Recycled Roads Act of 2003

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation designed to fulfill an important promise made by the Federal Government to the people of my State and my region some 38 years ago. I am speaking of the promise to build and complete a network of highways through the Appalachian region known today as the Appalachian Development Highway System or ADHS. I look forward to working with my fellow Senators to have my legislation included in the measure to reauthorize the Federal- aid Highway Program, one of the most important, if not the most important, pieces of legislation which will be considered during this Congress. The Federal-aid Highway Program is at the very core of the Federal infrastructure investment exercise.

On September 30 of last year, our very capable Federal Highway Administrator, Ms. Mary Peters, testified before the Committee on Environment and Public Works on the condition and performance of our National Highway System. The Administration's Conditions and Performance Report has

again reminded us that a great deal more needs to be invested in our infrastructure if we are not to fall further and further behind in stemming the deterioration of our nation's highways and bridges and alleviating congestion on our nation's roads.

At the September 30 hearing, Administrator Peters testified that, even in the wake of the historic funding increase accomplished through TEA-21, congestion on our roads continues to worsen. An investment in our highway infrastructure by all levels of government will have to increase by more than 65 percent or $42.2 billion per year to actually improve the condition of our nation's highways. A funding increase of more than 17 percent or $11.3 billion will be necessary simply to maintain the current inadequate conditions of our highway network, where more than one in four of our nation's bridges are classified as deficient.

Having served as both Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have sought to do my part by championing the highest level of Federal highway investment for all fifty States that is possible under our budget constraints. Earlier this year, I am pleased to report that the Senate prevailed in the conference with the House on the Omnibus Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2003 and rejected every penny of the $8.6 billion cut in highway funding proposed by President Bush. And just last month, I was pleased to join with Senators Bond and Reid, the respective Chairman and Ranking Member of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, in sponsoring a bipartisan amendment to the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2004 that boosted funding for our Federal-aid Highway Program by several billion dollars. That amendment commanded 79 votes on the Senate floor.

While serving in the other body, I had the great privilege of casting my vote in favor of establishing the Interstate highway System back in 1958. However, in 1964, it was recognized by the first Appalachian Regional Commission that while the Interstate Highway System was slated to provide historic economic benefits to most of our Nation, the system was designed to bypass the Appalachian Region due to the extremely high cost associated with building Highways through Appalachia's rugged topography. As a result, the construction of the interstates would have had the detrimental effect of drawing passengers and freight, and the accompanying economic benefits, away from the Appalachian Region.

In 1965, the Congress adopted the Appalachian Regional Development Act that promised a network of modern highways to connect the Appalachian Region to the rest of the Nation's highway network and, even more importantly, the rest of the Nation's economy. Absent the Appalachian Development Highway System, my region of the country would have been left solely with a transportation infrastructure of dangerous, narrow, winding roads which follow the path of river valleys and stream beds between mountains. These roads are still, more often than not, two-lane roads that are squeezed into very limited rights-of- way. They are characterized by low travel speeds and long travel distances and are often built to inadequate design standards.

One of the observations contained in Administrator Peters' testimony back in September that especially caught my eye was her statement that ``the condition of higher-order roads, such as interstates, has improved considerably since 1993 while the condition on many lower- order roads has deteriorated.'' It appears that the pattern of road conditions is beginning to mirror the distribution of wealth in our country, whereby the rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer. That observation is most pertinent when you consider the challenge of completing the Appalachian Development Highway System.

We have virtually completed the construction of the Interstate Highway System and have moved on to many other important transportation goals. However, the people of my region are still waiting for the Federal Government to live up to its promise, made some 38 years ago, to complete the ADHS. The system is still less than 80 percent complete and I regret to observe that my home State of West Virginia is below the average for the entire Appalachian Region with only 72 percent of its mileage complete and open to traffic.

The rationale behind the completion of the Appalachian Development Highway System is no less sound today than it was in 1964. Unfortunately, there are still children in Appalachia who lack decent transportation routes to school; and there are still pregnant mothers, elderly citizens and others who lack timely road access to area hospitals. There are thousands upon thousands of people who cannot obtain sustainable well-paying jobs because of poor road access to major employment centers. The entire status of the Appalachian Development Highway System is laid out in great detail in the Cost to Complete Report for 2002 recently completed by the Appalachian Regional Commission. This is the most comprehensive report on the status of the Appalachian Development Highway System to date and I commend the staff of the Appalachian Regional Commission for their hard work on this report. The last report was completed in 1997 just prior to Congressional consideration of TEA-21.

