Blanche Lincoln

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I, too, join my colleague, Senator Landrieu, in applauding what our colleague from Ohio, Senator Voinovich, was doing previously in bringing up the importance of not only the program of IDEA but also the importance for us to be able to make good on commitments we have made, things we have asked our States and our localities to do and yet have not provided them the resources to do them. This is just one of those requests. When we look at the targeted grants for the title I dollars, it is a program that was authorized over 6 years ago and never has been funded. That is all the Senator from Louisiana is asking--that we make good on our obligation that came about several years ago to target those dollars to the neediest of children across this Nation. And to our colleague, Senator Gramm from Texas, who mentioned that one of the most important things we need to do in this debate is to set priorities, I say: Exactly. Let's set the priorities of educating our children and understanding that we are only as strong as our weakest link, and that devoting the resources we have obligated long ago to the neediest of children should be done. So I rise in support of the amendment offered by my good friend from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, which would provide a modest increase in title I funding and target those additional resources to the neediest public schools. As I have said on many occasions, I believe strongly that we need to increase the Federal investment in public education to ensure that all students have access to quality education. But spending more money to help educators meet higher standards is only one part of that solution. We also have to ensure that Federal dollars are spent responsibly and that we allocate those resources where we can make a real difference. Right now, in those title I funds, there are three categories. These targeted grants don't receive any of that funding. Eighty-five percent goes to basic grants and 15 percent goes to concentration grants. Statistics consistently demonstrate that, on average, children who attend schools with a high concentration of low-income students lag behind students from more affluent areas. This is certainly true in Arkansas, where students in the delta region score lower on academic achievement tests than students in our more prosperous regions of the State. To me, these statistics are a clear indication that title I, which again was created to aid the education of disadvantaged children, isn't working as well as it should. We have diluted our title I program funds to so many different areas, until they have become less effective in the areas where they are supposed to be directed--to the disadvantaged. Congress recognized that problem back in 1994 when it created those targeted grants for title I dollars. In the most recent ESEA Reauthorization Act, unlike basic and concentrated grants, targeted grants are designed so that school districts with a high percentage of low-income students receive a greater share of title I funding. I think we were on to something, but unbelievably these targeted grants have never been funded. This is unfortunate because these are the kids who need the Federal assistance the most, and it is where we could do the most good. Income status alone doesn't determine student achievement. It is the concentration of economically disadvantaged students in a school that makes the most difference. After visiting dozens of schools and talking with hundreds of parents in my home State, I am convinced that we have to change our approach if we want to maintain public confidence and support for a strong role in education at the Federal level. In addition to more targeted funding, we need tough accountability standards to ensure students are learning core academic subjects, and more flexibility at the local level to allow school districts to meet their most pressing needs. Ultimately, we have to account for the money we spend in Washington and show our constituents results to sustain their support. I also call on my colleagues to support an amendment Senator Lieberman will be offering later which will address this issue. It calls for a comprehensive GAO study of targeting under title I. At the very least, I believe we have a responsibility to take a good, hard look at the current system because the status quo isn't good enough. This amendment is an important step in the right direction. I applaud my colleague from Louisiana for the courage to stand up for what is right. Maybe it is not the most popular, but it is right. I urge support for this proposal. This may not be a political issue, and this certainly may not be the most popular issue with those in this body who want to keep the status quo, but it is the right issue. It is the right decision to make, and it is the right amendment to support. If nothing else, this body should support this amendment on behalf of the neediest children in this Nation. I applaud my colleague's courage, and I appreciate her leadership in this effort. I yield the floor.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I, too, commend my colleague from Virginia, Senator Robb, for his wonderful leadership on this issue. My colleagues have already spoken eloquently about the need for prescription drug coverage among seniors and, certainly, the basic components of this amendment. I won't reiterate what they have said. We, as a body, must make this a priority, and we have not. I think this amendment is timely because the House is scheduled to act on it today. It is quickly becoming a crisis issue for many seniors in the country today, and that is why I am here as a supporter of a bipartisan plan in the Senate. As a Senator who represents the State with the highest poverty rate among seniors, I am committed to seeing that the Senate act this year to implement a prescription drug plan. With all due respect to the chairman's comments in terms of timeliness and what must go through committee, the bottom line is that we are running out of time to do something on this issue. This plan will provide immediate, affordable, and comprehensive drug coverage to seniors who often have to make the choice between buying food to eat or buying the prescription drugs they need. I want to emphasize the importance of the Medicare outpatient drug plan to rural seniors. In particular, this plan helps all seniors, particularly those who are low-income and living in rural areas. This is important because low-income and rural seniors are less likely to have adequate prescription drug coverage. Nationally, rural seniors are 60 percent more likely not to be able to buy needed prescription drugs due to their high cost. A greater proportion of rural elderly spend a large percentage of their income on prescription drugs. Rural beneficiaries need adequate coverage because they are more likely to have poor health and lower income than seniors living in urban areas. In Arkansas, 60 percent of the State's seniors live in rural areas. This is a good prescription drug proposal. It is a fiscally sound proposal that offers free coverage to our Nation's poorest seniors and reasonable benefits to those who can better afford to pay for some of their benefits. Our seniors deserve to enjoy healthier, longer lives without having to worry about affording the medicine they need. The Senate must act this year and this is an excellent time to do it. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Perhaps the chairman of the Aging Committee will allow me 5 additional minutes.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I rise to call attention to the needs of our Nation's seniors. Although Social Security, Medicare reform and prescription drugs make daily headlines in newspapers across the country and are the topic of Congressional and Presidential debates, there are two other important programs for seniors which do not receive the media attention they deserve. These two programs are the Older Americans Act and the Social Services Block Grant. As a member of the Senate Special Committee on Aging and a Senator representing the State with the highest poverty rate among seniors, I want to reinforce to my colleagues in the Senate the importance of these two programs, which are lifelines to low-income, homebound and frail seniors. First, we need to reauthorize the Older Americans Act. It is our country's main vehicle for providing a wide range of social services and nutrition programs to older men and women. Unfortunately, the Older Americans Act has not been reauthorized since 1995--absolutely inexcusable--making this the sixth year without a reauthorization of such a vital program for our Nation's senior. Because this year marks the 35th anniversary of the Older Americans Act, Congress has a unique and timely opportunity to improve the Older Americans Act. If we don't act, we will be sending the wrong message to our Nation's seniors. We would be telling them that they are not a priority in this Nation. This is absolutely the wrong message to be sending to those who helped create this incredible prosperity in our Nation. I say to my colleagues, we can do better. We must do better. The South not only has some of the highest poverty rates among seniors, but the South is the home of the majority of seniors in the country. Here are some statistics that might surprise you: Florida, West Virginia and Arkansas rank among the top five States nationally with the highest percentage of seniors over the age of 55; through 2020, the South will see an 81 percent increase in its population of persons age 65 to 84 years of age; and for people age 85 and over, that increase in the South will be 134 percent--phenomenal in terms of what we will see in the South with elderly individuals dependent on programs that the Older Americans Act provides--and over half of all elderly African Americans live in the South. Based on these compelling statistics and the pending ``age wave'' that is coming to the South, the time to act is now. We must update the formula used to calculate Older Americans Act funds so Southern states receive their fair share of the funds. Currently, 85 percent of Older Americans Act funds are distributed to States based on 1985 numbers. This is neither fair to southern States nor is it good public policy to be using such outdated information. Without a formula update, States like Arkansas, and other southern States, with greater numbers of seniors will continue to be expected to do too much with absolutely too little. Each year Title III funding provides seniors around the country with hot, nutritious meals in senior centers and other congregate settings. In addition, millions of meals are delivered each year to homebound men and women who rely on this program not only for nutrition, but for companionship and human contact which volunteers provide when they visit the person each day. I have made those rounds with constituents, delivering meals on wheels to our seniors in rural areas. It means so much to have someone bring a nutritous meal and to visit. For many seniors, the only human contact they have each day is with the person who delivers their meals. During extreme weather conditions, home-delivered meal volunteers are able to check on seniors and make sure they are not ill or suffering from extreme heat or cold. In Arkansas, we deliver 2 million home meals a year to the elderly and provide another 2 million congregate meals. However, many seniors are still unable to receive meals. About 1,300 frail, homebound elderly men and women are on waiting lists for home-delivered meals. This number only represents a fraction of low-income seniors who need meals but can't get them, because those living in rural areas that are not served by programs like Meals on Wheels are not counted for waiting lists. Here is a story which was sent to me by an Area Agency on Aging caseworker from Fulton County, AR. She writes about a couple by the name of John and Reba. John and Reba live in a mobile