Blanche Lincoln

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, the Wildlife Services Division of the United States Department of Agriculture needs assistance in expediting proper bird management activities. I am here today to introduce legislation that accomplishes this goal. Proper migratory bird management is important to the state of Arkansas for a number of reasons. We are deemed ``The Natural State'' due to the numerous outdoor recreational opportunities that exist in the state. Fishing, hunting, and bird watching opportunities abound throughout Arkansas. Maintaining proper populations of wildlife, especially migratory birds, is essential for sustaining a balanced environment. In Arkansas, aquaculture production has taken great strides in recent years. The catfish industry in the state has grown rapidly and Arkansas currently ranks second nationally in acreage and production of catfish. The baitfish industry is not far behind, selling more than 15 million pounds of fish annually, with a cash value in excess of $43 million. I have been a great supporter of this industry since my days in the House of Representatives and I am concerned about the impact the double breasted cormorant is having on this industry. In the words of one of my constituents, ``The double-crested cormorant has become a natural disaster!'' I am pleased that the Fish and Wildlife Service has agreed to develop a national management plan for the double breasted cormorant. 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.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss S. 2285--a bill that is so flawed I can't believe the majority wants to end debate on it before the debate has even begun, with no committee hearings, no floor debate, no bipartisan discussion over something as important as the tax base for our highway and transportation infrastructure needs. This is literally an ``Our Way or the Highway'' bill, and I will choose the highway. As a southerner, I represent a large number of farmers and about 1,600 independent trucking firms. Eleven hundred of those firms are one-truck operators; 250 operate 10 or fewer trucks. I've got at least seven of the largest trucking firms in the Nation based in my State, as well as the world's largest retailer, which operates about 4,000 trucks, and one of the largest food processors which operates about 1,500. I am opposed to S. 2285 and should I have the opportunity, I will vote against it. First of all, none of the truckers or farmers that operate in my State would receive any benefits from the bill being discussed today, or any of the other bills that are based on a reduction in Federal excise taxes. They are calling this proposal the ``federal fuels tax holiday'' I can tell the Senate that if this bill passes, we won't be celebrating in Arkansas. A key point that must have been overlooked by the authors of this bill is that some States like Arkansas, any reductions in Federal fuel excise taxes automatically require a penny-for-penny increase in the State fuel excise tax. If we could have had committee hearings on this bill, perhaps the entire body might know that my State, along with Oklahoma, Nevada, Tennessee, and California all have provisions that will in some way negate any decrease in the Federal tax by increasing the state tax. Many States use the funds they receive from the Federal Government transportation formulas to issue bonded debt. They depend on the gas tax to pay for these bonds and to fund their transportation needs. Smartly, many of the States recognized that you can't always rely on the promises you get from Washington. I am glad that the State legislators of my State had the wisdom and the foresight to anticipate ill-conceived notions by Congress such as the bill before us today that would put our highway and transit programs at risk. Further, even in those States that would not automatically increase excise taxes, there is no guarantee that the consumers would see a price decrease at the pump. These taxes are charged at the wholesale level. The only thing this bill offers is a ``sense-of-the-Congress'' clause that says to the big business: ``Here you go, have a huge tax decrease; by the way, we sure hope you guys will pass it on.'' Further, there is no credit in the bill for retail stocks. That means that even if this tax reduction were to pass both Houses and make it past the President with lightening speed, the gas in retail inventories would still be priced with the tax. There is no telling how long it would take for the fuel that wasn't taxed to finally make it to consumers. One last thing about cutting the Federal excise taxes on fuels: these are the dollars that go into our highway trust fund. I know that this bill has some statutory hocus-pocus that takes the money out of general revenues, but are we really protecting the highway trust fund, and Social Security by hopping from trust fund to trust fund until we find one that the voters aren't watching? They say this bill is paid for out of the ``on-budget'' surplus. I ask, where is that? We don't even have a budget resolution, let alone a surplus. I think we should make sure that a surplus exists before deciding to spend it. The bottom line is this bill isn't paid for and the money is simply going to come out of debt reduction, education, and out of Medicare reform dollars that are so needed in the country. I have spoken with the truckers in my state and they have told me that they need help. And I want to help them in a way that is reasonable and will actually reach them. But the way this bill is structured no relief will make it to them. If we really want to help truckers and consumers effectively then we should have a package that helps them right now and through the end of the fiscal year. In the very short term, we should consider a suspension of the heavy vehicle use tax that is due on every big rig. This tax break would go directly to the people in need, and it would have a very quick impact. This tax is due on July 1, but it can be paid quarterly. Suspending the heavy vehicle use tax would equal about $550.00 in relief for every truck on the road, and we wouldn't have to wait for the effects of market pricing to see relief at the consumer level. Also, we should consider low-or no-interest loans to help small business men and women make it through this price spike. In the intermediate months, truckers, and producers who have been pushed to the edge could find help in load assistance until oil prices come down. Finally, we should consider end-of-the-year formula tax credits that would go directly to the consumers and could be directly tied to oil prices which, as I speak, are dropping. We are all aware of the recent announcements that have been made by the oil exporting countries. Prices are falling and the price spike is coming down. While we all want to ensure that the high prices we have had will not drive small business people into bankruptcy, our relief package should be flexible enough to take falling prices into account. Beyond the rash and reckless way that we have come to consider this bill, and beyond the abomination that it is, there remains the underlying issue of our nation's energy policy. This knee-jerk bill is a reaction to a host of problems and just because oil prices are starting to come down we should not let this issue fall to the wayside. There is no excuse for the lack of a comprehensive energy policy that we suffer from in this country. The roller coaster ups and downs of oil prices in 1999 and 2000 are evidence that we have been completely reactive to market forces and have not established stable, long-term energy policies. It is obvious that no immediate, cost-effective government action could eliminate U.S. dependence on foreign oil entirely, but there are things that we should be doing to help reduce our dependence on oil as an energy source. To help lessen the economic shocks that oil price spikes have created, we should couple short term relief provisions such as the ones I have spoken about with smart, stable, long-term, energy policies. Through the use of petroleum supply enhancements such as energy conservation, use of renewables, and expanded U.S. production we could lessen our dependence on foreign oil. We must provide incentives to try to bring ourselves away from dependence on oil in general. We must set out a course to promote oil production at home, to promote the use of renewable sources of energy, and to promote the more efficient and cleaner uses of the fossil fuels we are still using. Mr. President, many of us in this body have been pushing for expanded uses of renewables for quite some time and we will continue to do so. This spike in fuel prices demonstrates that we need to shift our emphasis from research to the practical use and application of renewable sources of energy. Simply put, Mr. President, this knee-jerk reaction to high oil prices represents a reckless abandonment of the priorities we brought to the Congress last year--Social Security, Medicare, paying down our national debt, and educating our children. I want to do whatever I can to help my constituents who are dependent on diesel for their livelihoods, but if we adopt measures to eliminate, albeit temporarily, gas taxes, we will not get the help to those who need it. When a core business segment of this nation is under duress we should address that segment directly. We must get the help to the ground where it is needed. In our present situation, we should be pursuing targeted assistance in the forms of loan assistance, grants, and reasonable tax measures that actually get to the level of the consumer who need it the most. We can't afford to jeopardize funding for our roads, the stability of Social Security and Medicare, or the long-term goal of paying down our enormous debt. This bill would do just that, Mr. President, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the ``fuel tax holiday'' bill before the party gets out of hand, to ensure our roads will be funded and, more importantly, that we go about it in a reasonable way and get relief to the individuals who need it the most.