Blanche Lincoln

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.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to bring attention to an issue Washington, and the American public, too often take for granted-- something that is near and dear to my heart, and a part of my heritage. I am talking about American agriculture. 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 Arkansas farm family, I know where our food supply is produced. It is grown in rural communities by families working from dusk until dawn to make ends meet. Unfortunately, too many in Washington continue to pay lip-service to our Nation's agricultural industry without actually providing them the tools and assistance they need to sustain their way of life. I recognize the hurt that is evident in our agricultural communities. I know that 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. I am here to enlighten this body on the needs of our agricultural community. And it is my intention to come to the Senate floor often this year to highlight various issues affecting our Nation's farmers and ranchers. In the interest of fairness, I will give credit where credit is due. In recent years, Congress has recognized that farmers are suffering, and we have delivered emergency assistance to our struggling agricultural 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 this country never really know how or when the Government is going to step in and help them. Many of my farmers are scared to death that the assistance that has been available in the past will be absent this year because the tax cut and other spending programs have a higher priority. I will highlight my frustration with our Nation's farm policy in the near future, but today I want to bring the Senate's attention to a matter that should have been handled long ago, yet still remains unaddressed. Our farmers need the disaster assistance that Congress provided last Fall. President Clinton signed the FY 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Act on October 28, 2000. Included in this legislation was an estimated $1.6 billion in disaster payments for 2000 crop losses due to weather-related damages. These payments are yet to arrive in the farmer's mailbox. My phone lines are lit up with calls from farmers and bankers asking me when these payments are going to arrive. In the South, our growing season begins earlier than many parts of the country, and our farmers could head to the field right now to begin work on the 2001 crop, if they just had their operating loan. The trouble is, many of them are unable to cash flow a loan for 2001 because they still await USDA assistance to pay off the banker for last year's disaster. I reference the South's growing season because many of our farm State Senators are from the Midwest, and they may not be hearing the same desperation that I am hearing. Their farmers are in no better shape, but they are not yet trying to put the 2001 crop in the ground. Arkansas farmers have been wringing their hands all winter trying to determine if it is worth it to try one more year. They are literally on the brink of bankruptcy and are weighing whether it is worth exposing themselves to more potential financial loss. These are not bad businessmen. They have survived the agricultural turmoil of the 1980s because they practice efficient production techniques and are sound managers. They have simply been dealt an unbelievably difficult hand and are trying to figure out how they can stay in the game. Some have already lost the battle. I have heard of more respected Arkansas farmers closing their shop doors and selling the family farm than ever before. Farm auction notifications fill the backs of agricultural publications. Established, long time farmers are crying for help. A typical example, a farmer from Almyra, Arkansas recently wrote to me asking for help. He has been farming rice and soybeans in southeast Arkansas for almost 30 years. Like many others, he wanted Congress to know that government assistance is vitally needed. He and other farmers would prefer to get their income from the marketplace, but most of all, he just wants to stay in business. The repercussions of losing people like this good farmer will have a drastic effect on our rural communities. To ignore agriculture's plight is to ignore rural America. Without farmers, the lifeblood of small towns like Almyra, Arkansas will be lost, and I fear never regained. Around 800 to 1,100 farmers apply for Chapter 12 bankruptcy each year. The average age of the American farmer is getting older every year because young men and women simply do not see a future in agriculture production. I am reminded of a joke that my father used to tell me about the farmer who won the lottery. When a reporter asked him what he was going to do with all that money, he replied ``Farm 'til it's gone!'' Unfortunately, that joke is not too far from the truth these days. We have a responsibility to provide a better agricultural policy for our nation's producers. As I stated earlier, I will address my specific frustrations with the current farm bill at a later date. Today, I am pleading that the disaster assistance we passed last Fall be delivered to the farmers as soon as possible. I have written and urged President Bush to expedite this situation. I stressed the importance of quick action on this issue to Secretary Veneman in both private meetings and during her confirmation hearing. I contacted the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) urging them to act promptly on the rules that must be finalized to begin the payment process. For all the farmers listening out there, don't hold your local FSA offices accountable. Their hands are tied just like yours. They await the rules and procedures for disaster assistance distribution just like you do. The responsibility lies right here in Washington, DC. Specifically, OMB, is responsible for finalizing the rules. I'm sure they are working hard to get the ball rolling, but we need action today. Not tomorrow, not next week, but today! I call upon the Administration to deliver the disaster assistance to the farmers. Congress did its part last fall. It is now imperative that the Administration take care of things on their end. Unfortunately, this situation is nothing new. The last Administration was less than quick about implementing disaster programs as well. But that is no excuse, farmers need the help now. Dotting the ``i's'' and crossing the ``t's'' in the required paper work should not take months to accomplish. For countless farmers across the nation, I call on the President to please expedite this matter. I look forward to many further discussions on the Senate floor about the plight of the American farmer.