Blanche Lincoln

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a bill that affects one of the three largest industries in Arkansas. The travel and tourism industry has a tremendous impact on my home State's economy and on our Nation's economy. It is America's largest services export, second largest employer, and third largest retail sales industry. However, the national focus on this industry has been minimal and changes are necessary in order to utilize the benefits this industry brings to America. That is why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 2579, the Travel and Tourism Partnership Act of 1995. I believe that this public/private partnership will provide the tourism industry with the proper organizational structure to increase our competitiveness in the global market. Mr. Speaker, allow me to share some facts that help illustrate the impact of tourism on Arkansas. Nearly 18,000 people visited Arkansas in 1994 which created over 46,000 travel related jobs. State travel expenditures neared the $3 million mark in 1994 which is a $1 million increase since 1986. The Natural State is a fitting nickname for a State with 600,000 acres of lakes, 9,700 miles of streams, and nearly 10,000 campsites. Fishing, hunting, camping, biking, and hiking are very popular in Arkansas' 47 State parks. Whether you are enjoying the natural springs of Hot Springs National Park or digging for diamonds at the only diamond mine in the United States, it is not hard to realize the impact tourism has on Arkansas. The First Congressional District has also felt the positive impact of the tourism industry. The natural resources and outdoor activities of the area have attracted an increasing number of travelers visiting the first district. The district is home to such attractions as Greers Ferry Lake, Blanchard Springs Caverns, the Buffalo National River, the White River, and numerous hunting areas and wildlife refuges. The recent government shutdowns reminded us all of the impact these recreational facilities have on revenues generated in this State. Because of the shutdown, our hunting lands and refuges were not available to potential visitors, thus meaning lost revenues for the first district. Mr. Speaker, the United States is falling behind the rest of the world in the travel and tourism industry. Changes must be made or we will continue to encounter lost opportunities, but more importantly, lost jobs and lost revenue. That is why I believe it is vital that we pass this bill. The National Tourism Board and National Tourism Organization would give us a structured organization to develop a clear and concise vision for the future. Mr. Speaker, the importance of the tourism industry is becoming more evident. This bill, which reflects the findings of last October's White House Conference on Travel and Tourism, provides for an appropriate commitment to this Nation's tourism industry. This issue is extremely important to me because of it's economic impact on the people of Arkansas and the first district, and I urge my colleagues to support this needed piece of legislation.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of renaming the U.S. Post Office in Camden, AR, the Honorable David H. Pryor Post Office Building, after the distinguished Senator and my dear friend, David Pryor. With this designation it is my hope that we can show, in some small measure, our appreciation for Senator Pryor's lifelong commitment to public service in the State of Arkansas and at the national level. Most notably as a U.S. Senator for 18 years. David Pryor began his political career by being elected to the Arkansas General Assembly in 1960. He was then elected in 1966 for 3 consecutive terms to the U.S. House of Representatives, serving the Fourth Congressional District of Arkansas, and in 1974 became Governor of the State of Arkansas. The two-term Governor is still remembered as a skilled and caring administrator who, through a time of recession, managed to cut spending without hurting programs. In 1978, the people of Arkansas made the decision to return David Pryor to Washington, but this time as a member of the U.S. Senate. A position which he has served with honor and dignity, becoming one of the most respected Senators of his generation. As a member of the Agriculture Committee, David Pryor's leadership has led to the development of innovative programs and legislation to help our farmers and defend Arkansas' resources. In addition, David Pryor is considered one of the most influential advocates in Washington on behalf of older Americans. He also is a nationally recognized leader in the fight to save the Social Security system, to reform our nursing home industry, to bring down prescription drug prices, and to make government institutions preserve the essential dignity of the senior citizens in this country. As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, David Pryor wrote the ``Taxpayer Bill of Rights,'' which was the first piece of legislation in 40 years to guarantee the basic rights of individual taxpayer when they deal with the Internal Revenue Service. David Pryor is held in high esteem by his colleagues in Congress, and in 1989, he became the first Arkansas Senator since Joe T. Robinson to occupy a position in the Senate leadership, which he held for 6 years until 1995. Few have created such a positive influence for Arkansas and our great Nation while remaining so dedicated to service. But most importantly, David Pryor considers it an honor to represent the people of Arkansas, and we consider it an honor to have had such a talented and compassionate individual to represent us and our State for these many years. The motto of his service, ``Arkansas Comes First,'' is more than a slogan; it has and continues to be his way of life. With the constant negativity and partisanship in the political climate of the 1990's, many politicians have fallen from grace in the eyes of their constituents and the Nation. However, I can honestly say that there is no one who is more respected for his leadership abilities and his kind, thoughtful nature in the State of Arkansas than Senator David Pryor. Senator Pryor continues to transcend partisan political bickering to remain at all times a gentleman and a statesman, and one of the most admired persons to ever grace the halls of Congress. Further, I could not have asked for a more supportive, caring, and thoughtful mentor. Again, may I add my full support for H.R. 3877, designating the David H. Pryor U.S. Post Office.