Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, may I ask my good friend if he would mention my name in that list?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Mexico and I appreciate his kindness, and also my colleagues from Missouri and Nebraska. I rise today in support of the renewable fuels standard, as passed by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on which I have the privilege of sitting. This package provides a means for significant reductions in our dependence on foreign oil while we pursue cheaper energy for consumers that is produced in rural America by our hard-working farmers and ranchers. I have spent a lot of years in the Senate Chamber talking about these issues. Recently a friend complained to me that he was tired of me talking about biodiesel. We first started talking about it a long time ago. But I am pleased to have the burr under the saddle to point out that biodiesel and ethanol are vitally important elements for our energy program. I am pleased to see so many of our colleagues joining in the fight today. My good friend Senator Jim Talent from Missouri has been a leader on the Energy Committee. I know my colleague Senator Hagel from Nebraska has long been a champion of ethanol. I add my thanks and my appreciation to the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, for taking the leadership position on this issue. Increasing the use of renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel diversifies our energy infrastructure, making it less vulnerable to acts of terrorism while increasing the number of available fuel options, enhancing competition, and potentially reducing consumer costs of fuel. Speaking of decreased fuel costs, I am reminded of some of the comments of my colleagues during consideration of this package in the Environment and Public Works Committee. At that time, it was suggested that ethanol as an oxygenate was the cause of high fuel prices in California and other areas. I bet we will hear that argument again. Just as a marker, note this fact. I refer my colleagues to the recent California Energy Commission report promulgated by Gov. Gray Davis. In discussing the report's findings, California Energy Commission chairman William Keese indicated that ``Ethanol, the ingredient, did not have an impact that we can see on prices. . . .'' Frankly, that ought to answer the questions and concerns that undoubtedly will be raised on the floor. In fact, I would argue that ethanol and biodiesel actually reduced the consumer cost of fuel by extending supplies, offering alternatives to more costly imported oil, and providing leverage for independent fuel marketers to compete against the larger, more powerful integrated oil companies. The renewable standard will more than double the amount of renewable fuel we use. I am told that renewable fuel use will increase to about 3 percent of our total transportation fuel supply, replacing roughly 66 billion gallons; that is, 1.6 billion barrels of foreign crude oil by 2012. Of course, the environmental benefits of transitioning from petroleum fuels to clean, domestically produced renewable ethanol and biodiesel is clear. Not only can we reduce our dependence on foreign oil but with the renewable standard our environmental goals of reducing hydrocarbon, particulate sulfur, and other polluting emissions would be pursued. This RFS will also have a positive impact on the economy, particularly in rural areas which have been hardest hit in the economic slowdown. According to studies, the renewable standard would create as many as 300,000 American jobs, increase net farm income by $6.6 billion a year, and reduce farm program payments by $7.8 billion. In other words, we can reduce farm program payments and increase net farm income by a combined total of $14.4 billion. Not many programs give you that much bang for the buck. One farm analyst said that as many as 13.1 million acres of corn can be used to supply ethanol by 2012. That is almost 19 percent of last year's corn production. Today, only 6 percent of the crop goes into ethanol. In our home State, Missouri corn farmers could see an average increase of about 12 cents per bushel over the next 10 years. Similarly, our soybean farmers will see increased benefits as biodiesel use will increase dramatically. I encourage and invite my colleagues to come out to the heartland to see what we have. Come out and visit Nebraska, Missouri, and Iowa and see what this industry is all about. We could all learn the benefits of ethanol, soy diesel, and biodiesel. We will see how the homegrown renewable fuel benefits the environment, the economy, and our communities. Come out to my State and see what farm leaders have done to provide value-added opportunities for Missouri farmers. In 1994, Golden Triangle Energy of Craig, MO, and Northeast Missouri Grain Processors of Macon, MO, organized as new generation cooperatives. Northeast Missouri Grain Processors opened their plant on April 29, 2000. I was pleased to be there. It had been producing 22 million gallons of ethanol per year. They have just flipped the switch on an additional capacity to make over 40 million gallons a year. Come to Missouri and visit the communities and areas where ethanol production is underway and see the impact of the expanding usage of fuel through this renewable standard on Main Street, U.S.A. I now defer to my colleagues. I thank them for their kind accommodation. I express my thanks also to the distinguished manager of this bill, who is doing an outstanding job. We look forward to seeing a good energy bill passed. But a good energy bill must have a good renewable fuel standard. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the achievements of a distinguished member of the Missouri education community, Mr. John C. Cary. Mr. Cary is retiring this year after 17 years of distinguished service to the children and families of the Mehlville school district. As superintendent of schools for the Mehlville district he has guided the district to academic success, ensuring quality education for all Mehlville children. He has helped nurture Missouri's youth with a steadfast dedication and care. His devotion to education has earned him awards and recognition from around the State, including the Distinction in Performance Award for 2002-2003 school year. Mr. Cary's lifetime commitment to education and children is admirable and inspiring. Today I join with the 12,000 students in the Mehlville school district in celebrating his 31 years as a distinguished educator. I thank him for his hard work and dedication to the children and families of Missouri.