Blanche Lincoln

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, honest and fair. Friendly and helpful. Considerate and caring. Courageous and strong. For 80 years, the Girl Scouts of Ouachita Council have worked to instill these values into the girls of central and southeast Arkansas. On April 14, 2007, they will gather together to celebrate this impressive anniversary, and I want to take this time to celebrate with them. Their tireless commitment to the young women of our State has helped bring out the best in the daughters of Arkansas, and we owe them a great deal of thanks for this important work. With the stated mission of building girls of courage, confidence and character, the Girl Scouts of America started as a group of just 18 in Savannah, GA, in 1915. And as the Scouts have grown up along with the country, their cause has lost none of its relevance or necessity. They have brought those simple, yet noble ideals to all parts of the Nation and now proudly claim a membership of more than 3.6 million. Through the Girl Scouts, young women develop a sense of civic responsibility and self-esteem that helps them realize the critical role they have to play in their communities and their country. Similar ideals were taught to me at an early age by my family and have helped to motivate and inspire me throughout my career. Years ago, my mother told me, ``It's a fact, not a fault, that we haven't had more women in elected office. It's just the way history turned out. But it's our fault if we don't do something to change that and to bring more women into government and the future.'' Today, I am proud to be one of 16 women serving in the Senate--the largest class of women Senators in American history. Across the country, we see women taking more active leadership roles not only politics, but business, education and science. We have built on the great foundation that was laid for us by generations past, and it is our responsibility to these courageous leaders to continue momentum forward. This is especially true in Arkansas as we carry on legacy of Hattie Caraway, the first woman ever elected to the Senate and a trailblazer for women in politics. There is still much left to do, and the unyielding commitment of groups like the Girl Scouts will prepare the next wave of great American women to the benefit of their communities and country. Once again, I would like to extend my heartfelt congratulations and most sincere thanks to the Ouachita Council for 80 years of service to the girls of Arkansas.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, every year during the month of March, we honor the women who have made a lasting impact on our country's history with Women's History Month. This month, I want to pay tribute to a true Arkansas pioneer who passed away earlier this year, Judge Elsijane Trimble Roy. Judge Roy has been referred to as ``Arkansas' Lady of Many Firsts.'' Only the third woman to graduate from the University of Arkansas law school in 1939, Judge Roy was the first female in the state of Arkansas to be appointed as circuit judge in 1966. In 1975, then-Governor David Pryor appointed Judge Roy to the Arkansas Supreme Court, making her the first woman to serve as an Arkansas Supreme Court Justice. Just 2 years later, newly elected President Jimmy Carter selected Judge Roy to serve on the Federal bench, and she was given the distinct honor of becoming Arkansas' first female Federal judge, as well as the first female judge appointed to the eighth Circuit. The daughter of Federal judge Thomas C. Trimble, Judge Roy and her father also held the distinction of being the first father and daughter to serve as Federal judges. In fact, Judge Roy served in the same courtroom that her father presided over for nearly 20 years. She often mentioned that she could feel his presence, and in a 1996 interview with the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, she noted that ``It's meant so much to me to be able to try cases in the same court. I look up there, and he helps me with the hard cases.'' A gifted athlete who loved sports, Judge Roy was a star player for the Lonoke High School basketball team in Lonoke, AR, and was a two- time women's singles champion at the University of Arkansas. Judge Roy was devoted to both her family and her faith. She was a proud mother, grandmother, and later in life, a great-grandmother. Judge Roy was also an aunt to many nieces and nephews. She was a longtime member of First Baptist Church in Lonoke and taught Sunday school class when she lived in Blytheville, AR. According to her obituary, Judge Roy gave credit to the Lord for her many judicial appointments, saying, ``I have always felt I have been brought to these positions by the Lord.'' The center of her faith was her favorite Bible verse, Micah 6:8, which reads, ``What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God.'' A truly remarkable woman, Judge Roy received many honors in her life, including the Outstanding Appellate Judge of 1976-1977 by the Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association. One honor, however, stands out above others. In 1976, Judge Roy was chosen as Arkansas Democrat's Woman of the Year, a distinction her mother also earned. She received a plaque for that honor, and in a 1979 Arkansas Democrat article, Judge Roy said, ``If anything is ever written about me, I want it to contain the words on that plaque. Throughout my career, the things written there are the things I have lived for.'' The plaque reads: As a law clerk, lawyer, and trial judge, Elsijane Trimble Roy established a reputation for integrity, intelligence, and independence. As the first woman on the Arkansas Supreme Court, she has become a symbol of pride and inspiration to all women. Judge Roy, you have been a source of pride and inspiration to all women, not only in Arkansas, but throughout our great land. You will most certainly be missed.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Nelson, as well as Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley, who have helped us in the direction of moving forward to something that is realistic in terms of estate tax reform. We will have the opportunity in the Finance Committee to be able to craft something that makes sense. But without what Senator Nelson and I and others are doing here, we will not have the direction to do that. Many of us know we have outlived the boundaries of the current estate tax law. We know in 2010 it may go away, but the fact is in 2011 it comes back at an old and arcane number. What we do is take what Senator Baucus has already done in the first amendment we voted on and adopted, and we increase it to a realistic and balanced level of a $5 million exemption and a 35-percent rate, and we do it with a reserve fund that will allow us to make sure we pay for it in a fiscally sound way when it comes through the Finance Committee. I have worked diligently on this issue since I have come to the Senate, recognizing that for our small businesses, our family businesses, and our family farms this is an essential component for them to be able to be aware of how they can plan for their finances to keep those family businesses in working order. So we appreciate it. I urge our colleagues, this is a great opportunity to have the Senate on record as moving forward on this issue. I encourage all of my colleagues to take a look at it and support us because it gives us an opportunity to get moving on this issue. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague, the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu.

