Summary:

All articles in Senate section

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - July 17, 1997)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S7710-S7732] STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Domenici, and Mr. Hatch): S. 1027. A bill to extend the native American veteran direct housing loan pilot program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. NATIVE AMERICAN VETERANS HOUSING LOAN IMPROVEMENTS LEGISLATION Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce legislation to extend and improve the native American veteran direct loan pilot program. I am pleased to add Senators Johnson, Domenici, and Hatch as cosponsors of this legislation. America's most important resource has always been the individuals willing to lay down their lives for their country. Throughout our history we have been blessed with men and women willing to put themselves at risk for the greater good. Native Americans have been proud to be a part of this Nation's defense. From the revolutionary era to our ongoing peacekeeping missions around the globe, native Americans have served and continue to serve the United States honorably. It may surprise some members to know that native Americans served, suffered, and died in service to this Nation even though they were not allowed to be citizens until 1924. As a veteran I feel a special kinship with all those men and women who served this Nation in peacetime and in war. As an Indian veteran I am keenly aware of the dedicated service Indians, Alaskans, and Hawaiians have given--often without recognition of their sacrifice. How can we compensate these men and women for making the greatest sacrifice they could? There is no dollar value we can place on a life. At the very least, we must provide the basic benefits of health care, housing, and education to those that laid down their lives for America. Since 1992, the Department of Veterans Affairs has operated a direct housing loan program to help native America veterans build decent homes. I was amazed to find out that in the last 5 years, that program had provided eight Indian veterans with loans. That is not an indication that all Indian veterans have no housing needs. During a hearing on veterans issues, members of the Indian Affairs Committee saw videotape of the houses used by Navajo veterans. They looked like something you would see in a Third World nation, not America. Houses had holes in their roofs and walls and plastic sheets for windows. Many houses do not have working plumbing and water has to be carried from miles away. This is certainly not the appreciation and respect war veterans deserve. Native Americans seeking home loans face many obstacles unique to Indian country, including poor economic conditions and the fact that the land cannot be used as collateral. But the most surprising revelation at the committee's hearing was that the majority of Indian veterans seem to have little or no knowledge that the VA's direct loan program exists. If they do, many do not know how or where to apply. The Government has no problem finding these men and women when it is time to draft them to fight in a war. But when it is time to pay them back for their sacrifice, the effort just is not there. That is why the bill I introduce today does more than extend the direct loan program for 3 years. It includes measures to boost the Department of Veterans Affairs' efforts to implement the direct loan program for native American veterans. The bill places new requirements on the Department to consult with tribal organizations, native veterans organizations, and other groups prior to making decisions under the act. It also expresses Congress's desire that the Department carry out vigorous outreach and education efforts to inform potential beneficiaries of the housing assistance benefits under the [[Page S7711]] act. The bill requires the Department to submit annual reports to the Committee on Indian Affairs, the House Resources Committee, and the Veterans' Committees of both Chambers containing a description of the outreach activities undertaken by the VA on a regional basis, with a second mandate that the VA conduct an assessment of how effective these efforts have been in encouraging greater use of the loan program. We must honor the service and sacrifice of our warriors. We must recognize the sacrifice they have made for all of us. The direct loan program is an ambitious idea designed to help our veterans with the most basic human need: a roof over their heads. It should not sit unused because of bureaucratic complacency. It is my hope that this reauthorization, with the appropriate changes, will jumpstart the Department's efforts to make the program available to native veterans and help them use it. I believe it is the least we can do. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 1027 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. FINDINGS. Congress makes the following findings: (1) Native Americans across the United States have a long, proud, and distinguished tradition of service in the Armed Forces of the United States. (2) Native Americans have historically served in the Armed Forces in numbers which far exceed their representation in the population of the United States. (3) Native Americans have lost their lives in the service of the United States and in the cause of peace. (4) The demand for safe, decent, and affordable housing among the 210,000 Native American veterans in the United States is acute. (5) Native American veterans face unique impediments to the use of traditional housing programs to benefit veterans such as poor economic conditions, the legal status of Indian trust lands, and the lack of incentives for lenders to make loans on trust lands. SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF DIRECT HOUSING LOAN PILOT PROGRAM. Section 3761(c) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking out ``September 30, 1997'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``September 30, 2000''. SEC. 3. OUTREACH. Section 3762(i) of title 38, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by inserting ``, in consultation with tribal organizations and Native American veterans organizations,'' after ``The Secretary shall''; and (2) by striking out ``tribal organizations and''. SEC. 4. CONSULTATION WITH NATIVE AMERICAN VETERANS ORGANIZATIONS. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall consult with Native American veterans organizations in carrying out the Native American veterans direct housing loan program under subchapter V of chapter 37 of title 38, United States Code. SEC. 5. ANNUAL REPORTS. Section 8(d) of the Veterans Home Loan Program Amendments of 1992 (Public Law 102-547; 106 Stat. 3640; 38 U.S.C. 3761 note) is amended-- (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)-- (A) by striking out ``1998,'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``2001,''; and (B) by inserting ``, the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives'' after ``the House of Representatives''; (2) by striking out ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3); (3) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and (4) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph (4): ``(4) a description of the outreach activities undertaken by the Secretary under section 3762(i) of such title (as so added) which-- ``(A) specifies such activities on a region-by-region basis; and ``(B) assesses the effectiveness of such activities in encouraging the participation of Native American veterans in the pilot program; and''. ____ Veterans Direct Housing Loan Pilot Program--Section-by-Section Analysis Background. Begun in 1992, the Native American Veterans Housing Program is due to be reauthorized. The account retains some $3.5 million of an original $5 million appropriation. Since 1992, the performance of the Veterans Administration in distributing this money to Indians is poor, especially compared with the experience of the Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders. The goal of the amendments is to get the VA to do its job better in Indian country. The reasons adduced by the VA for the poor performance are not convincing. Section 1. New Findings Section. This section recognizes Indians' long and historic contributions made to the Armed Forces and defense of the United States. This section also recognizes the acute need for housing among the more than 200,000 native veterans, and the unique impediments native veterans face due to poor economic conditions on the reservation, and the inability to securitize Indian trust lands. Section 2. Extension of Program. The bill would extend the authority for the program for 3 years, to September 30, 2000. Section 3. Outreach. Most of the discernible problems in the implementation of this program involve a lack of knowledge about the program by Indians and lack of proactive endeavors by the VA to disseminate information about the program through Indian country. The bill would place new requirements on the VA to consult with tribal organizations, native veterans organizations, and other groups prior to making decisions under the act. Section 4. Consultation with Native American Veterans Organizations. This new section requires the VA to consult with native veterans organizations in implementing the act. Section 5. Annual Reports. The VA is required to submit annual reports to the Committee on Indian Affairs, the House Resources Committee, and the veterans committees of both Chambers containing a description of the outreach activities undertaken by the VA on a regional basis, with a second mandate that the VA conduct an assessment of the efficacy of such activities in encouraging greater use of the program. ______ By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer): S. 1028. A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a pilot project on designated lands within Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests in the State of California to demonstrate the effectiveness of the resource management activities proposed by the Quincy Library Group and to amend current land and resource management; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today Senator Barbara Boxer and I are introducing the Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997. This legislation is nearly identical to H.R. 858 sponsored in the House of Representatives by Congressman Wally Herger and passed by the House last week on a vote of 429 to 1. The House vote is remarkable for two reasons: First, any legislation involving a controversial issue--particularly on one as contentious as forest management --that receives 429 votes is remarkable in and of itself. Second, the process by which this legislation evolved is really, I think, groundbreaking, and it deserves to be recognized. I first met the Quincy Library Group back in 1992 when I was running for the Senate, and was then very impressed with what they were trying to do. The overwhelming House vote is a real victory for local communities like Quincy which seek to avoid the polarizing--and often paralyzing-- battles that have characterized forest management issues for the last decade. The Quincy Library Group is a local coalition of timber industry representatives, environmentalists, citizens, and elected officials in Plumas, Lassen, and Sierra Counties, CA, who came together to resolve their long-standing conflicts over timber management on the national forest lands in their area. They had seen first hand the seemingly ever present conflict between timber harvesting and jobs, environmental laws and protection of their communities and forests, and the devastation of massive forest fires. They also saw that a practical solution to the conflict between timber interests and environmental interests were both going to be wiped out one day by uncontrollable wildfires. And so they tried to get together and talk things out. They decided to meet in a quiet, non-confrontational environment--the main room of the Quincy Public Library. Hence, they became known as the Quincy Library Group. They began their dialog in the recognition that they shared the common goal of fostering forest health, ecological integrity, an adequate timber supply for area mills, and economic stability for their community. So, after a year-and-a-half of negotiation, the Quincy Library Group developed an alternative management [[Page S7712]] plan for the Lassen National Forest, Plumas National Forest, and Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest. This legislation is the result. The bill we introduce today implements the Quincy Library Group's plan. I know that some environmental organizations had concerns about aspects of this legislation, and some may still oppose it. But let me make something very clear: As I stated when I met with the Quincy Library Group, in order to have my support, the legislation had to explicitly state that all activities would be carried out consistent with all applicable Federal environmental laws, both substantive and procedural. The administration made this requirement clear as well. The House bill and this legislation do so. Another condition for my support, and that of the administration, was that the legislation must authorize sufficient funds to carry out the plan, so that funds will not be diverted from other important programs like wildlife protection, grazing and recreation. The House bill and this legislation authorize appropriations to do so. With these key provisions in place, I believe this legislation deserves strong support and swift passage. Specifically, this legislation: Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to implement the Quincy Library Group's forest management proposal on designated lands in the Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests for 5 years as a demonstration of community-based consensus forest management; Protects the California spotted owl and riparian areas by excluding all spotted owl habitat in the pilot project area from logging and other resource management activities during the 5-year pilot project, and requiring the Forest Service to follow the scientific analysis team guidelines for riparian system protection; Calls for the construction of fuel breaks on 40,000 to 60,000 acres a year; Provides for group selection on 0.57 percent of the project area annually as well as individual tree selection uneven-aged forest management; Limits the total acreage subject to forest management activities to 70,000 acres annually; Requires a program of riparian management, including wide protection zones and riparian restoration projects; Requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement prior to the commencement of the pilot project; Authorizes the appropriation of funds to carry out the Quincy Library Group pilot project; Directs the Forest Service to amend the land and resource management plans for the Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests to consider adoption of the Quincy Library Group plan in the forest management plans; Requires an annual report to Congress on the status of the pilot project, including the source and use of funds, the acres treated and description of the results, economic benefits to the local communities, and activities planned for the following year; and finally, Requires a scientific assessment of the Quincy Library Group project to be commenced at the midpoint of the project and submitted to Congress by July 1, 2002. At the suggestion of the environmental community, and with the concurrence of the Quincy Library Group, I have added language to the House version of the bill to provide additional environmental safeguards. These additions will ensure that there will be no road building or timber harvesting on the lands the Quincy Library Group plan designated as off base, plan designates certain lands as deferred, and require the annual reports and the final report on the Quincy Library Group project to include a report on any adverse environmental impacts of the pilot project. Finally, it is our intention that areas of late successional emphasis identified in the Sierra Nevada ecosystem project report also be protected from resource management activities during the pilot project, and I will seek committee report language on this issue. What all this means is that as a result of the Quincy Library Group pilot project: The threat of catastrophic forest fires will be reduced, through the clearing of underbrush and thinning of the smaller trees; Enough jobs in the forests will be provided to keep the local mills in operation and the communities in existence; and Forest health will be improved, riparian areas will be restored, and biological diversity maintained. Mr. President, I believe the Quincy Library Group deserves a great deal of credit and respect for approaching a tough issue with the goal of finding common ground. There is a lot of common ground. They all live in the area. They all work there. They raise their children there. They all care about both the environment and the industry that provides jobs to the region. They wanted to work out a solution instead of continuing the take-no- prisoners-approach of endless litigation and standoff. I believe the solution-based approach demonstrated by the Quincy Library Group should be supported by the Congress, and that is why I committed months ago to introduce legislation based on this group's efforts. On an issue like forest management and timber harvesting, many local variables are involved and must be considered to find workable solutions: For example, the wildfire threat in Tennessee is not the same as it is in California. And the economic impact of the timber industry may be different in Hayfork, CA than it is in Juneau, AK. The bottom line is that, as long as certain basic standards of environmental law are met, this pilot project will demonstrate whether a local initiative can be successful in developing a forest management plan that works to protect the old growth trees, endangered species, and jobs for the community. And based on that belief I am pleased to support their efforts by sponsoring this legislation in the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 1028 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997''. SEC. 2. PILOT PROJECT FOR PLUMAS, LASSEN, AND TAHOE NATIONAL FORESTS TO IMPLEMENT QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP PROPOSAL. (a) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``Quincy Library Group-Community Stability Proposal'' means the agreement by a coalition of representatives of fisheries, timber, environmental, county government, citizen groups, and local communities that formed in northern California to develop a resource management program that promotes ecologic and economic health for certain Federal lands and communities in the Sierra Nevada area. Such proposal includes the map entitled ``QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP Community Stability Proposal'', dated June 1993, and prepared by VESTRA Resources of Redding, California. (b) Pilot Project Required.-- (1) Pilot project and purpose.--The Secretary of Agriculture (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary''), acting through the Forest Service and after completion of an environmental impact statement (a record of decision for which shall be adopted within 200 days), shall conduct a pilot project on the Federal lands described in paragraph (2) to implement and demonstrate the effectiveness of the resource management activities described in subsection (d) and the other requirements of this section, as recommended in the Quincy Library Group-Community Stability Proposal. (2) Pilot project area.--The Secretary shall conduct the pilot project on the Federal lands within Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and the Sierraville Ranger District of Tahoe National Forest in the State of California designated as ``Available for Group Selection'' on the map entitled ``QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP Community Stability Proposal'', dated June 1993 (in this section referred to as the ``pilot project area''). Such map shall be on file and available for inspection in the appropriate offices of the Forest Service. (c) Exclusion of Certain Lands, Riparian Protection and Compliance.-- (1) Exclusion.--All spotted owl habitat areas and protected activity centers located within the pilot project area designated under subsection (b)(2) will be deferred from resource management activities required under subsection (d) and timber harvesting during the term of the pilot project. (2) In general.--The Regional Forester for Region 5 shall direct that during the term of the pilot project any resource management [[Page S7713]] activity required by subsection (d), all road building, and all timber harvesting activities shall not be conducted on the Federal lands within the Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest in the State of California that designated as either ``Off Base'' or ``Deferred'' on the map referred to in subsection (a). (3) Riparian protection.-- (A) In general.--The Scientific Analysis Team guidelines for riparian system protection described in subparagraph (B) shall apply to all resource management activities conducted under subsection (d) and all timber harvesting activities that occur in the pilot project area during the term of the pilot project. (B) Guidelines described.--The guidelines referred to in subparagraph (A) are those in the document entitled ``Viability Assessments and Management Considerations for Species Associated with Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forests of the Pacific Northwest'', a Forest Service research document dated March 1993 and co-authored by the Scientific Analysis Team, including Dr. Jack Ward Thomas. (4) Compliance.--All resource management activities required by subsection (d) shall be implemented to the extent consistent with applicable Federal law and the standards and guidelines for the conservation of the California spotted owl as set forth in the California Spotted Owl Sierran Provence Interim Guidelines, or the subsequently issued final guidelines whichever is in effect. (d) Resource Management Activities.--During the term of the pilot project, the Secretary shall implement and carry out the following resource management activities on an acreage basis on the Federal lands included within the pilot project area designated under subsection (b)(2): (1) Fuelbreak construction.--Construction of a strategic system of defensible fuel profile zones, including shaded fuelbreaks, utilizing thinning, individual tree selection, and other methods of vegetation management consistent with the Quincy Library Group-Community Stability Proposal, on not less than 40,000, but not more than 60,000, acres per year. (2) Group selection and individual tree selection.-- Utilization of group selection and individual tree selection uneven-aged forest management prescriptions described in the Quincy Library Group-Community Stability Proposal to achieve a desired future condition of all-age, multistory, fire resilient forests as follows: (A) Group selection.--Group selection on an average acreage of .57 percent of the pilot project area land each year of the pilot project. (B) Individual tree selection.--Individual tree selection may also be utilized within the pilot project area. (3) Total acreage.--The total acreage on which resource management activities are implemented under this subsection shall not exceed 70,000 acres each year. (4) Riparian management.--A program of riparian management, including wide protection zones and riparian restoration projects, consistent with riparian protection guidelines in subsection (c)(2)(B). (e) Cost-Effectiveness.--In conducting the pilot project, Secretary shall use the most cost-effective means available, as determined by the Secretary, to implement resource management activities described in subsection (d). (f) Funding.-- (1) Source of funds.--In conducting the pilot project, the Secretary shall use, subject to the relevant reprogramming guidelines of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations-- (A) those funds specifically provided to the Forest Service by the Secretary to implement resource management activities according to the Quincy Library Group-Community Stability Proposal; and (B) excess funds that are allocated for the administration and management of Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and the Sierraville Ranger District of Tahoe National Forest. (2) Prohibition on use of certain funds.--The Secretary may not conduct the pilot project using funds appropriated for any other unit of the National Forest System. (3) Flexibility.--Subject to normal reprogramming guidelines, during the term of the pilot project, the forest supervisors of Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and Tahoe National Forest may allocate and use all accounts that contain excess funds and all available excess funds for the administration and management of Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and the Sierraville Ranger District of Tahoe National Forest to perform the resource management activities described in subsection (d). (4) Restriction.--The Secretary or the forest supervisors, as the case may be, shall not utilize authority provided under paragraphs (1)(B) and (3) if, in their judgment, doing so will limit other nontimber related multiple use activities for which such funds were available. (5) Overhead.--Of amounts available to carry out this section-- (A) not more than 12 percent may be used or allocated for general administration or other overhead; and (B) at least 88 percent shall be used to implement and carry out activities required by this section. (6) Authorized supplemental funds.--There are authorized to be appropriated to implement and carry out the pilot project such sums as are necessary. (7) Baseline funds.--Amounts available for resource management activities authorized under subsection (d) shall at a minimum include existing baseline funding levels. (g) Term of Pilot Project.--The Secretary shall conduct the pilot project during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on the later of the following: (1) The date on which the Secretary completes amendment or revision of the land and resource management plans for Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and Tahoe National Forest pursuant to subsection (i). (2) The date that is five years after the date of the commencement of the pilot project. (h) Consultation.--(1) Each statement required by subsection (b)(1) shall be prepared in consultation with the Quincy Library Group. (2) Contracting.--The Forest Service, subject to the availability of appropriations, may carry out any (or all) of the requirements of this section using private contracts. (i) Corresponding Forest Plan Amendments.--Within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Regional Forester for Region 5 shall initiate the process to amend or revise the land and resource management plans for Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and Tahoe National Forest. The process shall include preparation of at least one alternative that-- (1) incorporates the pilot project and area designations made by subsection (b), the resource management activities described in subsection (d), and other aspects of the Quincy Library Group Community Stability Proposal; and (2) makes other changes warranted by the analyses conducted in compliance with section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)), section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604), and other applicable laws. (j) Reporting Requirements.-- (1) In general.--Not later than February 28 of each year during the term of the pilot project, the Secretary after consultation with the Quincy Library Group, shall submit to Congress a report on the status of the pilot project. The report shall include at least the following: (A) A complete accounting of the use of funds made available under subsection (f)(1)(A) until such funds are fully expended. (B) A complete accounting of the use of funds and accounts made available under subsection (f)(1) for the previous fiscal year, including a schedule of the amounts drawn from each account used to perform resource management activities described in subsection (d). (C) A description of total acres treated for each of the resources management activities required under subsection (d), forest health improvements, fire risk reductions, water yield increases, and other natural resources-related benefits achieved by the implementation of the resource management activities described in subsection (d). (D) A description of the economic benefits to communities achieved by the implementation of the pilot project. (E) A comparison of the revenues generated by, and costs incurred in, the implementation of the resource management activities described in subsection (d) of the Federal lands included in the pilot project area with the revenues and costs during each of the fiscal years 1992 through 1997 for timber management of such lands before their inclusion in the pilot project. (F) A schedule for the resource management activities to be undertaken in the pilot project area during the calendar year. (G) A description of any adverse environmental impacts. (2) Limitation on expenditures.