day, and there is no end in sight. These are crises, not the fact that four people who wanted a job did not have the support of enough Senators and that is what we are spending all this time on. Today, 95 percent of Federal judicial seats are filled. This is the lowest number of judicial vacancies in 13 years. This 5 percent vacancy rate is lower than the U.S. unemployment rate and the poverty rate, and I know because I represent a State that is very high in poverty. I come from one of the 20 highest poverty counties in the country. Today there are more lifetime-appointed Federal judges serving than at any time in our Nation's history. Furthermore, since President Bush was elected, the Senate has confirmed 168 Federal judges and rejected only 4--2 percent of his nominees. By comparison, when Republicans controlled the Senate during President Clinton's administration, more than 60, or 20 percent, of his nominees never received a vote in the Senate. Sadly, I think the Senate's record on this matter truly speaks for itself. I believe all executive and judicial nominations that come before the Senate are entitled to courtesy and respect, but I also believe the Senate's role of advice and consent is a very important check and balance our forefathers designed and instituted. It is an obligation I do not take lightly. Senators are not elected to play a ceremonial role in the nomination process. This is not an issue of whether one likes the President or does not like the President. This is not an issue of whether one thinks these nominees are good people. They are all good people. Ours is not a ceremonial role in this nomination process. Instead, we have an obligation to carefully consider each nominee individually, to help ensure the judiciary is fair and balanced and to ensure the American public maintains faith in our judicial branch of Government. We have a responsibility to make sure these judicial nominees will not be partisan in their decisionmaking, that they will not be biased or partial to their own personal beliefs, but will institute the rule of law, the Constitution, and the precedent of the higher courts. Given the undue attention that has been lavished on these four nominees, I certainly believe it is worth revisiting a bit of their cases just to reconsider why they have not been confirmed. In each case, it is clear each of the nominees who has not been confirmed has shortcomings that in my opinion disqualify these individuals for the important positions to which they have been nominated. This does not mean I do not think they are good people. It does not mean I do not like the President. It simply means I am doing the job the people of Arkansas sent me here to do, to evaluate these people. When we look at Ms. Owen, after reviewing the record and meeting with Judge Owen, discussing her tenure with members of the bar who practice in Texas and in Arkansas, I was not satisfied this nominee could set aside her personal views and give each side a fair hearing. She had not in the past. In some instances, it is not just me. Judge Owen's own colleagues have criticized her failing to understand and abide by the plain meaning of statutory provisions before her as a judge on the Texas Supreme Court. Likewise, we look at the case of Alabama's Attorney General William Pryor. He is one of the most strident and outspoken nominees we have seen. After reviewing some of the statements General Pryor has made about sitting Supreme Court Justices and the decisions of that Court, I am concerned that he does not possess the necessary judgment and temperament to be a Federal judge, to oversee that element of the judiciary. Judge Pickering of Mississippi, who I do think is a good man, has also been invoked in this debate and his record does bring me concern. His record raises serious questions about his ethical conduct on the bench. His repeated contacts with the Justice Department in an attempt to obtain a lesser prison sentence for a convicted defendant, and his solicitations of letters of recommendation from lawyers in Mississippi who had cases before him are well-known examples. Finally, consider the case of Miguel Estrada, who withdrew himself from consideration earlier this year. By many accounts, Mr. Estrada was a distinguished attorney with a very talented legal mind. However, when we in the Senate attempted to verify this assessment by asking Mr. Estrada to come before the Judiciary Committee to answer additional questions and submit all of the relevant information that was necessary, and the burden of proof was in his court--we asked the same of President Clinton's nominees--Mr. Estrada indicated he would rather not. To me, and many of my colleagues, Mr. Estrada's response simply was not acceptable. It is important to note there are good, solid reasons as to why these people were not confirmed. These reasons had nothing to do with any personal beliefs or characteristics. They had nothing to do with partisanship. They had nothing to do with working against the President. I opposed these nominees because I am not convinced they meet the requirements of what is expected of those who receive a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench. That is my job. Again, these are 4 nominees. Out of 172, 4 have not been confirmed. Do 4 nominees constitute any sort of judicial crisis? Of course not. Of course they do not. If we do math, the Senate has confirmed 98 percent of President Bush's nominees. I do not know about you, but you are right in that we do not want our automobile to work at 98 percent, but let me tell you 98 percent is pretty good. It is not 100 percent, but that makes me think about my kids. If they come home from school after they make 98 on their test, am I going to send them to their room? Am I going to punish them for that? Am I going to say, well, I cannot believe you did not do 100? No. What I am going to do for my children is what we should be doing. I am going to sit down with them and I am going to help them reach 100 percent. I am going to work with them. That last 2 percent may be the most difficult, but the most difficult is worth working towards. When we work together, we can get there. In working together, we could reach that. But the administration does not want to do that. No, telling them they had not done good enough is not what I would do. I would work hard with them to get to where we needed to be. It is my sincere belief if President Bush would make a good-faith effort to work with Democrats in a spirit of cooperation, all of his nominees would be confirmed, with little or no controversy or opposition. Unfortunately, it has become apparent the President is more interested in staging a fight and casting blame, which is really a recipe for gridlock. In gridlock, the only ones who get hurt are the American people. It is disappointing the President and the Senate leadership are expending so much time and energy to secure jobs for four people who already have good jobs, particularly considering the millions of people who are out of work and finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. The people who lose out in this fictional crisis are the American people. Tying up the Senate for 30 hours on 4 judicial nominees means we are not talking about the issues that matter most to the people we represent. It means we are not talking about how we are going to finish that prescription drug bill in order to help seniors cope with the rapidly rising cost of those prescription drugs. It means we are not spending our time focused on improving our schools and educating our children, so they can get the best possible start towards competing in that global marketplace. It means we are not doing all we can to create jobs and move our economy forward. It means we are not building that infrastructure that is so necessary in rural America and elsewhere across this country. Just this week, I learned Arkansas has experienced its highest rate of unemployment in a decade. While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle point to the improving economic indicators as evidence that the doldrums are behind us, I can assure them that for most people in Arkansas those numbers are just abstractions. They want to see jobs, and they want to see real action in the Senate to get things done on behalf of the voters who sent us here. Unfortunately, I think we have taken this time and used it most unproductively. Many Members have come to the floor tonight to talk about the past. I have heard some very eloquent speeches about their times as pages and debates they have heard, many quoting history from centuries ago. I think the most important thing we can talk about tonight is the future. I think we must talk about the future. I think we must talk about all of these crisis issues we are faced with, and I think we must come back to our children and let that be our focal point. All of us in this body are so blessed. I started out speaking about how blessed I feel to even be in this body, to be in this place tonight, to be a part of an institution that is so incredible that it has lasted over 200 years. We are all blessed in many things, and for whatever faults some people may find in our Government, I believe, and I think the American people believe, we still live in the greatest country on the face of this Earth. Tonight I looked at one of my greatest blessings, my children. I put them in bed before I came over. I tucked them in. I thought about what we were going to talk about tonight. I thought about this great country we live in. I thought about the conflict in Iraq. There were mothers who were putting their children to bed tonight whose husbands may be stationed abroad. There were children who were being put in bed tonight tucked in by their grandparents because their mothers had been called up and were in a strange and dangerous land. I thought about the fact my children are so blessed to live in this country under a rule of law that separates us from the rest, a rule of law that, when it is administered without bias, without the interjection of political issues or personal views, can create security and safety. It creates freedom. It creates a life I want my children to have. I look in the eyes of mothers across the globe who do not put their children to bed in a nice, warm home, who have not been fed. They live in violence and terrorism. They live in a land that is stricken with famine because there is no rule of law, or what law exists is implemented through a political regime. That is what separates us from them, that we have a system designed specifically to separate the political from the rule of law. I am proud to be here. I do not have the background many of my colleagues do, having been Governors and attorneys general, having served in this body for a long period of time, but I challenge any of them to match my pride, my pride of this country and in what that rule of law represents to me, not only as an American but as a mother and as a Senator. I have no qualms in doing my job the people of Arkansas sent me here to do, to make sure these individuals we send to the Federal bench to implement the rule of law in this Nation, the Constitution, and the precedent of the higher courts do not interject their political views, their bias, or their personal views because we know that through these years a nonbiased judicial branch of government has served us well. It is what has separated us from those countries that right now we work so hard to change. I yield time to my colleague who I am extremely proud to serve with, the other Senator from Arkansas.