Mrs. LINCOLN

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

Mrs. LINCOLN. I also ask unanimous consent to add Senator McCaskill as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment 542.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I have a special thanks to our chairman and ranking member, who have been enormously diligent on this budget issue. Chairman Conrad has done a phenomenal job in bringing together a budget that reflects values for this country and for the American people. We are grateful to him for spending so much time, along with the members of the Budget Committee, in doing that. I rise today to offer this amendment with my friend and colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. It is an amendment to the budget resolution that would provide an additional $70 million for the Veterans Benefits Administration. It is not a huge amount, but it is a necessary amount. This very much needed funding would provide the Veterans Benefits Administration with additional resources and staff to more effectively meet its increasing workload and its growing backlog of pending claims. We have seen a tremendous pressure put on our Veterans' Administration over the last several years. The veterans of this country, who have given so selflessly to this country in their service, in return deserve the services they have been promised. It is so important that the Veterans' Administration is able to process those requests. Chairman Akaka and Senator Murray have certainly shown tremendous leadership on behalf of our veterans. I thank them from the bottom of my heart. I thank them for all they have done. I also commend my colleague Chairman Conrad for this budget resolution which does so much in reflecting our Nation's commitment to our veterans. We know the chairman has put in here much needed resources for the VA. Those of us who believe so strongly in our veterans appreciate that. I am here today to build off of that great work these individuals have done. Delivering timely and accurate benefits to the brave men and women who have served our Nation in uniform should be a priority for each of us. The current backlog of pending disability and compensation claims has been listed as one of the VA's highest management priorities over the past several years. Yet the backlog that exists there is growing each and every day. The number of veterans who are contacting our office, our congressional office in Arkansas, who need help in navigating the disability claims arena at the VA, is so huge. Unfortunately, the time that begins to lag becomes years--not weeks or days but years--that our veterans are not getting the services they need because of this claims process. With an aging veteran population and more and more service men and women who are returning from overseas, the numbers of these claims will continue to increase, and the problem also becomes that our older veterans who have claims and have had claims existing for a long time, unfortunately, with newer veterans who are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, they get pushed to the front of the line oftentimes. It is an unreasonable situation for the VA to be in. The complexity of these claims has also increased as the health of our aging veterans has worsened and we are seeing a growing number of complex new claims that are resulting from complex combat-related injuries, such as PTSD and traumatic brain injuries. Unfortunately, the increase in the growing complexity of these claims, coupled with the lack of resources by the VA, has contributed to an unacceptably large claims backlog that continues to cause undue hardship for our veterans and their families all across this country. We all agree the claims process should be more timely and more accurate. While there are a number of fundamental changes that need to be made, the least we can do is better provide the VA with the resources and the staff they so desperately need. Last year the backlog of pending compensation and pension claims was nearly 586,000. As of last week, the backlog had grown to over 647,000. The most time-consuming and labor-intensive claims to process are the disability claims which require rating decisions. Last year the backlog of disability claims was nearly 372,000. Today it has grown to 405,000. This amendment would address the growing backlog of pending disability claims by providing $65 million to hire an additional 600 disability claims processors. As the VA receives and adjudicates more claims, it results in a larger number of appeals. That backlog of claims also continues to grow, and that is why this amendment would provide $4 million for the Board of Veterans' Appeals to hire 32 additional full-time staff. Additional funds are also necessary to increase training for current employees as well as any new employees to ensure consistency of claims processing and to lower error rates. That is why this amendment would provide the 1-year cost for increased training resources and quality measures with $400,000 for training and performance support systems and $400,000 for skill certification. I was taught at an early age about the sacrifices our troops and their families have made to keep our Nation free. My father and grandfathers both served in uniform; my father in Korea as an infantryman, I had both grandfathers who served the Nation in World War I. That is why I am here today. These veterans have given so much. They have given so much, as have their families. But to sit in waiting for years to get an answer from the VA is absolutely unacceptable, simply because we are not willing to put the staff there that needs to be there to deal with the volume of people who are coming. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which would simply allow the VA to better process and award the benefits to which they are entitled by law. This does not create any new benefits. It simply gives them access to the benefits they already need and deserve. I would ask my colleagues to check with your staff and check with your offices to see the disability claims you are dealing with for veterans in your State and see how many of them have such a lengthy time that you would love to be able to erase. The lessons ingrained in me since my childhood have taught me that after a person has served in the military, we should make every effort, absolutely every effort, to care for them and for their families and to honor the benefits they have earned. It is the least we can do for those to whom we owe so much. It is the least we can do to reassure future generations that a grateful nation will not forget them when their military service is complete. I urge my colleagues to support us on this amendment. We know that, as I said, the Budget Committee has done a good job in putting forth a responsible budget but one that truly recognizes the needs of our veterans. This is one small measure where we can assure the resources will be there to hire the staff, to ensure the backlog in these claims can be taken care of. I appreciate, again, the chairman and the ranking member of the Budget Committee. I thank them for the incredible job they have done. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment on behalf of the many veterans, with whom each and every one of us in our offices works, to ensure we can get them a timely response on their claims with the VA.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the chairman for his tireless work. He and his staff are remarkable in the way they go at this budget. They do a tremendous job of trying to balance so many different items of interest to this diverse body, and certainly to the priorities of the American people. I compliment him on the hard work he has put into this effort. I know the Senator from Iowa knows the great respect I have for him. He and I have worked together on the Finance Committee on multiple things. Unfortunately we come today with a large disagreement. I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa regarding further payment restrictions, because we did deal with this issue in the 2002 farm bill. We came to a compromise, and a compromise is just that: It is where two sides come together and figure out something that is reasonable for everybody. But this amendment goes farther on payment restrictions on the farm safety net offered by Senator Grassley and Senator Dorgan. This issue of payment limitations is not a new topic of debate. Yet, unfortunately, it will no doubt be a topic of much debate as we work to craft a new farm bill this year. I have been here in the Congress during two debates, two farm bills. We have produced two farm bills, and I have been a part of that. I realize that is an important avenue and the place where this debate should be taken. In my view, it is within the context of our farm bill, not the context of this budget debate, that this issue should be debated. We do not need to be here talking within the context of the budget about policy decisions that should be debated and decided in the farm bill through the Agriculture Committee. This issue remains largely misunderstood for many both inside and outside the beltway. While I wish this were not the case, I gladly take this opportunity to provide some clarity to this issue, hopefully some passion as well, because as a farmer's daughter I take a tremendous amount of pride in telling others about the farmers whom I represent and what American farmers provide this Nation and this world. Just as Senator Dorgan talked about the solidness of the names of his farmers, guess what. The names of my farmers are not any less American or any less solid. I have got to say, I am as proud of those farmers in my State who plant seed in the ground and help to provide food and fiber for this world and for our country as he is. It does not necessarily mean how wholesome your name might be whether you are a good American farmer. They talk about 10 percent of our farmers get roughly 72 percent in terms of these payments. Well, I