--The amount of Federal funds expended on each annual report under this subsection shall not exceed $50,000. (k) Final Report.-- (1) In general.--Beginning after completion of 6 months of second year of the pilot project, the Secretary shall compile a science-based assessment of, and report on, the effectiveness of the pilot project in meeting the stated goals of this pilot project. Such assessment and report-- (A) shall include watershed monitoring of lands treated under this section, that should address the following issues on a priority basis: timing of water releases, water quality changes, and water yield changes over the short long term in the pilot project area; (B) shall include an analysis of any adverse environmental impacts; (C) shall be compiled in consultation with the Quincy Library Group; and (D) shall be submitted to the Congress by July 1, 2002. (2) Limitations on expenditures.--The amount of Federal funds expended for the assessment and report under this subsection, other than for watershed monitoring under paragraph (1)(A), shall not exceed $150,000. The amount of Federal funds for watershed monitoring under paragraph (1)(A) shall not exceed $75,000 for each of fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002. (l) Relationship to Other Laws.--Nothing in this section exempts the pilot project from any Federal environmental law. [[Page S7714]] Mrs. BOXER. The Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act is the result of many years of consensus building in an effort to unite unlikely partners in a mutually beneficial project. President Clinton spurred this consensus approach in April 1993, at the Northwest Forest Summit, when he challenged Americans to stay in the conference room and out of the courtroom. One local group put this difficult challenge into action and began a series of meetings in the only place they knew they could ensure civility, and some degree of quiet--their local library. With that, the Quincy Library Group was created. This group of local citizens surrounding Quincy, CA, including timber industry representatives, local environmental activists, and public officials, have been meeting periodically since 1992 to develop a timber management plan for the areas' surrounding national forests. They did not have an easy task before them--promoting the local economy, preserving jobs, and protecting the environment. Several years ago I visited Quincy, CA, and had an opportunity to see first hand the problems in the forests and the community at work. Since that time, I have worked with the Quincy Library Group, U.S. Forest Service, Senator Feinstein, Members of Congress, and the national environmental community in an effort to reach a consensus. I believe that is what we have before us today. This legislation will implement the Quincy Library Group proposal for managing the Tahoe, Lassen, and Sierraville Range of the Tahoe National Forests through biological reserves, fire suppression, riparian restoration, watershed protection, and monitoring. The House passed a companion bill earlier this week by a near unanimous vote. I believe the overwhelming success in the House was largely due to the inclusion of provisions which ensure compliance with all environmental laws, as well as interim and final California spotted owl guidelines. This proposal has gone through years of collaboration from many dedicated people with many different interests. We now have legislation to implement this consensus--legislation which can be fined tuned as it moves through the legislative process. The President's statement of administration policy on the House companion bill suggests further refining the bill so that the pilot project will end once the Forest Service completes the appropriate forest plan amendments. I would be supportive of such a change to the bill. Some have suggested that the legislation increase the protection of all old growth forests in the area and ensure that logging and road building be prohibited in all roadless and sensitive areas. We should consider that change. I hope that these concerns can be addressed as this bill moves through the legislative process. Nonetheless, many positive changes have been made to the legislation over the last few months, and although some outstanding concerns still remain, the legislation now provides many of the safeguards necessary to protect the natural environment while promoting the local economy. I want to thank Senator Feinstein, Congressmen Fazio, Miller, Herger, Young, and the Forest Service for their efforts on this legislation. It has truly been a cooperative effort and I hope we are able to pass this legislation quickly so that we will soon be able to see the proposal implemented on the ground. ______ By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Wellstone): S. 1029. A bill to provide loan forgiveness for individuals who earn a degree in early childhood education, and enter and remain employed in the early child care profession, to provide loan cancellation for certain child care providers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. The Quality Child Care Loan Forgiveness Act Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk now, a bill on behalf of myself and Senator Wellstone. Mr. President, this bill is the Quality Child Care Loan Forgiveness Act and it is intended to, at least in part, deal with a very serious problem in this country. That problem simply is that more and more children, more and more of our children, are every day in child care. There is a real concern about the quality of child care. This bill does not solve every problem in regard to child care, but I think it is a start and I think it would make a significant impact. Today, more than 70 percent of mothers are in the labor force. Almost 75 percent of married couples with children have both spouses working. All of these working parents, plus parents moving from welfare to work, have to find someone to care for their children if they are going to go out and support their families. Yet today, child care is often very hard to find and quality child care is even harder to find. In just 20 years, the last 20 years, the percentage of children enrolled in some form, in some manner, of child care has gone from 30 percent to 70 percent. Quality child care is a concern to virtually every family in this country. More and more parents are working. More and more children are in child care. I think the very least we can do is to try to assure those families that, while they are at work, their children will be taken care of by qualified and by competent individuals. This, unfortunately, is not always taking place today. There are many qualified people in child care. There are very many dedicated people in child care. But I think we can do better. This is what this bill intends to address. Scientists tell us that the largest indicator of a child's intelligence is the mother's education level. While a mother is at work, then it becomes the education level of the child care provider that the child deals with for, sometimes, an extended period of time during the day. With all the new research that we see on the brain and early childhood development, I think we have to reemphasize this particular aspect of child care. We need well-educated, well-trained child care providers. One of the ways we can achieve this, one of the things that we can do to raise the quality of child care, is to say to individuals who are inclined to go into the child care profession that we will in fact help them if they want to make this a profession. We have to let people know, if they are going to earn a degree to take care of our children, we will help them. Our bill, the bill introduced today by Senator Wellstone and myself, will do this. Our bill would help repay the student loans of an individual who earns an early childhood degree and would help repay the loan of that person who goes to work in a licensed child care facility. The Quality Child Care Loan Forgiveness Act would pay off a student loan at the rate of 15 percent a year for people who earn an early childhood degree and who work in a licensed child care facility. This bill will help bring more qualified individuals to the child care profession. It would also help to decrease the high turnover levels caused, many times, by very low wages. Let me conclude. The Quality Child Care Loan Forgiveness Act is an important way to improve the quality of child care. American parents need it for their peace of mind, and American children need it for their mind development. I thank the Chair and ask unanimous consent at this time that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 1029 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Quality Child Care Loan Forgiveness Act''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress makes the following findings: (1) New scientific research shows that the electrical activity of brain cells actually changes the physical structure of the brain, and that without a stimulating environment, a baby's brain suffers. (2) 12,000,000 children under age 6, and 17,000,000 school- aged children of working parents, need child care. Demand for child care is growing as more mothers enter the workforce. (3) Good quality child care, in a safe environment, with trained, caring providers who offer stimulating activities appropriate to the child's age, help children grow and thrive. Recent research shows that most child care needs significant improvement. (4) Good quality child care depends largely on the provider. Yet providers of child care earn on average only $6.70 per hour or $11,725 [[Page S7715]] per year. Such earnings cause high turnover, which affects the overall quality of a child care program and causes anxiety for children. (5) Children attending lower-quality child care facilities and child care facilities with high staff turnover are less competent in language and social development. (6) Low-income and high-income children are more likely than middle-income children to attend child care facilities providing high quality child care. (7) The quality of child care is primarily related to high staff-to-child ratios, staff education, and administrators' prior experience. In addition, certain characteristics distinguish poor, mediocre, and good-quality child care facilities, the most important of which are teacher wages, education, and specialized training. SEC. 3. PURPOSES. The purposes of this Act are-- (1) to bring more highly trained individuals into the early child care profession; and (2) to keep more highly trained child care providers in the early child care field for longer periods of time. SEC. 4. LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR CHILD CARE PROVIDERS. Part B of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1071 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 428J of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1078-10) the following: ``SEC. 428I. LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR CHILD CARE PROVIDERS. ``(a) Definitions.--In this section: ``(1) Child care facility.--The term `child care facility' means a facility that-- ``(A) provides child care services; and ``(B) meets applicable State or local government licensing, certification, approval, or registration requirements, if any. ``(2) Child care services.--The term `child care services' means activities and services provided for the education and care of children from birth through age 5 by an individual who has a degree in early childhood education. ``(3) Degree.--The term `degree' means an associate's or bachelor's degree awarded by an institution of higher education. ``(4) Early childhood education.--The term `early childhood education' means education in the areas of early child education, child care, or any other educational area related to child care that the Secretary determines appropriate. ``(5) Institution of higher education.--The term `institution of higher education' has the meaning given the term in section 1201. ``(b) Demonstration Program.-- ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may carry out a demonstration program of assuming the obligation to repay, pursuant to subsection (c), a loan made, insured or guaranteed under this part or part D (excluding loans made under sections 428B and 428C) for any new borrower after October 1, 1994, who completes a degree in early childhood education and obtains full-time employment in a child care facility. ``(2) Award basis; priority.-- ``(A) Award basis.--Subject to subparagraph (B), loan repayment under this section shall be on a first-come, first- served basis and subject to the availability of appropriations. ``(B) Priority.--The Secretary shall give priority in providing loan repayment under this section for a fiscal year to student borrowers who received loan repayment under this section for the preceding fiscal year. ``(3) Regulations.--The Secretary is authorized to prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section. ``(c) Loan Repayment.-- ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall assume the obligation to repay 15 percent of the total amount of all loans made after October 1, 1994, to a student under this part or part D for each complete year of employment described in subsection (b)(1). ``(2) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the refunding of any repayment of a loan made under this part or part D. ``(3) Interest.--If a portion of a loan is repaid by the Secretary under this section for any year, the proportionate amount of interest on such loan which accrues for such year shall be repaid by the Secretary. ``(4) Special rule.--In the case where a student borrower who is not participating in loan repayment pursuant to this section returns to an institution of higher education after graduation from an institution of higher education for the purpose of obtaining a degree in early childhood education, the Secretary is authorized to assume the obligation to repay the total amount of loans made under this part or part D incurred for a maximum of two academic years in returning to an institution of higher education for the purpose of obtaining a degree in early childhood education. Such loans shall only be repaid for borrowers who qualify for loan repayment pursuant to the provisions of this section, and shall be repaid in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1). ``(5) Ineligibility of national service award recipients.-- No student borrower may, for the same volunteer service, receive a benefit under both this section and subtitle D of title I of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12601 et seq.). ``(d) Repayment to Eligible Lenders.--The Secretary shall pay to each eligible lender or holder for each fiscal year an amount equal to the aggregate amount of loans which are subject to the repayment pursuant to this section for such year. ``(e) Application for Repayment.-- ``(1) In general.--Each eligible individual desiring loan repayment under this section shall submit a complete and accurate application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require. ``(2) Conditions.--An eligible individual may apply for loan repayment under this section after completing each year of qualifying employment. The borrower shall receive forbearance while engaged in qualifying employment unless the borrower is in deferment while so engaged. ``(f) Evaluation.-- ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct, by grant or contract, an independent national evaluation of the impact of the demonstration program assisted under this section on the field of early childhood education. ``(2) Competitive basis.--The grant or contract described in subsection (a) shall be awarded on a competitive basis. ``(3) Contents.--The evaluation described in this subsection shall-- ``(A) determine the number of individuals who were encouraged by the demonstration program assisted under this section to pursue early childhood education; ``(B) determine the number of individuals who remain employed in a child care facility as a result of participation in the program; ``(C) identify the barriers to the effectiveness of the program; ``(D) assess the cost-effectiveness of the program in improving the quality of-- ``(i) early childhood education; and ``(ii) child care services; ``(E) identify the reasons why participants in the program have chosen to take part in the program; ``(F) identify the number of individuals participating in the program who received an associate's degree and the number of such individuals who received a bachelor's degree; and ``(G) identify the number of years each individual participates in the program. ``(4) Interim and final evaluation reports.--The Secretary shall prepare and submit to the President and the Congress such interim reports regarding the evaluation described in this subsection as the Secretary deems appropriate, and shall prepare and so submit a final report regarding the evaluation by January 1, 2002. ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.''. SEC. 5. LOAN CANCELLATION. Section 465(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087ee(a)) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (2)-- (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (G), (H), and (I) as subparagraphs (H), (I), and (J), respectively; and (B) by inserting after subparagraph (F), the following: ``(G) as a full-time child care provider or educator-- ``(i) in a child care facility operated by an entity that meets the applicable State or local government licensing, certification, approval, or registration requirements, if any; and ``(ii) who has a degree in early childhood education;''; and (2) in paragraph (3)(A)-- (A) in clause (i), by striking ``(G), (H), or (I)'' and inserting ``(H), (I), or (J)''; and (B) in clause (ii), by inserting ``or (G)'' after ``subparagraph (B)''. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Ohio to introduce a bill that is an important step toward protecting the lives and the future of this Nation's children. Today in the Labor Committee, we will hear from the parents of a 3-month-old baby who lost his life after only 2 hours in daycare. We as a society must share some of the responsibility for this tragedy with the daycare center that neglected Jeremy Fiedelholtz. We as a society have allowed daycares to be under funded and understaffed, because we have not valued the position of daycare provider. We have not treated that job as a profession, we have not respected their responsibilities and considered such individuals to have a career worthy of compensation, attention, and respect. The bill that my colleague and I introduce today would provide loan forgiveness for individuals who earn a degree in early childhood education, and enter and remain employed in the early child care profession. It would also provide forgiveness for some existing child care providers who remain in the profession. The bill seeks to make child care more affordable and to increase the quality of child care by making a career in child care more profitable. It would help make the career of caregiver more affordable and more feasible for those interested in helping children grow. Nationally, child care workers have the following statistics: [[Page S7716]] 97 percent are female; 33 percent are women of color; 41 percent have children; 10 percent are single parents; only 18 percent of child care centers offer their workers health coverage. In Minnesota child care centers, the average hourly wage for a child care provider is $8.72; for an assistant teacher is $6.66; and for an aide is $5.69. Minnesota family child care providers, who are never covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act, have an average hourly wage of $2.79, and make $7,800 a year for a 60-hour work week. With changes created by the welfare bill in the Federal child care food program, many family child care providers will become ineligible for this program; those who don't pass the costs of care on to the parents will have negative earnings--they will actually lose $71 a week. Nationally, child care teaching staff earn $6.89 an hour and $12,000 a year. Family child care providers earn $9,500, and unregulated providers, $5,100. Although they are better educated than the average worker, child care workers earn one-third of the average male salary and one-half of the average female salary. It is no surprise that one- third of them leave their centers every year. In the meantime, in Minnesota, there are 8,960 children on the waiting list for child care. There are probably another 13,440 children who would apply if the waiting list wasn't so long. Mr. President, add all this up and you have a recipe for disaster. Child care is without question among the most important issues facing the workforce today. Parents who can't care for their children, can't work. Child care is without question among the most important issues facing the field of education today. Children who are not stimulated and cared for during the earliest years will never be able to reach his or her full potential when they grow up. If we don't take the profession seriously and encourage people of caliber to enter the profession of caregiving, and reward those who remain in the profession, then we are risking our economic future and putting at risk millions of children like Jeremy Fiedelholtz. I urge my colleagues to join us in this bipartisan effort to invest money where it is most needed. Let me just say I am very honored to introduce this legislation with Senator DeWine. I thoroughly enjoy working with him, and I think we are both very committed to this piece of legislation. Mr. President, in the Labor Committee today, we are going to hear from the parents of a 3-month-old baby who lost his life after only 2 hours in child care. If you look at the reports, the conditions around our country are not what they should be for children, and if you just think about the pay scale of women and men--they are mainly women--who are child care providers, we have devalued the work of adults who work with children. What this piece of legislation does is it provides loan forgiveness for individuals who earn a degree in early childhood development and then remain employed in this early childhood profession. It also would have some forgiveness for existing child care providers who remain in the profession. What we are simply trying to say here, I say to my colleagues, is that the neuroscience evidence is compelling, these early years are critical years, we have to get it right, there has to be a nurturing care and the intellectual stimulation and, yet, if you look around the country, nationally child care teaching staff earn an average of $6.89 an hour, or about $12,000 a year. Actually, in many of our States, people who work in zoos, and by the way I love visiting zoos--it is not my point to put down that work-- earn twice as much as women and men who work in child care centers. If we really value children and we really understand that pre-K is so important, and if we really understand--and we should and we must--that we have to make sure that by age 3, children have gotten the nurturing care in order for them to be able to go on and do well in school and do well in life, then it is terribly important that we attach more value to the work that is being done. That is what this piece of legislation does, which provides the loan forgiveness for women and men I hope will go into this profession. It is a small step forward, but it is an extremely important step. I am very pleased to introduce this legislation today with my colleague, Senator DeWine. ______ By Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Wellstone): S. 1030. A bill to amend title IV of the Public Health Service Act to establish a National Center for Bioengineering Research; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. The National Center for Bioengineering Research Act of 1997 Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Center for Bioengineering Research Act of 1997. Bioengineering is where medical need and technical capability meet to increase our capacity to diagnose and treat disease; to enhance the quality of life of millions of people with chronic conditions; to save millions of dollars in health care costs; and to generate billions of dollars for our economy. Medical devices alone is a $40 billion-a-year industry. Bioengineering is an interdisciplinary field that applies physical, chemical, and mathematical sciences and engineering principles to the study of biology, medicine, behavior, and health. It advances knowledge from the molecular to the organ systems level, and develops new and novel biologics, materials, processes, implant, devices, and informatics approaches for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease, for patient rehabilitation, and for improving health. Although the term ``bioengineering'' may not be commonplace, many of the major medical advances from bioengineering are very familiar, including the heart-lung machine, kidney dialysis, total hip joint replacements, heart pacemakers, artificial hearts, prosthetics, and diagnostic medical imaging. Other advances are right around the corner, including implantable insulin pumps with biosensors that detect exactly when and how much insulin is needed; and regeneration of tissue, cartilage, and even organs, instead of transplantation--which brings with it the risk of rejection, major trauma to the patient, and one of the highest costs in our entire health care system. As a heart-lung transplant surgeon, I know first hand about the life-saving contributions made by all of these bioengineering developments. We need as many new achievements like this as we can produce. In spite of such spectacular achievements, however, the field of bioengineering suffers from fragmentation and a lack of coordination that could impede and delay future advances in the field. This fragmentation was recognized as early as 1967, when an international conference called for better coordination in bioengineering research. In 1995, at the request of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, the NIH submitted a report, ``Support for Bioengineering Research.'' This report was remarkably consistent with a number of previous studies over the last 30 years that stressed the need for: a centralized focus for extramural bioengineering research at NIH; a strong intramural bioengineering program at NIH; and increased coordination of bioengineering activities within NIH and among other Federal agencies. This legislation seeks to implement those recommendations and is designed to enhance the state of and improve the coordination of bioengineering research conducted within NIH and throughout the Federal Government. This bill calls for the establishment of a National Center for Bioengineering Research within the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute at NIH. The mission of the Center is to: First, enhance the state of bioengineering research within NIH; Second, promote collaborative research projects among NIH institutes and across Federal agencies; Third, enhance communication among bioengineering investigators within Federal agencies and with private sector entities; and Fourth, educate the Congress and the public on the critical importance of bioengineering to both the health and the economy of the Nation. This legislation does not create a new institute within NIH. The Center would have no grantmaking authority. New funding would be allocated to institutes to support basic research projects in bioengineering through the standard peer review process. This legislation is introduced today as a stand-alone bill. But I expect it to [[Page S7717]] be included in the reauthorization bill for the National Institutes of Health which, as Chair of the Public Health and Safety Subcommittee of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, I intend to move forward during the first session of the 105th Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and summary be printed in the Record. There be