The enactment of TEA-21 signaled a new day in the advancement of the Appalachian Development Highway System. Through the work of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and the Administration, we took a great leap forward by authorizing direct contract authority from the Highway Trust Fund to the States for the construction of the ADHS. Up until that point, funding for the Appalachian Development Highway System had been limited to uncertain and inconsistent general fund appropriations. By provding the States of the Appalachian Region with a consistent and predictable source of funds to move forward on its uncompleted ADHS segments, TEA-21 served to reinvigorate our efforts to honor the promise made to the people of the Appalachian Region.

As is made clear in the Cost to Complete Report, this initiative has been a great success. States are making greater progress toward the completion of the system than they have in any five-year segment in recent memory. Since the last Cost to Complete Report, 183 miles of the system have been opened to traffic and we have successfully brought down the cost to complete the system by roughly $1.7 billion in Federal funds.

Back when we were debating TEA-21, some questions were asked as to how committed the States would be to completing the unfinished segments to the Appalachian Development Highway System. I am pleased to report that the 13 States, to date, have succeeded in obligating just under 90 percent of the obligation authority that has been granted to them for the completion of the system. A 90-percent obligation rate compares quite favorably to some of the other transportation programs through which the States were granted multiple years to obligate their funds.

According to the ARC's Cost to Complete Report, the remaining Federal funds needed to complete the ADHS are now estimated to be $4.467 billion. When adjusted for inflation over the life of the next highway bill, using the standard inflation calculation for highway projects, a total of $5.04 billion will need to be authorized to complete the system. That is a lot of money and I believe that figure deserves some explanation.

The considerable cost of completing the last 20 percent of the ADHS is explained by the fact that the easiest segments of the system to build have already been built. Much of the costs associated with completing the most difficult unfinished segments are driven by the requirement to comply with other Federal laws, especially the laws requiring environmental mitigation measures when building new highways through rural areas. While the $5.04 billion figure may seem large to some of my colleagues, I would remind them the last highway bill authorized more than $218 billion in federal infrastructure investment over six years. It is my sincere hope and expectation that the next highway bill will authorize an even greater amount.

Of critical importance to this debate is the fact that the unfinished segments of the ADHS represent some of most dangerous and most deficient roadways in our entire Nation. Often lost in our debate over the necessity to

invest in our highways is the issue of safety. The Federal Highway Administration has published reports indicating that substandard road conditions are a factor in 30 percent of all fatal highway accidents. I am quite certain that the percentage is a great deal higher in the Appalachian Region.

The Federal Highway Administration found that upgrading two-lane roads to four-lane divided highways decreased fatal car accidents by 71 percent and that the widening of traffic lanes has served to reduce fatalities by 21 percent. These are precisely the kind of road improvements that are funded through the ADHS. In my state, the largest segment of unfinished Appalachian Highway, if completed, will replace the second most dangerous segment of roadway in West Virginia. So, even those who would question the wisdom of completing these highways in the name of economic development should take a hard look at the fact that the people of rural Appalachia are taking their lives in their hands every day as they drive on dangerous roads.

It is time for this Congress, in concert with the Administration, to take the last great leap forward and authorize sufficient contract authority to finally complete the Appalachian Development Highway System. If we enact another six-year highway bill with sufficient funds to complete the system, we will finally pay the full costs of the ADHS almost 45 years after the system was first promised to the people of my region. The legislation I am introducing today, the ``Appalachian Development Highway System Completion Act,'' will provide sufficient contract authority to complete the system. Importantly, it will guarantee that the states of the Appalachian Region do not pay a penalty, either through the distribution of minimum allocation funds, or the distribution of obligation limitation, for receiving sufficient funds to complete the Appalachian system.