will also let you know the other side of that coin, and that is 10 percent of our producers out there represent 90 percent of what is produced in this country. Yes, we have some large farmers. We have farmers who are hardcore and diligent and as red-blooded and as American as some of the smaller farmers are. Yes, they do produce a tremendous amount, 90 percent of the food and fiber we have in this country. It is critically important to remember that. It is not size that is important. The dollars, these dollars we talk about, do not go into their pockets, these dollars go to the banker, the local seed dealers and the implement dealers to pay off the notes it takes to farm, particularly in southern parts of this country because of the capital-intensive crops we grow. Senator Dorgan brings up dead individuals who get payments. I would propose that that is illegal. That is not a problem this issue takes care of. That is a problem for USDA, and it is one that should be taken care of. But it misrepresents what the debate here today is all about. That is what I want to bring people back to. Above all else, our farm policy seeks to do one thing for all of our farmers, whether you are in one region of the country or another. It seeks to provide for those producers of commodities a strong level of support, a safety net, not a hammock but a safety net, to protect these producers against low prices brought on by factors that are completely beyond their control, including but not limited to foreign tariffs and subsidies some five or six times greater than the help that is provided to farmers across this globe and what we provide our growers. Yet they still provide us with the safest, most abundant, and affordable food supply in the world. One of the fatal flaws of the 1996 bill, which was called Freedom to Farm, was its lack of an adequate safety net in the face of foreign subsidies and tariffs that dwarf our support of U.S. producers. I know Senator Grassley and Senator Dorgan and many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize the challenges our U.S. producers and industries face in an uncertain and often, quite frankly, unfair global marketplace. I am proud to say the 2002 farm bill corrected that mistake. It was a hard-fought compromise, as I mentioned. We came to the table and we agreed each other had points to be made, and we came up with something that was in the middle of the road, and would at least be acceptable by both. The amendment now before us would seek to further limit that very support at a time the producers need help the most, creating a gaping hole in the safety net for farmers. Furthermore, during hearings and listening sessions on the proposals for a new farm bill, most farm organizations support the compromises agreed to in the 2002 bill, and they recognize that future arbitrary limits on farm payments only serve to diminish our producers' ability to compete globally. Proponents of tighter limits continue to sensationalize this issue by citing misleading articles about large farm operations receiving very large payments as a reason to target support to smaller farmers. Because my farmers are larger does not mean they are not family farmers or they are not young farmers; it means they are doing what they have to do to compete. Unfortunately, sensationalized stories only serve to cloud this misunderstood issue further. Senators need to understand this amendment has very serious implications. Let me attempt to provide a bit of clarity on this issue of farm size. First, payment limitations have disproportionate effects on different regions of this country; there is no doubt about it. Simply put, the size of farm operations is relative to your region. Put even more simply, a small farm in Arkansas may be a huge farm in another area of the country, which leads me to my next point. This amendment continues to unfairly discriminate on a regional basis because it does not differentiate between crops that are extremely cost intensive and those that are not cost intensive. In Arkansas, we raise rice and cotton, two of our largest commodities, and we do so because that is what we are suited to grow; that is what any farmer would grow. These crops happen to be the most expensive crops to produce in the entire country. This amendment would lump cotton and rice into the same category with crops that require half as much of an input in terms of cost. Finally, on the issue of size, farmers of commodities are not getting larger to receive more payments. They do not want to have to become larger farmers; it creates more of a challenge and certainly more obstacles for them. They get larger in an attempt to create an economy of scale, to remain competitive internationally. You can see it in business. How do they offer lower prices to their consumers? They create an economy of scale that allows them to be able to do that. That is exactly what our farmers are doing in the southern growing areas of the country. At a time when we were telling our farmers to compete on the global market, we now hear of in this budget debate an amendment that would discourage farmers from acquiring the very economies of scale they will need to compete in that global marketplace. If you limit the amount of support farmers may receive, you are placing on them a substantial domestic disadvantage before sending them out to compete in an international marketplace that is already unfair for our producers. This is not the case in Europe and other foreign markets where agricultural subsidies and tariffs are at a level far higher than we see in the United States. Finally, I say to those who feel farmers are getting rich at the expense of the taxpayer, there is a reason why our sons and daughters are not rushing back to the farm and their family's heritage. It is because farming is a very tough business with a lot of challenges. Senator Dorgan mentioned the challenges his farmers face. My farmers face similar challenges, if not greater challenges, in terms of demographics and climate, in terms of pests and all of the many problems they face, as well as the international marketplace, trade barriers, and a multitude of other things. Farms that have been in families for generations are being sold because farm income is insufficient to meet the rising input cost associated with raising a crop, particularly in our area. I have to tell you, I have a wonderful farm family farming 5,000 to 6,000 acres, which in some places would seem to be a very large farm. It is a farmer with two sons who farm the land of three widow women who live down the lane from him, and several, yes, inheritants of farm land who want to keep their farm in their family, perhaps for their children who do not live there any longer. Do they not have the right to maintain their farms to ensure that if there is a farmer there who can increase his amount of land enough through rental property and others, to be able to keep that land in production, to keep his family farm alive and theirs as well? He reaches to that economy of scale because it is the only way he can survive, he and his two children. I urge my colleagues to take this opportunity to send a strong message to all of our farmers, not one region of the country or another, one that tells them their Government will stand behind them and their rural communities they support. I have to say, we are coming dangerously close to a trade deficit in agriculture. Do we want to see that happen? You know, it is unfortunate the American people have become very accustomed to almost taking for granted the fact we not only produce an abundant food supply but that we produce a safe and affordable one, the lowest per capita of any other developed nation in what we pay for food for our families, not to mention our growers grow our crops in regard to all of the regulations, whether it is the regulation of their chemical application and the tests they have to take, whether it is making sure they are meeting the guidelines of keeping wetlands conservation areas, making sure they are not stripping the land or not using the land properly, but they are doing it in the best sense of what it means to everybody involved to be good conservationists. We do that, and we do that at a small cost, a small cost, which is a safety net program that is less than one-half of 1 percent of the overall budget, the agriculture budget. What an investment for our children to know they will be able to maintain not a trade deficit in agriculture but maintain domestic production of crops, food, and fiber that they know are going to be healthy and that are going to be grown with the kind of regulations that produce a crop that is safe, not an imported crop that is being grown with chemical applications that we banned 10 years ago, or practices that are less than phytosanitary conditions. We want to make sure--and this is the way we do it--to provide the safety net for all farmers in a way that they can maintain the economy of scale. They have to in order to be able to be competitive. I have to say, if we do not stand behind the farmers of this country, the producers--all of them--and assure them their Government will support the production of food and fiber in this country, recognizing the regional differences and the challenges our producers face in the global marketplace, making sure that for them we will appreciate the safe and abundant food and fiber supply they provide, we will have made a sorry mistake. We have to make sure that we assure them that we are not going to outsource our food production but, rather, that we are committed to ensuring that production stays here where it belongs. I urge my colleagues to think sensibly about this amendment, to vote against this amendment, and not to unfairly disadvantage farmers in one region of the country, in my State and elsewhere. Furthermore, the budget resolution is not the appropriate venue for this debate. I ask my colleagues to oppose the Grassley-Dorgan amendment. Let's deal with this in the farm