home near Salem, Arkansas. They started receiving home delivered meals in October 1999. Both of them are physically handicapped and are barely able to get around. John is on oxygen and has severe heart problems. Reba has heart problems and arthritis. At the time they began receiving meals they were physically and financially burdened and didn't know how they would buy food for the next meal. Reba said getting the meals had relieved them from a great burden. She said they can hardly wait each day to get their meals. They really look forward to seeing the volunteer and the van coming to their trailer. Here is another story about an Arkansas senior. Mr. Black is 71 years old and lives alone in an old farmhouse in an isolated, rural area in Van Buren County. In the winter you can feel the wind blow through the house and in the summer the heat is unbearable. Mr. Black does not have any immediate family to check on him. He only has a microwave to cook in. He lives on a fixed income and has no transportation to get into town to purchase groceries on a regular basis. Mr. Black said this about the home delivered meals he receives, ``They help me out a lot. The meals are better than the food I can buy. I can't buy much on a fixed income.'' Mr. Black has told his case manager on more than one occasion that he does not know what he would do without the meals. It is a real hardship on him if he misses his home delivered meals. One week he missed all of his home delivered meals because of doctors appointments and it was very difficult for him to buy food and prepare meals that week. He just went without. The Title V senior employment program is one of the best kept secrets in the country. Through this funding mechanism, older Americans who want to work can go to a senior employment agency in their community and learn of available job opportunities. No matter what type of training seniors need to fill these jobs, training is made available to them. For example, if seniors need training to work in a modern office environment, they learn how to surf the internet, use computers and send faxes. Nationally, over 61,000 seniors a year are employed through senior programs. Some of Arkansas's finest employment programs for seniors are operated by Green Thumb and other outstanding Area Agencies on Aging. I have met many older workers and listened to them talk with enthusiasm about their jobs. I only hope that when I'm 75, 80, or 85 I will have half of their energy and zest for life! The senior employment program is a win-win proposition for both sides. Low-income seniors who need additional income to supplement their Social Security checks have an opportunity to find a job placement and any necessary training through a Title V contractor. This not only generates additional income for seniors but a sense of purpose and a chance to stay engaged in their community and make a contribution--something we all want to feel, and that is needed. The community and employers benefit by hiring honest, loyal and dependable persons who are committed to showing up for work every day and doing a good job. Especially in booming economic times when the job market is tight, seniors can fill jobs that employers otherwise might not be able to fill. The senior employment program makes good economic sense. It also provides for the workers: the quality and guidance of seniors who exemplify a tremendous work ethic and bring a lot to the workplace. Here is a remarkable story of a woman from Texarkana, AR, whose life was transformed by the Green Thumb program. Olla Mae Germany came to the Green Thumb program at the age of 65. She had been a victim of domestic violence. She had never worked, could barely read and had walked to the interview. She told the coordinator that she was ``dumb, stupid, ugly, ignorant, and no one cared about her.'' During that meeting she also shared her hopes for the future--she wanted to learn to read, achieve a GED, gain clerical and computer skills, and get a job. Ms. Germany was assigned to the Literacy Council in Texarkana. Her job entailed clerical duties and literacy training. After receiving her first pay check, Ms. Germany told her boss that she bought a new outfit for work and had her hair styled professionally for the first time in her life. She was especially pleased that the people in her office noticed her appearance and told her she looked pretty. With increased self-esteem she became more confident in her abilities. Only 24 weeks after her Green Thumb enrollment, Ms. Germany learned to read and significantly improved her office skills. She began making public speeches on behalf of the local literacy council. Today, Ms. Germany continues to work toward self-sufficiency. She has a new job with a Texarkana agency that promotes neighborhood revitalization and economic development. She is learning new technology skills. She is also studying for her GED. Recently, Ms. Germany was able to buy her very first car, thanks to the money she has earned from her jobs. With new marketable skills, a confident self-image and dependable transportation, Ms. Germany is well on her way toward achieving her goals for a brighter future and making a contribution to her community. I know Democrats and Republicans on the Special Committee on Aging disagree over the allocation of Title V monies. I think groups like Green Thumb have proven their ability to train and place older workers successfully in the community and I urge my colleagues to allow the national Title V grantees to continue receiving a majority of Title V funds. The reauthorization of the Older Americans Act will also include a new authorization for the National Family Caregivers Act. I am an original cosponsor of this bill in the Senate because I believe that our country needs to find a better way to support family members who serve as caregivers. No one wants to leave their home just because they are aging and/or disabled. The inclusion of a National Family Caregivers Act is foreward thinking and family friendly. Baby boomers need support to care for their family members and it is high time that we provide Federal leadership in this area of home care. Finally, the other program I will focus on is the Social Services Block Grant, better known by its acronym SSBG. States use SSBG funds to support programs for both at-risk children and seniors. In Arkansas, a significant portion of SSBG funds are used to support and operate senior centers, to provide Meals on Wheels for frail, homebound elderly, and to provide transportation for seniors, especially those living in rural areas. Over the past five years, Congress has cut SSBG funds by $1 billion.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.

Mrs. LINCOLN. This year alone, the Senate Labor-HHS Subcommittee on Appropriations cut SSBG by $1.1 billion. This translates into a cut of nearly two-thirds. Arkansas will lose over $11 million in FY 2001. This draconian cut comes on the heels of a $134 million cut in FY 2000 in which Arkansas lost $1.3 million. What does this dramatic funding loss mean to senior services in my home state? Because Arkansas spends a majority of its SSBG funds on senior services, 40 senior centers around the state may have to shut down or dramatically reduce operating hours. In addition to providing social activities and hot, nutritious meals to seniors, senior centers also provide seniors with rides to the doctor's office, the pharmacy and grocery stores. As one Area Agency on Aging administrator in Malvern, Arkansas wrote to me, ``for many of our seniors, the senior center is their lifeline. It provides them with a reason to get up in the morning.'' I would like to read to you what a social services case manager sent me about an aging client in northwest Arkansas. When Delbert was in his early 50's he suffered a stroke that left him with paralysis on the left side and confined to a wheelchair. He has no children and his only family support comes from a sister and brother-in-law in Atlanta, Georgia. They help him with money management. Case managers and case workers with the Area Agency on Aging helped him find a personal care assistant on a temporary basis through the state's Supplemental Personal Care Program. In the meantime, Delbert applied for and awaited approval from the Alternatives Program for Adults with Physical Disabilities, a state Medicaid program. Once approval came, he received funding and assistance in having his bathroom retrofitted to be handicapped accessible. He was also provided with personal care and housekeeping assistance. Delbert also began to receive home delivered meals. Last October, Delbert celebrated his 65th birthday. Because he was confined to a wheelchair and very isolated and lonely, his doctor prescribed socialization and exercise to combat his depression. Now, every Tuesday and Thursday Delbert rides in a handicap accessible van to the Benton County Senior Services Center where he participates in an exercise program. He now enjoys his newfound friends and enjoys games and other activities at the senior center. Thanks to these aging and disability support services, Delbert lives with dignity and independence. Without this assistance he would, no doubt, have spent the past few years in a long-term care facility at enormous cost to the public. If SSBG gets cut severely this year, millions of Meals on Wheels to homebound seniors may not be delivered next year to people who rely on them. States are already scaling back congregate and home delivered meal programs because of last year's Federal funding cuts. Although Congress increased Older Americans Act funds for home delivered meals by 31% last year, it simultaneously cut the Social Services Block Grant and the USDA Nutrition Program for the Elderly, which resulted in a net loss of $300,000 in Federal funds to Arkansas. Unless we act, this year's cuts will be even greater. To put the cost of home delivered meals in perspective, the cost of providing home delivered meals to a senior for one year costs about as much as one day's stay in the hospital for one person. I don't know about you, but I think that is pretty affordable. The irony of the situation is that these draconian cuts to SSBG come at a time when our budget is experiencing unprecedented surpluses. That is why I respectfully disagree with some of my colleagues who support these crippling SSBG funding cuts. They argue that Governors can offset these cuts with tobacco settlement money or TANF funds, but I think this is unrealistic. Governors are spending most of their tobacco settlement funds on health related initiatives and smoking prevention programs. I supported an amendment during last year's Labor/HHS/Education appropriations process to restore funding to the SSBG, although it did not pass. Recently I cosponsored legislation by Senators Graham and Jeffords to restore SSBG funding. When I was in the House of Representatives and voted for welfare reform, an agreement was made between Congress and the states to decrease SSBG from $2.8 billion to $2.4 billion until welfare reform was firmly established. In FY 03, Congress was to restore funding to the $2.8 billion level. Clearly, Congress has not operated in good faith in honoring this agreement. I believe that the Older Americans Act and the Social Services Block Grant are vital safety nets for our nation's seniors. I hope the Senate will do the right thing by passing a pro-senior Older Americans Act and restore funds to the Social Services Block Grant. I don't know about my colleagues, but I do know there is not a day that goes by that I don't think of the contribution of an elderly person in my life. I would like to close by reading a quote by Senator Hubert Humphrey that you may be familiar with: It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life--the sick, the needy and the disabled. I think we have a wonderful opportunity to help the young, the old, the sick, the needy and the disabled by restoring the cuts to the Social Services Block Grant and reauthorizing the Older Americans Act. Let's get to work!

