Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. And he is requesting?

Mr. BOND. I want to make sure that there is time for the ranking member and myself. What is the time situation, and how much time now does the Senator from Massachusetts have?

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Yes, Mr. President, Senator Kerry and I would like to join in making the following statement recognizing Mr. Thayer's lifetime accomplishments. The remarks follow: Mr. Thayer earned the respect and admiration of the small business community. Until his passing, Mr. Thayer served as the eloquently outspoken President and CEO for the National Association for the Self-Employed. Representing more than 200,000 members nationwide, as head of NASE Mr. Thayer fought for relief from unfair government regulations and pushed for legislative action on issues ranging from taxes to retirement plans. I think we will all remember him for his tireless work to get 100 percent deductibility for health insurance purchased by the self-employed. It wasn't easy. In fact, it was a long, long fight, but he managed to build bi-partisan support for 100 percent deductibility. How fitting it would be for Congress to pass such legislation before we adjourn. In addition to Mr. Thayer's leadership at NASE, he has chaired and served on the board of many local and national business associations covering economic development, credit development, small-business enhancement, and general business growth. Of course, Mr. Thayer knew what he was doing. He could identify with the needs of small business owners and the self-employed because he himself was co-owner of the Board of Natural Health Options and A.W. Curtis Products, a manufacturer of natural health products. In his distinguished career, Mr. Thayer also was called upon at times to advise the past three Presidents--President Reagan, President Bush, and President Clinton. But Mr. Thayer should be remembered for much more than his impressive resume or for being a champion of and advocate for small businesses and the self-employed. He served tirelessly in several capacities as a leader in his community. For the past seven years, Mr. Thayer was Senior Pastor of the United Methodist Church of the Redeemer in Temple Hills, Maryland. He also worked toward community development and youth mentoring as a board member of such organizations as REDEEM Inc. and the Board of Eagle Flight Inc. In the most recent issue of ``Self-Employed America,'' NASE's bi-monthly publication, there is an article entitled ``Make Yourself Memorable.'' Mr. Thayer did. His first impression was a lasting impression--a warm, sincere handshake and an incredible, mesmerizing voice. Even if you didn't agree with something he said, you always liked how he said it. We will miss him. Our condolences go out to his wife Bernice, his two daughters, his two grandchildren and his home community in Prince George's County Maryland, where he touched the lives of so many. May God bless his family and friends, and may the remarkable Bennie Thayer rest in peace.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today in support of important legislation to re-authorize the Small Business Innovation and Research (SBIR) program and other essential programs at the Small Business Administration (SBA). On Monday, September 25, 2000, the House of Representatives amended the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2392, the Small Business Innovation Research Program Reauthorization Act of 2000, by adding the following bills to this legislation: H.R. 2614 (The Certified Development Company Program Improvement Act of 2000), H.R. 2615, (to make improvements to the 7(a) guaranteed business loan program), H.R. 3843, (the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000), and H.R. 3845, (the Small Business Investment Corrections Act of 2000). While the House-passed bill includes many important programs to help small businesses, there are some serious omissions. Although I strongly support H.R. 2392 as amended by the House, Senator John Kerry and I are offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute to restore some of the most serious omissions to H.R. 2392. Our amendment adds to, but does not remove, any provisions from the House-passed bill. The House-passed version of H.R. 2392 failed to include some very key provisions that are critical to the mission of SBA in Fiscal Year 2001. The House bill did include the Senate-passed bill to improve and extend the SBIR program for eight years, and it did adopt authorization levels for SBA programs included in the Senate version of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000. However, the House bill failed to include many key provisions that were approved by the Senate Committee on Small Business earlier this year. Our Substitute Amendment will restore some of the most important omitted provisions. The following is a list of the program amendments that were excluded from the House bill that we have included in the Bond-Kerry substitute amendment: Senator Kerry's Microloan program amendments that make extensive improvements in this key small business credit program; re- authorization of the National Women's Business Council, an amendment sponsored by Senator Landrieu during the committee markup; a change in the small business size standard system proposed by Senator Feinstein that will help small fresh fruit and vegetable packing houses to qualify for Federal disaster relief; comprehensive amendments that I sponsored to improve the HUBZone program, which is designed to create jobs and investments in economically distressed inner cities and rural counties; the Native American Small Business Development Center Network; and 7(a) guarantee business loan guarantee fee simplification plan. The Senate Committee on Small Business has approved the provisions being added to this legislation. In the case of the SBIR Reauthorization Act, the full Senate has also passed separate legislation. Most of the provisions included in the Bond-Kerry substitute amendment to H.R. 2392 are discussed at length in the following committee reports that have been filed in the Senate: Senate Report 106-289, Small Business Innovation Research Program Reauthorization Act of 2000; and Senate Report 106-422, Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000. There are two major provisions that were included in S. 3121, the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000, which was reported favorably from the Senate Committee on Small Business, but which have not been included in the Bond-Kerry substitute amendment. I have withdrawn the two provisions in order to expedite congressional passage and the enactment of this important SBA and SBIR re-authorization legislation. It is my intention to make passage of these provisions a high priority in the next Congress. Earlier this year, the Committee on Small Business approved an important provision that would reverse a serious problem caused by the SBA in its implementation of the HUBZone Program, which the Congress enacted in 1997 as part of the Small Business Reauthorization Act. As many of my colleagues in the Senate know, the HUBZone Program directs a portion of the Federal contracting dollars into economically distressed areas of the country that have been out of the economic mainstream for far too long. HUBZone areas, which include qualified census tracts, rural counties, and Indian reservations, often are relatively out-of-the-way places that the stream of commerce often by-passe. They tend to be low-traffic areas that do not have a reliable customer base to support business development. As a result, business has been reluctant to move into these areas. It simply has not been profitable absent a customer base to keep them operating. The HUBZone Act seeks to overcome this problem by making it possible for the Federal government to become a customer for small businesses that locate in HUBZones. While a small business works to establish its regular customer base, a Federal contract can help it stabilize its revenues and its profitability. This program provides small business a chance to gain an economic foothold and to provide jobs to these areas. New businesses, more investments and new job opportunities mean new life and new hope for these communities. When Congress enacted the HUBZone program in 1997, a lot of people were concerned about how the HUBZone program would interact with the 8(a) minority enterprise program. We in Congress agreed at that time to protect the 8(a) program by saying the two programs would have parity-- neither one would have an automatic preference over the other in getting Federal government contracts. Notwithstanding the 1997 Act, SBA has decided to disregard the instructions of the Congress and put 8(a) ahead of HUBZones in every case. Even if the Government is failing to reach its HUBZone goal and is meeting its Small Disadvantaged Business goal (of which 8(a) is a part), SBA insists that the 8(a) program still has a priority over the HUBZone Program. SBA has abandoned the protection Congress included in the 1997 law when it enacted the HUBZone Program. Contrary to the law, SBA is setting up the two programs in competition with each other, which is precisely what Congress sought to prevent. Putting either program in competition with the other is a prescription for one of the programs to fail. SBA's position does real harm to minority communities as well. The 8(a) program has a role to play in ensuring