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding. I, too, Mr. Speaker, rise today to pay tribute to two fine gentlemen from the State of Alabama. I am also proud to be here among the other folks that are here paying tribute. I find myself in excellent company. I have had the privilege of serving with these two gentlemen for my tenure here in the Congress. I feel like it has been a real honor to be along their side. Congressman Tom Bevill has served the Fourth District of Alabama with distinction since 1966, but in many ways he has served all of our districts at one time or another. As chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee from 1977 to 1994, Congressman Bevill has probably been more instrumental than any Member in protecting, preserving, and managing America's water resources. His charge has not been an easy one in distributing an ever-shrinking amount of funds to an ever-increasing number of worthy projects from around the Nation. Yet he has always been fair and nonpartisan in his work, and his word is ironclad. When I first came to Congress 4 years ago, the appropriations process was an unintelligible maze to me. In an effort to understand the process better and to serve my district, I went to Tom Bevill for advice. It could have been a very intimidating experience, a young woman, new on Capitol Hill, visiting a powerful chairman, but it was not. Tom Bevill welcomed me as an equal and treated me with the utmost of respect. He helped me learn more about the process and was instrumental in guiding several landmark Arkansas water projects through the Congress, one on behalf of the people of the First District of Arkansas. I want to thank him for his hard work on our behalf. I know that Mr. Bevill's best days are ahead of him as he leaves Congress to return to his life of a private citizen. I want to wish him and his wife Lou the best. There is one story I think that I must share with the rest of my colleagues, and I think it says a little bit about Mr. Bevill that we all really know. Not only has he served the people of this country and of Alabama and all of our other districts well, he has done so in a very wise and gentlemanly way, but he has not forgotten the important things in life. One day as we sat on the floor here, Mr. Bevill and I were visiting, and I had on a red jacket. And he looked at me and he said: I see you in that red jacket and, he said, I am reminded. My wife was wearing a red jacket the day that we first had our--I think it was the day you proposed to her, perhaps? Or maybe it was your first date. Tom Bevill does not forget, and he does not forget the most important things in life. He has served us all very well in this institution. He served our Nation and the folks of Alabama. We would all do well to follow the example of his career, commitment, fairness, grace, and humility. Tom Bevill is the kind of Member and person that we all strive to be, and I am proud to have served here with him and to have learned so much. Mr. Speaker, I also want to say a word about my fellow Congressman, Glen Browder, from Alabama's Third District. I have had the true honor of serving as a blue dog with Glen during the 104th Congress. Glen, like myself, is a founding member of this notorious band of independent Democrats. We have worked hard for that name and have had a great deal of fun with it. The blue dog mission, however, has been about meeting two principal goals: balancing the budget in a fiscally responsible as well as a fair way, and bringing commonsense solutions to Washington, DC. Since coming to Congress in 1989, Glen has never swayed from those goals. He was instrumental in crafting the blue dogs' balanced budget and had an active voice in all of our policy decisions. I am not sure what Glen's plans are for the future, but I certainly know he will bring the same dedications and honor to his new endeavors as he has to his work here in Congress. I join my colleagues in honoring these two gentlemen, and I wish them Godspeed in the future ahead for both of them.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding. I, too, Mr. Speaker, rise today to pay tribute to two fine gentlemen from the State of Alabama. I am also proud to be here among the other folks that are here paying tribute. I find myself in excellent company. I have had the privilege of serving with these two gentlemen for my tenure here in the Congress. I feel like it has been a real honor to be along their side. Congressman Tom Bevill has served the Fourth District of Alabama with distinction since 1966, but in many ways he has served all of our districts at one time or another. As chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee from 1967 to 1995, Congressman Bevill has probably been more instrumental than any Member in protecting, preserving, and managing America's water resources. His charge has not been an easy one in distributing an ever-shrinking amount of funds to an ever-increasing number of worthy projects from around the Nation. Yet he has always been fair and nonpartisan in his work, and his word is ironclad. When I first came to Congress 4 years ago, the appropriations process was an unintelligible maze to me. In an effort to understand the process better and to serve my district, I went to Tom Bevill for advice. It could have been a very intimidating experience, a young woman, new on Capitol Hill, visiting a powerful chairman, but it was not. Tom Bevill welcomed me as an equal and treated me with the utmost of respect. He helped me learn more about the process and was instrumental in guiding several landmark Arkansas water projects through the Congress, one on behalf of the people of the First District of Arkansas. I want to thank him for his hard work on our behalf. I know that Mr. Bevill's best days are ahead of him as he leaves Congress to return to his life of a private citizen. I want to wish him and his wife Lou the best. There is one story I think that I must share with the rest of my colleagues, and I think it says a little bit about Mr. Bevill that we all really know. Not only has he served the people of this country and of Alabama and all of our other districts well, he has done so in a very wise and gentlemanly way, but he has not forgotten the important things in life. One day as we sat on the floor here, Mr. Bevill and I were visiting, and I had on a red jacket. And he looked at me and he said: I see you in that red jacket and, he said, I am reminded. My wife was wearing a red jacket the day that we first had our--I think it was the day you proposed to her, perhaps? Or maybe it was your first date. Tom Bevill does not forget, and he does not forget the most important things in life. He has served us all very well in this institution. He served our Nation and the folks of Alabama. We would all do well to follow the example of his career, commitment, fairness, grace, and humility. Tom Bevill is the kind of Member and person that we all strive to be, and I am proud to have served here with him and to have learned so much. Mr. Speaker, I also want to say a word about my fellow Congressman, Glen Browder, from Alabama's Third District. I have had the true honor of serving as a blue dog with Glen during the 104th Congress. Glen, like myself, is a founding member of this notorious band of independent Democrats. We have worked hard for that name and have had a great deal of fun with it. The blue dog mission, however, has been about meeting two principal goals: balancing the budget in a fiscally responsible as well as a fair way, and bringing commonsense solutions to Washington, DC. Since coming to Congress in 1989, Glen has never swayed from those goals. He was instrumental in crafting the blue dogs' balanced budget and had an active voice in all of our policy decisions. I am not sure what Glen's plans are for the future, but I certainly know he will bring the same dedications and honor to his new endeavors as he has to his work here in Congress. I join my colleagues in honoring these two gentlemen, and I wish them Godspeed in the future ahead for both of them.