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I would like to commend the Guadalupe Center Inc. for their continued commitment to improving the life of Latinos throughout Kansas City, MO. The Guadalupe Center began as a volunteer school and well baby clinic for Mexican immigrants in Kansas City's Westside in 1919, becoming one of the Nation's first social service agencies for Latinos in the United States. Once working out of the rectory of Our Lady of Guadalupe Shrine on West 23rd Street, the Guadalupe Center now has nine buildings and has expanded to serve the entire Kansas City Metropolitan Latino community. Today, the Center provides a number of essential services and is a leading advocate for the Latino community. Health programs at the center include substance abuse, teen pregnancy, and HIV/AIDS education and counseling. The center's diligent work in reaching this disproportionately affected Latino population is to be congratulated and encouraged. Also, the center has had a great deal of success with increasing employment opportunities for the unemployed and underemployed in the Latino community. This success goes hand in hand with the center's constantly expanding education programs, which provide participants with a number of opportunities, including second language GED and job training skills. Beyond reaching adult and young adults, the center also works to expand opportunities for children through its Plaza de Ninos preschool, which prepares young Latino children for early school success and helps them with the necessary English language skills, while providing childcare for working parents. The Guadalupe Center's activities and services, which continue to grow in number and impact, serve as an example of the center's vision and dedication for the Latino community. The future of Kansas City and the quality of life for its residents, especially the Latino community, depends on the decisions and the investments made today. The Guadalupe Center had taken the lead in making these strategic investments in Kansas City's urban core. Their efforts have improved the lives of the Latino community's children and families and the effects will be felt for generations to come. I look forward to partnering with the Guadalupe Center in future investments in Kansas City's Latino community.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have discussed this matter with my good friend from Texas, who is very understanding. I believe the sense-of- the-Senate amendment which we have prepared essentially states some of the findings in perhaps less colorful language than I have described but encourages American Airlines, or tells American Airlines to encourage its employee groups to integrate all employees in a manner that is fair and equitable for all parties involved. I send that amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote change

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment by my colleague from Missouri. We are dealing with another very significant bailout, using taxpayers' money, for the airlines which have been hurt. I agree with the need to keep the airlines flying. Airlines are absolutely essential to our economy. But I believe when we are sending taxpayers' dollars to airlines, that we have at least some responsibility to ensure the employees are being fairly treated. This, to me, is simply an issue of equity and fairness. Back when American Airlines acquired TWA, they did not just take the airplanes. They took the hub, they took the facilities, and they took the heart of TWA as well--its employees, employees we have come to know and respect and trust and whose service we have appreciated over the years. Since April 9, 2001, American Airlines and TWA have operated under a single umbrella. On that date, Donald J. Carty, chairman and CEO of American Airlines, stated: Today, we warmly welcome TWA's employees to the American family. While employees and customers will see business-as- usual for some time, we're looking forward to working together and building a future as one team. Employees at American and TWA are united in our commitment to meeting our customers' needs and providing opportunities for growth in a rewarding work environment. Our theme for today's celebrations is ``Two Great Airlines--One Great Future,'' and I'm sure that, working together, we can fulfill that promise. I was out there and I joined in that recognition in celebrating two great airlines with one great future, and on January 1, 2002, all TWA employees officially became American employees. At that moment, all former TWA employees were now an integral part of the new team at American Airlines. Promises were made to the hard-working TWA employees in my home State, and these employees were publicly referred to as the crown jewel of TWA. It was not as if they were ``lucky to have a job at all,'' as some have suggested. They are employees with extensive years of background and years of seniority over a great number of their colleagues at American Airlines and, through their service to the traveling public to our communities, had developed a reputation for service that made this an extremely valuable hub. Had they known that the promises were not going to be kept, there were other options--reorganizing in bankruptcy, seeking alliance with another airline that would treat them fairly. They were made promises of fair treatment. They gave up what they call their Allegheny Mohawk protection rights on the expressed promise that they would be treated fairly. After American Airlines stapled the TWA seniority list to the bottom, at least the top official of American Airlines came to my office and said: We are going to protect the hub at St. Louis; we are going to put a wall around that and keep former TWA employees serving the traveling public out of that hub, and we are not going to have them laid off because they will continue the TWA service. The wall came down. They were not protected. The crown jewel of TWA, the people in St. Louis, are losing their glitter. These promises made to them were the root of the entire agreement reached between TWA and American Airlines back when this whole deal was going down, and now these promises appear to have been broken. If the TWA employees knew at the beginning they were merely being taken as a sacrificial lamb, then the deal would likely never have happened. Now the TWA employees, the TWA pilots, and the TWA flight attendants are the blood donors when cuts have to be made. According to today's issue of the St. Louis Post Dispatch: All American Airlines flight attendants based at Lambert Field will lose their jobs if members of the Association of Professional Flight Attendants approve a contract by April 15 to help the airline avoid bankruptcy. That is what we are providing money to support? The situation for former TWA pilots is grim as well. Fifty-four percent of former TWA pilots will lose their job before a single former American Airlines pilot will lose his or her job because they were simply stapled to the bottom of the seniority list. After planned furloughs, there will only be 565 former TWA employees remaining. To help everyone with the math, that is 76 percent of the former TWA pilots and 100 percent of TWA flight attendants in St. Louis who will lose their jobs. They are literally cutting off the family crown jewel. The senior most TWA pilot hired in 1963 was integrated along with a 1985 hire from American Airlines. That is almost 22 years later, and guess which one is on the chopping block first? Promises made in fairness have not been achieved. In this supplemental bill, we are poised to provide our airlines with $3.5 million to keep them in the air. With that assistance, more layoffs are coming. We must act before more of our talented and qualified employees are let go before junior colleagues within the same organization. The choice before this body is simple: Support the Talent-Bond amendment and you support fairness, or oppose the Talent-Bond amendment and you decide with the bosses who are strong arming weaker unions, resulting in an extremely unfair integration of two great airlines and one great future. About 5,000 jobs are at stake. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this fair integration proposal. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President as cosponsor of this amendment, I ask the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues to mourn the passing of and express respect and admiration for the service of our former colleague, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, whom we recently lost. Before I came to this body, I had heard a great deal about Pat Moynihan. Who had not? If you followed Government, if you were interested in policy, Pat Moynihan probably said something that was very important. He was way ahead of his time on some issues. On other issues, I disagreed with him rather strongly, but you knew if Pat Moynihan spoke, it was going to be worth listening to. If you did not agree with him, you were going to have to work hard to counter it. I had some disagreements with the distinguished Senator from New York. As a matter of fact, in the 1992 highway bill, I had a spectacular confrontation with him. We disagreed over a courthouse that was included in the highway bill. Thereafter, we became very good friends, and I think as a result of our rather tumultuous getting acquainted, I had the opportunity to spend a good bit of time with him. We were neighbors in an area of the Capitol where we both had workspaces. I spent a number of evenings enjoying a discussion with him as we watched the debates on the floor of the Senate. His ability to discuss and have insightful observations about so many subjects was truly impressive. If I ever met a Renaissance man, it was Pat Moynihan. I will give one example. Everybody knows the great role he played in revitalizing Pennsylvania Avenue and the leadership he provided. He was a great student of architecture. One of the projects we worked on in Missouri was saving the Wainwright Building, the first steel-framed skyscraper designed by Louis Sullivan. I mentioned it to him one day. He proceeded to give me a short course in architecture and the role of Louis Sullivan and his draftsman, Frank Lloyd Wright, which went far beyond the knowledge I had of the building in St. Louis. As a student of architecture, as a student who appreciated the benefits architecture brings to the quality of life, he was absolutely without peer. There were many other issues, and I know my colleagues will have many thoughts to share about him, but I wanted to rise to say to those he leaves behind that he was truly an outstanding servant, one whose friendship and whose insights and experiences I personally will always hold dear. I know this body is far richer for his presence and his service. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that addresses an inequity facing an important segment of the small business community. This legislation is simple and straight forward--it adjusts the current tax exemption that has existed since 1942 for small property and casualty, P&C, insurance companies so that it keeps pace with inflation. As the former Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have heard from many small P&C insurers in Missouri and across the Nation that they are having to consider raising their premiums simply because the tax laws have not kept pace with inflation. Under current law, mutual and stock P&C insurance companies are exempt from Federal income taxes if the greater of their direct or net written premiums in a taxable year do not exceed $350,000. For companies that grow above the $350,000 threshold, current law permits electing P&C insurance companies to be taxed only on their investment income, provided their premiums do not exceed $1.2 million. Unfortunately, these thresholds, which were last updated in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, have not been adjusted for inflation. This situation has created an unintended outcome. Take, for instance, a small P&C insurer in my State that started insuring the local farmers in the late 1980s. Over the ensuing years, the company's client base changed very little, but the insurance premiums increased gradually to keep pace with inflationary pressures. As a result, while the business itself has not grown, its premium base has and with it the loss of the tax exemption (or the alternative tax on investment income). For the farmers and ranchers covered by the small P&C insurer, this loss is certain to mean higher insurance premiums, leaving the client with the choice of cutting coverage or paying higher costs, neither of which is a real option. And for our agricultural community over the past few years, this choice is about the last thing they need. The bill I introduce today would correct this problem by simply adjusting the $350,000 and $1.2 million thresholds to bring them up to the level they would have been this year if the 1986 tax code had included an inflation adjustment. Accordingly, the tax exemption would apply to P&C insurers with premiums that do not exceed $575,000, and the alternative for taxation of investment income would apply to companies with premiums above $575,000 but not more than $1,971,000. The bill would apply for taxable years beginning in 2003 and would index both thresholds for inflation thereafter. According to the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, this legislation will help at least 665 small P&C insurance companies nationwide. In my State under current law, only 23 out of 86 small insurance companies are currently tax-exempt. Under this proposed legislation, at least 66 of the 86 small insurance companies will be covered, thereby enabling them to continue providing critical insurance coverage to small businesses across Missouri. With this legislation, we have an opportunity to infuse some fairness into our tax code and at the same time help the thousands of farmers, ranchers, and entrepreneurs covered by small P&C insurers in this country. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and I look forward to working with the Finance Committee to see it enacted into law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that addresses an inequity facing an important segment of the small business community. This legislation is simple and straight forward--it adjusts the current tax exemption that has existed since 1942 for small property and casualty, P&C, insurance companies so that it keeps pace with inflation. As the former Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have heard from many small P&C insurers in Missouri and across the Nation that they are having to consider raising their premiums simply because the tax laws have not kept pace with inflation. Under current law, mutual and stock P&C insurance companies are exempt from Federal income taxes if the greater of their direct or net written premiums in a taxable year do not exceed $350,000. For companies that grow above the $350,000 threshold, current law permits electing P&C insurance companies to be taxed only on their investment income, provided their premiums do not exceed $1.2 million. Unfortunately, these thresholds, which were last updated in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, have not been adjusted for inflation. This situation has created an unintended outcome. Take, for instance, a small P&C insurer in my State that started insuring the local farmers in the late 1980s. Over the ensuing years, the company's client base changed very little, but the insurance premiums increased gradually to keep pace with inflationary pressures. As a result, while the business itself has not grown, its premium base has and with it the loss of the tax exemption (or the alternative tax on investment income). For the farmers and ranchers covered by the small P&C insurer, this loss is certain to mean higher insurance premiums, leaving the client with the choice of cutting coverage or paying higher costs, neither of which is a real option. And for our agricultural community over the past few years, this choice is about the last thing they need. The bill I introduce today would correct this problem by simply adjusting the $350,000 and $1.2 million thresholds to bring them up to the level they would have been this year if the 1986 tax code had included an inflation adjustment. Accordingly, the tax exemption would apply to P&C insurers with premiums that do not exceed $575,000, and the alternative for taxation of investment income would apply to companies with premiums above $575,000 but not more than $1,971,000. The bill would apply for taxable years beginning in 2003 and would index both thresholds for inflation thereafter. According to the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, this legislation will help at least 665 small P&C insurance companies nationwide. In my State under current law, only 23 out of 86 small insurance companies are currently tax-exempt. Under this proposed legislation, at least 66 of the 86 small insurance companies will be covered, thereby enabling them to continue providing critical insurance coverage to small businesses across Missouri. With this legislation, we have an opportunity to infuse some fairness into our tax code and at the same time help the thousands of farmers, ranchers, and entrepreneurs covered by small P&C insurers in this country. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and I look forward to working with the Finance Committee to see it enacted into law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am assured by the staff, who are experts in this area, that will not reduce the money available for appropriations. I agree with most of the whereases in this amendment because it says that highways should be paid for by highway users. And, frankly, this returns to the highway trust fund almost $50 billion that has been paid in by highway users over the last decade. It also lays out other areas where there should be additional funds that the Finance Committee has already agreed we should pay.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there are stark needs for highways and transportation systems. The red column the President recommended, the green column across the chart shows what this budget proposes, and the budget before us proposes essentially flat funding for the next 6 years. The administration itself said the needs just to maintain highways are at this yellow line, which is way above. Our amendment simply raises spending for highways over the 6 years to $255 billion and mass transit to $56.5, using dollars previously paid into the highway trust fund by highway users, and other items that have been identified by the President and the Budget Committee, such as transferring 2.5 cents for ethanol into the highway user funds. Investing in highways and transportation is the best immediate stimulus we can have to the economy, creating jobs, and lowering highway deaths. I urge the support of my colleagues.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I call up amendment numbered 358.

Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I support my friend's amendment to increase Federal funding to $5.2 billion next year to help local communities provide our families and businesses with safe drinking water and clean waste water. Our water pipes are aging and falling into disrepair. New regulations to treat stormwater are placing a huge burden on localities. Growth across the country, especially in the South and West, requires additional water funding. In my own State of Missouri, we have small communities such as Pickering of no more than 150 people that still lack sewer systems. Mid-size cities such as Lebanon have tripled water rates and still can't afford new EPA regulations. Even our large cities such as St. Louis face many of the problems our aging eastern urban areas face. A recent series of articles in the St. Louis Post Dispatch highlighted St. Louis still using sewer pipes more than 100 years old and made of wood. This crisis is too great for local communities to bear alone. Experts estimate the funding gap between what we as a Nation contribute and what is needed to clean and provide safe water at $500 billion over 20 years. That's $25 billion per year. The Federal Government can't close that gap alone, but we must provide more than the current paltry $2.2 billion per year. I urge my colleagues to support the Crapo amendment to increase vital water funds without depriving our citizens of their much deserved tax relief to spur economic growth, create jobs, and indirectly increase revenue for Government at all levels.