Haiti Economic Recovery Opportunity Act of 2003

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.

Mr. President, this is an amendment Senator Crapo and Senator Jeffords and I and others have joined in cosponsoring, Senator Collins, Senator Harry Reid, Senators Kerry, Mikulski, and Clinton. This is to boost the funding for the Environmental Protection Agency for the clean water and safe drinking water State revolving funds. It would be offset by account 920.

As I understand it, it is acceptable to the managers of the bill. We hope it will be adopted.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, Senators Crapo and Jeffords in, once again, offering this amendment to boost Federal funding for the clean water and safe drinking water state revolving funds, SRF, from the level recommended in the budget resolution, $2.191 billion to $5.2 billion--$3.2 billion for the clean water SRF and $2 billion for the safe drinking water SRF. The amendment is similar to the amendment which we offered to the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution and which was agreed to by voice vote, but regrettably not approved by the House-Senate conference committee.

I spoke last year about the compelling need for increasing Federal support for our Nation's water infrastructure, and I just want to underscore some of the key arguments today.

The President's fiscal year 2005 budget and this resolution once again severely shortchange, in my judgment, the funds needed by State and local governments to upgrade their aging wastewater and drinking water infrastructure. The President's budget provides only $1.7 billion for both State revolving funds, split equally. This budget resolution recommends $2.191 billion for both funds--which represents the fiscal year 2004 enacted level of funding, but that is still far short of what is needed.

Despite important progress over the last three decades, EPA reports that more than 40 percent of our Nation's lakes, rivers, and streams are still too impaired for fishing or swimming. Discharges from aging and failing sewerage systems, urban storm water and other sources, continue to pose serious threats to our Nation's waters, endangering not only public health, but fishing and recreation industries. Population growth and development are placing additional stress on the Nation's water infrastructure and its ability to sustain hard-won water quality gains.

Across the Nation, our wastewater and drinking water systems are aging. In some cases, systems currently in use were built more than a century ago and have outlived their useful life. For many communities, current treatment is not sufficient to meet water quality goals.

In April 2000, the Water Infrastructure Network, WIN, a broad coalition of local elected officials, drinking water and wastewater service providers, State environmental and health administrators, engineers and environmentalists released a report, ``Clean & Safe Water for the 21st Century.'' The report documented a $23 billion a year shortfall in funding needed to meet national environmental and public health priorities in the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act and to replace aging and failing infrastructure.

In May 2002, the Congressional Budget Office released a report that estimated the spending gap for clean water needs between $132 billion and $388 billion over 20 years and the spending gap for drinking water needs at between $70 billion and $362 billion over 20 years.

In September 2002, the EPA released a ``Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis'' which found that there will be a $535 billion gap between current spending and projected needs for water and wastewater infrastructure over the next 20 years if additional investments are not made. This figure does not even account for investments necessary to meet water quality goals in nutrient impaired waters, such as the Chesapeake Bay.

The need for additional investment in wastewater and drinking water infrastructure is clearly documented. But, States, localities and private sources can't meet the funding gap alone. States are currently facing the worst fiscal crisis in 50 years and cannot afford to make new investments in clean water and drinking water infrastructure. Water pollution is an interstate problem that demands a Federal response. Water from six States flows into the Chesapeake Bay. Even if Maryland had the resources to complete construction of all needed wastewater infrastructure, the Chesapeake Bay cleanup efforts will only be successful if similar investments are made in the five other States in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Without Federal assistance, however, it is unlikely that the upstream States will make a substantial investment in the water quality of the Bay. The Congress understood the interstate dynamic of pollution in 1972 when a bipartisan majority passed the Clean Water Act and began funding waste treatment infrastructure. In 1979 and 1980, the Congress provided $5 billion in clean water construction grants alone to assist municipalities with wastewater infrastructure needs. Over the years, budgetary pressures and other factors have reduced that funding level, and in fiscal year 2004, we provided only $1.34 billion in clean water State revolving loan funds.

