Blanche Lincoln

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, August 3, 2001 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a nomination hearing. Nonimees: Mr. J. Richard Blankenship, of Florida, to be Ambassador to the Commonwealth of the Behamas; Mr. Hans H. Hertell, of Puerto Rico, to be Ambassador to the Dominican Repulic; and Mr. Martin J. Silverstein, of Pennsylvania, to be Ambassador to the Oriental Republic of Uruguay.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I came to the floor last night in a great deal of frustration, and now I come to the floor in a great deal of disappointment. This morning, the Senate moved forward on an emergency assistance package for farmers that most in this body know is inadequate. We have done something. We have moved forward, as many people have said, because the House has left or because the President drew a line in the sand. That is not what our job in the Senate is. Our job in the Senate is to do the best we can possibly do. Is this bill the best we can do? Absolutely not. I don't think there is a Senator in this Chamber who thinks we have done the best job we could do on an Agriculture emergency supplemental bill. That is amazing to me. We approved a bill that most Members know is not going to provide even the minimum of support that our farmers and our communities, our rural communities, our community banks, and our rural economies really need. Our program crops said from day 1 of this year they needed AMTA payments at 100 percent of the 1999 level. In February, when we started going to the administration, saying we are going to need an emergency Agriculture supplemental bill, we are going to need 100-percent AMTA at 1999 levels, we are going to have to have it; our bankers are saying they are making loans to our agricultural producers based on the fact they are going to get 100 percent at 1999 levels, the administration and others came back and said: Wait until we get through with this tax bill. Then they said: Well, wait until we finish with the education bill. Then we will deal with it. And then: Let's wait until we get past the Patients' Bill of Rights and we will deal with it. Wait, wait, wait until we get back from the Fourth of July recess. And guess what. We made the mistake of believing them and we waited in good faith, thinking at the end of the road the administration would have the same consideration for production agriculture as those who have grown up in it. Guess what. We were wrong. We were wrong. We thought they would come in good faith from the administration and work with Members on this. Have they? No. People have said: I am tired; it is time for vacation. Let's go home. Our specialty crops needed more money for commodity purchases and other forms of support. All of our production farmers needed assistance. Where were we? The administration says farm income is at an all-time high. Guess what. Do you know why it is at an all-time high? Because the rural economy has been in the tanks for years. Their energy costs are at an all-time high and rising. Their fertilizer input costs are at an all-time high. Their energy costs, diesel--name it--implement costs, the costs of buying machinery, and the costs of meeting environmental regulations, every one of them is at an all-time high, and many of our States have producers whose farmer income, 50 percent of it, is government payment. Why? Because we have not provided for our agricultural producers in terms of good, solid, trade opportunities and global marketplace shares because we have not taken into consideration what it means to those individuals to produce a safe and abundant and affordable food supply for those who enjoy it. We enjoy the most environmentally sound agricultural products in the world coming out of this country. That is all going away unless we make an obligation to production agriculture, that when it comes time to being there for them, we will be there, instead of just saying all year long: Just wait. Just wait until we get through all of these other things and then we will be there for you. I look at some of my local spinach growers in Arkansas who are not far from local canneries yet find it impossible sometimes to market their spinach just down the road because they can be outbid by spinach that is coming in from Mexico, grown with chemicals we banned over 10 years ago. What are we doing for production agriculture, to make sure that you and I will continue to have that environmentally well grown product for our children and for future generations? What is our response? Give them less than they need, close up shop, and fly home for vacation. Why? Because the House is going home, we can't do anything. Well if the House jumps off the bridge, are we going to jump off the bridge, too? What if the administration says it is just not that important; we are not going to come over to negotiate with you to come to some middle ground that is going to provide our producers the 100 percent of AMTA from 1999 levels that we promised them back in February? I don't know. I reject that. I still believe I am here to do the best job I can possibly do for those American producers. I reject the argument that it is too late. I reject the argument that we cannot give them what they need.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madame President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to one of my staff members, Matt Fryar.