Blanche Lincoln

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Access to Diabetes Screening Services Act of 2002. My colleague Senator Bingaman joins me in introducing this important legislation. This bill will provide Medicare coverage for laboratory diagnostic tests and other services which are used to screen for diabetes. Diabetes has reached epidemic proportions among adults in the United States. Trend data indicate that by the year 2010 more than 10 percent of all Americans will have diabetes. Even today our Nation is feeling the effects of this disease, diabetes is the Nation's sixth leading cause of death. My own home State of Arkansas has had first-hand experience with the rising diabetes rates. Arkansas ranks fifth in the Nation for diabetes incidence. According to recent health statistics, diabetes is the seventh leading cause of death for Arkansans. Recent studies show that 6.5 percent of all Arkansas adults have diagnosed diabetes, and over 1 million Arkansans are at risk for undiagnosed diabetes. These rising rates are especially evident among our aging population. Currently almost 7 million Americans age 65 and older, or 20 percent of seniors, have diabetes. Roughly 20 percent of seniors age 65 and older have a newly identified condition called pre-diabetes. If left untreated, pre-diabetes will develop into diabetes. An additional 40,000 people living with diabetes and end-stage renal disease under the age of 65 participate in the Medicare program. Even more distressing is the fact that approximately one third of the 7 million seniors with diabetes, or 2.3 million people, are undiagnosed. They simply do not know that they have this very serious condition--a condition whose complications include heart disease, stroke, vision loss and blindness, amputations, and kidney disease. Those in the medical community and the federal government are only too aware of the rising prevalence and serious nature of diabetes. The Centers for Disease Control, National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Health and Human Services have recently joined together in a national education campaign to inform people about diabetes and encourage people age 45 and older to get screened for diabetes. Unfortunately, current law does not allow Medicare to reimburse for diabetes testing, even if a patient presents a physician with serious risk factors for diabetes such as obesity, high blood pressure, or high cholesterol. Most shockingly, even if a patient is experiencing early evidence of diabetes complications like blindness and kidney disease, Medicare still cannot reimburse for diabetes testing. This nonsensical omission of diabetes screening coverage is even more shocking in light of the fact that about 25 percent of the Medicare budget currently is devoted to providing medical care to seniors living with diabetes. In 1999, Arkansas spent $1.6 billion on direct and indirect costs of diabetes. Why would we continue to constantly react to the disease in this manner, instead of proactively providing screening for our Medicare beneficiaries? This screening can identify the disease, even before any symptoms have appeared, and has the potential to save and improve thousands of lives. The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists strongly believes that patients with diabetes should be identified as early as possible in their illness. We have the technology to do this through screening. I cannot overstate the need for this legislation. When faced with the rising prevalence of diabetes, the high percentage of seniors who already have the disease, the alarmingly high number of seniors who have diabetes but do not know it yet, and the high cost associated with its treatment, it is obvious that Medicare should provide coverage for diabetes screening. The American Diabetes Association has identified Medicare screening coverage as their top legislative priority, and I have worked closely with them to craft this legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to give serious consideration to the Diabetes Screening Act of 2002.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Elizabeth Pika from my staff be granted floor privileges.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak again on the importance of passing S. 724, the Mothers and Newborns Health Insurance Act, as soon as possible. It is beyond me why in the world we cannot move forward on such a practical piece of legislation. This bill will make a real difference in the health of thousands of low-income women and their babies across our great Nation, not to mention the money it is going to save this Nation, because we all know that for every $1 we invest in prenatal care, we save anywhere from $5 to $6 down the road. It is not only compassionate and good policy, it is also good economics. Last Wednesday, Senator Bingaman asked for unanimous consent to pass this bipartisan bill, but Senator Nickles from Oklahoma objected. Since then, Senator Bingaman and I have sent Senator Nickles a letter answering the questions he had about this particular legislation. It is so important Members understand how critically important this piece of legislation is, and that these questions can be answered. With those questions answered, it is my hope that we can pass S. 724 today. This bill, which we unanimously approved in the Finance Committee, gives States the option. They can simply take the option, if they choose, of covering pregnant women under the State's Children's Health Insurance program. Most importantly, the bill allows coverage for prenatal care, delivery, and postpartum care. These are all complete parts of delivering healthy children. It is not just one opportunity to care for a fetus that is being carried by a woman; it is, more importantly, the opportunity to bring that child into the world healthy. We all know to do that, we must look at the health of the mother in a prenatal situation. We have to look at the delivery, and we also have to look at the postpartum care, which is essential for women to care for and maintain healthy children. I am so pleased we are joined on the floor by some of our colleagues who work so hard to improve the health of women and children: Senator Corzine, Senators Landrieu and Clinton are leaders in this area. I am glad they have all been here or will be here to speak. I understand Senator Mikulski, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Lugar have submitted statements for their support of S. 724. Some of us talk a lot about the importance of process in the Senate. Sometimes it does not translate to our colleagues or friends and constituents out there in the greater part of our Nation. Some of us complain when bills do not go through the regular process of committee markups and on to the Senate floor. When we are talking about such an important issue, people do understand, when the Senate does not act on something that is this critical to the well-being of their life, particularly to the health of their children. This bill went through the classic Senate process, as is described in Government textbooks. As Senators Bingaman, Bond, and I discussed last week, S. 724 unanimously passed the Finance Committee and is now on the legislative calendar under general orders. Even better, it has strong bipartisan support. Both the majority leader and minority leader have cosponsored it. That is because the idea of ensuring a healthy start in life is a sound policy, it is good fiscal policy, and it is not a partisan issue. I have no earthly idea why we are trying to make it one. If we really care about life, the Senate needs to pass this commonsense bill. I want to make an important point about the necessity of S. 724 in light of the administration's regulation that provides CHIP coverage to unborn fetuses. This regulation fails to cover the full range of medical services needed by a woman during and after pregnancy. Simply put, it flies in the face of the Guidelines for Prenatal Care Fourth Edition, established by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics, guidelines that are used by doctors all across our country. Under the regulation, doctors will not be reimbursed for providing care they are ethically obligated to provide. In the modern practice of obstetrics, postpartum care is absolutely a critical part of the overall care and the treatment the women receive prenatally and during labor and delivery. Postpartum care is essential for any of us who have gone through pregnancies and who have been so blessed to have had good prenatal care, who have seen what it can do in the delivery room, by providing the ability to go through a healthy delivery, and then, when you come out of that delivery, to be blessed and fortunate enough to go home within 2 days with your children because you have had good care. It is so common sense. It is so positive for everybody concerned: The taxpayers who may be paying the tax bill or the medical bills, for the individual who wants to get off to the right start, the mother who wants to get off to the right start, the child who needs to get off to a healthy start. We have learned so much about early development in children and what it means later on in life in their ability to succeed and learn, how critical it is they not be in that neonatal unit, but that they can be born healthy, and they can all go home together to start that life off correctly. We have an opportunity to make a difference in each and every newborn life. There is no excuse that we should not move quickly. With rising medical malpractice rates, particularly for obstetricians and gynecologists, these doctors may simply decide to stop serving CHIP patients. This regulation may become another disincentive for doctors to participate in programs serving our low-income population. Failing to pass S. 724 leaves doctors choosing between following clinical guidelines which we know, through research, is the most proper care women need; they have to choose between following these clinical guidelines they know and trust or getting paid. These decisions will be especially hard for doctors who serve high-risk women, given the fact postpartum care is even more critical for women who have preexisting medical conditions such as diabetes or hypertension--any of these. Under the President's order, these women wouldn't get care. They could only care for the unborn fetus they are carrying. It makes no sense whatsoever that the pregnant woman could not even get the care she needed, and the doctor, if giving it ethically, cannot even be reimbursed. This bill does not overturn the administration's regulation. It simply complements it. It makes the regulation better. It clarifies that doctors will get reimbursed for the clinical care they provide, and it will ensure pregnant women get the full scope of medical care they need. S. 724 is supported by 25 national organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the March of Dimes. Each of these organizations has expressed serious concern with the administration's regulation, and believes this bill is better. I ask unanimous consent that a complete list of the organizations be printed in the Record.

