[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3655-3683]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CORZINE:
  S. 364. A bill to prohibit the use of taxpayers funds to advocate a 
position that is inconsistent with existing Supreme Court precedent 
with respect to the Second Amendment; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to advocate a position on the 
meaning of the Second Amendment that is inconsistent with existing 
Supreme Court precedent, as expressed in the Supreme Court case of 
United States v. Miller.
  This legislation responds to the Bush Administration's filing of two 
unprecedented briefs to the United States Supreme Court, which argued 
that the Second Amendment establishes an individual right to possess 
firearms. In taking this position, the Justice Department directly 
contradicted the well-established precedents of the Supreme Court, as 
expressed in the seminal case of United States v. Miller. In that 1939 
case, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment did not 
establish a private right of individuals to possess firearms, but 
rather was intended to ensure the effectiveness of groups of citizen-
soldiers known at the time as the Militia.
  The Court in United States v. Miller explained the historical 
background to the Second Amendment and issued its ruling clearly and 
unambiguously. That ruling has never been reversed, and the Court has 
followed it in every subsequent related case. Similarly, the precedent 
in United States v. Miller has been followed by every Justice 
Department over the past several decades, including the Justice 
Departments of Presidents Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and George H.W. 
Bush.
  The meaning of the Second Amendment should not be a partisan issue. 
In fact, it should not be a political issue. It is a legal and 
constitutional issue. And the law on this question has been clearly 
established by the highest court in the land in case after case for a 
period of many decades.
  Unfortunately, instead of following the law, as Attorney General 
promised to do during his confirmation hearing, the Bush Administration 
and the Justice Department have used their authority to file briefs as 
a means of pursuing a partisan political agenda that flies in the face 
of established Supreme Court precedents. This is wrong. And, in my 
view, it is a misuse of taxpayer dollars.
  Congress should not have to pass a law to ensure that the Executive 
Branch follows the Constitution, as clearly interpreted by the Supreme 
Court. Unfortunately, in light of the Bush's Administration's latest 
actions, Congress must step in. After all, Congress's ultimate power is 
the power of the purse. And we have a responsibility to use that power, 
when necessary, to ensure that the Executive Branch complies with 
constitutional law.
  This responsibility flows from Congress's obligation to preserve, 
protect and defend the Constitution. It also flows from our obligation 
to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not misused. The American people 
should not be forced to pay taxes to support an unreasonable 
interpretation of the Second Amendment that is not only inconsistent 
with constitutional law, but that threatens to undermine legislation 
needed to reduce gun violence and to save lives.
  In 1998, more than 30,000 Americans died from firearm-related deaths. 
That is almost as many as the number of Americans who died in the 
entire Korean War. In my view, there is much that Congress needs to do 
to reduce these deaths, including enacting reasonable gun safety 
legislation. Yet if the Bush Administration prevails in its effort to 
radically revise the Second Amendment, such laws could well be 
undermined. The end result would be more death and more families losing 
loved ones to the scourge of gun violence.
  I have asked the Congressional Research Service whether there are any 
constitutional precedents that would bar the Congress from adopting 
this legislation, and the answer was ``no.'' I also would note that 
there is precedent for Congress prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars 
to advocate positions

[[Page 3656]]

with which Congress disagrees. For example, Congress for many years 
prohibited the Justice Department from using appropriated money to 
overturn certain rules under our antitrust laws. This responded to the 
filing of a brief in the Supreme Court by the Justice Department urging 
a revision of its precedents on resale price maintenance, and the 
legislation effectively blocked the Department from filing similar 
briefs.
  In conclusion, we should not allow taxpayer dollars to be used to 
misrepresent the meaning of the Second Amendment on behalf of a 
partisan, political agenda. We should defend the Constitution against 
such ideological attacks. We should protect taxpayers from being forced 
to subsidize ideological gambits. And we should ensure that the 
Constitution is not misused to undermine gun safety legislation that 
could save the lives of many innocent Americans.
  I hope my colleagues will support the bill, and I ask unanimous 
consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record, 
along with some related materials about this matter.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 364

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FUNDS.

       No funds appropriated to the Department of Justice or any 
     other agency may be used to file any brief or to otherwise 
     advocate before any judicial or administrative body any 
     position with respect to the meaning of the Second Amendment 
     to the Constitution that is inconsistent with existing 
     Supreme Court precedent, as expressed in United States v. 
     Miller (307 U.S. 174 (1939)).
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, May 12, 2002]

                A Faulty Rethinking of the 2nd Amendment

                            (By Jack Rakove)

       Stanford, CA.--The Bush administration has found a 
     constitutional right it wants to expand. Attorney General 
     John D. Ashcroft attracted only mild interest a year ago when 
     he told the National Rifle Association, ``The text and 
     original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the 
     right of individuals to keep and bear firearms.''
       Now, briefs just filed by Solicitor General Theodore Olson 
     in two cases currently being appealed to the Supreme Court 
     indicate that Mr. Ashcroft's personnel opinion has become 
     that of the United States government. This posture represents 
     an astonishing challenge to the long-settled doctrine that 
     the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is 
     closely tied to membership in the militia. It is no secret 
     that controversy about the meaning of the amendment has 
     escalated in recent years. As evidence grew that a 
     significant portion of the American electorate favored the 
     regulation of firearms, the N.R.A. and its allies insisted 
     ever more vehemently that the private right to possess arms 
     is a constitutional absolute. This opinion, once seen as 
     marginal, has become an article of faith on the right, and 
     Republican politicians have in turn had to acknowledge its 
     force.
       The two cases under appeal do not offer an ideal test of 
     the administration's new views. One concerns a man charged 
     with violating a federal statute prohibiting individuals 
     under domestic violence restraining orders from carrying 
     guns; the other involves a man convicted of owning machine 
     guns, which is illegal under federal law. In both cases, the 
     defendants cite the Second Amendment as protecting their 
     right to have the firearms. The unsavory facts may explain 
     why Mr. Olson is using these cases as vehicles to announce 
     the administration's constitutional position while urging the 
     Supreme Court not to accept the appeals.
       The court last examined this issue in 1939 in United States 
     v. Miller. There it held that the Second Amendment was 
     designed to ensure the effectiveness of the militia, not to 
     guarantee a private right to possess firearms. The Miller 
     case, though it did not fully explore the entire 
     constitutional history, has guided the government's position 
     on firearm issues for the past six decades.
       If the court were to take up the two cases on appeal, it is 
     far from clear that the Justice Department's new position 
     would prevail. The plain text of the Second Amendment--``A 
     well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a 
     free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms 
     shall not be infringed''--does not support the unequivocal 
     view that Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Olson have put forth. The 
     amendment refers to the right of the people, rather than the 
     individual person of the Fifth Amendment. And the phrase 
     ``keep and bear arms'' is, as most commentators note, a 
     military reference.
       Nor do the debates surrounding the adoption of the 
     amendment support the idea that the framers were thinking of 
     an individual right to own arms. The relevant proposals 
     offered by the state ratification conventions of 1787-88 all 
     dealt with the need to preserve the militia as an alternative 
     to a standing army. The only recorded discussion of the 
     amendment in the House of Representatives concerned whether 
     religious dissenters should be compelled to serve in the 
     militia. And in 1789, the Senate deleted one clause 
     explicitly defining the militia as ``composed of the body of 
     the people.'' In excising this phrase, the Senate gave 
     ``militia'' a narrower meaning than it otherwise had, thereby 
     making the Ashcroft interpretation harder to sustain.
       Advocates of the individual right respond to these 
     objections in three ways.
       They argue, first that when Americans used the word 
     militia, they ordinarily meant the entire adult male 
     population capable of bearing arms. But Article I of the 
     Constitution defines the militia as an institution under the 
     joint regulation of the national and state governments, and 
     the debates of 1787-89 do not demonstrate that the framers 
     believed that the militia should forever by synonymous with 
     the entire population.
       A second argument revolves around the definition of ``the 
     people.'' Those on the N.R.A. side believe ``the people'' 
     means ``all persons.'' But in Article I we also read that the 
     people will elect the House of Representatives--and the 
     determination of who can vote will be left to state law, in 
     just the way that militia service would remain subject to 
     Congressional and state regulation.
       The third argument addresses the critical phrase deleted in 
     the Senate. Rather than concede that the Senate knew what it 
     was doing, these commentators contend that the deletion was 
     more a matter of careless editing.
       This argument is faulty because legal interpretation 
     generally assumes that lawmakers act with clear purpose. More 
     important, the Senate that made this critical deletion was 
     dominated by Federalists who were skeptical of the milita's 
     performance during the Revolutionary War and opposed to the 
     idea that the future of American defense lay with the militia 
     rather than a regular army. They had sound reasons not to 
     commit the national government to supporting a mass militia, 
     and thus to prefer a phrasing implying that the militia need 
     not embrace the entire adult male population if Congress had 
     good reason to require otherwise. The evidence of text and 
     history makes it very hard to argue for an expansive 
     individual right to keep arms.
       There is one striking curiosity to the Bush 
     administration's advancing its position at this time. 
     Advocates of the individual-right interpretation typically 
     argue that an armed populace is the best defense against the 
     tyranny of our own government. And yet the Bush 
     administration seems quite willing to compromise essential 
     civil liberties in the name of security. It is sobering to 
     think that the constitutional right the administration values 
     so highly is the right to bear arms, that peculiar product of 
     an obsolete debate over the danger of standing armies--and 
     this at a time when our standing army is the most powerful 
     the world has known.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, May 10, 2002]

