Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I advise my colleagues that after long negotiations, I think we have reached an agreement on the measure to reauthorize the Small Business Administration for the next 3 fiscal years to continue vitally important programs and to add new programs which we think will be of significant benefit to our country. The measure before us now is similar to the bill we passed in early September, and it includes changes passed by the House of Representatives. The negotiations have been very detailed, and we think if we can get to passage of this measure on the House side prior to the adjournment for the remainder of the calendar year that our Nation's small businesses will be greatly aided by this bill. There are certain programs in the Small Business Administration that need to be reauthorized, and that cannot occur without this legislation. Some of the loan programs will continue even without the reauthorization, but the Small Business Technology Transfer Program, known as STTR, the Microloan Program, the 504 Loan Program, the Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program, and SBA's cosponsorship authority will expire if there is no reauthorization passed and signed by the President. In addition, the measure that we passed unanimously in early September includes provisions relating to the very important issue of bundling of large Federal contracts. The bill adds a new outreach program for disabled veterans. It also includes significant changes in the Microloan Program, which was a top priority of Senator Kerry and others. The bill contains my HUBZones Program which is designed to encourage small businesses to provide welfare-to-work opportunities in inner cities and in rural areas of high unemployment by providing small business contracts set-asides in HUBZones, which are historically underutilized business zones marked by high rates of poverty and high rates of unemployment. We believe the HUBZone Program can do a tremendous amount to assist us in the goal which I think is generally agreed upon around here, and that is to provide more opportunities for people who need want to move from welfare or dependency upon public assistance to gainful employment. Mr. President, I am very pleased that we can accomplish passage of this important legislation today. We hope that the House will move on it expeditiously next week so that we can get the measure to the President for his signature before we adjourn for the year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a joint explanatory statement describing this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I commend you and other members of the Agriculture Committee for including this vitally important provision in the bill. I also appreciate the able assistance of our staff throughout this process. This legislation, will provide us the tools we need to meet the challenges of the 21st century and I congratulate you on your continuing leadership.

Mr. BOND. With your assistance, we have established a $40 million plant genome initiative within the National Science Foundation [NSF] that will be focused on economically significant crops. To facilitate the development of a comprehensive plant genome initiative, the President's Science Advisor, Dr. Gibbons, established an Inter-Agency Working Group on Plant Genomes. This group will be consulting with the NSF in the design and implementation of the plant genome initiative. It is my understanding that the plant genome initiative, authorized under this bill, will be coordinated with the NSF plant genome initiative.

Mr. BOND. Since the NSF has $40 million for a plant genome initiative, there have been some questions raised concerning which agency, NSF or USDA, would serve as the lead agency for the national plant genome initiative. In the managers amendment, you clarified this issue by providing that USDA be the lead agency unless the funding it administered for the plant genome initiative was substantially less than that provided by another agency.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would like to discuss with the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee the food genome strategy that is authorized in this bill. Senator Lugar is to be commended highly for including this visionary provision in the bill. It is my understanding that the food genome strategy, authorized in this bill, will include comprehensive, directed, and coordinated plant genome and animal genome initiatives. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. BOND. I understand that it is your intention that the plant genome initiative and the animal genome initiative will not be scientific free-for-alls, if you will, that fund any research project that happens to have genome in the proposal. Rather, this program will be designed to have specific objectives and milestones that must be met along the way so that the taxpayers realize a timely and significant return on their dollar invested in this research.

Mr. BOND. The report accompanying S. 1150 makes clear that the committee intends that the Secretary utilize funds from the initiative for future agriculture and food systems, established under title III of the bill, for the plant genome initiative and the animal genome initiative. Under the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems, there is no provision for coordinated, directed, and focused programs. Am I correct in assuming that while the funds for the food genome strategy may be derived from the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems, it is the intent of the managers that the food genome strategy would, in fact, be a coordinated, directed program?

Mr. BOND. In addition, under title III, the Secretary is required, in making individual grants, to give higher priority to a proposal that is multi-state, multi-institutional, or multidisciplinary. While the overall Food Genome Strategy will be multi-State, multi-institutional, and multidisciplinary, there will be many aspects of the program that will not facilitate multi-State, multi-institutional, and multidisciplinary grants, especially in the first couple of years. For example, the development of expressed sequence tags and high-resolution physical maps may, of necessity, be done by one entity. Expressed sequence tags and physical maps are the critical foundation of the food genome strategy. If the Secretary is required to give higher priority to multi-State, multi-institutional, and multidisciplinary proposals, this very basic information may not be developed. It is my understanding, however, that the managers do not intend for this to happen. Rather, since the entire Food Genome Strategy will be multi- State, multi-institutional, and multi-disciplinary, all aspects of this program could receive a higher priority.

