Blanche Lincoln

Mrs. LINCOLN

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

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 535. Before I list all the reasons why my colleagues should support this bill, I first want to extend my deepest thanks to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Young, the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Saxton, and the ranking minority member of the Fisheries Subcommittee, Mr. Studds, for taking action on this bill in such a prompt manner. I worked with all these distinguished gentlemen last year on the Merchant Marine Committee, and I certainly must say that I miss working with them on a more regular basis. I urge my colleagues to support this non-controversial bill. H.R. 535 would transfer property rights in the Corning National Fish Hatchery from the Federal Government to the State of Arkansas. Due to previous Federal budget cuts, the fish hatchery was closed in early 1983. However, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission resumed hatchery fish production in May 1983 after entering into an agreement with the fish and wildlife service. The fish hatchery has been operating since 1983 as William H. Donham State Fish Hatchery. With funds provided by the State of Arkansas This fish hatchery has become an important part of the Arkansas Fisheries Division Fish Culture Program and I believe that this transfer will greatly benefit the sportsmen and women of Arkansas and the Nation. This warm water hatchery is very active and successful, producing up to 1,000,000 fish annually. Currently, and since 1983 no Federal funds are used to operate or maintain the Corning National Fish Hatchery. Let me repeat, this fish hatchery does not cost Federal taxpayers a red cent. It is financed solely by funds derived from resident and non-resident fishing licenses sales. This transfer of ownership has the support from both the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and the Fish and Wildlife Service. It is appropriate to transfer the property to the State of Arkansas since the funds used to finance the hatchery's programs are raised within the borders of Arkansas. In addition, without this transfer, Arkansas would be unable to make long-term commitments as to the direction the hatchery will take in its operations or risk of abandonment. Identical legislation passed both the House and the Senate last Congress only to be stymied in the Senate during the last minutes of the 103d. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 535 and to oppose any amendments.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, to my friend on the other side, I think it is important to point out, especially for those watching, the tax break goes to the 13 percent of the top bracket of those in Arkansas. Most notably in my district, with an average income of less than $12,000, roughly, it is not quite a lot. Basically the gentleman is taking from those middle income and lower incomes in the Medicare divisions, where I have above 10 percent of the national average in the elderly. I thank the gentleman.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for the Stenholm-Orton substitute to the budget resolution for fiscal year 1996 and I applaud our colleagues for their hard work. I am a strong supporter of a balanced budget and I applaud the progress that we make today toward eliminating the deficit. However, we must ensure fairness and equity in achieving a balanced budget. The American public is ready to tighten its belt as long as we all shoulder part of the load fairly. The coalition alternative budget is based on equity. Our budget substitute would ease the burden on rural Americans. Our proposal restores $114 billion in Medicare spending, as well as $50 billion in Medicaid spending. Farmers would receive $12.9 billion more over the next 7 years under the Stenholm-Orton budget. We maintain our commitment to our country's future by restoring $35 billion in funding to education and training programs, and $18.7 billion in guaranteed student loans. We ease the burden on rural economic development. We also include the alternative welfare reform plan offered earlier this year by myself and others. And, most importantly, we would still achieve a balanced budget in 7 years with lower interest payments than under the leadership proposal. The Republican leadership's bill reserves the greatest amount of spending cuts for the last two years, that is what we leave for our children and our children's children, while the Stenholm-Orton substitute spreads out those cuts more evenly over the entire 7 years. This means lower national debt, and therefore less burden, on the future of America. We also avoid 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 come down too hard on 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. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Stenholm-Orton substitute, because it provides the most fair and equitable solution to achieve a balanced budget.

