Blanche Lincoln

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I think we all today owe a special thanks to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], to my good friends, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], for all of their hard work and efforts on behalf of all of us here in America for this wonderful piece of legislation. I would like to ask the people of America to pay attention, folks, because in the midst of all of our frustration over budget battles and partisan politics, a new day has dawned with this legislation. Today's vote on this historic legislation lays out the welcome mat for the 21st century and for those of us in rural America, it ensures we have a place at the table. As a representative of 25 rural counties in Arkansas, my primary concerns during these negotiations and among the conferees has been ensuring that people who live in rural areas will have access to the same advanced technology and competition that we are seeking for the country and at affordable prices. Today, I am extremely pleased with the results of endless hours of talks. By extending the definition of universal service, we have provided the means to ensure the coordinated Federal-State universal service system provides consumers living in rural and high-cost areas with access to advanced telecommunication services at reasonably comparable rates. By adding guarantees to the requirements for receiving universal service money, we have also made sure rural consumers will be served. The waives and modifications created in both the Senate and House bills were carefully blended in conference to balance desires to promote competition in local exchange areas while ensuring smaller providers have necessary flexibility to comply with the bill's interconnection requirement. I appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with me on these and many other issues. I also would like to recognize the House's wisdom in accepting the Snowe-Rockefeller provision in the Senate bill to supplement distance learning and telemedicine. We included similar language in our bill last year. I am pleased my colleagues in the House took the time to educate themselves about the infrastructure we need to educate our children. This is a bill we can all be proud of. I certainly encourage all of my colleagues to support it. My primary concern during negotiations among conferees has been ensuring that people who live in rural areas will have access to the same advanced technology and competition that we're seeking for the country--and at affordable prices. Today, I am extremely pleased with the results of endless hours of talks. By expanding the definition of universal service, we have provided the means to ensure that the coordinated Federal-State universal service system provides consumers living in rural and high- cost areas with access to advanced telecommunications services at reasonably comparable rates. By adding guarantees to the requirements for receiving universal service money, we also have made sure that rural consumers will be served. The waivers and modifications created in both the Senate and House bills were carefully blended in conference to balance the desire to promote competition in the local exchange area while ensuring that smaller providers have the necessary flexibility to comply with the bills' interconnection requirements. I appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with me on these issues. I also would like to recognize the House's wisdom in accepting the Snowe-Rockefeller provision in the Senate bill to supplement distance learning and telemedicine. We included similar language in H.R. 3636 last year, and I'm pleased that my colleagues in the House took the time to educate themselves about the infrastructure we need to educate our children. We have crafted a bill that will enable doctors in Little Rock to read x rays from the Ozarks while students in Piggott will be able to use the Library of Congress in Washington for their term papers. On a lighter side, this bill will give consumers more entertainment choices. It's been a long road toward creating the parameters for the information superhighway, and I congratulate Chairmen Dingell, Markey, Fields, and Bliley for their leadership. Special thanks also are due staffers David Leach, Andy Levin, Harold Furchtgott-Roth, Cathy Reid, Mike Regan, and Michael O'Rielly.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this process as well as to the final product that has come before the floor. With all due respect to Chairman Oxley, this is not the package we passed out of subcommittee, that we debated and we came to a compromise and conclusion on. The fact is that it is our responsibility in this House to do a good job on behalf of our constituents, to take to a conference a position that is good for them. With all due respect to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], who speak of their communities who are in such danger, who have leveraged bonds, we have communities just like that. I have communities just like that. However, mine does not get a special fix in this bill, and it is very important for us to go to the drawing board and look at what is fair to everyone. I am absolutely amazed and disturbed that a bill such as the one we are considering today is being considered on the Suspension Calendar. This bill is not the product of Member negotiations, it is not the product of committee consideration, and it is not the product of the administration. However, it is a product of many interests downtown who have drafted a bill without Member input. As a Member who is supportive of flow control legislation and supportive of our communities in their efforts to effectively manage their solid waste, I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill we are considering today. While this legislation does help some of the communities out there, it does not protect legitimate financial obligations incurred by many of our communities. I also urge a ``no'' vote on this bill because the whole legislative process has been circumvented. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Hazardous Materials held a markup in May where amendments were adopted. The subcommittee-passed bill is now probably in one of those landfills out in the Midwest. What we are working on now is a piece of legislation that no Member has voted on, let alone seen or examined. The Suspension Calendar is a mechanism by which the House can consider relatively noncontroversial issues that have broad bipartisan support. This flow control legislation is not a worthwhile candidate for such consideration. This bill is controversial, not so much for what it contains but rather for what it does not contain. It does not contain relief for many communities holding legitimate debt, and it does not contain interstate waste provisions. It is our responsibility in this House to take care of those issues and then move it to conference. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, for those communities that did extend those bonds, they did so under the understanding that Congress was taking up that issue last year and the year before with the idea that these communities could be protected. They have extended their livelihood in those communities, their tax dollars and their resources, and many of the other communities, some of which have already been considered in this bill, did make those decisions after Carbone.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2036. First of all, I want to thank Chairman Bliley and Chairman Oxley for working with me on this bill to address my concerns. Additionally, I want to extend my deep appreciation to Mr. Dingell who was also a pivotal player in developing this legislation. I believe that this is a good bill and represents good public policy. In passing H.R. 2036, we will be able to reduce environmental regulation without sacrificing the health of our environment. H.R. 2036 will provide some needed relief to the regulated industry by restoring EPA's original regulatory determination that RCRA wastes that are no longer hazardous need not be treated as if they were hazardous. Not only will this bill save industry around $800 million per year, it will have little if no impact on the environment. Additionally, we have as a check and balance to the Health and the Environment of our constituents incorporated language calling for a study of the hazardous waste managed pursuant to this bill to determine if any risks to human health or the environment have resulted from this new type of management. If risks do present themselves, EPA has the authority to impose additional regulatory requirements. I have never been a proponent of ``treatment for treatment's sake'' and this bill will eliminate the duplication between RCRA's land disposal restrictions [LDR] provisions and other environmental laws. As long as the water treatment systems and surface water impoundments are permitted under the Clean Water Act or the wastes are injected deep into the ground under the Safe Drinking Water Act, RCRA LDR mandates are not applicable. Again, this is a small, but very economical change to RCRA, and I encourage my colleagues both in the House and the Senate to keep this provision narrow. This bill is needed now and will only be weighted down by any extraneous amendments. We should not make H.R. 2036 a Christmas tree loaded with controversial ornaments, but rather, lets enact sensible regulatory reform, while assuring that human health and the environment are properly protected. This bill reflects an agreement between industry and the administration, who have worked tirelessly in arriving at this compromise. True to Vice President Gore's dedication to reinventing government, we have written a rifle shot correction to RCRA--making corrections and improvements where we can without putting in jeopardy health or the environment. I believe that H.R. 2036 and its accompanying negotiations should serve as a blueprint for future environmental initiatives. It specifically targets problem areas without delving into controversial subjects and it is the result of a true bipartisan agreement between the Members of Congress and the administration. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2036

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California was not here in the last session, and quite frankly I agree with my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey]. But in Arkansas we say, if it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck, it must be a duck. The fact is this is business as usual. We are passing something in the dead of the night with everything but the kitchen sink in it, which helps on target shots, special people's interest. That is not the changes that the American people are wanting to see. With all due respect to the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary, this is about balancing the budget, but there is a right way and a wrong way to do everything. The fact is in this package you have got, you are spending $10 million more to locate Border Patrol training facilities that are going to slow up from 6 months to a year those Border patrol agents that could be out there protecting our border States. It is business as usual, and it is a sad day for the American people.