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern about the status of minority farmers in the United States and to indicate my hope to the chairman and the ranking member that the final Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 will include meaningful increases in programs that are priorities to the minority farm community. It is no secret that minority farmers in the United States are an endangered species. In the early 1920s, African Americans owned between 16 million and 19 million acres of land, most of it in the rural South, which includes my home State of Arkansas. At that time, there were over 920,000 farms operated by African Americans in the United States. However, by the end of the 20th century, African Americans owned only a quarter of the land that they had held a century prior, and the number of African American farmers in the United States had fallen from a peak of almost 1 million to only about 20,000. Scholars estimate that, between 1920 and 1940, African Americans were losing land at a rate of 350,000 acres annually. Sadly, USDA has done little to address this issue. In fact, many people believe, and I am inclined to agree with them that, if anything, USDA has contributed to the problem. Black farmers have long alleged discrimination at the hands of the Department of Agriculture. Because of this discrimination, thousands of farmers were denied access to USDA loans and other programs and many lost their farms because of the competitive disadvantage at which this placed them. In the 1990s, these farmers filed a class action suit against USDA seeking redress for this discrimination. As a result of this suit, USDA and the claimants entered into a consent decree. Under that agreement, hundreds of millions of dollars have been paid to African American farmers who were discriminated against by the Department of Agriculture. While this case was a start, it can never fully compensate black farmers for their losses. In addition, it did little to address the needs of minority farmers--African Americans, Hispanics, and others, who continue to seek to farm today. We can't just look back. We must look forward to keep minorities in farming and to encourage others to begin farming. We can start with the appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. Comparing the bill before us today with the bill passed by the House of Representatives, I must say that the House-passed bill is better for minority farmers. Recognizing that money is tight and that the chair and ranking member have worked arduously to craft a bipartisan bill, I have decided not to offer an amendment to this bill to increase funding for programs that affect minority farmers, such as the Office of Civil Rights and the 2501 Outreach Program for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers. However, it is my sincere hope that as this bill goes to conference committee, the chair and the ranking member will work with their counterparts in the House of Representatives to craft a final bill that closely resembles the House bill with regards to minority farmers and civil rights at the Department of Agriculture.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Yes, that is certainly true. We are proud of the ARS presence that we do have and the impact of its research on the Nation as a whole. The research that has been generated from Arkansas locations has been of great importance to the rice, poultry, small fruits, and aquaculture industries of the U.S. Additionally, the breakthroughs in human nutrition research that have come from the ARS human nutrition center in Arkansas have been remarkable. In light of the great importance of the research work being carried out at the ARS or ARS-supported research centers in Arkansas, I urge your continued support and ask that every effort be made, including in conference, to insure that the ARS units in Arkansas enter the 2004 fiscal year with no less than the same fiscal resources that they had in 2003. Additionally, I ask the chairman's assistance in working with Members of the House who will be on the conference committee to adopt the most favorable funding recommendations that are brought into conference by either House.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Yes. In fact, few States in the Nation, and none in the South, are blessed with a higher percentage of their economic activity dependent upon agriculture than is Arkansas. I am also aware that traditionally, however, the ARS presence in Arkansas has been surprisingly small, especially in relation to the importance of agriculture to the economy and size of your contribution to the net farm income of the United States.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I wish to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture to highlight a USDA agency that does extremely good work in my home State of Arkansas. First, I want to commend the chairman's efforts to provide resources to our Nation's most important agricultural and rural development priorities. It has been a difficult task and I appreciate your dedication. In particular, I want to thank the chairman for his efforts to continue the necessary support for agricultural research, both within the USDA and with the State university partners. The USDA Agricultural Research Service is a critical agency in this effort. With the leadership of the chairman, I am pleased to note that ARS research will continue to have the strong support of Congress.

Mrs. LINCOLN. The USDA ARS has a small, but vital presence in Arkansas. For example, is the chairman aware that my home State ranks seventh in the Nation in total net farm income?

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague, Senator Murray, from the great State of Washington and the great job she does on behalf of her State. I appreciate all the hard work she has put into looking toward this amendment and others. I hope in my opposition to this amendment I can at least provide some comfort that we have looked at trying to make sure the old growth in this Nation is protected. I rise today to oppose this amendment that would apply old-growth restrictions to insect and disease treatments, as well as to clean up after severe weather events. Part of why I do that is, simply, our forests are very different across this land. We want to make sure everyone is participatory in what we are doing in protecting and keeping healthy our forest lands. Insects do not care about the size of the tree. In fact, as many scientists have stated for years, they prefer older trees that are in poor health. Old growth, as I said, is very relative. In these older stands where trees are stressed for water and nutrients, insects will go after both large and small trees. The idea is to allow forest managers to go there and remove the problem trees, reducing the density of the stressed stands to immediately address the insect or disease problem which in our forests in the South are our most common and immediate problem. Insect and disease treatments are vastly different from preparing for a potential fire somewhere down the road. I join my colleague from Washington in sending our prayers and thoughts to all of those who are valiantly fighting the wildfires in California and the families and the communities that are affected by those. Fighting against an insect or disease outbreak is not like preparing for a fire. It is exactly like fighting a slow-moving wildfire. You would not ask firefighters to only fight a fire in certain sections of the forest, would you, and require them to skip around certain stands in the forest? It would seem ludicrous to do that. You could not effectively fight a fire that way. That simple logic is why Chairmen Cochran and Domenici, and Senators Crapo, Craig, Feinstein, Wyden, McCain, Kyl, and myself, have worked hard to craft some compromise language. We ensure that when our forest managers treat and prevent the spread of insect and disease outbreaks or attempt to clean up after a severe weather event, they do not have their hands tied to only treating a certain portion of the forest. Managers must be able to treat all of the forest or we are all just going to watch the forests die--both inside old-growth stands and throughout all of the forests of this Nation. Forests in my State of Arkansas and throughout the country are being affected by unprecedented and catastrophic outbreaks of insect and disease. Whether it is the southern pine beetle in the Southeast, the sudden oak death in California, or the red oak borer in Arkansas, this Nation's public and private forests are under attack. In Idaho, the Douglas-fir bark beetle is another predator of our forests. This beetle seldom attacks trees that are less than 12 inches in diameter. These bugs like large trees, optimally 24 inches in diameter and larger. In this case, to prevent or mitigate an infestation, in many circumstances it is absolutely necessary to remove some of the larger trees in order to treat the insect outbreak. The larger trees have been devastated. The southern United States and the Rocky Mountain West are currently experiencing outbreaks of bark beetles, including the southern pine beetle and the spruce beetle at levels unprecedented in historical times. As Senator Murkowski demonstrated earlier, over 90 percent of the spruce trees have been killed in Alaska's Kenai Peninsula. In the Southwest, the pinion pines have suffered severe mortality. The Lake Arrowhead region is a horrifying example of where forest managers were unable to address the overdense stand conditions in a timely manner. Right now, on the San Bernardino National Forest, over 230,000 acres, half of the forest land, have more than 40-percent tree mortality because of an outbreak of western pine beetle. This is a case in point where forest managers