Consolidation Student Loan Flexibility Act of 2003

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, I am pleased to join Senator Jeffords today in introducing the High-Performance Green Buildings Act. This legislation will reenergize the Federal Government's commitment to building design and construction into the 21st Century.

Buildings have an enormous impact on environmental quality, on energy

use, and on natural resource consumption. The statistics are staggering. Buildings devour 37 percent of the energy used in this country, including 68 percent of electricity. They are responsible for 35 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, the primary greenhouse gas associated with climate change. And they account for 49 percent of sulfur dioxide and 25 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions and generate 40 percent of the Nation's non-industrial waste stream. Moreover, building construction and demolition produce 136 million tons of waste in this country, and use 12 percent of potable water in the U.S. Mr. President, for too long these prodigious effects have gone unrecognized.

The impacts are even more far reaching than that. Since Americans spend an average of 90 percent of their time indoors, buildings have a considerable influence on public health. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, indoor air pollution concentrations may be two to five times, and in some cases 100 times, higher than in outdoor air. EPA scientists estimates that about 20,000 deaths occur related to indoor levels of radon, and that 3000 lung cancer deaths occur among nonsmoking adults due to second-hand smoke each year.

Experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, estimate that an additional 35,000 coronary disease deaths occur each year in this country among nonsmoking adults due to second-hand smoke. These losses do not include exposure to toxic pollutants emitted from building materials, such as adhesives, paints, carpets, and pressed- wood products, which many researchers believe to be significant. We must confront these environmental and public health challenges and to do so we need a vision for the future. Our legislation offers that vision.

High-performance green buildings are designed and constructed in ways that significantly reduce or eliminate negative effects on the environment, on energy use, and on resource consumption. They are also designed to reduce or eliminate harmful pressures on the health and productivity of building occupants. According to the U.S. Green Building Council, a national nonprofit organization, green design and construction practices are directed at five broad areas: 1. Sustainable site planning; 2. Safeguarding water and water efficiency; 3. Energy efficiency and renewable energy; 4. Conservation of materials and resources; and 5. Indoor environmental quality.

Green buildings have many benefits, and while the initial investment may be higher (although not necessarily) than for a traditional buildings, they significantly lower long-term costs for things such as heating and cooling. Since new government buildings are intended to be used for a long period of time--at least 50 years--it is easier to justify any initial higher investment costs. By improving working conditions and increasing daylighting, case studies have shown that green buildings improve occupant productivity and reduce employee absenteeism. This legislation would provide for research to capture and measure those impacts and incorporate the lessons learned into future construction.

The High-Performance Green Building Act focuses Federal Government efforts to promote the environmental, energy, health, and economic benefits that can be realized from green buildings. This legislation incorporates the findings of two reports that make recommendations for improving the Federal Government's role in relation to high-performance green buildings. The first report, ``Building Momentum: National Trends and Prospects for High-Performance Green Buildings,'' was prepared by the U.S. Green Building Council and the second report, ``The Federal Commitment to Green Building: Experiences and Expectations,'' was released by the President's Office of the Federal Environmental Executive.

Our legislation changes the way the Federal Government manages its thousands of buildings. The bill establishes an Office of High- Performance Green Buildings within the General Services Administration, GSA, which is the logical place for this office since this agency is the Federal Government's primary landlord. GSA manages over 8,700 buildings owned or leased by the United States. The new office will promote public outreach, coordinate and focus research and development, and improve life-cycle analysis and budgeting for building construction. This title also creates an Interagency Steering Committee to improve coordination across Federal agencies, and with state and local governments.

This bill would expand the role of EPA in supporting healthier buildings at the nation's schools. Schools can serve as the vanguard for the effort to protect our children's health and the environment, so this title authorizes the Agency to administer grants to state and local education agencies to support implementation of EPA's effective Tools for Schools Program. It also authorizes the Agency to develop Federal guidelines for school location siting that take into account the special vulnerabilities of children to the contamination of land and water.

This legislation would incorporate building life-cycle costing as a tool to achieve more efficient and economical long-term investments in government buildings, by requiring the Comptroller General to review the annual Federal budget process and submit a plan to reach these goals to Congress.

