A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the deduction for qualified tuition and related expenses and to repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 with respect to such deduction.

Mr. President, today I am joined by Senators Roberts, Daschle, Dayton, Dorgan, Johnson, Baucus, Enzi, Kerry, Harkin, Coleman, Reid, and Nelson of Nebraska in introducing the ``Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program of 2003''.

Newspaper headlines across North Dakota over the past year confirm that one issue has emerged as among the most controversial that we have seen in the State in some time. That issue has to do with who can hunt in North Dakota, and under what conditions.

As one State senator said during the 2003 session of the North Dakota legislature: ``In all my years in the legislature, I haven't gotten so many calls as [on] this one.''

Some have called for stricter limits on the number of out-of-state sportsmen in order to provide greater hunting opportunities for North Dakota citizens. On the other side, many of the rural businesses in North Dakota whose livelihoods have come to depend increasingly on the dollars spent by non-resident hunters have urged a less restrictive policy.

An article earlier this year in a North Dakota paper began with the declaration that, ``No bill has stirred more passion in people than Senate Bill 2048, which deals with capping the number of out-of-state hunters.'' One State legislator termed the debate over the bill, ``civil war between residents of North Dakota fighting over hunting ground.''

At its core, the hunting debate is about demand exceeding supply. Quite simply, the public desire for hunting and other outdoor recreation opportunities increasingly exceeds the amount of land available for such activities. And the problem is growing worse each year. Other States face a similar challenge, and they too are in a quandary as they seek to address it.

In response to this growing problem, I have been working with a number of my colleagues--as well as farm, conservation, and sportsmen's groups--to develop a positive, straightforward, voluntary and incentive-based approach to addressing the ``supply side'' of this issue. And I am pleased to be introducing that initiative today.

Our proposal is a voluntary landowner incentive program. Its formal title is the ``Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program of 2003''. As the title indicates, it is strictly voluntary in nature.

It would work like this: Under the program--which I to refer to as the

``Open Fields'' proposal, the U.S. Department of Agriculture would provide $50 million per year to State programs that offer incentive payments to farmers and ranchers who agree to allow public access on their land, under terms established by each state.

The ``Open Fields'' program would be funded in the same way that Federal farm and conservation programs are currently financed--through USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation. To receive funding under the program, interested states would describe the benefits that the state hopes to achieve by encouraging public access on private farm and ranch land--through such activities as hunting, fishing, birding, and related outdoor activities--and the methods that the State will use to achieve those benefits.

In determining the distribution of funds under the program, USDA would give priority to those States that propose--1. to maximize participation by offering a program whose terms are likely to meet with widespread acceptance among landowners in the state; 2. to ensure that land enrolled under the state program has appropriate wildlife habitat; 3. to increase public access on land enrolled in habitat improvement projects under the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program; and 4. to use other Federal, state or private resources, in a collaborative way, to carry out the program.

But participation by the States and individual land owners in each State would, as I have indicated, be completely voluntary.

In designing the ``Open Fields'' program, our aim has been to build on what works--to grease the wheel, rather than re-invent it. For example, about 13 States already have programs designed to increase the amount of private land available to the public, but these programs are generally modest in scope and suffer from limited funding. Our legislation is designed to give these struggling State programs a needed shot in the arm and to encourage other States.

In North Dakota, for example, we have the Private Land Initiative, under which revenue generated from the sale of habitat stamps is used to provide cost-share assistance for wildlife habitat, and to support the Conservation PLOTS program--PLOTS stands for ``Private Land Open To Sportsmen.'' Under this program, owners agree to make their land accessible to the public in return for cost-share and incentive payments. Earlier this year, State officials made an additional $1.5 million available to increase public access on private land, in an effort to help diffuse tensions in the debate over resident versus non- resident hunters.

Other States have similar programs. Kansas, for example, has its ``Walk-In Hunting'' program. Montana has a ``Block Management, Public Access/Private Land'' program. Nebraska sponsors a Conservation Reserve Program/Management Access Program, under which landowners with CRP ground receive a bonus payment if they take steps to improve habitat and allow public access on their CRP land. Colorado recently implemented its ``Walk-In Access'' program, under which interested hunters purchase a $20 stamp that gives them access to private land enrolled in the program and a directory of participating landowners.

All of these are fine, innovative programs, but they lack the resources needed to meet the public's growing demand for places to hunt and engage in other forms of outdoor recreation.

Make no mistake about it, wildlife-related recreation is a major force in defining our national character and in shaping our economy. For example, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in 2001, 82 million Americans age 16 years and older participated in wildlife- related recreation. During that year, over 34 million people fished, 13 million hunted, and over 66 million participated in at least one type of wildlife-watching activity such as observing, feeding, or photographing wildlife in the United States.

According to the Fish & Wildlife Service, those 82 million people who engaged in wildlife-related activities spent an estimated $108 billion, including over $35 billion on fishing and nearly $21 billion on hunting. That's big business by any definition, and it is a slice of the national economy that is increasingly important to our rural communities and small businesses. In 2001 alone, for example, $20 billion was spent on food, lodging, and transportation by those who hunted and fished, while wildlife-watching participants, including birders, spent another $8.2 billion on those same items.

In North Dakota, wildlife-related recreation generated nearly $1 billion for the State's economy during the 2001-2002 season, according to the North Dakota Game and Fish Commission. The Commission estimates that direct spending by hunters and anglers laws $469 million during the season, generating nearly $545 million in additional economic activity. North Dakota ranks second in the Nation in terms of the percentage of the State's resident's who hunt, 19 percent, and fifth among States in the percentage of State residents who fish, 29 percent.

To underscore the importance of non-resident hunters to my State, the Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that North Dakota ranks third among States in the percentage of hunters in the State who are non-residents. The estimated 52,000 non-resident hunters in our State make up an estimated 37 percent of all hunters. Only South Dakota, 65 percent, and Colorado, 43 percent, rank higher.

In addition, there is ample evidence, from North Dakota State University and individual business owners, that the wildlife and hunting opportunities created by the Conservation Reserve Program have helped to cushion the economic impact first created when the CRP withdrew land from production and caused farmers to purchase fewer inputs and other services so important to our struggling rural communities. So it is critically important that we look for additional means to increase sporting opportunities for the public, and do so in a way that not only allows traditional farming operations to continue, but also increases a farm's income-earning potential. Our proposal would do just that.

All in all, this program will be good for farm income, good for conservation, good for our struggling rural communities, and a positive force in strengthening the bond between producers and the general public.

Finally, there are also broader policy reasons to move in this direction. For example, it is likely that future world trade agreements are increasingly going to limit the ability of the United States and other major agricultural producing countries to support our farmers in a way that is considered to be trade, or market, ``distorting.'' In other words, U.S. policymakers are likely to find it more and more difficult to provide government farm support in a way that is tied either to production or prices. Instead, we will have to find so-called ``green box'' means of supporting farm income--payments that are not based on bushels produced or current commodity prices. That's clearly the direction that the European Union is taking, and we had better take notice. The program we are announcing today fits neatly in the current green box definition, and should be one of the many tools available to support farm income well into the future, even if new trade agreements constrain our farm policy options.

I am pleased that our legislation has already received the support of a number of farm, sportsmen, and conservation organizations, including the North Dakota Farmers Union, the North Dakota Farm Bureau, the National Farmers Union, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, the Wildlife Management Institute, the Izaak Walton League of America, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, the National Rifle Association, the Mule Deer Foundation, Pheasants Forever, the American Sportfishing Association, Pure Fishing, Trout Unlimited, Bass Anglers Sportsmen Society, the Ruffed Grouse Society, the Wildlife Society, the Pope and Young Club, the Federal of Flyfishers, the International Hunter Education Association, the Boone and Crocket Club, the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the North American Grouse Partnership, the Texas Wildlife Association, and the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada.

In closing, let me quote from one of news articles that appeared in a North Dakota paper last year.

Commenting on the controversy over the proposed change in the pheasant season opening date, the Bismark Tribune editorialized that, ``On one extreme are landowners catering to out-of-state hunters, in part, because of weak and declining rural economies. For them, this is a matter of survival. On the other hand, many sportsmen feel that the growing numbers of acres dedicated to out-of-state hunters, willing to pay big bucks to hunt, are destroying the sport for the state's residents . . . The two sides are a long, long way apart.''

My hope is that we can find ways to bring people together, and in the process strengthen our rural economy, encourage conservation, and preserve our hunting traditions for generations to come. And that's what this proposal is all about.

I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I will introduce legislation which is entitled the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program Extension and Reform Act of 2004. As I have explained briefly before, I do so because this program is going to be unveiled tomorrow at a ceremony in the Pennsylvania State Capitol attended by Secretary of the Interior Norton in addition to Governor Rendell and a number of other officials. While I would like to be present in Pennsylvania for the event, the Senate will be in session and there is important business to be conducted here. So in my absence there, I thought it appropriate to introduce this bill. I had planned to do so tomorrow, but there is a joint session of Congress in the morning and I am advised there may not be

morning business. So I am taking just a few moments of floor time to introduce the bill now.

The Bush administration has already announced the outline of the bill so I am not in any way preempting the administration by the introduction of this legislation. As I noted earlier, the administration had made this legislation available to me for introduction in conjunction with others in the Pennsylvania delegation, and I am pleased to do so because it will address a very serious problem for my State.

By far, Pennsylvania has the most extensive problem of any of the States in the Union, where we have some 250,000 acres which are in need of reclamation. Some 2,400 miles of streams are affected on our water supply because Pennsylvania has been so heavily mined. Shortly after I came to the Senate in the early 1980s, a little town in Pennsylvania named Centralia received national and international attention when a young man fell into a deep pit and a fire was burning there. It was a fire which resulted from an abandoned mine. For those, if any, who may be watching on C-SPAN, these fires rage underground burning unmined coal. This fire was raging. A large hole enveloped and the young man fell many feet below the surface of the terrain. Fortunately, he was rescued.

