A bill to grant a Federal charter Korean War Veterans Association, Incorporated, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about one of the things that is so important. Obviously, items connected with terrorism, the war in Iraq have to be dealt with. We have to deal with heightened homeland security and related issues. Health care is an area we need to talk about. Prescription drugs is in the process of this.

One issue that is particularly important is an energy policy. I don't think there has ever been a time when it has been more apparent and more important to deal with energy policy. We have an economy, prices with gas and energy that are high. We have uncertainty, certainly, in the Middle East. We have had a Venezuelan problem. We had a very cold winter. We cannot seem to come together to put together a policy that will allow us to move forward, an aggressive energy policy. I would like to talk briefly about a component of that which I think is very important, and that is an electric component.

I rise today to introduce the Electric Transmission Reliability and Enhancement Act of 2003. It is my intention to build on a changing wholesale, competitive, open access market and to suggest that we build that into a policy. Things have changed in the way energy is generated, the way energy is transmitted, the way energy is sold. We need to change our policy, as well.

Very simply, what we have is: In years past, there was a generator that generated for their own distribution area. That was pretty simple. Prices were controlled. It was a simple technique. Now we have more and more merchant generators, people who do not have a constituency or distribution system of their own but they sell into the marketplace. This is good. There is competition. And we will see more and more of that. But to do that, we have to update our laws and we have to update the regulations that go with that. My legislation would extend and improve open nondiscriminatory access policies. Access to transmission would remove antiquated Federal barriers that stand in the way of competitive wholesale markets. Wholesale markets that are competitive are new. We have to change to meet those needs. We have to encourage increased investments in our transmission system and establish reliability standards.

We saw what happened in California 2 years ago. If there is no reliability, we cannot depend upon getting that energy to people's homes, to businesses, and then we have a very difficult situation.

Particularly what has changed now is it is interstate. For years we grew up with the fact that in your State the State controlled both the generation and the distribution, and that worked well. Now we go across interstate lines and there needs to be something different.

Legislatively we have to pare down our wish list so we get to the bare essentials and keep those things that are necessary.

It seems clear, if we are going to have a truly wholesale market, we need to ensure that all the industry participants play by the same rules. Only Congress can give FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the tools it needs to ensure that all participants get treated fairly in a competitive marketplace. Under the Federal law, currently FERC has no jurisdiction or authority over transmission owned by public power agencies, municipals, cooperatives, yet they want to participate and need to participate and should participate. Many of them--most--are willing to participate.

These nonregulated utilities represent 52 percent of the total, so we do not want to move forward with FERC's so-called market plan. I think it goes too far getting into the authority of the States. But there are some changes that need to be made, and we would like to do that.

We also need to protect those cooperatives. I grew up in a area of cooperatives and spent much of my life working with cooperatives. So we have given that break. Those that sell less than 4 million megawatt hours per year are entirely exempt. We think that is as it should be.

We would repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act, PUHCA, because it needs to be restructured and the deployment of capital in this industry needs to go where it is desperately needed. We need to do that. There is ample regulation over those investments now in the existing business. We want to make it easier for people to be able to invest, produce competitively, and go into the marketplace.

The Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, and the State commissions would still be able to monitor rates and prevent cross- subsidies. So my legislation would prospectively eliminate mandatory purchase and sales obligations of PURPA, one that was put in a very long time ago. Despite the State administering it, it causes favoritism to many utilities and changes things.

Over the years the grid has been protected through voluntary standards and that is exactly right. But what we are now faced with is to have RTOs, regional transportation organizations, where they can make those decisions within the RTO. There would be a Western one, a Midwestern one, a New England one, and so on. But then connecting with those will be an interstate, like an interstate highway. That has to, of course, be organized and controlled by a national group because it serves all these different ones.

So what we need is to modernize our system so we can accommodate things that have changed. Reliability organizations must be run by market participants and be overseen by FERC. Reliability organizations must be made up of representatives of everyone who is affected: residential, commercial, industrial. That can be done, and this provides an opportunity to do that.

During our discussions last year, we were made to address some of the more egregious behavior and found a great deal of issues that needed to be dealt with--market manipulation, those kinds of things. This is very complex. I believe we can address these issues with regulatory agencies, things that truly can exist.

So my legislation would provide a greater price in the transmission of availability of information and outlaw the practice of roundtrip trading. In the past we found some trading where they went around, got it back, made a profit on the sale, and served no one.

We prohibit the reporting of false information for the purpose of manipulating price indices. Again, we go back a little bit to the California situation, where there obviously is a great need to do some opening up so there is visibility of what is happening. That is what we are seeking to do. It would increase civil and criminal penalties for the violation of the Federal Power Act and would accelerate the effective dates of refunds and so on.

In the end, it is about consumers, it is about serving consumers, it is about competition, it is about reliability, it is about keeping the lights on--the part of energy that probably affects more people and more businesses than any other. It is my hope that the Electric Transmission Reliability Enhancement Act of 2003 will produce a more reliable, efficient transmission system, a more dependable and more affordable product for the end user, and perhaps more than anything else, bring our system and our oversight into the modern time of electric generation and transmission.