Mr. BOND. It is my understanding that some people have stated that this program will be administered in a manner similar to the national research initiative, the NRI. While the NRI plays a valuable role in the discovery of scientific information related to agriculture, it is not a directed, coordinated program. It is my understanding, however, that the plant genome initiative will be coordinated and focused on the most economically significant crops. Is that correct?

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a measure on behalf of myself, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Warner, Mr. Reid of Nevada, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Mack, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Craig, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Collins, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Allard, Mr. Baucus, and Mrs. Feinstein. This vital, bipartisan legislation would establish a demonstration project to evaluate the feasibility of using the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program [FEHBP] to ensure the availability of adequate health care for Medicare-eligible beneficiaries under the military health care system. Current trends, such as base closures, the downsizing of military treatment facilities, and the introduction of TRICARE, have all hindered access to health care services for military retirees aged 65 and over. In theory, Medicare-eligible retirees can receive health care services at military treatment facilities on a space available basis; however, active duty and their dependents have priority. Therefore, in reality, space is rarely available--resulting in military retirees being locked out of the Department of Defense's [DOD] health care delivery system. And because of their considered secondary status, many retirees are forced to travel great distances to receive even the minimum of care. Further, when compared to what other Federal and private sector retirees receive in terms of health care options, it is easy to note that the current health care choices for military retirees are woefully inadequate and downright inexcusable. This measure will rectify the inequity of the current system and take the guesswork out of the financial viability of an FEHBP option for military retirees. Scheduled for no more than 3 years, the FEHBP pilot program would be tested at two different sites. One site will be within a military treatment facility catchment area and the other in a noncatchment area. Up to 50,000 Medicare-eligible military retirees will be able to participate in the demonstration, with each site capped at 25,000 retirees. Mr. President, this legislation represents an active step toward honoring our Nation's obligation to those military retirees who faithfully and selflessly served our country in times of war and in times of peace. Furthermore, this measure will provide retirees more dependable, consistent, and affordable care while simultaneously applying equitable standards of health care for all Federal retirees. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this bipartisan piece of legislation.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a measure on behalf of myself, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Warner, Mr. Reid of Nevada, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Mack, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Craig, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Collins, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Allard, Mr. Baucus, and Mrs. Feinstein. This vital, bipartisan legislation would establish a demonstration project to evaluate the feasibility of using the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program [FEHBP] to ensure the availability of adequate health care for Medicare-eligible beneficiaries under the military health care system. Current trends, such as base closures, the downsizing of military treatment facilities, and the introduction of TRICARE, have all hindered access to health care services for military retirees aged 65 and over. In theory, Medicare-eligible retirees can receive health care services at military treatment facilities on a space available basis; however, active duty and their dependents have priority. Therefore, in reality, space is rarely available--resulting in military retirees being locked out of the Department of Defense's [DOD] health care delivery system. And because of their considered secondary status, many retirees are forced to travel great distances to receive even the minimum of care. Further, when compared to what other Federal and private sector retirees receive in terms of health care options, it is easy to note that the current health care choices for military retirees are woefully inadequate and downright inexcusable. This measure will rectify the inequity of the current system and take the guesswork out of the financial viability of an FEHBP option for military retirees. Scheduled for no more than 3 years, the FEHBP pilot program would be tested at two different sites. One site will be within a military treatment facility catchment area and the other in a noncatchment area. Up to 50,000 Medicare-eligible military retirees will be able to participate in the demonstration, with each site capped at 25,000 retirees. Mr. President, this legislation represents an active step toward honoring our Nation's obligation to those military retirees who faithfully and selflessly served our country in times of war and in times of peace. Furthermore, this measure will provide retirees more dependable, consistent, and affordable care while simultaneously applying equitable standards of health care for all Federal retirees. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this bipartisan piece of legislation.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have been waiting all week to talk about some very, very important things in the highway and transportation reauthorization bill, also known as ISTEA or NEXTEA. I am disappointed we have been unable to move to that bill because I think everyone here can agree we have journeyed far in the transportation area not only over the last 6 years under the just-expired ISTEA bill but over the last century. We are ready to embark upon the next leg of that journey. I am very distressed and saddened that our colleagues are not willing to move forward on it. I think everyone in this body and certainly most of our constituents around the country know the importance and the role that transportation plays in our everyday lives and especially in our economy. Our economic stability and progress is tied directly to transportation. In my opinion, what really worked, what really got us moving on transportation infrastructure in this Nation was President Dwight Eisenhower's vision of an interstate system. That succeeded in building