minority communities own assets in the economy. It ensures minority business owners get the opportunity to be self-supporting, independent citizens with a full stake in our economy. It's important that all Americans have a piece of the economic pie. HUBZones and 8(a) are two prongs of the same fork. They both have a vital role to play in ensuring opportunity. That's why it's important to correct SBA's current position and to keep the two programs from competing with each other. The remedial language that I have withdrawn from the Substitute Amendment would have reversed the SBA position and restore the equal footing Congress established when it created the HUBZone program three years ago. I intend to pursue a comprehensive remedy to this problem early next year. On November 5, 1999, the Senate approved unanimously S. 1346, a bill I introduced to make the SBA Office of Advocacy a stronger, more effective advocate for all small businesses throughout the United States. This bill was referred to the House Committee on Small Business on November 8, 1999, and it has failed since then to take action on this important legislation that has the strong support of almost every segment of the small business community. Consequently, when the Senate Small Business Committee marked up the S. 3121, the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000, it incorporated the entire text of S. 1346 as a separate title. It was the committee's intention that this action might spur the House committee to take action on this bill. Unfortunately, the Houses remains adamant in its opposition. Both Chairman Jim Talent and Ranking Democrat, Nydia Velazquez from the House Small Business Committee have insisted that the title to strengthen SBA's Office of Advocacy be stricken from the bill. Therefore, I am withdrawing S. 1346 in order to clear the way for swift passage by the Senate and House of Representatives of H.R. 2392 with the Bond/Kerry substitute amendment. Senator Kerry and I have taken some very dramatic steps to insure that the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000 is enacted as soon as possible. It is critical that the Senate act quickly to adopt the substitute amendment to H.R. 2392. Our substitute amendment will have a positive impact on nearly every SBA program, from guaranteed business loans, to equity investments, to management and technical assistance for small businesses and budding entrepreneurs. Now is not the time to turn our backs on the critical role played by small businesses in our vibrant economy. We need to enact this comprehensive legislation now so that small businesses and their employees can receive the full benefit of these programs. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote in favor of this much needed bill.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a hearing entitled ``The U.S. Forest Service: Taking a Chain Saw to Small Business.'' The hearing will be held on Wednesday, October 4, 2000 9:30 a.m. in 428A Russell Senate Office Building. The hearing will be broadcast live over the Internet from our homepage address: http://www.senate.gov/sbc For further information, please contact Mark Warren at 224-5175.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to speak on an issue of great importance to America's families--the health of our nation's children-- and to talk about crucial legislation which the Senate has passed today called the Children's Health Act of 2000. Whenever we talk about children's health, we should not ignore the fact that there is a lot of good news. The fact is that most children are persistently healthy. A majority of children can actually go through a year with no more serious health problems than scrapes and bruises, a stuffy nose, or an easily-treatable earache. I'm not sure how many of us can say that--I know I can't. And on a variety of indicators that measure children's health, the good news is only getting better. In the last decade, we have seen improvements in immunization rates, infant mortality, child mortality, and reduced teen birth rates. There are of course exceptions to these healthy kids. Thousands of children are born every year with a birth defect. Too many children suffer moderate to serious accidents of all types. And an unfortunate minority face other serious or long-term health problems. Worse, children who are sick are often very sick. These exceptions to the rule are all the more tragic because our expectation is that our children will be healthy. That is why the Children's Health Act, which the Senate has passed today, is so important. As sound as our children's overall health is, it can be better. As well as our nation is doing to protect our children's health, we can do more. Mr. President, the Children's Health Act covers many specific health problems that afflict children--autism, arthritis, asthma, brain injuries, lead poisoning, and so on. Each of the legislative provisions that addresses these problems deserves attention, and I hope that the merits of each of these sections can be presented. Right now, I would like to focus on the sections of the Children's Health Act that I have strongly supported. Most of these provisions were included in legislation--called Healthy Kids 2000--which I introduced last year. As both a Governor and a Senator, one of my main priorities in health care has been to try to find new ways to prevent birth defects. Because we expect our children and our babies to be healthy, birth defects can be truly devastating to a family. Yet they happen far too frequently-- 150,000 children are born every year with some type of birth defect. Today alone, about 6 or 7 families in this country will have a child with one very serious type of birth defect, called a neural tube defect. Spina bifida is the most well known of these defects of the brain and spine. The complications that result from this type of birth defect range from serious, long-term health problems to death, but the real tragedy is that many of these birth defects could have been prevented. One simple step--women of childbearing age taking 400 micrograms of folic acid every day--can help women and families significantly reduce the chance of this type of birth defect by up to 70 percent. Yet most women just don't know about folic acid. Simply making them aware of the importance of folic acid is such an easy and inexpensive way to prevent birth defects, it is simply silly not to do everything we can to make sure every woman in this country knows about the benefits of folic acid. One provision of the Children's Health Act was taken from the Folic Acid Promotion Act, which I have introduced with Senator Abraham. This section authorizes expanded effort by the Centers for Disease Control to get more women of childbearing age to use folic acid. The CDC has begun activity in this area, but the continued depth of the problem demonstrates that much more can be done. Another easy thing we can do to bring greater focus and attention to the problem of birth defects is to simply reorganize how and where the work on birth defects is done within the Centers for Disease Control. Right now, the CDC's work on birth defects is done within one of its main branches, the National Center for Environmental Health, whose responsibilities expand significantly beyond birth defects. I believe the seriousness of this problem--over 400 infants are born every day with some type of birth defect--and the significant amount of CDC funding spent on birth defects justify a Center within the Centers for Disease Control focused exclusively on this issue. The Children's Health Act calls for a fourth Center within the CDC--the National Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities--which will allow for consolidation, greater visibility and expansion of CDC's efforts to prevent birth defects. This builds on the comprehensive prevention program outlined in the Birth Defects Prevention Act, which I sponsored and Congress passed in 1998. One area of children's health that has been getting worse over the last decade is the percentage of babies born with a low birth weight. Low birth-weight babies have a much higher chance of developmental and other problems as they grow up. One reason for this declining trend is the persistent levels of cigarette, alcohol, and drug use during pregnancy. Somewhere between 19 and 27 percent of pregnant women in the U.S. smoke during pregnancy, despite the fact that these smokers are at a significantly higher risk for stillbirth, premature births, low birth-weight, and birth defects. The Children's Health Act contains another provision from my Healthy Kids 2000 legislation which establishes a grant program run by CDC to establish community-based programs designed to reduce and prevent prenatal smoking, alcohol, and drug use. We can work with women to help them understand the consequences of using these types of substances on their babies and to help them change their behavior so they can have healthier infants. The health of a mother during her pregnancy obviously has a tremendous health impact on her child. Yet we as a nation still have a surprisingly large amount of serious complications that occur during pregnancy even before labor. 