Blanche Lincoln

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. In some areas, it has gotten difficult even finding home health care that will serve rural areas. Certainly for myself, with aging parents who are at home and independent, home health care is essential. If the question is whether or not they will serve and whether or not those individuals can afford or are able to provide a copay, it will be devastating. In my home State of Arkansas, 49 percent of the people have an adjusted gross income of $20,000 or less. We are a snapshot of what the rest of the Nation is going to be like. Florida has a lot of retirees and elderly, but for us as a percentage of our population, we rank in the top three. We are clearly a snapshot of where the rest of the country is going to be in terms of the percentage of our elderly population and the lack of services. Because we are rural, we have that lack of services. Even the urban areas will be without the services if we do not look at Medicare reform and we do not start now looking at the ways we can make health care delivery more affordable. Prescription drugs is the most reasonable place to start. We have the technology, we have the development of pharmaceuticals that can help provide that quality of life, and we have home health care out there that can help keep down the costs of acute hospitalization, acute care in nursing homes, and other areas. Making it cost prohibitive does not increase the availability or the accessibility of health care. We can keep our loved ones in their homes and cared for at a reasonable cost, the Senator is exactly right. It is so important to recognize we need to start now. We are so underprepared as a nation as to what will happen in the next 15 to 20 years when the baby boomers hit 65 and we have no geriatricians, no physicians, and a nursing shortage. The State of Massachusetts lost 25 or 26 nursing homes last year, all of which were 85 percent or better occupied. We are not preparing ourselves for what will happen with our population, which is going to increase phenomenally in the aged category. Home health care and providing it in a way that is cost effective is absolutely essential. The Senator from Florida knows, and I am with him without a doubt, we have to make sure we focus on this issue. We need to do it sooner rather than later.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, now that Secretary of State Colin Powell has concluded his recent diplomatic mission to Israel and the Middle East, I would like to take this opportunity to reflect on recent events in the region. There are many opinions about the most effective approach to the current crisis, but I believe the Bush administration's renewed emphasis on ending the violence and reaching a negotiated settlement is a positive development. As America properly takes steps to defend our Nation's vital economic and security interests in the region, though, we must be mindful that Israel is a sovereign nation with a responsibility to defend the safety and security of its citizens. After suffering dozens of deadly attacks aimed at innocent civilians during the last 18 months, I believe Israel has every right to take steps, including military action, to neutralize Palestinian terrorists that Yasser Arafat and the PLO have been unable or unwilling to detain. I would expect no less from our Nation and it is unfair to ask any less from Israel. The United States endured some international criticism for our anti-terrorism campaign in Afghanistan and I would expect a special empathy by the U.S. Government toward Israel as it faces similar criticism today. I am optimistic that the current military operation in the West Bank will curb the violence so that the peace process can proceed in a meaningful way. To achieve a final settlement, all interested parties will be required to make painful and difficult choices in the weeks and months ahead. I believe Israel has demonstrated its willingness and ability over time to live up to its commitments and responsibilities to exist peacefully with its neighbors. Unfortunately, the lack of leadership and vision exhibited by the Palestinian Authority in recent years has, in my estimation, prevented the Palestinian people from achieving liberation and attaining the hopes and dreams they deserve. Let's hope Chairman Arafat fully appreciates the precarious nature of his current position and how the choices he makes in the immediate future will determine what role he will play in future peace negotiations. I want to conclude, by expressing my profound sadness for the tragic loss of life that has befallen both Israelis and Palestinians in this conflict. As a person of faith, I value the inherent dignity of every human being and believe all interested parties have a responsibility to actively pursue the benefits of peace and freedom. It is my sincere hope that through strong leadership and determination, the next generation of Israeli and Palestinian children will be able to focus on building a prosperous future instead of on the carnage and destruction of the past.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today with my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Hutchinson, to name the Federal courthouse in Little Rock after the Honorable Richard S. Arnold, a beloved Federal judge from our home state. Our legislation has strong support from members of the Federal judiciary in Arkansas and I am honored to help lead this effort in the Senate. Like so many Arkansans who have the good fortune to know Judge Arnold personally, I believe it is appropriate to recognize such a respected scholar and member of the legal community in this manner. Judge Richard Arnold has served his country and the judiciary with rare distinction first at the District Court level and more recently as Chief Judge for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Arnold was appointed by President Carter in October 1978 to the District Bench for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas and was elevated to the Court of Appeals in 1980. Judge Arnold took senior status in April, 2001 after he turned 65. While serving as a member of the Federal judiciary, Judge Arnold has earned a national reputation as a brilliant, fair and effective judge. In 1999, Judge Arnold was the winner of the highly prestigious Edward J. Devitt Distinguished Service to Justice Award. This honor is presented annually to a Federal judge who has achieved an exemplary career and has made significant contributions to the administration of justice, the advancement of the rule of law, and the improvement of society as a whole. Judge Arnold has also received the prestigious Meador-Rosenberg Award from the American Bar Association for his work and dialogue with members of Congress about the problems facing the Federal courts during his service as Chairman of the Budget Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States. The award, which has only been presented three times since its inception in 1994, was presented through the ABA's Standing Committee on Federal Judicial Improvements. Judge Arnold received a Classical Diploma from Phillips Exeter Academy in 1953. He graduated from Yale with a B.A., summa cum laude, in 1957. Afterwards, Judge Arnold attended the Harvard Law School where he received the Sears Prize for achieving the best grades in the first- year class and the Fay Diploma for being first academically in his graduating class. Judge Arnold concluded his formal education upon receiving his LL.B. from Harvard magna cum laude in 1960. After law school, Judge Arnold served as a law clerk to Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. Arnold then practiced law in Washington, D.C., and Texarkana, Arkansas. Prior to his appointment to the bench, Judge Arnold worked for the Honorable Dale Bumpers while Bumpers was Governor of Arkansas and a United States Senator. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today with my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Hutchinson, to name the Federal courthouse in Little Rock after the Honorable Richard S. Arnold, a beloved Federal judge from our home state. Our legislation has strong support from members of the Federal judiciary in Arkansas and I am honored to help lead this effort in the Senate. Like so many Arkansans who have the good fortune to know Judge Arnold personally, I believe it is appropriate to recognize such a respected scholar and member of the legal community in this manner. Judge Richard Arnold has served his country and the judiciary with rare distinction first at the District Court level and more recently as Chief Judge for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Arnold was appointed by President Carter in October 1978 to the District Bench for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas and was elevated to the Court of Appeals in 1980. Judge Arnold took senior status in April, 2001 after he turned 65. While serving as a member of the Federal judiciary, Judge Arnold has earned a national reputation as a brilliant, fair and effective judge. In 1999, Judge Arnold was the winner of the highly prestigious Edward J. Devitt Distinguished Service to Justice Award. This honor is presented annually to a Federal judge who has achieved an exemplary career and has made significant contributions to the administration of justice, the advancement of the rule of law, and the improvement of society as a whole. Judge Arnold has also received the prestigious Meador-Rosenberg Award from the American Bar Association for his work and dialogue with members of Congress about the problems facing the Federal courts during his service as Chairman of the Budget Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States. The award, which has only been presented three times since its inception in 1994, was presented through the ABA's Standing Committee on Federal Judicial Improvements. Judge Arnold received a Classical Diploma from Phillips Exeter Academy in 1953. He graduated from Yale with a B.A., summa cum laude, in 1957. Afterwards, Judge Arnold attended the Harvard Law School where he received the Sears Prize for achieving the best grades in the first- year class and the Fay Diploma for being first academically in his graduating class. Judge Arnold concluded his formal education upon receiving his LL.B. from Harvard magna cum laude in 1960. After law school, Judge Arnold served as a law clerk to Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. Arnold then practiced law in Washington, D.C., and Texarkana, Arkansas. Prior to his appointment to the bench, Judge Arnold worked for the Honorable Dale Bumpers while Bumpers was Governor of Arkansas and a United States Senator. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank my friend from Connecticut for his clarification on these two issues. Based on his assurance I look forward to supporting this bill. full-time recreational vehicle owners

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise to commend the sponsors of the election reform bill that is before the Senate today. I especially want to recognize Senators Dodd and McConnell who have worked tirelessly to overcome many obstacles in an effort to strengthen the fundamental right of all citizens to participate in the democratic process. I wholeheartedly support their overarching goal to make it easier for every eligible American to vote and to have their voted counted and I appreciate their willingness to work with me to address some specific concerns about how the bill may impact my home State of Arkansas. I wish to engage in a brief colloquy with Chairman Dodd to clarify for the record his understanding of how two specific provisions in the legislation will work in practice. The first point I want to raise involves the requirement in the Senate bill that all States implement a statewide interactive voter registration list. Is it the Senator's understanding that States can meet this requirement by having an interactive computer containing voter registration information at each county clerk's office but not at each individual polling location?

Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank my colleague for his comments. Another concern that has been brought to my attention is the funding mechanism in the Senate bill. I know my colleague from Connecticut is aware that the method through which Federal funds are distributed to State and local governments to meet the requirements in this bill is very different than the House bill. The House bill distributes Federal funding based on the proportion of eligible voters in each State. This is commonly referred to as a formula. Conversely, the Senate bill establishes three separate discretionary grant programs to help States improve their voting systems and meet the requirements that are in this bill. I certainly support the goal of helping all States improve their voting systems. However, I also support helping all states get their fair share of federal funding. Based on my knowledge of competitive grants in other Federal programs, I am concerned about this program turning into a competition among professional grant writers. I do not think such a system helps my State nor do I believe it is good public policy when you are applying new mandates on thousands of jurisdictions in all 50 States. So I would appreciate knowing my colleague's view on how he and others who drafted this legislation envision the discretionary grant process working in practice. What if Congress only appropriates half of the funding that is authorized in this bill? Will there still be enough for all states to meet their needs, or is it first come first served? Mr. DODD. I am certainly aware of the concerns raised by my colleague from Arkansas. I can assure my good friend and other Senators who have raised similar concerns that we have not designed a funding distribution system where only the best applications will be funded. In fact, we have carefully calculated the amount of funding we feel will be needed for all states and local jurisdictions to meet the minimum standards we have included in this legislation. Therefore, I appreciate the opportunity today to clear up any confusion surrounding this issue by saying that I and others who crafted this bill fully intend for the Justice Department to distribute funding to all states and local governments based on the need for improvement they identify in their application. Our intent certainly is not to enact a jobs program for professional grant writers no do we expect states or local governments to hire grant writers in order to receive Federal funding under this bill. As chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, I certainly intend to closely monitor the implementation of this legislation to ensure it is applied in practice as Congress intended. You have my word that I will be the first to object if I think the federal agency charged with distributing funding is not distributing resources to eligible recipients in a fair and equitable manner.