[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 3 (Thursday, January 9, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S153-S174]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 107. A bill to prohibit the exportation of natural gas from the
United States to Mexico for use in electric energy generation units
near the United States border that do not comply with air quality
control requirements that provide air quality protection that is at
least equivalent to the protection provided by requirements applicable
in the United States; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce
legislation at the start of this new Congress to protect those living
along the California-Mexican border from harmful power plant emissions.
This bill, which Congressman Duncan Hunter is also re-introducing
today in the House of Representatives, will prevent power plants built
in Mexico from using natural gas from the United States, unless firms
operating these plants agree to comply with California's air pollution
standards.
Currently there are two new power plants planned for Mexicali,
Mexico, a city right across the border from Imperial County,
California. The Imperial Valley produces much of our Nation's
wintertime vegetables. The Valley is the region in Southern California
that will be impacted most by pollution from these power plants in
Mexico. And since Imperial County has some of the worst air quality in
the United States and one of the highest childhood asthma rates in the
State, I believe these new plants must meet California emission
standards.
One of the Mexicali plants, which is being built by Sempra Energy,
will have pollution mitigation technology to minimize the impact of air
pollution on the residents of the Imperial Valley. However, the other
plant, to be built by InterGen, will not. InterGen officials have
repeatedly stated that their Mexicali plant will meet ``domestic
standards or World Bank standards.'' The problem is these are not U.S.
standards and are far below California standards.
I am introducing this legislation today to make sure any plant that
comes online along the California-Mexican border meets the same air
quality standards as plants in California.
The residents of Imperial County and the entire Southern California
region deserve nothing less.
I have heard from many constituents in Southern California concerned
about the InterGen plant and local officials in Imperial County are
adamantly opposed to the InterGen plant because the company has refused
to install pollution control devices on all four operating units.
This legislation has the support of the Imperial County Board of
Supervisors, the Imperial District, the Coachella Valley Association of
Governments, and San Diego Mayor Dick Murphy.
This legislation will ensure energy plants along the border employ
the best technology available to control pollution and protect the
public health for residents of Southern California and other border
regions in a similar situation.
The bill will prohibit energy companies from exporting natural gas
from the United States for use in Mexico unless the natural gas fired
generators south of the border meet the air standards prevalent in the
United States. This will effectively cut power plants off from the
natural gas supply if they do not meet higher emissions standards.
This legislation will not constrain power plants that were put online
prior to January 1, 2003. It will apply to plants built after the new
year and projects that come online in the future.
This bill will only apply to power plants within 50 miles of the
U.S.-Mexican border.
And the legislation will only apply to power plants that generate
more than 50 megawatts of power. We do not want to block any moves to
replace dirty diesel back-up generators with cleaner natural-gas fired
small power sources.
The bill calls for collaboration between the Secretary of Commerce
and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to
determine if a power plant is in compliance with relevant emission
standards.
I support the development of new energy projects for California
because I believe we need to bring more power online. However, I do not
believe the fact that we need more power in California should allow
companies to take advantage of this need and use it as an excuse to
devote less attention to clear air and public health.
It is not unreasonable to ensure that companies making money in
California energy market meet strict environmental standards. This
legislation is meant to strike a balance between promoting new sources
of energy south of the border and protecting the environment throughout
the border region. It is not a final resolution of these cross-border
issues, but I believe it is a good first step.
______
By Mr. EDWARDS (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
S. 118. A bill to develop and coordinate a national emergency warning
system; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, together with
Senator Hollings, the Emergency Warning Act of 2003.
In the event of a terrorist attack or natural disaster, Americans
must know how to respond. In the first terrible hours on September 11,
2001, in Washington, in New York, and across the country, most of us
didn't know what to do. We didn't know whether it was safer to pick our
children up from school or safer to leave them there. We didn't know if
we should stay at work or head for home.
For everything that's happened since September 11, the reality is
that if an attack happened again, many of us still would not know what
to do. That must change.
To prepare Americans to respond in time of attack, the first thing we
need to do is to update our emergency warning system. Today, that
system depends heavily on television and radio, and it has two big
problems. First, the system doesn't reach millions of Americans who
aren't near a TV and radio at a given moment. How many of us would hear
a warning issued on TV at 3 a.m? Second, the system doesn't provide all
the information we need. For many of us, the new color-coded terrorism
warnings have proven more confusing than helpful. We need practical
information about what we can do to respond to threats or attacks.
While the terrorist attacks have highlighted the need for effective
public warnings, they're also essential during natural disasters. In
fact, most public warnings deal with weather hazards like hurricanes
and floods. After Hurricane Floyd hit North Carolina, the Air Force had
to rescue more than 200 people stranded in cars, on roofs, and in
trees, people who weren't told to evacuate their homes until it was too
late. More than 50 people died during that hurricane. In our State's
neighbor, Tennessee, six people died during a 1999 tornado because
tornado sirens failed. With all the technology that we have at our
disposal, we can do better.
In short, we have to make sure effective warnings get to every
American in time of danger, and we have to make sure those warnings
tell folks just
[[Page S154]]
what they can do to protect themselves and their loved ones.
The Emergency Warning Act will help achieve that goal. This
legislation will require the Department of Homeland Security and the
Department of Commerce to make sure that comprehensive, easily
understood emergency warnings get to every American at risk, Whether
from flood, hurricane or terrorist attack. This bill instructs Commerce
and DHS to work with the government agencies that currently issue
warnings, with first responders, with private industry, and with the
media to make sure that our emergency warning system actually warns
Americans who are at risk.
There are a lot of things the system could do using existing
technology. For example, it could alert Americans in their homes
through a special phone ring. These warnings could reach people as they
sleep in their homes. For people on the move, the system could use cell
phones, which can already be programmed to broadcast emergency warnings
to all users in a certain area--even if those folks are just passing
through. Pagers and beepers can achieve the same result. Televisions
can be programmed to come on automatically and provide alerts in the
event of a disaster.
We also can make sure that warnings provide the specific information
people need--what to watch for, where to go, how to travel, what to
bring. We should not have empty warnings. Instead, we should respond to
specific threats with specific information that people can use.
This legislation was developed with a lot of help from the
Partnership for Public Warning. Their comprehensive study of the
problem, ``Developing a Unified All-Hazard Public Warning System,''
pointed the way to what we are doing. I'm grateful for their help, as
well as the indispensable help of Senator Hollings.
Creating a better emergency warning system is only the first step we
must take in order to empower Americans to respond to terrorist attack.
As I've said in the past, I believe Americans want to contribute to our
nation's defense, they are just looking for ways to do it. In the
coming weeks, I will introduce additional legislation to support
civilian defense efforts across America. But this bill makes an
important contribution to our efforts.
______
By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Brownback, Mr.
Hagel, Mr. Burns, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Cornyn, and Mr. Cochran):
S. 120. A bill to eliminate the marriage tax penalty permanently in
2003; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to
provide permanent tax relief from one of the most egregious, anti-
family aspects of the tax code, the marriage penalty. Relieving
American taxpayers of this burden has been one of my highest priorities
as a U.S. Senator.
Today, millions of couples across America are penalized by our tax
code simply because they are married. The Treasury Department estimates
that 48 percent of married couples pay this additional tax, and,
according to a study by the Congressional Budget Office, the average
penalty paid is $1,400 per couple.
Fortunately, the 107th Congress took a step in the right direction.
The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 will
provide marriage penalty relief to millions of couples by increasing
the size of the standard deduction and the width of the 15 percent tax
bracket, so those applied to a married couple will be twice the size of
those for an individual. In addition, the phase-out levels for the
earned income tax credit will be adjusted so as to reduce the penalty
on married couples.
But once again, we face the infamous ``sunset provision'' that will
wipe away these reforms in 2011. Another problem is that relief does
not begin to be phased in until 2005, with the full impact not taking
effect until 2009. President Bush has called for making marriage
penalty relief effective immediately as part of his economic stimulus
package.
I agree that this is an important step. Given the state of the
economy and the difficulty many families are having in making ends
meet, we cannot wait any longer to give young couples the break they
deserve.
The bi-partisan bill I am offering with Senator Bayh and others would
make the 2001 reforms effective immediately and permanently. People
will no longer have to decide between love and money.
The benefits for couples are significant. A couple earning $30,000
could keep $800 they now pay in taxes, while a couple earning $80,000
could save more than $1,300. 35 million couples will benefit from
enacting marriage penalty relief in 2003, including 2.4 million Texas
families.
The tax code provides a significant disincentive for people to take
marriage vows. Marriage is a fundamental institution in our society and
should not be discouraged by the IRS. The benefits of marriage are well
established. Children living in a married household are far less likely
to live in poverty or to suffer from child abuse. Research indicates
they are less likely to be depressed or have developmental problems.
Scourges such as adolescent drug use are less common in married
families, and married mothers are less likely to be victims of domestic
violence.
At the very least, marriage should not be a taxable event.
I call on the Senate to finish the job we started and say ``I do'' to
providing permanent marriage penalty relief today.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text
of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 120
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Marriage Penalty Relief Act
of 2003''.
SEC. 2. ACCELERATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF PROVISIONS.
(a) Elimination of Marriage Penalty in Standard
Deduction.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 63(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to standard
deduction) is amended--
(A) by striking ``$5,000'' in subparagraph (A) and
inserting ``200 percent of the dollar amount in effect under
subparagraph (C) for the taxable year'';
(B) by adding ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
(C) by striking ``in the case of'' and all that follows in
subparagraph (C) and inserting ``in any other case.''; and
(D) by striking subparagraph (D).
(2) Technical amendments.--
(A) Subparagraph (B) of section 1(f )(6) of such Code is
amended by striking ``(other than with'' and all that follows
through ``shall be applied'' and inserting ``(other than with
respect to sections 63(c)(4) and 151(d)(4)(A)) shall be
applied''.
(B) Paragraph (4) of section 63(c) of such Code is amended
by adding at the end the following flush sentence:
``The preceding sentence shall not apply to the amount
referred to in paragraph (2)(A).''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2002.
(b) Elimination of Marriage Penalty in 15-percent
bracket.--
(1) In general.--Section 1(f ) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to adjustments in tax tables so that
inflation will not result in tax increases) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) Elimination of marriage penalty in 15-percent
bracket.--
``(A) In general.--With respect to taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2002, in prescribing the tables under
paragraph (1)--
``(i) the maximum taxable income in the 15-percent rate
bracket in the table contained in subsection (a) (and the
minimum taxable income in the next higher taxable income
bracket in such table) shall be 200 percent of the maximum
taxable income in the 15-percent rate bracket in the table
contained in subsection (c) (after any other adjustment under
this subsection), and
``(ii) the comparable taxable income amounts in the table
contained in subsection (d) shall be \1/2\ of the amounts
determined under clause (i).
``(B) Rounding.--If any amount determined under
subparagraph (A)(i) is not a multiple of $50, such amount
shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $50.''.
(2) Technical amendments.--
(A) Subparagraph (A) of section 1(f )(2) of such Code is
amended by inserting ``except as provided in paragraph (8),''
before ``by increasing''.
(B) The heading for subsection (f ) of section 1 is amended
by inserting ``Elimination of Marriage Penalty in 15-Percent
Bracket;'' before ``Adjustments''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2002.
[[Page S155]]
(c) Marriage Penalty Relief for Earned Income Credit.--
(1) Increased phaseout amount.--
(A) In general.--Section 32(b)(2)(B) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to amounts) is amended by
striking ```increased by--'' and all that follows and
inserting ``increased by $3,000.''.
(B) Inflation adjustment.--Paragraph (1)(B)(ii) of section
32( j) of such Code (relating to inflation adjustments) is
amended to read as follows:
``(ii) in the case of the $3,000 amount in subsection
(b)(2)(B), by substituting `calendar year 2003' for `calendar
year 1992' in subparagraph (B) of such section 1.''.
(C) Effective date.--The amendments made by this paragraph
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2002.
(2) Expansion of mathematical error authority.--
(A) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 6213(g) of such
Code is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of
subparagraph (K), by striking the period at the end of
subparagraph (L) and inserting ``, and'', and by inserting
after subparagraph (L) the following new subparagraph:
``(M) the entry on the return claiming the credit under
section 32 with respect to a child if, according to the
Federal Case Registry of Child Support Orders established
under section 453(h) of the Social Security Act, the taxpayer
is a noncustodial parent of such child.''.
(B) Effective date.--The amendment made by this paragraph
shall take effect on January 1, 2003.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Repeal of Amendments.--Sections 301, 302, and 303(g) of
the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
are repealed.
(2) Repeal of Sunset.--Title IX of the Economic Growth and
Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relating to sunset of
provisions of such Act) shall not apply to section 303 (other
than subsection (g) of such section) of such Act (relating to
marriage penalty relief).
______
By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Hatch, Mr.
Leahy, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Miller, Mr. Voinovich, Mr.
Crapo, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Fitzgerald,
Mr. Feingold, Mr. Biden, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Nelson of Florida,
Mr. Bennett, Mr. Dodd, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Sessions, Ms. Collins,
Mr. Allard, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Harkin, and Mr.
Durbin):
S. 121. A bill to enhance the operation of the AMBER Alsert
communications network in order to facilitate the recovery of abducted
children, to provide for enhanced notification on highways of alerts
and information on such children, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am introducing today with my friend
from California, Senator Feinstein, and 26 other senators, the National
AMBER Network Act. This legislation will establish a National Amber
Network and improve the current system of AMBER Alert plans that exist
in various states. Our legislation recognizes the tremendous work that
those involved in AMBER alerts are doing and seeks to build on their
efforts.
In 1996, 9-year-old Amber Hagerman of Arlington, Texas was abducted
and brutally murdered. Her death had such an impact on the community
that local law enforcement and area broadcasters developed what is now
known as AMBER Alert, America's Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response.
An AMBER Alert is activated by law enforcement to find a child, when a
child has been abducted. An Alert triggers highway notification and
broadcast messages throughout the area where the abduction occurred.
As we have seen, AMBER plans in different communities have worked to
bring children home safely. To date, AMBER Alert has helped recover 42
children nationwide. Many communities and States have outstanding AMBER
plans. However, the vast majority of States do not yet have
comprehensive, statewide coverage and lack the ability to effectively
communicate. This is a critical issue particularly when an abducted
child is taken across State lines.
The bill I am introducing today establishes an AMBER Alert
Coordinator within the Department of Justice to assist states with
their AMBER plans. Last year, President Bush ordered the Attorney
General to establish an AMBER Alert Coordinator, and this bill will
codify that position for future Administrations. While we have
witnessed successful stories of AMBER alerts helping to recover a child
within a region, huge gaps exist among the AMBER plans around the
country. The AMBER Alert Coordinator will facilitate appropriate
regional coordination of AMBER alerts, particularly with interstate
travel situations, and will assist states, broadcasters, and law
enforcement in establishing additional AMBER plans.
The AMBER Alert Coordinator will set minimum, voluntary standards to
help states work together, and will help to reconcile the different
standards and criteria for issuing an AMBER Alert. In doing so, the
Coordinator will work with the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children, local and State law enforcement and broadcasters to
define minimum standards. Overall, the AMBER Alert Coordinator's
efforts will set safeguards to make sure the AMBER alert system is used
to meet it intended purpose.
In addition, the bill provides for matching grants to states with
AMBER programs. The grant program will help localities and States build
or further enhance their efforts to disseminate AMBER alerts. To this
end, Federal matching grants will fund road signs and electronic
message boards along highways, broadcasts of information on abducted
children, education and training, and related equipment.
Our bill has the strong support of the National Center of Missing and
Exploited Children and the National Association of Broadcasters, who
play essential roles in the AMBER Alert system. I urge the Senate to
act expeditiously on this legislation to protect America's children.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator
Hutchison in re-introducing the National AMBER Alert Network Act. This
legislation builds on the proven successes of the AMBER Alert program.
AMBER Alerts are official bulletins transmitted over the airwaves to
enlist the public's help in tracking down child abductors fleeing a
crime scene.
AMBER Alerts are such powerful tools because they can be issued
within minutes of an abduction and reach a wide public audience.
Statistics show that children in the most dangerous abduction cases
have precious little time until their safety is compromised.
According to a study by the U.S. Department of Justice, 74 percent of
children who were abducted, and later found murdered, are killed in the
first hours after being taken.
Simply put, we need more AMBER Alerts because they may be the best
tool law enforcement has to save kidnapped children facing imminent
danger.
Last Fall, Senator Hutchison and I first introduced the ``National
AMBER Alert Network Act.'' The bill attracted tremendous support in the
Senate. Just seven days after it was introduced, the bill passed the
Senate.
While the legislation did not pass the House, President Bush issued
an executive order putting some of the pieces of the National AMBER
Alert Network Act into effect.
Specifically, on October 3, 2002, President Bush announced that the
Administration would create a national AMBER Alert coordinator in the
Department of Justice, would draft national standards for AMBER Alerts;
and allocate $10 million in funding for the creation of new AMBER Alert
programs.
While President Bush's actions were an important first step, we now
need to ensure the long-term viability of the national AMBER Alert
program by enacting authorizing legislation.
The bill we introduce today has three key components.
First, the legislation would authorize $20 million to the Department
of Transportation and $5 million to the Department of Justice in FY
2004 to provide grants for the development of AMBER Alert systems,
electronic message boards, and training and education programs in
states that do not have AMBER Alerts.
To date, AMBER Alert systems exist in 33 States and a total of 83
local, regional and State jurisdictions. This bill would help the
expansion of AMBER Alerts to new jurisdictions.
Second, the bill would build upon the President's Executive Order by
authorizing a national coordinator for AMBER Alerts in the Department
of
[[Page S156]]
Justice to expand the network of AMBER Alert systems and to coordinate
the issuance of region-wide AMBER Alerts.
Third, the bill provides a framework for the Department of Justice to
establish minimum standards for the regional coordination of AMBER
alerts.
