Blanche Lincoln

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote 251 on H.R. 1158, the rescission bill, I was unavoidably detained during that 5-minute vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on the rescission package. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Stormwater Management Improvement Act of 1995, legislation to assist small cities and small businesses in their compliance requirements under the Clean Water Act. Under the Clean Water Act, cities and industries must obtain permits for stormwater discharges. This act has required cities serving a population of 100,000 individuals or more to comply with the permit requirement. However, as of October 1994, smaller cities are also technically required to comply with this section of the law even though the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] has not issued regulations for the cities with populations less than 100,000. While the smaller cities have received assurances from the EPA that it will not enforce the stormwater requirements, many cities fear that citizens will file suits against them for not complying with the act. The objective of the Stormwater Management Program is to ensure that runoff from city streets and parking lots into stormwater drainage pipes and ditches meets the water quality standards set out in the act. Under a stormwater discharge permit, cities must adopt programs to reduce the amount of pollution entering our waterways. These programs include street cleaning, household hazardous waste pickup, leaf pickup, cracking down on illicit discharges of raw sewage and other pollutants and public education. These management plans are worthwhile, but very expensive to implement. According to the National League of Cities, the average cost of obtaining a permit is $625,000. In Little Rock, AR, it cost $525,000 over three years to get the permit and it is estimated to cost an additional $125,000 per year to run the program. These costs for a small community would be disastrous. In a rural area, where financial resources are scarce because of the limited tax base, these requirements would detract from other essential programs, such as sewage treatment and safe drinking water requirements. With scarce resources, these small communities need to focus on the bare necessities to preserve the health and safety of their residents. The Stormwater Management Improvement Act of 1995 would provide the needed relief from this permit requirement for cities with population less than 50,000 individuals by exempting them from the permit requirements. The bill would also delay permit requirements for cities with population between 50,000 and 100,000 until October 1, 2001, and instruct the EPA to promulgate regulations for these cities. Nonurbanzied areas are completely exempt from the permit requirements. In addition, industries must also comply with the stormwater permit requirements. However, we run into the same situation where the requirements apply equally to both the large industrial polluters and the small businessmen. Again, one size does not fit all. In my own congressional district, a small businessman who runs a portable sawmill was required to obtain a stormwater permit. He travels from tree stand to tree stand to harvest the timber. In the process, he leaves some sawdust behind. This man is not a point source nor do his activities contribute to the degradation of the quality of the surrounding waterways. However, he is forced to obtain an expensive permit that results in very little water quality control and is treated in the same way as the large lumber mills. My bill would exempt the small business or industry that employs no more than 25 people from the permit requirements unless the EPA or delegated state agency determines that the facility contributes to a violation of a water quality standard or is a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States. I am not an advocate of promoting dirty industry over the health of our environment, nor do I want to see polluted waterways. However, I do want to ensure that we get the biggest bang for our buck by focusing on the big problems. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to ease the Federal mandates imposed on our smaller cities and businesses.

Mrs. LINCOLN

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

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

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

Mrs. LINCOLN. I know, for example, in many of the examples that I have gotten in from my constituents is a piece of property that perhaps contains the wetlands. For those of us living on the Mississippi River, that is a great deal. Would it be valued according to the present use of the land surrounding the property, like farming, or, certainly, the residential purposes? It would not be valued according to the potential use of the land, like developing a golf course or resort area or things like that? In terms of urban areas, a piece of land located in New York City, certainly that would be valued as is, but not according to the potential use of constructing a skyscraper or something other than that, is that correct?

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

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

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, in representing a totally rural district in eastern Arkansas, I certainly have realized how critical private property rights are. I was raised in a seventh generation farm family in Arkansas Mississippi River Delta. And as a farmer, my father has taught me not only a tremendous reverence for land conservation but also a very big respect for fairness and equity in property rights. In the past years we have seen some of our individual property rights diminished. I think that the efforts today in trying to restore that, those property rights as well as the individual constituency respect in the Federal Government and what we are here to do. We see in this bill the efforts to put fairness back into our constituents' property rights. That is a very important issue. But also there is another issue. That is the fairness in terms of the financial implications this may have to our constituents as taxpayers. I allude to a little bit of what my colleague from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] was talking about. I would like to engage the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and/or the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] in a colloquy on that issue. I would first like to applaud them on working hard to make this bill and their efforts on behalf of our constituents in private property rights a much better bill, something that we can all be proud of. I would like to engage them in the meaning of the fair market value as it is set forth in this bill and certainly in the amendment. I would like to certainly qualify if it is your view, in terms of the fair market value, that it means the present day fair market value and not the potential market value of the real property in question?

