Chesapeake Bay Watershed Nutrient Removal Assistance Act

Mr. President, today I am introducing a package of five measures to sustain and, indeed, renew the Federal commitment to restoring the water quality and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Joining me in sponsoring one or more of these measures are my colleagues from Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, Senators Warner, Allen, Mikulski and Specter.

This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the historic Federal-State compact that launched the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort. Over the past two decades, we have made important progress both in putting in place the comprehensive, coordinated Federal-State-local and private sector management structure to guide the program and in specific initiatives to address key problems in the watershed. Three subsequent agreements were signed in 1987, in 1992 and in 2000, respectively, setting specific goals and action plans to restore the Chesapeake watershed. There are today over 700 groups and some 40 committees involved in the Bay Program. More than twenty-five Federal agencies are partnering with EPA and the Bay area States and there are numerous State agencies, local governmental organizations and citizen groups actively engaged in the restoration efforts. The level of public support and the degree of cooperation and coordination among all parties is unparalleled.

Despite these efforts, the job of restoring the Chesapeake to levels of quality and productivity that existed earlier in this century is far from complete. In its latest report card issued in November, 2002, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation gave the Chesapeake Bay a score of 27 out of 100--far short of the ``70'' level believed necessary for the Bay to be declared ``saved.'' The index underscores the continuing serious challenges facing the Bay. Nitrogen pollution from farms and city streets, sewage treatment plants, and air deposition, among other so- called non-point sources, continue to overload the Bay. Many of the living resources--oysters, shad, white perch, crabs--which are indicators of the Bay's health, are still in decline. Toxic chemicals are still present in the Bay's surface and bottom waters, having untold impacts on water quality and wildlife. A recent analysis undertaken by the Chesapeake Bay Commission estimates that the costs to clean the Bay and achieve the goals of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement over the course of the next seven years will exceed projected income by nearly $13 billion. Pollution from all sources will have to be further reduced, thousands of acres of watershed property must be preserved, significant efforts must be made to restore living resources, buffer zones to protect rivers and streams need to be created, education and stewardship efforts must be dramatically expanded.

While $13 billion seems like an enormous sum, we should remember that the health of the Chesapeake Bay is vital not only to the more than 15 million people who live in the watershed, but to the Nation. It is one of our Nation's and the world's greatest natural resources covering 64,000 square miles within six States. It is a world-class fishery that still produces a significant portion of the finfish and shellfish catch in the United States. It provides vital habitat for living resources, including more than 3600 species of plants, fish and animals. It is a major resting area for migratory waterfowls and birds along the Atlantic including many endangered and threatened species. It is also a one-of-a-kind recreational asset enjoyed by millions of people, a major commercial waterway and shipping center for much of the eastern United States, and provides jobs for thousands of people. In short, the Chesapeake Bay is a magnificent, multifaceted resource worthy of the highest levels of protection and restoration.

The five measures that we are introducing today are intended to help address some of the highest priority needs in the watershed and provide a Federal blueprint for restoring the Bay in the years ahead. I want to address each of these measures briefly.

The first measure, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Nutrient Removal Assistance Act, would establish a grants program in the Environmental Protection Agency to support the installation of nutrient reduction technologies at major wastewater treatment facilities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. I first introduced this measure during the 107th Congress and provisions of the legislation were included as part of S. 1961, the Water Investment Act of 2002, reported favorably by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Unfortunately, no further action was taken on that legislation. Despite important water quality improvements over the past decade, nutrient

over-enrichment remains the most serious pollution problem facing the Bay. The overabundance of the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorous continues to rob the Bay of life sustaining oxygen. Recent modeling of EPA's Bay Program has found that total nutrient discharges must be reduced by more than 35 percent from current levels to restore the Chesapeake Bay and its major tributaries to health. To do so, nitrogen discharges from all sources must be reduced drastically below current levels. Annual nitrogen discharges into the Bay will need to be cut by at least 110 million pounds from the current 300 million pounds to less than 190 million pounds. Municipal wastewater treatment plants, in particular, will have to reduce nitrogen discharges by nearly 75 percent.

