Blanche Lincoln

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, no rollcall votes will occur on Monday. The next rollcall vote will occur on Tuesday morning at approximately 10:45 a.m.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, in all the rhetoric and grandstanding about who has the best prescription drug plan, I truly do not want us to forget who we are trying to help. I cannot possibly forget the 436,000 Medicare beneficiaries in Arkansas who struggle every single day to pay for the prescription drugs to control blood pressure, their heart, and help them cope with chronic diseases. Yes, some seniors are eligible for Medicaid. Some have Medigap. But most of them fall through the cracks. In Arkansas, we don't have the tools that other States might have to help our seniors pay for their prescription drugs. Medicare+Choice has left our State. Medigap plans cost a lot more than the national average--almost 20 percent higher, to be exact, a year. Employer-sponsored retiree health plans are extremely rare. On top of that, 60 percent of our seniors live in rural areas. So how do our seniors afford their prescription drugs, which rise in cost absolutely every year? The sad fact is, they don't. The best way to combat this problem is add a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare Program. That is why I am so disappointed that neither of the Medicare prescription drug plans we will consider this next week seem to have the 60 votes they need to pass. I am disappointed we are at a standstill in the Senate, and I am disappointed we have been unable to forge a compromise in the Senate Finance Committee. As a member of that committee, I would prefer to be debating these plans in that committee. However, I understand that the urgency of the issue and the timing of the Senate schedule has brought us here today. In years past, I have been a cosponsor of Senator Bob Graham's Medicare prescription drug bill. My colleague from Florida has invested a tremendous amount of time and effort in designing a benefit that senior citizens desire. And he has done well. My constituents have told me how much they like the benefit package and the extra assistance for low-income beneficiaries. They like that the premium will be guaranteed at $25 a month and will not vary State by State or region by region. This is good because in States such as Arkansas, we usually--almost always--get the short end of the stick when that happens. They like that the benefit is stable and universal and that it does not have a gap in coverage and is straightforward and simple. Although I favor this plan, I did not cosponsor the bill this year in the hopes that I could help my colleagues on the Finance Committee forge a compromise that would work for seniors and that would have enough votes to pass the Senate. Unfortunately, that effort seems to have failed. I commend my chairman, Senator Baucus, for his efforts to try to shape a compromise between these two competing plans that we have before us today. I also thank my friend from Louisiana, Senator John Breaux. Senator Breaux, through serving on the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare in 1997 and shaping the debate in Congress, has played a leading role in the national effort to improve the Medicare Program. I appreciate the many meetings we have had on this issue and hope we have the ability to continue to work in that bipartisan fashion, working to forge compromises as we move forward on the Senate floor, as well as in conference. I also want to recognize the tremendous amount of staff work that has been done, particularly and especially by my staff, Elizabeth MacDonald, all of the staff on the Finance Committee, as well as the Members who have had plans. However, despite the changes Senator Breaux, Senator Grassley, and others have made to the tripartisan bill, I believe the bill still fails to offer an acceptable model to deliver prescription drugs to seniors in rural States such as Arkansas. I cannot in good conscience vote for a plan that relies on the untried, untested delivery system laid out in the tripartisan plan. The private insurer model will require significant taxpayer subsidies to attract insurers into a drug-only insurance market, something we have never tried before. The insurance companies have told me they are hesitant to assume the risk for this type of plan unless they are heavily subsidized, and I do not think this is a proper use of our taxpayers' dollars. Nor can I support a plan that does not entitle seniors to any particular drug benefit but, rather, only a suggested benefit. Consider for a moment the story of Mrs. Mildred Owens of Havana, AR. Mildred is 70 years old, and she worked for 35 years before retiring 5 years ago. Now widowed, Mildred receives about $830 a month in Social Security and about $125 a month in retirement. Mildred takes prescription drugs which cost about $200 a month. After paying her Medicare premium and drug expenses, she has spent well over 27 percent of her income. She said that she and her two sisters, Evalee and Betty, who each make about $600 a month, do not even go to the doctor anymore because they cannot even afford the prescription drugs the doctor would prescribe. Sometimes Mildred and her sisters must rely on their children to help pay for some of their medications. If the tripartisan plan were law and if Mildred and her sisters asked me what their monthly premium was going to be and what their benefits would be for prescription drug coverage under Medicare, I would have to say to them, actually, I do not know; I cannot give you a specific; we will have to wait and see what actually happens in our area. Mildred may, in fact, end up paying a different premium for prescription drugs than her friends pay in California or Florida or New York or other States. Yet they both paid taxes into Medicare all of their lives and therefore should be entitled to the same Medicare benefit. The point is, we do not know yet what private plans might offer in different regions of the country. We do not know what their benefits would be. We do not know if private plans would want to participate. We do not know how much they would charge for it. And there is absolutely no guarantee that seniors would be able to depend on the same plan or benefit structure from year to year. These are just too many unknowns, and for seniors, nothing is more frightening than the unknown. Why do we want to force our parents and grandparents into an untested delivery system that is unlike any other system in American health care as we know it? Why should seniors in rural Arkansas, who are older and sicker and more likely to use prescription drugs, be in the dark about what their premiums will be until the Federal Government entices the private insurers to compete in their area of the country? Why should we risk forcing them to pay higher premiums than those in urban areas? Show me where it has worked. I ask my colleagues: Show me a study, show me a demonstration project. If the sponsors of the tripartisan plan are so confident that their delivery model will work, then I propose a compromise that could garner the 60 votes needed to pass a Medicare prescription drug plan. Let's put a demonstration project in the home State of the bill's chief architects and use the Graham delivery model in Arkansas and the rest of the country so that we can be assured of what we are going to get until we know what works. Let's see if this untested delivery model works in a few States before we take it nationwide and put everyone at risk. Why subject our seniors to a vast social experiment? Why should we subsidize private insurance companies when we should instead empower our seniors with the ability to afford the prescription drugs they need? I am also concerned that the tripartisan bill has a gap in coverage, albeit a much smaller one than originally proposed. How can I tell seniors in my State that they will not receive any coverage for their drug costs between $3,451 and $5,300? Although the tripartisan plan says it only contains a gap of $250, in reality it is actually a gap of $1,850 because the first threshold includes the combined expenditures of seniors and the Government, while the second only refers to the senior's out-of-pocket expenses. How can I explain to Mildred Owens that no other American but Medicare beneficiaries will have this gap in coverage? Members of Congress and Federal employees do not face a gap in prescription drug coverage, nor do non-Federal retirees or employees. This gap in coverage for seniors who use more prescription drugs than any other population group in our country is not only unfair, it is simply unreasonable. Further, this gap in coverage is opposed by the AARP, which counts about 350,000 Arkansans in their nationwide membership. AARP has surveyed their membership on the value of a prescription drug benefit and has identified five characteristics that any prescription drug benefit must include in order to attract the enrollees it needs. One of those characteristics is a benefit that does not expose beneficiaries to a gap in insurance coverage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print a letter from the Arkansas AARP State chapter in the Record that shows how the tripartisan bill fails to meet the kitchen-table test that their Members will likely use when determining if the drug benefit is a good buy.