were unable to actively treat the area and it resulted in a massive insect infestation and right now is at a very high risk of catastrophic wildfires, as well. In my home State of Arkansas, the red oak borer is attacking older, living oak trees at unprecedented magnitudes. Again, older growth is relative to the forest that you are talking about. This outbreak is rampant throughout the oak forests of Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma affecting roughly one-third of the interior highlands. The red oak borer complex is the greatest threat to the oak component in the interior highlands in recent history. This is from a native insect never before considered anything other than a minor pest or concern to the forests. These are insects that have been there forever. This is not something new that has just been introduced to our forests. It is essential that we allow the Forest Service the flexibility it needs to attack this overwhelming problem wherever it happens throughout our forests. This legislation is about forest health. We have done everything in working to bring about compromises in good conscience that are going to protect the health of our forests. It is about restoring forests to more resilient ecosystems, making these systems less susceptible to disturbances such as wildfire, insects, disease, and invasive species. In my mind, reducing the flexibility to address these forest health issues will eventually destroy the very trees we have been trying so hard to protect. If we do not enable our forest managers to proactively address insect and disease outbreaks wherever they happen and before they become extensive, you can be sure insects such as the Douglas-fir bark beetle will be certain that there are no old-growth forests to protect. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to remember one of the most critical parts when we are talking about old growth; that is, this is the first statutory protection for old growth that we have ever seen. There are protections throughout this bill for old growth, many focusing on smaller trees, but without a doubt, making sure the protections for old growth are there and recognizing this is the first time we have had statutory protection for old growth. I encourage my colleagues to take a good look at this and to defeat this amendment and rest assured that we have done everything we can in this compromise to make sure we will protect that old growth, particularly with the statutory language we have but ensure the flexibility that we can also protect and save our forests. I yield the floor.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, although I am extremely concerned about global warming, I voted in opposition to Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman's Climate Stewardship Act. My chief concern was that this bill would raise gas and electric prices at a time when Arkansas' economy is struggling to recover and many residents from my state are finding it difficult to make ends meet. I firmly believe that we have a responsibility to seek a solution to global warming. But at this time, when our economy is struggling and our federal deficit is at record levels, I can not support a measure which in all likelihood will result in higher energy prices for consumers in Arkansas and a loss of jobs in my state. If the United States stands alone on this issue, I fear other countries will be able to take businesses away from our country with the lure of weaker environmental regulations. A comprehensive global solution must be developed that includes all nations. I do believe we must continue to work toward initiatives to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and encourage cleaner sources of energy, such as the numerous biodiesel measures I have fought to include in the Energy bill. I would like to take this opportunity to voice my opposition to the Bush administration's view on this subject. The indifferent and callous approach taken to global climate change sent a message to the world that this issue is not a priority. President Bush has stated that compelling evidence of global warming does not exist. I disagree. It is time for the administration to change its policy. It is only through cooperation with the global community that we can see these warming trends reversed. I applaud the efforts of Senators McCain and Lieberman in bringing this bill before the Senate when few committee chairmen showed interest in it. While I was not able to support them today for the reasons I have stated, I am eager to work with them in the future to find a solution to this important issue.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I am very proud to be in the Chamber discussing the Healthy Forests Restoration Act with an eye toward its quick passage through the Senate. I first want to applaud both Chairman Cochran for shepherding this bill through the Agriculture Committee and to the floor. I'd also like to thank Senator Crapo, who chairs the Forestry Subcommittee, for his leadership in moving this legislation through the Committee expeditiously. Chairman Domenici and Chairman Cochran, and Senators Crapo, Wyden, Feinstein, Craig, Kyl, McCain, and I have brokered a workable compromise to Title I of this bill which we believe will prove amenable to the Senate and move on to a conference with the House. Want to especially thank our staffs, who have put in many hours of hard work over two months to bring us to this point. this bipartisan compromise legislation builds upon the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, which passed the House of Representatives earlier this year. Our legislation will ensure that we can address the many problems affecting all of our Nation's forests--both on public and private forestlands, in southern and western forests, and throughout both hardwood and pine ecosystems. This legislation is intended to correct the direction of forest legislation in this country. I am also proud that the bill contains many provisions that I have championed and that are beneficial to my home State of Arkansas. I began my work on this legislation with the intent to accomplish a few, very specific goals related to the health of Arkansas' forests. First and foremost, we must provide the Forest Service with the tools necessary to immediately address the epidemic of oak decline and mortality in the Ozark highlands of Arkansas and Missouri. I am proud the bill incorporates language I have championed to provide the Forest Service with the tools necessary to immediately address the epidemic of oak decline and mortality in the Ozark highlands of Arkansas and Missouri. Just as our Western forests are under constant threat from fire, our Eastern forests are under constant threat from insects and disease. We cannot let any more time pass without ensuring the Forest Service can quickly mitigate the effects of insect and disease damage throughout our forests before it reaches disaster proportions. Oak decline is a natural occurrence in older forests or in areas where trees are stressed by conditions such as old age, over population of the forest, poor soil conditions, and the effects of several years of severe drought. And under normal conditions, oak decline is not necessarily fatal to the tree. However, these conditions have allowed insects such as the red oak borer to flourish throughout the forest and have led to an epidemic of oak mortality throughout our forests. In fact, many estimates now suggest that potentially up to one million acres of red oaks have been affected in the Ozark highlands--a devastation we never anticipated. It is important to note that this epidemic has not been long in coming--it was only first discovered in the late 1990s, and quickly was out of control. I am concerned that this epidemic will lead to a complete loss of red oak from the Ozark highlands and cause long-term changes to the health of the forest ecosystem. It is also important to remember that the epidemic has not been limited to public lands. Private forest landowners and homeowners throughout the Ozarks face the same problem. The past several years of extremely dry summer conditions have weakened trees throughout the region. Secondly, as we have seen, Arkansas was caught almost flatfooted as the epidemic of oak mortality swept through the Ozarks and severely endangered the health of our forests. One of my priorities was to establish a new Upland Hardwood Research Center to ensure there is adequate research performed on the issues affecting Arkansas' and this Nation's hardwood forests. I am pleased that the bill includes language I authored to establish an Upland Hardwood Research Center within the U.S. Forest Service. This new center will study the myriad of insects, disease, and problems affecting our ability to rehabilitate, restore, and utilize our upland hardwood forests. Establishing this new research center will help ensure that this does not happen again. The establishment of this new research center is necessary to ensure we can quickly identify and respond to the multitude of pests, disease, and other damaging agents that can dramatically affect our beloved forests, especially when they are smaller ones as we have in Arkansas. It is also important to find ways to streamline and improve the environmental, administrative, and judicial review process for hazardous fuel reduction projects under this legislation. I join many of my colleagues in believing that the review process for hazardous fuel reduction projects, while necessary and beneficial, often consumes more time, effort, and resources than the initial intent of the project. As we have seen with the epidemic of oak mortality in Arkansas, the Forest Service must have the ability to quickly respond to insect infestation in order to protect, preserve, and rehabilitate the entire forest. Streamlining of the environmental, administrative, and judicial review process for hazardous fuel reduction projects will ensure that we can quickly address what ails our forests. This legislation also provides increased funding and direction for forest land research in this country. It will ensure our Nation's colleges and universities are able to devote more research into the insects and diseases affecting our forests. We also require that any forest land research is conducted at a scale appropriate to the forest damage and that it be conducted within the requirements of each individual forest management plan. Our legislation also includes requirements to ensure this research has clearly stated forest restoration objectives and is peer reviewed by scientific experts in forest land health. I am also pleased the bill incorporates additional language from S. 