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, tonight we consider a bill that is vital to protect our veterans during this Christmas season. As you know, the current Government shutdown means that veterans' checks will be delayed if we do not pass a ``rifle-shot'' continuing resolution to allow the checks to be sent. I applaud the efforts of my fellow Arkansan, Mr. Hutchinson, chairman of the Subcommittee on Hospitals and Health Care, for his effort to get this bill to the floor so that we can protect the benefits of those who have served our country. I strongly feel that each of us is forever in debt to our fellow Americans who risked their lives to protect our freedoms. I believe that after a person has served in the military, like my father did and his father before him, we should make every effort as a country to care for them, especially if they were injured in the line of duty. I want to ensure that veterans benefits receive fair treatment during the current budget negotiations. The current budget debate should not cloud our country's responsibilities and obligations to her veterans and this bill safeguards that obligation. As important as this bill is, it should not be necessary. There is no excuse for holding any of our citizens hostage to the partisan bickering which has led to the current government shutdown. Although this bill will protect our veterans throughout the rest of the budget debate, we still have millions of other citizens who are not protected from the ill effects of this ideological impasse. For example, many hunters in Arkansas have been turned away from our wildlife refuges at the height of hunting season, even though they played by the rules and purchased their permits. Since the principal parties have agreed to balance the budget in 7 years, let's end this partisan bickering and accomplish our stated goal. No group, especially our veterans who selflessly served to protect our liberty and freedom, should be pawns in our political games. I strongly support this legislation because it protects our veterans from being used again. However, we should do the same for our hunters and all Americans. The coalition budget proves that a reasonable compromise is possible. Let's stop this demagoguery and get down to the heavy lifting we were sent here to do.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, it seems like the freshman Republican class thinks they are the only ones sent here to work for change. But as a second-term Member, I was sent to bring about commonsense change. But, instead, everyone is here today throwing stones, arguing political rhetoric. You know what that is, that is the status quo, exactly what I came here to change. No Member, no Member in this body, I do not think, would be willing not to stay here Christmas Day if they thought there was a true national crisis. But it is not fair. It is not fair to the Federal employees, to our families, to the American people, most of all, to fabricate a crisis for the sake of a campaign slogan. Because there is a commonsense budget out there that does balance the national budget by the year 2000, and it does it with good, honest CBO numbers. That is the coalition budget. If we are serious about doing the American people's business, we would have that budget up and we would be negotiating it now because it is good policy. It does not devastate agriculture. It does not devastate rural health, seniors, or our young people and education. So I encourage all Members to come to the table here to find a commonsense solution for the American people who sent us.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, budget policies imposed by Congress have placed the American health care system in a catch-22. Hundreds of new specialized health treatment facilities stand idle today because of conflicting rules coming out of Washington. I rise today to introduce commonsense legislation that will restore order to the havoc wreaked upon health care providers by Washington. Here is the problem: No. 1, Republican budget policy encourages health care providers to reduce costs by establishing specialized facilities that segregate certain health treatments, such as rural health clinics and hospices, from the mainstream hospital population. No. 2, Medicare regulations require initial certification of new health treatment facilities in order to receive Government reimbursement for eligible treatment. No. 3, initial certifications of new health facilities are currently on hold in several States due to severe budget cuts imposed by the Republican-led Congress. No. 4, Federal rules do not provide any other means to pay for initial certifications. My legislation simply gives the States the authority to charge fees to health providers to cover the cost of inspections. If passed, an orderly system of initial inspections can resume and good, sensible health policy can go into effect. I have heard from representatives of many of the 41 health facilities in Arkansas which are standing idle and empty while awaiting initial certifications. All have stated they are more than willing to pay the cost of certification if it will help expedite the opening of these much-needed facilities. Robert Pear reported in the New York Times on November 25 that this particular problem was ``a case study of what might be in store for GOP plans after spending reductions.'' In the past 5 years, the number of hospices has more than doubled and the number of rural health clinics has more than quadrupled. Health facilities such as these are trying to meet the growing health care needs of our citizens at less cost to the American public. If these facilities are forced to stay closed because of bogus regulations and budget cuts by Congress, then it is the people who need health care who ultimately lose out. Mr. Speaker, let's not tie the hands of our health care providers who are trying to meet our requests. I urge my colleagues to support my commonsense solution to this problem and allow our health providers to care for America's patients.