It was necessary to move the entire town at a very substantial cost borne in significant measure by the Federal Government, not entirely because homeowners could not fully recoup the losses of their houses. This bill will provide some $3 billion to take care of health and safety. It will be a reauthorization to the year 2018 on an authorization bill which is set to expire in September of this year. There will be a phase-out of payments ramped down until the year 2018 when it is projected that the problem will be solved. This bill will improve the flexibility for the States where they can make a choice of their projects and make a decision based on where they need to go on water quality.

It is obviously a very important matter for the environment, and environmental protection is a high priority in our country. I am pleased to see President Bush and his administration move ahead on this important item. It takes care of all of the smaller States with a minimum allocation of some $2 million. There is some assistance for the Combined Benefit Fund, which has been established for the benefit of the retired mine workers, where the health and benefit plans had been abrogated. We had legislation introduced and enacted several years ago, led by the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, in conjunction with Senator Byrd, which I cosponsored, and we tried to provide for the retirement health benefits for the mine workers. This bill will make an allocation which will be helpful in that regard. It will not entirely satisfy the matter.

As I noted, this is President Bush's top priority in the Interior section of his budget. Secretary of the Interior Norton will tour some mines in Pennsylvania. Again, I express my regrets not being able to be with her and the Governor when the event will be held in the rotunda of the State Capitol at 11 o'clock tomorrow. Burt we intend to have a news conference here in Washington simultaneously with her announcement there.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Conrad, Roberts and others in introducing the Voluntary Public Access and Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program Act of 2003. This bill offers an excellent opportunity to help conserve wildlife habitat, increase the amount of land available for outdoor recreational activities, and help farmers and ranchers.

Hunting and other outdoor activities are very popular and are an important part of our country's heritage. Unfortunately, the shortage of public land in some States limits the ability of people to enjoy these activities. Providing incentives to increase public access to private lands can enhance outdoor recreational opportunities and help rural economies.

In many rural areas businesses associated with wildlife recreation, such as sporting goods stores, campgrounds, and motels and hotels, are an important part of the economy. By increasing the lands available for outdoor recreation, not only will more local residents be able to enjoy this activity, but we will also encourage more people to visit rural areas, bringing additional revenue to these rural communities. When hunting, bird watching or hiking on accessible lands, visitors stay in local lodging, purchase goods in stores and eat in restaurants. The money generated from these activities is good for rural economies.

In many States, such as Iowa, many farmers and landowners have traditionally granted hunters and other outdoor recreationists permission to use their land when asked. This bill will help compensate owners and operators of farm and ranch land for their generosity and also encourage more of them to provide such access to their land. And, of course, this bill will benefit wildlife by encouraging landowners and operators to maintain, increase and improve habitat for wildlife.

In States access programs now operating, information listing enrolled private land is often readily available to allow recreationists to access the land without the need to bother the owners to ask for permission. Many existing programs also have the very important benefit of reducing the liability of landowners and operators in case of injury to people using their land. State programs also help ensure enforcement of hunting and other regulations and help landowners and operators posts signs and information.

Currently at least 13 States have public access programs that would be eligible for funds from this bill. While Iowa currently does not have a program, there is great interest in starting a program, and I believe this bill will enable Iowa to start one. This bill provides flexibility to allow States to design programs to meet the particular needs and interests of landowners and recreationists in each State while at the same time ensuring that the goals of increasing wildlife habitat and available lands for public recreation are met.

I am proud to cosponsor this bill and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I am introducing two education tax bills today. These bills will help us make permanent the $30 billion in education tax incentives that were contained in the 2001 tax bill.

The first bill will extend and make permanent the tuition deduction that was enacted in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, Public Law 107-16, or EGTRRA. A lot of people think we don't spend enough money on education, but they also don't think we should make the 2001 tax cuts permanent. I don't know how they can justify that position. The education tax incentives in the 2001 tax bill have done a whole lot of good. The tuition tax deduction is available only through December 31, 2005. The cost of the provision for those four years was about $10 billion. So you can see that it was very expensive.

For parents struggling to send their children to college, the tuition tax deduction has been very important. Some of them probably wish it were set at a higher level, but at between $2,000 and $4,000 depending on your income, it is still a beneficial tax incentive for the middle class.

The second bill that I am introducing today will make the rest of the EGTRRA education tax provisions permanent, as well as the deduction for teacher classroom materials that was passed in the stimulus package of March 2002. That provision expired at the end of last year so it is very important that we enact it on a permanent basis and do so as soon as practicable.

I hope my colleagues will join me in sponsoring these bills and will agree to consider them and pass them in the Senate in the next month or two.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.