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute and to recognize a fellow Arkansan, Blake Rutherford, for his accomplishments at Middlebury College in Vermont. Blake is a native of Little Rock, attended Little Rock Central High School, and will be graduating from Middlebury College with a degree in Political Science in August 2000. This fine young man is the first student ever chosen at Middlebury College to give the Student Commencement Address. This is a well deserved honor for Blake Rutherford and I whole heartily congratulate him on his achievements. I ask that the text of his speech be included following my remarks. Blake Rutherford's Commencement Speech Today, we are fortunate to experience one of the great accomplishments in life. Like thousands throughout America, we are gathered at the beginning of a new millennium, a unique time in our nation and in our world. But unlike thousands we have come together in a very special place- nestled between the Adirondacks and the Green Mountains--a place where we worked hard, played hard, made lifelong friends, and have spent some of the best years of our lives. Paraphrasing the legendary Bob Hope, ``Middlebury: Thanks for the Memories.'' I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Class of 2000--individually and collectively--for your achievements. I also want to thank the Board of Trustees, the administration, faculty, and staff for providing us the very best. And I especially want to thank our parents and families for paying for it. At our centennial celebration one hundred years ago, the Middlebury Register characterized it as the ``day of days for the undergraduate.'' Today, a century later, is most certainly our day of days and one that we will celebrate and remember forever with great pride, for as Emerson noted, ``The reward of a thing well done, is to have done it.'' Middlebury College began in 1800 under the direction of President Jeremiah Atwater in a small building with only seven students. As we see almost 200 hundred years later, more than 2000 students larger, under the direction of President John McCardell, much has changed. Built for only $8,000, Painter Hall, constructed between 1814 and 1816, is currently the oldest building on campus. Although it stands the same today, the environment and the atmosphere around it do not. Admittance into Middlebury in 1815 used to consist of a forty-minute oral examination in Latin, Greek and arithmetic. Remembering back four years ago, I could only wish the process was as simple. But today, thanks to the efforts of many, Middlebury is blessed with a stronger, more diverse student body than it has ever had. We have seen the number of applicants to Middlebury grow steadily over the past four years. We have seen the number of minorities on campus grow over the past four years. Most importantly, we have seen Middlebury's reputation grow and spread all over the United States and to dozens of countries across the world. Our accomplishment and our experiences have taught us a lot about ourselves and about Middlebury College. As we strive to promote a more diverse environment, we find ourselves struggling to come to terms with many difficult questions and issues. In answering these, let us turn to the lessons taught to us by three prominent Middlebury graduates. Roswell Field graduated from Middlebury College in 1822. Upon his departure from the College, he became a lawyer, and is most famous for arguing to the Supreme Court on behalf of a slave named Dred Scott. Although the Court did not rule in his favor, his case has taught us that intolerance and bigotry cannot and should not be permitted against any group, at any level. Alexander Twilight received his Middlebruy diploma in 1823, and in turn became the first African-American to receive a college degree. Today, several minority students will walk across this stage as members of the class of 2000. No doubt, Mr. Twilight would be encouraged. Ron Brown graduated from Middlebury in 1962. Upon his arrival here, which at the time was almost all white, one campus fraternity objected, saying they only permitted ``White, Christian'' members, Brown and other members of his fraternity chose to fight. In time our local chapter was expelled, but because of his efforts, Middlebury, more importantly, made it college policy that no exclusionary chapters would exist on campus. Ron Brown had an exemplary professional career serving as Secretary of Commerce until his death in a tragic plane crash in 1996. Jesse Jackson once said of him, ``He learned to be a bridge between the cultures.'' I hope we all can remember that lesson here today. A lesson, no doubt, Ron Brown learned at Middlebury College. We've come a long way since these individuals were here, but we still have a long way to go. I am a son of the South. I came a far distance to go to school here. Acceptance to Middlebury was my own impossible dream. I graduated from Little Rock Central High School where 43 years ago nine African-American students were denied admittance prompting a constitutional crisis our nation had not seen since the Civil War. While much progress has been made, today in parts of the Mississippi Delta region of our own country--just a couple of hours from my home--there is poverty at its very worst. Several years ago the late Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois was speaking at a ceremony at the Gettysburg Battlefield where he said, ``Men died here and men are sleeping here who fought under a July sun that the nation might endure: united, free, tolerant, and devoted to equality. The task was unfinished. It is never quite finished.'' He was right. It is never quite finished. With our Middlebury foundation, we're now going to embark on a world full of many wonderful opportunities and also of many grave problems. If we can remember two important lessons, our lives and certainly our world will be a much better place. First, the future can always be better than the present. And second, we have a responsibility to ensure that that is the case. It is a responsibility we have to ourselves, to our communities, to Middlebury and most importantly to those who are not as fortunate to be here, among us, today. This afternoon we leave Middlebury with a greater knowledge of various academic fields, the world and ourselves. We also leave Middlebury young and energetic, bound closer to one another more than we probably ever will be through our friendships, our relationships, and our experiences. And with that we now have the opportunity to help and serve others. Robert Kennedy said, ``This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind, a temper of will, a quality of the imagination, a predominance of courage over timidity, of the appetite of adventure over the love of ease.'' Today, we make history as the first graduating class of Middlebury's third century. It is an accomplishment that I'm sure makes our families, our friends, and those close and important to us very proud as well. So let us always remember this day, May 21, 2000 as our day of days--our historic day. And very soon will all embark on separate journeys and begin a new and exciting chapter in our lives. In doing so, let us not forget the famous words of Tennyson who wrote, ``That which we are, we are, one equal temper of heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will, to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.'' And for the class of 2000, the world now awaits and the best is yet to be. Good Luck and Congratulations.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Home Ownership Made Easy (HOME) Act, which will expand home ownership opportunities for low- and moderate-income, first-time home buyers. Providing affordable, fair, and quality housing for all people is important. Home ownership is not only the American Dream, it also increases pride in community, schools, and safety. Too often, however, American workers who make too much money to qualify for public assistance and too little money to afford a home on their own are stuck in the middle. These families are stuck in substandard housing or in neighborhoods that are far from their jobs. Fortunately, in the early 1980's, Congress established the Mortgage Revenue Bond (MRB) program, which allowed state and local governments to issue tax-exempt bonds to finance mortgages at below-market interest rates to first-time home buyers. Unfortunately, as sometimes happens in government programs, administrative barriers have rendered the program less effective in recent years. The Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Housing and Urban Development have been unable to collect and maintain statistical data on average area purchase prices in all states. In Arkansas for instance, the MRB Program is based on an average area purchase price that was established in 1993. This means that, while housing prices are going up, the threshhold for homeowners to qualify for an MRB loan has stayed the same. The HOME Act reduces the administrative burden on the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It will allow state and local housing finance agencies to use a multiple of income limits, which are readily available and updated annually. Relying on already established MRB income requirements is a natural fit because families generally purchase homes within their income range. The Mortgage Revenue Bond program is a state administered program that works. The HOME Act will continue to expand the MRB's track record and success. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in full in the Record.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, when President Kennedy announced a trade embargo on Cuba in 1961, the consensus in Washington was that stifling the Cuban economy would lead to internal unrest and ultimately depose the anti-American president, Fidel Castro. Since that time, Congress has tightened the screws on Cuba to include food and medicine in the embargo and to put pressure on other countries not to trade with Cuba. We have made it more difficult to lift the embargo by requiring a two- thirds vote by Congress and we have passed a law that says no government involving Fidel Castro or his brother will be acceptable to the U.S., even if they were chosen in Democratic elections. Through it all, our main nemesis, Fidel Castro, has survived. In fact, he is strong as ever. To gain a better understanding of this issue, I recently led a group of Arkansas farmers to Havana to see firsthand the impact of our policy and the potential opportunities that exist should this policy be changed. I entered Havana focused on Cuba's potential as a new trade market for Arkansas agriculture producers. I left Havana with a new understanding of the embargo's effects on the people of Cuba. I returned from Cuba more confident than ever that the U.S. embargo on Cuba must be lifted. The three most compelling reasons for my stance on this issue are: (1) the fact that we should engage countries, not isolate them in order to move them forward and help them to gain potential; (2) the overall effect on the American economy that losing the trade with Cuba has had; and (3) the humanitarian impact on the Cuban people. This was my first trip to Cuba and it was extremely worthwhile. I found the country and its people impressive and possessing great potential. The architecture in downtown Havana was charming, however, it struck me that someone had turned the lights out 40 years ago and no one has thought to flip the switch back on. The gorgeous architecture was crumbling along with the people. The physical decay of the cities, buildings, and infrastructure is readily apparent. This obvious economic and physical decline has not, however, led to an uprising of Cuban citizens demanding for a more democratic government based on capitalistic principles. It has been four decades since the embargo was enforced for