Blanche Lincoln

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Mike DeWine to introduce ``The ABCs for Children's Health Act of 2005,'' which seeks to expand access to quality health care for all children who are eligible for Medicaid. The bill also ensures that children get the best health care at the right time. Medicaid is the single largest insurer for children. Twenty-five million children in America, one out of every four, depend on Medicaid for their health care coverage. In Arkansas, more than half of the births are financed by Medicaid. Over half of the children in Arkansas are on Medicaid or received Medicaid services in the last year. Medicaid covers half of the care, on average, that children's hospitals provide. As a result, the availability and quality of health care for all children relies greatly on Medicaid. As a result of progress in children's Medicaid coverage and the enactment of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, Congress has achieved an essential health care safety net for lower income children and children with special health care needs. Medicaid has saved millions of children from being uninsured when parents are faced with hard times and it has come to the aid of working families when children have exceptional medical costs. I believe that we must continue to build on that progress. The ABCs for Children's Health Act of 2005 encourages States to provide care for more children under Medicaid. It also helps states to ensure that all eligible children are enrolled and that they get the high quality care they need. The bill would provide the same investments in quality and performance in children's health care service's that are being made in Medicare. National quality and performance measures for children are far behind those for adults. I encourage my colleagues to join us as supporters of this important legislation to ensure that children get the quality health care they need to grow and prosper. Our Nation's children deserve the best health care we can offer. And this is a step in the right direction.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Mr. John Walton, 58, an Arkansas native and Wal-Mart heir who on June 28, was killed when his aircraft crashed on landing outside of Jackson, WY. John lived a varied and interesting life. John was born on October 8, 1946, the second oldest son of Sam and Helen Walton of Bentonville, AR. He attended high school in Bentonville and began his undergraduate studies at the College of Wooster in Wooster, OH. As a young college student during the Vietnam era, John enlisted in the Army and volunteered for combat as a medic with the Green Berets. During his time in Vietnam, he was often in firefights with the enemy and performed heroically as a part of his special operations unit. He was awarded the Silver Star for saving the lives of several members of his unit while under enemy fire. After returning from Vietnam, John pursued a variety of interests, including working as a crop duster in the 1970s and building boats in the 1980s. He had a passion for all things mechanical and was an avid motorcyclist and pilot. More recently, John took a great interest in education. He took $67 million of Walton Foundation money and founded the Children's Scholarship Fund. Scholarships from the fund have benefitted 67,000 children. He, along with his family, also made the largest contribution to a public college when they gave a $300 million gift to the University of Arkansas. Our condolences and prayers go out to John's wife Christy of Jackson Hole, WY; to his son, Luke, and to his mother Helen; as well as to his siblings Rob, Jim, and Alice. John's life exhibited his commitment to his country in so many ways. He defended his country on the battlefields of Vietnam and he invested in his country by funding a better education for thousands of children. I am sure the entire Senate will join with me to honor the life of John Walton.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for allowing me to take a few moments for an important recognition for Arkansans. Today I rise to pay tribute to two very distinguished Arkansans, first to the new and undefeated, undisputed middleweight champion of the world, Jermain Taylor. Jermain Taylors' skill in the boxing ring is only one reason for me to recognize him on the Senate floor. Jermain is one of boxing's rising young stars. He is known for his skill and his power in the ring, but he is also known for his grace and humility outside of the ring. On July 16, Jermain, a Little Rock native, thrilled the people of Arkansas when he stepped into a ring in Las Vegas, NV and took the middleweight championship of the world from Bernard Hopkins. Jermain's victory that night was the culmination of a lifetime of hard work and sacrifice that began when he was just a small boy. When Jermain was 5, he had to take on the responsibility of being the man of the house after his father left the family. Even at that young age, he took responsibility for his younger sisters without hesitation. At the age of 13, he made his way into Ozell Nelson's gym and, though he lost his first sparring session, he enjoyed the challenge and believed he would improve, and he could improve with hard work. He did, and in 1996 he won the U.S. Under 19 Championships. In 2000, he won a bronze medal while representing his country in the Olympic Games held in Sydney, Australia. Shortly thereafter he began his pro career. By all accounts and by every measure, Jermain Taylor is a great fighter, but he is an even better person. He has been described as humble, determined and one who knows that family comes first. In short, he embodies the best of what being an Arkansan is all about. He is a self described country boy with country values. Being an old farmer's daughter myself, I can vouch for the fact that there is nothing wrong with that. Thousands of Arkansans traveled to Las Vegas to support their local hero. Chants of J.T. and the calling of the hogs could be heard throughout the fight as Jermain outworked and outboxed his opponent.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I also now go to a sadder note and rise to pay tribute to a fallen pillar of the Arkansas business and philanthropy community, Mr. Jack Stephens. Jack passed away quietly at his home on Saturday, July 23, after a period of illness. He has been remarked to have been one of the most incredible businessmen in his lifetime. We have truly lost a visionary businessman who invested in hundreds of Arkansas companies, many of which became leaders in their industry. He also became one of my home State's most active philanthropists, never forgetting his humble roots and the value of rural life. Jackson T. Stephens was born during the Roaring Twenties and was raised during the Great Depression on a farm in south central Arkansas. He picked cotton and worked a mule on the farm before taking jobs in nearby Hope, AR, during his teens. The Depression helped to shape a generation of Americans who valued every penny and deeply respected the opportunities that freedom brings, the opportunity to earn a living and to give back. Those lessons were not lost on Jack Stephens. His parents A. J. and Ethel taught him the values of self-reliance, diligence, integrity, and hard work. His father once told Jack, ``Success is not a destiny to be reached but the quality of the journey we make.'' After attending public schools in Prattsville, AR, and graduating high school from Columbia Military Academy in Columbia, TN, Jack Stephens became a 1947 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. For the rest of his life, he remained close to many of his Naval Academy buddies, particularly ADM William Crowe, Ambassador Vernon Weaver, and President Jimmy Carter. He never forgot the important value of that education at a service academy and, more importantly, his service to this great Nation. After finishing up at the Naval Academy, Jack joined his brother Witt Stephens at his financial company, Stephens, Inc. The two of them built one of the country's most premier investment banking firms, the largest off Wall Street. In recent years, Jack has been recognized for his philanthropy. He once told a reporter there are only two pleasures associated with money: making it and giving it away. For over 20 years, Jack has been the principal benefactor for the Delta Project, a program designed to assist and educate underprivileged children in Arkansas's delta. He also supported the City Educational Trust Fund. For 20 years, the trust fund has provided scholarships for students and incentive awards for innovative teachers. Jack also gave $48 million to the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. The money was used to build, equip, and support the Jackson T. Stephens Spine and Neuroscience Institute. In 1997, he gave $5 million to support First Tee, a program designed to allow underprivileged children to learn about and play the game of golf. He viewed First Tee as a teaching tool for children. He understood that the lessons of patience, respect, and following the rules the game of golf teaches could be used in any area of a child's life and, more important, provided them the life skills they needed to be a success in the future. He also served from 1991 to 1998 as the fourth chairman of the Augusta National Golf Club, home of the Master's Golf Tournament. Jack also gave about $20 million to the University of Arkansas at Little Rock for a special events center that will be used for basketball. In closing, I want to say a word about the character of Jack Stephens and the men and women of his generation. Jack came from a time when Arkansans believed in the spirit of Arkansas. We in Arkansas believe in ourselves. We believe in our family and our family of Arkansas people. We believe in our dreams and the things we can accomplish when we work hard and we reach out to one another. Men such as J. B. Hunt, Sam Walton, John Tyson, Witt Stephens, and Jack Stephens believed in the values they were taught in Arkansas and knew that the best place to build a business was right there in their own backyard. All of these men along with Jack Stephens, nurtured and invested in the businesses and the people of their great State of Arkansas, knowing full well that Arkansas, Arkansas's hard work, its ethics, its values, could be marketed all across the globe. In the 1980s, Jack Stephens was one of the first to venture and look toward places in the East where investments could be made and relationships built for future of the global economy in the 21st century. They set a high standard for all of Arkansas to follow. Many of us look to the image of Jack Stephens to know of the success that can happen in Arkansas. My thoughts and prayers go to the family and friends of Jack Stephens this week, as we celebrate his wonderful life and cherish the moments that were spent with him. The people of Arkansas can all be proud of Jack Stephens and the life he lived. He contributed mightily to the well-being of our State and to its people, all because he never forgot where he came from. I am sure the entire Senate will join with me as I honor the well-lived life of Jackson T. ``Jack'' Stephens.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, on Monday, July 11, 2005, I testified before the Base Closure and Realignment Commission regional hearing in San Antonio, TX, regarding Department of Defense recommended changes to military installations in Arkansas and Texas. Therefore, I was absent during vote No. 173 on the Senate Resolution condemning the terrorist attacks in London on July 7 and expressing sympathy for the victims, their families and the people of the United Kingdom. Had I been present, I would have voted yea in support of this resolution.