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

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment with provisions added at the last minute to H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendments of 1995. The bill made an honest effort to correct some of the problems with the current Act. However, while I supported some of the strong elements of the bill, including the wetlands and the private property provisions, I could not, with good conscience, support the final amended bill. During consideration of H.R. 961, the House approved an amendment that altered the allocation formula under the State Revolving Fund [SRF]. Under this new formula, the less industrialized States, like Arkansas, received significantly less money than they currently receive. The base bill contained a more equitable approach in its treatment of the allocation formula, but the amendment adopted by the House gutted the original agreement reached by the committee. Last year Arkansas received nearly $15 million under the SRF allocation. Under the amended bill, Arkansas would receive $8 million-- a 42 percent reduction. Arkansas has a well run SRF program, leveraging two times the amount of its SRF funding. Last year, Arkansas leveraged nearly $30 million from its $15 million allocation. The severe reduction in the amended bill not only reflects a $7 million reduction of federal obligated dollars, but it also adversely affects Arkansas' ability to leverage more funds. The bill's cut in fact represents a $14 million total loss in funds that could be used to finance much needed wastewater treatment plants and infrastructure needs throughout the State. With the many Federal requirements imposed on our communities, they need the capital to comply with these national mandates. Again, there were many provisions in the bill that I support, including relief for farmers under the wetlands and nonpoint source sections and small system hardship loans. However, when this bill pits Arkansas against other States in fighting for essential funds, I could not abandon Arkansas' needs in developing its clean water infrastructure. I hope that the chairman and other Members involved in the negotiations with the Senate will press on in their obligation to consider this equity issue during the conference and resolve this unacceptable situation for Arkansas and 28 other States that lost SRF funding under the new allocation scheme. I would like to have a bill that I could support on behalf of my farmers and my rural constituents.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 1555, the Communications Act of 1995. I'd like to thank Mr. Fields and Mr. Markey, Mr. Dingell, and Mr. Bliley for their commitment to this legislation. I'm proud that this issue has remained a priority and that we have been able to build upon the legislation that passed the House of Representatives during the last Congress. Once again, I have a special interest in keeping telephone rates in rural areas low while protecting small- and medium-sized phone companies from unfair competition. I have appreciated Chairman Fields' willingness to work with me on this issue throughout the drafting process. This bill, as introduced today, offers several protections for rural carriers, but I realize that it does not go far enough. Today, I pledge my commitment to improving this bill as it moves through the Commerce Committee. I have encouraged my colleagues to look at the Senate language regarding rural carriers, which exempts carriers who have 2 percent or fewer of the access lines nationwide, because I would like to see this bill move in that direction. As a start, Mr. Fields has assured me that we can amend this bill to exempt carriers that provide telephone exchange service to any local exchange carrier study area with fewer than 100,000 access lines. I appreciate his willingness to work with me and his commitment to protecting and preserving rural America. Mr. Speaker, for rural America, this bill represents an amazing opportunity for advancements in education, among other things. I was pleased to see provisions to ensure that educational institutions will have access to this growing technology. Additionally, I pledge to work toward enhancing this bill to ensure that health care providers will be able to tap into resources to expand their infrastructure to provide telemedicine, which is essential to rural areas like the First Congressional District. This will be vital in delivering services that will help up keep up with advances in larger cities while preserving the quality of life we enjoy. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Commerce Committee to build upon this legislation and bring a bill to the House floor that this body can approve with the overwhelming support that we saw in passage of H.R. 3636 and H.R. 3626 during the last Congress.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Access to Children's Health Care Act of 1995 and the Children's Health Equity Act of 1995. The first bill will allow children's hospitals to qualify as federally qualified health centers [FQHC], Thus strengthening the vital safety net of services for low-income and underserved children with special health care needs. As the number of children in poverty has grown and private coverage of dependents has declined, children's hospitals have increasingly become the primary care pediatrician and pediatric specialist for children. In addition, children's hospitals accept all children regardless of their ability to pay and substantially underwrite outpatient care. By allowing children's hospitals to qualify as FQHC's, the hospitals will receive reimbursement based on reasonable costs as defined by Medicaid. The second bill, The Children's Health Equity Act of 1995, will require States that establish Medicaid managed care programs to continue enrolling children with special health care needs in traditional fee-for-service plans. Today, more and more States are moving to Medicaid managed care plans, which can potentially present problems for very sick or disabled children. Specifically, HMO-type plans can systematically deny care to very sick children by not having enough or any pediatric specialists on contract. This bill seeks to protect children with special health care needs by requiring States who adopt Medicaid managed care programs to keep such children enrolled in traditional fee-for-service programs. Most often, traditional Medicaid fee-for-service plans provide necessary access to pediatric specialists for children with special health care needs. I believe mainstreaming the Medicaid population holds many advantages for those enrolled in Medicaid. But we cannot put the children in the greatest need of access to specialty health care at additional risk of being denied necessary services. I urge my colleagues to take a serious look at these important bills to guarantee appropriate health care for the children in their districts with special health needs.