                            Guns and Justice

       The U.S. Solicitor General has a duty to defend acts of 
     Congress before the Supreme Court. This week, Solicitor 
     General Ted Olson--and by extension his bosses, Attorney 
     General John Ashcroft and President Bush--took a position 
     regarding guns that will undermine that mission.
       Historically, the Justice Department has adopted a narrow 
     reading of the Constitution's Second Amendment, which states 
     that ``a well regulated militia being necessary to the 
     security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and 
     bear arms shall not be infringed.'' Along with nearly all 
     courts in the past century, it has read that as protecting 
     only the public's collective right to bear arms in the 
     context of militia service. Now the administration has 
     reversed this view. In a pair of appeals, Mr. Olson contends 
     that ``the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights 
     of individuals, including persons who are not members of any 
     militia . . . to possess and bear their own firearms.'' Mr. 
     Ashcroft insists the department remains prepared to defend 
     all federal gun laws. Having given away its strongest 
     argument, however, it will be doing so with its hands tied 
     behind its back.
       Laws will now be defended not as presumptively valid but as 
     narrow exceptions to a broad constitutional right--one 
     subject, as Mr. Olson put it, only to ``reasonable 
     restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons 
     or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are 
     particularly suited to criminal misuse.'' This may sound like 
     a common-sense balancing act. But where exactly does the 
     Second Amendment, if it guarantees individual rights, permit 
     ``reasonable restrictions''? And where does its protection 
     exempt firearms that might be well suited for crime?
       Mr. Ashcroft has compared the gun ownership right with the 
     First Amendment's protection of speech--which can be limited 
     only in a fashion narrowly tailored to accomplish

[[Page 3657]]

     compelling state interests. If that's the model, most federal 
     gun laws would sooner or later fall. After all, it would not 
     be constitutional to subject someone to a background check 
     before permitting him to worship or to make a political 
     speech. If gun ownership is truly a parallel right, why would 
     the Brady background check be constitutional?
       The Justice Department traditionally errs on the other 
     side--arguing for constitutional interpretations that 
     increase congressional flexibility and law enforcement policy 
     options. The great weight of judicial precedent holds that 
     there is no fundamental individual right to own a gun. 
     Staking out a contrary position may help ingratiate the Bush 
     administration to the gun lobby. But it greatly disserves the 
     interests of the United States.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, May 14, 2002]

                   An Ominous Reversal on Gun Rights

       Using a footnote in a set of Supreme Court briefs, Attorney 
     General John Ashcroft announced a radical shift last week in 
     six decades of government policy toward the rights of 
     Americans to own guns. Burying the change in fine print 
     cannot disguise the ominous implications for law enforcement 
     or Mr. Ashcroft's betrayal of his public duty.
       The footnote declares that, contrary to longstanding and 
     bipartisan interpretation of the Second Amendment, the 
     Constitution ``broadly protects the rights of individuals'' 
     to own firearms. This view and the accompanying legal 
     standard Mr. Ashcroft has suggested--equating gun ownership 
     with core free speech rights--could make it extremely 
     difficult for the government to regulate firearms, as it has 
     done for decades. That position comports with Mr. Ashcroft's 
     long-held personal opinion, which he expressed a year ago in 
     a letter to his close allies at the National Rifle 
     Association. But it is a position at odds with both history 
     and the Constitution's text. As the Supreme Court correctly 
     concluded in a 1939 decision that remains the key legal 
     precedent on the subject, the Second Amendment protects only 
     those rights that have ``some reasonable relationship to the 
     preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia.'' By 
     not viewing the amendment as a basic, individual right, this 
     decision left room for broad gun ownership regulation. The 
     footnote is also at odds with Mr. Ashcroft's pledge at his 
     confirmation hearing that his personal ideology would not 
     drive Justice Department legal policies.
       It is hard to take seriously Mr. Ashcroft's assertion that 
     the Bush administration remains committed to the vigorous 
     defense and enforcement of all federal gun laws. Mr. 
     Ashcroft, after all, is an official whose devotion to the gun 
     lobby extends to granting its request to immediately destroy 
     records of gun purchases amassed in the process of conducting 
     Brady law background checks even though they might be useful 
     for tracking weapons purchases by suspected terrorists.
       The immediate effect of the Bush Justice Department's 
     expansive reading of the Second Amendment is to undermine law 
     enforcement by calling into question valuable state and 
     federal gun restrictions on the books, and by handing 
     dangerous criminals a potent new weapon for challenging their 
     convictions. What it all adds up to is a gift to pro-gun 
     extremists, and a shabby deal for everyone else.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. 
        Cochran):
  S. 365. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to establish a 
program to make allocations to States for projects to expand 2-lane 
highways in rural areas to 4-lane highways; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, the 
distinguished senior Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig, to introduce 
the Rural Four-Lane Highway Safety and Development Act of 2003. We are 
pleased to be joined by Senators Lincoln and Cochran in sponsoring the 
bill.
  The purpose of this bipartisan legislation is to ensure that States 
have the resources they need to upgrade major two-lane roads across the 
Nation to high-quality four-lane divided highways. The goals of this 
bill are to improve the safety of our most dangerous highways and to 
stimulate economic development in rural areas.
  I think most Senators would agree that the Dwight D. Eisenhower 
National System of Interstate and Defense Highways is one of the 
transportation marvels of the 20th century. The system's 46,000 miles 
of divided highways interconnect virtually every major urban area in 
the Nation. The system represents one of the most efficient and safest 
highway systems in the world.
  Unfortunately, when the Interstate System was planned, it left many 
rural communities and smaller urban areas without direct links to the 
high-quality transportation network that the interstate highways 
provide. Many of these smaller and rural communities continue to suffer 
economically because of the lack of high-quality four-lane highways.
  To address this issue, in 1995 Congress developed the concept of a 
National Highway System as a way of extending the benefits of an 
efficient highway network to all areas of the country. Congress 
designated the National Highway System to help focus Federal resources 
on the Nation's most important roads.
  Today there are about 160,000 miles on the National Highway System, 
including all of the interstate highways and all other routes that are 
important to the Nation's economy, defense, and general mobility. The 
NHS comprises only 4 percent of the Nation's roads, but carries more 
than 40 percent of all highway traffic, 75 percent of heavy truck 
traffic and 90 percent of tourist traffic.
  The NHS reaches nearly every part of the Nation. According to the 
Federal Highway Administration, about 90 percent of America's 
population lives within 5 miles of an NHS route. All urban areas with a 
population of more than 50,000, and 93 percent with a population of 
between 5,000 and 50,000, are within 5 miles of the NHS. Counties with 
NHS highways have 99 percent of all jobs, including 99 percent of all 
manufacturing jobs, 97 percent of mining jobs, and 93 percent of 
agricultural jobs.
  The NHS is the critical transportation link for most of our Nation's 
rural areas. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that, of the 
160,000 miles now on the National Highway System, fully 75 percent, or 
119,000 miles, are in rural areas. Of the 1.2 trillion total vehicle 
miles traveled in 2000 on NHS roads, about 60 percent were in rural 
areas.
  I hope all Senators will agree that improving highway safety should 
be our top priority. When it comes to highway safety, the fact is that 
travel on four-lane roads is safer than two-lane roads. This is 
especially true in rural areas. According to the Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics, in 1998 the rate of traffic fatalities on 
all rural roads was 2.39 per 100-million vehicle miles; however, the 
rate on rural interstate highways was half as high--only 1.23 per 100 
million vehicle-miles.
  The reason for the lower fatality rate on rural interstate highways 
should be obvious. When a road has only one lane in each direction, 
trucks and other slow-moving vehicles increase the hazard of passing. 
Vehicles turning on or off a two-lane road can also increase risk. A 
divided four-lane highway greatly reduces these perils.
  Of the 119,000 miles of rural NHS roads, about 33,000 miles are 
interstates and another 28,000 miles have been upgraded to four or more 
lanes. The remaining 58,000 miles--more than half of this rural highway 
network--are still only two-lane roads with no central divider. These 
are the most dangerous roads on the National Highway System.
  In my State of New Mexico, we have made some progress toward 
upgrading our rural two-lane highways to four lanes. In recent years, 
US550 from Bernalillo to Bloomfield, US285 from Interstate 40 to 
Carlsbad, and a key segment of US54 from El Paso to Alamogordo have 
been widened to four lanes. In addition, upgrading of US70 from Las 
Cruces to Clovis is nearly completed. But much more remains to be done.
  New Mexico has 2,647 miles of rural roads in the NHS. Eight hundred 
and ninety-two of these NHS miles are interstates. Of the balance of 
New Mexico's NHS highways, 1,755 miles are in the rural parts of my 
State, especially Chaves, Colfax, Eddy, Lincoln, Guadalupe, Otero, 
Quay, San Juan, and Union Counties. And almost 70 percent--1,217 
miles--of New Mexico's rural NHS highways remain only two-lane roads. 
These two-lane roads are major transportation routes with heavy truck 
and commercial traffic. In 2000, a total of 10.3 billion vehicle miles 
were traveled on New Mexico's NHS highways, and about one quarter, or 
2.7