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I want to state at the outset that I support Federal workplace safety regulations to ensure that all employees are protected against hazards that exist in their place of employment. I also believe that OSHA should be permitted to impose an ergonomics standard on employers to reduce the number of muscular skeletal disorders, MSDs, that can be linked to repetitive motions that workers perform as part of their job. However, to be effective such a standard must be reasonable in scope and proportional to the number of reported muscular skeletal disorders that occur in a particular workplace. I do not support the ergonomics rule we are debating today because it falls short of that standard. After talking to literally hundreds of constituents and touring dozens of factories and plants in my state, I am convinced that the current ergonomics rule is unreasonable in terms of the requirements it imposes on businesses and unworkable with regard to the vagueness of the standards with which employers are expected to comply. The complaints I hear the most are that the cost of compliance is virtually unlimited and that even employers who make good faith efforts to meet the standard can never be certain they've done enough because the rule is unclear about when compliance is met. It will take months, maybe years, for the courts to unravel the true meaning of this rule. And it is my belief that rule making should not be left up to the courts. Frankly, I think those who oppose this rule have a valid argument and therefore I intend to support the Resolution of Disapproval. I do not think, however, that the debate on a Federal ergonomics standard should end with this vote. The vast majority of business owners I've spoken to about this issue are taking genuine, affirmative steps to facilitate a safe and productive working environment for their employees. After all, it's in their best interest not to have workers who are injured and unable to perform capably. I intend to hold them to their word by introducing legislation that will require OSHA to draft a new ergonomics standard within 3 years. If the current standard is not workable, and I do not think it is, then I believe OSHA has an obligation to work with employers and employees to write a revised rule that will reduce the number of MSDs in the workplace without penalizing businesses that want to do the right thing. In closing, I want to express my disappointment with the take it or leave it approach pursued by the Senate Leadership in this matter. In recent weeks we've heard a lot about working together in a bipartisan fashion from the President and Senate leaders, but we certainly have not followed that course of action today. I wish my colleagues on the other side had demonstrated a willingness to find a middle ground in this debate but the only option we have been given is an all or nothing vote with no alternatives. That is not my definition of bipartisanship and I do not think it is a productive way to build trust across the aisle. I hope my colleagues will work harder in the future to make their pledges of bipartisanship a reality.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, yesterday Senator Lugar and I joined forces with a bipartisan group of Senators to disarm one of the quickest ticking time bombs hidden away in our tax code. Senator Lugar and I were joined by Senators Breaux, Kyl, Landrieu, Cochran, and Bayh in introducing a bill to permanently provide tax protection for millions of taxpayers from the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT was created to reduce the ability of some individuals to completely avoid taxation by using tax preference items excluded from the income tax. The AMT was first established in 1969 after the Secretary of Treasury testified before Congress that 155 high-income individuals had paid no federal income taxes in 1966. Over the years the AMT has been amended several times and has gone from what was essentially a surcharge on tax preference items to the current system, which is generally considered a separate tax system that parallels the regular individual income tax but having its own definitions of income, its own rates, and its own problems. There are two basic problems with the AMT. Number one, there are many items considered in AMT determination that simply should not be there, and number two, the exemption amounts are not indexed. Last Congress I took the lead on combating the former problem, and Senator Lugar took the lead on the latter. This year we have come together in a bipartisan way to fight both. There are several tax credits, including the child tax credit which President Bush proposes to double and the Adoption Credit which Senator Landrieu is working so hard to revise and expand, that are considered preference items when determining AMT liability. These personal credits along with the standard deduction and the personal exemption can hardly be considered luxury preference items and including them in the AMT calculation goes against the spirit of the reform which brought about the AMT. The bill which I have introduced will permanently remove the nonrefundable personal credits, the standard deduction and the personal exemptions from the AMT formula. In short, Mr. President, no one should be forced into paying higher taxes because they took the Hope Scholarship Credit, the deduction for their spouse and dependents, or because they take the credit for the dependent care services necessary for keeping a job! It is time to permanently protect working families from having to choose between higher taxes and family credits. The second provision of this bill increases the individual exemption amount for the AMT, and indexes it from here on out. This indexing will make sure that limits we set stay economically accurate as inflation reduces the value of the exemption over time. I believe this plan is a comprehensive and bipartisan way to take on this issue and put it to rest for the long term. Even if we do not choose this approach, which I believe is the most effective and cost effective approach, something clearly has to be done now or the AMT will explode in the coming few years. According to research by the Joint Tax Committee and the Treasury Department, the number of taxpayers affected by the AMT is expected to balloon from 1.3 million in 2000 to 17 million by 2010. That is almost 16 percent of all taxable returns! A return, by the way, which takes on the average 5 hours and 39 minutes to fill out. Of those 17 million taxpayers, 4.5 million are expected to be taxpayers who have to give up part of their tax credits to avoid the AMT tax liability. That is wrong and hard working middle- income families deserve better. I ask my colleagues to take a fair look at this legislation and let's work together to put the AMT back into reason.