bill, the appropriate place. Let's come together. If there needs to be a compromise, we will come to a compromise as we did last time. We worked hard. We got a good one. I do not think this amendment is necessary. I thank my colleagues for their time and attention. I hope they will thoughtfully review what we have presented today and not support the Grassley-Dorgan amendment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I come to the floor this evening as a cosponsor of Senator Feinstein's legislation, S. 214, regarding the interim appointment of U.S. attorneys. I am here this evening to vigorously restate my support for this bill and urge my colleagues to support its passage. I signed on to this legislation in January following the interim appointment of Tim Griffin as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, who replaced former U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins. I take this opportunity to compliment Senator Pryor, who has done a tremendous job in working with Senator Feinstein and others on this legislation. His background as attorney general in our State, along with his real ability within the Senate to work through these issues to bring a calm and respectful response to the concerns that exist here has been a tremendous asset to this body in being able to bring the bill forward. I thank him and compliment him so much for his service. I am very proud to serve alongside him here in the Senate. When the Congress reauthorized the PATRIOT Act last year, we granted the administration the authority to appoint U.S. attorney vacancies on an interim basis. Remember, this was for emergency circumstances. The administration asked for this authority based upon the idea that if a national security issue arose requiring a new U.S. attorney, the Attorney General could step up and provide a replacement in a time of crisis without the delay of the confirmation process. For those of us who come from places such as Arkansas, close to Oklahoma, the Oklahoma City bombing comes to mind where a Federal building may be destroyed, and all of a sudden you need to make sure the proper authorities in public service are in place to be able to continue to serve the public there. So we have certainly references of where emergencies might occur. But in these instances we have seen reviewed, I don't think anybody else could substantiate a real emergency circumstance. One of the first questions I asked the Justice Department, when they asked to do an interim appointment so quickly, was: Was there an emergency in this situation? I had not heard about one. In a January Senate Judiciary hearing, Attorney General Gonzales stated this emergency provision would not be used for political purposes or to circumvent the nomination process. Yet how else could it be explained? Furthermore, the Attorney General pledged he would work with home State Senators to provide replacement U.S. attorneys. I listened to the Attorney General's comments, but we now know the actions of his Justice Department in recent months do not match the rhetoric he delivered. Specific information revealed last week shows the Justice Department deliberately and deftly planned to circumvent the rules for appointing U.S. attorneys by politicizing the emergency provision we authorized. In one e-mail exchange between White House staff and officials at the Department of Justice, the administration specifically plotted to ``gum this to death'' and otherwise to ``run out the clock'' in an effort to avoid the confirmation process to replace former U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins in Arkansas. These actions are a disservice to the Justice Department, to this administration, and to all Americans. They demonstrate a willful lack of transparency and respect for the system of checks and balances our forefathers instituted. They foresaw the need to make sure the three coequal branches of Government would remain separate, that there would be a balance and a check to make sure these different branches of our Government were operating as they should. I recognize the U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and they are political appointees. Lord, we have heard that ad nauseam in this debate, that these U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. But that does not mean they can politicize the law. It does not mean they serve the President and they serve in these positions for political purposes. They serve in these positions as stewards of the law of this land. They serve in these positions as public servants to defend the rule of law in this country. However, they have a duty and a responsibility, as well, to implement the laws of our Nation without political favor or bias. That is why the confirmation process is so very important, to ensure that nominees are qualified and are committed to the rule of law. We know they are going to be nominees of the President and that perhaps they certainly are acquaintances or those whom the President or administration would know, but they still have to be qualified and they still have to be able to implement the rule of law. It is an important check and balance that has served our Nation well, and any attempt to undermine it represents a breakdown in our system. The e-mails released last week show either a blatant attempt to deceive the Senate or, at the very least, serious mismanagement under the Attorney General. This controversy has caused a serious breach between the Justice Department, Congress and, most importantly, the American people--a breach I am not sure can be repaired if Mr. Gonzales remains Attorney General. That is why I am here this evening to preserve the Senate's role in the confirmation process and to restore our system to the way our forefathers envisioned it. I compliment Senators Feinstein, Leahy, and Specter for their leadership on this issue. This bill represents a compromise on this issue, and the bipartisan leadership they have shown should serve as an example to this entire body. I also thank the numerous U.S. attorneys and their staffs all across this great Nation for the critical work they do to protect our communities by enforcing the laws of our Nation. Far too often, they do not receive the credit they deserve. It is unfortunate the Senate is having to set aside time to debate this legislation because we have so many pressing priorities that must be addressed as this year progresses. Yet we have had to step aside and look at what has gone wrong and how we can prevent it from happening again. How has this breach of trust affected our overall system? Most importantly, we have to look at what it has done to the sentiments of the American people--those who want desperately to trust us, to trust those of us in the legislative branch, to trust those in the executive branch, and to trust those in the judicial branch to do our jobs, to be there for them as part of the American democracy and what it is we stand for in this country, so they can trust that the laws we create will be implemented without political bias, and that we would work together as branches of Government. When we look at, unfortunately, what has happened, the mismanagement that has occurred time and time again, from this administration particularly--whether it was the civilian mismanagement we saw early on in Iraq, or the mismanagement of FEMA in Katrina, and the response the Government has to the people of the gulf region, we look at these areas where the mismanagement that occurred has eroded the faith of the American people in this incredible democracy we are all so proud of. Our democracy relies on independent and unbiased law enforcement. It is our duty to ensure that these problems are corrected. I encourage my colleagues to support Senator Feinstein's bill, S. 214. I yield the floor.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak on a different matter, but I want to compliment my colleague from Arkansas, who is not only a colleague and a true Arkansan but a great leader. I appreciate the passion that he feels and the issue that he deals with and feel very blessed to have him as my colleague from the State of Arkansas.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Many of us believe that the events at the U.S. Attorney's Office and how they have been handled by the administration have been a real disservice to the people of this country and to the processes that provide the transparency so that our great democracy can work, so that the wheels of this great democracy can turn and the people feel confident and trusting in their Government because these processes have worked and provided that transparency. To have eliminated the processes, or to circumvent the process that provided that transparency, the administration has presented a real disservice to the people of this country and to the justice system and what it represents. So I applaud my colleague for so many of his comments today on that very issue.