There are 304 major wastewater treatment plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed: Pennsylvania, 123, Maryland, 65, Virginia, 86, New York, 18, Delaware, 3, Washington, D.C., 1, and West Virginia, 8. These plants contribute about 60 million pounds of nitrogen per year--one-fifth--of the total load of nitrogen to the Bay. Upgrading these plants with nutrient removal technologies to achieve nitrogen reductions of 3 mg/ liter would remove 46 million pounds of nitrogen in the Bay each year or 40 percent of the total nitrogen reductions needed. Nutrient removal technologies have other benefits, as well. They provide significant sayings in energy usage, 20 to 30 percent, in chemical usage, more than 50 percent, and in the amount of sludge produced, five to 15 percent. They are one of the most cost-effective methods of reducing nutrients discharged to the Bay.

My legislation would provide grants for 55 percent of the capital cost of upgrading the plants with nutrient removal technologies capable of achieving nitrogen reductions of 3 mg/liter. Any publicly owned wastewater treatment plant which has a permitted design capacity to treat an annual average of 0.5 million gallons per day within the Chesapeake Bay watershed portion of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, Virginia and the District of Columbia would be eligible to receive these grants. As a signatory to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the EPA has an important responsibility to assist the states with financing these water infrastructure needs.

The second measure, the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Education Pilot Program Act, would establish a new environmental education program in the U.S. Department of Education for elementary and secondary school students and teachers within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. There is a growing consensus that a major commitment to education--to promoting an ethic of responsible stewardship and citizenship among the nearly 16 million people who live in the watershed--is necessary if all of the other efforts to ``Save the Bay'' are to succeed. Expanding environmental education and training opportunities will lead not only to a healthier Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, but a more educated and informed citizenry, with a deeper understanding and appreciation for the environment, their community and their role in society as responsible citizens.

One of the principal commitments of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, is to ``provide a meaningful Bay or stream outdoor experience for every school student in the watershed before graduation from high school'' beginning with the class of 2005. Despite important efforts by Bay area states and not-for-profit organizations, only a very small percentage of the more than 3.3 million K-12 students in the watershed have had the opportunity to engage in meaningful outdoor experiences or receive classroom environmental instruction. Many of the school systems in the Bay watershed are only at the beginning stages in developing and implementing environmental education into their curriculum, let alone exposing students to outdoor watershed experiences. What's lacking is not the desire or will, but the resources and training to undertake more comprehensive environmental education programs.

This legislation would authorize $6 million a year over the next three years in Federal grant assistance to help close the resource and training gap for students in the elementary and secondary levels in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It would require a 50 percent non-Federal match, thus leveraging $12 million in assistance. The funding could be used to help design, demonstrate or disseminate environmental curricula and field practices, train teachers or other educational personnel, and support on-the-ground activities or Chesapeake Bay or stream outdoor educational experiences involving students and teachers, among other things. The program would complement the NOAA Bay Watershed Education and Training Program that we established last year.

The third measure would reauthorize and enhance the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Protection and Restoration Program. This program, which was first established in Section 510 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Public Law 104-303, authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide design and construction assistance to State and local authorities in the environmental restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. To date, the Corps of Engineers has constructed or approved $9.3 million in projects under the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program including oyster restoration projects in Virginia, shoreline protection and wetland/sewage treatment projects at Smith Island in Maryland and the upgrade of the Scranton Wastewater Treatment Plant in Pennsylvania to reduce the amount of nutrients delivered to the Chesapeake Bay. These projects have nearly exhausted the current $10 million authorization.