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, if there is one thing I have learned about working in Washington is that we must learn to respect and recognize our differences. I certainly expect a new President to select Cabinet nominees who share his basic beliefs and ideology. I have thus far voted to confirm every nominee that President Bush has submitted to the Senate since he took office--even those who hold positions on important issues that are different from my own. In fact, it is fair to say that I have been generally pleased with the talented and dedicated public servants President Bush has chosen to lead this Administration. While the President retains the Constitutional authority to appoint his Cabinet, I also take very seriously my Constitutional responsibility as a Senator to provide advice and consent on his appointments. Our role in the confirmation process isn't to afix a rubber stamp on presumptive nominees, especially for a position as important as this. Unlike other Cabinet posts, Mr. President, the Attorney General is responsible for representing and defending the rights and constitutional freedoms of every American. I believe this position requires someone who understands and appreciates that not every American is born with equal access to the opportunities and blessings that make our nation great. In my opinion, to fulfill the duties with which the Attorney General is entrusted, the nominee must be pro-active in his pursuit against discrimination and injustice as the law demands. Successfully defending the rights of every citizen ultimately depends upon the wide discretion an Attorney General exercises to initiate investigations, establish Task Forces and prosecute wrongdoers. After reading Senator Ashcroft's response to the questions I submitted together with his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am reasonably confident he is prepared to react to crime and injustice when it occurs. I am not convinced, however, that he is prepared to do any more when called upon to enforce a law with which he passionately disagrees. His convictions are deeply held and he has fought stubbornly for them in the past. I truly doubt that he can set them aside so easily now. I must tell you that I am deeply moved by the constitutional role I am called upon to perform today. Passing judgement on a former colleague is extremely difficult and not a part of our normal responsibilities. I respect Senator Ashcroft as a former colleague and someone I know to be deeply committed to his religious teachings and the causes he champions. Also, I would like to add that I would gladly support his confirmation to any other Cabinet post. In the end, though, I have concluded it is his deeply held beliefs over issues that fall directly under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department that will impede his ability to do this job--to enforce the law without bias or favor toward anyone; to vigorously fight discrimination and its painful legacy and to defend the constitutional rights he has fought so zealously to overturn in the past. Ironically, his passionate advocacy that inspires respect in me and others is what, in my opinion, makes Senator Ashcroft the wrong man for this job. For the benefit of my constituents who hold passionate views on both sides of this issue and for my colleagues listening today, I would like to take a few moments to highlight some of the factors I considered when making my decision. I must confess, Mr. President, when I reviewed the history of Senator Ashcroft's involvement in an effort to desegregate public schools in St. Louis, I was surprised and troubled by what I read. According to testimony presented at his confirmation hearing, Senator Ashcroft, in his capacity as Attorney General of Missouri, engaged in an extraordinary legal campaign that spanned several years to block implementation of a voluntary school integration plan in St. Louis. During the course of this litigation, Senator Ashcroft initiated numerous challenges and appeals that were firmly and repeatedly rejected by the courts. Instead of accepting the decisions rendered, he pursued a course of action that drew judicial criticism and, in one instance, a threat of contempt for failure to comply with a court order. I believe it is one thing to vigorously assert your legal rights in a court of law. Its something else, however, for a state's top law enforcement official to display such a cavalier attitude toward the judicial branch of government. I know the issue of racial integration in public education can ignite powerful emotions. I was a young elementary school student when Helena public schools in Arkansas were integrated. This was not an easy transition at the time and it certainly left a powerful and positive impression on me that I shall never forget. So I know that honest people can disagree passionately about this issue and I don't question the personal views Senator Ashcroft may have on this matter generally. I do, however, question the judgement he exercised as a public official in this case. As a Senator from a state that experiences difficulty in recruiting physicians and other qualified medical professionals to work in rural communities, I was also concerned by actions Senator Ashcroft took as Attorney General to restrict access to medical care in under served communities. According to the record, Senator Ashcroft issued an opinion as Attorney General of Missouri and later intervened in a court case to prohibit qualified nurses with advanced training from providing necessary and routine gynecological services to underprivileged female patients at clinics in Missouri. The medical services at issue included conducting breast and pelvic examinations, performing PAP smears and providing information about effective contraceptive practices. Furthermore, the health clinics involved were located in counties in which there was not a single physician who would accept Medicaid eligible patients for pre-natal care or childbirth. Senator Ashcroft put the weight of his office behind an effort to declare the gynecological services at issue in this case outside the scope of practice for professional nurses in Missouri. Thankfully, for the female patients who depend on qualified medical professionals who aren't physicians to deliver necessary care, that claim was rejected in a unanimous ruling by the Missouri Supreme Court. I am concerned about access to care because, after growing up in East Arkansas, I am well aware of the obstacles women face in obtaining the specialized medical care they need. While I respect the right of each state to establish their own standards of medical practice, I think that by going to court against the nurses of his state, Senator Ashcroft displayed a relevant degree of insensitivity on a critical issue to the persons most affected in this case. I must tell you I'm still deeply disappointed by the way this body treated Judge Ronnie White. In my opinion, Judge White is a decent, honorable man who deserved much better. Even though I believe Senator Ashcroft is sincere in his belief that Judge White should not sit on the federal bench, I seriously question the manner in which he acted to defeat his nomination. Now that we have all had time to review a more complete and balanced report of Judge White's record, I am confident the Senate would not make the same mistake again. In fact, Senator Ashcroft has received the same kind of deference and fair treatment that I wish he had shown Judge White. I was taught at an early age that