[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 358-379]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 359]]

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.
       (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.

[[Page 360]]

       (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 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.

[[Page 361]]

  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 safely.
  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, 
its 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.


[[Page 362]]

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Shelby 
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

[[Page 363]]

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 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

[[Page 364]]

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 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

[[Page 365]]

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 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.

[[Page 366]]

  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 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

[[Page 367]]

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:
       (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

[[Page 368]]

     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 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

[[Page 369]]

     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 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

[[Page 370]]

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 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

[[Page 371]]

     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.
                                 ______
                                 
      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

[[Page 372]]

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 
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.

[[Page 373]]

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;
       (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

[[Page 374]]

     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:

     ``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.

[[Page 375]]

       (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) 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;

[[Page 376]]

       (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 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

[[Page 377]]

     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--
       (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

[[Page 378]]

     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 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

[[Page 379]]

     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 
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.

                          ____________________