This legislation increases the authorization for this program from $10 million to $30 million. Consistent with all other environmental restoration authorities of the Corps of Engineers, it enables States and local governments to provide all or any portion of the 25 percent non-Federal share required in the form of in-kind services. It also establishes a new small-grants program for local governments and nonprofit organizations to carry out small-scale restoration and protection projects in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The program would be administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation which has extensive experience and expertise in managing these kinds of grants for other Federal agencies. Ten percent of the funds appropriated each year under this program would be set-aside for these grants. In view of the great need and the many requests for assistance from the Bay area states, this legislation is clearly unwarranted.

The forth measure, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Forestry Act, would continue and enhance the USDA Forest Service's role in the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Forest loss and fragmentation are occurring rapidly in the Chesapeake Bay region and are among the most important issues facing the Bay and forest management today. According to the National Resources Inventory, the States closest to the Bay lost 350,000 acres of forest between 1987-1997 or almost 100 acres per day. More and more rural areas are being converted to suburban developments resulting in smaller contiguous forest tracts. These trends are leading to a regional forest land base that is more vulnerable to conversion, less likely to be economically viable in the future, and is losing its capacity to protect watershed health and other ecological benefits, such as controlling storm water runoff, erosion and air pollution, all critical to the Bay clean-up effort.

Since 1990, the USDA Forest Service has been an important part of the Chesapeake Bay Program. Administered through the Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry, this program has worked closely with Federal, State and local partners in the six-state Chesapeake Bay region to demonstrate how forest protection, restoration and stewardship activities, can contribute to achieving the Bay restoration goals. Over the past 12 years, it has provided modest levels of technical and financial assistance, averaging approximately $300,000 a year, to develop collaborative watershed projects that address watershed forest conservation, restoration and stewardship.

With the signing of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, the role of the USDA Forest Service has become more important than ever. Among other provisions, this Agreement requires the signatories to conserve existing forests along all streams and shoreline; promote the expansion and connection of

contiguous forests; assess the Bay's forest lands; and provide technical and financial assistance to local governments to plan for or revise plans, ordinances and subdivision regulations to provide for the conservation and sustainable use of the forest and agricultural lands. To address these goals, the USDA Forest Service must have additional resources and authority, and that is what this measure seeks to provide.

This legislation codifies the role and responsibilities of the USDA Forest Service to the Bay restoration effort. It strengthens existing coordination, technical assistance, forest resource assessment and planning efforts. It authorizes a small grants program to support local agencies, watershed associations and citizen groups in conducting on- the-ground conservation projects. It also establishes a regional applied forestry research and training program to enhance urban, suburban and rural forests in the watershed. Finally it authorizes $3.5 million for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2010, a modest increase in view of the six-State, 64,000 square mile watershed.

The fifth measure, the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Watershed Education, Training, and Restoration Act, would enhance the National Oceanic and Atmospheric, NOAA, Chesapeake Bay Office's authorities to address the living resource restoration and education and training goals and commitments of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement. It builds upon provisions contained in the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act Amendments of 2003, and addresses several urgent and unmet needs in the watershed. To help meet Bay-wide living resource education and training goals, it codifies the Bay Watershed Education and Training or, B-WET, Program-- the first federally funded environmental education program focused solely on the Chesapeake Bay watershed--that we initiated in the Fiscal 2002 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill and establishes an aquaculture education program to assist with oyster and blue crab hatchery production.

To better coordinate and organize the substantial amounts of data collected and complied by Federal, State and local government agencies and academic institutions--data such as information on weather, tides, currents circulation, climate, land use, coastal environmental quality, aquatic living resources and habitat conditions--and make this information more useful to resource managers, scientists and the public, it establishes an internet-based Coastal Predictions Center for the Chesapeake Bay. It also authorizes a shallow water monitoring program to address critical gaps in information on near shore and river area water quality conditions needed for restoration of living resources. And to help meet Chesapeake 2000 living resource restoration goals, it codifies the ongoing oyster restoration program an authorizes a new submerged aquatic vegetation restoration program.