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Making Work Pay Act of 2002.'' A companion bill is being introduced in the House by Representative Sandy Levin of Michigan. I worked with Mr. Levin to reform the welfare program in 1996, and I am proud and honored to work with him again in this next phase of welfare reform. I am also proud to be joined today by Senator Breaux of Louisana and Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia. As members of the Finance Committee and representatives of rural States with similar challenges, we all share the goal of ensuring that States have the resources and the flexibility they need to continue moving people from welfare to work. The welfare reform bill President Clinton signed into law in 1996 has been a success. Nationally, welfare rolls have dropped by 52 percent. Over the last 5 years, enrollment in Arkansas' welfare program has dropped by 43 percent. In 1996, we fundamentally changed welfare from an entitlement program to temporary assistance, a move which has allowed many needy families to achieve a liberating measure of self-sufficiency. Our message then was ``work first.'' Today, people are working. Now our message should be ``make work pay.'' To do this, we need to help people get good paying jobs by providing the support services like child care and transportation that are absolutely essential to keeping those jobs. We have rewarded States for moving people off welfare. Unfortunately, that tends to ignore the important question of what happens after they leave welfare. What we need to do now is find ways to reward States for placing people into good jobs and helping them with vital work support services such as child care and transportation. These services are particularly vital in States like Arkansas, where good child care is scarce and public transportation barely exists. The legislation we introduce today measures State performance along the entire continuum from welfare to work. It gives credit to States for providing work-support services and short-term emergency assistance, which prevent people from ever needing welfare benefits in the first place. Current law and President Bush's welfare re- authorization proposal give no credit to States for these efforts, thus discouraging the use of these highly effective welfare-to-work methods. My legislation revises how work participation rates are calculated to better fit post-reform welfare programs and more accurately measure the level of work activity among those served. Specifically, States receive half credit for people who work part time and pro-rate to full time, and they receive full credit for people that they are able to move into work by supplying child care and transportation assistance. In addition, people who are deemed severely and permanently disabled during the year are excluded from the State's work participation requirement, so that states aren't penalized for failing to engage these disabled people in work. The ``Making Work Pay Act of 2002'' is supported by the American Public Human Services Association, which played a fundamental role in helping us develop this bill. I thank them for their support and urge my colleagues to use them as a resource in assessing the needs of their states. I also urge my colleagues to support this legislation as a necessary first step into the next phase of welfare reform, to move beyond ``work first'' to ``making work pay.''

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Making Work Pay Act of 2002.'' A companion bill is being introduced in the House by Representative Sandy Levin of Michigan. I worked with Mr. Levin to reform the welfare program in 1996, and I am proud and honored to work with him again in this next phase of welfare reform. I am also proud to be joined today by Senator Breaux of Louisana and Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia. As members of the Finance Committee and representatives of rural States with similar challenges, we all share the goal of ensuring that States have the resources and the flexibility they need to continue moving people from welfare to work. The welfare reform bill President Clinton signed into law in 1996 has been a success. Nationally, welfare rolls have dropped by 52 percent. Over the last 5 years, enrollment in Arkansas' welfare program has dropped by 43 percent. In 1996, we fundamentally changed welfare from an entitlement program to temporary assistance, a move which has allowed many needy families to achieve a liberating measure of self-sufficiency. Our message then was ``work first.'' Today, people are working. Now our message should be ``make work pay.'' To do this, we need to help people get good paying jobs by providing the support services like child care and transportation that are absolutely essential to keeping those jobs. We have rewarded States for moving people off welfare. Unfortunately, that tends to ignore the important question of what happens after they leave welfare. What we need to do now is find ways to reward States for placing people into good jobs and helping them with vital work support services such as child care and transportation. These services are particularly vital in States like Arkansas, where good child care is scarce and public transportation barely exists. The legislation we introduce today measures State performance along the entire continuum from welfare to work. It gives credit to States for providing work-support services and short-term emergency assistance, which prevent people from ever needing welfare benefits in the first place. Current law and President Bush's welfare re- authorization proposal give no credit to States for these efforts, thus discouraging the use of these highly effective welfare-to-work methods. My legislation revises how work participation rates are calculated to better fit post-reform welfare programs and more accurately measure the level of work activity among those served. Specifically, States receive half credit for people who work part time and pro-rate to full time, and they receive full credit for people that they are able to move into work by supplying child care and transportation assistance. In addition, people who are deemed severely and permanently disabled during the year are excluded from the State's work participation requirement, so that states aren't penalized for failing to engage these disabled people in work. The ``Making Work Pay Act of 2002'' is supported by the American Public Human Services Association, which played a fundamental role in helping us develop this bill. I thank them for their support and urge my colleagues to use them as a resource in assessing the needs of their states. I also urge my colleagues to support this legislation as a necessary first step into the next phase of welfare reform, to move beyond ``work first'' to ``making work pay.''

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I would like to pay tribute to an organization that, over the last 90 years, has helped millions of girls build the character and skills needed for success as adults. The Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. is celebrating its 90th anniversary this month. From its modest founding by Juliette Gordon Low, who brought 18 girls from Savannah, Georgia, together in March 1912 to focus on physical, mental and spiritual development, Girl Scouts has grown to a membership of 3.8 million. That makes it the largest organization for girls in the world. Through Girl Scouting, girls acquire self-confidence, learn responsibility, and develop the ability to think creatively and to act with integrity. It offers girls opportunities to learn about science and technology, money management and finance, sports, health and fitness, the arts, global awareness, community service, and much, much more. On top of that, Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. has established a research institute, which addresses violence prevention and seeks to bridge the digital divide by offering activities to encourage girls to pursue careers in math, science, and technology. Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. has a long and distinguished history of helping girls develop into healthy, resourceful women with a strong sense of citizenship. More than 50 million women are Girl Scout alumnae. Over two-thirds of our female doctors, lawyers, educators, and community leaders were once Girl Scouts. With a track record like that, there is no doubt that Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. will be serving American girls for many years to come. I look forward to standing here again in 2012 to salute the Girl Scouts on their centennial.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3023.