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor this morning with a little bit of sadness but, more importantly, a tremendous amount of joy in my heart to salute an individual who has meant so much to me and to pay tribute and to say thanks to a very dear friend and longtime chief of staff of mine, Steve Patterson. For the better part of 12 years, Steve Patterson, or as we call him in our office, ``Patterson,'' as he is known to me and to my staff, has faithfully served the people of Arkansas, as well as me. He has been my most trusted adviser in both the House of Representatives and in the Senate. Words cannot fully describe the meaningful impact Steve Patterson has had on both my personal and professional life. When I first decided to run for the Senate, my husband said: We are in, but only if Steve Patterson is in. He has meant so much to our entire family. I know the comfort and counsel he provided my mother. In so many ways, he has been one of those people who you know from your professional side of life is so critically important, but from your personal side of life now is an unbelievable individual in all he has done and accomplished. When I think of Steve Patterson, there are a few words that stand out: integrity, solid conviction, justice, fairness. All of the words each and every one of us strives for in our everyday life I see in this individual, who has meant and continues to mean so much to me. For the past 25 years Steve has been one of the most loyal and hard- working servants in Government. He has been a team player as far as a congressional team is concerned. He is big on team sports. But more importantly, he is incredibly devoted to the team spirit the country has and needs to be the success it is. I consider him a true confidant and will most assuredly miss him in that position. Steve was born in Oklahoma City in 1950 but grew up in Alva, OK, where he graduated high school. He attended the University of Oklahoma in Norman but eventually transferred to Oklahoma State University where he graduated with a degree in journalism, and I have to say, unfortunately for my colleagues in Oklahoma who have adopted him, he has moved to Arkansas and he is one of our own now. According to his wife Jean, Steve was always very interested in politics. One of her first memories was when she and Steve were friends at Oklahoma State waiting to vote for the first time in the 1972 Presidential election. To give you an idea of how far we have come in the issue of election reform in the last 35 years, Jean told me they waited in line for what seemed like an eternity to cast their very first ever vote in, of all places, the laundry room of someone's home on the top of a washer and dryer. Before they could even get to the ballot box, they learned their candidate, George McGovern, was in the process of being defeated by Richard Nixon in a landslide. But you know what, they continued to wait in line. They voted despite the outcome they knew was probable because of their true convictions. The experience of that election crushed a lot of young people and it caused them to turn away from the political process but not Steve Patterson. He has always wanted to make a difference and he has never cowered from any of the challenges that are faced when you have a conviction. He has got that conviction for many reasons, not because he loved this great country, not because he loves his family, not because he loves his fellow man, but for all of those reasons. Shortly before he moved to Washington, Steve served as political reporter for various newspapers in Oklahoma and was working for the Lawton Constitution when newly elected Congressman Dave McCurdy asked Steve to become his press secretary. They had gone to college together, and there was a group of them, when Dave McCurdy was running for Congress, who all worked together to reach a common dream. The decision was not an easy one, however. When Steve moved to Washington, he was a single father, a very devoted single father. Money was tight in those days and the hours were long. He and my long-time systems administrator, who is still with me, Thirise Brown, were both young single parents and would on occasion have to bring their children to work. It is hard to imagine, or is it? Actually we see a lot of that these days. Steve's daughter Paige and Thirise's daughter Tiki would often be oblivious to the major hard work that was being accomplished around them, and would have a great time getting into all sorts of trouble, watching as their two single parents worked desperately hard, not only in their conviction to provide for their children but also to make this country great. Although Steve began as a press secretary, he quickly worked his way up to Chief of Staff. He was the Chief of Staff to my good friend Congressman Dave McCurdy and continued in that capacity until 1994. Shortly after, Steve became my Chief of Staff, joined me in my House times when I was in the House of Representatives. We were there together for 2 short years until I retired from the House to be with my newborn twins. Steve went to work for then Representative Jim Turner as his Chief of Staff. But it was not long until I was back on my feet and decided I was going to run for the Senate. I begged Steve Patterson to move to Arkansas and to run my Senate campaign. The rest, as they say, is history. During our time together, Steve taught me so much and helped me gain the necessary skills to survive and navigate the tough political environment. When Steve came on, he quickly proved himself to be one of the most capable and effective managers on Capitol Hill. I think that is certainly in the proof today with the many friends he has, of staffers and consultants and others in this town who have tremendous respect both for his opinion and his judgment. You would be hard pressed to find a man with a greater drive, a greater competitiveness, or a greater work ethic anywhere. He truly loved working, as he always puts it, to change America and to make it better. One of Steve's greatest assets that continually blessed me is his ability to identify talented young people and give them the confidence and the ability to become outstanding professionals. He never approached the young staff on Capitol Hill with a condescending attitude. It was always an attitude of empowerment: What is it you can do today with the talent you have, and how is it you can develop the new talents you need to take those next steps you need to take to reach that ultimate goal. How incredibly important to have people in our lives who empower us to reach our potential and to reach our goals, to reach for the stars, not just for ourselves but for our great country, and for those whom we love. There is no greater blessing than to see someone who gives of himself to make sure others can reach their potential. Steve has mentored young men and women on my staff who have gone on to become House and Senate Chiefs of Staff, congressional State directors, campaign managers, State party directors, and a multitude of other positions. Steve also encouraged those in my office who showed great aptitude to continually challenge themselves and take on new responsibilities, never to shut a door or an opportunity they may have thought was too big or out of their realm, but encouraged them to do as much as they possibly could and to reach for those stars. Nearly all of my current senior staff served me in some shape, form, or fashion, whether as an intern, a staff assistant, or a legislative correspondent before being promoted to their current position, and they did so with the recommendations of Steve Patterson, who said: Learn all the jobs in this office so you can talk about and know what it takes to make this office tick and to make it great. Steve left me in capable hands, and I truly believe Steve's ability to nurture so many of the best and brightest political minds our State has to offer will be one of his lasting legacies. But what also makes Steve special is he was more than a great boss to my staff; he has been a tremendously great friend to me and to my family. Steve is a self-described Green Bay Packers and Cincinnati Reds fanatic as well as an Oklahoma Sooner and Oklahoma State Cowboy supporter. Steve was known to be commissioner or at least participated in fantasy football and baseball leagues with the staff. March was not complete without the famous Patterson annual March Madness pool. We think about it now as we move into those basketball playoffs. Steve was an avid Senate softball player in his earlier days and took up golf in his later days. He loved getting the staff, both male and female, outside the office for these kinds of great activities of coming together in fellowship and fun and making sure our office was tight, not just in the responsibilities we had to accomplish but in the friendships we could build and things we should share with one another in helping each other to grow in our stature and in our accomplishments. It was his passion for those things that endeared him to them and built bonds that went between the typical employer-employee relationship. It is what also made our office strong and will continue to make our office strong as we see the quality in all of those attributes we build both professionally as well as the fellowship with our fellow man. Lastly, I couldn't talk about Steve Patterson if I did not mention what a terrific family man he is. ``Punchy,'' as he is known in his family, was a wonderful son and is an exceptional husband and a father. In 1984 Steve married Jean, and shortly thereafter, they had a daughter together, Megan. Steve was devoted to both Paige, his first daughter, and Megan. While in Virginia, he was active as a soccer coach for almost 10 years. Many of our staff remember this decked-out van he drove. He loved his van because he loved the time he spent in it traveling the State and the parameters of the State of Virginia with his girls on soccer tournaments. He drove to work in the van, but on the trips his daughters went on with the soccer tournaments, it was transformed. It was a home unto itself and he loved it. He was more than a loving father, he was also a caring son. I was able to see that. His parents came to live with his family in 1985 when his mother was ill with breast cancer. Steve, Jean, and the girls cared for his mom until she passed away in 1994. I talk oftentimes about my own family, my grandmother living with us when I was growing up and what an incredible experience it brought to me and to our family. I could see Steve saw the value not only in what he could do and the love he could share and provide for his mother and father but also what it meant to his family to be a part of a larger giving in love. When Steve moved to Little Rock in 2003 to run my Senate reelection bid, his father moved with them and they lived in Little Rock until he passed away in 2004. Steve's father had suffered from diabetes, and his affliction led to Steve's involvement as chairman of the Central Arkansas American Diabetes Association. Giving back to the community was always a tremendous priority for him. As can you see, Steve Patterson is one of a kind. We will certainly miss him in the office. But I take comfort in the fact he will not be too far away--always an arm's reach or a phone call away-- he has guaranteed me that. He has now chosen a new career path and has opened a political consulting firm with two of my former staffers in Little Rock. They are doing great things, working hard and enjoying life. In his new tenure he will specialize in fundraising, strategic planning, and grassroots coalition building, which is something he is unbelievably talented at. Life's journey is a great journey and the road we travel is one, as we look back, that provides us so many opportunities, so many blessings. I cannot think of a greater blessing than to be able to travel that road with a great friend such as Steve Patterson, not only in the past but in the future, in the many years ahead. I am enormously grateful, Steve. I wish you the best of luck in your new endeavor. I know you will be successful as you embark on your new path. I cannot thank you enough for all you have done for me and so many others throughout your career in service to Government. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your faithful friendship, your service to me, the great State of Arkansas, and without a doubt your country. I yield the floor.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, from April 28 to 30, 2007, more than 1,200 students from across the country will visit Washington, DC, to take part in the national finals of We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution, the most extensive educational program in the country developed to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People Program is funded by the U.S. Department of Education by act of Congress. I am proud to announce that the State of Arkansas will be represented by a class from Pottsville High School at this prestigious national event. These outstanding students, through their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, won their statewide competition and earned the chance to come to our Nation's Capital and compete at the national level. While in Washington, the students will participate in a 3-day academic competition that simulates a congressional hearing in which they ``testify'' before a panel of judges. Students demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principles as they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. It is important to note that results of independent studies of this nationally acclaimed program reveal that We the People students have knowledge gains that are superior to students who have not participated in the program. Students also display a greater political tolerance and commitment to the principles and values of the Constitution and Bill of Rights than do students using traditional textbooks and approaches. With many reports and surveys indicating a lack of civic knowledge and civic participation, I am pleased to support such a superb program that is producing an enlightened and engaged citizenry. The names of these outstanding students from Pottsville High School are Jimmy Freeman, Amber Fuentes, Dustin Harrell, Zach Murdoch, Brent Pless, James Schell, Hannah Walker, Hannah Williamson, and Tyler Winchell. I also wish to commend the teacher of the class, James Wagner, who is responsible for preparing these young constitutional experts for the national finals. Also worthy of special recognition is Jeff Wittingham, the State coordinator, and Marilyn Friga, the district coordinator, who are among those responsible for implementing the We the People Program in my State. I wish these students much success as they prepare to compete at the We the People national finals and applaud their exceptional achievement.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to state my support for the legislation put forward by Senator Feinstein on the interim appointment of U.S. attorneys. This legislation represents a compromise between Senator Specter and Senator Feinstein and I commend them for the bipartisan example they have set in addressing this issue. Senator Pryor and I came to this debate because of the interim appointment of a U.S. attorney in Arkansas, but the importance of this issue goes beyond the qualifications of Tim Griffin for that position. The Founding Fathers created this Government around a system of checks and balances, with three coequal branches. As we all know, one of those branches is filled with officials who are not elected, such as Mr. Griffin. The Founding Fathers knew that if the executive branch was allowed to appoint all of the members of the judiciary without any consultation with the legislative branch, it would make the judiciary branch simply an extension of the executive. What we are talking about today is another in a long line of attempts by this administration to undermine the system of checks and balances by expanding the authority of the executive branch. These abuses of power have almost always related to provisions that are necessary for the smooth operation of government. Of course we need the ability to appoint a U.S. attorney in a time of crisis when Congress is not in session, but do we need that authority extended to a point where a sitting President can make a judicial appointment with no set termination? Absolutely not. The law the administration changed in the PATRIOT Act was well structured to provide the ability to appoint in times of emergency, while respecting the Senate's role in the process. The compromise put forward by Senators Feinstein and Specter seeks to restore that. The Senate's role in the confirmation process is vital as it provides a second review of the qualifications of a nominee and allows constituents a better opportunity to evaluate a nominee and state their support or opposition. I fear that this effort to diminish the Senate's role in the confirmation process is indicative of this administration's general attitude toward a vital provision of our Constitution and to the system of checks and balances in general. If given the choice, it would appear that this administration clearly favors less transparency in government, not more. If allowed to continue, I feel certain that it would result in the average constituent having much greater difficulty getting their voice heard on the appointment of nonelected officials. The power of our democracy rests with the people, and that is something we must never forget. It is for that reason that I support Senator Feinstein and Senator Specter and urge my colleagues to join with them in order to pass this legislation

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I wish to pay tribute to the life of Army SPC Raymond ``Neal'' Mitchell III. Specialist Mitchell gave his life serving our Nation in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Although he may no longer be with us, his legacy and spirit will live on through the lives he touched and the example he set for others. Originally from Tennessee, Specialist Mitchell moved to West Memphis, AR, in 2002 to live with his grandparents and attend West Memphis Christian School. While going to school, Mitchell helped his grandparents with the business they had operated for more than 18 years. Teachers at West Memphis Christian School remember Specialist Mitchell for the tremendous strides they witnessed him make as a student and as a person. The quiet young man they knew came out of his shell and became involved in the school and the community. Specialist Mitchell clearly valued the company of friends and family and considered returning one day to coach baseball. Upon graduating in 2004, he enrolled at Arkansas State University in Jonesboro before enlisting in the U.S. Army in 2005. While serving in the Army, Specialist Mitchell became an infantry man. Despite the ever-present danger, he courageously devoted his skills where he felt they were needed most--becoming the point man, or lookout, for his patrol. When asked why he became a point man he said, ``I'm not the best shot . . . but I'm the fastest.'' It was a testament to his bravery, desire to serve his country and devotion to his fellow soldiers. In August 2006, his unit deployed to Baghdad where he served as a driver and gunner for humvees while on patrol. Over Thanksgiving he had the opportunity to return home on a 2-week leave from Iraq. During his leave, he spent time with his family in Tennessee and had a chance to visit his old school in West Memphis. He told his grandmother that after completing his service in the Army, he planned to go back to Arkansas State University and try out for the baseball team. Tragically, Specialist Mitchell died on January 6, 2007, from wounds sustained during routine security operations in Baghdad. On January 15, he was laid to rest in Smyrna, TN, with full military honors. He was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart. The loss of someone so young and full of life, and loved by so many is a tragic reminder of the terrible consequences of war. While I could never find the words to adequately express the sorrow felt by friends and family of Neal Mitchell, I hope they can find some solace knowing that he lived his life with passion and with love. My thoughts and prayers are with his family members, friends, and all those who knew and loved him.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for that because I do think it is important. I have every confidence the chairman will do that. I know he will. He has told me that and he has told many others. I wanted the rest of the Senators to know he truly has a commitment, in terms of recognizing that we on the Finance Committee have a unique opportunity to help provide America's working families with the incentives they need and the tools they need to invest in their children. I know he believes in that passionately, and I am so pleased he will be working with us on that, and I know he will. It is obviously an extremely important issue to our friend, the Senator from Oregon, and to the Senator from Maine. It is important to me as a parent, as an Arkansan, and I think it is important to every one of our constituents that we are desperately trying to ensure that their children are given the tools to succeed in life. My mother used to always say that if you want to do something nice for me, do something wonderful for my children. That is what we are here to say today. So after all, there should be no higher priority than providing our children the opportunity to succeed, and I look forward to working with the Finance Committee to do that. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Montana and certainly my colleagues from Maine and from Oregon for their very intense interest on this very important issue. I come to the floor today to discuss and visit about what I also think is an enormously important priority for us here in the Senate, and that is education. I want to voice my support for action during the 110th Congress. I come to the floor not only as a Senator from the great State of Arkansas, but also as a mother. I come to the floor with twin boys in the fifth grade, having completed a fifth grade chemistry test this week along with a chemistry experiment, a unit test on ancient Egypt, and all the while talking with our students and teachers, and realizing all of the many challenges they face in making sure our children get the kind of education they need to be an active and productive part of the 21st century. I see what not just our teachers are up against but our families as well, and noticing as my husband left, not only on top of the question of what's for dinner and did you pick up my cleaning, but also he asked: Did you take part of that Christmas bonus and put it into the children's college account? I know that working families all across this country, much like mine and yours and others here, are realizing the critical role that education plays, not just in our families but in the success of this great country, and what it means to all of the different issues we face. Promoting education is an essential element of many of the efforts to prepare our workforce to meet the demands of today's increasingly competitive global marketplace. But it is also the key that will unlock the doors to solving so many of our challenges. Making sure our children are equipped with the knowledge and the skill and the tools is going to make the difference between whether we do reduce our dependence on foreign oil and move to renewable fuels. It is the key to whether we are able to move forward in so many different scientific arenas and, looking at health care, are able to provide the kind of health care we need in this country, the expertise and the research that is necessary there--all of these challenges we face hinge on the job we do on education. I have no doubt in my mind that Chairman Baucus, along with Senator Grassley, working together in the Finance Committee, have every intention of making sure we do our level best in this session of Congress to address these issues through the incentives the Tax Code can provide us to encourage and reinforce our education system--both for our families as well as our educators--to do the right thing on behalf of our children and our country. I look forward to working with them. I have enjoyed the opportunity to work with my colleagues, with Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley and my friend from Oregon, Senator Smith, and Senator Collins, who have long histories of passion on this issue. We look for ways to use the Tax Code as a tool to help more of our children have that opportunity to receive quality education. Last Congress, we together introduced the Educational Opportunity Act of 2006 so that existing education tax incentives are a more viable tool for our students and their families and educators, particularly in our rural communities. Already this year, as Chairman Baucus mentioned, the Finance Committee has had some very productive hearings, good conversations about what is important, what works, what doesn't; how do we get it out there to the people who need it the most in order to make sure the people of this country have the opportunity to give back to this great land. So I commend Senator Smith and Senator Collins on their efforts, and I wish to continue the dedication on this issue in working with them. Unfortunately, I agree with Senator Baucus: This is not the place to do this. We have many things to achieve in this 110th Congress, and the only way we will achieve them is if we take our time and make sure we, step-by-step, make the necessary moves that need to be made to accomplish all we have to do. I ran in the other day with a grocery sack that I had overfilled in an attempt to hurry and get to where I needed to be to do one more thing and it broke and everything went everywhere. It was awful, an awful experience because I knew it was my own fault. I had rushed and tried to put too much into one sack so that everything else fell apart. Under the wise leadership of Chairman Baucus, we have worked hard to make sure we craft a proposal on small business tax relief that will be productive, that will be the one step in this direction we need to take in a way that will be productive, but it won't overload, so that we don't get anything accomplished. So I plead with my colleagues. Looking at what Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley have done, with significant input and consideration by the entire Finance Committee, they have put together a very good package of small business tax relief to supplement the minimum wage, which we all agree is extremely overdue. The comments of my colleague from North Dakota couldn't have been more appropriate; the fact that we are trying now, having not been able to move a simple minimum wage, to do what we can do and to do it in a practical and moderate way. The package is a balanced one. It includes provisions that are supported on both sides of the aisle, such as small business expensing, the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, and the S corporation reforms. The package is a responsible one. Compared to tax packages we have considered in the recent past, this one is much smaller, with a price tag of $8 billion, and not to mention it is completely paid for. When we take things one step at a time, we can act responsibly in paying for them. There is one thing we hear from our constituents, and that is: Please, please recognize the debt you are creating in this country has as much of an impact on our children as educating them does because they are going to be the ones left holding the bag. Finally, the package is targeted. When we began putting it together, there were a lot of us on the committee who had priorities we wanted to address. Senator Snowe and I care deeply about doing something on small business health care, as does Senator Stabenow, who has mentioned it many times as well. Senator Bingaman filed an amendment to expand the HOPE scholarship credit. Of course, there were many others. We all have our priorities, and we are all eager to address them. But if we take our time, if we move step-by-step and do it correctly, we will get to all of those issues. Under the leadership of Senator Baucus, he has pledged to us to work diligently in the Finance Committee to be able to address these issues. In response, we were asked, having come to the chairman about all of these issues, not to jump the gun but to focus on the bill at hand and to provide the committee and the larger body the opportunity to take a more thorough look in regular order, so that we can reach consensus and make progress on those important issues, as we have with the small business tax relief. In the coming year, I know the HELP Committee will be extremely busy as they focus on the reauthorizing of No Child Left Behind. As they work on improving and extending our education policy from their end, I know that we on the Finance Committee will be doing the same with our tax policy. Chairman Baucus, through the Chair, I would like to have his reassurance--which I don't need, but I want the rest of the body to know--if he could clarify for us that, yes, the Finance Committee will, indeed, be taking up all of these many issues, but certainly these education issues that rest heavily on many of our minds, and that it is his intention to move on an education tax package, along with such other reauthorizations. I know the chairman has given me his word, and I know he wants to encourage others as well.