Mr. President, these measures would provide an important boost to our efforts to save the Chesapeake Bay and a blueprint for the course ahead. They are strongly supported by the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and other organizations in the watershed. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills and supporting letters to printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting the measures and continue the momentum contributing to the improvement and enhancement of our Nation's most valuable and treasured natural resource.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a package of targeted, affordable tax relief provisions designed to help the Nation's small businesses during this time of economic stagnation. After the Easter recess, I know that the Finance Committee will be marking up a wide-ranging tax bill whose ultimate size is yet to be determined. I also know, however, that few of the proposals offered by the President will truly stimulate the economy or help the millions of struggling small businesses. Instead, the Bush tax proposal will reward the richest among us and pass the bill to our children. We can and must do better.

As the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have drafted legislation that will truly help small businesses and the Nation. It is a tax proposal with meaningful, affordable reforms that will make a difference without sticking our kids with a huge bill. I hope that all of part of this legislation can be incorporated into a Senate economic stimulus package. I have titled the bill that I am introducing today ``The Affordable Small Business Stimulus and Simplification Act of 2003,'' and it builds upon a bill that I introduced in the 107th Congress.

I call my bill an ``affordable'' stimulus package for small business because it targets the policies that can make the biggest difference and uses our limited resources as wisely and efficiently as possible. It does not include everything that I would like to do for small business, but it includes enough to help stimulate this essential component of our economy. Moreover, the bill will help address the tax complexity concerns of small businesses because it includes the Single Point Tax Filing Act that has passed the Senate on two previous occasions and a new standard deduction that will benefit millions of small businesses.

Let me briefly explain the contents of my bill.

First, my bill increases the expensing limitation for small businesses. It raises it to $35,000, rising to $40,000 in 2008, and it increases the phase-out level, above which expensing is not allowed, to $350,000, rising to $400,000 in 2008. I know that others have proposed raising this limit as high as $75,000, but such an increase is simply unaffordable while we face huge budget deficits. Raising it to $35,000 now, rising to $40,000 in 2008, is a more responsible approach and will provide an immediate investment incentive to many small businesses.

Second, my bill creates a new standard deduction of $500 for sole proprietorships. This provision provides tax relief and real tax simplification to the smallest of small businesses because it would relieve these businesses of the paperwork burden of having to itemize the myriad of small expenses on IRS forms. Of course, businesses with expenses greater than $500 would retain the option of full itemization. But for the very smallest businesses, many of them home-based or part- time, this new provision will be a significant step towards tax simplification.

Third, the bill modifies and expands a provision that was signed into law in 1993 regarding new equity investments in small businesses' stock. Under my bill, new investments in companies with capitalization of up to $100 million at the time of investment will have a 75 percent capital gains exclusion if the investments are held at least four years. The exclusion for such investments will be 100 percent if they are made in a business involved in such critical technologies as transportation or homeland security, defense-related technologies, anti-terrorism, pollution control, energy efficiency, or waste management. The 100-percent exclusion would also be allowed for investments in specialized small business investment companies, or SSBICs, whose investments are made solely in disadvantaged small businesses. Both the 75 and 100 percent exclusion levels would be available for investments made by both individuals and corporations. In addition, the rollover period for such investments would be increased from 60 days to 180 days. The provision passed in 1993 was crafted too narrowly to stimulate substantial new investment. I hope that this new, expanded capital gains treatment will prompt new investments in small and entrepreneurial businesses.

Fourth, my bill recognizes that the current depreciation schedules for high-tech equipment and software are out of date, given how quickly such items become obsolete in our fast-changing economy. My bill would reduce the recovery period for computers or peripheral equipment from five years to three, and for software from three years to two. This change would be permanent.

Fifth, my bill would fix a problem with the tax deductibility of health insurance expenses for the self-employed. Under current law, these expenses are fully deductible in 2003 for the first time--but the Internal Revenue Code denies the deduction to taxpayers who are eligible to participate in another plan, such as their spouse's employer's plan. My bill would clarify that the deduction is denied only if the taxpayer actually participates in the other plan.