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am also hopeful that a compromise on the Medicare prescription drug benefit is imminent. I am ever optimistic that we can all agree on a good basic solution at the end of the day. We must not fall into the trap of all talk and no action once again. For the almost 4 years I have served in the Senate, I have continually gone home to my State of Arkansas, talked to seniors across our great State, and assured them that the Senate would act on a prescription drug package. I can no longer in good faith continue to simply talk about the benefit that is so needed. Our parents and our grandparents are depending on us. It would be a national tragedy to let them all down. We have talked and talked about it for years. Let us act this year and in this session. Let us not adjourn until we pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit that is meaningful and affordable for all seniors across this great country, no matter where they live.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arkansas for those kind words. I rise to express my gratitude to all of my colleagues tonight for their support of the cloture motion before the Senate this evening of the nomination of Judge Lavinski Smith of Arkansas to fill a vacancy on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. I am certainly pleased that the majority leader has taken a step which demonstrates a commitment of the Democratic leadership in the Senate to move the nomination process forward and to fulfill our obligation under the Constitution. As one of those who signed the cloture motion to bring forward Judge Smith's nomination, I am proud of my colleagues for joining in with an excellent vote in supporting this fine Arkansan to the bench. I want to say a special thanks to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his hard work over the last year to reduce the number of judicial vacancies which will ensure our Federal courts can operate efficiently. He has tirelessly worked in the Judiciary Committee to be fair and to be expeditious. There has certainly been a good deal of heated debate surrounding the pace of judicial confirmations in recent months. However, I can say from personal experience that the chairman has been highly responsive to my inquiries regarding this nomination. I am grateful for his efforts and those of the committee staff in trying to move the process forward expeditiously and fairly. I also thank my colleague, Senator Hutchinson from Arkansas, for his work in this arena. For the benefit of my colleagues who are not familiar with Judge Smith, I am pleased to offer a few words of introduction. As my colleague from Arkansas mentioned, Lavinski Smith is a lifelong resident of Hope, Arkansas, as many people from Arkansas have been recognized being from Hope. After graduating from high school, Judge Smith moved north to Fayetteville, where he received both his BA and JD from the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. Since that time, Judge Smith has enjoyed an impressive career as a practicing attorney, as my colleague mentioned, with great service through the legal services to the indigent, a State supreme court judge, a professor, and, most recently, a member of the Arkansas Public Service Commission. This would be an impressive list of accomplishments for anyone, but at the age of 43, Judge Smith's record is a good indication that he has many years of productive service in his future. Since President Bush announced the appointment of Judge Smith last year, I have heard from dozens of Arkansans from across the political spectrum who support his nomination. In fact, my support for Judge Smith's nomination is based in large part on the enthusiastic endorsement he has received from those who know him the best: his colleagues and friends who have firsthand knowledge of his professional and personal attributes, those who have worked with him in the legal field who have sent their recommendations to me. Those who have indicated strong support for Judge Smith in Arkansas include Arkansas supreme court chief justice ``Dub'' Arnold and Arkansas NAACP president Dale Charles. In addition, I believe it is important to note that Judge Smith received a unanimous ``qualified'' rating for this position by the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. Even though Judge Smith and I may not agree on every issue, that is not the test I apply to determine an individual's fitness for the Federal judiciary. I evaluate judicial nominees based on skill, experience, and ability to understand and apply established precedent, not on any one particular point of view a nominee may hold. Fundamentally, I am interested in knowing that a nominee can fulfill his responsibility under the Constitution in a court of law. I am satisfied that Judge Smith has met that standard, and I, therefore, thank my colleagues for supporting his nomination and the cloture motion to move that forward.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise to applaud the majority leader for his attempt to bring forward this possible solution to help our elderly address the enormous problem that seniors face in drug costs and in getting prescription drug care, to use that bill and that tool of generics and others to try to assist our seniors in dealing with the phenomenal cost and concerns they have in being able to provide for themselves the prescription drugs they actually need for the quality of life we all know they deserve. We all have parents and grandparents, we have neighbors and loved ones who are suffering from the unbelievable dealings of the increase in cost of prescription drugs. For us in Arkansas, where we don't have many tools at all; we have lost all of the Medicare+Choice plans that served Arkansas. The last two or three left in December, none of which provided a prescription drug package, which means our seniors in Arkansas are basically subsidizing other seniors across this country in their tax dollars. Other seniors in other areas, where a Medicare+Choice plan fits can actually get a prescription drug package because our seniors are subsidizing that. So our seniors in Arkansas are paying top dollar, more than you or I or anybody else who has insurance or who has a program like Medicare+Choice or something else, a Medigap program that is helping to pay for that, are paying more than anybody else for prescription drugs. That is unheard of. Sixty percent of our seniors in Arkansas tend to need more prescription drugs because, unfortunately, their availability to health care is less. The other thing is their availability to prescription drugs out in rural areas is a lot more difficult. These are people who need assistance. They don't need, as Senator Stabenow mentioned, a lot more discussion, a lot more talk, and a lot more promises. What they need is action. Unfortunately, what happened tonight was a roadblock that would prevent the kind of action we need in moving forward. We have 2 weeks to debate and talk about the initiatives here for the generics bill and some of the other proposals for prescription drugs but to move this debate forward. That is what seniors are waiting on; they are waiting on a solution. But more importantly, they are waiting on us to begin the debate. Unfortunately, that is what was stopped tonight. I hope we can all come together and work out whatever differences they may have found from the committee, a bill that passed out in a bipartisan way, but work those details out, hopefully tonight, so maybe we can bring forward, without having to go through the unusual procedural cloture motion to bring something up, that we can begin the debate in earnest and begin to honestly look at the ways we can help the seniors of the Nation. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, for the last several months the American people have been subjected to a string of stunning revelations from some of our largest public companies. Accounting irregularities, shady business practices, and exorbitant executive compensation packages are apparently standard operating practice in some of our corporate boardrooms. As a result, thousands of families have lost their jobs and their savings, and investor confidence in our system of free enterprise has been severely shaken. I would like to take a few minutes today to pay tribute to an Arkansas businessman who represents a vastly different picture of the American business leader Joe Ford of ALLTEL Corporation, who retired from his position as CEO this year. A native of Conway, AR, Joe graduated from the University of Arkansas in 1959 before joining Little Rock's Allied Telephone Company. He advanced through several management positions and was named vice- president in 1963. By 1977, he was named president of Allied, a position he held until 1983 when his company merged with the Mid- Continent Telephone Corporation of Hudson, OH, to form ALLTEL. This merger, along with the 1990 purchase of Systematics, Inc., in Little Rock, laid the foundation for the telecommunications leader that ALLTEL has since become. Joe Ford was named ALLTEL president and CEO in 1987. He became chairman and CEO in 1991. In a competitive and rapidly changing environment, Joe steered ALLTEL through a number of changes, including the deregulation of the telephone industry. He also led ALLTEL into a number of new, growing markets most notably wireless communications. When ALLTEL turned on its cellular service in 1986, they had only 310 customers. Ford and many of his colleagues were unsure as to whether the new technology would catch on. But as we know now, the wireless industry exploded, and ALLTEL expanded across the southeastern United States. Today, ALLTEL covers portions of 23 States, serving six million wireless customers. Today, the company has expanded even further into information services, financial services, and mortgage processing. When Joe Ford joined Allied Telephone in 1959, the company had 65 employees and 5,000 telephone customers. Today, ALLTEL is my State's largest high-tech company, with 4,100 employees working at the main campus in Little Rock. ALLTEL is also the sixth largest wireline and wireless company in the world, a Fortune 500 company with 26,000 employees worldwide serving 8 million communications customers. Many have contributed to ALLTEL's success in the American marketplace, but clearly it has been Joe Ford's vision and leadership that has brought the company to this level. I will also pause to note that, throughout his career, Joe Ford has been the very embodiment of the engaged corporate citizen. In 1966, while serving as a vice-president for Allied Telephone, Joe ran for a seat in the Arkansas Senate. He served in this body from 1967 to 1982, a term spanning the administrations of five governors. A longtime advocate for public education, Joe chaired the Senate Education Committee, where he worked to improve our state's educational system and helped to create the kindergarten program in Arkansas public schools. He has also been involved with numerous civic organizations. Joe Ford once offered the following words of advice to his son: ``In all that you do in life, seek to make life better for others, work hard and honestly, be a man of strong character, humble in times of greatness, and try to leave things a little better than they were left to you.'' His record certainly indicates that he has lived by these words himself. On the occasion of Joe's retirement, I'm proud to pay tribute to an Arkansan whose every move has represented the ideals of the American business world: trust, responsibility, hard work, and the greater public good. I hope that all of our business leaders will follow Joe's example in adhering to these ideals.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Social Security Attorney Fee Payment System Improvement Act of 2002. This bill will help ensure that all Social Security claimants have equal access to representation. Unfortunately, the Social Security Administration's disability determination system has become far too complex for most claimants and their families to successfully navigate on their own. Claimants are confronted by a confusing, time-consuming and multi-level process, which, more often than not, results in a denial of their claim. Appealing a disability claim is a daunting task for anyone without the necessary legal experience, but for individuals who are in poor health or disabled, the procedural hurdles that must be cleared in order to obtain disability benefits can seem insurmountable. As a result, many of the hard working men and women applying for Social Security Disability Insurance, SSDI, benefits or Supplemental Security Insurance, SSI, benefits choose to retain an attorney to help them with their appeal. The bill I am introducing today will help both SSDI and SSI claimants get the benefits to which they are entitled by extending the attorney fee direct payment system to both programs, a change that is long overdue and that enjoys the support of both claimants' representatives and disability advocates. Additionally, this bill corrects a serious and unintended consequence of the Ticket to Work Act of the 106th Congress. Although this plainly was a landmark piece of legislation, the disproportionately onerous nature of the attorney fee assessment provisions contained therein have caused a dramatic decline in the number of legal professionals who can afford to represent individuals seeking Social Security disability benefits. As a result of such a decrease in the number of attorneys skilled in this area of the law, the most vulnerable claimants, those with serious physical or mental impairments, those with financial challenges, and those who do not or cannot understand the disability claims process, are often left to find their own way through SSA's labyrinthine bureaucracy. This bill seeks to reverse this disturbing trend and to encourage attorneys to continue providing this extremely important service by enacting rational and equitable modifications to the fee assessment system. I want to say that my long-term goal is to reform the Social Security disability claims process so that it is not so difficult and frustrating for claimants. However, I recognize that this will not happen overnight and, in the near term, it is essential that we enable citizens to cope with this onerous process. I hope my colleagues will join me in ensuring that the hard working men and women of America obtain adequate legal representation as they pursue their Social Security disability claims. As my colleagues know, individuals with disabilities rely on Social Security disability and/or Supplemental Security Income benefits for life-sustaining income. We must do all we can to support their efforts to obtain benefits they need and deserve. This bill does just that.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the Arkansas Army National Guard Task Force 2-153--or as they're more commonly known, the Arkansas Gunslingers. The Gunslingers were mobilized on October 8, 2001. After a brief period of training in Fort Carson, Colorado, the 529-member unit was deployed to Sinai, Egypt, as the first pure National Guard unit in history to serve as part of a ``Multinational Force and Observer'' mission in this region. In this peacekeeping capacity, the Gunslingers task force is responsible for observing and reporting activity along the eastern side of the Sinai peninsula. This zone includes the desert mountains and coastal areas from Eilat, Israel, to the southern tip of the peninsula along the Gulf of Aqaba. Time does not permit me to recognize by name each of the dedicated men and women of the Gunslingers Task Force, though they all deserve such recognition for the sacrifices they make in service to their country. However, I do want to take a moment to pay special tribute to Task Force Commander Lieutenant Colonel Steve Womack. When not serving with the Task Force, Steve also serves as mayor of the city of Rogers, Arkansas. His commitment to public service, both in uniform and as a civilian, sets an example for all of us, and he stands as a wonderful representative of the values that animate the entire Gunslingers unit. I am proud to recognize him and his fellow Guardsmen on the floor of this body today. Today we face tremendous challenges in the world arena, as the threat of international terrorism has brought heightened tensions both at home and abroad. In such an uncertain time, it is reassuring to know that we have dedicated soldiers such as the Gunslingers to ensure a stable and peaceful international order. I ask that all my colleagues in the U.S. Senate join me in expressing our gratitude to the Gunslingers Task Force.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, for millions of Americans, this Memorial Day will be a day of reflection and remembrance with family and friends in honor of the brave men and women in uniform who have sacrificed to defend our freedom. Sadly, for Gracia and Martin, May 27, 2002 will mark the 1-year anniversary of the day they were taken hostage in the Phillippines by a band of brutal terrorists. For the benefit of my colleagues who are not familiar with the Burnham's plight, I will briefly recount their tragic tale. Martin and Gracia Burnham of Wichita, Kansas, are missionaries for New Tribes Mission, a U.S. based organization that builds churches among tribal people who currently have no access to the gospel. Martin and Gracia have lived in the Philippines since they joined New Tribes in 1986. Martin worked as a mission pilot, transporting medical supplies, passengers and mail around the island nation. Gracia worked as an educator and cared for their three children--Jeff, Mindy and Zack. On May 27, 2001, Martin and Gracia were celebrating their 18th Wedding anniversary at a resort area in the Phillippines when they and 18 other guests were taken hostage by a Muslim extremist group known as Abu Sayyaf. Since that time, 15 of the original hostages have been freed or allowed to escape. Three others, including California resident Guillermo Sobero, have been