Blanche Lincoln

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would extend the provisions of the 2002 Farm Bill until our trading partners in the WTO have at least matched our commitment to level disparities in global agriculture trade. I would like to thank Senator Talent for working with me on this important piece of legislation to farm families in my State of Arkansas and across the Nation. This legislation would extend our current farm bill until one year after implementing legislation for a WTO Doha agreement is enacted. Then . . . and only then . . . will Congress know what to expect of our trading partners and what our trading partners expect from us. Four years ago, President Bush, after some noted reluctance, signed into law the 2002 Farm Bill. As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee and a farmer's daughter, I played an active role in that debate and was pleased with the outcome, which I view as a compromise between many different interests. Most importantly, I view it as a contract between the farmers in my State of Arkansas and their government. It is meant to offer what little certainty can exist for those who choose to make a living providing the safe and affordable food supply which we as Americans depend on. Unfortunately, certainty is something that's hard to come by in farm country these days. This Administration has repeatedly asked Congress to cut funding or make structural changes to the 2002 Farm Bill, regardless of the fact that CBO estimates it has come in approximately $13 billion cheaper than anticipated. This Administration has also refused to provide emergency assistance to agriculture producers, despite the fact that farmers across the Nation faced weather-related disasters of all kinds and record high fuel and fertilizer costs in 2005. A wet spring, followed by extreme drought and rising fuel prices, cost farmers in my State $923 million last year. In Arkansas, where one in five jobs is tied to agriculture, this impacts the entire State economy. All the while, producers wait and watch as U.S. negotiators offer proposals in the WTO that would require drastic reductions and changes in our farm support, while our trading partners continue to protect their markets with tariffs and subsidies far higher than we have in the U.S. I am tired of waiting, and so are my farmers. Very little was accomplished at the WTO ministerial in Hong Kong, and trade officials recently announced that the April 30th deadline for reaching a negotiating framework would pass without progress. The 2002 Farm Bill is set to expire in September of next year, and we are no closer to an agreement in the WTO than we were one year ago. No doubt our trading partners are quite content to take the wait and see approach. This Administration has made it quite clear that it supports drastic changes to our farm policy, with or without an agreement in the WTO. Our trading partners are demanding that we dismantle our farm program . . . meanwhile they do little to nothing to show that they are willing to do the same. Why would they? This Administration is sending them the very clear message that they agree with them . . . and envision 2007 as the year to make those changes. If that is the case, what incentive then do our trading partners have to come to the negotiating table at all? More importantly, what does it say about our negotiating priorities if we are simply negotiating with ourselves? Some may argue that we must change our agriculture policy to avoid further litigation against our farm programs by WTO countries. But without a completed WTO agreement, like the one negotiated in the Uruguay Round, how are we expected to write new farm policy that is compliant? Compliant with what? In my view, and I think many of my colleagues agree, the best course of action is to extend the current farm bill until we know the rules of the road. As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, with jurisdiction over international trade . . . and as a farmer's daughter who understands full well the importance of international markets to the U.S. agriculture industry . . . I am introducing this legislation to send a message to our friends in the WTO. We will not negotiate by ourselves . . . we will not make wholesale changes to our domestic policies until we know that you are willing to do the same. So long as we maintain the status quo in our international trade agreements, then we should maintain the status quo with regard to our domestic farm policy as well. That is the type of message that I wish our trade negotiators were sending to our trading partners. And that is the message that I hope our trading partners receive today. That is the type of certainty that America's farmers need and deserve. The legislation Senator Talent and I introduce today will provide this certainty to our farming communities and send a strong signal to our trading partners. Congress will not make drastic changes to our farm policy without a meaningful agreement in the WTO.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would extend the provisions of the 2002 Farm Bill until our trading partners in the WTO have at least matched our commitment to level disparities in global agriculture trade. I would like to thank Senator Talent for working with me on this important piece of legislation to farm families in my State of Arkansas and across the Nation. This legislation would extend our current farm bill until one year after implementing legislation for a WTO Doha agreement is enacted. Then . . . and only then . . . will Congress know what to expect of our trading partners and what our trading partners expect from us. Four years ago, President Bush, after some noted reluctance, signed into law the 2002 Farm Bill. As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee and a farmer's daughter, I played an active role in that debate and was pleased with the outcome, which I view as a compromise between many different interests. Most importantly, I view it as a contract between the farmers in my State of Arkansas and their government. It is meant to offer what little certainty can exist for those who choose to make a living providing the safe and affordable food supply which we as Americans depend on. Unfortunately, certainty is something that's hard to come by in farm country these days. This Administration has repeatedly asked Congress to cut funding or make structural changes to the 2002 Farm Bill, regardless of the fact that CBO estimates it has come in approximately $13 billion cheaper than anticipated. This Administration has also refused to provide emergency assistance to agriculture producers, despite the fact that farmers across the Nation faced weather-related disasters of all kinds and record high fuel and fertilizer costs in 2005. A wet spring, followed by extreme drought and rising fuel prices, cost farmers in my State $923 million last year. In Arkansas, where one in five jobs is tied to agriculture, this impacts the entire State economy. All the while, producers wait and watch as U.S. negotiators offer proposals in the WTO that would require drastic reductions and changes in our farm support, while our trading partners continue to protect their markets with tariffs and subsidies far higher than we have in the U.S. I am tired of waiting, and so are my farmers. Very little was accomplished at the WTO ministerial in Hong Kong, and trade officials recently announced that the April 30th deadline for reaching a negotiating framework would pass without progress. The 2002 Farm Bill is set to expire in September of next year, and we are no closer to an agreement in the WTO than we were one year ago. No doubt our trading partners are quite content to take the wait and see approach. This Administration has made it quite clear that it supports drastic changes to our farm policy, with or without an agreement in the WTO. Our trading partners are demanding that we dismantle our farm program . . . meanwhile they do little to nothing to show that they are willing to do the same. Why would they? This Administration is sending them the very clear message that they agree with them . . . and envision 2007 as the year to make those changes. If that is the case, what incentive then do our trading partners have to come to the negotiating table at all? More importantly, what does it say about our negotiating priorities if we are simply negotiating with ourselves? Some may argue that we must change our agriculture policy to avoid further litigation against our farm programs by WTO countries. But without a completed WTO agreement, like the one negotiated in the Uruguay Round, how are we expected to write new farm policy that is compliant? Compliant with what? In my view, and I think many of my colleagues agree, the best course of action is to extend the current farm bill until we know the rules of the road. As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, with jurisdiction over international trade . . . and as a farmer's daughter who understands full well the importance of international markets to the U.S. agriculture industry . . . I am introducing this legislation to send a message to our friends in the WTO. We will not negotiate by ourselves . . . we will not make wholesale changes to our domestic policies until we know that you are willing to do the same. So long as we maintain the status quo in our international trade agreements, then we should maintain the status quo with regard to our domestic farm policy as well. That is the type of message that I wish our trade negotiators were sending to our trading partners. And that is the message that I hope our trading partners receive today. That is the type of certainty that America's farmers need and deserve. The legislation Senator Talent and I introduce today will provide this certainty to our farming communities and send a strong signal to our trading partners. Congress will not make drastic changes to our farm policy without a meaningful agreement in the WTO.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to SSG Kevin P. Jessen of Paragould, AR. To those who knew him best, he was a loving husband and proud father whose life was filled with love and laughter. To his fellow soldiers serving on the battlefields of Iraq, he was a hero who, in the course of saving countless American and Iraqi lives, sacrificed his own. His lifelong interest in military history and explosives led him to a career as an explosive ordnance disposal technician. It came as no surprise to friends and family that the young Arkansan, who spent countless hours as a child playing with G.I. Joe toys and bottle rockets, would become a soldier. He joined the ROTC while in high school and upon graduation enlisted in the National Guard before ultimately joining the U.S. Army. Staff Sergeant Jessen's first of three tours in Iraq occurred shortly after Operation Desert Storm when he helped dispose of explosives left over from the war. In 2004, he returned through service in Operation Iraqi Freedom, only to return for a third tour 6 months after his second was completed. While serving in a foreign land seemingly worlds away from home, his heart and thoughts were undoubtedly never far from his wife Carrie and his 2-year-old son, Cameron. Between tours of duty, this battle-hardened soldier was often found changing diapers or handling bottle feedings in the middle of the night. It was the proud duty of a man who loved his family so very much, and it was symbolic of his devotion to them. Throughout his time in Iraq, Staff Sergeant Jessen's role as an explosives ordnance disposal technician ensured that he was often called upon to disarm roadside bombs. Although it continually placed him in the line of danger, he selflessly saw it as his duty to help protect the lives of his fellow soldiers as well as the lives of Iraqi civilians. Tragically, while serving on a postblast investigation on March 4, 2006, he was killed by a secondary explosion in Rawah, Iraq. At Staff Sergeant Jessen's memorial service, he was laid to rest with full military honors. Hundreds of family, friends, and those wishing to pay their respects joined together to remember this young Arkansan and to honor the life he led. Along his funeral procession, members of a grateful community endured the cold weather to honor this fallen hero, many with hands held over the hearts and waving American flags. At the cemetery, the American flag that had draped Staff Sergeant Jessen's casket was folded and presented to Carrie and Cameron as a token of remembrance of the man they loved and the sacrifice he made on behalf of us all. Although the 28 years that Kevin Jessen spent with us were far too short, I am hopeful that his friends, family, and loved ones find some solace knowing that he touched the lives so many. He set examples of devotion to family and country that we should all follow, and he led an honorable life of love and selflessness that will continue to serve as an inspiration to us all. My thoughts and prayers are with Carrie, Cameron, and all those who knew and loved this fallen hero. Staff Sgt. Brock A. Beery

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Craig Thomas, to introduce the Disabled Veterans Tax Fairness Act. 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. Unfortunately, under current law the IRS Code bars the filing of amended returns beyond the last three 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 2006 would add an exception to the IRS statute of limitations for amending returns. This exception would allow disabled military retirees whose disability claims have been pending for more than 3 years to receive refunds on previous taxes paid for all the years their claim was pending. Specifically, the bill would extend the IRS three year period of limitation for amending returns to one year from the date a VA determination is issued. 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 introduce 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. 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. Unfortunately, under current law the IRS Code bars the filing of amended returns beyond the last three 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 2006 would add an exception to the IRS statute of limitations for amending returns. This exception would allow disabled military retirees whose disability claims have been pending for more than 3 years to receive refunds on previous taxes paid for all the years their claim was pending. Specifically, the bill would extend the IRS three year period of limitation for amending returns to one year from the date a VA determination is issued. 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 introduce 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 to add my voice to this debate on reforming our immigration system. While many of us here may have our differences, I think one thing on which we all agree is that the current system is broken and something must be done now if we are ever to get this situation under control. There does seem to be a consensus in this body, and I think it is appropriate, that we absolutely must strengthen our borders. I personally believe that securing our borders has to be a priority in what we achieve in this legislation. Our borders have been porous for years and we must take adequate steps to secure them, and we must do it now. This is a homeland security issue, first and foremost, but it is also a good government issue. American taxpayers continue to see their tax dollars spent on securing our borders without the results they deserve. While traffic from areas where we have placed more enforcement has decreased, border crossings in total have risen by 43 percent, despite tripling patrol personnel. The cost of an arrest has increased from 1992, when it was $300, to the cost of $1,700 in 2002. Americans cannot afford this type of performance from a security standpoint or an economic standpoint. At a time when America is facing its most serious threat and dealing with record deficits, having our borders remaining unsecured as we spend more on them is simply unacceptable. It is unacceptable to the American people in terms of security and economics. But securing our borders without dealing with the over 12 million undocumented immigrants who are in this country is not the solution either. One without the other is not going to achieve the results we want in the cost-effective way we must do it. Many in this body are probably somewhat unaware that my State of Arkansas had the largest per-capita increase of its Hispanic population of any State in the Nation during the last census. Arkansas has become what is referred to as an emerging Hispanic community, with largely first-generation immigrants. These immigrants have a dramatic impact on our communities and on our economies. They are hard working, they are active in the religious community, they are law abiding, and they are putting their children through school. Whether they came here legally or illegally, they are establishing roots and we cannot dispute that. The majority of immigrants in my State came to the United States because they wanted good work and a better way of life for their families. A good number of them are educated and wanted to take advantage of the opportunities afforded to them in the U.S. economy. This is why a plan based on ripping these roots out of the ground and deporting over 10 million people is simply not realistic. First, we couldn't afford it. Second, I am not sure we could implement it. And then think of what it would do to our economy. While these people may have come here illegally, many of them have been here long enough now to have become part of the fabric of our communities. Removing them will break up families and it will hurt our local economies. I am not saying we should grant amnesty, and neither does the amendment Senator Specter has offered. It is critical to know that amnesty is not the answer. No reform should grant amnesty. Total and immediate forgiveness for past crimes--these are not things we believe in this country. The rule of law is critical. To do so would severely undermine the rule of law in this country. As I stated, it is impractical to believe, though, that we can simply round up and deport all illegals in this country. It is also unlikely we can coax illegals out of the shadows by offering them a limited period to remain in this country before we eventually deport them. They will continue to hide and move around in the same networks that have protected them thus far. I believe the solution is earned legalization, and that is why I have supported the McCain-Kennedy bill and the similar bill that was passed out of the committee, offered as a substitute by Senator Specter. Some have characterized these bills as amnesty. Amnesty is a general pardon for a previous crime. By contrast, this reform plan includes serious consequences for those who remain in our country illegally. Under the committee bill, an illegal immigrant faces an immediate $1,000 fine, a security background check, application for a work visa, and an 11-year path to citizenship. Most immigrants who apply for citizenship now achieve that in 5 to 6 years. After staying continuously employed for 6 years, paying all back taxes, learning English--as my colleague from Oklahoma has expressed as being a very important part of this--learning U.S. history and government, and paying another $1,000 fine in application costs, the worker could then apply for a green card and legalization. That is not going to the front of the line, but it is going to the end of the line after those who have already chosen a legal path to begin with. Their green card application, as I said, will go to the back of the line behind all the legal applicants who are waiting for those green cards. Finally, this path is only available to the illegal immigrants who were here before January of 2004. This does not sound like amnesty to me. It sounds like a challenge but a challenge that presents excellent rewards instead of the dire consequences we would suffer if we took an irrational reaction to this enormous problem that is growing in our Nation. The other path for an illegal immigrant would be to continue trying to hide. But now, under increased enforcement measures and stiffer penalties as we have seen that we would put into place under this bill, I believe the majority of the people who have come here illegally but came to make a better life for themselves, will emerge from those shadows to become legal residents of their communities, to engage in what we came here to seek, because we have provided for them a pathway to become legal. It comes at cost. It comes at great cost to them, both financially as well as the time they have to spend to engage themselves in becoming legal residents of this great Nation. But it is worth it to them and it is worth it to us to set this issue straight, to begin to reform a problem that is growing desperately out of control. Many of them already pay local taxes in the communities where they are. Some of them are paying into Medicare and Social Security with no promise of receiving any of the benefits. But think how we could strengthen those programs if we put them on a pathway to legalization. We know who these 12 million undocumented workers are and we put them into the system to strengthen Social Security and Medicare by assuring that their withholdings are coming out and going into the system as well. I am reminded of an incident in my home State of Arkansas. Recently, we saw law enforcement officials who were acting on a tip from an informant. These were national law enforcement officials. They did not contact the local law enforcement in our small communities there in Arkansas, but the folks from Washington swooped into a poultry processing plant and they arrested approximately 120 workers who were carrying forged or illegal identification documents. What occurred there does not make what those illegal immigrants did right. It doesn't make it right at all. They were there illegally. They were there with forged documents. Actually, it was a local U.S. citizen in the community who had helped produce those documents for them. But I want you for a moment to think about what occurred after these Washington law enforcement officials swooped into a community without notifying the local law enforcement and seized 120 workers. Most of these workers were parents. They are parents who were not allowed to call home to tell their children what was happening. We had children who were left behind in the care of the Catholic Church, or friends, or anybody who would take care of these children. Some of them were as young as 12 months old--kids abandoned because the parents were not allowed to call. It was a sudden and brutal act and it separated families and left a community divided. Not because people wanted to defend the illegals who were there, the undocumented, or those who were there with false documents, but because of the way it was handled. That is what we are here to debate. Not that we differ about that. I don't think anybody in this body wants amnesty. They don't. What they want to do is to make sure we handle this issue in the right way. I would imagine most of my colleagues in this body learned, as I did, at an early age from their parents that there is a right way and a wrong way to do everything. We have an opportunity to come together, to figure out the right way that is consistent with the American values we all hold dear, to figure out a solution to this enormous problem that continues to grow. It reflects on who we are as Americans with respect for the rule of law, making sure that people know they have to follow the law and they have to act within the confines of the law, but with the kind of encouragement that every human being should be allowed to reach their potential. You can pay those fines, you can take the initiative and learn English and learn about this great country. You can get back at the end of the line after having tried to break into the line in front and still have the ability to reach that potential if you are willing to pay for your mistakes. That is what this bill is about. When I think of the calls for the arrest and the deportation of 10 to 20 million undocumented immigrants in this country, I think of that frightful night in Arkansas where children and parents were severed in an unruly way. Their families were destroyed. Children were left by themselves without anyone to care for them because law enforcement had not thought that out. I think of that frightful night in Arkansas and then I see it multiplied thousands of times across this country. That is not the right way to handle this issue. As Americans, we can be smart. Yes, we can be diligent and we can even be tough. But we can be tough in a way that reflects the values of who we are and how this Nation was created--by giving people opportunity and requiring responsibility. We stand at a crossroads in this country. Over the last decade and a half, the Latino population has expanded in every area of our country, many of them coming here legally but some illegally. We are faced with a decision that gets to the heart of what values we hold dear as Americans. We have always said: If you work hard and you play by the rules, there is a place for you in America to raise your children and contribute to our great melting pot, to strengthen our communities, to be a part of this great land. We are faced now with what to do with some who have broken the rules to come here but have since worked hard to provide for their families. I hope the Senate will give this very difficult question the reasoned and thorough debate it deserves, but that we will not forget the balance, the very intricate balance of American values that brings out the rule of law and the importance of the rule of law but also the desire and the compassion we feel. That is what the American spirit is all about. I believe the Senate will agree to welcome those who came here illegally if they are willing to show another American value, and that is sacrifice. We all know a great deal about sacrifice as we see incredible Americans, men and women in the Armed Forces and all over this country, whether it is our emergency responders or others. If we see those who have come here illegally showing that willingness to exhibit that American value of sacrifice, then I think we as a body will be able to produce something to welcome them into our great society and our great Nation. I urge my colleagues, as we continue in this debate, that we keep our heads calm and our minds open. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. LINCOLN

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

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

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

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 3106 which I described to my colleagues.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, my amendment would dedicate funding to help small businesses that are struggling to provide health insurance to their employees, and would do so in a way that is fiscally responsible. My amendment is completely offset by closing corporate tax loopholes that have been agreed upon by the Finance Committee as well as by this entire body, the Senate. These are ways in which we can make fiscally responsible decisions in closing loopholes that exist and pay for something that is absolutely vital to working families. Unfortunately, the budget resolution before us doesn't specify either an amount to promote expanding health insurance coverage for employees of small businesses or a way to pay for it, which leads me to believe-- as do other Americans out there listening to this debate--that this is simply a priority for us. We cannot continue to act as if this issue doesn't exist. The President has mentioned it year upon year in his State of the Union Addresses, and yet we are seeing increases by the millions of individuals who are finding themselves uninsured. There are nearly 46 million Americans currently without health insurance, including 456,000 Arkansans in my home State of Arkansas. Twenty percent of working-age adults are uninsured. These are people who are working and playing by the rules to provide for their families. This number is so alarming to me that addressing this problem should be a national priority. Those who lack health insurance don't get access to timely and appropriate health care. They have less access to important screenings and state-of-the-art technology and prescription drugs. Working families need our help with this problem--and they need it now. Senator Durbin and I have a bill to help small businesses afford health insurance, and a refundable tax credit to employers as an integral part of our proposal. Our responsible tax credit is targeted to help those who need it the most. Low-wage workers and small businesses are significantly more likely to be uninsured than high-wage workers, and firms with a high proportion of low-wage workers are much less likely to offer insurance. Our tax credits are targeted to the firms and employees who need the most incentives to purchase health insurance coverage. Our tax credit goes to the employer because small employers believe offering health insurance has a positive impact on recruitment, retention, employees' attitude, performance, and health status. The budget resolution fails to address this huge problem in our country. The budget is a blueprint, and it should clearly represent America's working families' needs and priorities. It is supposed to reflect what our choices will be when it comes time to spending the tax dollars of this country. This amendment is about priorities. We must make a priority this growing number of uninsured in our country. They are working families, playing by the rules, trying desperately to contribute to their great Nation. One of the things we can do is provide the employers the incentive they need to provide the kind of health insurance working families can use and need. The underlying proposal Senator Durbin and I have offered presents working families' ability to have the similar kind of health insurance that I and all of the Federal employees here have access to. What greater opportunity to provide greater choice at a lower cost. This is the tool that can make that happen. Providing a tax incentive to small businesses to be able to purchase and assist their employees--their low-wage workers--with the ability to engage in the insurance market and provide the ability to mitigate against their health care and their health care costs is absolutely essential, not just for the quality of life of working Americans but also think of what it does for our economy. We have a great opportunity in this budget to set priorities that are important to the working families of this country. I urge my colleagues, let us come together and do something for our small businesses and working families--and do something now. I ask my colleagues to support our amendment and look forward to the opportunity we have to do something about the escalating costs of health care and what it means to working families in this Nation. I request the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I come to the floor today to offer an amendment on behalf of rural America. If there is anything that has been consistent in this administration's budget, it has been that there has been more asked from rural America in terms of the burden of cuts that have happened and a disproportionate share of the labor-intensive ideas of how we are going to deal with incredible spending. I offer this amendment on behalf of rural America. I thank Senators Salazar, Pryor, Harkin, and Kohl for joining me in this effort. I am pleased to ask unanimous consent to add Senators Durbin and Schumer as cosponsors.

Mrs. LINCOLN. I appreciate my colleagues' attention on this and encourage their support in supporting rural America. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, our amendment would restore approximately $2 billion in discretionary cuts proposed for programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in fiscal year 2007. To pay for these investments in rural America, our amendment would raise the discretionary cap by $2 billion and offset these expenditures by closing corporate tax loopholes which have passed the Senate on numerous occasions. The proposed discretionary cuts for USDA impact a variety of conservation, rural development, nutrition, and forestry programs that are vitally important to our communities across this great Nation. Mr. President, you and all other Members of this Senate have rural areas in your States and know the difficult times they are going through. They do not have the tax base. They may not have the corporate citizens in those areas that help them build this economy. These programs are vital to them in terms of developing the kind of economy they want and can have. They are not asking to be a major metropolitan area. They are simply asking to be the best they can possibly be. The discretionary spending would decline $208 million in fiscal year 2007 in conservation. Rural development would see a decline of $421 million less than in fiscal year 2007, and research would see a 14.6 percent reduction from the fiscal year 2006 appropriations. I ask all of my colleagues, whether you represent a major metropolitan area or rural America, you know the fabric of this country depends on all of us. Please do not ask for a disproportionate share of rural America, and do not devastate the incredible advances they have already been able to make. Let us help them grow with the rest of America in their great effort. I urge my colleagues to support me in the WIC Program, the nutrition program, the conservation program, and all of the others that rural America depends on. Amendment No. 3136, As Modified

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3047.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I compliment our colleague from Maine for her conscientious efforts, as well as her fiscally responsible efforts. I ask unanimous consent to add my name to her list of cosponsors and again tell her how much we appreciate all of the many issues that have landed in her lap this year and what an incredible job she has done, working with Senator Lieberman to address those. I ask unanimous consent to add my name as a cosponsor, please.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I cannot imagine that the rest of my colleagues in this body are not hearing the same thing I hear, as I travel back each week to Arkansas, from my constituents. Always in the top three issues they bring up in the most passionate of ways happens to be how in the world are we in this Nation going to deal with the number of uninsured in this country, particularly in the small business arena? Those Americans who are working hard, those trying to provide for their families, those keeping the framework and the foundation of our small communities together, those working in small businesses, how are we going to do a better job in this body in helping to provide health insurance for those who are uninsured and their families? I rise today with my good friend Senator Durbin to propose an amendment to the budget resolution to provide $7.8 billion over 2 years to fund refundable tax credits targeted to small businesses with up to 100 employees so they may help purchase group health insurance for their low-wage workers. I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Clinton, Kohl, and Cantwell as cosponsors of my amendment, and to take this opportunity as well to note that our amendment is endorsed by the National Association of Business Owners and the Small Business Majority.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, in this administration's budget, time and time again rural America has been asked to give disproportionately, whether it is to deficit reduction, the war in Iraq, or anything else. Quite frankly, I think it is important for us to look seriously at the priorities of this budget but, more importantly, to look at rural America and what it means to the fabric of this country. There are cuts in this budget to supplemental nutrition programs for women, infants, and children. USDA's rural housing program is cut by $259 million, resource conservation and development council, world business enterprise grant, telemedicine, State and private forestry programs, cooperative agriculture and food safety research units--all of these issues are critical to rural America. They don't have the corporate tax base or corporate citizenry out there that is going to support them. If we want the way of life in this country to be maintained with both the fabric of this country being built by our urban areas and our rural areas, it is essential that we support the people and the working families in those areas. I ask my colleagues to look at conservation, WIC, all of these programs and how important they are in your State.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of amendment No. 3048 proposed by Senators Specter and Harkin to restore funding for the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill to fiscal year 2005 levels. This amendment would restore funding to many important programs, including one that is quite important to Arkansas as well as our Nation--the Geriatric Health Professions program. Title VII funding for geriatrics training is the only Federal program that specifically develops academic geriatricians at a time when more are needed. The fiscal year 2006 Labor-HHS bill eliminated several programs, including this program. Geriatric health professions programs support geriatric education centers, faculty fellowships, and Academic Career Awards. The academic career award programs support the career development of geriatricians in junior faculty positions who are committed to teaching geriatrics in medical schools across the country. Geriatric Training programs train health professionals who plan to teach geriatric medicine, geriatric dentistry, or geriatric behavioral or mental health. Geriatric Education Centers train health professionals, faculty, students, and practitioners in diagnosis, treatment, disease prevention, disability, and other health problems of the aged. In 2005, Geriatric Education Centers alone reported delivery of low- cost professional geriatric training interventions to over 50,000 health care providers who collectively reported over 8.6 million patient encounters and enhanced quality of care provided to older adults. Since 2000, the Arkansas Geriatric Education Center has trained and educated 10,340 health professionals, most of whom practice in rural areas, and has awarded over 54,000 hours of continuing education. The center had been funded through a grant from the Bureau of Health Professions, Health Resources and Services Administration. Yet at the end of 2005 all funding for title VII geriatric health professions programs was eliminated from the 2006 Federal budget. The elimination of this program runs counter to recommendations from the 1,200 delegates to the 2005 White House Conference on Aging where enhancing the geriatric workforce ranked as 2 of the top 10 list of recommendations. Furthermore, it ignores the well documented shortage of geriatricians and specialized care needs of the older portion of the baby boomer population. Congress must renew its commitment to geriatric health professions training if the nation is to avert a crisis in access to geriatric care for older Americans. The elimination of title VII funding for geriatric health professions training programs is a grave threat to the health of geriatric medicine. As the number of new physicians going into geriatrics declines and those already in the field approach retirement age, incentives rather than cuts are needed in programs that enhance the training of health professionals in geriatrics. Eliminating these funds will result in decreased access for the growing number of older patients in our country in need of the specialized care provided by geriatric healthcare professionals. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment which would restore funding to the geriatric health professions program, among other programs critical to the health of our Nation. Vote Explanation

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today, I rise in support of an amendment to the budget resolution that would provide an additional $1.5 billion for our veterans. I am a cosponsor of this amendment because this budget's modest increase in veterans funding is only a small step toward addressing the needs of veterans in Arkansas and across the country. It does not go far enough. I continue to hear from Arkansas veterans who have been subject to increasingly long waiting lists for VA hospital appointments and who have experienced unnecessary hardships because the VA does not have the resources to process their benefits applications in a timely manner. This situation is unacceptable and our veterans deserve better. As we look to the VA to provide for our growing veterans population and to meet the evolving health care needs of our returning brave men and women in uniform, we must ensure that the VA is provided with the resources it desperately needs to meet these challenges. This amendment, which I am proud to support and cosponsor, would enable the VA to better absorb the new veterans being added to the system and would provide much-needed funding for the growing mental health care needs of our veterans. Additionally, this amendment rejects the budget provisions proposed by the President that would impose a $250 enrollment fee and a doubling of the cost of prescription drug copayments from $8 to $15. These provisions would force thousands of middle-income veterans to pay substantially more for their care. As the daughter of a Korean war veteran, I was taught from an early age about the sacrifices our troops have to make to keep our Nation free, and have been grateful for the service of so many of our brave men and women from the State of Arkansas. On behalf of them and their families, I will continue to fight to ensure they are provided with the benefits, pay, and health care that they have earned. It is the least we can do for those whom we owe so much and to reassure future generations that a grateful Nation will not forget them when their military service is complete. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment because it is our moral responsibility to do so. It is the right thing to do and it should be a priority for each and every one of us.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, who, as always, does a tremendous job in helping the entire Senate stay focused on what is important, helping us to reflect on where our values lie as Americans, and certainly for us as leaders of this great Nation. I come to the Senate today to once again discuss an issue that is near and dear to my heart, an issue that is of great importance to all working families across this country. As we look now at what working families are going through--astronomically high fuel prices, what it is costing them to heat their homes; the cost of health care; the cost of educating their children and saving for higher education, which is going to increase again this year and years to come; trying to be competitive in their jobs and the global economy--in looking at these issues, I and many other Senators have recognized how tough it is for working families across this country. In 2001, and again in 2003, Senator Snowe of Maine and I worked together, with the help of our chairman on the Committee on Finance, Senator Grassley, and our ranking member, Senator Baucus, to ensure that low-income working families with children receive the benefit of the child tax credit. It is so important to remind ourselves: we know how near and dear our children are to us; other people's children are just as near and dear to them, regardless of their income level. As the chairman said earlier today, I, too, feel a bit as though I am trapped in that movie ``Groundhog Day,'' although for a different reason. I feel that I am trapped in ``Groundhog Day'' life. I have been in this instance time and time again, and I come to the Senate today to again ask my colleagues to help me ensure that low-income working families are not forgotten as we discuss tax relief. It is absolutely essential we put ourselves in the shoes of other working Americans, the working families who are the fabric of this great Nation, and say: We believe your children are just as important as our children to the future of this country. I applaud the action taken in the Senate the week before last. I was pleased we affirmed that the permanency of the child tax credit is a priority of the Senate and should be addressed during conference on this tax reconciliation bill. Even though I applaud that effort, I still say it is not enough. It is not enough to not look further and see those working Americans who are still not going to be helped. It is not enough because the credit in its current form does not work for all low-income working families. We can and should take one additional step. As some may be aware, to be eligible for the refundable child tax credit, working families must meet an income threshold. If they do not earn enough, they do not qualify for the child credit. The problem is, some of our parents are working full time every week of the year. Yet they still do not earn enough to meet the income threshold to qualify for the credit, much less to receive a meaningful refund. Heaven forbid we look at what they are making. Is it enough to safely and adequately raise their children? We have an obligation to make sure those people, those hard-working Americans who were willing to play by the rules to get a job, to work hard, to perform things that are important to our quality of life, too, that they have the same opportunity to love and nurture their children and work hard to provide their children a better opportunity than they may have had. I will say this again because it is right and it is important people know. I will say it again to make sure the point is not missed. We have full-time working parents who do not qualify for the child tax credit because their incomes are simply too low. Again, people playing by the rules, working hard so our lives might be a little bit better, yet under minimum wage, they do not make enough. If we are talking about American values, if we are talking about family values, if we want to reinforce the aspect of work instead of handouts, if we want to reinforce caring for all of America's children because we know all of America's children are part of our future, our future leaders, if what we want to do is reinforce working, caring for our children, taking the responsibility of our families--that does not mean just my children or just a few children; it means all children-- are we not then going to step up to the plate and say to those hard- working Americans that your children are just as important as my children? In 2003, the income threshold was set at $10,500. The threshold is indexed for inflation and thus has increased the last 2 years. It was $10,750 in 2004 and $11,000 in 2005. And, yes, it will go up again in 2006. Unfortunately, the low-income worker's wage is not increasing at the same pace, or even at all, for that matter, as we look at the low- income working wages that exist in this country. A single working mother or father in the State of Arkansas or across this Nation perhaps, who makes minimum wage, is going to get $5.15, working a 40- hour week, every week of the year. That is not taking a vacation, taking their family to the beach, going to Disney World or anything else. It is working a 40-hour week, every week of the year, 52 weeks out of the year, with an income of only $10,712 a year. That came in under the threshold, both in 2004 and 2005; it will, most definitely, come in below the threshold this year, in 2006. It is wrong--it is absolutely wrong--to provide this credit to some hard-working Americans while leaving others behind. The single, working parent who is stocking the shelves in your local grocery store is every bit as deserving as the teacher or accountant or insurance salesman who qualifies for the credit in its current form. And, yes, they love their children just as much as you and I love our children and want for them all of the great things that are available to young American children when they can be nurtured and cared for and encouraged and taken care of in their families. We must address this inequity, and we must ensure our Tax Code works for all Americans, especially those working parents forced to get by on minimum wage. Senator Snowe and I have proposed a solution to this horrible inequity. If we were to simply de-index the income threshold and set it at a reasonable level, such as $10,000, all full-time working parents, including those making minimum wage, would qualify. We talk day in and day out about how important our children are. We talk about making them a priority in this country and recognizing how they weave the fabric of this great Nation and the future. We understand, as parents, it is not easy. It is not easy to raise children in this environment, with everything from Internet security to making sure education is available, and health care, including simple nutritional needs. We have 600,000 Arkansans living with food insecurity, the majority of which are children. Why is it we cannot take the extra step to make sure that, again, those who are playing by the rules, those who are willing to work, to work to care for their children and their families--we are not going to give them the same benefit of that Tax Code? This is a simple, easy solution Senator Snowe and I have offered to a very serious problem. I will not rest until we get it done. As we prepare to enter conference with the House on this tax reconciliation bill, I encourage my colleagues to support Senator Snowe and me in our efforts to fix this inequity. As many of you may recall, the last time Senator Snowe and I went to work to improve the child tax credit, back during the debate of the President's tax package in 2003, tax relief for low-income families was left behind in the conference. I hope we have changed. I hope we have refocused ourselves and our priorities. I hope we do recognize all working American families are struggling today with high gas prices, the cost of health care, and higher education--education at all--that all working families are struggling to heat and cool their homes with high energy costs and are struggling to keep the jobs they have in their globally competitive companies. Please, let's not repeat this mistake again. If the opportunity arises to take action on the child tax credit in this conference, we must not only extend it, we must ensure that it works for all of America's working families. We should always remember that budgets reflect priorities, the priorities of those who put those budgets together. We know priorities create choices. The choices we make in budgets and in decisions on the floor of the Senate and in conferences over such critical issues--our choices--have real and substantive consequences, not just to those working families out there who so desperately want success for their child, but it has consequences for our Nation. If we set our priorities so low that we leave behind the children of hard-working American families, the consequences for our Nation will be great. I thank you, Mr. President, and again encourage my colleagues to support the efforts not only of a child tax credit but also making sure it is fair to all working families of our Nation. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a young man from Arkansas who recently lost his life while heroically serving our Nation in uniform. SPC Dustin Kendall will be remembered by those who knew him as a charming and charismatic young man, who was beloved by his friends and family and had a special gift for bringing smiles to the faces of everyone he met. Growing up with a brother and four sisters, Specialist Kendall spent his childhood as many children do: playing sports, causing mischief, and enjoying the company of his family and friends. As the son of missionaries, he spent his childhood in a variety of places and wherever he ended up, his outgoing and friendly nature was sure to follow. These qualities allowed him to make friends quickly and adapt to new surroundings, and that was certainly the case when his family moved to Bryant, an Arkansas town just south of Little Rock, in 2002. In Bryant, Specialist Kendall worked at a local restaurant, where he became a favorite of the regular customers, while he finished his schooling. Later, when his parents moved to Europe to continue their missionary work, he stayed in Arkansas to continue classes at the University of Central Arkansas in nearby Conway. At UCA, he studied business but was considering following one of his passions and pursuing a career in golf, possibly in golf-course design. As a student, Specialist Kendall joined the U.S. Army Reserve for primarily financial reasons but, over time, came to enjoy his military life and was ultimately considering a career in the Army. Upon signing up for active duty last summer, he was stationed at Fort Carson, CO, before being deployed with his unit to Iraq in November of 2005. In Iraq, Specialist Kendall served with the 68th Armor Regiment of the 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, where he served with distinction, most recently as a bodyguard for an Army colonel. Tragically, he was killed on January 15 in Baqouba, Iraq, when his military humvee was accidentally struck by an American Abrams tank. He was 21 years old. A memorial service was held for Specialist Kendall on January 21, in Summerville, SC. Many of his friends and his family gathered to remember the charming young man with the infectious smile and to honor the brave soldier who had given his life in the fight for freedom. Although words cannot convey the sorrow felt by his loved ones, I hope they may find some solace remembering the way he lived his life and knowing that he touched the lives of so many others. My thoughts and prayers go out to his parents, Brandi Lee and Penelope Jean, his brother and his sisters, and to all those who knew and loved him. His time with us was far too short but his spirit will live on in us forever.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to a fallen pillar of the movement to extend civil and social rights to millions of African Americans: Coretta Scott King. Mrs. King was loved and respected the world over as one of the pioneers of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. She was the friend, partner and wife of the leader of the civil rights movement, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Born in Marion, AL, on April 27, 1927, Coretta Scott graduated as valedictorian of her high school class and attended Antioch College in Yellow Springs, OH. She received a B.A. in music and education and then studied concert singing at the New England Conservatory of Music in Boston, MA. As the young Martin Luther King, Jr., began his civil rights work in Montgomery, AL, Mrs. King worked closely with him, organizing marches and sit-ins at segregated restaurants while at the same time raising their four children: Yolanda Denise, Martin Luther III, Dexter Scott, and Bernice Albertine. During the height of the civil rights movement, Mrs. King and her husband endured threats and attempts on their lives. In spite of the violence that surrounded them and that would one day take Dr. King's life, they never abandoned a fundamental belief in nonviolence. They were committed to peace. After her husband's death, Mrs. King took a more visible role in the movement. She worked to keep his ideology of equality for all people at the forefront of the Nation's agenda. She pushed for more than a decade to have her husband's birthday observed as a national holiday, then watched with pride in 1983 as President Reagan signed the bill into law. King became a symbol, in her own right, of her husband's struggle for peace and brotherhood, presiding with a quiet, steady, stoic presence over seminars and conferences on global issues. Throughout her years of service, however, she never lost sight of the fact that her children were her greatest responsibility. Mrs. King was also a role model for many young women. She showed them that their own voices had value and that their thoughts and actions mattered. Our loss of Mrs. King leaves a void that won't soon be filled. We have lost a great leader, a great role model, a great woman, and a great American, but it is also important for us to remember that her children have lost their mother. May the Lord grant them peace in this time of mourning. Our thoughts and prayers go out to her family and friends. Mr. President, today is a sad day for the Nation. We have lost one of our leading voices for equality and justice. In closing, I am sure that the entire Senate will join with me in honoring the life of Mrs. Coretta Scott King.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to state my opposition to the nomination of Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court. After thoroughly reviewing Judge Alito's record during his time on the Federal bench, I am left with grave and serious concerns about his views on the power and scope of executive branch authority, the lack of discrimination against parents in the workplace, his general disposition toward cases involving civil rights, and his views on the scope of voter rights. Because of these concerns, I cannot in good conscience support his nomination to the Supreme Court to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, the highest Court in the land with tremendous ability to exercise judgment over the people of this Nation. Over the course of Judge Samuel Alito's career and his tenure on the Federal bench, he has compiled a troubling record of personal statements and court decisions that signal his willingness to defer authority to the executive branch when questions of presidential powers are deliberated before the Supreme Court. I strongly believe that our Constitution calls for an independent and co-equal judicial branch that provides a check on the government's power to encroach upon our individual rights of Americans. At a time when many Arkansans have expressed concerns over the President's legal authority to eavesdrop on Americans without court supervision and detain U.S. citizens without judicial review or due process, I cannot support a Supreme Court nominee who has repeatedly failed to uphold reasonable limits of presidential authority at the expense of constitutional liberties. This issue is especially significant because Judge Alito would replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who recently ruled in a 2004 case on executive authority that ``a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens.'' While the legislative and executive branches of government are, by their very nature, political, we demand our judicial branch be above that. When one party controls both of the political branches, the independence of the judiciary is especially important. It is not just important to keep in check but also to maintain the confidence of the American people that their government is balanced and that it is there to serve them and not the politicians. Our Founders created our country and its government with the memories of tyranny still fresh in their minds. The judicial branch was given exceptional authority for the specific reason that it provides a critical check on the two political branches of our government. This is not to say that the judicial branch is charged with correcting the perceived wrongs of the party in power. It is simply charged with upholding the Constitution and the rights guaranteed to citizens under it. Upholding this requirement is the most important duty the court is given. If a potential nominee to the Supreme Court cannot or will not uphold either part of this solemn duty, his or her appointment will serve to undermine the fundamental system of checks and balances on which our government depends. Of equal concern is Judge Alito's record on the issue of discrimination in the workplace. In Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, Judge Alito's statement that the Family Medical Leave Act was a ``disproportionate solution'' to the problem of workplace discrimination is deeply troubling. In an opinion rejecting the position of Judge Alito, Chief Justice Rehnquist explicitly noted that common workplace practices had been discriminatory toward both men and women by reinforcing the role of women as the sole domestic caregiver. I fear that Judge Alito' s inability to recognize this type of discrimination threatens dire consequences for rights hard won by women over the last few decades. The majority of our Nation's families depend on income from both parents just to get by. The future and strength of our Nation depends on the strength of the fabric that our families are made of. I cannot in good conscience vote to allow any of the gains that have allowed women to become an integral part of our Nation's workforce while remaining exceptional mothers to their children to be rolled back. As his record points out, Judge Alito has consistently set an unfairly high burden of proof in discrimination cases leading him to rule consistently against Americans who are merely attempting to assert their basic constitutional rights. Judge Alito's philosophy of deferring to the government and those in positions of authority threatens to undermine many of the laws established by Congress to ensure that discrimination does not prevent anyone from realizing his or her full potential--not just as an American, but as a human being. Also of concern are Judge Alito's comments on voter rights. He has stated his interest in constitutional law was motivated largely by his disagreements with the Supreme Court reapportionment decision that established the principle of ``one person, one vote.'' This landmark case became a cornerstone of our democracy by ensuring that everyone's vote would be weighted equally, regardless of an individual's economic background, their address, or the color of their skin. If an individual is prevented from seeking a fair remedy at the ballot box by denial of his basic right to vote, the only avenue he has left is our judicial system. Judge Alito's skepticism of established principles of voter rights coupled with his skepticism of claims relating to discrimination is a dangerous combination that threatens to exclude many Americans from full and equal participation in their government and society. I remind my colleagues that the strength of our Nation comes from the input of the diversity of individuals who make up this great land. We cannot diminish that. Equal access to the ballot box is a right guaranteed to every American that is the very foundation of democracy. These rights came after much work and incredible sacrifice and to me they are too important to put at risk. As I stated during the debate on Chief Justice Robert's nomination, considering a Supreme Court nomination is one of the most important duties we are called upon as Senators to fulfill. I did not come to my decision on Judge Alito' s nomination lightly. Ultimately, I supported the nomination of Chief Justice Roberts because I sincerely believed he cared more about the rule of law and our Nation's judicial system than he did about ideology or politica1 parties. I sincerely regret I cannot draw the same conclusion about Judge Alito. For me, this nomination is not about a single issue or controversy. It is much more important than that. This nomination is about the rights and freedoms we cherish as Americans. It is about the future course of our Nation and the impact the decisions of the Supreme court will have on the citizens of this great land. I feel government has a commitment to those amongst us who face incredible challenges to ensure that the values we all hold dear as Americans apply equally to them. I have real doubts about Judge Alito's views on the role of government in protecting those rights. I respect the opinions of my constituents and colleagues on both sides of this issue. But in the end, after great prayer and research--and certainly after listening to all the principles I learned growing up as a farmer's daughter in east Arkansas in the rural part of this Nation--I made the decision that I believe is in the best interests of my State and of my country. I appreciate the time attention of my colleagues. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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