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - July 17, 1997)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S7710-S7732] STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Domenici, and Mr. Hatch): S. 1027. A bill to extend the native American veteran direct housing loan pilot program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. NATIVE AMERICAN VETERANS HOUSING LOAN IMPROVEMENTS LEGISLATION Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce legislation to extend and improve the native American veteran direct loan pilot program. I am pleased to add Senators Johnson, Domenici, and Hatch as cosponsors of this legislation. America's most important resource has always been the individuals willing to lay down their lives for their country. Throughout our history we have been blessed with men and women willing to put themselves at risk for the greater good. Native Americans have been proud to be a part of this Nation's defense. From the revolutionary era to our ongoing peacekeeping missions around the globe, native Americans have served and continue to serve the United States honorably. It may surprise some members to know that native Americans served, suffered, and died in service to this Nation even though they were not allowed to be citizens until 1924. As a veteran I feel a special kinship with all those men and women who served this Nation in peacetime and in war. As an Indian veteran I am keenly aware of the dedicated service Indians, Alaskans, and Hawaiians have given--often without recognition of their sacrifice. How can we compensate these men and women for making the greatest sacrifice they could? There is no dollar value we can place on a life. At the very least, we must provide the basic benefits of health care, housing, and education to those that laid down their lives for America. Since 1992, the Department of Veterans Affairs has operated a direct housing loan program to help native America veterans build decent homes. I was amazed to find out that in the last 5 years, that program had provided eight Indian veterans with loans. That is not an indication that all Indian veterans have no housing needs. During a hearing on veterans issues, members of the Indian Affairs Committee saw videotape of the houses used by Navajo veterans. They looked like something you would see in a Third World nation, not America. Houses had holes in their roofs and walls and plastic sheets for windows. Many houses do not have working plumbing and water has to be carried from miles away. This is certainly not the appreciation and respect war veterans deserve. Native Americans seeking home loans face many obstacles unique to Indian country, including poor economic conditions and the fact that the land cannot be used as collateral. But the most surprising revelation at the committee's hearing was that the majority of Indian veterans seem to have little or no knowledge that the VA's direct loan program exists. If they do, many do not know how or where to apply. The Government has no problem finding these men and women when it is time to draft them to fight in a war. But when it is time to pay them back for their sacrifice, the effort just is not there. That is why the bill I introduce today does more than extend the direct loan program for 3 years. It includes measures to boost the Department of Veterans Affairs' efforts to implement the direct loan program for native American veterans. The bill places new requirements on the Department to consult with tribal organizations, native veterans organizations, and other groups prior to making decisions under the act. It also expresses Congress's desire that the Department carry out vigorous outreach and education efforts to inform potential beneficiaries of the housing assistance benefits under the [[Page S7711]] act. The bill requires the Department to submit annual reports to the Committee on Indian Affairs, the House Resources Committee, and the Veterans' Committees of both Chambers containing a description of the outreach activities undertaken by the VA on a regional basis, with a second mandate that the VA conduct an assessment of how effective these efforts have been in encouraging greater use of the loan program. We must honor the service and sacrifice of our warriors. We must recognize the sacrifice they have made for all of us. The direct loan program is an ambitious idea designed to help our veterans with the most basic human need: a roof over their heads. It should not sit unused because of bureaucratic complacency. It is my hope that this reauthorization, with the appropriate changes, will jumpstart the Department's efforts to make the program available to native veterans and help them use it. I believe it is the least we can do. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 1027 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. FINDINGS. Congress makes the following findings: (1) Native Americans across the United States have a long, proud, and distinguished tradition of service in the Armed Forces of the United States. (2) Native Americans have historically served in the Armed Forces in numbers which far exceed their representation in the population of the United States. (3) Native Americans have lost their lives in the service of the United States and in the cause of peace. (4) The demand for safe, decent, and affordable housing among the 210,000 Native American veterans in the United States is acute. (5) Native American veterans face unique impediments to the use of traditional housing programs to benefit veterans such as poor economic conditions, the legal status of Indian trust lands, and the lack of incentives for lenders to make loans on trust lands. SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF DIRECT HOUSING LOAN PILOT PROGRAM. Section 3761(c) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking out ``September 30, 1997'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``September 30, 2000''. SEC. 3. OUTREACH. Section 3762(i) of title 38, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by inserting ``, in consultation with tribal organizations and Native American veterans organizations,'' after ``The Secretary shall''; and (2) by striking out ``tribal organizations and''. SEC. 4. CONSULTATION WITH NATIVE AMERICAN VETERANS ORGANIZATIONS. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall consult with Native American veterans organizations in carrying out the Native American veterans direct housing loan program under subchapter V of chapter 37 of title 38, United States Code. SEC. 5. ANNUAL REPORTS. Section 8(d) of the Veterans Home Loan Program Amendments of 1992 (Public Law 102-547; 106 Stat. 3640; 38 U.S.C. 3761 note) is amended-- (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)-- (A) by striking out ``1998,'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``2001,''; and (B) by inserting ``, the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives'' after ``the House of Representatives''; (2) by striking out ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3); (3) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and (4) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph (4): ``(4) a description of the outreach activities undertaken by the Secretary under section 3762(i) of such title (as so added) which-- ``(A) specifies such activities on a region-by-region basis; and ``(B) assesses the effectiveness of such activities in encouraging the participation of Native American veterans in the pilot program; and''. ____ Veterans Direct Housing Loan Pilot Program--Section-by-Section Analysis Background. Begun in 1992, the Native American Veterans Housing Program is due to be reauthorized. The account retains some $3.5 million of an original $5 million appropriation. Since 1992, the performance of the Veterans Administration in distributing this money to Indians is poor, especially compared with the experience of the Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders. The goal of the amendments is to get the VA to do its job better in Indian country. The reasons adduced by the VA for the poor performance are not convincing. Section 1. New Findings Section. This section recognizes Indians' long and historic contributions made to the Armed Forces and defense of the United States. This section also recognizes the acute need for housing among the more than 200,000 native veterans, and the unique impediments native veterans face due to poor economic conditions on the reservation, and the inability to securitize Indian trust lands. Section 2. Extension of Program. The bill would extend the authority for the program for 3 years, to September 30, 2000. Section 3. Outreach. Most of the discernible problems in the implementation of this program involve a lack of knowledge about the program by Indians and lack of proactive endeavors by the VA to disseminate information about the program through Indian country. The bill would place new requirements on the VA to consult with tribal organizations, native veterans organizations, and other groups prior to making decisions under the act. Section 4. Consultation with Native American Veterans Organizations. This new section requires the VA to consult with native veterans organizations in implementing the act. Section 5. Annual Reports. The VA is required to submit annual reports to the Committee on Indian Affairs, the House Resources Committee, and the veterans committees of both Chambers containing a description of the outreach activities undertaken by the VA on a regional basis, with a second mandate that the VA conduct an assessment of the efficacy of such activities in encouraging greater use of the program. ______ By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer): S. 1028. A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a pilot project on designated lands within Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests in the State of California to demonstrate the effectiveness of the resource management activities proposed by the Quincy Library Group and to amend current land and resource management; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today Senator Barbara Boxer and I are introducing the Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997. This legislation is nearly identical to H.R. 858 sponsored in the House of Representatives by Congressman Wally Herger and passed by the House last week on a vote of 429 to 1. The House vote is remarkable for two reasons: First, any legislation involving a controversial issue--particularly on one as contentious as forest management --that receives 429 votes is remarkable in and of itself. Second, the process by which this legislation evolved is really, I think, groundbreaking, and it deserves to be recognized. I first met the Quincy Library Group back in 1992 when I was running for the Senate, and was then very impressed with what they were trying to do. The overwhelming House vote is a real victory for local communities like Quincy which seek to avoid the polarizing--and often paralyzing-- battles that have characterized forest management issues for the last decade. The Quincy Library Group is a local coalition of timber industry representatives, environmentalists, citizens, and elected officials in Plumas, Lassen, and Sierra Counties, CA, who came together to resolve their long-standing conflicts over timber management on the national forest lands in their area. They had seen first hand the seemingly ever present conflict between timber harvesting and jobs, environmental laws and protection of their communities and forests, and the devastation of massive forest fires. They also saw that a practical solution to the conflict between timber interests and environmental interests were both going to be wiped out one day by uncontrollable wildfires. And so they tried to get together and talk things out. They decided to meet in a quiet, non-confrontational environment--the main room of the Quincy Public Library. Hence, they became known as the Quincy Library Group. They began their dialog in the recognition that they shared the common goal of fostering forest health, ecological integrity, an adequate timber supply for area mills, and economic stability for their community. So, after a year-and-a-half of negotiation, the Quincy Library Group developed an alternative management [[Page S7712]] plan for the Lassen National Forest, Plumas National Forest, and Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest. This legislation is the result. The bill we introduce today implements the Quincy Library Group's plan. I know that some environmental organizations had concerns about aspects of this legislation, and some may still oppose it. But let me make something very clear: As I stated when I met with the Quincy Library Group, in order to have my support, the legislation had to explicitly state that all activities would be carried out consistent with all applicable Federal environmental laws, both substantive and procedural. The administration made this requirement clear as well. The House bill and this legislation do so. Another condition for my support, and that of the administration, was that the legislation must authorize sufficient funds to carry out the plan, so that funds will not be diverted from other important programs like wildlife protection, grazing and recreation. The House bill and this legislation authorize appropriations to do so. With these key provisions in place, I believe this legislation deserves strong support and swift passage. Specifically, this legislation: Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to implement the Quincy Library Group's forest management proposal on designated lands in the Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests for 5 years as a demonstration of community-based consensus forest management; Protects the California spotted owl and riparian areas by excluding all spotted owl habitat in the pilot project area from logging and other resource management activities during the 5-year pilot project, and requiring the Forest Service to follow the scientific analysis team guidelines for riparian system protection; Calls for the construction of fuel breaks on 40,000 to 60,000 acres a year; Provides for group selection on 0.57 percent of the project area annually as well as individual tree selection uneven-aged forest management; Limits the total acreage subject to forest management activities to 70,000 acres annually; Requires a program of riparian management, including wide protection zones and riparian restoration projects; Requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement prior to the commencement of the pilot project; Authorizes the appropriation of funds to carry out the Quincy Library Group pilot project; Directs the Forest Service to amend the land and resource management plans for the Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests to consider adoption of the Quincy Library Group plan in the forest management plans; Requires an annual report to Congress on the status of the pilot project, including the source and use of funds, the acres treated and description of the results, economic benefits to the local communities, and activities planned for the following year; and finally, Requires a scientific assessment of the Quincy Library Group project to be commenced at the midpoint of the project and submitted to Congress by July 1, 2002. At the suggestion of the environmental community, and with the concurrence of the Quincy Library Group, I have added language to the House version of the bill to provide additional environmental safeguards. These additions will ensure that there will be no road building or timber harvesting on the lands the Quincy Library Group plan designated as off base, plan designates certain lands as deferred, and require the annual reports and the final report on the Quincy Library Group project to include a report on any adverse environmental impacts of the pilot project. Finally, it is our intention that areas of late successional emphasis identified in the Sierra Nevada ecosystem project report also be protected from resource management activities during the pilot project, and I will seek committee report language on this issue. What all this means is that as a result of the Quincy Library Group pilot project: The threat of catastrophic forest fires will be reduced, through the clearing of underbrush and thinning of the smaller trees; Enough jobs in the forests will be provided to keep the local mills in operation and the communities in existence; and Forest health will be improved, riparian areas will be restored, and biological diversity maintained. Mr. President, I believe the Quincy Library Group deserves a great deal of credit and respect for approaching a tough issue with the goal of finding common ground. There is a lot of common ground. They all live in the area. They all work there. They raise their children there. They all care about both the environment and the industry that provides jobs to the region. They wanted to work out a solution instead of continuing the take-no- prisoners-approach of endless litigation and standoff. I believe the solution-based approach demonstrated by the Quincy Library Group should be supported by the Congress, and that is why I committed months ago to introduce legislation based on this group's efforts. On an issue like forest management and timber harvesting, many local variables are involved and must be considered to find workable solutions: For example, the wildfire threat in Tennessee is not the same as it is in California. And the economic impact of the timber industry may be different in Hayfork, CA than it is in Juneau, AK. The bottom line is that, as long as certain basic standards of environmental law are met, this pilot project will demonstrate whether a local initiative can be successful in developing a forest management plan that works to protect the old growth trees, endangered species, and jobs for the community. And based on that belief I am pleased to support their efforts by sponsoring this legislation in the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 1028 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997''. SEC. 2. PILOT PROJECT FOR PLUMAS, LASSEN, AND TAHOE NATIONAL FORESTS TO IMPLEMENT QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP PROPOSAL. (a) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``Quincy Library Group-Community Stability Proposal'' means the agreement by a coalition of representatives of fisheries, timber, environmental, county government, citizen groups, and local communities that formed in northern California to develop a resource management program that promotes ecologic and economic health for certain Federal lands and communities in the Sierra Nevada area. Such proposal includes the map entitled ``QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP Community Stability Proposal'', dated June 1993, and prepared by VESTRA Resources of Redding, California. (b) Pilot Project Required.-- (1) Pilot project and purpose.--The Secretary of Agriculture (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary''), acting through the Forest Service and after completion of an environmental impact statement (a record of decision for which shall be adopted within 200 days), shall conduct a pilot project on the Federal lands described in paragraph (2) to implement and demonstrate the effectiveness of the resource management activities described in subsection (d) and the other requirements of this section, as recommended in the Quincy Library Group-Community Stability Proposal. (2) Pilot project area.--The Secretary shall conduct the pilot project on the Federal lands within Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and the Sierraville Ranger District of Tahoe National Forest in the State of California designated as ``Available for Group Selection'' on the map entitled ``QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP Community Stability Proposal'', dated June 1993 (in this section referred to as the ``pilot project area''). Such map shall be on file and available for inspection in the appropriate offices of the Forest Service. (c) Exclusion of Certain Lands, Riparian Protection and Compliance.-- (1) Exclusion.--All spotted owl habitat areas and protected activity centers located within the pilot project area designated under subsection (b)(2) will be deferred from resource management activities required under subsection (d) and timber harvesting during the term of the pilot project. (2) In general.--The Regional Forester for Region 5 shall direct that during the term of the pilot project any resource management [[Page S7713]] activity required by subsection (d), all road building, and all timber harvesting activities shall not be conducted on the Federal lands within the Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest in the State of California that designated as either ``Off Base'' or ``Deferred'' on the map referred to in subsection (a). (3) Riparian protection.-- (A) In general.--The Scientific Analysis Team guidelines for riparian system protection described in subparagraph (B) shall apply to all resource management activities conducted under subsection (d) and all timber harvesting activities that occur in the pilot project area during the term of the pilot project. (B) Guidelines described.--The guidelines referred to in subparagraph (A) are those in the document entitled ``Viability Assessments and Management Considerations for Species Associated with Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forests of the Pacific Northwest'', a Forest Service research document dated March 1993 and co-authored by the Scientific Analysis Team, including Dr. Jack Ward Thomas. (4) Compliance.--All resource management activities required by subsection (d) shall be implemented to the extent consistent with applicable Federal law and the standards and guidelines for the conservation of the California spotted owl as set forth in the California Spotted Owl Sierran Provence Interim Guidelines, or the subsequently issued final guidelines whichever is in effect. (d) Resource Management Activities.--During the term of the pilot project, the Secretary shall implement and carry out the following resource management activities on an acreage basis on the Federal lands included within the pilot project area designated under subsection (b)(2): (1) Fuelbreak construction.--Construction of a strategic system of defensible fuel profile zones, including shaded fuelbreaks, utilizing thinning, individual tree selection, and other methods of vegetation management consistent with the Quincy Library Group-Community Stability Proposal, on not less than 40,000, but not more than 60,000, acres per year. (2) Group selection and individual tree selection.-- Utilization of group selection and individual tree selection uneven-aged forest management prescriptions described in the Quincy Library Group-Community Stability Proposal to achieve a desired future condition of all-age, multistory, fire resilient forests as follows: (A) Group selection.--Group selection on an average acreage of .57 percent of the pilot project area land each year of the pilot project. (B) Individual tree selection.--Individual tree selection may also be utilized within the pilot project area. (3) Total acreage.--The total acreage on which resource management activities are implemented under this subsection shall not exceed 70,000 acres each year. (4) Riparian management.--A program of riparian management, including wide protection zones and riparian restoration projects, consistent with riparian protection guidelines in subsection (c)(2)(B). (e) Cost-Effectiveness.--In conducting the pilot project, Secretary shall use the most cost-effective means available, as determined by the Secretary, to implement resource management activities described in subsection (d). (f) Funding.-- (1) Source of funds.--In conducting the pilot project, the Secretary shall use, subject to the relevant reprogramming guidelines of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations-- (A) those funds specifically provided to the Forest Service by the Secretary to implement resource management activities according to the Quincy Library Group-Community Stability Proposal; and (B) excess funds that are allocated for the administration and management of Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and the Sierraville Ranger District of Tahoe National Forest. (2) Prohibition on use of certain funds.--The Secretary may not conduct the pilot project using funds appropriated for any other unit of the National Forest System. (3) Flexibility.--Subject to normal reprogramming guidelines, during the term of the pilot project, the forest supervisors of Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and Tahoe National Forest may allocate and use all accounts that contain excess funds and all available excess funds for the administration and management of Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and the Sierraville Ranger District of Tahoe National Forest to perform the resource management activities described in subsection (d). (4) Restriction.--The Secretary or the forest supervisors, as the case may be, shall not utilize authority provided under paragraphs (1)(B) and (3) if, in their judgment, doing so will limit other nontimber related multiple use activities for which such funds were available. (5) Overhead.--Of amounts available to carry out this section-- (A) not more than 12 percent may be used or allocated for general administration or other overhead; and (B) at least 88 percent shall be used to implement and carry out activities required by this section. (6) Authorized supplemental funds.--There are authorized to be appropriated to implement and carry out the pilot project such sums as are necessary. (7) Baseline funds.--Amounts available for resource management activities authorized under subsection (d) shall at a minimum include existing baseline funding levels. (g) Term of Pilot Project.--The Secretary shall conduct the pilot project during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on the later of the following: (1) The date on which the Secretary completes amendment or revision of the land and resource management plans for Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and Tahoe National Forest pursuant to subsection (i). (2) The date that is five years after the date of the commencement of the pilot project. (h) Consultation.--(1) Each statement required by subsection (b)(1) shall be prepared in consultation with the Quincy Library Group. (2) Contracting.--The Forest Service, subject to the availability of appropriations, may carry out any (or all) of the requirements of this section using private contracts. (i) Corresponding Forest Plan Amendments.--Within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Regional Forester for Region 5 shall initiate the process to amend or revise the land and resource management plans for Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and Tahoe National Forest. The process shall include preparation of at least one alternative that-- (1) incorporates the pilot project and area designations made by subsection (b), the resource management activities described in subsection (d), and other aspects of the Quincy Library Group Community Stability Proposal; and (2) makes other changes warranted by the analyses conducted in compliance with section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)), section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604), and other applicable laws. (j) Reporting Requirements.-- (1) In general.--Not later than February 28 of each year during the term of the pilot project, the Secretary after consultation with the Quincy Library Group, shall submit to Congress a report on the status of the pilot project. The report shall include at least the following: (A) A complete accounting of the use of funds made available under subsection (f)(1)(A) until such funds are fully expended. (B) A complete accounting of the use of funds and accounts made available under subsection (f)(1) for the previous fiscal year, including a schedule of the amounts drawn from each account used to perform resource management activities described in subsection (d). (C) A description of total acres treated for each of the resources management activities required under subsection (d), forest health improvements, fire risk reductions, water yield increases, and other natural resources-related benefits achieved by the implementation of the resource management activities described in subsection (d). (D) A description of the economic benefits to communities achieved by the implementation of the pilot project. (E) A comparison of the revenues generated by, and costs incurred in, the implementation of the resource management activities described in subsection (d) of the Federal lands included in the pilot project area with the revenues and costs during each of the fiscal years 1992 through 1997 for timber management of such lands before their inclusion in the pilot project. (F) A schedule for the resource management activities to be undertaken in the pilot project area during the calendar year. (G) A description of any adverse environmental impacts. (2) Limitation on expenditures.