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mrs. LINCOLN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I first applaud the gentleman for working hard to make it a better piece of legislation, and I would encourage them all to work with both myself and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] so we can codify that.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that has been worked out with Mr. Oxley and Mr. Clinger. Last month many of us supported H.R. 5, a bill that would ease the amount of unfunded mandates on the States. This amendment is aimed to ensure that provisions in this bill achieve the goal set forth under the unfunded mandates bill by not adversely affecting States. It has the full support from the National Conference of State Legislatures and the State of Arkansas. As you well know, States often act as agents of the Federal Government in enforcing Federal statutes. For example, under the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, to name a few, the States are delegated the authority to carry out the requirements of the statutes and enforce their provisions. Because H.R. 1022 as written explicitly requires risk assessments for documents prepared by or on behalf of a covered Federal agency in the implementation of a regulatory program designed to protect human health, safety, or the environment, States might be required to conduct risk assessments when carrying out the provisions of Federal statutes. Such documents include the issuance of permits under the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. Over 40 States have delegated authority over the Clean Water Act's section 402 permitting program. Under this bill, States acting on behalf of the Federal Government might be forced to conduct risk assessments for each [[Page H2367]] permit they issue. States neither have the financial nor the personnel resources to take on such a burden. The ultimate financial impacts of this bill on the States are unknown. Even in the committee report, CBO was unable to calculate the potential costs. CBO stated that the effect of this bill on State and local governments was ``unclear.'' ``CBO has no basis for predicting the direction, magnitude, or timing of such impacts.'' Because of the ambiguity associated with the potential costs and burdens placed on the States under the mandates of this bill, we have agreed to this amendment to protect States against unfunded mandates. This amendment requires further Federal action along with Federal funding in order for States to comply with the requirements under this act. I encourage my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a strong proponent of risk assessment and effective government and cost-benefit analysis. Having grown up on a farm in eastern Arkansas and having seen in person both the tremendous waste, that government regulations can assist us in preserving our environment and our surroundings but also in being overburdensome as well as top heavy in regulatory needs. Risk assessment is a vital tool in forming cost-effective and well-reasoned Federal regulations. It should be used to create a better and responsive Federal Government, not stymie things down with court actions or excessive delay. But I do have some concerns that the bill we are looking at today, this will happen under the current bill. Before we consider H.R. 1022 further, we may have to take a time-out to do a cost-benefit analysis on this bill. CBO has made some conservative estimates that the bill will cost the Federal Government an additional 250 million a year to conduct risk assessment. This breaks down to approximately 5,000 new Federal employees, including many new lawyers hired to defend agency actions. As we look at this bill today, I hope that we will work in bipartisan fashion to make it better so that it will be of great assistance to all of us across the Nation in making government more effective. Mr. Chairman, the costs of doing an effective and needed risk assessment doesn't bother me very much if in the long run those expenses are more than covered in the costs saved down the road. However, I am skeptical that the $25 million threshold is a figure where we can get the biggest bang for our buck. The threshold set out under this bill to conduct risk assessments is $25 million. However, Executive orders in the past issued by President Ford, Reagan and Clinton set the threshold at $100 million. OMB in 1993 concluded that 97 percent of the total rulemaking costs on the economy came from rules with a dollar threshold over $100 million. Like the companies who rightly complain that we shouldn't spend millions of dollars to get Superfund sites, water and air one additional percentage cleaner, I question whether we should be spending so much money in conducting additional risk assessments to reach an additional 3 percent of the regulations that have a financial impact on the economy. Additionally, H.R. 1022 requires a risk assessment for permits under Federal program. Does this mean that every State that issues a Clean Water Act section 402 permit must conduct a risk assessment before finalizing any permit? Let's make sure that we are adopting the most cost effective law as we I am also concerned about this bill's potential financial impact on our States. Just last month we passed a bill to curb unfunded Federal mandates on unwitting States. However, upon closer analysis of this bill, I feel that there might be possibility that States will bear the impacts and financial burdens of conducting risk assessments. Many States act as the agents of the Federal Government in enforcing certain laws. This bill would require the Federal Government, or any entity acting ``on behalf of a covered agency in the implementation of a regulatory program'' to conduct risk assessments. I will be offering an amendment later during the debate to solve the potential unintended consequence. It has the support of the National Conference of State Legislatures and the Governor from Arkansas. I hope that my colleagues will support some of the bipartisan amendments that will be offered during the course of debate to eliminate some of the bureaucratic nightmares in this bill.