1,000 women actually die every year during pregnancy, and this figure has been increasing in the 1990s. A full 20 percent of women have serious health problems even before they go into labor. But despite these problems, our public health system does not have a comprehensive system in place to monitor, research, and try to prevent these maternal deaths and complications. Only 15 states have a program of their own that does this. Well, if we can't look at a problem and study it, we certainly can't hope to understand the problem, much less to solve it. I believe the CDC needs to do further work with states to understand exactly why so many women are having pregnancy-related problems and to figure out what we can do about it. The Children's Health Act authorizes CDC to expand their efforts so we can prevent these problems and help women have healthy pregnancies so they can have healthy kids. Finally, I have been a strong supporter of Senator DeWine's Pediatric Research Initiative within the National Institutes of Health. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of his bill, and I included the Pediatric Research Initiative in my Healthy Kids 2000 legislation. I am happy to report that the Pediatric Research Initiative has been included in the Children's Health Act. I believe we need to encourage the NIH to focus more on children's health care research. In recent years, NIH has seen significant increases in the funding needed to support the critical research they do. This crucial work helps us better understand how various diseases work, what we can do to prevent them, and how to cure those who are afflicted. I am concerned, however, that pediatric research at NIH has not shared fully in this research expansion. The Pediatric Research Initiative provides the NIH with additional funds that are specifically dedicated to pediatric research. This funding can be used by the NIH Director for research that shows the most promise to address successfully childhood health concerns. The Pediatric Research Initiative would not earmark funds to any specific institute or to any specific disease. This commonsense legislation simply provides extra funding to the Office of the Director with maximum flexibility to invest that money in any area of pediatric research in any of the NIH Institutes. I believe this is a reasonable, and not a very restrictive, response to concerns that the NIH shortchanges pediatric research. Mr. President, I would like to commend and thank Senators Frist, Kennedy, and all of the other distinguished Senators who have worked to put this crucial bill together. I have been pleased to work with them to ensure that this bill addresses some of the most pressing health care concerns our nation's children face. I hope and expect that the House of Representatives will follow-up quickly on Senate action so we can send this bill to the President. Last year, I introduced the Healthy Kids 2000 Act based on a simple idea--we want children to be healthy, and we want pregnant women to be healthy. Passage today of the Children's Health Act promises to bring us closer to this simple but critically important goal.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the debate before the United States Senate on our granting China permanent normal trade relations status has been a tremendous debate for the country. We have heard strong arguments for and against enhancing our engagement and expanding trade with China. This debate has implications for our economy, national security, and for the future of China. This vote has enormous implications for every American and people around the world. I am pleased that the Senate is proceeding toward a vote on final passage. It will be an honor to support legislation that has such important implications for the people of my state and for our country. Let me say, that is not only desirable from a U.S. standpoint to have China as a full member of the WTO, I think it is essential. China entering the WTO will create unprecedented opportunities for American businesses and farmers, it will encourage the new entrepreneurial forces pushing china toward more liberal political, economic and social policies and it will certainly contribute, if not ultimately lead, to the further stabilization of Asia and the world. From the standpoint of economic growth, increasing our economic relationship with China is imperative. Increased trade has played an indispensable role in the economic growth this country has experienced in recent decades. The leadership and the growth of American companies has been fueled by American companies winning access to new markets. As many U.S. markets continue to mature, market access will play a more important role for the expansion of our businesses. At this time, the U.S. has very limited access to a market representing the largest number of consumers in the world. China is a nation of 1.2 billion people, one-fifth of the world's consumers. Over the next 5 years, it is projected that 200 million of those Chinese will enter the middle class. On a massive scale, these are people who will be acquiring for the first time products that we in the United States take for granted. We owe it to our workers and investors to give our companies an equal opportunity to fight for those sales. Increasing our relationship with a country of this size is also important for maintaining our world leadership in the science, aerospace, advanced technology, and medicine, and most important in all those areas, the well-paying, advanced jobs of the future. Trade is part of the process by which capital, resources and manpower flow to the areas in which we perform best. Reducing restrictions on capital flows has allowed American entrepreneurs to pursue opportunity, create the best, most advanced products in the world, and in these areas, lead the world. Our world leadership in the industries of tomorrow did not happen by accident. In addition to the spirit and ingenuity of the American people, enough policy makers in this country have had the foresight to create an atmosphere where this genius and industry can thrive. Expanding our economic relationship and breaking down barriers to trade with the largest block of consumers in the world is another huge step in that process. To continue to promote that environment where Americans can thrive on a large scale, we need to pass this legislation. But for me, the best reason to support this relationship is that it is good for my state. Whether it is Missouri's farmers, our workers, or our businesses, Missourians will benefit if China is a member of the WTO. Reviewing the numbers for American farmers alone gives a picture as to the staggering opportunities in this market. China is currently our fourth largest agricultural market. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that this market will account for 37 percent of the future growth of agricultural exports. And the Chinese have agreed to slash tariffs and eliminate the quotas on several products important to economy of my state--soybeans, corn, cotton, beef, and pork. As China eliminates their legal requirements for self-sufficiency in agricultural products, if they remain only 95 percent self-sufficient in corn and wheat, they will instantly become the second biggest importer of those products in the world, second only to Japan. Missouri farmers are ready to compete for those markets. This is a tremendous opportunity to help our pork producers and cattlemen, both areas in which China has agreed to cut tariffs. Unlike the Europeans, the Chinese are ready for their people to enjoy American beef. They are prepared to eat American beef openly and enjoy it in public. In Europe, only the diplomats who come to the U.S. get to enjoy a good piece of U.S. steak. The Chinese are going to learn quickly what we know and the European diplomats know, American beef is the best. As those 200 million Chinese enter the middle class, I am confident they will enjoy American beef and want more of it. The projected increase for demand of pork in China is simply staggering. Rather than go into the numbers, the pork producers estimate that $5 will be added to the price of a hog when we expand our trade relationship with China. That would be the difference between success and failure for small pork producers. On another issue of great importance to my state and to my farmers, the Chinese have agreed to settle sanitary and phyto-sanitary disputes based on science. What a novel idea. This is essential to avoiding non- tariff trade barriers as our farmers continue to employ biotechnology and advanced agricultural practices. The benefits are not limited to agriculture, despite what has been argued, benefits do extend to manufacturing and other sectors. For example, one company in my state, Copeland, a division of Emerson Electric, manufactures air conditioner compressors in the wonderful town of Ava, MO. Those compressors are sent to China where they are incorporated in units sold all over Asia. As the market for air conditioners in Asia has expanded, the number of manufacturing jobs in Ava have grown. Those jobs will not go to China and if this agreement is passed the manufacturing jobs in the Ava facility are expected to double. This agreement opens competitive opportunities for businesses of all sizes. Under the market opening agreement, the Chinese will eliminate significant market barriers to entry blocking the competitiveness of American companies. For instance, currently, if a product can even be imported into the country, the Chinese control every aspect of movement, right down to who can handle and repair an item. Those requirements will be eliminated as will the state-controlled trading companies. Quotas and tariffs must be published. These are major steps in the direction of a