The Department of Justice, working with the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children and other private organizations with
expertise in this area, would build upon the best standards currently
in place.
Today, an AMBER Alert is typically issued only when: a law
enforcement agency confirms that a predatory child abduction has
occurred, the child is in imminent danger, and there is information
available that, if disseminated to the public, could assist in the safe
recovery of the child.
The effectiveness of AMBER Alerts depends on the continued judicious
use of the system so that the public does not grow to ignore the
warnings.
Furthermore, it is the specific intent of this bill not to interfere
with the operation of the 83 AMBER plans that are working today.
Participation in regional AMBER plans is voluntary, and any plan that
wishes to go it alone may still do so.
I urge members to support this bill because AMBER Alerts have a
proven track record.
Nationally, since 1996, the AMBER Alert has been credited with the
safe return of 42 children to their families, including one case in
which an abductor reportedly released the child after hearing the alert
himself.
I would like to briefly describe two of these cases: the rescues of
10 year-old Nichole Timmons from Riverside and four-year old Jessica
Cortez from Los Angeles.
Last fall, Nichole Timmons and her mother Sharon attended a hearing
of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and
Government information on the AMBER Alert program.
In moving testimony, Sharon described how Nichole was abducted from
their Riverside home on August 20, 2002 and how an AMBER Alert brought
her daughter back to her within hours of the abduction.
In Nichole's case, an Alert was issued not just in California, but in
Nevada as well.
After learning about the Alert, a tribal police officer in Nevada
spotted the truck of Nichole's abductor and stopped him within 24 hours
of the abduction.
He was found with duct tape and a metal pipe.
The AMBER Alert was the only reason that Nichole was able to return
home to her mother, safe.
I can't think of any testimony in support of a bill more powerful
than the sight of a mother sitting next to her daughter who she thought
might be gone forever.
The second case I want to mention is that of Jessica Cortez. Jessica
disappeared from Echo Park in Los Angeles on August 11, 2002.
But when Jessica's abductor took her to a clinic for medical care,
receptionist Denise Leon recognized Jessica from AMBER Alert and
notified law enforcement.
Without the publicity generated by the Alert, Jessica could have been
lost to her parents forever.
Through this legislation, we will extend to every corner of the
Nation a network of AMBER Alerts that will protect our children.
This program will increase the odds that an abducted child will
return to his or her family safety.
But importantly, it will deter potential abductors from taking a
child in the first place.
As Mark Klaas said at a hearing on the bill last Fall, this
legislation will ``save kids lives.''
Once again, let me thank Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for her
tremendous leadership on this issue.
It is my hope that this bill will continue to see the strong,
bipartisan support that led to its swift passage in the Senate last
year. Thank you.
______
By Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Bond, Ms. Mikulski,
Mr. Bunning, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Allard, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Hagel, Mr.
Chafee, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Reed, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Bayh, Mr.
Miller, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Corzine):
S. 122. A bill to extend the national flood insurance program; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``National
Flood Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2003.'' This bill, which
is cosponsored by the Ranking Democrat on the Banking Committee,
Senator Sarbanes, as well as Senators Bond and Mikulski, the Chairman
and Ranking Member, respectively, of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and
Independent Agencies Appropriations, will provide a one-year extension
of the lapsed federal flood insurance program.
The National Flood Insurance Program, ``NFIP'', expired on December
31, 2002. The expiration of the program has prevented homeowners and
home buyers from obtaining or renewing flood insurance policies in the
intervening time. Since anyone buying or refinancing a home in a flood
plan must have flood insurance, NFIP's expiration will block the path
to home ownership for many Americans, and have a disruptive effect on
residential real estate and mortgage markets.
I have a December 6, 2002 letter from Anthony S. Lowe, the
Administrator of the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
which goes into greater detail regarding the consequences of the
expiration of the NFIP. As Director Low indicates in this letter the
lapse of this authority could effect as many as 400,000 households in
the month of January alone. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be
printed in the Record.
The bill that I am introducing today simply extends the NFIP through
the end of this calender year, retroactive to January 1, 2003. As such,
it's purpose is the same as S. 13, which the Senate passed last
November 20th.
The House passed companion legislation this week, and it is our hope
to have a short term extension of the NFIP enacted into law as soon as
possible. This will permit the two Houses of Congress to consider the
larger issues confronting the NFIP in a deliberate manner, without
creating hardship for homeowners and undue turmoil in our nation's real
estate markets.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, DC, December 6, 2002.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: On December 31, 2002, certain basic
authorities for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) will expire. The
continuing resolution (P.L. 107-294), which extends FY 02
baseline funding through January 11, 2003, does not extend
NFIP authorization. This lapse in authority in January alone
could affect as many as 400,000 households seeking to obtain
or renew a flood insurance policy in nearly 20,000
communities in all 50 States and territories.
In particular, the lack of authorization for NFIP to issue
and renew policies will cause significant disruption to
policyholders, the lending and real estate industries,
secondary mortgage market, many private insurance companies
writing flood insurance under arrangements with the NFIP, and
particularly those seeking home loans or mortgage refinancing
that requires flood insurance as a precondition to
settlement.
The lapse in authorization will also have a negative impact
on public entities that provide or require flood insurance,
including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which together control
about 85% of the secondary mortgage market in the country. In
addition, since policy renewal billing is generally conducted
45-90 days prior to expiration of a policy, unless our
authority to renew policies is reauthorized immediately, many
more individuals will be impacted than the above initial
estimate.
The four authorities requiring reauthorization are sections
1309(a)(2), 1391, 1336 and 1376(c) of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-448). Should they lapse, the
resulting uninsured flood losses could impose significant
hardship on citizens, and increase costs to the Federal
government and the States. I would urge Congress to act as
quickly as possible to reauthorize this important program
effective January 1, 2003. Should you have any questions on
this issue, please do not hesitate to contact our
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs Division at (202)
646-4500. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Anthony S. Lowe,
Administrator,
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Shelby
[[Page S157]]
and others of my colleagues in introducing the National Flood Insurance
Program Reauthorization Act of 2003. This legislation is similar to
legislation I introduced last year S. 13, which would have reauthorized
the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), for one year, preventing a
lapse in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's authority to
administer this important program. The Senate passed this bill on
November 20, 2002, but unfortunately, the House of Representatives did
not consider it before adjourning for the year. FEMA's authority to
manage the NFIP expired on December 31, 2002.
FEMA has estimated that even a brief lapse in its authority to run
the NFIP could affect approximately 500,000 households seeking to
obtain or maintain flood insurance, which in many cases is a
precondition for settlement of a mortgage or home loan. The NFIP was
created by Congress in 1968 in response to the lack of such insurance
being offered by the private sector. This program made flood insurance
available in communities that adopted flood plain management
regulations designed to reduce future damages from flooding, and it is
now available in almost 20,000 participating communities nationwide. As
of September 30, 2002, the NFIP had almost 4.4 million policies in
force, representing more than 90 percent of the flood insurance in the
United States. The availability of flood insurance helps Americans
prepare for floods, while reducing the need for federal disaster
assistance after a flood.
The unfortunate lapse in FEMA's authority has caused confusion and
uncertainty in the real estate industry for both lenders and borrowers.
The Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration within FEMA has
made efforts to work with the banking regulators, the lending
community, and other stakeholders to address their concerns about the
lapse in FEMA's authority. While these efforts have been helpful, the
only effective solution is a rapid reauthorization of this program by
the Congress.
The legislation we are introducing today makes reauthorization of the
NFIP retroactive to December 31, 2002, to minimize any disruption that
would be caused by a lapse in FEMA's authority. We have worked closely
with FEMA in developing this language, and it is supported by a
coalition of industry representatives, including America's Community
Bankers, the American Bankers Association, the American Insurance
Association, the American Society of Appraisers, the Appraisal
Institute, Fannie Mae. Farmers Insurance Group, Freddie Mac,
Independent Insurance Agent & Brokers of America, the Mortgage Bankers
Association, the National Association of Homebuilders, the National
Association of Mortgage Brokers, the National Association of
Professional Insurance Agents, and the National Association of
Realtors.
Property owners and mortgage lenders throughout the country rely on
the NFIP to insure their properties against flood damage. Unless the
NFIP is reauthorized, that protection will disappear. I urge my
colleagues to support swift passage of this urgently needed
legislation.
______
By Mr. KYL:
S. 123. A bill to exclude United States persons from the definition
of ``foreign power'' under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978 relating to international terrorism; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this
bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 123
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF UNITED STATES PERSONS FROM DEFINITION
OF FOREIGN POWER IN FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE
SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978 RELATING TO
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM.
Paragraph (4) of section 101(a) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(a)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(4) a person, other than a United States person, or group
that is engaged in international terrorism or activities in
preparation therefor;''.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Chafee):
S. 126. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to suspend
future reductions of the highest income tax rate if there exists a
Federal on-budget deficit; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill, with
Senator Chafee, to freeze the top income tax rate at its current level
of 38.6 percent, until such time as the Federal budget returns to
surpluses. We believe the ballooning deficit is bad for the economy,
bad for interest rates, and bad for the health of the Nation.
Under current law, the top income tax rate is scheduled to drop from
38.6 percent to 37.6 percent in 2004 and then to 35 percent in 2006.
This rate is applied to the adjusted gross income of those who earn
over $312,000. This top rate freeze would save $88 billion between now
and 2010, and $132 billion through 2012, every penny of which would go
toward reducing the Federal deficit.
Everyone should understand that this top tax rate is paid by just
908,000 of the more than 128 million taxpayers nationwide, just 0.7
percent of American taxpayers. This is not a time for tax policies
which benefit only a small portion of the population. It is a time for
fiscally responsible policies that will ensure long-term growth and
provide an immediate stimulus to our economy.
In June 2001, I voted for the President's tax plan. It was truly a
different time: 9/11 had not taken place; war had not appeared on the
horizon; revelations of corporate fraud had not surfaced; and a
recession was not evident.
Those times are as different from today as day is from night. At the
time, Senator Chafee and I, along with twelve other Senators from both
parties, supported a ``trigger'' on the 2001 tax reduction. This would
have frozen future tax reductions under the Bush Tax Cut if the budget
returned to deficit. Unfortunately, we were able to attract only 49
votes on the amendment. I wish we had that trigger today.
Now, it is estimated that we face $1.4 trillion in cumulative budget
deficits between now and 2012. And that is why we return to the idea of
the trigger. I believe that we should not allow the rate reduction for
the top rate to proceed, until we return to budget surpluses.
And that brings us to the Bush Administration's $674 billion tax cut
and economic stimulus package. In my view, this is the wrong plan at
the wrong time. It digs the Nation deeper into debt. It is not a
stimulus. It is skewed to the wealthy. And it severely limits the
government's ability to pay for needed programs, like education,
transportation, and law enforcement.
First, the President's plan would be a major contributor to massive
budget deficits. The proposal would result in a budget deficit of
approximately $482 billion this year alone, if the social security
trust fund surpluses were not used to fund the budget. Using the social
security trust fund, the deficit would still be $312 billion. This does
not include the costs of a possible war with Iraq, an extension of
Federal unemployment benefits, and the FY 2003 and FY 2004
appropriations bills.
Furthermore, as the Federal debt increases, the government will spend
billions more in tax dollars on servicing the debt, instead of
priorities like homeland security, healthcare, education,
transportation, or the environment. Interest on the debt over ten years
is already projected to be $1.3 trillion higher than expected, even
before this new package, and this package would add more than $100
billion in new interest payments over the next ten years. Unlike home
mortgage payments, interest on the debt is rolled over and compounds,
which makes a rising debt extremely dangerous over the long-term.
Second, the President's tax cut is skewed to the wealthiest 1 percent
of Americans. Taxpayers with income over 1 million would receive an
average of more than $88,000 in benefits, while the typical middle-
income taxpayer would only benefit by $265. This is clearly unfair. In
fact one-third of all benefits would go to the wealthiest 1 percent,
while less than 10 percent of the benefits would go to the 60 percent
of taxpayers making under $54,000.
Third, the proposal is not stimulative. The central feature of the
Administration's plan, an elimination of
[[Page S158]]
taxes on corporate dividends, would not begin to be felt until April
2004. And when those savings do kick in, they would largely benefit the
wealthiest people--with more than half the benefits, $225 billion,
going to the top five percent of taxpayers. So to say this is a
stimulus is simply inaccurate and misleading.
So, today we are urging the Senate to consider freezing a single
element of the 2001 tax package. I urge my colleagues to approve a
fiscally responsible package of tax proposals that reduce the deficit
and stimulate the economy, instead of a massive tax cut which will do
neither.
Mr. President, I request that the attached table be included for the
Record with my statement of support for the Feinstein-Chafee Fiscal
Responsibility Act of 2003.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Records, as follows:
TABLE 2.--TOP FEDERAL TAX BRACKET TAXPAYERS, BY STATE 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All tax units
-------------------------- Total tax Units not in
State No. in top Percent in units top bracket
bracket top bracket
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................... 10,805 0.5 2,057,000 2,046,195
Alaska................................................ 1,731 0.6 282,000 280,269
Arizona............................................... 13,843 0.7 2,112,000 2,098,157
Arkansas.............................................. 4,607 0.4 1,217,000 1,212,393
California............................................ 133,060 0.9 14,398,000 14,264,940
Colorado.............................................. 16,717 0.8 2,024,000 2,007,283
Connecticut........................................... 16,019 1.0 1,595,000 1,578,981
Delaware.............................................. 2,917 0.8 371,000 368,083
District of Columbia.................................. 2,845 1.1 256,000 253,155
Florida............................................... 58,928 0.8 7,645,000 7,586,072
Georgia............................................... 23,853 0.6 3,756,000 3,732,147
Hawaii................................................ 2,409 0.4 567,000 564,591
Idaho................................................. 2,876 0.5 565,000 562,124
Illinois.............................................. 52,255 0.9 5,730,000 5,677,745
Indiana............................................... 17,112 0.6 2,821,000 2,803,888
Iowa.................................................. 7,244 0.5 1,389,000 1,381,756
Kansas................................................ 7,174 0.6 1,244,000 1,236,826
Kentucky.............................................. 8,237 0.4 1,884,000 1,875,763
Louisiana............................................. 9,534 0.5 1,981,000 1,971,466
Maine................................................. 2,858 0.5 611,000 608,142
Maryland.............................................. 16,578 0.7 2,494,000 2,477,422
Massachusetts......................................... 20,520 0.7 3,092,000 3,071,480
Michigan.............................................. 29,601 0.6 4,600,000 4,570,399
Minnesota............................................. 20,447 0.9 2,307,000 2,286,553
Mississippi........................................... 5,989 0.5 1,296,000 1,290,011
Missouri.............................................. 15,772 0.6 2,631,000 2,615,228
Montana............................................... 1,422 0.3 421,000 419,578
Nebraska.............................................. 4,373 0.5 803,000 798,627
Nevada................................................ 8,494 0.9 934,000 925,506
New Hampshire......................................... 4,121 0.7 589,000 584,879
New Jersey............................................ 42,379 1.1 3,909,000 3,866,621
New Mexico............................................ 2,367 0.3 768,000 765,633
New York.............................................. 68,372 0.8 8,700,000 8,631,628
North Carolina........................................ 21,201 0.6 3,778,000 3,756,799
North Dakota.......................................... 1,241 0.4 293,000 291,759
Ohio.................................................. 26,723 0.5 5,630,000 5,603,277
Oklahoma.............................................. 7,007 0.5 1,483,000 1,475,993
Oregon................................................ 9,264 0.6 1,623,000 1,613,736
Pennsylvania.......................................... 39,987 0.7 5,833,000 5,793,013
Rhode Island.......................................... 3,100 0.6 486,000 482,900
South Carolina........................................ 8,710 0.5 1,858,000 1,849,290
South Dakota.......................................... 1,693 0.5 340,000 338,307
Tennessee............................................. 15,216 0.6 2,686,000 2,670,784
Texas................................................. 54,705 0.6 8,922,000 8,867,295
Utah.................................................. 5,646 0.6 896,000 890,354
Vermont............................................... 1,412 0.5 287,000 285,588
Virginia.............................................. 21,366 0.6 3,318,000 3,296,634
Washington............................................ 23,391 0.8 2,799,000 2,775,609
West Virginia......................................... 2,213 0.3 842,000 839,787
Wisconsin............................................. 15,597 0.6 2,517,000 2,501,403
Wyoming............................................... 1,211 0.5 229,000 227,789
---------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Totals....................................... 907,990 0.7 128,869,000 127,961,010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: US totals include returns filed from other areas.
Source: ITEP Tax Model, Preliminary.
Citizens for Tax Justice, May 7, 2001.
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 127. A bill to allow a custodial parent a bad debt deduction for
unpaid child support payments, and to require a parent who is
chronically delinquent in child support to include the amount of the
unpaid obligation in gross income; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the child Support
Enforcement Act. This bill will bring much-needed relief to the
millions of families who are not receiving the child support they
desperately need.
The importance of this bill is clear. Each year, nearly 60 percent of
the 20 million children who are owed child support receive less than
the amount they are due. And more than 30 percent receive no payment at
all. California is no exception; preliminary findings from the 2000
Census Report found that of more than 2.3 million Californians who were
owed child support, only 39 percent received those payments.
Clearly, millions of individuals, largely women and children, are in
crisis when it comes to child support. It is time to treat delinquent
child support the same way all other bad debt is treated in the tax
law.
The Child Support Enforcement Act would allow custodial parents to
deduct the amount of child support they are owed from their adjusted
gross income on their income taxes. This is true for all taxpayers,
regardless of whether they itemize.
This bill will also penalize the non-custodial parent who is not
paying his or her legally obligated child support. It will force the
deadbeat parent to add the owed amount to his adjusted gross income.
This is not creating new tax law. It is extending current tax law on
bad debts to delinquent child support payments. It's that simple.
The relief provided in this bill is extremely important for single
parents. Child support payments can literally mean the difference
between paying rent or being homeless; the difference between putting
food on the table or being forced to let children go hungry; the
difference between making ends meet or going on welfare.
I am pleased to be joined in the effort by Senator Snowe. And
Representative Cox has introduced the House version of the bill this
week as well. As you can see, this is not a partisan issue. This is a
family issue. It will help families and children nationwide. I urge my
colleagues to cosponsor this bill.
By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 128. A bill to assist in the consernation of cranes by supporting
and providing, through projects of persons and organizations with
expertise
[[Page S159]]
in crane conservation, financial resources for the conservation
programs of countries in activities of which directly or indirectly
affect cranes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Crane
Conservation Act of 2003. I am very pleased that the Senator from
Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, has joined me as a cosponsor of this bill. I
propose this legislation in the hope that Congress will do its part to
protect the existence of these birds, whose cultural significance and
popular appeal can be seen worldwide. This legislation is important to
the people of Wisconsin, as our State provides habitat and refuge to
several crane species. But this legislation, which authorizes the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service to distribute funds and grants
to crane conservation efforts both domestically and in developing
countries, promises to have a larger environmental and cultural impact
that will go far beyond the boundaries of my home State. This bill is
similar to legislation that I introduced in the 107th Congress, which
was reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee but
unfortunately did not receive floor action before the Congress
adjourned. I have incorporated many of the changes made to my bill by
the Environment Committee last year, and I hope that, by doing so, this
bill can be swiftly reported and passed.
In October of 1994, Congress passed and the President signed the
Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. The passage of this act provided
support for multinational rhino and tiger conservation through the
creation of the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, or RTCF.
Administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the RTCF
distributes up to $10 million in grants every year to conservation
groups to support projects in developing countries. Since its
establishment in 1994, the RTCF has been expanded by Congress to cover
other species, such as elephants and great apes.
Today, with the legislation I am introducing, I am asking Congress to
add cranes to this list. Cranes are the most endangered family of birds
in the world, with ten of the world's fifteen species at risk of
extinction. Specifically, this legislation would authorize up to $3
million of funds per year to be distributed in the form of conservation
project grants to protect cranes and their habitat. The financial
resources authorized by this bill can be made available to qualifying
conservation groups operating in Asia, Africa, and North America. The
program is authorized from Fiscal Year 2004 through Fiscal Year 2008.
In keeping with my belief that we should balance the budget, this
bill proposes that the $15 million in authorized spending over five
years for the Crane Conservation Act established in this legislation
should be offset by rescinding $18 million in unspent funds from funds
carried over by the Department of Energy's Clean Coal Technology
Program in the Fiscal Year 2002 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill.
The Secretary of the Interior would be required to transfer any funds
it does not expend under the Crane Conservation Act back to the
Treasury at the end of Fiscal Year 2007. I do not intend my bill to
make any particular judgments about the Clean Coal program or its
effectiveness, but I do think, in general, that programs should expend
resources that we appropriate in a timely fashion.
I am offering this legislation due to the serious and significant
decline that can be expected in crane populations worldwide without
conservation efforts. The decline of the North American whooping crane,
the rarest crane on earth, perfectly illustrates the dangers faced by
these birds. In 1941, only 21 whooping cranes existed in the entire
world. This stands in contrast to the almost 400 birds in existence
today. The North American whooping crane's resurgence is attributed to
the birds' tenacity for survival and to the efforts of conservationists
in the United States and Canada. Today, the only wild flock of North
American whooping cranes breeds in northwest Canada, and spends its
winters in coastal Texas. Two new flocks of cranes are currently being
reintroduced to the wild, one of which is a migratory flock on the
Wisconsin to Florida flyway.
This flock of birds illustrates that any effort by Congress to
regulate crane conservation needs to cross both national and
international lines. As this flock of birds makes its journey from
Wisconsin to Florida, the birds rely on the ecosystems of a multitude
of states in this country. In its journey from the Necedah National
Wildlife Refuge in Wisconsin to the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife
Refuge in Florida in the fall and eventual return to my home state in
the spring, this flock also faces threats from pollution of traditional
watering grounds, collision with utility lines, human disturbance,
disease, predation, loss of genetic diversity within the population,
and vulnerability to catastrophes, both natural and man-made. Despite
the conservation efforts taken since 1941, this symbol of conservation
is still very much in danger of extinction.
While over the course of the last half-century, North American
whooping cranes have begun to make a slow recovery, many species of
crane in Africa and Asia have declined, including the sarus crane of
Asia and the wattled crane of Africa.
The sarus crane stands four feet tall and can be found in the
wetlands of northern India and south Asia. These birds require large,
open, well watered plains or marshes to breed and survive.
Due to agricultural expansion, industrial development, river basin
development, pollution, warfare, and heavy use of pesticides prevalent
in India and southeast Asia, the sarus crane population has been in
decline. Furthermore, in many areas, a high human population
concentration compounds these factors. On the Mekong River, which runs
through Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and China, human population
growth and planned development projects threaten the sarus crane.
Reports from India, Cambodia, and Thailand have also cited incidences
of the trading of adult birds and chicks, as well as hunting and egg
stealing in the drop-in population of the sarus crane.
Only three subspecies of the sarus crane exist today. One resides in
northern India and Nepal, one resides in southeast Asia, and one
resides in northern Australia. Their population is about 8,000 in the
main Indian population, with recent numbers showing a rapid decline. In
Southeast Asia, only 1,000 birds remain.
The situation of the sarus crane in Asia is mirrored by the situation
of the wattled crane in Africa. In Africa, the wattled crane is found
in the southern and eastern regions, with an isolated population in the
mountains of Ethiopia. Current population estimates range between 6,000
to 8,000 and are declining rapidly, due to loss and degradation of
wetland habitats, as well as intensified agriculture, dam construction,
and industrialization. In other parts of the range, the creation of
dams has changed the dynamics of the flood plains, thus further
endangering these cranes and their habitats. Human disturbance at or
near breeding sites also continues to be a major threat. Lack of
oversight and education over the actions of people, industry, and
agriculture is leading to reduced preservation for the lands on which
cranes live, thereby threatening the ability of cranes to survive in
these regions.
If we do not act now, not only will cranes face extinction, but the
ecosystems that depend on their contributions will suffer. With the
decline of the crane population, the wetlands and marshes they inhabit
can potentially be thrown off balance. I urge my colleagues to join me
in supporting legislation that can provide funding to the local
farming, education and enforcement projects that can have the greatest
positive effect on the preservation of both cranes and fragile
habitats. This small investment can secure the future of these
exemplary birds and the beautiful areas in which they live. Therefore,
I ask my colleagues to support the Crane Conservation Act of 2003.
______
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Kerry,
and Ms. Cantwell):
S. 130. A bill to amend the labeling requirements of the Dolphin
Protection Consumer Information Act, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Truth in Tuna
Labeling Act.'' This important legislation
[[Page S160]]
will ensure that the fishing of tuna labeled ``dolphin safe'' does not
kill, harm or attack dolphins, and that consumers are given accurate
information on how the tuna they purchase is caught. My bill will
guarantee that tuna products labeled ``dolphin safe'' will be truly
safe for dolphins.
In 1990, the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act, introduced
by myself in the House and Senator Biden in the Senate, created a
``dolphin safe'' label for consumers. This legislation was passed with
overwhelming bipartisan support, and it allowed American consumers to
buy tuna bearing the ``dolphin safe'' label with confidence, knowing
that their purchase did not trade dolphin mortalities for tuna fishing
profit.
Dolphin and yellowfin tuna tend to run together in some waters.
Dolphin swim closer to the surface to breathe. Under the destructive
``chase and encirclement'' practice, helicopters spot the schools of
dolphin. Speedboats deliberately encircle the dolphins and cast a mile-
wide net, knowing that the tuna will be below. While the tunas are to
be harvested, the hope is that the dolphins will escape the edges of
the net and suffocation or capture. This practice is termed ``purse
seine netting.''
According to the annual reports of the Marine Mammal Commission and
the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, dolphin mortality in the
eastern tropical Pacific alone has decreased from more than 100,000
dolphin kills each year to fewer than 2,000 kills each year since the
passage of the ``dolphin safe'' label in 1990.
Unfortunately, on New Year's Eve, the Commerce Department announced
its plans to make the labeling standard largely meaningless by changing
the definition of ``dolphin safe'' tuna to allow the label to be put on
tuna harvested through deadly purse seine netting.
This flies in the face of all available scientific information.
According to the Marine Mammal Commission, ``. . . the results of the
[National Marine Fisheries] Service's research program . . . provide
evidence that the practice of chasing and encircling dolphins is having
adverse effects on the recover of depleted dolphin stocks and that the
magnitude of those effects, at both the individual and population
levels, may be significant.''
The report prepared by the Commerce Department reached a similar
conclusion. It said, ``. . . despite considerable effort by fishery
scientists, there is little evidence of recovery, and concerns remain
that the practice of chasing and circling dolphins somehow is adversely
affecting the ability of those depleted stocks to recover.''
The new rule completely undermines the integrity of the ``dolphin
safe'' label, allowing ``dolphin safe'' labels to be placed on dolphin
deadly tuna, and misleading the public. These changes fly in the face
of the bipartisan legislation that was enacted in response to public
outcry and consumer demand.
As one who fought in the past to protect dolphins and inform
consumers, I believe that the effectiveness of the label will be
severely undermined by the change and will allow the continued
deterioration of dolphin populations. This administration has once
again continued its attack on the environment by weakening protections
for marine mammals, ignoring science, and providing yet another favor
to industry.
Therefore, I am introducing the ``Truth in Tuna Labeling Act'' to
reinstate the original ``dolphin safe'' label.
______
By Mr. REID (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Jeffords, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Edwards):
S. 131. A bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974 to strengthen security at sensitive nuclear
facilities; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. REID. Mr. President. Today I am joined by Senators Clinton,
Jeffords, Lieberman, Harkin and Edwards in introducing the Nuclear
Security Act of 2003.
The tragedy of September 11 taught us many things. It taught us the
vulnerability of our Nation's buildings and the strength of our
nation's resolve. We also learned how important our first responders
the brave men and women who arrive at the scene when there is an
emergency. Finally, we are reminded that we must be prepared for
today's threats because they could become tomorrow's attacks.
Last year, I introduced legislation to improve the safety of our
Nation's nuclear power plants. Nearly one year has passed since the
President warned us in his last State of the Union address how
vulnerable these facilities are, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
has still not taken any clear steps to improve the safety and security
of our nation's nuclear power plants. That is not acceptable.
Recent reports by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Inspector
General paint a bleak picture of the NRC's commitment to safety and
security.
Just a few days ago, the Inspector General released a survey of NRC
employees.
According to the Associated Press that survey found that a third of
the Agency's employees question the agency's commitment to public
safety and nearly half are not comfortable raising concerns about
safety issues within the agency.
The survey also found that some NRC employees worry that safety
training requirements for nuclear facilities are outdated and ``leave
the security of the nuclear sites . . . vulnerable to sabotage.''
So today, we are reintroducing legislation to protect our nation's
commercial nuclear facilities.
This legislation will fill the void that has been left by the NRC's
unwillingness to challenge the industry when terrorists could.
In particular, it will: establish a task force--chaired by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC to take a comprehensive look at the
security of our nuclear facilities.
Assign a new Federal security coordinator to each nuclear power
plant. Each plant should have a dedicated NRC employee responsible for
ensuring the appropriate coordination and communication between
federal, state, and local emergency response and law enforcement
agencies.
Establish a new antiterrorism team, which will provide additional
support to the existing private security forces. This team will be a
model for how to protect other potentially vulnerable elements of our
energy infrastructure.
Require the NRC to update the threats nuclear power plants must
protect against; Require the NRC to make a comprehensive review of
emergency and security plans; Require the NRC to establish a new threat
level system for nuclear power plants; Require the NRC to revise and
update their hiring and training standards.
Establish a new, rigorous program to test nuclear facilities against
realistic threats. This is the kind of training security guards are
asking for.
In developing this bill, we listened to the concerns of guards and to
the concerns of Americans who live and work near these facilities.
In opposing this bill, the Administration continues to listen instead
to the nuclear power industry.
It is time the Administration lived up to its commitments to make our
nation's nuclear power plants more secure.
It is time the Administration listens to the people who really
matter, not the companies for whom only profit matters.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Corzine, and Mr.
Durbin):
S. 132. A bill to place a moratorium on executions by the Federal
Government and urge the States to do the same, while a National
Commission on the Death Penalty reviews the fairness of the imposition
of the death penalty; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this week, the University of Maryland
released the findings of its landmark 2-year study on Maryland's death
penalty system. The report reveals disturbing racial and geographic
disparities in the administration of the death penalty in Maryland. It
confirms the alarming conclusion that the administration of our
criminal justice system's ultimate punishment is flawed and far from
fair or just.
That is why I rise today to reintroduce the National Death Penalty
Moratorium Act. This bill seeks to apply the wisdom of out-going
Maryland Governor Parris Glendening and out-going
[[Page S161]]
Illinois Governor George Ryan to the Federal Government and all States
that authorize the use of capital punishment. The bill would place a
moratorium on Federal executions and urge States to do the same. The
bill would also create a National Commission on the Death Penalty to
review the fairness of the administration of the death penalty at the
State and Federal levels. This Commission would be an independent, blue
ribbon panel of distinguished prosecutors, defense attorneys, jurists
and others. I am pleased that my distinguished colleagues, Senators
Levin, Corzine, and Durbin, have joined me in cosponsoring this bill.
The University of Maryland study was conducted by Professor Raymond
Paternoster of the University's Institute of Criminal Justice and
Criminology, and is the most exhaustive study of Maryland's application
of the death penalty in history. Professor Paternoster and other
researchers examined records of every homicide prosecution in which the
death penalty could have been sought, dating back to 1978.
The study released this week found that blacks accused of killing
whites are simply more likely to receive a death sentence than blacks
who kill blacks, or than white killers. According to the report, black
offenders who kill whites are four times as likely to be sentenced to
death as blacks who kill blacks, and twice as likely to get a death
sentence as whites who kill whites.
The study also confirms geographic disparity in Maryland's death
penalty system. Those convicted of murder in Baltimore County, a
jurisdiction with a high number of white murder victims, are 26 times
as likely to be sentenced to death as those convicted in Baltimore
City, and 14 times as likely as those convicted in Montgomery County.
Two years ago, when Governor Glendening learned of these suspected
disparities, he did not look the other way. Then last year, faced with
the rapid approach of a scheduled execution, he acknowledged that it
was unacceptable to allow executions to take place while the study he
had ordered was not yet complete. So, in May 2002, he placed a
moratorium on executions. That was the right thing to do.
I urge Governor-elect Ehrlich to do the right thing by extending the
moratorium. It would be contrary to our Nation's founding principles of
fairness and justice to execute anyone in Maryland before the questions
raised by the study are addressed.
The year 2002 was a landmark year for the examination of the death
penalty. Last year the 102nd person was exonerated from death row in
the modern death penalty era; 102 innocent people have been exonerated,
in some cases just days from execution, after being found innocent of
crimes for which they served sometimes years on death row. That is not
a small number. In the modern death penalty era, our Nation has
executed 820 people. That means that according to our best estimates,
since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, for every 8 people
executed, one who had been convicted and sentenced to death has been
found innocent.
That is an unacceptable high error rate in the administration of a
punishment for which errors caught too late cannot be fixed. That's a
rate of error with which none of us should be comfortable.
We should learn from the example set by Governor Glendening and by
Governor Ryan. Their voices are two of the many that have chimed in
over recent years to express doubt about the fairness of our Nation's
system of capital punishment. As evidence of the flaws in our system
mounts, it has created an awareness that has not escaped the attention
of the American people. Layer after layer of confidence in the death
penalty system has been gradually peeling away, and the voices of those
questioning its fairness are growing louder and louder. Now they can be
heard from college campuses and court rooms and podiums across the
nation, to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room, to the Supreme
Court. We must not ignore them.
In 2002, Governor Ryan's Commission on Capital Punishment issued its
report, which concluded with 85 recommendations for reforming the death
penalty system. In June 2002, I held a hearing in the Judiciary
Subcommittee on the Constitution on the report of the Illinois
Governor's Commission on Capital Punishment. We were fortunate to have
Governor Ryan and other members of the Commission testify about the
many flaws in the Illinois death penalty system and their
recommendations for reform.
The Illinois study and report are invaluable to the study of fairness
in our justice system. Governor Ryan's Commission provides a model for
the nation for how we can respond to the indisputable proof of errors
in our justice system. I am confident that as Governor Ryan leaves
office next week, his greatest legacy to our nation will be the courage
he showed three years ago when he suspended executions and acknowledged
that the death penalty system in Illinois was broken.
If we are prepared to admit, as Illinois and Maryland have, that
there are flaws in the death penalty system, then it is unconscionable
to allow executions to continue without a thorough, nationwide review.
The problems in the Illinois and Maryland systems are not unique to
their states. Since reinstatement of the modern death penalty, 81
percent of capital cases have involved white victims, even though only
50 percent of murder victims are white. Nationwide, more than half of
the death row inmates are African-Americans or Hispanic-Americans.
There is evidence of racial disparities, inadequate counsel,
prosecutorial misconduct, and false scientific evidence in death
penalty systems across the country.
In 2002, we saw progress here in Congress in addressing problems
plaguing the death penalty. The Innocence Protection Act, introduced by
my distinguished colleague and ranking member on the Judiciary
Committee, Senator Leahy, was favorably reported from the Judiciary
Committee in July. This legislation takes an important step by
recognizing the need for access to modern DNA testing and certain
minimum standards of competency for defense counsel in capital cases.
I commend Senator Leahy and the bipartisan effort of my colleagues
who helped move this important bill and I hope we will finish the job
and enact it into law this year. But I also urge them and the rest of
the Senate to recognize that if we are prepared to admit that we need
these reforms, a time-out is also needed to ensure that we do not
execute a single innocent person. The stakes are too high and the
consequences are far too devastating to allow executions to proceed.
Also in 2002, in a significant turning point for our Nation, the
Supreme Court reversed itself and ruled unconstitutional the execution
of the mentally retarded in Atkins versus Virginia. The Court's
decision further confirms that our Nation's standards of decency
concerning the ultimate punishment are indeed evolving and maturing.
While last year's events are steps toward fairness and indications of
progress, they also serve as shocking reminders that our system is
seriously flawed. The statistics reflecting unfairness and stories of
innocent people wrongly convicted are clear and disturbing to all
Americans who believe in the founding principles of our Nation, liberty
and justice for all.
When examined collectively, these facts paint a devastating picture
that needs to be examined in much greater detail.
That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the
National Death Penalty Moratorium Act.
The courts in this country have already made, by our best,
conservative estimates, 102 very grave mistakes. One hundred and two
mistakes in the death penalty system qualifies as a crisis. And a
crisis calls for immediate action. The time for a moratorium is now.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 132
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``National Death Penalty
Moratorium Act of 2003''.
TITLE I--MORATORIUM ON THE DEATH PENALTY
SEC. 101. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
[[Page S162]]
(1) General findings.--
(A) The administration of the death penalty by the Federal
government and the States should be consistent with our
Nation's fundamental principles of fairness, justice,
equality, and due process.
(B) Congress should consider that more than ever Americans
are questioning the use of the death penalty and calling for
assurances that it be fairly applied.
(C) Documented unfairness in the Federal system requires
Congress to act and suspend Federal executions. Additionally,
substantial evidence of unfairness throughout death penalty
States justifies further investigation by Congress.
(2) Administration of the death penalty by the federal
government.--
(A) The fairness of the administration of the Federal death
penalty has recently come under serious scrutiny,
specifically raising questions of racial and geographic
disparities:
(i) Almost 75 percent of Federal death row inmates are
members of minority groups.
(ii) A report released by the Department of Justice on
September 12, 2000, found that 80 percent of defendants who
were charged with death-eligible offenses under Federal law
and whose cases were submitted by the United States attorneys
under the Department's death penalty decision-making
procedures were African American, Hispanic American, or
members of other minority groups.
(iii) The Department of Justice report shows that United
States attorneys in only 5 of 94 Federal districts--1 each in
Virginia, Maryland, Puerto Rico, and 2 in New York--submit 40
percent of all cases in which the death penalty is
considered.
(iv) The Department of Justice report shows that United
States attorneys who have frequently recommended seeking the
death penalty are often from States with a high number of
executions under State law, including Texas, Virginia, and
Missouri.
(v) The Department of Justice report shows that white
defendants are more likely than black defendants to negotiate
plea bargains saving them from the death penalty in Federal
cases.
(vi) A study conducted by the House Judiciary Subcommittee
on Civil and Constitutional Rights in 1994 concluded that 89
percent of defendants selected for capital prosecution under
the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 were either African American
or Hispanic American.
(vii) The National Institute of Justice has already set
into motion a comprehensive study of these racial and
geographic disparities.
(viii) Federal executions should not proceed until these
disparities are fully studied, discussed, and the federal
death penalty process is subjected to necessary remedial
action.
(B) In addition to racial and geographic disparities in the
administration of the federal death penalty, other serious
questions exist about the fairness and reliability of federal
death penalty prosecutions:
(i) Federal prosecutors rely heavily on bargained-for
testimony from accomplices of the capital defendant, which is
often obtained in exchange for not seeking the death penalty
against the accomplices. This practice creates a serious risk
of false testimony.
(ii) Federal prosecutors are not required to provide
discovery sufficiently ahead of trial to permit the defense
to be prepared to use this information effectively in
defending their clients.
(iii) The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in
increasing isolation from the rest of the nation's law
enforcement agencies, refuses to make electronic recordings
of interrogations that produce confessions, thus making
subsequent scrutiny of the legality and reliability of such
interrogations more difficult.
(iv) Federal prosecutors rely heavily on predictions of
``future dangerousness''--predictions deemed unreliable and
misleading by the American Psychiatric Association and the
American Psychological Association--to secure death
sentences.
(3) Administration of the death penalty by the states.--
(A) The punishment of death carries an especially heavy
burden to be free from arbitrariness and discrimination. The
Supreme Court has held that ``super due process'', a higher
standard than that applied in regular criminal trials, is
necessary to meet constitutional requirements. There is
significant evidence that States are not providing this
heightened level of due process. For example:
(i) In the most comprehensive review of modern death
sentencing, Professor James Liebman and researchers at
Columbia University found that, during the period 1973 to
1995, 68 percent of all death penalty cases reviewed were
overturned due to serious constitutional errors. In the wake
of the Liebman study, 6 States (Arizona, Maryland, North
Carolina, Illinois, Indiana, and Nebraska) have conducted
additional studies. These studies expose additional problems.
(ii) Forty percent of the cases overturned were reversed in
Federal court after having been upheld by the States.
(B) The high rate of error throughout all death penalty
jurisdictions suggests that there is a grave risk that
innocent persons may have been, or will likely be, wrongfully
executed. Although the Supreme Court has never conclusively
addressed the issue of whether executing an innocent person
would in and of itself violate the Constitution, in Herrara
v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993), a majority of the court
expressed the view that a persuasive demonstration of actual
innocence would violate substantive due process rendering
imposition of a death sentence unconstitutional. In any
event, the wrongful conviction and sentencing of a person to
death is a serious concern for many Americans. For example:
(i) After 13 innocent people were released from Illinois
death row in the same period that the State had executed 12
people, on January 31, 2000, Governor George Ryan of Illinois
imposed a moratorium on executions until he could be ``sure
with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing
a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate''.
(ii) Since 1973, over 100 innocent persons sitting on death
rows across the country have been exonerated, most after
serving lengthy sentences.
(C) Wrongful convictions create a serious public safety
problem because the true killer is still at large, while the
innocent person languishes in prison.
(D) There are many systemic problems that result in
innocent people being convicted such as mistaken
identification, reliance on jailhouse informants, reliance on
faulty forensic testing and no access to reliable DNA
testing. For example:
(i) A study of cases of innocent people who were later
exonerated, conducted by attorneys Barry Scheck and Peter
Neufeld with ``The Innocence Project'' at Cardozo Law School,
showed that mistaken identifications of eyewitnesses or
victims contributed to 84 percent of the wrongful
convictions.
(ii) Many persons on death row were convicted prior to 1994
and did not receive the benefit of modern DNA testing. At
least 10 individuals sentenced to death have been exonerated
through post-conviction DNA testing, some within days of
execution. Yet in spite of the current widespread prevalence
and availability of DNA testing, many States have procedural
barriers blocking introduction of post-conviction DNA
testing. More than 30 States have laws that require a motion
for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence to be
filed within 6 months or less.
(iii) The widespread use of jailhouse snitches who earn
reduced charges or sentences by fabricating ``admissions'' by
fellow inmates to unsolved crimes can lead to wrongful
convictions.
(iv) The misuse of forensic evidence can lead to wrongful
convictions. A report from the Texas Defender Service
entitled ``A State of Denial: Texas and the Death Penalty''
found 160 cases of official forensic misconduct including 121
cases where expert psychiatrists testified ``with absolute
certainty that the defendant would be a danger in the
future'', often without even interviewing the defendant.
(E) The sixth amendment to the Constitution guarantees all
accused persons access to competent counsel. The Supreme
Court set out standards for determining competency in the
case of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
Unfortunately, there is unequal access to competent counsel
throughout death penalty States. For example:
(i) Ninety percent of capital defendants cannot afford to
hire their own attorney.
(ii) Fewer than one-quarter of the 38 death penalty States
have set any standards for competency of counsel and in those
few States, these standards were set only recently. In most
States, any person who passes a bar examination, even if that
attorney has never represented a client in any type of case,
may represent a client in a death penalty case.
(iii) Thirty-seven percent of capital cases were reversed
because of ineffective assistance of counsel, according to
the Columbia study.
(iv) The Texas report noted problems with Texas defense
attorneys who slept through capital trials, ignored obvious
exculpatory evidence, suffered discipline for ethical lapses
or for being under the influence of drugs or alcohol while
representing an indigent capital defendant at trial.
(v) Poor lawyering was also cited by Governor Ryan in
Illinois as a basis for a moratorium. More than half of all
capital defendants there were represented by lawyers who were
later disciplined or disbarred for unethical conduct.
(F) The Supreme Court has held that it is a violation of
the eighth amendment to impose the death penalty in a manner
that is arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory. McKlesky v.
Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987). Studies consistently indicate
racial disparity in the application of the death penalty both
for the defendants and the victims. The death penalty is
disparately applied in various regions throughout the
country, suggesting arbitrary administration of the death
penalty based on where the prosecution takes place. For
example:
(i) Since 1976, 45 percent of death row inmates were white,
43 percent were black, 9 percent were Hispanic, and 2 percent
were of other racial groups. Of the victims in the underlying
murder, 81 percent were white, 14 percent were black, and 4
percent were Hispanic. While over 80 percent of completed
capital cases involve white victims, nationally only 50
percent of murder victims are white. These figures show a
continuing trend since reinstatement of the modern death
penalty of a predominance of white victims' cases and implies
that white victims are considered more valuable in the
criminal justice system.
(ii) Executions are conducted predominately in southern
States. Ninety percent of
[[Page S163]]
all executions in 2000 were conducted in the south. Only 3
States outside the south, Arizona, California, and Missouri,
conducted an execution in 2000. Texas accounted for almost as
many executions as all the remaining States combined.
(G) The Supreme Court recently reversed itself and has
ruled the execution of the mentally retarded unconstitutional
and in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Atkins v.
Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)).
SEC. 102. FEDERAL AND STATE DEATH PENALTY MORATORIUM.
(a) In General.--The Federal Government shall not carry out
any sentence of death imposed under Federal law until the
Congress considers the final findings and recommendations of
the National Commission on the Death Penalty in the report
submitted under section 202(c)(2) and the Congress enacts
legislation repealing this section and implements or rejects
the guidelines and procedures recommended by the Commission.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
each State that authorizes the use of the death penalty
should enact a moratorium on executions to allow time to
review whether the administration of the death penalty by
that State is consistent with constitutional requirements of
fairness, justice, equality, and due process.
TITLE II--NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE DEATH PENALTY
SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.
(a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be
known as the National Commission on the Death Penalty (in
this title referred to as the ``Commission'').
(b) Membership.--
(1) Appointment.--Members of the Commission shall be
appointed by the President in consultation with the Attorney
General and the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the
Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives
and the Senate.
(2) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 15
members, of whom--
(A) 3 members shall be Federal or State prosecutors;
(B) 3 members shall be attorneys experienced in capital
defense;
(C) 2 members shall be current or former Federal or State
judges;
(D) 2 members shall be current or former Federal or State
law enforcement officials; and
(E) 5 members shall be individuals from the public or
private sector who have knowledge or expertise, whether by
experience or training, in matters to be studied by the
Commission, which may include--
(i) officers or employees of the Federal Government or
State or local governments;
(ii) members of academia, nonprofit organizations, the
religious community, or industry; and
(iii) other interested individuals.
(3) Balanced viewpoints.--In appointing the members of the
Commission, the President shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, ensure that the membership of the Commission is
fairly balanced with respect to the opinions of the members
of the Commission regarding support for or opposition to the
use of the death penalty.
(4) Date.--The appointments of the initial members of the
Commission shall be made not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Period of Appointment.--Each member shall be appointed
for the life of the Commission.
(d) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Commission shall not
affect the powers of the Commission, but shall be filled in
the same manner as the original appointment.
(e) Initial Meeting.--Not later than 30 days after all
initial members of the Commission have been appointed, the
Commission shall hold the first meeting.
(f) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the
Chairperson.
(g) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission
shall constitute a quorum for conducting business, but a
lesser number of members may hold hearings.
(h) Chair.--The President shall designate 1 member
appointed under subsection (a) to serve as the Chair of the
Commission.
(i) Rules and Procedures.--The Commission shall adopt rules
and procedures to govern the proceedings of the Commission.
SEC. 202. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.
(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall conduct a thorough
study of all matters relating to the administration of the
death penalty to determine whether the administration of the
death penalty comports with constitutional principles and
requirements of fairness, justice, equality, and due process.
(2) Matters studied.--The matters studied by the Commission
shall include the following:
(A) Racial disparities in capital charging, prosecuting,
and sentencing decisions.
(B) Disproportionality in capital charging, prosecuting,
and sentencing decisions based on geographic location and
income status of defendants or any other factor resulting in
such disproportionality.
(C) Adequacy of representation of capital defendants,
including consideration of the American Bar Association
``Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Counsel
in Death Penalty Cases'' (adopted February 1989) and American
Bar Association policies that are intended to encourage
competency of counsel in capital cases (adopted February
1979, February 1988, February 1990, and August 1996).
(D) Whether innocent persons have been sentenced to death
and the reasons these wrongful convictions have occurred.
(E) Whether the Federal Government should seek the death
penalty in a State with no death penalty.
(F) Whether courts are adequately exercising independent
judgment on the merits of constitutional claims in State
post-conviction and Federal habeas corpus proceedings.
(G) Whether persons who were under the age of 18 at the
time of their offenses should be sentenced to death after
conviction of death-eligible offenses.
(H) Procedures to ensure that persons sentenced to death
have access to forensic evidence and modern testing of
forensic evidence, including DNA testing, when modern testing
could result in new evidence of innocence.
(I) Any other law or procedure to ensure that death penalty
cases are administered fairly and impartially, in accordance
with the Constitution.
(b) Guidelines and Procedures.--
(1) In general.--Based on the study conducted under
subsection (a), the Commission shall establish guidelines and
procedures for the administration of the death penalty
consistent with paragraph (2).
(2) Intent of guidelines and procedures.--The guidelines
and procedures required by this subsection shall--
(A) ensure that the death penalty cases are administered
fairly and impartially, in accordance with due process;
(B) minimize the risk that innocent persons may be
executed; and
(C) ensure that the death penalty is not administered in a
racially discriminatory manner.
(c) Report.--
(1) Preliminary report.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to
the President, the Attorney General, and the Congress a
preliminary report, which shall contain a preliminary
statement of findings and conclusions.
(2) Final report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit a report
to the President, the Attorney General, and the Congress
which shall contain a detailed statement of the findings and
conclusions of the Commission, together with the
recommendations of the Commission for legislation and
administrative actions that implement the guidelines and
procedures that the Commission considers appropriate.
SEC. 203. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.
(a) Information From Federal and State Agencies.--
(1) In general.--The Commission may secure directly from
any Federal or State department or agency information that
the Commission considers necessary to carry out the
provisions of this title.
(2) Furnishing of information.--Upon a request of the
Chairperson of the Commission, the head of any Federal or
State department or agency shall furnish the information
requested by the Chairperson to the Commission.
(b) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United
States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions
as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
(c) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of
gifts or donations of services or property.
(d) Hearings.--The Commission or, at the direction of the
Commission, any subcommittee or member of the Commission,
may, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this
title--
(1) hold hearings, sit and act at times and places, take
testimony, receive evidence, and administer oaths that the
Commission, subcommittee, or member considers advisable; and
(2) require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and
testimony of witnesses and the production of books, records,
correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, tapes, and
materials that the Commission, subcommittee, or member
considers advisable.
(e) Issuance and Enforcement of Subpoenas.--
(1) Issuance.--Subpoenas issued pursuant to subsection
(d)--
(A) shall bear the signature of the Chairperson of the
Commission; and
(B) shall be served by any person or class of persons
designated by the Chairperson for that purpose.
(2) Enforcement.--
(A) In general.--In the case of contumacy or failure to
obey a subpoena issued under subsection (d), the district
court of the United States for the judicial district in which
the subpoenaed person resides, is served, or may be found,
may issue an order requiring that person to appear at any
designated place to testify or to produce documentary or
other evidence.
(B) Contempt.--Any failure to obey a court order issued
under subparagraph (A) may be punished by the court as a
contempt.
(3) Testimony of persons in custody.--A court of the United
States within the jurisdiction in which testimony of a person
held in custody is sought by the Commission or within the
jurisdiction of which such person is held in custody, may,
upon application by the Attorney General, issue a writ of
habeas
[[Page S164]]
corpus ad testificandum requiring the custodian to produce
such person before the Commission, or before a member of the
Commission or a member of the staff of the Commission
designated by the Commission for such purpose.
(f) Witness Allowances and Fees.--
(1) In general.--The provisions of section 1821 of title
28, United States Code, shall apply to witnesses requested or
subpoenaed to appear at any hearing of the Commission.
(2) Travel expenses.--The per diem and mileage allowances
for witnesses shall be paid from funds available to pay the
expenses of the Commission.
SEC. 204. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.
(a) Compensation of Members.--Members of the Commission
shall serve without compensation for the services of the
member to the Commission.
(b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Commission shall
be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from their homes or regular places of
business in the performance of services for the Commission.
(c) Staff.--
(1) In general.--The Chairperson of the Commission may,
without regard to the civil service laws and regulations,
appoint and terminate an executive director and such other
additional personnel as may be necessary to enable the
Commission to perform the duties of the Commission.
(2) Executive director.--The employment of an executive
director shall be subject to confirmation by the Commission.
(3) Compensation.--The Chairperson of the Commission may
fix the compensation of the executive director and other
personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and
subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code,
relating to classification of positions and General Schedule
pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the executive
director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable
for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of
title 5.
(d) Detail of Government Employees.--Any Federal Government
employee may be detailed to the Commission without
reimbursement, and the detail shall be without interruption
or loss of civil service status or privilege.
(e) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
The Chairperson of the Commission may procure temporary and
intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5,
United States Code, at rates for individuals which do not
exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay
prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under
section 5316 of title 5.
SEC. 205. TERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION.
The Commission shall terminate 90 days after the date on
which the Commission submits its report under section 202.
SEC. 206. FUNDING.
(a) In General.--The Commission may expend an amount not to
exceed $850,000, as provided by subsection (b), to carry out
this title.
(b) Availability.--Sums appropriated to the Department of
Justice shall be made available to carry out this title.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Nelson of
Nebraska, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr.
Graham of Florida):
S. 138. A bill to temporarily increase the Federal medical assistance
percentage for the medicaid program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, this budget cycle State legislators
face the largest deficits in 50 years. To balance combined budget
deficits of $60 to $85 billion, most States will be forced to raise
taxes and cut spending. In July of last year, 75 Senators voted to
provide meaningful fiscal relief to the states. That is why I return to
the floor today to introduce ``The State Budget Relief Act of 2003,''
with my friends and colleagues Senators Collins, Ben Nelson, and Gordon
Smith. This bipartisan legislation will provide $20 billion in
immediate assistance to states to help pay for increases in Medicaid
enrollment due to rising unemployment and to stop cuts in health
insurance coverage, child care, education and other social services due
to state budget crises.
As one of the largest State programs, Medicaid has become
increasingly vulnerable as a target for cuts. In 11 States, legislators
have proposed and adopted cuts that when fully implemented will strip
health insurance coverage from approximately one million low-income
people. Further, when governors release their budgets this month, that
number is expected to climb much higher than one million. Most of these
people are parents and children in working families that will go
uninsured without Medicaid coverage.
If States are forced to institute further Medicaid cuts, our most
vulnerable Americans will be left out in the cold. In West Virginia,
Medicaid provides coverage to 14 percent of the population. Just this
week, a West Virginia health clinic, which provides the only care for
Medicaid patients in town, was forced to lay off 18 employees. The
clinic is at risk because the State Medicaid program does not have the
money to pay it for services.
These problems are not unique to West Virginia. Stories from across
the country show that many states will be forced to seek solutions to
their budget crises at the expense of low-income people covered by
Medicaid. On December 30th, the LA Times reported that California is
considering proposals that would cut coverage for 500,000 people by the
end of fiscal year 2004. This is more than one-third of the total
number of people, nationally, who lost coverage in all of 2001.
Some Senators might ask why we should help the States. The answer to
that question is that the current economic downturn and the continuing
State fiscal crises are hurting people across this country and a great
many more people will be hurt in the next 18 months. The budget
deficits are too large for States to cover alone without threatening
the health and welfare of millions of Americans.
The bipartisan ``State Budget Relief Act'' provides a temporary
increase in Federal Medicaid matching rates, which will help reduce the
pressure on states to cut health insurance coverage for low-income
families and individuals. It grants states money that they can use for
social services such as education and child care. Finally, the bill
holds States harmless for reduced Federal match rates in fiscal year
2002. As a result of these provisions, West Virginia would receive $127
million to help balance its budget.
I want to stress that this proposal is a critical component of
economic stimulus. In this time of economic downturn, we need to ensure
that there will be a safety net for low-income people and that states
are not placing a further drag on the economy in efforts to balance
their budgets. Several States have completed Medicaid economic impact
studies within the last year. These reports conclude that in addition
to the personal toll that loss of coverage takes on people, Medicaid
cuts create an economic ripple effect by contributing to job and income
losses for individuals and reduced output for businesses. The
President's proposed economic stimulus package ignores this storm
brewing in the States. It provides no fiscal relief for states and, in
fact, worsens the problem by reducing state revenues by more than $4
billion a year through the individual tax cut on dividends.
In contrast, our bipartisan proposal provides immediate, temporary
relief to States that will complement other economic stimulus
strategies while protecting the health of millions of Americans. It
will be effective for 18 months from April 2003. I am extremely
disappointed that the Administration failed to include any real relief
for the states in its own massive stimulus package. I think that is a
serious mistake, and I will fight to include the proposal introduced by
Senators Collins, Ben Nelson, Gordon Smith and myself in any stimulus
package we deal with in the Senate Finance Committee or on the floor.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 138
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION. 1. TEMPORARY STATE FISCAL RELIEF.
(a) Temporary Increase of Medicaid FMAP.--
(1) Permitting maintenance of fiscal year 2002 fmap for
last 2 calendar quarters of fiscal year 2003.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, but subject to
paragraph (5), if the FMAP determined without regard to this
subsection for a State for fiscal year 2003 is less than the
FMAP as so determined for fiscal year 2002, the FMAP for the
State for fiscal year 2002 shall be substituted for the
State's FMAP for the third and fourth calendar quarters of
fiscal year 2003, before the application of this subsection.
(2) Permitting maintenance of fiscal year 2003 fmap for
fiscal year 2004.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, but
[[Page S165]]
subject to paragraph (5), if the FMAP determined without
regard to this subsection for a State for fiscal year 2004 is
less than the FMAP as so determined for fiscal year 2003, the
FMAP for the State for fiscal year 2003 shall be substituted
for the State's FMAP for each calendar quarter of fiscal year
2004, before the application of this subsection.
(3) General 2.45 percentage points increase for last 2
calendar quarters of fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, but subject to
paragraphs (5) and (6), for each State for the third and
fourth calendar quarters of fiscal year 2003 and each
calendar quarter of fiscal year 2004, the FMAP (taking into
account the application of paragraphs (1) and (2)) shall be
increased by 2.45 percentage points.
(4) Increase in cap on medicaid payments to territories.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, but subject to
paragraph (6), with respect to the third and fourth calendar
quarters of fiscal year 2003 and each calendar quarter of
fiscal year 2004, the amounts otherwise determined for Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands,
and American Samoa under subsections (f) and (g) of section
1108 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1308) shall each
be increased by an amount equal to 4.90 percent of such
amounts.
(5) Scope of application.--The increases in the FMAP for a
State under this subsection shall apply only for purposes of
title XIX of the Social Security Act and shall not apply with
respect to--
(A) disproportionate share hospital payments described in
section 1923 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-4); or
(B) payments under title IV or XXI of such Act (42 U.S.C.
601 et seq. and 1397aa et seq.).
(6) State eligibility.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), a State is
eligible for an increase in its FMAP under paragraph (3) or
an increase in a cap amount under paragraph (4) only if the
eligibility under its State plan under title XIX of the
Social Security Act (including any waiver under such title or
under section 1115 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1315)) is no more
restrictive than the eligibility under such plan (or waiver)
as in effect on September 2, 2003.
(B) State reinstatement of eligibility permitted.--A State
that has restricted eligibility under its State plan under
title XIX of the Social Security Act (including any waiver
under such title or under section 1115 of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1315)) after September 2, 2003, but prior to the date of
enactment of this Act is eligible for an increase in its FMAP
under paragraph (3) or an increase in a cap amount under
paragraph (4) in the first calendar quarter (and subsequent
calendar quarters) in which the State has reinstated
eligibility that is no more restrictive than the eligibility
under such plan (or waiver) as in effect on September 2,
2003.
(C) Rule of construction.--Nothing in subparagraph (A) or
(B) shall be construed as affecting a State's flexibility
with respect to benefits offered under the State medicaid
program under title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396 et seq.) (including any waiver under such title or under
section 1115 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1315)).
(7) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) FMAP.--The term ``FMAP'' means the Federal medical
assistance percentage, as defined in section 1905(b) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)).
(B) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given such
term for purposes of title XIX of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1396 et seq.).
(8) Repeal.--Effective as of October 1, 2004, this
subsection is repealed.
(b) Additional Temporary State Fiscal Relief.--
(1) In general.--Title XX of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1397-1397f) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 2008. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY GRANTS FOR STATE FISCAL
RELIEF.
``(a) In General.--For the purpose of providing State
fiscal relief allotments to States under this section, there
are hereby appropriated, out of any funds in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, $10,000,000,000. Such funds shall be
available for obligation by the State through June 30, 2005,
and for expenditure by the State through September 30, 2005.
This section constitutes budget authority in advance of
appropriations Acts and represents the obligation of the
Federal Government to provide for the payment to States of
amounts provided under this section.
``(b) Allotment.--Funds appropriated under subsection (a)
shall be allotted by the Secretary among the States in
accordance with the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``State Allotment (in dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama $113,960,092
Alaska $28,050,916
Amer. Samoa $276,005
Arizona $174,176,300
Arkansas $88,932,482
California $1,055,900,700
Colorado $95,353,555
Connecticut $138,136,104
Delaware $25,691,623
District of Columbia $43,356,542
Florida $416,437,302
Georgia $245,721,379
Guam $446,563
Hawaii $30,891,959
Idaho $32,439,936
Illinois $362,420,855
Indiana $181,086,404
Iowa $86,873,236
Kansas $62,913,352
Kentucky $141,415,311
Louisiana $159,884,723
Maine $61,854,394
Maryland $157,333,510
Massachusetts $315,177,172
Michigan $290,300,805
Minnesota $201,619,700
Mississippi $117,970,775
Missouri $201,689,388
Montana $24,291,445
Nebraska $53,033,542
Nevada $34,887,749
New Hampshire $36,067,567
New Jersey $274,636,614
New Mexico $75,233,465
New York $1,588,884,965
North Carolina $293,161,659
North Dakota $18,169,187
N. Mariana Islands $155,920
Ohio $410,965,675
Oklahoma $97,493,874
Oregon $111,334,973
Pennsylvania $497,241,778
Puerto Rico $12,610,820
Rhode Island $53,399,083
South Carolina $122,811,620
South Dakota $20,201,430
Tennessee $233,515,925
Texas $543,148,021
Utah $42,281,420
Vermont $27,033,142
Virgin Islands $416,332
Virginia $143,436,753
Washington $199,131,541
West Virginia $63,879,139
Wisconsin $180,600,752
Wyoming $11,664,525
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total $10,000,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``(c) Use of Funds.--Funds appropriated under this section
may be used by a State for services directed at the goals set
forth in section 2001, subject to the requirements of this
title.
``(d) Payment to States.--Not later than 30 days after
amounts are appropriated under subsection (a), in addition to
any payment made under section 2002 or 2007, the Secretary
shall make a lump sum payment to a State of the total amount
of the allotment for the State as specified in subsection
(b).
``(e) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
`State' means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and
the territories contained in the list under subsection
(b).''.
(2) Repeal.--Effective as of October 1, 2005, section 2008
of the Social Security Act, as added by paragraph (1), is
repealed.
(c) GAO Study and Report.--
(1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study to determine the most appropriate data
and methodology to use to determine the Federal medical
assistance percentage for purposes of programs authorized
under the Social Security Act.
(2) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit a report to Congress on the study
conducted under paragraph (1).
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I am pleased to
introduce legislation to assist State governments badly hurt by poor
economic conditions and declining revenue. This legislation, that I am
proud to be introducing with my good friends Senators Collins and
Rockefeller, will provide $20 billion in Federal assistance to States.
Last July, 75 of our colleagues agreed with us that we need to help
the States and passed a similar plan that we authored. Unfortunately,
the House failed to act on our bill. In that timeframe, the budget
situation in the States has gotten worse, not better. New estimates
show the States facing a $60 to $85 billion shortfall next year. This
is why I come to the floor today to introduce ``The State Budget Relief
Act of 2003.''
The Federal and State governments are a partnership. When State
governments are in a budget crisis, the Federal Government must step in
and fulfill the obligations to the programs people rely on. We have the
same constituents and the same goals.
The bipartisan fiscal relief package will provide assistance through
a temporary increase in the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage,
FMAP, of Medicaid and $10 billion in social service block grants. This
bill strikes a good balance by providing direct relief to Medicaid,
which is one of the fastest growing programs in State budgets, while
giving Governors needed flexibility through the block grants. This 18-
month package will provide over $104 million in new funds to Nebraska.
As a former Governor, I know how hard it is for States to maintain a
balanced budget. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and
take that step to avert, at least in part, potentially damaging cuts to
Medicaid as well as to other social services programs. If we do not
help the States, any other Federal economic stimulus will likely be
lost in State and local tax hikes and spending cuts.
[[Page S166]]
______
By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. McCain):
S. 139. A bill to provide for a program of scientific research on
abrupt climate change, to accelerate the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions in the United States by establishing a market-driven system
of greenhouse gas tradeable allowances that could be used
interchangably with passenger vehicle fuel economy standard credits, to
limit greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and reduce
dependence upon foreign oil, and ensure benefits to consumers from the
trading in such allowances; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend and
colleague, Senator McCain, to introduce the first ever comprehensive
legislation to limit the emissions of greenhouse gases in the United
States. Today we take the first step up a long mountain road, a road
that will culminate with this country taking credible action to address
the global problems of our warming planet. The rest of the world is now
taking on the challenge this problem presents. The United States, as
the world's largest emitter of the gases and the home of the world's
strongest economy, must not have its head in the clouds.
Climate change is not a new problem. Recently, I had come across my
desk a 1979 document produced by the National Academy of Sciences at
the request of then-President Carter. The document says, ``When it is
assumed that the CO2 content of the atmosphere has doubled, the more
realistic of the modeling efforts predict a global surface warming of
between 2 degrees and 3.5 degrees with greater increases at higher
altitudes.'' That is remarkably similar to last year's national
communication on climate change that predicted a warming of 2.5 degrees
to 4 degrees over the next century. So in some sense, we have known
about this problem for over two decades. That's two decades of neglect.
We don't need to spin our wheels in the mud any longer. It is time to
get traction. It is time to take action.
I do not believe there is any longer any credible dissent on the
central question: namely, whether human-caused climate change is
happening. The thermometer mercury is creeping up, glaciers are
melting, and waters are rising. According to a NASA study released last
month, the permanent, summer ice cap over the Arctic Ocean is
disappearing far faster than previously thought and will at this rate
be gone by the end of the century. And just last week, two major new
research studies said global warming is already posing a dire threat to
the world's plants and animals, a danger that is likely to rise
dramatically, with the temperature, in the coming years.
The scientific evidence is potent and persuasive. But we've witnessed
other changes across the globe that have anecdotally announced the
arrival of global warming to human populations. I noticed two examples
recently that resonated with me; both come from the Arctic north, and
in my view are canaries in the climate change coalmine.
The first example comes from the Native American populations of
Alaska and Northern Canada. In just the past few years, a robin
appeared in an Inupiat village in Alaska. Unfortunately, the elders,
despite an intimate awareness of their 10,000 year old language, did
not know what to call the bird. You see, there is no word for robin in
their language.
A second example comes from the town of Nenana, AK, which has an
annual lottery to determine when a tripod placed on the frozen Tenana
River would break through the ice. And over the past 50 years, that
breakthrough has occurred earlier and earlier.
So, it's not only in the language of statistics that climate change
is occurring. It's in the language of everyday life.
The nature of this problem is that it gets worse every year we fail
to face it head on. It's not unlike the federal budget deficit. The
weight of the interest payments bearing down on us grow over time and
dig us deeper and deeper into a hole of our own making. So too with
global warming. Today the problem is manageable. Tomorrow, quite
literally, we could be up to our waists in it.
There are a few remaining skeptics who still doubt that human
greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to climate change but even
they should understand the wisdom of taking preventive action. Even
they should realize that reducing greenhouse gas emissions now is the
best insurance policy against the possibility of future catastrophe.
The question remains, then, what we should do about it. There is no
easy fix. Carbon dioxide, once released, stays in our atmosphere for
about a century, so any solution needs to be long-term. But I believe
that the legislation we have drafted and will soon introduce will take
us on the path to that ultimate solution, and do so in a way that can
provide an economic boost, not an economic burden, to American
businesses. Given our flagging economy, this is a critical point for us
all to absorb.
Our approach works like this. The country's overall emissions will be
capped, then individual companies will have the flexibility to find the
most innovative and cost-effective ways to drive their emissions down.
They will trade pollution credits, also called allowances, with each
other rather than paying penalties to the government.
The result of that innovative model is that we will unleash and
focuses the genius of American enterprise to take on a critical common
challenge. And the innovation unleashed as companies compete will
create a boomlet of new, high-paying jobs. It's no wonder the Wall
Street Journal editorial page endorsed this approach saying that it
would achieve the same amount of overall pollution reduction at a lower
cost than traditional regulation, and urging the Bush Administration to
sign on.
In making its endorsement, The Wall Street Journal looked, as we did,
at the record. Many similar programs have helped solve pollution
problems throughout the country and the world. The most well-known
example is the Acid Rain Trading Program in the 1990 Clean Air Act, one
of the most successful environmental programs in history and something
I was proud to have a hand in creating. This program secured strict
cuts in sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants at less than a
quarter of the predicted costs to industry.
We have some initial reaction to our proposal from our country's
leading economists, and the response has been positive. For instance,
Steven DeCanio, a professor of economics at the University of
California, Santa Barbara and the former staff economist on this issue
in the Reagan White House, stated the following about our proposal:
The Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 is a good first step
towards the ultimate goal of stabilizing levels of greenhouse
gas emissions that will prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate. The Bill embodies market
mechanisms that will enable emissions reductions to be
accomplished efficiently, and has provisions for an equitable
allocation of the emissions permits. Funds are set aside to
assist workers and communities that may be adversely affected
by the transition. The Bill permits flexibility in the manner
by which the emissions reductions are achieved, including
allowing credits for verifiable enhancement of carbon sinks
and limited international emissions trading. The proposed
legislation also encourages investment in energy-efficiency
technologies, as well as the establishment of a national
emissions database and funding for new research. All of these
features of the Bill are components of a strategy that can
enable the United States to begin to make meaningful
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in a way that is
supportive of economic growth and beneficial to our standard
of living. It is entirely appropriate that the risks of
global climate change be addressed in specific legislation at
this time.
But this bill is more than a broad policy proposal. It is a detailed
legislative design for the system. Our staffs have been working
ardently over the past 16 months to craft a detailed proposal that
could find support both in the halls of industry and amongst the
nation's leading environmental organizations. Hopefully that means that
both sides of the aisle in Congress will find something to their
liking. I hope all involved realized that this is no marker bill; it is
a comprehensive proposal. Please indulge me as I run through a few of
the key details.
Our bill covers the four main sectors of the U.S. economy that emit
greenhouse gases: electric utilities, industrial plants,
transportation, and large commercial facilities. For each of these
sectors, we ease back on the greenhouse gas accelerator, spreading the
burden equally amongst the companies. The progress required is real but
[[Page S167]]
realistic. By the year 2010, we ask only that they return to 2000
levels. By 2016, we ask that they return to their 1990 levels, in
keeping with our treaty commitment under the Rio Convention.
In doing so, we provide each participant with a generous amount of
flexibility on how to comply with their obligations. There is no limit
on the amount of allowances that they may obtain from other
participants in the system. Moreover, companies in the system can avail
themselves of ``alternative compliance'' options, including
sequestration projects, international reductions, and verified
reductions made by parties outside the system. Such ``alternative
compliance'' options can be used to satisfy 300 percent of the average
companies' obligation.
These alternative compliance options will have other benefits as
well. As many members of this committee already know, sequestration
projects can produce environmental benefits beyond the benefit to the
climate, including reduced deforestation and more sustainable
agricultural practices. Such projects also bring a needed infusion of
money into the farm economy not through subsidies, but through the sale
of a new ``crop,'' sequestered carbon dioxide. Even now, with a purely
speculative market in greenhouse gases, Entergy Services and Pacific
Northwest Direct Seed Association brokered a deal for 30,000 million
metric tons of carbon over 10 years. The sale price was not divulged,
but the point is that the deal was made even in the absence of a real
market. Our program would greatly increase the opportunity for these
types of sales by farmers.
Our businesses will benefit dramatically from the regulatory
certainty that our bill will provide. Businesses now receive a
confusing set of messages from the Federal Government. On the one hand,
they know that, with climate change worsening every year, government
will somehow and sometime have to require them to reduce their
emissions. As the Conference Board recently noted in a June 2002
report, ``climate change is an issue business executives ignore at
their peril.'' On the other hand, businesses are being left uncertain
about Washington's ultimate global warming policy plans, and therefore
have a perverse incentive to put off any real anti-pollution technology
investments.
Indeed, our innovation economy more broadly is unwilling or unable to
engage while the Federal Government continues to vacillate. As a
result, we are losing countless dollars in new market and job
opportunities. Europe and Japan already have an early head start in the
pollution reduction industry. That lead will only grow if our
government stands pat.
Finally, I want to mention one other, perhaps unlikely reason to
support this legislation beyond our economic and environmental well
being, and that's foreign policy. Many of our most important allies are
much more worried about climate change than we in the United States
have historically been. When the Bush administration plays down the
risks of global warming and shows no interest in devising a serious
solution, it frays our relationship with those allies. That's
especially true since we as a nation are responsible for about a
quarter of the world's total climate change problem.
We should never compromise critical American policy simply to satisfy
the international community. But in this case, doing what's in our own
best environmental and economic interests will also earn respect and
support around the world. And lest we forget it also happens to be the
right thing to do.
The Earth is not only ours to use; we are stewards of it, who must
hold it in trust for future generations to live in, breathe in, and,
yes, prosper in. Regrettably, this Nation's climate change policy to
date has not respected our role as stewards. It is time we reverse that
trend, and our bill will help do exactly that.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 139
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Climate Stewardship Act of
2003''.
SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
TITLE I--FEDERAL CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES
Sec. 101. National Science Foundation scholarships.
Sec. 102. Commerce Department study of technology transfer barriers.
Sec. 103. Report on United States impact of Kyoto protocol.
Sec. 104. Research grants.
Sec. 105. Abrupt climate change research.
Sec. 106. NIST greenhouse gas functions.
Sec. 107. Development of new measurement technologies.
Sec. 108. Enhanced environmental measurements and standards.
Sec. 109. Techonolgy development and diffusion.
TITLE II--NATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS DATABASE
Sec. 201. National greenhouse gas database and registry established.
Sec. 202. Inventory of greenhouse gas emissions for covered entities.
Sec. 203. Greenhouse gas reduction reporting.
Sec. 204. Measurement and verification.
TITLE III--MARKET-DRIVEN GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS
Subtitle A--Emission Reduction Requirements; Use of Tradeable
Allowances
Sec. 311. Covered entities must submit allowances for emissions.
Sec. 312. Compliance.
Sec. 313. Tradeable allowances and fuel economy standard credits.
Sec. 314. Borrowing against future reductions.
Sec. 315. Other uses of tradable allowances.
Sec. 316. Exemption of source categories.
Subitle B--Establishment and Allocation of Tradeable Allowances.
Sec. 331. Establishment of tradeable allowances.
Sec. 332. Determination of tradeable allowances allocations.
Sec. 333. Allocation of tradeable allowances.
Sec. 334. Initial allocations for early participation and accelerated
participation.
Sec. 335. Bonus for accelerated participation.
Sec. 336. Ensuring target adequacy.
Subtitle C--Climate Change Credit Corporation
Sec. 351. Establishment.
Sec. 352. Purposes and functions.
Subtitle D--Sequestration Accounting; Penalties
Sec. 371. Sequestration accounting.
Sec. 372. Penalties.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Adminis-
trator'' means the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
(2) Baseline.--The term ``baseline'' means the historic
greenhouse gas emission levels of an entity, as adjusted
upward by the Administrator to reflect actual reductions that
are verified in accordance with--
(A) regulations promulgated under section 201(c)(1); and
(B) relevant standards and methods developed under this
title.
(3) Covered sectors.--The term ``covered sectors'' means
the electricity, transportation, industry, and commercial
sectors, as such terms are used in the Inventory.
(4) Covered entity.--The term ``covered entity'' means an
entity (including a branch, department, agency, or
instrumentality of Federal, State, or local government)
that--
(A) owns or controls a source of greenhouse gas emissions
in the electric power, industrial, or commercial sectors of
the United States economy (as defined in the Inventory),
refines or imports petroleum products for use in
transportation, or produces or imports hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexaflouride; and
(B) emits over 10,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas per
year, measured in units of carbon dioxide equivalance, or
produces or imports--
(i) petroleum products that, when combusted, will emit,
(ii) hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, or sulfur
hexafluoride that, when used, will emit, or
(iii) other greenhouse gases that, when used, will emit,
over 10,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas per year, measured
in units of carbon dioxide equivalence.
(5) Database.--The term ``database'' means the National
Greenhouse Gas Database established under section 201.
(6) Direct emissions.--The term ``direct emissions'' means
greenhouse gas emissions by an entity from a facility that is
owned or controlled by that entity.
(7) Facility.--The term ``facility'' means a building,
structure, or installation located on any 1 or more
contiguous or adjacent properties of an entity in the United
States.
(8) Greenhouse gas.--The term ``greenhouse gas'' means--
(A) carbon dioxide;
(B) methane;
(C) nitrous oxide;
(D) hydrofluorocarbons;
[[Page S168]]
(E) perfluorocarbons; and
(F) sulfur hexafluoride.
(9) Indirect emissions.--The term ``indirect emissions''
means greenhouse gas emissions that are--
(A) a result of the activities of an entity; but
(B) emitted from a facility owned or controlled by another
entity; and
(C) not reported as direct emissions by the entity from
which they were emitted.
(10) Inventory.--The term ``Inventory'' means the Inventory
of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, prepared in
compliance with the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change Decision 3/CP.5.).
(11) Phase i allotment.--The term ``Phase I allotment''
means--
(A) the amount of emissions emitted by a covered sector, as
identified in the Inventory for the calendar year preceding
the calendar year in which this Act is enacted (reduced by
the amount of allowances allocated by early and accelerated
participants under section 334 of this Act); multiplied by--
(B) the result of--
(i) the total greenhouse emissions for all covered sectors
for the year 2000, as identified in the 2000 Inventory;
divided by
(ii) the total greenhouse emissions for all covered sectors
for the calendar year preceding the date of enactment of this
Act, as identified in the Inventory.
(12) Phase ii allotment.--The term ``Phase II allotment''
means--
(A) the amount of emissions emitted by a covered sector, as
identified in the Inventory for the calendar year preceding
the calendar year in which this Act is enacted (reduced by
the amount of allowances allocated to early and accelerated
participants under section 334 of this Act); multiplied by--
(B) the result of--
(i) the total greenhouse emissions for all covered sectors
for the year 1990, as identified in the 1990 Inventory;
divided by
(ii) the total greenhouse emissions for all covered sectors
for the calendar year preceding the date of enactment of this
Act, as identified in the Inventory.
(13) Registry.--The term ``registry'' means the registry of
greenhouse gas emission reductions established under section
201(b)(2).
(14) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Commerce.
(15) Sequestration.--
(A) In general.--The term ``sequestration'' means the
capture, long-term separation, isolidation, or removal of
greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``sequestra-
tion'' includes--
(i) agricultural and conservation practices;
(ii) reforestation;
(iii) forest preservation; and
(iv) any other appropriate method of capture, long-term
separation, isolation, or removal of greenhouse gases from
the atmosphere, as determined by the Administrator.
(C) Exclusions.--The term ``sequestration'' does not
include--
(i) any conversion of, or negative impact on, a native
ecosystem; or
(ii) any introduction of non-native species or genetically
modified organisms.
(16) Source category.--The term ``source category'' means a
process or activity that leads to direct emissions of
greenhouse gases, as listed in the Inventory.
TITLE I--FEDERAL CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES.
SEC. 101. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION SCHOLARSHIPS.
The Director of the National Science Foundation shall
establish a scholarship program for post-secondary students
studying global climate change, including capability in
observation, analysis, modeling, paleoclima-
tology, consequences, and adaptation.
SEC. 102. COMMERCE DEPARTMENT STUDY OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
BARRIERS.
(a) Study.--The Assistant Secretary of Technology Policy at
Department of Commerce shall conduct a study of technology
transfer barriers, best practices, and outcomes of technology
transfer activities at Federal laboratories related to the
licensing and commercialization of energy efficient
technologies. The study shall be submitted to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the
House of Representatives Committee on Science within 6 months
after the date of enactment of this Act. The Assistant
Secretary shall work with the existing interagency working
group to address identified barriers.
(b) Agency Report To Include Information on Technology
Transfer Income and Royalties.--Paragraph (2)(B) of section
11(f) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of
1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710(f) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in clause (vi);
(2) by redesignating clause (vii) as clause (ix); and
(3) by inserting after clause (vi) the following:
``(vii) the number of fully-executed licenses which
received royalty income in the preceding fiscal year for
climate-change or energy-efficient technology;
``(viii) the total earned royalty income for climate-change
or energy-efficient technology; and''.
(c) Increased Incentives for Development of Climate-change
or Energy-efficient Technology.--Section 14(a) of the
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C.
3710c(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``15 percent,'' in paragraph (1)(A) and
inserting ``15 percent (25 percent for climate change-related
technologies),''; and
(2) by inserting ``($250,000 for climate change-related
technologies)'' after ``$150,000'' each place it appears in
paragraph (3).
SEC. 103. REPORT ON UNITED STATES IMPACT OF KYOTO PROTOCOL.
Within 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Secretary shall submit a report to the Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of
Representatives Committee on Science on the effects that the
entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol will have on--
(1) United States industry and its ability to compete
globally;
(2) international cooperation on scientific research and
development; and
(3) United States participation in international
environmental climate change mitigation efforts and
technology deployment.
SEC. 104. RESEARCH GRANTS.
Section 105 of the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (15
U.S.C. 2935) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
(c) Research Grants.
``(1) Committee to develop list of priority research
areas.--The Committee shall develop a list of priority areas
for research and development on climate change that are not
being addressed by Federal agencies.
``(2) Director of ostp to transmit list to NSF.--the
Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall
transmit the list to the National Science Foundation.
``(3) Funding through nsf.
``(A) Budget request.--The National Science Foundation
shall include, as part of the annual request for
appropriations for the Science and Technology Policy
Institute, a request for appropriations to fund research in
the priority areas on the list developed under paragraph (1).
``(B) Authorization.--For fiscal year 2004 and each fiscal
year thereafter, there are authorized to be appropriated to
the National Science Foundation not less than $17,000,000, to
be made available through the Science and Technology Policy
Institute, for research in those priority areas.''.
SEC. 105. ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, through the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, shall carry out a
program of scientific research on potential abrupt climate
change designed--
(1) to develop a global array of terrestrial and
oceanographic indicators of paleoclimate in order
sufficiently to identify and describe past instances of
abrupt climate change;
(2) to improve understanding of thresholds and
nonlinearities in geophysical systems related to the
mechanisms of abrupt climate change;
(3) to incorporate these mechanisms into advanced
geophysical models of climate change; and
(4) to test the output of these models against an improved
global array of records of past abrupt climate changes.
(b) Abrupt Climate Change Defined.--In this section, the
term ``abrupt climate change'' means a change in climate that
occurs so rapidly or unexpectedly that human or natural
systems may have difficulty adapting to it.
SEC. 106. NIST GREENHOUSE GAS FUNCTIONS.
Section 2(c) of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 272(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in paragraph
(21);
(2) by redesignating paragraph (22) as paragraph (23); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (21) the following;
``(22) perform research to develop enhanced measurements,
calibrations, standards, and technologies which will enable
the reduced production in the United States of greenhouse
gases associated with global warming, including carbon
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, perfluorocarbons,
hydrofluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride; and''.
SEC. 107. DEVELOPMENT OF NEW MEASUREMENT TECHNOLOGIES.
The Secretary shall initiate a program to develop, with
technical assistance from appropriate Federal agencies,
innovative standards and measurement technologies (including
technologies to measure carbon changes due to changes in land
use cover) to calculate--
(1) greenhouse gas emissions and reductions from
agriculture, forestry, and other land use practices;
(2) noncarbon dioxide greenhouse gas emissions from
transportation;
(3) greenhouse gas emissions from facilities or sources
using remote sensing technology; and
(4) any other greenhouse gas emission or reductions for
which no accurate or reliable measurement technology exists.
SEC. 108. ENHANCED ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND STANDARDS.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15
U.S.C. 271 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating sections 17 through 32 as sections 18
through 33, respectively; and
(2) by inserting after section 16 the following:
[[Page S169]]
``SEC. 17. CLIMATE CHANGE STANDARDS AND PROCESSES.
``(a) In General.--The Director shall establish within the
Institute a program to perform and support research on global
climate change standards and processes, with the goal of
providing scientific and technical knowledge applicable to
the reduction of greenhouse gases (as defined in section 3(8)
of the Climate Stewardship Act of 2003).
``(b) Research Program.
``(1) In general.--The Director is authorized to conduct,
directly or through contracts or grants, a global climate
change standards and processes research program.
``(2) Research projects.--The specific contents and
priorities of the research program shall be determined in
consultation with appropriate Federal agencies, including the
Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration. The program generally shall include
basic and applied research--
``(A) to develop and provide the enhanced measurements,
calibrations, data, models, and reference material standards
which will enable the monitoring of greenhouse gases;
``(B) to assist in establishing a baseline reference point
for future trading in greenhouse gases and the measurement of
progress in emissions reduction;
``(C) that will be exchanged internationally as scientific
or technical information which has the stated purpose of
developing mutually recognized measurements, standards, and
procedures for reducing greenhouse gases; and
``(D) to assist in developing improved industrial processes
designed to reduce or eliminate greenhouse gases.
``(c) National Measurement Laboratories.--
``(1) In general.--In carrying out this section, the
Director shall utilize the collective skills of the National
Measurement Laboratories of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology to improve the accuracy of
measurements that will permit better understanding and
control of these industrial chemical processes and result in
the reduction or elimination of greenhouse gases.
``(2) Material, process, and building research.--The
National Measurement Laboratories shall conduct research
under this subsection that includes--
``(A) developing material and manufacturing processes which
are designed for energy efficiency and reduced greenhouse gas
emissions into the environment;
``(B) developing environmentally-friendly, `green' chemical
processes to be used by industry; and
``(C) enhancing building performance with a focus in
developing standards or tools which will help incorporate
low- or no-emission technologies into building designs.
``(3) Standards and tools.--The National Measurement
Laboratories shall develop standards and tools under this
subsection that include software to assist designers in
selecting alternate building materials, performance data
on materials, artificial intelligence-aided design
procedures for building subsystems and `smart buildings',
and improved test methods and rating procedures for
evaluating the energy performance of residential and
commercial appliances and products.
``(d) National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation
Program.--The Director shall utilize the National Voluntary
Laboratory Accreditation Program under this section to
establish a program to include specific calibration or test
standards and related methods and protocols assembled to
satisfy the unique needs for accreditation in measuring the
production of greenhouse gases. In carrying out this
subsection the Director may cooperate with other departments
and agencies of the Federal Government, State and local
governments, and private organizations.''.
SEC. 109. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND DIFFUSION.
The Director of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, through the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
Program, may develop a program to support the implementation
of new ``green'' manufacturing technologies and techniques by
the more than 380,000 small manufacturers.
TITLE II--NATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS DATABASE
SEC. 201. NATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS DATABASE AND REGISTRY
ESTABLISHED.
(a) Establishment.--As soon as practicable after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in coordination
with the Secretary, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of
Agriculture, and private sector and non-governmental
organizations, shall establish, operate, and maintain a
database, to be known as the ``National Greenhouse Gas
Database'', to collect, verify, and analyze information on
greenhouse gas emissions by entities.
(b) National Greenhouse Gas Database Components.--The
database shall consist of--
(1) an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions; and
(2) a registry of greenhouse gas emission reductions and
increases in greenhouse gas sequestrations.
(c) Comprehensive System.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall promulgate
regulations to implement a comprehensive system for
greenhouse gas emissions reporting, inventorying, and
reductions registration.
(2) Requirements.--The Administrator shall ensure, to the
maximum extent practicable, that--
(A) the comprehensive system described in paragraph (1) is
designed to--
(i) maximize completeness, transparency, and accuracy of
information reported; and
(ii) minimize costs incurred by entities in measuring and
reporting greenhouse gas emissions; and
(B) the regulations promulgated under paragraph (1)
establish procedures and protocols necessary--
(i) to prevent the reporting of some or all of the same
greenhouse gas emissions or emission reductions by more than
1 reporting entity;
(ii) to provide for corrections to errors in data submitted
to the database;
(iii) to provide for adjustment to data by reporting
entities that have had a significant organizational change
(including mergers, acquisitions, and divestiture), in order
to maintain comparability among data in the database over
time;
(iv) to provide for adjustments to reflect new technologies
or methods for measuring or calculating greenhouse gas
emissions;
(v) to account for changes in registration of ownership of
emission reductions resulting from a voluntary private
transaction between reporting entities; and
(vi) to clarify the responsibility for reporting in the
case of any facility owned or controlled by more than 1
entity.
(3) Serial numbers.--Through regulations promulgated under
paragraph (1), the Administrator shall develop and implement
a system that provides--
(A) for the verification of submitted emissions reductions;
(B) for the provision of unique serial numbers to identify
the verified emission reductions made by an entity relative
to the baseline of the entity; and
(C) for the tracking of the reductions associated with the
serial numbers.
SEC. 202. INVENTORY OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FOR COVERED
ENTITIES.
(a) In General.--Not later than July 1st of each calendar
year after 2008, a covered entity shall submit to the
Administrator a report that describes, for the preceding
calendar year, the entity-wide greenhouse gas emissions (as
reported at the facility level), including--
(1) the total quantity of direct greenhouse gas emissions
from stationary sources, expressed in units of carbon dioxide
equivalence;
(2) the amount of petroleum products sold or imported and
the amount of greenhouse gases, expressed in carbon dioxide
equivalents, that would be produced when these products are
used for transportation; and
(3) such other categories of emissions as the Administrator
determines in the regulations promulgated under section
201(c)(1) may be practicable and useful for the purposes of
this Act, such as--
(A) indirect emissions from imported electricity, heat, and
steam;
(B) process and fugitive emissions; and
(C) production or importation of greenhouse gases.
(b) Collection and Analysis of Data.--The Administrator
shall collect and analyze information reported under
subsection (a) for use under title III.
SEC. 203. GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION REPORTING.
(a) In General.--Subject to the requirements described in
subsection (b)--
(1) a covered entity may register greenhouse gas emission
reductions achieved after 1990 and before 2010 under this
section; and
(2) an entity that is not a covered entity may register
greenhouse gas emission reductions achieved at any time since
1990 under this section.
(b) Requirements.--
(1) In general.--The requirements referred to in subsection
(a) are that an entity (other than an entity described in
paragraph (2)) shall--
(A) establish a baseline; and
(B) submit the report described in subsection (c)(1).
(2) Requirements applicable to entities entering into
certain agreements.--An entity that enters into an agreement
with a participant in the registry for the purpose of a
carbon sequestration project shall not be required to comply
with the requirements specified in paragraph (1) unless
that entity is required to comply with the requirements by
reason of an activity other than the agreement.
(c) Reports.--
(1) Required report.--Not later than July 1st of the
calendar year beginning more than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, but subject to paragraph (3), an
entity described in subsection (a) shall submit to the
Administrator a report that describes, for the preceding
calendar year, the entity-wide greenhouse gas emissions (as
reported at the facility level), including--
(A) the total quantity of direct greenhouse gas emissions
from stationary sources, expressed in units of carbon dioxide
equivalence;
(B) the amount of petroleum products sold or imported and
the amount of greenhouse gases, expressed in carbon dioxide
equivalents, that would be produced when these products are
used by vehicles; and
(C) such other categories of emissions as the Administrator
determines in the regulations promulgated under section
201(c)(1)
[[Page S170]]
may be practicable and useful for the purposes of this Act,
such as--
(i) indirect emissions from imported electricity, heat, and
steam;
(ii) process and fugitive emissions; and
(iii) production or importation of greenhouse gases.
(2) Voluntary reporting.--An entity described in subsection
(a) may (along with establishing a baseline and reporting
emissions under this section)--
(A) submit a report described in paragraph (1) before the
date specified in that paragraph for the purposes of
achieving and commoditizing greenhouse gas reductions through
use of the registry; and
(B) submit to the Administrator, for inclusion in the
registry, information that has been verified in accordance
with regulations promulgated under section 201(c)(1) and that
relates to--
(i) any entity-wide greenhouse gas emission reductions
activities of the entity that were carried out during or
after 1990 and before the establishment of the National
Greenhouse Gas Database, verified in accordance with
regulations promulgated under section 201(c)(1), and
submitted to the Administrator before the date that is 4
years after the date of enactment of this Act; and
(ii) with respect to the calendar year preceding the
calendar year in which the information is submitted, any
project or activity that results in an entity-wide reduction
of greenhouse gas emissions or an increase in net
sequestration of a greenhouse gas that is carried out by the
entity.
(3) Provision of verification information by reporting
entities.--Each entity that submits a report under this
subsection shall provide information sufficient for the
Administrator to verify, in accordance with measurement and
verification methods and standards developed under section
203, that the greenhouse gas report of the reporting entity--
(A) has been accurately reported; and
(B) in the case of each voluntary report under paragraph
(2), represents--
(i) actual reductions in direct greenhouse gas emissions--
(I) relative to historic emission levels of the entity; and
(II) after accounting for any increases in indirect
emissions described in paragraph (1)(C)(i); or
(ii) actual increases in net sequestration.
(4) Failure to submit report.--An entity that participates
or has participated in the registry and that fails to submit
a report required under this subsection shall be prohibited
from using, or allowing another entity to use, its registered
emissions reductions or increases in sequestration to satisfy
the requirements of section 311.
(5) Independent third-party verification.--To meet the
requirements of this section and section 203, an entity that
is required to submit a report under this section may--
(A) obtain independent third-party verification; and
(B) present the results of the third-party verification to
the Administrator.
(6) Availability of data.--
(A) In general.--The Administrator shall ensure that
information in the database is--
(i) published; and
(ii) accessible to the public, including in electronic
format on the Internet.
(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply in any
case in which the Administrator determines that publishing or
otherwise making available information described in that
subparagraph poses a risk to national security.
(7) Data infrastructure.--The Administrator shall ensure,
to the maximum extent practicable, that the database uses,
and is integrated with, Federal, State, and regional
greenhouse gas data collection and reporting systems in
effect as of the date of enactment of this Act.
(8) Additional issues to be considered.--In promulgating
the regulations under section 201(c)(1) and implementing the
database, the Administrator shall take into consideration a
broad range of issues involved in establishing an effective
database, including--
(A) the appropriate allowances for reporting each
greenhouse gas;
(B) the data and information systems and measures necessary
to identify, track, and verify greenhouse gas emissions in a
manner that will encourage private sector trading and
exchanges;
(C) the greenhouse gas reduction and sequestration methods
and standards applied in other countries, as applicable or
relevant;
(D) the extent to which available fossil fuels, greenhouse
gas emissions, and greenhouse gas production and importation
data are adequate to implement the database; and
(E) the differences in, and potential uniqueness of, the
facilities, operations, and business and other relevant
practices of persons and entities in the private and public
sectors that may be expected to participate in the database.
(d) Annual Report.--The Administrator shall publish an
annual report that--
(1) describes the total greenhouse gas emissions and
emission reductions reported to the database during the year
covered by the report;
(2) provides entity-by-entity and sector-by-sector analyses
of the emissions and emission reductions reported;
(3) describes the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse
gases; and
(4) provides a comparison of current and past atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases.
SEC. 204. MEASUREMENT AND VERIFICATION.
(a) Standards.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop
comprehensive measurement and verification methods and
standards to ensure a consistent and technically accurate
record of greenhouse gas emissions, emission reductions,
sequestration, and atmospheric concentrations for use in the
registry.
(2) Requirements.--The development of methods and standards
under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) a requirement that a covered entity use a continuous
emissions monitoring system, or another system of measuring
or estimating emissions that is determined by the Secretary
to provide information with the same precision, reliability,
accessibility, and timeliness as a continuous emissions
monitoring system provides;
(B) establishment of standardized measurement and
verification practices for reports made by all entities
participating in the registry, taking into account--
(i) protocols and standards in use by entities desiring to
participate in the registry as of the date of development of
the methods and standards under paragraph (1);
(ii) boundary issues, such as leakage and shifted use;
(iii) avoidable of double counting of greenhouse gas
emissions and emission reductions;
(iv) protocols to prevent a covered entity from avoiding
the requirements of this Act by reorganization into multiple
entities that are under common control; and
(v) such other factors as the Secretary, in consultation
with the Administrator, determines to be appropriate;
(C) establishment of measurement and verification standards
applicable to actions taken to reduce, avoid, or sequester
greenhouse gas emissions;
(D) in coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture,
standards to measure the results of the use of carbon
sequestration and carbon recapture technologies, including--
(i) organic soil carbon sequestration practices; and
(ii) forest preservation and reforestation activities that
adequately address the issues of permanence, leakage, and
verification;
(E) establishment of such other measurement and
verification standards as the Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator, and the
Secretary of Energy, determines to be appropriate;
(F) establishment of standards for obtaining the
Secretary's approval of the suitability of geological storage
sites that include evaluation of both the geology of the site
and the entity's capacity to manage the site; and
(G) establishment of other features that, as determined by
the Secretary, will allow entities to adequately establish a
fair and reliable measurement and reporting system.
(b) Review and Revision.--The Secretary shall periodically
review, and revise as necessary, the methods and standards
developed under subsection (a).
(c) Public Participation.--The Secretary shall--
(1) make available to the public for comment, in draft form
and for a period of at least 90 days, the methods and
standards developed under subsection (a); and
(2) after the 90-day period referred to in paragraph (1),
in coordination with the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary
of Agriculture, and the Administrator, adopt the methods and
standards developed under subsection (a) for use in
implementing the database.
(d) Experts and Consultants.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may obtain the services of
experts and consultants in the private and nonprofit sectors
in accordance with section 3109 of title 5, United States
Code, in the areas of greenhouse gas measurement,
certification, and emission trading.
(2) Available arrangements.--In obtaining any service
described in paragraph (1), the Secretary may use any
available grant, contract, cooperative agreement, or other
arrangement authorized by law.
TITLE III--MARKET-DRIVEN GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS
Subtitle A--Emission Reduction Requirements; Use of Tradeable
Allowances
SEC. 311. COVERED ENTITIES MUST SUBMIT ALLOWANCES FOR
EMISSIONS.
(a) In General.--Beginning with calendar year 2010--
(1) each covered entity in the electric generation,
industrial, and commercial sectors shall submit to the
Administrator one tradeable allowance for every metric ton of
greenhouse gases, measured in units of carbon dioxide
equivalence, that it emits;
(2) producer or importer of hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride that is a covered
entity shall submit to the Administrator one tradeable
allowance for every metric ton of hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride it produces or
imports, measured in units of carbon dioxide equivalence; and
(3) each petroleum refiner or importer that is a covered
entity shall submit one tradeable allowance for every unit of
petroleum product it sells that will produce one metric
ton of greenhouse gases, measured in units of carbon
dioxide equivalence, when used for transportation.
(b) Determination of Transportation Sector Amount.--For the
transportation
[[Page S171]]
sector, the Administrator shall determine the amount of
greenhouse gases, measured in units of carbon dioxide
equivalence, that will be emitted when petroleum products are
used for transportation.
(c) Exception for Certain Deposited Emissions.--
Notwithstanding subsection (a), a covered entity is not
required to submit a tradeable allowance for any amount of
greenhouse gas that would otherwise have been emitted from a
source under the ownership or control of that entity if--
(1) the emission is deposited in a geological storage
facility approved by the Administrator under section
204(a)(2)(F); and
(2) the entity agrees to submit tradeable allowances for
any portion of the deposited emission that is subsequently
emitted from that facility.
SEC. 312. COMPLIANCE.
(a) In General.--
(1) Source of tradeable allowances used.--A covered entity
may use a tradeable allowance to meet the requirements of
this section without regard to whether the tradeable
allowance was allocated to it under subtitle B or acquired
from another entity or the Climate Change Credit Corporation
established under section 351.
(2) Verification of administrator.--At various times during
each year, the Administrator shall determine whether each
covered entity has met the requirements of this section. In
making that determination, the Administrator shall--
(A) take into account tradeable allowances allocated to, or
acquired by, that covered entity; and
(B) retire the serial number assigned to each such
tradeable allowance so used.
(b) Alternative Means of Compliance From 2010 Through
2015.--For the years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015,
a covered entity may satisfy 15 percent of its total
allowance submission requirement under this section by--
(1) submitting tradeable allowances from another nation's
market in greenhouse gas emissions if--
(A) the Secretary certifies that the other nation's system
for trading in greenhouse gas emissions is complete,
accurate, and transparent and reviews that determination at
least once every 5 years;
(B) the other nation has adopted enforceable limits on its
greenhouse gas emissions which the tradeable allowances were
issued to implement; and
(C) the covered entity certifies that the tradeable
allowance has been retired unused in the other nation's
market;
(2) submitting a registered net increase in sequestration,
as registered in the National Greenhouse Gas Database
established under section 201, adjusted, if necessary, to
comply with the accounting standards and methods established
under section 372;
(3) submitting a greenhouse gas emissions reduction (other
than a registered net increase in sequestration) that was
registered in the National Greenhouse Gas Database by a
person that is not a covered entity; or
(4) submitting credits obtained from the Administrator
under section 314
(c) Alternative Means of Compliance After 2015.--For years
beginning after 2015, a covered entity may meet the
requirements of this section by any means described in
subsection (b), except that for the purpose of applying
subsection (d) after 2015, ``10 percent'' shall be
substituted for ``15 percent''.
SEC. 313. TRADEABLE ALLOWANCES AND FUEL ECONOMY STANDARD
CREDITS.
(a) In General.--Section 32903 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by striking the second sentence of
subsection (a) and inserting ``The credits may be--
``(1) applied to any of the 3 model years immediately
following the model year for which the credits are earned; or
``(2) if the average fuel economy of a manufacturer exceeds
the fuel efficiency standards by more than 20 percent, sold
to the registry established under section 201 of the Climate
Stewardship Act of 2003.''.
(b) Conversion Ratio.--The Secretary of Transportation, in
consultation with the Administrator, shall determine the
conversion factor to be used for purposes of credits
purchased from, or sold to, the registry established under
section 201 of this Act and fuel economy standard credits
under section 32903 of title 49, United States Code.
(c) Reduction of Transportation Sector Allocation.--If any
manufacturer sells credits under section 32903(a)(2) of title
49, United States Code, to the registry established under
section 201 of this Act in any calendar year, the amount of
tradeable allowances allocated to the transportation sector
under section 311(b) for the next calendar year, and the
total allocation of tradeable allowance available for
allocation in the next calendar years, shall be reduced by an
amount equivalent to the sum of the credits, measured in
units of carbon dioxide equivalents, sold to the registry by
such manufacturers during the preceding calendar year.
SEC. 314. BORROWING AGAINST FUTURE REDUCTIONS.
(a) In General.--The Administrator shall establish a
program under which a covered entity may--
(1) receive a credit in the current calendar year for
anticipated reductions in emissions in a future calendar
year; and
(2) use the credit in lieu of a tradeable allowance to meet
the requirements of this Act for the current calendar year,
subject to the limitation imposed by section 312(b).
(b) Determination of Tradeable Allowance Credits.--The
Administrator may make credits available under subsection (a)
only for anticipated reductions in emissions that--
(1) are attributable to the realization of capital
investments in equipment, the construction, reconstruction,
or acquisition of facilities, or the deployment of new
technologies--
(A) for which the covered entity has executed a binding
contract and secured, or applied for, all necessary permits
and operating or implementation authority;
(B) that will not become operational within the current
calendar year; and
(C) that will become operational and begin to reduce
emissions from the covered source within 5 years after the
year in which the credit is used; and
(2) will be realized within 5 years after the year in which
the credit is used.
(c) Carrying Cost.--If a covered entity uses a credit under
this section to meet the requirements of this Act for a
calendar year (referred to as the use year), the tradeable
allowance requirement for the year from which the credit was
taken (referred to as the source year) shall be increased by
an amount equal to--
(1) 10 percent for each credit borrowed from the source
year; multiplied by
(2) the number of years beginning after the use year and
before the source year.
(d) Maximum Borrowing Period.--A credit from a year
beginning more than 5 years after the current year may not be
used to meet the requirements of this Act for the current
year.
(e) Failure to Achieve Reductions Generating Credit.--If a
covered entity that uses a credit under this section fails to
achieve the anticipated reduction for which the credit was
granted for the year from which the credit was taken, then--
(1) the covered entity's requirements under this Act for
that year shall be increased by the amount of the credit,
plus the amount determined under subsection (c);
(2) any tradeable allowances submitted by the covered
entity for that year shall be counted first against the
increase in those requirements; and
(3) the covered entity may not use credits under this
section to meet the increased requirements.
SEC. 315. OTHER USES OF TRADEABLE ALLOWANCES.
(a) In General.--Tradeable allowances may be sold,
exchanged, purchased, retired, or used as provided in this
section.
(b) Intersector Trading.--Covered entities may purchase or
otherwise acquire tradeable allowances from other covered
sectors to satisfy the requirements of section 311.
(c) Climate Change Credit Organization.--The Climate Change
Credit Corporation established under section 351 may sell
tradeable allowances allocated to it under section 332(a)(2)
to any covered entity or to any investor, broker, or dealer
in such tradeable allowances. The Climate Change Credit
Corporation shall use all proceeds from such sales in
accordance with the provisions of section 352.
(d) Banking of Tradeable Allowances.--Not withstanding the
requirements of section 311, a covered entity that has more
than a sufficient amount of tradeable allowances to satisfy
the requirements of section 311, may refrain from submitting
a tradeable allowance to satisfy the requirements in order to
sell, exchange, or use the tradeable allowance in the future.
SEC. 316. EXEMPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORIES.
(a) In General.--The Administrator may grant an exemption
from the requirements of this Act to a source category if the
Administrator determines, after public notice and comment,
that it is not feasible to measure or estimate emissions from
that source category.
(b) Reduction of Limitations.--If the Administrator exempts
a source category under subsection (a), the Administrator
shall also reduce the total tradeable allowances under
section 321(a) as follows:
(1) 2010 limitation.--For the tradeable allowances under
section 311(a)(1), the Administrator shall reduce the total
by the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that the exempted
source category emitted in calendar year 2000, as identified
in the 2000 Inventory.
(2) 2016 limitation.--For the tradeable allowances under
subsection 311(a)(2), the Administrator shall reduce the
total by the amount of green-house gas emissions that the
exempted source category emitted in calendar year 1990, as
identified in the 1990 Inventory.
(c) Limitation on Exemption.--The Administrator may not
grant an exemption under subsection (a) to carbon dioxide
produced from fossil fuel.
Subtitle B--Establishment and Allocation of Tradeable Allowances
SEC. 331. ESTABLISHMENT OF TRADEABLE ALLOWANCES.
(a) In General.--The Administrator shall promulgate
regulations to establish tradeable allowances, denominated in
units of carbon dioxide equivalence--
(1) for calendar years beginning after 2009 and before
2016, equal to--
(A) 5896 million metric tons, measured in units of carbon
dioxide equivalence, reduced by
(B) the amount of emissions of greenhouse gases in calendar
year 2000 from non-covered entities; and
(2) for calendar years beginning after 2015, equal to--
[[Page S172]]
(A) 5123 million metric tons, measured in units of carbon
dioxide equivalence, reduced by
(B) the amount of emissions of greenhouse gases in calendar
year 1990 from non-covered entities.
(b) Serial Numbers.--The Administrator shall assign a
unique serial number to each tradeable allowance established
under subsection (a), and shall take such action as may be
necessary to prevent counterfeiting of tradeable allowances.
(c) Nature of Tradeable Allowances.--A tradeable allowance
is not a property right, and nothing in this title or any
other provision of law limits the authority of the United
States to terminate or limit a tradeable allowance.
(d) Non-covered Entity.--In this section:
(1) In general.--The term ``non-covered entity'' means an
entity that--
(A) owns or controls a source of greenhouse gas emissions
in the electric power, industrial, or commercial sectors of
the United States economy (as defined in the Inventory),
refines or imports petroleum products for use in
transportation, or produces or imports hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride; and
(B) is not a covered entity, determined by applying the
definition in section 3(4) for the year 2000 (for the purpose
of subsection (a)(1)(B)) or the year 1990 (for the purpose of
subsection (a)(2)(B)).
(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an entity
that is a covered entity for any calendar year beginning
after 2009 shall not be considered to be a non-covered entity
for the purpose of either subsection (a)(1)(B) or subsection
(a)(2)(B) only because it emitted, or its products would
have emitted, 10,000 metric tons or less of greenhouse
gas, measured in units of carbon dioxide equivalence, in
the year 2000 or 1990, respectively.
SEC. 332. DETERMINATION OF TRADEABLE ALLOWANCE ALLOCATIONS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall determine--
(1) the amount of tradeable allowances to be allocated to
each covered sector of that sector's Phase I and Phase II
allotments; and
(2) the amount of tradeable allowances to be allocated to
the Climate Change Credit Corporation established under
section 351.
(b) Allocaiton Factors.--In making the determination
required by subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider--
(1) the distributive effect of the allocations on household
income and net worth of individuals
(2) the impact of the allocations on corporate income,
taxes, and asset value;
(3) the impact of the allocations on income levels of
consumers and on their energy consumption;
(4) the effects of the allocations in terms of economic
efficiency;
(5) the ability of covered entities to pass through
compliance costs to their customers; and
(6) the degree to which the amount of allocations to the
covered sectors should decrease over time.
(c) Allocation Recommendations and Implementations.--Before
allocating or providing tradeable allowances under
subsection(a) and within 24 hours after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Secretary shall submit the determinations
under subsection (a) to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation, the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works, the House of Representatives
Committee on Science, and the House of Representatives
Committee on Energy and Commerce. The Secretary's
determinations under paragraph (1), including the allocations
and provision of tradeable allowances pursuant to that
determination, are deemed to be a major rule (as defined in
section 804(2) of title 5, United States Code), and subject
to the provisions of chapter 8 of that title.
SEC. 333. ALLOCATION OF TRADEABLE ALLOWANCES.
(a) In General.--Beginning with calendar year 2010 and
after taking into account any initial allocations under
section 334, the Administrator shall--
(1) allocate to each covered sector that sector's Phase I
and Phase II allotments determined by the Administrator under
section 332 (adjusted for any such initial allocations and
the allocation to the Climate Change Credit Corporation
established under section 351); and
(2) allocate to the Climate Change Credit Corporation
established under section 351 the tradeable allowances
allocable to that Corporation.
(b) Intrasectorial Allotments.--The Administrator shall, by
regulation, establish a process for the allocation of
tradeable allowances under this section, without cost to
facilities within each sector, that will--
(1) encourage investments that increase the efficiency of
the processes that produce greenhouse gas emissions;
(2) minimize the costs to the government of allocating the
tradeable allowances;
(3) not penalize a covered entity for registered emissions
reductions made before 2010; and
(4) provide sufficient allocation for new entrants into the
sector.
(c) Point Source Allocation.--The Administrator shall
allocate the tradeable allowances for the electricity
generation, industrial, and commercial sectors to the
entities owning or controlling the point sources of
greeenhouse gas emissions within that sector.
(d) Hydrofluorocarbons, Perfluoro- carbons, and Sulfur
Hexafluoride.--The Administrator shall allocate the tradeable
allowances for producers or importers of hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride one tradeable
allowance for every metric ton of hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride produced or
imported, measured in units of carbon dioxide equivalence.
(e) Special Rule for Allocation Within the Transportation
Sector.--The Administrator shall allocate the tradeable
allowances for the transportation sector to petroleum
refiners or importers that produce or import petroleum
products that will be used as fuel for transportation.
SEC. 334. INITIAL ALLOCATIONS FOR EARLY PARTICIPATION AND
ACCELERATED PARTICIPATION.
Before making allocations under section 333, the
Administrator shall allocate--
(1) to any covered entity an amount of tradeable allowances
equivalent to the amount of greenhouse gas emissions
reductions registered by that covered entity in the national
greenhouse gas database if--
(A) the covered entity has requested to use the registered
reduction in the year of allocation;
(B) the reduction was registered prior to 2010; and
(C) the Administrator retires the unique serial number
assigned to the reduction under section 201(c)(3); and
(2) to any covered entity that has entered into an
accelerated participation agreement under section 335, such
tradeable allowances as the Administrator has determined to
be appropriate under that section.
SEC. 335. BONUS FOR ACCELERATED PARTICIPATION.
(A) In General.--If a covered entity executes an agreement
with the Administrator under which it agrees to reduce its
level of greenhouse gas emissions to a level no greater than
the level of its greenhouse gas emissions for calendar year
1990 by the year 2010, then, for the 6-year period beginning
with calendar year 2010, the Administrator shall--
(1) provide additional tradeable allowances to that entity
when allocating allowances under section 334 in order to
recognize the additional emissions reductions that will be
required of the covered entity;
(2) allow that entry to satisfy 20 percent of its
requirements under section 311 by--
(A) submitting tradeable allowances from another nation's
market in greenhouse gas emission under the conditions
described in section 312(b)(1);
(B) submitting a registered net increase in sequestration,
as registered in the National Greenhouse Gas Database
established under section 201, and as adjusted by the
appropriate sequestration discount rate established under
section 372; or
(C) submitting a greenhouse gas emission reduction (other
than a registered net increase in sequestration) that was
registered in the National Greenhouse Gas Database by a
person that is not a covered entity.
(b) Termination.--An entity that executes an agreement
described in subsection (a) may terminate the agreement at
any time.
(c) Failure to Meet Commitment.--If an entity that executes
an agreement described in subsection (a) fails to achieve the
level of emissions to which it committed by calendar year
2010--
(1) its requirements under section 311 shall be increased
by the amount of any tradeable allowances provided to it
under subsection (a)(1); and
(2) any tradeable allowances submitted thereafter shall be
counted first against the increase in those requirements.
SEC. 336. ENSURING TARGET ADEQUACY.
(a) In General.--Beginning 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of Commerce for
Oceans and Atmosphere shall review the allowances established
by subsection (a) no less frequently than biennially--
(1) to re-evaluate the levels established by that
subsection, after taking into account the best available
science and the most currently available data, and
(2) to re-evaluate the environmental and public health
impacts of specific concentration levels of greenhouse gases,
to determine whether the allowances established by subsection
(a) continue to be consistent with the objective of the
United Nations' Framework Convention on Climate Change of
stabilizing levels of greenhouse gas emissions at a level
that will prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with
the climate system.
(b) Review of 2010 and 2016 Levels.--The Under Secretary
shall specifically review in 2008 the level established under
section 311(a)(1) and, in 2012, the level established under
section 311(a)(2), and transmit a report on his reviews,
together with any recommendations, including legislative
recommendations, for modification of the levels, to the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the
House of Representatives Committee on Science, and the House
of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Subtitle C--Climate Change Credit Corporation
SEC. 351. ESTABLISHMENT.
(a) In General.--The Climate Change Credit Corporation is
established as a nonprofit corporation without stock. The
Corporation shall not be considered to be an
[[Page S173]]
agency or establishment of the United States Government.
(b) Applicable Laws.--The Corporation shall be subject to
the provisions of this title and, to the extent consistent
with this title, to the District of Columbia Business
Corporation Act.
(c) Board of Directors.--The Corporation shall have a board
of directors of 5 individuals who are citizens of the United
States, of whom 1 shall be elected annually by the board to
serve as chairman. No more than 3 members of the board
serving at any time may be affiliated with the same
political party. The members of the board shall be
appointed by the President of the United States, by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate and shall serve
for terms of 5 years.
SEC. 352. PURPOSES AND FUNCTIONS.
(a) Trading.--The Corporation--
(1) shall receive and manage tradeable allowances allocated
to it under section 333(a)(2); and
(2) shall buy and sell tradeable allowances, whether
allocated to it under that section or obtained by purchase,
trade, or donation from other entities; but
(3) may not retire tradeable allowances unused.
(b) Use of Tradeable Allowances and Proceeds.--
(1) In general.--The Corporation shall use the tradeable
allowances, and proceeds derived from its trading activities
in tradeable allowances, to reduce costs borne by consumers
as a result of the greenhouse gas reduction requirements of
this Act. The reductions--
(A) may be obtained by buy-down, subsidy, negotiation of
discounts, consumer rebates, or otherwise;
(B) shall be, as nearly as possible, equitably distributed
across all regions of the United States; and
(C) may include arrangements for preferential treatment to
consumers who can least afford any such increased costs.
(2) Transition assistance to dislocated workers and
communities.--The Corporation shall allocate a percentage of
the proceeds derived from its trading activities in tradeable
allowances to provide transition assistance to dislocated
workers and communities. Transition assistance may take the
form of--
(A) grants to employers, employer associations, and
representatives of employees--
(i) to provide training, adjustment assistance, and
employment services to dislocated workers; and
(ii) to make income-maintenance and needs-related payments
to dislocated workers; and
(B) grants to State and local governments to assist
communities in attracting new employers or providing
essential local government services.
(3) Phase-out of transition assistance.--The percentage
allocated by the Corporation under paragraph (2)--
(A) shall be 20 percent for 2010;
(B) shall be reduced by 2 percentage points each year
thereafter; and
(C) may not be reduced below zero.
(c) Annual Report.--The Corporation shall issue an annual
report setting forth the results of its operations for the
year.
Subtitle D--Sequestration Accounting; Penalties
SEC. 371. SEQUESTRATION ACCOUNTING.
(a) Sequestration Accounting.--If a covered entity uses a
registered net increase in sequestration to satisfy the
requirements of section 311 for any year, that covered entity
shall submit information to the Administrator every 5 years
thereafter sufficient to allow the Administrator to
determine, using the methods and standards created under
section 204, whether that net increase in sequestration still
exists. Unless the Administrator determines that the net
increase in sequestration continues to exist, the covered
entity shall offset any loss of sequestration by submitting
additional tradeable allowances of equivalent amount in the
calendar year following that determination.
(b) Regulations Required.--The Secretary, acting through
the Under Secretary of Commerce for Science and Technology,
in coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture, the
Secretary of Energy, and the Administrator, shall issue
regulations establishing the sequestration accounting rules
for all classes of sequestration projects.
(c) Criteria for Regulations.--In issuing regulations under
this section, the Secretary shall use the following criteria:
(1) If the range of possible amounts of net increase in
sequestration for a particular class of sequestration project
is not more than 10 percent of the median of that range, the
amount of sequestration awarded shall be equal to the median
value of that range.
(2) If the range of possible amounts of net increase in
sequestration for a particular class of sequestration project
is more than 10 percent of the median of that range, the
amount of sequestration awarded shall be equal to the fifth
percentile of that range.
(3) The regulations shall include procedures for accounting
for potential leakage from sequestration projects and for
ensuring that any registered increase in sequestration is in
addition that which would have occurred if this Act had not
been enacted.
(d) Updates.--The Secretary shall update the sequestration
accounting rules for every class of sequestration project at
least once every 5 years.
SEC. 372. PENALTIES.
Any covered entity that fails to meet the requirements of
section 311 for a year shall be liable for a civil penalty,
payable to the Administrator, equal to thrice the market
value (determined as of the last day of the year at issue) of
the tradeable allowances that would be necessary for that
covered entity to meet those requirements on the date of the
emission that resulted in the violation.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the National Academy of Science has said,
``Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a
result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and
subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact,
rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely
mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some
significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural
variability.''
Over the past five years, the Commerce Committee has held eight
hearings on climate change. Two the last five years, 1998 and 2002,
have been the warmest, in terms of average global temperatures, ever
recorded. According to a recent report from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration NOAA, nine of the warmest years have
occurred since 1990. As reported in the New York Times on December 31,
2002, many experts think it is more likely than not 2003 will either
match or exceed the 1998 average temperature record of 58 degrees
Fahrenheit.
Researchers at the University of Texas, Wesleyan University, and
Stanford University recently reported in the journal Nature that global
warming is forcing species around the world, from California starfish
to Alpine herbs, to move into new ranges or alter habits that could
disrupt ecosystems. The report states there is ``very high
confidence,'' defined as having more than 95 percent of observed
changes which were principally caused by climate change, that climate
change is already affecting living systems. The end result off these
changes could be substantial ecological disruption, local losses in
wildlife, and extinction of certain species.
This and many other reports over the years have highlighted time and
again the consequences of a warming climate system. We have seen the
destruction of over 70 percent of the heat-sensitive corals reefs, the
melting of glaciers at unprecedented levels, the increase of wildfires,
and the spreading of diseases. A large German insurance company has
estimated that global warming could cost $300 billion annually by 2050
in weather damage, pollution, industrial and agricultural losses, and
other expenses.
Our international partners, the States, and private industry are
reacting to this challenge. For example, California has enacted
legislation that will regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases.
The European Union just recently approved an emissions trading system.
The World Bank has estimated that greenhouse gas trading will be a $10
billion market by 2005. Financial ratification of the Kyoto Protocol
rests with Russia.
Industry is also paying attention to what's happening. Laws firms and
insurance companies are setting up business units to deal with climate-
related risks.
Thus far, however, little has actually been accomplished to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. The United States must do something, but it
must also do the right thing. Many have focused on what we do not know
or the uncertainties are climate change. I prefer a more sound and
scientific approach of starting with what is known or given and then
proceeding to solve the problem at hand.
While we cannot say with 100 percent confidence what will happen in
the future, we do know the mission of greenhouse gases is not healthy
for the environment. As many of the top scientists through the world
have stated, the sooner we start to reduce these emissions, the better
off we will be in the future.
In 2001, Senator Lieberman and I announced our intention to develop
legislation to require mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases
emissions and provide for the trading of emission allowances. We have
been working with industry and the environmental community to develop
legislation to move the country in the right direction and demonstrate
leadership on this important issue. It will be the first comprehensive
[[Page S174]]
piece of legislation in this area. Not only will it not place the
burden on any one sector, it would allow for the partnering across
sectors through the trading system to most effectively meet the
required reductions.
The bill we are introducing will propose a ``cap and trade'' approach
to reducing greenhouse gases emissions. It would require the
promulgation of regulations to limit greenhouse gases emissions from
the electricity generation, transportation, industrial and commercial
economic sectors. The affected sectors request approximately 85 percent
of the overall U.S. emissions for the year 2000. The bill also would
provide for the trading of emissions allowances and reductions through
the government provided greenhouse gas database, which would contain an
inventory of emissions and a registry of reduction.
I thank Senator Lieberman for his commitment and leadership in
bringing this piece of legislative initiative. We hope that our
colleagues in the Senate and the Administration will work with us to
improve upon and ultimately adopt this much needed legislation.
The U.S. is responsible for 25 percent of the worldwide greenhouse
gases emissions. It is time for the U.S. government to do its part to
address this global problem, and legislation on mandatory reductions is
the form of leadership that is required to address this global problem.
____________________