1449 to provide funding for emergency grants to immediately remove the invasive plants that have become so pervasive throughout this Nation's forests. As many know, when we talk about invasive plant species in the South, you bet we are talking about kudzu. Kudzu was brought into this country several decades ago to be used as cover for bare hillsides and has since spread to cover everything, including shrubs, bushes, entire trees, and oftentimes large sections of our forest. The grant program will provide the means for landowners to immediately remove kudzu and the myriad other invasive plants that are choking out forests. Finally, this legislation includes widely agreed upon language that would provide for grants to remove noncommercial biomass from our public and private forests, provide for protection of our private forested watersheds, and provide for grants to establish private healthy forest reserves throughout the Nation. Many of these important provisions were included in the Senate-passed farm bill last year, but they were not included in the final legislation, unfortunately. Providing grants to remove noncommercial biomass will immediately reduce the amount of fuel on the forest floor and directly reduce the fire danger in our forests and around our communities. Similarly, providing grants to protect our forest watersheds will ensure that we can address our water quality concerns with a voluntary, incentive-based approach. Finally, providing funding to establish new healthy forest reserves from willing private landowners will encourage the preservation and rehabilitation of this Nation's forest lands. I believe this important legislation will focus needed attention on a number of extremely critical goals for our national forest policy. One lesson we have learned over the years is that if we value our forests and if we want to conserve our woodland resources, if we want to preserve their natural beauty, if we want to ensure that the natural bounty of our forest land is available to future generations to come to know and love and enjoy just as we all have in our different parts of this great country, then it is important that we manage those lands and resources with a careful eye toward their long-term health. I look forward to this legislation's quick passage through the Senate and its quick enactment into law. I am delighted by the leadership provided by all of the Members working on this issue. I very much encourage my colleagues to join us in supporting Senator Cochran's amendment and moving forward with this bill in a timely way. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I have risen on numerous occasions over the last several months to pay tribute to our Nation's troops serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and across the globe in support of the war on terrorism. Today I would like to add to that ongoing tribute by honoring the troops of the 39th Infantry Brigade or ``the Arkansas Brigade,'' as we know it at home. The 39th was recently mobilized for action in Iraq with troops pulling out this week for training in Fort Hood before a 12-month deployment in the Middle East. Last weekend I had the honor of attending a send-off ceremony for the 39th Brigade in Little Rock. That ceremony brought together soldiers, families, friends, and loved ones to commemorate the occasion and to wish them the best in their mission. The send-off was not a celebration. In fact, it was a sober occasion. After all, no one relishes the prospect of traveling halfway around the world, far from family, friends, and home, to take on a dangerous but necessary mission. But along with the sense of sobriety at the ceremony, there was an enormous sense of duty, honor, and pride among these individuals. These men and women recognized that they were taking on a great personal risk, but they also recognized that, in so doing, they are part of a long tradition of American soldiers taking up arms to defend our freedoms and to bring security and stability to the world. As their fathers and grandfathers and great grandfathers fought in the First and Second World Wars, in Korea, Vietnam, the gulf war, and in countless other conflicts in the last century, these men and women are embracing a new historic mission. The 39th Infantry Brigade is the largest combat command in the Arkansas Army National Guard, with nearly 3,000 troops comprising 47 units from across the State. While this is the first time since World War II that the entire brigade has been activated for overseas service, the 39th has been remarkably active within Arkansas for decades. At the Governor's behest, the 39th has been quick to respond in the event of State emergencies. When floods, tornadoes, forest fires, ice storms, and drought have struck Arkansas, the members of the 39th have been there to offer their expertise and to lend a hand to communities in need. The 39th has offered assistance to law enforcement in missing persons cases, anticrime efforts, and counterdrug programs. Members of the 39th have offered themselves for countless hours of leadership and volunteer service in their communities, in schools and churches, civic organizations, private businesses, law enforcement, and even elected office. Consider, for example, the small town of Bradford just a few miles northeast of Little Rock. This town of 800 people is preparing to lose their mayor, their police chief, and the school librarian, all of whom are leaving for Iraq. While these temporary losses may bring temporary hardships, I have every confidence that these communities, Bradford and many others, will pull through. I am happy to report that Bradford is already coping--Grebe Edens, a 78-year-old former school teacher who serves as the town's recorder and treasurer, will be serving in the mayor's place until he returns. I ask unanimous consent that an October 24 Washington Post article about how the town of Bradford is coping be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, this is but one example of the effect this deployment will have on my home State of Arkansas. Many communities in Arkansas will no doubt be able to share similar stories of losing key personnel in the next 18 months. Furthermore, let us not lose sight of the impact of this deployment on the families of these troops. I was standing in that auditorium on Sunday visiting with mothers, aunts, daughters, as well as wives and children, and watching their faces with a sense of not knowing what is coming down the pike and yet being so incredibly proud of their loved ones who are serving this great Nation. I have an October 27 newspaper story written by Stephen Ziegler, editor of the Searcy Daily Citizen in White County, AR. Mr. Ziegler's story focuses on the troops of the Second Battalion, 153rd Brigade, and their families. Some are newly married, or have young children. The stories illustrate the mixed emotions that many Arkansans experience in seeing loved ones, friends, and neighbors leave to serve our great Nation. Here is one young couple who are expecting a child in May. Here is a school superintendent who has been away from his job for 3 of the last 6 years on account of frequent deployments. Here is a young Army medic whose greatest fear is that he may see a friend die. But coupled with the uncertainty is a clear sense of dedication and commitment. I ask unanimous consent that this article from the Daily Citizen be printed in the Record following my remarks, so that we may be ever mindful of the effects of war both on those who serve and on those they leave behind. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibit 2.)

Mrs. LINCOLN. As recent events have made startlingly clear, the situation in Iraq remains dangerous. It is true that some parts of the country--notably in the south and in the Kurdish north--have achieved a measure of stability and security. To the extent that stability has been achieved in these areas, it has been entirely attributable to the hard work, commitment, and ingenuity of American troops on the ground. We praise them for that. Unfortunately, it is also true that parts of Iraq remain critically unstable, particularly in the country's central region around Baghdad and Tikrit. With these facts in mind, let us salute the remarkable courage of our men and women who are placing themselves at great risk to serve in bringing security and peace to Iraq. We owe them a tremendous, tremendous debt for this service and sacrifice. Finally, I would like to once again pay tribute to the troops currently serving in Iraq--roughly 140,000 American troops, with an estimated 5,000 from Arkansas. Many have given their lives to this mission, and many more have been wounded, some quite seriously. Those who remain in Iraq, and those who are preparing to enter into rotation in theater, will be in our thoughts and prayers in the months to come. We pledge to take care of their families and loves ones who are left behind. We wish our troops safety, we wish them success, and we wish them a swift and safe return to their homes and loved ones as soon as their service is complete. Thank you, Mr. President. Exhibit I [From washingtonpost.com, Oct. 24, 2003] A Town's Leaders Marching Off to War (By Lee Hockstader) Bradford, AR.