Blanche Lincoln

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Late Term Abortion Limitation Act of 1999. I would like to thank Senator Durbin for working with me and others who oppose later term abortions like the procedure being discussed today, which some have called partial-birth abortion. Let me start by saying that this is a difficult issue for anyone to discuss. And it is an emotional issue. It is not easy for any of us in this Chamber to discuss terminating a pregnancy. As a mother who has gotten infinite joy from twin 3-year-old boys and was blessed with a safe and healthy natural delivery, it is an especially sensitive topic for me. Like many of the people that I represent in Arkansas, I do not believe the so-called partial-birth abortion should be an elective procedure. We should put an end to all forms of abortion after viability except in cases where a late term abortion is medically necessary to save the life of the mother or when ``grievous injury'' could harm the mother. Congress has attempted to eliminate what some people call partial- birth abortions in the past. And 30 states have enacted similar legislation. But most efforts to end this horrific procedure have been unsuccessful thus far because the courts have overturned them. As I have shown during debate on HMO reform and tax reform, I am result-oriented. I believe we're here to get things done, to effect change, instead of scoring political points. For that reason, I have chosen to support Senator Durbin's approach to eliminating late term abortions because Senator Durbin has taken care of the concerns raised by courts and because this legislation will actually reduce the number of late term abortions. I should point out that, while serving in the House of Representatives, I twice voted in favor of a ban on partial-birth abortions, expressing my concern that the life and serious health of the mother be considered. Much has happened since then. Nineteen courts have overturned laws very similar to the one I supported. Some rule that the term ``partial- birth abortion'' is too vague. While I am not a lawyer, I understand the courts' point because all of the doctors I have discussed this issue with tell me that there is no such procedure as partial birth abortion. In addition, the courts have noted that states cannot regulate or prohibit abortion prior to viability. So it is very important, if we want results from this debate, to specify that we are talking about post-viability. Senator Durbin has corrected these prior legislative flaws by referring to abortions after viability rather than partial-birth abortions. In addition, the Durbin late term abortion ban would eliminate elective late term abortions by requiring not one but two doctors to certify the need for a late term abortion to save the life or serious health of the mother. I support the Durbin amendment because if Senators really want to ensure that we stop late term abortions, then we should pass legislation that can stand the test of the courts. The Durbin amendment could stand the test and become law. It has the best chance of producing results. So if results are what we're looking, if stopping late term abortions--including the so-called partial-birth abortions--is our goal, then this is the right option. If we vote for other vague measures, we will be right back here next year, and the next year, still debating this issue--without results. Let's do the right thing and ban unnecessary late term abortions by voting for the Durbin amendment which can stand up to federal court tests.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes on the Durbin amendment.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I have spoken several times this year about the need for our Nation to address juvenile violence. Today, I would like to commend another group that has joined the call to end violence. The American Medical Association Alliance has designated today as National SAVE Schools from Violence Day, and I would like to praise their efforts. The AMA Alliance SAVE (Stop America's Violence Everywhere) campaign began in 1995 and comprises a grassroots effort of 700 local and state- level projects to curb violence. Through the campaign, the Alliance has created unique workbooks and activities for use as conflict resolution tools in classrooms across the country. One of their themes, Hands are not for hitting, catches children's attention by challenging them to come up with other uses for their hands. Rather than seeing their hands as weapons, children are reminded that their hands can be used for hugging, collecting bugs or coloring with crayons. Another campaign theme, I Can Choose, teaches children that they can choose their attitudes and behavior. Other projects including I Can Be Safe and Be a Winner have been distributed nationwide. Using its Hands are not for hitting campaign and others like it, the AMA is working to call attention to school safety and the way children interact. Nationally, the AMA hopes to reach 1 million children by the year 2000 with activities that help them manage anger and build self- esteem. This type of private sector involvement represents a key building block in our nation's commitment to providing a safe learning environment for our children. Many of my colleagues know that I introduced the Safe Schools Act of 1999 to provide resources to public schools so they can remain safe and strong cornerstones of our communities. As we move into the 21st century, we must adapt our approach to education to meet the changing needs of students, teachers and parents. Although I am one of the youngest members of the Senate, I grew up in Helena, Arkansas during what seemed to be a much simpler time. Our parents pulled together to make everyone's education experience a success. Students came to school prepared to learn. Teachers had control of their classroom. The threat of school violence was virtually non-existent. Now, more than twenty years later, things are different--very different. Our children are subjected to unprecedented social stresses including divorce, drug and alcohol abuse, child abuse, poverty and an explosion of technology that has good and bad uses. These stresses exhibit themselves in the behavior of teenagers, as well as in our young children. Increasingly, elementary school children exhibit symptoms of substance abuse, academic underachievement, disruptive behavior, and even suicide. Although school shootings will probably not occur in a majority of our schools, each time we witness a tragedy like Jonesboro or Littleton, it makes us wonder if the next incident will be in our own home towns. This is a very complex problem and there is no one single answer. It will take more than metal detectors and surveillance cameras to prevent the tragedies occurring in our schools. I believe the Safe Schools Act reflects the needs and wishes of students, parents, teachers and school administrators. Unfortunately, there are not nearly enough mental health professionals working in our nation's schools. The American School Health Association recommends that the student-to-counselor ratio be 250:1. In secondary schools, the current ratio is 513:1. In elementary schools, the student-to-teacher ratio exceeds 1000:1. Students today bring more to school than backpacks and lunchboxes-- many of them bring severe emotional troubles. It is critical that schools be able to help our troubled students by teaching children new skills to cope with their aggression. So, I commend the AMA Alliance for designating today as National SAVE Schools from Violence Day and encourage students, teachers, parents and the community to work together to make our schools safe.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I plan to vote for the Agriculture Appropriations Bill today, and I would like to thank those who have helped move the ball down the field. But I'd like to state for the record my opposition to the Conference Committee's decision to remove language previously approved by the Senate that would have removed barriers to trade for domestic producers. I am extremely disappointed and disheartened that this year's Agriculture Appropriations bill will not take steps to open up additional trade markets to domestic producers, especially after this body voted 70-28 to pass legislation that would exempt agricultural products from unilateral economic sanctions. In short, Mr. President, a small handful of people have overturned the will of the majority by strong-arming Congress with decisions made behind closed doors. The Members who removed sanctions language from the Conference Report are the very same members who promoted the Freedom to Farm Act. It's beyond me how they expect Freedom to Farm to work when they remove the best chance for our farmers to compete in a global economy. For months our farmers have been left hanging when it comes to disaster relief payments, loan guarantees and crop insurance reform. Producers in Arkansas should not be let down by Congress again. They should be looking forward to sending 300,000 metric tons of rice to Cuba next year. Arkansas producers have been particularly affected by trade sanctions with countries such as Cuba, Iran and Iraq. According to Riceland executive Richard Bell, who testified before the Senate Agriculture Committee in May, ``Probably no domestic commodity or product has suffered more from these trade sanctions than rice. The sanctions towards Cuba in particular were a major blow to our industry, especially to growers in the South who produce long-grain rice.'' There is bipartisan support for changes in the way this country considers economic and trade sanctions. So, in light of the conferees' decision to remove sanctions language, I hope my colleagues will take a serious look at cosponsoring S. 566, the Agricultural Trade Freedom