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President. I rise today to honor the memory of U.S. Army SSG Harold ``George'' Bennett. In the jungles of Vietnam, this young Arkansan displayed courage and honor while serving his Nation in uniform. Tragically, almost 40 years to the day, on or about June 26, 1965, he became the first American prisoner of war executed by the Viet Cong. George Bennett was born on October 16, 1940, in Perryville, AR, a small town that rests just northwest of Little Rock in the foothills of the Ozarks. His father, Gordon, was a veteran of World War I, and he instilled in his sons the values and rewards of service to country. All 4 would follow his footsteps into the U.S. Army. SGT George Bennett was trained in the Army as an airborne infantryman and served with the famed 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions, made up of some of the finest soldiers in the world. He earned his Master Parachute Wings and Expert Infantry Badge before volunteering in 1964 for service in what was a relatively unknown area of southeast Asia called Vietnam. While deployed, Sergeant Bennett served as an infantry advisor to the 33rd Ranger Battalion, one of South Vietnam's best trained and toughest units. On December 29, 1964, they were airlifted to the village of Binh Gia after it had been overrun by a division of Viet Cong. Immediately upon landing, Sergeant Bennett's unit was confronted by a well-dug-in regiment of enemy forces and despite fighting furiously and courageously throughout the afternoon, their unit was decimated and overrun. Sergeant Bennett and his radio operator, PFC Charles Crafts, fell into the hands of the Viet Cong. Before being captured, Sergeant Bennett twice called off American helicopter pilots who were attempting to navigate through the combat zone to rescue him and his radioman. Displaying a remarkably calm demeanor, his focus seemed to be on their safety and not his own. His last words to his would-be rescuers were, ``Well, they are here now. My little people,'' his term for the South Vietnamese soldiers under his command, ``are laying down their weapons and they want me to turn off my radio. Thanks a lot for your help and God Bless you.'' As a prisoner of war, the only thing more remarkable than the courageous resistance he displayed throughout his captivity was his steadfast devotion to duty, honor, and country. His faith in God and the trust of his fellow prisoners was unshakable. Sadly, the only way his captors could break his spirit of resistance was to execute him and today Sergeant Bennett lies in an unmarked grave known only to God, somewhere in the jungles of Vietnam. Recent efforts by a group of Vietnam veterans will ensure that Sergeant Bennett's valiant service will not be forgotten. Over the years, they have worked tirelessly on behalf of the Bennett family to secure the valor awards that should have been presented to Sergeant Bennett's mother, Pauline, in 1965. I am proud of all they have accomplished and have pledged my support to this effort. Most recently, their work helped lead to Sergeant Bennett's posthumous induction into the U.S. Army Ranger Hall of Fame at Fort Benning, GA, on July 8, 2004. Sergeant Bennett's brother Dicky, and his sisters, Eloise Wallace, Laura Sue Vaught, and Peggy Williams were in attendance. I hope this long overdue moment of recognition provided some sense of solace for his family. Although he may no longer be with us, the example and selflessness of this brave young Arkansan will forever live on in our hearts. The 40th anniversary of Sergeant Bennett's execution offers us an opportunity, not to remember the events of his death, but to reflect upon the life he led and the kind of person he was. He was a selfless young man who answered his Nation's call to service and placed duty and honor above all else. While a grateful nation could never adequately express their debt to men such as George Bennett, it should take every opportunity to honor them and their families for the sacrifice they have paid on our behalf. I would also like to ask for unanimous consent to include in the record the citation from Sergeant Bennett's posthumous induction into the Ranger Hall of Fame and an article titled ``Bad Day at Binh Gia,'' by retired Army COL Douglas E. Moore, that provides us additional insight into the heroic service of SGT George Bennett. Bad Day at Binh Gia (By Col. Douglas E. Moore) When friends or family visit for the first time, we usually take them to Washington to see the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Although I have been there many times, I am still impressed with the large crowds. Most are tourists with cameras at the ready; others appear to be more somber, perhaps because they served in Vietnam themselves or lost friends or family in the war. It troubles me to see fellow veterans there wearing all sorts of military attire from that era. Many of them have pain written across their faces, which makes me wonder what terrible burdens they carry after all these years. For me, Vietnam is now a collection of mostly good memories. As a young medevac helicopter pilot, I had the opportunity to sharpen my flying skills to a level that was never matched again. I was blessed to be able to work with some of the finest people I have ever known, and my job was satisfying. During my tours in Vietnam and Japan, I evacuated more than 11,000 casualties in one of the best flying machines ever built, the Huey helicopter. It is gratifying to know that some patients lived because we were able to help. The bad memories have mostly faded with time. In fact, there is only one event that I still think about, and it occurred more than 34 years ago. In late December 1964, we were rushing to join the crews of two helicopter gunships in an attempt to save an American advisor. Unfortunately, we failed. Vietnam in 1964 was as different as night and day from the later years. Back then, it was still a Vietnamese war, and there were only about 20,000 Americans assigned to the various headquarters, advisory teams and a handful of aviation units scattered around the countryside. Ours was strictly an advisory and support role and not one of direct combat. In fact, some of the senior officers still had their families in Saigon, and many Americans lived in hotels and other civilian buildings. The old-timers may recall a memo published by one headquarters stating its concern that some living areas were taking on the appearance of armed camps. We operated on a shoestring. We did not have U.S. Air Force aircraft or U.S. Army artillery to prestrike the landing zones in support of our operations. The only firepower available was a few lightly armed helicopter gunships flown by a group of extraordinarily brave pilots. Needless to say, we left several of the landing zones littered with downed helicopters. The communication systems were terrible. Since most medevac requests came by telephone and passed through several Vietnamese headquarters before reaching us, delays were common. On occasion, we would rush to a tiny village located a hundred miles away only to discover the casualties had been picked up a day or so earlier by a resupply aircraft making its weekly rounds. All new pilots found it disconcerting that they could easily lose radio contact with other Americans during the longer flights. Weather permitting, the only alternative was to gain enough altitude to talk to our old standbys, Paris Control and Paddy Control, operated by the Air Force out of Saigon and Can Tho, respectively. Otherwise, we were completely on our own at times. The character of the war was different, too. While there were a few major battles between the Viet Cong and South Vietnamese, most of the contact was on a small scale and ended quickly. It does not seem possible now, but the number of Americans killed in the war had not reached 200 until July 1964. In late October, I was flying past Bien Hoa Air Base when several B-57 Canberra bombers suddenly broke through the clouds ahead of me. Several days later, I learned they had come from Clark Air Force Base in the Philippines to attack Viet Cong strongholds in the jungles north of Saigon. The crews of the newly arrived Canberras had barely settled in when the Viet Cong struck. I was dozing in our alert shack at Tan Son Nhut Air Base when the radio operator began yelling, ``Bien Hoa's been hit!'' As we ran to our helicopter for the short flight to Bien Hoa, we could see flashes of rockets and mortars on the horizon. Burning aircraft and ammunition were exploding everywhere as we landed to evacuate the wounded. To our horror, we watched a Vietnamese A-IE Skyraider crash as the pilot tried to take off during the melee. The plane's huge engine and other burning parts rolled to a stop a few yards behind us. Four Americans were killed, several others were wounded, and 13 U.S. aircraft were destroyed that night in one of the first major attacks that seemed to be specifically targeted against the Americans. Not long afterwards Bob Hope arrived for his first Christmas tour. While his group was traveling from the airport to downtown Saigon, two Viet Cong saboteurs drove an explosive-laden truck into the parking lot of the Brinks Hotel. Two Americans died in the blast and more than 50 were wounded. I missed Bob's show the next day because I was flying, but I understand that he quipped, ``A funny thing happened on the way in last night--a hotel passed us!'' As 1964 was ending, the North Vietnamese apparently concluded that they could not win the war with the hit-and- run tactics they had been using. Instead, a major shift in their strategy occurred when they sent two veteran Viet Cong regiments to an assembly area about 50 miles southeast of Saigon. Coastal freighters brought new rifles, mortars and rocket-propelled grenade launchers. In the jungles of Phuoc Tuy province, the dreaded 9th Viet Cong Division was born, and Binh Gia was chosen to be its first test by fire. Binh Gia was a peaceful village surrounded by jungle and populated mostly by Catholics who had fled to the South following an earlier partition of their country. In late December, one regiment of the 9th Division attacked the village and quickly overran its lightly armed defenders. Another regiment slipped into ambush positions around a nearby clearing. They knew the American helicopters would be coming soon, loaded with Vietnamese soldiers and their American advisors. The casualty toll mounted quickly. About midafternoon, I took a load of wounded Vietnamese to Cong Hoa General Military Hospital in Saigon and was diverted from there to pick up an American who had been hit in an ambush about 40 miles to the west, near the Cambodian border. Because there was no tactical operations center or any of the ubiquitous command and control helicopters hovering over the battlefield, as was the case in later years, we had to refuel at Saigon and return to Binh Gia to see if we were still needed. About 25 miles away from Binh Gia I began trying to contact other aircraft in the area. I switched through several frequencies that we had used earlier in the day before hearing a gunship pilot talking with an American advisor on the ground. It quickly became evident that the advisor was in trouble because the gunship pilot kept telling him he could not identify the disposition of his troops and was concerned about firing on ``friendlies.'' The advisor said he was sorry but that he had used up all of his smoke grenades and had nothing to mark his positions. At that point, the advisor began identifying objects on the ground in an attempt to guide the gunships. Finally, I heard him say something to the effect of, ``Listen, I'm standing on a small mound near a large clump of bushes and waving a white handkerchief. You have clearance to fire anywhere more than a hundred meters from my position.'' Shortly thereafter, the gunship pilot reported that he and his wingman had fired all of their rockets and had little machine-gun ammunition remaining. At this point, the gunship pilot told the advisor to begin moving toward the Southwest because he planned to land and pick him up. The advisor's response was quick. ``Don't try it! They're all around me down here, and all you'll do is get shot down.'' The gunship pilot encouraged him to move, but the advisor was adamant that it was too dangerous for any rescue attempt. After hearing this, I called the gunship pilot and told him we were about 10 or 12 miles out and would pick up the advisor if he could guide us into the area. The advisor answered first: ``Negative; Dustoff. You can't make it, so don't even try it!'' I thought we had a chance because I remain convinced to this day that some of the earlier Viet Cong commanders would not have allowed their troops to fire at our medevac helicopters--whether out of respect for the red crosses or because they knew we went to the aid of anyone who needed help, I do not know. Many of the civilian casualties and pregnant women whom we had evacuated from the villages had husbands or relatives serving in the Viet Cong. As a result, I honestly believe they took it easy on us during the early part of the war. When U.S. combat units were introduced the following spring, we became fair game like everyone else. In any case, my crew and I planned to approach at treetop level and touch down just long enough to haul the advisor aboard. We had already begun descending when we heard him say, ``Well, they are here now. My little people [slang for South Vietnamese soldiers] are laying their weapons down, and they want me to turn off my radio. Thanks a lot for your help, and God bless you.'' With those words, he was gone. The gunship pilot reported movement around the advisor's position, so we pulled up and began orbiting the area. The gunship pilot then told me that he and his wingman had to depart to refuel and rearm. I called an approaching Army L-19 spotter plane to ask if more gunships were on the way. The Bird Dog pilot said no. The late afternoon sun began casting long shadows across the jungle clearing below us, and it looked so peaceful from our vantage point. At the same time, it was heartbreaking to know that an American soldier had been captured and we were helpless to do anything except orbit outside