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a strong proponent of risk assessment and effective government and cost-benefit analysis. Having grown up on a farm in eastern Arkansas and having seen in person both the tremendous waste, that government regulations can assist us in preserving our environment and our surroundings but also in being overburdensome as well as top heavy in regulatory needs. Risk assessment is a vital tool in forming cost-effective and well-reasoned federal regulations. It should be used to create a better and responsive Federal Government, not stymie things down with court actions or excessive delay. But I do have some concerns that the bill we are looking at today, this will happen under the current bill. Before we consider H.R. 1022 further, we may have to take a time-out to do a cost-benefit analysis on this bill. CBO has made some conservative estimates that the bill will cost the Federal Government an additional 250 million a year to conduct risk assessment. This breaks down to approximately 5,000 new federal employees, including many new lawyers hired to defend agency actions. As we look at this bill today, I hope that we will work in bipartisan fashion to make it better so that it will be of great assistance to all of us across the Nation in making government more effective.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, it appears that duck hunting season has gotten caught in the crossfire as Republicans continue to move at a breakneck speed to pass the Contract With America. Hunting is one of the simple pleasures for many of us in Arkansas. But continued Federal attempts to dicker with hunting regulations have turned hunting into a complex legal battle. The U.S. Fish and wildlife Service has said that today's proposal to place a retroactive moratorium on Federal regulations would cancel next year's waterfowl season Each year Fish and Wildlife must issue regulations setting the hunting season and bag limits for migratory waterfowl including ducks, geese, and doves. Their decision is based on a long and complex process of public hearings and meetings, which end shortly before hunting season opens October 1. As this bill is written, those meetings could not take place because Fish and Wildlife has interpreted hunting season meetings to be outside the realm of routine administrative regulations. In defense of hunting season, I sent a letter last week to Mr. Clinger, chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, asking that waterfowl hunting season regulations be exempt from this bill. Therefore, I am extremely pleased to see this amendment offered and urge my colleagues to support its passage. Let me assure the American people that I wholeheartedly support efforts to free them from burdensome and unnecessary Federal regulations. But I fear the unintended consequences of Republicans' efforts to push reforms so quickly. As a hunter myself and representing approximately 60,000 Arkansas migratory bird hunters, I must be emphatic that canceling the 1995-96 waterfowl season would not be acceptable. Migratory bird hunters spend $3.6 billion annually nationwide. In Arkansas, migratory bird hunting brings $1.5 million to the State and $31 million in retail sales. This revenue, in addition to the family traditions that have been built around hunting season, should not be denied by Congress.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, as the author of my own bill to extend a tax deduction to the self-employed for health insurance, I rise today in support of the efforts of the House to restore and permanently extend the tax deduction for 25 percent of health insurance costs for self-employed individuals. However, it is my opinion that we should go even further by providing a 100-percent tax deduction. During this Congress, I introduced the Health Insurance Equity Act of 1995, which would have given this 100 percent deduction to our self- employed. I believe that the small businessmen and farmers who are the economic backbone of my district, and rural America in general, should enjoy this same privilege that corporate America currently enjoys. However, if we are to provide relief to our self-employed workers who are paying high prices for health insurance, we must support the legislation that is presented before us tonight. In addition, we have an opportunity to vote to extend the 25 percent tax deduction for health insurance premiums to employees whose employers do not subsidize their health insurance. If our goal is to help people help themselves, then I see no reason why we should not support this provision. Mr. Chairman, it is time to face the facts about purchasing health coverage today. Many of the 37 million uninsured are small business owners. Health care costs averaged $3,160 per person in 1992, with current increases projected to run in double digits through the end of the century. Prescription drug costs in many cases have risen more than 60 percent since 1985. My constituents are asking for relief. It is imperative that we enact this piece of legislation today to show our constituents that we understand the problems they are facing. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support congressional efforts to provide much-needed relief by helping to make health insurance more affordable for the hard-working citizens of our country.