I am very pleased that this Administration has taken on the goal of completing the ADHS. In her letter accompanying the Cost to Complete Report, Administrator Peters said ``the completion of the ADHS is an important part of the mission of the Federal Highway Administration. We consider the accessibility, mobility and economic stimulation provided by the ADHS to be entirely consistent with the goals of our agency.'' Ms. Peters further stated that the Appalachian Regional Commission's 2002 Cost to Complete Report, ``provides a sound basis for apportioning future funding to complete the system.'' I thank Mary Peters and the entire Federal Highway Administration for their leadership on this issue and I look forward to working with Ms. Peters and her agency to ensure that this commitment is borne out in the transportation reauthorization legislation that is developed by the Congress.

Completion of a new highway bill will be a mammoth task for this Congress. As I look back over the many years of my public career, one of the accomplishments of which I am most proud was my amendment providing an additional $8 billion in funding to break the logjam during the debate on the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act in 1991. Another was my sponsorship of the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner Amendment during the Senate debate of TEA-21 in 1998. That effort resulted in some $26 billion in funding being added to that bill and put us on a path to historic funding increases for our nation's highway infrastructure. I look forward again to working with my fellow Senators on completion of a bill that makes the necessary investments in our nation's highways, not just in the Appalachian Region, but across our entire country.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that I believe will provide the necessary incentives to improve State efforts in the use of recycled materials in highway construction and maintenance. The use of recycled materials in highways is an established process in certain parts of the United States, with some States using recycled materials on a regular basis. These materials include fly ash, bottom ash, rubber products from old tires, and reprocessed concrete and asphalt pavements. Less commonly used recycled commodities include glass and plastic. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials has recently approved specifications for the use of biomass, including small diameter timber, providing an additional avenue for use of recycled material. The list of accomplishments is impressive, but its application is limited. Many States could do much more with the use of recycled materials in their highway systems.

Challenges faced by States in the use of recycled material in highways are attributed to several factors. Some State Departments of Transportation are unaware of the different types of recycled materials that are available in today's construction industry. Others do not have the technical expertise to take advantage of the broad range of recycled materials and techniques. Some may not have developed the necessary procurement infrastructure to include the use of recycled materials in highway construction.

To assist States in overcoming these obstacles and to provide necessary incentives for the expansion of this economically and environmentally viable practice, I am introducing the Recycled Roads Act of 2003. The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to establish a recycled roads incentive grant program to encourage the use of recyclable material in the construction of Federal-aid highways by States and Indian tribes. The program will provide two types of grants. The first type, which is funded up to $125,000 per year, will be for a State or Indian tribe to use in employing a coordinator to promote the use of recyclable material in Federal-aid highway construction. The second type, which is funded up to $1,400,000 per year, will be for a State or Indian tribe to use to carry out projects and activities to promote the expanded use of recycled material in Federal-aid highway construction and maintenance. Total funding for both grants is $123,525,000 per year.

The case for expanded use of recycled materials in road construction is clear. Dr. T. Taylor Eighmy, Director of the University of New Hampshire Recycled Materials Resource Center, from an article entitled ``The Road to Reuse'' published in the professional journal Civil Engineering, states the case well: ``Why should we as a society continue to dispose of materials that may have inherent engineering value and suitable environmental properties and continue to rely on nonrenewable natural resources in constructing the U.S. infrastructure? Indeed, these materials may become increasingly deserving of consideration as we tackle deteriorating infrastructure problems in the United States. And the use of recycled materials in lieu of natural materials may provide additional environmental benefits through better performance and lower cost because there would be less need to mine, process, and transport traditional materials.

``Applications for recycled materials within the highway environment include both bound and unbound uses: asphalt pavements, portland cement concrete pavement, granular bases and subbases, stabilized bases, embankments, structural fills, flowable fills, soil cover and erosion control, and appurtenances. Materials such as reclaimed asphalt pavement, RAP, are widely recycled using both in-place and off-site recycling methods. More than 45 States use RAP. The National Asphalt Paving Association reported in April 2000 that RAP has one of the highest recycling rates in the United States--close to 80 percent. About 73 million tons are recycled each year, saving the taxpayers about $300 million annually.''