killed. Today, the Burnhams and Ediborah Yap, a Filipino nurse, are the only hostages that remain in captivity. Since their captors are being pursued by Philippine authorities, the Burnhams live on the run in jungle camps and struggle to survive on a poor and unpredictable diet. To avoid detection, they endure long marches over rough terrain and frantic escapes from gun battles between their captors and government soldiers. I have taken a special interest in this case because Gracia Burnhams parents, Betty Jo and Norvin Jones, live in Cherokee Village, Arkansas. Understandably, Mr. and Mrs. Jones are very worried about their daughter and son-in-law's physical health and safety. Both Martin and Gracia have lost considerable weight. During the most recent film footage of the Burnhams taken last November, they both looked pale, undernourished and weak. Even more troubling are unconfirmed reports this week that Martin's health has deteriorated so badly that he must be transported on a stretcher. Unfortunately, it has been several months since we have heard from or seen footage of Martin or Gracia. The most recent proof of life came in letters from Martin and Gracia sent in January. Even though there have been signals in recent months that an agreement to release Gracia and Martin was close at hand, the leader of Abu Sayyaf recently indicated they are no longer interested in negotiating for their freedom. It is important to note, that Abu Sayyaf is a Muslim-separatist organization with admitted ties to al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. Their goal is to establish an independent homeland under Islamic rule in the southern Philippines. Unfortunately, Abu Sayyaf has used kidnaping before to further their cause. In 2000, the group reportedly received millions in ransom in exchange for the release of 21 tourists kidnaped in Malaysia. The U.S. Government has responded to this tragedy by sending a sizeable contingent of U.S. troops to the Phillippines to help train Philippine soldiers who are pursuing the Abu Sayyaf rebels. In fact, the Philippine deployment is the second-largest military operation in the U.S. war on terrorism. Unfortunately, U.S. soldiers who are well trained in hostage rescue missions have not been permitted to actively pursue Martin and Gracia's captors to win their release. Today, I want to thank the Philippine government for its cooperation in the war on terrorism and their efforts to free the Burnhams. However, I believe more can be done and so I call on Philippine authorities to make every possible effort to free Martin and Gracia from their brutal captivity, including allowing US troops to actively participate in their rescue. I also call on our own government to increase pressure on Philippine authorities to help us achieve our common goals in the fight against terrorism. I fear that time may be running out for Martin and Gracia and we shouldn't let the 1-year anniversary of their capture pass by without renewing our efforts to use every tool we have available to save their lives. So, as we pause on Monday to honor members of the Armed Forces who gave their lives in defense of freedom--including 10 American servicemen who died in a helicopter crash in the Philippines in February--we should take great pride in our Nation and its commitment to preserve peace and security at home and abroad. We should also be aware that the plight of the Burnham's is a sad reminder that our fight for freedom continues today. I can think of no greater tribute to honor our brave soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice, than winning freedom for Martin and Gracia Burnham and defeating their captors who seek to destroy the values we cherish as Americans.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Every authorization of fast-track authority since the Trade Act of 1974 has been accompanied by a strong confirmation of Congressional intent that U.S. law will be vigorously enforced to ensure that the increased trade enabled by agreements reached under the negotiating authority is fair. This year, Congress has responded to a failure to enforce existing law by twice enacting provisions to ensure that imported species of fish are not illegally passed off in the U.S. market as ``catfish.'' The Food and Drug Administration has consistently authorized only North American Freshwater Catfish to be marketed as ``catfish'' in the United States, a practice that has existed commercially for over thirty years. U.S. law now prevents other species from using the term catfish in labeling or advertising. Let me be clear, the vast majority of this imported species of fish has never, and I repeat, never, reached American consumers under any legal name. It has reached the consumer in significant quantities only being misbranded as ``catfish.'' Congress most recently addressed this illegal misbranding in the farm bill, known officially as the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, which was signed by the president last week. The fraud of misbranding seafood is referred to as ``economic adulteration.'' Under U.S. law, economic adulteration is illegal at every level of commerce. Misbranding at the time of importation, or changing a legal name after importation, is a violation of U.S. law. These laws have simply not been enforced. The relevant provision in the 2002 farm bill now makes it clear that false labeling or advertising of another species of fish as ``catfish'' is illegal. There is also an original provision in the 2002 farm bill that applies to seafood, including the species that have been misbranded as ``catfish.'' These provisions of law are a clear expression of congressional intent that applicable law must be vigorously enforced. This is a necessary condition to the success of open trade. I would like to confirm that in granting Trade Promotion Authority for trade agreements, Congress intends that: Government agencies with relevant enforcement authority will exercise their authority sua sponte to prevent the illegal practices that have plagued our catfish industry; effective enforcement action will be undertaken at all levels of trade to prevent the economic adulteration that has adversely affected U.S. catfish farmers and the consuming public; and enforcement action will include addressing violations of law with respect to misbranding and other improper labeling, Customs marks of origin, including misbranding that indirectly indicates a false origin, false or misleading representations in advertising and other practices. We recognize that problems occur when our markets are open. However, our enforcement authorities must address those problems quickly and effectively in order to ensure that the increased competition from imports into our market is on fair terms. It is only fair competition that provides the benefits we seek for our economy, and that helps our producers remain internationally competitive.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, every once in a while this body passes legislation that just makes good common sense. Today is such an occasion. I am pleased that the Senate will vote today on the conference report on the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act, a bill that Senator Voinovich and I first introduced in July of 1999. I want to thank my good friend Senator Voinovich for his leadership on this issue. His staff members and former staff members, David Gray, Kathleen Braun, and Kristine Simmons, put in countless hours meeting with members of the business community, firefighters and the environmental community to achieve the balance that is represented here today. I also want to thank Senator Lieberman, without whose help we could not be here today. Senator Lieberman, as Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, steered this legislation to its final form, and Larry Novey of his staff was invaluable. Kelly Rucker Bingel of my staff worked on this bill from its inception in 1999, and I thank her for her efforts. Since I began public service as a member of the House of Representatives in January of 1993, I have looked for opportunities to ease the regulatory burden on small businesses. They are the backbone of our economy in Arkansas. As I said when we first introduced this bill in 1999, the federal government should be a help to small businesses, not a hindrance. We should always seek to ensure that federal policies don't place undue burdens on small business owners and tie their hands in red tape. Small businesses are hit hardest by federal regulations. According to a recent study conducted for the Small Business Administration, ``firms employing fewer than 20 employees face an annual regulatory burden of $6,975 per employee, a burden nearly 60 percent above that facing a firm employing over 500 employees.'' This does not even take into account state and local government paperwork. I have been told that federal paperwork burdens rank just behind taxes and the cost of health care as the top problems facing members of the National Federation of Independent Businesses. This bill establishes a single point-of-contact for small businesses in each federal agency that governs small businesses. Second, it requires the OMB Director to annually publish in the Federal Register and on the Internet a list of compliance assistance resources available to small businesses. Third, it establishes a task force to determine how to streamline paperwork requirements for small businesses. It directs the task force to look at creating a single reporting format for all agencies that could be filed simultaneously and electronically. It is our hope that these steps will make it easier for businesses to access information and will allow policymakers to more easily identify and eliminate duplicative regulations. The original version of this bill, S. 1378, from the 106th Congress, suspended civil fines on small businesses for first-time paperwork violations if they corrected their error. Our thought behind suspending fines for first-time violators was that a majority of small business owners who neglect to file a certain form are simply overwhelmed with paperwork and don't realize their error. We thought that small business owners should be given a chance to correct the problem before they were slapped with a fine. I am disappointed that this final version does not include the fine suspension, but as I often tell my constituents, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. So I am delighted to see final passage of this bill.