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important piece of new legislation to help an essential part of our health care safety net--our Nation's health centers--serve the uninsured and medically- underserved. The Building Better Health Centers Act will promote health centers' mission of providing care to anyone who needs it by getting rid of an artificial distinction existing in current law. Right now, federal grant dollars to health centers can be used for most things a health center needs to do--including salaries, supplies, and basic upkeep. But federal grants to health centers cannot be used for one of the most critical and expensive needs a health center, or any business or nonprofit organizations, will ever face--capital improvements. Unless we correct this silly distinction, many of our health centers are destined to be shackled to slowly deteriorating facilities. Over time, this will sap their ability to provide care. If we are serious about maximizing health centers' ability to deal with our health care access needs, we must allow Federal grant dollars to be used to meet our health centers' capital needs. I've been down here on the Senate floor many times to talk about health centers, but let me cover the basics once again. Health centers--which include community health centers, migrant health centers, homeless health centers, and public housing health centers-- address the health care access problem by providing primary care service in thousands of rural and urban medically-underserved communities throughout the United States. And as we all know, the health care access problem remains a serious issue in our country. Many health care experts believe that Americans' lack of access to basic health services is our single most pressing health care problem. Nearly 50 million Americans do not have access to a primary care provider, whether they are insured or not. In addition, over 41 million Americans lack health insurance and have difficulty accessing care due to the inability to pay. Health centers help fill part of this void. More than 3,400 health center clinics nationwide provide basic health care services to more than 12 million Americans, almost 8 million minorities, nearly 850,000 farmworkers, and almost 750,000 homeless individuals each year. The care they provide has been repeatedly shown by studies to be high- quality and cost-effective. In fact, health centers are one of the best health care bargains around--the average yearly cost for a health center patient is just over one dollar per day. I believe that one of the most effective ways to address our health care access problem is by dramatically expanding access to health centers. And I am pleased to report a strong consensus is developing to do exactly that. The Senate has voted in support of a proposal I have made with Sen. Hollings to double access to health centers by doubling funding over a five-year period. In addition, President Bush has proposed that we double the number of people that health centers care in the years ahead. But over the next few years, as we hopefully see additional resources flow to health centers, we will increasingly encounter problems that stem from an artificial distinction we see in current law. As I mentioned, Federal health center grants are currently allowed to be used for most purposes--including salaries for health professionals and administrators, medical supplies, basic upkeep of clinic facilities, even lease payments if the health center rents. But they simply cannot be used for capital improvements. This means that unless health centers can find some other way to finance their capital needs--and I will talk in a moment about the significant barriers they face in doing this--major projects that could provide substantial benefit to patients will never happen. It means that an urban community health center that has been slowly expanding staff and services over many years until it's bursting at the seams of its modest two-story building will have to continue to find ways to cope, even if that prevents additionally-needed expansion or even if upkeep costs on the old building begin to spiral out-of- control. It means that a rural community health center in an area desperately in need of dental services may not be able to expand the facility and purchase dental chairs, X-ray machines and other major dental equipment needed for the desired expansion into dental services. It means that even if Federal Government is willing to commit grant funds to open a new health center in one of the hundreds of underserved communities nationwide which lacks any health care professionals for miles around, the new center may never come to be due to lack of funding for a facility in which to house it. This is more than theory--the evidence shows that many existing health centers operate in facilities that desperately need renovation or modernization. Approximately one of every three health centers reside in a building more than 30 years old, and one of every eight operate out of a facility more than half a century old. Moreover, a recent survey of health centers in 12 states showed that more than two-thirds of health centers had a specifically-identified need to renovate, expand, or replace their current facility. The average cost of a needed capital project was $1.8 million, and the needs ranged from ``small'' projects of $400,000 to major $5 million efforts. The survey demonstrates that there may be as much as $1.2 billion in unmet capital needs in our nation's health centers. And that is just for existing health centers. As I mentioned, hundreds of medically-underserved areas lack--and could desperately use--the services of a health center. This further shows the need for new facilities--and more capital--as we expand access to new communities. So what about possible sources of capital? There are plenty of ways-- in theory--that health centers might be able to get money for capital improvements. Businesses--large and small--do it all the time. So do other nonprofit organizations like universities and hospitals. They use built-up equity. They take out loans. They float bonds. They raise money through private donations as part of a capital campaign. But unfortunately, health centers just aren't quite like most other businesses or nonprofits, and many times these options are unrealistic as a way to provide the entire cost of a major project. Health centers simply don't have loads of cash in the bank. The revenue these clinics are able to cobble together from federal grants, low-income patients, Medicaid, private donations, and other health insurers is typically all put back into to patient care. Health centers already work hard to maximize the money they can raise through private donations and non-Federal grant sources. In fact, an average of 9 percent of health center revenue comes from these sources. Most of this private and public funding is used to meet operating expenses, and it is difficult to go back to the same sources to request further donations for capital needs. In fundraising, health centers also face a huge disadvantage compared to nonprofit organizations like universities and hospitals because health centers lack a natural middle- and upper-class