market-based economy. The elimination of these wide-spread and draconian barriers will give American entrepreneurs and small businesses that want to take on the Chinese market a real chance to penetrate and compete. For the first time, American businesses, large and small, will have the chance to compete on a level playing field. It is also worth nothing, that without the benefit of the WTO, to ensure adherence to our trade agreements, we must rely on our federal agencies to oversee and enforce agreements. Frustration with the Chinese regarding their respect for and adherence to past agreements has been expressed. We will receive the benefit of a rules-based trading regime and the weight of enforcement on a multi-lateral basis once China is a member of the body. Some of the opponents argue that this measure is a ``blank check'' for China and that it ``rewards'' China despite the past abuses of its people. The complaints of the human rights activists against China are legitimate. The abuses and repression of religion are deplorable and their gestures toward a free Taiwan are totally unacceptable. I reemphasize that point. We should not tolerate their abuses and their threats toward a free Taiwan. The arguments that we are giving them a pass despite these abuses misses the point and the argument that profits are taking precedence over American values is wrong. This vote is of significant importance in promoting free enterprise in China and creating a increasingly prosperous and reform-minded middle class. For all the backwardness of China on the issue of religious freedom and human rights, positive changes are underway on the economic front-- we should recognize that the changes are a direct threat to the communist establishment in China. As the Chinese people become more aware of the opportunities that exist for improving one's life that are inherent in a free society, they will demand more rights from their government and will demand that the government become more responsive to the will of the people. I have seen that on my visits to China. I am convinced the people of China, as they see these opportunities, will increase their demand for and their insistence on the basic principles that have made our country strong. Senators have come to the floor this week to tell troubling stories about life in China and made arguments as to why it would be a mistake at this time to grant China PNTR. By not supporting their amendments, they have argued, we are betraying our values as a people and we are abandoning support for the principles that make ours a great country. For all their good arguments, passing PNTR and enhancing our economic engagement with China is a concrete opportunity to promote change in many of the areas raised. It is important to discuss these issues and reiterate time and again in the strongest possible terms that we condemn the practices of the Chinese. However, it does not follow that defeating PNTR is the way to force the Chinese to change their behavior. The exact opposite is true. Exposing China to more freedom and opportunities is the way to bring about change. One of the early amendments was in the area of the environment. The argument has been made that we cannot grant the Chinese PNTR because they have been poor stewards of their environment. I remind my colleagues that with every extremely poor country in the world, the struggle to employ their people and raise the standard of living of its citizens is preeminent. People under such circumstances must struggle to feed their families. They are not watching NOVA environmental specials or reading National Geographic. They simply do not have the luxury to worry about the environment. The same applies to the government, creating economic growth to employ the poor citizens is its goal. What China needs is wealth creation, jobs, and enterprise apart from the state. When the desperation and the poverty begin to subside the government is likely to be far more open and responsive to managing the environment. But calling for the denial based on their environmental policies while withholding the best means for the country to raise their standard of living does not offer a solution. The same applies to labor practices. My support for PNTR does not mean that I condone labor conditions in China. In fact I think they are terrible. But is defeating PNTR in order to make a statement about labor practices in China going to improve worker's rights. Absolutely not. The way to improve workers rights in China is allow foreign enterprises into the country, create more private sector jobs and more opportunity. The world buying from the Chinese will create private sector employment and reduce dependence on the government. It creates more choice and opportunity. I share the concerns of my colleagues about Chinese crackdown on religious practices. It is an appalling and unacceptable government practice that we must continue to speak out against. But forcing loyalty to the state and the crushing of all beliefs and values that compete with loyalty to the state is a practice that is common among communist dictatorships. This is the way that leaders in communist countries avoid having the people's loyalty to the state and the question of their purpose in life cluttered by outside influences. Again, will supporting PNTR empower the reform movement? Can promoting free enterprise in China undermine the grip of the government? I think it can. By joining the WTO and pursuing economic engagement and integration with the world, the Chinese communist leadership are taking a risk. They are taking the risk that foreign entities can enter the country and form relationships with Chinese people but the people will still maintain their loyalty to the state. They are taking the risk that their citizens are going to be exposed to the outside world and the freedoms those in American and other countries enjoy but that the Chinese people will not want a piece of that freedom for themselves. They are taking the risk that Chinese people can go to work for private enterprises, with the freedom to pursue better opportunities and with the freedom to innovate, make their own decisions and enrich themselves, but at the end of the day, still maintain the belief that the communist lifestyle, with its per capita income of $790 a year and blind loyalty to the omnipotence of the state is the superior way of life. The Chinese are taking a risk that their people will bear witness to entrepreneurship, capitalism, an improved standard of living, middle class lifestyle and freedom of association, and not recognize that freedom is the better and more rewarding way of life. That is an enormous risk for the Chinese communist leadership to take--I think it is a bet they will lose. Some of my colleagues do not possess this belief. They chose to maintain the most dire outlook on the circumstances. I believe in the virtue and the power of freedom. Some of my colleagues have chosen to shout at the Chinese leaders about freedom, but to most of the Chinese leaders freedom means a loss of power. Much of this rhetoric, as part of a quest for meaningful change, will not do much to advance the ball. The Chinese leadership is not interested in hearing it. Change in China, for the reasons I stated, is not going to come from the top down, at least until there are a lot of high-class funerals in that state, from the actuarial numbers that are about to apply. It is going to come from the bottom up. We must seize any opportunities available to make meaningful change happen. The path to take is the one we are taking and that is to encourage the infiltration of free enterprise, freedom of thought and freedom of association into the current society. It may not happen over night, it may never happen and if it does, it is likely to be messy. But there are signs of movement in a positive direction--we have an opportunity to grease the skids. We would be missing a historic opportunity if we did not seize this chance. My colleagues that oppose this bill are wrong to think otherwise. Not supporting this bill will also hurt the effort to promote the rule of law. There is a reason why a number of dissidents have come out in support of this legislation. The WTO is a rules-based organization that cannot exist if members do not adhere to the rule of law. As a member, China will have both rights and obligations and will have to deal with other nations as equals. Indeed, as a member of a growing number of international organizations, China will continually be subject to the rule of law and continually confronted with the challenge of accepting international norms and, hopefully, standards of freedom. Finally, admission to the WTO is not a substitute for a strong, consistent foreign policy toward China. Certainly one reason why this debate has been difficult is because the administration has lack of a clear foreign policy toward China and the resolve to act on important issues as they arise. In my observation of this administration, it appears to me that they place much hope that admission to the WTO will erase their abysmal record in dealing firmly with China on important issues. We as a nation must reiterate our support for the security of a democratic Taiwan and stand by that country as they negotiate the terms of their relationship with Taiwan. We must support the entry of Taiwan into the WTO and not let China dictate the terms by which this valuable friend and trading partner is admitted to the world trade body. We must provide Taiwan