--The amount of Federal funds expended on each annual report under this subsection shall not exceed $50,000. (k) Final Report.-- (1) In general.--Beginning after completion of 6 months of second year of the pilot project, the Secretary shall compile a science-based assessment of, and report on, the effectiveness of the pilot project in meeting the stated goals of this pilot project. Such assessment and report-- (A) shall include watershed monitoring of lands treated under this section, that should address the following issues on a priority basis: timing of water releases, water quality changes, and water yield changes over the short long term in the pilot project area; (B) shall include an analysis of any adverse environmental impacts; (C) shall be compiled in consultation with the Quincy Library Group; and (D) shall be submitted to the Congress by July 1, 2002. (2) Limitations on expenditures.--The amount of Federal funds expended for the assessment and report under this subsection, other than for watershed monitoring under paragraph (1)(A), shall not exceed $150,000. The amount of Federal funds for watershed monitoring under paragraph (1)(A) shall not exceed $75,000 for each of fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002. (l) Relationship to Other Laws.--Nothing in this section exempts the pilot project from any Federal environmental law. [[Page S7714]] Mrs. BOXER. The Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act is the result of many years of consensus building in an effort to unite unlikely partners in a mutually beneficial project. President Clinton spurred this consensus approach in April 1993, at the Northwest Forest Summit, when he challenged Americans to stay in the conference room and out of the courtroom. One local group put this difficult challenge into action and began a series of meetings in the only place they knew they could ensure civility, and some degree of quiet--their local library. With that, the Quincy Library Group was created. This group of local citizens surrounding Quincy, CA, including timber industry representatives, local environmental activists, and public officials, have been meeting periodically since 1992 to develop a timber management plan for the areas' surrounding national forests. They did not have an easy task before them--promoting the local economy, preserving jobs, and protecting the environment. Several years ago I visited Quincy, CA, and had an opportunity to see first hand the problems in the forests and the community at work. Since that time, I have worked with the Quincy Library Group, U.S. Forest Service, Senator Feinstein, Members of Congress, and the national environmental community in an effort to reach a consensus. I believe that is what we have before us today. This legislation will implement the Quincy Library Group proposal for managing the Tahoe, Lassen, and Sierraville Range of the Tahoe National Forests through biological reserves, fire suppression, riparian restoration, watershed protection, and monitoring. The House passed a companion bill earlier this week by a near unanimous vote. I believe the overwhelming success in the House was largely due to the inclusion of provisions which ensure compliance with all environmental laws, as well as interim and final California spotted owl guidelines. This proposal has gone through years of collaboration from many dedicated people with many different interests. We now have legislation to implement this consensus--legislation which can be fined tuned as it moves through the legislative process. The President's statement of administration policy on the House companion bill suggests further refining the bill so that the pilot project will end once the Forest Service completes the appropriate forest plan amendments. I would be supportive of such a change to the bill. Some have suggested that the legislation increase the protection of all old growth forests in the area and ensure that logging and road building be prohibited in all roadless and sensitive areas. We should consider that change. I hope that these concerns can be addressed as this bill moves through the legislative process. Nonetheless, many positive changes have been made to the legislation over the last few months, and although some outstanding concerns still remain, the legislation now provides many of the safeguards necessary to protect the natural environment while promoting the local economy. I want to thank Senator Feinstein, Congressmen Fazio, Miller, Herger, Young, and the Forest Service for their efforts on this legislation. It has truly been a cooperative effort and I hope we are able to pass this legislation quickly so that we will soon be able to see the proposal implemented on the ground. ______ By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Wellstone): S. 1029. A bill to provide loan forgiveness for individuals who earn a degree in early childhood education, and enter and remain employed in the early child care profession, to provide loan cancellation for certain child care providers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. The Quality Child Care Loan Forgiveness Act Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk now, a bill on behalf of myself and Senator Wellstone. Mr. President, this bill is the Quality Child Care Loan Forgiveness Act and it is intended to, at least in part, deal with a very serious problem in this country. That problem simply is that more and more children, more and more of our children, are every day in child care. There is a real concern about the quality of child care. This bill does not solve every problem in regard to child care, but I think it is a start and I think it would make a significant impact. Today, more than 70 percent of mothers are in the labor force. Almost 75 percent of married couples with children have both spouses working. All of these working parents, plus parents moving from welfare to work, have to find someone to care for their children if they are going to go out and support their families. Yet today, child care is often very hard to find and quality child care is even harder to find. In just 20 years, the last 20 years, the percentage of children enrolled in some form, in some manner, of child care has gone from 30 percent to 70 percent. Quality child care is a concern to virtually every family in this country. More and more parents are working. More and more children are in child care. I think the very least we can do is to try to assure those families that, while they are at work, their children will be taken care of by qualified and by competent individuals. This, unfortunately, is not always taking place today. There are many qualified people in child care. There are very many dedicated people in child care. But I think we can do better. This is what this bill intends to address. Scientists tell us that the largest indicator of a child's intelligence is the mother's education level. While a mother is at work, then it becomes the education level of the child care provider that the child deals with for, sometimes, an extended period of time during the day. With all the new research that we see on the brain and early childhood development, I think we have to reemphasize this particular aspect of child care. We need well-educated, well-trained child care providers. One of the ways we can achieve this, one of the things that we can do to raise the quality of child care, is to say to individuals who are inclined to go into the child care profession that we will in fact help them if they want to make this a profession. We have to let people know, if they are going to earn a degree to take care of our children, we will help them. Our bill, the bill introduced today by Senator Wellstone and myself, will do this. Our bill would help repay the student loans of an individual who earns an early childhood degree and would help repay the loan of that person who goes to work in a licensed child care facility. The Quality Child Care Loan Forgiveness Act would pay off a student loan at the rate of 15 percent a year for people who earn an early childhood degree and who work in a licensed child care facility. This bill will help bring more qualified individuals to the child care profession. It would also help to decrease the high turnover levels caused, many times, by very low wages. Let me conclude. The Quality Child Care Loan Forgiveness Act is an important way to improve the quality of child care. American parents need it for their peace of mind, and American children need it for their mind development. I thank the Chair and ask unanimous consent at this time that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 1029 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Quality Child Care Loan Forgiveness Act''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress makes the following findings: (1) New scientific research shows that the electrical activity of brain cells actually changes the physical structure of the brain, and that without a stimulating environment, a baby's brain suffers. (2) 12,000,000 children under age 6, and 17,000,000 school- aged children of working parents, need child care. Demand for child care is growing as more mothers enter the workforce. (3) Good quality child care, in a safe environment, with trained, caring providers who offer stimulating activities appropriate to the child's age, help children grow and thrive. Recent research shows that most child care needs significant improvement. (4) Good quality child care depends largely on the provider. Yet providers of child care earn on average only $6.70 per hour or $11,725 [[Page S7715]] per year. Such earnings cause high turnover, which affects the overall quality of a child care program and causes anxiety for children. (5) Children attending lower-quality child care facilities and child care facilities with high staff turnover are less competent in language and social development. (6) Low-income and high-income children are more likely than middle-income children to attend child care facilities providing high quality child care. (7) The quality of child care is primarily related to high staff-to-child ratios, staff education, and administrators' prior experience. In addition, certain characteristics distinguish poor, mediocre, and good-quality child care facilities, the most important of which are teacher wages, education, and specialized training. SEC. 3. PURPOSES. The purposes of this Act are-- (1) to bring more highly trained individuals into the early child care profession; and (2) to keep more highly trained child care providers in the early child care field for longer periods of time. SEC. 4. LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR CHILD CARE PROVIDERS. Part B of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1071 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 428J of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1078-10) the following: ``SEC. 428I. LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR CHILD CARE PROVIDERS. ``(a) Definitions.--In this section: ``(1) Child care facility.--The term `child care facility' means a facility that-- ``(A) provides child care services; and ``(B) meets applicable State or local government licensing, certification, approval, or registration requirements, if any. ``(2) Child care services.--The term `child care services' means activities and services provided for the education and care of children from birth through age 5 by an individual who has a degree in early childhood education. ``(3) Degree.--The term `degree' means an associate's or bachelor's degree awarded by an institution of higher education. ``(4) Early childhood education.--The term `early childhood education' means education in the areas of early child education, child care, or any other educational area related to child care that the Secretary determines appropriate. ``(5) Institution of higher education.--The term `institution of higher education' has the meaning given the term in section 1201. ``(b) Demonstration Program.-- ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may carry out a demonstration program of assuming the obligation to repay, pursuant to subsection (c), a loan made, insured or guaranteed under this part or part D (excluding loans made under sections 428B and 428C) for any new borrower after October 1, 1994, who completes a degree in early childhood education and obtains full-time employment in a child care facility. ``(2) Award basis; priority.-- ``(A) Award basis.--Subject to subparagraph (B), loan repayment under this section shall be on a first-come, first- served basis and subject to the availability of appropriations. ``(B) Priority.--The Secretary shall give priority in providing loan repayment under this section for a fiscal year to student borrowers who received loan repayment under this section for the preceding fiscal year. ``(3) Regulations.--The Secretary is authorized to prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section. ``(c) Loan Repayment.-- ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall assume the obligation to repay 15 percent of the total amount of all loans made after October 1, 1994, to a student under this part or part D for each complete year of employment described in subsection (b)(1). ``(2) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the refunding of any repayment of a loan made under this part or part D. ``(3) Interest.--If a portion of a loan is repaid by the Secretary under this section for any year, the proportionate amount of interest on such loan which accrues for such year shall be repaid by the Secretary. ``(4) Special rule.--In the case where a student borrower who is not participating in loan repayment pursuant to this section returns to an institution of higher education after graduation from an institution of higher education for the purpose of obtaining a degree in early childhood education, the Secretary is authorized to assume the obligation to repay the total amount of loans made under this part or part D incurred for a maximum of two academic years in returning to an institution of higher education for the purpose of obtaining a degree in early childhood education. Such loans shall only be repaid for borrowers who qualify for loan repayment pursuant to the provisions of this section, and shall be repaid in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1). ``(5) Ineligibility of national service award recipients.-- No student borrower may, for the same volunteer service, receive a benefit under both this section and subtitle D of title I of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12601 et seq.). ``(d) Repayment to Eligible Lenders.--The Secretary shall pay to each eligible lender or holder for each fiscal year an amount equal to the aggregate amount of loans which are subject to the repayment pursuant to this section for such year. ``(e) Application for Repayment.-- ``(1) In general.--Each eligible individual desiring loan repayment under this section shall submit a complete and accurate application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require. ``(2) Conditions.--An eligible individual may apply for loan repayment under this section after completing each year of qualifying employment. The borrower shall receive forbearance while engaged in qualifying employment unless the borrower is in deferment while so engaged. ``(f) Evaluation.-- ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct, by grant or contract, an independent national evaluation of the impact of the demonstration program assisted under this section on the field of early childhood education. ``(2) Competitive basis.--The grant or contract described in subsection (a) shall be awarded on a competitive basis. ``(3) Contents.--The evaluation described in this subsection shall-- ``(A) determine the number of individuals who were encouraged by the demonstration program assisted under this section to pursue early childhood education; ``(B) determine the number of individuals who remain employed in a child care facility as a result of participation in the program; ``(C) identify the barriers to the effectiveness of the program; ``(D) assess the cost-effectiveness of the program in improving the quality of-- ``(i) early childhood education; and ``(ii) child care services; ``(E) identify the reasons why participants in the program have chosen to take part in the program; ``(F) identify the number of individuals participating in the program who received an associate's degree and the number of such individuals who received a bachelor's degree; and ``(G) identify the number of years each individual participates in the program. ``(4) Interim and final evaluation reports.--The Secretary shall prepare and submit to the President and the Congress such interim reports regarding the evaluation described in this subsection as the Secretary deems appropriate, and shall prepare and so submit a final report regarding the evaluation by January 1, 2002. ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.''. SEC. 5. LOAN CANCELLATION. Section 465(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087ee(a)) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (2)-- (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (G), (H), and (I) as subparagraphs (H), (I), and (J), respectively; and (B) by inserting after subparagraph (F), the following: ``(G) as a full-time child care provider or educator-- ``(i) in a child care facility operated by an entity that meets the applicable State or local government licensing, certification, approval, or registration requirements, if any; and ``(ii) who has a degree in early childhood education;''; and (2) in paragraph (3)(A)-- (A) in clause (i), by striking ``(G), (H), or (I)'' and inserting ``(H), (I), or (J)''; and (B) in clause (ii), by inserting ``or (G)'' after ``subparagraph (B)''. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Ohio to introduce a bill that is an important step toward protecting the lives and the future of this Nation's children. Today in the Labor Committee, we will hear from the parents of a 3-month-old baby who lost his life after only 2 hours in daycare. We as a society must share some of the responsibility for this tragedy with the daycare center that neglected Jeremy Fiedelholtz. We as a society have allowed daycares to be under funded and understaffed, because we have not valued the position of daycare provider. We have not treated that job as a profession, we have not respected their responsibilities and considered such individuals to have a career worthy of compensation, attention, and respect. The bill that my colleague and I introduce today would provide loan forgiveness for individuals who earn a degree in early childhood education, and enter and remain employed in the early child care profession. It would also provide forgiveness for some existing child care providers who remain in the profession. The bill seeks to make child care more affordable and to increase the quality of child care by making a career in child care more profitable. It would help make the career of caregiver more affordable and more feasible for those interested in helping children grow. Nationally, child care workers have the following statistics: [[Page S7716]] 97 percent are female; 33 percent are women of color; 41 percent have children; 10 percent are single parents; only 18 percent of child care centers offer their workers health coverage. In Minnesota child care centers, the average hourly wage for a child care provider is $8.72; for an assistant teacher is $6.66; and for an aide is $5.69. Minnesota family child care providers, who are never covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act, have an average hourly wage of $2.79, and make $7,800 a year for a 60-hour work week. With changes created by the welfare bill in the Federal child care food program, many family child care providers will become ineligible for this program; those who don't pass the costs of care on to the parents will have negative earnings--they will actually lose $71 a week. Nationally, child care teaching staff earn $6.89 an hour and $12,000 a year. Family child care providers earn $9,500, and unregulated providers, $5,100. Although they are better educated than the average worker, child care workers earn one-third of the average male salary and one-half of the average female salary. It is no surprise that one- third of them leave their centers every year. In the meantime, in Minnesota, there are 8,960 children on the waiting list for child care. There are probably another 13,440 children who would apply if the waiting list wasn't so long. Mr. President, add all this up and you have a recipe for disaster. Child care is without question among the most important issues facing the workforce today. Parents who can't care for their children, can't work. Child care is without question among the most important issues facing the field of education today. Children who are not stimulated and cared for during the earliest years will never be able to reach his or her full potential when they grow up. If we don't take the profession seriously and encourage people of caliber to enter the profession of caregiving, and reward those who remain in the profession, then we are risking our economic future and putting at risk millions of children like Jeremy Fiedelholtz. I urge my colleagues to join us in this bipartisan effort to invest money where it is most needed. Let me just say I am very honored to introduce this legislation with Senator DeWine. I thoroughly enjoy working with him, and I think we are both very committed to this piece of legislation. Mr. President, in the Labor Committee today, we are going to hear from the parents of a 3-month-old baby who lost his life after only 2 hours in child care. If you look at the reports, the conditions around our country are not what they should be for children, and if you just think about the pay scale of women and men--they are mainly women--who are child care providers, we have devalued the work of adults who work with children. What this piece of legislation does is it provides loan forgiveness for individuals who earn a degree in early childhood development and then remain employed in this early childhood profession. It also would have some forgiveness for existing child care providers who remain in the profession. What we are simply trying to say here, I say to my colleagues, is that the neuroscience evidence is compelling, these early years are critical years, we have to get it right, there has to be a nurturing care and the intellectual stimulation and, yet, if you look around the country, nationally child care teaching staff earn an average of $6.89 an hour, or about $12,000 a year. Actually, in many of our States, people who work in zoos, and by the way I love visiting zoos--it is not my point to put down that work-- earn twice as much as women and men who work in child care centers. If we really value children and we really understand that pre-K is so important, and if we really understand--and we should and we must--that we have to make sure that by age 3, children have gotten the nurturing care in order for them to be able to go on and do well in school and do well in life, then it is terribly important that we attach more value to the work that is being done. That is what this piece of legislation does, which provides the loan forgiveness for women and men I hope will go into this profession. It is a small step forward, but it is an extremely important step. I am very pleased to introduce this legislation today with my colleague, Senator DeWine. ______ By Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Wellstone): S. 1030. A bill to amend title IV of the Public Health Service Act to establish a National Center for Bioengineering Research; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. The National Center for Bioengineering Research Act of 1997 Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Center for Bioengineering Research Act of 1997. Bioengineering is where medical need and technical capability meet to increase our capacity to diagnose and treat disease; to enhance the quality of life of millions of people with chronic conditions; to save millions of dollars in health care costs; and to generate billions of dollars for our economy. Medical devices alone is a $40 billion-a-year industry. Bioengineering is an interdisciplinary field that applies physical, chemical, and mathematical sciences and engineering principles to the study of biology, medicine, behavior, and health. It advances knowledge from the molecular to the organ systems level, and develops new and novel biologics, materials, processes, implant, devices, and informatics approaches for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease, for patient rehabilitation, and for improving health. Although the term ``bioengineering'' may not be commonplace, many of the major medical advances from bioengineering are very familiar, including the heart-lung machine, kidney dialysis, total hip joint replacements, heart pacemakers, artificial hearts, prosthetics, and diagnostic medical imaging. Other advances are right around the corner, including implantable insulin pumps with biosensors that detect exactly when and how much insulin is needed; and regeneration of tissue, cartilage, and even organs, instead of transplantation--which brings with it the risk of rejection, major trauma to the patient, and one of the highest costs in our entire health care system. As a heart-lung transplant surgeon, I know first hand about the life-saving contributions made by all of these bioengineering developments. We need as many new achievements like this as we can produce. In spite of such spectacular achievements, however, the field of bioengineering suffers from fragmentation and a lack of coordination that could impede and delay future advances in the field. This fragmentation was recognized as early as 1967, when an international conference called for better coordination in bioengineering research. In 1995, at the request of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, the NIH submitted a report, ``Support for Bioengineering Research.'' This report was remarkably consistent with a number of previous studies over the last 30 years that stressed the need for: a centralized focus for extramural bioengineering research at NIH; a strong intramural bioengineering program at NIH; and increased coordination of bioengineering activities within NIH and among other Federal agencies. This legislation seeks to implement those recommendations and is designed to enhance the state of and improve the coordination of bioengineering research conducted within NIH and throughout the Federal Government. This bill calls for the establishment of a National Center for Bioengineering Research within the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute at NIH. The mission of the Center is to: First, enhance the state of bioengineering research within NIH; Second, promote collaborative research projects among NIH institutes and across Federal agencies; Third, enhance communication among bioengineering investigators within Federal agencies and with private sector entities; and Fourth, educate the Congress and the public on the critical importance of bioengineering to both the health and the economy of the Nation. This legislation does not create a new institute within NIH. The Center would have no grantmaking authority. New funding would be allocated to institutes to support basic research projects in bioengineering through the standard peer review process. This legislation is introduced today as a stand-alone bill. But I expect it to [[Page S7717]] be included in the reauthorization bill for the National Institutes of Health which, as Chair of the Public Health and Safety Subcommittee of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, I intend to move forward during the first session of the 105th Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and summary be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material w