--For months, Paul Bunn had an inkling that his unit of the Arkansas National Guard would be shipped to Iraq, and there were a few things he wanted to get done before he left. Such as running the drug dealers out of town, ensuring a safe supply of drinking water and compelling his more slovenly constituents to get rid of the junk in their yards-- if necessary by fining them. Bunn, 36, took office in January as the supercharged mayor of Bradford, a one-blinking-stoplight hamlet of cow pastures, low-slung houses, rickety shacks and modest churches set among the rice and soybean fields an hour's drive northeast of Little Rock. His impending departure for the Middle East-- Bunn has already reported for training and expects to be in Baghdad early next year--has shaken this town of 800. So has the scheduled deployment of the police chief, the school librarian and five other townsmen, all members of the 39th Infantry Brigade of the Arkansas National Guard. ``I'd say our town is paying one heck of a price, but to me it's a price worth paying,'' said Bunn, a former Army Special Forces soldier who fought in Panama and the Persian Gulf War. The deployment of the 39th Infantry Brigade, announced in late September, means about 3,000 Arkansas Guardsmen from 47 units scattered across the state will be going to Iraq early next year as part of a major deployment with the Army's 1st Cavalry Division, based at Fort Hood, Tex. The troops are expected to replace soldiers of the 1st Armored Division who have been serving in Iraq since April. For Arkansas, the effect is dramatic. Counting 2,000 guardsmen already deployed elsewhere overseas, including in Afghanistan, the departure of the 39th means that more than half the state's 11,000 guardsmen will be serving overseas. Only a handful of other states--Oklahoma, North Carolina Washington--have a similarly large portion of their guardsmen serving overseas, according to the National Guard. To the extent that Bradford--or at least its leadership--is being decapitated, the town is unusual. But it is also typical of communities that, disproportionately, are sending military men and women to serve in Iraq and other areas of conflict. ``Broadly speaking, [the military] tends to be more rural and more southern,'' said Doug Bandow, who has analyzed the demographics of the U.S. military for the Cato Institute, a think tank. ``But it is also a broadly Middle America, middle-class force.'' The departure of so many prominent citizens is causing ripple effects and dislocations not easily absorbed in so small a rural town. At the town's one school, for instance, the departure of the librarian, Nolan Brown, 57, a grandfather of nine who is a personnel clerk in the Guard, triggered a domino effect in which one new teacher was hired and three others, in the departments of math, science and social studies, were compelled to add or drop courses they had already begun. At Bradford's somewhat misleadingly named city hall, a one- story red brick building that also houses the police and water departments, Mayor Bunn's powers have been transferred to Greba Edens, 78, a retired schoolteacher whose last specific memory of a combat casualty that touched her life involved a friend's brother--killed in World War II. ``I'm not moving into the mayor's office,'' said Edens, known locally as Miss Greba, the town's recorder-treasurer for 19 years, who by law will assume Bunn's duties until he returns. ``But he made promises that he'd clean up the trashy places around town and try to get rid of some of the drugs, so I guess I'll try to do that.'' Like the mayor and the librarian, the police chief, Josh Chambliss, 28, is expected to be gone from 18 months to two years on duty in Iraq. Chambliss, recently married, had been hoping to start a family, but those plans may be on hold for now. His five-officer police department, which deals mainly with domestic disputes, thefts and a methamphetamine drug problem common in small rural towns, will be led in his absence by Michael Ray, the assistant chief. Ray, 34, who counts the chief as well as the mayor among his best friends, seems slightly uneasy both at their departure and his own ascendance. ``In the last Gulf War, they were all surrendering to anyone who came along,'' said Ray, whose badge, affixed to his belt, still says assistant chief. ``This time, it's just a whole different ballgame, and there's a good chance that some of [the Americans] aren't coming back.'' Ray's apprehension about the fighting in Iraq is widely shared, even though most people in this resolutely conservative town are quick to say they support the troops as well as President Bush. Many say they want to see the troops ``get over there, get the job done and get home quickly''-- intoning their wishes almost like a mantra--and in practically the same breath acknowledge that they see no swift end to the fighting or the U.S. engagement in Iraq. ``We don't want to get into another situation like in Vietnam, of not supporting these people,'' said Larry Robinson, a county veterans services officer. ``You bet we're behind them, and this is really bringing the Iraqi situation right to the front door. But this is a new type of war, and it worries me.'' For his part, Bunn has no illusions about the toll that may result from the 39th Infantry Division's deployment. A sergeant who expects to be a Humvee squad leader in Iraq, Bunn has already bluntly told his two children and two stepchildren, ages 11 to 15, that he and some of his fellow guardsmen may not be coming home alive. ``I'm hard as woodpecker lips when it comes to this, but in this job here there's gonna be body bags coming home and bullets going downrange,'' he said. ``I don't believe in lying to the kids about it.'' Bunn worries nearly as much about what he is leaving behind in Bradford as what he will face in Iraq. He worries about his insulation business, in which he has several hundred thousands of dollars in loans, and whether it will survive his absence. He worries about miss Greba, the stand-in mayor, and whether she will be able to oversee an $800,000 grant from the state that Bunn secured to improve the town's drinking water. He worries about what will happen in the event of tornadoes hitting Arkansas--Bradford lies in the heart of twister country--in the absence of thousands of the state's National Guard troops. ``I'm a wheeler-dealer, and it doesn't bother me to pick up the phone and call the governor,'' Bunn said. ``But I'm not even going to try over there. My job now is to be a soldier and take the guys I got and bring them over there and bring them back safe.'' Yet he also worries about making it back to Bradford for his stepson Bradley's high school graduation in the spring of 2005. And he frets about his friend Chambliss, a staff sergeant in the Guard who has never been in combat. ``Josh to me is a special person,'' Bunn said of his police chief. ``Not too many people that you find who have an innocence about them, and Josh does. . . . That innocence will be shattered, and that's what bothers me.'' Bunn believes he will be prepared for Iraq, but the other guardsmen are much less experienced. Nolan Brown, the school librarian, was in Vietnam during the Tet Offensive of 1968, but he was a clerk in a dental unit at the time, not involved in combat. The younger men enlisted, in some cases while still in high school, were lured mainly by the Guard's generous provisions for helping pay for college and health insurance. Few imagined they would be heading off to combat anytime soon. Two of them, both privates in the Guard, wandered into the Bradford school the other day dressed in green fatigues, their hair cropped short. One, Richard Farmer, 21, a supply specialist, joined the Guard a few years ago when he was still in school. The other, Wesley Hodges, 20, an administrative assistant in the Guard, joined shortly thereafter. Asked if they would have joined then had they known it would mean duty in Iraq, the two shrugged and mumbled an unconvincing ``yeah.''

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, as debate about the supplemental appropriation for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan comes to a close, I would like to ensure that our focus remains on the welfare of our Nation's troops. That is why I would like to speak on behalf of the men and women who are serving in our Nation's Armed Forces--those currently on active duty as well as in the National Guard and Reserves--who are serving today in Iraq, Afghanistan, and across the globe. Since the President declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq 5\1/2\ months ago, 195 American troops have died in action, and over 1,900 have been wounded. Even if combat in Iraq is being waged at a lesser level than it was 6 months ago, it is still agonizingly clear that, in many parts of Iraq, our troops remain in danger. The imminent and ever-present danger of guerilla attacks is one of the most severe threats that our soldiers in the field are facing. Many U.S. troops have expressed concern that they are not adequately trained for the specialized demands of peacekeeping and policing that the reconstruction effort requires. Despite the fact that many of these soldiers are burdened with jobs and responsibilities outside their area of expertise, they have shown themselves to be resourceful and resilient in taking hold of their assignments. But, alarmingly, the dangers and difficulties that our troops face go far beyond the threat posed by attacks from insurgents and guerillas. There are additional threats to their safety and security that we cannot neglect. I have grown increasingly concerned about the conditions under which many of our troops are being forced to serve in the Middle East. Currently, the difficult conditions posed by a desert deployment-- including brutal temperatures of 120 degrees or even higher in the summer months, along with high winds and sandstorms--are compounded by shortages of quality water and food. While the military has emphasized to these troops the need to drink plenty of fluids and to eat properly, we have seen reports that military field hospitals in Iraq are contending with cases of dehydration and heat exhaustion on a fairly regular basis. Given the nature of the desert climate, are our soldiers adequately supplied? It has become quite clear that they are not. Troops are limited to a ration of two 1-liter bottles of water per day, according to numerous reports we have heard from the field. I know of at least one mother in Arkansas who has routinely shipped cases of bottled water to her son who is serving in Iraq. I hear frequently from spouses or mothers who are forced to ship food, water, or other needed supplies to their loved ones in the field, at their own expense. In many respects, the food supply situation is also a cause for concern. One news report from this summer detailed the dismay of American troops who, while surviving on MRE rations, learned that Italian troops serving alongside them were being fed freshly cooked pasta. These shortages of quality water and food are causing troop morale to flag. On top of that, many soldiers are growing concerned, confused, and frustrated by the length of their deployments--particularly members of the National Guard and Reserves who are now bumping up against what should be the end of their deployment time. Many of these soldiers have already served longer than they had been led to believe, causing great stress and hardship for them and for their families. Adding to the uncertainty and frustration, news reports from earlier this summer indicated that the Bush administration was exploring a cost-cutting proposal to reduce the pay of reservists and guardsmen. The administration quickly back-pedaled from this plan in the face of an outcry from the public, but the pay-cut proposal was the next in a series of indignities and insults to the thousands of brave men and women who left their jobs and families for what they were led to believe would be a short stay in the Middle East. On the front page of yesterday's Washington Post is a story about the dissatisfaction of our troops in the field, based upon an informal