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to support the purposes behind H.R. 2677. What we experienced in November is not a new phenomenon and there should be a set contingency arrangement for the management of our natural resources should the doors of the Federal Government again close due to the lack of appropriated funds. I have been involved in the issue because, when the Government shut its doors in November, many of my constituents were refused entrance into the wildlife refuges for a prescheduled deer hunt. Hunting is one of Arkansas' favorite family pastimes. People take time off work and families plan vacations around hunting trips. Prior to the recent shutdown, refuge managers had scheduled deer hunts at two Arkansas refuges. Hunters in my district went through an extremely competitive permit process, paid $12.50 for each permit, took days off from work, drove up to 6 hours, only to be turned away at the gates of the refuges. Needless to say, the budget crisis in Washington was not of their choosing and they were not happy about the results. Weeks before the actual shutdown, the Fish and Wildlife Service worked with the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission on an agreement to allow State employees to volunteer their services on the Federal wildlife refuges. This agreement was signed and ready to implement in the event of a Federal Government shutdown. However, days before the actual shutdown, the Interior Department determined that this agreement violated the Antideficiency Act and would not be allowed to go into effect. I introduced a more narrow bill to reflect a more concise arrangement between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. My bill would mandate a prior agreement between the Federal and State governments before the State could take over the management of hunting on wildlife refuges. The agreement mandated in my bill would ensure that State employees volunteering their services had proper safety training, knowledge of the terrain, knowledge of and adherence to Federal regulations, and ability to protect individuals and the natural resources. I believe that shutting down the Government is a poor way of running a government or business. Americans who pay their taxes and play by the rules should expect their Federal Government to function properly and perform services that people rely on. They shouldn't be punished for Congress' inability to conduct its housekeeping chores. This bill only takes care of a small portion of the impacts arising from a Federal Government shutdown. However, this approach makes sense because there are currently such arrangements where the States manage Federal lands and historically, the Federal and State governments work closely together in setting hunting seasons. I understand that we need to move quickly to resolve these issues if we are facing another potential shutdown on December 15. As I believe that there are still outstanding issues that need to be resolved to ensure safety and the protection of our natural resources, I look forward to working with the chairman, the Senate, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission on this issue and urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I think we can certainly make it clear that the issue here is not about balancing the budget. The majority of the people in this body, and I think the American people, have stated that they want the assurance of the future and through that they want to see a balanced budget. Mr. Speaker, this debate here today is about fairness. It is about a plan of priorities that are fair and common sense in the approach about balancing the budget of this Nation. The Republican plan is fundamentally unfair, making unnecessary reductions. They are not needed in order to balance the budget of this Nation. There is, however, an alternative plan that was offered; one that is very fair, common sense, and reasonable: The coalition plan. That plan places deficit reduction as a top priority, while protecting all Americans, especially rural Americans in the State of Arkansas. The Republican plan is unfair. It is unfair to rural health care. It is unfair to agriculture. It is unfair to education and to veterans. We need to come together, put aside the pettiness of partisan politics, and come up with something that is fair and common sense for the American people.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the underlying premise of this legislation that late-term abortions should not be performed on healthy, viable fetuses, and because of this I have chosen to support this bill. However, I think of H.R. 1833 as an abstract idea, and not the final word on this controversial subject. I have concerns about the vagueness of the language in the bill, as well as the lack of medical terminology when referencing obvious medical procedures. Although I am pro-choice, this does not necessarily mean that I am pro-abortion. I am concerned that a woman's right to the safest medical care possible and her constitutional right to choice in these tragic cases is being jeopardized. It is my hope that if this bill is passed by the Senate and goes to conference, that a more moderate approach [[Page E 2154]] which includes carefully defined language and the use of medical terminology where applicable will be the result. Furthermore, I feel that it is imperative that exceptions for the life, as well as health of the mother should be included in the body of this bill. The subject of this legislation focuses us on the most extreme and rare forms of abortion. As a woman I am very conscious of women's health issues and I am thankful for the progress that has been made on behalf of women, especially in the area of safe pregnancies and deliveries. But, I am now also aware of the tragic circumstances in which some of these termination procedures are performed and