Sixth, to simplify tax filing, my bill would include the Single Point Tax Filing Act. This section would simplify the tax filing process for employers that choose to participate by allowing the Internal Revenue Service and State agencies to combine, on one form, both State and Federal employment tax returns. This provision has been passed by the Senate twice before, but has not yet become law. There is currently a demonstration project along these lines in Montana, which is working very well. I believe such authority should extend to all States.

Seventh, my bill clarifies that married couples who co-own a business can elect to be sole proprietors for purposes of filing their Federal income taxes. This provision aligns the law with the way many married couples actually do business. Under present law, married couples who co-own a business technically own that business as a partnership for Federal income tax purposes. This treatment carries with it all the complications of the partnership provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, including having to file partnership returns. But in reality, many married couples in this situation consider themselves sole proprietors and are incorrectly filing tax returns as such. While the IRS may not be strictly enforcing the law against these taxpayers, this technical non-compliance can cause trouble down the road. Upon divorce, for example, it may not be clear that the business had been jointly owned. This same ambiguity might complicate a spouse's ability to get the full Social Security and Medicare benefits to which they are entitled. My bill makes clear that for Federal income tax purposes, married couples who co-own a business can be treated as sole proprietors.

Eighth, my bill would extend the existing income averaging provisions to cover fishing as well as farming. In other words, the choice to average income from a farming trade or business under present law would be extended to cover income from the trade or business of fishing as well. Under my bill, a farmer or fisherman electing to average his or her income would owe the alternative minimum tax, AMT, only to the extent he or she would have owed AMT had averaging not been elected. This is an important change that will benefit not only people in my state, but also throughout New England, the Pacific Northwest, the Gulf of Mexico region, Alaska, and in other areas of the country where fishing is an important industry.

Finally, my bill would modify the tax treatment of investments in debenture small business investment companies, or SBICs, so they are less likely to create unrelated business taxable income, UBTI, liability. The current tax treatment of money borrowed from the government by a debenture SBIC creates taxable income for an otherwise tax-exempt investor, which makes it almost impossible to raise capital from these investors. Free to choose, tax-exempt investors opt to invest in venture capital funds that do not create any UBTI liability. Therefore, my bill would assure that money borrowed from the government by an SBIC does not subject tax-exempt investors to UBTI. In so doing, the bill would encourage greater investment in SBICs, which provide critically needed venture capital to emerging small businesses. These venture capital funds are sorely needed in today's stalled economy.

I believe that ``The Affordable Small Business Stimulus and Stimulus Act of 2003'' will provide a much-needed stimulus to small business in a way that we can afford, particularly if we can find offsets to pay for the bill. I look forward to working with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Finance Committee to have some or all of its provisions enacted into law.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a private bill on behalf of Tanya Andrea Goudeau and her family to grant Tanya immediate relative status. The Goudeaus adopted Tanya in 2001, but due to misinformation and an undue delay in the adoption process, the adoption was not completed until a week after Tanya's 16th birthday. As a result, Tanya was no longer considered a child under the law and therefore was not eligible to receive permanent resident status. Currently, Tanya faces deportation to Sri Lanka where she no longer has a family to care for her. What is more, she is now legally a part of the Goudeau family. Tanya is the Goudeau's daughter and they are her parents.

Tanya Goudeau was born to Mrs. Goudeau's sister in 1984 in Sri Lanka. During a visit with the Goudeaus in 1999 at their home in Baker, LA, Tanya's mother announced that she was moving and that she did not want any further contact with her daughter. Tanya's father had walked out on the family 11 years earlier and could not be located. The Goudeaus realized that Tanya had no family to return to and they decided to adopt her. They could not bear to send their niece back to her native home where she would be on her own at age 14. Without any children of their own, they lovingly took Tanya into their family and have lovingly cared for her for the past 4 years.