[[Page 3658]]

billion miles, were traveled on these rural NHS roads.
  Unfortunately, there are only very limited funds available to upgrade 
the most important two-lane rural NHS roads to four-lane highways. 
According to a recent GAO study, over two-thirds of all Federal highway 
funding between 1992 and 2000 has gone either to roads in urban areas 
or to interstate highways. Consequently, there is a continuing 
shortfall in Federal highway funding needed to upgrade the most 
important rural two-lane roads. Our bill will help address the 
shortfall so that more rural segments of the NHS can be improved to 
four-lane divided highways.
  As in many States, New Mexico's rural counties strongly believe their 
economic future depends on access to safe and efficient four-lane 
highways. Basic transportation infrastructure is one of the critical 
elements for companies choosing where to locate. Truck drivers and the 
traveling public prefer the safety and efficiency of a four-lane 
divided highway.
  Thus one of the top priorities for rural cities and counties in my 
State is to complete the four-lane upgrade of such key routes as US54 
from Tularosa to Nara Visa, US62/180 from Carlsbad to the Texas state 
line, US64/87 from Clayton to Raton, and US666 from north of Gallup to 
Shiprock. These two-lane rural routes in New Mexico not only bear some 
of the State's heaviest truck and automobile traffic, but also are some 
of the State's most dangerous roads. In fact, US666 is considered one 
of the most dangerous two-lane highways in the Nation.
  New Mexico is not alone among western states in needing to upgrade 
two-lane roads on the National Highway System. For example, Texas has 
almost 3,500 miles of rural two-lane NHS roads. Montana has 2,469 
miles, Kansas has 2,293, Nebraska 1,964, Wyoming 1,924, Minnesota 
1,897, and Missouri 1,853 miles.
  In the East, where States are smaller, many NHS routes remain only 
two lanes. In Vermont, 78 percent of rural NHS roads are only two 
lanes, in New Hampshire it's 84 percent and 99 percent in Maine.
  I do believe it is time Congress took action to improve the safety of 
travelers on the highest priority rural two-lane roads. Last year, I 
secured nearly $1 million in Federal funding to begin the upgrade of 
US64/87 between Clayton and Raton, which is part of the Ports-to-Plains 
High Priority Corridor on the National Highway System.
  In addition, last week Senator Roberts and I introduced S. 290, which 
designates U.S. Highway 54 from El Paso, Texas, through New Mexico, 
Texas, and Oklahoma to Wichita, Kansas, as the SPIRIT High Priority 
Corridor. Our bipartisan bill has four cosponsors. A high-priority 
corridor designation provides no additional Federal funding, but helps 
focus attention on the need to upgrade the nation's major two-lane 
routes.
  The purpose of the bill we are introducing today, the Rural Four-Lane 
Highway Safety and Development Act of 2003, is to provide direct 
Federal funding to States to upgrade existing two-lane roads in rural 
areas to safe and efficient four-lane divided highways. The States 
would determine which two-lane roads they wanted to upgrade. To be 
eligible for funding, the highway must be on the National Highway 
System or a congressionally designated High Priority Corridor. Our bill 
gives funding priority to upgrading the most dangerous two-lane 
highways, routes most affected by increased traffic as a result of 
NAFTA, highways that have high levels of commercial traffic, and 
projects that will help stimulate regional economic growth. Total 
funding for six years is $1.8 billion from the highway trust fund.
  My State bears a substantial burden in the maintenance and upgrading 
of its portion of critical national highways. New Mexico has 3.3 
percent of the Nation's land area, but only 6 tenths of one percent of 
the population. We have 2.2 percent of all of the interstate highway 
miles and 1.7 percent of all other NHS miles. At the same time, as a 
border State, New Mexico is common route for trucks crossing the border 
with Mexico and heading to or coming from the east and west coasts. It 
is likely that the upgrading to four lanes of the most important NHS 
highways in New Mexico might not occur without the supplemental funding 
provided in my bill.
  I continue to believe strongly in the important role of highway 
infrastructure to economic development. Even in this age of the so-
called ``new'' economy and high-speed digital communications, roads 
continue to link our communities together and to carry the commercial 
goods and products our citizens need. Safe and efficient highways are 
especially important to citizens in the rural parts of our country.
  I recognize that the funding level in this bill is inadequate to 
upgrade all of the remaining two-lane routes on the NHS in the next six 
years. Upgrading an existing two-lane road to a full four-lane divided 
highway can cost upward of one million dollars per mile.
  Moreover, some of the existing two-lane roads probably don't have 
sufficient traffic to justify upgrading at this time. In addition, some 
two-lane NHS routes pass through scenic areas where it may not be 
appropriate to upgrade to four lanes. However, I do believe the funding 
in this bill will take us a long way toward ensuring the most critical 
projects are completed in the next six years.
  This year Congress will take up the reauthorization of the 
comprehensive six-year transportation bill, TEA-21. We are introducing 
this bipartisan bill today to help ensure that the issue of the safety 
of rural two-lane NHS routes receives the attention it deserves as the 
debate on reauthorization begins. I look forward to working with the 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, 
and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, as well as Senators Bond and 
Reid of the Transportation, Infrastructure and Nuclear Safety 
Subcommittee, to find a way to ensure additional federal resources are 
in place to hasten the work of upgrading rural two-lane NHS roads to 
safe, efficient four-lane divided highways.
  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. 365

       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 ``Rural Four-Lane Highway 
     Safety and Development Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. RURAL 4-LANE HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after section 138 the following:

     ``Sec. 139. Rural 4-lane highway development program

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) 2-lane highway.--The term `2-lane highway' means a 
     highway that has not more than 1 lane of traffic in each 
     direction.
       ``(2) 4-lane highway.--The term `4-lane highway' means a 
     highway that has 2 lanes of traffic in each direction.
       ``(b) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary shall 
     establish and carry out a program to make allocations to 
     States for projects, consisting of planning, design, 
     environmental review, and construction, to expand eligible 2-
     lane highways in rural areas to 4-lane highways.
       ``(c) Applications.--To be eligible to receive an 
     allocation under this section, a State shall submit to the 
     Secretary an application at such time, in such form, and 
     containing such information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(d) Eligible Highways.--The Secretary may make 
     allocations under this section only for projects to expand 2-
     lane highways that are on--
       ``(1) the National Highway System; or
       ``(2) a high priority corridor identified under section 
     1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
     Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032).
       ``(e) Priority in Selection.--In making allocations under 
     this section, the Secretary shall give priority to--
       ``(1) projects to improve highway safety on the most 
     dangerous rural 2-lane highways on the National Highway 
     System;
       ``(2) projects carried out on rural highways with respect 
     to which the annual volume of commercial vehicle traffic--
       ``(A) has increased since the date of enactment of the 
     North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (107 
     Stat. 2057); or

[[Page 3659]]

       ``(B) is expected to increase after the date of enactment 
     of this section;
       ``(3) projects carried out on rural highways with high 
     levels of commercial truck traffic; and
       ``(4) projects on highway corridors that will help 
     stimulate regional economic growth and development in rural 
     areas.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund (other than 
     the Mass Transit Account) to carry out this section 
     $300,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2009.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 138 the following:

``139. Rural 4-lane highway development program.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. 
        Snowe, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Biden, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. 
        Corzine, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Feinstein, 
        Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Reed, 
        Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 366. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce emissions from 
electric powerplants, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the 
Clean Power Act of 2003 along with 19 of my colleagues, Republicans and 
Democrats. That is a fifth of the Senate on record supporting a measure 
which dramatically reduces emissions of four pollutants coming from 
power plants--sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide and 
mercury.
  These pollutants create or contribute to smog, soot, acid rain, 
mercury contamination and global warming. They cause death, disease, 
ecological degradation, birth defects, and increase the risk of abrupt 
and unwelcome climate changes.
  The nation has made some impressive strides in reducing air pollution 
since 1990. But there is a lot of unfinished business, a fact confirmed 
every day by more and ever better science.
  Power plants are still the nation's single largest source of air 
pollution, including greenhouse gases. They are responsible for 60 
percent or more of national sulfur dioxide emissions, 25 percent of 
nitrogen oxides, 40 percent of carbon dioxide, and about 45 tons of 
mercury annually.
  Fine particulate matter coming from power plants, mainly through 
SOX and NOX emissions, is causing or contributing 
to the premature deaths of approximately 30,000 people.
  More than 130 million people are living in areas with unhealthy air. 
Ground-level ozone triggers over 6.2 million asthma attacks each summer 
in the eastern United States alone, and some studies show that it may 
actually cause asthma. Another 160,000 people are sent to emergency 
rooms due to smog-induced respiratory illness. Power plants are 
significant contributors to this air quality degradation, as well as 
causing major reductions in visibility in our national parks and wild 
places. The National Park Service posts air quality warning signs for 
hikers in the Great Smoky Mountains every other day on average during 
the high ozone season.
  Acid rain continues to fall on the Northeast, and the Southeast, 
damaging sensitive ecosystems and acidifying lakes and streams. In my 
state of Vermont, the red spruce, the sugar maple, and other species 
are becoming more and more immune-compromised.
  The Hubbard Brook Research Foundation says we must reduce sulfur 
dioxide emissions by 80 percent from current Clean Air Act requirements 
to begin biological recovery mid-century in the Northeastern U.S. That 
means bringing emissions way down now, not prolonging the wait for 
healthy trees and lakes.
  Coal-fired power plants emit the bulk of the uncontrolled mercury 
emissions in the U.S. Mercury is a potent neurotoxic pollutant. It 
contaminates fish causing fish consumption warnings in 41 States. And 
mercury puts over 60,000 children at risk of negative developmental 
effects due to fetal exposure.
  Despite our international commitment to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions to 1990 levels through voluntary means, we have failed. In 
particular, power sector emissions of carbon dioxide, a major 
greenhouse gas, have increased by more than 25 percent since 1990. This 
failure increases the risks from global warming.
  It is plainly obvious that we must make swift and major reductions in 
these pollutants for the sake of public health, the environment, and 
the world's climate. Without quick action, the nation's fleet of fossil 
power plants will continue to inefficiently belch out millions of tons 
of harmful pollutants.
  The Clean Power Act of 2003 will mainly use the largely successful 
cap-and-trade system in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments to make quick 
and cost-effective reductions in these pollutants. At the same time, 
this bill does not abolish or eliminate any of the vital local and 
regional air quality protection programs in the Clean Air Act. Our bill 
reduces emissions of sulfur dioxide by 81 percent from 2000. Nitrogen 
oxides will be reduced by 71 percent from 2000. And carbon dioxide will 
be capped at 21 percent below 2000 levels. Mercury will be controlled 
to 90 percent below 1999 levels.
  This bill has a hybrid allocation system for distributing the 
allowances for the three capped and tradable pollutants 
(NOX, SOX, CO2). Most allocations, 
about \2/3\, go to households and consumers. The rest go to renewable 
energy, energy efficiency, and other categories. This system rewards 
cleaner power producers and ensures that the public gets compensated 
for the polluters' use of the atmosphere.
  Our bill is intended to save the lives that are now being lost 
prematurely to lung disease and other illnesses. We want to continue on 
the path set in 1990 of reducing acid rain.
  We want certainty that mercury will no longer threaten unborn 
children and the future environment will be safer and cleaner for them 
when they are grown.
  Certainty is a valuable commodity. Industry witnesses have testified 
that certainty is critical to their investment strategies. Our bill 
provides a clear signal on exactly what is expected of pollution 
sources and when.
  I want certainty that the promise of the Clean Air Act will be 
delivered to all Americans.
  At the Environment and Public Works Committee, we have heard many 
times that technologies are readily available to meet the challenges in 
our bill. And that these challenges can be met in a cost-effective 
manner that allows our economy to prosper and improve public health.
  We can't afford to slow down progress on achieving better air quality 
and we must start to make real progress in reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions. The voluntary approach has failed for 12 years now and we 
must do better.
  As Senators may know, when I was Chairman of the Senate Environment 
and Public Works Committee, we approved a bill nearly identical to the 
bill that we are introducing today. The only significant difference is 
that the deadline for compliance with all the pollution caps except 
mercury have been moved later by one year. Mercury still follows the 
schedule in the consent decree which requires compliance by 2008.
  I look forward to entering into serious discussions with the 
Administration on signing into law good, comprehensive four-pollutant 
legislation. However, their actions so far on air quality matters have 
not fostered an atmosphere of trust and cooperation.
  I ask unanimous consent that a brief summary of the legislation and 
the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 366

       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 ``Clean Power Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. ELECTRIC ENERGY GENERATION EMISSION REDUCTIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

[[Page 3660]]



      ``TITLE VII--ELECTRIC ENERGY GENERATION EMISSION REDUCTIONS

``Sec. 701. Findings.
``Sec. 702. Purposes.
``Sec. 703. Definitions.
``Sec. 704. Emission limitations.
``Sec. 705. Emission allowances.
``Sec. 706. Permitting and trading of emission allowances.
``Sec. 707. Emission allowance allocation.
``Sec. 708. Mercury emission limitations.
``Sec. 709. Other hazardous air pollutants.
``Sec. 710. Effect of failure to promulgate regulations.
``Sec. 711. Prohibitions.
``Sec. 712. Modernization of electricity generating facilities.
``Sec. 713. Relationship to other law.

     ``SEC. 701. FINDINGS.

       ``Congress finds that--
       ``(1) public health and the environment continue to suffer 
     as a result of pollution emitted by powerplants across the 
     United States, despite the success of Public Law 101-549 
     (commonly known as the `Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990') 
     (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) in reducing emissions;
       ``(2) according to the most reliable scientific knowledge, 
     acid rain precursors must be significantly reduced for the 
     ecosystems of the Northeast and Southeast to recover from the 
     ecological harm caused by acid deposition;
       ``(3) because lakes and sediments across the United States 
     are being contaminated by mercury emitted by powerplants, 
     there is an increasing risk of mercury poisoning of aquatic 
     habitats and fish-consuming human populations;
       ``(4)(A) electricity generation accounts for approximately 
     40 percent of the total emissions in the United States of 
     carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas causing global 
     warming; and
       ``(B) the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 
     growing without constraint and well beyond the international 
     commitments of the United States;
       ``(5) the cumulative impact of powerplant emissions on 
     public and environmental health must be addressed swiftly by 
     reducing those harmful emissions to levels that are less 
     threatening; and
       ``(6)(A) the atmosphere is a public resource; and
       ``(B) emission allowances, representing permission to use 
     that resource for disposal of air pollution from electricity 
     generation, should be allocated to promote public purposes, 
     including--
       ``(i) protecting electricity consumers from adverse 
     economic impacts;
       ``(ii) providing transition assistance to adversely 
     affected employees, communities, and industries; and
       ``(iii) promoting clean energy resources and energy 
     efficiency.

     ``SEC. 702. PURPOSES.

       ``The purposes of this title are--
       ``(1) to alleviate the environmental and public health 
     damage caused by emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 
     oxides, carbon dioxide, and mercury resulting from the 
     combustion of fossil fuels in the generation of electric and 
     thermal energy;
       ``(2) to reduce by 2009 the annual national emissions from 
     electricity generating facilities to not more than--
       ``(A) 2,250,000 tons of sulfur dioxide;
       ``(B) 1,510,000 tons of nitrogen oxides; and
       ``(C) 2,050,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide;
       ``(3) to reduce by 2008 the annual national emissions of 
     mercury from electricity generating facilities to not more 
     than 5 tons;
       ``(4) to effectuate the reductions described in paragraphs 
     (2) and (3) by--
       ``(A) requiring electricity generating facilities to comply 
     with specified emission limitations by specified deadlines; 
     and
       ``(B) allowing electricity generating facilities to meet 
     the emission limitations (other than the emission limitation 
     for mercury) through an alternative method of compliance 
     consisting of an emission allowance and transfer system; and
       ``(5) to encourage energy conservation, use of renewable 
     and clean alternative technologies, and pollution prevention 
     as long-range strategies, consistent with this title, for 
     reducing air pollution and other adverse impacts of energy 
     generation and use.

     ``SEC. 703. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this title:
       ``(1) Covered pollutant.--The term `covered pollutant' 
     means--
       ``(A) sulfur dioxide;
       ``(B) any nitrogen oxide;
       ``(C) carbon dioxide; and
       ``(D) mercury.
       ``(2) Electricity generating facility.--The term 
     `electricity generating facility' means an electric or 
     thermal electricity generating unit, a combination of such 
     units, or a combination of 1 or more such units and 1 or more 
     combustion devices, that--
       ``(A) has a nameplate capacity of 15 megawatts or more (or 
     the equivalent in thermal energy generation, determined in 
     accordance with a methodology developed by the 
     Administrator);
       ``(B) generates electric energy, for sale, through 
     combustion of fossil fuel; and
       ``(C) emits a covered pollutant into the atmosphere.
       ``(3) Electricity intensive product.--The term `electricity 
     intensive product' means a product with respect to which the 
     cost of electricity consumed in the production of the product 
     represents more than 5 percent of the value of the product.
       ``(4) Emission allowance.--The term `emission allowance' 
     means a limited authorization to emit in accordance with this 
     title--
       ``(A) 1 ton of sulfur dioxide;
       ``(B) 1 ton of nitrogen oxides; or
       ``(C) 1 ton of carbon dioxide.
       ``(5) Energy efficiency project.--The term `energy 
     efficiency project' means any specific action (other than 
     ownership or operation of an energy efficient building) 
     commenced after the date of enactment of this title--
       ``(A) at a facility (other than an electricity generating 
     facility), that verifiably reduces the annual electricity or 
     natural gas consumption per unit output of the facility, as 
     compared with the annual electricity or natural gas 
     consumption per unit output that would be expected in the 
     absence of an allocation of emission allowances (as 
     determined by the Administrator); or
       ``(B) by an entity that is primarily engaged in the 
     transmission and distribution of electricity, that 
     significantly improves the efficiency of that type of entity, 
     as compared with standards for efficiency developed by the 
     Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, 
     after the date of enactment of this title.
       ``(6) Energy efficient building.--The term `energy 
     efficient building' means a residential building or 
     commercial building completed after the date of enactment of 
     this title for which the projected lifetime consumption of 
     electricity or natural gas for heating, cooling, and 
     ventilation is at least 30 percent less than the lifetime 
     consumption of a typical new residential building or 
     commercial building, as determined by the Administrator (in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Energy)--
       ``(A) on a State or regional basis; and
       ``(B) taking into consideration--
       ``(i) applicable building codes; and
       ``(ii) consumption levels achieved in practice by new 
     residential buildings or commercial buildings in the absence 
     of an allocation of emission allowances.
       ``(7) Energy efficient product.--The term `energy efficient 
     product' means a product manufactured after the date of 
     enactment of this title that has an expected lifetime 
     electricity or natural gas consumption that--
       ``(A) is less than the average lifetime electricity or 
     natural gas consumption for that type of product; and
       ``(B) does not exceed the lesser of--
       ``(i) the maximum energy consumption that qualifies for the 
     applicable Energy Star label for that type of product; or
       ``(ii) the average energy consumption of the most efficient 
     25 percent of that type of product manufactured in the same 
     year.
       ``(8) Lifetime.--The term `lifetime' means--
       ``(A) in the case of a residential building that is an 
     energy efficient building, 30 years;
       ``(B) in the case of a commercial building that is an 
     energy efficient building, 15 years; and
       ``(C) in the case of an energy efficient product, a period 
     determined by the Administrator to be the average life of 
     that type of energy efficient product.
       ``(9) Mercury.--The term `mercury' includes any mercury 
     compound.
       ``(10) New clean fossil fuel-fired electricity generating 
     unit.--The term `new clean fossil fuel-fired electricity 
     generating unit' means a unit that--
       ``(A) has been in operation for 10 years or less; and
       ``(B) is--
       ``(i) a natural gas fired generator that--