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to a man who has given so much to his country and to the State of Arkansas. I have just introduced legislation to rename the ``Federal Lands Cleanup Act,'' the ``Carl Garner Federal Lands Cleanup Act.'' This honor is well deserved as Mr. Garner was the inspiration behind the enactment of the Cleanup Act in 1985. Mr. Garner is the Resident Engineer with the Army Corps of Engineers in Greers Ferry Lake, AR, and his devotion to a cleaner environment goes back several decades. In 1970, Mr. Garner organized a group of local volunteers to pick up trash accumulated along the shores of Greers Ferry Lake. This one day cleanup event escalated to an annual event throughout the State of Arkansas. Last year alone, more than 24,000 Arkansans participated in the cleanup at more than 100 sites in Arkansas. This devotion to the protection of our environment attracted the attention of Senator Bumpers, who was the lead sponsor of the Federal Lands Cleanup Day of 1985. This bill promotes the concept of community partnership and pride in our Federal lands to protect our valuable natural resources. It is with great pride and esteem that I rise to introduce this piece of legislation to honor Mr. Carl Garner, who embodies the notion of public service.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the No Frills Prison Act as an amendment to the Violent Criminal Incarceration Act of 1995. This legislation would deny Federal funds to States who give inmates special privileges. I believe that we've lost our perspective in this Nation when prisoners eat better than our children, and inmates enjoy air conditioning while senior citizens in nursing homes swelter. Removing such luxuries as Stairmaster's premium cable TV, and weight rooms is essential to ensuring that our prisons are not country clubs, but are instead true place of punishment for crime. I commend Mr. Zimmer for his good work in creating a bill that is truly tough on crime, and I encourage my colleagues to support this worthwhile amendment.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today along with my two colleagues, Congressman Jay Dickey and Congressman Bill Richardson to introduce a bill which will have far-reaching implications for rural citizens in our Nation. This legislation, the Rural Telemedicine Act of 1995, will finally provide rural health care providers with Medicare reimbursement for the telemedicine services they provide. Telemedicine, while not all that new, has the potential to become the breakthrough technology for rural residents and their access to specialized and emergency health care. However, we have a role in making sure that rural residents have access to this possible innovation. In the past, Congress has focused solely upon providing funding for the equipment to transmit telemedicine services. This bill will enhance our efforts by giving providers in rural areas appropriate Medicare reimbursement for the services they are already providing for free. I am concerned that if we do not begin to pay for utilization, this service will not meet it's potential and rural constituents will be left out in the cold again. The Rural Telemedicine Act of 1995 is very cost conscious. The Health Care Financing Administration [HCFA] will oversee the disbursement of the Medicare funds to determine that care givers are using telemedicine appropriately. In addition, HCFA must provide Congress with several reports, both during and after this project's 3-year lifetime. This provision alone removes the blank-check syndrome we have experienced through pilot programs being constantly reauthorized. In this instance, Congress will receive substantive data about the most viable uses of telemedicine. I urge Members of this House to seriously consider cosponsoring the Rural Telemedicine Act of 1995. Please assist your rural constituencies in gaining access to viable health care options.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation along with Mr. Upton, Mr. Schaefer, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Manton, Mr. Gillmor, and Mr. Tauzin to relieve legitimate recyclers from Superfund liability. We introduced similar language last year with bipartisan support. This language was developed in conjunction with the recycling industry, the environmental community and the Federal Government and was incorporated into the The Superfund Recycling Equity Act of 1995 is intended to place traditional recyclable, or secondary, materials which are used as feedstocks in the manufacturing process on an equal footing with their virgin, or primary, materials counterparts. Traditional recyclables are made from paper, glass, plastic, metals, textiles, and rubber. This legislation has become necessary because of an unintended consequence of the Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and Liability Act [CERCLA] or Superfund. Some courts have interpreted CERCLA to mean that the sale of certain traditional recyclable feedstocks is an arrangement for the treatment or disposal of a hazardous substance and, therefore, fully subject to Superfund liability. While there exists in law and legislative history no suggestion whatever that the Congress intended to impede recycling in America by providing a strong preference for the use of virgin materials through the Superfund liability scheme, that is precisely what as happened. Mr. Speaker, the American people and their elected leaders have insisted that the recycling rates in our country increase, not decrease. I am offering the Superfund Recycling Equity Act of 1995 to encourage more, not less, recycling. Intuitively, our citizens know that increased recycling means less use of natural resources, which both extends the life of those resources and minimizes any adverse environmental impacts of their exploitation. The use of recyclables is also of importance to the achievement of the goals of pollution prevention and waste minimization, which