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the life of Henry Woods, a great scholar and beloved Federal judge in Arkansas. Judge Woods passed away unexpectedly in March, and I wish to take a moment today to honor his many achievements and express sorrow for his loss. There is no question but that his legal expertise, unique perspective and commanding presence will be sorely missed by so many in my home State. Henry Woods was born on March 17, 1918, in Abbeville, MS. He attended the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, where he received a bachelor's degree in 1938 and a law degree in 1940. Following his formal education, Judge Woods served in a variety of positions, including as a special agent in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a trial attorney in Texarkana and Little Rock and as coordinator for the successful gubernatorial campaigns of both Sid McMath and Dale Bumpers. Henry was also past president of the Arkansas Bar Association and Arkansas Trial Association. At 62, he was nominated U.S. District Judge, Eastern District of Arkansas, by President Carter and began a new chapter in his professional life while most of his peers were planning for retirement. Like so many Arkansans who had the good fortune to know Judge Woods, I will always remember him for his intellect and commitment to social justice. Whether Judge Woods was in the courtroom or the classroom, he never wavered in his passion for fairness and equality, even when he endorsed positions he knew would ignite strong criticism. As long as Judge Woods believed what he did was right, he was prepared to take the heat. This was true when he spoke loudly and openly against Gov. Orval Faubus' use of the National Guard at Central High and later when he issued several controversial court rulings in his role as presiding Judge in the Pulaski County school desegregation case. As I have reflected on Judge Woods' prolific life, I am comforted by the fact that his towering legacy and impassioned spirit will live on through the countless individuals he inspired. Death has ended Henry Woods' life, but it hasn't extinguished his invaluable contribution to public service in Arkansas. I and others who were raised to believe that serving in public office is a high and noble calling owe a deep debt of gratitude to Judge Woods and others from his generation. I, for one, have been deeply moved by his life and will always be mindful of the example and high standard he set.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I yield myself 6 minutes. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley for their superb work so far on the trade bill. These are complex matters of policy, with potentially far-reaching consequences, that we are dealing with on this bill, and our two leaders on the Finance Committee have led us with foresight and wisdom. It is so important, as always, that we carefully balanced both the positive and the negatives of the legislation at hand. As a member of the Finance Committee, I have taken our role, as Americans, in the global economic picture very seriously. Our leadership is crucial to the success of any efforts to open markets, whether in a multilateral forum such as the World Trade Organization, or in a regional context, such as a proposed western hemispheric arrangement. And let us make no mistake about the absolute need to open markets, to ensure the freer mobility of capital, to guarantee everyone a chance at a more prosperous and more stable future. The underlying trade bill helps us meet this need, helps us fulfill our vital role as the global economic leader, by extending to the president the trade negotiating authority he needs to undertake more effectively the multilateral and other important negotiations that a stable global economy will require. Once the President has negotiated an agreement, he brings it back to us for our consideration. If we support the agreement he has negotiated, then we take another step into the future by opening more markets and further growing our economy. But the underlying trade bill also meets another highly important need: it gives us the resources and the authority to respond to those workers and those firms that will inevitably be displaced by the growing, changing economy. The wage insurance provision of the trade adjustment assistance package helps us do just that. It offers a helping hand to older Americans who have lost their livelihoods to the inevitable dislocations increased trade creates. It does so by recognizing the obvious reality that a time consuming return to school for job retraining may not be in the best interests of older workers who are close to retirement age. It also recognizes the reality that older workers have a much harder time than younger workers re-entering the job market, particularly at the same income level they enjoyed previously. It meets the needs of these older workers by allowing them to insure wage loss. To receive the benefits of wage insurance, the older worker foregoes the additional income support he could otherwise receive if he or she went back to school. Thus, the worker receives benefits while he or she re-enters the job market and without having to go back to school, which, again, for this worker may not be the best option given his or her age. I strongly support the wage insurance provisions of this bill, and I would also have supported an even more generous version of this provision. Yet, with this trade bill, we have all made compromises, for the sake of getting a good, comprehensive piece of legislation to send to the President's desk. Wage insurance is a much needed part of the TAA package. It is fair and it is responsible. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Gregg amendment as we proceed to that vote and remember that there is not a one-size-fits- all, but that all of our workers need the special attention and the ability to move within the workforce in a way that is conducive to them, to their lifestyle, and particularly to their age. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, we yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Yes, I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. I add my compliments to the chairman of this great committee, also to our majority leader, Senator Daschle, as well as the other members of the conference committee who have worked so hard. I am very proud of the incredible improvements and increased technology that our American farmers have accomplished over the past 20th century and I think this bill complements that. Our producers grow the safest, most abundant and affordable food and fiber anywhere. They do it under some of the strictest environmental regulations and rules and with great pride and appreciation for their environment. The American people enjoy a safely grown food supply for which they pay less than any other country in the world. I am proud to support this bill, and I am more than proud to support the American producer and the American farm family.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I want to thank Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Lugar for their excellent work on the farm bill. And I want to point out, in particular, their work to improve conservation programs. I would like to engage Chairman Harkin in a colloquy to elaborate on congressional intent behind the effect of the $2.5 million means-test with regard to conservation programs. It is my understanding that the purpose of the means-test is to prevent wealthy individuals with adjusted gross income of more than $2.5 million from receiving government benefits on land signed up for conservation programs. However, it was never the intent to subject non-profit organizations that actively work on conservation activities to the means-test. Isn't this correct?