the means by which they can provide for their own security. We must speak out for the freedom of the Chinese people to practice religion. We must speak in favor of increased freedom for the Chinese people. China must be told that we will not tolerate their continued export of weapons technology that can lead to the destabilization of several regions around the world. We must push the Chinese to improve the export controls and we must be forceful when we discover violations in international antiproliferation agreements. These are not objectives that will be accomplished by defeating PNTR. These are challenges that the current administration has failed to meet. We have not had the adult supervision we need in foreign affairs, in military affairs, and in relations with a critical, large member of the world organizations, and that is China. We have to have an administration which understands foreign policy, which speaks with a clear voice, annunciates our principles, and stands up for them. Defeating PNTR will not give us a strong foreign policy. That will depend upon the next administration. I fervently hope and pray that we will get some decent leadership in foreign affairs beginning next year. We have lacked it. We have been sorrowfully observant of the failures and shortcomings throughout the last 7\1/2\ years. Defeating PNTR will not help the next administration in their foreign policy towards China. Approving PNTR will. We must be firm in charting our course in the defense of national security. This is an important step to take for the strength of our economy and for our workers and farmers. It is also an important step to take to move China toward a freer society. We must cast this vote with open eyes. It does not answer the questions surrounding China that have been raised during this debate. That is for the foreign policy of the next administration. By adopting PNTR and voting favorably, we can take the first step in giving the next administration the tools to develop a strong foreign policy with respect to China. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting permanent normal trade relations with China. I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I extend my deepest thanks and appreciation to the floor managers of the bill, the chairman and the ranking member. I take the floor today because there is an issue that has been in and out of this body and is currently in conference negotiations. It is also going to be the highlight of the news probably tomorrow. I understand the Vice President is scheduled to talk about the HUB Zone Program. This is a program that I authored in the Committee on Small Business and this body unanimously accepted 3 years ago. I am concerned about it because HUB zones are another example of this administration's record of squandered opportunities. To begin at the beginning, in 1997, the Committee on Small Business reported out legislation to create the HUB Zone Program--historically Underutilized Business Zones. This program seeks to use Federal contracting, Federal purchasing, to generate business opportunities and jobs in the areas of high poverty and high unemployment across the Nation. We created incentives to get small businesses to locate and bring jobs to the distressed areas, areas that usually would not be considered good places to locate in general business judgment. These distressed areas lacked established customer bases, trained workforces. They have been out of the economic mainstream. But the HUB Zone Program was designed to bring small businesses into the area. I came up with this idea after talking with a friend who headed up the JOBS Program in Kansas City. I asked him about bringing more job training programs to the inner city. He said: Stop sending us job training programs; we have trained people and retrained and retrained. He said: Send us some jobs. I thought: there's a good idea. So we set up a program that was designed to reward small businesses located in areas of high unemployment. Unfortunately, when we proposed that idea, immediately the Clinton-Gore administration declared its opposition. I have a letter from the Administrator of the SBA, enclosing a statement of administrative policy: . . . the administration remains concerned and opposed to . . . provisions relating to HUB Zones. The administration raised a red herring that has dogged the program ever since. The alleged concern was that HUB Zones would somehow harm the 8(a) Minority Business Development Program. I ask unanimous consent the statement of administration policy be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND. The truth is, the 8(a) program has no reason to fear the HUB Zone Program. In fact, they should be able to work nicely together. The 8(a) program helps to seek minority programs own a greater stake in the economy by focusing on ownership and development of small business. The HUB Zone Program, on the other hand, focuses on developing jobs and opportunities in distressed areas, many of them still minority communities. One brings jobs; the other brings ownership. The two programs are two prongs of the same fork. HUB Zones in 8(a) should not fight with each other but focus on the common threads, such as contract bundling that hurt them and all other small businesses alike. Yesterday, I was pleased to receive a letter from my friends at the National Black Chamber of Commerce in which they recognized how these two programs must work together. Harry Alford, Chamber president and CEO wrote: To date, the Small Business Administration and other agencies have not aggressively pursued the utilization of this valuable vehicle-- Referring to HUB Zones. There is a false perception that it is here to replace the 8a program. The author has been guilty of that same fear. In further research and reflection, it appears that the anxiety is unjustified. 8a is in the suburbs and nothing is in the inner city. It will be the HUB Zone activity that will spur a renaissance where economic activity is lacking. We must support the HUB zones. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letter from Mr. Alford be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce an important piece of housing legislation that addresses the affordable-housing needs of needy Americans. The Housing Needs Act of 2000 is a direct response to the affordable housing crisis being experienced by millions of Americans today. By working with State and localities, this legislation will produce thousands of affordable housing units and ensure that existing federally-assisted housing properties are maintained for lower income families. As Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, I have become increasingly alarmed by the news reports and housing studies that have shown that lower income Americans are having a difficult time finding decent, safe, and affordable housing. The Administration's response to this problem has been to provide section 8 tenant-based assistance or vouchers. However, I have heard from communities in Missouri to here in the Washington, D.C. area that it is becoming increasingly difficult to use vouchers to find affordable housing. It has also come to my attention that despite the resources given to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Federal government has lost thousands of scarce affordable housing that were once subsidized by the Federal government. Instead of preserving these scarce and valuable housing resources, the Department has replaced these units with vouchers. While some families have been able to locate replacement housing, many have experienced displacement and hardship, resulting in returning the voucher unused or becoming homeless. Due to these well-publicized problems, I instructed my subcommittee staff to conduct a review of the section 8 program and to provide recommendations on how to meet better the housing needs of lower income Americans. The recommendations of the report are captured in the Housing Needs Act of 2000, which I am introducing today. Before I discuss the contents of the bill, I summarize the key findings of the Subcommittee Staff report entitled ``Empty Promises-- Subcommittee Staff Report on HUD's Failing Grade on the Utilization of Section 8 Vouchers.'' The key findings of the report are (1) housing units for low-income families are disappearing; (2) worse case housing needs are worsening; and (3) section 8 vouchers are proving to be less and less effective in meeting the housing needs of low-income families. Specifically, the staff reported that over the past 4 years, nearly 125,000 housing units have been lost to the national inventory of affordable housing. These units have been lost due to the decision of landlords to leave or opt-out of the section 8 program, HUD's policy to voucher out properties that they have acquired title to and those that the Department actually owns. The staff also found that a record high of 5.4 million households have major housing needs. Based on HUD's Worst Case Housing Needs study, many of these households are our most vulnerable individuals such as the elderly, disabled, and children. Lastly, the staff reported that about 1 out of every 5 families that received a voucher are unable to find housing and thus, the voucher remains unused. The report also found not enough landlords were participating in the voucher program, the payment standard of the vouchers were too low for the market area, and voucher holders had personal problems which affected the utilization of