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

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be joined in offering this amendment with my good friend from my neighboring State of Missouri, Senator Bond. Senator Bond and I have worked together on numerous issues during our tenure in the Senate, and I am pleased to work with him again. I am also pleased to be joined by Senators Johnson, Craig, Carnahan, Hutchinson, Harkin, Grassley, Bunning, and Bayh as cosponsors of this amendment. I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Carper, Fitzgerald, Dayton, and Dorgan as cosponsors.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, what is the pending amendment?

Mrs. LINCOLN. The purpose of this amendment is to place biodiesel fuel on an equal footing with every other alternative motor fuel in this Nation. Biodiesel is a clean-burning alternative fuel that can be produced from domestic renewable sources, such as agricultural oils, animal fats, or even recycled cooking oils. It can be used in compression-ignition diesel engines with no major modifications. It contains no petroleum, but it can be blended with petroleum at any stage in the production and delivery process from the refinery to the gas pump. Biodiesel is simple to use. It is biodegradable. It is nontoxic and essentially free of sulfur and aromatics. It is completely user friendly. Although new to our country, its use is well established in Europe with over 250 million gallons consumed annually. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 set a national objective to shift the focus of national energy demand away from imported oil toward renewable and domestically produced energy sources. When EPACT was passed in 1992, it recognized ethanol, natural gas, propane, electricity, and methanol as alternative fuels. The original list of alternative fuels did not include biodiesel because the technology had not been fully developed at that point. EPACT set a goal to replace 10 percent of petroleum-based fuels by the year 2000 and 30 percent by the year 2010. However, a GAO report issued in July of last year noted that ``limited progress had been made in increasing the numbers of alternative fuel vehicles in the national vehicle fleet and the use of alternative fuels'' as compared to the conventional vehicles and fuels. We have not met the original EPACT goals of replacing 10 percent of the petroleum-based fuels by the year 2000, and we are not on track to meet the goal of 30 percent by the year 2010. In fact, we have not even come close. That is partly a result of not allowing all alternative fuels to be used to meet that EPACT alternative fuel mandate. My amendment will significantly increase the use of alternative fuels by enacting a temporary program to allow covered fleets to meet up to 100 percent of the EPACT purchase requirements through the use of biodiesel. Currently, covered fleets can meet up to 50 percent of purchase requirements with biodiesel. The amendment would also require the Secretary of Energy to conduct a study evaluating the availability and cost of alternative-fueled vehicles and alternative fuels. The provisions of this amendment would automatically sunset after 4 years. At that time, covered fleets would again be able to satisfy only 50 percent of purchase requirements with biodiesel. This temporary program, in conjunction with the Energy Department study, is necessary to determine if vehicle and fuel markets are significantly developed to support continuing the purchase mandates or if a further extension to the biodiesel credit program is warranted. We must allow all alternative fuels to count toward EPACT's alternative fuel requirements. Our amendment will allow us to make the most of existing opportunities. By offering an additional option for the use of alternative fuels, we will widen the possibilities for these fuels to be made more widely available. Fleets will continue to have the option to choose the complying vehicles and fuels that best meet their needs. This amendment is not expected to affect fleets that are currently using ethanol or natural gas. But this amendment does provide a further option for alternative-fueled vehicles. Furthermore, it does not directly displace natural gas or ethanol sales since biodiesel is used in medium and heavy-duty trucks rather than light-duty vehicles. It is in the best security interest of our Nation to reduce our reliance on foreign energy suppliers. We can no longer afford to be subject to the whims of the foreign cartels such as OPEC which successfully manipulate the price of oil. Added to these threats posed by OPEC and the instability of the Middle East are the even more threatening possibilities we face in other parts of world. Developments in many regions of the world where much of today's energy supplies are obtained--West Africa, the Caspian Sea, Indonesia, and on and on--clearly serve notice that our Nation cannot continue to depend on these areas for our future energy needs. These events make it even more pressing than ever that we proceed forward with developing our own domestic alternative energy resources. By allowing fleets to meet 100 percent of their AFV requirement by using biodiesel, we will take a positive step toward moving this country away from dependence on petroleum-based motor fuels and toward alternative motor fuels. The time to start investing in renewable energy sources is now. We have taken far too long to get to this point. There are many other nations way ahead of us in using these types of alternative fuels. I urge my colleagues to support our amendment to work hard on being able to present the realities of the fact that we are there. We have products now that we can be using. If we can provide the incentives and the abilities to make sure the marketplace can become ready for these alternative fuels, we are on the cusp of finding the solution. I appreciate the support of my colleague in working with me. I look forward to a very positive reception of our amendment with the wonderful cosponsors we have. I know the Senate will be ready to move forward on this one. I appreciate all the work Senators have put into this alternative fuels effort. I yield the floor.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the Lyon College Concert Choir on the occasion of their performance at the National Cathedral, March 17, 2002. Lyon College, located in Batesville, AR, offers a liberal arts education of superior quality in a personalized setting. A selective, independent, undergraduate, residential teaching and learning community affiliated with the Presbyterian Church, USA, Lyon encourages the free intellectual inquiry essential to social, ethical and spiritual growth. With a rich and scholarly and religious heritage, Lyon develops, in a culture of honor, responsible citizens and leaders committed to continued personal growth and service. We in Arkansas are extremely proud of the young people from Lyon College who will fill the cathedral with song on March 17.