Act, which would exempt exports of food and other agricultural products from any current or future U.S. unilateral sanctions imposed against a foreign government. I also encourage my colleagues to consider supporting S. 1523, The HOPE Act, which will require the President to justify how economic sanctions serve our national interests and to report to Congress on an annual basis the costs and benefits of food sanctions. It's foolish to let our foreign policy objectives cloud common sense. Without access to foreign markets, we cannot expect the agricultural community to survive. Without a better long-term farm policy, it most certainly will not. While this bill provides some relief, it doesn't go far enough. What we must do is give our farmers a consistent, workable agriculture policy. We must give them some idea of what they can count on from their government in terms of consistent farm policy. Repeatedly passing emergency disaster relief bills isn't the answer. And it is clear that Freedom to Farm has not worked. According to today's Washington Post, ``Congress has now spent $19 billion more in the first four years of Freedom to Farm than it was supposed to spend during the bill's entire seven-year life-span.'' This relief package will hopefully get several of our nation's producers through this growing season, but it does nothing to ease the minds of our agriculture community for next year. We've taken care of the short term needs of our agriculture community, I hope that my colleagues will soon take care of the long term.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I rise to voice my support for a bill which addresses the unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. I am pleased to join my Democratic colleagues as an original cosponsor of the Medicare Beneficiaries Access to Care Act. Since I've been in the Senate, one of the greatest concerns of Arkansans is the lowered Medicare reimbursement rate for a variety of services that resulted from the Balanced Budget Act. Yes, we must continue to rid our Medicare system of waste, fraud and abuse. That is a high priority for our government and it should remain so. However, when Medicare changes were made as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Members of Congress did not intend to wreak havoc on the health care industry. Enough time has elapsed to know the unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Act. Hospitals have lost tremendous amounts of money due to changes in the outpatient prospective payment system. Many hospitals in my state are on the brink of closing due to the tremendous financial losses they have suffered. Nursing homes have not been reimbursed by Medicare at rates that cover the cost of patients with acute care needs. Payments for physical and rehabilitation therapy have been arbitrarily capped. Teaching hospitals have lost funding to support their training programs. Home health agencies have been forced to absorb huge losses and limit services to the elderly. Rural health clinics have been forced to cope with even more losses and operate on a shoestring budget. Not only do these cuts and changes in Medicare reimbursement wreak havoc on the health care community and force them to absorb unfair financial losses, but Medicare beneficiaries, the very people that Medicare was set up to help, lose access to critical services. We cannot allow our parents and grandparents to be denied access to coverage or receive limited medicare care because we didn't take action to correct the devastating cuts of the Balanced Budget Act. As a member of the Senate Rural Health Caucus and a member of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I care deeply about the quality of health care and our citizens' access to health care. Over the past few months I have cosponsored various pieces of legislation which address all of the above-mentioned issues and the need to restore Medicare cuts. However, this legislation is ``all encompassing'' and if passed, would ensure that hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, physical therapy clinics, home health agencies, rural health clinics, and hospice programs receive important financial relief. Above all, this legislation is about priorities. Ensuring the health and well-being of our Nation's seniors and most vulnerable citizens should be our highest priority. I thank my colleagues for their hard work on this proposal and I look forward to the quick passage of this legislation so we can deliver relief to our health care communities and let them know how much we value their services.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Improved Maternal and Children's Health Coverage Act. I am joined by my colleagues Senator Landrieu, Senator Gordon Smith, Senator Evan Bayh and Senator Dianne Feinstein. A similar bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman DeGette and Congresswoman Morella. This legislation is intended to help increase the coverage of uninsured children under the Children's Health Insurance Program, better known as CHIP. Right now there are 10.7 million uninsured children in the United States. The goal of CHIP is to insure 5 million children nationally. However, we have only enrolled 1.3 million of the targeted 5 million children so far. We can do better. We must do better. Let's get rid of barriers to coverage! There are several simple, administrative changes that we can make in this legislation that will help break down the barriers to enrollment. First, we can reduce the need for excessive documentation. States would be required to develop and use a uniform, simplified application form to determine eligibility for both Medicaid and CHIP. This means families only have to fill out one form. Second, families would only have to deal with one state agency to establish eligibility for either program. It is unfair to make parents go from agency to agency to enroll for state health insurance coverage. Third, we can do a better job making a greater variety of application sites available to families. Rather than only being able to apply at a state agency, states could opt to expand application site options. Let's take the application process to the places that parents and their children go on a regular basis--examples include schools and child care centers. This bill also expands health insurance coverage options to pregnant women who do not qualify for Medicaid because their incomes are slightly above Medicaid guidelines. Thousands of pregnant women earn just a bit too much to qualify for Medicaid, but they do not have health insurance because either their employer or their husband's employer doesn't offer it. We all know the importance of prenatal care to the health of unborn children. If a mother receives proper prenatal care, her child has a much greater chance of being born healthy. That is why the National Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Children's Hospitals and the March of Dimes--just to name a few organizations--support this legislation. In an era of making every federal dollar stretch as far as possible, this provision makes sense. For every $1 we spend on prenatal care, we save $3 later on that would be spent on complicated deliveries and serious birth defects. Sometimes you have to spend money to save money. Several years ago, the Arkansas governor and the state legislature implemented the AR Kids First health insurance program for children who did not qualify for Medicaid. AR Kids First precedes CHIP. The statistics for enrollment in the CHIP program in Arkansas are a bit ahead of the national curve. So for, AR Kids First has enrolled half of all eligible children. Over 45,000 now have coverage as a result of the state's proactive efforts and commitment to children's health. It has been so successful in enrolling eligible children for health insurance that the Department of Health and Human Services recently granted approval to allow AR Kids First to operate as the state's CHIP program. I applaud their efforts and hope that other states can learn from the outreach success of AR Kids First. Finally, this bill eliminates the sunset clause for a pot of money that Congress allocated for states to help them link families leaving welfare with the Medicaid and CHIP programs. As part of the 1996 welfare reform law, Congress gave $500 million to states to see that families with children in the welfare system continue to receive health care coverage. Prior to 1996, poor families with children automatically received health benefits through Medicaid when they signed up for AFDC. Since Congress passed welfare reform legislation, Medicaid and TANF are no longer legally connected. States must revamp their eligibility systems to see that families with children do not fall through the cracks. There has been confusion between governors and the Department of Health and Human Services about the time period that this money could be spent. States run the risk of losing this money just 2 days from now. On September 30th, 16 states are in jeopardy of losing this funding and 18 more states will lose funding by December 31, 1999. So, as you see, this piece of the Maternal and Children's Health Coverage Act is critical--and timely. I hope that the Congress and the President will act swiftly to eliminate the sunset clause and give states more time to spend this valuable pot of money. Mr. President, Congress is currently engaged in a debate over the Patients' Bill of Rights. I hope that we don't lose sight of an equally important goal of seeing that all children in America have health care insurance. I believe this bill takes a positive step forward in helping states move closer to the goal of providing health insurance to 5 million uninsured children. We can do this. We must do this.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for 3 minutes.

Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I am here to express my disappointment in this process and the vote we are about to cast this afternoon. I will probably vote for the continuing resolution because I don't want to shut down the Government. I will also probably vote with the expectation that we will get our work done in the 3 following weeks. I am not happy about it, and I don't believe we have fulfilled our obligation and commitment to the American people. For over 200 years, it has been the responsibility of Congress to pass the 13 appropriations bills that make the Federal Government tick. It is our only constitutionally mandated responsibility, the only thing we absolutely have to do. We have had 9 months. In the same amount of time, I produced twins. It wasn't easy, but we did it. My chief of staff, unfortunately, had an accident at Christmas, has been through two major surgeries, and has made a resounding comeback, unbelievably. My legislative director has gotten married. She has finished law school and bought a home in those 9 months. Amazing things can be done if one actually works at them. I came to Washington, sat through an impeachment trial, bought a house, and moved two 3-year-old boys, one husband, and a dog to Virginia so I could work in the Senate. It is time to get down to work. I fully expect us to end this monkey business. To pass fair, thought- out appropriations bills within the next 3 weeks is certainly not something we should take for granted. I will not support an omnibus appropriations package similar to the one passed last year. One of the most frightening stories I heard, when I first arrived in the Senate, was the process that happened in the last few days of the session last year when only a couple people came around a table and decided the budget for this entire Nation without the assent of all of those who should have been at that table. What an irresponsible way for us, as Government, to work on behalf of the American people. This way of governing is absolutely irresponsible, ineffective, and it is not what I came here to do. I imagine many of my colleagues did not come here to act in such an irresponsible way. To do so is to sell the American people down the river. I hope my colleagues will put politics aside and get our business done, the only constitutional responsibility that we have in this body; that is, to take care of the American people's business. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Improved Maternal and Children's Health Coverage Act. I am joined by my colleagues Senator Landrieu, Senator Gordon Smith, Senator Evan Bayh and Senator Dianne Feinstein. A similar bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman DeGette and Congresswoman Morella. This legislation is intended to help increase the coverage of uninsured children under the Children's Health Insurance Program, better known as CHIP. Right now there are 10.7 million uninsured children in the United States. The goal of CHIP is to insure 5 million children nationally. However, we have only enrolled 1.3 million of the targeted 5 million children so far. We can do better. We must do better. Let's get rid of barriers to coverage! There are several simple, administrative changes that we can make in this legislation that will help break down the barriers to enrollment. First, we can reduce the need for excessive documentation. States would be required to develop and use a uniform, simplified application form to determine eligibility for both Medicaid and CHIP. This means families only have to fill out one form. Second, families would only have to deal with one state agency to establish eligibility for either program. It is unfair to make parents go from agency to agency to enroll for state health insurance coverage. Third, we can do a better job making a greater variety of application sites available to families. Rather than only being able to apply at a state agency, states could opt to expand application site options. Let's take the application process to the places that parents and their children go on a regular basis--examples include schools and child care centers. This bill also expands health insurance coverage options to pregnant women who do not qualify for Medicaid because their incomes are slightly above Medicaid guidelines. Thousands of pregnant women earn just a bit too much to qualify for Medicaid, but they do not have health insurance because either their employer or their husband's employer doesn't offer it. We all know the importance of prenatal care to the health of unborn children. If a mother receives proper prenatal care, her child has a much greater chance of being born healthy. That is why the National Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Children's Hospitals and the March of Dimes--just to name a few organizations--support this legislation. In an era of making every federal dollar stretch as far as possible, this provision makes sense. For every $1 we spend on prenatal care, we save $3 later on that would be spent on complicated deliveries and serious birth defects. Sometimes you have to spend money to save money. Several years ago, the Arkansas governor and the state legislature implemented the AR Kids First health insurance program for children who did not qualify for Medicaid. AR Kids First precedes CHIP. The statistics for enrollment in the CHIP program in Arkansas are a bit ahead of the national curve. So for, AR Kids First has enrolled half of all eligible children. Over 45,000 now have coverage as a result of the state's proactive efforts and commitment to children's health. It has been so successful in enrolling eligible children for health insurance that the Department of Health and Human Services recently granted approval to allow AR Kids First to operate as the state's CHIP program. I applaud their efforts and hope that other states can learn from the outreach success of AR Kids First. Finally, this bill eliminates the sunset clause for a pot of money that Congress allocated for states to help them link families leaving welfare with the Medicaid and CHIP programs. As part of the 1996 welfare reform law, Congress gave $500 million to states to see that families with children in the welfare system continue to receive health care coverage. Prior to 1996, poor families with children automatically received health benefits through Medicaid when they signed up for AFDC. Since Congress passed welfare reform legislation, Medicaid and TANF are no longer legally connected. States must revamp their eligibility systems to see that families with children do not fall through the cracks. There has been confusion between governors and the Department of Health and Human Services about the time period that this money could be spent. States run the risk of losing this money just 2 days from now. On September 30th, 16 states are in jeopardy of losing this funding and 18 more states will lose funding by December 31, 1999. So, as you see, this piece of the Maternal and Children's Health Coverage Act is critical--and timely. I hope that the Congress and the President will act swiftly to eliminate the sunset clause and give states more time to spend this valuable pot of money. Mr. President, Congress is currently engaged in a debate over the Patients' Bill of Rights. I hope that we don't lose sight of an equally important goal of seeing that all children in America have health care insurance. I believe this bill takes a positive step forward in helping states move closer to the goal of providing health insurance to 5 million uninsured children. We can do this. We must do this.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Delta Regional Authority Act of 1999, which is aimed at improving the economy of the Mississippi Delta region, the poorest region in the country. The lower Mississippi Delta region, following the course of the Mississippi River, stretches from southern Illinois to the Delta of the Mississippi and the Gulf of Mexico. According to the latest Census figures, communities in the Delta region of seven States--Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana-- face a poverty rate of 22 percent while the national average is 12 percent. This legislation seeks to build on efforts begun more than a decade ago, when Congress created the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Commission. Under the leadership of former Arkansas Senator Dale Bumpers, the Commission was charged with studying the unique problems of the Delta region and recommending a course of action. I refer my colleagues to Senator Bumpers' statement, which appears on page S25689 of the September 27, 1988 Congressional Record, in which he introduced legislation authorizing the Commission. The Commission submitted its report, ``Realizing the Dream . . . Fulfilling the Potential,'' in 1990. The Chairman of the Commission, former Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, called the report a ``handbook for action.'' The report highlighted problems facing the Delta, whose economy has traditionally been based on agriculture. The report noted the Delta faced high unemployment, low levels of income and education, welfare dependency, poor health care and housing, along with serious shortcomings in transportation infrastructure. Unfortunately, a decade after the report was issued, these problems still exist. While Congress took one bold step toward solving these problems when we passed welfare reform, there is still much to be done. In particular, this bill seeks to improve the infrastructure of the Delta region. It is common knowledge that when industries seek to expand and build new facilities, they look at the availability of roads, water systems and other infrastructure. The Federal Government has tried to foster development in these areas by providing Federal grant monies, but we haven't approached the economic problems in the region with an appropriate understanding of the unique demographic and geographic challenges that face the Delta. Education programs are available, but if there's no technical assistance to help people actually access the grant resources, then the programs are essentially wasted. We can encourage young