Tanya has overcome her mother's and father's abandonment and after a period of adjustment, she has grown to love her new home. She is currently a senior in high school with aspirations to earn an advanced medical degree. Without the passage of this private bill, Tanya could face deportation to Sir Lanka at a time when she should be focused on her college degree with the support of her parents. The Goudeaus' situation is an unintended consequence of the requirement to complete the adoption process before a child's sixteenth birthday. We need to grant Tanya immediate relative status to allow the Goudeaus to remain a family.

Mr. President, throughout the next month, hundreds of thousands of high school seniors across this Nation will open up their mailboxes and receive acceptance letters for college. They will begin planning where they will live and what they will study for the next 2 or 4 years. These students will dream big and have grand ideas about what college will mean for them, but before they can officially enroll, they will be slapped in the face with a very real question: how are they going to pay for it?

Attending an institution of higher education can be expensive. According to the National Center for Higher Education, the cost of attending two or four year, public and private colleges has increased faster than both inflation and family income. In 2000, families in the lowest quartile of the income bracket spent as much as 25 percent of their annual income to send their children to a public, four year college, compared with only 13 percent in 1980. At the same time, though, sources of federal assistance are diminishing. The Federal Pell Grant program, which was designed to help alleviate the financial burden on low income families, covered only 57 percent of the cost of tuition at public, four year colleges in 1999, whereas Pell Grants covered 98 percent of the costs in 1986.

As the cost of college increases and the impact of Federal grants decreases, school loans have become a gateway to attending college for the majority of students. However, because of a provision in the 1998 re-authorization of the Higher Education Act, entitled the ``Single Lender Rule,'' students who have all of their student loans from a single lender are barred from getting a lower rate by consolidating their loans with a different lender. The financial benefits for the consumer by using a different lender for loan consolidation are easily seen in other areas of finance, such as homeowners refinancing their mortgage. What appears to me to be an arbitrarily contrived limitation that protects lenders more than students has prevented college graduates from consolidating their multiple student loans into a single, new loan, thus driving up the cost of attending college.

Having a college degree is fast becoming a necessary pre-requisite to long-term success. That is why I rise today to introduce to my colleagues the ``Consolidation Student Loan Flexibility Act of 2003.'' This bill would repeal the Single Lender rule, and knock down this arbitrarily contrived barrier that hinders students from gaining access to higher education.

Some of my colleagues may be asking, why now? Why not wait to repeal the Single Lender rule when we readdress the Higher Education Act? As the close of this school year fast approaches, and high school graduates begin making important decisions about their educational future, we cannot put off the repeal of the Single Lender rule. The effects of maintaining the Single Lender rule are devastating. In 2001, 143,504 students were forced to pay higher rates on their student loans because the Single Lender rule denied them benefits of loan consolidation. Over 3,300 of these students were from my home State of Louisiana. We cannot force another class of college students to pay more for college than necessary. Studies have shown that a major factor influencing a student's choice of college and degree program is the amount of debt connected with the type of institution of profession. These choices greatly impact not only the lives of the students themselves, but also society as a whole. At a time when our society is in dire need of nurses, teachers, and many other professions, we must not frighten students away from college for fear of substantial debt burdens after their graduation.

The greatest investment we can make in our future is in the education of our children. Today, with the changing world, educating our children includes assisting those who desire to obtain a college degree. By not repealing the Single Lender rule, we will be continuing to drive up the cost of college, thus impeding access, especially for lower-income students. According to the Census Bureau, the income gap between people receiving a bachelor's degree and people receiving only a high school diploma has increased from 57 percent in 1975, to 76 percent in 2002. By financially hindering the entrance into college, we will be adding to this income gap, which only further hurts our already recessed economy.

The Consolidation Student Loan Flexibility Act is an important first step to making college more affordable for all American families. I hope and urge my colleagues to join me in making the dream of a college education a reality for all.

Mr. President, I rise today with my Finance Committee colleague, Senator Lincoln, to introduce the The Mortgage Insurance Fairness Act. This legislation will extend the mortgage interest tax deduction to mortgage insurance payment premiums, both government and private. It will make mortgage insurance payments tax-deductible and will boost homeownership in Oregon and across the Nation, for those lower-income, minority and veteran borrowers that typically need mortgage insurance to purchase a home.

