Floor Statements

Mr. President, I also now go to a sadder note and rise to pay tribute to a fallen pillar of the Arkansas business and philanthropy community, Mr. Jack Stephens. Jack passed away quietly at his home on Saturday, July 23, after a period of illness. He has been remarked to have been one of the most incredible businessmen in his lifetime. We have truly lost a visionary businessman who invested in hundreds of Arkansas companies, many of which became leaders in their industry.

He also became one of my home State's most active philanthropists, never forgetting his humble roots and the value of rural life. Jackson T. Stephens was born during the Roaring Twenties and was raised during the Great Depression on a farm in south central Arkansas. He picked cotton and worked a mule on the farm before taking jobs in nearby Hope, AR, during his teens.

The Depression helped to shape a generation of Americans who valued every penny and deeply respected the opportunities that freedom brings, the opportunity to earn a living and to give back. Those lessons were not lost on Jack Stephens. His parents A. J. and Ethel taught him the values of self-reliance, diligence, integrity, and hard work. His father once told Jack, ``Success is not a destiny to be reached but the quality of the journey we make.''

After attending public schools in Prattsville, AR, and graduating high school from Columbia Military Academy in Columbia, TN, Jack Stephens became a 1947 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. For the rest of his life, he remained close to many of his Naval Academy buddies, particularly ADM William Crowe, Ambassador Vernon Weaver, and President Jimmy Carter. He never forgot the important value of that education at a service academy and, more importantly, his service to this great Nation.

After finishing up at the Naval Academy, Jack joined his brother Witt Stephens at his financial company, Stephens, Inc. The two of them built one of the country's most premier investment banking firms, the largest off Wall Street.

In recent years, Jack has been recognized for his philanthropy. He once told a reporter there are only two pleasures associated with money: making it and giving it away.

For over 20 years, Jack has been the principal benefactor for the Delta Project, a program designed to assist and educate underprivileged children in Arkansas's delta. He also supported the City Educational Trust Fund. For 20 years, the trust fund has provided scholarships for students and incentive awards for innovative teachers.

Jack also gave $48 million to the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. The money was used to build, equip, and support the Jackson T. Stephens Spine and Neuroscience Institute.

In 1997, he gave $5 million to support First Tee, a program designed to allow underprivileged children to learn about and play the game of golf. He viewed First Tee as a teaching tool for children. He understood that the lessons of patience, respect, and following the rules the game of golf teaches could be used in any area of a child's life and, more important, provided them the life skills they needed to be a success in the future.

He also served from 1991 to 1998 as the fourth chairman of the Augusta National Golf Club, home of the Master's Golf Tournament. Jack also gave about $20 million to the University of Arkansas at Little Rock for a special events center that will be used for basketball.

In closing, I want to say a word about the character of Jack Stephens and the men and women of his generation. Jack came from a time when Arkansans believed in the spirit of Arkansas. We in Arkansas believe in ourselves. We believe in our family and our family of Arkansas people. We believe in our dreams and the things we can accomplish when we work hard and we reach out to one another.

Men such as J. B. Hunt, Sam Walton, John Tyson, Witt Stephens, and Jack Stephens believed in the values they were taught in Arkansas and knew that the best place to build a business was right there in their own backyard.

All of these men along with Jack Stephens, nurtured and invested in the businesses and the people of their great State of Arkansas, knowing full well that Arkansas, Arkansas's hard work, its ethics, its values, could be marketed all across the globe.

In the 1980s, Jack Stephens was one of the first to venture and look toward places in the East where investments could be made and relationships built for future of the global economy in the 21st century. They set a high standard for all of Arkansas to follow. Many of us look to the image of Jack Stephens to know of the success that can happen in Arkansas.

My thoughts and prayers go to the family and friends of Jack Stephens this week, as we celebrate his wonderful life and cherish the moments that were spent with him. The people of Arkansas can all be proud of Jack Stephens and the life he lived. He contributed mightily to the well-being of our State and to its people, all because he never forgot where he came from. I am sure the entire Senate will join with me as I honor the well-lived life of Jackson T. ``Jack'' Stephens.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Mr. John Walton, 58, an Arkansas native and Wal-Mart heir who on June 28, was killed when his aircraft crashed on landing outside of Jackson,

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a renowned publisher, entrepreneur, businessman, humanitarian and an outstanding Arkansan, Mr. John Harold Johnson.

John H. Johnson, a native of Arkansas City, AR, was born on January 19, 1918, to Leroy and Gertrude Johnson. Over 60 years ago, John H. Johnson founded and became owner of the largest black-owned publishing company in the world, Johnson Publishing Company, Inc., located in Chicago, IL. From this company, the Negro Digest, Ebony, Jet and other magazines and periodicals were created. Ebony and Jet magazines enabled Johnson to have an impact on Civil Rights in America, Entertainment, Sports and the Nation's culture as a whole. These two magazines continue to successfully reflect and comment on the African-American experience. Johnson has also enjoyed success in the cosmetic industry with the establishment of Fashion Fair Cosmetics.

In 1999, the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff and Arkansas City, AR, formed an alliance for the creation of the John H. Johnson Delta Cultural and Entrepreneurial Learning Center. The Cultural and Entrepreneurial Learning Center will provide accommodations in Arkansas City for classroom and educational activities that originate at the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff.

On Saturday, May 21, 2005, the John H. Johnson Cultural and Education Museum was dedicated in Johnson's hometown. Using materials from the original, the museum was constructed as a replica of Johnson's boyhood home. It will now provide valuable insight into his life and origin while bringing tourism dollars to his native home of Arkansas City and the surrounding area. His life is an inspirational American story where, rising from poverty with a strong sense of self, he overcame adversity and became one of the country's most successful entrepreneurs. I am grateful to have been a part of this magnificent event and honored to have Mr. John H. Johnson at the top of the list of notable Arkansans and Americans.

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

Had I been present, I would have voted yea in support of this resolution.

Mr. President. I rise today to honor the memory of U.S. Army SSG Harold ``George'' Bennett. In the jungles of Vietnam, this young Arkansan displayed courage and honor while serving his Nation in uniform. Tragically, almost 40 years to the day, on or about June 26, 1965, he became the first American prisoner of war executed by the Viet Cong.

George Bennett was born on October 16, 1940, in Perryville, AR, a small town that rests just northwest of Little Rock in the foothills of the Ozarks. His father, Gordon, was a veteran of World War I, and he instilled in his sons the values and rewards of service to country. All 4 would follow his footsteps into the U.S. Army.

SGT George Bennett was trained in the Army as an airborne infantryman and served with the famed 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions, made up of some of the finest soldiers in the world. He earned his Master Parachute Wings and Expert Infantry Badge before volunteering in 1964 for service in what was a relatively unknown area of southeast Asia called Vietnam. While deployed, Sergeant Bennett served as an infantry advisor to the 33rd Ranger Battalion, one of South Vietnam's best trained and toughest units. On December 29, 1964, they were airlifted to the village of Binh Gia after it had been overrun by a division of Viet Cong. Immediately upon landing, Sergeant Bennett's unit was confronted by a well-dug-in regiment of enemy forces and despite fighting furiously and courageously throughout the afternoon, their unit was decimated and overrun. Sergeant Bennett and his radio operator, PFC Charles Crafts, fell into the hands of the Viet Cong.

Before being captured, Sergeant Bennett twice called off American helicopter pilots who were attempting to navigate through the combat zone to rescue him and his radioman. Displaying a remarkably calm demeanor, his focus seemed to be on their safety and not his own. His last words to his would-be rescuers were, ``Well, they are here now. My little people,'' his term for the South Vietnamese soldiers under his command, ``are laying down their weapons and they want me to turn off my radio. Thanks a lot for your help and God Bless you.''