The example of RAP is one of our best success stories in the use of recycled materials in roads. However, there is much more that can be done. As Dr. Eighmy explains, ``. . . the number of states that use recycled materials varies significantly, as do the approaches states take in conducting beneficial use determinations, particularly on less traditional materials. There is a general sense that states with higher industrial activities use more of the resulting by-products. . . . There also appears to be a relation between a state's

commitment to recycling and the maturity of the beneficial use program in that state.''

The Federal Highway Administration produced a policy on recycled materials in February of 2002, which strongly encourages the use of existing recyclable materials in highway construction and maintenance. As stated in the policy, ``Recycling presents environmental opportunities and challenges, which, when appropriately addressed, can maximize the benefits of reuse. The use of most recycled materials poses no threat or danger to the air, soil, or water. Furthermore, careful design, engineering and application of recycled materials can reduce or eliminate the need to search for and extract new, virgin materials from the land.

``The engineering feasibility of using recycled materials has been demonstrated in research, field studies, experimental projects and long-term performance testing and analysis. Significant advances in technology over the past decade have increased the types of recycled materials in use and the range of their applications. When appropriately used, recycled materials can effectively and safely reduce cost, stave time, offer equal or in some cases, significant improvement to performance qualities, and provide long-term environmental benefits.''

The Federal Highway Administration policy is supported by both science and a common sense approach to the needs of building and maintaining our national highway system. This bill provides the necessary incentives to expand these beneficial recycling practices, and increase the associated environmental and engineering impacts.

In addition, this legislation was developed in consultation with several stakeholders from the Federal and state governments, and non- governmental organizations. The State of New Mexico, and the non-profit organizations Environmental Defense and the Surface Transportation Policy Project have provided letters expressing their support for this legislation.

I ask all Senators to support the Recycled Roads Act of 2003. I look forward to working with the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, to incorporate his bill into the full 6-year reauthorization of the transportation bill. I would also like to thank Jeff Steinborn from my office in Las Cruces, New Mexico for his diligent work in developing the initial concept for this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the article from September 2001 professional society journal Civil Engineering entitled ``The Road to Reuse'' by Dr. T. Taylor Eighmy, the February 2002 Federal Highway Administration policy on recycled materials, and letters of support from the State of New Mexico, Environmental Defense, and the Surface Transportation Policy Project be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Improved Nutrition and Physical Activity or IMPACT Bill that Senator Frist has introduced with myself and Senators Dodd, DeWine, Clinton, Warner, Murray, Lugar, Landrieu, and Sessions. This is a bill that is critical in this era of chronic disease, as it addresses the mounting public health concerns of obesity, overweight, eating disorders, and their related diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Approximately 61 percent of adults and 13 percent of children and adolescents in our Nation today are overweight or obese. These individuals have a significantly greater risk of diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and stroke than their healthy weight peers. Another 5 to 10 percent of Americans are suffering from eating disorders that can also manifest themselves in a number of physical and psychological illnesses including heart disease, osteoporosis, kidney failure, depression, anxiety, and suicide. Unfortunately, these rates of overweight, obesity, and eating disorders are rising in both adult and child populations. Since obesity is a health problem that disproportionately impacts medically underserved populations, it is rapidly increasing the medical burden on these already overburdened populations.

The economic implications of the obesity epidemic are equally disturbing. The estimated direct and indirect annual cost of obesity in the United States is now 117 billion dollars--exceeding the cost of tobacco-related illnesses. These costs will only continue to climb unless we make a concerted effort to stem this dangerous tide by initiating primary and secondary prevention programs.

It is this conclusion that led the United States Surgeon General to issue a Call to Action listing the treatment and prevention of obesity as a top national priority. It is this conclusion that has led Secretary Thompson to implement the Steps to a Healthier US initiative. And it is this reality that makes passing the IMPACT bill a critical step towards improving our nation's future health and well-being.

Obesity and eating disorders are complex diseases and as such require comprehensive multidisciplinary solutions. IMPACT aims to move us toward those solutions by addressing these diseases on a number of levels. First, it aims to prepare the health care community to deal with obesity from prevention to diagnosis to intervention by adding obesity, overweight, and eating disorders to the list of priority conditions to be addressed in the health professions Title VII training grants.