the first network of modern high-speed roads linking our States with each other and with markets around the world. As my dear friend and colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, often says, this is one world market. Our country's transportation infrastructure makes it so. Mr. President, my home State of Missouri has always been a leader in the area of transportation. As one example, the first construction contract awarded under the interstate system was awarded for part of Interstate 70 near St. Charles, MO. In fact, the first three contracts awarded under this system were Missouri contracts. I think this demonstrates one more time Missouri's fundamental commitment to and belief in essential infrastructure. Even though my friend and colleague from New York, Senator Moynihan, and I had some differences of opinion during the 1991 debate, I do agree with many of my colleagues when they give Senator Moynihan and the 1997 ISTEA bill credit for moving our transportation policy forward. The 1991 bill was landmark legislation that enabled us to craft a new generation of highway and transit programs. Now, let us all recognize that transportation in this country includes everything from transit systems, rail, waterways, air, pipelines, et cetera. However, as we move forward, we must build our new policy solidly on our commitment to the concrete and asphalt reality that roads and bridges are, and will continue to be the foundation of our transportation system. The new policy will be only as good as the foundation on which it is built. This country has an inadequate highway infrastructure that contributes to 114 deaths on our Nation's highways each day. This is the equivalent of a major airline disaster each and every day of the year. And, tragically, many of these fatalities are our Nation's children. As a matter of fact, motor vehicle accidents are the No. 1 cause of death of American children of all ages. That is truly a remarkable and distressing and tragic fact. I have to share with you, Mr. President, the fact that Missouri's highway fatality rate is above the national average. I was reminded of these highway tragedies just this past week during the Columbus Day work period in the State, as I have been on every opportunity I have had to travel around the State of Missouri. As I went back and forth across the State, I saw along the roads the little white crosses that had been marked for deaths of motorists and their passengers on Missouri's highways. Some of the highways have very, very frequent intervals of white crosses. And at every stop where I talked with people and listened to them talk about transportation, they told me of friends, neighbors, and loved ones who had been lost in highway accidents. Almost everyone of us in Missouri have experienced or know somebody who has experienced the loss of a loved one or a dear friend. Earlier this year, my good friend Gary Dickenson of Chillicothe, MO, was driving from Chillicothe toward Kansas City where he had business interests, where he traveled frequently on Highway 36, a highway that, because of the traffic, should have been a four-lane, divided highway. It was, in fact, a two-way, two-lane highway. He met a car driven by a stranger to that part of the road who had crossed over the center line and he was killed. We have had hearings in Missouri where families who have come to testify for the needs of highways have told us about the tragedy that their families have felt, like the Winkler family in Moberly, and many others, who lost a loved one because someone not familiar with that highway, not realizing that that heavily traveled road was a two-way road rather than a divided highway, crossed the center line and was in the wrong lane and crashed head-on into a fatal traffic accident. Now, some fatalities on our roads are as a result of drunken driving and improper child safety restraints. But it is clear to me that the major role in these fatalities is the unsafe condition and inadequate capacity of our highways, and we really can't allow this to continue. It is totally unacceptable and we have to do something about it. We must improve upon our existing infrastructure and we have to determine better ways to manage our transportation needs, not only to address the tremendous safety needs, but for our economic competitiveness. We must not forget that Americans depend upon our transportation infrastructure, mainly our roads and bridges, each day, to get to and from work, school, the shopping center, doctor appointments, ball games, to see friends, and to go to church. But we also know that those highways and byways, those roads and those bridges are vitally important to maintaining economic prosperity. They take workers to and from jobs, and bring goods and supplies into the workplace, and they bring the finished products out. And only if they do so in an efficient and effective manner can we make sure that our products are competitive against the products of other nations in the world. Well, the condition of our roads and bridges, once the envy of the world, should embarrass all of us. I have listened over the years, and just recently on the Senate floor, to my colleagues from Northeastern States talking about their transportation needs and how they think they are somehow more deserving of additional highway funds than are the Southern and Midwestern and the Western States. On this floor, before the Columbus Day State work period, a Senator from the Northeast alluded to that part of the country as ``the crux of our economic mix.'' Well, Mr. President, I have to disagree and, like my colleagues who make those statements, be a little parochial because I argue that the crux is the middle part of the country. It is Michigan, it is Missouri, it is Iowa, it is Arkansas, it is Illinois, it is Kansas, it is Oklahoma, it is Louisiana, it is Minnesota, it is Wisconsin, it is Louisiana, it is Mississippi, and Texas. Why, Mr. President? Because not only is this the heartland of the country, but in my opinion this is where the country's current and future growth will be. Now, my State of Missouri is ``geographically privileged'' to be located not only near the geographic center of the United States, and it not only has the demographic or population center of the United States, but it is at the center or at the confluence of our Nation's two greatest waterways, the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. Not only has Missouri proven itself to be the gateway to the West, but today it is the gateway to the North, South, East and West. Like spokes from a bicycle wheel, Missouri's roads and bridges are fast becoming the arteries that feed not only our country's heartland, but the whole of North America. Already, according to the Federal Highway Administration, Missouri has the country's sixth largest highway system. According