Ms. LINCOLN

Ms. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues who have joined me. In the last few days of the session, let us prove to the American people we in the Senate do understand what goes on in their everyday lives, we do care, and we can act in ways that will actually make a difference in their lives; that we won't sit here and talk about process. This bill has been through every piece of process there is. Let us come together in a partisan way and move forward at least this piece of legislation that will make a difference in not only a child's life, a woman's life, an entire family's life, a community's life, but in this Nation's success. I yield the floor.

Mrs. LINCOLN

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

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, earlier this week I was proud to represent the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus in a press conference to announce the results of the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation. This report confirms something that many of us have believed for some time, that hunting and fishing are an integral part of the fabric of this Nation and an essential part of our economy. I was joined in this announcement by Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton; Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Steve Williams; Melinda Gable with the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation; Brent Manning with the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; Mike Nussman with the American Sportfishing Association; and Doug Painter with National Shooting Sports Foundation. Hunting and fishing are an important part of people's lives in my home State of Arkansas and all around the country. It is an activity that brings friends and families together and the impressive statistics that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is releasing today are hard for those of us in Congress to ignore. As an avid sportswoman myself, I understand first-hand the importance that should be placed on promoting and preserving our ability to hunt, fish, and pursue outdoor activities. In fact, one of my fondest memories is of sitting with my father, brother, and sisters in a duck blind as the sun rose over the Arkansas Delta. And now, I get the joy of taking my boys outdoors to go fishing and hunting. I first joined the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus because of my lifelong love of the outdoors and my commitment that as sportsmen, we have a duty to protect and provide for sustainable uses of America's renewable wildlife resources. And now as the cochair of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I, along with my colleagues, am working to enact legislation to provide ample resources to conserve wildlife and America's rich tradition of outdoor recreation. Wildlife and our Nation's lands and waters are the foundation for our outdoor recreation as well as the ecosystems in which we survive. A perfect example of this is Arkansas' RICE, Rice Industry Caring for the Environment, project, where farmers voluntarily set aside 171,000 acres of farmland to provide for waterfowl habitat which in turn provides enormous environmental benefits. The survey shows that last year over 1.4 million Arkansans and 38 million Americans went hunting, fishing, or wildlife watching. And that translated into over $1 billion to Arkansas' economy and a whopping $108 billion impact on this Nation's economy. It also shows that over 20,000 Arkansans and well over 1 million nationally are employed directly in hunting and fishing related businesses. Those numbers show that hunting and fishing are not just worthwhile pastimes, they're big business, too. On top of that, in 2001 Arkansas' sportsmen paid over $112 million in State and federal taxes. And nationwide, sportsmen paid in over $11.4 billion. That's $11.4 billion going to fund many of our most pressing national priorities such as our national defense, education, highway construction, and conservation programs. We must continue to recognize the American sportsman's impact on this nation's economy and protect our outdoor legacy for future generations. And I look forward to continued work with my colleagues in the Senate to promote and preserve our ability to hunt, fish, and pursue outdoor activities. I encourage each of my colleagues to take note of this survey's results and the direct impact of sportsmen and sportswomen on his or her State's economy.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, today I proudly rise with my Senate colleagues from New Mexico and Missouri, Senator Bingaman and Senator Bond, to speak about the importance of passing S. 724, the Mothers and Newborns Health Insurance Act. I say to both Senators, I am extremely proud of the enthusiasm and compassion with which they come to this issue, neither one of them having experienced pregnancy themselves, but more importantly I am proud of the fact they have recognized the importance of this issue for mothers and children across our great Nation. As Senator Bond has mentioned, we must pass this bill as soon as possible, and certainly before we adjourn this Senate. This bipartisan legislation, which we passed unanimously in the Finance Committee this summer, gives States the option of covering pregnant women in the State children's health insurance program, their CHIP program. Most importantly, the bill allows coverage for postpartum care and treatment of any complications that might arise for women due to pregnancy. It is absolutely inexcusable the numbers that Senator Bingaman presents to us about infant mortality and maternal mortality of women in this great country of ours, at a time when we are ahead of every other nation in every other arena and yet we look at those numbers. To me, I am ashamed of that. I am ashamed we have not taken the course of action that could help us prove to the rest of the world that we truly do value life in this country, and that we want to do all we possibly can to ensure the healthy delivery of children in this country, as well as the health of their mothers. Myself having given birth to twins 6 years ago, I can personally attest to the importance of prenatal care. Because I did have good prenatal care, I was able to work up until several weeks before I delivered my children. I was blessed with two healthy boys and a relatively trouble-free pregnancy and delivery. Both the boys and I were able to come from the hospital within 2 days to a healthy beginning for our entire family. Not only is prenatal care essential for quality of life, it is also cost-effective. If we do not want to do it because we value families and the importance that children play in our future, we should at least want to do it because it is cost-effective. For every dollar we spend on prenatal care, we still save more than $6 in neonatal intensive care costs; not to mention the cost to the woman who is giving birth. It comes as no surprise that preterm births are one of the most expensive reasons for a hospital stay in the United States. If S. 724 was law and all States elected the option, some 41,000 uninsured pregnant women could be covered. Arkansas currently covers pregnant women up to the minimum Federal requirement of 133 percent of poverty. If the State chose to implement this option, it could raise eligibility levels under S-CHIP to as much as 200 percent of poverty and receive an enhanced Federal payment for doing so. We in Arkansas could receive extra dollars enhanced payment for doing the right thing, both economically and for our families and our children. This policy simply makes sense. It seeks to improve health care for low-income mothers and their babies while reducing costs for everyone, particularly the taxpayer. No wonder it has the support of Senator Daschle and Senator Lott. Let's not delay any longer. Let's pass this legislation today. There is no excuse for us not passing this legislation today, tomorrow, or certainly before we adjourn the Senate. Some might wonder why this legislation is needed since the administration has just announced a final regulation on providing CHIP coverage of unborn children. The reason is simple. The administration's regulation covers the fetus but not the woman. It is beyond me that anyone could imagine when a child who was being carried by a pregnant woman, that in some