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the farm bill conference report that I believe will help rebuild rural America, strengthen our rural infrastructure, and reinvigorate our rural communities and our main street businesses. If there is anyone in this body who thinks that is not necessary at this time, I urge them to travel to rural America, visit the rural communities in their States, to better understand the devastation that rural America has been going through over the past 10 years. Many in our country have experienced the benefits of a good economic time. Yet in rural America we have not seen all of those benefits. This farm bill will come to our rescue. It is with great relief, after years of struggle under the Freedom to Farm debacle, that farmers can now hope for a new farm bill that will offer them a helping hand in growing the safest, most affordable, and most abundant food and fiber supply in the world. After almost a year of hearings and studies, drafting and redrafting, committee meetings and markups, debates and amendments, we have finally arrived at a bill that addresses the many needs of the broad and diverse mosaic of the American farming and rural lifestyle. Like my colleagues on the Senate Agriculture Committee, I entered into this fray at the very beginning, fighting for a better farm policy than the old one, and I have fought all the way through this past year up until this very moment. With this bill, we reach out to virtually every part of rural America. We strengthen the safety net for farmers of major crops in every part of the country by adding a new countercyclical program to help them combat low prices in some of their toughest of times and by strengthening support for other farm production in dairy and specialty crops. We encourage greater care of our environment by an 80-percent increase in conservation programs, including the establishment of the Conservation Security Program, which will make for better farming practices on land that is in production, rather than simply protecting marginal lands out of production. As many people in Arkansas know, the conservation programs offered through this farm bill--the Wetlands Reserve Program, Conservation Reserve Program, and the new Grassland Reserve Program--are all tremendously beneficial not only to our farming operation, taking marginal land out of production and allowing producers to refocus their efforts on their more productive lands, but they enhance the beauty of the environment that we as rural Americans all cherish. We also provide better support for livestock producers in the greater funding of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. We expand agricultural trade programs to assist our farmers in a global marketplace, providing increased funding for important programs, such as food aid, which have played an instrumental role in foreign relations in the last difficult 8 months. To those who complain about whether or not we have given our full attention to making sure this bill is WTO compliant, I say we have. For those who complain about it--particularly those from other countries who have liked to talk down and talk badly about the bill we have come up with--are we just going to let them run over us or are we going to stand up and say we are simply asking for a level playing field for our producers, to be able to have their Government support in a global economy, just as those other nations have continued to provide their producers in this global marketplace? We significantly expand the nutrition title, making important changes to and increasing funding for the Food Stamp Program, as well as for emergency food assistance. The $6.4 billion in the nutrition title is essential to States such as Arkansas, where even though we may be unbelievable producers of food products, we still suffer desperately from hunger in our children. The school nutrition programs, as well as the feeding and nutrition programs for our elderly, are absolutely essential to show our Nation and the rest of the world that our producers are not only the best, but that our Government is concerned about making sure those products get to some of the neediest. We also improve the soundness and reliability of the farm credit system. We increased funding for agricultural research to assist producers to be even more efficient and effective in their production. This bill provides permanent funding for technical assistance programs to our Nation's private forest landowners, and we establish a new energy title with funding dedicated to renewable resources and biofuel development which produces a tremendous amount of benefits: It lessens our dependence on the importation of foreign oil, it creates a better environment, and it creates an additional marketplace for our growers and producers to be an effective part of lessening our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. Together these improvements to our new farm policy will help reverse the course toward disaster on which rural America has been sliding and will put our farmers back on the road to financial recovery and provide hope for the future in rural America. Of course, whenever Congress rewrites major authorizing legislation, particularly legislation this complicated and varied, there are going to be provisions that have different impacts on very different parts of the country. So we compromise and put together the best bill we possibly can, one that best responds to the diverse needs of our vast country, and that is exactly what this bill represents. In this respect, I believe this farm bill is a great success. It is said that success has many fathers, and so, too, does this farm bill. It is the product of many people on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the Hill. This process has taken us all together, including time on the Senate floor and in conference, more than 5 months already. We have spent about 6 or 7 weeks in debate alone. Every stone has been turned. Every nook and cranny has been looked into. Nevertheless, given the enormity of this process and the complexity of this bill, it is not surprising perhaps that some people want to prolong our consideration of this bill, either to return this report back to the conference for more revision, or simply to prevent the passage of any farm bill at all. They do not believe our farm producers deserve their Government's support. I have spoken on the floor many times about the urgent need to pass a farm bill. Farmers in my State have already begun their planting season. Many of them were forced to alter planting decisions or forego planting altogether because they were unable to arrange financing with local financial institutions which were, in turn, unable to extend credit without some commitment by Congress to support the farmers. Those farmers were able to go ahead with planting or did so with the expectation that Government support in some form would be forthcoming this year. And they need that support as soon as possible. In other words, Arkansas farmers needed this bill yesterday, not today and not tomorrow. But there are others in this body who want to continue to talk about this bill. So let me address some of the concerns I have heard expressed, particularly perhaps concerning the payment limitations. I have heard many complain that the conference report does not retain all of the restrictive provisions inserted in the Senate bill by the Grassley-Dorgan amendment on payment limitations. By now everyone knows of my unyielding opposition to the Grassley- Dorgan payment limitations amendment, and by now everyone has heard me or one of my colleagues explain the catastrophe the Grassley-Dorgan amendment would have unleashed on my State and others who grow cotton and rice. I am greatly relieved that the Grassley-Dorgan amendment was modified by the conferees because in its original form, the amendment would have cost my State a little less than $400 million in direct losses, and more than $1.3 billion in indirect impact. It would have affected more than half of my cotton farmers and a third of our rice farmers. It would have impacted entire counties, not just individual farmers but also the local bankers, the farm supply stores, the corner grocers, even local schools and churches as a result of the significant reductions in land values and tax revenues. By now, everyone knows of the utterly unfair and disproportionate impact Grassley-Dorgan would have had on Southern farmers versus farmers in other parts of our country, but this bill still provided a compromise on payment limitations. We went from the 550 limit in the House, compared to the 275 limit in the Senate, to 360, which was a good compromise. That does not mean there will not be people who will be hurt or who will be affected by that 360. There will be. But it is a reasonable compromise that we could reach. Why, then, I find myself still asking, would other Members of this body from large farm States continue to seek the bankruptcy of my State's largest industry and largest source of employment? What is it that they think Grassley-Dorgan would accomplish that would remedy the problems in their own areas? They say two things: First, they say they are trying to prevent large farmers from hogging an unfair share of Government subsidies that are then used to drive smaller farmers off the land. Looking back on the debate we have had so far, I have had a hard time reconciling this explanation with other points that are made. For example, I remember hearing that only a small portion of farmers would have been affected by this amendment, but if so few farmers would be affected, then its impact on