political reasons. Times have clearly changed. The Soviet Union no longer aids Cuban efforts to challenge U.S. interests in Central America and elsewhere. The Soviet Union does not even exist. The Cold War has been over for 10 years and the U.S. has normal trade relations with all of the countries of the former Eastern bloc. Yet we continue to ostracize Cuba. U.S. defense analysts even maintain that Cuba does not pose a security threat to our country at the turn of the century. Is Cuba an ideal nation? Absolutely not. But there are other countries that we trade with and maintain normal diplomatic relations with whose governments are not democratically elected; where full respect for internationally recognized human rights is lacking; where there is little or no tolerance for political dissent; or where private enterprise is largely illegal. The first of these countries that comes to mind is China. Prior to the Memorial Day recess the House of Representatives voted to grant Permanent Normal Relations (PNTR) status to the Republic of China. The Senate will likely vote on this matter soon. On this separate but related issue let me be clear. I look forward to the China PNTR debate and urge my colleagues to join me in support of expanding our trading opportunities. I hope that we can pass PNTR with China as quickly as possible with no amendments so that President Clinton can sign this landmark legislation into law. As I have watched the China PNTR debate rage in Washington during recent weeks, I am struck by the common theme that we, as a nation, can influence a country's actions much more by engaging them in trade and communication than we ever could by ignoring and isolating them. I've held to this belief for quite some time in regard to China as well as Cuba. China is the largest Communist country in the world. The U.S. has annually granted China its most-favored-nation status and will likely approve Permanent Normal Trade Relations in the coming months. Our treatment of Cuba should be no different. It is true that China has made various overtures and taken some positive steps as their acceptance into the WTO is being considered. China has allowed for a limited amount of private enterprise to exist. And recently, China purchased goods from the U.S. as a good faith gesture that they will live up to the commitments negotiated in the WTO accession agreement. Many who oppose trade with Cuba ask, ``Why are we not holding Cuba to the same standard? Why don't we require them to privatize certain business entities or purchase some commodities as a good faith gesture?'' The option to purchase U.S. goods is not available to Cuba, as it is to China, due to laws that we have passed in this very institution. Their hands are tied. Yet Cuba is taking steps on its own regarding private industry. Recent progress has been made in the form of joint ventures to facilitate the tourism industry in Cuba. For instance, the hotel we stayed in was a joint venture with the Dutch. Of course the government is still participating, but it is an example of private capital coming in from another source and affecting the people's way of life. The people working at those hotels receive tips from tourists that put them way above the daily wage of average Cubans. Steps made in these directions can only foster and plant positive seeds for change. We can also expect the rapidly and advancing technology of the Internet to help open doors to Cuba. Just as Chinese dissidents communicate today over the Internet in spite of attempts by the Communists to stop them, I can anticipate a day when the Cuban people do the same thing. The farmers of Cuba are incapable of producing enough to sustain the 11 million inhabitants of the Caribbean island. Therefore, food must be imported. Our allies are already meeting that need and trading with Cuba. Rice is coming into Cuba from Asia, soybeans from Brazil, while our farmers endure some of the worst prices they have seen in decades. We have put ourselves in a position where we are hurting our own economy and the backbone of our nation, the America farmer. By denying our farmers access to additional markets, like Cuba, we are ignoring a pledge that was made with the passage of the 1996 Farm Bill to open markets, the necessary markets our farmers need. Promises regarding enhanced trading opportunities and the free market abounded with passage of the so-called Freedom to Farm Act. Yet, the recently passed Caribbean/Africa Trade bill was the first trade bill Congress has passed in six years. We have failed to grant the President Fast Track Authority and essentially guaranteed the failure of our nation's farmers by granting them the ability to produce as much as they are capable while denying them access to sufficient markets to move their goods. For the American farmer the combination of this nation's Ag and foreign trade policies is a no-win situation. For soybeans alone, opening up trade with Cuba could mean a $60 million market. In Arkansas, we could ship 400,000 tons of rice right down the Mississippi River, through the Gulf of Mexico to the Cuban people. Food products would be a phone call and a couple of days away. Instead, the Cuban people are left paying higher prices for a lower quality product that takes weeks, sometimes months, to arrive in their ports. Rice is a staple of the Cuban diet and we know how to grow it in Arkansas. Arkansas is consistently the top U.S. producer of rice. Exports are extremely important to the rice industry. Last year, the rice industry exported to more than 100 countries. Trade and trade policy, therefore, are critical to the continued success of the industry. At the time that the U.S. Government imposed sanctions on trade with Cuba, it was not only our largest export market for rice, but it took more than one-half of our total rice exports. Cubans know good American rice, and they want it. The embargo dealt a major blow to the rice industry, particularly growers in the South who grow long grain rice, which is the rice of preference in Cuba. The only impact the embargo has had on Cuba is on its middle- to low-income citizens. We are hurting the Cuban people much more than the Cuban government or Cuban elite. Due to the high prices the government is forced to pay, less food is available for distribution. U.S. humanitarian organizations are prevented from providing food to starving children due solely to the existence of the embargo. While in Cuba, I met with opponents of the Castro regime who have been persecuted for attempting to highlight the disparate human rights treatment in Cuba. These dissidents believe that the embargo gives the Cuban government an excuse for what is wrong with the country. Our embargo provides Cuban officials with an excuse for the sorry state of the economy and the challenges the country faces. If we lift the embargo, we expose the Cuban people to many of the problems of their own government. Right now the Cuban people are only getting one side of the story, and they are not blaming their government or Fidel Castro for their troubles, because Fidel Castro is using the U.S. Government as the excuse for those problems. I understand there are colleagues in this body whom I deeply respect who also disagree with me on this issue. I agree that should the U.S. lift its embargo on Cuba, Fidel Castro will probably declare victory over what he calls his imperialist oppressor to his north. But the real truth which is undeniably is that under current policy absolutely no one wins. As a farmer's daughter, I am not so concerned about the short-term implications of who can claim victory after 40 years of economic isolation. I believe that the long-term benefits of engagement with Cuba offer economic benefit to Americans; opportunities for democratic influences inside Cuba and better living conditions for the Cuban people. Each of these goals strike me as fundamental principles of our unique, American democracy. Lifting the 40-year embargo on Cuba is the right thing to do. I hope we do it sooner than later. I yield the floor.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today we are considering the conference report on the crop insurance reform bill. I believe this bill makes fundamental changes to the existing Federal Crop Insurance Program that are necessary to make crop insurance more workable and affordable for producers across the country and I urge its passage. Congress has been attempting to eliminate the ad hoc disaster program for years because it is not the most efficient way of helping our farmers who suffer yield losses. Due to the Ag economic crisis, there has been much discussion lately on the issue of the ``safety net'' for our nation's producers. On that point I would like to be perfectly clear. Crop insurance is a risk management tool to help producers guard against yield loss. It was not created and was never intended to be the end-all be-all solution for the income needs of our nation's producers. Last year, Senator Cochran and I introduced a comprehensive bill that addressed what we saw as the various reform needs of the crop insurance program. I am pleased that many of these provisions are included in the conference report that we are considering here today. This bill establishes a process for re-evaluating crop insurance rates for all crops and for lowering those rates if warranted. After pressure from Congress and the National Cotton Council last year, RMA reduced rates by as much as 50 percent for cotton in Arkansas and the Mid-South. The provision included in today's bill will require further review of all Southern commodities. By making the crop insurance program more affordable, additional producers will be encouraged to participate in the program and protect themselves against the unforeseeable factors that will be working against them once they put a crop into the ground. The bill also provides for an enhanced subsidy structure so that producers are encouraged to buy-up from their current level of coverage. The structure included in this bill will make the step from catastrophic coverage to buy-up easier for producers and will make obtaining the highest level of coverage easier for those who are already participating in the crop insurance program. In an attempt to improve the record keeping process within USDA, this legislation requires that FSA and RMA coordinate their record keeping activities. Current USDA record keeping, split between FSA and RMA, is redundant and insufficient. By including both crop insurance program participants and non-program participants in the process, we hope to enhance the agricultural data held by the agency and make acreage and yield reporting less of a hassle for already overburdened producers. In addition, this bill establishes a role for consultation with state FSA committees in the introduction of new coverage to a state. The need for this provision was made abundantly clear to Arkansas' rice producers this spring. A private insurance policy was offered to farmers at one rate, only to have the company reduce the rate once the amount of potential exposure was realized. In my discussions with various executives from the company on this issue it became apparent that their knowledge of the rice industry was fairly minimal. Had they consulted with local FSA committees who had a working knowledge of the rice industry before introduction of the policy, the train wreck that occurred might have been stopped in its tracks. I am pleased that another reform measure that I worked on has been included to help rice producers suffering losses caused by drought. Recent droughts have left many Arkansas farmers with low reservoirs and depleting aquifers. If rains do not replenish them, an adequate irrigation supply may not exist by summer. In addition, drought conditions in Louisiana have caused salt to intrude into the water supply used for irrigation on many farms. Current law