Summary:

All articles in Senate section

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - July 17, 1997)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S7710-S7732] STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Domenici, and Mr. Hatch): S. 1027. A bill to extend the native American veteran direct housing loan pilot program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. NATIVE AMERICAN VETERANS HOUSING LOAN IMPROVEMENTS LEGISLATION Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce legislation to extend and improve the native American veteran direct loan pilot program. I am pleased to add Senators Johnson, Domenici, and Hatch as cosponsors of this legislation. America's most important resource has always been the individuals willing to lay down their lives for their country. Throughout our history we have been blessed with men and women willing to put themselves at risk for the greater good. Native Americans have been proud to be a part of this Nation's defense. From the revolutionary era to our ongoing peacekeeping missions around the globe, native Americans have served and continue to serve the United States honorably. It may surprise some members to know that native Americans served, suffered, and died in service to this Nation even though they were not allowed to be citizens until 1924. As a veteran I feel a special kinship with all those men and women who served this Nation in peacetime and in war. As an Indian veteran I am keenly aware of the dedicated service Indians, Alaskans, and Hawaiians have given--often without recognition of their sacrifice. How can we compensate these men and women for making the greatest sacrifice they could? There is no dollar value we can place on a life. At the very least, we must provide the basic benefits of health care, housing, and education to those that laid down their lives for America. Since 1992, the Department of Veterans Affairs has operated a direct housing loan program to help native America veterans build decent homes. I was amazed to find out that in the last 5 years, that program had provided eight Indian veterans with loans. That is not an indication that all Indian veterans have no housing needs. During a hearing on veterans issues, members of the Indian Affairs Committee saw videotape of the houses used by Navajo veterans. They looked like something you would see in a Third World nation, not America. Houses had holes in their roofs and walls and plastic sheets for windows. Many houses do not have working plumbing and water has to be carried from miles away. This is certainly not the appreciation and respect war veterans deserve. Native Americans seeking home loans face many obstacles unique to Indian country, including poor economic conditions and the fact that the land cannot be used as collateral. But the most surprising revelation at the committee's hearing was that the majority of Indian veterans seem to have little or no knowledge that the VA's direct loan program exists. If they do, many do not know how or where to apply. The Government has no problem finding these men and women when it is time to draft them to fight in a war. But when it is time to pay them back for their sacrifice, the effort just is not there. That is why the bill I introduce today does more than extend the direct loan program for 3 years. It includes measures to boost the Department of Veterans Affairs' efforts to implement the direct loan program for native American veterans. The bill places new requirements on the Department to consult with tribal organizations, native veterans organizations, and other groups prior to making decisions under the act. It also expresses Congress's desire that the Department carry out vigorous outreach and education efforts to inform potential beneficiaries of the housing assistance benefits under the [[Page S7711]] act. The bill requires the Department to submit annual reports to the Committee on Indian Affairs, the House Resources Committee, and the Veterans' Committees of both Chambers containing a description of the outreach activities undertaken by the VA on a regional basis, with a second mandate that the VA conduct an assessment of how effective these efforts have been in encouraging greater use of the loan program. We must honor the service and sacrifice of our warriors. We must recognize the sacrifice they have made for all of us. The direct loan program is an ambitious idea designed to help our veterans with the most basic human need: a roof over their heads. It should not sit unused because of bureaucratic complacency. It is my hope that this reauthorization, with the appropriate changes, will jumpstart the Department's efforts to make the program available to native veterans and help them use it. I believe it is the least we can do. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 1027 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. FINDINGS. Congress makes the following findings: (1) Native Americans across the United States have a long, proud, and distinguished tradition of service in the Armed Forces of the United States. (2) Native Americans have historically served in the Armed Forces in numbers which far exceed their representation in the population of the United States. (3) Native Americans have lost their lives in the service of the United States and in the cause of peace. (4) The demand for safe, decent, and affordable housing among the 210,000 Native American veterans in the United States is acute. (5) Native American veterans face unique impediments to the use of traditional housing programs to benefit veterans such as poor economic conditions, the legal status of Indian trust lands, and the lack of incentives for lenders to make loans on trust lands. SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF DIRECT HOUSING LOAN PILOT PROGRAM. Section 3761(c) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking out ``September 30, 1997'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``September 30, 2000''. SEC. 3. OUTREACH. Section 3762(i) of title 38, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by inserting ``, in consultation with tribal organizations and Native American veterans organizations,'' after ``The Secretary shall''; and (2) by striking out ``tribal organizations and''. SEC. 4. CONSULTATION WITH NATIVE AMERICAN VETERANS ORGANIZATIONS. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall consult with Native American veterans organizations in carrying out the Native American veterans direct housing loan program under subchapter V of chapter 37 of title 38, United States Code. SEC. 5. ANNUAL REPORTS. Section 8(d) of the Veterans Home Loan Program Amendments of 1992 (Public Law 102-547; 106 Stat. 3640; 38 U.S.C. 3761 note) is amended-- (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)-- (A) by striking out ``1998,'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``2001,''; and (B) by inserting ``, the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives'' after ``the House of Representatives''; (2) by striking out ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3); (3) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and (4) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph (4): ``(4) a description of the outreach activities undertaken by the Secretary under section 3762(i) of such title (as so added) which-- ``(A) specifies such activities on a region-by-region basis; and ``(B) assesses the effectiveness of such activities in encouraging the participation of Native American veterans in the pilot program; and''. ____ Veterans Direct Housing Loan Pilot Program--Section-by-Section Analysis Background. Begun in 1992, the Native American Veterans Housing Program is due to be reauthorized. The account retains some $3.5 million of an original $5 million appropriation. Since 1992, the performance of the Veterans Administration in distributing this money to Indians is poor, especially compared with the experience of the Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders. The goal of the amendments is to get the VA to do its job better in Indian country. The reasons adduced by the VA for the poor performance are not convincing. Section 1. New Findings Section. This section recognizes Indians' long and historic contributions made to the Armed Forces and defense of the United States. This section also recognizes the acute need for housing among the more than 200,000 native veterans, and the unique impediments native veterans face due to poor economic conditions on the reservation, and the inability to securitize Indian trust lands. Section 2. Extension of Program. The bill would extend the authority for the program for 3 years, to September 30, 2000. Section 3. Outreach. Most of the discernible problems in the implementation of this program involve a lack of knowledge about the program by Indians and lack of proactive endeavors by the VA to disseminate information about the program through Indian country. The bill would place new requirements on the VA to consult with tribal organizations, native veterans organizations, and other groups prior to making decisions under the act. Section 4. Consultation with Native American Veterans Organizations. This new section requires the VA to consult with native veterans organizations in implementing the act. Section 5. Annual Reports. The VA is required to submit annual reports to the Committee on Indian Affairs, the House Resources Committee, and the veterans committees of both Chambers containing a description of the outreach activities undertaken by the VA on a regional basis, with a second mandate that the VA conduct an assessment of the efficacy of such activities in encouraging greater use of the program. ______ By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer): S. 1028. A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a pilot project on designated lands within Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests in the State of California to demonstrate the effectiveness of the resource management activities proposed by the Quincy Library Group and to amend current land and resource management; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today Senator Barbara Boxer and I are introducing the Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997. This legislation is nearly identical to H.R. 858 sponsored in the House of Representatives by Congressman Wally Herger and passed by the House last week on a vote of 429 to 1. The House vote is remarkable for two reasons: First, any legislation involving a controversial issue--particularly on one as contentious as forest management --that receives 429 votes is remarkable in and of itself. Second, the process by which this legislation evolved is really, I think, groundbreaking, and it deserves to be recognized. I first met the Quincy Library Group back in 1992 when I was running for the Senate, and was then very impressed with what they were trying to do. The overwhelming House vote is a real victory for local communities like Quincy which seek to avoid the polarizing--and often paralyzing-- battles that have characterized forest management issues for the last decade. The Quincy Library Group is a local coalition of timber industry representatives, environmentalists, citizens, and elected officials in Plumas, Lassen, and Sierra Counties, CA, who came together to resolve their long-standing conflicts over timber management on the national forest lands in their area. They had seen first hand the seemingly ever present conflict between timber harvesting and jobs, environmental laws and protection of their communities and forests, and the devastation of massive forest fires. They also saw that a practical solution to the conflict between timber interests and environmental interests were both going to be wiped out one day by uncontrollable wildfires. And so they tried to get together and talk things out. They decided to meet in a quiet, non-confrontational environment--the main room of the Quincy Public Library. Hence, they became known as the Quincy Library Group. They began their dialog in the recognition that they shared the common goal of fostering forest health, ecological integrity, an adequate timber supply for area mills, and economic stability for their community. So, after a year-and-a-half of negotiation, the Quincy Library Group developed an alternative management [[Page S7712]] plan for the Lassen National Forest, Plumas National Forest, and Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest. This legislation is the result. The bill we introduce today implements the Quincy Library Group's plan. I know that some environmental organizations had concerns about aspects of this legislation, and some may still oppose it. But let me make something very clear: As I stated when I met with the Quincy Library Group, in order to have my support, the legislation had to explicitly state that all activities would be carried out consistent with all applicable Federal environmental laws, both substantive and procedural. The administration made this requirement clear as well. The House bill and this legislation do so. Another condition for my support, and that of the administration, was that the legislation must authorize sufficient funds to carry out the plan, so that funds will not be diverted from other important programs like wildlife protection, grazing and recreation. The House bill and this legislation authorize appropriations to do so. With these key provisions in place, I believe this legislation deserves strong support and swift passage. Specifically, this legislation: Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to implement the Quincy Library Group's forest management proposal on designated lands in the Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests for 5 years as a demonstration of community-based consensus forest management; Protects the California spotted owl and riparian areas by excluding all spotted owl habitat in the pilot project area from logging and other resource management activities during the 5-year pilot project, and requiring the Forest Service to follow the scientific analysis team guidelines for riparian system protection; Calls for the construction of fuel breaks on 40,000 to 60,000 acres a year; Provides for group selection on 0.57 percent of the project area annually as well as individual tree selection uneven-aged forest management; Limits the total acreage subject to forest management activities to 70,000 acres annually; Requires a program of riparian management, including wide protection zones and riparian restoration projects; Requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement prior to the commencement of the pilot project; Authorizes the appropriation of funds to carry out the Quincy Library Group pilot project; Directs the Forest Service to amend the land and resource management plans for the Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests to consider adoption of the Quincy Library Group plan in the forest management plans; Requires an annual report to Congress on the status of the pilot project, including the source and use of funds, the acres treated and description of the results, economic benefits to the local communities, and activities planned for the following year; and finally, Requires a scientific assessment of the Quincy Library Group project to be commenced at the midpoint of the project and submitted to Congress by July 1, 2002. At the suggestion of the environmental community, and with the concurrence of the Quincy Library Group, I have added language to the House version of the bill to provide additional environmental safeguards. These additions will ensure that there will be no road building or timber harvesting on the lands the Quincy Library Group plan designated as off base, plan designates certain lands as deferred, and require the annual reports and the final report on the Quincy Library Group project to include a report on any adverse environmental impacts of the pilot project. Finally, it is our intention that areas of late successional emphasis identified in the Sierra Nevada ecosystem project report also be protected from resource management activities during the pilot project, and I will seek committee report language on this issue. What all this means is that as a result of the Quincy Library Group pilot project: The threat of catastrophic forest fires will be reduced, through the clearing of underbrush and thinning of the smaller trees; Enough jobs in the forests will be provided to keep the local mills in operation and the communities in existence; and Forest health will be improved, riparian areas will be restored, and biological diversity maintained. Mr. President, I believe the Quincy Library Group deserves a great deal of credit and respect for approaching a tough issue with the goal of finding common ground. There is a lot of common ground. They all live in the area. They all work there. They raise their children there. They all care about both the environment and the industry that provides jobs to the region. They wanted to work out a solution instead of continuing the take-no- prisoners-approach of endless litigation and standoff. I believe the solution-based approach demonstrated by the Quincy Library Group should be supported by the Congress, and that is why I committed months ago to introduce legislation based on this group's efforts. On an issue like forest management and timber harvesting, many local variables are involved and must be considered to find workable solutions: For example, the wildfire threat in Tennessee is not the same as it is in California. And the economic impact of the timber industry may be different in Hayfork, CA than it is in Juneau, AK. The bottom line is that, as long as certain basic standards of environmental law are met, this pilot project will demonstrate whether a local initiative can be successful in developing a forest management plan that works to protect the old growth trees, endangered species, and jobs for the community. And based on that belief I am pleased to support their efforts by sponsoring this legislation in the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 1028 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997''. SEC. 2. PILOT PROJECT FOR PLUMAS, LASSEN, AND TAHOE NATIONAL FORESTS TO IMPLEMENT QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP PROPOSAL. (a) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``Quincy Library Group-Community Stability Proposal'' means the agreement by a coalition of representatives of fisheries, timber, environmental, county government, citizen groups, and local communities that formed in northern California to develop a resource management program that promotes ecologic and economic health for certain Federal lands and communities in the Sierra Nevada area. Such proposal includes the map entitled ``QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP Community Stability Proposal'', dated June 1993, and prepared by VESTRA Resources of Redding, California. (b) Pilot Project Required.-- (1) Pilot project and purpose.--The Secretary of Agriculture (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary''), acting through the Forest Service and after completion of an environmental impact statement (a record of decision for which shall be adopted within 200 days), shall conduct a pilot project on the Federal lands described in paragraph (2) to implement and demonstrate the effectiveness of the resource management activities described in subsection (d) and the other requirements of this section, as recommended in the Quincy Library Group-Community Stability Proposal. (2) Pilot project area.--The Secretary shall conduct the pilot project on the Federal lands within Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and the Sierraville Ranger District of Tahoe National Forest in the State of California designated as ``Available for Group Selection'' on the map entitled ``QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP Community Stability Proposal'', dated June 1993 (in this section referred to as the ``pilot project area''). Such map shall be on file and available for inspection in the appropriate offices of the Forest Service. (c) Exclusion of Certain Lands, Riparian Protection and Compliance.-- (1) Exclusion.--All spotted owl habitat areas and protected activity centers located within the pilot project area designated under subsection (b)(2) will be deferred from resource management activities required under subsection (d) and timber harvesting during the term of the pilot project. (2) In general.--The Regional Forester for Region 5 shall direct that during the term of the pilot project any resource management [[Page S7713]] activity required by subsection (d), all road building, and all timber harvesting activities shall not be conducted on the Federal lands within the Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest in the State of California that designated as either ``Off Base'' or ``Deferred'' on the map referred to in subsection (a). (3) Riparian protection.-- (A) In general.--The Scientific Analysis Team guidelines for riparian system protection described in subparagraph (B) shall apply to all resource management activities conducted under subsection (d) and all timber harvesting activities that occur in the pilot project area during the term of the pilot project. (B) Guidelines described.--The guidelines referred to in subparagraph (A) are those in the document entitled ``Viability Assessments and Management Considerations for Species Associated with Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forests of the Pacific Northwest'', a Forest Service research document dated March 1993 and co-authored by the Scientific Analysis Team, including Dr. Jack Ward Thomas. (4) Compliance.--All resource management activities required by subsection (d) shall be implemented to the extent consistent with applicable Federal law and the standards and guidelines for the conservation of the California spotted owl as set forth in the California Spotted Owl Sierran Provence Interim Guidelines, or the subsequently issued final guidelines whichever is in effect. (d) Resource Management Activities.--During the term of the pilot project, the Secretary shall implement and carry out the following resource management activities on an acreage basis on the Federal lands included within the pilot project area designated under subsection (b)(2): (1) Fuelbreak construction.--Construction of a strategic system of defensible fuel profile zones, including shaded fuelbreaks, utilizing thinning, individual tree selection, and other methods of vegetation management consistent with the Quincy Library Group-Community Stability Proposal, on not less than 40,000, but not more than 60,000, acres per year. (2) Group selection and individual tree selection.-- Utilization of group selection and individual tree selection uneven-aged forest management prescriptions described in the Quincy Library Group-Community Stability Proposal to achieve a desired future condition of all-age, multistory, fire resilient forests as follows: (A) Group selection.--Group selection on an average acreage of .57 percent of the pilot project area land each year of the pilot project. (B) Individual tree selection.--Individual tree selection may also be utilized within the pilot project area. (3) Total acreage.--The total acreage on which resource management activities are implemented under this subsection shall not exceed 70,000 acres each year. (4) Riparian management.--A program of riparian management, including wide protection zones and riparian restoration projects, consistent with riparian protection guidelines in subsection (c)(2)(B). (e) Cost-Effectiveness.--In conducting the pilot project, Secretary shall use the most cost-effective means available, as determined by the Secretary, to implement resource management activities described in subsection (d). (f) Funding.-- (1) Source of funds.--In conducting the pilot project, the Secretary shall use, subject to the relevant reprogramming guidelines of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations-- (A) those funds specifically provided to the Forest Service by the Secretary to implement resource management activities according to the Quincy Library Group-Community Stability Proposal; and (B) excess funds that are allocated for the administration and management of Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and the Sierraville Ranger District of Tahoe National Forest. (2) Prohibition on use of certain funds.--The Secretary may not conduct the pilot project using funds appropriated for any other unit of the National Forest System. (3) Flexibility.--Subject to normal reprogramming guidelines, during the term of the pilot project, the forest supervisors of Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and Tahoe National Forest may allocate and use all accounts that contain excess funds and all available excess funds for the administration and management of Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and the Sierraville Ranger District of Tahoe National Forest to perform the resource management activities described in subsection (d). (4) Restriction.--The Secretary or the forest supervisors, as the case may be, shall not utilize authority provided under paragraphs (1)(B) and (3) if, in their judgment, doing so will limit other nontimber related multiple use activities for which such funds were available. (5) Overhead.--Of amounts available to carry out this section-- (A) not more than 12 percent may be used or allocated for general administration or other overhead; and (B) at least 88 percent shall be used to implement and carry out activities required by this section. (6) Authorized supplemental funds.--There are authorized to be appropriated to implement and carry out the pilot project such sums as are necessary. (7) Baseline funds.--Amounts available for resource management activities authorized under subsection (d) shall at a minimum include existing baseline funding levels. (g) Term of Pilot Project.--The Secretary shall conduct the pilot project during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on the later of the following: (1) The date on which the Secretary completes amendment or revision of the land and resource management plans for Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and Tahoe National Forest pursuant to subsection (i). (2) The date that is five years after the date of the commencement of the pilot project. (h) Consultation.--(1) Each statement required by subsection (b)(1) shall be prepared in consultation with the Quincy Library Group. (2) Contracting.--The Forest Service, subject to the availability of appropriations, may carry out any (or all) of the requirements of this section using private contracts. (i) Corresponding Forest Plan Amendments.--Within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Regional Forester for Region 5 shall initiate the process to amend or revise the land and resource management plans for Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and Tahoe National Forest. The process shall include preparation of at least one alternative that-- (1) incorporates the pilot project and area designations made by subsection (b), the resource management activities described in subsection (d), and other aspects of the Quincy Library Group Community Stability Proposal; and (2) makes other changes warranted by the analyses conducted in compliance with section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)), section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604), and other applicable laws. (j) Reporting Requirements.-- (1) In general.--Not later than February 28 of each year during the term of the pilot project, the Secretary after consultation with the Quincy Library Group, shall submit to Congress a report on the status of the pilot project. The report shall include at least the following: (A) A complete accounting of the use of funds made available under subsection (f)(1)(A) until such funds are fully expended. (B) A complete accounting of the use of funds and accounts made available under subsection (f)(1) for the previous fiscal year, including a schedule of the amounts drawn from each account used to perform resource management activities described in subsection (d). (C) A description of total acres treated for each of the resources management activities required under subsection (d), forest health improvements, fire risk reductions, water yield increases, and other natural resources-related benefits achieved by the implementation of the resource management activities described in subsection (d). (D) A description of the economic benefits to communities achieved by the implementation of the pilot project. (E) A comparison of the revenues generated by, and costs incurred in, the implementation of the resource management activities described in subsection (d) of the Federal lands included in the pilot project area with the revenues and costs during each of the fiscal years 1992 through 1997 for timber management of such lands before their inclusion in the pilot project. (F) A schedule for the resource management activities to be undertaken in the pilot project area during the calendar year. (G) A description of any adverse environmental impacts. (2) Limitation on expenditures.