Blanche Lincoln

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, the Wildlife Services Division of the United States Department of Agriculture needs assistance in expediting proper bird management activities. I am here today to introduce legislation that accomplishes this goal. Proper migratory bird management is important to the State of Arkansas for a number of reasons. We are deemed ``The Natural State'' due to the numerous outdoor recreational opportunities that exist in the State. Fishing, hunting, and bird watching opportunities abound throughout Arkansas. Maintaining proper populations of wildlife, especially migratory birds, is essential for sustaining a balanced environment. In Arkansas, aquaculture production has taken great strides in recent years. The catfish industry in the State has grown rapidly and Arkansas currently ranks second nationally in acreage and production of catfish. The baitfish industry is not far behind, selling more than 15 million pounds of fish annually, with a cash value in excess of $43 million. I have been a great supporter of this industry since my days in the House of Representatives and I am concerned about the impact the double breasted cormorant is having on this industry. In the words of one of my constituents, ``The double-crested cormorant has become a natural disaster!'' I am pleased that the Fish and Wildlife Service has agreed to develop a national management plan for the double breasted cormorant and I am hopeful that an effective management program will be the result of these efforts. One of my top priorities since coming to Congress in 1992 has been to work to make government more efficient and effective. To specifically address what I see as an inequity among government agencies regarding this issue, I am introducing a bill today that gives Wildlife Service employees as much authority to manage and take migratory birds as any U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employee. After all, Wildlife Services biologists are professional wildlife managers providing the front line of defense against such problems. With this legislation I would like to recognize the excellent job that Wildlife Services has done and is doing for bird management. Currently, USDA-Wildlife Services is required to apply for and receive a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service before they can proceed with any bird collection or management activities. This process is redundant and unnecessary. Oftentimes, Wildlife Services finds that by the time a permit arrives, the birds for which the permit was applied for are already gone. I hope that this legislation will lead to a more streamlined effort for management purposes and I urge both agencies, USDA and the Fish and Wildlife Service, to work together to accomplish this goal. I would like to thank my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Tim Hutchinson, for joining me in this effort and look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that government is operating efficiently.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, the Wildlife Services Division of the United States Department of Agriculture needs assistance in expediting proper bird management activities. I am here today to introduce legislation that accomplishes this goal. Proper migratory bird management is important to the State of Arkansas for a number of reasons. We are deemed ``The Natural State'' due to the numerous outdoor recreational opportunities that exist in the State. Fishing, hunting, and bird watching opportunities abound throughout Arkansas. Maintaining proper populations of wildlife, especially migratory birds, is essential for sustaining a balanced environment. In Arkansas, aquaculture production has taken great strides in recent years. The catfish industry in the State has grown rapidly and Arkansas currently ranks second nationally in acreage and production of catfish. The baitfish industry is not far behind, selling more than 15 million pounds of fish annually, with a cash value in excess of $43 million. I have been a great supporter of this industry since my days in the House of Representatives and I am concerned about the impact the double breasted cormorant is having on this industry. In the words of one of my constituents, ``The double-crested cormorant has become a natural disaster!'' I am pleased that the Fish and Wildlife Service has agreed to develop a national management plan for the double breasted cormorant and I am hopeful that an effective management program will be the result of these efforts. One of my top priorities since coming to Congress in 1992 has been to work to make government more efficient and effective. To specifically address what I see as an inequity among government agencies regarding this issue, I am introducing a bill today that gives Wildlife Service employees as much authority to manage and take migratory birds as any U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employee. After all, Wildlife Services biologists are professional wildlife managers providing the front line of defense against such problems. With this legislation I would like to recognize the excellent job that Wildlife Services has done and is doing for bird management. Currently, USDA-Wildlife Services is required to apply for and receive a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service before they can proceed with any bird collection or management activities. This process is redundant and unnecessary. Oftentimes, Wildlife Services finds that by the time a permit arrives, the birds for which the permit was applied for are already gone. I hope that this legislation will lead to a more streamlined effort for management purposes and I urge both agencies, USDA and the Fish and Wildlife Service, to work together to accomplish this goal. I would like to thank my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Tim Hutchinson, for joining me in this effort and look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that government is operating efficiently.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, before I begin, I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors to the amendment Senator Bingaman and Senator Kennedy.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mrs. LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. President. Before I describe the specifics of my amendment, I want to take just a few moments to commend Senators Jeffords and Kennedy for their tireless efforts in crafting the bipartisan proposal that is before the Senate today. As someone who works hard to bridge the partisan divide in Washington, I think each Member of this body owes the managers of this particular bill a debt of gratitude for bringing Senators with very different points of view together to find common ground on the most important bill we will likely consider this year. They have done an excellent job. They have worked tirelessly together. I certainly commend both of them for their good manners and for the diligence with which they have gone about this very important issue. They have demonstrated real leadership in this debate by placing the education of our children above partisan advantage. I am proud to join this bipartisan effort to reform our system of public education by helping States and local school districts raise academic achievement and deliver on the promise of equal opportunity for all students. I think the way this bill has been brought up also accentuates the opportunity we have to move in a timely way. As the mother of small children who will start kindergarten this fall, I certainly understand that the more time we waste in addressing this critical issue, the more at risk we put more and more young people across this Nation of not being able to achieve their goals. So I am pleased to note that the bill before us reflects many of the priorities that are important to me and the 500,000 elementary and secondary students in my State of Arkansas. As many of my colleagues know, I have worked with Senator Lieberman and other new Democrats over the last 18 months on a bold ESEA reform proposal known as the three R's bill. Our bill took a new approach to Federal education policy by combining the concepts of increased funding, targeting, flexibility and accountability to help our school districts meet higher standards. If there is one thing we have come to know about education, it is that you do not get something for nothing. We have to make a priority in this Nation of investing in education. This bill and this session gives us that opportunity to meet the mark and to actually do what it is we say we want to do. One fundamental component of our plan, which is also a part of the BEST bill, is a commitment to give States the resources they need to help all limited English proficient students attain proficiency in the English language and achieve high levels of learning in all subjects. The amendment I offer today recognizes that we aren't doing enough at the Federal level to provide the vast majority of LEP students in this Nation with the educational services they need to be successful under this new framework. This year, we will spend $460 million to serve LEP and immigrant students but only 17 percent of eligible children will benefit from these programs. My amendment calls on Congress to appropriate $750 million for language instruction programs and services in fiscal year 2002. Also, my amendment would authorize additional funding over the next 6 years so all LEP and immigrant students could receive services under title III within 7 years. Under this approach, funding will be distributed to States and local districts through a reliable formula based on the number of students who need help with their English proficiency. It is so essential, if we are going to ask these students to meet the performance standards in our schools, that we indicate we have left the status quo of education in this country and have moved beyond to the 21st century. We must give them the tools in order to do so. If you have visited many schools in your States lately, you have probably heard about the challenges schools and educators face in serving the growing number of students in need of LEP programs. From 1989 to the year 2000, the enrollment of limited-English-proficient students in our Nation's