states that rice is excluded from drought policies because it is irrigated. This is not equitable since rice producers do suffer losses due to drought. I have worked with Senators Breaux and Landrieu to provide these policies for our rice producers who are experiencing reduced irrigation opportunities due to the severe drought conditions that have plagued the South for the last two years. I am pleased that this provision has been included in the bill. Many of the problems associated with the crop insurance program have been addressed in previous reform measures. However, fraud and abuses are still present to some degree. This bill strengthens the monitoring of agents and adjusters to combat fraud and enhances the penalties available to USDA for companies, agents and producers who engage in fraudulent activities. There is simply no room for bad actors that recklessly cost the taxpayers money. Mr. President, I was prepared during our Committee markup earlier this year to offer an amendment related to a cooperative's role in the delivery of crop insurance. I held off at that time due to concerns from the Committee related to possible ``rebating'' ramifications and preemption of state law, but in working with RMA and Senators Kerrey and Grassley, we were able to craft an amendment that clarifies the role of cooperatives in the crop insurance program. I am pleased that the conferees included this amendment in the final version of the bill. This amendment does nothing to preempt state law or even change current federal law. It simply provides that current approved business practices be maintained. With the inclusion of my amendment Congress is recognizing the valuable role cooperatives play in the crop insurance program, specifically, encouraging producer participation in the crop insurance program, improving the delivery system for crop insurance, and helping to develop new and improved insurance products. My amendment requires the Risk Management Agency to finalize regulations that would incorporate the currently approved business practices of cooperatives participating in the crop insurance program and to do so within 180 days of enactment of this Act. If farmer owned entities are not allowed to sell crop insurance, then anyone can sell crop insurance in America except an American farmer. Such a legal result would give the appearance that crop insurance is designed for a closed club to exploit farmers. That appearance would inhibit broader use of crop insurance. I do not believe that such a result is the intent of those who have put so much effort into improving the crop insurance program. Mr. President, I would personally like to thank all staff members of the Committee and industry representatives that have helped with this effort. I would particularly like to thank Louie Perry of the National Cotton Council for his tireless efforts to make crop insurance more effective for cotton and other southern commodities. Mr. President, Arkansas farmers have told me time and time again that crop insurance just isn't affordable for the amount of coverage they receive. As the program currently exists, it does not make sound business sense to purchase crop insurance in our state. Since this reform process began, I've been working to correct this inequity. I hope that the changes we make today will lead to a crop insurance program that is equitable, affordable and effective. Crop insurance reform is not the only thing included in this legislation, however. $7.1 billion has been included to address the ongoing crisis in the agricultural community due to depressed market prices. I am pleased that Congress is acting more promptly this year to address the needs of our nation's producers. Numerous farmers in my home state of Arkansas have indicated that the additional assistance we provided over the last two years is the only reason their operations are still afloat today. While some commodities have seen a slight rebound, prices across the board are still too low to meet the increasing costs of production on our nation's farms. Congress has to provide these ``add on'' payments to producers because the current farm bill does not provide an adequate safety net when commodity markets head south. I voted against the 1996 Farm Bill because I feared that we would find ourselves in the exact position we do today, with one bailout after another. I introduced a bill earlier this year that would make reforms to the existing marketing loan program. An enhanced marketing loan program would provide additional assistance to our nation's producers without going through this annual ``horse trading'' over billions of dollars trying to determine who we are going to help. Farmers would be able to know at the beginning of the growing season what to expect from the government with regards to economic assistance instead of having to cross their fingers and hope Congress comes through. We are coming near the end of the life of the ``Freedom to Farm'' bill and as we begin discussions on what the next farm bill should look like I hope my colleagues will see the importance of providing an adequate safety net to our nation's farms. We must adequately support those who are supplying our nation, and many others, with safe, affordable food. Do not misread my remarks, I am pleased that Congress has acted promptly to address the needs of the agricultural community this year. I simply feel that there is a better way to approach our nation's agricultural policy. I hope my colleagues will agree and work to provide a better farm bill in the future. inspection scam

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, due to a scheduling conflict I was unable to cast my vote today on the cloture motion for the conference report accompanying H.R. 434, the Trade and Development Act of 2000. For the record, I would have voted ``aye'' in favor of cloture on the bill. I am very supportive of expanding our trading opportunities with the Caribbean countries and Africa and I am delighted that all parties involved have come to agreement and we have passed this vital legislation. Our distinguished ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Moynihan, focused our attention on the significance of the passage of this bill earlier today when he highlighted the fact that this is the first trade bill to pass Congress in six years. In my view, that is simply too long. I'm not here to focus on missed opportunities today, however. I'm here to praise the members of both the House and Senate who were on the conference committee for their tireless efforts on this bill's behalf. To all involved in the passage of this legislation I say ``thank you.'' This legislation means a great deal to the Caribbean and Africa, but it means a lot to Arkansas, too. This bill will generate an increase in demand for cotton, which is sorely needed. Our cotton farmers at home have experienced several years of bad weather and prices, and I know they are pleased to have access to new markets. It's planting season in Arkansas but that hasn't stopped my constituents from staying in touch. I've heard from many of them this week who took time from their busy schedules to voice their support for this bill. They realize, as I do, that the world is increasingly becoming a ``global marketplace'' and we must do all we can to expand our trading opportunities. I applaud the Senate's vote on the ``Trade and Opportunity Act'' today and hope that it will not be another six years before the next trade bill comes to the Senate floor.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. President. I also would like to thank all of my colleagues who have worked so diligently on these issues, and particularly Senator Lieberman and Senator Bayh who I have been working alongside on the proposal that is before us right now. I also would like to compliment Senator Kennedy's staff for all the work they have put in, as well as the wonderful bipartisan spirit that has been shown by Senators Gregg, Collins, Gorton, and Hutchinson in trying to bring about this issue of great importance on behalf of our Nation and on behalf of our children. I am proud to join my colleagues on the floor today to talk about a bold, new education plan that we hope will provide a way out of the current stalemate over reauthorizing ESEA. I must admit that I am disappointed because so far we have turned one of the most important issues we will debate this year into yet another partisan standoff. I can't tell you how frustrated I am that we face the real possibility that our children will be forced once again to the back of the bus while partisan politics drive the legislative process off a cliff. I would like to focus on a comment that was made by one of my colleagues earlier in this debate. Senator Landrieu mentioned that we had one chance at reaching each of these individual children in our Nation who are the greatest blessings in this world. Each year we fall behind in making the revolutionary changes to move our educational system to where it needs to be in order to provide our children with the source of education they need in order to meet the challenges of the coming century. Each year that we fail to do that--if that happens this year--is one year in a child's life that we cannot replace; one year in a child's life that cannot be reproduced or given back to them in terms of what they need to know to be competitive. If I have learned one thing since my first campaign for Congress in 1992, it is that when voters send you to Washington to represent them they mean business. They expect leadership and they want results, and rightly so because they deserve it. As parents, we certainly all understand one of the things that we will fight the hardest for, and that is benefits for our children. The American people want us to get serious about educating our children in new and innovative ways that will allow them to learn and meet the challenges of the future. I firmly believe we have a responsibility to pass a reauthorization bill this year that will improve public education for all children. That means working together until we reach an agreement a majority on both sides can support. Waiting to see what happens in the next election should not be an option. Last week, I supported one alternative to S. 2 offered by Senator Daschle. It didn't contain everything I wanted, but after I and other Members expressed some initial concerns, we reached an agreement that reflected my key priorities on accountability, public school choice and teacher quality. Every Senator on this side of the aisle supported that proposal, but we didn't get one Republican vote. At the same time, I don't know any Member on our side who is prepared to support the underlying bill that the President has indicated he will veto unless substantial changes are made. So it is clear that both sides have to give some ground in this debate if we have any chance of crafting a compromise proposal that the President will sign into law. The Three R's amendment we proposed today helps bridge the gap on both sides of the debate over the role of the federal government in public education. Our bill synthesizes the best ideas of both parties, I believe, into a whole new approach to national education policy. It contains three crucial elements to improve public education--tough accountability standards to ensure students are learning core academic subjects, a significant increase in federal resources to help schools meet new performance goals, and more flexibility at the local level to allow school districts to meet their most pressing needs. Essentially, under our proposal, the federal government would concentrate less on rules and requirements and focus instead, on what I know every Member of this body can and will support--higher academic achievement for every student. In addition to being smart national policy, the Three R's proposal would dramatically