In closing, investing in green buildings is good public policy for a variety of reasons. Our bill will allow the Federal Government to take a leadership role in promoting green buildings. We have a commitment to our children and grandchildren to protect and conserve the planet's resources and to safeguard public health. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, with Senators Durbin, Levin and Reid, with Congressman DeFazio in the House, to bring fairness to the oil markets and do something to reverse the recent spikes in gas prices.

Our legislation will force the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to initiate World Trade Organization (WTO) proceedings against OPEC nations. Under WTO rules, countries are not permitted to maintain export quotas. But OPEC nations actually collude to set such quotas.

OPEC is an illegal cartel, plain and simple. We've allowed this cartel to operate for too long--it's time to put an end to it.

The American people are feeling the effects of the OPEC cartel every day at the gas pumps. Many families are already struggling with lost jobs, stagnant wages and the rising costs of health care. High gas prices have only made matters worse.

When President Bush took office, a gallon of gas cost $1.47. Today, a gallon of gas averages $1.90. For someone who buys one tank of gas a week, that increase costs $350 per year.

All this adds up. Oil imports now account for $125 billion annually, or one-quarter of America's trade deficit. That money could be invested here at home to create American jobs, but instead we are being gouged by oil exporters.

While Americans suffer, President Bush has done nothing to bring down gas prices. He says he will talk to his Saudi friends in the oil business. But talk is cheap. The American people want action. This bill today is an opportunity for action.

I have also released a report today, explaining the basis for a WTO complaint against OPEC.

In some ways, the allegations are simple and straightforward: OPEC manipulates world oil markets by imposing export quotas on oil. These quotas keep the price of oil artificially high.

Without OPEC, market analysts have estimated that the free market price of a barrel of oil would be around 10 to 15 dollars lower than today's price. That would make a difference in gas prices of 20 to 45 cents per gallon, saving American families hundreds of dollars per year. There is no reason to continue to tolerate OPEC's anti- competitive behavior.

Collusion to put quotas on oil exports--or any exports--is illegal under WTO rules. For example, the WTO has found that a treaty between the United States and Japan limiting semiconductor exports violated WTO rules.

The Bush administration has been lax in dealing with OPEC. In my view, President Bush's ties to the Saudis and to big oil companies prevent him from sticking up for the American consumer.

Indeed, while the squeeze was being put on American consumers, oil companies and refineries reported record profits in the first quarter of this year for operations in the United States. Earnings for U.S. domestic refining and marketing operations increased by 294 percent for Chevron-Texaco, 165 percent for BP, 125 percent for ExxonMobil, and 44 percent for Conoco-Phillips over last year's levels.

So while OPEC and their oil company allies have seen a boom, American families have seen a bust. In fact, for those middle-income Americans who will see any benefit at all from the recent tax cuts, rising gas prices alone will eat up half of those cuts.

Since the Bush administration has failed to live up to its responsibilities, it's time for the Congress to stand up for the American people and force it to take action against OPEC.

I urge support of this common-sense legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

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 am pleased to be joined today by my colleagues, Senators Kohl and Lugar to introduce this important piece of legislation. Legislation that will ensure the United States government does not turn its back on political asylees or refugees who are the most vulnerable citizens seeking safety in this great country of ours.

As many of you may know, Congress as part of Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) modified the SSI program to include a seven-year time limit on the receipt of benefits for refugees and asylees. This policy was intended to balance the desire to have people who emigrate to the United States to become citizens, with an understanding that the naturalization process also takes time to complete. To allow adequate time for asylees and refugees to become naturalized citizens Congress provided the seven-year time limit before the expiration of SSI benefits.

Unfortunately, the naturalization process often takes longer than seven years because applicants are required to live in the United States for a minimum of five years prior to applying for citizenship and the INS often takes three or more years to process the application. Because of this time delay, many individuals are trapped in the system faced with the loss of their SSI benefits.