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Craig Thomas, to introduce the Disabled Veterans Tax Fairness Act of 2007. This much-needed legislation would protect disabled veterans from being unfairly taxed on the benefits to which they are entitled, simply because their disability claims were not processed in a timely manner. This legislation is supported by the Military Coalition, a group representing more than 5.5 million members of the uniformed services and their families. While the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, resolves most of its filed disability claims in less than a year, there are also instances of lost paperwork, administrative errors, and appeals of rejected claims that often delay thousands of disability awards for years on end. When this occurs, disability compensation is awarded retroactively and for tax purposes, a disabled veteran's previously received taxable military retiree pay is re-designated as nontaxable disability compensation. Thereby, the disabled veteran is entitled to a refund of taxes paid and must file an amended tax return for each applicable year. However, under current law the IRS Code bars the filing of amended returns beyond the last 3 tax years. As a result, many of our disabled veterans are denied the opportunity to file a claim for repayment of additional years of back taxes already paid--through no fault of their own--even though the IRS owes them a refund for the taxes that were originally paid on their retiree pay. The Disabled Veterans Tax Fairness Act of 2007 would add an exception to the IRS statute of limitations for amending returns. This exception would allow disabled veterans whose disability claims have been pending for more than 3 years to receive refunds on previous taxes paid for up to 5 years--the length of time the IRS keeps these records. Affected veterans would have 1 year from the date the VA determination is issued to go back and amend previous years' tax returns. My father and grandfather both served our Nation in uniform and they taught me from an early age about the sacrifices our troops and their families have made to keep our Nation free. This is particularly true for our disabled veterans. During a time when a grateful nation should be doing everything it can to honor those who have sacrificed so greatly on our behalf, the very least it can do is ensure they and their families are not unjustly penalized simply because of bureaucratic inefficiencies or administrative delays which are beyond their control. This situation is unacceptable and our veterans deserve better. That is why I am proud to reintroduce this legislation today to provide relief to our Nation's veterans. It is the least we can do for those whom we owe so much, and it is the least we can do to reassure future generations that a grateful nation will not forget them when their military service is complete.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Craig Thomas, to introduce the Disabled Veterans Tax Fairness Act of 2007. This much-needed legislation would protect disabled veterans from being unfairly taxed on the benefits to which they are entitled, simply because their disability claims were not processed in a timely manner. This legislation is supported by the Military Coalition, a group representing more than 5.5 million members of the uniformed services and their families. While the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, resolves most of its filed disability claims in less than a year, there are also instances of lost paperwork, administrative errors, and appeals of rejected claims that often delay thousands of disability awards for years on end. When this occurs, disability compensation is awarded retroactively and for tax purposes, a disabled veteran's previously received taxable military retiree pay is re-designated as nontaxable disability compensation. Thereby, the disabled veteran is entitled to a refund of taxes paid and must file an amended tax return for each applicable year. However, under current law the IRS Code bars the filing of amended returns beyond the last 3 tax years. As a result, many of our disabled veterans are denied the opportunity to file a claim for repayment of additional years of back taxes already paid--through no fault of their own--even though the IRS owes them a refund for the taxes that were originally paid on their retiree pay. The Disabled Veterans Tax Fairness Act of 2007 would add an exception to the IRS statute of limitations for amending returns. This exception would allow disabled veterans whose disability claims have been pending for more than 3 years to receive refunds on previous taxes paid for up to 5 years--the length of time the IRS keeps these records. Affected veterans would have 1 year from the date the VA determination is issued to go back and amend previous years' tax returns. My father and grandfather both served our Nation in uniform and they taught me from an early age about the sacrifices our troops and their families have made to keep our Nation free. This is particularly true for our disabled veterans. During a time when a grateful nation should be doing everything it can to honor those who have sacrificed so greatly on our behalf, the very least it can do is ensure they and their families are not unjustly penalized simply because of bureaucratic inefficiencies or administrative delays which are beyond their control. This situation is unacceptable and our veterans deserve better. That is why I am proud to reintroduce this legislation today to provide relief to our Nation's veterans. It is the least we can do for those whom we owe so much, and it is the least we can do to reassure future generations that a grateful nation will not forget them when their military service is complete.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I come before the Senate to once again raise an issue that is near and dear to my heart--an issue that is of great importance to working families across this country. In 2001 and again in 2003, Senator Snowe and I worked together to ensure that low- income working families with children receive the benefit of the Child Tax Credit. I come here today to again ask my colleagues to help me ensure that low-income families aren't forgotten as we discuss tax relief in the 110th Congress. Unfortunately, although we have made great strides in ensuring that the credit is a useful tool for our working families, in its current form it isn't working for everyone. We can and should take an important additional step to improve it. As some of my colleagues may be aware, to be eligible for the refundable child tax credit, working families must meet an income threshold. If they don't earn enough, then they don't qualify for the credit. The problem is that some of our working parents are working full-time, every week of the year and yet they still don't earn enough to meet the income threshold to qualify for the credit, much less to receive a meaningful refund. In 2006, the New York Times highlighted a report which shows that almost one-third of our children live in families that do not qualify for the child tax credit because family earnings are too low. When you break the findings down by race, it's even more disheartening--about half of all African American children and half of all Latino children are left out of the full child tax credit because their family's earnings are just too low to qualify. It is wrong to provide this credit to some hardworking Americans, while leaving others behind. The single, working parent that is stocking shelves at your local grocery store is every bit as deserving as the teacher, accountant or insurance salesman that qualifies for the credit in its current form. We must address this inequity and we must ensure that our tax code works for all Americans, especially those working parents forced to get by on the minimum wage. In response, Senator Snowe and I have proposed a solution that will build on our previous efforts to make this credit work for those that need it the most. Today, we are reintroducing the Working Child Family Assistance Act, legislation which de-indexes the income threshold and sets it at a reasonable level so that all working parents, including those making the minimum wage, qualify for the credit. This is a simple, easy solution to a serious problem. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Administration to correct this inequity and to ensure that those low-income, hard- working families that need this credit the most do receive its benefits.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I come before the Senate to once again raise an issue that is near and dear to my heart--an issue that is of great importance to working families across this country. In 2001 and again in 2003, Senator Snowe and I worked together to ensure that low- income working families with children receive the benefit of the Child Tax Credit. I come here today to again ask my colleagues to help me ensure that low-income families aren't forgotten as we discuss tax relief in the 110th Congress. Unfortunately, although we have made great strides in ensuring that the credit is a useful tool for our working families, in its current form it isn't working for everyone. We can and should take an important additional step to improve it. As some of my colleagues may be aware, to be eligible for the refundable child tax credit, working families must meet an income threshold. If they don't earn enough, then they don't qualify for the credit. The problem is that some of our working parents are working full-time, every week of the year and yet they still don't earn enough to meet the income threshold to qualify for the credit, much less to receive a meaningful refund. In 2006, the New York Times highlighted a report which shows that almost one-third of our children live in families that do not qualify for the child tax credit because family earnings are too low. When you break the findings down by race, it's even more disheartening--about half of all African American children and half of all Latino children are left out of the full child tax credit because their family's earnings are just too low to qualify. It is wrong to provide this credit to some hardworking Americans, while leaving others behind. The single, working parent that is stocking shelves at your local grocery store is every bit as deserving as the teacher, accountant or insurance salesman that qualifies for the credit in its current form. We must address this inequity and we must ensure that our tax code works for all Americans, especially those working parents forced to get by on the minimum wage. In response, Senator Snowe and I have proposed a solution that will build on our previous efforts to make this credit work for those that need it the most. Today, we are reintroducing the Working Child Family Assistance Act, legislation which de-indexes the income threshold and sets it at a reasonable level so that all working parents, including those making the minimum wage, qualify for the credit. This is a simple, easy solution to a serious problem. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Administration to correct this inequity and to ensure that those low-income, hard- working families that need this credit the most do receive its benefits.

Mrs. LINCOLN

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