improve education in my home state of Arkansas. As I noted earlier, the RRR bill significantly increases the Federal investment in our public schools and carefully targets those additional dollars where they are needed the most. We, as a moderate group, find ourselves in an unusual position of trying to change the law to actually enforce the original intent of that law--title I funds actually being targeted to the schools and to the students who need those resources the most. There is no doubt that we can only be as strong as our weakest link. That is why it is essential that in those poor school districts we make sure title I dollars actually get to where they were intended to go. Statistics consistently demonstrate that, on average, children who attend low-income schools lag behind students from more affluent neighborhoods. This is certainly true in Arkansas where the most recent test results indicate that students in the economically prosperous northwest region of the state outperform students in the impoverished Delta. These results also indicate that the disparity in student achievement between minority and non-minority students in Arkansas continues. It proves that in the past several decades we have not been eliminating the gap and disparity between haves and have nots. I believe strongly that every child deserves a high-quality education and that the federal government has a right to expect more from our nation's schools. But we also have a responsibility to give public schools the resources they need to be successful. The ``Three R's'' acronym can also apply to our efforts to improve teacher quality. In fact, this plan can best be summed up by Four R's: recruiting, retention, resources, and above all, respecting our teachers. The difficulty schools experience today in recruiting and retaining quality teachers is one of the most enormous obstacles facing our education system. In my State of Arkansas, somewhere around 30 percent or more of our teachers are under the age of 40. We are going to hit a brick wall eventually as our teachers begin to retire with no more younger teachers in our school systems. If we do not provide the funds in order to make sure that teacher improvement and quality and retention are there, we will not have the teachers. We cannot expect students to be successful if they don't work with quality teachers. We can't expect quality teachers to stay in the profession if they don't get adequate training, resources, or respect. In our bill, we include a 100-percent increase in funding for professional development for teachers. I think that is absolutely essential in supporting our educators for them to be able to provide for our students. That is why I believe we in Congress must do our best to help schools meet the challenges we are setting forth today. Most experts agree teacher quality is as important as any other factor in raising student achievement. The amendment we are debating would consolidate several teacher training initiatives into a single formula grant program for improving the quality of public school teachers, principals, and administrators. This proposal would increase professional development funding by more than 100 percent, to $1.6 billion annually, and target that funding to the neediest school districts. In my home State of Arkansas, this will mean an additional $12 million for teacher quality initiatives. In my book, that is putting your money where your mouth is. In addition, the RRR would give State and school districts more flexibility to design effective teacher recruitment and professional development initiatives to meet their specific needs. No two school districts are alike, and there is no one size fits all for the school districts of this country. One overreaching goal we propose today is to require all teachers be fully qualified by 2005. Even the best teachers cannot teach what they don't know or haven't learned themselves. To be successful, we must work harder to reduce out-of-field teaching and require educators to pass rigorous, State-developed content assessments in the subject they teach, not a Federal test but those that are designed by the State. I have the highest respect for the teachers, principals, and superintendents who dedicate their talent and skills every day to prepare our children for tomorrow. I think they have some of the hardest and most important jobs in the world. Our Nation's future, in large part, depends on the work they do. We should be reinforcing them. Our teacher quality proposal is an example of how, by combining the concept of increased funding, targeting flexibility, and accountability, we can join with States and local educators to give our children a high-quality education. There is much more to say today about this approach of the amendment of Senator Lieberman and Senator Bayh that Members such as myself have sponsored. I know there are others who want to speak. Before I close, I truly think this is the question we must ask ourselves: What, honestly, is the best thing for our children in this country? I say to my colleagues, if you want accountability from local schools, our proposal has it. If you want more targeted, effective national investment, take a look at the amendment that was produced by Senator Lieberman. Do we want more qualified, better trained teachers, investing in their professional development, with flexibility at the local level? Do you want higher minority student retention rates, which should be the objective of all Members? We have those answers in this amendment and in our bill. We have one chance at producing something on behalf of our most treasured blessing in all this world, our children. Please, colleagues, let's don't lose that chance. Let's not disappoint our children in this country and, more importantly, the future of this country. Let's put party politics aside. I think the RRR in the Lieberman-Bayh proposal is the right approach to improve student achievement in every classroom. I thank my colleagues for their involvement in this amendment and certainly in this debate. More importantly, I encourage all Members to remember what it is we are here to do and who, more importantly, we are here to do it on behalf of, our children.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am honored to rise today to pay tribute to an exceptional group of students from Mountain Home Junior High School in my home state of Arkansas. These students won first place in the state competition of the ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' program. I am proud to report that the following students will represent my home state at the national competition this May 6-8 in Washington, DC: Matthew Brinza, T.C. Burnett, Patrick Carter, Cody Garrison, Meredith Griffin, Kayla Hawthorne, Delia Lee, Megan Matty, Zachary Milholland, Stacy Miller, Jennifer Nassimbene, Rebeca Neis, Patty Schwartz, Carrie Toole, and Kris Zibert. I also want to say a special word of thanks to their teacher, Patsy Ramsey, who deserves much of the credit for the success of the class. The We the People . . . program is an outstanding educational initiative developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Students who compete at the three- day national competition, which is modeled after hearings in the U.S. Congress, testify as constitutional experts before a panel of judges representing various regions of the country. The students are then asked a series of challenging questions to test their depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. Teaching students about the benefits of public service and the value of representative government is essential to the long-term viability of our nation's democracy. Since its inception in 1987, more than 26 million students and 75,000 educators nationwide have participated in this worthwhile program designed to encourage civic awareness and understanding. I am extremely proud of the Mountain Home students who have earned the opportunity to compete in the We the People . . . finals in Washington, DC. I wish them well in their endeavor and know they will provide an excellent example for others in my state and the nation to follow.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today, as have others, to talk about an issue of paramount importance to this Nation, and possibly the most important issue we in the Senate will face this year--how we educate our children. I only hope that we in the Senate are big enough to rise above the partisan politics to get results on behalf of our children. We in the Senate have a difficult task before us of passing legislation that reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act which determines how the Federal Government allocates money to our public schools. Unfortunately, all signs to date point to yet another political stalemate on an issue of vital importance to our nation and its children. Once again, Mr. President, we face the real possibility that the Senate will abandon its responsibility to govern and choose partisan politics over sound public policy. I reject this proposition because our children deserve more from their elected officials. In hopes of fostering a compromise on this contentious issue, I have joined with a group of my moderate Democratic colleagues here in the Senate to promote a ``Third Way'' on ESEA, one that synthesizes the best ideas of both sides into a whole new approach to federal education policy. We're calling this bill the ``Three R's'', and it is a bold effort at streamlining massive Federal education programs and refocusing them on raising academic achievement. At its core, this blueprint will give more funding and flexibility to states and local school districts, in exchange for greater accountability. In addition to being smart national policy, the Three R's proposal would dramatically improve education in my home state of Arkansas. As I noted earlier, the Three R's bill significantly increases the federal investment in our public schools and carefully targets those additional dollars to the neediest public schools. As my colleague who spoke before said, there are those out there who we cannot just leave to chance. Statistics consistently demonstrate that, on average, children who attend low-income schools lag behind students from more affluent neighborhoods. This is certainly true in Arkansas where the most recent test results indicate that students in the economically prosperous northwest region of the state outperform students in the impoverished Delta . . . These results also indicate that the disparity in student achievement between minority and non-minority students in Arkansas continues. I believe strongly that every child deserves a high-quality education and that the federal government has a right to expect more from our nation's schools. But we also have a responsibility to give public schools the resources they need to be successful. Another aspect of the current education framework that affects Arkansas is the prevalence of competitive grant funding programs. Unfortunately, rural states--and especially rural school districts similar to where I grew up--do not have the resources necessary to be successful under a competitive grant system. Simply put, economically disadvantaged schools don't have the ability to chase after federal dollars as effectively as schools who can afford to hire professional grant writers. As a result, many of the schools in my state that most need financial support from the federal government are too often out of luck. Under the Three R's bill, federal funding is allocated based on total student enrollment and the number of low-income students in the district, not on the ability of savvy grant writers to draft proposals with graphs and color charts. Under our bill, Mr. President, these schools would be guaranteed federal funding which they could use to address their most pressing problems. And they will be held accountable; schools will be forced to make improvements or suffer consequences. Mr. President, we will certainly hear this week from people representing both sides of the debate about how to improve public education. But the question we need to ask: who is representing our children? Who is representing the thousands of young Americans who continue to underperform academically year after year in an educational system simply that does not work for the students who are left behind? As we go through this debate this is the question we must ask ourselves--what, honestly, is the best thing for our children? I say to my colleagues, you want accountability from local schools? Our proposal has it. You want more targeted, effective national investment? Take a look at our Three R's bill. Do you want qualified, better-trained teachers, flexibility at the local level and higher minority-student retention rates? We have the answers in this bill--a commonsense approach. Put party politics aside. The ``Three R's'' is the right approach to improve student achievement in every classroom. Congress must do all it can to help our schools meet the challenges they face today and will face in the future. We must do all we can to help our States and local school districts raise academic achievement and deliver on the promise of equal opportunity for all students. But I will say our most important responsibility is to our children and to their future. I thank my colleagues for their attention and patience this evening, and for all of the hard work that both of these two legislators have done in this field of education. I yield the floor.