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of ``The Small Business Job Protection Act/Minimum Wage Increase'' conference report. Because of the high number of small businesses and minimum-wage workers in the First Congressional District of Arkansas, I have consistently supported the 90-cent minimum-wage hike, as well as small business tax breaks that include expanded tax credits for restaurants and increased tax deductions for business-related equipment services. The inclusion in conference of a $5000 tax credit for adoptions and the $2000 homemakers IRA make this an exceptionally well-rounded piece of bipartisan and bicameral legislation. Men and women across the country who own small businesses and those who work for them are facing more economic uncertainty as they see their hard-earned dollars paying for less. This legislation is an opportunity to increase their earning power. Together with welfare reform, I am convinced that the minimum-wage increase will give low- income Americans a chance to work their way out of poverty.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan and bicameral agreement to modify and strengthen the Safe Drinking Water Act. I applaud the conferees for working together on such a short timeframe and delivering a good compromise bill. Getting a final agreement on this issue has taken nearly 3 years. I remember working with my colleagues last Congress on issues that continued to be the sticking points again this Congress. I'm so relieved that we have reached consensus on these major issues of contention. My main interest throughout this debate has been to create a more flexible regulatory approach that protects our Nation's drinking water without wasting valuable financial and human resources. I come from an extremely rural area where most people obtain their drinking water from private wells or small water systems. Most of these small water systems operate on a tight budget with only one employee operating the system. If these small systems are forced to monitor for contaminants that do not exist in their watershed or are compelled to comply with other regulations primarily aimed at protecting drinking water from large systems, they must divert valuable dollars that could be better used in addressing problems unique to the specific system. This bill recognizes that small systems are inherently different from larger systems and often have different needs in maintaining compliance with the drinking water standards. In particular, S. 1316 relieves onerous and excessive monitoring requirements, establishes the development of small system technologies, provides money for the rural water technical assistance and circuit rider program, creates a State revolving fund to provide needed capital to upgrade and build systems and realigns standard setting criteria to take into consideration sound science and cost/benefit analysis. However, this bill does not only ease burdensome Federal requirements, but it also requires the implementation of new obligations. For example, S. 1316 mandates the establishment of State capacity development and State operator certification programs. While these programs will ensure that our water systems are well operated and in compliance with the act, it does compel States and systems to go that extra mile in evaluating the health of their drinking water. S. 1316 is widely supported--from the environmentalists to the Governors--and I want to urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report for the Health Coverage Availability Act. This important legislation will address the millions of Americans who lose their insurance coverage because of job loss or because they suffer from a preexisting condition. Families in my home State of Arkansas have grown increasingly anxious about the availability, portability, and cost of their own private health coverage. And who would blame them? Consider these staggering statistics: There are over 40 million Americans without health insurance. Over 1 million working Americans have lost health insurance in the last 2 years alone. Over 80 million Americans have preexisting conditions that could make it difficult for them to maintain health coverage when they change jobs. The legislation before us today will help ease some of the fears and concerns our constituents face. The bill would prohibit insurance companies from denying health care coverage to workers who move to another company, or who lose their jobs or become self-employed. The conference report also bars insurers from excluding coverage for preexisting illnesses for more than a year. And I am extremely pleased to see that it would raise the amount of health insurance premiums self-employed people can deduct from their Federal income taxes from the current 30 percent to 80 percent. As many of you may know, I introduced the Health Insurance Equity Act which increases this deduction to 100 percent. Although the increase to 80 percent is substantial, I will continue to work to see this deduction increased to 100 percent. I believe that the small businessmen and farmers, who are the backbone of the district I represent, deserve the same tax benefits allowed larger businesses. I am proud that this body has come together in a bipartisan fashion to produce this legislation that is worthy of our support. This conference report before us makes positive steps towards ensuring that the millions of Americans who are in need of health insurance will be able to afford and keep it.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his kind remarks. I think we can find that no one will argue that our current welfare system needs changed and today we have the opportunity to pass legislation that will hopefully move our Nation's low-income citizens from passively accepting a welfare check to actively earning a paycheck. Welfare reform has been one of my top priorities since first coming to Congress, especially reform of the SSI disability program or the crazy check problem. I have worked diligently with members of the Blue Dog Coalition, with the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, the task force, and with Members of both sides of the aisle to find a reasonable solution to those who truly need SSI assistance and welfare reform, hoping we can crack down on the abuse in the system while making provisions for those who need it. Although this conference report is not a perfect bill, it represents a significant improvement over our status quo. No one should get something for nothing, and if the American people are going to be generous with their tax dollars, they should get something in return. Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides responsible reform through the three main goals we started with: State flexibility, personal responsibility, and work. I urge my colleagues to support this provision, a lot of hard work in a bipartisan spirit.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of H.R. 1627, the Food Quality Protection Act. As an original cosponsor of this legislation, I am pleased to see that Members from both sides of the aisle have come together in a bipartisan spirit to strengthen and update our Nation's food safety laws. When debating pesticide reform, it's easy for many to get lost in phases such as ``zero tolerance,'' ``negligible risk,'' and other technicalities. However, the issue is as simple as this: we must maintain a high-quality, abundant, and safe food supply to protect our Nation's most vulnerable population--our children. Mr. Speaker, the Delaney clause has become outdated, and it is high- time that we replace these laws which are based on science and technology from the 1950's which laws based on modern science. I support H.R. 1627 which makes this reform. The bill includes the recommendation of the National Academy of Sciences regarding both the negligible risk standard for carcinogens and additional protection of infants and children which are based on sound scientific principles. Mr. Speaker, reform of the Nation's pesticide laws has been a priority of mine since coming in Congress. I am pleased that we have worked together on this legislation which will maintain America's superior food supply while most importantly, protecting and promoting the health of our citizens. Our Nation's farmers, consumers, and especially our children deserve no less.