public service is a high calling and a noble profession. In accordance with that belief, it is essential that we in the Senate discharge our responsibility to consider nominations in a manner that encourages the most talented and qualified individuals to seek employment in the public sector. I am confident that the Senate fell short of that standard in this case. Taken together--the battle waged over desegregation in St. Louis, the attempts to stop nurses from providing basic medical services to underserved patients and the decision to defeat the nomination of a qualified nominee who deserved better--these instances and other facts in the record lead me to conclude that Senator Ashcroft will further divide our country on these sensitive issues. I encourage the President to consider another nominee who will help him heal these wounds, not open them anew. In the alternative, I hope our new President will work to heal the wounds inflicted by this nomination on the Senate, the Presidency and our nation so that we can move forward to address the problems of all Americans in a bipartisan way.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the retirement of Dr. Herschel Cutler from the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, ISRI. Dr. Cutler, ISRI's former Executive Director, spent the last 33 years of his life teaching the Nation, including the Congress, about the environmental and economic benefits of recycling. In the course of his tenure, ISRI has become a highly respected trade association known for its dedication to both environmental protection and private sector entrepreneurialism. He had a wonderful knack for hiring extraordinary staff. And, by example, Herschel taught them to do their homework, acquire a deep understanding of their issues, keep their standards high, develop reasonable solutions to problems and, with regard to public policy, to never overreach. Herschel Cutler is not an Arkansan. But, shortly after my first election to serve as a member of the other body, I met him over dinner through fellow Arkansans whose family recycling business was an ISRI member company. During that dinner Herschel gave me a succinct but thorough description of a serious dilemma facing the scrap recycling industry and its possible resolution. After listening to him discuss the concerns facing the many families in the recycling industry, including many Arkansas families, it was easy for me, a farmer's daughter, to identify with a key concern facing them. That is, certain government policies were, inadvertently, having the effect of causing many recycling families to wonder whether they should remain with their businesses. That dinner was the beginning of a long and fruitful relationship between me, Dr. Cutler, and the entire scrap recycling industry. Herschel Cutler's earnest integrity convinced me that the recyclers' cause was worth fighting for. I began that fight in 1993. It ended in 1999, after I teamed up with Senators Daschle and Lott, Baucus, and Chafee to amend the Superfund law to correct a mistake directed at recyclers that nobody had intended. Dr. Herschel Cutler and I have been fast friends ever since. As he retires on January 31, 2001, I cannot thank him enough for his guidance and his counsel to me over the years since we first met. He is truly a modest man of great wisdom, integrity and intellect. Upon his retirement the Washington association community is much the poorer. And with his counsel absent from the daily give and take of public policy discussions in the Congress, so are all of his many friends in both houses. Herschel, I wish you the best fishing, reading, writing, and teaching in your retirement. I'm sure your legions of friends would agree, your friendship has been a blessing to us all.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, in October, the Special Committee on Aging joined Green Thumb to recognize the enormous contributions that this year's Green Thumb ``Prime Time Award'' recipients are making to their community and our country. The Senior Community Service Employment Program is one of the best kept secrets in the country. This program is an innovative and cost- effective federal initiative that allows our nation's seniors to remain productive and independent by contributing their talent and services to their communities. Some of Arkansas' finest employment programs for seniors are sponsored by Green Thumb, and I am pleased to recognize Arkansas' 2000 Prime Time Award recipient, Rhode B. (R.B.) Causey, Sr. R.B., now 96 years old, grew up in a family of 13 children and sold business supplies and office machines during the Depression. These experiences, coupled with his ingenuity, persistence, and strong work ethic, prepared R.B. to branch out on his own in 1952 and open a business supply company. Today, R.B. and his son own and operate the R.B. Causey Company in Little Rock. As if going in to work every day wasn't enough to keep him busy, R.B. also manages his own farm where he produces soybean and rice crops. The farm is also home to his extensive bee-keeping hobby. R.B.'s recipe for success: ``Don't give up, stay involved, do something.'' provides a great example to all of us about the importance of staying active in our ``golden years.'' I am fortunate to know R.B. and other Arkansas senior workers who are so vibrant and enthusiastic about their jobs. I only hope that when I am 75, 80, or 85 I will have half of their energy and zest for life! America's senior population has great value. They have earned our nation's respect and support. Green Thumb and other senior employment programs allow communities to continue to reap the wisdom of our nation's talented seniors citizens.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, as we complete work on the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2000, I would like to bring the Senate's attention to a project that is very important to a group of my constituents in Arkansas: the Ten and Fifteen Mile Bayou project. The Ten and Fifteen Mile Bayou project would provide flood control to a poor, rural area in the Mississippi Delta that is oftentimes overlooked while other projects in more affluent, urban areas move forward. The Delta's small farming communities and poor minorities are the constituencies most affected by the constant flooding that this project seeks to prevent. It is vitally important to the future of this Delta region to alleviate these flooding concerns. I have worked with the St. Francis Levee Board on this important project since my days in the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, the resources of this community are extremely limited and they are unable to meet the cost share requirements of any federal program. Can the distinguished Senator from Montana please explain section 204 of the current WRDA bill dealing with ``the ability to pay'' provision? Specifically, I am interested in hearing how this provision might help projects, like Ten and Fifteen Mile Bayou, that are needed but simply can not meet the cost share requirements.

Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank my colleagues for their comments and I look forward to working with them on this important matter. programmatic regulations

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleagues for yielding. In listening to the chairman of the Budget Committee, he has been willing to work with me and I truly appreciate that. I thank him for his graciousness in working with me. But in his comments, I would like to say, for me and for others, that this is really more of a missed opportunity. So much has been talked about in the Presidential debates about bipartisanship. I think all that many are asking for in this process is an opportunity to do exactly what the people of Arkansas elected me to do. That is to come into this debate with the ideas and the issues and concerns of the people of Arkansas. It is a missed opportunity for Members to be able to express how we feel about these issues in this bill. The people of Arkansas sent me to this Senate to represent them and their issues. When the President comes from the White House to debate on these issues, I am not in that room nor are any of my Democratic colleagues. We have missed the opportunity to very passionately represent the people who have sent us to this body to speak up on their very behalf. There are some good pieces in this bill. I am not here to say the other side doesn't know anything or that they haven't done anything right. All I am here to say is that the people who elected me to come to this body have been shortchanged because I have not been allowed a part of that process. Mind you, I know I am on the bottom of the totem pole. I am not one of the higher muckety-mucks. The fact is, so many of the issues we hear are good for certain States; perhaps they are not good for our State. When we talk about Medicare+Choice in a State such as Arkansas that is predominantly rural, where Medicare Choice has pulled out in some instances and left seniors without coverage, we are going to give one- third of the funds in this bill directly to HMOs without any assurances from those groups that they will even stay in the Medicare program. Nor are there assurances that the HMOs will return to counties where they have already pulled out or will maintain the benefits they promised to seniors. We cannot in good conscience give this large sum to HMOs without providing accountability. If the other side believes that is the way to go, provide me the assurances that those HMOs are going to be willing to come back into those areas where they have already pulled out. Meanwhile, in most of the other provisions that are so necessary to other providers in our States, the bill receives only 1-year fixes for the funding shortfalls. This is a missed opportunity. No, it is not perfect. But it could be so much better for so many people across this Nation. It is our duty to stay here until we make it the best it can possibly be. I support many of the provisions in the tax bill brought to the floor. However, there are problems with the bill, and being able to provide something that is the best that we can possibly provide for all individuals out there is our responsibility. I am willing to stay here, Mr. President, as long as it takes, to do what is right for the American people. We deserve to discuss the merits of the school construction provisions in this bill. I want to do more for school construction in our country. Our schools, especially in the South, are crumbling around our students. The school construction provisions in this bill don't go far enough. If Democrats were allowed in that debate on this issue, perhaps we could bring these provisions closer to what we really need to do. What we really do need is something similar to what Senator Chuck Robb has proposed in his school construction bill. But the fact is we haven't been at the table. We feel as passionately about representing the people in our States as our Republican counterparts do. All we have simply been asking is to be at the table. And I also heard the majority leader say that he was willing to work on Senator Landrieu's adoption language. Well, was she invited to the table? Did he ask her what would be acceptable to her? There is no one more dedicated to this issue than Senator Landrieu, and she should be involved in this discussion. When exactly will she be consulted? When they call her name during the roll call vote? I have been particularly frustrated that the Medicare BBA relief provisions in this bill ignore the real bipartisan solutions that have been worked out between me and many of my colleagues throughout the year. I joined my Republican colleagues in a press conference the other day on a crucial bill, the Hospital Preservation Act of 2000, a bill in the Senate that has the support of 59 bipartisan cosponsors but it is left out of this package. This bill would restore full inflationary updates in Medicare hospital payments and is supported by hospitals across the country. Another bipartisan bill is also left out of this package. The Home Health Payment Fairness Act of 2000, which has the support of 54 bipartisan cosponsors, would eliminate the 15 percent reduction in payment rates for home health services. This provision is very important to home health agencies in Arkansas and across the nation. But the bill we are considering here merely delays this devastating cut for one year. This is not a long-term solution. Why spend time on short-term fixes when we could correct this problem right now? We delayed this cut last year for one year, and here we are again, in the same boat. Let's fix this now. It makes no sense to keep postponing these real solutions year after year and leave our health care providers without the ability to plan their budgets for the long-term. The bottom line is, this is a missed opportunity. The bottom line is that we have been spending well over our surpluses while we haven't provided for the essentials, predominantly the downpayment on our debt.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for two very important pieces of legislation to the women of this country: the Violence Against Women Act and the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act. Combating domestic violence and child abuse has been a top priority for me. I am an early cosponsor of the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 . . . And I joined with my colleagues in 1994 to pass the Violence Against Women Act, making it clear that violence against women is unacceptable. Changing our laws and committing $1.6 billion over six years to police, prosecutors, and battered women shelters has helped America crack down on abusers and extend support to victims. My home state of Arkansas has received almost $16 million in resources to help women who have been or are being abused. This money has made a tremendous difference to women and their families in Arkansas. According to the Department of Justice, fewer women were killed by their husbands or boyfriends in the first two years after the Act's passage than in any year since 1976. We cannot stop this progress now. By voting to continue the Violence Against Women Act, we send a signal to women across the country that they and their children will have options to chose from and a support network to rely on when they leave an abusive relationship. It also reinforces the message to abusers that their actions will not be tolerated or ignored. I am also glad to see the Act expanded to include funding for transitional housing for women and children who are victims of violence, as well as resources for specific populations such as Native Americans and the elderly . . . Mr. President, I'd also like to take a minute to recognize National Breast Cancer Awareness Month and to call on the House to pass the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act. This bill will provide treatment to low-income women screened and diagnosed through the CDC National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. Since 1990, the Centers for Disease Control's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program screens and diagnoses low- income women for breast and cervical cancer, but does not guarantee them treatment once diagnosed. Nationwide, thousands of women are caught in a horrible federal loophole--they are told they have a deadly disease with no financial hope for treatment. The American Cancer Society estimates that in the year 2000, 400 women in Arkansas will die of breast cancer, and 1,900 women will be diagnosed with it. Luckily, my home state is currently administering an effective breast cancer screening program for uninsured women. This program has helped improve the rate of early diagnosis and also provides financial assistance for treatment. However, right now, the CDC program reaches only 15 percent of eligible women . . . Through the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act, Arkansas would benefit from being able to free up resources for education and outreach, to help more women across the state. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the fight to enact this legislation is not over. After a 421-1 passage in the House in May, this critical bill passed the Senate on Wednesday, October 4, 2000 by unanimous consent. It now must go back to the House of Representatives for a vote on the Senate- passed version and then be sent to the President for his signature. I urge my colleagues in the House to move on this legislation, so that the President can sign it into law. And I also urge all of the women in my state to get screened this month. Every three minutes a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, and every 12 minutes a woman dies from breast cancer. Early detection is key. I hope the women of Arkansas, especially if they have a family history of the disease, will take time during National Breast Cancer Awareness Month to take a step that could save their lives.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Recreation Lakes Act of 2000--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. 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 two 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. Mr. President, 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 emphasis partnerships between the federal government, local governments, and private groups to promote responsible recreation on all our federal lakes. It will establish a National Recreational Lakes Demonstration Program, comprised of up to 20 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 2000--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. Mr. President, 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 was 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 in economic activity--mostly spent on privately-provided goods and services. During the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's hearing last year 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 spread throughout the country, there's no reason why we shouldn't do all we can to promote recreation on our federal lakes. 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. Mr. President, 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 Recreation Lakes Act of 2000 will work with all current laws and regulations to ensure that recreation is merely given a seat at the table when the management decisions are made for our federal lakes. Mr. President, 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.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Interior Appropriations Bill for fiscal 2001 and our efforts here in the Senate to enact the Conservation and Reinvestment Act to provide permanent funding for land, water, and wildlife conservation programs in this nation. With the passage of the Interior Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2001, we have taken a step in the right direction toward providing a permanent conservation fund for this nation--but it is only a step. The Interior Appropriations bill funds many important programs and projects in Arkansas including refurbishing the historic Hot Springs National Park Bathhouses, constructing a visitors center at the White River National Wildlife Refuge, and funding needed construction and maintenance at recreation areas in the Ouachita National Forest. The bill also increases the funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, Payments in Lieu of Taxes, Urban and Historic Preservation programs, State Conservation grants. And needed funding for tackling the maintenance backlog in our nation's park system. But it leaves many of the programs that we have pushed for in the Conservation and Reinvestment Act out completely. Specifically, it leaves out a permanent stream of funding for wildlife conservation and education programs. By establishing a permanent funding source for state based wildlife programs, we can take steps now to prevent species from becoming endangered. This would enable us not only to conserve the significant cultural heritage of wildlife enjoyment for the people of this country, but also to avoid the substantial costs associated with recovery for endangered species. In fact, all 50 states would benefit as a result of the important link between these wildlife education-based initiatives and the benefits of wildlife-related tourism. CARA also would have provided a permanent funding source for rural community assistance and development funds, historic preservation, urban parks, conservation easements, and restoration of National Parks. These provisions would annually provide almost $3 billion nationwide for land, water, and wildlife conservation programs and include over $25 million in funding for Arkansas. The 2001 Interior Appropriations bill is an important step toward providing for the conservation of this nation's land, water, and wildlife, but we can do so much more. We must not let this opportunity slip away to enact what may well be the most significant conservation effort of the century. I strongly urge my colleagues to continue to work toward passage of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Recreation Lakes Act of 2000--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. 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 two 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. Mr. President, 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 emphasis partnerships between the federal government, local governments, and private groups to promote responsible recreation on all our federal lakes. It will establish a National Recreational Lakes Demonstration Program, comprised of up to 20 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 2000--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. Mr. President, 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 was 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 in economic activity--mostly spent on privately-provided goods and services. During the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's hearing last year 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 spread throughout the country, there's no reason why we shouldn't do all we can to promote recreation on our federal lakes. 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. Mr. President, 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 Recreation Lakes Act of 2000 will work with all current laws and regulations to ensure that recreation is merely given a seat at the table when the management decisions are made for our federal lakes. Mr. President, 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.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. I would be pleased to yield to my friend from North Carolina.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, as a strong advocate for Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, I feel a personal responsibility to ensure that American companies benefit from this continuing trade relationship. I believe most of my Senate colleagues feel the same way. I am confident there will be many success stories, but there are also valuable lessons to be learned from watching U.S. companies that have tried to do business thus far. Panda Energy International is one such company. Panda is currently building a substantial gas-powered generator in Union County, Arkansas, and I have been personally briefed by Panda's officials about their difficulties in China. Panda spent six years developing a power project near Tangshan in Hebei Province. It signed a contract to sell all of the output from the project to the North China Power Group--an arm of the national utility--at a price to be determined by a formula. Armed with this contract, Panda borrowed $155 million needed to construct the project through a public bond offering in the U.S. capital markets. Construction for the project got underway in 1997. The project was completed late last year, and has been in limbo since that time. The project cannot sell power without formal approval of a tariff, or price for its electricity, by the Tangshan municipal pricing bureau. The Tangshan pricing bureau has been reluctant to assign a tariff that would then set in motion the need to buy additional electricity for the region where demand has recently diminished. At the same time, Panda Energy is in a perilous bind, because it had to mortgage all of its existing power plants--two in the United States and one in Nepal--as security to guarantee the U.S. bond holders they would be repaid their loans. The company is on the verge of defaulting on the loans.