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I am here on the floor out of a sense of frustration and I suppose a very deep sense of dedication, maybe because I am from a seventh-generation Arkansas farm family, maybe because I am a daughter of a farmer who I watched for many years toiling to ensure that he could provide a good upbringing, a good heritage to his family, working on that family farm. Maybe it is because I have watched neighbors and family members who have had to give up a way of life and a profession, a piece of their heritage, because they were unsure of where their Government was going to be for them as family farmers. Or perhaps it is because they were inundated by so many things that were unpredictable, things they could not predict or control such as the weather or the economy or the fact that their Government could not make a decision as to whether the family farmer was important enough to support and to keep in business. I am really here because, in the 11th hour, I still take my job very seriously. That job is to be here to fight hard, to do everything I can to support that American farmer and that farmer in Arkansas who has spent this entire year trying to put out a crop and wondering whether or not his or her Government was going to come through in the end with an emergency supplemental appropriation as we promised. I am here to talk about agriculture and to talk about the rural economic crisis that we are on the verge of making even worse. Six years ago, Congress and the White House, the Republicans and the Democrats, stood toe to toe and dared each other to blink. Of course no one did, and all that happened is that the Federal Government shut down. FSA offices and other important Government offices around the country closed. Farmers could not get access to the services they needed. Seniors could not access the services they needed. People all around the country were knocking on Government doors that would not open. But up here in Washington, instead of sitting down and figuring out how to get those doors open, politicians only pointed fingers at each other. They were more concerned about laying blame on each other than finding a solution. Here we are again. Now we find ourselves at another impasse, this time on an emergency assistance package for farmers that is profoundly crucial to the economic well-being of our farmers and our rural economies, an emergency assistance package we have been talking about since February. In February we started talking about the dire situation our farmers were in, that rural America was in dire straits because we had not addressed their needs, whether it was in trade or whether it was in how Government was going to provide them what they needed in order to be competitive and maintain themselves in a competitive way in the global marketplace. Whether we are talking about the delta region of Arkansas and Mississippi or the prairies of the Dakotas or anywhere else for that matter, our rural economies are in deep trouble. I don't think there is a single person in this body who would dispute that. Our farmers are hurting, and they are hurting badly. But, of course, they are not the only ones who are hurting. All of the small town institutions, businesses, and local banks were up here to talk to us back in February about what we do in extending these loans to these critical people in our communities. Do we give them a loan knowing their cost of production is going to be enormous because of energy and because of fertilizer input? Do we extend that loan knowing the prices are in the tank on commodities and have remained there and probably will remain there? It is also hurting the suppliers, the corner grocery stores on Main Street, and the car dealers. They are all hurting because their viability depends on the health of the farm economy. Colleagues, this crisis is real, and we are on the verge of making it much, much worse. If we don't get an emergency assistance package passed this week, these farmers and these small towns--very real people, many of whom happen to be related to me and to you--and these rural economies will have run out of time. I am frustrated. I am outraged that we have been sitting in this Chamber all week without being able to come to agreement on an emergency package that we all agree our farmers need. The House passed a $5.5 billion emergency package, and they are saying, oh, just do what we did, and we can all go home. But that doesn't even meet the needs of the AMTA assistance payments that our farmers need to survive. The fact is, it doesn't even give them what they had prior to 1999. Because of the Freedom to Farm Act, we have ratcheted down the payments every year that the Government is willing to provide to help them compete in that global marketplace. What happened? We are coming now and asking them to take even less in that emergency assistance. I don't blame Republicans and I don't blame Democrats. I blame all of us because we are all responsible if we are unable to come together because we are ready to go home or because we are tired and we don't want to do our job by coming together and getting a package approved and sending it out to rural America. I plead with the President. He visited with Young Farmers of America the other day and talked about how agriculture and farmers are the soul of America. Let me tell you, they need us right now. They need us a lot. It is our duty at this point not to be tired, not to go home, but to sit down with one another and talk about how we can come together to provide them what they need. It is no wonder that the citizens of this country are cynical about what goes on in Washington. Farmers have been out there toiling all year and for centuries--many centuries ago--to provide us with the safest, most abundant and affordable food supply in this world. I think it certainly behooves us to stay a few extra hours to come up with something that is going to be the best possible job and the best possible package for our American farmers. They look for farm support and all they see is another showdown at the OK Corral. Only it isn't Congress. It is our farmers, and our rural economy, and the people who live in these communities who are in the line of fire. We need to put our guns back in our holsters, and we need to find some resolution to this impasse. I, for one, am ready to stay here and do the job that the people of Arkansas sent me here to do; that is, to work out an agreement and come up with the solutions on behalf of those people who ensure that I and my children, and you and your children, have a safe, abundant, and affordable food supply day in and day out. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the U.S. Independent Film and Television Production Incentive Act of 2001, a bill designed to address the problem of ``runaway'' film and television production. I am joined by Senators Snowe, Durbin, Breaux, and Landrieu. Over the past decade, production of American film projects has fled our borders for foreign locations, 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 to cities and towns across the United States, thereby stemming that loss. In recent years, a number of foreign governments have offered tax and other incentives designed to entice production of U.S. motion pictures and television programs to their countries. Certain countries, such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and several European countries, have been particularly successful in luring film projects to their towns and cities through offers of large tax subsidies. These governments understand that 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 other local businesses. Hotels, restaurants, catering companies, equipment rental facilities, transportation vendors, and many others benefit from these ripple effects. What began as a trickle has become a flood, a significant trend affecting both the film and television industry as well as the smaller businesses that 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 in order to operate profitably. This production migration has forced many small- and medium-sized companies out of business during the last ten years. Earlier this year, a report by the U.S. Department of Commerce estimated that runaway production drains as much as $10 billion per year from the U.S. economy. These losses have been most pronounced in made-for-television movies and miniseries productions. According to the report, out of the 308 U.S.-developed television movies produced in 1998, 139 were produced abroad. That's a significant increase from the 30 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. And 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's an industry with a reach far beyond Hollywood and the west coast. 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 the opening scenes of ``Gone With the Wind,'' and civil war epics like ``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, 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. But 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 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 $20,000 and less than $10 million (indexed for inflation). The credit is not available to any production subject to reporting requirements of 18 USC 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, the Producers Guild; organizations representing small businesses such as the post-production facilities, The Southern California Chapter of the Association of Imaging Technology and Sound, and equipment rental companies (Production Equipment Rental Association); and organizations representing the creative participants in the entertainment industry, Directors Guild of America, the Screen Actors Guild and Recording Musicians Association. In addition, the United States 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 my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill in order to prevent the further deterioration of one of our most American of industries and the thousands of jobs and businesses that depend on it.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the U.S. Independent Film and Television Production Incentive Act of 2001, a bill designed to address the problem of ``runaway'' film and television production. I am joined by Senators Snowe, Durbin, Breaux, and Landrieu. Over the past decade, production of American film projects has fled our borders for foreign locations, 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 to cities and towns across the United States, thereby stemming that loss. In recent years, a number of foreign governments have offered tax and other incentives designed to entice production of U.S. motion pictures and television programs to their countries. Certain countries, such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and several European countries, have been particularly successful in luring film projects to their towns and cities through offers of large tax subsidies. These governments understand that 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 other local businesses. Hotels, restaurants, catering companies, equipment rental facilities, transportation vendors, and many others benefit from these ripple effects. What began as a trickle has become a flood, a significant trend affecting both the film and television industry as well as the smaller businesses that 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 in order to operate profitably. This production migration has forced many small- and medium-sized companies out of business during the last ten years. Earlier this year, a report by the U.S. Department of Commerce estimated that runaway production drains as much as $10 billion per year from the U.S. economy. These losses have been most pronounced in made-for-television movies and miniseries productions. According to the report, out of the 308 U.S.-developed television movies produced in 1998, 139 were produced abroad. That's a significant increase from the 30 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. And 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's an industry with a reach far beyond Hollywood and the west coast. 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 the opening scenes of ``Gone With the Wind,'' and civil war epics like ``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, 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. But 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 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 $20,000 and less than $10 million (indexed for inflation). The credit is not available to any production subject to reporting requirements of 18 USC 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, the Producers Guild; organizations representing small businesses such as the post-production facilities, The Southern California Chapter of the Association of Imaging Technology and Sound, and equipment rental companies (Production Equipment Rental Association); and organizations representing the creative participants in the entertainment industry, Directors Guild of America, the Screen Actors Guild and Recording Musicians Association. In addition, the United States 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 my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill in order to prevent the further deterioration of one of our most American of industries and the thousands of jobs and businesses that depend on it.