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today to introduce the ``Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Authorization Act''. The Junior Duck Stamp program gives youth a valuable opportunity to study waterfowl and learn about environmental conservatism through the arts. I believe we have an unique opportunity to instill in our children a love of the outdoors and must encourage our children by example to protect our natural resources for future generations. Through my own personal experiences in the outdoors, I have learned to value and appreciate the joys of hunting and fishing and look forward to raising my twin boys with the proper respect for the environment so that they too will enjoy a lifetime of experiencing one of America's greatest treasures. The Junior Duck Stamp Reauthorization Act provides us with one of these opportunities to instill the importance of conservation in our nation's children. This legislation will reauthorize a program which helps teach children to love and respect the environment, while encouraging artistic development. By concentrating on nature, students have an opportunity to appreciate our country's great natural resources and explore their own talents. The Junior Duck Stamp program allows students from elementary to high school to research any species of North American waterfowl and portray it artistically. Students then may enter their design in a state contest. The ``Best of Show'' winners at the state level are then sent to Washington D.C. for a national competition. The first place national winner receives a $2500 scholarship award and his/her design is used to create a Federal Junior Duck Stamp each year. Proceeds from the sale of the stamp, which costs $5, are then invested back into the program. The Junior Duck Stamp Program was originally developed through the Fish and Wildlife Service with a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The program was expanded by Congress in 1994 and authorized through the year 2000. In 1998, more than 42,000 students entered the art contest. It is estimated by educators who work with the program, that for every student who enters the contest, ten other students actually participate in the curriculum. I encourage my colleagues to join with me in supporting legislation which will continue the Junior Duck Stamp Program and encourage conservation practices and appreciation of the outdoors in our children.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today to introduce the ``Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Authorization Act''. The Junior Duck Stamp program gives youth a valuable opportunity to study waterfowl and learn about environmental conservatism through the arts. I believe we have an unique opportunity to instill in our children a love of the outdoors and must encourage our children by example to protect our natural resources for future generations. Through my own personal experiences in the outdoors, I have learned to value and appreciate the joys of hunting and fishing and look forward to raising my twin boys with the proper respect for the environment so that they too will enjoy a lifetime of experiencing one of America's greatest treasures. The Junior Duck Stamp Reauthorization Act provides us with one of these opportunities to instill the importance of conservation in our nation's children. This legislation will reauthorize a program which helps teach children to love and respect the environment, while encouraging artistic development. By concentrating on nature, students have an opportunity to appreciate our country's great natural resources and explore their own talents. The Junior Duck Stamp program allows students from elementary to high school to research any species of North American waterfowl and portray it artistically. Students then may enter their design in a state contest. The ``Best of Show'' winners at the state level are then sent to Washington D.C. for a national competition. The first place national winner receives a $2500 scholarship award and his/her design is used to create a Federal Junior Duck Stamp each year. Proceeds from the sale of the stamp, which costs $5, are then invested back into the program. The Junior Duck Stamp Program was originally developed through the Fish and Wildlife Service with a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The program was expanded by Congress in 1994 and authorized through the year 2000. In 1998, more than 42,000 students entered the art contest. It is estimated by educators who work with the program, that for every student who enters the contest, ten other students actually participate in the curriculum. I encourage my colleagues to join with me in supporting legislation which will continue the Junior Duck Stamp Program and encourage conservation practices and appreciation of the outdoors in our children.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the Chair. I am very pleased to support a crop insurance reform bill that has been a long while in the making. I compliment the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee for his diligence in this. He has certainly worked hard and put forth a great effort in working with all of us to come up with a final product. I appreciate his diligence and patience and all his hard work and wisdom that have gone into it. As we all know, the Budget Committee included funds to reform our ailing Crop Insurance Program last year. I have been working diligently with the Senate Agriculture Committee to develop a bill that will improve the current program because for us in the South, the current program doesn't work. What we are considering today is the result of the efforts and hard work of all of us. 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 effective way of helping our farmers who suffer yield losses. Last year, Senator Cochran and I introduced a comprehensive bill that addressed what we saw as the various reforms necessary in the Crop Insurance Program. I am pleased that many of those provisions are included in the bill we are considering today. As we all know, the Government's role in farm programs has changed. The 1996 farm bill phased out our traditional support for our farmers, and the current farm programs require producers to assume more risk than ever before. Due to the agricultural economic crisis we are experiencing, there has been much discussion lately on the issues of the safety net for our Nation's producers. On that point, I will 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, and will never be, the end-all, be-all solution for the income needs of our Nation's producers. As the crop insurance reform debate proceeds, I am hopeful my colleagues will be cognizant of the various needs in the agricultural community and recognize that while crop insurance is an important part of the safety net, it is not and should not be the only income guard for our Nation's farmers. In Arkansas, the last estimates I heard indicated that fewer than 2 percent of our cotton producers were participating in the buy-up program. Buy-up coverage for all commodities in Arkansas historically is below 20 percent. That tells me the producers in my home State don't think crop insurance is currently providing the kind of help they need. In the South, we traditionally grow capital-intensive crops. As we have grown these crops in the past, and certainly as we will in the future, the way the current Crop Insurance Program is structured, the rating program has never suited our needs or made it a good business decision for southern farmers to purchase crop insurance. This bill establishes a process for reevaluating crop insurance rates for all crops and for lowering those rates if warranted. It was only after pressure from Congress last year that the risk management agency reduced rates by as much as 50 percent for cotton in Arkansas and the Midsouth. The provision included in today's bill will require further review of all southern commodities in the rating structure. 