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam Chairman, today is a landmark day in congressional history. Today we will pass needed welfare reform that will hopefully move our Nation's low-income citizens from passively accepting a welfare check to actively earning a paycheck. Most of my colleagues in this Chamber would agree with me that the current welfare system needs to be changed. No one should get something for nothing, and if the American people are going to be generous with their tax dollars, they should get something in return. Madam Chairman, the bipartisan Castle-Tanner substitute, of which I am an original cosponsor, provides responsible reform through three main goals: personal responsibility, State flexibility, and work. Personnel responsibility: Under our plan, all recipients must work within 2 years of receiving benefits, and the proposal establishes a 5- year time limit on cash assistance. Also, our plan requires teenage mothers to stay in school and live with an adult to receive assistance, and it establishes a family cap halting benefits for additional children born to welfare recipients. In addition, the bipartisan Castle-Tanner substitute holds fathers responsible for their children through strong child support enforcement. State flexibility: Our plan provides States with the flexibility to design innovative welfare reform proposals within broad Federal guidelines. States can develop successful work programs that reflect the needs of their local communities, and States can deny cash assistance to teenage mothers. In addition Castle-Tanner gives States the option of providing vouchers for children or noncash emergency assistance to families and have lost cash assistance as a result of a time limit. Work: Unlike the Republican proposal before us today, our substitute provides the amount of funding that the Congressional Budget Office has stated is necessary to fund the work programs, thereby ensuring no unfunded mandates for our States. Our bipartisan proposal provides $4.5 billion more than the Republican measure for child care assistance to families that leave welfare for work and need child care help in order to remain employed and stay off the welfare rolls. But most importantly, Madam Chairman, if my colleagues want to pass welfare reform that has the best chance of being signed into law, then I encourage support of the bipartisan Castle-Tanner substitute. It is the only proposal that the President has promised to sign.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to an extraordinary woman--Molly Beattie, who recently passed away. Molly was the first woman Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and in her short tenure, earned the admiration and respect of lawmakers who work with her on wildlife issues. I did not always agree with Molly. However, she never failed to listen to the other side of an issue in order to resolve policy disagreements. She was an unfailing and dedicated public servant. She came to Arkansas to hear my constituents protest her proposed closing of some of our fish hatcheries. She listened, then worked with me and other Members of Congress to establish a commission to examine the health and benefits of America's national fish hatchery system. Her common sense approach will mean that inefficient hatcheries will be closed and efficient facilities will continue generating revenue for the Government. Molly stepped in again early this year to help me develop legislation that will prevent closure of national wildlife refuges in case of another Government shutdown. Molly will be sorely missed by her friends and admirers in this body but most of all by the fish and wildlife she was sworn to protect. She walked her walk and talked her talk and was true to her beliefs. She took her job very seriously setting a new standard for environmental consciousness. I believe that she loved her job and those around her, but was most comfortable in her cabin in the woods. I join my colleagues in honoring Molly Beattie as a thoughtful and dedicated human being whose life on her beloved earth was cut all too short.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate all parties, particularly Messrs. Bliley, Dingell, Bilirakis, and Waxman, in reaching an agreement on the reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act. This is a truly bipartisan bill which establishes good public policy. I am only sorry that in the final days before today's vote that the bipartisan nature of this bill was strained by jurisdictional disagreements. This bill should have passed by a unanimous vote with praise from both sides of the aisle. Instead, the debate exhibited the partisan nature that has become all too familiar during the 104th Congress--all over some additional district-specific provisions that could diminish the State revolving fund [SRF] as much as $375 million in grants. I hope that we can resolve the differences that were outlined today to ensure the enactment of a comprehensive Safe Drinking Water Act this year. This is a good bill that sets forth solid public policy. H.R. 3604 grants long needed regulatory relief for small systems and provides needed financial resources for rural water circuit rider programs and for purely voluntary, incentive-based, and community- driven source water protection programs. Let's resolve the remaining controversies and move towards a conference with the Senate. Because this bill has broad-based support, it would be terrible to lose this opportunity to pass comprehensive legislation into law this Congress.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to advocate changes to our funding priorities within the Forest Service [FS]. As the appropriations for FS programs continue to decline, Congress and the FS need to reevaluate the uses of our Federal dollars. Currently the return of revenue to the Treasury plays absolutely no role in determining where Federal resources are spent. Therefore, many profitmaking areas do not receive enough money to operate at full capacity, thus minimizing the total revenue to the Treasury. If revenue-generating facilities were able to run at full capacity, they could also help support other Forest Service activities that are important, but that do not return much revenue to the Federal Government. I have personally witnessed the impact of funding cuts on the operations of facilities in the First Congressional District of Arkansas. Recently, Blanchard Springs Caverns [BSC] in the Ozark National Forest was forced to consider proposals to close the facility 2 days a week during its most heavily used times. BSC, which boasts beautiful stalactite and stalagmite formations, is the jewel of the forest. This limited schedule proposal would have saved around $40,000, but would have resulted in a total loss of approximately $120,330 in revenue to the Treasury. I'm not an economist, but according to these figures, the Treasury would have lost a total of $80,330 in revenue from the limited schedule. These figures do not even factor in the adverse impact on the local