       ``(I) has an energy conversion efficiency of at least 55 
     percent; and
       ``(II) uses best available control technology (as defined 
     in section 169);

       ``(ii) a generator that--

       ``(I) uses integrated gasification combined cycle 
     technology;
       ``(II) uses best available control technology (as defined 
     in section 169); and
       ``(III) has an energy conversion efficiency of at least 45 
     percent; or

       ``(iii) a fuel cell operating on fuel derived from a 
     nonrenewable source of energy.
       ``(11) Nonwestern region.--The term `nonwestern region' 
     means the area of the States that is not included in the 
     western region.
       ``(12) Renewable electricity generating unit.--The term 
     `renewable electricity generating unit' means a unit that--
       ``(A) has been in operation for 10 years or less; and
       ``(B) generates electric energy by means of--
       ``(i) wind;
       ``(ii) biomass;
       ``(iii) landfill gas;
       ``(iv) a geothermal, solar thermal, or photovoltaic source; 
     or
       ``(v) a fuel cell operating on fuel derived from a 
     renewable source of energy.
       ``(13) Small electricity generating facility.--The term 
     `small electricity generating facility' means an electric or 
     thermal electricity generating unit, or combination of units, 
     that--

[[Page 3661]]

       ``(A) has a nameplate capacity of less than 15 megawatts 
     (or the equivalent in thermal energy generation, determined 
     in accordance with a methodology developed by the 
     Administrator);
       ``(B) generates electric energy, for sale, through 
     combustion of fossil fuel; and
       ``(C) emits a covered pollutant into the atmosphere.
       ``(14) Western region.--The term `western region' means the 
     area comprising the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, 
     Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, 
     and Wyoming.

     ``SEC. 704. EMISSION LIMITATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c), the 
     Administrator shall promulgate regulations to ensure that, 
     during 2009 and each year thereafter, the total annual 
     emissions of covered pollutants from all electricity 
     generating facilities located in all States does not exceed--
       ``(1) in the case of sulfur dioxide--
       ``(A) 275,000 tons in the western region; or
       ``(B) 1,975,000 tons in the nonwestern region;
       ``(2) in the case of nitrogen oxides, 1,510,000 tons;
       ``(3) in the case of carbon dioxide, 2,050,000,000 tons; or
       ``(4) in the case of mercury, 5 tons.
       ``(b) Excess Emissions Based on Unused Allowances.--The 
     regulations promulgated under subsection (a) shall authorize 
     emissions of covered pollutants in excess of the national 
     emission limitations established under that subsection for a 
     year to the extent that the number of tons of the excess 
     emissions is less than or equal to the number of emission 
     allowances that are--
       ``(1) used in the year; but
       ``(2) allocated for any previous year under section 707.
       ``(c) Reductions.--For 2009 and each year thereafter, the 
     quantity of emissions specified for each covered pollutant in 
     subsection (a) shall be reduced by the sum of--
       ``(1) the number of tons of the covered pollutant that were 
     emitted by small electricity generating facilities in the 
     second preceding year; and
       ``(2) any number of tons of reductions in emissions of the 
     covered pollutant required under section 705(h).

     ``SEC. 705. EMISSION ALLOWANCES.

       ``(a) Creation and Allocation.--
       ``(1) In general.--For 2009 and each year thereafter, 
     subject to paragraph (2), there are created, and the 
     Administrator shall allocate in accordance with section 707, 
     emission allowances as follows:
       ``(A) In the case of sulfur dioxide--
       ``(i) 275,000 emission allowances for each year for use in 
     the western region; and
       ``(ii) 1,975,000 emission allowances for each year for use 
     in the nonwestern region.
       ``(B) In the case of nitrogen oxides, 1,510,000 emission 
     allowances for each year.
       ``(C) In the case of carbon dioxide, 2,050,000,000 emission 
     allowances for each year.
       ``(2) Reductions.--For 2009 and each year thereafter, the 
     number of emission allowances specified for each covered 
     pollutant in paragraph (1) shall be reduced by a number equal 
     to the sum of--
       ``(A) the number of tons of the covered pollutant that were 
     emitted by small electricity generating facilities in the 
     second preceding year; and
       ``(B) any number of tons of reductions in emissions of the 
     covered pollutant required under subsection (h).
       ``(b) Nature of Emission Allowances.--
       ``(1) Not a property right.--An emission allowance 
     allocated by the Administrator under subsection (a) is not a 
     property right.
       ``(2) No limit on authority to terminate or limit.--Nothing 
     in this title or any other provision of law limits the 
     authority of the United States to terminate or limit an 
     emission allowance.
       ``(3) Tracking and transfer of emission allowances.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this title, the Administrator shall promulgate 
     regulations to establish an emission allowance tracking and 
     transfer system for emission allowances of sulfur dioxide, 
     nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide.
       ``(B) Requirements.--The emission allowance tracking and 
     transfer system established under subparagraph (A) shall--
       ``(i) incorporate the requirements of subsections (b) and 
     (d) of section 412 (except that written certification by the 
     transferee shall not be necessary to effect a transfer); and
       ``(ii) permit any entity--

       ``(I) to buy, sell, or hold an emission allowance; and
       ``(II) to permanently retire an unused emission allowance.

       ``(C) Proceeds of transfers.--Proceeds from the transfer of 
     emission allowances by any person to which the emission 
     allowances have been allocated--
       ``(i) shall not constitute funds of the United States; and
       ``(ii) shall not be available to meet any obligations of 
     the United States.
       ``(c) Identification and Use.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each emission allowance allocated by the 
     Administrator shall bear a unique serial number, including--
       ``(A) an identifier of the covered pollutant to which the 
     emission allowance pertains; and
       ``(B) the first year for which the allowance may be used.
       ``(2) Sulfur dioxide emission allowances.--In the case of 
     sulfur dioxide emission allowances, the Administrator shall 
     ensure that the emission allowances allocated to electricity 
     generating facilities in the western region are 
     distinguishable from emission allowances allocated to 
     electricity generating facilities in the nonwestern region.
       ``(3) Year of use.--Each emission allowance may be used in 
     the year for which the emission allowance is allocated or in 
     any subsequent year.
       ``(d) Annual Submission of Emission Allowances.--
       ``(1) In general.--On or before April 1, 2010, and April 1 
     of each year thereafter, the owner or operator of each 
     electricity generating facility shall submit to the 
     Administrator 1 emission allowance for the applicable covered 
     pollutant (other than mercury) for each ton of sulfur 
     dioxide, nitrogen oxides, or carbon dioxide emitted by the 
     electricity generating facility during the previous calendar 
     year.
       ``(2) Special rule for ozone exceedances.--
       ``(A) Identification of facilities contributing to 
     nonattainment.--Not later than December 31, 2008, and the end 
     of each 3-year period thereafter, each State, consistent with 
     the obligations of the State under section 110(a)(2)(D), 
     shall identify the electricity generating facilities in the 
     State and in other States that are significantly contributing 
     (as determined based on guidance issued by the Administrator) 
     to nonattainment of the national ambient air quality standard 
     for ozone in the State.
       ``(B) Submission of additional allowances.--In 2009 and 
     each year thereafter, on petition from a State or a person 
     demonstrating that the control measures in effect at an 
     electricity generating facility that is identified under 
     subparagraph (A) as significantly contributing to 
     nonattainment of the national ambient air quality standard 
     for ozone in a State during the previous year are inadequate 
     to prevent the significant contribution described in 
     subparagraph (A), the Administrator, if the Administrator 
     determines that the electricity generating facility is 
     inadequately controlled for nitrogen oxides, may require that 
     the electricity generating facility submit 3 nitrogen oxide 
     emission allowances for each ton of nitrogen oxides emitted 
     by the electricity generating facility during any period of 
     an exceedance of the national ambient air quality standard 
     for ozone in the State during the previous year.
       ``(3) Regional limitations for sulfur dioxide.--The 
     Administrator shall not allow--
       ``(A) the use of sulfur dioxide emission allowances 
     allocated for the western region to meet the obligations 
     under this subsection of electricity generating facilities in 
     the nonwestern region; or
       ``(B) the use of sulfur dioxide emission allowances 
     allocated for the nonwestern region to meet the obligations 
     under this subsection of electricity generating facilities in 
     the western region.
       ``(e) Emission Verification, Monitoring, and 
     Recordkeeping.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall ensure that 
     Federal regulations, in combination with any applicable State 
     regulations, are adequate to verify, monitor, and document 
     emissions of covered pollutants from electricity generating 
     facilities.
       ``(2) Inventory of emissions from small electricity 
     generating facilities.--On or before January 1, 2005, the 
     Administrator, in cooperation with State agencies, shall 
     complete, and on an annual basis update, a comprehensive 
     inventory of emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, 
     carbon dioxide, and particulate matter from small electricity 
     generating facilities.
       ``(3) Monitoring information.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this title, the Administrator shall 
     promulgate regulations to require each electricity generating 
     facility to submit to the Administrator--
       ``(i) not later than April 1 of each year, verifiable 
     information on covered pollutants emitted by the electricity 
     generating facility in the previous year, expressed in--