vouchers. Mr. President, the staffs' findings were disturbing to me. As a result, I am here today to introduce the Housing Needs Act of 2000 to address the report's findings. Briefly, the legislation creates a new affordable housing block grant production program that would allocate funds to state housing agencies. States currently administer other federal programs such as the Low- Income Housing Tax Credit program, HOME block grant program, and the Community Development Block Grant program, which have expanded and increased the capacity of states to create affordable housing units. Thus, state housing finance agencies have the tools to make this program work effectively. I am a big believer in local decision-making. States and localities know and understand their housing problems and needs and are in the best position to make decisions on their housing needs. The legislation would also create a new section 8 success program that would allow public housing agencies (PHA) to raise the payment standard for vouchers up to 150 percent of the fair market rent. This will greatly improve the ability of voucher holders to use the vouchers in economically strong markets. As the Subcommittee Staff report found, 19 percent or one in five families that receive a voucher cannot use it. I believe that this new success program will improve greatly the number of voucher holders actually to use the voucher. Lastly, the bill includes a number of smaller provisions that would enhance the ability of state and local housing entities to produce low- income housing and ensure that HUD maintains section 8 assistance on properties that it has acquired through foreclosure. I urge my colleagues to support this critical piece of legislation. Families all over the country are experiencing hardships never before seen. It is clear that vouchers alone do not adequately address the housing needs of our vulnerable populations. I believe strongly that the Housing Needs Act of 2000 provides a much-needed, flexible, balanced approach to ensure that the affordable-housing problems can be solved.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce an important piece of housing legislation that addresses the affordable-housing needs of needy Americans. The Housing Needs Act of 2000 is a direct response to the affordable housing crisis being experienced by millions of Americans today. By working with State and localities, this legislation will produce thousands of affordable housing units and ensure that existing federally-assisted housing properties are maintained for lower income families. As Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, I have become increasingly alarmed by the news reports and housing studies that have shown that lower income Americans are having a difficult time finding decent, safe, and affordable housing. The Administration's response to this problem has been to provide section 8 tenant-based assistance or vouchers. However, I have heard from communities in Missouri to here in the Washington, D.C. area that it is becoming increasingly difficult to use vouchers to find affordable housing. It has also come to my attention that despite the resources given to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Federal government has lost thousands of scarce affordable housing that were once subsidized by the Federal government. Instead of preserving these scarce and valuable housing resources, the Department has replaced these units with vouchers. While some families have been able to locate replacement housing, many have experienced displacement and hardship, resulting in returning the voucher unused or becoming homeless. Due to these well-publicized problems, I instructed my subcommittee staff to conduct a review of the section 8 program and to provide recommendations on how to meet better the housing needs of lower income Americans. The recommendations of the report are captured in the Housing Needs Act of 2000, which I am introducing today. Before I discuss the contents of the bill, I summarize the key findings of the Subcommittee Staff report entitled ``Empty Promises-- Subcommittee Staff Report on HUD's Failing Grade on the Utilization of Section 8 Vouchers.'' The key findings of the report are (1) housing units for low-income families are disappearing; (2) worse case housing needs are worsening; and (3) section 8 vouchers are proving to be less and less effective in meeting the housing needs of low-income families. Specifically, the staff reported that over the past 4 years, nearly 125,000 housing units have been lost to the national inventory of affordable housing. These units have been lost due to the decision of landlords to leave or opt-out of the section 8 program, HUD's policy to voucher out properties that they have acquired title to and those that the Department actually owns. The staff also found that a record high of 5.4 million households have major housing needs. Based on HUD's Worst Case Housing Needs study, many of these households are our most vulnerable individuals such as the elderly, disabled, and children. Lastly, the staff reported that about 1 out of every 5 families that received a voucher are unable to find housing and thus, the voucher remains unused. The report also found not enough landlords were participating in the voucher program, the payment standard of the vouchers were too low for the market area, and voucher holders had personal problems which affected the utilization of vouchers. Mr. President, the staffs' findings were disturbing to me. As a result, I am here today to introduce the Housing Needs Act of 2000 to address the report's findings. Briefly, the legislation creates a new affordable housing block grant production program that would allocate funds to state housing agencies. States currently administer other federal programs such as the Low- Income Housing Tax Credit program, HOME block grant program, and the Community Development Block Grant program, which have expanded and increased the capacity of states to create affordable housing units. Thus, state housing finance agencies have the tools to make this program work effectively. I am a big believer in local decision-making. States and localities know and understand their housing problems and needs and are in the best position to make decisions on their housing needs. The legislation would also create a new section 8 success program that would allow public housing agencies (PHA) to raise the payment standard for vouchers up to 150 percent of the fair market rent. This will greatly improve the ability of voucher holders to use the vouchers in economically strong markets. As the Subcommittee Staff report found, 19 percent or one in five families that receive a voucher cannot use it. I believe that this new success program will improve greatly the number of voucher holders actually to use the voucher. Lastly, the bill includes a number of smaller provisions that would enhance the ability of state and local housing entities to produce low- income housing and ensure that HUD maintains section 8 assistance on properties that it has acquired through foreclosure. I urge my colleagues to support this critical piece of legislation. Families all over the country are experiencing hardships never before seen. It is clear that vouchers alone do not adequately address the housing needs of our vulnerable populations. I believe strongly that the Housing Needs Act of 2000 provides a much-needed, flexible, balanced approach to ensure that the affordable-housing problems can be solved.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Their July 10 letter said to the Corps--I used the term ``diktat'' as an authoritarian governmental directive. They tell the Corps of Engineers in the letter of July 12: As an interim step, a spring pulse of 49.5 kcfs from Gavins Point during the first available water year and a summer low of 25 kcfs would be in effect each year, starting in 2001, until the new Master Manual is in place or other appropriate NEPA documentation. Basically what Fish and Wildlife is saying is: Forget about the process. You, Corps of Engineers, start a spring rise in 2001. That is what we are here about. We pointed out all the problems that the spring rise would provide, the fact that there are very good, scientific judgments coming out of the Missouri Department of Conservation, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, and others, saying that a spring rise would have a harmful effect, not only on people along the river, on river transportation, but on endangered species. We have asked the Missouri Department of Natural Resources of the State of Missouri how they view the proposal by the Senator from Illinois. The director of the Department of Natural Resources has just faxed me a letter saying, in pertinent part: Our conclusion is that the proposed Durbin amendment is not protective of Missouri's interests. Nor is it protective of Mississippi River states' interests. The amendment would allow the spring rise and ``split season'' proposal to proceed to the penultimate point of implementation--too late to be stopped or even amended. Basically, the view of the attorney general's office and the State department of natural resources in Missouri is that striking section 103 would open up to the dangers that I laid out last night and this morning of the spring rise and the low summer flow. If the Senator from Illinois agrees that we don't want to have that spring rise and the low summer flows next year, I suggest that we