donor base. And raising private funds is particularly hard in isolated rural areas that are often quite poor and which can have the most dire health care access problems. Finally, health centers have difficulties obtaining private loans for capital needs for a variety of reasons. The high number of uninsured patients health centers treat and the poor reimbursement rates received from most Medicaid programs mean health centers rarely have significant operating margins. Without these margins, banks are leery about loans because they don't feel assured that a health center will have sufficient cash flow to successfully manage loan payments. Banks are made even more nervous by the high proportion of health center revenue that comes from sometimes-unreliable government sources--such as the health centers' grant funding and Medicine and Medicaid reimbursements. So what should we do? This isn't exactly rocket science. We have a need--many health centers require significant help to build or maintain adequate facilities because they can't raise the money or obtain the loans themselves. And we have an existing law that prevents the federal government from using health center funding to do exactly that. We simply need to get rid of the artificial distinction we have right now and allow our health center grant dollars to go to further the health center mission in the best way possible--and that is going to mean at times that we should support some new construction or major renovation projects. If a crumbling building is constantly in need of repair, is soaking up money, and is reducing the number of patients a health center can reach out to, the Federal Government should help with the major renovation or the new construction needed. The Building Better Health Centers Act authorizes the Federal Government to make grants to health centers for facility construction, modernization, replacement, and major equipment purchases. If our goal is to help health centers provide high-quality care to as many uninsured and medically-underserved people as possible, we need to get rid of barriers to doing that, including capital barriers. Behond just the possibility of grant funding, the bill goes further and permits the Federal Government to guarantee loans made by a bank or another private lender to a health center to construct, replace, modernize, or expand a health center facility. This loan guarantee is an additional tool that will help allay the fears of banks and other private lenders by limiting their exposure if a health center defaults on a loan. An additional advantage of loan guarantees is that you can stretch funds farther. When guaranteeing a $1 million loan, the Federal Government need only set aside a much smaller amount of appropriated money--perhaps only a twelfth to a tenth of the loan total--to insure against that loan's possible default. This multiplier factor means that for every dollar appropriated for this purpose, many dollars worth of loans can be guaranteed. There is actually tremendous potential for these two new options--the facility grants and the facility loan guarantees--to work together. Sharing in up-front costs through grant funding, and helping further by guaranteeing a loan that covers the remainder of a project's cost may well be the best approach. This will balance the need to make sure specific projects get enough grant funding to make them realistic and the need to spread capital assistance among as many projects as possible. Let my try to respond in advance to a few potential criticism of this legislation. First, to those who simply think on principle that the government should stay out of private-sector bricks and mortar projects, I would say we're already at least halfway pregnant. In just about every appropriations bill, we have dozens if not hundreds of specific projects earmarked for major building or renovation projects. Some might worry that the potential large costs of construction projects could get out of hand and squeeze out funding actually used for patient care. But let me point out that we limit capital assistance to five percent of all health center funding. Based on this year's funding level, this would mean up to $75 million for facility grants and loan guarantees. Because the loan guarantee program would allow some of this money to be stretched, this level of support could easily mean help for more than $200 million in health center capital projects. But the main point is that capital projects are absolutely limited to five-percent of health center funding, which prevents any possible runaway spending. Finally, we should ask ourselves whether or not Federal assistance is going to give a free pass to communities, which really should be expected to help out with public-minded projects like the construction or renovation of a health center. In my bill, local communities are expected to help. No more than 90 percent of the total costs of a major project can come from Federal sources--and this is the absolute upper limit. Much more likely are evenly-shared costs or situations in which federal support represents a minority of the capital investment. This bill does not give local areas a free ride. The quick rationale for this bill is simple. Many health centers are hampered in their efforts to provide health care to the medically- underserved by inadequate facilities. It doesn't make sense to help these vital community clinics only with day-to-day expenses if their building is literally crumbling around them. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to aggressively help our nation's health centers meet their dire capital needs by making this bill law.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important legislation, the Resolution to Expand Access to Community Health Centers, or the REACH Initiative. This resolution will continue to expand access to health care for the medically underserved by doubling funding for our nation's community health centers. I am joined in this effort by my good friend from South Carolina, Sen. Hollings. The goal of the REACH Initiative is simple--to make sure more people have access to health care. During the last session of Congress we set out an ambitious plan to double the federal funding for community health centers by 2006. Congress responded by increasing the funding for the program and now we are calling on Congress to continue this effort and complete the doubling plan. Health centers are already helping millions of Americans get health care. But they can still help millions more--pregnant women, children, and anyone else who desperately needs care. The REACH Initiative will allow another 10 million women, children, and others in need to receive care at health centers by 2006. And since we began this effort, we've already increased the number of health center patients by nearly 3 million, and increased federal funding by nearly 30 percent. We're