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nebraska, who has done critical work on this issue. I am delighted to be joining many of my colleagues in discussing the critical role that renewable fuels will play in our national energy policy. The energy bill we have been considering contains an important provision for renewable motor fuel standards. This provision establishes a national program for renewable fuels to be phased in beginning in 2004. This program would be flexible, so as not to adversely affect small producers and refineries, and it would provide incentives to encourage the development and use of renewable fuel. What would be the end result of this program? It would require 5 billion gallons of renewable fuels by the year 2012, significantly reducing our dependence upon foreign energy sources. What does this mean? This is incredible. I think this is so important for us to stop and take a moment and realize what we are actually doing--5 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2012. What a dramatic move we are making in the right direction. I should also mention that this provision includes measures to protect consumers. It would require a Department of Energy study next year, before the program begins, to assess the possible consumer impacts of a renewable fuels program. If the program would have a negative effect on consumers, the Environmental Protection Agency would be authorized to adjust the requirements to prevent these negative effects. By delivering the United States from the whims of groups like OPEC, who manipulate the production and price of oil, we will also reduce our trade deficit by an estimated $34 billion. That will be good for both American economic security and national security. Furthermore, a renewable fuel standard would create new economic opportunities in rural America. As many as 214,000 new American jobs could be created in response to the renewable fuel standard. It would increase the demand for grain by an average of 1.4 million bushels per year. It would create nearly $5.3 billion in new investment, much of that in rural areas. Importantly, a renewable fuel standard has attracted broad support-- and not only from the agricultural and fuel industries. The American Lung Association, for example, has also offered strong support for this provision, since renewable fuels would provide an effective strategy to reduce toxic air emissions and protect our air quality. It is an exaggeration to say that a renewable fuel standard could protect the health and well-being of future generations of Americans. Those of us from rural states appreciate the remarkable potential of renewable fuels. That is one reason why the farm bill that recently passed in the Senate also included a renewable motor fuels standard. In Arkansas, we recognize the importance of renewable fuels in helping the United States to become more energy-independent. That is why we are continuing to move forward with the development of a valuable new alternative fuel: Biodiesel. Biodiesel is a clean-burning fuel that can be produced from domestic renewable sources, such as agricultural oils, animal fats, or even recycled cooking oils. It contains no petroleum, but it can be easily blended with petroleum diesel at any stage of the process--during production at the refinery, in the pipeline, or even from the gas pump into a diesel tank. Biodiesel can be used in compression-ignition diesel engines with no major modifications. We are there. We are there with a product that is environmentally safe, that is good for our economy, and good for our environment. In road tests, biodiesel blends have demonstrated performance, fuel mileage, and drivability comparable to petroleum diesel. Biodiesel is simple to use, biodegradable, non-toxic, and essentially free of sulfur and aromatics. Athough new to our country, its use is well-established in Europe with over 250 million gallons consumed annually. Farmers in Arkansas and other rural States have embraced the development of biodiesel because it makes good economic sense for the farm industry. Biodiesel would allow us to develop new markets and to expand existing markets for soybean oil, cottonseed oils, and other types of agricultural oils. I have fought to include biodiesel as an alternative fuel, most recently by inserting a biodiesel tax credit in the Finance Committee's energy tax incentives package. This provision was overwhelmingly approved by the committee in a vote last month. Biodiesel is not yet cost-competitive with petroleum diesel. In order to create favorable market conditions for biodiesel, we need market support and tax incentives to foster these conditions. With today's depressed market for farm commodities, biodiesel would 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. I believe that biodiesel could be made more available by allowing its use under the Energy Policy Act which Congress passed in 1992. If we expand the alternative fuels options to include biodiesel, we can make even more progress on bringing renewables to a wider market and making them more cost-effective. Reduced dependency on foreign oil, greater protection of our air and water against pollution and contamination, a strengthened rural economy with new jobs and productive uses for surplus farm commodities, energy sources that are natural, sustainable, and renewable--and all of this now. We do not have to wait. We do not have to retrofit our automobiles. All we have to do is move forward in making this product comparable in the sense that it can be competitive in the marketplace. We can do it now. These are only a few of the major benefits we will see from increasing our investment in renewable fuels. Now is the time to lay the groundwork to move our Nation in the direction of energy independence. How excited we should be that we have come this far, that we can move quickly now in energy policy to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, to use our own economy, our own production, and our agricultural and rural States to create a better environment and less dependence on foreign oil. I am very pleased to join Senator Nelson and the rest of my colleagues today in making sure that efficient, renewable fuels will play a key role in our Nation's future energy plan. Now is the time to act. We have been void of energy policy in our Nation for far too long-- one that is progressive, meets our needs, lessens our dependence on foreign oil, as well as putting our people to work --all the while protecting our environment. I thank my colleagues for bringing up such a critical issue, and I look forward to moving forward on this one quickly. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that several letters be printed in the Record.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following poem, ``God Bless the USA,'' written by Ms. Debbie Rogers of Danville, AR, be printed in the Record.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to those in honor of our good friend and colleague Senator Ted Kennedy, who last week celebrated his 70th birthday. Since I arrived in the U.S. Senate in 1999, I have had several opportunities to turn to Senator Kennedy and his staff for advice and assistance on a range of issues that are crucial to Arkansas, including health care and help for the uninsured. For example, I was honored to work closely with Senator Kennedy last year on the education reform bill. When I offered an amendment to improve educational services to language-minority students, Senator Kennedy offered his assistance by cosponsoring my amendment. It was the first floor amendment I offered in the Senate that required extensive debate and a rollcall vote. We passed that amendment as a key part of the most sweeping overhaul of American public education in a generation. The support and assistance I received from Senator Kennedy and his outstanding staff is something I will always remember and deeply appreciate. In my time here, I have found Senator Kennedy to be an invaluable resource on policy and legislative matters. For nearly four decades, he has exemplified how a Senator can best serve the interests of his own constituents, as well as those of the American people. Through his wisdom, experience, and encyclopedic grasp of Senate history and procedure, he has served as an example to us all. It may be that the greatest tribute we can pay Senator Kennedy is to follow that example. Finally, I would like to offer my thanks to Senator Kennedy for the friendship that he and his wife Vicki have extended to me and my family. I am deeply grateful for their warmth and kindness.