folks to pursue higher education and start their own businesses, but if there is no basic infrastructure, if transportation and other resources are inadequate, how can they succeed? For instance, in many areas of the Arkansas Delta there are no copy shops, computer repair stores, or office supply stores. These basic offerings that we take for granted in larger cities simply are not available and that is why creating a central location for technical assistance is so vital. We may not be able to put copy shops in place, but we can provide help that will be only a phone call or an e-mail away. Currently, many communities in the Delta have problems gaining federal grants for two reasons. First, they often don't have the technical expertise to complete the grant applications. Second, they often don't have enough money to meet the local matching requirement. The Delta Regional Authority created by this legislation will be authorized $30 million annually to provide technical assistance in the grant application process. In effect, local communities across the seven state region will have one-stop shopping when they need assistance completing grant applications and accessing resources for economic development. Second, the Delta Regional Authority will be authorized to provide money to help grant applicants meet the federal match. Certainly the matching dollar requirement in the grant application process is important to demonstrate the community's commitment to the project, but we shouldn't exclude the very communities who need grant assistance the most. The Delta Regional Authority will function along the same lines as the Appalachian Regional Commission. But it will operate entirely independently of the ARC. The Delta Regional Authority's mission will be to help create jobs, attract industrial development and grow the local economies by improving infrastructure, training the workforce and building local leadership. I would like to thank staff of the Appalachian Regional Commission, who worked very closely with us in drafting this legislation. Special thanks also is due to the National Association of Development Organizations, the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Center and many local economic development groups who provided suggestions and input. Last, but certainly not least, I would like to commend Representative Marion Berry, who represents my home in the First Congressional District of Arkansas, who has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives. I certainly hope that today's introduction of legislation is the first step toward making the Delta Regional Authority a reality. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Delta Regional Authority Act of 1999, which is aimed at improving the economy of the Mississippi Delta region, the poorest region in the country. The lower Mississippi Delta region, following the course of the Mississippi River, stretches from southern Illinois to the Delta of the Mississippi and the Gulf of Mexico. According to the latest Census figures, communities in the Delta region of seven States--Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana-- face a poverty rate of 22 percent while the national average is 12 percent. This legislation seeks to build on efforts begun more than a decade ago, when Congress created the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Commission. Under the leadership of former Arkansas Senator Dale Bumpers, the Commission was charged with studying the unique problems of the Delta region and recommending a course of action. I refer my colleagues to Senator Bumpers' statement, which appears on page S25689 of the September 27, 1988 Congressional Record, in which he introduced legislation authorizing the Commission. The Commission submitted its report, ``Realizing the Dream . . . Fulfilling the Potential,'' in 1990. The Chairman of the Commission, former Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, called the report a ``handbook for action.'' The report highlighted problems facing the Delta, whose economy has traditionally been based on agriculture. The report noted the Delta faced high unemployment, low levels of income and education, welfare dependency, poor health care and housing, along with serious shortcomings in transportation infrastructure. Unfortunately, a decade after the report was issued, these problems still exist. While Congress took one bold step toward solving these problems when we passed welfare reform, there is still much to be done. In particular, this bill seeks to improve the infrastructure of the Delta region. It is common knowledge that when industries seek to expand and build new facilities, they look at the availability of roads, water systems and other infrastructure. The Federal Government has tried to foster development in these areas by providing Federal grant monies, but we haven't approached the economic problems in the region with an appropriate understanding of the unique demographic and geographic challenges that face the Delta. Education programs are available, but if there's no technical assistance to help people actually access the grant resources, then the programs are essentially wasted. We can encourage young folks to pursue higher education and start their own businesses, but if there is no basic infrastructure, if transportation and other resources are inadequate, how can they succeed? For instance, in many areas of the Arkansas Delta there are no copy shops, computer repair stores, or office supply stores. These basic offerings that we take for granted in larger cities simply are not available and that is why creating a central location for technical assistance is so vital. We may not be able to put copy shops in place, but we can provide help that will be only a phone call or an e-mail away. Currently, many communities in the Delta have problems gaining federal grants for two reasons. First, they often don't have the technical expertise to complete the grant applications. Second, they often don't have enough money to meet the local matching requirement. The Delta Regional Authority created by this legislation will be authorized $30 million annually to provide technical assistance in the grant application process. In effect, local communities across the seven state region will have one-stop shopping when they need assistance completing grant applications and accessing resources for economic development. Second, the Delta Regional Authority will be authorized to provide money to help grant applicants meet the federal match. Certainly the matching dollar requirement in the grant application process is important to demonstrate the community's commitment to the project, but we shouldn't exclude the very communities who need grant assistance the most. The Delta Regional Authority will function along the same lines as the Appalachian Regional Commission. But it will operate entirely independently of the ARC. The Delta Regional Authority's mission will be to help create jobs, attract industrial development and grow the local economies by improving infrastructure, training the workforce and building local leadership. I would like to thank staff of the Appalachian Regional Commission, who worked very closely with us in drafting this legislation. Special thanks also is due to the National Association of Development Organizations, the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Center and many local economic development groups who provided suggestions and input. Last, but certainly not least, I would like to commend Representative Marion Berry, who represents my home in the First Congressional District of Arkansas, who has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives. I certainly hope that today's introduction of legislation is the first step toward making the Delta Regional Authority a reality. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise, as did my other colleagues today, to talk about something of great importance to each Member individually. I think we have not taken full advantage to discuss what I think is our greatest blessing in this world, one of our greatest investments. That is our children. Today I will discuss the importance of education funding and why it is imperative the Senate act quickly and responsibly on this issue. We have an opportunity to do something on behalf of our children, to give them the capability they need. We talk about the magnitude of education on behalf of our children, but we don't often talk about the timeliness that is needed here on this issue today. I question the wisdom of delaying the vote on the appropriations bill that funds education, the Labor-HHS bill, until after we have completed the other 12 spending bills. I know for myself, as a working mother, and as do all of my colleagues here as working family individuals--we have to prioritize. We have to look at what is important and we make a list. We recognize what is important and then we go about accomplishing it. It seems our priorities are in the wrong place when we vote on the legislative appropriations bill before funding education, waiting until the last minute, the last issue, to try and drum up the necessary funding to educate our children for the future. School has started all over this country. Kids are taking tests; they are turning in papers; they are getting grades. We, as parents, as aunts and uncles, as mentors to our children all over this country, are encouraging them to aim for the best, to work towards that A, to do what it is they can to accomplish their best, to work hard at their education because it will pay off for them in the end. What are we doing? We are setting a very poor example. If this Congress was to be graded on its performance on prioritizing our children's education, it would be given a big red F. I know there is always a contentious debate over how to fund education, but it seems our colleagues on the Republican side are out of touch with the American people on this issue. A recent survey of the American public found that 73 percent of Americans favor increased Federal investment in education and placed it as the highest priority among the 19 other issues they were asked about. Yet we in Washington