way these two were separable. They are not. This is completely contrary to the clinical standards of care established by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Why on Earth would we want a policy that fails to cover the health issues that may arise for a woman during her pregnancy--issues such as diabetes and hypertension? What happens to that young mother who is pregnant and all of a sudden has a reaction to diabetes or hypertension, who is in an automobile accident and goes to the hospital? This covers the medical care for the unborn child but not for the mother who is carrying that child? It makes no sense. Mother and baby are undeniably connected during pregnancy. They must be treated together. Why would we want a policy that fails to cover post partum care, the 60 days of care following delivery, which can often involve serious clinical complications for the mother? This care is covered by Medicaid and most private insurance. Why wouldn't we cover it under S-CHIP if we are going to cover the unborn child? What if the new mother has a hemorrhage, an infection? She may need some episiotomy repair or have post partum depression. The administration's regulation would not cover such services because, in their words, they are not services for an eligible child. But what about the mother carrying that child? The March of Dimes mission is to improve the health of babies worldwide; it has expressed serious concern and opposition to the President's regulation. This regulation is needlessly controversial and will therefore prevent many States from even taking up the option. Why further complicate and politicize an issue that is so important to the health of poor mothers and their babies? Even Secretary Tommy Thompson has indicated publicly his support for S. 724 as a way to expand prenatal care to low-income women. On behalf of our Nation's mothers, fathers, and their babies, we in the Senate have the serious obligation to pass this legislation as soon as possible. It is unconscionable that we have waited this long to pass a bill that would drastically improve the lives of our most vulnerable citizens. It is beyond me why we would even wait or what opposition there might be to this sensible legislation. I urge my colleagues, as we continue to muddle through all of what we are trying to accomplish in the final days, to help us ground ourselves in some of the issues that can actually make an enormous difference, not only economically but, more importantly, that will actually affect the lives of some of our most vulnerable constituents. I plead with my colleagues, let us pass this bill today or certainly before we adjourn. I yield the floor.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Steven Dettelbach of the Judiciary Committee staff, as well as Elizabeth Pika who serves as a fellow in my office, during the pendency of H.R. 2215, the Department of Justice authorization conference report.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, just over one year ago, when budget surpluses reached over $5 trillion, Congress passed a tax cut bill that, in part, began the process providing estate and gift tax relief. Now, in 2002, the surpluses have disappeared, and Congress is making no progress on further estate tax relief. The reason for the stalemate is that some will vote only for complete repeal, while others offer targeted proposals based on prior tax laws that proved to be too complex and intrusive. In this environment, we are losing ground on coming to a fair resolution of this issue, and in the meantime, the current state of the law places many family-owned businesses in an uncertain and precarious position. These are the same American-owned businesses that Congress initially sought to help when this effort began in the mid-1990's. Given these circumstances, I believe we must explore new ways to immediately and permanently target relief for these businesses, which are so important to our American economy. My bill does not seek to change current law to repeal the estate tax. It would leave in place the 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. A serious problem for family-owned businesses is the rollercoaster- ride that current law places them on. Under the 2001 estate tax cut, family-owned businesses pay the estate tax until 2010 with modest reductions, and then the tax is completely repealed for one year. Then, in 2011, these businesses resume paying the tax at the high pre-2001 rates. Such a disparity in tax, depending on when one dies, causes great uncertainty for a business that must meet payroll, hire new people, make new capital investments, and service debt. Under this tax regime, we have made business planning virtually impossible. These family-owned businesses deserve better. In fashioning a targeted approach for family-owned businesses, it is important to learn from the important lessons of the past. The Lincoln bill recognizes these lessons and seeks to reflect a thoughtful approach, which includes the good lessons learned and avoids the bad ones. In 1995, Senator Dole and Senator Pryor introduced the Family Business Estate Relief Act, S. 1086. The government budget faced deficits, so the sponsors took a targeted approach to estate tax relief for family-owned businesses. Many in this body, on both sides of the aisle, supported Senators Dole and Pryor in this effort. The bill was an instant hit with overwhelming bipartisan support, and the support of most every small business trade association. In 1997, the Qualified Family-Owned Business rules, in IRC Section 2057, were enacted into law. During the debate on these new rules, sponsors of the bill stated their concern that family farms and businesses are too often forced out of business at the death of a key family member. While this liquidity concern was all too real, it spawned an inadequate solution. Over the years since enactment, the Family-Owned Business rules were roundly and rightly criticized for their unnecessary complexity, intrusiveness into family decisions, and paltry tax benefit. Finally, in 2001, Congress threw in the towel on the targeted approach of Section 2057, and repealed it after 2004. This experience, in many ways, poisoned the waters for estate tax relief for family-owned businesses, but I am confident we can do better. So, I would like to propose an immediate and permanent plan for family-owned businesses. It is a targeted approach in times of budget deficits, and it is a conceptual approach, which, in the past, has garnered bipartisan support in times of political division. But given the hard lessons learned by Section 2057, my bill is not complex or intrusive. For those who don't believe a targeted approach can work, I urge you to take a look and study the Lincoln bill to immediately and permanently repeal the estate tax for family owned farms and businesses. Maybe one of the most important lessons learned is that the original goal was too limiting. So we have broadened our focus and we make clear our new goal. Simply put, the goal of the Lincoln bill that no family- owned farm or business will ever pay the estate tax, the same as publicly held businesses, which face no estate tax liability. If we focus merely on the liquidity of a family's estate, then we stop well short of treating American family farms and businesses the same as the GE's, Citigroups, and Ciscos of the world. We can do better. We must do better. And we must do better sooner than 2010. And we cannot afford to revert to pre-2001 law down the road. It is simply unacceptable. With a new goal in mind, the Lincoln bill greatly simplifies the rules and delivers immediate and permanent repeal of the estate tax on family-owned businesses and farms. In doing so, the Lincoln bill throws away several troubling and burdensome provisions of Section 2057, including the 50-percent liquidity test, material participation rules for heirs, the passive income test, and recapture tax provisions. Further, the bill provides sensible working capital rules, to encourage family-owned businesses to grow, add new jobs, and make new capital investments. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill in the Record along with a detailed description of ``What's Not in the Lincoln Bill'' which contrasts this new proposal to Section 2057. It is my hope that Americans who own family businesses will seriously consider my bill and not dismiss it out of hand because of past failures to target estate tax relief. I urge them to read my bill and consider the possibility for estate tax relief for them that can be done immediately and permanently.