William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive section 313(b)(1)(e) of the Budget Act for the consideration of S. 1429, and any conference report thereon, amendments between the Houses, and any amendments reported in disagreement. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to Senator Smith's motions to discharge the Finance Committee of S.J. Res 27 and 28. These resolutions would overturn the President's extension of the Jackson-Vanik waiver authority with respect to China and Vietnam. I can understand Senator Smith's desire to have the Senator consider and debate these resolutions. Our economic relationship with these countries is clearly worth our attention. This, however, is not the time for such a debate. There is a process already underway in the House on these resolutions that we should allow to continue. The Ways and Means Committee has already reported out these resoltuions--both adversely, I might add. Floor action in the House on both these measures is already planned for the next few weeks. With the House ready to act, there is no reason for us to undercut that process by taking these matters up at this time. If the House does pass either of these resolutions, then the Senate should consider them on their merits. On the issue of China, I will be ready, along with many of my colleagues, to discuss why maintaining normal trade relations with that country is in our national interest. In short, there are--and there will continue to be--areas of significant disagreement between our two nations. But the record is clear that our commercial relationship with China has been good for our economy. It has also helped bring about positive change in China. On the issue of Vietnam, I look to my colleagues, Senators John Kerry, McCain, Bob Kerrey, Hagel, Robb, and Cleland. These Senators-- all Vietnam veterans--support the Jackson-Vanik waiver. In their view, the President's waiver has helped in resolving the problems we have had with Vietnam on emigration. While these are my views, in brief, a more substantive discussion of these issues should come at a later time. Until the House acts, we should complete our work on the matters already before us. After all, the motions to discharge the committee are effectively motions to proceed to the resolutions themselves. That means, under the Jackson- Vanik statute, 20 hours of floor debate on each measure. That also means putting off our consideration of the appropriations bills. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against Senator Smith's motions.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Holly Vineyard, a Finance Committee detailee from the Department of Commerce, be granted floor privileges during the pendency of S.J. Res. 27 and S.J. Res. 28.

Mr. ROTH. I thank the Senator from New York. I also express my appreciation for the cooperation of my good friend, the Senator from New Hampshire. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, health care in America is the envy of the world. We have the finest doctors, nurses, and medical care personnel available anywhere. We have the best research facilities and the most advanced--state-of-the-art--technology. We are the world's leader in providing new and effective treatments and therapies. And it doesn't seem that a day goes by without news of some exciting breakthrough in medicine and health. While this is the good news, there's no question that our health care delivery system also faces some serious challenges. No one argues that there isn't cause for concern when it comes to making high quality health care more affordable, and therefore more accessible, to millions of Americans who currently have no coverage, and for those who may even have coverage, but who are receiving substandard and even poor care. For the last fifteen years, Congress has been concerned about the skyrocketing costs associated with health care. I remember the dire predictions we listened to in the 1980s and early 1990s. I recall the testimony of OMB Director Dick Darman in 1992, when he warned that given its current rate of increase, total public and private health spending was quickly taking over the Gross National Product. Unless something was done, he said, expenditures--which were less than six percent of GNP three decades earlier--would reach the unmaintainable level of 26 percent of GNP by the year 2030. One of the innovative answers to curb this dangerous increase was the advent of managed care and the creation of Health Maintenance Organizations. Through this system, millions of Americans found access to health care that was affordable. Small businesses were better able to provide insurance for their employees. And competition between HMOs and other health care providers in the miraculous free market system worked to reduce the exploding costs of coverage. At the same time, it allowed those incentives to work that were continuing to promote new research and development, new therapies and technology, and the daily breakthroughs I mentioned earlier. Was everything perfect? No. Questions and concerns--very relevant questions and concerns--soon surfaced regarding the quality of care delivered by some of the providers participating in the managed care system. But just as valid as these concerns was the fact that through managed care, millions of satisfied Americans were receiving high quality services that may have, otherwise, been unavailable to them. And because of the influence that managed care was having on the delivery of health care in America, free market principles were continuing to reward innovation and quality, while at the same time creating a new dimension of competition to help control costs. With this background, we see more clearly the dynamics involved in the issue before us today. As we look to address the need of establishing a patients' bill of rights--and, again, the need is very real--we see clearly how the improvements we incorporate in such a bill of rights must protect Americans and improve the quality of the health care they are receiving while, at the same time, not undermine the strengths of the current system. This is a delicate balance--one that was of primary importance to the task force that I served on with several of my colleagues. Together, we listened to dozens of experts and consumer representatives. We collected and reviewed reams of information. We reviewed countless areas that might be addressed and looked at countless possibilities for legislative action. There was no question that managed care could be improved. In fact, many providers from within managed care organizations agreed that there were improvements to be made, and it became clear by the evidence we reviewed that a bill of rights is warranted. Our goal was simple: increase standards and the quality of health care delivered by providers, without excessively escalating costs that would make health care coverage less available to Americans who need it most. There is no question that any time costs go up, those who are most adversely affected are those who are least able to afford the increases. This not only includes the millions of American families that might not have access to health care without competitive managed care providers, but it also includes millions of Medicare beneficiaries who--to receive extra coverage and benefits--are participating in managed care programs. If attempts to improve the system go to the extreme--opening up, and even encouraging, litigation, or increasing government intervention and regulation, or holding small businesses that provide health care coverage liable for the judgments made by physicians--costs are going to explode; countless individuals and families are going to suffer the adverse consequences. On the other hand, if improvements focus on protecting the patient while strengthening the current system, then coverage can be expanded, quality can be assured, and even the most vulnerable will be protected. This, Mr. President, is our objective; it's what we intend to do with the Patients' Bill of Rights Act--a well-studied and common sense approach to protecting Americans, while at the same time improving our health care delivery system. The legislation we introduce today not only targets specific problems in the current system, but it will make health care more affordable, more accessible, and give consumers greater choice concerning their own care. This is accomplished in several ways. First, this legislation will guarantee patients a more thorough due process than they currently receive when they are denied a benefit by their health plan. This includes an external review by an independent medical expert to determine if a health plan has unfairly denied a benefit. In urgent cases, this review must be completed within 72 hours. This provision is so important because it will ensure that patients get the benefits they are entitled to, when they need those benefits most. If, for some reason, the safety net of an independent external review process fails, our plan preserves an individual's right to sue his or her health plan in Federal court for all benefit denials. The individual can also sue in State court for malpractice claims. Beyond this, our legislation increases the choices that are made available to patients by requiring health plans that contract with businesses of 51 or more employees to offer participants the opportunity to receive health care service from out-of-network providers. In this way, consumers will be able to choose providers that best suit their needs. Outside of encouraging greater choice, our plan effectively increases access to health insurance by making coverage for self-employed Americans 100 percent tax deductible, starting next January. This is a provision that is long overdue. Self-employed individuals have unfairly been limited in the amount of money they can deduct from their taxes for health care coverage, while business and corporations have been able to deduct all the health care benefits they provided their employees. This provision will not only help restore equity, but it will benefit 25 million Americans who are in families headed by a self- insured individual--five million of whom are currently uninsured. The legislation will require patients to be fully informed concerning their coverage, including cost-sharing requirements, supplemental benefits, out-of-area coverage, options for selecting primary health care providers, access to emergency care, and preventative services. In other words, no more surprises. And this legislation also gives patients the right to request and be given information concerning their plan's administrative details. For example, providers will be required to answer their customers' queries into the licensure and qualifications of the professionals who participate in the providers' plans. They will be required to provide relevant information concerning participating health care facilities and reimbursement methods between the plan and its participating professions, as well as the status of the plan with accrediting organizations. Likewise, consumers can request information about medications that are included in the plan and procedures to obtain medications that may not be a part of the program. All of these provisions are fundamentally important to the rights that patients should have when dealing with their health care providers. But as you can see, Mr. President, they are constructed and included in this legislation in a way that the benefits are received without adversely influencing accessibility and affordability. In fact, as I have shown, accessibility and affordability will actually increase with this Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act. But the benefits of this plan do not stop there. The Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act includes important prohibitions against gag rules that some health plans use to limit communication between doctors and patients. This legislation will prohibit health plans from restricting their doctors from sharing information and discussing treatment options with their patients. This legislation will also patients to have direct access to obstetricians, gynecologists, and pediatricians for routine care without referrals. And it includes important measure to protect sensitive patient information. It prohibits the use of genetic information to deny health care coverage or to set premium rates. And it enhances the role of the Agency for Health Care Quality Research to continue the important effort of improving the system for long-term. These, too, are important, but perhaps the provisions in this legislation with which I am most pleased are those that will advance research, prevention and treatment for women with cancer and cardiovascular disease. These provisions will expand basic and clinical research, specifically for women, on the underlying causes and prevention of these diseases. Beyond this, the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act will fund extended research related to osteoporosis and women's geriatric concerns. And it will support continued data collection through the National Center for Health Statistics and the National Program of Cancer Registries--two leading women's health data centers. Mr. President, I don't think there's anyone who can argue with the important measures contained in this bill. It is, indeed, comprehensive. At the same time, it's balanced and constructive. It's the kind of effective leadership Americans expect from Congress--making access to health care easier, not harder, for individuals and small businesses. It allows the incentives that make our health care system the envy of the world to continue, while it includes new incentives for providers to offer better quality, greater efficiency, and to be more responsive to their customers. While addressing the short-comings of the current system, this legislation builds on what is good--what is working--in the current system. It expands the real rights of patients and provides for continued research and development in areas that are vitally important to America's changing demographics. For these important reasons, I encourage all of my colleagues to join us in supporting this Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act. It is not only comprehensive and very workable, it is constructive and necessary.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, there is a serious inadequacy in the treatment of Americans who must pay for their health care on their own and those who receive it on a tax subsidized basis from their employers. In addition, our tax code restricts people from making health care decisions in a tax advantaged way. I am happy to join with my colleagues, Senator Grams of Minnesota and Senator Abraham of Michigan in sponsoring the Health Care Access and Equity Act of 1999. Our bill would rectify this situation and provide a level playing field for all Americans who purchase their own health insurance and those who receive employer subsidized insurance. It will also give people more tax-advantaged options in how they use their health care dollars. Let me explain the current unfairness of our tax code as it relates to health care insurance. Current law provides that any employer subsidy of health benefits is not included in the income of the employee. This means that if an employer pays the entire cost of health care insurance, that entire subsidy is not included in the employee's taxable income. However, if the employer does not provide health care insurance for its employees or if the employee has to pay the full cost of the insurance, they do not get the same tax benefit as those who have all or a portion of their health care insurance paid for by their employer. Those premiums that are not paid for by the employer can be deducted by the employee--but only to the extent that the total premium amount and other health care costs exceed 7.5% of the employee's adjusted gross income. What this effectively means is that these individuals are denied a tax effective way of paying for health insurance. Self-employed individuals don't have an employer to cover their health insurance needs; they must pay for their health insurance on their own. Self-employed individuals can only deduct 60% of the amount of their health care premiums. This percentage will increase over time until the year 2003, when health care premiums will be fully deductible. Our current tax code does not treat all taxpayers the same. Our bill changes this situation. This bill provides that all taxpayers can fully deduct the amount paid for health insurance--as long as the taxpayer is not eligible to participate in an employer subsidized medical plan. This equalizes the tax treatment of paying for health insurance so that all individuals get a tax incentive when they have health care insurance, regardless of whether their employer pays for the coverage. This amendment underscores the need to make health care more affordable for more Americans and to begin providing greater equity in the tax treatment of health insurance whether people obtain their coverage at their place of employment or purchase coverage in the individual health insurance market. It is a sobering fact that there are over 41 million Americans without health insurance. Largely as a result of the tax incentives I explained before, the number of people covered by employer-provided health insurance has grown from less than 12 million in 1940 to approximately 150 million today. However, those who do not have tax-subsidized health care benefits do not fare as well. According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, individuals who must pay for health coverage with after-tax dollars are 24 times more likely to be uninsured as those with employer-provided coverage. With this change, all individuals who do not receive the employer- provided subsidies for health care insurance will not have the opportunity to have their taxes reduced because they purchased insurance. This amendment will benefit approximately 12 million taxpayers who do not have health insurance that is subsidized by an employer. Our bill also provides that more individuals will be able to have long term care insurance in a tax effective manner, by giving them a tax deduction for the payment of premiums for a long term care policy. Current law only allows a deduction for long term care premiums if those premiums, along with other medical expenses exceed 7.5% of adjusted gross income. With this bill, the entire amount of the long term care premium will be deductible. This will benefit at least 3.8 million taxpayers. Clearly more people will be able to prepare for their future needs by buying long term care insurance. Another important provision of our bill is the expansion of the availability of medical Savings Accounts. MSAs gives individuals more choice in how they spend their health care dollars. Current law restricts who can participate in an MSA and clearly these restrictions have limited who participate in this program. Our bill would lift these caps on this program and give people more reason to choose to be in an MSA. Another important point to remember with MSAs is that they encourage those individuals who are not insured to become insured. When the General Accounting Office reviewed what has happened in the MSA market, they reported that approximately one third of those who participated in the MSA program had been previously uninsured. The MSA participated in the MSA program had been previously uninsured. The MSA program has been proven to increase those covered under a health plan; with this bill we expand the program so that more people will be insured. Finally, our bill provides incentives for employees to contribute to flexible spending accounts. With a flexible spending account, an employee can contribute a portion of his salary--thereby reducing his taxable income--to a flexible spending account and then use the money in that account to pay for health care benefits, whether or not they are covered by his medical insurance. Increasing the availability of these FSAs, will give employees more freedom on how to spend their money when purchasing health care. The policy behind our bill is clear--increased equity in the tax system for health care insurance and more choice for individuals in how they spend their health care dollars. I am happy to join my two distinguished colleagues--Senator Grams and Abraham and the other Senators co-sponsoring this important health care legislation.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, there is a serious inadequacy in the treatment of Americans who must pay for their health care on their own and those who receive it on a tax subsidized basis from their employers. In addition, our tax code restricts people from making health care decisions in a tax advantaged way. I am happy to join with my colleagues, Senator Grams of Minnesota and Senator Abraham of Michigan in sponsoring the Health Care Access and Equity Act of 1999. Our bill would rectify this situation and provide a level playing field for all Americans who purchase their own health insurance and those who receive employer subsidized insurance. It will also give people more tax-advantaged options in how they use their health care dollars. Let me explain the current unfairness of our tax code as it relates to health care insurance. Current law provides that any employer subsidy of health benefits is not included in the income of the employee. This means that if an employer pays the entire cost of health care insurance, that entire subsidy is not included in the employee's taxable income. However, if the employer does not provide health care insurance for its employees or if the employee has to pay the full cost of the insurance, they do not get the same tax benefit as those who have all or a portion of their health care insurance paid for by their employer. Those premiums that are not paid for by the employer can be deducted by the employee--but only to the extent that the total premium amount and other health care costs exceed 7.5% of the employee's adjusted gross income. What this effectively means is that these individuals are denied a tax effective way of paying for health insurance. Self-employed individuals don't have an employer to cover their health insurance needs; they must pay for their health insurance on their own. Self-employed individuals can only deduct 60% of the amount of their health care premiums. This percentage will increase over time until the year 2003, when health care premiums will be fully deductible. Our current tax code does not treat all taxpayers the same. Our bill changes this situation. This bill provides that all taxpayers can fully deduct the amount paid for health insurance--as long as the taxpayer is not eligible to participate in an employer subsidized medical plan. This equalizes the tax treatment of paying for health insurance so that all individuals get a tax incentive when they have health care insurance, regardless of whether their employer pays for the coverage. This amendment underscores the need to make health care more affordable for more Americans and to begin providing greater equity in the tax treatment of health insurance whether people obtain their coverage at their place of employment or purchase coverage in the individual health insurance market. It is a sobering fact that there are over 41 million Americans without health insurance. Largely as a result of the tax incentives I explained before, the number of people covered by employer-provided health insurance has grown from less than 12 million in 1940 to approximately 150 million today. However, those who do not have tax-subsidized health care benefits do not fare as well. According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, individuals who must pay for health coverage with after-tax dollars are 24 times more likely to be uninsured as those with employer-provided coverage. With this change, all individuals who do not receive the employer- provided subsidies for health care insurance will not have the opportunity to have their taxes reduced because they purchased insurance. This amendment will benefit approximately 12 million taxpayers who do not have health insurance that is subsidized by an employer. Our bill also provides that more individuals will be able to have long term care insurance in a tax effective manner, by giving them a tax deduction for the payment of premiums for a long term care policy. Current law only allows a deduction for long term care premiums if those premiums, along with other medical expenses exceed 7.5% of adjusted gross income. With this bill, the entire amount of the long term care premium will be deductible. This will benefit at least 3.8 million taxpayers. Clearly more people will be able to prepare for their future needs by buying long term care insurance. Another important provision of our bill is the expansion of the availability of medical Savings Accounts. MSAs gives individuals more choice in how they spend their health care dollars. Current law restricts who can participate in an MSA and clearly these restrictions have limited who participate in this program. Our bill would lift these caps on this program and give people more reason to choose to be in an MSA. Another important point to remember with MSAs is that they encourage those individuals who are not insured to become insured. When the General Accounting Office reviewed what has happened in the MSA market, they reported that approximately one third of those who participated in the MSA program had been previously uninsured. The MSA participated in the MSA program had been previously uninsured. The MSA program has been proven to increase those covered under a health plan; with this bill we expand the program so that more people will be insured. Finally, our bill provides incentives for employees to contribute to flexible spending accounts. With a flexible spending account, an employee can contribute a portion of his salary--thereby reducing his taxable income--to a flexible spending account and then use the money in that account to pay for health care benefits, whether or not they are covered by his medical insurance. Increasing the availability of these FSAs, will give employees more freedom on how to spend their money when purchasing health care. The policy behind our bill is clear--increased equity in the tax system for health care insurance and more choice for individuals in how they spend their health care dollars. I am happy to join my two distinguished colleagues--Senator Grams and Abraham and the other Senators co-sponsoring this important health care legislation.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, first of all, I want to just thank my distinguished colleague, Senator Moynihan, for his invaluable assistance on this most important matter. I think the two of us believe very strongly that there will be no more important a vote than the one we just took. It is important from the standpoint of our national economy; it is important from the point of view of our steel industry; it is important from the standpoint of our workers. I know it was a very difficult vote for many people, but I want to express my public appreciation for their assistance. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROTH. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished senior Senator from Texas.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, my understanding is we have 3 minutes.

Mr. ROTH. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. ROTH. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Texas.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to Senator Grassley.

Mr. ROTH. I say to my distinguished colleague that is my intent. We think it is a valuable change. We hope to have it on the floor.

Mr. ROTH. How much time remains?

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New York.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to Senator Bond.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Holly Vineyard, a Finance Committee detailee from the Department of Commerce, be granted floor privileges during the pendency of H.R. 975.

Mr. ROTH. I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 975 and to urge my colleagues, in the strongest terms possible, to vote no on cloture. Let me explain why. Our steel industry faces a serious challenge as a result of foreign competition. That challenge stems from the persistent overcapacity in the global steel industry that is the legacy of decades of foreign government interventionism. The quota bill, however, does nothing to eliminate this overcapacity. What the quota bill does do is simply lock in a certain share of our market--the quota amount--for foreign imports at a vastly inflated price. According to a study by the Institute for International Economics, this bill would raise steel import prices by about $29 a ton. This represents a windfall of $800 million to the lucky foreign producers who get their goods into the United States under the quota, with the price tag being paid by the American people. While the bill does enrich certain foreign producers, it also poses a grave threat to our economy. For every 1 job in the steel industry, there are 40 jobs in the steel-using industries. These 40 workers manufacture autos, industrial machinery, kitchen appliances, and other products. All these jobs will be at risk as a result of the quota bill, because this legislation seeks arbitrary limits on the amount of steel coming into our country. And the quotas apply regardless of domestic demand and regardless of whether the type of steel is even produced in the United States. To make matters worse, this measure would actually help foreign companies that compete against American steel-using industries both in the United States and abroad. For instance, U.S. automakers would be forced to pay higher prices for steel than their foreign competitors. This would disadvantage American companies in our market and in the foreign markets in which they compete. The impact on jobs and on the economy could be severe. This bill would also put us at risk of retaliation by our trading partners. Our farmers are well aware of this risk. That is why 21 leading agriculture groups signed a letter last week stating their strong opposition to this legislation. These include the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Council of Farm Cooperatives, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and others. As these groups understand all too well, passage of this legislation will threaten our access to foreign markets at a time when these markets are most needed for our businesses and our farmers. If we decide to go down the path of quotas, we must also keep in mind that the price will ultimately be paid by the American consumer. I yield myself 1 more minute. By raising the average price of products made with steel, the quota constitutes an artificial tax on ordinary Americans regardless of wealth or income. Keep in mind that the tax will not be insignificant. According to the Institute of International Economics study, the bill will, at most, save 1,700 jobs in the steel industry but will do so at a cost to the economy of about $800,000 a job. For us to put such a burden on the American people is unconscionable. With that said, let us not forget that the import surge the quotas are designed to address appears to be over. In fact, imports of all steel products for the first 4 months of this year were below the imports for the same period in 1997, well before the surge began. I yield myself 30 seconds. Let me address one last point. For some of my colleagues, this may be seen as a free vote. I, like many, hope the President will have the courage to veto this legislation if it does pass. But we have to remember that the American people sent us to Congress to further their national interests. Let's not disappoint them. I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture.

Mr. ROTH. I yield 3 minutes.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I want to congratulate my colleague for the leadership that he has provided in this renewable energy program. I strongly believe that renewable energy technology represents our best hope for reducing air pollution, creating jobs, and decreasing our reliance on imported oil and finite supplies of fossil fuel. These programs promise to supply economically competitive and commercially viable exports. I believe that the nation should be looking toward clean, alternative forms of energy, not taking a step backward by cutting funding for these important programs. Indeed this is a sentiment shared by a majority of the American people. Public support for renewable energy programs is strong. For the fifth year in a row, a national poll has revealed that Americans believe renewable energy along with energy efficiency should be the highest energy research and development priority. My own State of Delaware has a long tradition in solar energy. In 1972, the University of Delaware established one of the first photovoltaic laboratories in the nation, the Institute for Energy Conversion, which has been instrumental in developing photovoltaic technology. Delaware's major solar energy manufacturer, Astro Power, has become the largest U.S.-owned photovoltaic company and has doubled its work force since 1997. While the solar energy industry might have evolved in some form on its own, federal investment has accelerated the transition from the laboratory bench to commercial markets by leveraging private sector efforts. This collaboration has already accrued valuable economic benefits to the nation. Solar energy companies--like Astro Power--have already created thousands of jobs and helped to reduce our trade deficit through exports. My state has demonstrated that solar energy technology can be an economically competitive and commercially viable energy alternative. International markets for solar energy systems are virtually exploding, due to several key market trends. Most notably, solar energy is already one of the lowest cost options available to developing countries that cannot afford to build large, expensive centralized power generation facilities with elaborate distribution systems. The governments of Japan, Germany, and Australia are investing heavily in aggressive technology and market development in partnership with their own solar energy industries. Until recently, Japan and Germany held the lead in world market share for photovoltaics; the United States has only recently recaptured international market dominance. Cutting funding for these technologies would have a chilling effect on the U.S. industry's ability to compete on an international scale in these billion-dollar markets of today and tomorrow. The employment potential of renewables represents a minimum of 15,000 new jobs this decade with nearly 120,000 the next decade. It is imperative that this Senate support renewable energy technologies and be a partner to an energy future that addresses our economic needs in an environmentally acceptable manner. My state has done and will continue to do its part. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will look to the future and do their part in securing a safe and reliable energy future by supporting this amendment. Again, I want to congratulate my distinguished colleague for his leadership on this most important matter.