As a prisoner of war, the only thing more remarkable than the courageous resistance he displayed throughout his captivity was his steadfast devotion to duty, honor, and country. His faith in God and the trust of his fellow prisoners was unshakable. Sadly, the only way his captors could break his spirit of resistance was to execute him and today Sergeant Bennett lies in an unmarked grave known only to God, somewhere in the jungles of Vietnam.

Recent efforts by a group of Vietnam veterans will ensure that Sergeant Bennett's valiant service will not be forgotten. Over the years, they have worked tirelessly on behalf of the Bennett family to secure the valor awards that should have been presented to Sergeant Bennett's mother, Pauline, in 1965. I am proud of all they have accomplished and have pledged my support to this effort. Most recently, their work helped lead to Sergeant Bennett's posthumous induction into the U.S. Army Ranger Hall of Fame at Fort Benning, GA, on July 8, 2004. Sergeant Bennett's brother Dicky, and his sisters, Eloise Wallace, Laura Sue Vaught, and Peggy Williams were in attendance. I hope this long overdue moment of recognition provided some sense of solace for his family. Although he may no longer be with us, the example and selflessness of this brave young Arkansan will forever live on in our hearts.

The 40th anniversary of Sergeant Bennett's execution offers us an opportunity, not to remember the events of his death, but to reflect upon the life he led and the kind of person he was. He was a selfless young man who answered his Nation's call to service and placed duty and honor above all else. While a grateful nation could never adequately express their debt to men such as George Bennett, it should take every opportunity to honor them and their families for the sacrifice they have paid on our behalf.

I would also like to ask for unanimous consent to include in the record the citation from Sergeant Bennett's posthumous induction into the Ranger Hall of Fame and an article titled ``Bad Day at Binh Gia,'' by retired Army COL Douglas E. Moore, that provides us additional insight into the heroic service of SGT George Bennett.

Bad Day at Binh Gia

(By Col. Douglas E. Moore)

When friends or family visit for the first time, we usually

take them to Washington to see the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

Although I have been there many times, I am still impressed

with the large crowds. Most are tourists with cameras at the

ready; others appear to be more somber, perhaps because they

served in Vietnam themselves or lost friends or family in the

war. It troubles me to see fellow veterans there wearing all

sorts of military attire from that era. Many of them have

pain written across their faces, which makes me wonder what

terrible burdens they carry after all these years.

For me, Vietnam is now a collection of mostly good

memories. As a young medevac helicopter pilot, I had the

opportunity to sharpen my flying skills to a level that was

never matched again. I was blessed to be able to work with

some of the finest people I have ever known, and my job was

satisfying. During my tours in Vietnam and Japan, I evacuated

more than 11,000 casualties in one of the best flying

machines ever built, the Huey helicopter. It is gratifying to

know that some patients lived because we were able to help.

The bad memories have mostly faded with time. In fact,

there is only one event that I still think about, and it

occurred more than 34 years ago. In late December 1964, we

were rushing to join the crews of two helicopter gunships in

an attempt to save an American advisor. Unfortunately, we

failed.

Vietnam in 1964 was as different as night and day from the

later years. Back then, it was still a Vietnamese war, and

there were only about 20,000 Americans assigned to the

various headquarters, advisory teams and a handful of

aviation units scattered around the countryside.

Ours was strictly an advisory and support role and not one

of direct combat. In fact, some of the senior officers still

had their families in Saigon, and many Americans lived in

hotels and other civilian buildings. The old-timers may

recall a memo published by one headquarters stating its

concern that some living areas were taking on the appearance

of armed camps.

We operated on a shoestring. We did not have U.S. Air Force

aircraft or U.S. Army artillery to prestrike the landing

zones in support of our operations. The only firepower

available was a few lightly armed helicopter gunships flown

by a group of extraordinarily brave pilots. Needless to say,

we left several of the landing zones littered with downed

helicopters.

The communication systems were terrible. Since most medevac

requests came by telephone and passed through several

Vietnamese headquarters before reaching us, delays were

common. On occasion, we would rush to a tiny village located

a hundred miles away only to discover the casualties had been

picked up a day or so earlier by a resupply aircraft making

its weekly rounds.

All new pilots found it disconcerting that they could

easily lose radio contact with other Americans during the

longer flights. Weather permitting, the only alternative was

to gain enough altitude to talk to our old standbys, Paris

Control and Paddy Control, operated by the Air Force out of

Saigon and Can Tho, respectively. Otherwise, we were

completely on our own at times.

The character of the war was different, too. While there

were a few major battles between the Viet Cong and South

Vietnamese, most of the contact was on a small scale and

ended quickly. It does not seem possible now, but the number

of Americans killed in the war had not reached 200 until July

1964.

In late October, I was flying past Bien Hoa Air Base when

several B-57 Canberra bombers suddenly broke through the

clouds ahead of me. Several days later, I learned they had

come from Clark Air Force Base in the Philippines to attack

Viet Cong strongholds in the jungles north of Saigon.

The crews of the newly arrived Canberras had barely settled

in when the Viet Cong struck. I was dozing in our alert shack

at Tan Son Nhut Air Base when the radio operator began

yelling, ``Bien Hoa's been hit!'' As we ran to our helicopter

for the short flight to Bien Hoa, we could see flashes of

rockets and mortars on the horizon.

Burning aircraft and ammunition were exploding everywhere

as we landed to evacuate the wounded. To our horror, we

watched a Vietnamese A-IE Skyraider crash as the pilot tried

to take off during the melee. The plane's huge engine and

other burning parts rolled to a stop a few yards behind us.

Four Americans were killed, several others were wounded, and

13 U.S. aircraft were destroyed that night in one of the

first major attacks that seemed to be specifically targeted

against the Americans.

Not long afterwards Bob Hope arrived for his first

Christmas tour. While his group was traveling from the

airport to downtown Saigon, two Viet Cong saboteurs drove an

explosive-laden truck into the parking lot of the Brinks

Hotel. Two Americans died in the blast and more than 50 were

wounded. I missed Bob's show the next day because I was

flying, but I understand that he quipped, ``A funny thing

happened on the way in last night--a hotel passed us!''

As 1964 was ending, the North Vietnamese apparently

concluded that they could not win the war with the hit-and-

run tactics they had been using. Instead, a major shift in

their strategy occurred when they sent two veteran Viet Cong

regiments to an assembly area about 50 miles southeast of

Saigon. Coastal freighters brought new rifles, mortars and

rocket-propelled grenade launchers. In the jungles of Phuoc

Tuy province, the dreaded 9th Viet Cong Division was born,

and Binh Gia was chosen to be its first test by fire.

Binh Gia was a peaceful village surrounded by jungle and

populated mostly by Catholics who had fled to the South

following an earlier partition of their country. In late

December, one regiment of the 9th Division attacked the

village and quickly overran its lightly armed defenders.

Another regiment slipped into ambush positions around a

nearby clearing. They knew the American helicopters would be

coming soon, loaded with Vietnamese soldiers and their

American advisors.

The casualty toll mounted quickly. About midafternoon, I

took a load of wounded Vietnamese to Cong Hoa

General Military Hospital in Saigon and was diverted from

there to pick up an American who had been hit in an ambush

about 40 miles to the west, near the Cambodian border.

Because there was no tactical operations center or any of

the ubiquitous command and control helicopters hovering

over the battlefield, as was the case in later years, we

had to refuel at Saigon and return to Binh Gia to see if

we were still needed.

About 25 miles away from Binh Gia I began trying to contact

other aircraft in the area. I switched through several

frequencies that we had used earlier in the day before

hearing a gunship pilot talking with an American advisor on

the ground. It quickly became evident that the advisor was in

trouble because the gunship pilot kept telling him he could

not identify the disposition of his troops and was concerned

about firing on ``friendlies.''

The advisor said he was sorry but that he had used up all

of his smoke grenades and had nothing to mark his positions.

At that point, the advisor began identifying objects on the

ground in an attempt to guide the gunships. Finally, I heard

him say something to the effect of, ``Listen, I'm standing on

a small mound near a large clump of bushes and waving a white

handkerchief. You have clearance to fire anywhere more than a

hundred meters from my position.''