--The amount of Federal funds expended on each annual report under this subsection shall not exceed $50,000. (k) Final Report.-- (1) In general.--Beginning after completion of 6 months of second year of the pilot project, the Secretary shall compile a science-based assessment of, and report on, the effectiveness of the pilot project in meeting the stated goals of this pilot project. Such assessment and report-- (A) shall include watershed monitoring of lands treated under this section, that should address the following issues on a priority basis: timing of water releases, water quality changes, and water yield changes over the short long term in the pilot project area; (B) shall include an analysis of any adverse environmental impacts; (C) shall be compiled in consultation with the Quincy Library Group; and (D) shall be submitted to the Congress by July 1, 2002. (2) Limitations on expenditures.--The amount of Federal funds expended for the assessment and report under this subsection, other than for watershed monitoring under paragraph (1)(A), shall not exceed $150,000. The amount of Federal funds for watershed monitoring under paragraph (1)(A) shall not exceed $75,000 for each of fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002. (l) Relationship to Other Laws.--Nothing in this section exempts the pilot project from any Federal environmental law. [[Page S7714]] Mrs. BOXER. The Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act is the result of many years of consensus building in an effort to unite unlikely partners in a mutually beneficial project. President Clinton spurred this consensus approach in April 1993, at the Northwest Forest Summit, when he challenged Americans to stay in the conference room and out of the courtroom. One local group put this difficult challenge into action and began a series of meetings in the only place they knew they could ensure civility, and some degree of quiet--their local library. With that, the Quincy Library Group was created. This group of local citizens surrounding Quincy, CA, including timber industry representatives, local environmental activists, and public officials, have been meeting periodically since 1992 to develop a timber management plan for the areas' surrounding national forests. They did not have an easy task before them--promoting the local economy, preserving jobs, and protecting the environment. Several years ago I visited Quincy, CA, and had an opportunity to see first hand the problems in the forests and the community at work. Since that time, I have worked with the Quincy Library Group, U.S. Forest Service, Senator Feinstein, Members of Congress, and the national environmental community in an effort to reach a consensus. I believe that is what we have before us today. This legislation will implement the Quincy Library Group proposal for managing the Tahoe, Lassen, and Sierraville Range of the Tahoe National Forests through biological reserves, fire suppression, riparian restoration, watershed protection, and monitoring. The House passed a companion bill earlier this week by a near unanimous vote. I believe the overwhelming success in the House was largely due to the inclusion of provisions which ensure compliance with all environmental laws, as well as interim and final California spotted owl guidelines. This proposal has gone through years of collaboration from many dedicated people with many different interests. We now have legislation to implement this consensus--legislation which can be fined tuned as it moves through the legislative process. The President's statement of administration policy on the House companion bill suggests further refining the bill so that the pilot project will end once the Forest Service completes the appropriate forest plan amendments. I would be supportive of such a change to the bill. Some have suggested that the legislation increase the protection of all old growth forests in the area and ensure that logging and road building be prohibited in all roadless and sensitive areas. We should consider that change. I hope that these concerns can be addressed as this bill moves through the legislative process. Nonetheless, many positive changes have been made to the legislation over the last few months, and although some outstanding concerns still remain, the legislation now provides many of the safeguards necessary to protect the natural environment while promoting the local economy. I want to thank Senator Feinstein, Congressmen Fazio, Miller, Herger, Young, and the Forest Service for their efforts on this legislation. It has truly been a cooperative effort and I hope we are able to pass this legislation quickly so that we will soon be able to see the proposal implemented on the ground. ______ By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Wellstone): S. 1029. A bill to provide loan forgiveness for individuals who earn a degree in early childhood education, and enter and remain employed in the early child care profession, to provide loan cancellation for certain child care providers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. The Quality Child Care Loan Forgiveness Act Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk now, a bill on behalf of myself and Senator Wellstone. Mr. President, this bill is the Quality Child Care Loan Forgiveness Act and it is intended to, at least in part, deal with a very serious problem in this country. That problem simply is that more and more children, more and more of our children, are every day in child care. There is a real concern about the quality of child care. This bill does not solve every problem in regard to child care, but I think it is a start and I think it would make a significant impact. Today, more than 70 percent of mothers are in the labor force. Almost 75 percent of married couples with children have both spouses working. All of these working parents, plus parents moving from welfare to work, have to find someone to care for their children if they are going to go out and support their families. Yet today, child care is often very hard to find and quality child care is even harder to find. In just 20 years, the last 20 years, the percentage of children enrolled in some form, in some manner, of child care has gone from 30 percent to 70 percent. Quality child care is a concern to virtually every family in this country. More and more parents are working. More and more children are in child care. I think the very least we can do is to try to assure those families that, while they are at work, their children will be taken care of by qualified and by competent individuals. This, unfortunately, is not always taking place today. There are many qualified people in child care. There are very many dedicated people in child care. But I think we can do better. This is what this bill intends to address. Scientists tell us that the largest indicator of a child's intelligence is the mother's education level. While a mother is at work, then it becomes the education level of the child care provider that the child deals with for, sometimes, an extended period of time during the day. With all the new research that we see on the brain and early childhood development, I think we have to reemphasize this particular aspect of child care. We need well-educated, well-trained child care providers. One of the ways we can achieve this, one of the things that we can do to raise the quality of child care, is to say to individuals who are inclined to go into the child care profession that we will in fact help them if they want to make this a profession. We have to let people know, if they are going to earn a degree to take care of our children, we will help them. Our bill, the bill introduced today by Senator Wellstone and myself, will do this. Our bill would help repay the student loans of an individual who earns an early childhood degree and would help repay the loan of that person who goes to work in a licensed child care facility. The Quality Child Care Loan Forgiveness Act would pay off a student loan at the rate of 15 percent a year for people who earn an early childhood degree and who work in a licensed child care facility. This bill will help bring more qualified individuals to the child care profession. It would also help to decrease the high turnover levels caused, many times, by very low wages. Let me conclude. The Quality Child Care Loan Forgiveness Act is an important way to improve the quality of child care. American parents need it for their peace of mind, and American children need it for their mind development. I thank the Chair and ask unanimous consent at this time that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 1029 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Quality Child Care Loan Forgiveness Act''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress makes the following findings: (1) New scientific research shows that the electrical activity of brain cells actually changes the physical structure of the brain, and that without a stimulating environment, a baby's brain suffers. (2) 12,000,000 children under age 6, and 17,000,000 school- aged children of working parents, need child care. Demand for child care is growing as more mothers enter the workforce. (3) Good quality child care, in a safe environment, with trained, caring providers who offer stimulating activities appropriate to the child's age, help children grow and thrive. Recent research shows that most child care needs significant improvement. (4) Good quality child care depends largely on the provider. Yet providers of child care earn on average only $6.70 per hour or $11,725 [[Page S7715]] per year. Such earnings cause high turnover, which affects the overall quality of a child care program and causes anxiety for children. (5) Children attending lower-quality child care facilities and child care facilities with high staff turnover are less competent in language and social development. (6) Low-income and high-income children are more likely than middle-income children to attend child care facilities providing high quality child care. (7) The quality of child care is primarily related to high staff-to-child ratios, staff education, and administrators' prior experience. In addition, certain characteristics distinguish poor, mediocre, and good-quality child care facilities, the most important of which are teacher wages, education, and specialized training. SEC. 3. PURPOSES. The purposes of this Act are-- (1) to bring more highly trained individuals into the early child care profession; and (2) to keep more highly trained child care providers in the early child care field for longer periods of time. SEC. 4. LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR CHILD CARE PROVIDERS. Part B of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1071 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 428J of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1078-10) the following: ``SEC. 428I. LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR CHILD CARE PROVIDERS. ``(a) Definitions.--In this section: ``(1) Child care facility.--The term `child care facility' means a facility that-- ``(A) provides child care services; and ``(B) meets applicable State or local government licensing, certification, approval, or registration requirements, if any. ``(2) Child care services.--The term `child care services' means activities and services provided for the education and care of children from birth through age 5 by an individual who has a degree in early childhood education. ``(3) Degree.--The term `degree' means an associate's or bachelor's degree awarded by an institution of higher education. ``(4) Early childhood education.--The term `early childhood education' means education in the areas of early child education, child care, or any other educational area related to child care that the Secretary determines appropriate. ``(5) Institution of higher education.--The term `institution of higher education' has the meaning given the term in section 1201. ``(b) Demonstration Program.-- ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may carry out a demonstration program of assuming the obligation to repay, pursuant to subsection (c), a loan made, insured or guaranteed under this part or part D (excluding loans made under sections 428B and 428C) for any new borrower after October 1, 1994, who completes a degree in early childhood education and obtains full-time employment in a child care facility. ``(2) Award basis; priority.-- ``(A) Award basis.--Subject to subparagraph (B), loan repayment under this section shall be on a first-come, first- served basis and subject to the availability of appropriations. ``(B) Priority.--The Secretary shall give priority in providing loan repayment under this section for a fiscal year to student borrowers who received loan repayment under this section for the preceding fiscal year. ``(3) Regulations.--The Secretary is authorized to prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section. ``(c) Loan Repayment.-- ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall assume the obligation to repay 15 percent of the total amount of all loans made after October 1, 1994, to a student under this part or part D for each complete year of employment described in subsection (b)(1). ``(2) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the refunding of any repayment of a loan made under this part or part D. ``(3) Interest.--If a portion of a loan is repaid by the Secretary under this section for any year, the proportionate amount of interest on such loan which accrues for such year shall be repaid by the Secretary. ``(4) Special rule.--In the case where a student borrower who is not participating in loan repayment pursuant to this section returns to an institution of higher education after graduation from an institution of higher education for the purpose of obtaining a degree in early childhood education, the Secretary is authorized to assume the obligation to repay the total amount of loans made under this part or part D incurred for a maximum of two academic years in returning to an institution of higher education for the purpose of obtaining a degree in early childhood education. Such loans shall only be repaid for borrowers who qualify for loan repayment pursuant to the provisions of this section, and shall be repaid in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1). ``(5) Ineligibility of national service award recipients.-- No student borrower may, for the same volunteer service, receive a benefit under both this section and subtitle D of title I of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12601 et seq.). ``(d) Repayment to Eligible Lenders.--The Secretary shall pay to each eligible lender or holder for each fiscal year an amount equal to the aggregate amount of loans which are subject to the repayment pursuant to this section for such year. ``(e) Application for Repayment.-- ``(1) In general.--Each eligible individual desiring loan repayment under this section shall submit a complete and accurate application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require. ``(2) Conditions.--An eligible individual may apply for loan repayment under this section after completing each year of qualifying employment. The borrower shall receive forbearance while engaged in qualifying employment unless the borrower is in deferment while so engaged. ``(f) Evaluation.-- ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct, by grant or contract, an independent national evaluation of the impact of the demonstration program assisted under this section on the field of early childhood education. ``(2) Competitive basis.--The grant or contract described in subsection (a) shall be awarded on a competitive basis. ``(3) Contents.--The evaluation described in this subsection shall-- ``(A) determine the number of individuals who were encouraged by the demonstration program assisted under this section to pursue early childhood education; ``(B) determine the number of individuals who remain employed in a child care facility as a result of participation in the program; ``(C) identify the barriers to the effectiveness of the program; ``(D) assess the cost-effectiveness of the program in improving the quality of-- ``(i) early childhood education; and ``(ii) child care services; ``(E) identify the reasons why participants in the program have chosen to take part in the program; ``(F) identify the number of individuals participating in the program who received an associate's degree and the number of such individuals who received a bachelor's degree; and ``(G) identify the number of years each individual participates in the program. ``(4) Interim and final evaluation reports.--The Secretary shall prepare and submit to the President and the Congress such interim reports regarding the evaluation described in this subsection as the Secretary deems appropriate, and shall prepare and so submit a final report regarding the evaluation by January 1, 2002. ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.''. SEC. 5. LOAN CANCELLATION. Section 465(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087ee(a)) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (2)-- (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (G), (H), and (I) as subparagraphs (H), (I), and (J), respectively; and (B) by inserting after subparagraph (F), the following: ``(G) as a full-time child care provider or educator-- ``(i) in a child care facility operated by an entity that meets the applicable State or local government licensing, certification, approval, or registration requirements, if any; and ``(ii) who has a degree in early childhood education;''; and (2) in paragraph (3)(A)-- (A) in clause (i), by striking ``(G), (H), or (I)'' and inserting ``(H), (I), or (J)''; and (B) in clause (ii), by inserting ``or (G)'' after ``subparagraph (B)''. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Ohio to introduce a bill that is an important step toward protecting the lives and the future of this Nation's children. Today in the Labor Committee, we will hear from the parents of a 3-month-old baby who lost his life after only 2 hours in daycare. We as a society must share some of the responsibility for this tragedy with the daycare center that neglected Jeremy Fiedelholtz. We as a society have allowed daycares to be under funded and understaffed, because we have not valued the position of daycare provider. We have not treated that job as a profession, we have not respected their responsibilities and considered such individuals to have a career worthy of compensation, attention, and respect. The bill that my colleague and I introduce today would provide loan forgiveness for individuals who earn a degree in early childhood education, and enter and remain employed in the early child care profession. It would also provide forgiveness for some existing child care providers who remain in the profession. The bill seeks to make child care more affordable and to increase the quality of child care by making a career in child care more profitable. It would help make the career of caregiver more affordable and more feasible for those interested in helping children grow. Nationally, child care workers have the following statistics: [[Page S7716]] 97 percent are female; 33 percent are women of color; 41 percent have children; 10 percent are single parents; only 18 percent of child care centers offer their workers health coverage. In Minnesota child care centers, the average hourly wage for a child care provider is $8.72; for an assistant teacher is $6.66; and for an aide is $5.69. Minnesota family child care providers, who are never covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act, have an average hourly wage of $2.79, and make $7,800 a year for a 60-hour work week. With changes created by the welfare bill in the Federal child care food program, many family child care providers will become ineligible for this program; those who don't pass the costs of care on to the parents will have negative earnings--they will actually lose $71 a week. Nationally, child care teaching staff earn $6.89 an hour and $12,000 a year. Family child care providers earn $9,500, and unregulated providers, $5,100. Although they are better educated than the average worker, child care workers earn one-third of the average male salary and one-half of the average female salary. It is no surprise that one- third of them leave their centers every year. In the meantime, in Minnesota, there are 8,960 children on the waiting list for child care. There are probably another 13,440 children who would apply if the waiting list wasn't so long. Mr. President, add all this up and you have a recipe for disaster. Child care is without question among the most important issues facing the workforce today. Parents who can't care for their children, can't work. Child care is without question among the most important issues facing the field of education today. Children who are not stimulated and cared for during the earliest years will never be able to reach his or her full potential when they grow up. If we don't take the profession seriously and encourage people of caliber to enter the profession of caregiving, and reward those who remain in the profession, then we are risking our economic future and putting at risk millions of children like Jeremy Fiedelholtz. I urge my colleagues to join us in this bipartisan effort to invest money where it is most needed. Let me just say I am very honored to introduce this legislation with Senator DeWine. I thoroughly enjoy working with him, and I think we are both very committed to this piece of legislation. Mr. President, in the Labor Committee today, we are going to hear from the parents of a 3-month-old baby who lost his life after only 2 hours in child care. If you look at the reports, the conditions around our country are not what they should be for children, and if you just think about the pay scale of women and men--they are mainly women--who are child care providers, we have devalued the work of adults who work with children. What this piece of legislation does is it provides loan forgiveness for individuals who earn a degree in early childhood development and then remain employed in this early childhood profession. It also would have some forgiveness for existing child care providers who remain in the profession. What we are simply trying to say here, I say to my colleagues, is that the neuroscience evidence is compelling, these early years are critical years, we have to get it right, there has to be a nurturing care and the intellectual stimulation and, yet, if you look around the country, nationally child care teaching staff earn an average of $6.89 an hour, or about $12,000 a year. Actually, in many of our States, people who work in zoos, and by the way I love visiting zoos--it is not my point to put down that work-- earn twice as much as women and men who work in child care centers. If we really value children and we really understand that pre-K is so important, and if we really understand--and we should and we must--that we have to make sure that by age 3, children have gotten the nurturing care in order for them to be able to go on and do well in school and do well in life, then it is terribly important that we attach more value to the work that is being done. That is what this piece of legislation does, which provides the loan forgiveness for women and men I hope will go into this profession. It is a small step forward, but it is an extremely important step. I am very pleased to introduce this legislation today with my colleague, Senator DeWine. ______ By Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Wellstone): S. 1030. A bill to amend title IV of the Public Health Service Act to establish a National Center for Bioengineering Research; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. The National Center for Bioengineering Research Act of 1997 Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Center for Bioengineering Research Act of 1997. Bioengineering is where medical need and technical capability meet to increase our capacity to diagnose and treat disease; to enhance the quality of life of millions of people with chronic conditions; to save millions of dollars in health care costs; and to generate billions of dollars for our economy. Medical devices alone is a $40 billion-a-year industry. Bioengineering is an interdisciplinary field that applies physical, chemical, and mathematical sciences and engineering principles to the study of biology, medicine, behavior, and health. It advances knowledge from the molecular to the organ systems level, and develops new and novel biologics, materials, processes, implant, devices, and informatics approaches for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease, for patient rehabilitation, and for improving health. Although the term ``bioengineering'' may not be commonplace, many of the major medical advances from bioengineering are very familiar, including the heart-lung machine, kidney dialysis, total hip joint replacements, heart pacemakers, artificial hearts, prosthetics, and diagnostic medical imaging. Other advances are right around the corner, including implantable insulin pumps with biosensors that detect exactly when and how much insulin is needed; and regeneration of tissue, cartilage, and even organs, instead of transplantation--which brings with it the risk of rejection, major trauma to the patient, and one of the highest costs in our entire health care system. As a heart-lung transplant surgeon, I know first hand about the life-saving contributions made by all of these bioengineering developments. We need as many new achievements like this as we can produce. In spite of such spectacular achievements, however, the field of bioengineering suffers from fragmentation and a lack of coordination that could impede and delay future advances in the field. This fragmentation was recognized as early as 1967, when an international conference called for better coordination in bioengineering research. In 1995, at the request of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, the NIH submitted a report, ``Support for Bioengineering Research.'' This report was remarkably consistent with a number of previous studies over the last 30 years that stressed the need for: a centralized focus for extramural bioengineering research at NIH; a strong intramural bioengineering program at NIH; and increased coordination of bioengineering activities within NIH and among other Federal agencies. This legislation seeks to implement those recommendations and is designed to enhance the state of and improve the coordination of bioengineering research conducted within NIH and throughout the Federal Government. This bill calls for the establishment of a National Center for Bioengineering Research within the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute at NIH. The mission of the Center is to: First, enhance the state of bioengineering research within NIH; Second, promote collaborative research projects among NIH institutes and across Federal agencies; Third, enhance communication among bioengineering investigators within Federal agencies and with private sector entities; and Fourth, educate the Congress and the public on the critical importance of bioengineering to both the health and the economy of the Nation. This legislation does not create a new institute within NIH. The Center would have no grantmaking authority. New funding would be allocated to institutes to support basic research projects in bioengineering through the standard peer review process. This legislation is introduced today as a stand-alone bill. But I expect it to [[Page S7717]] be included in the reauthorization bill for the National Institutes of Health which, as Chair of the Public Health and Safety Subcommittee of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, I intend to move forward during the first session of the 105th Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and summary be printed in the Record. There be