If Congress does not act to change the law, reports show that over the next four years nearly 30,000 elderly and disabled refugees and asylees will lose their Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits because their seven-year time limit will expire before they become citizens. Many of these individuals are elderly who fled persecution or torture in their home countries. They include Jews fleeing religious persecution in the former Soviet Union, Iraqi Kurds fleeing the Saddam Hussein regime, Cubans and Hmong people from the highlands of Laos who served on the side of the United States military during the Vietnam War. They are elderly and unable to work, and have become reliant on their SSI benefits as their primary income. To penalize them because of delays encountered through the bureaucratic process seems unjust and inappropriate.

I would like to share the story of Yelena, a victim of religious persecution in the former Soviet Union who sought refuge in the United States seven years ago and is currently living in Portland, Oregon. At the age of 82, Yelena relies on SSI and other public benefits programs to buy food and pay her monthly bills. Yelena is now stuck in a multi- year backlog waiting for her green card, the first step toward citizenship. She was raised in a small village in the Soviet Union where she had little access to formal education and never learned English. She has struggled to grasp the language since arriving in the US and as a result, her seven-year anniversary arrived before she was able to naturalize. Yelena is now without her SSI benefits and still fighting to become a citizen. We must help Yelena and others like her.

The Administration in its fiscal year 2005 budget acknowledged the necessity to correct this problem by dedicating funding in its budget to extend refugee eligibility for SSI beyond the seven-year limit. While I am pleased that they have taken the first step in correcting this problem, I am concerned the policy does not go far enough. Data shows that most people will need at least an additional two years to navigate and complete the naturalization process. Therefore, my colleagues and I have introduced this bill, which will provide a two- year extension. We believe this will provide the time necessary to complete the process.

I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill, and I look forward to working with Chairman Grassley and other members of the Finance Committee to secure these changes.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Mr. Wyden, to introduce the ``Friends of the Children National Demonstration Act'' to authorize funding for Friends of the Children.

Friends of the Children is a promising early intervention program established in Portland, Oregon, in 1993. The program identifies the most disadvantaged children at the kindergarten or first grade level and matches those children with ``professional mentors'' (also known as ``Friends''). Once matched, professional mentors work with children for a period of up to 12 years.

Started over a decade ago with just three Friends serving as mentors to 24 children, Friends of the Children has grown to serve over 600 children in 11 communities throughout the United States. The mission of Friends of the Children is to help our Nation's most disadvantaged children to develop the relationships, goals, and skills necessary to break the cycles of poverty, abuse, and violence in order to become a contributing member of society.

Extensive research has shown that the single most important factor that fosters resiliency in children is having a long-term relationship with a caring, supportive adult. Friends of the Children is a unique program that provides just such a relationship for disadvantaged children.

In 1993, Friends of the Children welcomed T.R., a first grader, into the Portland program. At home, T.R. was routinely exposed to drug use, gang activity, and violence. Through the program, T.R. was matched with his mentor, Jerrell, to help maintain a support system in T.R.'s life. Jerrell tutors, counsels, advises and is a companion to T.R. whether it is discussing T.R.'s plans for the future or dealing with his family relationships. Without the help of someone like Jerrell, T.R. believes that he would probably have dropped out of school or joined a gang. Now, T.R. is giving back to his community by working for Self Enhancement, Inc., an organization that teaches leadership skills to middle school students. T.R. has overcome great adversity to mature into a responsible young adult. T.R. aspires to pursue a career in business and would like to run his own company one day.

Last week, T.R. became one of the first students to graduate from the Friends of the Children program. Along with his classmates, T.R. was identified by the program over a decade ago. He was part of a group of children identified as the most in danger of abuse, neglect, juvenile delinquency, gang and drug involvement, school failure, and teenage pregnancy. Today, these children have grown into young adults. They have positive values and show great potential to become healthy, productive members of their communities.

``The Friends of the Children National Demonstration Act'' will establish a national demonstration project to promote learning about successful early and sustained childhood intervention programs. This bill would authorize funding for Friends of the Children activities and local program operations at existing sites including ongoing evaluation, and dissemination of findings for the benefit of policy makers and other youth programs.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this bill and make a commitment to improving the lives of disadvantaged children and youth.

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.