Shortly thereafter, the gunship pilot reported that he and

his wingman had fired all of their rockets and had little

machine-gun ammunition remaining. At this point, the gunship

pilot told the advisor to begin moving toward the Southwest

because he planned to land and pick him up. The advisor's

response was quick. ``Don't try it! They're all around me

down here, and all you'll do is get shot down.''

The gunship pilot encouraged him to move, but the advisor

was adamant that it was too dangerous for any rescue attempt.

After hearing this, I called the gunship pilot and told him

we were about 10 or 12 miles out and would pick up the

advisor if he could guide us into the area. The advisor

answered first: ``Negative; Dustoff. You can't make it, so

don't even try it!''

I thought we had a chance because I remain convinced to

this day that some of the earlier Viet Cong commanders would

not have allowed their troops to fire at our medevac

helicopters--whether out of respect for the red crosses or

because they knew we went to the aid of anyone who needed

help, I do not know. Many of the civilian casualties and

pregnant women whom we had evacuated from the villages had

husbands or relatives serving in the Viet Cong. As a result,

I honestly believe they took it easy on us during the early

part of the war. When U.S. combat units were introduced the

following spring, we became fair game like everyone else.

In any case, my crew and I planned to approach at treetop

level and touch down just long enough to haul the advisor

aboard. We had already begun descending when we heard him

say, ``Well, they are here now. My little people [slang for

South Vietnamese soldiers] are laying their weapons down, and

they want me to turn off my radio. Thanks a lot for your

help, and God bless you.''

With those words, he was gone. The gunship pilot reported

movement around the advisor's position, so we pulled up and

began orbiting the area. The gunship pilot then told me that

he and his wingman had to depart to refuel and rearm. I

called an approaching Army L-19 spotter plane to ask if more

gunships were on the way. The Bird Dog pilot said no.

The late afternoon sun began casting long shadows across

the jungle clearing below us, and it looked so peaceful from

our vantage point. At the same time, it was heartbreaking to

know that an American soldier had been captured and we were

helpless to do anything except orbit outside of small-arms

range.

Several minutes passed before our radio crackled to life

again, ``Have no fear, blue-eyed VNAF is here!'' The call

came from a flight of Vietnamese air force AI-E Skyraiders,

piloted by U.S. Air Force advisors. They were rushing to help

but were simply too late.

I left Vietnam the following summer and spent two years in

Japan before I returned to Vietnam. While in Japan, I was in

another medevac unit whose mission was to ferry casualties

from the air bases at Yokota and Tachikawa to several Army,

Navy and Air Force hospitals scattered around Tokyo. After

the more seriously wounded were sufficiently stabilized, we

returned them to the airheads for the long flight home.

One afternoon, I was reading a copy of The Stars and

Stripes while waiting for an inbound flight at Yokota. My

attention was drawn to an announcement by the North

Vietnamese government that an American POW had been shot in

retaliation for the slaying of a Viet Cong terrorist by South

Vietnamese forces. The article identified the POW as Army

Sgt. Harold G. Bennett, who had been captured at Binh Gia.

It suddenly dawned on me that I had never learned the name

of the soldier we were trying to save that afternoon, and

I began wondering whether it was Sgt. Bennett.

I am still troubled because our rescue attempt was

unsuccessful and I never learned the name of the soldier we

were trying to save. I have often wondered whether it would

have made a difference if the gunships had had more

ammunition or if we had arrived a few minutes earlier. After

many years of curiosity, I began trying to reconstruct the

events of that fateful day.

First, I contacted the Pentagon's MIA/POW office and was

referred to the Library of Congress. After obtaining several

microfiche from the library, I discovered that three

Americans had been captured at Binh Gia. Two of them were

Army enlisted men and the third was a U.S. Marine Corps

captain. While I cannot be certain, it appears the person

whom we were trying to save was Sgt. Bennett.

The data I have gathered contains little information about

Sgt. Bennett's actual capture, but there are several stirring

accounts about his later actions as told by other POWs who

were held with him in various camps. Their reports indicate

that Sgt. Bennett stubbornly resisted his captors at every

opportunity and that he participated in frequent hunger

strikes. These disruptions may have led to his being shot.

Like most of my compatriots, I have witnessed many heroic

acts over the years, but the person we were trying to save

that day ranks with the most courageous. I cannot imagine

what his thoughts were when things began to collapse around

him, and there is no way to fathom the despair he must have

felt while he was being led from the battlefield with

American helicopters circling a few hundred feet overhead.

I am still amazed that he could remain so calm during his

radio transmissions. To the end, his focus seemed to be on

our safety and not his. The willingness to sacrifice himself

instead of risking others was a remarkable demonstration of

valor. If I ever have to face a life-or-death situation

again, I hope I can find some of his courage.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments. I rise to join the Senator from North Carolina in speaking in opposition to the Schumer amendment. I certainly am concerned that the amendment before us would remove a carefully crafted provision from the bill that seeks to ensure that Americans will maintain a reliable supply of medical isotopes or the radiopharmaceuticals used to diagnose and treat so many diseases. We are on the brink, all of us here, working hard to increase funding for the discovery of eliminating these diseases. In the meantime, being able to provide the hope to those who suffer from these diseases is so critically important.

These diseases include everything from heart disease to hyperthyroidism, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, epilepsy, kidney failure, bone infection, brain cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, thyroid cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and brain cancer--so many of these that plague the lives of Americans who can get some relief from the medical treatment that is provided by these medical isotopes.

At least 14 million Americans are diagnosed and treated with medical isotopes each year. While I believe America should continue in the vein of developing policies consistent with our nonproliferation goals, we must make sure that these and future patients do not lose access to the radiopharmaceuticals. We cannot move forward in a way toward nonproliferation and wrest the responsibility, not knowing full well what the future might be for these patients and their needs.

I support the provision in the underlying bill, as was mentioned by my colleague from North Carolina, that was carefully crafted in the committee to take into consideration all of these needs, making sure that we are recognizing the sensitivity and the caution that needs to exist and yet recognizing that the development of technologies and new information and medical treatments are something that are vital to these 14 million Americans.

The provision in the underlying bill permits the export of the highly enriched uranium used only for the production of the medical isotopes until a low-enriched uranium alternative is commercially viable and available. We know that those are also issues. We talk about the reimportation of those isotopes, making sure that the production of them is something that is going to continue in order to make sure that the access to these pharmaceuticals is available.

This provision is balanced, it is fair, and it is supported by the nuclear medicine community, including those in my home State of Arkansas. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Vote against it so that patients do not lose their access to these very necessary drugs.

I don't know that my colleagues have mentioned all of those in support of this effort: The American College of Nuclear Physicians, the American College of Radiology, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals, the National Association of Cancer Patients, the National Association of Nuclear Pharmacies, the Nuclear Energy Institute, and the Society of Nuclear Medicine.

We have an opportunity to stay on course with something that has been negotiated and very thoroughly vetted in the underlying bill that will keep us on the right track and make sure that these 14 million Americans and their families will continue to have the access to these pharmaceuticals that they need while we continue to work forward in the manner which we can to make sure that all of the safety and caution that needs to be there is there, will remain there, while we still enjoy the unbelievable technologies that have been discovered in recent medicine.

I thank the Senator from North Carolina for yielding. I do encourage my colleagues to rise in opposition to the amendment so that we can go back to what is in the underlying bill. I think it will prove well for all of those who suffer from many diseases that we can treat with these medical isotopes.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise with a heavy heart to honor the lives of three very special Arkansans; Army Specialists Phillip N. Sayles, Tyler L. Creamean, and Dustin C. Fisher. They will be remembered by their family and friends as loving souls who lived their lives with energy and passion; they will be remembered by their Nation as dedicated soldiers who bravely answered their Nation's call to service and gave their lives in the defense of our freedom.