to the Road Information Program, vehicle travel in Missouri grew by 51 percent between 1985 and 1995, compared to a national average of 37 percent. It is the home of the second and third largest rail hubs, the second fastest-growing airport in the world, and the second largest inland port in the United States. A further example of the dynamic growth in Missouri is Branson, MO, population 4,725. I hope my colleagues--and not just those of us who enjoy country music--know about Branson, because in 1996 alone, Branson was visited by 5.8 million guests. That requires a lot of transportation to bring that many people into a community of less than 5,000 residents. In addition, we look at our two largest trading partners, Canada and Mexico. One of the main north-south highway routes in this country is Interstate 35 from Loredo, TX, through Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, and Duluth, MN. Unfortunately, many coastal States forget about inland States when it comes to the global economy. But for our State of Missouri, and many other ``inland'' States, our highway infrastructure, coupled with rail, air and waterways, makes us strong players in ``our one-world market.'' Missouri alone serves over 100 different countries around the world with our exports. In 1995, our exports exceeded $5.5 billion. Not only does Missouri export electronics, machinery, and chemicals, but Missouri is one of the largest exporters in the country of agricultural products. In overall agricultural exports, Missouri is ranked 15th among all 50 States in the value of its agricultural exports. Missouri is the sixth largest soybean producer and eighth largest feed corn producer in the country. Missouri ranks 6th in rice production and 13th in wheat production. If we in Missouri are going to continue to compete globally for foreign trade opportunities of the next century, not only do Missourians need ``fair'' trade to compete, but we need a ``fair'' return of our transportation dollars so Missourians have ``fair'' access to global markets which coastal States now dominate because they already enjoy such access. A fair return to Missouri is imperative because Missouri's highways and bridges are in tremendous need of more dollars--more of our dollars that we have been sending to Washington, more of our dollars that we have shared in large measure with other States. It used to be, prior to the 1991 act, that we were getting about 75 cents back on every dollar we sent to Washington. We got it up to 80 cents after 1991. And we are hoping--hoping against hope--that maybe we can pass a measure which will get us up to 92 cents, still sharing 8 cents of every dollar that we send to Washington with other States for their transportation needs. Permit me to quote from testimony provided by Tom Boland, a good friend and chair of the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission, at a field hearing we held in which the chairman of the committee, the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, and the Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, were kind enough to participate. Mr. Boland said: In Missouri, we can demonstrate the need for increased Federal funding to improve the safety of our highways and bridges all too well. Let me take you on a short tour down the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. The Missouri River enters the State at our far northwest corner, flows southward to Kansas City, then crosses the entire State and joins the Mississippi River at St. Louis. The Mississippi River forms the entire eastern boundary of Missouri. More than 40 bridges on the State and Federal highway system cross these two rivers in Missouri. More than half of these bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete when evaluated by Federal criteria. They are too narrow or have severe weight restrictions, or both, that prevent commercial vehicle use and obstruct the economic vitality of many of our communities. Using the Federal Highway Administration rating system, Missouri has approximately 11,000 centerline miles of highways rating fair or worse, or a lower rate. This is nearly one-third of the total State highway system. According to the Surface Transportation Policy Project Report, 81 percent of Missouri's urban highways alone are not in good condition. Over 42 percent of Missouri's 23,000 bridges are substandard. Missouri has transportation needs that need to be met. Ever since my arrival in the U.S. Senate, I have worked on transportation issues, mainly on getting my State of Missouri a fair return on its highway dollars. I will be honest; it has been an uphill battle. Even under the bill as reported from the Environment and Public Works Committee, Missouri, and several others, are still donor States. As a member of the committee, I worked with my colleagues, Senators Chafee, Warner, and Baucus, to come up with a formula that was fair. Again, let me be honest; it is not everything I would like. If I got what I wanted, Missouri would be getting a return of $1.72 or $2.15 on every dollar they sent in. That is the return that some of the Northeastern States are receiving. But Missouri is not receiving that much. Yet, I am the sponsor of this bill because it has moved the formula by leaps and bounds in the right direction, and I believe it is a reasonable compromise. It is a compromise that recognizes both the political realities of this place and, I think, the legitimate concerns of all the States involved. The bill which I am proud to have sponsored with a number of my colleagues addresses three of the top priorities I have. The bill, No. 1, increases the overall amount of transportation dollars that we invest in our infrastructure. Two, it gives a fairer return of transportation dollars to the State of Missouri. And, three, it provides additional flexibility to State and local planners, decisionmakers, and officials to address their specific transportation needs. I hope that we can move forward on this vitally important legislation so we can address the numerous issues pending, such as transit, safety, and the Finance Committee title, which includes another critically important issue to Missouri and the rest of the country--that is ethanol. The Finance Committee amendment includes an extension to 2007 of ethanol's tax incentives. This exemption promotes energy security by lowering our dependence on foreign oil. It is cleaner burning. It is a cleaner burning fuel, so it is good for the environment. And it is a renewable resource that really benefits our rural economy. The Senate voted overwhelmingly this summer to support this extension in the Taxpayers' Relief Act, and we defeated those who attempted to end the exemption in 1998. Senator Grassley and others have done an outstanding job of leading our bipartisan coalition. I am proud to be part of that coalition, and