Things change. We need to change. Now is the time. We will have an energy bill. It needs to have an energy component.

Mr. President, any comprehensive energy bill must contain an electric component. That is why, today, I rise to introduce the ``Electric Transmission and Reliability Enhancement Act of 2003.'' It is my intention to build on the competitive wholesale open access policies adopted by the Congress in the 1992 Energy Policy Act. My legislation would extend and improve these open, non-discriminatory access policies; remove antiquated federal statutory barriers that stand in the way of competitive wholesale markets; encourage increased investment in our transmission system and establish enforceable reliability standards to help ensure the continued reliability of the interstate transmission system.

The state of the industry is far weaker financially than it has been in years. Billions of dollars of shareholder value has evaporated. Access to capital is becoming an important issue for large segments of the industry that are fighting for survival. In addition, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, policy regarding wholesale markets seems to be in a state of constant change. The Standard Market Design, SMD, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, NOPR, has divided regulators and industry participants in a way that may be unprecedented, threatening more years of rulemakings, litigation and regulatory uncertainty.

If we are to legislate successfully, we will have to par down our wish list to the bare essentials, plus those issues necessary for the electric industry to attract the capital it needs to keep our lights on. Last year, the Enron fallout dominated the debate. By being on the defensive most of last year, it was not possible to successfully advance those issues most important to consumers and the industry that serves them.

It seems clear that if truly competitive wholesale markets are to exist, there is a need to ensure that all industry participants play by the same rules. While FERC has tried to ensure this, the Commission's tools are limited. Only Congress can give FERC the tools it needs to ensure that all industry participants in competitive wholesale markets play by the same rules.

The Wyoming State commissioners wrote that ``under present Federal law the FERC has no jurisdiction or authority over transmission facilities owned by public power agencies, municipalities and cooperatives. In the West these types of entities own a substantial portion, perhaps as much as half of the interstate electric transmission system.'' As a matter of fact, in the Western Electric Coordinating Council, an area that encompasses all or part of 11 Western States and parts of Canada, non-FERC jurisdictional facilities account for 52 percent of transmission miles.

The Wyoming commissioners claim that, ``without the full participation of all of those who own transmission in the West, the FERC's wholesale market initiative will fail to provide the full spectrum of benefits Congress expected when it created wholesale electricity markets. System optimization requires that bulk power be able to move freely throughout the interconnected system without regard to who owns the facilities over which the power travels. Removing the institutional impediments to the free movement of bulk power is also requisite to identifying the physical constraints that exist in the western system. Proper planning for the relief of such constraints depends on properly identifying and quantifying them, absent other economic and institutional constraints.''

They go on to say that such a vision for the future of wholesale power markets makes a compelling case for the inclusion of all facilities which can be used to move bulk power across the West, regardless of ownership. Anything less than 100 percent participation by transmission owning entities will simply perpetuate some level of inefficiency in the system and will continue to afford those who do not participate the ability to favor their own generation resources.

My legislation would permit FERC to require certain nonregulated utilities to offer transmission serviced at comparable rates to those they charge themselves, and on terms and conditions comparable to those applicable to jurisdictional public utilities. Currently nonregulated transmitting utilities would not be subject to the full panoply of FERC regulation under this provision. Instead, a ``light handed'' form of regulation would apply and small nonregulated entities, such as those that sell less than 4,000,000 MW/h per year, would be entirely exempt from these nondiscrimination requirements.

It also seems clear that the Public Utility Holding Company Act PUHCA, is hindering necessary restructuring of the industry and the deployment of capital into an industry that desperately needs it. Investors are deterred simply because they do not want to deal with the PUHCA rules and restrictions. If repealed, utility securities will continue to be regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, FERC and most state commissions. Mergers and acquisitions of jurisdictional assets would still require FERC and state commission approval and review by Department of Justice, DOJ, and the Federal Trade Commission, FTC. FERC and State commissions would still be able to monitor rates and prevent cross-subsidies.

Despite State progress in administering the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, PURPA, more in-tune with markets, it is clear that PURPA continues to provide special privileges to certain favored generators at the expense of utilities and their customers. Like PUHCA, PURPA is no longer needed in today's competitive wholesale markets. My legislation prospectively eliminates the mandatory purchase and sell obligations of PURPA.

Over the years the grid has been well protected through voluntary standards established by the North American Electric Reliability Council, NERC, NERC's voluntary reliability standards--which are not enforceable--have generally been complied with by the electric power industry. But with the opening of the wholesale power market to competition, our transmission grid is being used in ways for which it was not designed. New system strains are also being created by the breakup of vertically integrated utilities and by the emergence of new market structures and participants. The results of these changes have been an increase in the number and severity of violations of NERC's voluntary rules.