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. This is the ultimate goal, to get more participation in our insurance program. The bill also provides for an enhanced subsidy structure so producers are encouraged to buy up from their current level of coverage. The structure included in this bill will make the step from catastrophic 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 recordkeeping process within USDA, this legislation also requires that FSA and RMA coordinate their recordkeeping activities. Current USDA recordkeeping, split between FSA and the RMA, is redundant and insufficient. By including both Crop Insurance Program participants and nonprogram 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 last 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. I thank Senators Landrieu and Breaux for their hard work on it. 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. In closing, Mr. President, I was prepared during our committee markup earlier this month 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. I am pleased that Senators Kerrey and Grassley, as well as the Risk Management Agency, were willing to work with me to include my amendment in this 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. In my opinion, that appearance would inhibit broader use of crop insurance, which is the overall objective we have been trying to reach. I don't believe that such a result is the intent of those who have put so much effort into improving the Crop Insurance Program, and I am pleased our amendment has been worked in. Mr. President, I personally want to thank all of the staff members of the committee and the industry representatives who have helped in this effort. It certainly doesn't happen without their long hours of work, diligence, and perseverance in making all of this come together. Arkansas farmers have told me time and time again that crop insurance 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 have been working to correct this inequity. I hope the changes we make today will lead to a Crop Insurance Program that is equitable, affordable, and effective. I yield the floor.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue of paramount importance to this nation, how we educate our children. We in the Senate have the difficult task before us of passing legislation that re-authorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act which determines how the Federal Government allocates money to our public schools. Unfortunately, all signs from the Committee point to yet another political stalemate and neither side appears to be pushing any closer toward common ground. In hopes of breaking this unproductive dynamic, 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 are calling this bill the ``Three R's'' and it is a bold effort at streamlining numerous Federal education programs and refocusing federal resources on raising academic achievement. This blueprint will give more funding and flexibility to local school districts, in exchange for greater accountability. Mr. President, today I would like to specifically talk about the component of the bill that focuses on teacher quality. We call our bill the ``Three R's'' and a similar acronym can apply to our efforts to improve teacher quality. Our plan can best be summed up by ``Four R's'': recruiting, retention, resources, and above all . . . RESPECT. The difficulty schools experience today in recruiting and retaining quality teachers is one of the most enormous obstacles facing our education system. We cannot expect students to be successful if they don't work with quality teachers; and we can't expect quality teachers to stay in the profession if they don't get adequate training, resources or respect. Most experts agree that teacher quality is as important as any other factor in raising student achievement. The legislation we are introducing today 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 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 addition, the ``Three R's'' would give States and school districts more flexibility to design effective teacher recruitment and professional development initiatives to meet their specific needs. One overreaching goal we propose today is to require that all teachers be fully-qualified by 2005. Even the best teachers can't 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 demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the subjects they teach. I have the highest respect for the teachers, principals, and superintendents who dedicate their talent and skills everyday 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 that they do. Our teacher quality proposal is an example of how combining the concepts of increased funding, targeting, flexibility and accountability, we can join with state and local educators to give our children a high-quality education every child deserves. I hope this plan will serve as a blueprint to improving public education as we enter into what is sure to be a lengthy and contentious ESEA debate.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to bring your attention to an issue of great concern to many people in my home state of Arkansas. This week, I introduced a bill, S. 2041, to continue to promote the use of best management practices in the forestry industry by relieving this nation's private timberland owners of an impending unnecessary regulatory burden. My bill would permanently prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from requiring water pollution control permits under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System for the forestry activities of site preparation, reforestation, thinning, prescribed burning, pest and fire control, harvesting operations, surface drainage, road construction and maintenance, and nursery operations. Recently in El Dorado and Texarkana, Arkansas, literally thousands of private timberland owners came together to discuss and express their concerns about this new extension of EPA regulations and to learn of the potential impact they may have on their private property and private forests. Simply put, my legislation will statutorily ensure that all forestry activities will remain as non-point sources in the eyes of the EPA. Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA has jurisdiction to protect the water quality of the United States by regulating point sources of water pollution. Let me define what I mean when I speak of ``point'' and ``non-point'' sources of pollution. A point source of pollution is pollution from a single point such as an industrial plant's wastewater pipe or a wastewater drainage ditch. Non-point sources of pollution like rainfall runoff from a field or a forest cannot be defined as a set point. What is important here is that Congress, upon passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, very clearly did not give the EPA authority to regulate non- point sources of pollution. The EPA's proposed revisions to the Total Maximum Daily Load requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, issued in September of last year, seeks to change this authority. This proposed regulation would enhance clean water by extending the NPDES point source TMDL water pollution rules to forestry activities. This would be accomplished by reclassifying forestry non-point sources of pollution as point sources of pollution. The forestry activities included in my legislation have always been considered as non-point sources of water pollution and therefore not subject to EPA regulations. The EPA's new regulation change would require point source water pollution permits for all of these activities. In other words, these new regulations would require permits on the very things we want to promote in forestry--responsible harvesting and thinning operations, best management practices, and reforestation. I agree with the EPA's objective of cleaning up our nation's impaired rivers, lakes and streams, but firmly believe that its proposed revisions are not the best solution to the problem of clean water. Placing another unnecessary layer of regulation upon our nation's local foresters will only slow down the process of responsible forestry and the implementation of forestry Best Management Practices. In Arkansas, we have a very successful Best Management Practices program for all forestry activities. In fact, over 85% of Arkansas' private timberland owners voluntarily adhere to these Best Management Practices to reduce water pollution from all forestry activities. Let me restate that over 85% of Arkansas' private timberland owners voluntarily adhere to these Best Management Practices to reduce water pollution from all forestry activities. This is a wonderful example of where everyone works together to take care of their own environment and have been successful in their efforts! The EPA's background for the new regulation states that these new requirements of obtaining water permits for forestry activities would take effect only if the state did not develop a satisfactory system of its own, or if a specific water body needed the regulation to remain clean. It also states that only 3 to 9 percent of all non-point source pollution comes from forestry-related activities. Mr. President, let's talk through each of these forestry-related activities to find out just exactly what each includes as well as what a good Best Management Practices program does to combat potential pollution from each of these. Site preparation. Generally, site preparation includes removing unwanted vegetation and other material when necessary and before any harvesting of timber can take place. Best Management