survey of soldiers conducted by the Stars and Stripes newspaper. According to the survey, half of the troops questioned rated their unit morale as ``low'' or ``very low.'' Forty percent, according to the survey, believe that the jobs they are doing have ``little or nothing to do'' with what they have been trained to do. Right now, Arkansas reservists in the 39th Infantry Brigade have been called up for rotation into Iraq beginning early next year. Nearly 3,500 Arkansas soldiers are being activated, which is the largest deployment of troops from our State in Arkansas history. As a Senator and as an Arkansan, I want to know that these troops are going to receive the supplies that they need to do the job, and the pay that they deserve for their service. When this President ran for office 3 years ago, one of his central promises was that he would make the needs of the uniformed military a paramount concern. But the record of this administration in supporting our troops and their families suggests otherwise. Now the President comes to Congress seeking an additional $87 billion to sustain our engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan. While this legislation was being crafted, I asked that the President use his leadership to place a higher priority on the well-being and quality of life of American troops serving in these war-torn nations. The President has expressed his great pride in our troops, and I share that pride. I ask that he now match that pride with a commitment to these troops and their families. First, the President and the Pentagon need to review the allocation of rations, water, and supplies to our troops to ensure that they can maintain their strength and health, as well as a modicum of comfort, in an extremely harsh desert environment. Third, the President should instruct military commanders to develop greater certainty with regard to the length of combat assignments, so that troops and their families can plan for their futures. Finally, the President should continue working to build an international coalition of countries to share in the burden of post-war Iraq. American troops have paid with their lives and American taxpayers are paying for the reconstruction at rates that are greatly disproportionate to the rest of the free world. The model of international forces working together for security and reconstruction has worked before. In fact, this model is working right now in places like Afghanistan, where troops from Germany and Holland, among other countries, are working alongside United States troops to bring security and peace to that nation. Although Afghanistan still faces a number of security challenges and we still face a long commitment to the Afghan people, there is no doubt that the country is much better off now than it was at this time 3 years ago. This progress is a direct result of the multinational force working to secure and reconstruct Afghanistan today. We should continue to seek a similar force structure for the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq. The United Nations Security Council resolution that was passed today is one step in the right direction. Even if we don't yet have concrete commitments of troops or funding, it does help bring our allies to the table. It does give us an opportunity to begin the process of healing the rifts in the global community and perhaps to ensure a more peaceful future. I urge the President to continue working to secure the support of our allies and the United Nations. At this point, it is clear that there is a great deal of work to be done in Iraq, and that our commitment of troops in the Middle East is going to last for several more years at the least. This latest request for billions of dollars to support operations and reconstruction in Iraq is the clearest suggestion from the administration that our commitment is only going to grow more intense in the coming months and years. It is important to recognize that these decisions are not made in a vacuum. We have a responsibility to ask how these funds are being spent. We have a right to know what further resources will be needed beyond this supplemental appropriation. And we have an obligation to ask what effects this spending will have on our domestic priorities and the needs of our constituents. I have heard repeatedly from my constituents in Arkansas, who are deeply concerned about this funding and how it is being spent. In Arkansas, we have a tremendous need for water projects, for education funding, for health care, for infrastructure, and for all the necessities that federal investment can bring. My constituents ask, how can we afford $87 billion for Iraq when we're repeatedly told that there is no money for projects at home? Where is this money going to come from? How is it going to be spent? Further, I support providing a substantial portion of the funding in this legislation designated for reconstruction projects in the form of a loan. I do not believe my children and possibly my grandchildren should be required to pay for this effort without at least some help from the Iraqi people. I was pleased the Senate approved an amendment with my support that converts $10 billion of the reconstruction funding contained in the bill into a loan. I also believe that to be successful in the long run, the Iraqi people and the global community must have a vested interest in this reconstruction effort. When constituents from Arkansas come to ask me for help with projects in their communities, I have to tell them in most cases that I can't help them with funding to construct buildings, but I can help secure money for equipment, training and programming. The rationale behind this Federal policy is that projects are much more likely to succeed if the participants have a vested interest. I think the same policy holds true for Iraq. I am voting in favor of this supplemental appropriations bill, because I believe it is important that we support our troops and it is important that we assist the people of Iraq with rebuilding their country so that our men and women in uniform can finish the job and return home to their loved ones as soon as possible. Even though we have made some significant improvements in this bill during consideration in the Senate, I do have some reservations. I remain concerned that we are spending too much money on reconstruction projects of dubious value, and too little on ensuring the safety and security of our troops. And I am deeply, deeply concerned of the effect of this additional spending on our burgeoning deficit--a burden that our children and grandchildren are going to have to bear. In the weeks and months to come, I expect the administration to make a better effort to improve communications with Congress on the progress we are making in Iraq. I expect the administration to keep Congress better informed about progress in Iraq, and to present a clear plan for the future--how this money is being spent, how it is to be paid for, and what the results of this spending will be. I have supported legislation that promotes greater disclosure from the administration, and encourage the President to cooperate with Congress in good faith. President Bush and members of his administration have told us repeatedly that this funding is needed in order to ensure that Iraq is stabilized and secured, and to ensure that we can bring down troop levels and casualty levels. I, along with the people of Arkansas, intend to hold them accountable for those goals.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Ethics Committee, I take seriously any action which raises questions about the integrity of the Federal Government. I believe firmly that the Federal contracting process in Iraq and elsewhere should be transparent and accountable to ensure Federal tax dollars are spent appropriately. Like many of my constituents, I question the circumstances under which Halliburton was awarded a contract in Iraq in a process that did not include soliciting competitive bids from other companies. I believe all aspects of that transaction should be carefully examined and open to public inspection. While I sympathize with the proponents of the Lautenberg amendment, I do not believe a punitive, absolute statutory prohibition is the correct approach under the circumstances. Instead, I support efforts to ensure Federal contracts in Iraq are awarded through a process that is subject to rigorous Congressional oversight and that applies strict penalties for any unethical or illegal conduct that is uncovered. Additionally, I believe contracts should be awarded through full and fair competition. As a U.S. Senator, I am ethically bound to conduct my official duties in a manner that avoids even the appearance of impropriety. I fully intend to honor that commitment to my country and my constituents. I also intend to hold the Bush administration to the same standard.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, yesterday I submitted an amendment to the supplemental spending bill which I do hope the Senate will consider favorably. I know it is going to be difficult because of the issue I am bringing up. The amendment primarily consists of the Military Tax Fairness Act and the acceleration of the refundable child credit. Both of these bills have passed the Senate overwhelmingly. We have been talking and talking and talking about them over the past many months, and I know there will be thousands of excuses we will be hearing telling us why we should not include this tax relief bill on the supplemental spending bill. I know this is a tax bill on an appropriations bill. I know we have a child credit in two different conferences. I know the Military Tax Fairness Act has been going back and forth between the two Chambers. I know all of these excuses I am going to hear. I know there will be tremendous numbers of those who will come forward and opportunities to try to stop what I am trying to do. But, Madam President, I am truly exhausted. I am truly exhausted with all of the excuses we have had. And I know the hard-working American families are just as exhausted as I am with the inability of us to be able to move forward these two very simple acts within the Congress that would be such a tremendous help to the working families of America. The death gratuity paid to the survivors of a military member has historically been exempt from taxation. In 1986, the amount of the death gratuity benefit was $3,000. In 1991, the payment was raised from $3,000 to $6,000 in connection with the Persian Gulf conflict. But the Tax Code was not adjusted accordingly. Currently, the military survivor must pay taxes on the $3,000 increase to the death gratuity payment. This is a very simple