schools grew by 104 percent, from 2 million to an estimated 4.1 million today. During this same time period, total school enrollment grew only by 14 percent. My State of Arkansas is a prime example of the trend that is occurring across this great Nation, especially in Southern States. According to the most recent census estimates, the Hispanic population in our State of Arkansas grew 337 percent since 1990, which is believed to be the largest percentage of growth in the Nation. Not surprisingly, the number of LEP students in Arkansas has increased dramatically in recent years as well. Since 1994, the number of LEP students enrolled in Arkansas public schools has increased by 80 percent, from 2,172 students to 10,599 students today. Other States have experienced a similar increase in the number of students in need of services under title III. Between fiscal year 1999 and the year 2000, the percentage of immigrant students grew dramatically in the following States: Connecticut by 72 percent; Georgia by 39 percent; Louisiana by 34 percent; Michigan by 35 percent; Missouri, our neighboring State to the north, grew by 50 percent; Oregon by 28; Tennessee by 33 percent; and Utah by 38 percent. The need to do more to serve these students and the educators who are responsible for teaching them is clear. Providing more resources alone won't bring about reform or help close the achievement gap which persists between LEP and non-LEP students. Under the BEST bill, States will have to establish and meet annual performance goals for LEP students or face sanctions. In addition, all LEP students must attain the State's proficient level of performance within 10 years. This is a new approach that represents an important change from the past where too often low expectations for LEP students and immigrant students has resulted in low performance in the classroom. Our Nation and its economy cannot tolerate that approach to educating our children any longer. In closing, I hope my colleagues will support my amendment which expresses a strong commitment to enhance educational opportunities for LEP students by increasing and distributing Federal resources for LEP programs in a reliable way and requiring LEP and immigrant students to meet higher standards. If we are going to ask these students to master English and meet the same challenging State content and student performance standards that all students are expected to meet, which we must do under this bill, then we need to provide States and local school districts with the resources they need to meet this new challenge. I thank all of my colleagues for their support and encourage their vote in favor of the amendment. Attention to this issue is growing in so many of our States. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, the amendment on which we are about to vote reconfirms our commitment to give States the resources they need to help all students with limited English proficiency to attain proficiency in the English language and achieve high levels of learning in all subjects. This year we spent $460 million to serve LEP and immigrant students, but only 17 percent of eligible children will benefit from these programs. This amendment calls on Congress to appropriate $750 million for language instruction programs and services in 2002. It would also authorize additional funding over the next 6 years. The critical part of this is that these children are also going to be judged by standards and tests. We want to be able to give these school districts the capabilities to give these children the tools they need in order to be successful within these standards and these tests. It is absolutely essential if what we want to do in this Nation is to leave the status quo of education and move on to something that is progressive.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the contributions of the Southern Christian Home of Morrilton, Arkansas, to countless citizens and families of Arkansas. On Saturday, May 5, 2001, the Southern Christian Home celebrates its 75th Anniversary. Established in 1926 in Fort Smith, AR, the Southern Christian Home, SCH, relocated to Morrilton, AR, in 1936. Their mission during the past 75 years has been to glorify God by providing services that meet the physical, moral, mental, social, and spiritual needs of children based on Biblical truths and principles. The SCH provides care to children ages 6 to 17 years old. Since the SCH's inception there have been an estimated 5,000 to 6,000 children who have received care through the SCH's service offerings. The Southern Christian Home's commitment to children is far reaching. While the SCH's primary focus has been Arkansas children, it has also provided services to children from Albania, China, and Brazil. Additionally, the SCH operates a children's home in Sao Paulo, Brazil. As I have said on many occasions in the Senate, there is no greater national resource than our children. We, as a society, must continually reaffirm our commitment to ensure that all children live healthy, enriching, and promising lives. The work of the Southern Christian Home is a shining example of this ideal. On behalf of Arkansans and the Senate, I take this opportunity to wish Southern Christian Home a happy 75th Anniversary. I hope for them every success for the coming 75 years.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Geriatric Care Act of 2001, a bill to increase the number of geriatricians in our country through training incentives and Medicare reimbursement for geriatric care. I am proud to be joined in this effort today by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. Senator Reid has been a pioneer in seeking real commonsense solutions to the health care challenges facing our Nation's seniors. In fact, he has graciously allowed me to include in this bill components of a bill he introduced during the last Congress. Moreover, he has been an invaluable resource and ally to me as I have grappled with the solutions to these challenges we are seeking. Our country teeters on the brink of revolutionary demographic change as baby boomers begin to retire and Medicare begins to care for them. As a member of the Finance Committee and the Special Committee on Aging, I have a special interest in preparing health care providers and Medicare for the inevitable aging of America. By improving access to geriatric care, the Geriatric Care Act of 2001 takes an important first step in modernizing Medicare for the 21st century. The 76 million baby boomers are aging and in 30 years, 70 million Americans will be 65 years and older. They will soon represent one- fifth of the U.S. population, the largest proportion of older persons in our Nation's history. Our Nation's health care system will face an unprecedented strain as our population grows older. Our Nation is simply ill-prepared for what lies ahead. Demand for quality care will increase, and we will need physicians who understand the complex health problems that aging inevitably brings. As seniors live longer, they face much greater risk of disease and disability. Conditions such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, and Alzheimer's disease occur more frequently as people age. The complex problems associated with aging require a supply of physicians with special training in geriatrics. Geriatricians are physicians who are first board certified in family practice or internal medicine and then complete additional training in geriatrics. Geriatric medicine provides the most comprehensive health care for our most vulnerable seniors. Geriatrics promotes wellness and preventive care, helping to improve patients' overall quality of life by allowing them greater independence and preventing unnecessary and costly trips to the hospital or institutions. Geriatric physicians also have a heightened awareness of the effects of prescription drugs. Given our seniors' growing dependence on prescriptions, it is increasingly important that physicians know how, when, and in what dosage to prescribe medicines for seniors. Frequently, our older patients respond to medications in very different ways from younger patients. In fact, 35 percent of Americans 65 years and older experience adverse drug reactions each year. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, medication problems may be involved in as many as 17 percent of all hospitalizations of seniors each year. Care management provided by a geriatrician will not only provide better health care for our seniors, but it will also save costs to Medicare in the long term by eliminating the pressures on more costly medical care through hospitals and nursing homes. Quite clearly, geriatrics is a vital thread in the fabric of our health care system, especially in light of our looming demographic changes. Yet today there are fewer than 9,000 certified geriatricians in the United States. Of the approximately 98,000 medical residency and fellowship positions supported by Medicare in 1998, only 324 were in geriatric medicine and geriatric psychiatry. Only three medical schools in the country--the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock being one of them--have a department of geriatrics. This is remarkable when we consider that of the 125 medical schools in our country, only 3 have areas of residency in geriatrics. As if that were not alarming enough, the number of geriatricians is expected to decline dramatically in the next several years. In fact, most of these doctors will retire just as the baby boomer generation becomes eligible for Medicare. We must reverse this trend and provide incentives to increase the number of geriatricians in our country. Unfortunately, there are two barriers preventing physicians from entering geriatrics: insufficient Medicare reimbursements for the provisions of geriatric care, and inadequate training dollars and positions for geriatricians. Many practicing geriatricians find it increasingly difficult to focus their practice exclusively on older patients because of insufficient Medicare reimbursement. Unlike most other medical specialties, geriatricians depend most entirely on Medicare revenues. A recent MedPAC report identified low Medicare reimbursement levels as a major stumbling block to recruiting new geriatricians. Currently the reimbursement rate for geriatricians is the same as it is for regular