Practices provide guidelines to minimize the use of equipment and disturbances near streams or other bodies of water, keep equipment out of streamside management zones, and minimize the movement and disturbance of soil. Reforestation. Reforestation is simply the process of planting trees. Reforestation is the single process that prevents any further erosion of exposed soil. I can't see why we would want to slow down the reforestation process by implementing a permitting process. Prescribed burning. Prescribed burning is done almost exclusively to prevent potential forest fires. In many of our nation's old growth forests, prescribed burning has prevented what would have been certain destruction of thousands of acres of beautiful forestland. We want to prevent forest fires for the loss of timber as well as for the potential loss of property and life. Best Management Practices provide guidelines for conducting prescribed burning operations and ensuring a minimal potential for erosion and forest fire. Pest and fire control. If someone is trying to control a forest fire, why do we want to hinder their efforts? For the same reason, we don't want our Nation's forests eaten up by bugs. Harvesting operations including thinning and, when necessary, clear- cutting. This is the crux of the issue. Timber harvesting is the timber industry. Following Best Management Practices ensures that during any harvesting operation, extreme care is taken to prevent unnecessary water pollution. Best Management Practices encourage thinning of existing forests as opposed to clear-cutting of our Nation's forests. Thinning is going into a forest and removing only a small portion of the timber. Surface drainage. Surface drainage through a forest is a naturally slow. And, following Arkansas' Best Management Practices, a buffer of trees must be left around all streams and rivers. Road Maintenance and Construction. It is necessary to have forest roads to reach the available timber. Best Management Practices require the minimization of stream crossings, designing the road to be no wider than necessary, and building roads to minimize the adverse impacts of heavy rain. Nursery Operations. To conduct any reforestation activities, you must have seedlings to plant. Best Management Practices for nurseries include minimizing soil disturbance, runoff, and chemical application. Mr. President, the voluntary use of these and many, many other Best Management Practices in Arkansas have successfully reduced and prevented water pollution from all forestry activities. Our nation's private timberland owners should not be burdened with more unnecessary regulations when they are already voluntarily complying with Best Management Practices to effectively reduce water pollution. Reasonable minds should prevail and agree on a common sense solution to promoting Best Management Practices in the forestry industry without unnecessary regulation and allow states like Arkansas to continue voluntarily implementing our successful best management practices.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I voted for final passage of the Bankruptcy Reform Act today because bankruptcy reform has been desperately needed in this country and I have worked throughout my public career to bring it about. This bill, however, is not without its problems. It is my sincere hope that the Bankruptcy bill that emerges from the Conference Committee will be just that, a Bankruptcy Bill. I believe that the non-bankruptcy and poison pill riders that were added to the bill on the floor should be stripped, or at least reformed in Conference, so that we can move forward on bankruptcy. Our country needs, and we owe to our constituents, a bankruptcy bill that the President will sign. Mr. President, we made various amendments to this bill which should be readdressed in Conference and changed. For instance, I am pleased that this body passed an increase in the minimum wage for working families in Arkansas. However, I urge my Colleagues in Congress to strengthen this provision in Conference implementing the $1.00 increase over two years instead of three. I also support tax cuts, however, the tax cuts in this bill are not paid for and will do nothing to help small business and working people. I am especially disappointed that this body failed to pass the needed estate tax relief for family farms and small businesses that was included in the tax amendment offered by the Minority. The Senate also agreed to an amendment during consideration of this bill designed to combat the spread of methamphetamine use in rural and urban areas. While I agree we must do something to stop the terrible spread of meth use in our country, I voted against that amendment because, as the language stands, it will allow federal education funding to be spent for tuition at private and religious schools. Everyone wants to fight the scourge of drugs. Let's have a clean amendment so we can move forward as a nation and fight against methamphetamine with a concerted effort. These are just a few examples of what needs to be fixed in this bill. If we really want bankruptcy reform to become a reality we have to craft a bill that the President will sign. Without a hard working conference and bipartisan efforts, this can't possibly happen. I urge my colleagues to work together to bring a clean bill back from the conference, and to bring needed bankruptcy reform home to the American people.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to the achievements of a distinguished member of the Arkansas medical community. Dr. M. Gazi Yasargil is recognized worldwide for his work in the field of Neurosurgery and we in Arkansas are fortunate to benefit from his talents. Dr. Yasargil's contributions to his field were recently acclaimed when Neurosurgery, the official journal of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, recognized him as ``The Man of the Century.'' This honor acknowledges Dr. Yasargil's significant impact on the field of neurosurgery in the second half of the 20th century. Professor Yasargil received his medical degree from the University of Basel, Switzerland, in 1950. Following his residency in neuroanatomy, psychiatry and neurology, internal medicine and general surgery, he began his training in neurosurgery in 1953 with Professor H. Krayenbuhl at the University Hospital, Zurich. During the first decade of his career Professor Yasargil was involved with the development of cerebral angiography, publishing two monographs with his teacher, Professor H. Krayenbuhl. He introduced stereotactic surgery and high-frequency coagulation technique into Switzerland and operated on 800 patients for movement disorders. Additionally, Yasargil routinely performed all types of conventional neurosurgical procedures on both children and adults. Professor Yasargil spent 14 months in 1965-66 with Professor RMP Donaghy, in the Neurosurgical Department, University of Burlington, Vermont, where he learned microsurgical techniques in the animal laboratory, and developed microvascular surgery of brain arteries in animals. Upon his return to Zurich he began to apply the microtechnique to the entire field of neurosurgery. He developed the counter balanced operating microscope and numerous microsurgical instruments and vascular clips; he pioneered microsurgical approaches and treatments for occluded brain arteries, intracranial aneurysms, AVMs, caveronmas, and extrinsic and intrinsic tumors of the brain and spinal cord, in 7000 adults and 400 children. His surgical experiences have been published in 330 papers. The six volume publication Microneurosurgery is the comprehensive review of his broad experiences. In 1973, Professor Yasargil became Chairman and Director of the Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital, Zurich, until his retirement in 1993. He was President of the Neurosurgical Society of Switzerland 1973-75. Professor Yasargil has been awarded with honorary medical degrees by the Universities of Ankara and Istanbul in Turkey, also with honorary citizenship of Austin, Texas, and Urgup, Turkey, and honorary membership in 15 international medical societies. Professor Yasargil has received major awards and prizes including the highly regarded Marcel Benoit Prize from the Swiss Federal Government in 1975, Medal of Honor of the University of Naples, Italy, in 1988, Gold Medal of the World Federation of Neurological Societies in 1997, and he was honored as ``Neurosurgeon of the Century'' by the Brazilian Neurosurgical Society in 1998. In 1994 Professor Yasargil accepted an appointment as Professor of Neurosurgery at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) in Little Rock where today he is active in the practice of microneurosurgery, research, and teaching. At UAMS, Dr. Yasargil has consistently provided superior treatment and care, attracting patients from all over the world. At the same time, he has continued to guide ground-breaking research initiatives and develop innovative surgical procedures. Madam President, I take great pride in recognizing Dr. Yasargil's contributions to the quality of the lives of so many people in my home state and others around the world. I am equally proud of the quality care and cutting edge medical service the people at the University of Arkansas Medical Sciences provide so that Dr. Yasargil can share his talents. UAMS has been the state's primary source for healthcare education, biomedical and biotechnology research and clinical care for more than 100 years. The quality work and service that UAMS and Dr. Yasargil continue to provide should be a great source of pride for Arkansans.