It is vital that the Federal Government maintain a strong partnership with States and local governments in averting the massive projected funding gap and share in the burden of maintaining and improving the Nation's water infrastructure. Municipalities need significant resources to comply with Federal clean water and drinking water standards. In the 107th Congress, House and Senate committees approved bills to authorize $20 billion over 5 years for the clean water act SRF, underscoring the recognition that something must be done to address this funding gap. An increase in funding for the clean water SRF to $3.2 billion and for the drinking water SRF to $2 billion in fiscal year 2004 is the first step necessary to meet the Federal Government's longstanding commitment in this regard.

This is an investment in the health of Americans and in a clean environment that will pay substantial dividends. Wastewater treatment plants not only prevent billions of tons of pollutants each year from reaching our rivers, lakes, streams, and coasts, they also help prevent water-borne diseases and make waters safe for swimming and fishing.

According to the Water Infrastructure Network:

Clean water supports a $50 billion a year water-based

recreation industry, at least $300 billion a year in coastal

tourism, a $45 billion annual commercial fishing and shell

fishing industry, and hundreds of billions of dollars a year

in basic manufacturing that relies on clean water. Clean

rivers, lakes, and coastlines attract investment in local

communities and increase land values on or near the water,

which in turn, create jobs, add incremental tax base, and

increase income and property tax revenue to local, state, and

the federal government. Some 54,000 community drinking water

systems provide drinking water to more than 250 million

Americans. By keeping water supplies free of contaminants

that cause disease, these systems reduce sickness and related

health care costs and absenteeism in the workforce.

They also create jobs--indeed tens of thousands of jobs--and provide stimulus to the economy. Each $1 billion in sewer and water improvements creates an estimated 40,000 jobs. With more than $5 billion in water infrastructure projects ready for construction, these

jobs would be created immediately with Federal assistance. According to OMB, every Federal dollar invested in water infrastructure generates up to $4 for project loans, so the potential for job creation from this amendment is tremendous.

As I stated earlier, the case for this amendment is compelling. Today, maintaining clear, safe water remains one of our greatest national and global challenges. This budget resolution should not, and need not, come at the expense of human health or a clean environment.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help address the massive funding gap that looms on the horizon. Failure to act now risks undermining 30 years of progress in cleaning up our Nation's waters.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Pennsylvania, he is the sponsor of the amendment. He has an hour's time on his amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today with my friend Senator Kennedy to introduce the ``Senator Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2003.''

I have mixed emotions today, because, while we are once again fighting for parity, my long time partner, Paul Wellstone is not standing across the aisle from me. Unfortunately, my colleagues are to aware of Senator Wellstone's tragic passing last year. So, while I feel a profound sense of sadness, I also have a renewed determination to win a parity victory for the millions of Americans affected by these dreaded diseases.

The time has come to end this blatant pattern of discrimination against people merely because they suffer from a mental illness. The human brain is the organ of the mind and just like the other organs of our body, it is subject to illness. And just as we must treat illnesses to our other organs, we must also treat illnesses of the brain.

Building upon that, I would ask the following question: what if forty years ago our Nation had decided to exclude heart disease from health insurance coverage? Think about some of the wonderful things we would not be doing today like angioplasty, bypasses, and valve replacements and the millions of people helped because insurance covers these procedures.

I would submit these medical advances have occurred because insurance dollars have followed the patient through the health care system. The presence of insurance dollars has provided an enticing incentive to treat those individuals suffering from heart disease. But sadly, those suffering from a mental illness do not enjoy those same benefits of treatment and medical advances because all too often insurance discriminates against illnesses of the brain.

Individuals suffering from a mental illness face this discrimination even though medical science is in an era where we can accurately diagnosis mental illnesses and treat those afflicted so they can be productive. I simply do not understand, why with this evidence would we not cover these individuals and treat their illnesses like any other disease? There simply should not be a difference in the coverage provided by insurance companies for mental health benefits and medical benefits, merely because an individual suffers from a mental illness.