physicians, but the services geriatricians provide are fundamentally different. Physicians who assess younger patients simply don't have to invest the same time that geriatricians must invest assessing the complex needs of elderly patients. Moreover, chronic illness and multiple medications make medical decisionmaking more complex and time consuming. Additionally, planning for health care needs becomes more complicated as geriatricians seek to include both patients and caregivers in the process. We must modernize the Medicare fee schedule to acknowledge the importance of geriatric assessment and care coordination in providing health care for our seniors. Geriatric practices cannot flourish and these trends will not improve until we adjust the system to reflect the realities of senior health care. The Geriatric Care Act I am introducing today addresses these shortfalls. This bill provides Medicare coverage for the twin foundations of geriatric practice: geriatric assessment and care coordination. The bill authorizes Medicare to cover these essential services for seniors, thereby allowing geriatricians to manage medications effectively, to work with other health care providers as a team, and to provide necessary support for caregivers. The Geriatric Care Act also will remove the disincentive caused by the graduate medical education cap established by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. As a result of this cap, many hospitals have eliminated or reduced their geriatric training programs. The Geriatric Care Act corrects this problem by allowing additional geriatric training slots in hospitals. By allowing hospitals to exceed the cap placed on their training slots, this bill will help increase the number of residents in geriatric training programs. My home State of Arkansas ranks sixth in the Nation in percentage of population 65 and older. In a decade, we will rank third. In many ways, our population in Arkansas is a snapshot of what the rest of the United States will look like in the near future. All of us today could share stories about the challenges faced by our parents, our grandparents, our families, our friends, our loved ones as they contend with the passing years. These are the people who have raised us, who have loved us, who have worked for us, and who have fought for us. Now it is our turn to work for them, to fight for them, and this is where we must start. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation to modernize Medicare, to support crucial geriatric services for our Nation's growing population of seniors. I also urge my colleagues to recognize that this is only the beginning of what I hope will be a grand overhaul of the way we think about and deliver care to our Nation's elderly. There are many more things to discuss and to address--adult daycare, long-term care insurance, just to name a few. But it is essential that we begin soon, that we begin now in preparing those individuals we will need 10 years from now in order to be able to care for our aging population in this Nation. Madam President, I also want to submit three letters of support for this bill, along with a list of organizations that support this important legislation, and encourage all of my colleagues to recognize the unbelievable responsibility we have today to prepare for the seniors of tomorrow. I ask unanimous consent that the items I mentioned be printed in the Record.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Geriatric Care Act of 2001, a bill to increase the number of geriatricians in our country through training incentives and Medicare reimbursement for geriatric care. I am proud to be joined in this effort today by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. Senator Reid has been a pioneer in seeking real commonsense solutions to the health care challenges facing our Nation's seniors. In fact, he has graciously allowed me to include in this bill components of a bill he introduced during the last Congress. Moreover, he has been an invaluable resource and ally to me as I have grappled with the solutions to these challenges we are seeking. Our country teeters on the brink of revolutionary demographic change as baby boomers begin to retire and Medicare begins to care for them. As a member of the Finance Committee and the Special Committee on Aging, I have a special interest in preparing health care providers and Medicare for the inevitable aging of America. By improving access to geriatric care, the Geriatric Care Act of 2001 takes an important first step in modernizing Medicare for the 21st century. The 76 million baby boomers are aging and in 30 years, 70 million Americans will be 65 years and older. They will soon represent one- fifth of the U.S. population, the largest proportion of older persons in our Nation's history. Our Nation's health care system will face an unprecedented strain as our population grows older. Our Nation is simply ill-prepared for what lies ahead. Demand for quality care will increase, and we will need physicians who understand the complex health problems that aging inevitably brings. As seniors live longer, they face much greater risk of disease and disability. Conditions such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, and Alzheimer's disease occur more frequently as people age. The complex problems associated with aging require a supply of physicians with special training in geriatrics. Geriatricians are physicians who are first board certified in family practice or internal medicine and then complete additional training in geriatrics. Geriatric medicine provides the most comprehensive health care for our most vulnerable seniors. Geriatrics promotes wellness and preventive care, helping to improve patients' overall quality of life by allowing them greater independence and preventing unnecessary and costly trips to the hospital or institutions. Geriatric physicians also have a heightened awareness of the effects of prescription drugs. Given our seniors' growing dependence on prescriptions, it is increasingly important that physicians know how, when, and in what dosage to prescribe medicines for seniors. Frequently, our older patients respond to medications in very different ways from younger patients. In fact, 35 percent of Americans 65 years and older experience adverse drug reactions each year. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, medication problems may be involved in as many as 17 percent of all hospitalizations of seniors each year. Care management provided by a geriatrician will not only provide better health care for our seniors, but it will also save costs to Medicare in the long term by eliminating the pressures on more costly medical care through hospitals and nursing homes. Quite clearly, geriatrics is a vital thread in the fabric of our health care system, especially in light of our looming demographic changes. Yet today there are fewer than 9,000 certified geriatricians in the United States. Of the approximately 98,000 medical residency and fellowship positions supported by Medicare in 1998, only 324 were in geriatric medicine and geriatric psychiatry. Only three medical schools in the country--the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock being one of them--have a department of geriatrics. This is remarkable when we consider that of the 125 medical schools in our country, only 3 have areas of residency in geriatrics. As if that were not alarming enough, the number of geriatricians is expected to decline dramatically in the next several years. In fact, most of these doctors will retire just as the baby boomer generation becomes eligible for Medicare. We must reverse this trend and provide incentives to increase the number of geriatricians in our country. Unfortunately, there are two barriers preventing physicians from entering geriatrics: insufficient Medicare reimbursements for the provisions of geriatric care, and inadequate training dollars and positions for geriatricians. Many practicing geriatricians find it increasingly difficult to focus their practice exclusively on older patients because of insufficient Medicare reimbursement. Unlike most other medical specialties, geriatricians depend most entirely on Medicare revenues. A recent MedPAC report identified low Medicare reimbursement levels as a major stumbling block to recruiting new geriatricians. Currently the reimbursement rate for geriatricians is the same as it is for regular physicians, but the services geriatricians provide are fundamentally different. Physicians who assess younger patients simply don't have to invest the same time that geriatricians must invest assessing the complex needs of elderly patients. Moreover, chronic illness and multiple medications make medical decisionmaking more complex and time consuming. Additionally, planning for health care needs becomes more complicated as geriatricians seek to include both patients and caregivers in the process. We must modernize the Medicare fee schedule to acknowledge the importance of geriatric assessment and care coordination in providing health care for our seniors. Geriatric practices cannot flourish and these trends will not improve until we adjust the system to reflect the realities of senior health care. The Geriatric Care Act I am introducing today addresses these shortfalls. This bill provides Medicare coverage for the twin foundations of geriatric practice: geriatric assessment and care coordination. The bill authorizes Medicare to cover these essential services for seniors, thereby allowing geriatricians to manage medications effectively, to work with other health care providers as a team, and to provide necessary support for caregivers. The Geriatric Care Act also will remove the disincentive caused by the graduate medical education cap established by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. As a result of this cap, many hospitals have eliminated or reduced their geriatric training programs. The Geriatric Care Act corrects this problem by allowing additional geriatric training slots in hospitals. By allowing hospitals to exceed the cap placed on their training slots, this bill will help increase the number of residents in geriatric training programs. My home State of Arkansas ranks sixth in the Nation in percentage of population 65 and older. In a decade, we will rank third. In many ways, our population in Arkansas is a snapshot of what the rest of the United States will look like in the near future. All of us today could share stories about the challenges faced by our parents, our grandparents, our families, our friends, our loved ones as they contend with the passing years. These are the people who have raised us, who have loved us, who have worked for us, and who have fought for us. Now it is our turn to work for them, to fight for them, and this is where we must start. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation to modernize Medicare, to support crucial geriatric services for our Nation's growing population of seniors. I also urge my colleagues to recognize that this is only the beginning of what I hope will be a grand overhaul of the way we think about and deliver care to our Nation's elderly. There are many more things to discuss and to address--adult daycare, long-term care insurance, just to name a few. But it is essential that we begin soon, that we begin now in preparing those individuals we will need 10 years from now in order to be able to care for our aging population in this Nation. Madam President, I also want to submit three letters of support for this bill, along with a list of organizations that support this important legislation, and encourage all of my colleagues to recognize the unbelievable responsibility we have today to prepare for the seniors of tomorrow. I ask unanimous consent that the items I mentioned be printed in the Record.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I am announcing my vision for the design of the tax cut and I am sending a message to my Chairman and to the President that I am willing to work with them on a tax cut as long as it recognizes that Arkansas taxpayers also work hard and have earned a share of the surplus in the form of a tax cut. The President's tax rate cuts are skewed to the rich and the average Arkansan won't see a real cut, if at all, until 2006. Forty-nine percent of Arkansans have adjusted gross incomes under $20,000 and the average household income in Arkansas is $29,019. About 85 percent of Arkansas families don't make enough to qualify as one of the ``model families'' that President Bush has been talking about in his speeches. In other words, only about 15 percent of Arkansans would get a $1,600 tax cut. The other 85 percent of Arkansans deserve a real tax cut too. I believe in creating a new ten percent bracket like the President, but under my plan it be fully implemented this year. That will bring thousands of dollars to Arkansas families immediately and over the next 5 years will mean significantly more to the Arkansas economy than will the Bush plan. I also want to expand the 15 percent bracket by $10,000. This will mean that 85 percent of Arkansas taxpayers and small businesses never make it out of the 15 percent bracket and will never pay more than about an 11 percent effective Federal tax rate. Expanding the 15 percent bracket would mean that a couple earning $55,000 would get $980 more than they would under the Bush plan, regardless of whether they have children or not. The only way for average citizens to get a significant tax cut under the Bush plan is to have children. Single people and people who are no longer raising their children deserve a tax cut too, and I propose to give them one. I do believe in doubling the child tax credit as the President proposes. However, I believe it should be partially refundable for working taxpayers as their Earned Income Tax Credit is phased out. Approximately 140,000 Arkansas families, or 37 percent of Arkansas families with children, will not benefit from the President's plan because their incomes are too low to owe federal income taxes. By making the child tax credit partially refundable, low-income working parents would get the benefits of the child tax credit just like I do. At the same time, I believe it is unfair to phase out the value of exemptions and credits for high income individuals. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If we are going to give a $1,000 per- child tax credit to working families, then we should give that credit to all working families, rich and poor. We also must fix the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT. I have asked the President in person, I have asked him in writing, ``How will your Administration address the AMT?'' Many of you may not know that the AMT, which is designed to prevent affluent taxpayers from sheltering their tax liability in credits and deductions, will soon have an unintended consequence for 37 million Americans. These middle income workers will be paying higher rates and filing out more forms if we do not act. At a minimum, the AMT exemptions should be raised and indexed, and family credits should be protected from the AMT's bite. With our private savings rate at a negative for the first time in our history we should encourage more private savings by increasing the IRA and 401(k) contribution limits as part of an overall retirement security and expansion act. Increasing private savings is an important way to keep capital reserve up and interest rates low. The fiscally conservative thing to do is include the pension bill in this year's tax relief. I support eliminating the so-called marriage penalties in the tax code, but we should do it in a way that is fair to widows and singles. Taxpayers should not be punished for getting married, but nor should they be punished when their spouse dies or if they choose not to get married. Lastly, the estate tax should be repealed within the next three years. While the revenue estimates of repealing the estate tax have been high, I believe there are many ways we can ensure that death is no longer a taxable event without breaking the treasury. In the short run, we may have to provide for a mark-to-market fee to provide for a stepped-up basis for inherited property or a higher capital gains rate for inherited property, but no tax would be paid unless the asset was sold. In short, the U.S. tax code should not be an obstacle to family farmers and small business people who want to pass on their legacy. At the end of the day, Vice-President Cheney would get about a $1 million tax cut under my plan, instead of the $2.4 million he would get under the Bush plan. However, average Arkansans would see thousands more and those dollars will be spent and saved in Arkansas where they belong. A family of four with a $30,000 income would get a $1,600 per year tax cut which is approximately $484 more per year than they would get under President Bush's plan. My plan would put more money in Arkansas and the South, and would cost $400 billion less than the President's $1.6 billion plan. That cost savings is important, because ultimately, I will not support any tax cut plan that would endanger the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare and inhibit our ability to retire the national debt.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, as we consider the budget resolution for fiscal year 2002, I am offering an amendment to provide security for our Nation's farmers and rural communities. I was disappointed earlier today when we considered the amendments on Agriculture spending. Those of us from rural areas have always been able to put partisanship aside for one fundamental reason an overriding concern about family farms and rural America. Yet, this institution approved an amendment that provides less than half of the assistance that was delivered to our farmers last year. Half! I can't believe that my colleagues would kick the farmer when he's down, but that is exactly what they have done by approving this amendment. Crop prices are still at record lows while input costs, such as fertilizer and energy prices, are skyrocketing. I don't understand how they can justify offering less assistance this year. We have got to address the needs of our farmers today or we will be importing our food from foreign countries tomorrow. Twenty farm and commodity groups, as well as 32 conservation, religious and environmental groups, have written to the Senate Budget Committee asking for additional spending for agriculture programs. The amount they request is the amount that I am seeking today, $9 billion for emergency funds in 2001 and $12 billion per year for long term assistance. These groups include the American Farm Bureau, the National Cotton Council, Defenders of Wildlife, The National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Milk Producers Federation, and the National Farmers Union, among many, many more. This country needs a wake-up call! Americans believe that their bacon, lettuce and tomatoes are raised somewhere in the back of the local grocery store. As the daughter of a seventh generation farm family in Helena, AR, I know where our food supply is produced. It's grown in rural communities by families working from dawn until dusk to make ends meet. I would like to share with my colleagues a letter that I received recently from one of my constituents. The letter reads: My husband and I have one child. We farm 600 acres of rice and soybeans. Three people, 600 acres--that should translate into a very lucrative living, but it doesn't. For us, it translates into a financial struggle year after year. It translates into a husband, the family provider, who has become so frustrated and discouraged that he needs counseling and medication for depression. It translates into a wife who holds her breath every time the tractor breaks down for fear there won't be enough money for repairs. It translates into a child who is disappointed she can't participate in after- school sports because extra trips to school means extra high- priced gasoline for the car! We, the American farm family, once felt pride in our occupation. We had a sense of independence and self- sufficiency. Each spring brought renewed hope for a productive season and a bountiful harvest. Now our hope lies with the bankers who make crop loans and the government who issues supplemental income payments. And there is no pride in having to ask for either one. But for the sake of the families, the very foundation of the agricultural industry, I ask that you give immediate, deliberate attention to our crisis. Unfortunately this letter is not unique. I have a stack of letters in my office right now from hundreds