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I am sorry; I was absolutely unavoidably detained. I did miss the first vote this morning by about 20 seconds and would like to be on record in support of vote No. 244. Had I been here, I would have voted in the affirmative for the nomination of Mr. Gregory.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today my colleagues and I are introducing legislation which is critically important to millions of small and family-owned businesses across this Nation. The Subchapter S Modernization Act of 2001 is the culmination of months of hard work by Senators Hatch, Breaux and me. We have worked to bring new ideas together with known and necessary S corporation reforms into a comprehensive piece of legislation which will help improve capital formation opportunities for small businesses, will help preserve family-owned businesses, and will eliminate unnecessary and unwarranted traps for well-intentioned taxpayers. Small businesses are the backbone of commerce in my home State of Arkansas. There are between sixteen and seventeen thousand small businesses formed as S corporations in Arkansas and over 2.58 million nationwide. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, over ninety- two percent of these companies have assets totaling less than one million dollars and a majority are in the retail trade and service sectors. These are truly your mom and pop stores and businesses, and I am proud to be working on their behalf. This bill represents not just the hard work of the principal sponsors but also of several of my colleagues past and present. I would like, in the short time that I have, to acknowledge the past efforts of former Senators Pryor and Danforth, who represented small business S corporations so well and who helped develop many of the provisions we have included in the Subchapter S Modernization Act of 2001. I would also like to recognize Senator Allard, who has joined in sponsoring this legislation, and who has been a lead proponent of S corporation reforms which would allow small financial institutions to benefit from Subchapter S. And, of course, I would like to thank Senators Thompson, Gramm, and Thomas who have joined Senator Hatch, Breaux, and me as original sponsors of what I believe is very good legislation for hard working men and women across this Nation.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today my colleagues and I are introducing legislation which is critically important to millions of small and family-owned businesses across this Nation. The Subchapter S Modernization Act of 2001 is the culmination of months of hard work by Senators Hatch, Breaux and me. We have worked to bring new ideas together with known and necessary S corporation reforms into a comprehensive piece of legislation which will help improve capital formation opportunities for small businesses, will help preserve family-owned businesses, and will eliminate unnecessary and unwarranted traps for well-intentioned taxpayers. Small businesses are the backbone of commerce in my home State of Arkansas. There are between sixteen and seventeen thousand small businesses formed as S corporations in Arkansas and over 2.58 million nationwide. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, over ninety- two percent of these companies have assets totaling less than one million dollars and a majority are in the retail trade and service sectors. These are truly your mom and pop stores and businesses, and I am proud to be working on their behalf. This bill represents not just the hard work of the principal sponsors but also of several of my colleagues past and present. I would like, in the short time that I have, to acknowledge the past efforts of former Senators Pryor and Danforth, who represented small business S corporations so well and who helped develop many of the provisions we have included in the Subchapter S Modernization Act of 2001. I would also like to recognize Senator Allard, who has joined in sponsoring this legislation, and who has been a lead proponent of S corporation reforms which would allow small financial institutions to benefit from Subchapter S. And, of course, I would like to thank Senators Thompson, Gramm, and Thomas who have joined Senator Hatch, Breaux, and me as original sponsors of what I believe is very good legislation for hard working men and women across this Nation.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I am simply here to extend my heartfelt thanks to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and to Senator Stevens from Alaska for the people of Arkansas. Right before we broke for the Fourth of July recess, I joined with my colleague, Jim Inhofe from Oklahoma, in writing to both the chairman and the ranking member to express to them our concern on behalf of our constituents. During the winter of 2001, our home States of Arkansas and Oklahoma suffered through some of the most devastating storms in recorded history. On December 29, 2000, President Clinton declared a major disaster for our States, triggering the release of Federal funds to help people and communities recover from the severe ice storms that had blanketed our home States. Unfortunately, the assistance provided to date has not been sufficient in getting our communities back on their feet. Farmers, ranchers, and timberland owners have been hardest hit. These ice storms added more than 10 times the normal amount of downed timber on the ground in Arkansas' Ouachita National Forest. This year, Arkansas and Oklahoma have the potential to have one of the worst fire seasons in our history. With the massive amount of fuel on the ground, wildfires will burn extremely hot and fast, which will make it difficult to control or to contain. With the funding outlined in the emergency supplemental bill, our residents can complete the cleanup effort while also working to prevent massive forest fires this fall. It would not be possible without the wonderful bipartisan working relationship of these two gentlemen who have worked steadfastly with both of our delegations to make sure we can provide our residents with what they need in order to keep our families, our forests, and certainly our communities safe. I thank both of these Senators on behalf of my constituents in Arkansas for the work they have been willing to put into this effort. I yield back my time.