It is widely recognized that homeownership helps create stable and safe communities. Thus, the Federal Government has long sought to increase homeownership. The Bush Administration has announced a target of 5.5 million new homeowners by the year 2010. To achieve that goal, groups that have typically had difficulty purchasing homes--young people, low-income families, members of minority groups--must be able to participate in the housing market.

Government and private mortgage insurance programs help first-time, low-income and veteran borrowers afford to purchase a home. The Veterans Affairs, VA, Federal Housing Authority, FHA, Regional Housing Authority, RHA, and Private Mortgage Insurance,

PMI, programs allow buyers to make a down payment of 3 percent or less of the appraised value. Mortgage insurance is a critical factor in allowing middle-income families and minorities to become homeowners. In Oregon, more than 137,000 families held mortgages with either FHA or private mortgage insurance at the end of 2002 and insured mortgages covered 25 percent of home purchase loans originating in 2001. Sixty- two percent of the insured home purchases in Oregon in 2001 were low- income borrowers. The Mortgage Insurance Fairness Act will bring tax relief to those who need it the most.

In 2001, nationwide, mortgage insurance covered 57 percent percent of mortgage purchase loans made to African American and Hispanic borrowers and 54 percent percent of the loans to borrowers with incomes below the median income. The people who use mortgage insurance are regular working families who live in every community throughout the country. Currently, twelve million American families use mortgage insurance.

Presidently, these borrowers cannot deduct the cost of their mortgage insurance payments for Federal tax purposes. If mortgage insurance payments were made deductible, the cost of homeownership would be further reduced for these borrowers, enabling new buyers to get into a home that they might not have been able to afford. It is estimated that the Mortgage Insurance Fairness Act would increase the number of homeowners by 300,000 per year.

Extending the tax deduction for home mortgage interest payments to mortgage insurance payments will significantly contribute to making the American dream of owning a home come true for many more of our citizens. I urge my colleagues to support this important bi-partisan legislation and join us in working towards its enactment at the earliest opportunity this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Early Treatment for HIV Act, ETHA, of 2003. Senator Clinton joins me in introducing this bill, and I want to thank her for her steadfast support for people living with HIV. HIV knows no party affiliation, and I am pleased to say that ETHA cosponsors sit on both sides of the aisle.

Simply stated, ETHA gives States the opportunity to extend Medicaid coverage to low-income, HIV-positive individuals before they develop full-blown AIDS. Today, the unfortunate reality is that AIDS must disable most patients before they can qualify for Medicaid coverage. We can do better, and we should do everything possible to ensure that all people living with HIV can get early, effective medical care.

Current HIV treatments are very successful in delaying the progression from HIV infection to AIDS, and help improve the health and quality of life for millions of people living with the disease. That is why it was so devastating for people in Oregon when, just a few weeks ago, the state announced that its Medically Needy program ran out of money, and that many patients, including those living with HIV, would have to go elsewhere for their treatments. The fact of the matter is that safety net programs all over the country are running out of money, and are generally unable to cover all of the people who need paying for their medical care. As other programs are failing, ETHA gives States another way to reach out to low-income, HIV-positive individuals.

Importantly, ETHA also offers states an enhanced Federal Medicaid match, which means more money for States that invest in treatments for HIV. This provision models the successful Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment and Prevention Act of 2000, which allows states to provide early Medicaid intervention to women with breast and cervical cancer. Even in these difficult times, forty-five states are now offering early Medicaid coverage to women with breast and cervical cancer. We can build upon this success by passing ETHA and extending similar early intervention treatments to people with HIV.

HIV/AIDS touches the lives of millions of people living in every State in

the Union. Some get the proper medications, and too many do not. This is literally a life and death issue, and ETHA can help many more Americans enjoy long, healthy lives.