problem to fix. And I do not want any more excuses of why we cannot do it. I simply want to get it done. In 1997, Congress passed legislation revising the taxation of capital gains on the sale of an individual's principal residence, providing up to a $250,000 exclusion, $500,000 per couple, on their home sale if the individual owned and lived in the house for at least 2 of the 5 years preceding the sale. Congress failed to provide a special rule for members of the uniformed service and Foreign Service who are required to periodically move either within the United States or abroad, making it difficult to meet those exclusion requirements. The proposal in this amendment would permit military and Foreign Service men and women to suspend the 5-year period for a maximum of 10 years while away from home on assignment. In other words, those years away would count toward neither the 2-year lived-in-home nor the 5-year period. Most American homeowners have the opportunity to build equity in their homes and are afforded this great tax benefit to do so. Members of the uniformed and Foreign Service who serve our country are deserving of no less. This should be an easy fix. It is something we can do; we should do; we have all agreed upon many times over. Why can we not do it? I do not want to hear the excuses. And I certainly do not want to present these excuses to my constituents. Again, under the current law, military personnel located in a combat zone are provided an extension for filing taxes until 180 days after they return from the combat zone. This provision does not currently apply to contingency operations where military personnel are confronted with demanding circumstances similar to those faced by members in a combat zone. Contingency operations we have seen recently include Operation Just Cause in Panama in 1989, Operation Restore Hope in Somalia in 1992, and Operation Uphold Democracy in Haiti in 1994. Right now, for example, an airman who is currently deployed overseas in a contingency operation in support of our troops in Afghanistan or Iraq combat zones happens to be left out. This, again, is a simple fix, something we can do for the hard- working military service men and women who are there serving our Nation, putting their lives on hold here at home to protect our freedoms, and to be a part of the overall war on terrorism. It is something very simple that we could fix if we just took the time to do it. Some reservists must travel away from home to perform mandatory weekend drill one weekend per month and may incur significant travel and lodging expenses. Under current law, these are deductible as itemized deductions, as unreimbursed business expenses, to the extent they exceed 2 percent of the member's adjusted gross income. Most lower income, junior reservists do not itemize deductions, so they receive no tax benefit for their expenses. For those who do, the 2 percent floor limits the amount of benefit of the deduction. For young reservists, their expenses may cost them as much as their entire take-home pay for that weekend. This is a real-life issue for working men and women who are there serving each and every one of us in the military of this great Nation. Why can't we just get it done? These are issues on which we have all agreed. It makes so much sense for us to come forward now, as we are talking about the issues that affect our service men and women who are stationed abroad. Let us give them the tools to be able to keep their families together here at home, to provide for their children, to make sure their families are going to stay together no matter how long they may be deployed. Under current law, a veterans organization is exempt from taxation if it meets the requirements of section 501(c)(19) of the Internal Revenue Code. However, this status is in jeopardy. Many of these veterans organizations, such as the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, could face losing their tax-exempt status if the Congress and the administration do not act to change the technical requirements of the Internal Revenue Code. We have to get these things done. We are talking about wrapping up our business here in the next month or so. We have ample opportunity to move these issues. We have come to agreement on all of them. We have moved them in years past. Why can't we make them happen? I could go on and on, describing all of the varied Tax Code fixes for veterans and military families that should have been enacted months ago. They are all included in this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Now is the time to act. We talk about how valuable our service men and women are to us, how much they mean to us, the sacrifices they are making, and how much that means to us as a nation and as individuals. Let's move on our Military Tax Fairness Act now. Let's make sure we see this legislation through and that we enact it before we leave here. The last provision of this amendment I would like to speak about is something I have talked a great deal about because I feel very strongly about it. I feel strongly about it because I am a mother. I am trying to keep my family together, working hard with my husband as a dual- parent household, recognizing the real challenges that American families face in raising children today. That is the child tax credit, its impact on military families and all of our working families. The President promised America's families an advanced payment of the $400 increase in the child tax credit. These checks were sent out to a chosen few Americans earlier this summer. However, for millions of working and military families, hard-working military families, this promise was not fulfilled. The families of 12 million children did not receive the full child credit check this summer. By now they all know who they are. We should extend the child tax credit to the other working families who were left out. These are people who work hard every day to provide for their children and their families, to keep their families together. These are hard-working families who have a family member, a father or mother, who may be stationed abroad or is in training now, someone who is out there who they have been dependent on who we are not going to give the same opportunity to in the refundability of a child tax credit simply because they make less money. Please remember, you are not even eligible for this child credit unless you are working and unless you have children. This is not a giveaway. These are working families who are paying taxes every day, whether it is sales tax, payroll taxes, excise taxes, to get themselves to and from work. Why wouldn't we want to give these families the same ability, as they are working hard to preserve their families, why wouldn't we want to give them the same advantage we give other higher income working families to take care of their children and families? I believe we need to extend that child credit to working families, all working families, and we need to do it now. A family with two parents making minimum wage and two children would not receive any increase in the child credit under the bill signed by the President. They would not receive any check this summer. Did they not work hard enough for this Congress? Did they not work hard enough for this administration? Did they not work hard enough to be a part of trying to revive this economy and strengthen the fabric of our Nation? It isn't just minimum wage workers who were left out. These children in the shadows are living on our military bases as well. Roughly 200,000 military personnel have incomes between $10,500 and $26,000, and most of these families will not receive the increased child tax credit. In addition, roughly 100,000 military personnel stationed in combat zones will be ineligible to receive the full credit because they were called to duty. They did not receive a check this summer. Did they not work hard enough? Wherever they were stationed in uniform to protect our freedoms, did they not work hard enough for this Congress and this administration to get the same fair treatment as a working individual in this country to take care of their children and their families? The blue jeans, the milk, the loaf of bread, or anything else they buy, was it any less expensive than what other working families are dealing with? I think they worked hard enough. I am ashamed that we have been hiding from these families, hiding behind our rhetoric, hiding behind our process. This great institution is full of processes that are here to make the effort more reasonable, to make sure that what we are doing is right, that it can be dealt with in an appropriate way. But these processes are not here for us to hide behind. These are working families in our military and in our communities that deserve the same fair treatment. I, for one, am tired of telling them that if they will just wait a little bit longer, we will finally get around to them--maybe somewhere down the road. We could have done this 6 months ago. We could have done it 4 months ago. We could have done it 2 months ago before we left on our break. But we didn't. We have not and we probably will not. It is so important that we address this issue. It is important we tell these people that they are a priority, not only because they are the fighting military men and women of this country but because they are the salt of the earth, the working families putting the fabric of this Nation back together, one family at a time. We owe it to them to give them the same opportunity to invest in their families, to reinvest in the economy, and to help make us strong so we can be and will remain the superpower of the world that is there to reach out to other nations to help them through liberation and rebuilding and a multitude of other issues. But we are only as strong as each of the individual families of this Nation that make up our whole. I am ready for the excuses that my colleagues may throw at me. I am sure there are going to be many. I hope those families who got nothing from the trillions of dollars in tax cuts that we have shoved out of the door are listening, too. I hope they are listening, but I doubt that they are. These are the men and women who are too busy, too busy at work, too busy in the trenches and in the desert, too busy raising those children and working hard at one or two jobs to make sure their families will stay home, regardless of whether we find them as a priority in this Nation. They are too busy for our excuses. I hope for just once my colleagues will join me in doing what is right on behalf of the working families in this great country and the 12 million children who are our future. Madam President, I call up my amendment.