My legislation converts the existing NERC voluntary reliability system into a mandatory reliability system. A nation-wide organization would have the authority to establish and enforce reliability standards, and take into account regional differences. The new reliability organization will be run by market participants, and will be overseen by the FERC in the U.S. The reliability organization will be made up of representatives of everyone who is affected--residential, commercial and industrial consumers; state public utility commissions; independent power producers; electric utilities and others. There is no question that we need a new system to safeguard the integrity of our electric grid. My legislation would do this, using language that was effectively agreed upon last fall by House and Senate conferees for the energy bill.

During discussions last year, efforts were made to address some of the more egregious behavior and attempted market manipulation through legislation. While this area is obviously very complex, I believe that we need to address this issue if regulatory gaps truly do exist. I realize my attempt might not be perfect, but I wanted to intimate discussion on this very important topic if, in fact, regulatory agencies do need additional authority to police and monitor the industry.

My legislation will provide greater price and transmission availability information, outlaw the practice of round trip trading and prohibit reporting of false information for the purpose of manipulating price indices. In addition, I've included authority the FERC has requested and that would increase civil and criminal penalties for violation of the Federal Power Act and accelerate the refund effective date to the date of filing of a complaint.

In the end it's about the consumer. It is my hope and vision that the ``Electric Transmission and Reliability and Enhancement Act of 2003'' I am introducing today will produce a more reliable and efficient transmission system and that these improvements will result in a more dependable and affordable product for the end user. This legislation is the best solution to move forward with a better product for all classes of consumers and the industry as a whole.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two pieces of legislation that will improve the lives of our Nation's fishermen who are struggling to make a living on the sea.

Fishing is more than just a profession in New England. Fishing is a culture and a way of life. This way of life is being threatened, however, by excessive regulation and unnecessary litigation. Despite scientific evidence of a rebound in fish stocks, New England's fishermen are suffering under ever more burdensome restrictions. Everyday, I hear from fishermen who struggle to support their families because they have been deprived of their right to make an honest living on the seas. The ``working waterfronts'' of our communities are in danger if disappearing, likely to be replaced by development. When that happens, a part of Maine's heritage is lost forever.

Today, I am introducing a package of amendments to the Magnuson- Stevens Act that will deliver a resource management strategy that is balanced, responsive, and sensible. It recognizes the fishermen's strong commitment to conserving the stocks, and acknowledges fishermen as partners in fisheries management.

The Fisheries Science and Management Improvement Act of 2003 will address much needed improvements in the science and regulatory standards of fisheries management. The Nation's fisheries management system, as it is currently designed, is broken. If anyone doubts this is the case, I want to point out that more than 100 lawsuits are currently pending against the Department of Commerce involving fisheries management plans.

Litigation is no way to manage one of our Nation's most important ecological and economic resources. The fact is, the courts are simply not well-suited to making biological and regulatory decisions. Fisheries management is best left to those who know the subject best: the fishermen, scientists, and regulators working together cooperatively.

No one in the country knows this better than New England groundfishermen. Over the last two years, a court case has thrown New England's groundfishing industry into a crisis. The case ended when a Federal judge ordered severe restrictions on groundfishing, including a 20-percent

cut in Days-at-Sea. The effect of this court order has been simply catastrophic for New England's groundfishing industry--an industry made up of small, independently-owned, and often family-owned, businesses.

These severe restrictions were ordered despite the fact that the science clearly demonstrates that the biomass for New England groundfish has increased every year since 1996. If the biomass is increasing, and the stock is clearly rebuilding, it makes no sense to enforce an arbitrarily structured and unscientifically based timeframe on the rebuilding process. This is especially true when the survival of a culture is at stake.

My legislation would inject consistency and common-sense standards into the fisheries management process: it addresses the importance of solid and reliable science in fisheries management. It strengthens the definition of ``best scientific information available'' and requires scientific data, including all stock assessments, to be peer-reviewed and to include the consideration of anecdotal information gathered from the people who know fishing best--the fishermen themselves. My bill ensures that the process of rebuilding stocks is based on rational and comprehensive science. Under current law, when fisheries are classified as overfished, the Councils are required to implement rebuilding plans to attain a historic high level of abundance within ten years, regardless of whether or not the current state of the marine environment can sustain such an abundance level. My bill redefines the concept of ``overfishing'' to take into consideration natural fluctuations in the marine environment. It also eliminates the ten-year rebuilding requirement--a requirement that has no foundation in science--and requires rebuilding periods to take into consideration the biology of the fish stock and the economic impact on fishing communities.

The legislation also addresses problems with the current conception of Essential Fish Habitat. Currently, the entire Exclusive Economic Zone has been defined as Essential Fish Habitat instead of more discrete units of habitat as originally conceived. Further, current law allows the Councils to regulate the impacts of fishing activity on Essential Fish Habitat, while the Councils cannot regulate other commercial activities--such as mining and coastal development and the laying of telecommunications cables--that affect these areas. My bill focuses the management of these areas on ``Habitat Areas of Particular Concern''--more discrete units of fish habitat that are more consistent with the congressional intent behind the Essential Fish Habitat concept.