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced S. 1942, the ``Biodiesel Promotion Act of 2002,'' to provide tax incentives for the production of biodiesel from agricultural oils. I was pleased to be joined by Senators Dayton and Johnson as original co-sponsors of my bill. I was also pleased yesterday to be joined by Senator Grassley in offering S. 1942 in amendment form to the Senate Finance Committee Energy Tax Incentives legislation. My amendment was included in the legislation with an overwhelmingly favorable vote of 16 to 5. The amendment differs from S. 1942 only in the length of authorization of the program. Due to budget constraints, the amendment authorizes the program for three years as opposed to the bill language of a ten-year authorization. S. 1942 is a start, but we must make sure that these incentives are not just a flash in the pan. We must ensure that biodiesel becomes a central component of this nation's automobile fuel market. S. 1942 will provide a partial exemption from the diesel excise tax for diesel blended with biodiesel. Specifically, the bill provides a 1- cent reduction for every percent of biodiesel blended with diesel up to 20 percent. The bill also provides for reimbursing of the Highway Trust Fund from the USDA Commodity Credit Corporation, (CCC). I believe this procedure will protect the Trust Fund from lost revenues due to the biodiesel incentive while providing a much-needed boost to our nation's biodiesel industry. The cost to the CCC would be offset at least initially by the savings under the marketing loan program. 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. A biodiesel-diesel blend typically contains up to 20 percent renewable content. It can be added directly into the gas tank of a compression-ignition, diesel engine vehicle with no major modifications. Biodiesel in its neat or pure form 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 has many environmental and operational benefits. One I would like to highlight is the fuel's lubricating characteristics. Even at very low blends, biodiesel contributes operational and maintenance benefits to diesel engines by continuously cleansing the engine as it runs. This is even more significant when using ultra-low sulfur diesel. With the EPA's new rule to reduce the sulfur content of highway diesel fuel by over 95 percent, biodiesel stands ready to help us reach this requirement. Farmers in my State of Arkansas and across the country began investing in the development of biodiesel because of the economics of the farm industry. Producing biodiesel from farm commodity oils will provide a ready new market for our farm products. Currently, agricultural oils are widely produced for use in our food markets. However, large supplies of vegetable oils in the world market have resulted in depressed commodity prices in the domestic market. More than a decade ago, soybean growers recognized that the traditional approach of riding out a depressed market by storing surplus soybean oil until better times would no longer work. The industry had to do more. It needed a proactive and aggressive plan to develop new markets and expand existing ones. Biodiesel is one of these new markets identified with true potential for displacing large quantities of soybean oil. For cotton, the cottonseed is presently about 20 percent of the value of the crop. Biodiesel will open new value-added uses for the cottonseed oil at a time when new uses and markets are extremely important because of these hard economic times. And for our rice farmers, biodiesel will provide additional incremental increases in value to our rice crop and open up a new outlet for the co-product of rice bran oil. A Department of Energy and Department of Agriculture study has shown that biodiesel yields 3.2 units of fuel product energy for every unit of fossil energy consumed in its life cycle. By contrast, petroleum diesel's life cycle yields only 0.83 units of fuel product energy per unit of fossil energy consumed. Such measures confirm the ``renewable'' nature of biodiesel. Even after years of research and market development, biodiesel is not yet cost-competitive with petroleum diesel. In order to be so, market support and tax incentives are needed. I believe the provisions provided in this bill will help in leveling the field for biodiesel blends and help jumpstart this exciting new industry. The time is right for this investment. It is right for our rural economy, for our environment, and for our national energy security.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, it is with great regret that I vote against the farm bill today. As a member of the Agriculture Committee, I have worked extensively on this bill at the committee level and on the floor. I appreciate Chairman Harkin and his staff, who have been tireless in their efforts to work with me on behalf of Arkansas farmers. The bill we passed out of the Agriculture Committee was a strong bill that was carefully balanced to represent both the diversity of our various regions and the different elements of our rural economy. But passage of the Dorgan-Grassley amendment on payment limitations last week as well as prohibition on packer ownership of livestock make it untenable for me to support this bill. I won't go into great detail on the effect of the Dorgan-Grassley payment limitations on Arkansas farmers. Instead, I refer my colleagues to the February 7th Congressional Record and the extensive remarks I made during debate on the amendment. In addition, I would like to submit for the Record an article from today's Arkansas Democrat- Gazette, which outlines the effect this amendment will have on Arkansas farmers. This article refers to a Congressional Research Service study which finds that a single farmer growing rice will hit his limit at only 487 acres. As I told my colleagues during debate on the Dorgan- Grassley amendment, many farmers in Arkansas have had to extend their farms to over one thousand acres in order to break even because their input costs are so high. Last week, I cautioned my colleagues that the information they had seen in the press and on websites about plutocrats getting rich off farms payments was misleading. I said that the Environmental Working Group, which was lobbying heavily in favor of payment limitations, did not represent the family farmer. Now it seems that at least one editorial writer agrees with me. I quote from the February 11th Washington Times: ``Make no mistake. The agenda of the Environmental Working Group and its financial backers is not simply to eliminate unfair public subsidizes to agribusiness, but to cripple agribusiness altogether. . .'' Freedom to Farm demanded that farmers engage the volatile and subsidized global marketplace and learn how to become more competitive. Now, with passage of these terribly unfair provisions, the Senate would attempt to penalize America's farmers and ranchers for taking the very measures they need to complete in that same global marketplace. Although I sadly vote against the farm bill today, I look forward to working with Chairman Harkin and members of the conference committee to modify this version of the farm bill so that I might support a more balanced and fair farm bill conference report. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorials to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. How much time remains on our side?