have taken on increased importance in the environmental debates of the past few years. For example, the use of recycled steel results in a 90 percent savings in virgin material use, 40 percent reduction in water use, 76 percent reduction in water pollution and a 97 percent reduction in mining waste over the use of virgin ores. Recycling is also more energy efficient than the production of primary metals. As an illustration, using recycled materials in place of virgin materials results in tremendous energy savings: 95 percent for aluminum production, 75 percent for iron and steel, 64 percent for paper, and 80 percent for plastics. Let me now address what my bill does--and does not--do. The Superfund Recycling Equity Act of 1995 acknowledges that the Congress did not intend to subject to Superfund liability those governmental or private entities who collect and process secondary materials for sale as feedstocks for manufacturing. This bill removes from liability those who collect, process, and sell to manufacturers paper, glass, plastic, metal textiles, and rubber recyclables. This bill also exempts from liability those individuals who collect lead acid, nickel, cadmium, and other batteries for the recycling of the valuable components. However, my CERCLA bill does not address or exempt chemical, solvent, sludge, or slag recycling. It addresses traditional recyclables in a CERCLA context only. I do not intend it to be viewed as a precedent for any other amendment to Superfund or to any other environmental statute, whatsoever. It should also be clearly understood that this bill addresses the product of recyclers, that is the recyclables they sell which are utilized to make new products. This does not effect liability for contamination that is created at a facility owned or operated by a recycler. Neither does it affect liability related to any process wastes sent by a recycler for treatment or disposal. In order to assure that only bonafide recycling facilities benefit from this bill, I have established a number of tests by which liability relief will be denied to sham recyclers. I encourage my colleagues to support and cosponsor this worthwhile piece of legislation that will promote the practice of recycling to preserve our natural resources and the environmental integrity of this country.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Wise- Stenholm-Spratt expedited rescission substitute. There's a valuable goal in the line-item veto--to eliminate the practice of burying wasteful spending projects in legislative packages where your only choice is to vote for the entire bill or nothing at all. But the line-item veto would also give the President excessive power to influence every aspect of the legislative agenda and therefore shift the constitutional balance of power. Expedited rescission, on the other hand, accomplishes the goal of the line-item veto without fundamentally changing the separation of powers designed by our Founding Fathers. If we pass expedited rescission, everyone in this room is going to have to go on record for or against pet projects. Pork is pork, and I for one have faith that Congress will recognize this when voting on specific spending proposals as expedited rescission would require. Why should we question the Constitution's wisdom when we can eliminate pork barrel spending with expedited rescission? I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the Wise-Stenholm-Spratt substitute.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Stenholm balanced budget amendment of which I am a cosponsor. As I was recovering from back surgery last week, I sat at home watching the House debate legislation on C-SPAN and I saw the legislative process through the eyes of our constituents. It's no great secret that Democrats and Republicans have differing views on many issues, but what is scarcely known is that we share many common goals as well. That message all too often gets lost in the confusion over parliamentary procedure that America sees at home. My colleague Charles Stenholm and other Democrats have been working to pass a balanced budget amendment for years. I was proud to begin working with these conservative Democrats on a balanced budget amendment during my first year in Congress. Democrats like Mr. Stenholm and Republicans like Mr. Barton have risen above partisanship in bringing the balanced budget amendment to the forefront of political debate. This week we are being given the chance to build on the efforts of Mr. Stenholm and Mr. Barton by cooperating to eliminate one of the largest threats to the continued prosperity of our country--the deficit. A majority composed of both Democrats and Republicans now believes that a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget is the right choice for taking our country into the 21st century with the guarantee of permanent fiscal responsibility. The question seems to be how to do it. I simply ask that you don't get lost in all the speeches that you hear on the floor this week. We must not get so caught up in the debate over how to balance the budget that we let the balanced budget itself slip away. Past Congresses have proven they lack the will to balance the budget. A balanced budget amendment will provide the constitutional mandate that will ensure that future Congresses make balanced budgets the rule rather than the exception. But we can't forget that passing a balanced budget amendment will only be the foundation on which we must build a fiscally responsible Government. The real work will come later when we vote on spending cuts and reductions in the size of Government that will be necessary to eliminate the deficit. Again, I urge my colleagues to support the balanced budget amendment and to dedicate themselves to making the tough decisions that will be necessary to eliminate our deficit.