I expect us to prevail if and when we are challenged again on this issue. Another amendment that is important will reauthorize the act providing assistance to States for fish restoration, wetlands restoration and boat safety, commonly known as ``Wallop-Breaux.'' I am particularly interested in a new provision to authorize a new ``National Outreach and Communications Program'' designed to introduce additional segments of the public--especially America's youth--to the healthy fun of fishing and boating, to increase awareness of boating and fishing opportunities, and to promote safe and environmentally sound boating and fishing practices. Fishing is very important, in my State, to the recreational industry, and it is a favorite pastime of thousands and thousands of enthusiasts. I was out there, I confess. Most people with good judgment wouldn't be out on a wind-blown lake in 35 degree temperature getting their feet wet, getting cold to the bone but going after the mighty sport fish, a tremendously important part of our heritage, and I am going to keep doing it until one of these days I quit being outsmarted by the fish. Mr. President, moving our transportation policy into the 2lst century will be a challenge. There is no denying that. I hope we can move forward and move forward soon on this vitally important legislation so that these amendments that I have mentioned and other important amendments can be debated and voted on. It is important to realize that maintaining our Nation's roads and bridges is not a glamorous undertaking, but as with the debate raging in education circles about improving our Nation's crumbling schools, so goes the equally important debate about improving public infrastructure. Mr. President, as we prepare and plan our transportation policy for the 21st century, I hope all of us remember four basic principles that our new policy must ensure. First and foremost is safety, but also fairness, efficiency, and economic competitiveness. Mr. President, when we do move to the consideration of this bill--as I said, I hope that will be soon--I intend to offer an amendment with Senator Breaux, an amendment that has been cleared on both sides of the aisle, because it makes good sense. This is an amendment that affects both the EPA and the Corps of Engineers. They reviewed the amendment. They have no objection to it. It is consistent with administration policy and its Federal guidance issued November 1995. It is supported by the Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. And, beyond that, it is good for wetlands protection. It promotes private- sector efforts to protect wetlands. And it saves money that can be used on highways or other authorized uses under this act. Truly a win-win- win amendment. Now that I have your rapt attention, let me tell you what this amendment would do. This amendment provides that when highway projects result in impacts to wetlands that require compensation mitigation under current law, preference should be given, to the extent practicable, to private- sector mitigation banks. The amendment mandates that the banks be approved in accordance with the administration's Federal guidance on mitigation banking issued in 1995, and it requires that the bank be within the service area of the impacted wetlands. The administration's definition of mitigation banking is . . . the restoration, creation, enhancement and, in exceptional circumstances, preservation of wetlands and/or aquatic resources expressly for the purpose of providing compensatory mitigation in advance of authorized impacts to similar resources. Mitigation is usually accomplished by restoring or creating other wetlands. Isolated, on-site mitigation projects, however, are expensive and costly to maintain. Wetlands mitigation banks are typically large tracts of land that have been restored as wetlands. A State department of transportation building a highway project which impacts wetlands merely buys credits generated in the bank based on the acreage and quality of the restored wetlands in order to satisfy its obligation to mitigate the harm to the impacted wetlands by the construction of the highway. The bank sponsor assumes full responsibility for maintaining the restored wetlands site, and the State department of transportation has thus fulfilled its mitigation requirement. The amendment does not change in any way the mitigation required. It provides simply that mitigation banking will be the preferred alternative once mitigation requirements are determined. Last year, the Committee on Environment and Public Works held a hearing where witnesses from the administration, the private sector, the environmental community, and the scientific community spoke to the promise of mitigation banking as being an important instrument to protect wetlands and to do so with less red tape and, most importantly, at less expense to our highway and transportation programs. Now, this proposal is strongly supported by the Missouri and the Ohio Departments of Transportation and by the nationwide association AASHTO. A September letter from the Ohio Director of Transportation notes that ``the Ohio department's costs for on-site mitigation have ranged as high as $150,000 an acre when the cost of design, real estate, construction and mitigation monitoring were combined. These costs are not out of line with the high end costs experienced by many other departments of transportation around the country. Our lowest costs for on-site mitigation have generally exceeded $35,000 per acre. The cost of banking, in our experience, has ranged from around $10,000 to $12,000 per acre and includes all of the above-cited cost factors. This equates to about one-quarter the cost of our average on-site mitigation.'' In Florida, the department of transportation pays its department of environmental protection $75,000 for every acre it impacts for mitigation. By contrast, the Florida wetlands bank acres in Broward County are sold for a reported $50,000 to $55,000. The State of Illinois in the Chicago area has had a similar experience. The savings can be significant and they can be achieved because of specialization and economies of scale. As a result, less Federal highway money is spent on mitigating impacts to wetlands. More Federal highway money is made available for highway construction. And the wetlands, wildlife and conservation benefits are achieved in the most efficient manner possible. The Vice President and others have said we should pursue ways in which we can make environmental protection a profitable enterprise while actually reducing the permit process times for citizens weaving their way through the burdensome wetlands permitting process. This does just that. Many agree that mitigation banks, which must be approved, will have a greater long-term rate of success in protecting wetlands because, one, the people who sell the credits are in the business of wetlands protection; two, the banks are easy to regulate and be held accountable; three, there is more time and flexibility for a bank to procure and identify high-quality wetlands. Again, this is a good amendment. It is good for the environment. It is good for the efficiencies. It will save highway dollars and make sure we deliver the wetlands protection with the wildlife, environmental and conservation benefits that go along with it in the most efficient use possible of our precious highway dollars. I hope that all of my colleagues will support the bipartisan amendment when we are enabled to present it in the Chamber in the consideration of the highway transportation reauthorization bill, ISTEA. Mr. President, I see others in the Chamber so I will yield the floor at this time. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President. I rise today, along with my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, Senator John Kerry, to introduce the Early Childhood Development Act of 1997. Let me thank all who have worked so hard to develop this legislation. The most important thing we can do to address the many social problems we face, is to recognize that the family is the centerpiece of our society and take steps to strengthen families and mobilize communities to support young children and their families. This legislation follows up on recent scientific research showing that infant brain development occurs much more rapidly than previously thought, and that early, positive interaction with parents plays the critical role in brain development. Not surprisingly parents have known instinctively for generations what science is just now figuring out: that reading to a baby, caressing and cuddling him, and helping him to have a wide range of good experiences will enhance his development. When children fail to receive love and nurturing at home when they do not receive quality child care, whether it is provided by centers, family child care homes, or relatives, they are far more likely to develop social and academic problems. Yet parents today face burdens that were unimaginable a generation ago. Half of all marriages now end in divorce, and 28 percent of all children under the age of 18 live in a single-parent family. One in four infants and toddlers under the age of 3--nearly 3 million children--live in families with incomes below the Federal poverty level. Many women, particularly in low- and moderate-income families, are essential in helping support their families financially and have entered the workforce in record numbers during the last generation. In many families, both parents work. Each day, an estimated 13 million children younger than 6--including 6 million babies and toddlers--spend some or all of their day being cared for by someone other than their parents. Children of working mothers are entering care as early as 6 weeks of age and spending 35 or more hours a week in some form of child care. Whether by choice or necessity, parents must try to find quality child care--which is not always available. We are seeking, through this legislation, to provide families with support through early childhood education and more child care options. Our bill will support families--not bureaucracy--by building on local initiatives that are already working for families with infants and toddlers. We will help communities improve their services and supports to families with young children by expanding the thousands of successful efforts for families with children from birth to 6, such as those sponsored by the United Way and Boys and Girls Clubs as well as State initiatives such as Success by Six in Massachusetts and Vermont, the Parents as Teachers programs in Missouri and 47 other States, and the Early Childhood Initiative in Pennsylvania. The Early Childhood Development Act will provide funds for early childhood education programs for all children that emphasize the primary role of parents and help give them the tools they need to be their children's best teachers. Parents are the key to a child's healthy development and as we all know, we will never solve our social problems unless we involve parents in the process and in their children's lives. In addition, the bill will expand quality child care programs for families, especially for infants. And we will begin the Head Start Program earlier--when its impact could be much greater--at birth. While Government cannot and should not become a replacement for parents and families, we can help families become stronger by providing support to help them give their children the encouragement, the love and the healthy environment they need to develop their social and intellectual capacities. Our legislation balances the desire to provide support with the need to do so responsibly. I am proud that we have come together on a bipartisan basis to invest in programs that encourage family responsibility and obligation while helping families in need to reach those goals. I am very optimistic that the spirit of bipartisanship will guide our consideration of this legislation and move it forward. Recent polls have shown that the overwhelming majority of Americans want early childhood development issues to be top priorities for our country. We must all work together to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens are given the care and protection they need and deserve. Mr. President. I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve the quality of life for all children.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President. I rise today, along with my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, Senator John Kerry, to introduce the Early Childhood Development Act of 1997. Let me thank all who have worked so hard to develop this legislation. The most important thing we can do to address the many social problems we face, is to recognize that the family is the centerpiece of our society and take steps to strengthen families and mobilize communities to support young children and their families. This legislation follows up on recent scientific research showing that infant brain development occurs much more rapidly than previously thought, and that early, positive interaction with parents plays the critical role in brain development. Not surprisingly parents have known instinctively for generations what science is just now figuring out: that reading to a baby, caressing and cuddling him, and helping him to have a wide range of good experiences will enhance his development. When children fail to receive love and nurturing at home when they do not receive quality child care, whether it is provided by centers, family child care homes, or relatives, they are far more likely to develop social and academic problems. Yet parents today face burdens that were unimaginable a generation ago. Half of all