Mrs. LINCOLN. If either the Senator from Alaska or the Senator from West Virginia will yield it, I will need about 3 or 4 minutes.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I wish to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished manager of the bill to clarify the intent of the sponsors. Section 202 of the bill amends the Public Health Service Act with a new section 2753 that applies all of the requirements of title I of the Patients Bill of Rights to each health insurance issuer in the individual market. Current law, at section 2763 provides that none of the preceding requirements of the ``individual market rules'' apply to health insurance coverage consisting of ``excepted benefits''. Similar provisions exist in current law at section 2721 of the Public Health Service Act for the group insurance market. A parallel provision exists in ERISA at section 732 for ``excepted benefits''. Is it the intent of the managers of the bill that current law section 2763 and the parallel provisions for the group market in the Public Health Service Act and ERISA remain in full force notwithstanding the language of new section 2753? In other words the requirements of title I of the Patients Bill of Rights would apply to individual and group health insurance other than ``expected benefits'' coverage.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. I am the last of four children and I am the last in this line of four, and I am delighted to have waited patiently to rise today and speak in support of an amendment I am offering with Senator Snowe, along with Senator DeWine and Senator Nelson, to protect employers from liability. The good Senator from Tennessee, Dr. Frist, would certainly join and agree, as we have taken a good bit of his designated decisionmaker language, that our ultimate goal is to protect the rights of patients while ensuring that employers who provide health care are not subject to frivolous lawsuits. The objective is to those individuals, the good guys in this bunch, the employers reaching out and providing the kind of health care that Americans need; that we can work within the confines of this bill and within this amendment to ensure they can continue doing that. That is exactly what we have attempted to do. I think we have worked long and hard. I know my colleagues and I have worked long and hard to develop language to do just that, in working with those employers who want to provide the much needed health insurance that Americans want. Employers that are offering health insurance are the good guys. We don't want to discourage them from offering health insurance. This amendment provides the assurance they need to those offering health insurance, that if they do not make medical decisions or override medical decisions, they are not liable. Again, I know the good Senator from Tennessee, Dr. Frist, understands that in terms of making sure those who are not making medical decisions are not going to be held liable. We have worked hard on the underlying bill, as the Presiding Officer knows, as we have talked in many press conferences on some of the most important issues to the American people. This Patients' Bill of Rights is one of those issues. We have reached out. The opponents of the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act have argued that the Patients' Bill of Rights will drive up health care costs by subjecting employers to increased liability and frivolous lawsuits, and in turn they argue rising costs will force employers to drop health insurance. Our amendment presents an innovative solution to this potential dilemma. We have been able to provide the protection needed by these individuals who are already out there doing the right thing. By allowing these employers to design this designated decisionmaker, a term presented from the Breaux-Frist legislation, to oversee medical care decisions, we remove most large and small business owners from the threat of liability. They have that option of choosing a designated decisionmaker. We make it possible for employers to contract with a third party to administer health benefits and protect themselves from unnecessary and crippling lawsuits. This amendment makes it crystal clear that employers will not have to open themselves up to new liability as a result of providing health insurance to their employees. When we began discussing the Patients' Bill of Rights years ago, we wanted to ensure that patients would be able to choose their own physicians and their medical professionals--not accountants, not bureaucrats, not insurance company executives, but the medical professionals--would make the medical decisions. We never, absolutely never, intended to open employers up to liability. And we certainly don't want to do anything in this bill that would discourage these employers from providing health insurance to their employees. We are delighted to work out the clarifying language that Members believe is needed to assure everyone is treated fairly. The amendment I offer today refutes the charge that the Patients' Bill of Rights is a trial lawyers employment act. Today we make it clear that we have absolutely no intention of subjecting employers to new liability or frivolous lawsuits. We want to encourage our employers in this country to provide health care coverage for their workers. In 1993 when we began the discussion of health care, we made it our objective to get more individuals covered under health insurance provided by their employers. We were able to do that. Unfortunately, we have more uninsured in this country today, and we do not want to exacerbate that problem. We want to give these employers the comfort that they need, to feel confident in keeping that employee insurance available. This amendment is our pledge of good faith to American employers and business owners that we will protect their needs as well as the needs of their employees. I applaud the work of my colleagues. I have enjoyed working with them. I appreciate everyone's patience and endurance in this process. We hope to be very inclusive, to bring others in to make sure this language is exactly that: It is giving the protection and the comfort level to the employers of this Nation that are doing an excellent job in providing health care to their employees. I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Baucus be added as a cosponsor to this amendment, and I yield.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Nevada and all of my colleagues for the opportunity to share with you all this morning a very special individual in my life. I have been very blessed to grow up in a very close-knit family of supportive and encouraging people. My uncle, the Reverend Lawson Anderson, is just one of those wonderful people. I grew up within walking distance of both sets of my grandparents, and on hot summer days I would walk over to his mother's home and in the cool of his house play the organ that she practiced as she was the organist for our church. One of the most wonderful stories and I think lessons I have learned from my Uncle Lawson I would like to share with my colleagues. He did not get started in ministry. His degree is in forestry. He began as a forester. He then went into banking and figured out, in order to really make it through life, he needed the wisdom and the courage that came from the ministry, which he joined later in life. He did say, however, that one of the best lessons he learned was not necessarily from the ministry but from his time in the forest industry. He talked about dealing with problems in life, and he said one of the best lessons he learned as a forester was when he was very young and was presented with a forest fire, a difficult problem. He was beating at that fire with a shovel, and one of the older members of the forestry team came up to him and said: What are you doing? He said: I am putting this fire out; I'm putting it out. And the wise forester, who was beyond I guess his years in wisdom, looked at Uncle Lawson and said: That is not how you conquer a problem. The way you conquer a problem and, more importantly, a forest fire is you walk around it; you approach it from the front; you evaluate the circumstances: Which way is the wind blowing? What kind of moisture is there in the area? And then you dig a hole all the way around so that you encircle your problem and you actually take care of the whole thing. You do not just beat at it, but you make sure you get in front of your problems, you assess the situation, and you face them head on. I am honored and privileged to serve the people of our great State of Arkansas. It has been something that has certainly been incredible in my life. But when I am able to bring to the Senate and share with these individuals, these incredible individuals with whom I serve in this great body, someone who has been a major part of shaping my life and molding me into the person that I am, it is, indeed, my honor and privilege to do that and to have him with us today. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today we have the opportunity to demonstrate that bipartisanship is working in Washington. We have before us what is no longer just the President's tax plan. Just a few short weeks ago, the majority of our colleagues in the other body rubber stamped President Bush's plan that heavily tilted tax cuts to the rich while delaying most of them until after 2006. That plan would not have helped my State or many other southern States for that matter. In fact, almost 50 percent of the wage earners in Arkansas would not have received a tax cut under President Bush's original plan. But with the input of Senate moderates, both Republican and Democrat, we have created tax cut opportunities for millions of low and middle income taxpayers almost immediately. We have stubbornly refused to give in to the argument that because people work for less than $21,000 a year, they don't deserve a tax cut. They may not earn enough to pay income taxes but they are surely taxpayers in every sense of the word. They are hard working Americans who pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes and just about every other form of tax other than the Federal income tax. I am proud that the final plan before the Senate today recognizes their contribution to our economy. I want to extend my gratitude to my colleague on the Finance Committee, Senator Snowe from Maine. Together we have stood fast in our insistence that the child tax credit should be refundable so hard- working, low-income families would receive a tax cut. By doubling the child tax credit and making it refundable up to $1,000, this tax plan rewards hard work and recognizes that all Americans truly deserve a tax cut. I mean no disrespect to my male colleagues in this body, but I believe this provision might not exist in this plan had women not had a seat at the Finance Committee table. Senate moderates have changed the President's original plan in other important ways. The amount of income subject to the alternative minimum tax will be increased immediately. This is a critical issue which the President ignored. In fact, his original plan would have accelerated the pace at which middle income taxpayers are forced into the alternative minimum tax category. His tax cut would have actually resulted in a tax increase for some unfortunate taxpayers. The revised tax plan will allow people to increase their contributions to IRAs and 401(k) plans, an extremely important change in an era when we have seen America's national savings rate drop to its lowest point in 40 years. Another change expands the 15 percent tax bracket for married couples so that more of their income is subject to the lower tax. And, while I believe that the top income tax rate of 35 percent could still be higher, I am gratified that Senate moderates forced a substantial increase from the President's original 33 percent rate. We can thank bipartisanship in the U.S. Senate for making this plan better and one that truly accomplishes the promise of a tax cut for all Americans. The real thanks, however, goes all the way back to 1993 and to the American people. When our nation was deep in the deficit ditch, the U.S. Congress went to the people of this great nation and asked them to bare the burden of program cuts and higher taxes in order to balance the budget. We now have a balanced budget and budget surpluses and we can now responsibly lift that burden with gratitude to the citizens of this country. I want to especially thank three of my distinguished colleagues on the Finance Committee, Senators Grassley, Baucus and Breaux, who have earnestly negotiated the final terms of this bill during the last days. I believe that in most important aspects, it remains true to the principles advanced by the Senate earlier this week. massive tax cuts starve national needs