The introduction of our Bill marks a historic opportunity for us to take the next step towards mental health parity. The timing of our Bill is even more important because the second consecutive one year extension of the landmark Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 will sunset later this year.

As my colleagues know, this is an issue I have a long involvement with

and I would like to begin with a few observations.

I believe that we have made great strides in providing parity for the coverage of mental illness. However, mental illness continues to exact a heavy toll on many, many lives.

Even though we know so much more about mental illness, it can still bring devastating consequences to those it touches; their families, their friends, and their loved ones. These individuals and families not only deal with the societal prejudices and suspicions hanging on from the past, but they also must contend with unequal insurance coverage.

I would submit the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 is a good first start, but the Act is also not working. While there may adherence to the letter of the law, there are certainly violations of the spirit of the law. For instance, ways are being found around the law by placing limits on the number of covered hospital days and outpatient visits.

That is why I believe it is time for a change.

Some will immediately say we cannot afford it or that inclusion of this treatment will cost too much. But, the facts simply do not support that conclusion. First, I would direct them to the Congressional Budget Office's, CBO, score of the bill. CBO scored the cost of the bill as 0.9 percent or less than one percent. Second, I would point out the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 contains a provision allowing companies to no longer comply with the law if their costs increase by more than one percent. And do you know how many companies have opted out because their costs have increased by more than one percent? Less than ten companies throughout our entire country.

With that in mind I would like to share a couple of facts about mental illness with my colleagues: within the developed world, including the United States, 4 of the 10 leading causes of disability for individuals over the age of five are mental disorders; in the order of prevalence the disorders are major depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and obsessive compulsive disorder; one in every five people--more than 40 million adults--in this Nation will be afflicted by some type of mental illness; and schizophrenia alone is 50 times more common than cystic fibrosis, 60 times more common than muscular dystrophy and will strike between 2 and 3 million Americans.

Let us also look at the efficacy of treatment for individuals suffering from certain mental illnesses, especially when compared with the success rates of treatments for other physical ailments. For a long time, many who are in this field--especially on the insurance side-- have behaved as if you get far better results for angioplasty than you do for treatments for bipolar illness.

Treatment for bipolar disorders--that is, those disorders characterized by extreme lows and extreme highs--have an 80 percent success rate if you get treatment, both medicine and care. Schizophrenia, the most dreaded of mental illnesses, has a 60-percent success rate in the United States today if treated properly. Major depression has a 65 percent success rate.

Let's compare those success rates to several important surgical procedures that everybody thinks we ought to be doing: Angioplasty has a 41-percent success rate and Atherectomy has a 52-percent success rate.

I would now like to take a minute to discuss the Senator Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2003. The Bill seeks a very simple goal: provide the same mental health benefits already enjoyed by Federal employees.

The Bill is modeled after the mental health benefits provided through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, FEHBP, and expands the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 to prohibit a group health plan from imposing treatment limitations or financial requirements on the coverage of mental health benefits unless comparable limitations are imposed on medical and surgical benefits.

Our Bill provides full parity for all categories of mental health conditions listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, DSM IV, with coverage being contingent on the mental health condition being included in an authorized treatment plan, the treatment plan is in accordance with standard protocols, and the treatment plan meets medical necessity determination criteria.

Like the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996, the Bill does not require a health plan to provide coverage for alcohol and substance abuse benefits. Moreover, the Bill does not mandate the coverage of mental health benefits, but rather the Bill only applies if the plan already provides coverage for mental health benefits.

In conclusion, the Bill provides mental heath benefits on par with those already enjoyed by Federal employees and members of Congress and I would urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with Senators Warner, Lugar, Mikulski and Durbin in introducing legislation that would extend the legislative authority for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial for an additional three years. The monument to Martin Luther King, Jr., which will be built on the Mall, will honor one of this Nation's most treasured citizens. Dr. King challenged us to live by the principles set forth at this Nation's inception, and forever changed the fabric of this country.