marriages now end in divorce, and 28 percent of all children under the age of 18 live in a single-parent family. One in four infants and toddlers under the age of 3--nearly 3 million children--live in families with incomes below the Federal poverty level. Many women, particularly in low- and moderate-income families, are essential in helping support their families financially and have entered the workforce in record numbers during the last generation. In many families, both parents work. Each day, an estimated 13 million children younger than 6--including 6 million babies and toddlers--spend some or all of their day being cared for by someone other than their parents. Children of working mothers are entering care as early as 6 weeks of age and spending 35 or more hours a week in some form of child care. Whether by choice or necessity, parents must try to find quality child care--which is not always available. We are seeking, through this legislation, to provide families with support through early childhood education and more child care options. Our bill will support families--not bureaucracy--by building on local initiatives that are already working for families with infants and toddlers. We will help communities improve their services and supports to families with young children by expanding the thousands of successful efforts for families with children from birth to 6, such as those sponsored by the United Way and Boys and Girls Clubs as well as State initiatives such as Success by Six in Massachusetts and Vermont, the Parents as Teachers programs in Missouri and 47 other States, and the Early Childhood Initiative in Pennsylvania. The Early Childhood Development Act will provide funds for early childhood education programs for all children that emphasize the primary role of parents and help give them the tools they need to be their children's best teachers. Parents are the key to a child's healthy development and as we all know, we will never solve our social problems unless we involve parents in the process and in their children's lives. In addition, the bill will expand quality child care programs for families, especially for infants. And we will begin the Head Start Program earlier--when its impact could be much greater--at birth. While Government cannot and should not become a replacement for parents and families, we can help families become stronger by providing support to help them give their children the encouragement, the love and the healthy environment they need to develop their social and intellectual capacities. Our legislation balances the desire to provide support with the need to do so responsibly. I am proud that we have come together on a bipartisan basis to invest in programs that encourage family responsibility and obligation while helping families in need to reach those goals. I am very optimistic that the spirit of bipartisanship will guide our consideration of this legislation and move it forward. Recent polls have shown that the overwhelming majority of Americans want early childhood development issues to be top priorities for our country. We must all work together to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens are given the care and protection they need and deserve. Mr. President. I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve the quality of life for all children.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended by 5 minutes and that I be permitted to speak therein.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today on a very, very important mission, and that is to highlight the important work of the March of Dimes and its over 3 million dedicated volunteers across America. I thank and congratulate them on the most worthwhile of endeavors. During the month of October, the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation is celebrating Campaign for Healthier Babies Month by stepping up its efforts to reach more women of childbearing age with valuable information which will give every baby a better chance of being born healthy. These efforts are critical to prevent birth defects, low birthweight and prematurity, which are the leading causes of infant death and morbidity and also a tremendous cause of heartbreak and tragedy for so many families in the United States today. As all of us know, the March of Dimes is a national voluntary health agency whose mission is to improve the health of babies by preventing birth defects and infant mortality. Through its campaign for healthier babies, the March of Dimes funds programs of research, community services, education and advocacy. To enhance these efforts, the foundation has started the March of Dimes Resource Center. The resource center provides accurate up-to-date information and referral services to the public. It consistently offers high-quality, reliable, and prompt responses. It is staffed by highly trained professionals. The March of Dimes helps people one on one to address personal and complex problems relating to maternal and child health. The center provides information on numerous topics in which the March of Dimes has been in the forefront, such as the dangers of drug and alcohol use and other hazards during pregnancy. And most important, it is promoting the use of folic acid by women of childbearing age. We know now that 400 micrograms of vitamin B folic acid taken regularly by women of childbearing age before they become pregnant can reduce by one-half, or even 70 percent, the incidence of neural tube defects in babies born in America today. I don't know how many of my colleagues know of a family that has been afflicted with the loss of a child who was born with a severe and fatal neural tube defect. Many of us know good friends who were born with spina bifida and other problems which could be substantially reduced if women of childbearing age regularly take 400 micrograms of vitamin B folic acid every day. The March of Dimes professionals and the resource center answer questions from parents, health providers, students, librarians, Government agencies, health departments, social workers--people from all walks of life. The good people at the March of Dimes estimate that through the resource center, they will provide information to almost half a million individuals in the first year alone. The center is a state-of-the-art facility which can be contacted by people around the world through both a toll free number and e-mail. March of Dimes is shortened to MODIMES, M-O-D-I-M-E-S. MODIMES. The toll free number is 1-888-MODIMES, or by e-mail, the Web site is www.modimes.org. I urge people to take advantage of the toll free number or the Web site. I congratulate the March of Dimes on the success of the resource center, and I thank them for the years of dedicated work to prevent birth defects and to reduce infant mortality. Mr. President, we rank far too high in infant