could reach a simple accommodation. Keep section 103. If he wishes to say that studies should go forward on the Missouri River, which is what I firmly believe section 103 does anyhow, we would have no objection to that. But we need to keep that underlying protection that says that you shall not, during 2001, implement the spring rise. That is the purpose of the amendment. That amendment has been in the energy and water bills 4 of the last 5 years, signed by the President. There is no intent for us to stop the discussions. However, the National Academy of Sciences has a very narrow study on the spring rise itself. The studies that are going forward are studies which should include the proposal of the Missouri Department of Conservation which is a 41,000-cubic-feet-per-second flow of the Missouri River which they think will protect the pallid sturgeon and other endangered species and not subject the people of downstream States--Kansas, Missouri, States along the Mississippi, Illinois, down through Louisiana--from spring flooding and will not end the river transportation on the Mississippi and the Missouri. If the only question the Senator from Illinois has is whether or not we cut off studies, I will be happy if he asks unanimous consent to change his amendment so it does not repeal section 103 and states that studies of the Missouri River master manual, all of the studies, shall continue but there will be no spring rise in 2001 as provided in section 103; then I think we can reach agreement. The question has been raised as to whether, even with that modification, that will be acceptable to Members of this body. There are some who appeared to say that would not be acceptable to them. The question has been raised whether the President might veto the entire appropriations bill over section 103 after having signed it for 4 years in a row. We have already shown there is strong bipartisan support in States affected by the Missouri River manual, that a spring rise would be very hazardous to the human life along the river, as well as to farmers who farm in the productive bottom lands, as well as to the water supply, as well as to river transportation. I do not think the President will ignore the strong voices of the flood control associations, the bipartisan, strong opposition of the Democratic government of Missouri, the Democratic Governor and mayors of Kansas City and St. Louis who would be subjected to the dangers of flooding from a spring rise. The President will have to look at the concerns of the people downstream. I think he will realize the scheme is too risky as a result of the action we took today. If the President realizes we are not going to accept the risky scheme of a controlled flood, then maybe we can avoid the need for a vote. If the distinguished Senator from Illinois wants to leave section 103 and work with us to craft an amendment which says that investigations can continue, which is what I believe section 103 will do, if we can muster even greater support, then we will have much less a danger of having this bill vetoed. With that in mind, I am happy to work with the Senator from Illinois because his State is at risk of flooding. A spring rise on the Missouri can threaten flooding in Illinois. A low flow on the Missouri River in the summer and in the fall in navigation season not only threatens and ends barge transportation on the Missouri River, but it puts at risk the river transportation on the Mississippi which carries a very significant bulk of the grain going to the export market. If that is what we are talking about, if we can assure that studies will continue--and I am concerned about the language of his amendment saying we cannot have a final master manual development--that master manual could be implemented so long as it does not include the spring rise--if he is willing to do that, then I say we are on the same page. But I cannot accept and certainly our State governments, the agencies directly involved in the Missouri, cannot accept striking 103. We went through that battle. We spoke, I thought, with a majority vote, saying there shall be no implementation of a spring rise during the year covered by the bill, which is 2001. If we keep that in place, then I will be happy to work with the distinguished Senator from Illinois to fashion a new section 104 which at least makes clear the agreement we may have reached. However, if the Senator still feels the need to strike 103, I have to say that is what we voted on; we have been through this. That is the risky scheme of a controlled flood that we cannot accept, and I do not believe, nor do people in the State of Missouri believe, that his amendment standing alone, unmodified, will do that. I hope, having voted on this and having had the opportunity to tell our colleagues a whole lot more about the Missouri River manual than they ever wanted to know, we might be able to avoid having them vote again. If they vote again, I say to those who supported us, I wish them to continue to support section 103. If the Senator from Illinois will accept keeping section 103 and work with us to craft a section 104 that further clarifies it, I will be happy to do so. Otherwise, I will just ask all the people who voted with us this morning to vote with us again in opposition to the Durbin amendment.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation of the Senator from Illinois, with whom I think we have reached an agreement that there should not be a spring rise in 2001. I believe there are some areas that go beyond the existing section 103 on which we might be able to satisfy some of the legitimate concerns raised by the minority leader. He was concerned about the possibility of cutting off debate, cutting off all consideration of other issues relating to the Missouri River manual. That was not our intent. If we can add language that will clarify that, maybe it will at least satisfy some of these problems. Also, we have a Governor and we have other congressional Members from States affected who might want to communicate with the White House about the workability of this. To the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Nevada, I appreciate the difficulties they faced. They have both been most accommodating on these issues. We don't want to make life more difficult for them. The Senator from New Mexico may not have river problems, but he has had controlled burn problems. We want to make sure we don't have a controlled flood problem. I am delighted we don't have to ask our colleagues to vote again on this issue tonight. I think there may be further clarification that might satisfy some of the concerns that were raised, certainly by the minority leader. I will be happy to work with them. On behalf of the State of Missouri and the people of the State of Missouri, I express my appreciation to this body for making it clear that there will not be a controlled flood on the Missouri River or abnormally low flows during the summer of 2001, the year to which this appropriations bill applies. As always, we are more than happy to work with the committee leaders in trying to resolve these problems in the future. I thank my colleagues for their understanding of the importance of this issue to the people I represent.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the fact the distinguished Senator from Illinois has said he did not want to see a spring rise in 2001. That basically was what my amendment did. When I looked at his amendment, I was very much concerned that it only deals with a final revision of the master manual. What we have requested--and as he has already pointed out, it has been proposed by the Fish and Wildlife Service in a letter that I believe has already been submitted for the Record. If not, I will submit it again for the Record. I ask unanimous consent it be printed.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is my great honor to rise today to pay tribute to a fellow Missourian who has served our Nation honorably for more then three decades in war and peace. In October, General Terrence Dake, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, will retire after more then 34 years of service as a Marine. A native of Rocky Comfort in the Missouri Ozarks, General Dake earned undergraduate degrees from the College of the Ozarks and the University of Arkansas. From there he proceeded to Marine Corps Officer Candidate School in Quantico, VA. He was commissioned a Second Lieutenant upon graduation from OCS in October 1966. With the echoes of conflict in South East Asia sounding here at home, Second Lieutenant Dake reported directly to aviator training in Pensacola, Florida. He received his wings designating him a Naval Aviator on the 25th of January, 1968. He was tested in combat when he reported to South East Asia and piloted CH-53A Sea Stallion helicopters in Vietnam. Lieutenant Dake earned numerous awards while accumulating over 6,000 flight hours in military aircraft. Highlights of his extensive aviation experience include service as the President's helicopter pilot and as the Commanding Officer of Marine Helicopter Squadron One. General Dake's distinguished career has been accompanied with a rise through the ranks, including service as the Director of Training and Doctrine with the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Atlantic Command and as Assistant Chief of Staff of Operations for the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing during Operation Desert Shield/Storm. It is significant to