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, for the last six years I have worked in Congress to provide relief from liability to legitimate recyclers. Congress never intended to create a disincentive to recycle when it created the Superfund program, and for that reason, I am delighted that this legislation was included in the omnibus appropriations bill. In addition, I agree with Senator Daschle's clarification of the intent of this bill. I am very concerned about the possibility that this legislation could be misinterpreted to relieve from Superfund liability persons who release radioactive material to recyclers, such as those in the steel industry in my home state of Arkansas, who may be unaware of the danger of the products they are receiving, and who could in turn pass it on to consumers. I believe it is critical that we further clarify that this was not intended, and I am hopeful that the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader will work with me to do so.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today is a historic day in the United States Senate. With the inclusion of the Superfund Recycling Equity Act in the 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, we have righted a wrong to the recycling industry of this Nation. We have removed the Superfund bias against recycled materials and set this country back on a path to promoting reuse of all recyclable materials. The Superfund Recycling Equity Act of 1999 will finally place traditional recyclable materials which are used as feedstocks in the manufacturing process on an equal footing with their virgin, or primary feedstock, counterparts. Traditional recyclables are made from paper, glass, plastic, metals, batteries, textiles, and rubber. Mr. President, we have been working to right this wrong for over six years. During the 103d Congress, I first introduced a bill to relieve legitimate recyclers of scrap metal from unintended Superfund liability. The bill was developed in conjunction with the recycling industry, the environmental community, and the Administration. We worked closely together and consistently agreed that liability relief for recyclers is necessary and right. The language in this bill is the culmination of a process that we have been working on since 1993. As I'm sure you can see, Mr. President, the push to relieve these legitimate recyclers of this unintended liability has received broad, bipartisan support. This bill has received 67 co-sponsors in the Senate this year and thanks to the strong leadership of Senators Lott, Daschle, Chafee, and Warner, we have successfully brought this important piece of legislation to the floor. Mr. President, as the sponsoring member of this legislation when I was a member of the House of Representatives, I would like to make a couple of important points. First, this Superfund Recycling Equity Act is both retroactive and prospective. Slightly different standards must be met for recyclers to be relieved of Superfund liability for recycling transactions that occurred prior to the date of enactment than for those that occur after the date of enactment. But in either scenario, legitimate recyclers of paper, glass, plastic, metals, textiles, and rubber will no longer be treated as if they were ``arranging for the disposal'' of materials containing hazardous substances each time they sell their materials as manufacturing feedstocks. Rather, they will be treated as if they were selling a product, which is the same standard to which suppliers of virgin materials are held. Virgin materials are in direct competition with recyclables and this legislation will help to increase recycling in our nation. Recognizing that this issue has been the focus of much litigation, the Congress intended that the recycling situation be clarified through the Superfund Recycling Equity Act. That is why we have written this legislation in such a fashion that virtually all lawsuits that deal with recycling transactions of paper, glass, plastic, metals, textiles, and rubber are extinguished by this legislation. Only those lawsuits brought prior to enactment of this legislation directly by the United States government against a person will remain viable. All other lawsuits brought by private parties, or against third party defendants in lawsuits originally brought by the U.S. Government will no longer proceed under this legislation. This will resolve the inequities suffered by recyclers in a quick, fair, and equitable manner. It should also be reiterated that this bill addresses the product of recyclers, that is the recyclables they sell which are utilized to make new products. This does not affect liability for contamination that is created at a facility owned or operated by a recycler. Neither does it affect liability related to any process wastes sent by a recycler for treatment or disposal. In order to assure that only bonafide recycling facilities benefit from this bill, a number of tests have been established within the bill by which liability relief will be denied to sham recyclers. With the passage of this important legislation, we have taken a bold step in the right direction for America. We have taken a step to promote legitimate recycling and to put recycled materials on an equal footing with new materials. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, a week ago today, President Clinton signed S. 900, The Financial Services Modernization Act. Beyond the obvious positive implications that this legislation has for the bankers of my state of Arkansas, there is a provision in the bill that I rise to speak of today that has been a long time in coming and will finally bring fairness to Arkansas' banking market. Section 731 of the Financial Services Modernization Act is titled ``Interest Rates and Other Charges at Interstate Branches.'' This section was not included in the original version of S. 900 that passed this body, but with the support of the entire Arkansas congressional delegation it was added to the House version, and retained in the conference committee. Because of the importance of this provision to my state, because of the role that both Arkansas Senators played in protecting this provision in the conference committee, and because there was no debate on the provision in the Senate, I will speak briefly on the history that led to this new law, and the reason it was so vitally needed. With the passage of the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Act several years ago, the question arose as to which state law concerning interest rates on loans would apply to branches of interstate banks operating in a ``host state.'' Would those branches be governed by the interest rate ceiling of the charter location or that of their physical location? The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation addressed this issue with opinions that basically gave branches of interstate banks the option of being governed by either their home or host state requirements concerning interest rates by structuring the loan process to meet certain requirements. In Arkansas this had a profound effect upon the local banking community. Under Article 19, Section 13 of the Arkansas Constitution, the state places the maximum rate that can be charged for many classes of loans at 5% above the Federal Reserve Discount Rate. However, over 40% of the banking locations in Arkansas are non-Arkansas based interstate banks, and were, in effect, not governed by this constitutional provision after Riegle-Neal became the law of the land. The out of state banks were able to price freely, while Arkansas banks were bound by the usury restrictions in the Arkansas Constitution. This placed Arkansas banks at a significant competitive disadvantage. In light of this clear inequity, and because, if left uncorrected, my state could have lost virtually all of its local community banks, the Arkansas delegation wholly supported the language of Section 731 that provides our local banks with loan pricing parity in all regards with non-Arkansas interstate banks operating branches in Arkansas. Remedying this disparity was our intent, Mr. President, and I am pleased that my colleagues supported its inclusion in the Financial Services Modernization Act. The local banks in Arkansas play such an important role in the small and rural communities they serve. Not only do they provide the capital that fuels the local economy, but they are always out front in charity and community service. You always see their names in the back of the football program, or leading the drive to buy the new band uniforms. The local bankers in my state are much more than business men and women, they are neighbors and friends, and dedicated to their homes. In short, Mr. President, Congress put Arkansas banks at a severe competitive disadvantage with the passage of the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Act. The entire Arkansas delegation, therefore, considered it appropriate, if not our duty, to work to rectify this inequity here in Congress where it was created. I am glad we were successful.