Despite the enormous dedication of the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial Project Foundation, Inc., additional time is necessary for the Foundation to erect a fitting tribute to Dr. King. The Commemorative Works Act currently requires that construction of the Memorial begin by November 2003. However, meeting the administrative procedures and fundraising requirements of the Act has been a very slow process.

On November 12, 1996, legislation was enacted authorizing construction of the Memorial within a seven-year period. It then took Congress another two years to pass legislation authorizing placement of the Memorial in Area I of the Capital. Then the Foundation worked with the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission for Fine Arts for over a year to locate an appropriate site for the Memorial within Area I. As a result, the Foundation was unable to select a design for the Memorial until September 2000.

This consultative process has been challenging, but it has resulted in a design for a Memorial on the Tidal Basin that will fittingly reflect the legacy of the greatest civil rights leader of our time. Initial estimates indicate that the construction costs of the Memorial alone could be as much as $60 million, and the Foundation is actively engaged in fundraising for the Memorial. However, it does not expect to have the necessary funds to receive the construction permit by the deadline of November 2003 as dictated by the Commemorative Works Act. One hundred percent of the funding must be privately financed, and the total cost of the project could near $100 million. Our legislation would give the Foundation an additional three years to raise the necessary funds to obtain the construction permit, and would ensure that work on the Memorial is completed. This extension of legislative authority has been done before for other memorials, given the length of time it usually takes to embark on a project of this magnitude, and it should be done for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial.

Dr. King serves as a reminder that change is brought about most powerfully when it is done by non-violent means. This country owes much to Dr. King, most notably his legacy of non-violent protest that has informed and influenced subsequent rights campaigns in our nation. Visitors will come to the Memorial from every part of this country and indeed the world, to be inspired anew by Dr. King's words and deeds, and the extraordinary story of his life. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation and grant the Foundation the additional time it needs to complete this significant monument.

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

Mr. President, today I am once again introducing legislation together with Senators Warner, Campbell, Murray, Clinton, Sessions, Hutchison and Miller which would grant a Federal Charter to the Korean War Veterans Association, Incorporated. This legislation, which has passed the Senate in the past two Congresses, recognizes and honors the 5.7 million Americans who fought and served during the Korean War for their struggles and sacrifices on behalf of freedom and the principles and ideals of our nation.

For the past three years, under the direction of Public Law 105-85, we have been marking the 50th Anniversary of the events of the Korean War--beginning with the events of June 1950 when the North Korea People's Army swept across the 38th Parallel to occupy Seoul, South Korea. Members of our Armed Forces--including many from the State of Maryland--immediately answered the call of the U.N. to repel this forceful invasion. Without hesitation, these soldiers traveled to an unfamiliar corner of the world to join an unprecedented multi-national force comprised of 22 countries and risked their lives to protect freedom. The Americans who led this international effort were true patriots who fought with remarkable courage.

In battles such as Pork Chop Hill, the Inchon Landing and the frozen Chosin Reservoir, which was fought in temperatures as low as fifty- seven degrees below zero, they faced some of the most brutal combat in history. This year, on July 27, we will commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the signing of the Military Armistice Agreement which officially ended armed hostilities. By the time the fighting had ended, 8,177 Americans were listed as missing or prisoners of war--some of whom are still missing--and over 36,000 Americans had died. One hundred and thirty-one Korean War Veterans were awarded the nation's highest commendation for combat bravery, the Medal of Honor. Ninety-four of these soldiers gave their lives in the process.

There is an engraving on the Korean War Veterans Memorial which reflects these losses and how brutal a war this was. It reads, ``Freedom is not Free.'' Yet, as a Nation, we have done little more than establish this memorial to publicly acknowledge the bravery of those who fought in the Korean War. The Korean War has been termed by many as the ``Forgotten War.'' Freedom is not free. We owe our Korean War Veterans a debt of gratitude. Granting this Federal charter--at no cost to the government--is a small expression of appreciation that we as a Nation can offer to these men and women, one which will enable them to work as a unified front to ensure that the ``Forgotten War'' is forgotten no more.