Those who knew Phillip Sayles often spoke of his quiet demeanor and the way he showed determination whenever there was a task at hand, focusing on getting the job done and never complaining. He called the central Arkansas town of Jacksonville home, and attended nearby North Pulaski High School. In school, he was active in the ROTC program, where his leadership skills and discipline quickly distinguished him with the qualities of a soldier. Spc. Sayles transferred to Cabot High School for his senior year and, upon his graduation in 1997, enlisted in the U.S. Army.

Despite being born in Texas, Tyler Creamean also spent most of his childhood in Jacksonville. Known for his energy and his light-hearted nature, he had a personality that allowed him to make friends with nearly everyone he encountered. He was also known for playing pranks and causing mischief but did not have a mean bone in his body. Instead, he had a gift for lightening dark moods and bringing a quick smile to the faces of those around him when they needed it most. Spc. Creamean attended Jacksonville High School but left after his sophomore year to join the Youth ChalleNGe Program, a 22-week program sponsored by the Arkansas National Guard to help young adults develop as leaders, earn their G.E.D. and acquire the skills necessary to succeed in life. It was an opportunity for Spc. Creamean to learn more about himself and what he wanted in life, and he did just that. He went on to earn the program's spirit award and shortly after his graduation, he joined the Army in April of 2003.

Spc. Sayles and Spc. Creamean were both a part of the Army's 25th Infantry Division and spent time at Fort Lewis in Washington prior to their service in Operation Iraqi Freedom. While in Iraq, Spc. Creamean served with the 73rd Engineer Company and conducted more than 600 patrols, sweeping roads for explosive devices and clearing the way so that fellow soldiers as well as Iraqi civilians could pass through safely. In late February, he returned home on leave and on February 24, his 21st birthday, he married the love of his life, his girlfriend KaMisha. KaMisha, also a soldier, was stationed at Fort Still, OK, and had begun preparations for her deployment to Iraq. As a result, Spc. Creamean now set his sights on reenlistment, so that his new wife would not have to serve in Iraq without him nearby.

Dustin Fisher was born in the Northwest Arkansas town of Fort Smith. He spent his childhood as many children do; hanging out with his friends, playing sports, and making life difficult for his sister. He was a fun-loving person who had a gift for story-telling and was always quick with a sarcastic remark to lighten a conversation. If looking for him, he could often be found cruising around town in his pink pickup truck, a gift from his father that he used to draw attention and meet girls.

Upon his graduation from Van Buren High School in 2001, Spc. Fisher tried a year of college but found it was not for him. It became apparent that he wanted to make something of himself, so he followed his father and brother into military service. Shortly after joining the U.S. Army, he was sent down to Fort Stewart, GA. At Fort Stewart, he not only seemed to find his niche in life, but he also met his soul mate, a young woman named Alicia. Her presence made him truly happy and two were married just days before his deployment to Iraq in late January.

While serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Spc. Fisher's mission often entailed escorting dignitaries across the war-torn country. Although it placed him in ever-present danger, he downplayed its significance to comfort his family and friends. Although he had originally thought of re-enlisting, he now considered returning home to be with Alicia and potentially become a firefighter. He had last been home for Christmas, and was looking forward to returning for a 2-week leave in late June.

Despite the many differences between these three Arkansans, each was a true soldier in every way. Not only did they share a love for their country, but they embodied a selfless courage in the name of freedom that continually put them in harm's way. One week in late May would ensure their fates would forever be intertwined. Early on May 22, while routinely sweeping a stretch of the main highway south of Mosul, Spc. Creamean's military vehicle hit a roadside bomb that killed him and a fellow soldier. On May 24, while escorting a high-ranking Iraqi official, Spc. Fisher was one of three soldiers killed when a car bomb exploded near their convoy. On May 28, Spc. Sayles was checking for weapons in three cars that had been pulled over by American troops in Mosul. An improvised explosive device was detonated nearby, killing him and wounding 21 others; including 13 American troops and 8 Iraqi civilians.

Words cannot adequately express the sorrow felt in the hearts of the families and loved ones of Phillip Sayles, Tyler Creamean, and Dustin Fisher, but I pray they can find solace in the courageous way they lived their lives. Although they may no longer be with us, their spirit will forever live on in the examples they set and the many lives they touched. My thoughts and prayers go out to their families, their friends, and to all those who knew and loved them.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Long Term Care and Retirement Security Act of 2005 with the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and my good friend from Iowa, Senator Charles Grassley.

The introduction of our bill coincides nicely with the debate we are about to have in the Senate Finance Committee about Medicaid. Almost one-third of Medicaid costs can be attributed to long term care of the elderly and disabled.

The first of the 77 million Baby Boomers turn 65 years old in 2011. I believe that Congress needs to help them prepare for their futures now by investing in a private long term care policy. We must also make them aware that many long term care services are not covered by private health insurance or by Medicare. Historically, long term care costs have been paid first by families out-of-pocket and then by Medicaid for those who qualify and ``spend down'' to the income and assets limits.

Our legislation will create a tax credit for caregivers and individuals faced with the immediate expense of long-term care. The bill would also help Americans better prepare for their future needs by providing a tax deduction to help consumers pay long-term care insurance premiums for policies that meet strong consumer protection standards. Such plans will cover both medical and non-medical supportive care and personal care assistance so that elders can age at home.

Unless we encourage Americans to plan ahead, demand and costs for long term care services could deplete their savings and exhaust government programs. These tax incentives are a good first step forward to avoiding this problem.

I believe this bill should be seriously considered during the Medicaid debate. States all over the country are being impacted by decreased revenues and are being forced to make tough choices. At the same time, enrollment in Medicaid is increasing.

In fact, compared to other states, enrollment in Medicaid in Arkansas is growing at one of the fastest rates. Monthly Medicaid enrollment grew by 9.6 percent from June 2002 to June 2003, while the national average was 5.9 percent.

This legislation should also be a part of our debate on Social Security and retirement security. Long term care insurance should be a part of every family's retirement plan. Nursing home care is expensive, and not all state Medicaid programs pay for long term care within an individual's home.

I urge my colleagues to become cosponsors of this important legislation and work with Senator Grassley and me to pass it as soon as possible.

Mr. President. I rise today in support of Senate Resolution 39.

This resolution acknowledges a dark period in the history of our Nation and the history of this institution. It was a time of racial intolerance, hatred and violence, that took the lives of 4,742 people, mostly African Americans, between 1882 and 1968. It was also a time when this body failed to fulfill its moral and constitutional responsibilities to pass significant legislation

which may have prevented many of these deaths.

During this time, there were 284 victims of lynching in my home State of Arkansas. It was a crime that was documented in over 46 States. To properly punish those responsible, Congress tried on over 200 occasions to pass antilynching legislation but on each occasion it came to the Senate floor, it was defeated.

While we can never adequately express the deep sympathy and regret in our hearts, I am hopeful this long overdue acknowledgment and apology brings some sense of solace to the descendants of victims of lynching. This was a moment in our nation's history that was at odds with the principles upon which we were founded, and a moment at odds with our future. When we acknowledge the misdeeds of our past and demonstrate a willingness to learn the lessons from those actions, we build upon the many things that unite us all to make our Nation stronger and a better place to live.

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

Mr. President, I want to pay a tremendous compliment with a huge sense of gratitude to my colleague from North Carolina for her tirelessness with regard to this issue. She has been such an incredible fighter against the issue of hunger among Americans and really among her fellow man globally. I compliment her and thank her so much for the opportunity to work with her on something in which she has been a true leader. I am looking forward to many more things that we can do together, but she has made a huge effort in eliminating hunger.

We are here today to refocus ourselves and rededicate ourselves to bringing about a tremendous awareness to hunger as it exists in our Nation and certainly as it exists among our fellow man across the globe. I thank the Senator from North Carolina for all of her hard work.