My proposal treats the fishing industry as a legitimate interest in fisheries management by acknowledging the important role that commercial fishing plays in food security and healthy food consumption. My bill also ensures that the cumulative economic and social impacts of fisheries management decisions are considered, rather than assessed in isolation from one another.

Finally, the legislation would reduce the litigation burden on the fisheries management system. My proposal ensures that fishery management plans are pre-determined to be compliant with NEPA requirements, thereby preventing NEPA law from being used in an incorrect way to regulate fisheries. It would still require fishery management plans to meet all the other conservation provisions, including those governing rebuilding of overfished stocks, set out in the law. The Nation's Councils have asked for this protection from lawsuits so they may resume their proper role as a regulatory body.

I want to acknowledge the important role that my colleagues Senators Snowe and Kerry, Chair and Ranking Member of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, are playing in addressing the problems of Magnuson- Stevens. My hope is that my proposal will help propel a discussion in the upcoming months as their committee moves forward with their own ideas.

The second piece of legislation I am offering is the Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2003, a bill to help fishermen purchase the life-saving safety equipment they need to survive when disaster strikes. I am pleased to be joined by my good friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, in introducing this legislation. Senator Kerry has been a leader in the effort to sustain our fisheries and to maintain the proud fishing tradition that exists in his state and throughout the country.

The release of the movie The Perfect Storm provided millions of Americans with a glimpse of the challenges and dangers associated with earning a living in the fishing industry. While based on a true story, the movie merely scratches the surface of what it is like to be a modern-day fisherman. Everyday, members of our fishing communities struggle to cope with the pressures of running a small business, complying with extensive regulations, and maintaining their vessels and equipment. Added to these challenges are the dangers associated with fishing, where disaster can strike in conditions that are far less extreme than those depicted by the movie.

Year-in and year-out, commercial fishing is among the nation's most dangerous occupations. According to data compiled by the Coast Guard and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 536 fishermen have lost their lives at sea since 1994. In fact, with an annual fatality rate of about 150 deaths per 100,000 workers, fishing is 30 times more dangerous than the average occupation.

The year 2000 will always be remembered in Maine's fishing communities as a year marked by tragedy. All told, nine commercial fishermen lost their lives off the coast of Maine in the year 2000, exceeding the combined casualties of the three previous years.

Yet as tragic as the year was, it could have been worse. Heroic acts by the Coast Guard and other fishermen resulted in the rescue of 13 commercial fishermen off the coast of Maine in the year 2000. In most of these circumstances, these fishermen were returned to their families because they had access to safety equipment that made the difference between life and death.

Coast Guard regulations require all fishing vessels to carry safety equipment. The requirements vary depending on factors such as the size of the vessel, the temperature of the water, and the distance the vessel travels from shore to fish.

When an emergency arises, safety equipment is priceless. At all other times, the cost of purchasing or maintaining this equipment must compete with other expenses such as loan payments, fuel, wages, maintenance, and insurance. Meeting all of these obligations is made more difficult by a regulatory framework that uses measures such as trip limits, days at sea, and gear alterations to manage our marine resources.

The Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2003 lends a hand to fishermen attempting to prepare in case disaster strikes. My bill provides a tax credit equal to 75 percent of the amount paid by fishermen to purchase or maintain required safety equipment. The tax credit is capped at $1500. Items such as EPIRBs and immersion suits cost hundreds of dollars, while life rafts can reach into the thousands. The tax credit will make life-saving equipment more affordable for more fishermen, who currently face limited options under the federal tax code.

I believe these two bills will assist our Nation's fishermen as they struggle to make their living on the seas. Fishing is a legitimate profession that deserves to be treated with the common-sense and consistency that we treat other professions. The legislation I am introducing gives these communities the tools they need to safely make their living in a way that still protects the resource.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator DeWine, Senator Feinstein, Senator Schumer, Senator Reed, Senator Mikulski, Senator Corzine, and Senator Levin to reintroduce the ``Technological Resource to Assist Criminal Enforcement'' ``TRACE'' Act, a bill to require ballistics testing of all firearms manufactured or imported in the United States.

The science of ballistics testing has given police the ability to solve multiple crimes simply by comparing bullets and shell casings found at the scene of a crime to a gun seized in a seemingly unrelated incident. This comparison is possible because every gun has a unique ``fingerprint'' it leaves on spent shell casings and bullets after it is fired. Just as human fingerprints can be grouped into general classifications such as loops and whorls, but still possess individual characteristics and then analyzed for its unique characteristics, firearms evidence can be similarly grouped and then analyzed by trained technicians for unique identifying characteristics.

Let me explain more specifically how this technology works. Today, ballistics technology equipment allows firearms technicians to acquire digital images of the images of the markings made by a firearm on bullets and cartridge casings; the images then undergo an automated initial comparison. If a high confidence match emerges, experts compare the original evidence to confirm a match. Once a match is found, law enforcement can begin tracing that weapon from its original sale to the person who used it to commit the crime.