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - July 17, 1997)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S7710-S7732] STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Domenici, and Mr. Hatch): S. 1027. A bill to extend the native American veteran direct housing loan pilot program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. NATIVE AMERICAN VETERANS HOUSING LOAN IMPROVEMENTS LEGISLATION Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce legislation to extend and improve the native American veteran direct loan pilot program. I am pleased to add Senators Johnson, Domenici, and Hatch as cosponsors of this legislation. America's most important resource has always been the individuals willing to lay down their lives for their country. Throughout our history we have been blessed with men and women willing to put themselves at risk for the greater good. Native Americans have been proud to be a part of this Nation's defense. From the revolutionary era to our ongoing peacekeeping missions around the globe, native Americans have served and continue to serve the United States honorably. It may surprise some members to know that native Americans served, suffered, and died in service to this Nation even though they were not allowed to be citizens until 1924. As a veteran I feel a special kinship with all those men and women who served this Nation in peacetime and in war. As an Indian veteran I am keenly aware of the dedicated service Indians, Alaskans, and Hawaiians have given--often without recognition of their sacrifice. How can we compensate these men and women for making the greatest sacrifice they could? There is no dollar value we can place on a life. At the very least, we must provide the basic benefits of health care, housing, and education to those that laid down their lives for America. Since 1992, the Department of Veterans Affairs has operated a direct housing loan program to help native America veterans build decent homes. I was amazed to find out that in the last 5 years, that program had provided eight Indian veterans with loans. That is not an indication that all Indian veterans have no housing needs. During a hearing on veterans issues, members of the Indian Affairs Committee saw videotape of the houses used by Navajo veterans. They looked like something you would see in a Third World nation, not America. Houses had holes in their roofs and walls and plastic sheets for windows. Many houses do not have working plumbing and water has to be carried from miles away. This is certainly not the appreciation and respect war veterans deserve. Native Americans seeking home loans face many obstacles unique to Indian country, including poor economic conditions and the fact that the land cannot be used as collateral. But the most surprising revelation at the committee's hearing was that the majority of Indian veterans seem to have little or no knowledge that the VA's direct loan program exists. If they do, many do not know how or where to apply. The Government has no problem finding these men and women when it is time to draft them to fight in a war. But when it is time to pay them back for their sacrifice, the effort just is not there. That is why the bill I introduce today does more than extend the direct loan program for 3 years. It includes measures to boost the Department of Veterans Affairs' efforts to implement the direct loan program for native American veterans. The bill places new requirements on the Department to consult with tribal organizations, native veterans organizations, and other groups prior to making decisions under the act. It also expresses Congress's desire that the Department carry out vigorous outreach and education efforts to inform potential beneficiaries of the housing assistance benefits under the [[Page S7711]] act. The bill requires the Department to submit annual reports to the Committee on Indian Affairs, the House Resources Committee, and the Veterans' Committees of both Chambers containing a description of the outreach activities undertaken by the VA on a regional basis, with a second mandate that the VA conduct an assessment of how effective these efforts have been in encouraging greater use of the loan program. We must honor the service and sacrifice of our warriors. We must recognize the sacrifice they have made for all of us. The direct loan program is an ambitious idea designed to help our veterans with the most basic human need: a roof over their heads. It should not sit unused because of bureaucratic complacency. It is my hope that this reauthorization, with the appropriate changes, will jumpstart the Department's efforts to make the program available to native veterans and help them use it. I believe it is the least we can do. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 1027 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. FINDINGS. Congress makes the following findings: (1) Native Americans across the United States have a long, proud, and distinguished tradition of service in the Armed Forces of the United States. (2) Native Americans have historically served in the Armed Forces in numbers which far exceed their representation in the population of the United States. (3) Native Americans have lost their lives in the service of the United States and in the cause of peace. (4) The demand for safe, decent, and affordable housing among the 210,000 Native American veterans in the United States is acute. (5) Native American veterans face unique impediments to the use of traditional housing programs to benefit veterans such as poor economic conditions, the legal status of Indian trust lands, and the lack of incentives for lenders to make loans on trust lands. SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF DIRECT HOUSING LOAN PILOT PROGRAM. Section 3761(c) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking out ``September 30, 1997'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``September 30, 2000''. SEC. 3. OUTREACH. Section 3762(i) of title 38, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by inserting ``, in consultation with tribal organizations and Native American veterans organizations,'' after ``The Secretary shall''; and (2) by striking out ``tribal organizations and''. SEC. 4. CONSULTATION WITH NATIVE AMERICAN VETERANS ORGANIZATIONS. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall consult with Native American veterans organizations in carrying out the Native American veterans direct housing loan program under subchapter V of chapter 37 of title 38, United States Code. SEC. 5. ANNUAL REPORTS. Section 8(d) of the Veterans Home Loan Program Amendments of 1992 (Public Law 102-547; 106 Stat. 3640; 38 U.S.C. 3761 note) is amended-- (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)-- (A) by striking out ``1998,'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``2001,''; and (B) by inserting ``, the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives'' after ``the House of Representatives''; (2) by striking out ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3); (3) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and (4) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph (4): ``(4) a description of the outreach activities undertaken by the Secretary under section 3762(i) of such title (as so added) which-- ``(A) specifies such activities on a region-by-region basis; and ``(B) assesses the effectiveness of such activities in encouraging the participation of Native American veterans in the pilot program; and''. ____ Veterans Direct Housing Loan Pilot Program--Section-by-Section Analysis Background. Begun in 1992, the Native American Veterans Housing Program is due to be reauthorized. The account retains some $3.5 million of an original $5 million appropriation. Since 1992, the performance of the Veterans Administration in distributing this money to Indians is poor, especially compared with the experience of the Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders. The goal of the amendments is to get the VA to do its job better in Indian country. The reasons adduced by the VA for the poor performance are not convincing. Section 1. New Findings Section. This section recognizes Indians' long and historic contributions made to the Armed Forces and defense of the United States. This section also recognizes the acute need for housing among the more than 200,000 native veterans, and the unique impediments native veterans face due to poor economic conditions on the reservation, and the inability to securitize Indian trust lands. Section 2. Extension of Program. The bill would extend the authority for the program for 3 years, to September 30, 2000. Section 3. Outreach. Most of the discernible problems in the implementation of this program involve a lack of knowledge about the program by Indians and lack of proactive endeavors by the VA to disseminate information about the program through Indian country. The bill would place new requirements on the VA to consult with tribal organizations, native veterans organizations, and other groups prior to making decisions under the act. Section 4. Consultation with Native American Veterans Organizations. This new section requires the VA to consult with native veterans organizations in implementing the act. Section 5. Annual Reports. The VA is required to submit annual reports to the Committee on Indian Affairs, the House Resources Committee, and the veterans committees of both Chambers containing a description of the outreach activities undertaken by the VA on a regional basis, with a second mandate that the VA conduct an assessment of the efficacy of such activities in encouraging greater use of the program. ______ By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer): S. 1028. A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a pilot project on designated lands within Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests in the State of California to demonstrate the effectiveness of the resource management activities proposed by the Quincy Library Group and to amend current land and resource management; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today Senator Barbara Boxer and I are introducing the Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997. This legislation is nearly identical to H.R. 858 sponsored in the House of Representatives by Congressman Wally Herger and passed by the House last week on a vote of 429 to 1. The House vote is remarkable for two reasons: First, any legislation involving a controversial issue--particularly on one as contentious as forest management --that receives 429 votes is remarkable in and of itself. Second, the process by which this legislation evolved is really, I think, groundbreaking, and it deserves to be recognized. I first met the Quincy Library Group back in 1992 when I was running for the Senate, and was then very impressed with what they were trying to do. The overwhelming House vote is a real victory for local communities like Quincy which seek to avoid the polarizing--and often paralyzing-- battles that have characterized forest management issues for the last decade. The Quincy Library Group is a local coalition of timber industry representatives, environmentalists, citizens, and elected officials in Plumas, Lassen, and Sierra Counties, CA, who came together to resolve their long-standing conflicts over timber management on the national forest lands in their area. They had seen first hand the seemingly ever present conflict between timber harvesting and jobs, environmental laws and protection of their communities and forests, and the devastation of massive forest fires. They also saw that a practical solution to the conflict between timber interests and environmental interests were both going to be wiped out one day by uncontrollable wildfires. And so they tried to get together and talk things out. They decided to meet in a quiet, non-confrontational environment--the main room of the Quincy Public Library. Hence, they became known as the Quincy Library Group. They began their dialog in the recognition that they shared the common goal of fostering forest health, ecological integrity, an adequate timber supply for area mills, and economic stability for their community. So, after a year-and-a-half of negotiation, the Quincy Library Group developed an alternative management [[Page S7712]] plan for the Lassen National Forest, Plumas National Forest, and Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest. This legislation is the result. The bill we introduce today implements the Quincy Library Group's plan. I know that some environmental organizations had concerns about aspects of this legislation, and some may still oppose it. But let me make something very clear: As I stated when I met with the Quincy Library Group, in order to have my support, the legislation had to explicitly state that all activities would be carried out consistent with all applicable Federal environmental laws, both substantive and procedural. The administration made this requirement clear as well. The House bill and this legislation do so. Another condition for my support, and that of the administration, was that the legislation must authorize sufficient funds to carry out the plan, so that funds will not be diverted from other important programs like wildlife protection, grazing and recreation. The House bill and this legislation authorize appropriations to do so. With these key provisions in place, I believe this legislation deserves strong support and swift passage. Specifically, this legislation: Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to implement the Quincy Library Group's forest management proposal on designated lands in the Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests for 5 years as a demonstration of community-based consensus forest management; Protects the California spotted owl and riparian areas by excluding all spotted owl habitat in the pilot project area from logging and other resource management activities during the 5-year pilot project, and requiring the Forest Service to follow the scientific analysis team guidelines for riparian system protection; Calls for the construction of fuel breaks on 40,000 to 60,000 acres a year; Provides for group selection on 0.57 percent of the project area annually as well as individual tree selection uneven-aged forest management; Limits the total acreage subject to forest management activities to 70,000 acres annually; Requires a program of riparian management, including wide protection zones and riparian restoration projects; Requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement prior to the commencement of the pilot project; Authorizes the appropriation of funds to carry out the Quincy Library Group pilot project; Directs the Forest Service to amend the land and resource management plans for the Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests to consider adoption of the Quincy Library Group plan in the forest management plans; Requires an annual report to Congress on the status of the pilot project, including the source and use of funds, the acres treated and description of the results, economic benefits to the local communities, and activities planned for the following year; and finally, Requires a scientific assessment of the Quincy Library Group project to be commenced at the midpoint of the project and submitted to Congress by July 1, 2002. At the suggestion of the environmental community, and with the concurrence of the Quincy Library Group, I have added language to the House version of the bill to provide additional environmental safeguards. These additions will ensure that there will be no road building or timber harvesting on the lands the Quincy Library Group plan designated as off base, plan designates certain lands as deferred, and require the annual reports and the final report on the Quincy Library Group project to include a report on any adverse environmental impacts of the pilot project. Finally, it is our intention that areas of late successional emphasis identified in the Sierra Nevada ecosystem project report also be protected from resource management activities during the pilot project, and I will seek committee report language on this issue. What all this means is that as a result of the Quincy Library Group pilot project: The threat of catastrophic forest fires will be reduced, through the clearing of underbrush and thinning of the smaller trees; Enough jobs in the forests will be provided to keep the local mills in operation and the communities in existence; and Forest health will be improved, riparian areas will be restored, and biological diversity maintained. Mr. President, I believe the Quincy Library Group deserves a great deal of credit and respect for approaching a tough issue with the goal of finding common ground. There is a lot of common ground. They all live in the area. They all work there. They raise their children there. They all care about both the environment and the industry that provides jobs to the region. They wanted to work out a solution instead of continuing the take-no- prisoners-approach of endless litigation and standoff. I believe the solution-based approach demonstrated by the Quincy Library Group should be supported by the Congress, and that is why I committed months ago to introduce legislation based on this group's efforts. On an issue like forest management and timber harvesting, many local variables are involved and must be considered to find workable solutions: For example, the wildfire threat in Tennessee is not the same as it is in California. And the economic impact of the timber industry may be different in Hayfork, CA than it is in Juneau, AK. The bottom line is that, as long as certain basic standards of environmental law are met, this pilot project will demonstrate whether a local initiative can be successful in developing a forest management plan that works to protect the old growth trees, endangered species, and jobs for the community. And based on that belief I am pleased to support their efforts by sponsoring this legislation in the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 1028 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997''. SEC. 2. PILOT PROJECT FOR PLUMAS, LASSEN, AND TAHOE NATIONAL FORESTS TO IMPLEMENT QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP PROPOSAL. (a) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``Quincy Library Group-Community Stability Proposal'' means the agreement by a coalition of representatives of fisheries, timber, environmental, county government, citizen groups, and local communities that formed in northern California to develop a resource management program that promotes ecologic and economic health for certain Federal lands and communities in the Sierra Nevada area. Such proposal includes the map entitled ``QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP Community Stability Proposal'', dated June 1993, and prepared by VESTRA Resources of Redding, California. (b) Pilot Project Required.-- (1) Pilot project and purpose.--The Secretary of Agriculture (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary''), acting through the Forest Service and after completion of an environmental impact statement (a record of decision for which shall be adopted within 200 days), shall conduct a pilot project on the Federal lands described in paragraph (2) to implement and demonstrate the effectiveness of the resource management activities described in subsection (d) and the other requirements of this section, as recommended in the Quincy Library Group-Community Stability Proposal. (2) Pilot project area.--The Secretary shall conduct the pilot project on the Federal lands within Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and the Sierraville Ranger District of Tahoe National Forest in the State of California designated as ``Available for Group Selection'' on the map entitled ``QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP Community Stability Proposal'', dated June 1993 (in this section referred to as the ``pilot project area''). Such map shall be on file and available for inspection in the appropriate offices of the Forest Service. (c) Exclusion of Certain Lands, Riparian Protection and Compliance.-- (1) Exclusion.--All spotted owl habitat areas and protected activity centers located within the pilot project area designated under subsection (b)(2) will be deferred from resource management activities required under subsection (d) and timber harvesting during the term of the pilot project. (2) In general.--The Regional Forester for Region 5 shall direct that during the term of the pilot project any resource management [[Page S7713]] activity required by subsection (d), all road building, and all timber harvesting activities shall not be conducted on the Federal lands within the Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest in the State of California that designated as either ``Off Base'' or ``Deferred'' on the map referred to in subsection (a). (3) Riparian protection.-- (A) In general.--The Scientific Analysis Team guidelines for riparian system protection described in subparagraph (B) shall apply to all resource management activities conducted under subsection (d) and all timber harvesting activities that occur in the pilot project area during the term of the pilot project. (B) Guidelines described.--The guidelines referred to in subparagraph (A) are those in the document entitled ``Viability Assessments and Management Considerations for Species Associated with Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forests of the Pacific Northwest'', a Forest Service research document dated March 1993 and co-authored by the Scientific Analysis Team, including Dr. Jack Ward Thomas. (4) Compliance.--All resource management activities required by subsection (d) shall be implemented to the extent consistent with applicable Federal law and the standards and guidelines for the conservation of the California spotted owl as set forth in the California Spotted Owl Sierran Provence Interim Guidelines, or the subsequently issued final guidelines whichever is in effect. (d) Resource Management Activities.--During the term of the pilot project, the Secretary shall implement and carry out the following resource management activities on an acreage basis on the Federal lands included within the pilot project area designated under subsection (b)(2): (1) Fuelbreak construction.--Construction of a strategic system of defensible fuel profile zones, including shaded fuelbreaks, utilizing thinning, individual tree selection, and other methods of vegetation management consistent with the Quincy Library Group-Community Stability Proposal, on not less than 40,000, but not more than 60,000, acres per year. (2) Group selection and individual tree selection.-- Utilization of group selection and individual tree selection uneven-aged forest management prescriptions described in the Quincy Library Group-Community Stability Proposal to achieve a desired future condition of all-age, multistory, fire resilient forests as follows: (A) Group selection.--Group selection on an average acreage of .57 percent of the pilot project area land each year of the pilot project. (B) Individual tree selection.--Individual tree selection may also be utilized within the pilot project area. (3) Total acreage.--The total acreage on which resource management activities are implemented under this subsection shall not exceed 70,000 acres each year. (4) Riparian management.--A program of riparian management, including wide protection zones and riparian restoration projects, consistent with riparian protection guidelines in subsection (c)(2)(B). (e) Cost-Effectiveness.--In conducting the pilot project, Secretary shall use the most cost-effective means available, as determined by the Secretary, to implement resource management activities described in subsection (d). (f) Funding.-- (1) Source of funds.--In conducting the pilot project, the Secretary shall use, subject to the relevant reprogramming guidelines of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations-- (A) those funds specifically provided to the Forest Service by the Secretary to implement resource management activities according to the Quincy Library Group-Community Stability Proposal; and (B) excess funds that are allocated for the administration and management of Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and the Sierraville Ranger District of Tahoe National Forest. (2) Prohibition on use of certain funds.--The Secretary may not conduct the pilot project using funds appropriated for any other unit of the National Forest System. (3) Flexibility.--Subject to normal reprogramming guidelines, during the term of the pilot project, the forest supervisors of Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and Tahoe National Forest may allocate and use all accounts that contain excess funds and all available excess funds for the administration and management of Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and the Sierraville Ranger District of Tahoe National Forest to perform the resource management activities described in subsection (d). (4) Restriction.--The Secretary or the forest supervisors, as the case may be, shall not utilize authority provided under paragraphs (1)(B) and (3) if, in their judgment, doing so will limit other nontimber related multiple use activities for which such funds were available. (5) Overhead.--Of amounts available to carry out this section-- (A) not more than 12 percent may be used or allocated for general administration or other overhead; and (B) at least 88 percent shall be used to implement and carry out activities required by this section. (6) Authorized supplemental funds.--There are authorized to be appropriated to implement and carry out the pilot project such sums as are necessary. (7) Baseline funds.--Amounts available for resource management activities authorized under subsection (d) shall at a minimum include existing baseline funding levels. (g) Term of Pilot Project.--The Secretary shall conduct the pilot project during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on the later of the following: (1) The date on which the Secretary completes amendment or revision of the land and resource management plans for Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and Tahoe National Forest pursuant to subsection (i). (2) The date that is five years after the date of the commencement of the pilot project. (h) Consultation.--(1) Each statement required by subsection (b)(1) shall be prepared in consultation with the Quincy Library Group. (2) Contracting.--The Forest Service, subject to the availability of appropriations, may carry out any (or all) of the requirements of this section using private contracts. (i) Corresponding Forest Plan Amendments.--Within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Regional Forester for Region 5 shall initiate the process to amend or revise the land and resource management plans for Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and Tahoe National Forest. The process shall include preparation of at least one alternative that-- (1) incorporates the pilot project and area designations made by subsection (b), the resource management activities described in subsection (d), and other aspects of the Quincy Library Group Community Stability Proposal; and (2) makes other changes warranted by the analyses conducted in compliance with section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)), section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604), and other applicable laws. (j) Reporting Requirements.-- (1) In general.--Not later than February 28 of each year during the term of the pilot project, the Secretary after consultation with the Quincy Library Group, shall submit to Congress a report on the status of the pilot project. The report shall include at least the following: (A) A complete accounting of the use of funds made available under subsection (f)(1)(A) until such funds are fully expended. (B) A complete accounting of the use of funds and accounts made available under subsection (f)(1) for the previous fiscal year, including a schedule of the amounts drawn from each account used to perform resource management activities described in subsection (d). (C) A description of total acres treated for each of the resources management activities required under subsection (d), forest health improvements, fire risk reductions, water yield increases, and other natural resources-related benefits achieved by the implementation of the resource management activities described in subsection (d). (D) A description of the economic benefits to communities achieved by the implementation of the pilot project. (E) A comparison of the revenues generated by, and costs incurred in, the implementation of the resource management activities described in subsection (d) of the Federal lands included in the pilot project area with the revenues and costs during each of the fiscal years 1992 through 1997 for timber management of such lands before their inclusion in the pilot project. (F) A schedule for the resource management activities to be undertaken in the pilot project area during the calendar year. (G) A description of any adverse environmental impacts. (2) Limitation on expenditures.