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the accomplishments of an extraordinary young woman from my district. Ms. Sabrina Nekay Lewellen of Jonesboro, AR, was named the State winner in the annual Veterans of Foreign Wars and Ladies Auxiliary's ``Voice of Democracy'' broadcast audio-essay contest. Ms. Lewellen wrote and delivered an inspiring and challenging speech on her vision for America. After reading her speech, I have a renewed confidence in the future of our great country. I would like to include a copy of her speech to be printed in the record and I would encourage my colleagues to read it and to accept Ms. Lewellen's challenge. Thank you. My Vision for America (Sabrina Lewellen) All across America members of the class of 1995 are contemplating which college to attend, what major to choose, what career to pursue, and even who to take to the senior prom. We are fortunate in that we can make these decisions as individuals. We are not plagued with the same uncertainties as some previous classes. The class of 1945 was filled with loyal Americans who put their dreams on hold to serve the cause of world peace. Similarly, the brave souls of the class of 1965 put their personal visions aside so that thousands of people in Vietnam could experience democracy. No, my class does not face these immediate tasks, but we do have an obligation to each other, this country, and the thousands of Americans before us who gave their loyal services and even their lives. Throughout our history countless people have worked toward an ``ideal'' America. One of freedom of expression, economic possibility, toleration of uniqueness, and peaceful resolutions. They contributed whole-heartedly for everyone's prosperity until the end. As well known playwright Thornton Wilder stated in his play Our Town, ``Gradually, gradually, they let go hold of the earth--and the ambitions they had-- and the pleasures they had--and the things they suffered--and the people they loved.'' They never stopped trying to turn the mediocre into the superior. They fought to make the country the best that it could be and we as the inheritors of the fruit of their imagination must make the best even better. We have to realize that in order for a working unit to function properly each element must make its contribution. My vision for America is not one of apathy and selfishness, but of caring and involvement. Not one of violence and confusion, but one of peace and understanding. Sure, it's easy for me to sit and visualize a better society, but if I do not dedicate myself to this endeavor, how can I expect others to do the same? Therefore, my vision for America begins with me. I plan to attend college and pursue a career in human environmental science. With this knowledge, I will strive to make not only a stronger America, but a healthier one. Additionally, I will utilize my gift as a public speaker to inform others, not only on my specific area of expertise, but on a variety of issuses to help improve their every day lives. This is what I plan to do. Now, what about you? Do you have a vision? How committed are you to making a change in this country? We live in one of the greatest nations on earth. Our democracy grants us many freedoms and choices other nations only dream of having. We, first as individuals, then as a people must realize that we have to start today in order to make a better tomorrow. We can no longer stare at our Constitution in a glass chamber and view it only as a piece of paper. We must rekindle its flame, make it eternal, and transform it into a ``living'' document. All it takes is one person, in one city, in one country, in one state, in these great United States. All it takes is one.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained because of travel difficulties and unfortunately was not present for roll call vote 280, a vote on the Fishermen's Protective Act Amendments and roll call vote 281, a vote on U.S. Citizens Imprisoned in Iraq. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on both votes.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to get one thing straight, and that is definitely that this bill is not the status quo. If people would learn to check their party sometimes at the door and take a listen to what their people are saying at home to put people above politics and read what we have got here, we would know that. In my weekly trips home to Arkansas, I constantly hear stories of a government program called ``crazy checks.'' Teachers, doctors, bankers complain to me that parents are coaching their children to misbehave in school to get a no-strings-attached government check. Well, if we do not do something about this program, we are the ones that are crazy. So in February of last year, I asked the GAO to investigate both the allegations of coaching and the overall integrity of the program. And after a year of study, the GAO results confirmed my escalating concerns. The program has grown 300 percent since 1989, and the subjective IFA standard left the door open for abuse. The GAO said, the high level of subjectivity leaves the process susceptible to manipulation and the consequent appearance that children fake mental impairments to qualify for benefits. A more fundamental problem is determining which children are eligible for benefits using this new IFA process. Well, we eliminate that IFA program, and we do reform that program by trimming 25 percent off the rolls, but we are not cruel to disabled children. The Office of the Inspector General at HHS said that SSI payments are not being used for special needs of children substantial gainful activity. We are the only bill that holds the parent accountable to prove that they are using those funds toward the disability of that child. For the first time, we put that accountability into a program. The Republicans in our letters that we received certainly from the subcommittee was that all of the governors opposed H.R. 4 in terms of the SSI disability for children program. I acknowledge the hard work that my colleagues Mr. McCrery and Mr. Kleczka have put in. Though I disagree with their approach to solving the problem, I certainly applaud them for making the effort. The Deal bill is the best one there, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. LINCOLN