The Korean War Veterans Association was originally incorporated on June 25, 1985. Since its first annual reunion and memorial service in Arlington, Virginia, where its members decided to develop a national focus and strong commitment to service, the association has grown substantially to a membership of approximately 19,000. A Federal charter would allow the Association to continue and grow its mission and further its charitable and benevolent causes. Specifically, it will afford the Korean War Veterans' Association the same status as other major veterans organizations and allow it to participate as part of select committees with other congressionally chartered veterans and military groups. A Federal charter will also accelerate the Association's ``accreditation'' with the Department of Veterans Affairs which will enable its members to assist in processing veterans' claims.

The Korean War Veterans have asked for very little in return for their service and sacrifice. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and ask that the text of the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, faced with uncertainties in electricity energy markets, turmoil in the Mideast, the need to cut back on the fossil fuel emissions linked to global warming, air pollution that contributes to high rates of asthma and fills even our national parks with smog, the United States must diversify its energy supply by promoting the growth of renewable energy.

Since 1999, Las Vegas electricity rates have increased by 60 percent. In the same period, natural gas prices across Nevada have doubled. We need to change the energy equation. We need to diversify the Nation's energy supply to reduce volatility and ensure a stable supply of electricity. We must harness the brilliance of the sun, the strength of the wind, and the heat of the Earth to provide clean, renewable energy for our nation.

I rise today to introduce a bill with Senators Smith, Snowe, Cantwell, Harkin, Liberman, Feinstein, Jeffords, and Wyden expands the existing Section 45 production tax credit for renewable energy resources to cover all renewable energy resources. Our legislation accomplishes this by adding geothermal, incremental geothermal, solar, open-loop biomass, incremental hydropower, landfill gas, and animal waste to the list of renewable energy resources that would quality for a production tax credit.

Our legislation also makes the production tax credit permanent to signal America's long-term commitment to renewable energy resources. The existing production tax credit that covers wind energy, poultry waste, and closed-look biomass will expire at the end of 2003! Since it inception in 1992, the production tax credit has expired and been renewed twice; in 1999 and 2001. Development of wind energy has closely mirrored these renewal cycles. Clearly, the private investment necessary to develop renewable energy resources requires the business certainly afforded a long-term extension of the production tax credit.

Our bill allows for co-production credits to encourage blending of renewable energy with traditional fuels and provides a credit for renewable facilities on native American and native Alaskan lands. In northern Nevada, the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe is working with Advanced Thermal Systems to develop geothermal resources on Indian lands that will spur economic development by creating business opportunities and jobs for tribal members.

This legislation also provides production incentives to not-for- profit public power utilities and rural electric cooperatives, which serve 25 percent of the Nation's power customers, by allowing them to transfer of their credits to taxable entities.

The good news is that the production tax credit for renewable energy resources really works to promote the growth of renewable energy. In 1990, the cost of wind energy was 22.5 cents per kilowatt hour and, today, with new technology and the help of a modest

production tax credit, wind is a competitive energy source at 3 to 4 cents per kilowatt hour. In the last 5 years, wind energy has experience a 30 percent growth rate. This year, Nevada utilities have signed contracts for more then 130 MW of wind energy.

The production tax credit provides 1.8 cents for every kilowatt-hour of electricity produced. Similar to wind energy, this credit will allow geothermal energy, incremental hydropower, and landfill gas to immediately compete with fossil fuels, while biomass will follow closely behind. The Department of Energy estimates that we would increase our geothermal energy production almost ten fold, supplying ten percent of the energy needs of the West. As fantastic as it sounds, enough sunlight falls on a 100 mile by 100 miles of southern Nevada that--if covered with solar panels--could power the entire Nation.