their profound physical and psychological effects on the entire family, particularly the mother. My heart goes out to those women and their families that have had to make the devastating choice to end a late-term pregnancy which was wanted. These families have chosen this path because the fetus in the mother's womb is incompatible with life and doomed to die a painful death in the hours or days after birth, or die before delivery which would create extreme health problems for the mother. This situation is as physically, mentally, and emotionally traumatic as anything that I could ever imagine. The availability of this surgical procedure allows the mother the choice between risking debilitating infections or even her life, versus preserving another opportunity to bring a child into this world. Not only do I bring a woman's perspective to this debate, but as the wife of an obstetrician, I am also somewhat versed in the medical community's approach to these most extreme procedures. I am assured that this procedure is not performed often and certainly not without pursuing every other option available before this course of action is decided upon. I certainly pray that I am never in the position to have to make a personal decision of this magnitude. However, in such an unlikely event, I want to know that my right to decide about my life and the life of my unborn child is not hindered by a government grown too large to understand human suffering. This is a decision that should be made between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her Creator. I believe that we members of a civilized society should agree that so-called partial-birth abortions are horrible under any circumstances. They should be banned except in instances where the alternative is even more horrible.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I think all Americans across this Nation have called on us in Congress to do what is fair and reasonable to put our Nation back on track. We all here share a common goal in balancing the budget and eliminating the deficit in order to put our Nation back on track. But most Americans learn that you have to eat your vegetables first before you get your dessert, and that basically translates to we have got to cut our spending, our abuse, and our waste first. There are two choices before us today: No. 1, to achieve the goal while squeezing senior citizens, farmers, children, and military retirees, or, No. 2, achieve the goal by requiring that every group of Americans give a little to make a contribution. If we were blindfolded as Members of the House of Representatives to all of the partisan politics that go on here, and asked to just base our decisions weighted on the merits of these two packages, we would not want to cut $100 billion more out of Medicare than is necessary to balance the budget. We would not want to cut $9 billion more out of agriculture than is necessary to balance the budget. This does not allow veterans the health care choices that they want and deserve. It raises taxes on lower income Americans by $23 billion by removing the EITC. It cuts $10 billion more out of student loan programs than is necessary to balance the program. It does devastating things to rural America and the life we know there. I just ask my colleagues to take a serious look at what is an honest and fair way of balancing this budget for the American people, and that is the coalition budget.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, both of these plans balance the budget. I think that is a lot of what the American people are asking us to do. The way they ask us to do it is in a fair and reasonable way. I think in a recent article in the Philadelphia Enquirer our group of 23 conservative Democrats, the coalition, are called a group of renegades. We are basically called that because we are the few people here in Washington that are willing to do exactly what the American people want, and that is to put people above politics, especially the partisan politics that are played here in Washington. As I said, both of these plans balance the budget. Many of us from the coalition agree with the former speaker, that there is a need for tax reform and tax relief. However, what the American people want us to do is to cut spending first, and that is what we do. In specific areas of Medicaid, we are much more reasonable and fair than the Republican alternative. We plan to treat Medicaid more fairly than the Republican budget. The Coalition cuts $100 billion less than the Republican plan, while still balancing the budget by 2002. The coalition keeps nursing home quality care standards that are currently in the Federal law. We do not impose liens on family farms or homes, and spouses or children of nursing home residents do not have to spend all of their assets to pay for care. The coalition imposes a per capita limit on Federal spending, instead of limiting growth per State. The coalition will allow Medicaid to continue to guarantee to pay for low-income Medicare beneficiaries. In my State of Arkansas, roughly 70 to 80 percent of the Medicare recipients of our State have their premiums paid by Medicaid, but most importantly, the coalition will continue to guarantee health care coverage for the three categories of Medicaid beneficiaries: Low-income mothers and children, elderly people needing long-term care, and the disabled population. I urge my colleagues to take the reasonable approach to balancing the budget.