       ``(I) tons of covered pollutants; and
       ``(II) tons of covered pollutants per megawatt hour of 
     energy (or the equivalent thermal energy) generated; and

       ``(ii) as part of the first submission under clause (i), 
     verifiable information on covered pollutants emitted by the 
     electricity generating facility in 2000, 2001, and 2002, if 
     the electricity generating facility was required to report 
     that information in those years.
       ``(B) Source of information.--Information submitted under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be obtained using a continuous 
     emission monitoring system (as defined in section 402).
       ``(C) Availability to the public.--The information 
     described in subparagraph (A) shall be made available to the 
     public--
       ``(i) in the case of the first year in which the 
     information is required to be submitted under that 
     subparagraph, not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this title; and

[[Page 3662]]

       ``(ii) in the case of each year thereafter, not later than 
     April 1 of the year.
       ``(4) Ambient air quality monitoring for sulfur dioxide and 
     hazardous air pollutants.--
       ``(A) In general.--Beginning January 1, 2005, each coal-
     fired electricity generating facility with an aggregate 
     generating capacity of 50 megawatts or more shall, in 
     accordance with guidelines issued by the Administrator, 
     commence ambient air quality monitoring within a 30-mile 
     radius of the coal-fired electricity generating facility for 
     the purpose of measuring maximum concentrations of sulfur 
     dioxide and hazardous air pollutants emitted by the coal-
     fired electricity generating facility.
       ``(B) Location of monitoring points.--Monitoring under 
     subparagraph (A) shall include monitoring at not fewer than 2 
     points--
       ``(i) that are at ground level and within 3 miles of the 
     coal-fired electricity generating facility;
       ``(ii) at which the concentration of pollutants being 
     monitored is expected to be the greatest; and
       ``(iii) at which the monitoring shall be the most frequent.
       ``(C) Frequency of monitoring of sulfur dioxide.--
     Monitoring of sulfur dioxide under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     carried out on a continuous basis and averaged over 5-minute 
     periods.
       ``(D) Availability to the public.--The results of the 
     monitoring under subparagraph (A) shall be made available to 
     the public.
       ``(f) Excess Emission Penalty.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), section 411 
     shall be applicable to an owner or operator of an electricity 
     generating facility.
       ``(2) Calculation of penalty.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the penalty for failure to submit emission allowances for 
     covered pollutants as required under subsection (d) shall be 
     equal to 3 times the product obtained by multiplying--
       ``(i) as applicable--

       ``(I) the number of tons emitted in excess of the emission 
     limitation requirement applicable to the electricity 
     generating facility; or
       ``(II) the number of emission allowances that the owner or 
     operator failed to submit; and

       ``(ii) the average annual market price of emission 
     allowances (as determined by the Administrator).
       ``(B) Mercury.--In the case of mercury, the penalty shall 
     be equal to 3 times the product obtained by multiplying--
       ``(i) the number of grams emitted in excess of the emission 
     limitation requirement for mercury applicable to the 
     electricity generating facility; and
       ``(ii) the average cost of mercury controls at electricity 
     generating units that have a nameplate capacity of 15 
     megawatts or more in all States (as determined by the 
     Administrator).
       ``(g) Significant Adverse Local Impacts.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the Administrator determines that 
     emissions of an electricity generating facility may 
     reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to a 
     significant adverse impact on an area (including endangerment 
     of public health, contribution to acid deposition in a 
     sensitive receptor area, and other degradation of the 
     environment), the Administrator shall limit the emissions of 
     the electricity generating facility as necessary to avoid 
     that impact.
       ``(2) Violation.--Notwithstanding the availability of 
     emission allowances, it shall be a violation of this Act for 
     any electricity generating facility to exceed any limitation 
     on emissions established under paragraph (1).
       ``(h) Additional Reductions.--
       ``(1) Protection of public health or welfare or the 
     environment.--If the Administrator determines that the 
     emission levels necessary to achieve the national emission 
     limitations established under section 704 are not reasonably 
     anticipated to protect public health or welfare or the 
     environment (including protection of children, pregnant 
     women, minority or low-income communities, and other 
     sensitive populations), the Administrator may require 
     reductions in emissions from electricity generating 
     facilities in addition to the reductions required under the 
     other provisions of this title.
       ``(2) Emission allowance trading.--
       ``(A) Studies.--
       ``(i) In general.--In 2011 and at the end of each 3-year 
     period thereafter, the Administrator shall complete a study 
     of the impacts of the emission allowance trading authorized 
     under this title.
       ``(ii) Required assessment.--The study shall include an 
     assessment of ambient air quality in areas surrounding 
     electricity generating facilities that participate in 
     emission allowance trading, including a comparison between--

       ``(I) the ambient air quality in those areas; and
       ``(II) the national average ambient air quality.

       ``(B) Limitation on emissions.--If the Administrator 
     determines, based on the results of a study under 
     subparagraph (A), that adverse local impacts result from 
     emission allowance trading, the Administrator may require 
     reductions in emissions from electricity generating 
     facilities in addition to the reductions required under the 
     other provisions of this title.
       ``(i) Use of Certain Other Emission Allowances.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), emission 
     allowances or other emission trading instruments created 
     under title I or IV for sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides 
     shall not be valid for submission under subsection (d).
       ``(2) Emission allowances placed in reserve.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     an emission allowance described in paragraph (1) that was 
     placed in reserve under section 404(a)(2) or 405 or through 
     regulations implementing controls on nitrogen oxides, because 
     an affected unit emitted fewer tons of sulfur dioxide or 
     nitrogen oxides than were permitted under an emission 
     limitation imposed under title I or IV before the date of 
     enactment of this title, shall be considered to be equivalent 
     to \1/4\ of an emission allowance created by subsection (a) 
     for sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides, respectively.
       ``(B) Emission allowances resulting from achievement of new 
     source performance standards.--If an emission allowance 
     described in subparagraph (A) was created and placed in 
     reserve during the period of 2001 through 2008 by the owner 
     or operator of an electricity generating facility through the 
     application of pollution control technology that resulted in 
     the achievement and maintenance by the electricity generating 
     facility of the applicable standards of performance required 
     of new sources under section 111, the emission allowance 
     shall be valid for submission under subsection (d).

     ``SEC. 706. PERMITTING AND TRADING OF EMISSION ALLOWANCES.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this title, the Administrator shall promulgate 
     regulations to establish a permitting and emission allowance 
     trading compliance program to implement the limitations on 
     emissions of covered pollutants from electricity generating 
     facilities established under section 704.
       ``(b) Emission Allowance Trading With Facilities Other Than 
     Electricity Generating Facilities.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2) and section 
     705(i), the regulations promulgated to establish the program 
     under subsection (a) shall prohibit use of emission 
     allowances generated from other emission control programs for 
     the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the limitations 
     on emissions of covered pollutants from electricity 
     generating facilities established under section 704.
       ``(2) Exception for certain carbon dioxide emission control 
     programs.--The prohibition described in paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply in the case of carbon dioxide emission allowances 
     generated from an emission control program that limits total 
     carbon dioxide emissions from the entirety of any industrial 
     sector.
       ``(c) Methodology.--The program established under 
     subsection (a) shall clearly identify the methodology for the 
     allocation of emission allowances, including standards for 
     measuring annual electricity generation and energy efficiency 
     as the standards relate to emissions.

     ``SEC. 707. EMISSION ALLOWANCE ALLOCATION.