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my 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 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. It's incentive-based. And if encourages public-private partnerships. Our State Motto, ``The Natural State,'' reflects our dedication to preserving the unique natural landscape that is 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 United States. Most streams and rivers in Arkansas originate or run through our timberlands and are sources for water supplies, prime recreation, and countless other uses. 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 water 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. Mr. President, 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 third 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. 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 make 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 farmers have been given enough credit for their efforts to preserve a sound environment. As many of you know, farming has a special place in my heart because I was raised in 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 though. 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. Mr. President, I want to again stress the importance of voluntary programs. We cannot expect to have success by using a heavy-handed 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-profit 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 the implementation of voluntary Best Management Practices. Mr. President, 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 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 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. It's incentive-based. And if encourages public-private partnerships. Our State Motto, ``The Natural State,'' reflects our dedication to preserving the unique natural landscape that is 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 United States. Most streams and rivers in Arkansas originate or run through our timberlands and are sources for water supplies, prime recreation, and countless other uses. 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 water 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. Mr. President, 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 third 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. 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 make 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 farmers have been given enough credit for their efforts to preserve a sound environment. As many of you know, farming has a special place in my heart because I was raised in 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 though. 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. Mr. President, I want to again stress the importance of voluntary programs. We cannot expect to have success by using a heavy-handed 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-profit 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 the implementation of voluntary Best Management Practices. Mr. President, 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, in listening to my colleagues I am pleased to detect broad support for ending the so-called marriage penalty. I know that no one in this body believes that there should be a price to pay to the government for matrimony. However, we should work for a fair and reasonable solution that will not expand the marriage bonus and shift tax unfairness from one group in this country to another. The fact is that expanding marriage bonuses is not fair to single Americans just like doing nothing is unfair to married couples. The ironic thing about the marriage penalty is that it was actually born out of fairness. According to a June 22, 1999 document prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, before 1948, there was only one income tax schedule, and all individuals were liable for tax as separate filing units. Under this tax structure, there was neither a marriage penalty nor a marriage bonus. However, this structure created an incentive to split incomes because, with a progressive income tax rate structure, a married couple with only one spouse earning income could reduce their combined tax liability if they could split the income and assign half to each spouse. Under this system a disparity between the citizens of community and separate property states arose after a handful of Supreme Court cases upheld the denial of contractual attempts to split income, but ruled that in states with community property laws, income splitting was required for community income. This led Senator John McClellan, of my home state of Arkansas, to ask Senator William Knowland of California, ``why is it that just because you live in California and I live in Arkansas, you pay $646 less every year than I pay?'' The Revenue Act of 1948 provided the benefit of income splitting to all married couples by establishing a separate tax schedule for joint returns. That schedule was designed so that married couples would pay twice the tax of a single taxpayer having one-half the couple's taxable income. While this new schedule equalized treatment between married couples in states with community property laws and those in states with separate property laws, it introduced a marriage bonus into the tax law for couples in states with separate property laws. As a result of this basic rate structure, by 1969, an individual with the same income as a married couple could have had a tax liability up to 40 percent higher than that of the married couple. To address this inequity, which was at the time labeled a ``singles penalty,'' a special rate schedule was introduced for single taxpayers, leaving the old schedule solely for married individuals filing separate returns. This schedule created the infrastructure for the so-called marriage penalty that we seek to end today. At the time more than thirty years ago when the current single and married filing categories were established, our society looked different, and very few people were affected by the flaws in our tax code that imposed a penalty on marriage. As we all know, Mr. President, the general rule is that married couples whose incomes are split more evenly than 30-70 suffer a marriage penalty. However, the fact still remains, that married couples whose incomes are attributable largely to one spouse generally receive a marriage bonus. As the income levels between men and women have rightly narrowed and as more married women have moved into the work force, the so-called marriage penalty has begun to affect more and more families. Today we are debating a bill offered by the Senate Finance Committee that seeks to address the problem of the so called Marriage Penalty, and I applaud my colleagues for bringing this to the floor. As I said before, I believe we all want to tell our constituents that we have ended the marriage penalty, however, the underlying bill will not allow us to do that. There are 65 provisions in the tax code that contribute to a possible marriage penalty for taxpayers. The bill offered by the Majority only eliminates one of those provisions and softens the bite of two others. The fact still remains that 62 other provisions could rise up to affect married couples on tax day. If we are going to end the marriage penalty, Mr. President, we should just end it. Another problem with the Majority bill is that it expands the marriage bonus. We should not bring back the unfairness we had before 1969. We should learn from the history of this debate and we should come up with a better solution. I believe in the sanctity of marriage, as do all of my colleagues. I don't believe in penalizing it. But I also recognize the rights and fairness that our single constituents demand. We should not shift tax unfairness from one group to another, we should work to eliminate the unfairness for all Americans. The Majority bill would also expand the roles of the Alternative Minimum Tax. Talk about unfair! I think a lot of Americans would almost rather pay the marriage penalty than have to deal with the Alternative Minimum Tax. The Majority bill would expand, by 5 million, the number of people who have to fill out an AMT tax form and pay higher rates. Not only is it inexcusable, it goes against what we stand for and what we are trying to achieve We should be working to lessen the effects of the AMT on middle class families not expand them. I am aware that the Majority bill includes a provision to permanently exempt the non-refundable personal tax credits from AMT determination. That is good policy. In fact, Mr. President, I am the author of the bill, S. 506, that is essentially attached to the Majority bill. This provision, however, will not do enough to lessen the effects that doubling the standard deduction will have on the AMT roles. The good policy of S. 506 is drowned by the bad policy to which it is attached; drowned in the squeals of 5 million voters. I remind my colleagues that the AMT equals higher taxes and confusing forms. No one wants that for their constituents. Lastly, Mr. President, this majority bill can hardly be labeled a ``Marriage Penalty Relief Bill'' at all. It doesn't completely eliminate the marriage penalty and less than half the cost of the bill goes to reducing it. 60 percent of the cost of the Majority bill goes to singles and to expanding the marriage bonus. I believe we should be honest with the American taxpayer and quit trying to aggregate tax cuts under popular headings like ``Marriage Penalty Relief'' and ram them through the process with cloture votes. If my colleagues truly believe in fairness, as I think they do, then, Mr. President, let us work to truly end the marriage penalty, not to just put it on hold. Let's work together, Mr. President, to end the marriage penalty. Lets put an end to it now and forever. That means eliminating all 65 marriage penalties. Not just one and a fraction. That also means avoiding a new singles penalty. We have a record to look upon, Mr. President. We have a history. If we approach the marriage penalty in the way the Majority proposes, the unfairness will continue, the debate will continue, and sadly, the marriage penalty will continue as well.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Certainly.

Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I spoke briefly last week about this proposal to reduce the gas tax. I spoke on the need for reforms in our Nation's energy policy. However, because this bill did not go through committee, and because it has had little technical scrutiny, there are just two points that I believe should be considered before we move ahead with this idea. First, I appreciate the concern that has recently been shown for the highway trust fund. There is a nice clause in this bill that would take money out of general revenues to pay for the reduction into the highway trust fund. Last week I called this hocus pocus. It is creative, to say the least. But let's get honest here. This tax cut has to come from somewhere, and this method of accounting is not without consequence. Regardless of the good intentions being professed by my colleagues, the transfer of this burden to general revenues would result in a tax increase to the people of my State and perhaps other States. In Arkansas, any reduction, either whole or in part, of the existing excise tax on motor fuels will result in a penny-for-penny increase in tax at the State level. This is the law in my State, and I know that there are similar provisions in Tennessee, Oklahoma, Nevada, and California. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of section 27-70- 104 of the Arkansas Code be printed in the Record.

Mrs. LINCOLN. I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mrs. LINCOLN. I agree that this bill might give a minor tax reduction for the oil producers of 45 States, but the tax burden would remain level in as many as five States. Without a reduction in spending, this amounts to a tax increase in my home State and two of my neighboring States, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. In short, if this bill were to pass, taxes, in effect, would go up in Arkansas. My second point is that this bill would not get relief to the people who need it. I said last week that this tax is collected on the wholesale level and all that this bill offers is a suggestion that the wholesalers pass this on to the consumers. I am not sure that this point is getting out to my colleagues, so I have a quote here from the Supreme Court of the United States concerning this tax. According to the U.S. Supreme Court in Gurley vs. Rhoden: the Federal excise tax on gasoline is imposed solely upon statutory producers, and not on consuming buyers. Let me repeat that: the Federal excise tax on gasoline is imposed solely upon statutory producers, and not on consuming buyers. Therefore, I assert that even the Supreme Court agrees that this tax reduction will not go to consumers. This tax cut will go exclusively to oil producers who will have no legal requirement to pass the cut on. That won't help truckers in my State. It won't help farmers in my State. It won't help small business people in my State. It won't help average consumers. We cannot forget that despite the fact that the administration has successfully compelled OPEC to pump more oil, and that oil prices are coming down, the high cost of the oil price spike will still be on the bottom line at the end of the year. We have to do something real and substantial for our truckers, our farmers, and our fuel dependent small businessmen and women. A 4.3-cent gas tax cut will do essentially nothing for anyone. I again suggest that a suspension of the heavy vehicle use tax would be a way to get real relief to real truck drivers. This would not drain the highway trust fund to the degree that this gas tax cut would and it would directly help the people who have been hurt the most by the spike in fuel prices. I have also advocated a short-term no-interest loan program for diesel dependent small business, and lastly I have called for a formalized end-of-the-year tax credit, that would take into account the totality of this oil spike in an environment of dropping prices. We all want to help those in need and we should consider giving tax credits, but we should also protect the Treasury from windfalls that could arise in this economic environment. This bill is a bad idea, it would in effect raise the tax burden on my constituents, and it would not help the people who are really hurting from the high prices at the gas pump. I urge my colleagues, especially those from Oklahoma and Nevada, California and Tennessee, to look at how this bill will affect the tax burden in your States. Ask how this bill will affect the bonds that your State has issued. And most importantly, consider how little this bill will do to help the consumers of our Nation. We can do better, and I hope we can continue the debate on this bill so we will have that opportunity.

Mrs. LINCOLN. As an opponent on the Democratic side.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am proud to rise in strong support of the amendment by my good friend, Senator Bob Graham. There are several of us in this body who have come together to build a consensus of a commonsense, result-oriented solution to educating our children in this Nation. This amendment combines two concepts that are essential to improving our system of public education--greater investment and tough accountability standards. Now Mr. President, before I get into the details of why this amendment is so important, I think we have to take a minute to consider the current state of education in this country. I am not sure how the rest of my colleagues feel, but I think it is difficult to deny that the status quo in our education system is simply not acceptable. It is not working, and we are not doing a good enough job in educating our children. We are certainly not doing the best job we could be doing. And if we think things are bad now, we should stop and look 10 or 15 years into the future. I continue to be amazed at the pace of high-tech development in this country and the incredible advancements that take place every day. This progress is only going to continue, and our children are the ones who will be left behind in the global high-tech world. If we do not do something to change the way we approach education, if we do not increase our Federal investment and demand more accountability from our system and our educators, then we are only fooling ourselves, and we are cheating our children. Our children are our greatest national resource, and their education is worthy of a significant investment. Unfortunately, the budget resolution before us today once again falls short of our responsibility to make quality education a top priority in this Nation. Under the budget resolution before us, Arkansas would receive $6.6 million less in title I funds than it would under the administration's plan. That means more than 10,000 students in my home State would be denied the critical support this program provides. In addition to the annual budget, we in the Senate have the difficult task before us this year of passing legislation that reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Quite frankly, we need a bold new approach that targets resources to the neediest areas, puts decisions in the hands of local educators, and maintains national priorities like school safety and educational technology. I have joined with a group of my moderate Democratic colleagues in the Senate to promote a ``Third Way'' on ESEA, one that synthesizes the best ideas of both sides into a whole new approach to federal education policy. Like our ``Three Rs'' bill, the additional funding contained in this amendment would allow schools to raise student achievement, implement effective professional development programs for teachers, improve English language instruction and encourage innovation in the classroom. This investment is especially important to rural school districts, like many of those in Arkansas, that cannot afford to meet all of their needs with limited local resources. We must do more than just throw more money at the problem of under- achievement in the classroom. We also must demand results. To qualify for additional funding under this amendment, educational proposals authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act would have to contain greater accountability; incentives to set high student achievement standards; an emphasis on education for disadvantaged students; and funding targeted to our neediest, most impoverished schools. Congress must do all it can to help our schools meet the challenges they face today and will face in the future. Our most important responsibility is to help States and local school districts raise academic achievement and deliver on the promise of equal opportunity for all students. I believe in the children of this country. I believe that through this amendment, we can truly make a difference by making a bigger investment and setting our children's education as one of our top national priorities. I urge the support of this amendment, and I thank my colleagues for their attention. I yield back any remaining time I may have to the Democratic leader.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, just a few days ago Arkansas lost one of its boldest opinion leaders and most respected modern journalists, John Robert Starr. I rise today to pay tribute to his career and to offer my sympathies to his family, friends and colleagues. A journalist of the ``old-school,'' John Robert Starr was dedicated to the tradition of his craft even in this day and age of on-line papers and 24-hour news channels. He loved his work and once said of journalism: ``This is the place to be--reporting, covering the day-to- day business. This is where I would like to be. This is where everybody ought to be.'' Ultimately, Mr. Starr would have a dramatic impact on journalism in Arkansas. But he got his start on the college newspaper at Southwestern, now Rhodes College in Memphis. After college, Starr combined two of his loves, sports and journalism, to join the sports staff at the Memphis Commercial Appeal. He later moved to the Associated Press in Little Rock as the sports editor but soon shifted into the arena of political coverage. Throughout his 19-year career at the AP, including as Little Rock bureau chief, Starr covered such infamous political characters as Governor Orval Faubus, as well as various political candidates. After a lengthy and successful stint, he then left the AP to teach journalism at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Starr didn't last long on the academic side of things after being recruited to run an afternoon paper, the Arkansas Democrat. The Democrat was headed into battle with a more widely-read morning paper, the Arkansas Gazette, which was the oldest newspaper west of the Mississippi. As they say, the rest is history. John Robert Starr led the Democrat through a raucous, public battle against the Gazette for readership and power. He became known through a must-read daily column for his sharp wit and engaging writing. Ultimately, the Democrat took the Gazette head on with hard news coverage and even harder-hitting opinions. It won, taking over the Gazette in 1991 under the masthead of one combined daily paper, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. It has been said that, despite his hand in shutting the Gazette down, Starr mourned the loss of the competition and lamented the passing of a major journalistic institution. After the takeover, Starr stayed at the helm of the Democrat-Gazette as managing editor for just under a year, but stayed on to write his much-beloved daily column until the late 1990's when he cut back to three columns per week. During these years, Starr took on every topic from politics to travel, from professional basketball to Razorback football's recent stadium controversy. He always had an opinion and expressed it like no one else could. While his career was not without controversy, his opinions were always received with respect. John Robert Starr also devoted much time to his wife of 51 years, the former Norma Jeanette Wilson of Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and their family. They traveled extensively over the years and their adventures provided material for many touching columns. Starr is survived by two sons, a daughter, and nine grandchildren, whom he loved dearly. Journalism in my home state is forever influenced by the life and career of John Robert Starr. He was a dedicated Arkansan, with a passionate commitment to our state and its communities. With his passing, thousands of Arkansans will find something missing as they pick up their morning papers for years to come.

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. I am hopeful that an effective management program will be the result of these efforts. One of my first 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.