on track, we just need to stay there; and that's just what this resolution will do--keep us on track to double this important program. Simply put, we must achieve the goal of the REACH initiative--and we can and should make it happen. Let me close with what this initiative means in human terms. The REACH initiative will help make sure that a young woman who has just found out she is pregnant but does not have health insurance has a place to get prenatal care so she does not risk her health and the baby's health by waiting until late in the pregnancy. The REACH initiative will help make sure that a 6-year-old boy who is living in a deep rural Missouri community, a community that otherwise would not have any health care providers at all, has a place to get regular checkups so he can stay healthy at home and in school. The REACH initiative will help make sure a young couple without any place to go will be able to get their infant daughter immunized to protect her from a variety of dreaded disease. These Americans, and millions like them, are the reasons why we must make the REACH Initiative a reality. I invite my colleagues to join me as a cosponsor of this resolution. If we work together, we can make a difference and deliver care to those who are in the greatest need.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, let me express my sincere thanks to my good friend from the Dakotas, and thank him for the work he has done on the Budget Committee as the ranking member. I thank my friend from Oklahoma, the chairman of the Budget Committee, as we are seeing that being on the Budget Committee is one of the most thankless jobs around. You have to read economic analysis, tons and tons of pages, and 50-year economic analyses. Then you come out with a bill that is a series of numbers. It is all supposed to work out. Then people like me come along and try to change it. It is with some experience on the Budget Committee that I express my appreciation for the work that has been done.

Mr. BOND. Today, along with a number of my colleagues, I want to address an amendment which is at the desk, amendment No. 358 to the Senate budget resolution. I am very pleased to be joined in this by Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Inhofe, Senator Jeffords--all three from the EPW committee--as well as Senators Shelby, Sarbanes, Warner, Murray, Murkowski, Byrd, Chafee, Feinstein, Collins, Specter, Levin, Lott, Reed of Rhode Island, and Brownback. This amendment would increase the budget allocations to $255 billion for highway infrastructure, and $56.5 billion for mass transit needs over the 6-year period fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2009. Before these numbers startle some of my colleagues and good friends, like my friends on the Budget Committee, let me remind my colleagues we are not abandoning the ``user pays'' concept of the Highway Trust Fund. In fact, over the past several years, a great deal of money has been stolen or diverted out of the Highway Trust Fund, paid in by highway users, that rightfully should have gone for road improvements. For example, highway users started paying a 2.5 cent tax in 1990 with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 that never went to road improvements. It went to the general fund instead. The tax even grew to as high as 6.8 cents in 1994 and 1995, and over the years, highway users have paid well over $40 billion--that is a conservative estimate--$40 billion which never went into the highway trust fund. In addition, the highway trust fund lost revenues as a result of alternative fuel vehicles. I support alternative fuel vehicles, whether they run on hydrogen or electricity or some other form of energy. But we also must remember that these alternatively fueled vehicles travel on the roads. They use the roads. They crowd the roads. They are, in fact, burdens on the roads. And they must somehow pay some share, just as those vehicles fueled by gas or diesel pay for a share. Some very significant constituents have spoken out about the needs for the highway trust fund. I have letters of support, that I will offer later, from affiliated labor unions engaged in transportation, construction, and the broader Transportation Construction Coalition, the Highway Users Alliance, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Governors Association, and others. I daresay we have all heard from our respective State transportation officials, our metropolitan planning organizations, from our labor unions, our friends in the transportation industries, and others about the needs. But perhaps more importantly, we have all seen the congestion, the potholes covered with steel plates, the bridges down to one lane. If any of you who have done what I have done, and had an open meeting in a townhall forum in the last several months as we came up on the reauthorization of TEA-21, you have heard that our citizens are concerned about inadequate transportation. They are really chafing at the bit because in too many areas our country is strangling. Now, we have all waited in traffic, hoped our car's alignment would not be permanently damaged, and looked down through a bridge to see the water below. We have also comforted far too many friends and families who have lost loved ones because of unsafe roads or bridges. I still correspond with families who have made getting decent highways their cause to remember a loved one who was killed because of an inadequate highway system with too much traffic on it. Our Nation has some needs. This little chart shows in red what the President proposed in his budget. What the Budget Committee has come out with is shown in green. And what this Bond-Reid amendment would do is shown in blue. As you can see, these start going up a little bit. You may ask, what is this big yellow line way up here above all of them, even well above the blue line? Well, it is simply this administration's own estimate of the cost simply to maintain the current system; that is, not to get it any better. Just to keep it as it is, we should be spending this much, as shown in yellow. Right now, this budget has us spending what is shown in the green. We really need to get up at least to this high, as shown in the blue, so we can begin to try to keep up with the needs. We know our Nation's transportation needs are staggering and our constrained transportation system is costing our country a whole lot of time and money. We know it is time to do something about it. The transportation system is a lifeline of our country and our economy. I was a student of American history. The economic history of America really began when railroads tied together this Nation and brought it as a whole economic unit. Railroads were the tie that bound us together in the 19th century. In the 20th century, it became the highway system. The highway system provides mobility. It provides transportation for economic