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, just over one year ago, when budget surpluses reached over $5 trillion, Congress passed a tax cut bill that, in part, began the process providing estate and gift tax relief. Now, in 2002, the surpluses have disappeared, and Congress is making no progress on further estate tax relief. The reason for the stalemate is that some will vote only for complete repeal, while others offer targeted proposals based on prior tax laws that proved to be too complex and intrusive. In this environment, we are losing ground on coming to a fair resolution of this issue, and in the meantime, the current state of the law places many family-owned businesses in an uncertain and precarious position. These are the same American-owned businesses that Congress initially sought to help when this effort began in the mid-1990's. Given these circumstances, I believe we must explore new ways to immediately and permanently target relief for these businesses, which are so important to our American economy. My bill does not seek to change current law to repeal the estate tax. It would leave in place the 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. A serious problem for family-owned businesses is the rollercoaster- ride that current law places them on. Under the 2001 estate tax cut, family-owned businesses pay the estate tax until 2010 with modest reductions, and then the tax is completely repealed for one year. Then, in 2011, these businesses resume paying the tax at the high pre-2001 rates. Such a disparity in tax, depending on when one dies, causes great uncertainty for a business that must meet payroll, hire new people, make new capital investments, and service debt. Under this tax regime, we have made business planning virtually impossible. These family-owned businesses deserve better. In fashioning a targeted approach for family-owned businesses, it is important to learn from the important lessons of the past. The Lincoln bill recognizes these lessons and seeks to reflect a thoughtful approach, which includes the good lessons learned and avoids the bad ones. In 1995, Senator Dole and Senator Pryor introduced the Family Business Estate Relief Act, S. 1086. The government budget faced deficits, so the sponsors took a targeted approach to estate tax relief for family-owned businesses. Many in this body, on both sides of the aisle, supported Senators Dole and Pryor in this effort. The bill was an instant hit with overwhelming bipartisan support, and the support of most every small business trade association. In 1997, the Qualified Family-Owned Business rules, in IRC Section 2057, were enacted into law. During the debate on these new rules, sponsors of the bill stated their concern that family farms and businesses are too often forced out of business at the death of a key family member. While this liquidity concern was all too real, it spawned an inadequate solution. Over the years since enactment, the Family-Owned Business rules were roundly and rightly criticized for their unnecessary complexity, intrusiveness into family decisions, and paltry tax benefit. Finally, in 2001, Congress threw in the towel on the targeted approach of Section 2057, and repealed it after 2004. This experience, in many ways, poisoned the waters for estate tax relief for family-owned businesses, but I am confident we can do better. So, I would like to propose an immediate and permanent plan for family-owned businesses. It is a targeted approach in times of budget deficits, and it is a conceptual approach, which, in the past, has garnered bipartisan support in times of political division. But given the hard lessons learned by Section 2057, my bill is not complex or intrusive. For those who don't believe a targeted approach can work, I urge you to take a look and study the Lincoln bill to immediately and permanently repeal the estate tax for family owned farms and businesses. Maybe one of the most important lessons learned is that the original goal was too limiting. So we have broadened our focus and we make clear our new goal. Simply put, the goal of the Lincoln bill that no family- owned farm or business will ever pay the estate tax, the same as publicly held businesses, which face no estate tax liability. If we focus merely on the liquidity of a family's estate, then we stop well short of treating American family farms and businesses the same as the GE's, Citigroups, and Ciscos of the world. We can do better. We must do better. And we must do better sooner than 2010. And we cannot afford to revert to pre-2001 law down the road. It is simply unacceptable. With a new goal in mind, the Lincoln bill greatly simplifies the rules and delivers immediate and permanent repeal of the estate tax on family-owned businesses and farms. In doing so, the Lincoln bill throws away several troubling and burdensome provisions of Section 2057, including the 50-percent liquidity test, material participation rules for heirs, the passive income test, and recapture tax provisions. Further, the bill provides sensible working capital rules, to encourage family-owned businesses to grow, add new jobs, and make new capital investments. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill in the Record along with a detailed description of ``What's Not in the Lincoln Bill'' which contrasts this new proposal to Section 2057. It is my hope that Americans who own family businesses will seriously consider my bill and not dismiss it out of hand because of past failures to target estate tax relief. I urge them to read my bill and consider the possibility for estate tax relief for them that can be done immediately and permanently.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I would like to submit a resolution about an important health disorder which affects 2.3 million Americans and 40,000 people in Arkansas. I am referring to epilepsy. Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disorder; people with this disorder may have seizures which may be as brief as a few seconds, or as traumatic as several minutes and visibly distracting. Several months ago, I had the opportunity to meet with a young man from Arkansas who has epilepsy and is a spokesperson for the Epilepsy Foundation, as part of their Winning Kids program, representing 300,000 children with this disease. Additionally, he is a role model for his peers in Arkansas due to his courage. His name is Bryan Raymond. As he said in a speech to other children in March, ``We are all different. Some of us hardly ever have seizures. Some of us have lots and lots of seizures. But we all want the same things. We want to be busy and happy. We want to go to school. We want to have friends. We want to play and have fun. We want other kids to understand what seizures are, and to respect us.'' The one thing he asked me, and I ask of you is that we teach our children and our communities about a better understanding about this disease. School-age children have a better understanding of HIV/AIDS and cancer than epilepsy. We must educate our children about this disease in order to allow these patients to thrive. In addition to the touching conversation I had with Bryan and his mother earlier this year, this disease is even closer to home for me. A young woman on my staff is diagnosed with this condition. Amy is here with me today for several reasons. First, she has provided a good first-hand account/knowledge of what epilepsy is and how it affects daily life. Second, she signifies the success which epileptics can have, like people from every other walk of life, when dealing with chronic conditions. To that end, this resolution is intended to serve two goals: to raise awareness about this disease, which in turn affects perception/stereotypes, and to increase funding for the long-term research for and care of patients. Presently, doctors tell their patients that there is no cure for epilepsy. Rather the solution is long-term medication or surgery. It is critical that we increase the funding committed to epilepsy. As far as we have advanced in other areas of medicine, even other neurological disorders, we must give equal time and resources to a cure for epilepsy. I would like to move that we establish the month of November as National Epilepsy Awareness Month. This is one small step toward the larger goal of overcoming epilepsy. As with other chronic illnesses, overcoming epilepsy is achieved in part through perception and part through science and medicine. Cancer, which was previously stigmatized to be terminal, is now more candidly discussed among patients and families and leagues ahead in research. I hope that this will be true as well with epilepsy. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, as you may know, I introduced legislation (S. Res. 316) on August 1, 2002, designating the year beginning February 1, 2003, as the ``Year of the Blues'' and requesting that the President issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe the ``Year of the Blues'' with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and educational programs. I am proud to be joined by Senators Cochran, Thompson, and Frist. It has been said that ``Blues is more than music; Blues is culture. Blues is America.'' As a native of Helena, Arkansas, I could not agree more. Growing up in the Delta, I often listened to the blues during the famous ``King Biscuit Time'' show on my hometown station, KFFA radio. The songs I heard often told stories of both celebration and triumph, as well as sorrow and struggle. Although its roots are in the tradition of the primitive songs of the old Southern sharecroppers, the blues has left an important cultural legacy in our country and has documented African-American history in the last century. As the blues began to transform in style and content throughout the twentieth century, its evolution paralleled the migration of American life from a rural, agricultural society to an urban industrialized nation. The blues has also left an indelible impression on other forms of music with its influence heard in jazz, rock and roll, rhythm and blues, country, and even classical music. Despite these facts, though, many young people today do not understand the rich heritage of the blues or recognize its impact on our nation and our world. That is why I am delighted to introduce this resolution and participate in the Year of the Blues project. Coordinated by The Blues Foundation and Experience Music Project, The Year of the Blues is a multi-faceted entertainment, education, and outreach program recently formed to both celebrate and create greater awareness for the blues and its place in the history and evolution of music and culture, both in the United States and around the world. The program is anchored by high profile events, and beginning next year, it will feature a wide array of participants, projects, and components designed to reach a large audience, as well as support blues oriented education and outreach programs, such as Blues in the Schools. This project also takes on a special meaning for me because I am a ``daughter of the Delta,'' and my hometown of Helena has played a large role in the development of the blues. Today, Helena serves as a temporary blues Mecca each October when the three day King Biscuit Blues Festival takes place. And as I noted earlier, it is also the site of one of the longest running daily music shows, ``King Biscuit Time,'' which continues to air every weekday at 12:15 pm on KFFA radio from the Delta Cultural Center Visitors' Center. As long as I can remember, ``King Biscuit Time'' originally featured famous harmonica player Sonny Boy Williamson, guitarist Robert Junior Lockwood, and the King Biscuit Entertainers. When recently noting the uniqueness of the show, long- time host ``Sunshine'' Sonny Payne recalled that many of the songs played on ``King Biscuit Time'' originated during the live broadcasts, and in some cases, words to the songs were known to change day to day. After becoming involved with this project, I recently came across an article ``Pass the biscuits, cause it's King Biscuit Time . . . '' written by freelance writer Lex Gillespie. I believe this article provides an accurate account of the development of blues in the South. I will ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record following my statement. So as you can see, Mr. President, the blues has been an important part of my life and the life of many others. It's a style of music that is, in its essence, truly American. But as we move into a new century and embrace new forms and styles of music, we must not allow today's youth to forget the legacy of our past. By teaching the blues, promoting the blues, and celebrating the blues, we can ensure that the rich culture and heritage of our forefathers will always live on. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. At this time I ask unanimous consent that the Gillespie article be printed in the Record.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I introduced legislation designating the year beginning February 1, 2003, as the Year of the Blues and requesting that the President issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe the ``Year of the Blues'' with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and educational programs. I am joined by Senators Cochran, Thompson, and Frist and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. It has been said that ``Blues is more than music; Blues is culture. Blues is America.'' As a native of Helena, Arkansas, I could not agree more. Growing up in the Delta, I often listened to the blues during the famous ``King Biscuit Time'' show on my hometown station, KFFA radio. The songs I heard often told stories of both celebration and triumph, as well as sorrow and struggle. Although its roots are in the tradition of the primitive songs of the old Southern sharecroppers, the blues has left an important cultural legacy in our country and has documented African-American history in the last century. As the blues began to transform in style and content throughout the twentieth century, its evolution paralleled the migration of American life from a rural, agricultural society to an urban industrialized nation. The blues has also left an indelible impression on other forms of music with its influence heard in jazz, rock and roll, rhythm and blues, country, and even classical music. Despite these facts, though, many young people today do not understand the rich heritage of the blues or recognize its impact on our nation and our world. That is why I am delighted to introduce this resolution and participate in the Year of the Blues project. Coordinated by The Blues Foundation and Experience Music Project, The Year of the Blues is a multi-faceted entertainment, education, and outreach program recently formed to both celebrate and create greater awareness for the blues and its place in the history and evolution of music and culture, both in the United States and around the world. The program is anchored by high profile events, and beginning next year, it will feature a wide array of participants, projects, and components designed to reach a large audience, as well as support blues oriented education and outreach programs, such as Blues in the Schools. This project also takes on a special meaning for me because I am a ``daughter of the Delta,'' and my hometown of Helena has played a large role in the development of the blues. Today, Helena serves as a temporary blues Mecca each October when the three day King Biscuit Blues Festival takes place. And as I noted earlier, it is also the site of one of the longest running daily music shows, ``King Biscuit Time,'' which continues to air every weekday at 12:15 pm on KFFA radio from the Delta Cultural Center Visitors' Center. As long as I can remember, ``King Biscuit Time'' has been an integral part of life and culture in the Delta. Debuting in November 1941, ``King Biscuit Time'' originally featured famous harmonica player Sonny Boy Williamson, guitarist Robert Junior Lockwood, and the King Biscuit Entertainers. When recently noting the uniqueness of the show, long-time host ``Sunshine'' Sonny Payne recalled that many of the songs played on ``King Biscuit Time'' originated during the live broadcasts, and in some cases, words to the songs were known to change day to day. After becoming involved with this project, I recently came across an article ``Pass the biscuits, cause it's King Biscuit Time . . . '' written by freelance writer Lex Gillespie. I believe this article provides an accurate account of the development of blues in the South, and I ask unanimous consent to submit it for the Record. So as you can see, the blues has been an important part of my life and the life of many others. It's a style of music that is, in its essence, truly American. But as we move into a new century and embrace new forms and styles of music, we must not allow today's youth to forget the legacy of our past. By teaching the blues, promoting the blues, and celebrating the blues, we can ensure that the rich culture and heritage of our forefathers will always live on. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I introduced legislation designating the year beginning February 1, 2003, as the Year of the Blues and requesting that the President issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe the ``Year of the Blues'' with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and educational programs. I am joined by Senators Cochran, Thompson, and Frist and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. It has been said that ``Blues is more than music; Blues is culture. Blues is America.'' As a native of Helena, Arkansas, I could not agree more. Growing up in the Delta, I often listened to the blues during the famous ``King Biscuit Time'' show on my hometown station, KFFA radio. The songs I heard often told stories of both celebration and triumph, as well as sorrow and struggle. Although its roots are in the tradition of the primitive songs of the old Southern sharecroppers, the blues has left an important cultural legacy in our country and has documented African-American history in the last century. As the blues began to transform in style and content throughout the twentieth century, its evolution paralleled the migration of American life from a rural, agricultural society to an urban industrialized nation. The blues has also left an indelible impression on other forms of music with its influence heard in jazz, rock and roll, rhythm and blues, country, and even classical music. Despite these facts, though, many young people today do not understand the rich heritage of the blues or recognize its impact on our nation and our world. That is why I am delighted to introduce this resolution and participate in the Year of the Blues project. Coordinated by The Blues Foundation and Experience Music Project, The Year of the Blues is a multi-faceted entertainment, education, and outreach program recently formed to both celebrate and create greater awareness for the blues and its place in the history and evolution of music and culture, both in the United States and around the world. The program is anchored by high profile events, and beginning next year, it will feature a wide array of participants, projects, and components designed to reach a large audience, as well as support blues oriented education and outreach programs, such as Blues in the Schools. This project also takes on a special meaning for me because I am a ``daughter of the Delta,'' and my hometown of Helena has played a large role in the development of the blues. Today, Helena serves as a temporary blues Mecca each October when the three day King Biscuit Blues Festival takes place. And as I noted earlier, it is also the site of one of the longest running daily music shows, ``King Biscuit Time,'' which continues to air every weekday at 12:15 pm on KFFA radio from the Delta Cultural Center Visitors' Center. As long as I can remember, ``King Biscuit Time'' has been an integral part of life and culture in the Delta. Debuting in November 1941, ``King Biscuit Time'' originally featured famous harmonica player Sonny Boy Williamson, guitarist Robert Junior Lockwood, and the King Biscuit Entertainers. When recently noting the uniqueness of the show, long-time host ``Sunshine'' Sonny Payne recalled that many of the songs played on ``King Biscuit Time'' originated during the live broadcasts, and in some cases, words to the songs were known to change day to day. After becoming involved with this project, I recently came across an article ``Pass the biscuits, cause it's King Biscuit Time . . . '' written by freelance writer Lex Gillespie. I believe this article provides an accurate account of the development of blues in the South, and I ask unanimous consent to submit it for the Record. So as you can see, the blues has been an important part of my life and the life of many others. It's a style of music that is, in its essence, truly American. But as we move into a new century and embrace new forms and styles of music, we must not allow today's youth to forget the legacy of our past. By teaching the blues, promoting the blues, and celebrating the blues, we can ensure that the rich culture and heritage of our forefathers will always live on. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, ever since it hit the airwaves one lunchtime fifty-six years ago this November, ``King Biscuit Time'' has profoundly influenced the development and popularity of the blues. As the oldest and longest-running blues program on the radio, it helped promote the careers of bluesmen who pioneered this musical style and later brought it from street corners and juke joints in the South to an international audience. And today, KFFA and Helena are even ``must see'' stops for Japanese and European tourists who want to learn about the cultural roots of the blues. ``First things first,'' recalls Sonny ``Sunshine'' Payne, the program's host for over eleven thousand broadcasts; King Biscuit Time started when guitarist Robert Junior Lockwood and harmonica player Sonny Boy Williamson were told they would have to get a sponsor to get on the air.'' That was 1941, when Payne was a teenager cleaning 78 rpm's and running errands at KFFA. ``They came to the station one day and I showed them in to station manager Sam Anderson . . . he sent them over to the Interstate Grocery Company and its owner Max Moore who had a flour called ``King Biscuit Flour . . .'' Lockwood and Williamson became the show's original King Biscuit Entertainers who advertised flour and corn meal in Helena and the surrounding Delta region; and after a lucky break, Sonny Payne took over as program host when the announcer lost his script while on the air. The program was a smash hit, thanks mostly to the playing and on- air presence of harp player Williamson. He became so popular that the sponsor named its product ``Sonny Boy Corn Meal'' and he was, and still is, pictured, smiling and with his harmonica, on a burlap sack of his own brand of meal. Williamson was a musical pioneer in his own right. He was one of the first to make the harmonica the centerpiece in a blues band. His unique phrasings, compared by many to the human voice, influenced countless harp players. His partner, Robert Junior Lockwood, stepson of the legendary Robert Johnson, also influenced the blues style. A fan of big band jazz, he incorporated jazzier elements into the blues, often playing the guitar with his fingers. As years passed, the duo expanded into a full band, including piano player ``Pine Top'' Perkins, Houston Stackhouse and ``Peck'' Curtis, and musicians who played on the show also advertised local appearances that gave them more work. With the success of ``King Biscuit Time,'' Helena soon became a center for the blues. It was a key stopping off point for black musicians on the trip north to the barrooms and clubs of Chicago's South and West sides. Already, in the thirties, the town had seen the likes of pianist Memphis Slim and Helena native Roosevelt Sykes, as well as guitarists Howlin' Wolf, Honeyboy Edwards, and Elmore James. And when the program went on the air, it helped shape the early careers of many an aspiring musician. ``Little Walter'' Jacobs and Jimmy Rogers, who later played with Muddy Waters, came to live and learn in Helena in the mid-1940's. Muddy Waters also brought his band to Helena to play on KFFA and in bars in the area. Teenager Ike Turner first heard the blues on KFFA around that time, and King Biscuit pianist ``Pine Top'' Perkins gave him lessons in his trademark boogie woogie style. The program also influenced other stations to put the blues on the radio. Its initial popularity convinced advertisers that the blues had commercial potential. ``It was a major breakthrough,'' explains folklorist Bill Ferris, director of the Center for the Study of Southern Culture at Ole Miss; ``King Biscuit Time was a discovery of an audience and a market . . . that hitherto radio had not really understood.'' Across the Mississippi River from Helena, radio station WROX put the South's first black deejay, Early Wright, on the air spinning blues and gospel records in 1947. Upriver in Memphis, station WDIA the next year became the first southern station with an all-black staff, including a young musician named Riley ``B. B.'' King, who got an early break as a deejay. And, in Nashville in the late forties, station WLAC reached nearly half the country with its late-night blues and R&B shows. All of these programs and stations owe an enormous debt to ``King Biscuit Time.'' And today, the legacy of the show continues, with blues programs heard on radio stations across the U.S., the recordings of the many ``King Biscuit Entertainers,'' and the yearly King Biscuit festival in Helena celebrating the city's cultural heritage and significant role in developing and promoting the blues.