--The amount of Federal funds expended on each annual report under this subsection shall not exceed $50,000. (k) Final Report.-- (1) In general.--Beginning after completion of 6 months of second year of the pilot project, the Secretary shall compile a science-based assessment of, and report on, the effectiveness of the pilot project in meeting the stated goals of this pilot project. Such assessment and report-- (A) shall include watershed monitoring of lands treated under this section, that should address the following issues on a priority basis: timing of water releases, water quality changes, and water yield changes over the short long term in the pilot project area; (B) shall include an analysis of any adverse environmental impacts; (C) shall be compiled in consultation with the Quincy Library Group; and (D) shall be submitted to the Congress by July 1, 2002. (2) Limitations on expenditures.--The amount of Federal funds expended for the assessment and report under this subsection, other than for watershed monitoring under paragraph (1)(A), shall not exceed $150,000. The amount of Federal funds for watershed monitoring under paragraph (1)(A) shall not exceed $75,000 for each of fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002. (l) Relationship to Other Laws.--Nothing in this section exempts the pilot project from any Federal environmental law. [[Page S7714]] Mrs. BOXER. The Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act is the result of many years of consensus building in an effort to unite unlikely partners in a mutually beneficial project. President Clinton spurred this consensus approach in April 1993, at the Northwest Forest Summit, when he challenged Americans to stay in the conference room and out of the courtroom. One local group put this difficult challenge into action and began a series of meetings in the only place they knew they could ensure civility, and some degree of quiet--their local library. With that, the Quincy Library Group was created. This group of local citizens surrounding Quincy, CA, including timber industry representatives, local environmental activists, and public officials, have been meeting periodically since 1992 to develop a timber management plan for the areas' surrounding national forests. They did not have an easy task before them--promoting the local economy, preserving jobs, and protecting the environment. Several years ago I visited Quincy, CA, and had an opportunity to see first hand the problems in the forests and the community at work. Since that time, I have worked with the Quincy Library Group, U.S. Forest Service, Senator Feinstein, Members of Congress, and the national environmental community in an effort to reach a consensus. I believe that is what we have before us today. This legislation will implement the Quincy Library Group proposal for managing the Tahoe, Lassen, and Sierraville Range of the Tahoe National Forests through biological reserves, fire suppression, riparian restoration, watershed protection, and monitoring. The House passed a companion bill earlier this week by a near unanimous vote. I believe the overwhelming success in the House was largely due to the inclusion of provisions which ensure compliance with all environmental laws, as well as interim and final California spotted owl guidelines. This proposal has gone through years of collaboration from many dedicated people with many different interests. We now have legislation to implement this consensus--legislation which can be fined tuned as it moves through the legislative process. The President's statement of administration policy on the House companion bill suggests further refining the bill so that the pilot project will end once the Forest Service completes the appropriate forest plan amendments. I would be supportive of such a change to the bill. Some have suggested that the legislation increase the protection of all old growth forests in the area and ensure that logging and road building be prohibited in all roadless and sensitive areas. We should consider that change. I hope that these concerns can be addressed as this bill moves through the legislative process. Nonetheless, many positive changes have been made to the legislation over the last few months, and although some outstanding concerns still remain, the legislation now provides many of the safeguards necessary to protect the natural environment while promoting the local economy. I want to thank Senator Feinstein, Congressmen Fazio, Miller, Herger, Young, and the Forest Service for their efforts on this legislation. It has truly been a cooperative effort and I hope we are able to pass this legislation quickly so that we will soon be able to see the proposal implemented on the ground. ______ By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Wellstone): S. 1029. A bill to provide loan forgiveness for individuals who earn a degree in early childhood education, and enter and remain employed in the early child care profession, to provide loan cancellation for certain child care providers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. The Quality Child Care Loan Forgiveness Act Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk now, a bill on behalf of myself and Senator Wellstone. Mr. President, this bill is the Quality Child Care Loan Forgiveness Act and it is intended to, at least in part, deal with a very serious problem in this country. That problem simply is that more and more children, more and more of our children, are every day in child care. There is a real concern about the quality of child care. This bill does not solve every problem in regard to child care, but I think it is a start and I think it would make a significant impact. Today, more than 70 percent of mothers are in the labor force. Almost 75 percent of married couples with children have both spouses working. All of these working parents, plus parents moving from welfare to work, have to find someone to care for their children if they are going to go out and support their families. Yet today, child care is often very hard to find and quality child care is even harder to find. In just 20 years, the last 20 years, the percentage of children enrolled in some form, in some manner, of child care has gone from 30 percent to 70 percent. Quality child care is a concern to virtually every family in this country. More and more parents are working. More and more children are in child care. I think the very least we can do is to try to assure those families that, while they are at work, their children will be taken care of by qualified and by competent individuals. This, unfortunately, is not always taking place today. There are many qualified people in child care. There are very many dedicated people in child care. But I think we can do better. This is what this bill intends to address. Scientists tell us that the largest indicator of a child's intelligence is the mother's education level. While a mother is at work, then it becomes the education level of the child care provider that the child deals with for, sometimes, an extended period of time during the day. With all the new research that we see on the brain and early childhood development, I think we have to reemphasize this particular aspect of child care. We need well-educated, well-trained child care providers. One of the ways we can achieve this, one of the things that we can do to raise the quality of child care, is to say to individuals who are inclined to go into the child care profession that we will in fact help them if they want to make this a profession. We have to let people know, if they are going to earn a degree to take care of our children, we will help them. Our bill, the bill introduced today by Senator Wellstone and myself, will do this. Our bill would help repay the student loans of an individual who earns an early childhood degree and would help repay the loan of that person who goes to work in a licensed child care facility. The Quality Child Care Loan Forgiveness Act would pay off a student loan at the rate of 15 percent a year for people who earn an early childhood degree and who work in a licensed child care facility. This bill will help bring more qualified individuals to the child care profession. It would also help to decrease the high turnover levels caused, many times, by very low wages. Let me conclude. The Quality Child Care Loan Forgiveness Act is an important way to improve the quality of child care. American parents need it for their peace of mind, and American children need it for their mind development. I thank the Chair and ask unanimous consent at this time that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 1029 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Quality Child Care Loan Forgiveness Act''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress makes the following findings: (1) New scientific research shows that the electrical activity of brain cells actually changes the physical structure of the brain, and that without a stimulating environment, a baby's brain suffers. (2) 12,000,000 children under age 6, and 17,000,000 school- aged children of working parents, need child care. Demand for child care is growing as more mothers enter the workforce. (3) Good quality child care, in a safe environment, with trained, caring providers who offer stimulating activities appropriate to the child's age, help children grow and thrive. Recent research shows that most child care needs significant improvement. (4) Good quality child care depends largely on the provider. Yet providers of child care earn on average only $6.70 per hour or $11,725 [[Page S7715]] per year. Such earnings cause high turnover, which affects the overall quality of a child care program and causes anxiety for children. (5) Children attending lower-quality child care facilities and child care facilities with high staff turnover are less competent in language and social development. (6) Low-income and high-income children are more likely than middle-income children to attend child care facilities providing high quality child care. (7) The quality of child care is primarily related to high staff-to-child ratios, staff education, and administrators' prior experience. In addition, certain characteristics distinguish poor, mediocre, and good-quality child care facilities, the most important of which are teacher wages, education, and specialized training. SEC. 3. PURPOSES. The purposes of this Act are-- (1) to bring more highly trained individuals into the early child care profession; and (2) to keep more highly trained child care providers in the early child care field for longer periods of time. SEC. 4. LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR CHILD CARE PROVIDERS. Part B of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1071 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 428J of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1078-10) the following: ``SEC. 428I. LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR CHILD CARE PROVIDERS. ``(a) Definitions.--In this section: ``(1) Child care facility.--The term `child care facility' means a facility that-- ``(A) provides child care services; and ``(B) meets applicable State or local government licensing, certification, approval, or registration requirements, if any. ``(2) Child care services.--The term `child care services' means activities and services provided for the education and care of children from birth through age 5 by an individual who has a degree in early childhood education. ``(3) Degree.--The term `degree' means an associate's or bachelor's degree awarded by an institution of higher education. ``(4) Early childhood education.--The term `early childhood education' means education in the areas of early child education, child care, or any other educational area related to child care that the Secretary determines appropriate. ``(5) Institution of higher education.--The term `institution of higher education' has the meaning given the term in section 1201. ``(b) Demonstration Program.-- ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may carry out a demonstration program of assuming the obligation to repay, pursuant to subsection (c), a loan made, insured or guaranteed under this part or part D (excluding loans made under sections 428B and 428C) for any new borrower after October 1, 1994, who completes a degree in early childhood education and obtains full-time employment in a child care facility. ``(2) Award basis; priority.-- ``(A) Award basis.--Subject to subparagraph (B), loan repayment under this section shall be on a first-come, first- served basis and subject to the availability of appropriations. ``(B) Priority.--The Secretary shall give priority in providing loan repayment under this section for a fiscal year to student borrowers who received loan repayment under this section for the preceding fiscal year. ``(3) Regulations.--The Secretary is authorized to prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section. ``(c) Loan Repayment.-- ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall assume the obligation to repay 15 percent of the total amount of all loans made after October 1, 1994, to a student under this part or part D for each complete year of employment described in subsection (b)(1). ``(2) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the refunding of any repayment of a loan made under this part or part D. ``(3) Interest.--If a portion of a loan is repaid by the Secretary under this section for any year, the proportionate amount of interest on such loan which accrues for such year shall be repaid by the Secretary. ``(4) Special rule.--In the case where a student borrower who is not participating in loan repayment pursuant to this section returns to an institution of higher education after graduation from an institution of higher education for the purpose of obtaining a degree in early childhood education, the Secretary is authorized to assume the obligation to repay the total amount of loans made under this part or part D incurred for a maximum of two academic years in returning to an institution of higher education for the purpose of obtaining a degree in early childhood education. Such loans shall only be repaid for borrowers who qualify for loan repayment pursuant to the provisions of this section, and shall be repaid in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1). ``(5) Ineligibility of national service award recipients.-- No student borrower may, for the same volunteer service, receive a benefit under both this section and subtitle D of title I of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12601 et seq.). ``(d) Repayment to Eligible Lenders.--The Secretary shall pay to each eligible lender or holder for each fiscal year an amount equal to the aggregate amount of loans which are subject to the repayment pursuant to this section for such year. ``(e) Application for Repayment.-- ``(1) In general.--Each eligible individual desiring loan repayment under this section shall submit a complete and accurate application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require. ``(2) Conditions.--An eligible individual may apply for loan repayment under this section after completing each year of qualifying employment. The borrower shall receive forbearance while engaged in qualifying employment unless the borrower is in deferment while so engaged. ``(f) Evaluation.-- ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct, by grant or contract, an independent national evaluation of the impact of the demonstration program assisted under this section on the field of early childhood education. ``(2) Competitive basis.--The grant or contract described in subsection (a) shall be awarded on a competitive basis. ``(3) Contents.--The evaluation described in this subsection shall-- ``(A) determine the number of individuals who were encouraged by the demonstration program assisted under this section to pursue early childhood education; ``(B) determine the number of individuals who remain employed in a child care facility as a result of participation in the program; ``(C) identify the barriers to the effectiveness of the program; ``(D) assess the cost-effectiveness of the program in improving the quality of-- ``(i) early childhood education; and ``(ii) child care services; ``(E) identify the reasons why participants in the program have chosen to take part in the program; ``(F) identify the number of individuals participating in the program who received an associate's degree and the number of such individuals who received a bachelor's degree; and ``(G) identify the number of years each individual participates in the program. ``(4) Interim and final evaluation reports.--The Secretary shall prepare and submit to the President and the Congress such interim reports regarding the evaluation described in this subsection as the Secretary deems appropriate, and shall prepare and so submit a final report regarding the evaluation by January 1, 2002. ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.''. SEC. 5. LOAN CANCELLATION. Section 465(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087ee(a)) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (2)-- (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (G), (H), and (I) as subparagraphs (H), (I), and (J), respectively; and (B) by inserting after subparagraph (F), the following: ``(G) as a full-time child care provider or educator-- ``(i) in a child care facility operated by an entity that meets the applicable State or local government licensing, certification, approval, or registration requirements, if any; and ``(ii) who has a degree in early childhood education;''; and (2) in paragraph (3)(A)-- (A) in clause (i), by striking ``(G), (H), or (I)'' and inserting ``(H), (I), or (J)''; and (B) in clause (ii), by inserting ``or (G)'' after ``subparagraph (B)''. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Ohio to introduce a bill that is an important step toward protecting the lives and the future of this Nation's children. Today in the Labor Committee, we will hear from the parents of a 3-month-old baby who lost his life after only 2 hours in daycare. We as a society must share some of the responsibility for this tragedy with the daycare center that neglected Jeremy Fiedelholtz. We as a society have allowed daycares to be under funded and understaffed, because we have not valued the position of daycare provider. We have not treated that job as a profession, we have not respected their responsibilities and considered such individuals to have a career worthy of compensation, attention, and respect. The bill that my colleague and I introduce today would provide loan forgiveness for individuals who earn a degree in early childhood education, and enter and remain employed in the early child care profession. It would also provide forgiveness for some existing child care providers who remain in the profession. The bill seeks to make child care more affordable and to increase the quality of child care by making a career in child care more profitable. It would help make the career of caregiver more affordable and more feasible for those interested in helping children grow. Nationally, child care workers have the following statistics: [[Page S7716]] 97 percent are female; 33 percent are women of color; 41 percent have children; 10 percent are single parents; only 18 percent of child care centers offer their workers health coverage. In Minnesota child care centers, the average hourly wage for a child care provider is $8.72; for an assistant teacher is $6.66; and for an aide is $5.69. Minnesota family child care providers, who are never covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act, have an average hourly wage of $2.79, and make $7,800 a year for a 60-hour work week. With changes created by the welfare bill in the Federal child care food program, many family child care providers will become ineligible for this program; those who don't pass the costs of care on to the parents will have negative earnings--they will actually lose $71 a week. Nationally, child care teaching staff earn $6.89 an hour and $12,000 a year. Family child care providers earn $9,500, and unregulated providers, $5,100. Although they are better educated than the average worker, child care workers earn one-third of the average male salary and one-half of the average female salary. It is no surprise that one- third of them leave their centers every year. In the meantime, in Minnesota, there are 8,960 children on the waiting list for child care. There are probably another 13,440 children who would apply if the waiting list wasn't so long. Mr. President, add all this up and you have a recipe for disaster. Child care is without question among the most important issues facing the workforce today. Parents who can't care for their children, can't work. Child care is without question among the most important issues facing the field of education today. Children who are not stimulated and cared for during the earliest years will never be able to reach his or her full potential when they grow up. If we don't take the profession seriously and encourage people of caliber to enter the profession of caregiving, and reward those who remain in the profession, then we are risking our economic future and putting at risk millions of children like Jeremy Fiedelholtz. I urge my colleagues to join us in this bipartisan effort to invest money where it is most needed. Let me just say I am very honored to introduce this legislation with Senator DeWine. I thoroughly enjoy working with him, and I think we are both very committed to this piece of legislation. Mr. President, in the Labor Committee today, we are going to hear from the parents of a 3-month-old baby who lost his life after only 2 hours in child care. If you look at the reports, the conditions around our country are not what they should be for children, and if you just think about the pay scale of women and men--they are mainly women--who are child care providers, we have devalued the work of adults who work with children. What this piece of legislation does is it provides loan forgiveness for individuals who earn a degree in early childhood development and then remain employed in this early childhood profession. It also would have some forgiveness for existing child care providers who remain in the profession. What we are simply trying to say here, I say to my colleagues, is that the neuroscience evidence is compelling, these early years are critical years, we have to get it right, there has to be a nurturing care and the intellectual stimulation and, yet, if you look around the country, nationally child care teaching staff earn an average of $6.89 an hour, or about $12,000 a year. Actually, in many of our States, people who work in zoos, and by the way I love visiting zoos--it is not my point to put down that work-- earn twice as much as women and men who work in child care centers. If we really value children and we really understand that pre-K is so important, and if we really understand--and we should and we must--that we have to make sure that by age 3, children have gotten the nurturing care in order for them to be able to go on and do well in school and do well in life, then it is terribly important that we attach more value to the work that is being done. That is what this piece of legislation does, which provides the loan forgiveness for women and men I hope will go into this profession. It is a small step forward, but it is an extremely important step. I am very pleased to introduce this legislation today with my colleague, Senator DeWine. ______ By Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Wellstone): S. 1030. A bill to amend title IV of the Public Health Service Act to establish a National Center for Bioengineering Research; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. The National Center for Bioengineering Research Act of 1997 Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Center for Bioengineering Research Act of 1997. Bioengineering is where medical need and technical capability meet to increase our capacity to diagnose and treat disease; to enhance the quality of life of millions of people with chronic conditions; to save millions of dollars in health care costs; and to generate billions of dollars for our economy. Medical devices alone is a $40 billion-a-year industry. Bioengineering is an interdisciplinary field that applies physical, chemical, and mathematical sciences and engineering principles to the study of biology, medicine, behavior, and health. It advances knowledge from the molecular to the organ systems level, and develops new and novel biologics, materials, processes, implant, devices, and informatics approaches for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease, for patient rehabilitation, and for improving health. Although the term ``bioengineering'' may not be commonplace, many of the major medical advances from bioengineering are very familiar, including the heart-lung machine, kidney dialysis, total hip joint replacements, heart pacemakers, artificial hearts, prosthetics, and diagnostic medical imaging. Other advances are right around the corner, including implantable insulin pumps with biosensors that detect exactly when and how much insulin is needed; and regeneration of tissue, cartilage, and even organs, instead of transplantation--which brings with it the risk of rejection, major trauma to the patient, and one of the highest costs in our entire health care system. As a heart-lung transplant surgeon, I know first hand about the life-saving contributions made by all of these bioengineering developments. We need as many new achievements like this as we can produce. In spite of such spectacular achievements, however, the field of bioengineering suffers from fragmentation and a lack of coordination that could impede and delay future advances in the field. This fragmentation was recognized as early as 1967, when an international conference called for better coordination in bioengineering research. In 1995, at the request of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, the NIH submitted a report, ``Support for Bioengineering Research.'' This report was remarkably consistent with a number of previous studies over the last 30 years that stressed the need for: a centralized focus for extramural bioengineering research at NIH; a strong intramural bioengineering program at NIH; and increased coordination of bioengineering activities within NIH and among other Federal agencies. This legislation seeks to implement those recommendations and is designed to enhance the state of and improve the coordination of bioengineering research conducted within NIH and throughout the Federal Government. This bill calls for the establishment of a National Center for Bioengineering Research within the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute at NIH. The mission of the Center is to: First, enhance the state of bioengineering research within NIH; Second, promote collaborative research projects among NIH institutes and across Federal agencies; Third, enhance communication among bioengineering investigators within Federal agencies and with private sector entities; and Fourth, educate the Congress and the public on the critical importance of bioengineering to both the health and the economy of the Nation. This legislation does not create a new institute within NIH. The Center would have no grantmaking authority. New funding would be allocated to institutes to support basic research projects in bioengineering through the standard peer review process. This legislation is introduced today as a stand-alone bill. But I expect it to [[Page S7717]] be included in the reauthorization bill for the National Institutes of Health which, as Chair of the Public Health and Safety Subcommittee of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, I intend to move forward during the first session of the 105th Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and summary be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material w