I do come to the floor to join my colleague from North Carolina on an issue that I take very seriously. Thirty-six million Americans, including 13 million children, live on the verge of hunger. It is absolutely phenomenal to me, growing up as a farmer's daughter in the Mississippi Delta where there was such plenty in the fields, as I drive past them, to think that there are Americans, particularly American children, who go hungry every day not because we don't have the means but because we don't organize ourselves and set the priority of making sure these future generations, the future leaders of this great Nation, can at least have their tummies full enough that they can pay attention in school, grow healthy to become the kind of leaders that we want and need for our great Nation.

Today is National Hunger Awareness Day. It is a time when Americans are called to remember the hungry children and adults living across our Nation. We have all just come from our weekly caucus lunches. We have had plenty at this time. We are thinking about the opportunities that lie ahead of us, particularly the fun things that children do in the summertime. Yet we forget that there are many who have not had a good lunch today, or perhaps we forget that as school is letting out, those children who normally get a nutritious meal at school will not be getting those nutritious meals during the summertime while school is out.

Most importantly, it is a day when we are called to put our words into action, to help end hunger in our communities and across this great land.

At this time last year, Senators Smith, Durbin, Dole, and myself formed the Senate Hunger Caucus to forge a bipartisan effort to end hunger in our Nation and around the world. I am so proud to be working with these three other Senators in moving this caucus forward. Our staffs have worked tirelessly in bringing us together, along with the other Members of the Senate, in order to make a difference. We are working with local, State, and national antihunger organizations to raise awareness about hunger, build partnerships, and build solutions to end hunger.

We have many challenges that face our Nation, and so many challenges that face this body itself. Yet this is one problem we know has an answer. And we know how to end hunger.

Recently I introduced, with Senators Durbin, Smith, and Lugar, the Hunger-Free Communities Act of 2005. This bill calls for a renewed national commitment to ending hunger in the United States by 2015, reaffirms our congressional commitment to protecting the funding and integrity of Federal food and nutrition programs, and it creates a national grant program to support community-based antihunger efforts. I urge all of our colleagues to support this worthy and commonsense legislation. It sets a goal for a monumental concern and problem that we have in this Nation. It presents the answer, and it sets the time in which we want to reach that goal.

Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to talk about the 36 million Americans, including 13 million children, who live on the verge of hunger.

Some people may ask--what can I do to help end hunger in America? I want to talk about some of the ways Americans can help join the hunger- relief effort. Acting on this call to feed the hungry requires the effort of every American and every sector of the economy.

The backbone of this effort is the willingness of Congress and the American people to support the Federal food and nutrition programs. These programs provide an essential safety net to working Americans, preventing the most vulnerable among us from suffering, and even dying, from malnutrition. Our continued investment in these programs is vital to the health of this nation.

The most significant of these programs, the Food Stamp Program, provides nutritious food to over 23 million Americans a year. More Americans find themselves in need of this program every year. Despite this growing need, the Administration proposes to cut the Food Stamp Program by $500 million over the next 5 years by cutting more than 300,000 low-income people off the program in an average month.

I understand our current budget constraints. However, even in these tight fiscal times, I believe that we must maintain our commitment to feed the hungry.

Therefore, we must first protect programs like the Food Stamp Program, the National School Breakfast and Lunch Program, Summer Feeding Program, WIC, and the Child and Adult Care Food Program. I urge Americans to contact their congressional representatives to voice their support for these programs. I urge my colleagues to support these programs and protect them from cuts and structural changes that will undermine their ability to serve our Nation's most vulnerable citizens.

In addition to the Federal food programs, eliminating hunger in America requires the help of community organizations. Government programs provide a basis of support, but they cannot do the work alone. Community and faith-based organizations are essential to locating and rooting out hunger wherever it persists. We rely on the work of local food banks, food pantries, soup kitchens, and community action centers across America to go where government cannot. I will do all I can to provide the resources these community organizations need to continue with the difficult but necessary work they perform.

Private corporations and small businesses also have a role to play in eliminating hunger in America. Our corporations and small businesses generate most of our Nation's wealth and have throughout history supported many of our greatest endeavors. Many corporations and businesses already contribute to efforts to eliminate hunger, and I hope others will begin to participate as opportunities to do so present themselves in the future.

A great example of how businesses and non-profits can partner to feed hungry people occurred this past Friday in Little Rock. Arkansas-based Tyson Foods and Riceland Foods, along with Jonesboro's Kraft Foods Post Division and Nestle's Prepared Foods Facility, donated truck loads of food as a special donation in honor of National Hunger Awareness Day. This food will go to the Arkansas Rice Depot, Potluck, Inc. and the Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance, which represents six food banks located across Arkansas. These organizations will in turn use the food to help feed hungry Arkansans. I am grateful to these companies and non-profit organizations for their leadership in this effort to feed the over 450,000 Arkansans who have limited access to food.

Ending hunger in America requires the commitment of individual Americans. Our greatest national strength is the power that comes from individual initiatives and the collective will of the American people. I believe we are called by a higher power to care for our fellow men and women, and as a part of my Christian faith I know we are called to serve the poor and the hungry. I know it is a common denominator among almost all of our faiths that it is those, the poor and the hungry, the orphaned and the widowed, whom we are here, as our fellow man, to take care of, to help to lift them up.

If we believe in this call, we must live it every day--in our schools and in our homes, in our workplaces, our places of worship, in our volunteering, and, yes, in our prayers. This personal responsibility is a great one, but it holds tremendous power. It is a common denominator that can bring us together, the one problem that we all agree on and to which we know there is a solution. For as we have seen throughout American history, when individuals in this Nation bind together to serve a common cause, they can achieve the greatest of accomplishments. By sharing the many blessings and resources our Nation provides, I am confident that we can alleviate hunger at home and abroad.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, while serving as a Congressmen from Texas in the 1980s, Mickey Leland said, ``I cannot get used to hunger and desperate poverty in our plentiful land. There is no reason for it, there is no excuse for it, and it is time that we as a nation put an end to it.''

Over 15 years have passed since Mr. Leland delivered those powerful remarks, and we have yet to achieve his goal of ending hunger in America. In many respects, we have only slipped backwards. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 36.3 million Americans, including 13.3 million children, experienced hunger or food insecurity in 2003. These figures, startling on their own, have been increasing steadily since 1999. We need to reverse this trend.

Mr. President, I rise today to pledge my commitment to this cause. Today, I am pleased to join Senators Durbin, Smith, and Lugar in introducing the Hunger-Free Communities Act of 2005. This bill establishes a goal of ending hunger in America by 2015. The bill also supports preserving the entitlement framework of the federal food programs. Our federal food programs are vitally important to the millions of working Americans that are trying to make ends meet and the millions of children who need access to nutritious food.

In addition, this bill commits our fullest efforts to protecting the discretionary food program from budget cuts that would prevent these programs from addressing identified need. Lastly, the bill provides needed resources to non-profit organizations that fight to reduce hunger every day. The grant programs this bill establishes will promote new partnerships and help build the infrastructure we believe is necessary to root out hunger in every corner of our nation.

Almost a year ago, I joined Senators Smith, Durbin and Dole in founding the bipartisan Senate Hunger Caucus to address the growing problem of hunger in America and around the world. The Senate Hunger Caucus currently has 34 members and we are working together to raise awareness about these issues and help create solutions to the hunger problem.

While there are many difficult problems we work to solve in Congress, hunger is a problem that has a solution. This bill is an example of our bipartisan effort to develop solutions to the hunger problem in America. I am proud to work with my colleagues to support ending hunger for the millions of Americans who find themselves without access to one of the most basic needs--nutritious food.

Mr. President, while serving as a Congressmen from Texas in the 1980s, Mickey Leland said, ``I cannot get used to hunger and desperate poverty in our plentiful land. There is no reason for it, there is no excuse for it, and it is time that we as a nation put an end to it.''