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

Mrs. LINCOLN. I just want to say that we have also seen three consecutive years of deficit reduction. I would just like to encourage the gentleman to make sure that he knows that there are those of us who are speaking out for deficit reduction.

Mrs. LINCOLN. I just wanted to reemphasize the fact if we are really truly talking about deficit reduction that all of what we have been talking about in terms of cuts, rescissions, and certainly in the welfare reform and the reduction, and I would certainly encourage the gentlemen when those amendments are offered and certainly when we talk about the lockbox aspects of putting those moneys towards deficit reduction, that we will see that.

Mrs. LINCOLN

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

Mrs. LINCOLN. That is exactly right; that is what we do.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to tell the gentleman we will have a great deal for you tomorrow, because in the Deal substitute plan we give the flexibility to the States to not have to deal with those waivers. It is a wonderful proposal that will be presented tomorrow and it is an opportunity for you to take a look at things that we will be able to offer to the States, flexibility to deal with their own plan.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and I certainly understand the objective of what our colleagues on this side are trying to do in terms of cleaning up the bill that is before us. But once again I will just say, ``Have we got a deal for you.'' This is already in the Deal substitute. As we look at what we are trying to do in the modifying the family cap provisions in the bill giving these States the options, we already give the States the option to do this. We give them the option of setting a family cap if they choose so to do, we give them the option of initiating voucher programs if they choose so to do, and I just think it is really important that we do not mandate upon these States family caps which they have to then operate through again 50 State bureaucracies. We give them the option; we give them the parameters to work within. And that is exactly what the bill does, the Deal bill does. So I certainly would encourage my colleagues to look closely at what is already out there. We all enjoy talking, but it is important to know it is already there.

Mrs. LINCOLN. We already give that option to the States. And certainly many States have already pilot projects like the State of Arkansas.