land values would also have been very limited. I am also bothered by something that my good friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, mentioned during his floor statement on the subject yesterday. I have deep respect and appreciation for Senator Grassley and have enjoyed working with him on a multitude of issues, but I could not disagree with him more strongly, more vehemently than I do on this particular issue. I suspect that our disagreement is driven by the harsh disproportionate effect his payment limits amendment would have on my State compared to his. Senator Grassley described the conference report as something that should make cotton and rice farmers happy and something that would make Iowa farmers unhappy, ostensibly because his payment limitation amendment had been moderated by the conference. But given that my State consists largely of cotton and rice farmers and his State has none of either, it really sounds like a concession, perhaps, that the amendment would have had a disproportionate effect on Arkansas. What, by implication, is the alternative? That he would be happy only if cotton and rice farmers were not? I do not believe that is the case, truly. Or that the interest of my farmers in my State are opposite to the interest of the farmers in his State? I do not believe that either. I reject that. I reject that categorically. It used to be that farm policy was written with the interest of all farmers in mind, and that is exactly what our chairman and the other members of the conference committee have tried to do. It is unfortunate that so many people have abandoned the notion that legislators from across the country should recognize their shared interests and work together to write farm policy that is beneficial for all. Any problems this farm policy may eventually have are likely to be due to the collapse of this farm coalition among States. I hope we learn from this experience the next time we have to write major farm legislation. Senator Grassley's statement also raises another question in my mind: How would undercutting cotton and rice farmers in Arkansas, or anywhere else for that matter, help corn and soybean growers in a part of the country where cotton and rice are not grown? How would that help moderate rising land values in Iowa? The answer on both counts is that it would not. Slashing the value of the industry in my State would do nothing to help the farm industry in Iowa. If anything, driving cotton and rice out of Arkansas would actually hurt corn growers because farmland in Arkansas would eventually be dedicated to corn production which would simply drive down the price of corn and hurt corn farmers everywhere. The second argument I have heard from proponents of the Grassley- Dorgan amendment is that we must try to prevent so much money going to big agribusiness and giant corporate farm entities. They refer to generic certificates in disparaging terms, such as ``loophole.'' This is our emergency disaster system which is only applied when prices are at their rock bottom and input costs are at their ultimate high on our capital intensive crops. Also, it should be noted that the Arkansas entities most cited as examples of giant corporate agribusiness are rice cooperatives which process rice for thousands of rice farmers from Arkansas and surrounding States. The support these cooperatives receive is simply passed on to their member farmers. It is incorrect to suggest Riceland Foods in Stuttgart, AR, is pocketing tens of millions of dollars when, in fact, Riceland is paying that money out to thousands of its member farmers. It should be noted that these cooperatives enhance their marketing leverage and, by relation, the marketing leverage for their farmers through the use of generic certificates. They pool all of the production and market the collected rice to customers around the country and around the world as needed. Generic certificates allow them to do this. Otherwise, without effective use of those certificates, the cooperatives would be unable to pool member production and would have to erect paper walls between each member's contributions so they could be sure no one farmer received marketing loan support on an amount of rice that would put him over some arbitrary payment limit. Burdening the co-op with such requirements would defeat the purpose of creating a cooperative in the first place; that is, to enhance the processing and marketing power of the co-op members, those individual family farmers. Again, what, by implication, is the alternative? That the cooperative in Stuttgart, AR--Riceland Foods--should not have been established? That it should not be able to serve its members as a cooperative? Well, that is exactly what is implied by the expressions of shock that such an entity as Riceland Foods would receive so much in farm supports. I would bet many of the Members of this body, and also of the House, who have cited the amount of support sent to rice as an example of why stricter payment limits are needed are also many of the same Members who have voted time and again to encourage the development of cooperatives.

Mrs. LINCOLN. I will be very quick.

Mrs. LINCOLN. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes, at least.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Thank you for that explanation, and thank you for the hard work you and your excellent staff have put into the farm bill and, particularly, into the conservation title.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I rise to discuss the U.S. Independent Film and Television Production Incentive Act of 2001. We are going to begin the debate about trade and the initiative of being a part of the global economy. We are going to talk about trade as an important tool in helping to revive and build our economy in our great Nation, as well as building jobs and certainly educating our workforce and building industries in our country that are going to be part of this global economy in which we find ourselves. The U.S. Independent Film and Television Production Incentive Act of 2001 is a bill designed for those purposes. This is a bill designed to address the problem of runaway film and television production which is a major trade-related issue which costs our Nation billions of dollars each year. Over the past decade, production of American film projects has fled our borders for foreign locations, a migration that results in a massive loss for the U.S. economy. My legislation will encourage producers to bring feature film and television production projects back to the cities and towns across the great United States, thereby stemming the loss we have seen in our economy from those runaway films. In recent years, a number of foreign governments have offered tax and other incentives designed to entice the production of U.S. motion pictures and television programs to their countries. Certain countries have been particularly successful in luring film projects to their towns and cities through such offers as large tax subsidies. These governments understand the benefits of hosting such productions do not flow only to the film and television industry; these productions create ripple effects, with revenues and jobs generated in a variety of local businesses: Hotels and restaurants, catering companies, equipment rental facilities, transportation vendors, even our State parks and other wonderful characteristics that each of our States has such an individual way of expressing and the wonderful things they have to offer, and many other benefits that fall into this ripple effect. What became a trickle has now become, however, a flood, a significant trend affecting both the film and television industry as well as the smaller businesses they support. Many specialized trades involved in film production and many of the secondary industries that depend on film production, such as equipment rental companies, require consistent demand to operate profitably. This production migration has forced many small and medium-size companies out of business during the last 10 years. Earlier this year, a report by the U.S. Department of Commerce estimated that runaway productions drain as much as $10 billion per year from the U.S. economy. These are dollars on which we have depended, that have been a vibrant part of our smalltown communities across the United States as well, places where we have seen wonderful movie productions because of the tremendous amount of incredible scenery our States produce. These losses have been most pronounced in made-for-television movies and mini-series productions. According to the report, out of 308 U.S.