have failed to act, and the situation is only getting worse. During the August recess, instead of having townhall meetings, I set about having five back-to-school meetings across our State of Arkansas. I spent a great deal of time listening to parents, students, teachers, and school administrators at all of these different schools in these meetings that I organized across our State. One school superintendent told me that in his area, an enormously depressed area, they were starting the school year with 22 job openings; short 22 people in that school district. As a result, classrooms are overcrowded, teachers are overworked, and students are not receiving the kind of attention and education they deserve. We must send Federal money immediately to hire new teachers. We must look for incentives to get our young people into teaching. Do you realize the enormous brick wall we will hit soon, as we are having fewer and fewer of our young people going into the teaching profession? It doesn't matter if we have smaller class sizes or if we have new school buildings; we are not going to have the teachers to put in them. That is essential. We want to give our teachers the capability to be well qualified. We send our children to school 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. Teachers are some of the most important people in their lives, and they are not given the appropriate time to prepare nor are they receiving the reasonable accommodation in resources they need to be able to teach our children. We must send those Federal dollars to hire new teachers. Waiting until next year is not an option. Schools are already open this year. If we wait as planned, we will have missed an entire grade of children. I have talked to my colleagues: Oh, we won't get to that this year, or we will do it next year, or we will do it in the next Congress. Think about those years. Think about those first graders from this year. They will be second graders next year and then third graders. By the time we have finally done something on their behalf, we will have missed the most critical stage in their educational process. How irresponsible on our part. By the time the money is allocated and school districts can begin to make those hiring decisions, they have missed that opportunity. Our children will be the ones who suffer if we do not do the right thing in the Senate. I also think it is such a shame, as we look at the tax package that has been presented to the President, what it will do in robbing our children of the money that is needed to build new schools, hire new teachers, reduce class size, wire classrooms with the latest technology, and enhance the access to affordable higher education. Under the Republican plan that has been presented to the President, education funding will be cut by 17 percent. How inexcusable is that, our greatest resource in this Nation, our children, our future, and not even anteing up what we need to do to meet those needs. That is an embarrassment. It is in our Nation's long-term interest to give our children the very best, highest quality education that we can. But even if we would not do it for our children, should we not do it for our Nation? That is the future of our Nation, our children, their capability to compete with other children across this globe. We should make that a priority in the Senate. The American people have indicated to us that they have made it a priority on their wish list. They are the future of our workforce. They are the future of our country. If we fail our children, we have failed our Nation. So I rise today to encourage my Senate colleagues to reconsider their priorities and to support public schools by restoring full funding to education and supporting efforts to hire more teachers, to build more schools, and to establish valuable afterschool programs. Now is the time to act--not next year, not next Congress, but right here and right now. Let's get over the partisan bickering and political posturing and get on with the people's work. More important, let's move beyond the process posturing that the Senate is famous for and really reflect on our priorities, what our priorities should be, what is our greatest blessing, which I believe is our children. Their success is without a doubt the biggest measure of our Nation's success. I encourage my colleagues to do just as I am doing, and that is to talk about the education of our children and move this bill forward. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleagues in introducing legislation to relieve legitimate recyclers from Superfund liability. This legislation has become necessary because of an unintended consequence of the Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, more commonly called Superfund. Some courts have interpreted CERCLA to mean that the sale of certain traditional recyclable feedstocks is an arrangement for the treatment or disposal of a hazardous substance and, therefore, fully subject to Superfund liability. While there exists in law and legislative history no suggestion whatsoever that the Congress intended to impede recycling in America by providing a strong preference for the use of virgin materials through the Superfund liability scheme, that is precisely what has happened. The Superfund Recycling Equity Act of 1999 is intended to 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. During the 103rd 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. All of the parties 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 the 103rd Congress. Similar language was also introduced in the 104th and 105th Congresses with the most recent version garnering almost 400 Senate and House co-sponsors. I am sure you can see, Mr. President, the push to relieve these legitimate recyclers of this unintended liability has received broad, bi-partisan support. The Superfund Recycling Equity Act of 1999 acknowledges that Congress did not intend to subject to Superfund liability those government and private entities that collect and process secondary materials for sale as feedstocks for manufacturing. This bill removes from liability those who collect, process, and sell to manufacturers paper, glass, plastic, metal textiles, and rubber recyclables. This bill also exempts from liability those individuals who collect lead acid, nickel, cadmium, and other batteries for the recycling of the valuable components. However, this bill does not exempt chemical, solvent, sludge, or slag recycling. It addresses traditional recyclables in a CERCLA context only. We do not intend it to be viewed as a precedent for any other amendment to Superfund or to any other environmental statute, whatsoever. It should also be clearly understood 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. I have consistently supported Superfund reforms beginning with my time in the House and continuing in the Senate. Unfortunately, comprehensive Superfund reforms have yet to garner broad support throughout the Congress and action on recyclers has been held up in the process. Relief for legitimate recyclers has been the one portion of Superfund reform that has consistently garnered widespread, bi-partisan support. The recycling industry should no longer be denied their legitimate exemption from Superfund liability because of broader issues that do not relate to them. Mr. President, I am aware of ongoing negotiations concerning a section within this recycling bill that applies to PCBs in paper. I want to again stress that when we began preparing for this bill in 1993, we formed a coalition of parties that all agreed upon the language within the bill. This coalition has remained until this day. These parties are currently working to amend the language of the bill to resolve this concern. Upon final agreement, I will welcome an amendment to this bill to include the resolution language. Mr. President, there are legitimate recyclers across our nation that stand to lose their livelihoods if we don't act immediately. Legitimate recyclers that reuse and recycle the scrap leftover from our everyday processes. Legitimate recyclers that reduce the waste we put in our landfills and produce a useful product. Legitimate recyclers that were not intended by the writers of CERCLA to be burdened with liability for taking scrap metal and other products and processing them into products equivalent to virgin material. Mr. President, we have been working toward providing this needed liability relief for legitimate recyclers for over 6 years. It is time to pass this important legislation now. Doing so will not only relieve this unintended liability but will promote recycling in our country. I urge all my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to provide a ray of hope for our farmers across the country. The situation is dire in the agricultural community. Commodity prices are at Depression era levels and are projected to remain low through this year and beyond. Despite the federal government's efforts over the past year to alleviate some the financial strain affecting the agriculture industry, a simple fact remains: we no longer have a policy that protects farmers when forces beyond their control drive prices down. Farmers are the hardest working people I know. They work from dusk to dawn on land that has been past down from generation to generation. This heritage is in jeopardy of being lost due to depressed commodity prices and the lack of an adequate safety net for family farmers. The agricultural industry is the backbone of rural communities. I'm not just hearing from farmers about this crisis. In the past weeks and months, I've talked with bankers, tractor and implement dealers, fertilizer distributors, and even the local barber shop. They are all concerned about the train wreck that will occur if nothing is done to provide an adequate safety net for producers. The bottom line in rural America: if farmers are hurting, everyone is hurting. It's really ironic watching the news these days. We're too busy patting ourselves on the back over the strength of the stock market and a potential tax cut that we have all but forgotten those that are not benefitting from this record setting economy. This situation is very reminiscent of the roaring 20's that our country experienced earlier in the century, followed by the Great Depression of the 1930's. I hope and pray that it does not take a situation so severe and drastic to convince this Congress, and the nation, that our agricultural sector and domestic production needs our support. The HOPE Act that I am introducing today is built on solid but simple principles and takes steps to reestablish a safety net for our nation's farmers. To reconstruct the safety we must restore the formula based marketing loan structure that existed prior to the 1996 Farm Bill. Loan rates were arbitrarily capped in 1996 and I feel that it is imperative to return this assistance loan back into a formula based, market- oriented program. In doing so, loan rates would more accurately reflect market trends and provide an adequate price floor for producers. No business in America can survive selling their products at levels below cost of production. With Depression era prices, that is the situation our farmers currently face. An adequate safety net must be restored. This legislation also extends the loan term by up to six months, allowing farmers more time to market their crops at the most advantageous price. Secondly, my legislation would require the President to fully explain the benefits and costs of existing food sanctions. It does not make sense to force Cuba to purchase their rice from Asia when the United States is only 90 miles away. Without access to foreign markets, we cannot expect the agricultural community to survive. We cannot let our foreign policy objectives cloud common sense. These sanctions rarely impose significant hardship on the dictators against whom they are targeted. The unfortunate victims are the innocent citizens of these foreign lands and the U.S. producers who lose valuable markets when these restrictions are put into place. We require cost/benefit analysis from almost all sections for our government regulators. We should do no less in our agricultural trade arena. I am also very committed to preserving our environment. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Wetlands Reserve Program(WRP) are responsible for taking a great number of erodible acres out of production. Unfortunately, these programs are victims of their own success because they are near the maximum enrollment levels allowed by current law. I propose to expand these programs so that even more marginal acreage is eligible for participation. I urge my colleagues to act quickly and address the growing crisis in the agriculture community. Everyone of us enjoys the safest, most abundant, and most affordable food supply in the world. Unfortunately, we often take that for granted in this nation. The consequences of doing nothing are far too great. This safe and abundant supply will not be there for this Nation or the world if we do not support our family farmers at this critical time.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleagues in introducing legislation to relieve legitimate recyclers from Superfund liability. This legislation has become necessary because of an unintended consequence of the Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, more commonly called Superfund. Some courts have interpreted CERCLA to mean that the sale of certain traditional recyclable feedstocks is an arrangement for the treatment or disposal of a hazardous substance and, therefore, fully subject to Superfund liability. While there exists in law and legislative history no suggestion whatsoever that the Congress intended to impede recycling in America by providing a strong preference for the use of virgin materials through the Superfund liability scheme, that is precisely what has happened. The Superfund Recycling Equity Act of 1999 is intended to 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. During the 103rd 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. All of the parties 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 the 103rd Congress. Similar language was also introduced in the 104th and 105th Congresses with the most recent version garnering almost 400 Senate and House co-sponsors. I am sure you can see, Mr. President, the push to relieve these legitimate recyclers of this unintended liability has received broad, bi-partisan support. The Superfund Recycling Equity Act of 1999 acknowledges that Congress did not intend to subject to Superfund liability those government and private entities that collect and process secondary materials for sale as feedstocks for manufacturing. This bill removes from liability those who collect, process, and sell to manufacturers paper, glass, plastic, metal textiles, and rubber recyclables. This bill also exempts from liability those individuals who collect lead acid, nickel, cadmium, and other batteries for the recycling of the valuable components. However, this bill does not exempt chemical, solvent, sludge, or slag recycling. It addresses traditional recyclables in a CERCLA context only. We do not intend it to be viewed as a precedent for any other amendment to Superfund or to any other environmental statute, whatsoever. It should also be clearly understood 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. I have consistently supported Superfund reforms beginning with my time in the House and continuing in the Senate. Unfortunately, comprehensive Superfund reforms have yet to garner broad support throughout the Congress and action on recyclers has been held up in the process. Relief for legitimate recyclers has been the one portion of Superfund reform that has consistently garnered widespread, bi-partisan support. The recycling industry should no longer be denied their legitimate exemption from Superfund liability because of broader issues that do not relate to them. Mr. President, I am aware of ongoing negotiations concerning a section within this recycling bill that applies to PCBs in paper. I want to again stress that when we began preparing for this bill in 1993, we formed a coalition of parties that all agreed upon the language within the bill. This coalition has remained until this day. These parties are currently working to amend the language of the bill to resolve this concern. Upon final agreement, I will welcome an amendment to this bill to include the resolution language. Mr. President, there are legitimate recyclers across our nation that stand to lose their livelihoods if we don't act immediately. Legitimate recyclers that reuse and recycle the scrap leftover from our everyday processes. Legitimate recyclers that reduce the waste we put in our landfills and produce a useful product. Legitimate recyclers that were not intended by the writers of CERCLA to be burdened with liability for taking scrap metal and other products and processing them into products equivalent to virgin material. Mr. President, we have been working toward providing this needed liability relief for legitimate recyclers for over 6 years. It is time to pass this important legislation now. Doing so will not only relieve this unintended liability but will promote recycling in our country. I urge all my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to provide a ray of hope for our farmers across the country. The situation is dire in the agricultural community. Commodity prices are at Depression era levels and are projected to remain low through this year and beyond. Despite the federal government's efforts over the past year to alleviate some the financial strain affecting the agriculture industry, a simple fact remains: we no longer have a policy that protects farmers when forces beyond their control drive prices down. Farmers are the hardest working people I know. They work from dusk to dawn on land that has been past down from generation to generation. This heritage is in jeopardy of being lost due to depressed commodity prices and the lack of an adequate safety net for family farmers. The agricultural industry is the backbone of rural communities. I'm not just hearing from farmers about this crisis. In the past weeks and months, I've talked with bankers, tractor and implement dealers, fertilizer distributors, and even the local barber shop. They are all concerned about the train wreck that will occur if nothing is done to provide an adequate safety net for producers. The bottom line in rural America: if farmers are hurting, everyone is hurting. It's really ironic watching the news these days. We're too busy patting ourselves on the back over the strength of the stock market and a potential tax cut that we have all but forgotten those that are not benefitting from this record setting economy. This situation is very reminiscent of the roaring 20's that our country experienced earlier in the century, followed by the Great Depression of the 1930's. I hope and pray that it does not take a situation so severe and drastic to convince this Congress, and the nation, that our agricultural sector and domestic production needs our support. The HOPE Act that I am introducing today is built on solid but simple principles and takes steps to reestablish a safety net for our nation's farmers. To reconstruct the safety we must restore the formula based marketing loan structure that existed prior to the 1996 Farm Bill. Loan rates were arbitrarily capped in 1996 and I feel that it is imperative to return this assistance loan back into a formula based, market- oriented program. In doing so, loan rates would more accurately reflect market trends and provide an adequate price floor for producers. No business in America can survive selling their products at levels below cost of production. With Depression era prices, that is the situation our farmers currently face. An adequate safety net must be restored. This legislation also extends the loan term by up to six months, allowing farmers more time to market their crops at the most advantageous price. Secondly, my legislation would require the President to fully explain the benefits and costs of existing food sanctions. It does not make sense to force Cuba to purchase their rice from Asia when the United States is only 90 miles away. Without access to foreign markets, we cannot expect the agricultural community to survive. We cannot let our foreign policy objectives cloud common sense. These sanctions rarely impose significant hardship on the dictators against whom they are targeted. The unfortunate victims are the innocent citizens of these foreign lands and the U.S. producers who lose valuable markets when these restrictions are put into place. We require cost/benefit analysis from almost all sections for our government regulators. We should do no less in our agricultural trade arena. I am also very committed to preserving our environment. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Wetlands Reserve Program(WRP) are responsible for taking a great number of erodible acres out of production. Unfortunately, these programs are victims of their own success because they are near the maximum enrollment levels allowed by current law. I propose to expand these programs so that even more marginal acreage is eligible for participation. I urge my colleagues to act quickly and address the growing crisis in the agriculture community. Everyone of us enjoys the safest, most abundant, and most affordable food supply in the world. Unfortunately, we often take that for granted in this nation. The consequences of doing nothing are far too great. This safe and abundant supply will not be there for this Nation or the world if we do not support our family farmers at this critical time.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the Chair and thank the Senator for yielding me this time. I am one of the newer Members of the Senate. I have not taken to the floor of the Senate often to speak yet. But I have been on the floor of the Senate five times already to speak on this issue of the agricultural crisis. I think it is immensely important to this Nation and certainly vital to the rural areas of our country. I compliment my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad. I think the spirit in which this bipartisan effort has been crafted is essential in being able to produce good policy for this country. I also agree with the words of my colleague from Mississippi that without a doubt this is a diverse body, and especially when it comes to agriculture, oftentimes we certainly see our diversity in terms of regions more than parties. I compliment his leadership in many of these areas. But I do think the debate and the differences we have seen are certainly reflective of the necessity now to review agricultural policy in this country. I truly encourage my colleagues to take a look at this bipartisan approach that has been presented by Senator Conrad. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I wish to express my support for the Bingaman amendment to recommit S. 1429 to the Senate Finance Committee which would have enabled us to clarify that debt reduction is a top priority for this government in spending any budget surplus. As we say in my home state of Arkansas, the best time to fix the roof is when the sun is still shining. Now is the time for us to take steps to reduce our enormous federal debt. I believe we have an unprecedented opportunity before us. We've been making tough decisions--living within our means, so to speak. We have a surplus that's bigger than we thought it would be and a chance to save Social Security for future generations, protect for Medicare and help older people afford prescription drugs. So, now we have a shot at reducing our nation's debt, which in turn will lower interest rates and put more money back in the pockets of more Americans. Using a major portion of any surplus accumulated in these times of prosperity to improve the financial integrity of the federal government. Reducing the national debt is a smart long-term strategy for the U.S. economy and it must be our priority in this bill. Reducing our national debt will provide a tax cut for millions of Americans because it will restrain interest rates, saving them money on variable mortgages, new mortgages, auto loans, credit card payments, etc. Each percentage point decrease in interest rates would save American families hundreds of dollars every year. By reducing the national debt we will protect future generations from increasing tax burdens. Currently, more than 25 percent of individual income taxes go to paying interest on our national debt. Every dollar of lower debt saves more than one dollar for future generations, a savings that can be used for tax cuts, or for covering the baby boomers retirement without tax increases. Reducing the national debt will also make it easier for the government to deal with the future costs of Social Security and Medicare and repay the Social Security trust fund when the Social Security system faces annual shortfalls. In addition, reducing the national debt will reduce our reliance on foreign investors. More than $1.2 trillion of the national debt-- roughly one third of the publicly held debt--is held by foreign investors. In 1998, the U.S. government paid $91 billion in interest payments to foreign investors. It was not the American way to live beyond one's means. Our parents taught us to work hard so that we can pay our bills, clothe our children and save for the future. Accumulating debt and simply letting it grow and grow is not--and should not be--an option for most families around this country. It should no longer be the practice of this government. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan has repeatedly advised Congress that the most important action we could take to maintain a strong and growing economy is to pay down the national debt. I, for one, believe he is on the right track. Clarifying our intent to prioritize debt reduction is the right thing to do.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I echo the words of my colleague. I was raised on and continue to be a part of the seventh generation Arkansas family farm. I think it is so important that we recognize this is an issue--those from other States, as well as farm States, agricultural-based States-- and that we can impress upon our colleagues in Washington, D.C. the crisis that our small rural communities and our farming communities are going through. I will certainly be joining the Senator later on this afternoon in that debate. We need to impress upon people that this is an issue for this country. It is not just agriculture; it is a heritage of this country and a heritage of our rural communities.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on what I think is the most critical as well as the most worthy of issues that we should be dealing with in the Senate and the Congress; that is, the emotional well-being of our children. They are truly the fabric of the success of our Nation into the next century. All too often we have been through incidents such as Jonesboro, AK, as well as Littleton, CO. We like to talk about them and discuss these issues and the crises that are going on in our children's minds and in their souls. But all too often we talk about it, and we seem to forget it. We don't do what we really need to be doing on behalf of our children in this country. Mr. President, the Safe Schools Act of 1999 will provide resources to public schools so they can remain safe and strong cornerstones of our communities. As we move into the 21st century, we must adapt our approach to education to meet the changing needs of students, teachers and parents in these communities. Although I am one of the youngest Members of the Senate, I grew up in Helena, Arkansas during what seemed to be a much simpler time--even though we were in the height of de-segregation in the South. Our parents pulled together to make everyone's education experience a success. Students came to school prepared to learn. Teachers had control of their classroom. The threat of school violence was virtually non-existent. Now, more than twenty years later, things are different. Our children are subjected to unprecedented social stresses including divorce, drug and alcohol abuse, child abuse, poverty and an explosion of technology that has good and bad uses. These stresses exhibit themselves in the behavior of teenagers, as well as in our young children. Increasingly, elementary school children exhibit symptoms of substance abuse, academic underachievement, disruptive behavior, and even suicide. Too many students bring guns and weapons to school. This is a very complex problem and there is no one single answer. It will take more than metal detectors and surveillance cameras to prevent the tragedies occurring in our schools today. But we must do something. We cannot wait any longer. We have to address this issue now. I believe the Safe Schools Act reflects the needs and wishes of students, parents, teachers and school administrators. It is the first step toward addressing the emotional well-being of our young people. During my Senate campaign last year, I spent a lot of time listening to parents and teachers. From my experience, a lot of the most effective solutions being at the local level. This bill incorporates the lessons I have learned from the people of my state who are working on the front lines to educate and care for our children. First, this bill would provide funds to elementary and secondary schools to hire additional mental health professionals. Students today bring more to school than backpacks and lunchboxes. Many of them bring severe emotional troubles. It is critical that schools be able to help these students and help teachers deal with them. We can possibly prevent a horrific act of violence, and if a disruptive student receives help, his or her teacher will have more control of the classroom in order to instruct all of the children there to learn. Unfortunately, there are not nearly enough mental health professionals working in our nation's schools today. The American School Health Association recommends that the student- to-counselor ratio be 250:1. In secondary schools, the current ratio is 513:1. In elementary schools, where the student-to-teacher ratio exceeds 1000:1. This is just not acceptable for a country as advanced as ours to not be providing the needs of our children. The second major component of my Safe Schools Act provides funding for after-school and mentoring programs. Many of our children go home to empty houses or spend hours every day in poorly supervised settings. Studies show that youth crime peaks between 3:00 and 7:00 p.m. Local public schools need additional resources so they can establish or expand after school and summer programs for children. This is a wonderful chance for the community to get involved. Many non-profit organizations can bring their resources to children in the schools and to the community. A variety of organizations can come together to build strong after school and summer programs which enhance the academic work of students and provide them with other meaningful activities. Many communities in Arkansas are doing just that. The city of Fort Smith has begun the SPICE Program, which has been working for nine years with adult tutors who help kids after-school with homework, and teach them arts and crafts which keep them out of trouble. In Little Rock, the Camp Aldersgate Youth Initiative encourages teenagers to participate in supervised community service activities, such as tutoring, recreation and conflict management; The Safe Jonesboro Mentoring Program in Jonesboro, Arkansas, brings adults from the local business community to Jonesboro High School once a week to mentor high school student. And these programs are not just being put into place in our larger towns, they're also cropping up in rural communities. In Monticello and six counties throughout Southeast Arkansas, the Southeast Arkansas Foster Grandparents Program has helped improve literacy and reading test scores for hundreds of children. In this program, senior citizens serve as literacy and reading tours to K-3 elementary school students twenty hours a week. The Boys, Girls and Adults Community Development Center in Marvell, a Save the Children grantee, has been providing educational, cultural and recreational activities, as well as mentoring for children after school. 60% of the children participating in this program have improved their grade point average. It works. Studies show that one-on-one attention raises the academic scores of children and improves their self-esteem. With just a little extra help, a child who is struggling with reading or math can catch up with the help of volunteers or mentors and excel. We can utilize organizations like AmeriCorps and our older volunteers in the Senior Corps program. Encourage high school students to mentor elementary school students who need a little extra attention, to see an older peer being a part of their life makes a difference. The bottom line is we don't need to reinvent the wheel. Good examples already exist in our communities, initiatives like the ones I've mentioned today. By providing added resources to the states, we can emphasize the successful programs and make them available to more students. I'm also asking states to inform parents about the quality of public schools by issuing a Safe Schools Report Card. My own state of Arkansas will begin releasing a more comprehensive report card next year. All states should collect this information and make it readily available to parents and the community. This information will help parents and schools officials better address the most important issues at the local level. Above all, we must continue to share information and ideas, to talk to one another. Our country cannot possibly meet the challenges of the 21st century if each community operates in a vacuum and there is no mechanism to pass on what is working and what isn't. During the August recess I will hold five ``Back to School'' meetings with students, parents, teachers, school administrators and concerned citizens. These meetings will be a good chance to discuss the various components of my Safe Schools Act as well as other important education issues like school construction, class size, school discipline and parent involvement. I welcome the chance to listen to those who care deeply about our public schools and I hope my colleagues will spend some of their time during the recess to do the same. I also hope my colleagues will take the opportunity to review the components of this bill. I feel strongly it should be a critical part of any federal response to school safety issues. I look forward to its passage. This is our opportunity to begin the process that will show our children we do care about their emotional well being and the future success of our nation.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the Chair. I also want to thank my colleague from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, and Chairman Murkowski, for their fabulous leadership on this issue. I rise today in support of greater funding for land and wildlife conservation programs as embodied in S. 25, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation to ensure that a portion of the revenues from outer continental shelf oil and gas production are dedicated to land, water, and wildlife conservation programs throughout the U.S. It is well past time that the Land and Water Conservation Fund is permanently funded and used as originally intended to provide for state and federal land purchases and to help states with conservation and recreation needs. We need consistent, dependable funding for federal, state, and local governments to make investments in land preservation, habitat conservation, and wildlife management. I know in my home state of Arkansas, this funding is badly needed for protection of exiting wildlife habitat and conservation programs as well as for funding additional conservation and recreation needs. Since inception, the state and federal sides of the Land and Water Conservation Fund have combined to provide Arkansas with over $84 million in targeted land purchases for preservation of tracts of forested lands, purchases of needed land for state and municipal parks, lands for schools, land for baseball fields, bike trails, zoos, and recreation areas. The federal side of the LWCF has provided resources for needed land purchases in the Ozark and Ouachita National Forests, White River and Cache River National Wildlife Refuges, the Buffalo National River, and for preserving many other tracts of land. The state side of the LWCF has provided land for a ballpark in Bentonville, a school park in Jonesboro, a zoo in Little Rock, a swimming pool is Searcy, a city park in Batesville, a swamp habitat in Woodruff County, and for over 600 other projects across my home state. And there are still many needs for these resources. Funds are needed for in-holdings purchases in State and national forest and to assist rural communities with building parks for children and to help urban areas with preserving needed green space. S. 25 would also create a permanent source of funding for state-run wildlife conservation programs. Title III of the bill will help state agencies identify and prevent species from being listed listing under the Endangered Species Act. In Arkansas, about 86 percent of all wildlife species are not pursued for sport or consumption, nor listed as threatened or endanger. It is these species that title III of S. 25 is targeted toward. There is currently no reliable, dedicated funding source for conservation, recreation or education programs for these non-game species. Title III will provide this necessary funding. Two examples are the Swainson's warbler, traditionally found in the bottomland hardwoods of my home state, and the barn owl, traditionally found across my state's delta. The Swainson's Warbler can still be found in certain places in the Delta region of Arkansas, but is rapidly declining throughout its range due primarily to loss of its bottomland hardwood habitat. Funding from Title III of S.25 will help head off the potential future listing of the Swainson's Warbler as threatened or endangered by increasing the amount of suitable habitat through a combination of management actions on public lands and habitat incentives for private lands. The barn owl has been a traditional predator feeding almost exclusively on rodents that are agricultural pests. This owl has persisted in the Arkansas delta despite low population levels for years. The barn owl responds well to artificial nest boxes that could be erected on a large scale with funds provided, under Title III, especially if this effort were combined with an intensive landowner educational campaign. Both of these prevention program can be accomplished easily under Title III of S. 25 without the disruptions and restrictions that would occur with a listing under the Endangered Species Act. Mr. President, I could go on and on about the good things that land and wildlife conservation programs have done in the past and can continue to do into the future for all of Arkansas--the projects are too numerous to list--but I want to make clear that the programs in title II and title III of S. 25 are necessary sources of funding for states and localities to complete needed, targeted land purchases for conservation and to prevent to continual decline of wildlife throughout my home state and this Nation. These are great examples of what this bill can do for States such as Arkansas and many others. I join my colleagues in support of what Senator Landrieu and Chairman Murkowski are doing, and I look forward to seeing the bill on the floor where we can certainly see it pass in the Senate.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Thank you. I have heard some concerns voiced about this bill, namely how it could impact nursing homes and fire fighters. I hope you can clarify for me how regulations applicable to these groups would be impacted by the Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act, if at all.

Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank my colleague for these clarifications. I am pleased to hear that this bill will help reduce the paperwork burden from our nation's small businesses while protecting the health and safety of our nursing home and firefighter communities, and I look forward to working with him to pass this bill.

Mrs. LINCOLN. How can my colleague be certain that this kind of tragedy is not protected from civil penalty under this bill?

Mrs. LINCOLN. Would my colleague from Ohio kindly answer a few questions regarding this bill?