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I came to the floor earlier this week to express my strong support for passage of the permanent normal trade relations legislation currently before the Senate. During the course of debate on this issue we have heard several points of view and have considered several amendments to the underlying legislation. I would like to be abundantly clear for the Record that I am joining several of my colleagues that support passage of PNTR by voting against all amendments to this vital legislation. This does not mean that I do not support some of the amendments and initiatives that have been presented before this body. It is unfortunate that our time in the Senate has not been managed in a way that provides us with the adequate time to appropriately debate and amend a vital piece of legislation without running the risk of its complete demise. I, along with many others, have been calling for Congress to take up and pass PNTR legislation since February of this year. We are nearing the end of this legislative session and, unfortunately, time is a precious commodity. We have a backlog of appropriations bills that must be completed prior to October 1st and any successful amendments to this bill could force a conference committee that would further stall and likely doom passage of this essential legislation. Several of my colleagues have submitted a letter from over 60 agricultural related associations and corporations. I, too, received this letter and the same sentiment has been expressed to me by countless companies and associations, including Federal Express, Wal- Mart, United Parcel Service, Microsoft, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and many, many more industries concerned with expanding our market opportunities. In addition, I have heard from many of my constituents in Arkansas including rice farmers, wheat farmers, pork producers, soybean growers, and various other industries from across my State. All of them have urged the Senate to pass PNTR as soon as possible. Many of us have worked to keep this bill clean in order to guarantee its passage and expedite its signature by the President. I am proud that we have achieved this goal, and I am proud that we are now positioned to take advantage of China's continually growing markets. I have no illusions about the rigid, Communist regime of China and I, along with others, want nothing less than to improve the quality of life for citizens of China. I know, however, that the surest way to encourage internal reforms is to open this country to western influence, private enterprise, and the opportunities that come with good old American capitalism.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I wish to comment on the comments of my two colleagues who have spoken about the important issues facing our aging populations in this Nation. They both commented on the 83-year- olds and the 84-year-olds. I think I have them beat. My husband's grandmother will turn 103 on the last day of this month. So the issues for the elderly in Arkansas are extremely important to us, a No. 1 priority, and something I hope we will address in the context of a prescription drug piece for the elderly, as well as reauthorizing the Older Americans Act, not to mention the importance of solidifying and preserving Social Security and Medicare.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I, too, am here to speak on the issue of permanent normal trade relations with China. In order to be successful in today's global economy, every industry must market its products overseas. And in order for the United States to continue the unprecedented economic growth we have seen during the last few years, we must adopt policies that open international markets for farmers, small businesses, manufacturers and service industries. On November 15 of last year, our Government successfully negotiated an historic trade agreement with the People's Republic of China that will bring China into the World Trade Organization. The potential impact of this arrangement cannot be overstated. China is home to one-fifth of the world's population and is growing by 7 percent each year. Access to China's enormous population will help sustain American economic growth. But before the United States and Arkansas can reap the full benefits of this agreement, Congress must vote to grant China Permanent Normal Trade Relations status. The WTO requires that its members extend normal trade relations to all other members. There is a lot at stake depending on whether or not the United States grants PNTR to China. Since February, I have been urging the Senate leadership to bring this issue up for a vote as soon as possible. I had hoped that we would approve this legislation prior to the August recess, but nevertheless, I am anxious to finish work on this bill as soon as possible and get it on the President's desk for signature. There are so many things at stake. We must not lose this opportunity. China will join the WTO regardless of the congressional decision on PNTR, so a decision to deny this new status to China will only give China license to keep its markets closed to U.S. services and agriculture, and to keep its high tariffs in place on U.S. goods and services while opening it up to all other WTO members. All sectors of our economy, especially agriculture, will benefit from increased trade with China. Likewise, all sectors of our economy will suffer if we don't trade with China. Chinese accession into the WTO could mean $2 billion more a year in national agricultural exports to China by the year 2005. On U.S. priority agricultural products, tariffs will drop from an average of 31 percent to 14 percent. China will also expand access for bulk agricultural products, permit private trade in these products, and eliminate export subsidies. In my home State of Arkansas, rice, poultry, soybean and cotton producers will stand to reap enormous benefits from opening markets with China, including lower tariffs and increased trade. For instance, under its WTO accession agreement, China will cut tariffs on rice to 1 percent. Also, China is already the second leading market for U.S. poultry exports. If Congress approves PNTR status, it will cut tariffs in half from 20 percent to 10 percent by the year 2004 for frozen poultry cuts. In addition to the agricultural changes, China's tariffs on American industrial goods will fall from an average of about 25 percent to less than 10 percent within 5 years. Industries including telecommunications, banking, insurance, reinsurance, and pensions will all gain expanded market access. In information technology, tariffs on products such as computers, semiconductors and all Internet-related equipment will decrease from an average of 13 percent to zero by the year 2005. In exchange, the U.S. gives up nothing; our trade policies remain the same. The economic reasons make so much sense and are themselves a very powerful reason for passage of PNTR. But the opportunity we have as a nation to make an impact on the humanity of China only exists if we are engaged with the country and its people. We cannot build a relationship that is effective if we turn our backs on China and isolate them. Is China a perfect country? No. I too share the concerns about human rights abuses in China and believe that a greater international presence in the country, fostered by free trade, will help to improve the lives of Chinese workers and citizens. WTO membership will strengthen the forces of reform inside China by exposing the Chinese to better paying jobs, and higher labor and environmental standards. Finally, permanent normal trade relations with China will force the Chinese to play by the rules in the international marketplace. Only under this agreement with their accession into the WTO will we have the proper recourse to be able to question their practices. The WTO's dispute settlement