Ms. LINCOLN

Ms. LINCOLN. Mr. President, in anticipation of Memorial Day, I rise to honor the 1.1 million Americans who have given their lives for this country. Their lasting legacy is freedom, both here and abroad. I hope this Memorial Day will be a special one for the World War II generation. Earlier this week, the Senate cleared the way for the construction of the World War II Memorial on the National Mall. The brave men and women of this generation will finally receive the national recognition they deserve. I want to take time today to acknowledge the contributions of the nearly four million veterans of the Korean War. This issue is a personal one for me. My father is a veteran of the Korean War and I know his generation made tremendous sacrifices. During the course of the war, over 36,000 Americans lost their lives and over 90,000 were wounded. My father served in Korea as an enlisted man. He left for the 38th Parallel shortly after graduating from high school. When he returned, he married my mother and went to college at the University of Arkansas where he joined the ROTC. Upon graduation, his ROTC unit was activated and Dad left for the Azores for a 12 month assignment. Like many members of the military, my father didn't endure the sacrifice of service alone. My mother boarded a military flight to the Azores when my sister Mary was only 6 months old to join my father. The military didn't provide housing for married service members on the island and so my father had to make alternative arrangements before my mother and sister could join him. Once reunited, they lived as normal a life as possible in a trailer on an island in the Atlantic thousands of miles from home. Seldom do we properly recognize the contribution and sacrifice spouses and other family members make when a loved one joins the Armed Forces. So while we honor our nation's veterans on Memorial Day, let us also salute the spouses and other family members who share the sacrifice and burdens of military service. To commemorate this Memorial Day, I urge my colleagues and all Americans to watch the PBS documentary Korean War Stories. It will air in the evening on Sunday May 27th. This documentary has been sponsored by the Disabled American Veterans as a tribute to those who served during the Korean War. Our Korean War veterans served this nation with honor, dignity, and dedication, and, in the end, they preserved freedom on the Korean peninsula. I have the highest respect for the men and women who have served our nation in the Armed Forces, especially those who gave their lives to protect the freedoms we enjoy today. Their sacrifice on behalf of our country is commendable and I extend my sincere appreciation for the honorable service they have given.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise to engage the chairman of the Finance Committee in a colloquy regarding the earned income tax credit otherwise known as the EITC. I thank the Chairman for including my provisions expanding the EITC in the tax bill. It has come to my attention, however, that the EITC has a detrimental impact on the small U.S. Territories that are subject to tax laws that automatically mirror our Federal tax laws. As a result, these small Territories, like the U.S. Virgin Islands, end up absorbing the entire cost of the EITC, which they can ill afford. The burden of this unfunded Federal mandate is exacerbated because these small Territories will also lose needed revenues as a result of the mirror effect of the income tax rate reductions mandated by this bill. However, the problem can be mitigated by an agreement between the Treasury Department and the interested territorial governments to permit these governments to require that employers advance 60 percent of EITC payments to employees as currently permitted under Section 3507 of the Internal Revenue Code and the allow the employer to deduct these advance payments from FICA taxes the employer currently remits to the U.S. Treasury, as permitted by Section 3507, not from withholding taxes the employer remits to the territorial government. The remaining 40 percent of the EITC payments would continue to be paid by the territorial governments upon filing of an eligible employee's tax return. I believe that no substantive amendment to the Internal Revenue Code is necessary to allow for such an agreement. I would like the chairman of the Fiance Committee to include report language in the final tax conference report that directs the Treasury Department to enter into such an agreement with any territorial government that would like to do so.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to bring special attention to an area of service that I find particularly important, volunteerism. As we tackle, some of our nation's most pressing needs and problems, we should be promoting and encouraging volunteer activities in our communities. The importance of volunteering was taught to me as a child. I want to ensure now that we all are mindful of the lessons that volunteering teaches, such as a sense of community and compassion for others. I believe we should remind ourselves of the important role that volunteers play in the delivery of human services. Volunteers provide an invaluable service to our communities and our citizens. Their presence and contributions put the ``caring'' back into caregiving. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the contributions volunteers make to long-term care for our nation's seniors. For example, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a philanthropic health care organization, has been supporting the creative delivery of health care and health systems for years. In my home state of Arkansas, we are working with the Johnson Foundation in a program entitled ``Faith in Action.'' ``Faith in Action'' is a faith-based initiative that encourages volunteerism as a strategy for meeting the needs of the chronically ill. This program provides seed money to fund partnerships between interfaith coalitions and other community organizations, such as Area Agencies on Aging, senior centers, and hospitals. All of these organizations share a common goal--to provide volunteer care to their neighbors in need. These groups provide a variety of services, including organizing outreach to the homebound; training group leaders who oversee outreach ministries; locating homebound people who have lost touch with their communities; recruiting volunteers from church congregations and communities; connecting with local medical and social services; and providing emotional support services to community members. The efforts of this dedicated group have brought much-needed support back into our Arkansas communities and are changing the lives of thousands of Arkansans. We are eternally grateful to leaders like Bishop Kenneth W. Hicks of United Methodist Church and Mr. Will Dublin, who have made a tremendous commitment to fostering and sustaining Faith In Action programs in Arkansas. Next week, these men and many other Arkansas community leaders and volunteers will join me in Little Rock for a special event entitled ``Caring Across the Continuum,'' where we will consider new strategies to promote and encourage volunteer services to assist the aging. With their contributions and energy, I believe we can make a real difference in the quality of care we extend to our state's population of seniors. I commend these volunteers for their efforts, and I encourage them to continue setting the example for us as we seek legislative remedies for our nation's needs. If there is one thing I have come to appreciate about public policy and planning, it is that we are incapable of paying for everything that we need as a nation. Nor should we expect to do so. Volunteers play a vital role in filling the gaps in our health care and social services systems. The mere act of volunteering encourages us to look outside ourselves, which in turn nurtures the growth of caring communities. Let's encourage the rest of our nation to consider such efforts as we look to the future and seek to re-weave the moral fabric of our country with the qualities of volunteerism.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, if we are truly serious about not leaving any child behind, this amendment is essential. The amendment I am offering strikes the provision within the education savings accounts language that covers only the tuition, fees, room and board expenses for K-12 by still permitting the ESA tax savings for other educational- related expenses for all students including K-12. This amendment will create a level playing field by providing the same tax benefits to all parents regardless of where they send their children to school. Under my amendment, all parents will be able to take advantage of ESA accounts for K-12-related expenses to buy computers, uniforms, other items--afterschool programs for their children--to use to supplement or further their education. It treats all parents equally. Using ESA accounts for private school tuition is simply vouchers by another name. While I strongly believe in a parent's right to choose a public school education or private school education for their children, I am concerned that providing a tax incentive to pay private school tuition will divert the critical resources needed to improve our public schools.

Mrs. LINCOLN

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

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

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, the amendment that I am offering strikes the provision within the education savings accounts language that covers K-12 tuition, fees and room and board expenses while permitting the use of ESA tax savings for other education-related expenses for all students. This amendment will create a level playing field by providing the same tax benefits to all parents regardless of where they send their children to school. Under my amendment, all parents will be able to take advantage of ESA accounts for K-12 related expenses to buy computers, uniforms, or other items that children use to supplement or further their education. In short, it treats all parents equally. Using ESA accounts for private school tuition is simply vouchers by another name. While I strongly believe in a parents' right to choose a public school education or private school education for their children, I am concerned that providing a tax incentive to pay private school tuition will divert the attention and resources needed to improve our public schools. Strengthening our public schools should be a priority for all of us. The philosopher Edmund Burke once said that ``education is the cheap defense of nations.'' How true that is. If we are to continue our role as a world leader, we've got to make sure all of our children are prepared to pick up where we leave off. So in my view, education is a national security issue and an economic one as well. Many of you know that rural development is a priority for me, and I am continually looking for ways to bring jobs to the impoverished Delta region where I grew up. Whenever I meet with industry folks and urge them to consider the Delta, one of their first questions is: ``How are the public schools?'' They don't ask about the private schools, just the public schools. To attract industry anywhere in this country, we've got to have strong public schools. My amendment isn't the silver bullet. It is about crafting tax policy that recognizes the important role public schools play in our communities, especially rural communities in poor states like Arkansas. As a proud graduate of public schools of Arkansas, I have enormous faith in our system of public education. And I offer this amendment today, Madam President, because I am passionate about fulfilling our responsibility at the federal level to give schools and parents the support and resources they need to be successful. I urge my colleagues to resist the false promise the current ESA provision provides to parents and public schools and support a tax policy that treat all parents equally.