Second, IMPACT supports community-based solutions to increase physical activity and improve nutrition on a number of levels. It provides funding for demonstration projects in communities, schools, health care organizations, and other qualified entities that promote fitness or healthy nutrition. It authorizes the CDC to collect fitness and energy expenditure information from children. It directs AHRQ to review any new information relating to obesity trends among various sub-populations and include such information in its health disparities report. It allows states to use their Preventive Services Block Grant money for community education on nutrition and increased physical activity. It instructs the Secretary to report on what research has been done in the area of obesity, what has been learned from this research, and what future research should be conducted. And finally, it asks the secretary to report on the effectiveness of the Youth Media Campaign in changing children's behaviors and reducing obesity.

IMPACT is supported by a wide variety of public and private organizations. The National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity or NANA, an organization including more than 250 national, state, and local organizations and the single largest coalition in the U.S. dedicated to promoting healthy eating and physical activity and reducing obesity states, ``NANA strongly supports your efforts to reduce obesity and improve eating and activity habits in the U.S. through the IMPACT bill.'' Other organizations that have stated their support include the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the Council for States and Territorial Epidemiologists, the Society for Nutrition Education, and the American Dietetic Association.

This legislation is an excellent first step in the fight for improved health, but it is not the only step we must take. We need to assist our schools in providing healthy nutrition options and expanding physical activity programs. We need to grow the workforce so that people have access to the healthcare professionals they need to prevent, diagnose, and treat obesity and eating disorders. We need to look at Medicare and Medicaid and insure that they provide the services necessary to help people prevent and treat obesity and its complications so that we reduce the burden of these diseases in these vulnerable populations. And we need to promote research in the areas of obesity prevention and treatment so that we can offer people better and more effective interventions in the future. These are not small goals but they are critical to our nation's health. I will continue to work on additional legislation that will take the next steps toward addressing these and other related concerns.

For today, I would like to ask all of my colleagues to join me in taking this very important first step toward reducing obesity and eating disorders by supporting this important legislation. By passing this bill we can truly IMPACT the health of our nation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that I believe will provide the necessary incentives to improve State efforts in the use of recycled materials in highway construction and maintenance. The use of recycled materials in highways is an established process in certain parts of the United States, with some States using recycled materials on a regular basis. These materials include fly ash, bottom ash, rubber products from old tires, and reprocessed concrete and asphalt pavements. Less commonly used recycled commodities include glass and plastic. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials has recently approved specifications for the use of biomass, including small diameter timber, providing an additional avenue for use of recycled material. The list of accomplishments is impressive, but its application is limited. Many States could do much more with the use of recycled materials in their highway systems.

Challenges faced by States in the use of recycled material in highways are attributed to several factors. Some State Departments of Transportation are unaware of the different types of recycled materials that are available in today's construction industry. Others do not have the technical expertise to take advantage of the broad range of recycled materials and techniques. Some may not have developed the necessary procurement infrastructure to include the use of recycled materials in highway construction.

To assist States in overcoming these obstacles and to provide necessary incentives for the expansion of this economically and environmentally viable practice, I am introducing the Recycled Roads Act of 2003. The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to establish a recycled roads incentive grant program to encourage the use of recyclable material in the construction of Federal-aid highways by States and Indian tribes. The program will provide two types of grants. The first type, which is funded up to $125,000 per year, will be for a State or Indian tribe to use in employing a coordinator to promote the use of recyclable material in Federal-aid highway construction. The second type, which is funded up to $1,400,000 per year, will be for a State or Indian tribe to use to carry out projects and activities to promote the expanded use of recycled material in Federal-aid highway construction and maintenance. Total funding for both grants is $123,525,000 per year.

The case for expanded use of recycled materials in road construction is clear. Dr. T. Taylor Eighmy, Director of the University of New Hampshire Recycled Materials Resource Center, from an article entitled ``The Road to Reuse'' published in the professional journal Civil Engineering, states the case well: ``Why should we as a society continue to dispose of materials that may have inherent engineering value and suitable environmental properties and continue to rely on nonrenewable natural resources in constructing the U.S. infrastructure? Indeed, these materials may become increasingly deserving of consideration as we tackle deteriorating infrastructure problems in the United States. And the use of recycled materials in lieu of natural materials may provide additional environmental benefits through better performance and lower cost because there would be less need to mine, process, and transport traditional materials.