of small-arms range. Several minutes passed before our radio crackled to life again, ``Have no fear, blue-eyed VNAF is here!'' The call came from a flight of Vietnamese air force AI-E Skyraiders, piloted by U.S. Air Force advisors. They were rushing to help but were simply too late. I left Vietnam the following summer and spent two years in Japan before I returned to Vietnam. While in Japan, I was in another medevac unit whose mission was to ferry casualties from the air bases at Yokota and Tachikawa to several Army, Navy and Air Force hospitals scattered around Tokyo. After the more seriously wounded were sufficiently stabilized, we returned them to the airheads for the long flight home. One afternoon, I was reading a copy of The Stars and Stripes while waiting for an inbound flight at Yokota. My attention was drawn to an announcement by the North Vietnamese government that an American POW had been shot in retaliation for the slaying of a Viet Cong terrorist by South Vietnamese forces. The article identified the POW as Army Sgt. Harold G. Bennett, who had been captured at Binh Gia. It suddenly dawned on me that I had never learned the name of the soldier we were trying to save that afternoon, and I began wondering whether it was Sgt. Bennett. I am still troubled because our rescue attempt was unsuccessful and I never learned the name of the soldier we were trying to save. I have often wondered whether it would have made a difference if the gunships had had more ammunition or if we had arrived a few minutes earlier. After many years of curiosity, I began trying to reconstruct the events of that fateful day. First, I contacted the Pentagon's MIA/POW office and was referred to the Library of Congress. After obtaining several microfiche from the library, I discovered that three Americans had been captured at Binh Gia. Two of them were Army enlisted men and the third was a U.S. Marine Corps captain. While I cannot be certain, it appears the person whom we were trying to save was Sgt. Bennett. The data I have gathered contains little information about Sgt. Bennett's actual capture, but there are several stirring accounts about his later actions as told by other POWs who were held with him in various camps. Their reports indicate that Sgt. Bennett stubbornly resisted his captors at every opportunity and that he participated in frequent hunger strikes. These disruptions may have led to his being shot. Like most of my compatriots, I have witnessed many heroic acts over the years, but the person we were trying to save that day ranks with the most courageous. I cannot imagine what his thoughts were when things began to collapse around him, and there is no way to fathom the despair he must have felt while he was being led from the battlefield with American helicopters circling a few hundred feet overhead. I am still amazed that he could remain so calm during his radio transmissions. To the end, his focus seemed to be on our safety and not his. The willingness to sacrifice himself instead of risking others was a remarkable demonstration of valor. If I ever have to face a life-or-death situation again, I hope I can find some of his courage.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments. I rise to join the Senator from North Carolina in speaking in opposition to the Schumer amendment. I certainly am concerned that the amendment before us would remove a carefully crafted provision from the bill that seeks to ensure that Americans will maintain a reliable supply of medical isotopes or the radiopharmaceuticals used to diagnose and treat so many diseases. We are on the brink, all of us here, working hard to increase funding for the discovery of eliminating these diseases. In the meantime, being able to provide the hope to those who suffer from these diseases is so critically important. These diseases include everything from heart disease to hyperthyroidism, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, epilepsy, kidney failure, bone infection, brain cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, thyroid cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and brain cancer--so many of these that plague the lives of Americans who can get some relief from the medical treatment that is provided by these medical isotopes. At least 14 million Americans are diagnosed and treated with medical isotopes each year. While I believe America should continue in the vein of developing policies consistent with our nonproliferation goals, we must make sure that these and future patients do not lose access to the radiopharmaceuticals. We cannot move forward in a way toward nonproliferation and wrest the responsibility, not knowing full well what the future might be for these patients and their needs. I support the provision in the underlying bill, as was mentioned by my colleague from North Carolina, that was carefully crafted in the committee to take into consideration all of these needs, making sure that we are recognizing the sensitivity and the caution that needs to exist and yet recognizing that the development of technologies and new information and medical treatments are something that are vital to these 14 million Americans. The provision in the underlying bill permits the export of the highly enriched uranium used only for the production of the medical isotopes until a low-enriched uranium alternative is commercially viable and available. We know that those are also issues. We talk about the reimportation of those isotopes, making sure that the production of them is something that is going to continue in order to make sure that the access to these pharmaceuticals is available. This provision is balanced, it is fair, and it is supported by the nuclear medicine community, including those in my home State of Arkansas. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Vote against it so that patients do not lose their access to these very necessary drugs. I don't know that my colleagues have mentioned all of those in support of this effort: The American College of Nuclear Physicians, the American College of Radiology, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals, the National Association of Cancer Patients, the National Association of Nuclear Pharmacies, the Nuclear Energy Institute, and the Society of Nuclear Medicine. We have an opportunity to stay on course with something that has been negotiated and very thoroughly vetted in the underlying bill that will keep us on the right track and make sure that these 14 million Americans and their families will continue to have the access to these pharmaceuticals that they need while we continue to work forward in the manner which we can to make sure that all of the safety and caution that needs to be there is there, will remain there, while we still enjoy the unbelievable technologies that have been discovered in recent medicine. I thank the Senator from North Carolina for yielding. I do encourage my colleagues to rise in opposition to the amendment so that we can go back to what is in the underlying bill. I think it will prove well for all of those who suffer from many diseases that we can treat with these medical isotopes. I yield the floor.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I rise with a heavy heart to honor the lives of three very special Arkansans; Army Specialists Phillip N. Sayles, Tyler L. Creamean, and Dustin C. Fisher. They will be remembered by their family and friends as loving souls who lived their lives with energy and passion; they will be remembered by their Nation as dedicated soldiers who bravely answered their Nation's call to service and gave their lives in the defense of our freedom. Those who knew Phillip Sayles often spoke of his quiet demeanor and the way he showed determination whenever there was a task at hand, focusing on getting the job done and never complaining. He called the central Arkansas town of Jacksonville home, and attended nearby North Pulaski High School. In school, he was active in the ROTC program, where his leadership skills and discipline quickly distinguished him with the qualities of a soldier. Spc. Sayles transferred to Cabot High School for his senior year and, upon his graduation in 1997, enlisted in the U.S. Army. Despite being born in Texas, Tyler Creamean also spent most of his childhood in Jacksonville. Known for his energy and his light-hearted nature, he had a personality that allowed him to make friends with nearly everyone he encountered. He was also known for playing pranks and causing mischief but did not have a mean bone in his body. Instead, he had a gift for lightening dark moods and bringing a quick smile to the faces of those around him when they needed it most. Spc. Creamean attended Jacksonville High School but left after his sophomore year to join the Youth ChalleNGe Program, a 22-week program sponsored by the Arkansas National Guard to help young adults develop as leaders, earn their G.E.D. and acquire the skills necessary to succeed in life. It was an opportunity for Spc. Creamean to learn more about himself and what he wanted in life, and he did just that. He went on to earn the program's spirit award and shortly after his graduation, he joined the Army in April of 2003. Spc. Sayles and Spc. Creamean were both a part of the Army's 25th Infantry Division and spent time at Fort Lewis in Washington prior to their service in Operation Iraqi Freedom. While in Iraq, Spc. Creamean served with the 73rd Engineer Company and conducted more than 600 patrols, sweeping roads for explosive devices and clearing the way so that fellow soldiers as well as Iraqi civilians could pass through safely. In late February, he returned home on leave and on February 24, his 21st birthday, he married the love of his life, his girlfriend KaMisha. KaMisha, also a soldier, was stationed at Fort Still, OK, and had begun preparations for her deployment to Iraq. As a result, Spc. Creamean now set his sights on reenlistment, so that his new wife would not have to serve in Iraq without him nearby. Dustin Fisher was born in the Northwest Arkansas town of Fort Smith. He spent his childhood as many children do; hanging out with his friends, playing sports, and making life difficult for his sister. He was a fun-loving person who had a gift for story-telling and was always quick with a sarcastic remark to lighten a conversation. If looking for him, he could often be found cruising around town in his pink pickup truck, a gift from his father that he used to draw attention and meet girls. Upon his graduation from Van Buren High School in 2001, Spc. Fisher tried a year of college but found it was not for him. It became apparent that he wanted to make something of himself, so he followed his father and brother into military service. Shortly after joining the U.S. Army, he was sent down to Fort Stewart, GA. At Fort Stewart, he not only seemed to find his niche in life, but he also met his soul mate, a young woman named Alicia. Her presence made him truly happy and two were married just days before his deployment to Iraq in late January. While serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Spc. Fisher's mission often entailed escorting dignitaries across the war-torn country. Although it placed him in ever-present danger, he downplayed its significance to comfort his family and friends. Although he had originally thought of re-enlisting, he now considered returning home to be with Alicia and potentially become a firefighter. He had last been home for Christmas, and was looking forward to returning for a 2-week leave in late June. Despite the many differences between these three Arkansans, each was a true soldier in every way. Not only did they share a love for their country, but they embodied a selfless courage in the name of freedom that continually put them in harm's way. One week in late May would ensure their fates would forever be intertwined. Early on May 22, while routinely sweeping a stretch of the main highway south of Mosul, Spc. Creamean's military vehicle hit a roadside bomb that killed him and a fellow soldier. On May 24, while escorting a high-ranking Iraqi official, Spc. Fisher was one of three soldiers killed when a car bomb exploded near their convoy. On May 28, Spc. Sayles was checking for weapons in three cars that had been pulled over by American troops in Mosul. An improvised explosive device was detonated nearby, killing him and wounding 21 others; including 13 American troops and 8 Iraqi civilians. Words cannot adequately express the sorrow felt in the hearts of the families and loved ones of Phillip Sayles, Tyler Creamean, and Dustin Fisher, but I pray they can find solace in the courageous way they lived their lives. Although they may no longer be with us, their spirit will forever live on in the examples they set and the many lives they touched. My thoughts and prayers go out to their families, their friends, and to all those who knew and loved them.