of Arkansas farm families and they all share the same message--help us, please. Unfortunately, too many in Washington continue to pay lip-service to our Nation's agricultural producers without actually providing them the tools and assistance they need to sustain their way of life. Our agricultural communities are hurting. Commodity prices are at record lows, and input costs including fertilizer, energy, and fuel are at record highs. No corporation in the world could make it today receiving the same prices it received during the Great Depression, yet, we are asking our farmers to do just that. The American farmer is the most efficient in the world. Yet they are forced to compete with farmers whose countries subsidize their cost of production. The family I referenced earlier is not competing with their neighbors, or with farmers from across the river. They are competing with farmers from the European Union, Japan, and Brazil, among others, who annually prop their farmers up with subsidies that make the United State's support look like pocket change. In recent years Congress has recognized that farmers are suffering and delivered emergency assistance to our struggling ag community. Arkansas' farmers could not have survived without this help. Nearly 40 percent of net farm income came from direct Government payments during the 2000 crop year. The trouble with this type of ad hoc approach is that farmers and creditors across the country never really know how or when the government is going to step in and help. Many of my farmers are scared to death that the assistance they have received in the past will be absent this year because the tax cut and other spending programs have a higher priority. This amendment will provide the security and certainty farmers need for the future. The Agriculture Committee needs this authority if we are going to adequately develop both a multi-year and multi-title farm bill. Forcing Agriculture to compete with defense and other needs out of a catch all ``contingency fund'' does not do our farm families justice. They are the backbone of this Nation and they deserve better than that. What is it going to take to get America's attention on the plight of agriculture? If we don't keep our domestic industry viable and in business, who will grow our food? Does this institution really want to rely on other countries for its food supply? I, for one, do not. What in the world would we do if we were relying on Europe for our beef? Or China for our rice? How about South America for those vegetables in your baby's food? If we can agree that domestic energy production is one key to our economic independence and national security, then isn't domestic agricultural production at least as important? This country needs to wake up and realize that we are producing the safest, most affordable, and most abundant food supply in the world. The question for everyone here is, are we going to do what it takes to keep this industry alive? I certainly hope so. I encourage you to demonstrate your support for rural America by voting with me to ensure that adequate funding will be available to write the next farm bill. I ask unanimous consent that two letters be printed in the Record.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my neighbor and colleague from Missouri, Kit Bond, in introducing the Fishable Waters Act. This bill is aimed at restoring and maintaining clean water in our Nation's rivers, lakes, and streams. This bill will provide much needed funding for programs with a proven track record of conserving land, cleaning up the environment, and promoting clean and fishable waters. This legislation takes the right approach to reducing non-point source pollution. It's voluntary. Its incentive-based. And it encourages public-private partnerships. Our State Motto, ``The Natural State,'' reflects our dedication to preserving the unique natural landscape that we cherish in Arkansas. We have towering mountains, rolling foothills, an expansive Delta, countless pristine rivers and lakes, and a multitude of timber varieties across our state. From expansive evergreen forests in the South, to the nation's largest bottomland hardwood forest in the East, as well as one of this nation's largest remaining hardwood forests across the Northern one-half of the state, Arkansas has one of the most diverse ecosystems in the Untied States. Most streams and rivers in Arkansas originate or run through our timberlands and are sources for water supplies, prime recreation, and countless other sues. We also have numerous outdoor recreational opportunities and it is vital that we take steps to protect the environment. This bill utilizes current programs within the U.S. Department of Agriculture that have a proven track record of reducing non-point sources of pollution and promoting clean and fishable waters through voluntary conservation measures. Existing USDA programs like the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Conservation Reserve Program, and Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, assist farmers in taking steps towards preserving a quality environment. CRP and WRP are so popular with farmers that they will likely reach their authorized enrollment cap by the end of 2001. Farmers wouldn't flock to these programs unless there was an inherent desire to ensure that they conserved and preserved our Nation's water resources. Arkansas ranks second in the number of enrolled acres in USDA's Wetlands Reserve Program because our farmers have recognized the vital role that wetlands play in preserving a sound ecology and efficient production. WRP is so popular in AR that we have over 200 currently pending applications that we cannot fill because of lack of funding. That's over 200 farmers that want to voluntarily conserve wetland areas around rivers, lakes, and streams. We need to fill that void in funding for these beneficial programs. This bill will help farmers in Arkansas and across the nation to voluntarily conserve sensitive land areas and provide buffer strips for runoff areas. Farmers makes their living from the soil and water. They have a vested interest in ensuring that these resources are protected. I don't believe that our nation's farmer shave been given enough credit for their dedicated efforts to preserve a sound environment for future generations. As many of you know, farming has a special place in my heart because I was raised on a seventh generation farm family. I know first hand that farmers want to protect the viability of their land so they can pass it on to the next generation. This bill is about more than agriculture through. It strikes the right balance between our agricultural industry and another pastime that I feel very strongly about, hunting and fishing. Over the years many people have been surprised when they learn that I am an avid outdoorsman. I grew up in the South where hunting and fishing are not just hobbies, they're a way of life. My father never differentiated between taking his son or daughters hunting or fishing, it was just assumed that we would all take part. For this, I will be forever grateful because I truly enjoy the outdoors, and the time I spent hunting and fishing is a big part of who I am today. We are blessed in Arkansas to have such bountiful outdoor opportunities. For these opportunities to continue to exist we must take steps to ensure that our nation's waters are protected. Trout in Arkansas' Little Red River and mallards in the riverbottoms of the Mississippi Delta both share a common need of clean water. And that is what we are ultimately striving for with this legislation: an effective, voluntary, incentive based plan to provide funding for programs that promote clean water. I want to again stress the importance of voluntary programs. We cannot expect to have success by using a heavy-handed, top-down approach to regulate our farmers, ranchers, and foresters into environmental compliance. Trying to force people into a permitting program to reduce the potential for non-point runoff may actually discourage responsible environmental practices. I agree with the EPA's objective of cleaning up our nation's impaired rivers, lakes, and streams, but firmly believe that a permitting program is not the best solution to the problem of maintaining clean water. Placing another unnecessary layer of regulation upon our nation's local foresters will only slow down the process of responsible farming and forestry and implementation of voluntary Best Management Practices. This legislation takes the right approach to clean and fishable waters. It's voluntary. It's incentive-based. And it encourages public- private partnerships to clean up our Nation's rivers, lakes, and streams. I encourage my colleagues to join us in the fight for clean and fishable waters.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my neighbor and colleague from Missouri, Kit Bond, in introducing the Fishable Waters Act. This bill is aimed at restoring and maintaining clean water in our Nation's rivers, lakes, and streams. This bill will provide much needed funding for programs with a proven track record of conserving land, cleaning up the environment, and promoting clean and fishable waters. This legislation takes the right approach to reducing non-point source pollution. It's voluntary. Its incentive-based. And it encourages public-private partnerships. Our State Motto, ``The Natural State,'' reflects our dedication to preserving the unique natural landscape that we cherish in Arkansas. We have towering mountains, rolling foothills, an expansive Delta, countless pristine rivers and lakes, and a multitude of timber varieties across our state. From expansive evergreen forests in the South, to the nation's largest bottomland hardwood forest in the East, as well as one of this nation's largest remaining hardwood forests across the Northern one-half of the state, Arkansas has one of the most diverse ecosystems in the Untied States. Most streams and rivers in Arkansas originate or run through our timberlands and are sources for water supplies, prime recreation, and countless other sues. We also have numerous outdoor recreational opportunities and it is vital that we take steps to protect the environment. This bill utilizes current programs within the U.S. Department of Agriculture that have a proven track record of reducing