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, there is a saying: Be careful what you wish for, because you may get it. I think as the Republicans embarked on this idea of balancing the budget, and under the auspices of balancing the budget presented this package, they thought there would not be any Democrats that actually honestly wanted to balance the budget. Well, Mr. Chairman, there are. We have worked hard at coming up with a responsible, fair package that will actually do that. There is an old southern saying that, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and I think that is exactly what we have done. Mr. Chairman, we have addressed agriculture here. We do not unilaterally disarm American farmers in a global agricultural marketplace where other nations are subsidizing far more than we are, and we are working hard to balance the budget on behalf of our children and our children's children. But, we also recognize that they need educational opportunities to be competitive in a global marketplace. We not only balance the budget for our children, but we give them the capability and the resources they need to be able to be independent and productive for themselves in years to come. This is a fair, reasonable, and wise approach to making sure that we do balance the budget. We look at all aspects of it and do it in a fair way.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, my voice may be lost here in the roaring sea of petty, partisan politics, but I think the American people need to know that in this discussion and in this argument, they are the ones that are being forgotten. It has been said, ``Be careful what you ask for, for you may get it.'' The Republicans asked us to give them an alternative to their plan to cut $270 billion from Medicare. The Conservative Democratic Coalition delivered. We gave them a plan that will guarantee Medicare solvency and balance the budget by 2002. Our plan will reduce Medicare by $100 billion less than the Republican plan. Now that we have given them what they have asked for, they will not give House Members the chance to vote on our plan. The coalition's plan is more reasonable and fair to strengthen Medicare than the two plans that will be voted on here today. I like the way my colleague from Minnesota, Mr. Sabo, explained it. It bears repeating. If our plan was ruled in order, House members would have three choices. No. 1, vote for $90 billion in cuts to ensure solvency until 2006, but do nothing to balance the budget. No. 2, vote for the coalition's plan to ensure solvency of Medicare for future generations, while balancing the budget by 2002. That will reduce Medicare by $100 billion less than the Republican plan. Or, No. 3, vote for the Republican plan to cut $270 billion from Medicare, paying for a tax cut, while balancing the budget by 2002. The first option does not cut enough to really take care of the problem. The third option cuts too much, digging into the pockets of senior citizens and rural health care providers and hospitals. The second option, however, the coalition's plan, is the solution between the two extremes, what the American people are looking for. Republicans leaders asked us not to criticize unless we could offer a better plan, and we did. Now they will not allow us to bring our plan to the floor for a vote, and I suspect that might be because ours is the most reasonable plan and it would probably get the most votes. But the senior citizens in the first district of Arkansas and the young people who will be on Medicare in the future have asked us to quit playing petty politics and do the right thing. I hope we can.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. The people of the First District of Arkansas sent me here to put people above politics. Unfortunately, here today we have got both sides who really seem more interested in making campaign commercials rather than good policy. One cuts too much and the other does not do enough. What the American people do not know is that there is a proposal out there that we have not been allowed to bring to the floor that actually makes good common sense, reasonable policy. The Republican bill will close the doors of rural hospitals. The Republican bill will penalize the rural areas by cutting [[Page H 10345]] fee-for-service, when we cannot afford managed care without infrastructure. The Republican bill will dig into the pockets of senior citizens. The Democratic bill has missed the opportunities to restore complete dignity and solvency of Medicare while balancing the budget. I came here to preserve the dignity of senior citizens who depend on Medicare and to restore the faith of the young people who are paying now into the system but will not use this program for decades. This is not the democratic process that I learned in civics class, and it is no wonder that the American people are frustrated.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from California, Mrs. Miller, as well as the gentleman from New Jersey, Chairman Saxton, for their assistance in this matter. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge adoption of this legislation before the House today that epitomizes the type of relationship that should exist between private industry and the Federal Government. For the past several years the Fish and Wildlife Service has conducted a certification program for the triploid grass carp. This beneficial fish is utilized by 29 States to help control aquatic vegetation in lakes ponds, and streams. The triploid grass carp provides an effective, economical method of caring for these environments without the use of chemical agents. As the use of the fish has increased over the years, a number of States have adopted regulations which require the grass carp to be certified as sterile. If a reproducing carp were introduced into these environments it could cause serious damage to the existing fish species. The certification process has assured States that the fish were sterile, thereby allowing their shipment by private aquaculturists. In the past year the Fish and Wildlife Service conducted 550 triploid grass carp inspections at no charge to the producer. The cost of the program was $70,000. However, this year because of the dire fiscal situation that faces many agencies, the Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated that it cannot afford to operate the program. The producers who have utilized this program have agreed to pay a fee that would cover the entire cost of the program with the understanding that the funds would be utilized for this purpose only. The Fish and Wildlife Service supports this arrangement but lacks the authority to implement it without congressional authorization. This bill is identical to one that I introduced earlier this year and I appreciate the support of Chairman Saxton, Chairman Young, and Congressmen Studds in bringing this measure to the floor today. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. LINCOLN