       ``(a) Allocation to Electricity Consumers.--
       ``(1) In general.--For 2009 and each year thereafter, after 
     making allocations of emission allowances under subsections 
     (b) through (f), the Administrator shall allocate the 
     remaining emission allowances created by section 705(a) for 
     the year for each covered pollutant other than mercury to 
     households served by electricity.
       ``(2) Allocation among households.--The allocation to each 
     household shall reflect--
       ``(A) the number of persons residing in the household; and
       ``(B) the ratio that--
       ``(i) the quantity of the residential electricity 
     consumption of the State in which the household is located; 
     bears to
       ``(ii) the quantity of the residential electricity 
     consumption of all States.
       ``(3) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this title, the Administrator shall promulgate 
     regulations making appropriate arrangements for the 
     allocation of emission allowances to households under this 
     subsection, including as necessary the appointment of 1 or 
     more trustees--
       ``(A) to receive the emission allowances for the benefit of 
     the households;
       ``(B) to obtain fair market value for the emission 
     allowances; and
       ``(C) to distribute the proceeds to the beneficiaries.
       ``(b) Allocation for Transition Assistance.--
       ``(1) In general.--For 2009 and each year thereafter 
     through 2018, the Administrator shall allocate the percentage 
     specified in paragraph (2) of the emission allowances created 
     by section 705(a) for the year for each covered pollutant 
     other than mercury in the following manner:
       ``(A) 80 percent shall be allocated to provide transition 
     assistance to--

[[Page 3663]]

       ``(i) dislocated workers (as defined in section 101 of the 
     Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801)) whose 
     employment has been terminated or who have been laid off as a 
     result of the emission reductions required by this title; and
       ``(ii) communities that have experienced disproportionate 
     adverse economic impacts as a result of the emission 
     reductions required by this title.
       ``(B) 20 percent shall be allocated to producers of 
     electricity intensive products in a number equal to the 
     product obtained by multiplying--
       ``(i) the ratio that--

       ``(I) the quantity of each electricity intensive product 
     produced by each producer in the previous year; bears to
       ``(II) the quantity of the electricity intensive product 
     produced by all producers in the previous year;

       ``(ii) the average quantity of electricity used in 
     producing the electricity intensive product by producers that 
     use the most energy efficient process for producing the 
     electricity intensive product; and
       ``(iii) with respect to the previous year, the national 
     average quantity (expressed in tons) of emissions of each 
     such pollutant per megawatt hour of electricity generated by 
     electricity generating facilities in all States.
       ``(2) Specified percentages.--The percentages referred to 
     in paragraph (1) are--
       ``(A) in the case of 2009, 6 percent;
       ``(B) in the case of 2010, 5.5 percent;
       ``(C) in the case of 2011, 5 percent;
       ``(D) in the case of 2012, 4.5 percent;
       ``(E) in the case of 2013, 4 percent;
       ``(F) in the case of 2014, 3.5 percent;
       ``(G) in the case of 2015, 3 percent;
       ``(H) in the case of 2016, 2.5 percent;
       ``(I) in the case of 2017, 2 percent; and
       ``(J) in the case of 2018, 1.5 percent.
       ``(3) Regulations for allocation for transition assistance 
     to dislocated workers and communities.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this title, the Administrator shall promulgate 
     regulations making appropriate arrangements for the 
     distribution of emission allowances under paragraph (1)(A), 
     including as necessary the appointment of 1 or more 
     trustees--
       ``(i) to receive the emission allowances allocated under 
     paragraph (1)(A) for the benefit of the dislocated workers 
     and communities;
       ``(ii) to obtain fair market value for the emission 
     allowances; and
       ``(iii) to apply the proceeds to providing transition 
     assistance to the dislocated workers and communities.
       ``(B) Form of transition assistance.--Transition assistance 
     under paragraph (1)(A) may take the form of--
       ``(i) 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

       ``(ii) grants to States and local governments to assist 
     communities in attracting new employers or providing 
     essential local government services.
       ``(c) Allocation to Renewable Electricity Generating Units, 
     Efficiency Projects, and Cleaner Energy Sources.--For 2009 
     and each year thereafter, the Administrator shall allocate 
     not more than 20 percent of the emission allowances created 
     by section 705(a) for the year for each covered pollutant 
     other than mercury--
       ``(1) to owners and operators of renewable electricity 
     generating units, in a number equal to the product obtained 
     by multiplying--
       ``(A) the number of megawatt hours of electricity generated 
     in the previous year by each renewable electricity generating 
     unit; and
       ``(B) with respect to the previous year, the national 
     average quantity (expressed in tons) of emissions of each 
     such pollutant per megawatt hour of electricity generated by 
     electricity generating facilities in all States;
       ``(2) to owners and operators of energy efficient 
     buildings, producers of energy efficient products, and 
     entities that carry out energy efficient projects, in a 
     number equal to the product obtained by multiplying--
       ``(A) the number of megawatt hours of electricity or cubic 
     feet of natural gas saved in the previous year as a result of 
     each energy efficient building, energy efficient product, or 
     energy efficiency project; and
       ``(B) with respect to the previous year, the national 
     average quantity (expressed in tons) of emissions of each 
     such pollutant per, as appropriate--
       ``(i) megawatt hour of electricity generated by electricity 
     generating facilities in all States; or
       ``(ii) cubic foot of natural gas burned for a purpose other 
     than generation of electricity in all States;
       ``(3) to owners and operators of new clean fossil fuel-
     fired electricity generating units, in a number equal to the 
     product obtained by multiplying--
       ``(A) the number of megawatt hours of electricity generated 
     in the previous year by each new clean fossil fuel-fired 
     electricity generating unit; and
       ``(B) with respect to the previous year, \1/2\ of the 
     national average quantity (expressed in tons) of emissions of 
     each such pollutant per megawatt hour of electricity 
     generated by electricity generating facilities in all States; 
     and
       ``(4) to owners and operators of combined heat and power 
     electricity generating facilities, in a number equal to the 
     product obtained by multiplying--
       ``(A) the number of British thermal units of thermal energy 
     produced and put to productive use in the previous year by 
     each combined heat and power electricity generating facility; 
     and
       ``(B) with respect to the previous year, the national 
     average quantity (expressed in tons) of emissions of each 
     such pollutant per British thermal unit of thermal energy 
     generated by electricity generating facilities in all States.
       ``(d) Transition Assistance to Electricity Generating 
     Facilities.--
       ``(1) In general.--For 2009 and each year thereafter 
     through 2018, the Administrator shall allocate the percentage 
     specified in paragraph (2) of the emission allowances created 
     by section 705(a) for the year for each covered pollutant 
     other than mercury to the owners or operators of electricity 
     generating facilities in the ratio that--
       ``(A) the quantity of electricity generated by each 
     electricity generating facility in 2001; bears to
       ``(B) the quantity of electricity generated by all 
     electricity generating facilities in 2001.
       ``(2) Specified percentages.--The percentages referred to 
     in paragraph (1) are--
       ``(A) in the case of 2009, 10 percent;
       ``(B) in the case of 2010, 9 percent;
       ``(C) in the case of 2011, 8 percent;
       ``(D) in the case of 2012, 7 percent;
       ``(E) in the case of 2013, 6 percent;
       ``(F) in the case of 2014, 5 percent;
       ``(G) in the case of 2015, 4 percent;
       ``(H) in the case of 2016, 3 percent;
       ``(I) in the case of 2017, 2 percent; and
       ``(J) in the case of 2018, 1 percent.
       ``(e) Allocation To Encourage Biological Carbon 
     Sequestration.--
       ``(1) In general.--For 2009 and each year thereafter, the 
     Administrator shall allocate, on a competitive basis and in 
     accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3), not more than 0.075 
     percent of the carbon dioxide emission allowances created by 
     section 705(a) for the year for the purposes of--
       ``(A) carrying out projects to reduce net carbon dioxide 
     emissions through biological carbon dioxide sequestration in 
     the United States that--
       ``(i) result in benefits to watersheds and fish and 
     wildlife habitats; and
       ``(ii) are conducted in accordance with project reporting, 
     monitoring, and verification guidelines based on--

       ``(I) measurement of increases in carbon storage in excess 
     of the carbon storage that would have occurred in the absence 
     of such a project;
       ``(II) comprehensive carbon accounting that--

       ``(aa) reflects net increases in carbon reservoirs; and
       ``(bb) takes into account any carbon emissions resulting 
     from disturbance of carbon reservoirs in existence as of the 
     date of commencement of the project;

       ``(III) adjustments to account for--

       ``(aa) emissions of carbon that may result at other 
     locations as a result of the impact of the project on timber 
     supplies; or
       ``(bb) potential displacement of carbon emissions to other 
     land owned by the entity that carries out the project; and

       ``(IV) adjustments to reflect the expected carbon storage 
     over various time periods, taking into account the likely 
     duration of the storage of the carbon stored in a carbon 
     reservoir; and

       ``(B) conducting accurate inventories of carbon sinks.
       ``(2) Carbon inventory.--The Administrator, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall allocate not more 
     than \1/3\ of the emission allowances described in paragraph 
     (1) to not more than 5 State or multistate land or forest 
     management agencies or nonprofit entities that--
       ``(A) have a primary goal of land conservation; and
       ``(B) submit to the Administrator proposals for projects--
       ``(i) to demonstrate and assess the potential for the 
     development and use of carbon inventorying and accounting 
     systems;
       ``(ii) to improve the standards relating to, and the 
     identification of, incremental carbon sequestration in 
     forests, agricultural soil, grassland, or rangeland; or
       ``(iii) to assist in development of a national biological 
     carbon storage baseline or inventory.
       ``(3) Revolving loan program.--The Administrator shall 
     allocate not more than \2/3\ of the emission allowances 
     described in paragraph (1) to States, based on proposals 
     submitted by States to conduct programs under which each 
     State shall--
       ``(A) use the value of the emission allowances to establish 
     a State revolving loan fund to provide loans to owners of 
     nonindustrial private forest land in the State to carry out 
     forest and forest soil carbon sequestration activities that 
     will achieve the purposes specified in paragraph (2)(B); and