Let's never lose sight of the fact that renewable energy resources are domestic sources of energy, and using them instead of foreign sources contributes to our energy security. Renewables provide fuel diversify and price stability. After all, the fuel--the wind, the sun, heat from the core of the earth--costs nothing. And they provide jobs, especially in rural areas that have been largely left out of American recent economic growth.

The production tax credit for renewable energy resources is a powerful, fast acting stimulus to the economy. According to the Western Government Association, the Department of Energy's Initiative to deploy 1,000 MWs of concentrated solar power in the Southwestern area of the United States by the year 2006 would create approximately 10,0000 jobs and estimated expenditures of more than 3.7 billion over 14 years. Nevada has already developed 200 Megawatts of geothermal power, with a longer-term potential of more than 2,500 Megawatts. This development will provide billions of private investment and create thousands of jobs. Our production tax credit means immediate economic development and jobs!

In the U.S. today, we get less than 3 percent of our electricity from renewable energy sources like wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass. But the potential for much greater supply is here. For example, Nevada is considered the Saudi Arabia of geothermal. My state could use geothermal energy to meet one-third of its electricity needs, but today this source of energy only supplies 2.3 percent. I'm proud to say that Nevada has adopted one of the most aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standard in the Nation, requiring that 5 percent of the State's electricity needs be met by renewable energy resources in 2003, which then grows to 15 percent by 2013.

After pouring billions of dollars into oil and gas, we need to invest in a clean energy future. Fossil fuel plants pump over 11 million tons of pollutants into our air each year. Federal energy policy must promote reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. By including landfill gas in this legislation, we systematically reduce the largest single human source of methane emissions in the United States, effectively eliminating the greenhouse gas equivalent of 223 million tons of carbon dioxide.

An article in The Journal of the American Medical Association revealed an alarming link between soot particles from power plants and motor vehicles and lung cancer and heart disease. The adverse health effects of power plant and vehicle emissions cost Americans billions of dollars in medical care, and our cost in human suffering is immeasurable. Simply put, the human cost of dirty air is staggering. If we factor in environmental and health effects, the real cost of energy becomes apparent, and renewable energy become the fuel of choice.

America's abundant and untapped renewable resources can fuel our journey into a more prosperous and safer tomorrow without compromising air and water quality.

Renewable energy is the cornerstone of a successful, forward looking, and secure energy policy for the 21st Century.

Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by Senator Murray on this side. We strongly support the amendment and hope our colleagues will accept it.

Mr. President, Senator Dodd is next on our side with an amendment. I ask Senator Dodd to proceed at this point.

Mr. President, might I just inquire of the sponsor, what is the cost of this amendment and what is the source of the funding for it?

Mr. President, my understanding is this is directed scorekeeping. The committees are told this doesn't cost any money, but it does cost money. I was willing to take this amendment when I was under the impression this didn't cost any money. But if we are going to start down the road of saying things that cost money don't cost money, then we have a real problem. I have a real problem with that amendment.

Mr. President, in the interest of moving things along, I want to register, to the extent there is directed scoring here, strong opposition. We cannot go down the path of saying things don't cost money. Maybe there is a view that it doesn't. But if the scorekeepers say it does, and we start telling them it doesn't, that creates a serious problem. I am not going to insist on a vote. I have confidence this will be taken care of in conference.

Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Oklahoma if we might take the package of seven we reached agreement on.

Mr. President, these five are fine. We have an agreement on both sides on these five.

Mr. President, if I might ask that we hold off until we have had the ranking member of the Finance Committee look at that amendment.

Can we slow down a minute.

Could we ask a sponsor to briefly describe the amendment for colleagues.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Clinton, we have an amendment that establishes a reserve fund for addressing minority health disparities, an agreement on both sides.

I ask for approval of our colleagues.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Landrieu, is next on this side. She is prepared to go.