``Applications for recycled materials within the highway environment include both bound and unbound uses: asphalt pavements, portland cement concrete pavement, granular bases and subbases, stabilized bases, embankments, structural fills, flowable fills, soil cover and erosion control, and appurtenances. Materials such as reclaimed asphalt pavement, RAP, are widely recycled using both in-place and off-site recycling methods. More than 45 States use RAP. The National Asphalt Paving Association reported in April 2000 that RAP has one of the highest recycling rates in the United States--close to 80 percent. About 73 million tons are recycled each year, saving the taxpayers about $300 million annually.''

The example of RAP is one of our best success stories in the use of recycled materials in roads. However, there is much more that can be done. As Dr. Eighmy explains, ``. . . the number of states that use recycled materials varies significantly, as do the approaches states take in conducting beneficial use determinations, particularly on less traditional materials. There is a general sense that states with higher industrial activities use more of the resulting by-products. . . . There also appears to be a relation between a state's

commitment to recycling and the maturity of the beneficial use program in that state.''

The Federal Highway Administration produced a policy on recycled materials in February of 2002, which strongly encourages the use of existing recyclable materials in highway construction and maintenance. As stated in the policy, ``Recycling presents environmental opportunities and challenges, which, when appropriately addressed, can maximize the benefits of reuse. The use of most recycled materials poses no threat or danger to the air, soil, or water. Furthermore, careful design, engineering and application of recycled materials can reduce or eliminate the need to search for and extract new, virgin materials from the land.

``The engineering feasibility of using recycled materials has been demonstrated in research, field studies, experimental projects and long-term performance testing and analysis. Significant advances in technology over the past decade have increased the types of recycled materials in use and the range of their applications. When appropriately used, recycled materials can effectively and safely reduce cost, stave time, offer equal or in some cases, significant improvement to performance qualities, and provide long-term environmental benefits.''

The Federal Highway Administration policy is supported by both science and a common sense approach to the needs of building and maintaining our national highway system. This bill provides the necessary incentives to expand these beneficial recycling practices, and increase the associated environmental and engineering impacts.

In addition, this legislation was developed in consultation with several stakeholders from the Federal and state governments, and non- governmental organizations. The State of New Mexico, and the non-profit organizations Environmental Defense and the Surface Transportation Policy Project have provided letters expressing their support for this legislation.

I ask all Senators to support the Recycled Roads Act of 2003. I look forward to working with the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, to incorporate his bill into the full 6-year reauthorization of the transportation bill. I would also like to thank Jeff Steinborn from my office in Las Cruces, New Mexico for his diligent work in developing the initial concept for this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the article from September 2001 professional society journal Civil Engineering entitled ``The Road to Reuse'' by Dr. T. Taylor Eighmy, the February 2002 Federal Highway Administration policy on recycled materials, and letters of support from the State of New Mexico, Environmental Defense, and the Surface Transportation Policy Project be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about low-income families and the recently passed tax bill. There has been much heat and very little light about what we have done in this bill. Most of the heat has been focused on the conference decision not to retain the Senate position regarding acceleration from 10 percent to 15 percent as part of the refundable child credit--a change already scheduled to take place in 2005.

Before I discuss this matter in detail, let me start by saying that I agree with my colleagues that we should seek to reconsider this provision. I am introducing legislation today that will do that, and will also, of equal, and perhaps greater importance, provide a uniform definition of a child and make the $1,000 child credit permanent. Finally, my bill will eliminate the marriage penalty that is contained in the child credit. This bill is an encompassing effort to help low- income and middle-income families.

The uniform definition of a child will help hundreds of thousands of families receive tax benefits for which they are not currently eligible. As important, it will bring simplification and clarity for millions of families, ensuring that they are not subject to IRS audit and collection efforts.

The bill also makes permanent the $1,000 child credit. Otherwise, in 2005 working families with two eligible children will receive a $600 tax increase as the tax credit drops to $700. In addition, the bill accelerates the refundable calculation from 10 percent to 15 percent.