non-point sources of pollution and promoting clean and fishable waters through voluntary conservation measures. Existing USDA programs like the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Conservation Reserve Program, and Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, assist farmers in taking steps towards preserving a quality environment. CRP and WRP are so popular with farmers that they will likely reach their authorized enrollment cap by the end of 2001. Farmers wouldn't flock to these programs unless there was an inherent desire to ensure that they conserved and preserved our Nation's water resources. Arkansas ranks second in the number of enrolled acres in USDA's Wetlands Reserve Program because our farmers have recognized the vital role that wetlands play in preserving a sound ecology and efficient production. WRP is so popular in AR that we have over 200 currently pending applications that we cannot fill because of lack of funding. That's over 200 farmers that want to voluntarily conserve wetland areas around rivers, lakes, and streams. We need to fill that void in funding for these beneficial programs. This bill will help farmers in Arkansas and across the nation to voluntarily conserve sensitive land areas and provide buffer strips for runoff areas. Farmers makes their living from the soil and water. They have a vested interest in ensuring that these resources are protected. I don't believe that our nation's farmer shave been given enough credit for their dedicated efforts to preserve a sound environment for future generations. As many of you know, farming has a special place in my heart because I was raised on a seventh generation farm family. I know first hand that farmers want to protect the viability of their land so they can pass it on to the next generation. This bill is about more than agriculture through. It strikes the right balance between our agricultural industry and another pastime that I feel very strongly about, hunting and fishing. Over the years many people have been surprised when they learn that I am an avid outdoorsman. I grew up in the South where hunting and fishing are not just hobbies, they're a way of life. My father never differentiated between taking his son or daughters hunting or fishing, it was just assumed that we would all take part. For this, I will be forever grateful because I truly enjoy the outdoors, and the time I spent hunting and fishing is a big part of who I am today. We are blessed in Arkansas to have such bountiful outdoor opportunities. For these opportunities to continue to exist we must take steps to ensure that our nation's waters are protected. Trout in Arkansas' Little Red River and mallards in the riverbottoms of the Mississippi Delta both share a common need of clean water. And that is what we are ultimately striving for with this legislation: an effective, voluntary, incentive based plan to provide funding for programs that promote clean water. I want to again stress the importance of voluntary programs. We cannot expect to have success by using a heavy-handed, top-down approach to regulate our farmers, ranchers, and foresters into environmental compliance. Trying to force people into a permitting program to reduce the potential for non-point runoff may actually discourage responsible environmental practices. I agree with the EPA's objective of cleaning up our nation's impaired rivers, lakes, and streams, but firmly believe that a permitting program is not the best solution to the problem of maintaining clean water. Placing another unnecessary layer of regulation upon our nation's local foresters will only slow down the process of responsible farming and forestry and implementation of voluntary Best Management Practices. This legislation takes the right approach to clean and fishable waters. It's voluntary. It's incentive-based. And it encourages public- private partnerships to clean up our Nation's rivers, lakes, and streams. I encourage my colleagues to join us in the fight for clean and fishable waters.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak as if in morning business for about 10 minutes.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, as we celebrate the remaining days of National Women's History Month, I want to call attention to several extraordinary women from my home state of Arkansas who have devoted their lives to improving our communities and lending a hand to those in need. But before I talk about them individually, I first want to say a few words about a woman who is special not only to many generations of Arkansans but to the members of this body. That woman is Hattie Caraway. In 1932, Hattie Caraway of Arkansas became the first woman ever elected to the United States Senate after winning a special election to fill the remaining months of her husband's term. Arkansans elected Hattie Caraway to the Senate two more times, and she served in the U.S. Senate until January, 1945. Senator Caraway became the first woman to chair a Senate Committee and the first woman to take up the gavel on the Senate floor as the Senate's presiding officer. And when she finished her term, her Senate colleagues honored her for her service with a standing ovation on the Senate floor. Quite a feat for a woman back in 1945 especially since women had just won the right to vote only 25 years earlier! There is no doubt that Hattie Caraway's service in the Senate paved the way for women seeking elective office. Thirty-one women have followed Hattie Caraway to the Senate, and today, a record high of 13 women are serving in the Senate at the same time. Combined with the 59 women in the U.S. House of Representatives, a record total of 72 women serve in the U.S. Congress today. Another woman who is paving the way for women in politics in Arkansas is County Judge LaVerne Grayson. Judge Grayson last November became the first female county judge to serve Boone County, Arkansas. Before attaining her judgeship, Judge Grayson was a nurse and Public Health Investigator Supervisor at the Arkansas Department of Health who helped establish one of the first AIDS programs in northwest Arkansas. She was also an active community leader, serving with the American Red Cross, the LPN Advisory Board, the Salvation Army, and the North Arkansas College Board of Trustees. Judge Grayson is revered for her talents and her ability to balance her time effectively between a busy career and family, something which all working mothers aspire to do. Other female leaders in Arkansas government have taken their talents to universities. Dr. Jane Gates of Jonesboro, who was a member Jonesboro Civil Service Commission, is now a Professor at Arkansas State University. Through her classes on public policy and government, Dr. Gates draws on her experience in government to encourage young women and men to seek public office. That brings me to another woman who is making a difference in education. Dr. Trudie Reed, who is the President of Philander Smith College in Little Rock, has effectively promoted the contributions of African-Americans and has spearheaded a successful capital campaign drive to increase the college's endowment. Under Dr. Reed's leadership, the historically-black college has grown to be one of the best educational institutions in Central Arkansas. Over the past year, the college has received over $18 million dollars from various foundations and donors. With the money, the college will build a new library and a new science building. Other women I want to mention today have made great contributions to their communities. Spurred by the tremendous love and joy she has experienced from adopting two children from Korea and Thailand, Connie Fails of Little Rock has reached out to many families throughout Arkansas and across the nation to help them adopt a child internationally. In addition to running a successful clothing boutique in Little Rock, Connie works in her spare time as an international adoption escort, traveling to foreign countries and escorting adoptive children to new homes all across the United States. She has also served as the private sector representative to the White House for the Hague Convention. Connie has helped many children, particularly disabled children from disadvantaged countries, find safe, permanent, and loving homes. Another woman who has reached out to help her community is Donna Holmes of El Dorado. For the past two years, Donna has been the Chairman of Interfaith Help Services, which is a seven-member church collaborative effort that provides financial assistance to underprivileged residents in the form of medical assistance, dental assistance, monthly expense assistance, and a food pantry. I recently nominated Donna for the Mitsubishi Motors Unsung Heroine Award, which honors women who have gone beyond the call of duty to serve those in need. Mitsubishi has donated $5,000 to Interfaith Help Services, and PBS will produce a documentary about Donna this spring. I am so proud and grateful for Donna's incredible efforts. Under her leadership, Interfaith Help Services has helped over 6,900 single parents, children, and families since 1991. As we recognize the great accomplishments women have made over the centuries, it is with great respect and admiration that I pay personal tribute to the women of Arkansas today. Their achievements in the areas of government, education, and community service have made them outstanding local role models for young women and girls who aspire to make positive differences in their communities. As the youngest woman to ever serve in the U.S. Senate, I share their desire to make our nation a better place for our children. I am humbled by and thankful for their work and am glad to have the opportunity to recognize them today.