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of the 570,000 satellite viewers in the State of Arkansas who would like to watch local news broadcasts over their satellite dishes. Since I began serving in the Senate in January, I have received more phone calls, letters, and postcards regarding satellite television service than about Federal spending, crime, health care, or many of the other important issues we have debated this year. Many constituents complained to me earlier this year after they lost some of their network signals due to a court order. Others have been worried they will lose part of their service by December 31. I have kept all of these constituents informed about developments with the bill that would let them keep their full satellite service. When we passed the bill--which most people refer to as the Satellite Home Viewer Act--by unanimous consent in May, I told my constituents their problems would soon be resolved. Then, as the summer days got shorter and the leaves began to fall, I told them to just be patient. I said, ``It will be just a few more weeks,'' because members of the conference committee had begun to meet. Now, as we rush to conclude the legislative session, my constituents, and millions of others across the country, are still waiting. I now share their anger with what they perceive as Washington interfering with their access to information and entertainment. I have been told there is only one Senator who is holding up the process of passing a bill that would permit satellite viewers to receive local network signals over their satellite dishes. This is especially frustrating considering the House of Representatives has overwhelmingly approved a bill by a vote of 411-8. In my opinion, it is so unreal that those who stand in the way of this legislation would think that as we rush to finish the important task of funding the Federal Government, they can kill this bill in the 11th hour and no one will notice. I am here to bear witness that people will notice. As many as 50 million people will notice because that is how many people risk losing part of their satellite service if we do not complete action on the satellite bill before the end of this session. The satellite TV conference report is the product of hard-fought and very extensive negotiation among conferees. The provision that one Senator has expressed concerns about is especially important for residents of rural States. The local broadcast signal provision in the satellite bill would create a loan guarantee to bring local channels via satellite into small television markets. Without this loan guarantee, there is little chance that any corporation will make a business decision to launch a satellite that would enable it to beam local television signals into rural communities. Local broadcasters provide people with local news and vital details about storm warnings and school closings. People in rural communities need access to this information. They deserve no less. It is important to note that this loan guarantee will not cost the taxpayers 1 cent because a credit risk premium would cover any losses from default on the federally backed private loan. This rural provision should stay in the satellite bill, and we should vote on this bill in the light of day rather than sneaking a whittled- down version into an omnibus package. I hold in my hand a letter signed by a bipartisan group of 24 Senators urging the majority leader to file cloture on and proceed to the satellite bill. After we delivered the letter, five additional Senators called my office seeking to sign it. I understand that another letter supporting the rural provision may be circulating as I speak. Mr. President, I urge the majority leader to listen to the will of the people and to the majority of the Members of this body. Let us vote on this today.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to join the Senator from Louisiana in calling upon our colleagues in the Senate, as well as the Administration, to capitalize on the momentum provided by the House Resources Committee last week in passing the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999. We must not let this opportunity slip away to enact what may well be the most significant conservation effort of the century. As part of any discussion into utilizing revenues from Outer Continental Shelf oil drilling to fund conservation programs, I want to ensure that wildlife programs are kept among the priorities of the debate. Specifically, I want to comment upon the importance of funding for wildlife conservation, education, and restoration efforts as provided in both the House and Senate versions of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999. This funding would be administered as a permanent funding source through the successful Pittman-Robertson Act. This program enjoys a great deal of support including a coalition of nearly 3,000 groups across the country known as the Teeming with Wildlife Coalition. Also, this funding would be provided without imposing new taxes. Funds will be allocated to all 50 states for wildlife conservation of non-game species, with the principal goal of preventing species from becoming endangered or listed under the Endangered Species Act. In my home state of Arkansas, we have recognized the importance of funding conservation and management initiatives. The people of Arkansas were successful in passing a one-eighth cent sales tax to fund these types of programs. As I'm sure is true all across this country, people don't mind paying taxes for programs that promote good wildlife management and help keep species off of the Endangered Species List. By taking steps now to prevent species from becoming endangered, we are not only able to conserve the significant cultural heritage of wildlife enjoyment for the people of this country, but also to avoid the substantial costs associated with recovery for endangered species. In fact, all 50 states would benefit as a result of the important link between these wildlife education-based initiatives and the benefits of wildlife-related tourism. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to make this historic legislation a reality upon our return early next year.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a great American and an honored daughter of Arkansas. Daisy Gaston Bates was an author, a newspaper publisher, a public servant, a community leader. And some would say most importantly, a civil rights activist. Mrs. Bates passed away last Thursday and we in the great state of Arkansas are celebrating the life of one of our greatest citizens. Mrs. Bates believed in justice and equality for all of us. No doubt it was that love of freedom and equality that compelled her crusade in 1957 for the rights of nine African-American children to attend Little Rock's all-white Central High School. Daisy Bates played a central role, as Arkansas president of the National Association of Colored People, in the litigation that lead up to that confrontation on the school steps. This was a defining moment in the history of the civil rights movement. According to her own accounts and those of the Little Rock Nine, the students would gather each night at the Bates' home to receive guidance and strength. It was through the encouragement of Daisy Bates and her husband that these young men and women were able to face the vicious and hateful taunts of those so passionately opposed to their attendance at Central High. Mrs. Bates and her husband, L.C., also published a newspaper, the Arkansas State Press, which courageously published accounts of police brutality against African-Americans in the 1940's and took a stance for civil rights. Eventually, Central High was integrated and Daisy and her husband were forced to close their newspaper because of their civil rights stance. Advertisers withdrew their business and the paper suffered financial hardships from which it could not recover. She and L.C. were threatened with bombs and guns. They were hanged in effigy by segregationists. But Daisy Bates persevered. She did all this, withstood these challenges, because she loved children and she loved her country. She had an internal fire, instilled in her during a childhood spent in Huttig, Arkansas. And this strong character shone through as she willingly took a leadership role to battle the legal and political inequities of segregation in our state and the nation. Mrs. Bates continued to work tirelessly in anti-poverty programs, community development and neighborhood improvement. She published a book, for which another remarkable woman, Eleanor Roosevelt, wrote the introduction. Daisy also spent time working for the Democratic National Committee and for President Johnson's administration. Many people honored Daisy Bates during her lifetime. In 1997, Mrs. Bates received for her courage and character, the Margaret Chase Smith Award, named after the second woman ever elected to the U.S. Senate. Daisy Bates carried the Olympic torch from a wheelchair during the 1996 Atlanta games. Many more, I am sure, will honor her after her death. I am proud to honor her today in the U.S. Senate. Mrs. Bates will lie in state on Monday at the State Capitol Rotunda in Little Rock. Ironically, this is only blocks away from the school where that famous confrontation occurred in 1957. And in another twist of fate, the Little Rock Nine are scheduled to receive Congressional Gold Medals in a White House ceremony with President Bill Clinton this Tuesday, the very same day Daisy Bates will be laid to rest. This great woman leaves a legacy to our children, our state and our nation; a love of justice, freedom and the right to be educated. A matriarch of the civil rights movement has passed on but I'm encouraged by the words of her niece, Sharon Gaston, who said, ``Just don't let her work be in vain. There's plenty of work for us to do.'' Mr. President, there is still much work to be done to bring complete civil rights and equality to our nation. Today, as we pause to remember Daisy Gaston Bates, I hope we will be renewed and refreshed in our efforts.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. I will certainly try to complete my statement in 5 minutes.