Finally, the bill addresses the marriage penalty contained in the child credit. Currently, the child credit phases out at $75,000 for a single mother and a $110,000 for a married couple. My bill would eliminate the marriage penalty by having the credit phase out at $150,000. In addition, it adjusts the phase-out level for inflation.

I do not need to wait for comments from my colleagues or from the media to take this action. Many from the media who attended my press conference the day of final passage of the conference report will recall that I stated then that I would quickly seek to revisit the child tax credit issues and seek Senate action on permanency of the child credit.

Let me turn now to the acceleration issue. The media and some members of Congress seem to have a willful blindness as they discuss this matter. What are they blind to? The Earned Income Credit, EIC, program provides great assistance to the very population that is of concern.

Let me give you an example: A family of four making $11,000 will be eligible for $50 under the refundable child credit. By accelerating it, as proposed by my bill and by others, they will now be eligible for $75. What does this family get under EIC? In 2002 they will get a check for $4,140. That means that family is paying no income tax and payroll tax of $842 and is getting a payment from the federal government of almost $3,300 in excess of the payroll tax they pay.

You would never know this from the media accounts and the press releases. And even if there is a mention of the EIC, I have seen no mention of the dollar amount--the $4,00-plus check for families with two children and $2,500 for families with one child. Why is that? Because the chicken littles are too busy running around. I would hope that the concept of ``context'' would not be something of which the media has to be reminded. You would think from reading speeches and media accounts that the whole tax relief provided in the tax code to a family making $11,000 is the refundable child credit. The child credit for these families at this income level is a thimble compared to the enormous benefits of EIC.

Let me remind my colleagues of the purpose of the child credit: It was designed to address the perceived penalty for working families as the EIC began to phase out. In fact, the original proposal of the refundable child credit that I drafted with Senator Baucus in 2001 would not have begun to take effect until the point where the EIC begins to phase-out--at approximately $13,500 for a head of household and $14,500 for married couples.

The Finance Committee heard testimony, and it was the repeated view of academics, that Congress needed to address the phase-out of the EIC. There was no testimony to the Senate Finance Committee and I can find very little in respectable academic discussions that advocated an increase in the check for EIC recipients--that the EIC top amount of $4,000 plus for two children or $2,500 for one child was insufficiently generous.

So that is what was the genesis of the Finance Committee's support for a child credit--addressing somewhat the EIC phase-out as families begin to make more money. However, the beginning point of the phase-in was shifted at the request of some Senators to $10,000. That does not negate that the underlying purpose was and is to deal with the EIC phase-out.

This concern about the phase-out is reflected in the actions we took in conference. By raising the child credit to $1,000 we helped put more money in the pocket of a single mom with one child making $17,000 to $20,000.

That single mom making $20,000 will now get a $1,000 check instead of a $600 check under previous law.

What if we were to only do as some propose and do acceleration to 15 percent but not increase the child credit in 2005 to $1,000?

Yes, it will mean a bit more for those families already receiving a $4,000-plus check under EIC--and I recognize that every penny counts to these families. But this proposal will also mean a tax increase on that single mom making $18,000, that single dad making $19,000 and that married couple with one child making $20,000. Why? Because they benefit more from the increase in the child credit to $1,000. The acceleration will not benefit them; they will quickly meet the maximum child credit. It is the increase to $1,000 that is the real

benefit for these families that do not receive the maximum benefits under EIC.

That is why I urge my colleagues to support my legislation that helps millions of working families, and doesn't impose a tax on families that are working hard and getting themselves a little bit better paying job.

And let me close with one other note. My colleagues should remember that it still takes 3 million taxpayers off the rolls completely. They will no longer have to pay tax under this legislation. Much of that is due to the increase in the child credit to $1,000.

Finally, for those who want to talk about income tax relief for low- income individuals, I would encourage them to remember this is many ways a bill that is in concert with the 2001 tax relief that created the 10 percent bracket and provided great income tax relief to singles. Again, a bigger picture that provides greater context of our work will show that we are providing broad-based relief to millions of taxpayers.

I urge my colleagues to work with me in passing this full relief for families. I also think it is important that we pass legislation that can be passed into law by working with the House and the White House. We have already passed legislation that deals with just the 10 percent to 15 percent--the Finance Committee passed it and the Senate passed it. The Senate is on record on this matter already. Now is the time to bring real relief and permanent relief to all working families.