Microscopic comparison of bullets and shell casings has been in practice for many years, even before formal databases were established. However, in the past 15 years, through the use of computer databases, ballistics technology described above has developed into a systematic tool for law enforcement to solve gun crimes. Since the early 1990's, more than 250 crime labs and law enforcement agencies in more than 40 States have been operating independent ballistics systems maintained by either the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ``ATFE'', or the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Together, ATFE's Integrated Ballistics Identification System, ``IBIS'', and the FBI's DRUGFIRE system have been responsible for linking 5,700 guns to two or more crimes where corroborating evidence was otherwise lacking. These links have helped law enforcement and prosecutors bring thousands of dangerous criminals to justice.

Never before have the tremendous law enforcement benefits of ballistics testing been so apparent. I would like to take the opportunity to describe a few instances where ballistics technology helped solve otherwise unsolvable crimes.

Last fall, law enforcement officials used ballistics testing to match the bullets and shell casings found at the scenes of the sniper shootings in the Nation's Capital region, and later to other deadly shootings across the country. The bullets and casings were also linked to the gun that the accused assailants had in their possession when they were arrested. This ballistics information has provided vital evidence to prosecutors and will help keep the snipers behind bars.

In another example, the only evidence at the scene of a brutal homicide in Milwaukee was 9 millimeter cartridge casings--there were no other clues. But 4 months later, when a teenage male was arrested on an unrelated charge, he was found to be in possession of the firearm that had discharged those casings. Ballistics linked the two cases. Prosecutors successfully prosecuted three adult suspects for the homicide and convicted the teen in juvenile court.

On September 9, 2000, several suspects were arrested in Boston for the illegal possession of three handguns. Each of the guns was test fired, and the ballistics information was compared to evidence found at other crime scenes. The police quickly found that the three guns were used in the commission of 15 felonies in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. This routine arrest for illegal possession of firearms provided police with new leads in the investigation of 15 unsolved crimes. Without the ballistics testing, these crimes would not have been linked and might have never been solved.

As you can see, ballistics technology helps law enforcement exponentially in their efforts to solve gun crimes. But while success stories are increasingly frequent, the full potential of ballistics

testing is still untapped. One way that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is making ballistics testing more accessible to state and local law enforcement is through the installation of a new network of ballistics imaging machines. The final introduction of the machines across the country is almost complete and, once it is, the computers will be able to access each other and search for a greater number of images. The National Integrated Ballistics Information Network, better know as ``NIBIN,'' will be a regional network of databases that will permit law enforcement in one locality access to information stored in other gun crime databases around the entire country. According to the ATFE, ``the NIBIN program is a key element to ATFE's efforts [to remove violent offenders from America's streets].''

But ballistics testing is only as useful as the number of images in the database. Today, almost all jurisdictions are limited to images of bullets and cartridge casings that come from guns used in crimes. The TRACE Act would dramatically expand the scope of that database by mandating that all guns manufactured or imported be test fired before being placed into the stream of commerce. The images collected from the test firing would then be collected and accessible to law enforcement-- and law enforcement only--for the purpose of investigating and prosecuting gun crimes.

Recently, studies done about ballistics testing and ballistics databases have been in the news. Concern has been expressed by some about the size and practicality of a large database. However, it is important to point out that this bill would merely expand upon the existing network of 16 multi-state regional databases, rather than create a single large national database. In addition, accusations that systems would be log-jammed with too many entries has been refuted by ATFE ballistics experts. Since its inception, the speed and efficiency of ballistics databases has substantially increased. For example, from 1994 to 1999 the IBIS correlation speed for cartridge casings dropped from 35 seconds to 1.7 seconds, and correlation speed for bullets dropped from 4 seconds to 0.3 seconds. The conversion to NIBIN is expected to yield an even faster return of correlation results, regardless of an increase in entries.

Of course no investigative tool is perfect or effective in every single situation, not even fingerprints. However, ATFE maintains that the availability of an open-case file of many thousands of exhibits, searchable within minutes, provides invaluable information to law enforcement authorities. TRACE would enhance the current ballistics databases by giving federal, state, and local law enforcement access to even more evidence that will help them solve more gun crimes and make our communities safer.

Today, police can find out more about a human being than they can about a gun used in a crime. Law enforcement can use DNA testing, take fingerprints and blood samples, search a person's health records, peruse bank records and credit card statements, obtain phone records and get a list of book purchases to link a suspect to a crime. Yet, the bullets found at the scene of a crime often cannot be traced back to the gun used because our ballistics images database is not comprehensive. Many of those on the front lines of the fight against crime are in favor of ballistics testing. In fact, in my home state of Wisconsin, over 75 percent of police chiefs surveyed are supportive of the use of ballistics technology.