Mrs. LINCOLN. I ask unanimous consent to be able to address the Senate as in morning business for 7 minutes.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I support the Minimum Wage Proposal offered by Senator Kennedy because it is fair and responsible. It provides a minimum wage increase to 228,000 Arkansans and 11 million workers nationwide, most of whom are women. It provides important tax relief directly to small businesses to help defray costs of a wage hike. And, perhaps most importantly, it pays for the tax cuts by: offsetting tax adjustments on large estates valued at $17 million and above, which the Senate voted overwhelming to do in 1997; extending the tax imposed on corporate income for Superfund, which I hope will encourage Superfund reform, and closing corporate tax shelters, which Congress has been trying to do since Ronald Reagan was in the White House. A $1 increase in the minimum wage over 2 years is needed to restore the purchasing power or real value of the minimum wage, which has been greatly diminished over the last 20 years by inflation. In the United States, 59% of workers who will gain from a wage increase are women; 70% are adults age 20 and over, and 40% are the sole breadwinners for their families. The bottom line--this proposal will generate $2,000 in additional income each year for full-time minimum wage workers. As a mother of two young children who balances the check book every month and shops at the supermarket each week, I honestly don't know how a single parent who makes $5.15 an hour can feed their family and provide other basic necessities for their children. I am also very supportive of the tax relief provisions in this amendment which will help those who will be most affected by a minimum wage increase--small business owners and family farmers. This common sense package will expand access to health insurance by letting self- employed individuals deduct 100 percent of their health insurance costs, a proposal I have supported for many years. I believe providing 100 percent deductibility now to small business owners and independent farmers is more urgent today than ever as our country experiences one of the worst farm crises in recent memory. Furthermore, I have never understood why we deny a benefit to sole proprietors that is currently available to many large corporations. This package also includes another priority of mine--estate tax relief for family owned-farms and small business. Too often those who inherit a business or family farm from a relative must liquidate all or a portion of the property just to pay the estate tax which is owed. Another provision will help business owners provide child care assistance to their employees by allowing a 25% tax credit for qualified costs. In addition, this amendment will encourage investment in economically depressed areas like the Delta region in Arkansas and strengthen retirement security for workers by reducing small businesses' cost of setting up employee pension plans. Finally, I am hopeful that extending the tax imposed on corporate income for Superfund will be an added incentive to roll up our sleeves and pass meaningful Superfund reform legislation. I have worked on this issue since I came to Congress in 1993. I and millions of Americans are still waiting for Congress to fulfill its responsibility. I am sorry that our former colleague Senator Chafee, who was very passionate about this issue, died before Congress addressed Superfund reform. But before I yield the floor, I want to emphasize an important aspect of this plan that should not go unnoticed--it is paid for and does not threaten our government's ability to meet future obligations to Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. Republicans and Democrats have knocked themselves out over the last year trying to blame each other for spending the Social Security trust fund, so I fail to understand how we can consider a proposal which costs $75 billion over ten years with virtually no means to pay for it. That is irresponsible and I can't support it. In short, Mr. President, the Kennedy amendment is a common sense proposal that is good for both employers and employees and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will stand with me in supporting this legislation. I thank my colleagues and yield the floor.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in morning business for 7 minutes.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, mere words seem inadequate to honor the courage of some people and so I am humbled to lend my voice to the chorus of praise for the Little Rock Nine, who today will receive the Congressional Gold Medal, and I will also speak in remembrance of Daisy Bates, a daughter of Arkansas and a civil rights activist. Receiving the medal today are: Jean Brown Trickery, Carlotta Walls LaNier, Melba Patillo Beals, Terrence Roberts, Gloria Ray Karlmark, Thelma Mothershed Wait, Ernest Green, Elizabeth Eckford, and Jefferson Thomas. As teenagers, when they bravely walked through the doors of Central High School in Little Rock, they led our Nation one step closer to social justice and equality. While it is still painful to look at pictures from that time, where white teens sneered at their black peers, seeing the harsh face of hatred opened our Nation's eyes and propelled the civil rights movement forward. Before the ``Crisis of 1957,'' as some call the events at Central High, Little Rock was not associated with the pervasive segregation of the Deep South. In fact, Little Rock was considered quite a progressive place and some schools in Arkansas had already integrated following the Brown v. Board of Education decision in May of 1954. So, when nine students sought to integrate Central, few Arkansans envisioned a confrontation with the National Guard at the schools entrance. And I doubt many imagined the long-lasting, profound effects of this confrontation on the entire State. While the country witnessed countless images of this face-off, they were not necessarily aware of the continuing abuse endured by the Little Rock Nine, or the fact that Central High School had to be closed because the atmosphere was so hostile. Now, we all know that the high school years aren't easy for any teenager. For these men and women, high school was inordinately difficult. In addition to enduring the verbal taunts and even beatings, some had to uproot to other schools in the middle of the school year. Luckily for Carlotta, Thelma, Ernest, Jefferson, and the others, a woman named Daisy Bates entered their lives as a ``guardian angel'' of sorts. According to Daisy's own accounts and those of the Little Rock Nine, the students would gather each night at the Bates' home to receive guidance and strength. It was through the encouragement of Daisy Bates and her husband, L.C., that these young men and women were able to face the vicious and hateful actions of those so passionately opposed to their attendance at Central. Ironically, Daisy Bates passed away last Thursday. She was laid to rest this morning, the very day the Little Rock Nine will receive their medals. I know she is with us in spirit-- acting again as a guardian angel to these brave men and women. This great woman leaves a legacy to our children, our State and our Nation: a love of justice, freedom, and the right to be educated. As a result of her efforts, the newspaper Mrs. Bates and L.C. published was forced to close. She and L.C. were threatened with bombs and guns. They were hanged in effigy by segregationists. But Daisy Bates persevered. She did all this, withstood these challenges, because she loved children and she loved her country. She had an internal fire, instilled in her during a childhood spent in Huttig, AR. And this strong character shone through as she willingly took a leadership role to battle the legal and political inequities of segregation in our state and the nation. Many have called that confrontation at Central High an historic moment, a pivotal moment, a defining moment. But it was more than just one moment. When these nine men and women walked into Central High School, they opened more than a door, they opened the flood gates. For them and for the rest of our country, the battle didn't end at the schoolhouse steps. Their struggle lasted for years and, in reality, it still continues. My husband and I are both products of an integrated public school system in Arkansas. We are personally grateful to the Little Rock Nine for making our school experience rich with diversity. I truly value the lifelong lessons that I learned at an early age and I might not have had the wonderful privilege of studying with children of all races were it not for the Little Rock Nine. There is still much work to be done to bring complete civil rights and equality to our Nation. Today, as we pause to remember Daisy Bates and to honor the Little Rock Nine, I hope we will be renewed and refreshed in or efforts. I'm encouraged by the words of Daisy Bates' niece, Sharon Gaston, who said, ``Just don't let her work be in vain. There's plenty of work for us to do.''I hope my colleagues will join me in extending appreciation and commendation to the Little Rock Nine. And in remembering a matriarch of the civil rights movement, Daisy Gaston Bates.