note that this was the largest aircraft wing ever fielded in combat by the Marine Corps. General Dake was promoted to Brigadier General in March, 1992. His assignments as a General Officer included service as Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff of Aviation; Inspector General of the Marine Corps; Deputy Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command; Commanding General, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing; and Deputy Chief of Staff for Aviation. During his time as Deputy Chief of Staff for Aviation the Marine Corps embarked on its historic aviation campaign plan which has manifested itself in the development of the V-22 Osprey and the Joint Strike Fighter. General Dake assumed his present position as the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps on September 5, 1998. For his service as the Assistant Commandant, General Dake was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal. General Dake also earned the ``Silver Hawk Award.'' Presented by the Marine Corps Aviation Association, the Silver Hawk Award is given to the active-duty Marine Aviator with the most senior date of designation. Not all of General Dake's achievements took place in aircraft or in command of major units. General Dake's commitment to his troops was evidenced in his efforts in tackling two of the most difficult issues facing the Department of Defense today: health care and readiness. As a member of the Defense Medical and Senior Readiness Oversight Committees, General Dake worked to improve readiness and ensure that the entire military family--active, reserve, and retiree--were provided quality health care. Any tribute to General Dake would be inadequate without recognizing the contributions of his wife and family. As with so many of our fine members of the Armed Services, his career would not be what it is today were it not for their steadfast support throughout the years. Mrs. Dake is a recipient of the Distinguished Public Service Award, presented for her superior public service in support of uniformed personnel and their families. As we pay tribute to him today we also commend and honor her for her commitment and perseverance on behalf of Marines ``in every place and clime.'' I also recognize the other members of General Dake's family. The Dakes have two children, a daughter, Jana, and son, Joshua. Jana is married to Captain Ken Karika, USMC, and is the mother of the Dake's grandchild, Jack. They too have taken part in the sacrifice required to be a military family and deserve our gratitude. The Marine Corps often states that there are no ex-Marines, only Marines who are no longer actively serving. It is comforting to know that General Dake will continue to serve our nation and set an example for others to follow long into the future. As General and Mrs. Dake move from the active duty community to the retired community, it is appropriate that this body stop and honor a man and his family who made countless sacrifices for duty, honor, country.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the leader. I just have to say when the point was made that this is not about flooding, that is what has people in Missouri scared to death. Floods don't happen every year. But when the floods happen, they are devastating. That is why I want to read from a letter by the Democratic Governor, Mel Carnahan, of Missouri. In an August 17 letter he wrote to the White House trying to stop it, he said that absent change in the service as planned, it is likely efforts to restore endangered species along the river will be damaged and an increase in the risk of flooding river communities and agricultural land will occur; and, States along the river will suffer serious economic damage to their river-based transportation and agricultural industries. When the Southern Governors Association wrote to the minority and majority leaders, Mike Huckabee, Governor of Arkansas, speaking for the southern Governors, said that if the current plan is implemented and these States incur significantly heavy rains during the rise, there is a real risk that farms and communities along the lower Missouri River will suffer serious flooding. Frankly, nobody can tell when the heavy rains are coming. I have watched the National Weather Service. They do not know. They cannot predict the heavy rains and floods that have devastated our lands and killed people in recent years. They have come without warning. It takes 11 days for water to get from Gavins Point to St. Louis. They are not good enough. None of us is good enough to know when those heavy rains will occur. I yield the floor. I thank my colleague from South Dakota.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes to respond to comments made by the distinguished minority leader.

Mr. BOND. I yield that time to my colleague, the junior Senator from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes and ask that I be advised when that is up so I may yield to my colleagues. We have had a lot of argument about whether we ought to stop the process. That is not what is at issue. What is at issue is stopping flooding in downstream States, such as Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, and States down the Mississippi, and the implementation of a risky scheme. Section 103--and I am happy to show it to my colleagues-- says none of the funds made available may be used to revise the manual to provide for an increase in the springtime water release during spring heavy rainfall and snowmelt in States that have rivers draining into the Missouri River below the Gavins Point Dam. This same provision has been included in four previous energy and water bills in the last 5 years. It has been passed by this Congress and signed by the President. It clearly permits a review of alternatives to change river management. It only prevents one, single, specific harmful alternative of a controlled flood, which was proposed first in 1993, subjected to public review and comment by this Congress, and rejected by the administration when it was considered in 1994. The U.S. Department of Agriculture opposed it. The U.S. Department of Transportation opposed it. There was unanimous opinion on people who lived in and worked along the river. The officials there oppose this risky scheme. Now, 5 years later, the Fish and Wildlife Service wrote a letter on July 12 demanding that, as an interim step, a spring pulse come down the Missouri River starting in 2001. This is supposed to help the habitat of the pallid sturgeon. But what it does is increase the spring rise, and the Missouri and Mississippi already have a spring rise. We get floods and we have damage that hurts land and facilities and kills people. The people of Los Alamos know what happens when the Federal Government gave them a controlled burn. They are still wiping soot out of their hair. This is a proposal to give a controlled flood to areas where there is great risk. That is why the Democratic Governor of Missouri, the mayor of Kansas City, both Democrats, both oppose the motion to strike. They support section 103. We know it would curtail transportation, the most efficient and effective and environmentally friendly form of transportation of agricultural goods, and that is barge traffic. It would end barge traffic on the Missouri River, which I think may be the objective. Barge traffic not only gets product down the river to the world markets, but it keeps the cost of shipping under control by competition. It would harm transportation on the Mississippi River. That is why the Southern Governors' Association and waterways groups have come out in strong support of section 103. Our State Department and Natural Resources Conservation Department oppose this risky scheme. They are dedicated to the recovery of the species. They have other alternatives that need to be and can be studied. The U.S. Geological Survey Environmental Research Center is looking at what we can do to increase the number of pallid sturgeon, and the likely objectives they have do not involve increasing floods in the spring. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in rejecting this motion to strike because it puts lives at risk; it ends transportation for farmers.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today the Senate will have 10 minutes for final remarks on the Daschle motion regarding the Missouri River, with a vote to occur at approximately 9:40 a.m. Immediately following that vote, there will be a vote on the motion to proceed to H.R. 4444, the China PNTR legislation. Following these votes, the Senate is expected to begin consideration of the China trade legislation with amendments in order. The Senate will also continue debate on the energy and water appropriations bill during this evening's session. It is hoped that action on this important spending bill can be completed as early as tonight. Therefore, Senators may expect votes throughout the day and into the evening. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vitiation order with respect to the agreement for consideration of S. 1608 be extended until 12 noon on Friday.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to this concurrent resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, September 7. I further ask consent that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume debate on the Daschle motion regarding the Missouri River, with 10 minutes equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote on or in relation to the motion.