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

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mrs. LINCOLN. I just think it is very important for the American people to know our group and the bill that we have produced is very nonpartisan. It is a very practical bill. It is very realistic. And we are here because we want to put people before politics. That is what is important, taking the American people, looking at what their needs are. Tomorrow we will have the options of looking at the bill offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink], the Deal bill, and the Republican Contract bill. We have worked hard. We have produced a bill that is really realistic in terms of what it does for the American people and in terms of what it does for this Nation in long-term getting people off of welfare, and that is what we want. We do not want to just throw them off of welfare. We want to get them off of welfare, get them off of the generational dependency and put them into a constructive, contributing life style. People have a tendency really to ignore the voice of reason, and I think really that is what we have got to present in the Deal bill is real reason, looking at what people need to survive and to become independent. It is time that we finally hear what that voice of reason is. We have talked about priorities tonight. Are you going to talk about food and making sure children get fed, or are you going to talk about $20 billion to $40 billion of increases in military spending? Are you going to talk about putting people back to work and giving them the opportunity to provide for themselves? That is what is important. We have got to look at where this Nation is spending its money. In terms of percentages, if you look at the money we are spending on both military, on interest, on the debt, the talks we have had here tonight in terms of nutrition, less than 0.1 percent are a drop in the bucket in what we need to do, and our voice of reason, the Deal substitute, puts more people to work than the alternative bills that will be offered tomorrow. The Deal substitute is the only one that devotes its entire savings to deficit reduction, and if you are serious about deficit reduction for your children and your children's children, you have got to realize that we have got to put those savings toward deficit reduction. We realize the same amount of savings roughly that the Republican plan does, but we direct our savings to deficit reduction, because we are worried about the future of our children, not only in welfare reform, but also in deficit reduction. The Deal substitute recognizes that it is impossible to work without proper job training and child care. You cannot ask a single mother to work for her benefits if she has nowhere to take her children. And, yes, you are right, the family structure in this Nation is deteriorating, and that young woman does not have the support network of a family, a grandparent or a parent to look after that child. She has got to depend on some child care, and we have got to provide it, and we do in the Deal substitute. We not only provide it, but we pay for it, and that is an important part of what we do. The Deal substitute identifies the problems that have been created in the crazy checks abuse, and it solves the problem. I have seen a tremendous amount of that problem in my district, and I have been working hard over these past years to look for a reasonable solution that does not throw out the baby with the bath water. It does not put that child with cerebral palsy out on the street, but it makes sure the disabled children, especially those that are multiply disabled, are going to be helped, but the ones that are abusing the programs, those loopholes will be closed. The Deal substitute is the only one that sets a 2-year lifetime limit on welfare benefits, the only program that is going to be offered that sets a 2-year lifetime limit. We give the States the option of extending benefits for 2 more years with community service, and that is what we have heard from most people is that the States know better how to craft and to recraft those programs to get their people back into the work force. The Deal substitute gives States more flexibility than any other proposal without passing massive costs on to the States, no unfunded mandates. We do not produce the unfunded mandates, because we know it is unrealistic, and in the long run it will not work. The Deal substitute does not demand family caps. Instead, we give that flexibility to the States, that option of denying additional benefits to mothers who have more children while on welfare. The Deal substitute includes welfare benefits as taxable income. It is the best alternative you are going to get, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to say to my colleague from Georgia and the others over there that, yes, we do thank your leadership for bringing up some of these issues that we have worked very hard on over the past 3 years. And I guess I can say that, as a newer Member, I also think it is important that we shed our pettiness in terms of who is bringing up the issues and look more at what is happening to the American people. I think that is one of the objectives that I and many of the other colleagues that I have shared this bill with, the Deal substitute bill, in trying to put people above politics, and that is a very important issue that we have to do right now.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, today we will prove to Arkansans and to all Americans that we have heard their frustrations and are finally prepared to take action on welfare reform. Since I came to Congress in 1993, I have talked almost daily with constituents who are tired of sending their tax dollars to Washington to give people something for nothing. I join the people of the First District of Arkansas today in enthusiastically saying, ``It's about time for welfare reform.'' It has all been said, just everyone has not said it, but I will say it again here today. Welfare was intended to be a safety net for widows and children, but it has become a hammock that has encouraged laziness and idleness. Less than 12 percent of the people who receive welfare benefits today are actually working and that is why we focus our intentions on work. We have been paying the other 88 percent to sit at home and watch their mailboxes. The Federal Government has been making bigger promises than Publishers Clearinghouse. But after this debate ends and the votes are counted, I am confident that the House of Representatives will have sent a message to their home districts, ``No more something for nothing.'' Over the next few days, we will talk about several proposals for changing our welfare system. I challenge all of my colleagues to look beyond their party identification and listen closely to the merits of each plan, to check their party affiliations at the door and principles and values back into our families. The Deal substitute, which I helped to write and cosponsor, puts more people to work than the current system, while making it possible for people to find a job and stay in it. We offer more job training and more child care than the status quo, and for the first time we set a lifetime limit of 2 years on welfare. Your choices are simple, if you look beyond party lines. Put more people to work in less time, or put fewer people to work over more years. Put these options with another favorite theme, greater State flexibility, and you have an even easier choice. The substitute that will be offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal], myself, and other conservative Democrats allows States to tailor welfare to fit their needs. We give States the option of denying benefits to teenage mothers, we let the States decide whether to continue giving more money to mothers who have more children while on welfare. We also let States decide whether they want to keep people in welfare programs for a additional 2 years under community service. And we give them the option of recycling a few needy people back into the welfare rolls after their time limit has expired. We are also the only plan that dedicates the moneys that we save to deficit reduction. You will hear more about our plan and the differences between the Deal substitute and the other welfare reform plans that are offered. I encourage you to think of your constituents before your party identification and to look at the reality of our plan and what it does for the future not only for us, for this country but for our children and our children's children.