mortality in this country. Many, many countries do better than we do because we don't provide the care and the attention that expectant mothers need. Many of my colleagues in this body know that I have been a long-time supporter of a particular priority, the March of Dimes and the Birth Defects Prevention Act I first introduced in 1992. It has been passed time and time again by the Senate. In June of this year, this vital piece of legislation passed the Senate by a unanimous vote. A House companion bill currently has over 130 cosponsors. Both bills have strong bipartisan support in our body, the majority leader and the minority leader both, along with most of the people on all the relevant committees. The groups endorsing this include the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the American Hospital Association, the National Easter Seals Society, the Spina Bifida Association of America, and numerous others. I urge all of my colleagues and people who may be listening around the country to urge the House to take up this important legislation and pass it this year. As we get to the end of a particular year's session, there are always so many things, so many other bills that people think are priorities. Let me ask anybody to name me a priority that would be higher than helping the families of America of each of our States avoid the tragedy of the loss of an infant through birth defects or the permanent disability of a child born with birth defects. America's families and all of us have waited too long for this measure because it can go a long way in preventing birth defects, which is the leading cause of infant death. Quite simply, a little prevention goes a long way in avoiding family pain and heartache. It is up to Congress, it is up to us to seize this excellent opportunity to protect our most valuable resources--our children. I urge all of my colleagues to pay attention and to take an interest in this vital matter. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. In addressing the Senators' concerns, it is my expectation that the Secretary of HUD will use the same procedures outlined in the mark-to-market legislation for those properties affected by the nonrenewal policy. The Secretary should not only explore the use sales or transfers to nonprofit organizations, but also allow these properties to retain project-based assistance if the ownership or physical condition problems are adequately addressed. I agree with Senator Mack that under no circumstances should we continue to subsidize bad landlords or bad properties, but that we need to be careful about how we handle these situations.

Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct. To handle the workload and complexity of transactions under mark-to-market, a significant amount of flexibility is provided to the PAE's. However, it is expected that the Secretary establish strict and coherent guidelines to ensure that PAE's do not go beyond their restructuring duties as intended under the bill. To further prevent any abuses, the bill forbids private entities that act as PAE's to share, participate in, or benefit from any equity in the restructuring program. Last, it is expected that those most affected by restructuring, namely residents, communities, and owners, are involved in the process to protect the public interests.

Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct. The bill provides renewal policies for projects which undergo restructuring under the mark-to-market program and those which do not. Briefly, for fiscal year 1998, the conferees have approved a 1-year extension of the basic rent renewal policies in section 211(b) of the fiscal year 1997 VA-HUD Appropriations Act and the mark-to-market demonstration program to cover contracts expiring in fiscal year 1998. This means that projects which undergo restructuring under the demonstration program--those with rents in excess of 120 percent of the fair market rent [FMR]--will receive rents determined under the restructuring plan. For projects that do not enter the demonstration program, contracts will be renewed at rents in effect upon expiration, but not to exceed 120 percent of FMR. The 120 percent of FMR limit, however, does not apply to rents for certain exception projects enumerated in the bill. These projects, which include section 202 elderly projects and publicly financed projects, for example, will be renewed at existing rent levels. The legislation also establishes permanent renewal policy for fiscal year 1999 and beyond when the permanent mark-to-market program is implemented. Projects which are subject to the program--those with rents in excess of comparable market rents--will receive rents in accordance with the restructuring plan. For projects that do not undergo restructuring, the Secretary may provide section 8 assistance for all units assisted by an expiring contract at rents up to comparable market rent. I also note to the Senator that to ensure consistency with the permanent mark-to-market program, we expect that the Secretary will use the definition of comparable market rents in section 514(g)(1) of title V of the bill when establishing guidelines for the permanent renewal policy. Under the permanent renewal authority, there again will be certain exceptions. Generally, these contracts would be renewed at the lower of existing rents--subject to an operating cost adjustment factor--or budget-based rents--subject to a budget-based rent adjustment. The approach agreed to by the conferees provides policy continuity for the expected 1 year period during which the new mark-to-market program is being developed, provides an incentive for projects to participate in the mark-to-market program, and makes clear a cost effective permanent renewal policy which will take effect in fiscal year 1999.

Mr. BOND. I agree with my colleagues. In accommodating HUD's desire to streamline the tenant participation process, the Congress in no way intends to minimize the importance of meaningful and effective participation of project residents and others with a stake in the restructuring process, including local governments. I agree with my colleagues that this must be done in a way that also ensures that the mark-to-market process is completed in the 3-year window created by this legislation. SECTION 517(c)

Mr. BOND. I thank my colleague for his comments and want to confirm his understanding that the $700,000 in the conference report is intended to be made available for this center at Cedar Crest College, which should contribute to economic development in the Lehigh Valley region.

Mr. BOND. Yes. The conference report does mistakenly identify the purpose of Jackson, MS, grant. The economic development initiative grant for the city of Jackson should be used for the purposes as Senator Cochran describes them.

Mr. BOND. I suggest the absence of a quorum.