The burden on manufacturers is minimal--we authorize funds to underwrite the cost of testing--and the assistance to law enforcement is considerable. And don't take our word for it, ask the gun manufacturers and the police. Listen to what Paul Januzzo, the vice- president of the gun manufacturer Glock, said in reference to ballistics testing, ``Our mantra has been that the issue is crime control, not gun control . . . it would be two-faced of us not to want this.'' In their agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Smith & Wesson agreed to perform ballistics testing on all new handguns. And Ben Wilson, the chief of the firearms section at ATFE, emphasized the importance of ballistics testing as a investigative device, ``This [ballistics] allows you literally to find a needle in a haystack.''

To be sure, we are sensitive to the notion that law abiding hunters and sportsmen need to be protected from any misuse of the ballistics database by government. The TRACE Act explicitly prohibits ballistics information from being used for any purpose unless it is necessary for the investigation of a gun crime.

The TRACE Act will enhance a revolutionary new technology that helps solve crime. The technology is becoming more and more advanced to accommodate high volume-usage, and it is expected to continue to get better and better. Ballistics testing will help solve more gun crimes, prosecute more criminals, and ensure that more communities are protected from violence. TRACE is a worthwhile piece of crime control legislation and I hope that the Senate will move quickly to pass it.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am sending to the desk a bill by myself and Senator Miller to amend the IRS Code. It is a bill to provide jobs and economic growth for our country.

Mr. President, this bill Senator Miller and I are introducing is the President's economic and growth package. This is a package the President has put together that would help American families. This is a package that is profamilial and progrowth. It is a bill that will create jobs. It is a bill that will create an incentive to invest. It is a bill to eliminate unfair punitive taxes on corporate earnings that are distributed to the owners of the corporation. It is a bill that will help stimulate and grow our economy.

I compliment the President for his work in proposing this. I am happy to introduce it. Let me talk about a couple of the provisions of the bill.

This bill will expand the 10-percent bracket. This is to help people of all incomes. But the lowest income people will be the true beneficiaries of this package. It will accelerate reductions in the individual income tax rates that were passed in 2001. You might remember the 2001 tax bill that we passed which had individual rate reductions phased in over the years. There was a 1 percent reduction in most of the rates in 2004, and another percent reduction in 2006. These are accelerated to 2003.

It means that the maximum personal income tax bracket would be 35 percent instead of the present 38.6 percent. It means that individuals would not have to pay taxes at rates greater than corporations. The bulk of the benefit of this will come to individuals who are self- employed, individuals who are sole proprietors, and individuals who own or operate their own business. They will receive the bulk of the benefit of this rate reduction. Some people may want to demagog some of the estimates that benefit primarily the wealthy. I disagree.

We also might keep in perspective that when President Clinton was elected, the maximum rate was 31 percent. He increased it to 39.4 percent. When we totally implement President Bush's tax reduction, the maximum rate will be 35 percent, which is still significantly higher than the 31 percent just 10 years ago.

The President's proposal that we are introducing today would also accelerate the reduction in the marriage penalty. This is a very big item to help married couples reduce their taxes. The net impact of this is it would double the 15-percent bracket that individuals have for couples.

To give you an example, individuals presently pay 15 percent, I believe, on income up to about $28,000. But couples have to start paying a 28-percent or 27-percent bracket when they have income above $47,000. We say that instead of paying 27 percent for taxable income above $47,000, no, that should be double the individual amount. So couples don't have to pay above the 15-percent bracket unless their income exceeds $56,000.

It is not very complicated. Couples should have for the 15-percent bracket twice what individuals have. Individuals pay 15 percent up to $28,000. So we doubled that amount for couples. The net impact of that is you pay 15 percent instead of 27 percent for a total of about $9,000. It saves couples a total of $1,022. If the couples have two children, they would get additional child credit. We increase the child credit, which is presently $600, to $1,000. That is an increase of $400 per child. If you have two children, that is $800 of tax credit--not deductions, tax credit. It reduces your tax bill by $800.

If you have a taxable income of $56,000, you also get the $1,122 of marriage penalty relief. You get $100 savings from the 10-percent bracket expansion. Total tax relief for a family that has taxable income of $56,800 totals over $2,000. Actually, it is $2,022. That is about a 22-percent tax cut for middle-income families. That will help thousands--millions--of families all across the country.

Also, this bill would eliminate the double taxation on corporate earnings. Presently, in the United States, unfortunately, unbelievably, we tax corporate earnings that are distributed to the owners more than almost any other country in the world. Only one country, Japan, taxes corporate earnings distributed to the owners higher than the United States.

Our combined tax rate of 35 percent corporate and the individual tax percentage, depending on the individual's income tax bracket--it could be 15 percent, it could be 30 percent, it could be 38.6 percent--if you add the 38.6 percent plus the 35 percent, it is over 70 percent. If it is 30 percent for the individual rate, and the corporation rate is 35, it is 65 percent. So for a corporation that makes $1,000 and wants to distribute that to the owners, the Federal Government gets 65 percent; and the beneficiary, the owner of the company, gets 35 percent. That is absurd. That is embarrassing. That is indefensible. And countless people--economists, the President, candidates and others--said we should eliminate this unfair double taxation of dividends.