I say to Senator McConnell, the ranking member of the Finance Committee has looked over his amendment, and that is not something we could accept at this point. I don't know if he is interested in going forward with the amendment at this stage.

Mr. President, I just ask what the Senator wants to do at this point. Does he want to proceed on a discussion? This is obviously something that cannot be accepted and would require some discussion at this point.

What is the desire of the chairman?

Senator Landrieu has a pending amendment, Senator Durbin has an amendment pending, Senator Schumer has a pending amendment, Senator Graham of Florida, Senator Reed, Senator Levin.

Let's be clear. No one on our side is saying the Senator cannot get a vote. He certainly can get a vote. The point is it will take a vote and some discussion. There is a point of order that lies against his amendment. The Senator has every right to seek a vote.

Senator Landrieu would be next on our side.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, this is where we stand at this moment on this side. We are down to about 10 amendments that would require votes if we are not able to work them out.

Let me list, on our side, the amendments and the rough order. Please do not hold me to this specific order, other than the first five, because it is really the first five that we have made commitments on: Senator Landrieu, the amendment she has already offered; Senator Levin, on homeland security; Senator Durbin, on global AIDS; Senator Lautenberg, on debt limit; Senator Schumer, an amendment that relates to the Energy bill; and then, in addition to that, Senator Dayton, on IDEA; Senator Graham, on Pell grants; Senator Byrd, on bioshield; Senator Lincoln, with respect to the childcare tax credit; and Senator Kennedy, on Medicare.

Those are the remaining major amendments on this side. I think that gets them all. There is also an amendment that is cosponsored by a number of people on our side as well as people on the other side. We also have a Reed amendment on higher education; and Pryor on IRA, that was not agreed to. We also have an amendment that is in negotiation, I might say, from Senator Leahy, on nutrition.

On the other side, there is an amendment from Senator Dole on nutrition. There are amendments on the other side that maybe the chairman could review.

Mr. President, might I recommend, in terms of the order on this side, if we are putting aside Landrieu, with the hopes of perhaps working that out, that we go to Senator Levin. He is next on our side.

If the chairman would want to go to your side?

We have to ask for people's patience, because, please understand, the staff of the chairman of the committee and my staff now have in a queue a whole series of amendments that have been shared on both sides but have not necessarily been evaluated fully by staff on both sides.

Senator Levin's is on homeland security.

That is not next on our list. Next on our list after Levin--and perhaps that can be worked out, the Levin-Collins amendment; it is not additional money--is the Durbin global AIDS amendment. That is the next in our line.

We don't have the amendment in our hands. We are seeking to get it. We will share it with the Senator as soon as we have it.

Senator Pryor would like to discuss his amendment. I yield him 2 minutes off the resolution.

Mr. President, I ask that we recognize Senator Graham to discuss his amendment on Pell grants. I give him 2 minutes off of the resolution.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida for setting a remarkably good example at 5 minutes after 10 o'clock. If there are any other Senators who want to withdraw their pending amendments, or not offer an amendment at this time, they would be greeted with open arms and have a very positive effect on their legislative proposals when we return after the break.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the four amendments that were sent to the desk referenced by the chairman have no objection on this side.

Mr. President, might I inquire of the Senator how long it will take to describe this amendment?

I give 3 minutes off the resolution to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. President, those three amendments have been cleared on this side, and there is no objection.

Staff has a copy.

This is a Levin-Collins amendment. It halts deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for the next 50 million barrels given the price of gasoline and jet fuel.

We would like perhaps 3 or 4 minutes on our side.

I will divide that time with the Senator from Maine.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Collins, Senator Clinton, and Senator Stabenow.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, we have skyrocketing gas prices and oil prices in most parts of the country. The major reason for this is private sector inventories are low. The major reason private sector inventories are low is we, at the same time, have seen a decline in those inventories of 50 million barrels in the last 2 years.