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, this letter points out one of the worst things about payment limits, that they bite hardest when commodity prices are lowest. How would farmers be hurt? One way they would be hurt is because this amendment would discontinue availability of generic commodity certificates which offer farmers better access to the marketing loan program. Marketing loan support is most important when prices are low. Let's say there is a year in which the global market is swamped, in large part because of foreign farmers who are much more heavily subsidized. American farmers have fewer global markets, so now the domestic market becomes oversupplied. The price plummets, just as it has for every program crop over the past several years. Because the price is lower, the value of loan deficiency payments would be higher, and farmers would hit their new payment limitation sooner. This means that a larger portion of their crop is now unavailable for marketing loan support. Because prices are so low, they cannot possibly recoup their cost of production through the market. If they are lucky, they only fall into deeper debt. If they are unlucky, then they are forced to default on their loans and the bank seizes whatever assets they have: their equipment, their land, their house. Generic certificates would offer these farmers more access to the marketing loan program, but this amendment would eliminate that benefit. In what other ways would they be hurt? Well, this amendment would take away the 3-entity rule. Why is that important? To understand this, let's look back to why the 3-entity rule was created in the first place. The 1985 farm bill created the marketing loan program with no payment limitations. Later, Congress decided in its infinite wisdom that, even though farmers were going out of business and people were leaving farms and rural towns in dramatic numbers, it had made it too easy for farmers to make a handsome living. So it decided to begin placing dollar limits on payments, even though it unfairly disadvantaged farmers who, with higher value crops, reached these limits much faster than farmers of other crops. But it was apparent that to do that would quickly put even more people out of business, so Congress tried to cushion the blow by allowing farmers to apply for payments through up to three entities. This allowed people who farmed with their wives and children to get enough support to keep the family farm viable. So, from the beginning, the 3-entity rule was put in place to avoid the massive bankruptcies that would otherwise occur if payment limitations were imposed without it. But even though farmers continued to go out of business, and rural communities continued to decline, Congress decided to lower payment limits again. Then, Congress passed Freedom to Farm and all heck broke loose. Prices plummeted, farmers began dropping like flies, and Congress was forced to begin passing emergency relief bills--4 years in a row--to keep rural America from falling stone dead. Now, in the wake of all this, comes this amendment that wants to lay that one last straw on the camel's back by taking away the 3-entity rule--the one thing that has kept thousands of farmers hanging on. And it comes at a time when farmers are suffering about as bad as they ever have. It comes at a time when virtually every farmer and every farm organization is coming to Congress in droves begging, pleading with us to increase farm support. And, remember, it isn't just farmers of the high-value crops like cotton and rice who are in need. It's also the corn farmers, soybean farmers, wheat farmers, and farmers of just about every other crop. They are all suffering. And this is very important to remember, because this amendment will hurt these farmers, too--even the farmers of specialty crops; they don't participate in these programs. Specialty crop farmers will be significantly hurt because tightened payment limitations force farmers to reduce plantings of the program crops. In many parts of the country where they grow specialty crops, places such as California and the Far West, Florida, and many of the Atlantic States, and many of the Mountain states, much of the land that is currently planted in program crops will soon be switched to specialty crops. When that happens you will see the prices of these specialty crops dive even lower than they are now, and then these farmers will be forced out of business. So it isn't just farmers of rice and cotton. Nevertheless, it is this disparity in cost of production between the high-value crops such as rice and cotton and the lower value crops that provides the clue to understanding why this amendment is so dangerous, and would be so devastating, to the farmers in my State and to farmers across the country. Yet, this point is only one of the many mysteries and myths that cloud this issue. I would like to try to paint a clearer picture, to bring some clarity to this confusion, and perhaps it would be easiest to do this by pointing out what freedom to farm sought to accomplish. The main premise behind freedom to farm was that farmers had become addicted to subsidies, and that they needed to be liberated into the glorious free market that we would soon create within the ambit of the World Trade Organization. Farmers were told they needed to make their operations more market-oriented, that they needed to learn to respond to free market signals. We set in motion a plan to wean farmers from government support. We gave them planting flexibility. We told them we would negotiate away the trade barriers overseas competitors erected to block them. We told them the world would follow our example if only we would lead by example and unilaterally disarm. Well, we disarmed. We began to lower our farm support, but the world did not follow. The result has been 6 years of disaster. Prices have plummeted in virtually every commodity, even while input costs continue to rise. Farmers are going out of business and rural towns are heading for the abyss. So we, in Congress, have tried to respond with a new farm bill. Chairman Harkin has introduced a very good bill that seeks to answer the needs of our farmers. I compliment him on his hard work, his diligence, and his patience in bringing us a bill from the Senate Agriculture Committee that does just that in its diversity and its attention to assisting farmers. It is a bill that renews the Government's commitment to farmers in the rural economy, one that offers a bedrock, strong safety net. But let us not lie to ourselves. This is not a complete fix, by any stretch. Prices are still in the tank. It will take some time for those prices to rebound, even if the rural economy responds immediately and positively to our new farm policy. Until then, our farmers will continue to struggle under the burden of low prices. How low have the prices sunk? As this next chart shows, the price of cotton last year sank to its lowest level in more than two decades. For rice--shown on our next chart--the story is even worse. Last year rice prices sank to a level lower than they were in 1947. Yet cotton and rice farmers still have to wrestle with an ever-rising cost of production. As this next chart shows--and it is actually my favorite chart--input costs have risen steadily while prices have remained flat or even dropped. This point is never mentioned in those horror stories that we see in newspapers and on the Web sites. Talking about the unbelievable amounts of money these farmers are getting, we never hear one single mention of what these producers are spending. Farmers need more support and higher prices because their costs are forever rising. Let's think about what this means. What products do we buy in our