Over 15 years have passed since Mr. Leland delivered those powerful remarks, and we have yet to achieve his goal of ending hunger in America. In many respects, we have only slipped backwards. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 36.3 million Americans, including 13.3 million children, experienced hunger or food insecurity in 2003. These figures, startling on their own, have been increasing steadily since 1999. We need to reverse this trend.

Mr. President, I rise today to pledge my commitment to this cause. Today, I am pleased to join Senators Durbin, Smith, and Lugar in introducing the Hunger-Free Communities Act of 2005. This bill establishes a goal of ending hunger in America by 2015. The bill also supports preserving the entitlement framework of the federal food programs. Our federal food programs are vitally important to the millions of working Americans that are trying to make ends meet and the millions of children who need access to nutritious food.

In addition, this bill commits our fullest efforts to protecting the discretionary food program from budget cuts that would prevent these programs from addressing identified need. Lastly, the bill provides needed resources to non-profit organizations that fight to reduce hunger every day. The grant programs this bill establishes will promote new partnerships and help build the infrastructure we believe is necessary to root out hunger in every corner of our nation.

Almost a year ago, I joined Senators Smith, Durbin and Dole in founding the bipartisan Senate Hunger Caucus to address the growing problem of hunger in America and around the world. The Senate Hunger Caucus currently has 34 members and we are working together to raise awareness about these issues and help create solutions to the hunger problem.

While there are many difficult problems we work to solve in Congress, hunger is a problem that has a solution. This bill is an example of our bipartisan effort to develop solutions to the hunger problem in America. I am proud to work with my colleagues to support ending hunger for the millions of Americans who find themselves without access to one of the most basic needs--nutritious food.

Mr. President, I certainly do appreciate my colleagues' patience this evening. I know that it is late. I apologize for keeping people here late. I find it quite ironic that I come to the floor this late in the evening under the same purposes as my colleague from Delaware, Senator Carper. Most of it is out of disappointment in the lack of response from this administration on an issue that I think is absolutely critical to the fabric of this Nation, critical to our families, and critical to our children.

I have asked that the Senate take time tonight to debate the nomination of Robert Portman to be the U.S. Trade Representative to highlight some of the issues related particularly to Saudi Arabia that I believe deserve more time and attention than they have been getting. I certainly expect Congressman Portman will become involved with these issues in his new position.

I support the nomination of Congressman Portman to be our country's top trade negotiator. I have met with him. I have served with him. I believe he brings the right skills to the position and that he will do a very good job at representing our Nation and its vital interest in that position.

I look forward to working closely with him on many issues in the years ahead that are important to my constituents, as I did with his predecessor. But today I would like to focus on one issue in particular that is critically important to me, and that is the children of this Nation.

In May of 2004, I wrote a letter to then-Ambassador Robert Zoellick, with four of my Finance Committee colleagues, raising objections to Saudi Arabia's accession to the WTO. Over the past several years, our Government has been negotiating a bilateral trade agreement with Saudi Arabia that I understand is now very close to completion. It is also the only major hurdle which prevents Saudi Arabia from being granted favored trading status with the United States and other WTO member nations.

In our letter, we specifically raised concerns regarding Saudi Arabia's participation in the Arab League boycott of Israel and the appropriateness of our Government supporting its admission as a result, given that current law requires the United States to vigorously oppose states that implement that boycott.

We also highlighted concerns regarding Saudi Arabia's efforts to stop the financing of terrorist activities from sources within Saudi Arabia.

Finally, we objected to Saudi Arabia's continued refusal to respect the rights of American women and girls who may never have a meaningful opportunity to leave the Kingdom even as adults. My concerns about the rights of American citizens is one I feel deeply about on a personal level, as a proud citizen of this great Nation, as a mother, and certainly as a Senator from the great State of Arkansas, with tremendous responsibilities to those I serve.

Needless to say, when I received a response to our letter last week, 11 months after we sent the letter to the administration--we received a response last week from our Acting Trade Representative 2 days before Congressman Portman's confirmation hearing--it only referenced the boycott and did not make one reference to the other two issues. I was deeply troubled, and I hope others will be, too.

I was even more alarmed to read press reports about our trade negotiators working around the clock to finish the agreement prior to the meeting between President Bush and Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah in Crawford, TX, this last Monday.

I want to start at the beginning of this story regarding the rights of American citizens because I think this issue is very important. Over the past several years, I have worked with Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana and others to highlight our Government's failure to aggressively defend the rights of American women and children in Saudi Arabia. This issue came to my attention because Heidi Al-Omary from Jonesboro, AR, was abducted by her Saudi-born father in 1997. Saudi Arabia continues to invoke its law and religion to detain my constituent in violation of U.S. law and a valid court order.

Heidi was abducted more than 7 years ago, and she has been stuck there ever since because the Saudi Government does not believe Heidi's father, who is a wanted fugitive in our country, has done anything wrong. This man used our legal system to gain access by pressing the judge for unsupervised visitation, knowing full well that the first unsupervised visit and the child would be gone. Her mother knew that. Her mother argued with the judge, and the judge said: I have to give this man the visitation rights. On the first unsupervised visit in the dead of the night, that woman lost her child. She was taken from her. She did not see her child for 5 years. I do not know how we can stand by and let that happen.

I attended a Little League game with my boys recently. I sat in that field and I thought how blessed I am to be a part of these children's lives. Then I thought of this poor woman whose child was taken from her against our laws, and for 5 years she missed those precious years of that child's life.

Earlier tonight, waiting on these votes, I sat in a dark room with my children as they said their prayers. That woman has not had that. She has not experienced that blessing because her child was taken from her. She was only allowed to see that child 2 years ago, under restrictive supervision.

That is not what we are about in this country. We are about standing up for our children and the citizens of this great land. We have an opportunity to do it, and we should.

Heidi's mother Margaret McClain resides in my home State, in Jonesboro, AR. In July of 2002, Ms. McClain was permitted to travel to Saudi Arabia to visit her daughter. She was brought there under the assumption that she would have a visit with her child. When she arrived, the visit had been moved. She traveled through the desert to some unknown place where she finally got to meet with her daughter with people breathing down her neck. After 5 years, when her child was taken from her in the dead of the night, she finally gets to see her. It is unbelievable to me that that child was taken from this country in 1997 and it took us until 2002 to ask for her return.

Ms. McClain spent 6 days traveling to and from Saudi Arabia, yet Mr. Al-Omary permitted her to spend only a few hours with Heidi during that trip. Prior to that visitation, Ms. McClain had not seen or spoken to her child since she was taken from her from the United States 5 years previously.

During Ms. McClain's first trip to Saudi Arabia in July of 2002, Mr. Al-Omary acted in a verbally abusive manner toward her, took steps to disrupt Ms. McClain's planned visit with her daughter and, in addition, officials at United States diplomatic installations in Saudi Arabia reported at the time that Mr. Al-Omary was uncooperative in arranging United States Consular visits with Heidi.

At one point following Ms. McClain's visit to Saudi Arabia, Mr. Al- Omary demanded the United States Government send him a letter of appreciation for allowing Ms. McClain to visit her daughter who he had kidnapped before he would authorize future United States State Department welfare-and-whereabout visits with their daughter Heidi.

Thankfully, our Government did not send Mr. Al-Omary a thank-you note, and a subsequent welfare-and-whereabout visit did occur after pressure was applied by United States and Saudi officials.

In May of 2003, after months of preparation by Ms. McClain, my office, and the Vice President, Ms. McClain and Heidi's two adult siblings were permitted to travel to Saudi Arabia to see Heidi a second time. Ms. McClain was permitted greater access to her daughter compared to the first visit, but Mr. Al-Omary refused to grant a simple request to spend time alone with her daughter. Ms. McClain is now making preparations for a third trip to Saudi Arabia to visit her daughter again this summer.

I believe in communicating. I believe in working hard to get along. Visitation and communication between the left-behind parent and an abducted child is important and should be encouraged. However, after more than 7 years we ought to do a little bit more than just talking about more travel dates and more plane tickets. We should be talking about bringing a young American citizen home.