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize two outstanding companies in Arkansas that were named last month as two of America's 10 best manufacturing plants in North America by Industry Week magazine. This dual achievement is impressive and stands as a testament to the strong work ethic and pride in workmanship that exists among Arkansas workers. Scroll Technologies of Arkadelphia and Eaton Corporation's Aeroquip Global Hose Division in Mountain Home were selected from over 400 plants that were considered for this award. Applicants were judged on productivity, workplace safety, community involvement, customer and supplier relations, product quality and innovation in technology. Scroll Technologies, which manufactures air conditioning and refrigeration equipment, employs 575 workers and is one of the most advanced production plants of its kind. This company's success is founded upon management-employee partnerships, its highly skilled workforce and a strong commitment to workplace safety. Scroll Technologies can also be proud of its sound environmental record. Eaton Corporation's Aeroquip Global Hose Division opened for business in 1975 and now employs 285 workers in Northwest Arkansas. Eaton- Aeroquip manufactures hydraulic hoses used in large trucks and tractors. This company has succeeded by abandoning the traditional, hierarchical manufacturing process and adopting an organizational structure based on 50 employee teams. Team members are encouraged to give candid feedback about all aspects of the plant's operations and are rewarded with performance based bonuses. I have always said that Arkansas' greatest asset is its people. I am glad that Scroll Technologies and Eaton-Aeroquip have taken advantage of this resource and become valuable corporate-citizens in my state. I am proud to honor their achievements in the U.S. Senate today. I hope their well-earned success sends a signal to other companies in Arkansas and the nation that Arkansas is a good place for industry to do business.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Financial Modernization Bill. After decades of unsuccessful tries, it appears that financial modernization legislation may finally become a reality. As we move into the next millennium, I believe it is important that the financial service structure in this country is up to par with the rest of the world so that American finance can continue to lead internationally. The thing that impresses me the most about this bill, Mr. President, is not the way it will strengthen American financial markets and allow this important sector of our economy to grow with the technology of the age. It's not even that we will close the Unitary Thrift Loophole, or that we will maintain the Community Reinvestment Act to ensure that low income and minority communities in my home state of Arkansas will continue to have access to the capital needed to create jobs and increase incomes. What impresses me most, Mr. President, is the way we are going about passing it. When I vote for this bill later today, I feel like I will have weighed all the issues and had the opportunity to actually work to make it better for the people of my state. We deliberated, discussed, and fought over the merits of the legislation-- not just parliamentary tactics. This bill was scrutinized by Senator Sarbanes and Senator Gramm and all of my colleagues on the Senate Banking Committee before it ever got to the floor. Before it was even put on the calendar, it was subject to the judgement and the intellect of these men, whose esteem I hold in the highest regard. After this bill came out of committee and to the floor, we were able to offer and vote on amendments to adjust and strengthen the bill. I supported some amendments that passed, and I supported some that failed, but what is important is that my votes and the votes of my colleagues were registered and the conferees were able to gauge the Senate's support for these provisions. This allowed for compromise, Mr. President, and at the end of the day it allowed for a bill that a majority of the Senate can and, I predict, will support.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Certainly.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of the people of Arkansas to express my extreme disappointment, frustration, and bewilderment with our ineffectiveness in the manipulation of the Senate. Today, I was supposed to be touring the former Eaker Air Force Base site in Blytheville, AR, with numerous officials from the National Park Service as well as other State and local leaders. This is a meeting we have worked on for months to arrange, understanding there might be legislative business today. The community is united in its effort to have this former military base converted into a Mississippi Valley archeological facility and research center. The benefits this project will bring to northeastern Arkansas are enormous, and I had hoped to be there today to again demonstrate my support to the entire community and the Park Service and to urge a favorable decision by the Park Service. I also had several other appointments scheduled with various constituents in the State, but I had to cancel all these meetings to be here for scheduled votes. I thought we might vote on key trade initiatives and might even get to an appropriations bill. But these votes are, once again, delayed and may never occur. This is not the first time I have had to cancel meetings or events on critical issues with large groups of constituents in Arkansas to stay in Washington for votes, votes and work that never happened or were simply procedural or partisan. My constituents understand when I have to be in Washington to vote, but what they do not understand and what frustrates me is when I stay in Washington for votes and work that never occur. I would understand, and would encourage a great deal, if we were delaying debate so Members could travel to Rhode Island to pay tribute to our distinguished former colleague, John Chafee, a man whose presence in the Senate made this entire body a more respectful and enjoyable place, a truly bipartisan, wonderful colleague I enjoyed working with so very much and a great leader, one who I think would be proud to see us working to come to conclusion and bring about results on behalf of the American people. But this is not the case. There is no reason we should not be working and voting today. October 29, today, was our target adjournment day. We could be and should be done. We have just voted our third continuing resolution. We could have been working in the Senate to come to conclusion. Five spending bills still remain, including funding for education and health care, which I think should have been our very first priority in the Senate. It is clear to everyone involved why this mess keeps happening, why we are not getting anywhere. The majority is trying to override the true design of the Senate. They are limiting debate. They are refusing amendments and pulling legislation off the floor to mute the voices of the minority. I have great concern with that. I was elected to this body in November of 1998. I came to serve in 1999, during a historical situation that caused each of us to research and understand what the constitutional responsibilities of this body are about, to understand the design of this body. I was a Member of the House of Representatives. The Senate is called the upper Chamber, the deliberative body, for a very good reason. We are supposed to be above all of this. We are not the House. We should not operate as the House. We should be operating as a deliberative body, debating the issues, bringing out the concerns of each individual in this body, especially since just last night the House voted to gut Social Security by $17 billion. What an important issue to the people of America. We have a lot of difficult decisions before us, decisions we should be debating, we should be making, and not postponing. I call on the leadership and on my colleagues in the Senate, again, let us roll up our sleeves and get down to work. The American people deserve no less.