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment, which I have been proud to promote over the last couple of weeks. I want to especially thank Senator Bob Graham of Florida and Senator Gordon Smith for their leadership in drafting this amendment. The hours and the patience that they have put into this is forthcoming in what we have been able to produce. I also want to express my appreciation to Senator Bingaman for his guiding vision and the eloquence with which he first offered this proposal to our colleagues in meetings last week, and to Senator Debbie Stabenow. If we could harness the kind of energy, dedication, and commitment that Senator Stabenow has for our seniors in providing them a quality prescription drug benefit, we would certainly be doing our job for the benefit of the seniors in this country. I also thank Senator Feinstein who has been very instrumental in making sure that we do not adjourn without helping low-income seniors and those with the highest drug costs. This amendment is the product of many long hours of discussions among many of these Senators and so many others who bridge the spectrum of political philosophies in this body, and I believe that it represents the deliberative process envisioned by our forefathers for what the Senate was intended to do. Through this debate, I have been firm in my conviction that we must help as many seniors as possible this year--not next year, not the year after, but this year. This amendment allows us to help everyone while providing the most help to the neediest and the sickest. We have had two opportunities to vote on more expansive prescription drug packages, and I was pleased to support an amendment offered by Senators Graham and Miller that would have done far more for our seniors. Regrettably, that package did not garner the 60 votes needed to overcome a Senate procedural rule. So we stand today with a new opportunity that I believe offers the best hope for Arkansas seniors. I have said all along we must help the neediest and the sickest of our seniors and provide drugs at a reduced cost for those in between. I am not willing to tell seniors, who spend more than $3,300 a year on drugs, that we cannot help them this year. I am not willing to tell the seniors who struggle to live on less than $1,500 a month for their rent, groceries, utility, and health care costs that we cannot help them this year. So I am proud to support this amendment, which will ensure that seniors who are at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level will get prescription drugs through Medicare. For all seniors who spend more than $3,300 a year on drugs, I want to be able to say to those seniors: Stop worrying. The Government will cover the rest of your prescription drug costs with a minimal copay. What does this mean for the seniors of Arkansas? It means a great deal. Under this plan, one of every two seniors in Arkansas will have all of their prescription drug costs covered under Medicare with a minimal copayment. There will not be any additional paperwork as part of this program, and there will not be fees to enter the program. If you are on Medicare, you can be automatically enrolled in the prescription drug program. That should be welcome news for the 56 percent of Arkansas seniors whose annual income is below the 200 percent of poverty level. For those individuals who have annual incomes above $17,720 and those couples whose income is over $23,880, there is also a benefit. In addition to the peace of mind that will come from knowing the Government will cover drug costs that exceed $3,300 a year, these seniors will also benefit from drug discounts negotiated by the Government and a 5-percent subsidy. Drug costs could be reduced by as much as 30 percent. I wish we could do more for this group of seniors, and I publicly pledge to keep pushing until we have done so. Is it an ideal benefit? No, but it is a start. I have always said in this body that legislation is not a work of art; it is a work in progress. That is what this body was intended to do, to deliberate and work through these issues to come up with a solution. Last week's votes were like a flashing neon sign declaring it is not possible to get a more generous drug benefit this year. A 5-percent subsidy negotiated drug discount and a catastrophic benefit for middle- and high-income seniors is better than no benefit at all, especially considering the ever increasing costs of prescription drugs, an issue we will have to address. We will have to continue to address the ever increasing costs of prescription drugs in the years to come and the cost of what it is going to mean to us and the seniors of this Nation. We must also remember and never underestimate, with the out-of-pocket limit for all seniors in this proposal, we will be providing for the initiative to bring down the costs of employer-sponsored plans, as well as any supplemental plans, such as Medigap or others. That is a real savings and a benefit to all of these individuals who need prescription drug coverage. I thank John and Betty Scroggins of Monticello, AR, who took the time over a series of phone calls with my staff to share their health care struggles. The Scroggins are now retired. They worked all of their lives driving trucks. After they pay their drug bill each month, they have less than $1,000 to cover utilities, groceries, and other living expenses. For John and Betty, under this plan, the Government will pay for all of their prescription drugs with a minimal copay. I also thank Lila Lee Moore, a volunteer social worker at a health care clinic in Little Rock, who told me about a couple whose Social Security income is $1,100 a month but their drug costs exceed $800 a month. I also send a very special thank you to 18-year-old Jessica Mann of Jonesboro, AR, who wrote asking me to help her grandparents who struggle just to make ends meet due to the high cost of medical care and prescription drug medicines. Jessica said: I believe that when people such as my grandparents have worked hard their whole lives, they deserve a better and less worrisome time in their retirement years. They have given so much to make it better for my generation, please help us to make it better for theirs. Each of these people have helped me form the template against which I have measured these prescription drug proposals. The amendment before the Senate helps meet these needs. We are talking about moving forward on behalf of the seniors of this Nation, not saying, once again, that we are going to put it off for another year or another day, but that we are bound and determined to do what we can to make each and every one of their lives a little bit better. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help the Senate move forward in the efforts on behalf of the seniors of this Nation. I yield the floor.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Michael Anzick and Elizabeth Pika, two fellows in my office, during debate on this legislation.