I want to thank Senators Collins, Bingaman, Cantwell, Corzine, Feinstein, Landrieu, Murray, and Wyden for joining us as cosponsors of ETHA. I also wish to thank all of the organizations around the country that have expressed support for this bill. I have received a stack of support letters from those organizations, and I ask unanimous consent that those letters be printed in the Congressional Record. In particular, I want to thank the ADAP Working Group and the Treatment Access Expansion Project, led by Robert Greenwald, for helping bring so much attention to ETHA. I hope all of my colleagues will join us in supporting this critical, life-saving legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague from Rhode Island, Mr. Chafee, and a bipartisan group of co- sponsors to introduce the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act of 2003.

This legislation will give states the option to provide Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, coverage to legal immigrant children and pregnant women during their first five years in this country.

Medicaid and CHIP are vital components of our nation's health care safety net. They provide coverage to over 40 million non-elderly, low- income Americans, most of them children. These programs have helped dramatically reduce infant mortality, and they have provided health care financing for millions of poor children whose families cannot afford the high cost of private health insurance.

However, for many low-income families that are eligible for Medicaid and CHIP, these safety net programs are little more than a mirage in a desert--an illusion to those who need them most. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, commonly known as the welfare reform law, arbitrarily barred states from using federal funds to provide health coverage to low-income legal immigrants during their first five years in the United States. While the goal of welfare reform was to encourage self-sufficiency in adults, the legislation unintentionally punished children.

Prior to 1996, Medicaid coverage was available to qualified children, parents,

seniors, and people with disabilities in both citizen and legal immigrant families alike. After passage of the 1996 welfare reform law, many low-income and working legal immigrant families were left without a viable option for health insurance coverage.

In fact, while the percentage of our nation's children with health insurance has risen in recent years, the percentage of children in immigrant families with health insurance has fallen. According to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, in 2000, half of low- income children in such families were uninsured.

Florida is home to over half a million uninsured children, many of whom are legal immigrants. Take the Sardinas family of Miami.

The Sardinas family immigrated to the United States from Cuba in 2001. Mr. Sardinas works in a factory assembling airplanes while Mrs. Sardinas maintains a low-wage job. The family's four children--Swani, 17; Sinai, 13; Samuel, 8; and Sentia, 5--have been on a State waiting list for health insurance for almost two years. Sentia has allergies and Swani suffers from asthma. Mrs. Sardinas worries about not having access to regular check-ups for her children, but she has no choice. She does not know what the family will do if Sentia has a severe allergic reaction or Swani is hospitalized after an asthma attack.

The Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act eliminates the arbitrary designation of August 22, 1996, as a cutoff date for allowing children to get health care. More than 155,000 children like Swani, Sinai, Samuel, and Sentia will have access to health coverage each year, allowing them to receive preventive services, have their chronic conditions properly diagnosed and treated, and receive timely care for acute conditions.

States have asked for this option. In its 2003 Winter Policy Report, the National Governors Association endorsed this common-sense policy proposal. The National Council of State Legislators has also endorsed this bill.

Twenty-two States are already providing health coverage for legal immigrants through State-funded replacement programs. However, severe budget shortfalls may prevent such states from being able to continue these important programs in the future. Our bill provides immediate fiscal relief for these States by allowing them to draw down federal matching funds. It also gives states that are not currently providing health coverage to legal immigrant children and pregnant women the flexibility to do so.

Legal immigrants pay taxes, serve in the military, and have the same social obligations as United States citizens. Legal immigrant children are, as much as citizen children, the next generation of Americans. It is important that all children, both citizen children and legal immigrant children alike, start off on the right foot towards full civil participation.

Our bill is supported by Senators McCain, Daschle, Jeffords, Bingaman, Lincoln, Collins, Kennedy, Feinstein, Corzine, Levin, Sarbanes, Dodd, Landrieu, Boxer, Kerry, and Bill Nelson.

Representatives Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida and Henry Waxman of California have also introduced bipartisan companion legislation in the House.

We call upon Congress and the President to act this year and pass this important bill.