Ms. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, due to family emergency, I was unavoidably detained and unfortunately was not present for roll call vote 636, a vote on the previous question for the fiscal year 1996 Legislative Branch Appropriations conference report. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I too would like to add my thanks to Chairman Bliley and Chairman Fields, as well as to the ranking members, Mr. Dingell and Mr. Markey, for their diligence and persistence in moving ahead on this issue. This is a very critical issue to rural America. As we move ahead in this age of information and technology, moving into a worldwide economy, it is absolutely critical for rural America to be able to have the capabilities to compete. Supporting this bill is important to preserve the quality of life in rural America, while bringing improved health care, educational opportunities and jobs. Early in the debate of this issue, I went to Chairman Fields and asked him very honestly to let me be a part of the discussion in terms of rural issues. He was very willing and interested in obliging to that. We worked hard to make sure that rural America saw a fair shake in this. In terms of educational opportunities, I am delighted to hear from Chairman Bliley that he is willing to work with the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, in terms of educational opportunities for schools. I recently spoke with a teacher from my district who is a part of an important program sponsored by National Geographic to bring geography into the lives of children in areas where they are not capable or do not have the opportunities otherwise to be a part of that. They were shocked to find that in rural America very few of the schools and some of the other learning institutions, as well as many of the teachers, did not have the technology or equipment to be able to bring the importance of geography into the classroom through the Internet. This bill will help us bring that reality to rural America. It encourages new technologies like fiber optics, which will allow two-way voice and video communication. The information highway is critical to all of us, but for those of us in rural America, the entrance ramp is absolutely mandatory. Doctors at the Mayo Clinic can read x rays from Evening Shade, AR. Children in Evening Shade can dial the Library of Congress for information for a term paper. Parents can work from their home in Cloverbend with folks in New York. I urge my colleagues to support this. Opponents may want to stay in the past and may be afraid of competition, but we must move ahead.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Meyers- LaFalce amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Meyers-LaFalce amendment which would restore funding to the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy. Small business is vital to the economic health of the First District of Arkansas and the nation as a whole. Many times in my district I have been approached by small business owners telling me how they are being oppressed by overregulation. We have made a lot of progress in this Congress to correct excessive regulatory burdens and that is why I find it so hard to believe that this bill eliminates all of the funding to the Office of Advocacy. Many small businesses can't afford to have an advocate in Washington, so this office often serves as their one protection from overbearing bureaucracy. I am an adamant supporter of balancing the budget, but cutting out the entire Office of Advocacy is neither intelligent nor equitable to our small businesses. The Meyers-LaFalce amendment is both budget conscience and fair, cutting funds for the Office of Advocacy by 30 percent from the administration request while maintaining a barrier of protection for our small businesses. Thousands of small business leaders from across the country recently expressed their strong support for the office at the White House Conference on Small Business. These leaders recommended to the President that he should ensure permanent maintenance of the independent role of this office. Many leading business organizations have lent their support to the Meyers-LaFalce amendment, including the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Small Business Legislative Council. I firmly believe that the only prudent decision for this Congress is to support equitable, intelligent treatment of the SBA's Office of Advocacy. I urge my colleagues to support the Meyers-LaFalce amendment.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. With all due respect to the gentlewoman from New York, we are not talking about windowbox gardens, we are talking about large farming operations that provide an abundant and affordable food supply on the grocery stores shelves of this Nation. I would like to reiterate what the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Kansas, [Mr. Roberts] says; it is impractical to try to implement this amendment. To the gentleman from California, we have taken care of the extreme situations like Sam Donaldson, with active participation language in the 1987 budget reconciliation. We are talking about the difference here between crop rent and cash rent. We are not hitting the people that the gentlewoman from New York is fully trying to get at. We are going to be damaging the small farmers across this Nation that are providing an affordable and abundant food supply on the grocery store shelves. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment. With all due respect to the gentlewoman, I do believe she does not quite understand. I come from a seventh-generation farm family. Most of the farmers in my district are hardworking farmers. They understand, too, that if they do not have that subsidy in order to be able to pay back that cash rent, there is absolutely no way they will be able to continue farming.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment with this conference report. I have been a strong supporter of a balanced budget. However, we must ensure fairness and equity in achieving it. The American public is ready to tighten its belt as long as we all shoulder part of the load. The Coalition, a group of conservative Democrats which I helped form, proposed an alternative budget earlier this year which is based on fairness. This conference report is simply not fair. Foreign aid, which is about 1 percent of the total budget is being cut by $1.8 billion this year while agriculture, which is also about 1 percent of the budget, sustains $13.3 billion in cuts over the next 7 years. This budget takes the strap to American farmers while sparing dozens of foreign subsidy programs. Medicare and Medicaid recipients stand to lose $450 billion over the next 7 years under this proposal, at least $75 billion more than is necessary to save the program. Students will lose $10 billion in loan assistance to attend schools, when this is one of the most rewarding investments our Government can make. I supported the Coalition alternative because it is tough and honest. It is less Government. Most importantly, it is fair. This conference report reserves the greatest amount of spending cuts for the last 2 years. This means we run the risk that future Congresses might not be willing to make the tough cuts. I am a strong supporter of tax relief, but in order to achieve it, the committee bill has inequitably targeted agriculture, education, job training, and Medicare among other things. We first need to ensure the future of our children, and then give tax relief to ourselves. I hope my colleagues join me in voting against this report because a more intelligent, equitable balanced budget proposal exists, namely the one put forward by the Coalition.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. LINCOLN. Again, Mr. Chairman, the proceeds from the industry in sport fishing far exceed the cost of what we are talking here. I do think it is important in terms of making sure we are able to preserve these wonderful facilities that we have in the Federal Government to allow the States to do that. The chairman of the subcommittee did point out there is a reversion clause. If by any chance the States do not use these facilities for what they were intended, they do revert back to the Federal Government. As I said before, I think in all good intentions that my colleague, the gentleman from California, may have had, I do think that this is a poor target in terms of trying to make a point of saving money and in terms of billing the States, who cannot afford it, in losing the preservation of these natural resources that we have. I just urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and pass this bill and the other two, which are really noncontroversial bills.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. I think there are many issues here to be debated. One point that was just brought up, in terms of preservation, if what we want to do is preserve some of the wonderful natural resources we have in this Nation, we do have to give the States the capability. The fact is most States, and I think we have heard from many of our fish and wildlife agency representatives, the States cannot afford it. The other point that I would make is the value of the property has changed considerably since 1983. If you are going to talk about the fair market value, since 1983 the State of Arkansas has put well over $2 million, almost $2.5 million into the property, which has enhanced its value. If it had been abandoned in 1983 by the Federal Government, it would be worth next to nothing at this point right now anyway. In terms of the justification given by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], in terms of what he is trying to do, I do not disagree. I tend to find myself very fiscally responsible as well and wanting desperately to balance the budget, but I do feel he has chosen a poor target in this area. This is an industry, quite frankly, where we are producing fish for an industry of tourism and sport fishing. It is one of the largest in our State. It is one across the Nation that does have a tremendous amount of return on the dollars that are invested. I do think it is a poor target. The property is the Federal Government's, but they did give it up an awful long time ago. We are simply legalizing this situation to make sure that the State of Arkansas can adequately prepare and make the necessary decisions that they need to keep it a productive industry. Again, I would certainly focus that that is exactly what it is. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask my colleagues to reason in terms of fiscal responsibility. This is a good industry for us across the Nation, and the fish hatcheries are a big part of that. We have invested a great deal in the State of Arkansas.