We have deposited in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve approximately 85 million barrels. Even the staff of the Department of Energy a year ago said the following:

Commercial petroleum inventories are low. Retail product

prices are high, and economic growth is slow. The Government

should avoid acquiring oil for the Strategic Petroleum

Reserve under these circumstances.

We would halt the deposit of oil in the Reserve, and we would use the money, approximately $1.7 billion, to restore a number of accounts in the Homeland Security Department; namely, we would restore about 80 percent of the money cut from the Homeland Security grant program; $250 million we would restore to firefighter grants to bring them up to last year. We would add money for port security, $150 million for deficit reduction, and about $220 million for an equity account.

This is a twofer. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. President, oil and gasoline prices are at or near record-high levels. Oil and gasoline supplies are at or near record-low levels. If there are any disruptions in oil or gasoline supplies or production, there will be an insufficient amount of oil and gasoline to meet demand, and prices will skyrocket even further.

Yet, incredibly, in the face of this crisis, the administration is decreasing rather than increasing the supply of oil. Day after day, month after month, regardless of how high the cost for acquiring this oil, the administration is taking millions of barrels of oil off the market and depositing them into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. By taking this badly needed oil off the market and placing it in the SPR, at extremely high prices, the administration is increasing the price of oil and gasoline.

The Levin-Collins amendment will increase Federal revenues by approximately $1.7 billion by, in effect, directing DOE to delay the filling of the SPR. The amendment will lower oil and gasoline prices by increasing oil and gasoline supplies in the commercial inventories. It will improve our overall energy security by moving us away from the brink of a crisis in supply. Moreover, it is both sound fiscal and resource management policy to put oil on the open market when prices are high, and place them into reserves later when prices are low.

As nearly every American knows, gasoline prices are at record-high levels. The average price of a gallon of gasoline, nationwide, as well as in my home State of Michigan, is $1.74 per gallon. In some states it is even higher. In California, for example, the average price for a gallon of gasoline is $2.18 per gallon.

Crude oil prices also are at near-record prices. Spot prices are over $37 per barrel. Futures prices for oil for the next several months are at or near $37 per barrel as well.

A major reason oil prices are so high is that the amount of crude oil in private sector inventories in the United States is at record low levels. Crude oil inventories are now lower than at any time in the 28 years that the Department of Energy has been tracking them. Oil prices are directly related to the amount of crude oil in inventories, since overall supply levels depend on both amounts produced and amounts in inventory. This is why prices are so high.

One of the reasons that supplies of oil are so low is that since late 2001 the Department of Energy (DOE) has been steadily taking millions of barrels of oil off the market and placing them into the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). In late 2001, the Reserve held about 560 million barrels of oil. Today it holds nearly 650 million barrels. DOE anticipates that at the current fill rate it will reach its goal of filling the SPR to its current physical capacity of 700 million barrels in the middle of 2005.

Clearly, now is not the time to be taking more oil off the market when the price of oil is so high. We need more oil and gasoline in refineries.

The Levin-Collins amendment is simple. It would, in effect, result in the deferral of the deposit of the 53 million barrels of oil that DOE currently plans to ship to the SPR over the next year. Assuming an average price of $33 per barrel--which is based on the current

futures prices for oil for the next 14 months, as well as the trend in spot prices over the past year--this would yield over $1.7 billion in Federal revenues. This will help lower oil and gasoline prices for consumers and businesses as well. This amendment is a win-win for consumers, taxpayers, and the Government.

The Levin-Collins amendment would apply these funds to strengthen our homeland security. We cannot expect our first responders to be well- trained, properly equipped and fully staffed to protect us, if we cut their funding sources. Our amendment restores $800 million to the State Homeland Security Grant program, which will bring the total funding for that program up to $1.5 billion; adds $250 million to the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program; and $275,000,000 for Port Security Grants. The amendment will also provide $155 million for deficit reduction.

Finally, the amendment provides an additional $220 million to the State Homeland Security Grant Program in order to provide for a more equitable formula for distributing funds under that program.

That depends on how loud the voices are.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.