The President has come up with a proposal to do that. I am happy to introduce it for him. I urge my colleagues--before they demagog it, before they castigate it--to look at the facts.

Does it really make sense for us to be taxing corporate distributions to all owners--incidently, the majority of owners are senior citizens-- does it really make sense for us to be taxing these proceeds higher than any other country in the world but one? It makes no sense.

Does it really make sense to have the Tax Code skewed to where it really is beneficial to go into debt because you can expense your interest expense? But, oh, yes, if you go the equity route, you have to pay taxes on anything that is generated in the company. And the individual who receives the benefits pays taxes, so the Government gets two-thirds of the money, two-thirds of the distribution. That does not make sense. It discourages investment. It encourages debt. Not a good corporate policy.

Present law encourages a lot of corporate shenanigans and corporate games trying to get around taxes when they realize that such a great percentage of the distribution to owners is going to be paid in taxes-- ``Let's figure out other ways.'' Maybe they do it through bonuses, but they might do it through all kinds of schemes. And we have seen some of those.

This would be great corporate reform, very positive, well-needed reform, and long overdue--long overdue.

In this package that the President has proposed, it also has something I am very much in favor of: expensing for small business. I used to have a small business. But it triples the amount a small businessperson can expense from $25,000 to $75,000. In other words, if they write a check for that amount, they can expense it in the year that the check is written. That

will greatly encourage investment because they get to recoup the investment that is made in the same year the check is written--a very positive, progrowth proposal. Most jobs are created in small businesses, and this is a good, positive small business provision that will create jobs.

So we reduce taxes on business owners, sole proprietors. They would not have to pay taxes more than corporations. We would reduce taxes on married couples. We would discontinue the present policy of penalizing them for being married and filing joint returns. We would allow them to keep more of their own money. We would allow them to keep more of their own money if they have kids.

Certainly, if you have kids, it costs a lot of money to raise them. We say you should have a $1,000 tax credit per child. So for every child you have, you get to save $1,000 in taxes. I have four kids, so that is $4,000 per year. A couple with four kids would get to save $4,000 per year. That is significant. That is profamily. That is positive. That allows people who really need the money raising families to keep it.

One, we eliminate the marriage penalty, and, two, we allow them to keep more for their own kids. Very significant benefits. When you add all the benefits together, it really makes the income tax even more progressive.

The upper income groups would still pay a greater percentage of income tax, even after we pass this proposal. I can just envision people saying: Well, this is class warfare. I hope they do not play those arguments because this is very family friendly and also investment friendly and will create jobs.

We need to do some things. Revenues have been declining for the last 2 years. We need to figure out ways to get revenues to grow. That means a growing economy. It means the stock market needs to move up instead of down.

This proposal will do that. This proposal is investment friendly. And the main beneficiaries will not be just the owners, it will be the people who get a job because the investment was not going to be made without it.

So let's do some things that will create an incentive for investment, for expensing, for people to go to work, and for people who are working to be able to keep more of their own money so they can take care of their families.

That is what the President's proposal is all about. So I am delighted to introduce this today with my colleague and friend, Senator Zell Miller of Georgia.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two charts to further explain the breakout of this proposal.

I urge my colleagues to seriously consider this proposal. And I welcome their support of it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am introducing important legislation to affirm Federal jurisdiction over the waters of the United States. I am pleased to have three members of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, and the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, as original cosponsors of this bill.

In the U.S. Supreme Court's January 2001 decision, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County versus the Army Corps of Engineers, a 5 to 4 majority limited the authority of Federal agencies to use the so-called migratory bird rule as the basis for asserting Clean Water Act jurisdiction over non-navigable, intrastate, isolated wetlands, streams, ponds, and other bodies of water.

This decision, known as the SWANCC decision, means that the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers can no longer enforce Federal Clean Water Act protection mechanisms to protect a waterway solely on the basis that it is used as habitat for migratory birds.

In its discussion of the case, the Court went beyond the issue of the migratory bird rule and questioned whether Congress intended the Clean Water Act to provide protection for isolated ponds, streams, wetlands and other waters, as it had been interpreted to provide for most of the last 30 years. While not the legal holding of the case, the Court's discussion has resulted in a wide variety of interpretations by EPA and Corps officials that jeopardize protection for wetlands, and other waters.

The wetlands at risk include prairie potholes and bogs, familiar to many in Wisconsin, and many other types of wetlands.

In effect, the Court's decision removed much of the Clean Water Act protection for between 30 percent to 60 percent of the Nation's wetlands. An estimate from my home state of Wisconsin suggested that more than 60 percent of the wetlands in my state lost federal protection. Wisconsin is not alone. The National Association of State Wetland Managers has been collecting data from states across the country. For example, Nebraska estimates that it will lose protection for more than 40 percent of its wetlands. Indiana estimates they will lose 31 percent of total wetland acreage and 74 percent of the total number of wetlands. Delaware estimates the loss of protection for 33 percent or more of their freshwater wetlands.