For too long, it seems, the U.S. Government's goal in difficult cases such as this has been to simply maximize visitation and contact between U.S. parents and their abducted children in an effort to avoid confrontation with foreign governments. We know there are sensitive situations and sensitive relationships with countries all across the globe, but you do not gain respect until you demand respect in the relationships that you hold.

We in no way have acted aggressively enough in demanding the respect for the laws of our land and the citizens, particularly Heidi, who are being held against their will.

It is safe to say that I am not satisfied with the approach of just another plane ticket and just another travel date. I firmly believe our policy should be aggressively to seek recovery of abducted children, especially when they are taken to a country in which women, regardless of their age, never achieve independence--a right we cherish as Americans and we fight for.

In Saudi Arabia, women and girls are under the complete control of their fathers, husbands, or other close male relatives their entire lives. According to the State Department's Country Report on Human Rights Practices most recent edition which was released in

February of this year, all women in the country are prohibited from driving and were dependent upon males for transportation. Likewise, women must obtain written permission from a male relative or guardian before the government would allow them to travel abroad. The requirement to obtain permission from a male relative or guardian applied also to foreign women married to citizens of Saudi Arabia and to the minor and single adult daughters of Saudi fathers.

The report goes on to say that women have few political or social rights and were not treated as equal members of society. Women are restricted in their use of public facilities when men are present. For example, women must enter city buses by separate rear entrances and sit in specially designated sections.

Further, under Saudi law, women may not be admitted to a hospital for medical treatment without the consent of a male relative. However, according to the report, this was not always enforced, thank goodness.

Perhaps most troubling to me is that arranged marriages at an early age are socially acceptable in Saudi Arabia. Heidi is a young lady. She left here as a child, abducted, taken against her will, and against our law. This summer, she turns 13. I am increasingly concerned that she may be deprived of any meaningful choice about who she marries and when she bears a child. Ultimately, Heidi's ability or inability to exercise control over these most personal matters may very well determine if she is ever able to return to her rightful home in the United States.

I recognize the issue of international child abduction is not limited to Saudi Arabia. However, the status of female abductees in the Kingdom is quite unique since, under Saudi law and custom, women have very limited autonomy and may never, ever have a meaningful opportunity to leave, even as adults.

As I mentioned earlier, I focused my attention on this issue because I don't believe our Government is doing everything it can to stand up for the rights of American citizens such as Heidi. After studying the history of Heidi's case and others, I have sadly concluded that our own Government has failed to stand up for Heidi and others such as her. Perhaps most telling in this case is that even though Heidi is a U.S. citizen and was kidnapped in August of 1997, our Government did not formally ask that she be returned until October of 2002. To me, that is inexcusable. It is why I think our Government owes this young girl an extra effort now, when she is most vulnerable, about to turn 13, about to have life-threatening decisions made for her without her consent, and without any of her emotional input.

To bring greater attention to this issue, in June of 2002, all 13 women Senators who were Members at the time sent President Bush a letter, asking him to take up the cause of American women and children held against their will in Saudi Arabia. I received a response to this letter from the then-Secretary of State Colin Powell in November of 2003. And that was 18 months after 13 women Senators wrote to this administration specifically addressed to the President of the United States. I only heard from the Secretary of State after I had placed a hold on the nomination of James Oberwetter to be our Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. In his letter, Secretary Powell stated that the State Department is committed to recovering abducted children and will continue to seek the return of abducted children such as Heidi.

Over the past several years, I have also met with multiple members of the administration, submitted written questions to nominees to the positions in the administration who have jurisdiction over these matters.

In 2002, in 2003, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Maura Harty stated in meetings with me, in public testimony, in response to my written questions, that the return of abducted children is a priority and it is the State Department's goal and our Government will continue to press to recover abducted children.

In November of 2003, now United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia James Oberwetter stated in response to my written questions that the release of Americans who have been abducted to Saudi Arabia is a priority and that he will raise the case of Heidi Al-Omary at the earliest opportunity. That was 2003.

In January of 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated in written responses to my written questions that she would raise the case of Heidi Al-Omary at the earliest opportunity and that the return of abducted children is truly a priority.

In April of 2005, USTR nominee Robert Portman made a commitment to me at his confirmation hearing this month and in written responses to my written questions to work with me in collaboration with the State Department to address this issue.

It sounds like more plane tickets. It sounds like just more dates and more plans for visitation, eliminating that mother's opportunity to share the kind of time with her child that each one of us has enjoyed.

Finally, last week, I wrote President Bush prior to his meeting on Monday with Crown Prince Abdullah in Crawford, TX, asking him to raise this issue. I do not know who else to write in the administration. I do not know who else to appeal to. I do not know who else to sit around waiting for an answer from on an issue that could not be more important, our children--not just my children, not just your children, Mr. President, not just the children of other Senators, but children of this Nation.

I continue to be in contact with the White House, and I welcome the opportunity to work with them in resolving this matter. But as my colleague from Delaware came to the floor, and having asked for the last 2 or 3 years for a working relationship that might bring about results, I come to the floor tonight with a heavy heart, disappointed in the response I have gotten over the last 3 years but hopeful, because a mother's heart is always hopeful, just as the mother of that child's heart is hopeful every time I talk to her. Every time I talk to her, she never gives up.

I know officers at the State Department who have responsibility for abduction and wrongful retention cases work hard. I know they do. I know they care about the children involved. I am not doubting that. I am not frustrated with them because I know their hands are tied. They take their instructions from higher up. And higher up does not seem to feel like this is a priority. But I am speaking out to express my profound frustration with the lack of results in this case and our Government's apparent policy of not rocking the boat when difficult-to- solve cases like Heidi's linger in limbo indefinitely. I know our Government has said repeatedly that the return of abducted children is a priority, but it is just not a big enough priority. I do not think we have done everything we can in this case, which brings me back to the nomination now pending before the Senate.

When countries such as Saudi Arabia ask our Government to grant favored trading status, I think it is only appropriate to step back and consider all facets of our relationship and foreign policy goals before we hand them the cookie jar.

I have already discussed in some detail the letter I wrote to Ambassador Zoellick in May of last year. Since that time, in September of 2004, I think it is important to note that the Secretary of State has designated Saudi Arabia as a country of particular concern in the State Department's annual International Religious Freedom Report. So according to the administration, Saudi Arabia's record in this area is getting worse, not better. This status is reserved for a handful of governments that have ``engaged in or tolerate particularly severe violations of religious freedom.'' Respect, Mr. President, respect for our faith and for other faiths--just as we try desperately in our country to respect those.

According to the State Department's report on Saudi Arabia:

Freedom of religion does not exist. Citizens are denied the

freedom to choose or change their religion, and noncitizens

practice their beliefs under severe restrictions.

Further, the report states that Saudi custom officials routinely open mail and shipments to search for contraband, which includes the Bible.

As my colleagues may also be aware, under this designation, the President is supposed to choose from a menu of sanctions stipulated by Congress, which raises questions in my mind about why we should be sanctioning

Saudi Arabia on one hand while trying to reward them with a trade deal on the other without evidence of meaningful improvement.

When I inquired this week about the status of sanctions on Saudi Arabia under this law, I was told that even though the deadline established in the statute to make a decision passed on March 15, no decision from this administration has been announced.

I truly regret that Congress does not have the opportunity under current law to vote on a bilateral trade agreement relating to Saudi Arabia's accession to the WTO. I think that could make a real difference with a country such as Saudi Arabia, and it would significantly enhance our Nation's ability to make meaningful progress on many of our foreign policy goals.