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Long Term Care and Retirement Security Act of 2005 with the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and my good friend from Iowa, Senator Charles Grassley. The introduction of our bill coincides nicely with the debate we are about to have in the Senate Finance Committee about Medicaid. Almost one-third of Medicaid costs can be attributed to long term care of the elderly and disabled. The first of the 77 million Baby Boomers turn 65 years old in 2011. I believe that Congress needs to help them prepare for their futures now by investing in a private long term care policy. We must also make them aware that many long term care services are not covered by private health insurance or by Medicare. Historically, long term care costs have been paid first by families out-of-pocket and then by Medicaid for those who qualify and ``spend down'' to the income and assets limits. Our legislation will create a tax credit for caregivers and individuals faced with the immediate expense of long-term care. The bill would also help Americans better prepare for their future needs by providing a tax deduction to help consumers pay long-term care insurance premiums for policies that meet strong consumer protection standards. Such plans will cover both medical and non-medical supportive care and personal care assistance so that elders can age at home. Unless we encourage Americans to plan ahead, demand and costs for long term care services could deplete their savings and exhaust government programs. These tax incentives are a good first step forward to avoiding this problem. I believe this bill should be seriously considered during the Medicaid debate. States all over the country are being impacted by decreased revenues and are being forced to make tough choices. At the same time, enrollment in Medicaid is increasing. In fact, compared to other states, enrollment in Medicaid in Arkansas is growing at one of the fastest rates. Monthly Medicaid enrollment grew by 9.6 percent from June 2002 to June 2003, while the national average was 5.9 percent. This legislation should also be a part of our debate on Social Security and retirement security. Long term care insurance should be a part of every family's retirement plan. Nursing home care is expensive, and not all state Medicaid programs pay for long term care within an individual's home. I urge my colleagues to become cosponsors of this important legislation and work with Senator Grassley and me to pass it as soon as possible.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President. I rise today in support of Senate Resolution 39. This resolution acknowledges a dark period in the history of our Nation and the history of this institution. It was a time of racial intolerance, hatred and violence, that took the lives of 4,742 people, mostly African Americans, between 1882 and 1968. It was also a time when this body failed to fulfill its moral and constitutional responsibilities to pass significant legislation which may have prevented many of these deaths. During this time, there were 284 victims of lynching in my home State of Arkansas. It was a crime that was documented in over 46 States. To properly punish those responsible, Congress tried on over 200 occasions to pass antilynching legislation but on each occasion it came to the Senate floor, it was defeated. While we can never adequately express the deep sympathy and regret in our hearts, I am hopeful this long overdue acknowledgment and apology brings some sense of solace to the descendants of victims of lynching. This was a moment in our nation's history that was at odds with the principles upon which we were founded, and a moment at odds with our future. When we acknowledge the misdeeds of our past and demonstrate a willingness to learn the lessons from those actions, we build upon the many things that unite us all to make our Nation stronger and a better place to live.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I want to pay a tremendous compliment with a huge sense of gratitude to my colleague from North Carolina for her tirelessness with regard to this issue. She has been such an incredible fighter against the issue of hunger among Americans and really among her fellow man globally. I compliment her and thank her so much for the opportunity to work with her on something in which she has been a true leader. I am looking forward to many more things that we can do together, but she has made a huge effort in eliminating hunger. We are here today to refocus ourselves and rededicate ourselves to bringing about a tremendous awareness to hunger as it exists in our Nation and certainly as it exists among our fellow man across the globe. I thank the Senator from North Carolina for all of her hard work. I do come to the floor to join my colleague from North Carolina on an issue that I take very seriously. Thirty-six million Americans, including 13 million children, live on the verge of hunger. It is absolutely phenomenal to me, growing up as a farmer's daughter in the Mississippi Delta where there was such plenty in the fields, as I drive past them, to think that there are Americans, particularly American children, who go hungry every day not because we don't have the means but because we don't organize ourselves and set the priority of making sure these future generations, the future leaders of this great Nation, can at least have their tummies full enough that they can pay attention in school, grow healthy to become the kind of leaders that we want and need for our great Nation. Today is National Hunger Awareness Day. It is a time when Americans are called to remember the hungry children and adults living across our Nation. We have all just come from our weekly caucus lunches. We have had plenty at this time. We are thinking about the opportunities that lie ahead of us, particularly the fun things that children do in the summertime. Yet we forget that there are many who have not had a good lunch today, or perhaps we forget that as school is letting out, those children who normally get a nutritious meal at school will not be getting those nutritious meals during the summertime while school is out. Most importantly, it is a day when we are called to put our words into action, to help end hunger in our communities and across this great land. At this time last year, Senators Smith, Durbin, Dole, and myself formed the Senate Hunger Caucus to forge a bipartisan effort to end hunger in our Nation and around the world. I am so proud to be working with these three other Senators in moving this caucus forward. Our staffs have worked tirelessly in bringing us together, along with the other Members of the Senate, in order to make a difference. We are working with local, State, and national antihunger organizations to raise awareness about hunger, build partnerships, and build solutions to end hunger. We have many challenges that face our Nation, and so many challenges that face this body itself. Yet this is one problem we know has an answer. And we know how to end hunger. Recently I introduced, with Senators Durbin, Smith, and Lugar, the Hunger-Free Communities Act of 2005. This bill calls for a renewed national commitment to ending hunger in the United States by 2015, reaffirms our congressional commitment to protecting the funding and integrity of Federal food and nutrition programs, and it creates a national grant program to support community-based antihunger efforts. I urge all of our colleagues to support this worthy and commonsense legislation. It sets a goal for a monumental concern and problem that we have in this Nation. It presents the answer, and it sets the time in which we want to reach that goal. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to talk about the 36 million Americans, including 13 million children, who live on the verge of hunger. Some people may ask--what can I do to help end hunger in America? I want to talk about some of the ways Americans can help join the hunger- relief effort. Acting on this call to feed the hungry requires the effort of every American and every sector of the economy. The backbone of this effort is the willingness of Congress and the American people to support the Federal food and nutrition programs. These programs provide an essential safety net to working Americans, preventing the most vulnerable among us from suffering, and even dying, from malnutrition. Our continued investment in these programs is vital to the health of this nation. The most significant of these programs, the Food Stamp Program, provides nutritious food to over 23 million Americans a year. More Americans find themselves in need of this program every year. Despite this growing need, the Administration proposes to cut the Food Stamp Program by $500 million over the next 5 years by cutting more than 300,000 low-income people off the program in an average month. I understand our current budget constraints. However, even in these tight fiscal times, I believe that we must maintain our commitment to feed the hungry. Therefore, we must first protect programs like the Food Stamp Program, the National School Breakfast and Lunch Program, Summer Feeding Program, WIC, and the Child and Adult Care Food Program. I urge Americans to contact their congressional representatives to voice their support for these programs. I urge my colleagues to support these programs and protect them from cuts and structural changes that will undermine their ability to serve our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. In addition to the Federal food programs, eliminating hunger in America requires the help of community organizations. Government programs provide a basis of support, but they cannot do the work alone. Community and faith-based organizations are essential to locating and rooting out hunger wherever it persists. We rely on the work of local food banks, food pantries, soup kitchens, and community action centers across America to go where government cannot. I will do all I can to provide the resources these community organizations need to continue with the difficult but necessary work they perform. Private corporations and small businesses also have a role to play in eliminating hunger in America. Our corporations and small businesses generate most of our Nation's wealth and have throughout history supported many of our greatest endeavors. Many corporations and businesses already contribute to efforts to eliminate hunger, and I hope others will begin to participate as opportunities to do so present themselves in the future. A great example of how businesses and non-profits can partner to feed hungry people occurred this past Friday in Little Rock. Arkansas-based Tyson Foods and Riceland Foods, along with Jonesboro's Kraft Foods Post Division and Nestle's Prepared Foods Facility, donated truck loads of food as a special donation in honor of National Hunger Awareness Day. This food will go to the Arkansas Rice Depot, Potluck, Inc. and the Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance, which represents six food banks located across Arkansas. These organizations will in turn use the food to help feed hungry Arkansans. I am grateful to these companies and non-profit organizations for their leadership in this effort to feed the over 450,000 Arkansans who have limited access to food. Ending hunger in America requires the commitment of individual Americans. Our greatest national strength is the power that comes from individual initiatives and the collective will of the American people. I believe we are called by a higher power to care for our fellow men and women, and as a part of my Christian faith I know we are called to serve the poor and the hungry. I know it is a common denominator among almost all of our faiths that it is those, the poor and the hungry, the orphaned and the widowed, whom we are here, as our fellow man, to take care of, to help to lift them up. If we believe in this call, we must live it every day--in our schools and in our homes, in our workplaces, our places of worship, in our volunteering, and, yes, in our prayers. This personal responsibility is a great one, but it holds tremendous power. It is a common denominator that can bring us together, the one problem that we all agree on and to which we know there is a solution. For as we have seen throughout American history, when individuals in this Nation bind together to serve a common cause, they can achieve the greatest of accomplishments. By sharing the many blessings and resources our Nation provides, I am confident that we can alleviate hunger at home and abroad. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, due to his graciousness, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy be allowed to speak directly after I complete my remarks.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, while serving as a Congressmen from Texas in the 1980s, Mickey Leland said, ``I cannot get used to hunger and desperate poverty in our plentiful land. There is no reason for it, there is no excuse for it, and it is time that we as a nation put an end to it.'' Over 15 years have passed since Mr. Leland delivered those powerful remarks, and we have yet to achieve his goal of ending hunger in America. In many respects, we have only slipped backwards. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 36.3 million Americans, including 13.3 million children, experienced hunger or food insecurity in 2003. These figures, startling on their own, have been increasing steadily since 1999. We need to reverse this trend. Mr. President, I rise today to pledge my commitment to this cause. Today, I am pleased to join Senators Durbin, Smith, and Lugar in introducing the Hunger-Free Communities Act of 2005. This bill establishes a goal of ending hunger in America by 2015. The bill also supports preserving the entitlement framework of the federal food programs. Our federal food programs are vitally important to the millions of working Americans that are trying to make ends meet and the millions of children who need access to nutritious food. In addition, this bill commits our fullest efforts to protecting the discretionary food program from budget cuts that would prevent these programs from addressing identified need. Lastly, the bill provides needed resources to non-profit organizations that fight to reduce hunger every day. The grant programs this bill establishes will promote new partnerships and help build the infrastructure we believe is necessary to root out hunger in every corner of our nation. Almost a year ago, I joined Senators Smith, Durbin and Dole in founding the bipartisan Senate Hunger Caucus to address the growing problem of hunger in America and around the world. The Senate Hunger Caucus currently has 34 members and we are working together to raise awareness about these issues and help create solutions to the hunger problem. While there are many difficult problems we work to solve in Congress, hunger is a problem that has a solution. This bill is an example of our bipartisan effort to develop solutions to the hunger problem in America. I am proud to work with my colleagues to support ending hunger for the millions of Americans who find themselves without access to one of the most basic needs--nutritious food.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, while serving as a Congressmen from Texas in the 1980s, Mickey Leland said, ``I cannot get used to hunger and desperate poverty in our plentiful land. There is no reason for it, there is no excuse for it, and it is time that we as a nation put an end to it.'' Over 15 years have passed since Mr. Leland delivered those powerful remarks, and we have yet to achieve his goal of ending hunger in America. In many respects, we have only slipped backwards. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 36.3 million Americans, including 13.3 million children, experienced hunger or food insecurity in 2003. These figures, startling on their own, have been increasing steadily since 1999. We need to reverse this trend. Mr. President, I rise today to pledge my commitment to this cause. Today, I am pleased to join Senators Durbin, Smith, and Lugar in introducing the Hunger-Free Communities Act of 2005. This bill establishes a goal of ending hunger in America by 2015. The bill also supports preserving the entitlement framework of the federal food programs. Our federal food programs are vitally important to the millions of working Americans that are trying to make ends meet and the millions of children who need access to nutritious food. In addition, this bill commits our fullest efforts to protecting the discretionary food program from budget cuts that would prevent these programs from addressing identified need. Lastly, the bill provides needed resources to non-profit organizations that fight to reduce hunger every day. The grant programs this bill establishes will promote new partnerships and help build the infrastructure we believe is necessary to root out hunger in every corner of our nation. Almost a year ago, I joined Senators Smith, Durbin and Dole in founding the bipartisan Senate Hunger Caucus to address the growing problem of hunger in America and around the world. The Senate Hunger Caucus currently has 34 members and we are working together to raise awareness about these issues and help create solutions to the hunger problem. While there are many difficult problems we work to solve in Congress, hunger is a problem that has a solution. This bill is an example of our bipartisan effort to develop solutions to the hunger problem in America. I am proud to work with my colleagues to support ending hunger for the millions of Americans who find themselves without access to one of the most basic needs--nutritious food.

Mrs. LINCOLN

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

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I certainly do appreciate my colleagues' patience this evening. I know that it is late. I apologize for keeping people here late. I find it quite ironic that I come to the floor this late in the evening under the same purposes as my colleague from Delaware, Senator Carper. Most of it is out of disappointment in the lack of response from this administration on an issue that I think is absolutely critical to the fabric of this Nation, critical to our families, and critical to our children. I have asked that the Senate take time tonight to debate the nomination of Robert Portman to be the U.S. Trade Representative to highlight some of the issues related particularly to Saudi Arabia that I believe deserve more time and attention than they have been getting. I certainly expect Congressman Portman will become involved with these issues in his new position. I support the nomination of Congressman Portman to be our country's top trade negotiator. I have met with him. I have served with him. I believe he brings the right skills to the position and that he will do a very good job at representing our Nation and its vital interest in that position. I look forward to working closely with him on many issues in the years ahead that are important to my constituents, as I did with his predecessor. But today I would like to focus on one issue in particular that is critically important to me, and that is the children of this Nation. In May of 2004, I wrote a letter to then-Ambassador Robert Zoellick, with four of my Finance Committee colleagues, raising objections to Saudi Arabia's accession to the WTO. Over the past several years, our Government has been negotiating a bilateral trade agreement with Saudi Arabia that I understand is now very close to completion. It is also the only major hurdle which prevents Saudi Arabia from being granted favored trading status with the United States and other WTO member nations. In our letter, we specifically raised concerns regarding Saudi Arabia's participation in the Arab League boycott of Israel and the appropriateness of our Government supporting its admission as a result, given that current law requires the United States to vigorously oppose states that implement that boycott. We also highlighted concerns regarding Saudi Arabia's efforts to stop the financing of terrorist activities from sources within Saudi Arabia. Finally, we objected to Saudi Arabia's continued refusal to respect the rights of American women and girls who may never have a meaningful opportunity to leave the Kingdom even as adults. My concerns about the rights of American citizens is one I feel deeply about on a personal level, as a proud citizen of this great Nation, as a mother, and certainly as a Senator from the great State of Arkansas, with tremendous responsibilities to those I serve. Needless to say, when I received a response to our letter last week, 11 months after we sent the letter to the administration--we received a response last week from our Acting Trade Representative 2 days before Congressman Portman's confirmation hearing--it only referenced the boycott and did not make one reference to the other two issues. I was deeply troubled, and I hope others will be, too. I was even more alarmed to read press reports about our trade negotiators working around the clock to finish the agreement prior to the meeting between President Bush and Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah in Crawford, TX, this last Monday. I want to start at the beginning of this story regarding the rights of American citizens because I think this issue is very important. Over the past several years, I have worked with Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana and others to highlight our Government's failure to aggressively defend the rights of American women and children in Saudi Arabia. This issue came to my attention because Heidi Al-Omary from Jonesboro, AR, was abducted by her Saudi-born father in 1997. Saudi Arabia continues to invoke its law and religion to detain my constituent in violation of U.S. law and a valid court order. Heidi was abducted more than 7 years ago, and she has been stuck there ever since because the Saudi Government does not believe Heidi's father, who is a wanted fugitive in our country, has done anything wrong. This man used our legal system to gain access by pressing the judge for unsupervised visitation, knowing full well that the first unsupervised visit and the child would be gone. Her mother knew that. Her mother argued with the judge, and the judge said: I have to give this man the visitation rights. On the first unsupervised visit in the dead of the night, that woman lost her child. She was taken from her. She did not see her child for 5 years. I do not know how we can stand by and let that happen. I attended a Little League game with my boys recently. I sat in that field and I thought how blessed I am to be a part of these children's lives. Then I thought of this poor woman whose child was taken from her against our laws, and for 5 years she missed those precious years of that child's life. Earlier tonight, waiting on these votes, I sat in a dark room with my children as they said their prayers. That woman has not had that. She has not experienced that blessing because her child was taken from her. She was only allowed to see that child 2 years ago, under restrictive supervision. That is not what we are about in this country. We are about standing up for our children and the citizens of this great land. We have an opportunity to do it, and we should. Heidi's mother Margaret McClain resides in my home State, in Jonesboro, AR. In July of 2002, Ms. McClain was permitted to travel to Saudi Arabia to visit her daughter. She was brought there under the assumption that she would have a visit with her child. When she arrived, the visit had been moved. She traveled through the desert to some unknown place where she finally got to meet with her daughter with people breathing down her neck. After 5 years, when her child was taken from her in the dead of the night, she finally gets to see her. It is unbelievable to me that that child was taken from this country in 1997 and it took us until 2002 to ask for her return. Ms. McClain spent 6 days traveling to and from Saudi Arabia, yet Mr. Al-Omary permitted her to spend only a few hours with Heidi during that trip. Prior to that visitation, Ms. McClain had not seen or spoken to her child since she was taken from her from the United States 5 years previously. During Ms. McClain's first trip to Saudi Arabia in July of 2002, Mr. Al-Omary acted in a verbally abusive manner toward her, took steps to disrupt Ms. McClain's planned visit with her daughter and, in addition, officials at United States diplomatic installations in Saudi Arabia reported at the time that Mr. Al-Omary was uncooperative in arranging United States Consular visits with Heidi. At one point following Ms. McClain's visit to Saudi Arabia, Mr. Al- Omary demanded the United States Government send him a letter of appreciation for allowing Ms. McClain to visit her daughter who he had kidnapped before he would authorize future United States State Department welfare-and-whereabout visits with their daughter Heidi. Thankfully, our Government did not send Mr. Al-Omary a thank-you note, and a subsequent welfare-and-whereabout visit did occur after pressure was applied by United States and Saudi officials. In May of 2003, after months of preparation by Ms. McClain, my office, and the Vice President, Ms. McClain and Heidi's two adult siblings were permitted to travel to Saudi Arabia to see Heidi a second time. Ms. McClain was permitted greater access to her daughter compared to the first visit, but Mr. Al-Omary refused to grant a simple request to spend time alone with her daughter. Ms. McClain is now making preparations for a third trip to Saudi Arabia to visit her daughter again this summer. I believe in communicating. I believe in working hard to get along. Visitation and communication between the left-behind parent and an abducted child is important and should be encouraged. However, after more than 7 years we ought to do a little bit more than just talking about more travel dates and more plane