These wetlands absorb floodwaters, prevent pollution from reaching our rivers and streams, and provide crucial habitat for most of the nations ducks and other waterfowl, as well as hundreds of other bird, fish, shellfish and amphibian species. Loss of these waters would have a devastating effect on our environment.

In addition, by narrowing the water and wetland areas subject to Federal regulation, the decision also shifts more of the economic burden for regulating wetlands to State and local governments. My home State of Wisconsin has passed legislation to assume the regulation of isolated waters, but many other States have not. This patchwork of regulation means that the standards for protection of wetlands nationwide is unclear, confusing, and jeopardizes the migratory birds and other wildlife that depend on these wetlands.

Since 2001, the confusion over the interpretation of the SWANCC decision is growing. On January 15, 2003, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers published in the Federal Register an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking raising questions about the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. Simultaneously, they released a guidance memo to their field staff regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction.

The agencies claim these actions are necessary because of the SWANCC case. But both the guidance memo and the proposed rulemaking go far beyond the holding in SWANCC. The guidance took effect right away and has had an immediate impact. It tells the Corps and EPA staff to stop asserting jurisdiction over isolated waters without first obtaining permission from headquarters. Based on this guidance, waters that the EPA and Corps judge to be outside the Clean Water Act can be filled, dredged, and polluted without a permit or any other long-standing Clean Water Act safeguard.

The rulemaking announces the Administration's intention to consider even broader changes to Clean Water Act coverage for our waters. Specifically, the agencies are questioning whether there is any basis for asserting Clean Water Act jurisdiction over additional waters, like intermittent streams. The possibility for a redefinition of our waters is troubling because there is only one definition of the term ``water'' in the Clean Water Act. The wetlands program, the point source program which stops the dumping of pollution, and the non-point program governing polluted runoff all depend on this definition.

If we don't protect a category of waters from being filled under the wetlands program, we also fail to protect them from having trash or raw sewage dumped in them, or having other activities that violate the Clean Water Act conducted in them as well.

Congress needs to re-establish the common understanding of the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction to protect all waters of the U.S.--the understanding that Congress held when the Act was adopted in 1972--as reflected in the law, legislative history, and longstanding regulations, practice, and judicial interpretations prior to the SWANCC decision.

The proposed legislation does three things, and it is a very simple bill. It adopts a statutory definition of ``waters of the United States'' based on a longstanding definition of waters in the EPA and Corps of Engineers' regulations. Second, it deletes the term navigable from the Act to clarify that Congress's primary concern in 1972 was to protect the nation's waters from pollution, rather than just sustain the navigability of waterways, and to reinforce that original intent. Finally, it includes a set of findings that explain the factual basis for Congress to assert its constitutional authority over waters and wetlands on all relevant Constitutional grounds, including the Commerce Clause, the Property Clause, the Treaty Clause, and Necessary and Proper Clause.

In conclusion, I am very pleased to have the support of so many environmental and conservation groups, and well as organizations that represent those who regulate and manage our country's wetlands, such as: the Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, the National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, American Rivers, the National Audubon Society, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Defenders of Wildlife, the Ocean Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, the Izaac Walton League, and the Association of State Floodplain Managers. They know, as I do, that we need to re-affirm the federal government's role in protecting our water. This legislation is a first step in doing just that.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on behalf of Wisconsin's seniors and taxpayers whose wallets are being gauged by certain pharmaceutical companies. My legislation is in response to certain pharmaceutical companies' decision to target seniors who are crossing into Canada to get more affordable prescription drugs for their own use.

If these pharmaceutical companies are going to price gauge seniors's wallets, they don't deserve the taxpayers' support.

A growing number of American seniors are obtaining their prescription drugs from Canada for personal use.

Unfortunately, many of these seniors who are crossing the boarder to access more affordable prescription drugs for their personal use are being targeted by the very pharmaceutical companies that receive millions in tax breaks.

I recently received a call from seniors in my state that Glaxo Smith Klein had decided to stop supplying Canadian pharmacies that resell its drugs to Americans, thereby preventing them from receiving the same benefits these pharmacies provide to Canadians.

The Seniors in my State were not the only ones who took notice of this action. On February 21st of this month, Seniors groups from 12 States, including Wisconsin, sent Glaxo a message by launching a boycott of nonprescription products of Glaxo-Smith-Kline.

Congress should also send all pharmaceutical companies a message that this practice simply is unacceptable.

I think the single most important step we can take is to modernize Medicare and make it better is to eliminate the current inequities in the Medicare system and provide the prescription drug coverage senior citizens need.

At the same time Congress should pass legislation, that Senators Schumer, McCain, and I introduced that would bring lower-cost generic drugs to the market faster and lower the cost of prescription drugs by $60 billion.

Until we pass a comprehensive prescription drug benefit, we must ensure that seniors are not targeted by pharmaceutical companies. If these drug companies actively discriminate against American seniors, we should not provide them tax breaks.

That's why my legislation would deny tax breaks to drug companies who discriminate against Canadian pharmacies that provide Americans the same discount that they provide to Canadians.

I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation.