Blanche Lincoln

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Pete Domenici today in introducing the ``Medicare Access Equity Act of 2003.'' This important legislation will significantly help rural physicians in Arkansas and across the country keep their doors open to Medicare beneficiaries. By correcting a disparity in the Medicare physician fee schedule, Medicare will pay rural physicians more fairly for their individual effort in treating Medicare patients. In my home State of Arkansas, 60 percent of seniors live in rural areas. Consequently, Medicare patients make up a large percentage of a rural physician's practice. It is simply unfair that current Federal policy doesn't value physician work in all areas, urban and rural, in the same way. Because the component of the fee schedule that relates to physician work is multiplied by a geographic indicator adjusting for variants in cost, Medicare payment policy devalues the amount of time and skill that rural physicians spend in providing medical services. I believe that work is work, regardless of where it is performed. It takes the same amount of time and skill for a physician in Pea Ridge, AR to treat a wound or diagnose a patient as a physician in Los Angeles, CA. It is time to correct this inequity. The Medicare Access Equity Act does this by revising the geographic practice cost indices GPCI, to establish a minimum index of 1 for the ``physician work'' component. The bill applies the current formula to determine physician work GPCIs, but if a GPCI is calculated to be less than 1, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will increase it to 1. This is critical to my home State of Arkansas, where the physician work GPCI is currently 0.953, the sixth lowest GPCI in the country. Increasing Arkansas' work GPCI to 1 will automatically pump more money to rural physicians in Arkansas, where many may begin to close their doors due to the rising costs of providing health care. It is my hope that Senator Domenici and I, with help from the Senate Rural Health Caucus, can pass this important legislation as part of any Medicare reform we consider this year. Fair reimbursement is key to ensuring that rural Americans retain the quality health care they receive from their doctors.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce my package of alternative energy and energy efficiency bills. These bills all work in concert toward a single goal--promoting the use of cleaner, renewable energy for this nation. For several decades, the U.S. has relied on foreign sources of energy supply. Worldwide demand for energy has continued to increase, while our domestic resource base has decreased, leaving the country vulnerable in the event of foreign supply disruptions. This year, the U.S. will import 60 percent of its crude oil needs this year. The events of September 11th have focused attention on the need to develop a new energy policy that focuses on creating new domestic sources. Our Nation needs to explore and develop all possible domestic options as resources for our energy supply. To reduce our dependence on foreign imports, it is imperative that policy makers create incentives to promote technologies that can produce quality alternative products. Our national security demands that the government undertake programs which assure the implementation of real alternative fuel technologies. It is in the best security interests of our Nation to reduce our reliance on foreign energy suppliers. We can no longer afford to be subject to the whims and manipulations of foreign cartels like OPEC. Added to these threats posed by OPEC and the instability of the Middle East are the even more sinister possibilities that we face in other parts of the world. Developments in many regions of the world where much of today's energy supplies are obtained--West Africa, the Caspian Sea, Indonesia, Venezuela, and so forth--clearly serve notice that our Nation cannot continue to depend on these areas for our future energy needs. These events make it more pressing than ever that we proceed forward with the development of our own domestic alternative energy resources. In the last Congress, both the House and the Senate passed comprehensive energy bills that would have brought us closer to these goals. In the Senate bill, we were able to strike a delicate balance between using our resources for energy and preserving our environment for future generations. I was pleased with the Senate version of the Energy Policy Act of 2002, and was disappointed that conferees were unable to iron out differences with the House of Representatives before adjournment. We must make energy independence a national priority because it is now essential to our homeland security. Looking ahead, I will continue my work to build a cohesive national energy policy that ultimately reduces our dependence on foreign oil. To accomplish this goal, we must provide access to more resources, transmit these resources to the consumer, and encourage industrial and individual consumers to use more renewable energy sources. These important steps will lead to greater reliability and lower energy costs for consumers. We should all work again in the 108th Congress to adopt a comprehensive energy plan that sets America on the road to energy independence and assures consumers of a reliable and affordable energy supply. The legislation I am introducing today will encourage production of biodiesel and its use in this country; to promote the manufacture of energy efficient home appliances; to encourage the use of fuels produced from animal and agricultural wastes; to encourage the use of our waste sources such as landfill gas and municipal solid waste to produce energy; and to spur the investment in delivering fuels to rural America. These incentives for production and use of clean and renewable fuels can help bridge the investment cost gap between production of petroleum and renewable energy. Each of these bills were either included or debated in the Senate during last year's Senate consideration and passage of the energy bill. I look forward to their inclusion in the debate and inclusion in any energy bill to be passed by the Senate during the 108th Congress. The first bill I am introducing today is the Biodiesel Promotion Act of 2003. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by Senators Grassley, Hagel, Dayton, Harkin, Durbin, Coleman, and Johnson. This legislation will provide tax incentives for the production of biodiesel from agricultural oils, recycled oils, and animal fats and will ensure that biodiesel becomes a central component of this nation's automobile fuel market. This legislation is identical to language authored by myself and Senator Grassley included in the last Congress's Energy Bill. It is intended to be a starting point for our debate and discussion as we draft an energy bill for consideration in this Congress. This legislation will provide a partial exemption from the diesel excise tax for diesel blended with biodiesel. Specifically, the bill provides a one-cent reduction for every percent of biodiesel from virgin agricultural oils blended with diesel up to 20 percent. The legislation will also provide a half- cent reduction for every percent of biodiesel from recycled agricultural oils or animal fats. Also importantly, in the year that we are to reauthorize the Transportation Enhancement Act of 1996, the bill provides for reimbursing the Highway Trust Fund from the USDA Commodity Credit Corporation, CCC. This procedure will protect the Trust Fund from lost revenues due to the biodiesel incentive while providing a much-needed boost to our nation's biodiesel industry. The cost to the CCC would be offset at least initially by the savings under the marketing loan program. Biodiesel, which can be made from just about any agricultural oil including oils from soybeans, cottonseed, or rice, is completely renewable, contains no petroleum, and can be easily blended with petroleum diesel. A biodiesel-diesel blend typically contains up to 20 percent renewable content. It can be added directly into the gas tank of a compression-ignition, diesel engine vehicle with no major modifications. Biodiesel is completely biodegradable and non-toxic, contains no sulfur, and it is the first and only alternative fuel to meet EPA's Tier I and II health effects testing standards. Biodiesel also stands ready to help us reach the EPA's new rule to reduce the sulfur content of highway diesel fuel by over 95 percent. Even after years of research and market development, biodiesel is not yet cost-competitive with petroleum diesel. In order to be so, market support and tax incentives are needed. I believe the provisions provided in this bill will help in leveling the field for biodiesel blends and help jumpstart this new industry. The time is right for this investment. It is right for our rural economy, for our environment, and for our national energy security and I encourage my colleagues to join us in supporting the Biodiesel Promotion Act of 2003. The second component of my package is the EPACT Alternative Fuel Flexibility Act of 2003. I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Bond and Talent in introducing this legislation. The purpose of this legislation is to place biodiesel fuel on equal footing with every other alternative motor fuel used in this nation. The Energy Policy Act of 1992, EPACT, set a national objective to shift the focus of national energy demand away from imported oil toward renewable and domestically produced energy sources. When EPACT was passed in 1992, it recognized ethanol, natural gas, propane, electricity, and methanol as alternative fuels. The original list of alternative fuels did not include biodiesel because the technology had not been fully developed. EPACT set a goal to replace 10 percent of petroleum-based fuels by 2000 and 30 percent by the year 2010. However, a GAO report issued in July of 2001 noted that ``limited progress has been made in increasing the numbers of alternative fuel vehicles, AFV, in the national vehicle fleet and the use of alternative fuels'' as compared to conventional vehicles and fuels. We did not meet the original EPACT goals of replacing 10 percent of petroleum-based fuels by 2000. Today we are not on track to meet the goal of 30 percent by the year 2010. In fact, we haven't even come close, and that's partly a result of not allowing all alternative fuels to be used to meet the EPACT alternative fuel mandates. This legislation will significantly increase the use of alternative fuels by allowing EPACT covered fleets to meet up to 100 percent of the EPACT purchase requirements through the use of biodiesel. Currently, covered fleets can only meet up to 50 percent of purchase requirements with biodiesel. By offering an additional option for the use of alternative fuels, we will widen the possibilities for these fuels to be made more widely available. Fleets will continue to have the option to choose the complying vehicles and fuels that best meet their needs. This legislation is not expected to affect fleets that are currently using ethanol or natural gas. But this legislation does provide a further option for alternative fuel vehicles. Furthermore, it does not directly displace natural gas or ethanol sales, since biodiesel is used in medium- and heavy-duty trucks rather than light-duty vehicles. By allowing fleets to meet 100 percent of their AFV requirement by using biodiesel, we'll take a positive step toward moving this country away from dependence on petroleum-based motor fuels and toward alternative motor fuels. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. The third bill I introduce today as part of my energy independence package is the Animal and Agricultural Waste Renewable Energy Production Act of 2003. I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Hagel, Bond, and Kerry in introducing this legislation. This legislation would provide a credit under Section 29 of the tax code for the production of fuels from animal and agricultural wastes. Thanks to new technological developments, we can now produce significant quantities of alternative fuels from agricultural and animal wastes in an environmentally friendly manner. Production incentives are needed to assure implementation and commercialization of this new generation of technology. Section 29 was originally enacted to provide an incentive to produce alternative and hard-to-reach fuels that could compete with fossil fuels and hopefully reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil. As originally enacted, a number of ``non-conventional fuels'' were eligible for the credit, including the following: oil from shale; oil from tar sands; natural gas from geo-pressured brine, coal seams, Devonian shale, or tight sands; liquid, gaseous or solid synthetic fuel from coal, including coke and coke by-products; gas from biomass, including wood; steam from solid agricultural by-products; and processed solid wood fuels. Other biomass by-products, such as agricultural and animal oils and solids, also should qualify the same as liquid or gaseous synthetic fuels derived from coal. New technological advances have been developed which will convert these biomass wastes efficiently to alternative fuels. The most readily available of these wastes are agricultural and animal wastes, municipal wastes, plastics, used tires, and forest product wastes. This production incentive opportunity would provide significant new annual quantities of alternative fuel to replace foreign imported oil and should be considered a government investment in the nation's future. If these incentives are implemented, large marketable quantities of quality alternative fuel products can be produced as a replacement for foreign imported oil. These processes can achieve the desired results in an environmentally positive way that essentially converts all wastes to products and provides an answer for waste disposal problems. To achieve these results, financial incentives need be provided from the government. Section 29 should be extended to include alternative fuels produced from all biomass wastes and I encourage all of my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation. The fourth bill I am introducing today is the Capturing Landfill Gas for Energy Act of 2003. This legislation will provide a credit under either Section 29 or Section 45 of the tax code for the production of energy from landfill gas, LFG. It is designed to encourage additional collection and productive use of methane gas generated by garbage decomposing in America's landfills. LFG is a renewable fuel that can be used directly as an energy source for heating, as a clean burning vehicle fuel, as a hydrogen source for fuel cells. Furthermore, it can power generators to produce electricity. Congress recognized the importance of LFG for energy diversity and national security by providing such a credit in 1980 and extending it for nearly two decades. With today's critical energy needs and emphasis on distributed generation, this incentive makes more sense than ever. Most of the 360 LFG projects that currently are operating were made economically feasible by the ``non-conventional-source fuel'' production tax credit under Section 29 of the tax code. But since June 30, 1998, that credit to encourage construction of new LFG projects has been unavailable, and few have been constructed since that date. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 600- 700 more LFG projects could be constructed nationwide if there were sufficient economic incentives in place to foster their development. With such incentives, it is likely that about 55 new projects would be brought on line each year. Just one medium-sized project could provide three megawatts of electrical power capacity-- enough to meet the electricity needs of 3,000 homes each year. In addition to the value of LFG as an important contribution to our overall energy strategy, there are compelling environmental reasons to encourage these projects. Uncontrolled landfill gas can create fire hazards and odors and can impair air quality. The methane in landfill gas is 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Even the large landfills that are required under the Clean Air Act to collect their gas and control non-methane organic compounds often find it more economic to simply flare or otherwise waste the gas rather than use the methane. Some smaller landfills are not required to collect the gas, and may continue to emit it for decades under the Clean Air Act. Thus, LFG projects not only reduce local and regional air pollution while yielding a renewable source of energy, they can also reduce the country's yearly emissions of greenhouse gases by a very substantial amount at a relatively small cost. Unfortunately, the potential energy and environmental benefits of future LFG projects are substantial, but they will be lost without adequate LFG tax provisions to support project development. On average, the total capital cost of constructing an LFG-fueled electricity generating project is about $1 million per megawatt, and the annual operating and maintenance costs average another $150,000 per megawatt. The average capital cost of a new direct use fuel production and delivery project is about $2.5 million, with annual operation and maintenance costs of about $350,000. My bill proposes sufficient, yet sensible, tax incentives to encourage these large investments, and I urge my colleagues to join me and support LFG tax credits. Today I am also pleased to be joined by Senator Akaka in introducing the fifth component of my energy package--the Waste to Energy Utilization Act of 2003. This legislation will provide a credit under Section 45 of the tax code for new waste-to-energy facilities or new generating units at existing facilities. Such a tax credit encourages clean renewable electricity and promotes energy diversity, while helping cities meet the challenge of trash disposal. Nearly 2000 communities nationwide rely on waste-to-energy facilities to safely dispose of trash and generate clean, renewable energy that meets the power need of more than two and a half million homes. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has repeatedly urged Congress to include provisions that promote waste-to-energy in tax legislation and they are joined by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers. Arkansas stands with other environmentally conscious States in understanding that waste-to-energy technology saves valuable land and significantly reduces the amount of greenhouse gases that would have been released into our atmosphere without its operation. The volume of waste is reduced by greater than 90 percent in a waste-to-energy facility, and EPA has confirmed that more than 33 million tons of greenhouse gases are avoided annually by the combustion of municipal solid waste. Municipal solid waste is a sustainable source of clean, renewable energy. Local governments spent about $1 billion over the past five years on air pollution control equipment to comply with EPA's Maximum Achievable Control Technology, MACT, standards required under the Clean Air Act. These retrofits have made waste-to-energy one of the cleanest power generators in the country. In June, EPA announced that these facilities have shown ``outstanding performance'' resulting in ``dramatic decreases'' in emissions, resulting in reductions of mercury emissions of more than 95 percent from a decade ago. Communities with waste-to- energy facilities recycle 33 percent of their trash, on average, and historically have more successful recycling programs than cities without waste-to-energy plants. We must sustain a level marketplace to achieve energy diversity and economic growth. I believe this Senate should pass tax legislation that includes production tax credits to spur energy generation, and I encourage all of my colleagues to join us and support this legislation. The sixth bill I introduce today is the Resource Efficient Appliance Incentives Act of 2003. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by Senators Allard, Grassley, Harkin, Stabenow, Hagel, Levin, and DeWine. This legislation will provide a tax credit for the production of super energy-efficient clothes washers and refrigerators if those appliances exceed new Federal energy efficiency standards. The tax credit would only be available for five years and would be capped for each manufacturer. In 2001, the Department of Energy issued new energy efficiency standards for clothes washers. This agreement accompanies rules for higher efficiency refrigerators issued by the department two years ago. The new rules are significant because clothes washers, clothes dryers, and refrigerators account for approximately 15 percent of all household energy consumed in the U.S. annually. The tax incentives contained in this legislation are constructed to encourage manufacturers not only to exceed these new efficiency requirements, but to exceed them by up to 35 percent. Tax incentives are essential to accelerate the production and market penetration of leading-edge appliance technologies that create significant environmental benefits. The need for super energy-efficient appliances is greater this year than at any time in the past 20 years. Over the life of the appliances, over 200 trillion BTUs of energy will be saved. This is the equivalent of taking 2.3 million cars off the road or making available for other uses the energy of six coal-fired power plants for a year. In addition, the clothes washers will reduce the amount of water necessary to wash clothes by 870 billion gallons, an amount equal to the needs of every household in a city the size of Phoenix, Arizona for two years. The water savings attributable to these new technology machines is not based on some computer generated model but an actual case study that gathered data in the small community of Bern, KS by the Dept. of Energy's esteemed Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 1998. The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers estimates these super energy-efficient appliances could save the average family $100 per year--or $1,400 per family over the lifetime of the appliance. This legislation will create the incentives necessary to increase the production and sale of these super energy-efficient appliances in the short term while passing along energy savings to the American consumer. As a DOE analysis indicates, high efficiency washers and refrigerators are significantly more expensive to manufacture than those that simply meet existing federal standards. Further, market surveys of consumers indicate that they are generally not willing to pay more for high efficiency appliances, even when it can be demonstrated that high efficiency appliances will generate greater savings in utility costs over time. The tax credit will provide an incentive for manufacturers to develop a greater selection of super efficient models that will appeal to consumers at all price points. In addition, to assure increased sales of these appliances, manufacturers will be encouraged to redirect their marketing and advertising resources toward the high efficiency models. Enactment of this legislation will bring immediate, significant, and lasting environmental benefits to the nation, and I encourage all of my colleagues to join us in supporting in this effort. The final bill I am introducing today is the Gas Distribution Infrastructure Investment Act of 2003. This legislation will amend the Internal Revenue Code to modify the depreciation of natural gas pipelines, equipment, and infrastructure assets from 20 to 10 years. America's demand for energy is expected to grow by 32 percent during the next 20 years. Consumer demand for natural gas will grow at almost twice that rate, due to its economic, environmental, and operational benefits. That level of natural gas use is almost 60 percent greater than the highest recorded level. To satisfy this projected demand, we must substantially expand our existing gas infrastructure. This is especially true with respect to the delivery sector. Higher capacity utilization of existing infrastructure will meet some of this increased demand, but the delivery sector still will require capital investments of at least $123 billion for infrastructure enhancement and additions. Shrinking the lifetime over which an asset is depreciated does not change the amount of expense a company is allowed to claim over the asset's useful life, but simply shortens the expensing period for tax purposes. This shortened tax life generates higher cash flows in terms of reduced tax liability during the asset's early useful lifetime. Conversely, the cash flows are decreased, relative to the longer depreciation life, during the later part of the asset's useful life. The overall impact is zero on a gross basis. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Infrastructure development and expansion is crucial if America's homes are to continue to rely on clean-burning natural gas to heat their homes and fuel their appliances. I ask unanimous consent that each of the seven bills I am introducing today be printed in the Record.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce my package of alternative energy and energy efficiency bills. These bills all work in concert toward a single goal--promoting the use of cleaner, renewable energy for this nation. For several decades, the U.S. has relied on foreign sources of energy supply. Worldwide demand for energy has continued to increase, while our domestic resource base has decreased, leaving the country vulnerable in the event of foreign supply disruptions. This year, the U.S. will import 60 percent of its crude oil needs this year. The events of September 11th have focused attention on the need to develop a new energy policy that focuses on creating new domestic sources. Our Nation needs to explore and develop all possible domestic options as resources for our energy supply. To reduce our dependence on foreign imports, it is imperative that policy makers create incentives to promote technologies that can produce quality alternative products. Our national security demands that the government undertake programs which assure the implementation of real alternative fuel technologies. It is in the best security interests of our Nation to reduce our reliance on foreign energy suppliers. We can no longer afford to be subject to the whims and manipulations of foreign cartels like OPEC. Added to these threats posed by OPEC and the instability of the Middle East are the even more sinister possibilities that we face in other parts of the world. Developments in many regions of the world where much of today's energy supplies are obtained--West Africa, the Caspian Sea, Indonesia, Venezuela, and so forth--clearly serve notice that our Nation cannot continue to depend on these areas for our future energy needs. These events make it more pressing than ever that we proceed forward with the development of our own domestic alternative energy resources. In the last Congress, both the House and the Senate passed comprehensive energy bills that would have brought us closer to these goals. In the Senate bill, we were able to strike a delicate balance between using our resources for energy and preserving our environment for future generations. I was pleased with the Senate version of the Energy Policy Act of 2002, and was disappointed that conferees were unable to iron out differences with the House of Representatives before adjournment. We must make energy independence a national priority because it is now essential to our homeland security. Looking ahead, I will continue my work to build a cohesive national energy policy that ultimately reduces our dependence on foreign oil. To accomplish this goal, we must provide access to more resources, transmit these resources to the consumer, and encourage industrial and individual consumers to use more renewable energy sources. These important steps will lead to greater reliability and lower energy costs for consumers. We should all work again in the 108th Congress to adopt a comprehensive energy plan that sets America on the road to energy independence and assures consumers of a reliable and affordable energy supply. The legislation I am introducing today will encourage production of biodiesel and its use in this country; to promote the manufacture of energy efficient home appliances; to encourage the use of fuels produced from animal and agricultural wastes; to encourage the use of our waste sources such as landfill gas and municipal solid waste to produce energy; and to spur the investment in delivering fuels to rural America. These incentives for production and use of clean and renewable fuels can help bridge the investment cost gap between production of petroleum and renewable energy. Each of these bills were either included or debated in the Senate during last year's Senate consideration and passage of the energy bill. I look forward to their inclusion in the debate and inclusion in any energy bill to be passed by the Senate during the 108th Congress. The first bill I am introducing today is the Biodiesel Promotion Act of 2003. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by Senators Grassley, Hagel, Dayton, Harkin, Durbin, Coleman, and Johnson. This legislation will provide tax incentives for the production of biodiesel from agricultural oils, recycled oils, and animal fats and will ensure that biodiesel becomes a central component of this nation's automobile fuel market. This legislation is identical to language authored by myself and Senator Grassley included in the last Congress's Energy Bill. It is intended to be a starting point for our debate and discussion as we draft an energy bill for consideration in this Congress. This legislation will provide a partial exemption from the diesel excise tax for diesel blended with biodiesel. Specifically, the bill provides a one-cent reduction for every percent of biodiesel from virgin agricultural oils blended with diesel up to 20 percent. The legislation will also provide a half- cent reduction for every percent of biodiesel from recycled agricultural oils or animal fats. Also importantly, in the year that we are to reauthorize the Transportation Enhancement Act of 1996, the bill provides for reimbursing the Highway Trust Fund from the USDA Commodity Credit Corporation, CCC. This procedure will protect the Trust Fund from lost revenues due to the biodiesel incentive while providing a much-needed boost to our nation's biodiesel industry. The cost to the CCC would be offset at least initially by the savings under the marketing loan program. Biodiesel, which can be made from just about any agricultural oil including oils from soybeans, cottonseed, or rice, is completely renewable, contains no petroleum, and can be easily blended with petroleum diesel. A biodiesel-diesel blend typically contains up to 20 percent renewable content. It can be added directly into the gas tank of a compression-ignition, diesel engine vehicle with no major modifications. Biodiesel is completely biodegradable and non-toxic, contains no sulfur, and it is the first and only alternative fuel to meet EPA's Tier I and II health effects testing standards. Biodiesel also stands ready to help us reach the EPA's new rule to reduce the sulfur content of highway diesel fuel by over 95 percent. Even after years of research and market development, biodiesel is not yet cost-competitive with petroleum diesel. In order to be so, market support and tax incentives are needed. I believe the provisions provided in this bill will help in leveling the field for biodiesel blends and help jumpstart this new industry. The time is right for this investment. It is right for our rural economy, for our environment, and for our national energy security and I encourage my colleagues to join us in supporting the Biodiesel Promotion Act of 2003. The second component of my package is the EPACT Alternative Fuel Flexibility Act of 2003. I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Bond and Talent in introducing this legislation. The purpose of this legislation is to place biodiesel fuel on equal footing with every other alternative motor fuel used in this nation. The Energy Policy Act of 1992, EPACT, set a national objective to shift the focus of national energy demand away from imported oil toward renewable and domestically produced energy sources. When EPACT was passed in 1992, it recognized ethanol, natural gas, propane, electricity, and methanol as alternative fuels. The original list of alternative fuels did not include biodiesel because the technology had not been fully developed. EPACT set a goal to replace 10 percent of petroleum-based fuels by 2000 and 30 percent by the year 2010. However, a GAO report issued in July of 2001 noted that ``limited progress has been made in increasing the numbers of alternative fuel vehicles, AFV, in the national vehicle fleet and the use of alternative fuels'' as compared to conventional vehicles and fuels. We did not meet the original EPACT goals of replacing 10 percent of petroleum-based fuels by 2000. Today we are not on track to meet the goal of 30 percent by the year 2010. In fact, we haven't even come close, and that's partly a result of not allowing all alternative fuels to be used to meet the EPACT alternative fuel mandates. This legislation will significantly increase the use of alternative fuels by allowing EPACT covered fleets to meet up to 100 percent of the EPACT purchase requirements through the use of biodiesel. Currently, covered fleets can only meet up to 50 percent of purchase requirements with biodiesel. By offering an additional option for the use of alternative fuels, we will widen the possibilities for these fuels to be made more widely available. Fleets will continue to have the option to choose the complying vehicles and fuels that best meet their needs. This legislation is not expected to affect fleets that are currently using ethanol or natural gas. But this legislation does provide a further option for alternative fuel vehicles. Furthermore, it does not directly displace natural gas or ethanol sales, since biodiesel is used in medium- and heavy-duty trucks rather than light-duty vehicles. By allowing fleets to meet 100 percent of their AFV requirement by using biodiesel, we'll take a positive step toward moving this country away from dependence on petroleum-based motor fuels and toward alternative motor fuels. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. The third bill I introduce today as part of my energy independence package is the Animal and Agricultural Waste Renewable Energy Production Act of 2003. I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Hagel, Bond, and Kerry in introducing this legislation. This legislation would provide a credit under Section 29 of the tax code for the production of fuels from animal and agricultural wastes. Thanks to new technological developments, we can now produce significant quantities of alternative fuels from agricultural and animal wastes in an environmentally friendly manner. Production incentives are needed to assure implementation and commercialization of this new generation of technology. Section 29 was originally enacted to provide an incentive to produce alternative and hard-to-reach fuels that could compete with fossil fuels and hopefully reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil. As originally enacted, a number of ``non-conventional fuels'' were eligible for the credit, including the following: oil from shale; oil from tar sands; natural gas from geo-pressured brine, coal seams, Devonian shale, or tight sands; liquid, gaseous or solid synthetic fuel from coal, including coke and coke by-products; gas from biomass, including wood; steam from solid agricultural by-products; and processed solid wood fuels. Other biomass by-products, such as agricultural and animal oils and solids, also should qualify the same as liquid or gaseous synthetic fuels derived from coal. New technological advances have been developed which will convert these biomass wastes efficiently to alternative fuels. The most readily available of these wastes are agricultural and animal wastes, municipal wastes, plastics, used tires, and forest product wastes. This production incentive opportunity would provide significant new annual quantities of alternative fuel to replace foreign imported oil and should be considered a government investment in the nation's future. If these incentives are implemented, large marketable quantities of quality alternative fuel products can be produced as a replacement for foreign imported oil. These processes can achieve the desired results in an environmentally positive way that essentially converts all wastes to products and provides an answer for waste disposal problems. To achieve these results, financial incentives need be provided from the government. Section 29 should be extended to include alternative fuels produced from all biomass wastes and I encourage all of my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation. The fourth bill I am introducing today is the Capturing Landfill Gas for Energy Act of 2003. This legislation will provide a credit under either Section 29 or Section 45 of the tax code for the production of energy from landfill gas, LFG. It is designed to encourage additional collection and productive use of methane gas generated by garbage decomposing in America's landfills. LFG is a renewable fuel that can be used directly as an energy source for heating, as a clean burning vehicle fuel, as a hydrogen source for fuel cells. Furthermore, it can power generators to produce electricity. Congress recognized the importance of LFG for energy diversity and national security by providing such a credit in 1980 and extending it for nearly two decades. With today's critical energy needs and emphasis on distributed generation, this incentive makes more sense than ever. Most of the 360 LFG projects that currently are operating were made economically feasible by the ``non-conventional-source fuel'' production tax credit under Section 29 of the tax code. But since June 30, 1998, that credit to encourage construction of new LFG projects has been unavailable, and few have been constructed since that date. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 600- 700 more LFG projects could be constructed nationwide if there were sufficient economic incentives in place to foster their development. With such incentives, it is likely that about 55 new projects would be brought on line each year. Just one medium-sized project could provide three megawatts of electrical power capacity-- enough to meet the electricity needs of 3,000 homes each year. In addition to the value of LFG as an important contribution to our overall energy strategy, there are compelling environmental reasons to encourage these projects. Uncontrolled landfill gas can create fire hazards and odors and can impair air quality. The methane in landfill gas is 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Even the large landfills that are required under the Clean Air Act to collect their gas and control non-methane organic compounds often find it more economic to simply flare or otherwise waste the gas rather than use the methane. Some smaller landfills are not required to collect the gas, and may continue to emit it for decades under the Clean Air Act. Thus, LFG projects not only reduce local and regional air pollution while yielding a renewable source of energy, they can also reduce the country's yearly emissions of greenhouse gases by a very substantial amount at a relatively small cost. Unfortunately, the potential energy and environmental benefits of future LFG projects are substantial, but they will be lost without adequate LFG tax provisions to support project development. On average, the total capital cost of constructing an LFG-fueled electricity generating project is about $1 million per megawatt, and the annual operating and maintenance costs average another $150,000 per megawatt. The average capital cost of a new direct use fuel production and delivery project is about $2.5 million, with annual operation and maintenance costs of about $350,000. My bill proposes sufficient, yet sensible, tax incentives to encourage these large investments, and I urge my colleagues to join me and support LFG tax credits. Today I am also pleased to be joined by Senator Akaka in introducing the fifth component of my energy package--the Waste to Energy Utilization Act of 2003. This legislation will provide a credit under Section 45 of the tax code for new waste-to-energy facilities or new generating units at existing facilities. Such a tax credit encourages clean renewable electricity and promotes energy diversity, while helping cities meet the challenge of trash disposal. Nearly 2000 communities nationwide rely on waste-to-energy facilities to safely dispose of trash and generate clean, renewable energy that meets the power need of more than two and a half million homes. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has repeatedly urged Congress to include provisions that promote waste-to-energy in tax legislation and they are joined by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers. Arkansas stands with other environmentally conscious States in understanding that waste-to-energy technology saves valuable land and significantly reduces the amount of greenhouse gases that would have been released into our atmosphere without its operation. The volume of waste is reduced by greater than 90 percent in a waste-to-energy facility, and EPA has confirmed that more than 33 million tons of greenhouse gases are avoided annually by the combustion of municipal solid waste. Municipal solid waste is a sustainable source of clean, renewable energy. Local governments spent about $1 billion over the past five years on air pollution control equipment to comply with EPA's Maximum Achievable Control Technology, MACT, standards required under the Clean Air Act. These retrofits have made waste-to-energy one of the cleanest power generators in the country. In June, EPA announced that these facilities have shown ``outstanding performance'' resulting in ``dramatic decreases'' in emissions, resulting in reductions of mercury emissions of more than 95 percent from a decade ago. Communities with waste-to- energy facilities recycle 33 percent of their trash, on average, and historically have more successful recycling programs than cities without waste-to-energy plants. We must sustain a level marketplace to achieve energy diversity and economic growth. I believe this Senate should pass tax legislation that includes production tax credits to spur energy generation, and I encourage all of my colleagues to join us and support this legislation. The sixth bill I introduce today is the Resource Efficient Appliance Incentives Act of 2003. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by Senators Allard, Grassley, Harkin, Stabenow, Hagel, Levin, and DeWine. This legislation will provide a tax credit for the production of super energy-efficient clothes washers and refrigerators if those appliances exceed new Federal energy efficiency standards. The tax credit would only be available for five years and would be capped for each manufacturer. In 2001, the Department of Energy issued new energy efficiency standards for clothes washers. This agreement accompanies rules for higher efficiency refrigerators issued by the department two years ago. The new rules are significant because clothes washers, clothes dryers, and refrigerators account for approximately 15 percent of all household energy consumed in the U.S. annually. The tax incentives contained in this legislation are constructed to encourage manufacturers not only to exceed these new efficiency requirements, but to exceed them by up to 35 percent. Tax incentives are essential to accelerate the production and market penetration of leading-edge appliance technologies that create significant environmental benefits. The need for super energy-efficient appliances is greater this year than at any time in the past 20 years. Over the life of the appliances, over 200 trillion BTUs of energy will be saved. This is the equivalent of taking 2.3 million cars off the road or making available for other uses the energy of six coal-fired power plants for a year. In addition, the clothes washers will reduce the amount of water necessary to wash clothes by 870 billion gallons, an amount equal to the needs of every household in a city the size of Phoenix, Arizona for two years. The water savings attributable to these new technology machines is not based on some computer generated model but an actual case study that gathered data in the small community of Bern, KS by the Dept. of Energy's esteemed Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 1998. The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers estimates these super energy-efficient appliances could save the average family $100 per year--or $1,400 per family over the lifetime of the appliance. This legislation will create the incentives necessary to increase the production and sale of these super energy-efficient appliances in the short term while passing along energy savings to the American consumer. As a DOE analysis indicates, high efficiency washers and refrigerators are significantly more expensive to manufacture than those that simply meet existing federal standards. Further, market surveys of consumers indicate that they are generally not willing to pay more for high efficiency appliances, even when it can be demonstrated that high efficiency appliances will generate greater savings in utility costs over time. The tax credit will provide an incentive for manufacturers to develop a greater selection of super efficient models that will appeal to consumers at all price points. In addition, to assure increased sales of these appliances, manufacturers will be encouraged to redirect their marketing and advertising resources toward the high efficiency models. Enactment of this legislation will bring immediate, significant, and lasting environmental benefits to the nation, and I encourage all of my colleagues to join us in supporting in this effort. The final bill I am introducing today is the Gas Distribution Infrastructure Investment Act of 2003. This legislation will amend the Internal Revenue Code to modify the depreciation of natural gas pipelines, equipment, and infrastructure assets from 20 to 10 years. America's demand for energy is expected to grow by 32 percent during the next 20 years. Consumer demand for natural gas will grow at almost twice that rate, due to its economic, environmental, and operational benefits. That level of natural gas use is almost 60 percent greater than the highest recorded level. To satisfy this projected demand, we must substantially expand our existing gas infrastructure. This is especially true with respect to the delivery sector. Higher capacity utilization of existing infrastructure will meet some of this increased demand, but the delivery sector still will require capital investments of at least $123 billion for infrastructure enhancement and additions. Shrinking the lifetime over which an asset is depreciated does not change the amount of expense a company is allowed to claim over the asset's useful life, but simply shortens the expensing period for tax purposes. This shortened tax life generates higher cash flows in terms of reduced tax liability during the asset's early useful lifetime. Conversely, the cash flows are decreased, relative to the longer depreciation life, during the later part of the asset's useful life. The overall impact is zero on a gross basis. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Infrastructure development and expansion is crucial if America's homes are to continue to rely on clean-burning natural gas to heat their homes and fuel their appliances. I ask unanimous consent that each of the seven bills I am introducing today be printed in the Record.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Craig Thomas today in introducing the ``Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2003.'' This bill would expand Medicare coverage to Licensed Professional Counselors and Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists. One result of this expanded coverage will be to increase seniors' access to mental health services, especially in rural and underserved areas. Licensed Professional Counselors and Marriage and Family Therapist are currently excluded from Medicare coverage even though they meet the same education, training, and examination requirements that clinical social workers do. The only difference is that clinical social workers have been covered under Medicare for over a decade. Why do we need this legislation? The mental health needs of older Americans are not being met. Although the rate of suicide among older Americans is higher than for any other age group, less than three percent of older Americans report seeing mental health professionals for treatment. And going to their primary care physician is simply not enough. Research shows that most primary care providers receive inadequate mental health training, particularly in geriatrics. Lack of access to mental health providers is one of the primary reasons why older Americans don't get the mental health treatment they need. Not surprisingly, this problem is exacerbated in rural and underserved areas. Licensed Professional Counselors are often the only mental health specialists available in rural and underserved communities. This is true in my home state of Arkansas, where 91 percent of Arkansans reside in a mental health professional shortage area. Since there are more Licensed Professional Counselors practicing in my state than any other mental health professional, this legislation will significantly increase the number of Medicare-eligible mental health providers in Arkansas. Licensed Professional Counselors are already serving patients who have private insurance or Medicaid. It is time for Medicare patients to also have access to these professionals. The bill we are introducing today is an important first step in expanding access to good mental health. By including Licensed Professional Counselors and licensed Marriage and Family Therapists among the list of providers who deliver mental health services to Medicare beneficiaries, we will help ensure that all seniors, no matter where they live, have the opportunity to receive mental health treatment.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Craig Thomas today in introducing the ``Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2003.'' This bill would expand Medicare coverage to Licensed Professional Counselors and Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists. One result of this expanded coverage will be to increase seniors' access to mental health services, especially in rural and underserved areas. Licensed Professional Counselors and Marriage and Family Therapist are currently excluded from Medicare coverage even though they meet the same education, training, and examination requirements that clinical social workers do. The only difference is that clinical social workers have been covered under Medicare for over a decade. Why do we need this legislation? The mental health needs of older Americans are not being met. Although the rate of suicide among older Americans is higher than for any other age group, less than three percent of older Americans report seeing mental health professionals for treatment. And going to their primary care physician is simply not enough. Research shows that most primary care providers receive inadequate mental health training, particularly in geriatrics. Lack of access to mental health providers is one of the primary reasons why older Americans don't get the mental health treatment they need. Not surprisingly, this problem is exacerbated in rural and underserved areas. Licensed Professional Counselors are often the only mental health specialists available in rural and underserved communities. This is true in my home state of Arkansas, where 91 percent of Arkansans reside in a mental health professional shortage area. Since there are more Licensed Professional Counselors practicing in my state than any other mental health professional, this legislation will significantly increase the number of Medicare-eligible mental health providers in Arkansas. Licensed Professional Counselors are already serving patients who have private insurance or Medicaid. It is time for Medicare patients to also have access to these professionals. The bill we are introducing today is an important first step in expanding access to good mental health. By including Licensed Professional Counselors and licensed Marriage and Family Therapists among the list of providers who deliver mental health services to Medicare beneficiaries, we will help ensure that all seniors, no matter where they live, have the opportunity to receive mental health treatment.

Mr. LINCOLN

Mr. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I strongly support the remarks of my friend from Virginia. The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program provides States with the resources critically needed for foresighted and cost effective wildlife conservation and restoration efforts. These funds will enable the States to probatively plan and implement their wildlife management strategies for game and non-game species in cooperation with landowners to their mutual benefit. I, too, would ask the managers of the bill to give serious consideration to significantly increase the funding for this critical program as it is considered in conference.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that codifies the exclusion of irrevocable funeral trusts from Supplemental Security Income, SSI, resource calculations. Irrevocable funeral trusts are funds set aside for funeral and burial expenses. These funds cannot be accessed until after the owner's death. Until recently, these trusts were not included in SSI resource calculations, but an administrative misinterpretation in 2001 dropped this important exclusion. This misinterpretation has since been corrected, but it had serious repercussions for many senior citizens while it was in effect. When irrevocable funeral and burial trusts were included in SSI calculations, it penalized those SSI applicants who chose to save for their funeral by inflating their actual individual wealth, even though the trusts could not be accessed. The end result was that many senior citizens' SSI applications were rejected. Because the SSI definition of resources and exclusions is used for Medicaid eligibility determinations, the inclusion also affected Medicaid applicants. I am introducing this bill to codify the exclusion to give senior citizens certainty that future administrations will not be able to misinterpret Congressional intent. In the past, Congress has recognized the value of funeral planning as good social policy. We have encouraged consumers to engage in ``pre- need'' funeral planning in a number of ways. This legislation will encourage people to engage in pre-need planning. It will codify the existing practice of excluding irrevocable funeral trusts from SSI calculations and ensure that future misinterpretations are avoided. We must ensure that people are not penalized for providing for their own funerals. I encourage my colleagues to give this legislation serious consideration.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that codifies the exclusion of irrevocable funeral trusts from Supplemental Security Income, SSI, resource calculations. Irrevocable funeral trusts are funds set aside for funeral and burial expenses. These funds cannot be accessed until after the owner's death. Until recently, these trusts were not included in SSI resource calculations, but an administrative misinterpretation in 2001 dropped this important exclusion. This misinterpretation has since been corrected, but it had serious repercussions for many senior citizens while it was in effect. When irrevocable funeral and burial trusts were included in SSI calculations, it penalized those SSI applicants who chose to save for their funeral by inflating their actual individual wealth, even though the trusts could not be accessed. The end result was that many senior citizens' SSI applications were rejected. Because the SSI definition of resources and exclusions is used for Medicaid eligibility determinations, the inclusion also affected Medicaid applicants. I am introducing this bill to codify the exclusion to give senior citizens certainty that future administrations will not be able to misinterpret Congressional intent. In the past, Congress has recognized the value of funeral planning as good social policy. We have encouraged consumers to engage in ``pre- need'' funeral planning in a number of ways. This legislation will encourage people to engage in pre-need planning. It will codify the existing practice of excluding irrevocable funeral trusts from SSI calculations and ensure that future misinterpretations are avoided. We must ensure that people are not penalized for providing for their own funerals. I encourage my colleagues to give this legislation serious consideration.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution which recognizes the many benefits provided to our Nation's youth by the First Tee Golf program. The First Tee, a youth character building organization, provides young people of all backgrounds an opportunity to develop life-enhancing values such as honor, integrity and sportsmanship through golf. Golf is a unique sport that teaches many of life's important lessons and promotes the best of character through fellowship and good sportsmanship. This resolution recognizes the contribution of the First Tee Golf program which, through the game of golf, provides many youths the lessons they will use to succeed as young men and women. By mitigating the high cost associated with this sport, the First Tee program gives young people an opportunity to reap the numerous benefits the game offers. Participants involved with First Tee learn to interact more effectively with others and to be a positive influence in their communities through curriculum specifically designed to teach interpersonal skills, self-management, goal-setting, and resistance skills. These are difficult life skills to teach, and I believe that the game of golf and the First Tee program is an ideal way to foster these values. I am proud that such an honorable program is finally becoming a reality in my State of Arkansas, and I am pleased to introduce this resolution recognizing the First Tee.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I would need 5 minutes.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might proceed as in morning business for 5 minutes and that it not take anything out of the time of the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I have some very important guests with me today in the Senate. I wanted to share that with my colleagues as well as my colleagues across the land. I rise today to pay tribute to a young man who is with me today and who has served on my staff for the past year, Jason Smedley, of Little Rock, AK. We are joined today by his mother and his girlfriend and many members of my staff. Jason is a lance corporal in the 4th Civil Affairs Group of the U.S. Marine Corps stationed here in Washington, DC. On Friday, Jason and his colleagues will depart for the Middle East where he will await orders for potential U.S. military action against Iraq. Like all of the men and women who serve in our armed forces to preserve our liberties and ensure global security, Jason is making a tremendous sacrifice in service to his country. As a senior at Howard University, Jason is only a few months away from completing studies and earning his degree which he plans to earn upon his return. He will be leaving behind his 2-year old daughter Isis and his parents James and Carolyn Smedley, all of Little Rock, AK. For the next few months, Jason is offering his service in a cause greater than himself. I know that all of my colleagues and the American people join me in honoring Jason and the tens of thousands of men and women who, just like him, face similar sacrifices in the coming weeks and months. From Arkansas alone, as of last week nearly 700 Guardsmen and reservists have been activated in support of the war on terrorism and for potential action against Iraq. These include troops from Little Rock, North Little Rock, Lincoln, Ogden, Ozark, Siloam Springs, Van Buren, Fayetteville, Pine Bluff, and Fort Smith. I ask unanimous consent that the list of Arkansas units currently activated in support of the war on terrorism and potential action against Iraq be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mrs. LINCOLN. We are proud of each and every one of these men and women for their commitment to this country and to each of us. We look forward to welcoming them back when their work overseas is done. My own father who passed away in October was a veteran of the Korean war. He taught me to always respect the great commitment made by our troops in fighting to protect our freedoms. Our troops of today's generation deserve the same respect. During Jason's service to Arkansas as a member of my staff, I have appreciated his hard work, as well as his energy and positive attitude. I look forward to welcoming him back to my staff as soon as possible. I am sure all of my colleagues here will join me in wishing Lance Corporal Jason Smedley the best in the months ahead. I thank his mother and girlfriend for being here to share that with us today. Most importantly, I ask my colleagues, as we enter into the challenging months we have before us in this great country, that we look not only within ourselves but around us to our immediate family, to our extended family, to our Senate family, and to all of those lives that are going to be, have been, and will be affected. This is a great country. The freedoms we enjoy, the incredible potential that we have is right here in people such as Jason Smedley. I ask my colleagues to join me as we wish Jason well in his endeavors and as he goes to take on whatever his duties may be on behalf of the American people. I thank my colleague from New Hampshire for affording me the opportunity to salute someone who has meant an awful lot to me in my life and in my work and now to me, as an American citizen, and to the rest of this great country. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, especially, to Lance Corporal Jason Smedley. We bid you well. Thank you, Mr. President. Exhibit 1 The following units from Arkansas have been activated as of December 31, 2002: Army National Guard: N. Little Rock, State Area Command, AR Army NG HQ; Ft. Smith, 142nd Field Artillery HHB, 2nd Battalion; Lincoln, 2-142nd Field Artillery, HHSB, Detachment 1; Ogden, 142nd Military Intelligence Battalion Co. A, Detachment 4; Ogden, 142nd Military Intelligence Battalion Co. A, Detachment 3; Ozark, 142nd Field Artillery Battery C, 2nd Battalion; Siloam Springs, 142nd Field Artillery, 2nd Battalion, Battery B; Van Buren, 142nd Field Artillery, 2nd Battalion, Battery A; West Memphis, 216th Military Police Company Guard Company; Little Rock, 149th Medical Company Forward, Detachment 1; and Little Rock, State Area Command, AR Army National Guard HQ. Army Reserve: Fayetteville, 362nd Psychological Ops. Co. EF SPT ELE; Fayetteville, 362nd Psychological Ops. OEF SPT ELE 2; Little Rock, 431st Civil Affairs Battalion; Little Rock, 460 Chemical Brigade, Detachment 1; and Pine Bluff, 92nd Chemical Battalion, Detachment 1. Air National Guard: Little Rock, 189th Airlift Wing; and Fort Smith, 189th Airlift Wing. Navy Reserves: Little Rock, Naval Suport Activity Bahrain, Detachment C.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Bonnie Nickol of Little Rock, Arkansas, who has committed herself to helping working families in Arkansas through the Arkansas Single Parent Scholarship Fund. Bonnie's first involvement with the scholarship fund came in 1997. The fund's director, Ralph Nesson, knowing of Bonnie's interest in education, introduced her to several of the people who benefit from this statewide network of scholarship programs that help single parents get the education they need to better provide for their families. Bonnie was touched by the efforts of these women and men to raise children, hold steady jobs, and attend college--and she resolved to help. And help she did. Upon learning that the Pulaski County Single Parent Scholarship Fund was able to offer only about 10 scholarships per year, and that many deserving single parents were being turned away due to a lack of funds and resources. Bonnie joined the board of directors and committed herself to expanding the program. From 1998 until 2002, Bonnie chaired the fund's board of directors. Under her leadership, the fund began to grow dramatically. In 1998, the fund awarded 16 scholarships worth a total of $8,000. By 2002, the fund was awarding 98 scholarships worth more than $63,000. That's an increase of 600 percent in just four years. On top of that, the amount of each scholarship awarded increased by $150, meaning that every recipient is now enjoying a more generous benefit than ever before. The Single Parent Scholarship Fund has also raised its profile by pursuing corporate and foundation grants and through private fund-raising events. In addition to increasing the fund's size, Bonnie has spearheaded the effort to provide enhanced support services to scholarship recipients. Among these services are volunteer mentors and loaned computers to help ensure student success. In addition, Bonnie made a point of forging personal relationships with many of the scholarship recipients, meeting with each of them once per semester to encourage them and seek feedback; coordinating the selection process to ensure that scholarships are awarded in a fair, timely, and efficient manner; and continually working to improve service available to recipients. These efforts are paying real dividends for the fund in terms of success. Since January 1998, an astonishing 94 percent of scholarship recipients have either graduated or are still in school working toward their degrees. Fifty-eight parents have graduated since 1998. That's a tremendous record of success, for which Bonnie and all of the other volunteers with the Arkansas Single Parent Scholarship Fund can be justifiable proud. Bonnie Nickol will retire from the Arkansas Single Parent Scholarship Fund this year, and while her leadership will be sorely missed, others who share Bonnie's vision and commitment will most certainly follow. In the meantime, she continues to provide her valuable leadership and volunteer energy for a number of groups in Arkansas, including New Futures for Youth, the Jewish Federation of Arkansas, and the Artspace Artists Cooperative. But of all her contributions, her most impressive may be the work that she's done with the Arkansas Single Parent Scholarship Fund, work that has made it possible for dozens of single parents in Arkansas to get their degrees and improve their job prospects for the future. I salute Bonnie's efforts, and I hope that others will look to her as an example of how one person can lend their time, talents, and energy to make a difference in his or her community and in the lives of others.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the continuing resolution because I believe it is irresponsible for Congress to adjourn without fulfilling our constitutional obligations. I have in the past allowed short-term continuing resolutions to fund our Government in order to give my colleagues time to complete the appropriations process. But I cannot support the long-term continuing resolution which will simply allow Congress to go home for the rest of the year before our job is complete. As our Nation stands on the verge of going to war, it is beyond me how we can simply pass a bill to keep government spending at last year's levels. Yesterday's Washington Post reports that fire crews, police officers, emergency workers and others who would be the first on the scene in the event of a new terrorist attack haven't received any of the money that the President's budget promised them. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to add my voice to those who have spoken in honor of our late colleague Senator Paul Wellstone. In the 4 years we served together, Paul and I didn't always vote the same way. But we shared the most important value of all: We wanted to do best for the people who sent us to the Senate to represent them. On a full range of issues, from education to health care to veterans affairs, Paul fought tirelessly for what he believed was best for the people of Minnesota and the United States. I admired Paul's conviction and passion in presenting his viewpoints and arguing his case. I admired his honesty and conscientiousness in standing up for what he believed. Most of all, I admired the goodwill and sense of fairness that he brought to this body. I hope that even though we won't always agree in our debates here, we can always keep alive that same spirit of goodwill, fairness, and openness. Paul Wellstone wasn't from the South, but he possessed all the qualities of a Southern gentleman. He was never rude or mean-spirited toward those who disagreed with him, and he was unfailingly civil to both his allies and his adversaries. I feel fortunate to have had him as a colleague and blessed to have had him as a friend. He will be sorely missed. I would like to pay tribute also to the two members of Paul's family--his wife Sheila and his daughter Marcia--who perished with him on October 25. Furthermore, three members of Paul's campaign staff-- Will McLaughlin, Tom Lapic, and Mary McEvoy--and two pilots--Richard Conroy and Michael Guess--lost their lives in that accident. My deepest sympathies and my prayers go out to their families and friends in this time of loss.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the long and great career of Cecil Williams, who spent a life's work fighting on behalf of farmers and the farming way of life in my home State of Arkansas. Cecil is retiring, after leading the Agricultural Council of Arkansas for 37 years. He joined the organization in 1965 and set to work immediately doing everything he could to make a better world for the thousands of farm families that have made their livelihoods out of the fertile soil of Arkansas. Since then, he has played a central role in many, many achievements: passage of important check-off programs for the cotton, rice, soybean, and corn industries; creation of the Producers Steering Committee within the National Cotton Council; the implementation of better insurance protection for Arkansas farmers, just to name a few. Over the years, he has seen many things come and go--economic crises, overwhelming floods and endless droughts, farm bill after farm bill, and, yes, he has seen many politicians come and go, too. He has also seen a lot of changes and a lot of problems that won't seem to go away: higher farm costs against ever lower commodity prices, urban and suburban sprawl that increasingly compete for land resources, a slow but continual rise in the average age of farmers. Through it all, Cecil Williams has fought, tooth and nail, for Arkansas's farmers. He has fought with grit and determination, with passion and loyalty. He has fought with heart and with every bead of sweat he could give. He is a company man who has endured almost as long as the company. And through the years, he has quietly but surely built a career that stands as an inspiration for all of us who believe in production agriculture. I suppose he is not old enough to be the father of Arkansas agriculture, but he certainly has been its guardian. And he has served it well. I have known Cecil for many years, first as the daughter of a rice farmer in the Arkansas Delta, and for the past 10 years as a Senator and congresswoman. Through two farm bills and through countless attacks on the foundation of America's farm policy, I have relied on Cecil's counsel and wisdom. His advice has always been sound, always deeply rooted in a respect and admiration for the people we both serve. He has never let us down. And, now, on his retirement, it is my fervent hope that we who inherit his years of dedication and service will preserve and perpetuate his example, that we do not let him down.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I rise tonight to strongly support the creation of a Department of Homeland Security. By consolidating the agencies responsible for protecting our borders and infrastructure, we can make significant progress in ensuring the security of the American people, and this body would be remiss if we were to fail in passing this critical legislation before we adjourn. Just this week we've learned that Osama bin Laden is still alive and still posing a threat to American interests at home and abroad. Recent activity and communications by his al-Qaida terrorist network, which we have seen reported in the media, suggest that the threat is as serious today as it was 14 months ago. These are glaring reminders that the War on Terrorism is far from finished and that we must be vigilant both at home and abroad to protect and defend this Nation. I also want to reassure all Arkansans that the creation of this Department is not the only step in the protection of this Nation. Homeland security must be an ongoing process as we respond to new threats and the inevitable needs to correct deficiencies in this legislation--including modifications to this department over time. I intend to continue to seek any and all ways that we can increase the security of our homeland. As I said in remarks on the Senate floor last week, I would like to state for the record my disappointment with some provisions that were added by the House of Representatives in the final hours without any opportunity for debate. Three provisions in particular give me pause: waivers that the administration will be able to use to grant Federal contracts to companies that reincorporate offshore to avoid paying U.S. taxes; provisions that would broaden limits on lawsuits against vaccine makers to manufacturers of other vaccine components, covering still-pending litigation; and highly specific criteria that would be used to designate universities as part of a homeland security research system. A few of other provisions added by the House have merit, but they deserve an open debate. For example, I believe that we need to limit the liability of companies that make ``qualified anti-terrorism technology'' against claims arising from acts of terrorism, but this issue deserves more debate. We also ought to limit lawsuits against companies that manufacture aviation security equipment. It's unfortunate that these provisions, which may be perfectly worthy legislative remedies, have been slipped in to the bill without full consideration by Congress. I certainly hope each of these provisions will be revisited and fully debated next year. Again, I'm deeply disappointed by some special interest provisions that were added to the homeland security bill. However, I believe that the necessary creation of a Department of Homeland Security outweighs the special interest provisions added to this legislation and I am proud to aid in its creation. I'm casting my vote in order to serve the higher good of protecting the American people from present and future terrorist threats.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the long and great career of Cecil Williams, who spent a life's work fighting on behalf of farmers and the farming way of life in my home State of Arkansas. Cecil is retiring, after leading the Agricultural Council of Arkansas for 37 years. He joined the organization in 1965 and set to work immediately doing everything he could to make a better world for the thousands of farm families that have made their livelihoods out of the fertile soil of Arkansas. Since then, he has played a central role in many, many achievements: passage of important check-off programs for the cotton, rice, soybean, and corn industries; creation of the Producers Steering Committee within the National Cotton Council; the implementation of better insurance protection for Arkansas farmers, just to name a few. Over the years, he has seen many things come and go--economic crises, overwhelming floods and endless droughts, farm bill after farm bill, and, yes, he has seen many politicians come and go, too. He has also seen a lot of changes and a lot of problems that won't seem to go away: higher farm costs against ever lower commodity prices, urban and suburban sprawl that increasingly compete for land resources, a slow but continual rise in the average age of farmers. Through it all, Cecil Williams has fought, tooth and nail, for Arkansas's farmers. He has fought with grit and determination, with passion and loyalty. He has fought with heart and with every bead of sweat he could give. He is a company man who has endured almost as long as the company. And through the years, he has quietly but surely built a career that stands as an inspiration for all of us who believe in production agriculture. I suppose he is not old enough to be the father of Arkansas agriculture, but he certainly has been its guardian. And he has served it well. I have known Cecil for many years, first as the daughter of a rice farmer in the Arkansas Delta, and for the past 10 years as a Senator and congresswoman. Through two farm bills and through countless attacks on the foundation of America's farm policy, I have relied on Cecil's counsel and wisdom. His advice has always been sound, always deeply rooted in a respect and admiration for the people we both serve. He has never let us down. And, now, on his retirement, it is my fervent hope that we who inherit his years of dedication and service will preserve and perpetuate his example, that we do not let him down.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I rise tonight to strongly support the creation of a Department of Homeland Security. By consolidating the agencies responsible for protecting our borders and infrastructure, we can make significant progress in ensuring the security of the American people, and this body would be remiss if we were to fail in passing this critical legislation before we adjourn. Just this week we've learned that Osama bin Laden is still alive and still posing a threat to American interests at home and abroad. Recent activity and communications by his al-Qaida terrorist network, which we have seen reported in the media, suggest that the threat is as serious today as it was 14 months ago. These are glaring reminders that the War on Terrorism is far from finished and that we must be vigilant both at home and abroad to protect and defend this Nation. I also want to reassure all Arkansans that the creation of this Department is not the only step in the protection of this Nation. Homeland security must be an ongoing process as we respond to new threats and the inevitable needs to correct deficiencies in this legislation--including modifications to this department over time. I intend to continue to seek any and all ways that we can increase the security of our homeland. As I said in remarks on the Senate floor last week, I would like to state for the record my disappointment with some provisions that were added by the House of Representatives in the final hours without any opportunity for debate. Three provisions in particular give me pause: waivers that the administration will be able to use to grant Federal contracts to companies that reincorporate offshore to avoid paying U.S. taxes; provisions that would broaden limits on lawsuits against vaccine makers to manufacturers of other vaccine components, covering still-pending litigation; and highly specific criteria that would be used to designate universities as part of a homeland security research system. A few of other provisions added by the House have merit, but they deserve an open debate. For example, I believe that we need to limit the liability of companies that make ``qualified anti-terrorism technology'' against claims arising from acts of terrorism, but this issue deserves more debate. We also ought to limit lawsuits against companies that manufacture aviation security equipment. It's unfortunate that these provisions, which may be perfectly worthy legislative remedies, have been slipped in to the bill without full consideration by Congress. I certainly hope each of these provisions will be revisited and fully debated next year. Again, I'm deeply disappointed by some special interest provisions that were added to the homeland security bill. However, I believe that the necessary creation of a Department of Homeland Security outweighs the special interest provisions added to this legislation and I am proud to aid in its creation. I'm casting my vote in order to serve the higher good of protecting the American people from present and future terrorist threats.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise in support of cloture on the Homeland Security bill because our country needs a unified effort to defend our shores. But I want my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to know that I am ashamed of the tactics that you have used. And this Senator will not forget what you and your patrons in the pharmaceutical industry have done to this bill and to the American people in the dark of the night. It appears that the $12 million PhRMA donated during the last election cycle can buy more than a handful of House and Senate seats. It can also buy a sneak attack on people-- autistic children--who have been harmed by vaccines. I say to my friends across the aisle and to my friends in the pharmaceutical industry: sneaking this unrelated provision into critical legislation like Homeland Security is not the way to make good public policy. It is unAmerican, and something to be ashamed of. Why should the parents of autistic children--children who were injured by thimerosal in vaccines--lose some of their legal options in the name of Homeland Security? They too care about the security of our nation, but you cannot doubt their love and concern for their precious vulnerable children. The homeland security bill is not an appropriate vehicle to make this change to the vaccine injury compensation program on behalf of one interest group.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that codifies the exclusion of irrevocable funeral trusts from Supplemental Security Income, SSI, resource calculations. Irrevocable funeral trusts are funds set aside for funeral and burial expenses. These funds cannot be accessed until after the owner's death. Until recently, these trusts were not included in SSI resource calculations, but an administrative misinterpretation in 2001 dropped this important exclusion. This misinterpretation has since been corrected, but it had serious repercussions for many senior citizens while it was in effect. When irrevocable funeral and burial trusts were included in SSI calculations, it penalized those SSI applicants who chose to save for their funeral by inflating their actual individual wealth, even though the trusts could not be accessed. The end result was that many senior citizens' SSI applications were rejected. Because the SSI definition of resources and exclusions is used for Medicaid eligibility determinations, the inclusion also affected Medicaid applicants. I am introducing this bill to codify the exclusion to give senior citizens certainty that future administrations will not be able to misinterpret Congressional intent. In the past, Congress has recognized the value of funeral planning as good social policy. We have encouraged consumers to engage in ``pre- need'' funeral planning in a number of ways. This legislation will encourage people to engage in pre-need planning. It will codify the existing practice of excluding irrevocable funeral trusts from SSI calculations and ensure that future misinterpretations are avoided. We must ensure that people are not penalized for providing for their own funerals. I encourage my colleagues to give this legislation serious consideration.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that codifies the exclusion of irrevocable funeral trusts from Supplemental Security Income, SSI, resource calculations. Irrevocable funeral trusts are funds set aside for funeral and burial expenses. These funds cannot be accessed until after the owner's death. Until recently, these trusts were not included in SSI resource calculations, but an administrative misinterpretation in 2001 dropped this important exclusion. This misinterpretation has since been corrected, but it had serious repercussions for many senior citizens while it was in effect. When irrevocable funeral and burial trusts were included in SSI calculations, it penalized those SSI applicants who chose to save for their funeral by inflating their actual individual wealth, even though the trusts could not be accessed. The end result was that many senior citizens' SSI applications were rejected. Because the SSI definition of resources and exclusions is used for Medicaid eligibility determinations, the inclusion also affected Medicaid applicants. I am introducing this bill to codify the exclusion to give senior citizens certainty that future administrations will not be able to misinterpret Congressional intent. In the past, Congress has recognized the value of funeral planning as good social policy. We have encouraged consumers to engage in ``pre- need'' funeral planning in a number of ways. This legislation will encourage people to engage in pre-need planning. It will codify the existing practice of excluding irrevocable funeral trusts from SSI calculations and ensure that future misinterpretations are avoided. We must ensure that people are not penalized for providing for their own funerals. I encourage my colleagues to give this legislation serious consideration.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today as the Mother of two sons as well as a proud member of this body. I have come to my decision on this grave matter after going to every length to gather as much information as I could, then weighing it carefully with the general sentiment in my state that we should be very thoughtful. My constituents want us to consider the consequences of war. I have asked the same questions of the President and his national security team that my constituents asked me. I understand that there are no easy choices when confronting a menace like Saddam Hussein. I have decided to support the Lieberman-Bayh resolution because I believe it gives the President the authority to act with military force if necessary while holding him accountable for a preferred, peaceful solution. I look at my sons every day and wonder what kind of a world we are creating for them. I am sad that September 11, 2001 has forever changed our perspective on their future and ours. I regret that I cannot be sure that my boys will always be safe from terrorism. But, I am ever more resolved that we have a responsibility to eliminate the Saddam Husseins and Osama bin Ladens of the world. These are people who bear an irrational hatred toward America and the liberty and justice that we stand for. They have converted that hatred into weapons stockpiles and terrorist networks that threaten our way of life. We cannot stand idly by while they gain strength and underestimate our resolve. Today, I make a difficult choice. I choose to give our President the authority to take military action against Iraq if necessary because I believe him when he says he does not want to go to war. I take our President at his word that disarming Saddam Hussein peacefully is his first choice. I support the notion that a unified Congress sends a strong message to our allies and gives our Secretary of State more leverage as he negotiates a new and tougher U.N. resolution that mandates weapons inspections in Iraq with military consequences if Saddam resists. Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator. He has set himself apart from dictators of the past by using biological weapons against his own people. He has used them before and I don't want to be left with regret if he were to use them against our military or diplomatic personnel overseas, or even our allies. Our objective must be to disarm him before he can unleash his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons or before he can complete work on a nuclear weapon. The time has come to no longer abide the threat that Saddam Hussein brings to everything that is good in this world. The time has come to eliminate his tools of destruction. Whether we do it alone or with the support of our allies, there can be no question that disarmament of Iraq cannot happen without the significant involvement, in fact the leadership, of the United States. So I have concluded that Saddam Hussein understands only one kind of communication. A strongly worded U.N. resolution with the solid military backing of the Security Council may change his mind about cooperating. If it doesn't, he must know that his evil and treachery will have consequences. Today I believe that the risk of doing nothing outweighs the risk of taking action. President Bush has pledged to me and the nation that he will exhaust a peaceful solution before resorting to a military solution. And I intend to hold him to his word. I vote for this resolution with a heavy heart but also with the knowledge that we can't have it both ways. We cannot wish terrorism away without taking the necessary steps to ensure that our country, and certainly our children, are safe and free.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Access to Diabetes Screening Services Act of 2002. My colleague Senator Bingaman joins me in introducing this important legislation. This bill will provide Medicare coverage for laboratory diagnostic tests and other services which are used to screen for diabetes. Diabetes has reached epidemic proportions among adults in the United States. Trend data indicate that by the year 2010 more than 10 percent of all Americans will have diabetes. Even today our Nation is feeling the effects of this disease, diabetes is the Nation's sixth leading cause of death. My own home State of Arkansas has had first-hand experience with the rising diabetes rates. Arkansas ranks fifth in the Nation for diabetes incidence. According to recent health statistics, diabetes is the seventh leading cause of death for Arkansans. Recent studies show that 6.5 percent of all Arkansas adults have diagnosed diabetes, and over 1 million Arkansans are at risk for undiagnosed diabetes. These rising rates are especially evident among our aging population. Currently almost 7 million Americans age 65 and older, or 20 percent of seniors, have diabetes. Roughly 20 percent of seniors age 65 and older have a newly identified condition called pre-diabetes. If left untreated, pre-diabetes will develop into diabetes. An additional 40,000 people living with diabetes and end-stage renal disease under the age of 65 participate in the Medicare program. Even more distressing is the fact that approximately one third of the 7 million seniors with diabetes, or 2.3 million people, are undiagnosed. They simply do not know that they have this very serious condition--a condition whose complications include heart disease, stroke, vision loss and blindness, amputations, and kidney disease. Those in the medical community and the federal government are only too aware of the rising prevalence and serious nature of diabetes. The Centers for Disease Control, National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Health and Human Services have recently joined together in a national education campaign to inform people about diabetes and encourage people age 45 and older to get screened for diabetes. Unfortunately, current law does not allow Medicare to reimburse for diabetes testing, even if a patient presents a physician with serious risk factors for diabetes such as obesity, high blood pressure, or high cholesterol. Most shockingly, even if a patient is experiencing early evidence of diabetes complications like blindness and kidney disease, Medicare still cannot reimburse for diabetes testing. This nonsensical omission of diabetes screening coverage is even more shocking in light of the fact that about 25 percent of the Medicare budget currently is devoted to providing medical care to seniors living with diabetes. In 1999, Arkansas spent $1.6 billion on direct and indirect costs of diabetes. Why would we continue to constantly react to the disease in this manner, instead of proactively providing screening for our Medicare beneficiaries? This screening can identify the disease, even before any symptoms have appeared, and has the potential to save and improve thousands of lives. The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists strongly believes that patients with diabetes should be identified as early as possible in their illness. We have the technology to do this through screening. I cannot overstate the need for this legislation. When faced with the rising prevalence of diabetes, the high percentage of seniors who already have the disease, the alarmingly high number of seniors who have diabetes but do not know it yet, and the high cost associated with its treatment, it is obvious that Medicare should provide coverage for diabetes screening. The American Diabetes Association has identified Medicare screening coverage as their top legislative priority, and I have worked closely with them to craft this legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to give serious consideration to the Diabetes Screening Act of 2002.