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, at this time of great challenge to our Nation, it is with immense pride that we take a moment to recognize the efforts of the men and women in our armed forces. I rise today to honor one woman in particular who will be making history next week. On Friday, August 2, 2002, the United States Navy's Officer Candidate School will graduate its first class trained by a female drill instructor. Although women have played a vital role in our armed forces, and specifically in the Navy and Marine Corps, for many years, Gunnery Sergeant Stephanie K. Murphy is the first Class Drill Instructor to train future Naval officers. A native of Pine Bluff, AR, Gunnery Sergeant Murphy has served in the Marine Corps since 1988. In 1996, Murphy graduated from Drill Instructor School in Parris Island, SC where she completed six cycles training Marine enlisted recruits. After receiving an accelerated promotion to Gunnery Sergeant, Murphy requested to go to Pensacola, FL in September 2001 to train Naval Officer Candidates. Gunnery Sergeant Murphy follows in the proud tradition of trail- blazing women in the military, women such as Opha Mae Johnson, who became one of the first 305 women accepted for duty in the Marine Corps Reserve on August 12, 1918. During World War II, women returned to the Corps to ``free a man to fight.'' By the end of World War II, a total of 23,145 officer and enlisted women reservists served in the Marine Corps. Unlike their predecessors, women Marines in World War II performed over 200 military assignments. In addition to clerical work, their numbers included parachute riggers, mechanics, radio operators, map makers, motor transport support, and welders. Women Marines became a permanent part of the regular Marine Corps on June 12, 1948 when Congress passed the Women's Armed Services Integration Act. Today, women account for over four percent of all Marine officers and over five percent of the active duty enlisted force. Like their distinguished predecessors, women in the Marine Corps today continue to serve proudly and capably in whatever capacity their country and Corps require. Marine Corps drill instructors have helped train Naval Officer Candidates since the days of the Navy's World War II Pre-Flight Training Schools. This link was reaffirmed following World War II to strengthen the bond that connects the Navy/Marine Corps Team. In an uncertain world, Americans know that we can count on our men and women in uniform. It is with overwhelming pride that we recognize their tremendous sacrifice and determination. We ask that you join us today in honoring Gunnery Sergeant Stephanie Murphy and all the courageous individuals serving in the military.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I wish to say a special thanks to Senator Rockefeller who has been tireless in this effort on behalf of his constituents in West Virginia. The similarities in our States have certainly given me a wonderful partner in fighting on behalf of this issue. We have been fighting to increase Arkansas' share of Medicaid dollars since last fall. I remind the Senator from West Virginia that back in November, when we were taking up the stimulus bill in the Finance Committee, we tried even there to offer this type of an amendment, to recognize the shortfall in our rural States and the problems they were suffering at that point. We know that in terms of stimulating the economy, it is pretty hard to go to work if you are sick and cannot get health care. It is pretty hard for children to learn and become a great part of the future leadership and the future workforce of this country if they are sick and cannot go to school. Back in February, we argued to get it into a slimmed down stimulus package, but we did not pass it there either. I worked with Senator Rockefeller to try to amend the energy bill, but we did not get a vote on that back in March. Again, in April, I cosponsored stand-alone legislation with Senator Rockefeller and Senator Smith, and in May I cosponsored stand-alone legislation with Senator Collins and Senator Nelson. We have been working on this issue for quite some time. We recognized last fall when many of our State Governors were having to take cuts that those who were most vulnerable in our society were going to be hurt the most, and we needed to do something and we needed to act. I am a proud cosponsor of the amendment before us in which the two previous proposals I mentioned have been merged. I thank my colleagues, certainly Senator Rockefeller, Senator Smith, Senator Collins, and Senator Nelson for their leadership and their perseverance. In times of tight budgets and economic downturns in our States, States are cutting their Medicaid budgets, and we are seeing it right and left across this country. Who suffers because of this? Our most vulnerable citizens: Our low-income families, our children, and our senior citizens. Medicaid funding plays a critical role in senior care, with two- thirds of the residents of America's nursing homes depending on Medicaid payments for their care. But many States, including Arkansas, are facing real budget crunches with their Medicaid budgets. We are seeing, because of a multitude of other medical underpayments, whether it be UPL, whether it be physician payment reimbursement cuts, whether we are talking about ambulance provider fee schedules, we are looking at a crisis in rural America in the delivery of health care. It is a serious problem that we are facing now, but if we do not do something pretty quickly, we are going to see some devastation. I have heard from hospitals in my State that are going to, in the next couple of months, stop providing OB care. I have constituents at that point who will have to travel 90 miles to get obstetric care. We are going backward, not forward, in providing the health care across the board in rural areas, as well as urban areas, that is so necessary to the quality of life that each American deserves. In Arkansas, our population of seniors is a snapshot of where the Nation is going to be in the next few years. So we are already facing the challenges with which other States will have to contend, the challenges that other States will have to face in the next 10 to 15 years. It is also true that we have a disproportionately high number of seniors living in poverty, and many of them rely on Medicaid funding for health care and long-term care. Especially in rural States such as Arkansas where health care services are harder to come by, Medicaid makes a huge difference in helping families afford care for their seniors. We need greater investment in Medicaid funding to States, especially at a time when our States are in such a devastating budget situation. The bills I have helped introduce in the Senate will adjust the FMAP level so that States can benefit from greater Medicaid funding, which will go a long way toward helping our most vulnerable citizens, particularly our seniors. I appreciate the support I have received from our colleagues today, those who have worked tirelessly on this issue. And I can tell you that we will all keep fighting to get this done. No matter what barriers people may put before us, we are going to continue to make this fight. I think the fact we have been doing it since last November should indicate to our colleagues that this is essential, we know it is important, our constituents know it is important, and the rest of the Senate must learn that it is important enough for us to act now. Under this amendment, Arkansas stands to gain $80 million over 18 months. This is a much needed injection into our economy and into the quality of life of our most vulnerable citizens. To my colleague from West Virginia, I thank him so much for his leadership on this issue. I have enjoyed working with him since last fall, and we are going to continue on this effort because we know how important it is to the lives of the people we represent in this body. It is so important we move forward as quickly as we possibly can. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Record remain open until 1:30 p.m. for the submission of statements and introduction of legislation.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 2 p.m., Monday, July 22; that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate resume consideration of S. 812, with the time until 6 p.m. equally divided between the two managers or their designees.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, without further intervening action or debate.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 128 and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of H. Con. Res. 413 and that the Senate then proceed to its consideration.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, without further intervening action or debate.