tickets. We should be talking about bringing a young American citizen home. For too long, it seems, the U.S. Government's goal in difficult cases such as this has been to simply maximize visitation and contact between U.S. parents and their abducted children in an effort to avoid confrontation with foreign governments. We know there are sensitive situations and sensitive relationships with countries all across the globe, but you do not gain respect until you demand respect in the relationships that you hold. We in no way have acted aggressively enough in demanding the respect for the laws of our land and the citizens, particularly Heidi, who are being held against their will. It is safe to say that I am not satisfied with the approach of just another plane ticket and just another travel date. I firmly believe our policy should be aggressively to seek recovery of abducted children, especially when they are taken to a country in which women, regardless of their age, never achieve independence--a right we cherish as Americans and we fight for. In Saudi Arabia, women and girls are under the complete control of their fathers, husbands, or other close male relatives their entire lives. According to the State Department's Country Report on Human Rights Practices most recent edition which was released in February of this year, all women in the country are prohibited from driving and were dependent upon males for transportation. Likewise, women must obtain written permission from a male relative or guardian before the government would allow them to travel abroad. The requirement to obtain permission from a male relative or guardian applied also to foreign women married to citizens of Saudi Arabia and to the minor and single adult daughters of Saudi fathers. The report goes on to say that women have few political or social rights and were not treated as equal members of society. Women are restricted in their use of public facilities when men are present. For example, women must enter city buses by separate rear entrances and sit in specially designated sections. Further, under Saudi law, women may not be admitted to a hospital for medical treatment without the consent of a male relative. However, according to the report, this was not always enforced, thank goodness. Perhaps most troubling to me is that arranged marriages at an early age are socially acceptable in Saudi Arabia. Heidi is a young lady. She left here as a child, abducted, taken against her will, and against our law. This summer, she turns 13. I am increasingly concerned that she may be deprived of any meaningful choice about who she marries and when she bears a child. Ultimately, Heidi's ability or inability to exercise control over these most personal matters may very well determine if she is ever able to return to her rightful home in the United States. I recognize the issue of international child abduction is not limited to Saudi Arabia. However, the status of female abductees in the Kingdom is quite unique since, under Saudi law and custom, women have very limited autonomy and may never, ever have a meaningful opportunity to leave, even as adults. As I mentioned earlier, I focused my attention on this issue because I don't believe our Government is doing everything it can to stand up for the rights of American citizens such as Heidi. After studying the history of Heidi's case and others, I have sadly concluded that our own Government has failed to stand up for Heidi and others such as her. Perhaps most telling in this case is that even though Heidi is a U.S. citizen and was kidnapped in August of 1997, our Government did not formally ask that she be returned until October of 2002. To me, that is inexcusable. It is why I think our Government owes this young girl an extra effort now, when she is most vulnerable, about to turn 13, about to have life-threatening decisions made for her without her consent, and without any of her emotional input. To bring greater attention to this issue, in June of 2002, all 13 women Senators who were Members at the time sent President Bush a letter, asking him to take up the cause of American women and children held against their will in Saudi Arabia. I received a response to this letter from the then-Secretary of State Colin Powell in November of 2003. And that was 18 months after 13 women Senators wrote to this administration specifically addressed to the President of the United States. I only heard from the Secretary of State after I had placed a hold on the nomination of James Oberwetter to be our Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. In his letter, Secretary Powell stated that the State Department is committed to recovering abducted children and will continue to seek the return of abducted children such as Heidi. Over the past several years, I have also met with multiple members of the administration, submitted written questions to nominees to the positions in the administration who have jurisdiction over these matters. In 2002, in 2003, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Maura Harty stated in meetings with me, in public testimony, in response to my written questions, that the return of abducted children is a priority and it is the State Department's goal and our Government will continue to press to recover abducted children. In November of 2003, now United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia James Oberwetter stated in response to my written questions that the release of Americans who have been abducted to Saudi Arabia is a priority and that he will raise the case of Heidi Al-Omary at the earliest opportunity. That was 2003. In January of 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated in written responses to my written questions that she would raise the case of Heidi Al-Omary at the earliest opportunity and that the return of abducted children is truly a priority. In April of 2005, USTR nominee Robert Portman made a commitment to me at his confirmation hearing this month and in written responses to my written questions to work with me in collaboration with the State Department to address this issue. It sounds like more plane tickets. It sounds like just more dates and more plans for visitation, eliminating that mother's opportunity to share the kind of time with her child that each one of us has enjoyed. Finally, last week, I wrote President Bush prior to his meeting on Monday with Crown Prince Abdullah in Crawford, TX, asking him to raise this issue. I do not know who else to write in the administration. I do not know who else to appeal to. I do not know who else to sit around waiting for an answer from on an issue that could not be more important, our children--not just my children, not just your children, Mr. President, not just the children of other Senators, but children of this Nation. I continue to be in contact with the White House, and I welcome the opportunity to work with them in resolving this matter. But as my colleague from Delaware came to the floor, and having asked for the last 2 or 3 years for a working relationship that might bring about results, I come to the floor tonight with a heavy heart, disappointed in the response I have gotten over the last 3 years but hopeful, because a mother's heart is always hopeful, just as the mother of that child's heart is hopeful every time I talk to her. Every time I talk to her, she never gives up. I know officers at the State Department who have responsibility for abduction and wrongful retention cases work hard. I know they do. I know they care about the children involved. I am not doubting that. I am not frustrated with them because I know their hands are tied. They take their instructions from higher up. And higher up does not seem to feel like this is a priority. But I am speaking out to express my profound frustration with the lack of results in this case and our Government's apparent policy of not rocking the boat when difficult-to- solve cases like Heidi's linger in limbo indefinitely. I know our Government has said repeatedly that the return of abducted children is a priority, but it is just not a big enough priority. I do not think we have done everything we can in this case, which brings me back to the nomination now pending before the Senate. When countries such as Saudi Arabia ask our Government to grant favored trading status, I think it is only appropriate to step back and consider all facets of our relationship and foreign policy goals before we hand them the cookie jar. I have already discussed in some detail the letter I wrote to Ambassador Zoellick in May of last year. Since that time, in September of 2004, I think it is important to note that the Secretary of State has designated Saudi Arabia as a country of particular concern in the State Department's annual International Religious Freedom Report. So according to the administration, Saudi Arabia's record in this area is getting worse, not better. This status is reserved for a handful of governments that have ``engaged in or tolerate particularly severe violations of religious freedom.'' Respect, Mr. President, respect for our faith and for other faiths--just as we try desperately in our country to respect those. According to the State Department's report on Saudi Arabia: Freedom of religion does not exist. Citizens are denied the freedom to choose or change their religion, and noncitizens practice their beliefs under severe restrictions. Further, the report states that Saudi custom officials routinely open mail and shipments to search for contraband, which includes the Bible. As my colleagues may also be aware, under this designation, the President is supposed to choose from a menu of sanctions stipulated by Congress, which raises questions in my mind about why we should be sanctioning Saudi Arabia on one hand while trying to reward them with a trade deal on the other without evidence of meaningful improvement. When I inquired this week about the status of sanctions on Saudi Arabia under this law, I was told that even though the deadline established in the statute to make a decision passed on March 15, no decision from this administration has been announced. I truly regret that Congress does not have the opportunity under current law to vote on a bilateral trade agreement relating to Saudi Arabia's accession to the WTO. I think that could make a real difference with a country such as Saudi Arabia, and it would significantly enhance our Nation's ability to make meaningful progress on many of our foreign policy goals. To put this into a little different context, I point out what I see as a direct contradiction in our trade policy specific to congressional review of certain countries. I will use the country of Ukraine as a good example. Many of you remember the moving address before a joint session of Congress by the brave new President of the Ukraine just a few weeks ago. We heard him. In his address, he asked, pleaded that Congress graduate his country from what is known as Jackson-Vanik--a procedural step taken by Congress before any former Communist country receives the most favored trading relationship with the United States; a procedural step that is proving to at least get the attention of the Vietnamese Government, that is working desperately within the next year, hopefully; a procedural step that Saudi Arabia does not have to overcome; a procedural step unavailable to Members of Congress to have their legitimate concerns addressed. We will not have a vote when it comes to their being rewarded with membership to the WTO. And sadly, the only votes we really have much of any say over are these nominations, when we put holds on the names of very capable individuals who want to serve this country. But without that vote, our concerns will be left to Congressman Portman and the administration to raise. So that is why I am here in the dead of the night, to put into the Record and, hopefully, into the hearts and minds of the few people who are left listening that these nominations are important, and we do believe in these individuals to have great capabilities, but oftentimes they are not allowed the authority to exercise that. Given all these issues I have highlighted--the Arab boycott of Israel; terrorism financing, which is costing us more and more in Iraq; the lack of religious freedom; and the lack of respect Saudi Arabia has shown for our laws and its citizens--for the life of me, I cannot understand why we are in such a hurry to walk down the aisle on this trade agreement. What is going on? Most of the Members of this body know me pretty well. I am not trying to be ugly. But I think someone must stand up and tell the truth. Our policy with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is go along to get along, even when the rights of American citizens and fundamental principles such as equality and freedom that define what is good about our Nation are sacrificed. As a proud mother of twin boys, I try hard to make sure they understand that actions in life are based on priorities. They are based on choices that each of us has to make. But without a doubt, the choices we make and the actions we take have real and substantive consequences and can have ramifications far beyond a single issue or event. I try so hard to teach them that friendships are based on mutual trust and respect. To all of those nations across this globe, who are our neighbors, we want desperately to build on our friendships. But if those friendships are to be long lasting and to be worthwhile, they must absolutely be built on respect. I do not advocate severing our relationship with Saudi Arabia. Neighbors and friends are important to have. Whether you grew up in rural America, as I did, and depend on them to help you bring your crops in or to raise your children or to just get you through the month, it is important to be a good neighbor, and it is important to have good neighbors. But it is hard to have that relationship if you don't ask of them the kind of respect that allows you to depend on one another. As I said, I don't advocate in severing our relationship with Saudi Arabia. I hope we can reach out. But until this administration takes those steps, starts to answer our letters and our phone calls, and makes a few attempts in reaching out to Saudi Arabia, the leaders of that nation, to express to them how important our children are to us, we have a problem. I do believe we need to step back and fully consider the values we cherish as Americans as we move forward into the future. This is a very real place where it has to begin. I appreciate the patience of the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. LINCOLN. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, four years ago, as projected budget surpluses reached over $5 trillion, Congress passed a tax cut bill that began the process of addressing the unfairness of the estate tax. Now in 2005, the surpluses have long since disappeared, and Congress has made no further progress on estate tax relief for America's family- owned farms and businesses--many of whom still pay this tax today. Earlier this month, the House once again voted for a complete repeal of the estate tax. I myself have consistently supported complete repeal, I have voted in favor of full repeal on multiple occasions, and I will continue to support full repeal should that option be brought to the floor of the U.S. Senate for a vote in the future. Nevertheless, given the persistent state of our more than $400 billion annual deficits, it is increasingly doubtful such a bill could obtain the necessary votes in the Senate for passage right now. I'm not alone in feeling that the votes just aren't there for full repeal. President of the U.S. Chamber, Tom Donahue, was quoted this week stating that the Chamber would likely support a good compromise coming out of the Senate. We all understand the state of affairs and I want to echo Mr. Donahue's sentiments. We must work together to bring relief to those that this tax affects most--family-owned farms and businesses. It is the family-owned farms and businesses across Arkansas and all across this Nation that serve as the backbone of our rural communities. To put it simply, they are the economic engines of rural America. It is the family-owned businesses that provide jobs, wages, and health care for my constituents. It is the family-owned businesses that sponsor Little League, they pay local taxes, they are a part of the community. They live there. And that's why family-owned businesses aren't the ones that are shutting down and heading off-shore. When we force family businesses to spend valuable assets on estate planning and life insurance rather than on investing and expanding their businesses, we are putting them at a disadvantage to their publically-traded competitors. I, for one, intend to fight for these family businesses, fight for these communities, and fight for the jobs in rural America. In the wake of the House vote and the real lack of votes here in the Senate to pass a complete repeal bill, talk of compromise has raised speculation of higher exemptions and/or lower tax rates as an alternative to complete repeal. Quite frankly, I believe these compromise approaches are incomplete solutions to the problems faced by family-owned farms and businesses. Certainly, I understand that a higher exemption and lower rates will be considered as part of a compromise. But both are expensive and inefficient methods to specifically reach family-owned farms and businesses. Given the restraints of our budget deficits today, I ask, how can we raise the exemption high enough, or lower the rates low enough, to provide necessary relief for family farms and businesses? We could not get there in 2001 when projected surpluses reached $5 trillion. What makes us think we can solve this problem today with projected deficits totaling $2.6 trillion in the President's budget? We took these approaches in 2001, and family-owned farms and businesses still face this tax today, so we should be leery of any compromise approach that considers only rates and exemptions. They were incomplete compromise solutions then--and they will be tomorrow. In this environment, I feel we are seriously losing ground on coming to a fair and final resolution of this issue. In the meantime, the current state of the law places many family-owned businesses in an extremely uncertain and precarious position--a law that taxes family- owned businesses today, then repeals the tax in 2010, and then snaps back to pre-2001 law in 2011 is simply not responsible on our part. This amounts to nothing more than a nightmarish rollercoaster ride for the businesses we intended to help! So, we need to set some priorities and go about the business of lifting this tax from these family-owned farms and businesses first. On the subject of setting priorities, I would like to relay a statistic that may startle my colleagues a bit. The IRS Statistics of Income for 2003 show that only 7.4 percent of the estate tax is paid on ``farm assets, closely held stock, or other non-corporate business assets.'' These 7.4 percent should be our first priority in any compromise the estate tax. The remaining 92.6 percent of assets--such as widely-held stock, bonds, insurance proceeds, art, and real estate partnerships--should not drive or dictate our actions at the expense of America's family-owned farms and businesses. This simple statistic helps lead us to a targeted solution which should cost less and immediately help those we intended to help in the first place. Today, I introduce the ``Estate Tax Repeal Acceleration for Family-Owned Businesses and Farms Act''--or ExTRA. Under ExTRA, an estate may voluntarily elect to exclude an unlimited portion of family business assets from the estate tax. The carryover basis rules will apply to these business assets and no estate tax will be paid on them. That is the same deal that repeal promises--but we do so immediately and permanently--and at a fraction of the cost. My bill does not seek to change current law to repeal the estate tax. It would leave in place the scheduled increases in the unified credit, the decreases in rates, and the repeal of the estate tax in 2010. My bill would only seek to rectify the special circumstances of family- owned businesses and farms, in an attempt, not to inflame the issue further, but to resolve this issue now and forever for those this effort was originally intended to help. The goal of the Lincoln bill is that no family-owned farm or business will ever pay the estate tax. Americans are driven to build their lives and their communities and they want to be able to pass that on to the next generation. What comes of the American dream if someone works hard all their life to build something to pass on to their family, their legacy, and it has to be sold for taxes. If there is an idea that will protect the American dream and the family-owned business, we should not be reluctant to put it on the table. Today, I am introducing such an idea, and I firmly believe such an approach must be part of any compromise if one is reached. In fact, I will not support any compromise that does not take care of family businesses in Arkansas. I urge my colleagues to take a look and study the Lincoln bill to immediately and permanently repeal the estate tax for family owned farms and businesses. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, four years ago, as projected budget surpluses reached over $5 trillion, Congress passed a tax cut bill that began the process of addressing the unfairness of the estate tax. Now in 2005, the surpluses have long since disappeared, and Congress has made no further progress on estate tax relief for America's family- owned farms and businesses--many of whom still pay this tax today. Earlier this month, the House once again voted for a complete repeal of the estate tax. I myself have consistently supported complete repeal, I have voted in favor of full repeal on multiple occasions, and I will continue to support full repeal should that option be brought to the floor of the U.S. Senate for a vote in the future. Nevertheless, given the persistent state of our more than $400 billion annual deficits, it is increasingly doubtful such a bill could obtain the necessary votes in the Senate for passage right now. I'm not alone in feeling that the votes just aren't there for full repeal. President of the U.S. Chamber, Tom Donahue, was quoted this week stating that the Chamber would likely support a good compromise coming out of the Senate. We all understand the state of affairs and I want to echo Mr. Donahue's sentiments. We must work together to bring relief to those that this tax affects most--family-owned farms and businesses. It is the family-owned farms and businesses across Arkansas and all across this Nation that serve as the backbone of our rural communities. To put it simply, they are the economic engines of rural America. It is the family-owned businesses that provide jobs, wages, and health care for my constituents. It is the family-owned businesses that sponsor Little League, they pay local taxes, they are a part of the community. They live there. And that's why family-owned businesses aren't the ones that are shutting down and heading off-shore. When we force family businesses to spend valuable assets on estate planning and life insurance rather than on investing and expanding their businesses, we are putting them at a disadvantage to their publically-traded competitors. I, for one, intend to fight for these family businesses, fight for these communities, and fight for the jobs in rural America. In the wake of the House vote and the real lack of votes here in the Senate to pass a complete repeal bill, talk of compromise has raised speculation of higher exemptions and/or lower tax rates as an alternative to complete repeal. Quite frankly, I believe these compromise approaches are incomplete solutions to the problems faced by family-owned farms and businesses. Certainly, I understand that a higher exemption and lower rates will be considered as part of a compromise. But both are expensive and inefficient methods to specifically reach family-owned farms and businesses. Given the restraints of our budget deficits today, I ask, how can we raise the exemption high enough, or lower the rates low enough, to provide necessary relief for family farms and businesses? We could not get there in 2001 when projected surpluses reached $5 trillion. What makes us think we can solve this problem today with projected deficits totaling $2.6 trillion in the President's budget? We took these approaches in 2001, and family-owned farms and businesses still face this tax today, so we should be leery of any compromise approach that considers only rates and exemptions. They were incomplete compromise solutions then--and they will be tomorrow. In this environment, I feel we are seriously losing ground on coming to a fair and final resolution of this issue. In the meantime, the current state of the law places many family-owned businesses in an extremely uncertain and precarious position--a law that taxes family- owned businesses today, then repeals the tax in 2010, and then snaps back to pre-2001 law in 2011 is simply not responsible on our part. This amounts to nothing more than a nightmarish rollercoaster ride for the businesses we intended to help! So, we need to set some priorities and go about the business of lifting this tax from these family-owned farms and businesses first. On the subject of setting priorities, I would like to relay a statistic that may startle my colleagues a bit. The IRS Statistics of Income for 2003 show that only 7.4 percent of the estate tax is paid on ``farm assets, closely held stock, or other non-corporate business assets.'' These 7.4 percent should be our first priority in any compromise the estate tax. The remaining 92.6 percent of assets--such as widely-held stock, bonds, insurance proceeds, art, and real estate partnerships--should not drive or dictate our actions at the expense of America's family-owned