community, which is heavily reliant on tourism dollars. This proposal did not ultimately go forward, but with the estimated continued decline in BSC's funding, this will be an ever present problem. Congress must also refocus on investing in recreational areas. Estimates from the Forest Service conclude that FS facilities contribute a total of $134 billion to the gross domestic product. Of that amount, around $98 billion comes from recreation activities and $7 billion comes from timber sales. However, despite these figures, funding for recreation continues to decline while funding to accommodate timber sales is on the rise. Additionally, we must recognize the ancillary tourism benefits arising from Federal recreational facilities. Tourism is the second largest industry in this country, creating 6 million jobs directly and 5 million jobs indirectly. This results in $380 billion in expenditures and a $22 billion trade surplus. Our Federal lands and facilities are essential components of this industry. The recent cuts in the Forest Service [FS] accounts have forced forest supervisors to reduce public access to many popular facilities. While funding in this bill slightly increases the funding for the FS's recreational programs, it still will not cover the backlog of maintenance that needs to be done. Mr. Speaker, as the demand for Federal dollars continues to increase and the availability continues to decline, we must also reevaluate our current budget priorities. While I am a budget hawk and consistently seek ways to reduce wasteful Federal spending, I believe that budget cuts must be fair, particularly to those programs that work. This year, defense appropriations exceeded the administration's request by $11.1 billion--5 percent--and the fiscal year 1996 level by $3.7 billion. A relatively small portion of these increases could have been used by the National Forest Service to fund more trail and facility maintenance, needed facility construction, and basic operations. People in this country use our public lands and resources and they deserve adequate access. Mr. Speaker, again, I question the wisdom of continually reducing funding for public facilities that are used, enjoyed and actually return money to the U.S. Treasury. Congress must recognize the value of maintaining our public lands.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my views regarding the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 3103, the Health Coverage Availability Act, offered by my friend from Michigan, Mr. Dingell. I support coverage of mental health benefits by insurance companies, as long as the coverage does not cause a large increase in premiums for everyone else in the insurance pool. Mental health illnesses are a significant problem in this Nation, and if left untreated, can cause serious harm to the patients as well as their loved ones. In addition, it is fiscally responsible to provide mental health treatment because proper preventive measures allow many patients to lead productive lives without having to be admitted into expensive long-term-care facilities. Mr. Dingell's motion asks for the maximum level of mental health coverage that does not drive up the premium costs for others, and I am supportive of this motion. In addition, the motion deletes medical savings accounts [MSAs] from H.R. 3103. Although I supported final passage of H.R. 3103 in late March because of the importance of providing workers health insurance portability, I did not support the MSA provisions as written in the bill. If we are going to include MSAs in this legislation, I believe that we should implement them on a demonstration basis so we can test the cost effectiveness of MSAs as well as the impact they would have on the insurance pool as a whole. We must ensure that the health and well- being of all Americans is the most important consideration regarding the establishment of MSAs, not just the health of those who can afford a special account. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3103 has many important provisions. It prohibits insurance companies from denying health care coverage to workers who move to another company, or who lose their jobs or become self- employed. The legislation also bars insurers from excluding coverage of preexisting illnesses for more than a year. In addition, this bill increases the tax deduction for health insurance costs paid by the self-employed, and it expands the opportunity for small businesses to form coalitions to provide them with health insurance. Enactment of these measures is too important to be held up by disagreements on mental health benefits and MSAs. Therefore, I hope that we will move swiftly toward compromise on these issues so that we can provide our constituents with quality health insurance reform legislation.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, Officer Daniel Thomas Buck retires from the U.S. Capitol Police after 20 years of dedicated service. I would like to take this opportunity to express to ``Buck'' my gratitude for his distinguished career and for being a good friend to many on Capitol Hill. I came to know Buck over 10 years ago when he was first stationed at the New Jersey and C Streets entrance to the Longworth Building. Buck dutifully guarded this area and cheerfully greeted thousands of Hill employees and visitors while assigned to that patrol. Most of us take the security on Capitol Hill for granted. However, we entrust our police officers, such as Buck, with the duties of maintaining law and order in which they must be highly trained and capable of reacting to an emergency situation at a moment's notice. Buck has certainly upheld the high standards of our Capitol Police force throughout his 20 years. I know that his integrity and fortitude are characteristics that have helped to influence other officers in carrying out their jobs with unswerving allegiance to the law. Truly, Buck is one of our unsung heros on Capitol Hill who performed his duties, day after day on weekends, and holidays loyally and responsibly. Buck is retiring to Florida to spend more time with his children, grandchildren, and to enjoy his favorite sport of hunting. I know he is proud of his excellent and honorable record with the Capitol Hill Police. I bid Buck farewell with mixed emotions, and I am sure that my colleagues join me in wishing him much good fortune as he begins this new chapter in his life.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, today, I come and rise in strong support of the blue dog coalition budget, and I oppose the other budgets being offered. I do that as a mother expecting two youngsters soon, and I am especially proud of the coalition's work on a fair balanced budget proposal. One of the biggest selling points, and it is very clear to everyone, is that the coalition budget has less debt burden placed on our children, my children, everyone's children, in the future. The Republican budget will run up $137 billion more in debt, which our children will have to pay; or the $200 billion in the President's budget. Regardless of what this extra debt is used for, tax cuts, spending, whatever, it will mean higher interest payments and, therefore, less money for our children. Anyone knows that less money down on a house means a larger payment; more interest that is not even deductible. The coalition alternative balances the budget while being more responsible. The prime example is Medicaid. We maintain guaranteed coverage for those who need it, including disabled children. We allow Medicaid dollars to follow demand, keeping costs down by focusing our dollars on individuals and their needs. We guarantee adequate benefit packages to recipients. Our guarantees of coverage and benefits will be enforceable through the Federal Government. The Republican proposal contains enforcement loopholes. We still give the States the flexibility that they need to create the savings. We retain Federal nursing home standards to protect our elderly citizens, which the Republican plan does not. We do all of this while still slowing the rate of growth in Medicaid, creating a total savings of $70 billion over 6 years in Medicaid. That is what the coalition budget is all about, balancing budget using common sense and fair approaches while doing all that we can to ease the burden on future Americans by taking responsibility for spending now. If we are concerned about the future for our children, which my colleagues over here claim they are, no one can argue that ours is the only budget that leaves the least amount of debt to our children, all of our children.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of this country's most dedicated public servants who is ending his illustrious career of service in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. William Carl Garner began his service with the corps upon graduation from college in 1938 and has been a fixture in the corps in the 58 years since. During that time, he has amassed a list of accomplishments and awards that will be difficult to match. Mr. Garner has spent most of his career as the chief resident engineer of the Greers Ferry Lake located in central Arkansas in the congressional district I represent. He arrived at the project while the lake was still in the planning stages and turned the first shovel of dirt to start construction in 1959. When the dam was completed in 1963, President Kennedy came to Arkansas to personally dedicate it. Mr. Garner was at his side during the ceremony, even riding in the Presidential limousine to the festivities. Under his care and guidance, the lake has become the most popular recreational attraction in the State of Arkansas. As any visitor to Greers Ferry Lake will tell you, his lifetime labor of love and dedication has produced one of the cleanest and most beautiful lakes in the country. This is directly attributable to the persistence of Mr. Garner. By 1970 the lake had become popular enough that debris was noticeable all along the 300-mile shoreline. This disturbed Mr. Garner, so he found a solution. Enlisting an army of 300 local volunteers, he established a national trend by holding the first annual cleanup day. Since that time, groups from across the Nation followed his example and now the first Saturday after Labor Day is known as National Federal Public Lands Day Cleanup. Earlier this year, the House passed a bill which would recognize Mr. Garner's contribution by renaming the cleanup day after him. The Senate has also agreed to similar language and it is my hope that the President will sign this most fitting tribute into law soon. Among the many awards recognizing his illustrious service, he has been named the Arkansas Tourism Council's Man of the Year, received the Department of the Army National Exceptional Civilian Service Award--the Corps of Engineers' highest civilian honor--and was chosen as the Federal Service Employee of the Year for the State of Arkansas. Additionally, the cleanup program he started has received recognition from numerous national environmental organizations. Although Mr. Garner will no longer be serving as chief engineer, I am sure he will maintain an active role at the lake and on the State and national level. He leaves an enduring legacy, in both the cleanup programs he started and the beautiful lake which he maintained and developed from its inception. I have been personally honored and privileged to have known such a great man and I count his friendship and guidance as one of my most precious possessions from my time in Congress. I would urge all of my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to a great public servant and a great man, Mr. William Carl Garner.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that Members of the House have taken some time to recognize the importance of civility. When people moved off their front porches into air conditioned homes, we didn't realize what we were losing. Less time on the porch in the cool evenings meant less time talking to our neighbors. Less time talking to our neighbors meant the loss of community and the loss of the security of knowing that if you're late getting home from work, one of your neighbors will make sure your children get off the school bus safely. My husband and I live in the country in Arkansas, but I have an apartment in Washington where I live when Congress is in session. Each morning I walk into the elevator and meet a sea of blank stares from strangers. Have you ever noticed how people never speak in elevators? Nationwide, hundreds of people get into their cars after work, drive up to the money machine on their way to the fast food stand, and then go home to eat alone in front of the television. One-fourth of Americans live alone--isolated from family and others who might care for them when they're sick or lift them up when they need a little support. We're losing the community spirit that built this Nation. But we can rejuvenate it and one way to start is by returning a little civility. No one could have sounded the alarm for a return to civility more brassily than the two gentlemen who got into a shouting match on the George Washington Parkway 2 weeks ago. Witnesses said the two men raced to cut one another off in the early morning commuter traffic, gesturing angrily toward one another. Minutes later, one witness rounded a bend in the road to see a gruesome four-car collision that left three people dead. One of the dead was a man who had just returned from Pennsylvania, where he had attended his father-in-law's funeral. His wife was still in Pennsylvania, coping with the loss of her father, when she got the news that her husband had been killed. Another innocent victim was a mother of three children. She had put a career on hold to raise three children and was driving to her third day back on the job when she was killed. We don't often see such visible results of our meaningless egotistical battles with other people. But each of us should look to that tragedy on the George Washington Parkway as a most grave reminder that we need a return of civility in our society. The innocent people who died in that accident--a mother and a father working hard for their families--should be heroic reminders that we have gone too far. As Members of Congress, we can't scratch our heads and wonder why our society has splintered when we belittle one another on the House floor. Returning civility to this country is a bigger challenge than either the Republican or the Democratic Party can accomplish. Edgar Guess once said, ``I'd rather see a lesson than hear one any day.'' I'm pleased that we have spent this time calling for a return to civility, but it's time that we also walked our talk.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1675. I want to congratulate Chairman Young and Mr. Dingell for putting together a bipartisan piece of legislation. Additionally, I am encouraged that this is a clean bill and one that recognizes all the traditional recreational uses of our refuges as purposes. The original principal behind the establishment of our wildlife refuges was to ensure the viability and health of wildlife populations. H.R. 1675 recognizes this principal by adopting five purposes: First, conserve and manage fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats; second, preserve, restore and recover endangered or threatened species; third, fulfill international treaty obligations; fourth, conserve and manage migratory birds, anadromous fish, and mammals; and fifth, provide opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and environmental education. Each refuge may adopt all the stated purposes or select just a few, depending on the compatibility of the purpose to the refuge. Under the bill, each purpose must be compatible with the underlying principal of protecting the health of wildlife populations in order to be a purpose at a specific refuge. Under this legislation, the underlying principal will not be compromised. Some of my colleagues may have concerns because hunting is listed as a purpose of wildlife refuges. First of all, hunting is recognized by the general wildlife science community as a valid wildlife management tool if done in a proper manner. Second, if the refuge manager or the Secretary finds that hunting is not compatible with a certain refuge, hunting will not be allowed. The reason we have put this language into this bill is to avoid the situation we were faced with a few years ago where hunters were put on notice that they may lose their hunting rights on lands they have always hunted on. Hunters are avid users of refuges--billions of their dollars have gone to wildlife and habitat conservation through excise taxes, licenses, and stamps. It has been estimated that over three-fourths of the lands acquired for the refuge system were purchased through migratory bird conservation dollars through the sale of duck stamps. As an example, in the 1st District of Arkansas, land was acquired to enlarge the Cache River Refuge. These lands were used for hunting for decades before they were added to the refuge system. It is the ultimate slap in the face to these hunters that they may lose the opportunity to hunt on land they have hunted on for generations and that the land was purchased with their dollars. Many changes have been made to this bill to address the administration's concerns and I believe that the final bill is a good product. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1675.

Mrs. LINCOLN. That is right; the gentleman is lucky I am not.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to H.R. 1675 would alleviate the burdens faced by our constituents during Federal governmental shutdowns. This Congress has seen two shutdowns that have adversely affected individuals wishing to use our wildlife refuges. In Arkansas, the first shutdown occurred during a 4-day deer hunt and the second occurred right in the middle of duck hunting season. Hunters had scheduled family vacations and purchased hunting permits, only to be turned away from the gates. This did not need to happen. Officials at the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission volunteered their services when a shutdown was imminent, and had actually signed an agreement with the Fish and Wildlife Service in Atlanta. However, right before the shutdown, Interior Department attorneys determined that this agreement was not allowed under current law. My amendment fixes this problem. If this language is adopted, States will be able to step in for the Federal Government for all fish- and wildlife-dependent recreational management activities only during governmental shutdowns if they have a prior agreement with the Department of the Interior. This amendment would not allow the States to conduct commercial management functions such as timbering, haying, or grazing. Such agreement would ensure both the protection of the land and the people using the refuge by demanding proper safety training, knowledge of the local terrain and knowledge of the Federal regulations by State employees before they take over Fish and Wildlife Service's duties. This amendment has the support of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, B.A.S.S., Ducks Unlimited, and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. We should never encourage the closure of our Federal Government. However, these shutdowns periodically arise and there should be a plan in place to address such occurrences. Additionally, because the Federal budget and appropriations process concludes at the end of September, if the Government closes, it oftentimes occur during the time where the demand for access to these lands for hunting and other recreational activities is quite high. I know that the constituents in the First District of Arkansas look forward to using the refuges during the fall and early winter and many have planned family vacations around the hunting seasons. Lack of funding for the refuges and reduced access due to Government closures may also jeopardize public support for the Refuge System. Hunters who have invested a lot of money in the purchase and management of these refuges may look elsewhere for their needs if their access to the lands is diminished or becomes unpredictable. As my friend, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], stated, I am a strong conservationist and a hunter, and I certainly urge my colleagues to support this simple, commonsense amendment.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam Speaker, further reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I want to thank the gentleman for his explanation and certainly commend him for his bipartisan fashion in which this bill has been handled. The chairman and the subcommittee chairman here, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], are certainly to be congratulated for shepherding the bill through the process it has gone through. I, too, believe this bill represents a great bipartisan solution to problems identified under RCRA's existing land disposal restrictions. As we all know, under the current regulatory regime, industries will be required to put in place over $800 million a year to install new equipment without corresponding benefits to the environmental health. This is something neither the industrial community nor the Environmental Protection Agency wants. H.R. 2036 resolves this needless investment by incorporating commonsense solutions. Industries will avoid duplicative regulations under this bill. If their surface impoundments are in compliance with the Clean Water Act or their underground injection wells are in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act, industries will not need further treatment technologies to comply with RCRA. I believe it is an excellent bill. Again I applaud Chairman Oxley for his hard work. It is a bill that should serve as an example for future environmental legislation as we work together. It has Republican support, Democratic support, administration support, and the industry support. We have all worked wholeheartedly together. Again I thank Chairman Bliley, Chairman Oxley, and the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, for working with me on this very important issue. Madam Speaker, I see no other speakers on this side, and the bill has been cleared from our side. Madam Speaker, I rise to address provisions in H.R. 2036, the Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act. This is important legislation that will eliminate a mandate that the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] promulgate under the Solid Waste Disposal Act stringent and costly treatment standards for low-risk wastes that are already being treated to meet standards applicable under the Clean Water Act, simply because the Clean Water Act treatment system uses surface impoundments. In 1990, EPA issued regulations that took the approach adopted by this bill and exempted such wastes from Solid Waste Disposal Act land disposal restrictions and treatment standards. In 1992, however, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned EPA's regulations. In compliance with the court's order, EPA has issued new regulations that would impose these unnecessary and costly requirements. These regulations will go into effect shortly so it is important for Congress to act expeditiously on this legislation. Recognizing this urgency, I did not seek a formal referral of H.R. 2036 when it moved through the House. Instead, I worked cooperatively with Chairman Bliley of the Commerce Committee on any potential Clean Water Act issues raised by the bill. To address my concerns, Chairman Bliley added language to the bill that specifically states that H.R., 2036 provides no grant of authority to address the wastes managed in surface impoundments that are part of the Clean Water Act treatment systems, beyond the authorities provided under existing law. Unfortunately, through inadvertent oversight, this language was not included in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2036. However, Senator Chafee, chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has assured me in a letter dated March 5, 1996, that the legislation passed by the Senate also does not modify, supplement, or otherwise affect the application or authority of any other Federal law, or the standards applicable under any other Federal law, including the Clean Water Act. Because of the urgency of this issue, I will not offer an amendment to H.R. 2036 today to expressly state this intent. Instead, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Chafee's March 5, 1996, letter to me be printed in the Record. U.S. Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works, Washington, DC, March 5, 1996. Hon. Bud Shuster, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Shuster: It has come to my attention that in amending H.R. 2036, the Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act of 1996, the Senate did not incorporate a House provision that was inserted during the Commerce Committee's consideration of this legislation at your request. The provision stated that ``[n]othing in this paragraph shall be construed to modify, supplement, or otherwise affect the application or authority of any other Federal law or the standards applicable under any other Federal law.'' The elusion of this language from the Senate passed bill should not be viewed as implying a contrary policy in this issue. The legislation passed by the Senate does not modify, supplement, or otherwise affect the application of authority of any other federal law or the standards applicable under any other Federal law, including the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. H.R. 2036 and its Senate companion, S. 1497, provide a model for moving targeted, commonsence legislation that maintains protection of human health and the environment while removing duplicative or overlapping layers of regulation. It has been a pleasure to work with you and your colleagues in the House to move this legislation expeditiously. Sincerely, John H. Chafee. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] to explain the bill that we are considering.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the bill before the House today. I am reluctant because I have spent my career in this Congress defending the American farmer. I have stood beside Chairman Roberts and fought the battles to educate our colleagues about the benefits of American agriculture. I have great respect for the Chairman and I do not believe that he has harmful intentions in proposing this bill. But while I am reluctant to oppose him personally, it is with firm conviction that I oppose the policy he brings before the House today. My district is one of the most productive in the Nation: We are the No. 1 producer of rice in the United States, No. 3 in soybeans, No. 6 in cotton, and No. 17 in wheat. I myself come from a seventh generation farm family and I know the situation facing our farmers and know their values. I have spent the last 3\1/2\ years trying to educate my urban colleagues about farm programs. I remind my friends that first, farm commodity programs are less than 1 percent of the budget; second, they are tied to the market and only pay farmers when prices are low and do not pay a dime when prices are high; third, no one gets a free ride and anyone participating in the programs must be ``actively engaged in farming''; fourth, they have dramatically increased our exports to other nations and created hundreds of thousands of jobs in the United States; and fifth, for the small investment that we made in agriculture we are blessed with the most affordable, safest, and most abundant food supply in the world. I haven't always been successful--this Congress and the last one has continued to cut agriculture spending far above what I believe was necessary but at least I knew that the agriculture policy of the United States was a sound one. Was it perfect? Far from it. I have supported changes in the program that would give farmers much needed flexibility to respond to market conditions and remove the bureaucratic hassles that are inherent in Government programs. I am not averse to change but I believe in this basic premise: the farmer must have assurance that the Government will be there when prices are too low and the taxpayer must have assurance that they receive the benefits for the programs they pay for. That's it--I'm not picky about how we get there, but that's the bottom line. Unfortunately, this bill doesn't meet that criteria. This bill promises farmers something for nothing--the worst kind of welfare. I've been working on welfare reform for the last 3 years also. Telling our welfare recipients that the days of something for nothing were gone, that they had to work if they expected the Government to help. How can I turn around and tell my farmers that standard doesn't apply to them? I think it's insulting to put our farmers in this situation. This Congress has known from day one that we had to pass a farm bill before December 31, 1995. We have never failed to deliver by that deadline. Yet the leadership of this House decided to put a farm bill in a budget that they knew the President would veto. A farm bill, I might add, that did not have the benefit of one public hearing. Unfortunately, the larger political strategies of the Republican leadership of this House has ignored the agrarian calendar. While the farm bill has been tossed around like a political football, some farmers are now well into planting season and still do not know what role the Government will play in the 1996 crop year. This House has in effect put a gun to the head of the farmers and demanded that they accept this untested theory or else. And with a gun to their head, some farmers are willing to say they'll accept this ill- advised plan. That's no way to govern and I won't be a part of it because other farmers have told me that this is not the bill to take American agriculture into the 21st century and I agree.