system will force China to explain its actions if other member countries question them. In addition, the WTO's trade policy review mechanism will allow all other members to review a country's entire trade system. This type of scrutiny of China is virtually unprecedented in history. If we do not approve PNTR status for China, the missed opportunities will be tremendous, not to mention the devastation it could have on our strong economy today. Our producers and industries will not be in a position to openly access the 1.3 billion people who live in China. The United States will not have the ability to challenge China's trade practices or demand better human rights practices. In short, the United States stands to gain enormously if we grant PNTR status to China, and we stand to lose enormously if we do not. Certainly once China does enter the WTO, there will still be many challenges ahead for all of us, but congressional approval of PNTR for China is a critical first step. It means so much to this Nation and to my home State of Arkansas. We must take this first step in passage of a good, clean PNTR bill in the Senate. Having China in the WTO is a good deal for Arkansas and a good deal for this Nation. I encourage my colleagues to approve the House-passed bill granting permanent normal trading relations with China--soon, not later--and that we send it to the President to be confirmed so we can continue building a relationship which will benefit both countries. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a noble Southern gentleman, Senator Paul Coverdell. All of us in the Senate were saddened by the sudden loss of such a fine man, and we will sorely miss him. As a relative newcomer to the Senate, I have spent a great deal of my time on the Senate floor observing my colleagues. You can tell a lot about a person by his demeanor, and I first grew to like Paul Coverdell simply by watching him. He wore a cloak of peacefulness around him and he radiated kindness. It was rare to see him without a smile. When I began working with him on the ``Small Watershed Dams Rehabilitation'' bill, I realized that my first impressions of him had been accurate. He was, indeed, kind and friendly. It was a pleasure to work with him in a bipartisan manner on an issue that is vital to both of our states. As is obvious by his rise within the leadership of the Republican Party, he was extremely loyal to his Party. But he never let partisanship interfere with his relationships in the Senate. In short, he was a statesman in every sense of the word. To his wife, Nancy, and the rest of his family, I extend my sincere condolences. Public life is not an easy one, and our country's greatest leaders can be identified by the support system that is their family. Thank you, Nancy, for sharing Paul with the rest of us.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished gentlemen from Washington and West Virginia for their leadership in shepherding this bill through Committee and to the floor. I recognize that the Committee was faced with requests that went far beyond the Committee's budget, and I commend the leaders for successfully balancing the myriad of requests with which they were presented. I want to bring to my colleagues' attention one particular program that I believe is worthy of additional funding in Conference. Would the Senator from West Virginia agree that encouraging the forest and paper products industry to achieve greater energy efficiency is a worthy goal?

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise in support of this bipartisan amendment which prevents funds from being used for the application of unapproved pesticides in areas that may be used by children and directs the Secretary of the Interior to work with EPA to ensure that pest control methods do not lead to unacceptable exposure to children. We updated the safety standards for pesticides, with specific safety factors for children, in 1996. This amendment allows EPA to do its job. The Boxer amendment seeks to regulate pest control products from the Senate floor, thereby ignoring the scientific tests EPA requires for pesticide registrations. I urge Members to support the Bond second-degree amendment and to let EPA do its job of regulating and ensuring safety for all of us, including our children.

Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the gentleman. Indian Trust Services Programs

Mrs. LINCOLN. Since we agree with that goal, I am sure the Senator shares my support for a program within the Department of Energy that will encourage the forest and paper products industry to utilize resources that are readily available on site to produce energy. By utilizing wood and bark residues and spent pulping liquor in a process called black liquor gasification, the industry could potentially improve on site electricity generation by 300%-400% over existing cogeneration systems. Given these benefits, would the Senator agree that increasing funding for the black liquor gasification program should be pursued in Conference?

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, with the passage of the emergency supplemental appropriations bill, I want to talk about an important issue to all of my constituents in Arkansas and to private property owners across this country. I thank the appropriators for including language in the bill that will prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating or implementing its proposed Total Maximum Daily Load regulations. In issuing its August 1999 Total Maximum Daily Load regulation, the EPA overstepped its congressionally mandated authority. Congress authorized the EPA to regulate point sources and left it up to the states to regulate non-point sources and develop and implement TMDL plans. In its proposed TMDL regulation, the EPA granted itself authority to regulate these specific items and clearly overstepped its regulatory authority. These changes, while seemingly innocuous, represent a major shift in Clean Water Act authority from the States to the Federal Government at the hands of the Environmental Protection Agency. Congress has the authority to set clean water laws of this country, not the EPA. I reiterate something I have been saying as often as anyone will listen--these new regulations can easily be summed up in two words-- unreasonable and unnecessary. I understand some of my distinguished colleagues' objections to what seems like legislating on an appropriations bill, but I want to let my colleagues know that I have attempted to use all other avenues to fix this regulation. I completely agree with the EPA's objective of cleaning up our Nation's rivers, lakes, and streams, but firmly believe that this regulation oversteps congressional mandated authority and intent for the implementation of the Clean Water Act. I assure my colleagues that I have done all that I could to encourage the EPA to back down before we got to this point. I have personally met with the President. I have personally met with EPA Administrator Carol Browner. I have introduced legislation to reassert congressional intent regarding the Clean Water Act. My colleagues and I have held ten congressional Committee hearings, introduced six pieces of legislation on this matter, and held over 20 public meetings around the country that were attended by thousands of property owners. In Arkansas alone, we have held three public meetings and two congressional field hearings. In El Dorado over 1,000 attended; in Texarkana over 4,000 attended; in Fayetteville over 2,000 attended; and over 1,000 attended in Hot Springs and in Lonoke to learn how this new TMDL regulation would affect their private property and to protest the reach of the EPA into traditional non-point source activities. We have attempted all available avenues to right this wrong. It was never congressional intent for the EPA to regulate non-point sources or to interfere with States' implementation of TMDLs on its rivers, lakes, and streams. After all of our efforts to curb this regulation and bring it back into line with congressional intent have failed, we have been left with no other recourse but to restrict the EPA's funding for this TMDL regulation. This emergency supplemental appropriations bill is a good bill, and it rightly delays implementation of any new, unnecessary and unreasonable EPA regulations until Congress and the States have adequate time to address this issue properly and completely. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.