- developed television movies produced in 1998, 139 were produced abroad. That is a significant increase from the 30 that were produced abroad in 1990. The report makes a compelling case that runaway film and television production has eroded important segments of a vital American industry. According to official labor statistics, more than 270,000 jobs in the U.S. are directly involved in film production. By industry estimates, 70 to 80 percent of these workers are hired at the location where the production is filmed. Those would be the workers in the small communities of my State as well as the State of the Presiding Officer. While people may associate the problem of runaway production with California, the problem has seriously affected the economies of cities and States across the country, given that film production and distribution have been among the highest growth industries in the last decade. It is an industry with a reach far beyond Hollywood and the west coast. Even we in Arkansas feel it. For example, my home State of Arkansas has been proud to host the production of a number of feature and television films, with benefits both economic and cultural. Our cinematic history includes opening scenes of ``Gone With the Wind'' and civil war epics such as ``The Blue and The Gray'' and ``North and South.'' It also includes ``A Soldier's Story,'' ``Biloxi Blues,'' ``The Legend of Boggy Creek,'' and most recently, ``Sling Blade,'' an independent production written by, directed by, and starring Arkansas' own Billy Bob Thornton. So even in our rural State of Arkansas, there is a great deal of local interest and support for the film industry. My bill will make it possible for us to continue this tradition, and we hope to encourage more of these projects to come to Arkansas and to other States across our Nation. To do this, we need to level the playing field. This bill will assist in that effort. It will provide a two-tiered wage tax credit, equal to 25 percent of the first $25,000 of qualified wages and salaries and 35 percent of such costs if they are incurred in a low-income community, for productions of films, television or cable programming, mini-series, episodic television, pilots or movies of the week that are substantially produced in the United States. This credit is targeted to the segment of the market most vulnerable to the impact of runaway film and television production. It is, therefore, only available if total wage costs are more than $200,000 and less than $10 million, which is indexed for inflation. The credit is not available to any production subject to reporting requirements of section 18 of the United States Code 2257 pertaining to films and certain other media with sexually explicit conduct. My legislation enjoys the support of a broad alliance of groups affected by the loss of U.S. production, including the following: national, State, and local film commissions, under the umbrella organization Film US as well as the Entertainment Industry Development Corporation; film and television producers, Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, the Association of Independent Commercial Producers, the American Film Marketing Association and the Producers Guild; organizations representing small businesses, such as the postproduction facilities, the Southern California Chapter of the Association of Imaging Technology and Sound; equipment rental companies, Production Equipment Rental Association; and organizations representing the creative participants in the entertainment industry, the Directors Guild of America, the Screen Actors Guild, and the Recording Musicians Association. All of these are great Americans who want to keep their work in our country, but if it is cost prohibitive, if the objectives and the incentives that are provided by these other nations are given to this industry that we do not provide, what other choices are they given other than to take those jobs, to take those wages, out of our country and take them somewhere else? In addition, the U.S. Conference of Mayors formally adopted the Runaway Film Production Resolution at their annual conference in June. Leveling the playing field through targeted tax incentives will keep film production, and the jobs and revenues it generates, in the United States. I urge all of my colleagues, as we talk about trade, as we talk about being a part of this global economy, as we talk about creating the jobs we want, that we have, and we would like to keep in the United States, to join me in supporting this bill in order to prevent the further deterioration of one of America's most important industries, and the thousands of jobs and businesses that depend on it. Think of what it could do for small towns, for the main streets of America, to have a film produced there. They would not only have the cultural advantage, the economic advantage but the sense of pride and joy in being able to keep this industry in our country and doing what everybody can be most proud of, and that is sharing our home States and all of the many things we are all proud of in our home States in the production of American films.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, as in morning business, I will talk a little bit about an issue that I think is probably the most paramount issue in the State of Arkansas and also probably the most paramount issue across this great Nation, and that is the issue of the Medicare coverage of prescription drugs for our elderly. We have debated this issue for quite some time. I advocated that Congress add a universal voluntary prescription drug benefit to Medicare when I first started campaigning for the Senate in 1998. Five years later, we still have not passed a plan. We have to begin moving forward on this initiative, as I look across the great State of Arkansas and recognize the number of elderly in my State who would benefit from such a plan. More importantly, we also have to look at how we as a government, in the economics of today, would benefit from a prescription drug plan for our elderly. If we do not want to do it for the quality of life for our elderly relatives, our grandparents, our parents, and all of those we love and adore, we should at least want to do it for the economics of this country because we know, without a doubt, particularly in rural America, that in providing a prescription drug package we are going to save dollars down the road because we prevent those elderly, when they are on a prescription drug, from having to have the more costly acute hospitalization or nursing care, or perhaps some of the more expensive home health care which they might need if we can simply keep them on a prescription drug plan that they so drastically need. Both structure and costs of the benefit have been the main issues holding us up, but we have to move beyond those difficulties and those problems that we have in structuring cost. I think back to last summer and some of the other members of the Senate Finance Committee with whom I was working. We were moving forward on coming together with a good compromise and working through the details of what we could see as being a beneficial plan for everyone in this country. Then, unfortunately, the events of 9-11 occurred. We, in the Congress, obviously, have had a great deal to deal with since then. We have talked about homeland security, our airport security, our national security, and the foreign affairs that come along with all of the issues we have dealt with since 9-11. I do sincerely believe that now is the time we must remember what are the most important issues with which we have to deal on the homefront, particularly before we conclude this Congress. We must begin now with a prescription drug package if we clearly intend to come up with something by the end of this session, and I think we must look earnestly, not only at what we can afford but, more importantly, how we can get the biggest bang for that buck and how we can be assured that the majority of the elderly, particularly those who are in the greatest need, will receive a benefit package. Seniors need this now more than ever. We have to enact that benefit which is adequately funded and guaranteed to be universal, affordable, and accessible. We have looked at some of the plans that have come out recently, and, unfortunately, they do fall very far short of what our seniors need. Much of the money has gone into some of the private areas that actually present me with great concern. Medicare+Choice, for instance, the last three Medicare+Choice plans in Arkansas were pulled out the end of December of last year. Not a single one of those three plans offered a prescription drug package. Medigap in Arkansas is disproportionately higher in cost than it is nationwide. So it does not provide the service, it does not provide the safety net, it does not provide the benefits that Arkansans need, and it comes at an exceptionally high price. We have to look at putting competition in, but we have to make sure it is a benefit package that is going to work for all areas of this great country. We want to continue to work on this. Rural beneficiaries in my State are more likely to have poor health and lower incomes than seniors living in urban areas. They also use more prescription drugs. That is one of the reasons I am here today. This is an extremely powerful issue in America and across rural America. We are only as strong as our weakest link. If rural America happens to be that weak link now, we must address those problems. Putting a plan into place that only gets at the problems of the urban areas or the highly populated areas is not going to work because it will continue draining the overall system in rural areas. In Arkansas, 60 percent of seniors live in rural areas. I am extremely concerned about the limited prescription drug coverage available to them. Only 14 percent of Arkansas employers offer retiree health insurance. Only 2 percent of rural Arkansans are enrolled in managed care, which goes to show one size does not fit all. We have to come up with a comprehensive plan that has enough flexibility that we can make it fit all regions of this great Nation, but that we can do so in a way that is cost effective and cost efficient. Medicare+Choice plans do not work in our rural States anymore, and Medigap coverage is out of reach for most seniors. This is an essential issue with which we have to deal. We must come together. We must come up with a compromise. We must come up with a sound policy that will not only provide the quality of life we want for our loved ones but also a huge part of stabilizing our economy in this great country in a time when health care has blown completely out of proportion.