activities. It, in essence, brings jobs. I can tell you, in the years I spent as Governor of Missouri, I spent an awful lot of time working on economic development. It was one of my top priorities. And I could see, economic development was going by where the roads went. If you build a good four-lane road, jobs will go there. Jobs and economic opportunity require good transportation. Not all jobs. We have e-mail and telecommunications. But distribution requires a good transportation system. I can tell you, for the 21st century, it is not only good railroads, it is not only good roads and highways, it is good transportation systems, it is good air transportation, it is good water transportation, and it is good mass transportation that is going to be essential for our growth. Looking at the road side of it, in my home State of Missouri the problems are diverse and complex. To highlight just a few of the glaring examples: Commercial truck traffic is expected to increase 89 percent by the year 2020. The cities of St. Louis and Kansas City spend over $1 billion each year on costs associated with traffic congestion. Fatalities on Missouri highways are considerably higher than the national average--nearly 7,000 people were killed between 1995 and 2000 on our highways. How will this broad range of problems be adequately and appropriately addressed? The answer simply is investment--investment in the future of our Nation's surface transportation to promote safety, to increase employment, to decrease congestion, and to enhance security. In order to meet these needs, Federal, State, and local government investment will have to be significantly increased. Our amendment we offer today will allow it to do so at a very modest rate compared to the true needs, but without raising gas taxes and diesel taxes at this time. I want to emphasize to my colleagues, this transportation responsibility is a duty of the Federal Government. Road building is one activity that the Government should administer but in coordination with the private sector and other levels of government. If we do not want the responsibility at the national level, or if we are unwilling to fund it, then let's quit calling our I-70s, our I-80s, our I-5s, our I-95s, and our other interstates by those names. When President Dwight Eisenhower first proposed the interstate highways, if I remember correctly--I was a youngster at the time--our Nation's defense was the primary focus, the national defense highway system. Now terrorism threatening our homeland requires an adequate defense network to get the people, the law enforcement, the military, to prevent actions, to bring in responders where there is an action, to give people a means away from an area of danger. These all require good roads and highways. To demonstrate the enormity of this crucial task of relieving congestion and building highway infrastructure, we have to examine the costs involved. A report by the Nation's State transportation officials found that $92 billion will be needed on an annual basis just to maintain the current conditions of highways and to keep traffic from getting worse. However, if our goal were to be as I think it should be--to improve significantly the overall condition of U.S. highways, enhancing safety standards, reducing traffic congestion; a goal that I think is critical to the protection of American lives as well as our economy, the study showed that more would be needed, a total of $125 billion annually. Now, those figures do not even include the additional $19 billion in capital investments required each year to maintain existing road conditions and service levels. Clearly, this will be a massive and expensive effort. Increased funding for transportation will also have other beneficial effects. It creates jobs at a time when many businesses around the country are heading in the reverse and are contracting. The added investment for transportation will serve to directly stimulate the economy. Every billion dollars of investment is 47,000 jobs. Naturally, this will contribute to the prosperity of American communities by bringing a wide variety of benefits to people in every State and every location across the country. The increased investments in roads will help satisfy many of our needs currently and for the future. Unfortunately, the administration's 2004 budget provides allocations that remain wholly inadequate for conquering the ever-growing needs of the people who use our Nation's transportation infrastructure. It is the status quo funding. Again, our amendment will increase spending authority on highways to $255 billion and on mass transit to $56.5 billion over the 6-year life of the TEA-21 reauthorization bill. As my colleagues know, a budget resolution amendment is all about numbers and not about specific requirements. However, I will offer some ideas and thoughts because there is a menu of sources and options, so you can understand where that money comes from. Let me go over a few of the aspects. The $255 billion increase over the budget, where does that come from: 5.2 cents on the ethanol tax incentive fix, something the Finance Committee is going to work on; spending down the trust fund balances. This was proposed by the President in his budget, and it is proposed in the Budget Committee's markup that we extend that. We provide interest credit on the balances, and we restore a lost $8 billion in TEA-21; $8 billion just disappeared from the trust fund. We put that back. We maintain the historic relationship between contract authority and obligation limitations. I will forgo a description of the contract authority and obligation limits. I don't think it is necessary to add further confusion at this point. But let me say we straighten out the problem that the underlying budget amendment has. Then we ought to have fair share funding for alternative fuel vehicles--electric hybrids, natural gas, recognizing the loss to the fund for these vehicles which pay little or nothing into the trust fund but cause the same damage to roadways. This is vitally important, as is cracking down on tax evasion and compliance initiatives, dealing with those who avoid the taxes or otherwise have been excluded from paying for their use of our roads and highways. This increased investment authorized by our amendment will decrease congestion, enhance security, help to create jobs, stimulate the economy, and, most importantly, will save American lives by improving safety on the highways. These are the highway-related fatalities in thousands, beginning with 39.3 thousand in 1992, reaching as high as 42.1 thousand in 1996, and again in 2001, over 40,000 people killed in each of these years, too many of them because of inadequate highways. It is not an option to stand idle in the wake of these conditions. I urge my colleagues to support our amendment. I ask unanimous consent to print letters of endorsement for this proposal.