everyday lives for which the prices are just as low today as they were in 1947? Imagine trying to support your family in the 21st century--with the cost of housing as it is today, with energy prices shooting through the roof, as they did last year, with cars, clothes, everything you can think of that you have to buy costing as much as they do today--imagine doing all of that on the amount of money your father or grandfather earned in 1947. You could not do it. That is what rice farmers face. And that is what cotton farmers face. And that is what soybean farmers and corn farmers and wheat farmers and all of the others face, too. That is why every organization, representing every program crop, and several others on top of all of that, strongly oppose this amendment. They know they will have to continue to face the squeeze between plummeting farm prices and the ever-rising farm costs of production. Yet even as they are squeezed, we tell our farmers they must still go out and wrestle with the heavily distorted global marketplace--a marketplace distorted beyond recognition by foreign subsidies so high they would be unrecognizable to us. We tell our farmers they must still find ways to be market oriented, to be more responsive to the market signals--in a word: to be more competitive. What does any business have to do to become more competitive? It must find ways to lower its per unit cost of production. To do this, most businesses find it necessary to increase their economies of scale. That is how the marketplace works. That is what our farmers in Arkansas have had to do. Mr. Greg Day, a constituent of mine who farms in Grady, AR, used to farm cotton on only 1,700 acres. But because of the declining health of the farm economy, because of the changing world in which he lives, he has had to double his acreage to 3,400 acres in order to spread out his costs, just to maintain the level of revenue he needs to keep his head above water. And now along comes an amendment that tells him that we want to discourage the very course of action he has had to follow to survive. It says to farmers: Do not do what you have to do to become more competitive. It is as if Congress is, on the one hand, telling farmers to participate in the real business world where the most competitive survive, but, on the other hand, telling them not to do what will make them more competitive. Congress has sent contradicting signals to farmers because it is still clouded by these false pictures, these myths of what is the average farmer. We still impose upon farmers this mythic, old-fashioned notion that, while the rest of us live in the 21st century, farmers ought to make a living as our grandfathers did 75 or 100 years ago. But our grandfathers were never asked to meet the regulations of today's EPA or the Corps of Engineers and wetland regulations. Our grandfathers were never asked to meet the regulations for chemical application, fertilizer application--all of the other really positive ideas that have come out of agriculture in ways that we can be more efficient and more sensitive to the environment. Our grandfathers never operated under those restrictions. And that myth imagines that we ought to stamp out anybody and anything that looks too big, anything that looks too global, anything that looks too corporate. But, colleagues, there are no big, faceless corporations arriving in our small towns from the big cities and pushing our families off the farms, eating up all the land, and ruining the rural landscape. That is just another myth as well. Many of those mentioned by my colleague--large banks, millionaires-- some of them are landowners through a default on loans. Some of them are large landowners because they are age-old families. Some of them have acquired land because they purchased it. The farm families who are farming these lands are the same families who were farming it back when our grandfathers were farming. They are just families like yours and mine. There are fewer of them, unfortunately, but not because big corporations from big office towers, with wealthy shareholders, took their place. There are fewer farmers because, for too long, we have let inadequate policy and crushing low prices push them out. And you do not remedy this situation by outlawing the farmers who grow higher value crops and who need bigger farms. If you do that, then all we will have accomplished in this body is to create a policy that puts both the smaller farmer and the bigger farmer out of business. Smaller farmers are not going out of business because bigger farmers are hogging a disproportionate share of Government support. Smaller farmers are going out of business because the world is changing, because we have a global marketplace, because there is global competition from more heavily subsidized farmers overseas. You are not going to fix that by simply saying: We don't want bigger farms. You are not going to fix the North Dakota wheat farmer's problems by putting the Arkansas rice farmer out of business. The Iowa grain farmer isn't going to do better because the Louisiana cotton farmer went out of business. But this amendment will make it so much harder on the Arkansas rice farmer and the Louisiana cotton farmer to make ends meet, just as it will eventually hurt soybean farmers in Missouri and Maryland, and corn farmers in Indiana and Kansas, and wheat farmers in Wyoming, and so on. All of these farmers are in this boat together. That is why all of these commodity organizations are banding together to oppose this amendment. Simply put, approving this amendment will accomplish nothing more than targeting these cotton and rice farmers and making it harder for them to get the farm support they need to simply survive. Who would farm in my State then? It will not be any of the farmers whose stories I have told you today. And it will not be their children. I come from a seventh generation farm family. I am a sister, daughter, and granddaughter of a rice farmer. My grandfather passed on to his grandchildren land that had been in our family for generations. Of the nine grandchildren he had, only two of us still want to try and make a go at farming. Once they drop out, the Lambert family will be out of farming perhaps totally. These newspaper articles that have spread misinformation about me and many others never tell that side of the story. These interest groups, Web sites that claim to speak on behalf of the family farmer, all of these editorial writers who publish arguments as if they know anything about farming, they never tell you about the farmer who cannot afford to get out because all of his debt and his only assets are both tied up in land, but who cannot afford to keep farming either because every year a little bit more of his grandfather's legacy slips away into red ink. They never tell you about the town that will dry up because Congress, in its infinite wisdom, decided to play God and arbitrarily decide that all the farmers in that town should go out of business because somebody up in Washington did not like how they got bigger, even though they got bigger because that same Congress also told them to act like an ordinary business and get more efficient. Who is going to keep revenue coming into that rural town that is drying up? Who is going to provide jobs and keep the property tax bases low so there is money to fund the schools? I don't think we can afford to take the risk necessary to find out. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and reserve the remainder of our time.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. I ask unanimous consent Dr. Phillip Owens, a fellow from my staff who is from Aurora, AR, be granted the privilege of the floor during the remainder of the farm debate.