To put this into a little different context, I point out what I see as a direct contradiction in our trade policy specific to congressional review of certain countries. I will use the country of Ukraine as a good example. Many of you remember the moving address before a joint session of Congress by the brave new President of the Ukraine just a few weeks ago. We heard him. In his address, he asked, pleaded that Congress graduate his country from what is known as Jackson-Vanik--a procedural step taken by Congress before any former Communist country receives the most favored trading relationship with the United States; a procedural step that is proving to at least get the attention of the Vietnamese Government, that is working desperately within the next year, hopefully; a procedural step that Saudi Arabia does not have to overcome; a procedural step unavailable to Members of Congress to have their legitimate concerns addressed.

We will not have a vote when it comes to their being rewarded with membership to the WTO. And sadly, the only votes we really have much of any say over are these nominations, when we put holds on the names of very capable individuals who want to serve this country. But without that vote, our concerns will be left to Congressman Portman and the administration to raise. So that is why I am here in the dead of the night, to put into the Record and, hopefully, into the hearts and minds of the few people who are left listening that these nominations are important, and we do believe in these individuals to have great capabilities, but oftentimes they are not allowed the authority to exercise that.

Given all these issues I have highlighted--the Arab boycott of Israel; terrorism financing, which is costing us more and more in Iraq; the lack of religious freedom; and the lack of respect Saudi Arabia has shown for our laws and its citizens--for the life of me, I cannot understand why we are in such a hurry to walk down the aisle on this trade agreement. What is going on?

Most of the Members of this body know me pretty well. I am not trying to be ugly. But I think someone must stand up and tell the truth. Our policy with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is go along to get along, even when the rights of American citizens and fundamental principles such as equality and freedom that define what is good about our Nation are sacrificed.

As a proud mother of twin boys, I try hard to make sure they understand that actions in life are based on priorities. They are based on choices that each of us has to make. But without a doubt, the choices we make and the actions we take have real and substantive consequences and can have ramifications far beyond a single issue or event. I try so hard to teach them that friendships are based on mutual trust and respect.

To all of those nations across this globe, who are our neighbors, we want desperately to build on our friendships. But if those friendships are to be long lasting and to be worthwhile, they must absolutely be built on respect.

I do not advocate severing our relationship with Saudi Arabia. Neighbors and friends are important to have. Whether you grew up in rural America, as I did, and depend on them to help you bring your crops in or to raise your children or to just get you through the month, it is important to be a good neighbor, and it is important to have good neighbors. But it is hard to have that relationship if you don't ask of them the kind of respect that allows you to depend on one another.

As I said, I don't advocate in severing our relationship with Saudi Arabia. I hope we can reach out. But until this administration takes those steps, starts to answer our letters and our phone calls, and makes a few attempts in reaching out to Saudi Arabia, the leaders of that nation, to express to them how important our children are to us, we have a problem. I do believe we need to step back and fully consider the values we cherish as Americans as we move forward into the future. This is a very real place where it has to begin.

I appreciate the patience of the Chair, and I yield the floor.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, four years ago, as projected budget surpluses reached over $5 trillion, Congress passed a tax cut bill that began the process of addressing the unfairness of the estate tax. Now in 2005, the surpluses have long since disappeared, and Congress has made no further progress on estate tax relief for America's family- owned farms and businesses--many of whom still pay this tax today.

Earlier this month, the House once again voted for a complete repeal of the estate tax. I myself have consistently supported complete repeal, I have voted in favor of full repeal on multiple occasions, and I will continue to support full repeal should that option be brought to the floor of the U.S. Senate for a vote in the future. Nevertheless, given the persistent state of our more than $400 billion annual deficits, it is increasingly doubtful such a bill could obtain the necessary votes in the Senate for passage right now.

I'm not alone in feeling that the votes just aren't there for full repeal. President of the U.S. Chamber, Tom Donahue, was quoted this week stating that the Chamber would likely support a good compromise coming out of the Senate. We all understand the state of affairs and I want to echo Mr. Donahue's sentiments. We must work together to bring relief to those that this tax affects most--family-owned farms and businesses.

It is the family-owned farms and businesses across Arkansas and all across this Nation that serve as the backbone of our rural communities. To put it simply, they are the economic engines of rural America. It is the family-owned businesses that provide jobs, wages, and health care for my constituents. It is the family-owned businesses that sponsor Little League, they pay local taxes, they are a part of the community. They live there. And that's why family-owned businesses aren't the ones that are shutting down and heading off-shore. When we force family businesses to spend valuable assets on estate planning and life insurance rather than on investing and expanding their businesses, we are putting them at a disadvantage to their publically-traded competitors. I, for one, intend to fight for these family businesses, fight for these communities, and fight for the jobs in rural America.

In the wake of the House vote and the real lack of votes here in the Senate to pass a complete repeal bill, talk of compromise has raised speculation of higher exemptions and/or lower tax rates as an alternative to complete repeal.

Quite frankly, I believe these compromise approaches are incomplete solutions to the problems faced by family-owned farms and businesses. Certainly, I understand that a higher exemption and lower rates will be considered as part of a compromise. But both are expensive and inefficient methods to specifically reach family-owned farms and businesses.

Given the restraints of our budget deficits today, I ask, how can we raise the exemption high enough, or lower the rates low enough, to provide necessary relief for family farms and businesses?

We could not get there in 2001 when projected surpluses reached $5 trillion. What makes us think we can solve this problem today with projected deficits totaling $2.6 trillion in the President's budget?

We took these approaches in 2001, and family-owned farms and businesses still face this tax today, so we should be leery of any compromise approach that considers only rates and exemptions. They were incomplete compromise solutions then--and they will be tomorrow.

In this environment, I feel we are seriously losing ground on coming to a fair and final resolution of this issue. In the meantime, the current state of the law places many family-owned businesses in an extremely uncertain and precarious position--a law that taxes family- owned businesses today, then repeals the tax in 2010, and then snaps back to pre-2001 law in 2011 is simply not responsible on our part. This amounts to nothing more than a nightmarish rollercoaster ride for the businesses we intended to help!

So, we need to set some priorities and go about the business of lifting this tax from these family-owned farms and businesses first.

On the subject of setting priorities, I would like to relay a statistic that may startle my colleagues a bit. The IRS Statistics of Income for 2003 show that only 7.4 percent of the estate tax is paid on ``farm assets, closely held stock, or other non-corporate business assets.'' These 7.4 percent should be our first priority in any compromise the estate tax. The remaining 92.6 percent of assets--such as widely-held stock, bonds, insurance proceeds, art, and real estate partnerships--should not drive or dictate our actions at the expense of America's family-owned farms and businesses.

This simple statistic helps lead us to a targeted solution which should cost less and immediately help those we intended to help in the first place. Today, I introduce the ``Estate Tax Repeal Acceleration for Family-Owned Businesses and Farms Act''--or ExTRA. Under ExTRA, an estate may voluntarily elect to exclude an unlimited portion of family business assets from the estate tax. The carryover basis rules will apply to these business assets and no estate tax will be paid on them. That is the same deal that repeal promises--but we do so immediately and permanently--and at a fraction of the cost.

My bill does not seek to change current law to repeal the estate tax. It would leave in place the scheduled increases in the unified credit, the decreases in rates, and the repeal of the estate tax in 2010. My bill would only seek to rectify the special circumstances of family- owned businesses and farms, in an attempt, not to inflame the issue further, but to resolve this issue now and forever for those this effort was originally intended to help.

The goal of the Lincoln bill is that no family-owned farm or business will ever pay the estate tax. Americans are driven to build their lives and their communities and they want to be able to pass that on to the next generation. What comes of the American dream if someone works hard all their life to build something to pass on to their family, their legacy, and it has to be sold for taxes.

If there is an idea that will protect the American dream and the family-owned business, we should not be reluctant to put it on the table. Today, I am introducing such an idea, and I firmly believe such an approach must be part of any compromise if one is reached. In fact, I will not support any compromise that does not take care of family businesses in Arkansas.

I urge my colleagues to take a look and study the Lincoln bill to immediately and permanently repeal the estate tax for family owned farms and businesses.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.