Mrs. LINCOLN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, in recent months I have risen on several occasions to pay tribute to the men and women who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan in support of the global war on international terror. Today I rise once again to pay tribute and to honor an Arkansas native recently who died last week in Afghanistan--LTC Paul Kimbrough, a native of Little Rock, AR. He was 44 years old. Paul Kimbrough graduated from Little Rock's Parkview High School in 1977. Four years later, he graduated from the University of Central Arkansas in Conway with a degree in political science. He joined the U.S. Army before returning to complete his education at the University of Arkansas School of Law in Fayetteville, where he headed up the Black Law Students Association. Paul followed his commitment to public service into the political arena, first working on the staff of U.S. Representative Ray Thornton, and then running in his own campaign for a seat in the Arkansas House of Representatives. He lost that race, but that didn't slow him down. Paul's next challenge took him to Washington, DC, where he came to work in the U.S. Department of Transportation in the inspector-general's office. Lieutenant Colonel Kimbrough remained active in the U.S. Army reserve, and in June he was deployed to Afghanistan with the 416th Engineer Command, where he helped to oversee improvements to living conditions for soldiers at Bagram Air Base. On October 3, he was flown to Incirlik, Turkey, for medical treatment. He died of cardiac arrest en route to Turkey. His family and friends remember him as a true leader--driven, determined, and deeply committed to his country and its cause. In a message to his colleagues at the Department of Transportation sent before he left for Afghanistan, Paul wrote, ``Always there echoes in my mind: duty, honor, and country. Therefore, I will do my duty as God has given me light to see.'' LTC Paul Kimbrough is survived by his father, Major Kimbrough; his son, Paul Kimbrough, Jr.; his four brothers; and his sister. I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our deepest condolences to Paul's family and friends. Paul Kimbrough's resolve and his commitment to his country will not be forgotten. The mission continues in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we remain confident that Paul Kimbrough's courage and sacrifice will have been given in a worthy cause.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, in recent months I have risen on several occasions to pay tribute to the men and women who are fighting in Iraq and elsewhere in the global war on international terror. Today I rise once again to pay tribute and to honor a young man who was recently killed in action in Iraq--Dustin K. McGaugh. Dusty was killed Tuesday near Balad, Iraq. He was 20 years old. Dusty grew up in Springdale, AR, and graduated from high school in Tulsa, OK. After graduation, he joined the Army ROTC. His father, James McGaugh, told one newspaper in Arkansas that Dusty joined the Army because he was looking for direction in life and because he ``wanted to serve and be part of something important.'' Dusty enlisted shortly before September 11, 2001--in fact, when the terrorist attacks occurred on that horrible day, he was undergoing basic training in boot camp. One newspaper account quotes a close friend who told of Dusty being so dedicated to his Army service that he finished his last three weeks of basic training after breaking his shin bone in a fall. Dusty decided not to report his injury, so that he might graduate from basic training on time with his colleagues. He graduated with special honors. In April of this year, Dusty's unit--the U.S. Army 17th Field Artillery Brigade--was deployed to the Middle East. He accepted his mission with pride and served with honor. Dusty is survived by his father James of Springdale; his brother, James McGaugh, of Claremore, OK; his mother, Marina Hayes, of Tulsa; his stepmother, Katrina McGaugh, of Springdale; and a twin sister, Windy McGaugh, of Derby, KS. I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our deepest condolences to Dusty's family and friends. When he learned that he would be going to Iraq, Dusty reportedly told one friend, ``I believe in this. I want to serve our country.'' His resolve and his commitment to his country will not be forgotten. The mission continues in Iraq, and we remain confident that Dusty McGaugh's courage and sacrifice will have been given in a worthy cause.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I will vote in favor of Senator McConnell's sense of the Senate amendment because it expressed strong support for our Nation's armed services and their success in accomplishing the important mission to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein. I am especially proud of the men and women in uniform from Arkansas who represent the best and brightest our country has to offer. It is vital that we continue to support our troops in every way we can, as they continue to come under attack in Iraq. As Congress continues debate on this legislation and related bills in the future, I believe we in Congress have a responsibility to exercise careful oversight of the administration's plan to rebuild Iraq and to ask tough questions about specific plans, objectives, and results to ensure our mission is accomplished. To that end, we must realistically assess the United States efforts in the war on terror. While the dedication and efficiency of the men and women who comprise our military is unparalleled, recent difficulties in Iraq demonstrate that there is much work left to be done.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I have risen on numerous occasions in the past 6 months to pay tribute to the men and women who are fighting in Iraq and elsewhere in the war on international terror. Today I rise once again to pay tribute and to honor a young man who was recently killed in action in Iraq--Master Sergeant Kevin Morehead, a native of Little Rock, AR, and a soldier in the U.S. Army 5th Special Forces Group. MSG Morehead was killed September 12 in the early morning raid in Ar Ramadi, an Iraqi city about 70 miles west of Baghdad. Keven Morehead graduated from Central High School in Little Rock in 1987. After attending the University of Arkansas, Kevin opted for a military career, enlisting in the U.S. Army in 1989. In 1994, he joined the elite Special Forces. His service over his 14-year career in the Army was exemplary, earning him a number of commendations, including the Bronze Star, the Silver Star, and the Purple Heart. In the last 2 years, he served with distinction in the Middle Eastern theater, first in Afghanistan, where he served as an adviser to the Northern Alliance in the fight against the Taliban extremists. In Afghanistan from October 2001 to February 2002, MSG Morehead called in airstrikes on Taliban positions, and his actions reportedly saved the lives of hundreds of men. MSG Morehead was sent to Iraq in January of this year, where he served with further distinction. Although his unit had already returned from service in Iraq, MSG Morehead had stayed behind to help with orientation for his unit's replacements. Keven was buried on September 21 in Bald Knob, AR, in a grave on a hilltop next to that of his grandfather. Our condolences and our prayers go out to Kevin's wife Theresa; to his stepdaughters, Kirsten Inman and Kaylyn Council, to his sister, Kristen Wright; to his grandmother, Zelda Guthrie; and to his parents, James and Jeanette Morehead, of Benton, AR. One attendee at his funeral was quoted in our State's newspaper, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, as saying that Master Sergeant Kevin Morehead ``did not die in vain. Hopefully, by his actions the world will be a better place for all mankind.'' The mission continues in Iraq, and we remain confident that, as coalition troops move to secure and stabilize the country, Iraq will emerge as a democracy in the Middle East, and that Kevin Morehead's courage and sacrifice will prove to have been given in a worthy cause.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the Epsilon Chapter of Zeta Tau Alpha Fraternity at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. Zeta Tau Alpha Fraternity was founded on October 15, 1898, by nine women at the State Female Normal School in Farmville, VA. The Epsilon Chapter of Zeta Tau Alpha, founded on December 18, 1903, at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, will celebrate 100 years of sisterhood from September 26-28 on the campus of the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. The Centennial Celebration is expected to bring many Epsilon alumnae back to the campus, including Amber Elbert, a member of my staff and 1998 Epsilon initiate. The Epsilon Chapter is unique in many ways. It is the first chapter in Zeta Tau Alpha history to reach a centennial mark and the first chapter founded west of the Mississippi River. Epsilon was also the very first chapter to be announced through the fraternity's official magazine, ``Themis.'' The first pictures ever used in ``Themis'' were those of Epsilon, its chapter room and the University of Arkansas. The University of Arkansas students who founded the chapter in 1903 were Elizabeth Kell Rose, Hattie Williams, Margaret Hutcherson, Grace Jordan, Bess Byrnes, Della McMillan and Mabel Sutton. The mission of Zeta Tau Alpha is to make a difference in the lives of its membership by developing the potential of each individual through visionary programming, which emphasizes leadership development, service to others, academic success and continued personal growth for women with a commitment to friendship and the future based on the values and traditions of our past. Having been actively involved with Chi Omega Fraternity as both a collegiate member and an alumna, I have witnessed firsthand the lifelong benefit that can come from membership in a Greek organization, such as Zeta Tau Alpha. On behalf of all Arkansans, I would like to extend congratulations to the Epsilon Chapter of Zeta Tau Alpha Fraternity for 100 years of excellence and enriching the lives of its members from Arkansas and across the Nation.