Mr. President, I believe ``home'' is one of the warmest words in the English language. At the end of a long day, I think the favorite phrase of every hardworking working man and woman in this country is: ``Well, I'll see you tomorrow. I'm going home now.''

That is why I rise today to introduce the First Time Homebuyers' Tax Credit Act of 2003.

The bill I am introducing will spread that warmth by opening the door to homeownership to millions of hardworking families, helping them cover the initial down payment and closing costs.

This initiative is in keeping with our longstanding national policy of encouraging homeownership.

Owning a home has always been a fundamental part of the American dream.

We, in Congress, have long recognized the social and economic value in high rates of homeownership through laws that we have enacted, such as the mortgage interest tax deduction and the capital gains exclusion on the sale of a home.

Over the life of a loan, the mortgage interest tax deduction can save homeowners thousands of dollars that they could use for other necessary family expenses such as education or health care.

These benefits, however, are only available to individuals who own their own home.

It is important also to note that owning a home is a principle and reliable source of savings as homeowners build equity over the years and their homes appreciate.

For many people, it is home equity--not stocks--that help them through the retirement years.

In addition, owning a home insulates people from spikes in housing costs.

Indeed, while rents may go up, the costs of a monthly mortgage payment, in relative terms, will go down over the course of the mortgage.

In my own State of Michigan, the homeownership rate of 74 percent is the third highest in the Nation and well above the national rate of 66 percent.

In Oregon, the home State of my bill's lead Republican sponsor, Senator Gordon Smith, the homeownership rate is 64.3 percent--about 2 percent below the national average.

However, as impressive as these numbers may initially sound, not everyone enjoys the benefits of homeownership.

For example, homeownership in Michigan among whites is 78 percent; Native Americans 60 percent; Hispanics 55 percent; African Americans 51 percent; and Asians 50 percent.

A national study by the Fannie Mae Foundation found that in the top third of income levels, 44 percent of people under the age of 31 owned their own home.

But, for the lowest third on the income scale, only 15.6 percent owned their own home--a 28 percent gap!

Why do we face these disparities? Clearly, one of the biggest barriers to homeownership for working families is the cost of a down payment and the costs associated with closing a mortgage.

According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, typical closing costs on an average sized loan of $175,000 can approach approximately $4,000.

Even with relatively recent mortgage products that allow a downpayment of as little as 3 percent of the value of a home, total costs can quickly approach over $9,000.

This is an impossible amount to save for those who are scraping by, working hard to make ends meet.

To address this problem, I am introducing the First Time Homebuyers' Tax Credit Act of 2003.

My bill authorizes a one-time tax credit of up to $3,000 for individuals and $6,000 for married couples.

This credit is similar to the existing mortgage interest tax deduction in that it creates incentives for people to buy a home.

To be eligible for the credit, taxpayers must be first-time homebuyers who were within the 27 percent tax bracket or lower in the year before they purchase their home. That is $67,700 for single filers, $96,700 for heads of household, $112,850 for joint returns. There is a dollar-for-dollar phase-out beyond the cap.

Normally, tax credits like this are an after-the-fact benefit. They do little to get people actually into a home.

What is particularly innovative and beneficial about the tax credit in this bill, however, is that, for the first time, the taxpayer can either claim the credit in the year after he or she buys a first home or the taxpayer can transfer the credit directly to a lender at closing.

The transferred credit would go toward helping with the down payment or closing costs. This is cash at the table.

As mandated in the bill, the eligible homebuyer would have the money for the lender from the Treasury within 30 days of application.

I am happy to say that this legislation already has strong support. Among those who have already written to me in support of this concept are:

The American Bankers Association; America's Community Bankers; the Housing Partnership Network; the National Housing Conference; the National Congress for Community Economic Development; the National Council of La Raza; the National Association of Affordable Housing Lenders; the Manufactured Housing Institute; Fannie Mae; Freddie Mac; National Community Reinvestment Coalition; Standard Federal Bank; Habitat for Humanity, and, the National American Indian Housing Council.

I ask unanimous consent that copies of their letters be printed in the Record.