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, with all of this talk we have heard recently about bipartisanship and wanting to do what is right by everyone, not leaving anyone behind, I am certainly glad we have at least a few minutes to have a debate on an alternative to last week's issue of workplace safety. I have been delighted to work with my colleagues, Senator Breaux and Senator Landrieu--and Senator Specter has worked with us--in developing an amendment that requires the Department of Labor to draft a new ergonomics standard that addresses the ergonomic hazards in the workplace without penalizing business owners who act in good faith. As I stated in my remarks last week, I voted to repeal the ergonomics standard last year because, in my opinion, it was unreasonable in terms of the requirements it imposed on businesses and how unworkable it was with regard to the vagueness of the standards with which employers were expected to comply. However, I do not believe our action to overturn the current ergonomics rule should in any way be interpreted as congressional intention to end the debate on this issue of workplace safety. That is what we did last week. That certainly was not my intention. In fact, I believe the Federal Government does have a responsibility to set safety standards and to protect workers against hazards that exist in their place of employment. Certainly, the new Secretary of Labor and the new administration, through working with our colleagues in hearings and other ways, I think would relish the idea of being able to come up with a standard that is workable, something that can give us workplace safety but encourage businesses to be involved. That is certainly possible. The ergonomics standard or the rule we saw last year was a no win for anyone because we were not going to see, because of the court cases that were already involved with that rule, workers protected, nor were we able to see a reasonable compliance that industries could meet. It was not a win for anyone. If we fail to come back with anything else, and if we fail to encourage the Department of Labor to come up with something that is reasonable and workable, then we, once again, have failed everyone-- businesses and employees--because we can do better at providing better workplace safety, and we can also provide businesses a better way of complying with it. Everyone wins with that--workers and businesses. The amendment we are offering gives the Department of Labor 2 years to craft a new Federal ergonomics standard. In addition, our amendment directs the Department to address serious problems that exist in the previous rule. Specifically, we make clear that the new standards should not apply to injuries that occur outside the workplace or, as Senator Breaux mentioned, injuries that are aggravated by activities that employees perform as a part of their job. Furthermore, this amendment requires the Secretary of Labor to set forth in clear terms what businesses are required to do to comply with this new standard before it takes effect. Finally, we prohibit the new rule from expanding the application of State workers compensation laws. In short, I believe our amendment is a reasonable, commonsense approach that will allow the Department of Labor to address a serious health and safety issue in the workplace in a manner that is fair to both employees and employers. After all, in the debate last week, is that not what we said we were striving for? As a founding member of the Senate's new Democrats coalition who is inclined to seek compromise whenever possible, I wish we had been given the opportunity to draft and offer a compromise proposal on ergonomics last week when it was most appropriate. Unfortunately, we did not have that opportunity. Now that the consideration of the resolution of disapproval has been concluded, I am certainly hopeful my colleagues will want to work in a bipartisan way and permit a reasonable period of debate and vote on this amendment and come up with something that is going to be workable for absolutely everybody, certainly employees as well as employers and businesses, all of which can be brought to the table in the next 2 years, and we can craft something that is going to be workable and meet the objectives we have all expressed. I thank the Senator from Louisiana for his hard work and leadership in this effort, and I look forward to working with all of our colleagues in the next several days to come up with something we can adopt and prove to the people of this Nation and businesses of this Nation that we are truly concerned about workplace safety and about being sensible. I yield back to the Senator from Louisiana the remainder of his time.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Recreation Lakes Act of 2001--a bill that will recognize the benefits and value of recreation at federal lakes and give recreation a seat at the table in the management decisions of all our federal lakes. I am proud to be joined in this effort today by Senator Cleland of Georgia and Senator Dorgan of North Dakota. Recreation on our federal lakes has become a powerful tourist magnet, attracting some 900 million visitors annually and generating an estimated $44 billion in economic activity--mostly spent on privately- provided goods and services. And by the middle of this century, our federal lakes are expected to host nearly 2 billion visitors per year. Yet, even with the millions of visitors each year to our lakes and reservoirs, recreation has suffered from a lack of unifying policy direction and leadership, as well as insufficient interagency and intergovernmental planning and coordination. Most federal agencies are focused on the traditional functions of man-made lakes and reservoirs: flood control, hydroelectric power, water supply, irrigation, and navigation. And often recreation is left out of the decision process. This legislation will reaffirm that recreation is also an authorized purpose at almost all federal lakes and direct the agencies managing these projects to take action to reemphasize recreation programs in their management plans. This legislation will emphasize partnerships between the Federal Government, local governments, and private groups to promote responsible recreation on all our federal lakes. It will establish a National Recreation Lakes Demonstration Program comprised of up to 25 lakes across the nation. At each of these federal lakes, the managing agency will be empowered to develop creative agreements with private sector recreation providers as well as state land agencies to enhance recreation opportunities. Rather than just building new federal campgrounds with tax dollars, we need to create new partnerships to provide support for building recreation infrastructure that is in line with visitor and tourist desires for recreation. The National Recreation Lakes Demonstration Program will be a pilot project to test these creative agreements and management techniques on a small scale to demonstrate their effectiveness at promoting recreation on federal lakes. Second, this legislation will establish a Federal Recreation Lakes Leadership Council to coordinate the National Recreation Lakes Demonstration Program and coordinate efforts among federal agencies to promote recreation on federal lakes. It also will include the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. The Fee Demo Program has had wide successes in Arkansas and across the country in allowing individual parks and recreation areas to keep more of their fee revenues on-site to reduce the often overwhelming maintenance backlog. The legislation will also provide for periodic review of the management of recreation at federal water projects--something long overdue. A great deal has changed since many of the water projects were authorized, yet the initial legislative direction from over 70 years ago continues to be the basis for the management practices now in the year 2001--and that is not right. Finally, the legislation will provide new opportunities to link the national recreation lakes initiative with other federal recreation assistance efforts, including the Wallop-Breaux program for boating and fishing. Let me give you a little background on how this legislation was developed. In 1996, the U.S. Senate recognized that recreation was becoming more important on federal lakes and conceived the National Recreation Lakes Study Commission to review the current and anticipated demand for recreational opportunities on federally managed lakes and reservoirs. The National Recreation Lakes Study Commission were charged to ``review the current and anticipated demand for recreational opportunities at federally managed man-made lakes and reservoirs'' and ``to develop alternatives for enhanced recreational use of such facilities.'' The Commission released its long-awaited report confirming the impact of recreation on federally-managed, man-made lakes in June of last year. The Commission also recognized that we are far from realizing their full potential. The study documented that these lakes are powerful tourist magnets, attracting some 900 million visitors annually and generating an estimated $44 billion dollars in economic activity-- mostly spent on privately-provided goods and services. During the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's hearing in 1999 on the Recreation Lakes Study, the chairman and I spent some time discussing how children today do not take full advantage of the outdoor opportunities that are available to them. It is so important that we encourage our children to enjoy the great outdoors that often times is less than an hour's drive away. As the mother of twin 4-year-old boys, I feel we need to encourage our children to be children, not to become adults too quickly, to learn how to enjoy the outdoors. The only way we can do that is by exposing them to it early and often. In this Nation, we have nearly 1,800 federally managed lakes and reservoirs. There are 38 in my home state of Arkansas. With so many federal lakes throughout the country, there's no reason why we shouldn't do all we can to promote recreation. I know that in Arkansas, we don't think twice about getting away to the lake for the weekend to go boating or fishing, or to just get away from the day-to-day grind. And that doesn't even begin to get into the tremendous economic impact from recreation on our federal lakes. Last August, I conducted a tour of two of our Corps of Engineers managed lakes in Arkansas--Lake Ouachita and Greers Ferry Lake--to observe how our lakes are managed and to see where recreation falls on the priority list. I saw many opportunities where the Corps of Engineers, working with local officials and private citizens, could, through innovative management techniques, better provide for the recreation needs of the thousands of Arkansans that visit Arkansas' lakes each year. This bill will enable our federal lakes in Arkansas and around the country to invest in and manage for recreation so we all can enjoy a day out on the lake. This bill is not an attempt to completely rewrite how federal lakes in this country are managed or to put recreation in front of all other authorized purposes at federal lakes. The National Recreation Lakes Act of 2001 will work with all current laws and regulations to ensure that recreation is given a seat at the table when the management decisions are made for our federal lakes. This is a good bill. In everything from the creation of jobs to the money that tourists like myself spend at the marinas and local stores surrounding the lake--our Federal lakes and reservoirs have an immense recreational value that can and does bring revenues into our local economies. The best way to encourage and expand this aspect is to ensure that recreation is given a higher priority in the management of our federal lakes. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and look forward to the debate on how we can promote recreation on our federal lakes. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Recreation Lakes Act of 2001--a bill that will recognize the benefits and value of recreation at federal lakes and give recreation a seat at the table in the management decisions of all our federal lakes. I am proud to be joined in this effort today by Senator Cleland of Georgia and Senator Dorgan of North Dakota. Recreation on our federal lakes has become a powerful tourist magnet, attracting some 900 million visitors annually and generating an estimated $44 billion in economic activity--mostly spent on privately- provided goods and services. And by the middle of this century, our federal lakes are expected to host nearly 2 billion visitors per year. Yet, even with the millions of visitors each year to our lakes and reservoirs, recreation has suffered from a lack of unifying policy direction and leadership, as well as insufficient interagency and intergovernmental planning and coordination. Most federal agencies are focused on the traditional functions of man-made lakes and reservoirs: flood control, hydroelectric power, water supply, irrigation, and navigation. And often recreation is left out of the decision process. This legislation will reaffirm that recreation is also an authorized purpose at almost all federal lakes and direct the agencies managing these projects to take action to reemphasize recreation programs in their management plans. This legislation will emphasize partnerships between the Federal Government, local governments, and private groups to promote responsible recreation on all our federal lakes. It will establish a National Recreation Lakes Demonstration Program comprised of up to 25 lakes across the nation. At each of these federal lakes, the managing agency will be empowered to develop creative agreements with private sector recreation providers as well as state land agencies to enhance recreation opportunities. Rather than just building new federal campgrounds with tax dollars, we need to create new partnerships to provide support for building recreation infrastructure that is in line with visitor and tourist desires for recreation. The National Recreation Lakes Demonstration Program will be a pilot project to test these creative agreements and management techniques on a small scale to demonstrate their effectiveness at promoting recreation on federal lakes. Second, this legislation will establish a Federal Recreation Lakes Leadership Council to coordinate the National Recreation Lakes Demonstration Program and coordinate efforts among federal agencies to promote recreation on federal lakes. It also will include the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. The Fee Demo Program has had wide successes in Arkansas and across the country in allowing individual parks and recreation areas to keep more of their fee revenues on-site to reduce the often overwhelming maintenance backlog. The legislation will also provide for periodic review of the management of recreation at federal water projects--something long overdue. A great deal has changed since many of the water projects were authorized, yet the initial legislative direction from over 70 years ago continues to be the basis for the management practices now in the year 2001--and that is not right. Finally, the legislation will provide new opportunities to link the national recreation lakes initiative with other federal recreation assistance efforts, including the Wallop-Breaux program for boating and fishing. Let me give you a little background on how this legislation was developed. In 1996, the U.S. Senate recognized that recreation was becoming more important on federal lakes and conceived the National Recreation Lakes Study Commission to review the current and anticipated demand for recreational opportunities on federally managed lakes and reservoirs. The National Recreation Lakes Study Commission were charged to ``review the current and anticipated demand for recreational opportunities at federally managed man-made lakes and reservoirs'' and ``to develop alternatives for enhanced recreational use of such facilities.'' The Commission released its long-awaited report confirming the impact of recreation on federally-managed, man-made lakes in June of last year. The Commission also recognized that we are far from realizing their full potential. The study documented that these lakes are powerful tourist magnets, attracting some 900 million visitors annually and generating an estimated $44 billion dollars in economic activity-- mostly spent on privately-provided goods and services. During the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's hearing in 1999 on the Recreation Lakes Study, the chairman and I spent some time discussing how children today do not take full advantage of the outdoor opportunities that are available to them. It is so important that we encourage our children to enjoy the great outdoors that often times is less than an hour's drive away. As the mother of twin 4-year-old boys, I feel we need to encourage our children to be children, not to become adults too quickly, to learn how to enjoy the outdoors. The only way we can do that is by exposing them to it early and often. In this Nation, we have nearly 1,800 federally managed lakes and reservoirs. There are 38 in my home state of Arkansas. With so many federal lakes throughout the country, there's no reason why we shouldn't do all we can to promote recreation. I know that in Arkansas, we don't think twice about getting away to the lake for the weekend to go boating or fishing, or to just get away from the day-to-day grind. And that doesn't even begin to get into the tremendous economic impact from recreation on our federal lakes. Last August, I conducted a tour of two of our Corps of Engineers managed lakes in Arkansas--Lake Ouachita and Greers Ferry Lake--to observe how our lakes are managed and to see where recreation falls on the priority list. I saw many opportunities where the Corps of Engineers, working with local officials and private citizens, could, through innovative management techniques, better provide for the recreation needs of the thousands of Arkansans that visit Arkansas' lakes each year. This bill will enable our federal lakes in Arkansas and around the country to invest in and manage for recreation so we all can enjoy a day out on the lake. This bill is not an attempt to completely rewrite how federal lakes in this country are managed or to put recreation in front of all other authorized purposes at federal lakes. The National Recreation Lakes Act of 2001 will work with all current laws and regulations to ensure that recreation is given a seat at the table when the management decisions are made for our federal lakes. This is a good bill. In everything from the creation of jobs to the money that tourists like myself spend at the marinas and local stores surrounding the lake--our Federal lakes and reservoirs have an immense recreational value that can and does bring revenues into our local economies. The best way to encourage and expand this aspect is to ensure that recreation is given a higher priority in the management of our federal lakes. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and look forward to the debate on how we can promote recreation on our federal lakes. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I join Senator Domenici in introducing the Nuclear Energy Electricity Assurance Act of 2001. Simply put, this bill is designed to ensure that nuclear energy remains a viable energy source well into the future of this country. The Nuclear Energy Electricity Assurance Act of 2001 has many important provisions and I will talk specifically about a couple of them today. We should pursue innovative technologies to reduce the amount of nuclear waste that we will eventually have to store permanently in a geologic repository. Technologies such as nuclear waste reprocessing would allow us to recycle about 75 percent of the nuclear waste we have today. And there are technologies such as transmutation that would increase the percentage of recycled waste even further. This bill establishes a new national strategy for nuclear waste by creating the Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research and beginning the Advanced Fuel Recycling Technology Development Program within the Department of Energy to study and focus on achievable nuclear fuel reprocessing initiatives. A strong nuclear fuel reprocessing program is necessary to ensure we can make nuclear fuel a truly renewable fuel source. It simply makes sense. In my home State of Arkansas, we have one nuclear powerplant located just outside the small town of Dardanelle. This facility has provided safe, clean, emission-free power to all Arkansans for many years, and I aim to see that it remains for many more. This bill will help ensure that this happens by providing incentive funding for utilities to invest in increased efficiency and capacity of each nuclear powerplant. This bill takes safe, legitimate steps toward bringing more nuclear power online, providing incentives to increase nuclear power efficiency, and strengthening the pursuit of needed reprocessing technologies. I look forward to the debate on this bill and providing this Nation with a safe, economical, and environmentally safe energy supply.