Mr. LINCOLN

Mr. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to begin a series of discussions over the direction of a program that began with the noblest of intentions, but is rapidly turning into a mockery of the Government's ability to help its citizens. I am speaking of the Supplemental Security Income program for children. The SSI program was created as a part of the Social Security Amendments of 1972 in order to assist aged, blind, and disabled individuals with supplemental cash assistance. At the time that the law was being written, there was debate over whether or not to include children. The House believed that children should qualify and wrote that, ``. . . disabled children . . . are deserving of special assistance in order to help them become self-supporting members of our society.'' The other body disagreed, arguing that the needs of disabled children were no greater than the needs of non-disabled childern--with the exception of health care costs, which were covered under the Medicaid program. Ultimately the House prevailed and disabled children were included. Mr. Speaker, that was over 23 years ago. After the program was established, 71,000 blind and disabled children received SSI. Today over 700,000 children receive SSI and the question over whether or not they should be eligible is still unresolved. When the program was implemented both adults and children were eligible after the Social Security Administration compared their disability against a ``Medical Listing of Impairments.'' Adults who did not qualify under the medical listings were entitled to another test called the residual functional capacity test which measured their ability to engage in ``substantial gainful activity''--or work. Because most children did not work, they were not given the option of a second test and were simply denied benefits if they did not meet the medical listings. For 16 years the process worked in this manner until February of 1990 when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a plaintiff, a child who had been denied benefits because he did not meet the medical listings. That decision in Sullivan versus Zebley proved to be a watershed moment in the history of SSI for children. As a result of the Zebley decision, the Social Security Administration was ordered to develop a process that would allow a child to have a separate test administered in the case that they did not meet the medical listings. Experts were called in and meetings were held for months on end. And when the meetings were over, the SSA had created a process known as the Individualized Functional Assessment or IFA. Because children could not be judged on an ability to work, the IFA was intended to cover specific age-appropriate activities and developmental milestones. Five different so-called developmental domains were established to determine disability which included motor functioning, communicative skills, cognition, socialization, and behavior. Mr. Speaker, let me say at this point that I agree with the Zebley decision--because I believe that in the context of the original statute, therefore center around the wisdom of that original statute. I came to this issue because numerous constituents of mine, including doctors, teachers and parents came to me with allegations of ``coaching''--which is the term applied when parent encourages a child to misbehave or perform poorly in class in order to receive SSI benefits. As a result of these concerns I asked the GAO to investigate these allegations as well as the overall soundness of the program. It is exactly the soundness of the program that has prompted me to become interested in this issue. Individuals that qualify for SSI receive a minimum cash payment of $434--higher in some States. In the case of children there are no requirements that the money be spent to improve the quality of life for the child. It's a strict cash payment-- no strings attached, and to an extent, no questions asked. But I have questions. I question the good that this program can deliver through cash payments. I wonder whether medical and therapeutic services might be a more appropriate and beneficial means of addressing the needs of a disabled child. And I doubt the ability of the IFA-- which is at least largely subjective--to best determine who is truly needy. Mr. Speaker over the next 2 nights I will continue this dialogue and explain in detail the problems that I have discovered over the past few months that I have been involved in this program. I look forward to the coming debate and yield back the balance of my time. Vol. 141 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 1995 No. 14 House of Representatives

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that epitomizes the partnership between the Federal Government and private industry that we all strive so hard to achieve. 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 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 will suspend the program within the next 60 days unless a solution is reached. 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 supports this arrangement but lacks the authority to implement it without congressional authorization. This bill will accomplish that goal and provide for the continuation of a valuable program. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce legislation that would prohibit pay and allowances to military personnel who are under a sentence that includes dismissal or a dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge. In this [[Page E132]] day of heightened fiscal responsibility, it is outrageous that this Government continues to keep military personnel on its payrolls after they have been convicted of crimes. My constituents and I feel that such irresponsible practices must be stopped. This policy was originally adopted to finance the costs of shipping families of convicted criminals back to civilization during the development of the Old West. However, times have changed and such an outdated policy should be rectified. This Government should not be paying out funds designed to solve problems that existed 120 years ago. Certainly today no civilian firm would continue to keep on its payrolls convicted rapists and murderers. In summary, I urge my colleagues to sponsor and support this worthwhile bill to correct an existing anomaly in our Government's policy.