farms and businesses. This simple statistic helps lead us to a targeted solution which should cost less and immediately help those we intended to help in the first place. Today, I introduce the ``Estate Tax Repeal Acceleration for Family-Owned Businesses and Farms Act''--or ExTRA. Under ExTRA, an estate may voluntarily elect to exclude an unlimited portion of family business assets from the estate tax. The carryover basis rules will apply to these business assets and no estate tax will be paid on them. That is the same deal that repeal promises--but we do so immediately and permanently--and at a fraction of the cost. My bill does not seek to change current law to repeal the estate tax. It would leave in place the scheduled increases in the unified credit, the decreases in rates, and the repeal of the estate tax in 2010. My bill would only seek to rectify the special circumstances of family- owned businesses and farms, in an attempt, not to inflame the issue further, but to resolve this issue now and forever for those this effort was originally intended to help. The goal of the Lincoln bill is that no family-owned farm or business will ever pay the estate tax. Americans are driven to build their lives and their communities and they want to be able to pass that on to the next generation. What comes of the American dream if someone works hard all their life to build something to pass on to their family, their legacy, and it has to be sold for taxes. If there is an idea that will protect the American dream and the family-owned business, we should not be reluctant to put it on the table. Today, I am introducing such an idea, and I firmly believe such an approach must be part of any compromise if one is reached. In fact, I will not support any compromise that does not take care of family businesses in Arkansas. I urge my colleagues to take a look and study the Lincoln bill to immediately and permanently repeal the estate tax for family owned farms and businesses. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor one of the oldest houses of worship in Arkansas. This month the First Missionary Baptist Church of Little Rock, AR, will celebrate its 160th anniversary. The First Missionary Baptist Church was founded in 1845 by Wilson Brown, a slave, who felt led by God to establish a house of worship. In order to fully understand this remarkable achievement we must look at the era in which this church was founded. First Missionary Baptist Church was established 15 years before the Civil War began and 18 years before the Emancipation Proclamation. Men and women of African descent during those times were viewed as property and had no legal rights. It certainly took courage and vision to establish a church under such circumstances. Over the years, the First Missionary Baptist Church family has been a witness to history. Many important figures of the civil rights movement have stood in First Missionary's pulpit to deliver stirring messages. Reverend Roland Smith, the church's fifth pastor, was active in the civil rights movement and invited powerful leaders such as Dr. Benjamin Elijah Mays and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to speak from the pulpit. Dr. King spoke in April 1963, just 4 months before the ``March on Washington'', and his famous ``I have a dream'' speech. The podium and bible he used that day are still on display in the vestibule of the church sanctuary. In 1991, the church hosted another great leader, the Governor of Arkansas Bill Clinton. A few short months later Gov. Clinton launched his bid to become President of the United States. I guess you might say that the pulpit at First Missionary Baptist Church is a launching pad to greatness. Although First Missionary Baptist Church has great historical significance, its spiritual significance is most important. For 160 years, this church has been a beacon of hope and a spiritual oasis to thousands of Arkansans. This church has worked hard to fulfill the calling of Christ spoken of in the 4th chapter of Luke--to preach the gospel to the poor; to heal the brokenhearted; to preach deliverance to the captives; and recovering of sight to the blind; to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord. In the end, that is First Missionary Baptist Church's greatest legacy.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, as debate about the supplemental appropriations for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan comes to a close, I would like to ensure that our focus remains on the welfare of our Nation's troops. That is why I would like to speak on behalf of the men and women who are serving in our Nation's Armed Forces--those currently on active duty as well as in the National Guard and Reserves--who are serving today in Iraq, Afghanistan, and across the globe. Since the President declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1, 2003, 1,419 American troops have died in Iraq and more than 11,000 have been wounded. Even if combat in Iraq is something that no longer makes the front pages of our newspapers, it is still agonizingly clear that our troops remain in danger. That is why it is even more important for this body to use sound judgment and good planning. One of my major concerns is that year after year we have found a way to take the process of funding military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan out of our regular budget process. I am frustrated, quite frankly, that we have been subjected to this biannual ritual. I am frustrated that questioning the timing of these requests may cause our political opponents to call us unpatriotic. But, most of all, I am frustrated that doing my duty as a U.S. Senator could be considered anything less than keeping a sacred trust with our men and women in uniform. In April of 2003, just a little over 2 years ago, Congress, at the President's request, provided approximately $78 billion to meet the challenge in Iraq. Six months later, in October of 2003, the administration came back to us and requested another $87 billion in the form of a supplemental appropriation to fund continuing operations in Iraq. In early June of 2004, the Senate voted for another $25 billion to keep operations going through the end of that year. Now we are faced with yet another emergency supplemental request of more than $80 billion. I agree that there is a need to adequately fund our troops. We must do everything we can to protect our men and women who are in harms' way. What I don't understand, quite frankly, is this President's inability or unwillingness to make this request a part of the normal budget and appropriation process that we go through every year. As you recall, in April of 2003, the President requested $78 billion in emergency military funding. We were at the beginning of a war. Although it was a war of our choosing, I understood the uncertainty that war brings. Furthermore, I understood the value of not allowing our enemies to get a read on our intent by peering into our budget process over the course of a year. I supported the President's request. A mere 6 months later, President Bush returned to this body to request another $87 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. At that time, our troops were facing the imminent and ever-present danger of guerilla attacks. Also, many of our troops were expressing concerns that they were not adequately trained for the specialized demands of peacekeeping and policing that the reconstruction effort required. Moreover, the dangers and difficulties that our troops faced went far beyond the threat posed by attacks from insurgents and guerillas. I grew increasingly concerned about the conditions under which many of our troops were being forced to serve in the Middle East. I was consistently hearing about shortages of quality food and water. I was hearing that our troops were not properly equipped with the tools of warfare. I was hearing of parents sending their children bullet- proof vests because the military could not or would not provide them. Although the administration had completely misjudged the nature of this conflict, I understood that our troops must not suffer because others had let them down. I understood that whatever this administration's shortcomings were in terms of planning, our troops' safety and well being came first. I supported the President's request. Once again, in June of 2004, this administration asked for another $25 billion supplemental for the ongoing efforts in Iraq. At that time, we were spending money in Iraq at an unexpectedly high rate, the promised money from Iraqi oil receipts was becoming an urban legend, and we were still dealing with a pervasive insurgency. By June of 2004, we knew or should have known that Iraq was going to be a part of this Nation's financial responsibility for some time to come. But I understood that the situation was still uncertain. We had only been in Iraq little more than a year and I was sure that the President's 2006 Defense budget proposal would more accurately reflect the costs of the war. I understood that we could not drop the ball on the welfare of our troops. I supported the President's request. Now the President is requesting an additional $80 billion to support ongoing military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems as if we have been here before. I have to ask myself, when does an ``emergency'' supplemental request become sufficiently routine that it should be considered as part of our normal budget process? Over the last 2 years we have been subjected to this ``emergency'' four times. We have had two budgets come to Capitol Hill from this administration in that time. Neither of those budgets requested one thin dime in support of our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. The present way in which we fund these conflicts is irresponsible and unsustainable. This administration, by not properly submitting this request through the normal budget and appropriations process, has effectively cut off our oversight role. We now only have a scant few weeks to consider one of the most important pieces of funding legislation we will consider this year. Furthermore, as this supplemental becomes more and more routine, we run the risk of hiding the true costs of the war from the American people. The American people have every right to know, in as clear and straightforward a manner as possible, what the financial costs of the war are. By excluding those costs from the normal budget process we obscure the true effect of this conflict on our national debt, our budget and our economy. I believe that the American people deserve more transparency from us. We are now at the point where poor budget planning is no longer acceptable. We can no longer accept the argument that unexpected events have changed our outlook therefore we must have a supplemental. We know that Iraq is unpredictable. We know that unforseen events occur. Our planning must be flexible enough to accommodate this reality. We see very clearly the effects of poor planning. We have seen it in the way our troops have been inadequately equipped early on in this conflict. We have seen it in the way this administration has failed to properly budget and has been forced to run to Congress for emergency funds every 6 months. In spite of the haphazard way that this administration has planned for the financial aspects of this conflict, this Congress must keep faith with our troops and the American people. Part of that is making sure that we hold this administration and any future administrations accountable for proper planning. We must make sure that our troops are properly equipped and provided for and we must make sure that the American people have a true sense of the economic impact of this war. We know that we will continue to have a commitment in Iraq. The level of that commitment is no longer a surprise. I expect to see that commitment reflected in the next Defense budget that is submitted to this Congress for consideration. I do not believe that another supplemental request beyond this one would be appropriate except in the most extreme circumstances. We must make sure that our troops are safe and have the equipment they need. But, we must also make sure that the America they return to is stronger than the one they left. We must make sure that their children will not be burdened with the debt of our irresponsibility. We must make sure that we are never accused of shirking our duty to create an America with more opportunity, more hope and more prosperity. We can only do that when we understand that our insistence on using the normal budget process to fund ongoing operations in Iraq is not an affront to our men and women in uniform, but rather, it is our way of honoring them and the nation that they are fighting to protect.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may add Senator Pryor as a cosponsor of this amendment.

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

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment 482.