[[Page 3664]]

       ``(B) for 2010 and each year thereafter, contribute to the 
     program of the State an amount equal to 25 percent of the 
     value of the emission allowances received under this 
     paragraph for the year in cash, in-kind services, or 
     technical assistance.
       ``(4) Use of emission allowances.--An entity that receives 
     an allocation of emission allowances under this subsection 
     may use the proceeds from the sale or other transfer of the 
     emission allowances only for the purpose of carrying out 
     activities described in this subsection.
       ``(5) Recommendations concerning carbon dioxide emission 
     allowances.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this title, the Administrator, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall submit to Congress 
     recommendations for establishing a system under which 
     entities that receive grants or loans under this section may 
     be allocated carbon dioxide emission allowances created by 
     section 705(a) for incremental carbon sequestration in 
     forests, agricultural soils, rangeland, or grassland.
       ``(B) Guidelines.--The recommendations shall include 
     recommendations for development, reporting, monitoring, and 
     verification guidelines for quantifying net carbon 
     sequestration from land use projects that address the 
     elements specified in paragraph (1)(A).
       ``(f) Allocation To Encourage Geological Carbon 
     Sequestration.--
       ``(1) In general.--For 2009 and each year thereafter, the 
     Administrator shall allocate not more than 1.5 percent of the 
     carbon dioxide emission allowances created by section 705(a) 
     to entities that carry out geological sequestration of carbon 
     dioxide produced by an electric generating facility in 
     accordance with requirements established by the 
     Administrator--
       ``(A) to ensure the permanence of the sequestration; and
       ``(B) to ensure that the sequestration will not cause or 
     contribute to significant adverse effects on the environment.
       ``(2) Number of emission allowances.--For 2009 and each 
     year thereafter, the Administrator shall allocate to each 
     entity described in paragraph (1) a number of emission 
     allowances that is equal to the number of tons of carbon 
     dioxide produced by the electric generating facility during 
     the previous year that is geologically sequestered as 
     described in paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Use of emission allowances.--An entity that receives 
     an allocation of emission allowances under this subsection 
     may use the proceeds from the sale or other transfer of the 
     emission allowances only for the purpose of carrying out 
     activities described in this subsection.

     ``SEC. 708. MERCURY EMISSION LIMITATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Regulations.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this title, the Administrator shall promulgate 
     regulations to establish emission limitations for mercury 
     emissions by coal-fired electricity generating facilities.
       ``(B) No exceedance of national limitation.--The 
     regulations shall ensure that the national limitation for 
     mercury emissions from each coal-fired electricity generating 
     facility established under section 704(a)(4) is not exceeded.
       ``(C) Emission limitations for 2008 and thereafter.--In 
     carrying out subparagraph (A), for 2008 and each year 
     thereafter, the Administrator shall not--
       ``(i) subject to subsections (e) and (f) of section 112, 
     establish limitations on emissions of mercury from coal-fired 
     electricity generating facilities that allow emissions in 
     excess of 2.48 grams of mercury per 1000 megawatt hours; or
       ``(ii) differentiate between facilities that burn different 
     types of coal.
       ``(2) Annual review and determination.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than April 1 of each year, the 
     Administrator shall--
       ``(i) review the total mercury emissions during the 2 
     previous years from electricity generating facilities located 
     in all States; and
       ``(ii) determine whether, during the 2 previous years, the 
     total mercury emissions from facilities described in clause 
     (i) exceeded the national limitation for mercury emissions 
     established under section 704(a)(4).
       ``(B) Exceedance of national limitation.--If the 
     Administrator determines under subparagraph (A)(ii) that, 
     during the 2 previous years, the total mercury emissions from 
     facilities described in subparagraph (A)(i) exceeded the 
     national limitation for mercury emissions established under 
     section 704(a)(4), the Administrator shall, not later than 1 
     year after the date of the determination, revise the 
     regulations promulgated under paragraph (1) to reduce the 
     emission rates specified in the regulations as necessary to 
     ensure that the national limitation for mercury emissions is 
     not exceeded in any future year.
       ``(3) Compliance flexibility.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each coal-fired electricity generating 
     facility subject to an emission limitation under this section 
     shall be in compliance with that limitation if that 
     limitation is greater than or equal to the quotient obtained 
     by dividing--
       ``(i) the total mercury emissions of the coal-fired 
     electricity generating facility during each 30-day period; by
       ``(ii) the quantity of electricity generated by the coal-
     fired electricity generating facility during that period.
       ``(B) More than 1 unit at a facility.--In any case in which 
     more than 1 coal-fired electricity generating unit at a coal-
     fired electricity generating facility subject to an emission 
     limitation under this section was operated in 1999 under 
     common ownership or control, compliance with the emission 
     limitation may be determined by averaging the emission rates 
     of all coal-fired electricity generating units at the 
     electricity generating facility during each 30-day period.
       ``(b) Prevention of Re-Release.--
       ``(1) Regulations.--Not later than January 1, 2005, the 
     Administrator shall promulgate regulations to ensure that any 
     mercury captured or recovered by emission controls installed 
     at an electricity generating facility is not re-released into 
     the environment.
       ``(2) Required elements.--The regulations shall require--
       ``(A) daily covers on all active waste disposal units, and 
     permanent covers on all inactive waste disposal units, to 
     prevent the release of mercury into the air;
       ``(B) monitoring of groundwater to ensure that mercury or 
     mercury compounds do not migrate from the waste disposal 
     unit;
       ``(C) waste disposal siting requirements and cleanup 
     requirements to protect groundwater and surface water 
     resources;
       ``(D) elimination of agricultural application of coal 
     combustion wastes; and
       ``(E) appropriate limitations on mercury emissions from 
     sources or processes that reprocess or use coal combustion 
     waste, including manufacturers of wallboard and cement.

     ``SEC. 709. OTHER HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than January 1, 2004, the 
     Administrator shall issue to owners and operators of coal-
     fired electricity generating facilities requests for 
     information under section 114 that are of sufficient scope to 
     generate data sufficient to support issuance of standards 
     under section 112(d) for hazardous air pollutants other than 
     mercury emitted by coal-fired electricity generating 
     facilities.
       ``(b) Deadline for Submission of Requested Information.--
     The Administrator shall require each recipient of a request 
     for information described in subsection (a) to submit the 
     requested data not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     request.
       ``(c) Promulgation of Emission Standards.--The 
     Administrator shall--
       ``(1) not later than January 1, 2005, propose emission 
     standards under section 112(d) for hazardous air pollutants 
     other than mercury; and
       ``(2) not later than January 1, 2006, promulgate emission 
     standards under section 112(d) for hazardous air pollutants 
     other than mercury.
       ``(d) Prohibition on Excess Emissions.--It shall be 
     unlawful for an electricity generating facility subject to 
     standards for hazardous air pollutants other than mercury 
     promulgated under subsection (c) to emit, after December 31, 
     2007, any such pollutant in excess of the standards.
       ``(e) Effect on Other Law.--Nothing in this section or 
     section 708 affects any requirement of subsection (e), 
     (f)(2), or (n)(1)(A) of section 112, except that the emission 
     limitations established by regulations promulgated under this 
     section shall be deemed to represent the maximum achievable 
     control technology for mercury emissions from electricity 
     generating units under section 112(d).

     ``SEC. 710. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PROMULGATE REGULATIONS.

       ``If the Administrator fails to promulgate regulations to 
     implement and enforce the limitations specified in section 
     704--
       ``(1)(A) each electricity generating facility shall 
     achieve, not later than January 1, 2009, an annual quantity 
     of emissions that is less than or equal to--
       ``(i) in the case of nitrogen oxides, 15 percent of the 
     annual emissions by a similar electricity generating facility 
     that has no controls for emissions of nitrogen oxides; and
       ``(ii) in the case of carbon dioxide, 75 percent of the 
     annual emissions by a similar electricity generating facility 
     that has no controls for emissions of carbon dioxide; and
       ``(B) each electricity generating facility that does not 
     use natural gas as the primary combustion fuel shall achieve, 
     not later than January 1, 2009, an annual quantity of 
     emissions that is less than or equal to--
       ``(i) in the case of sulfur dioxide, 5 percent of the 
     annual emissions by a similar electricity generating facility 
     that has no controls for emissions of sulfur dioxide; and
       ``(ii) in the case of mercury, 10 percent of the annual 
     emissions by a similar electricity generating facility that 
     has no controls included specifically for the purpose of 
     controlling emissions of mercury; and
       ``(2) the applicable permit under this Act for each 
     electricity generating facility shall be deemed to 
     incorporate a requirement for achievement of the reduced 
     levels of emissions specified in paragraph (1).

     ``SEC. 711. PROHIBITIONS.

       ``It shall be unlawful--
       ``(1) for the owner or operator of any electricity 
     generating facility--

[[Page 3665]]

       ``(A) to operate the electricity generating facility in 
     noncompliance with the requirements of this title (including 
     any regulations implementing this title);
       ``(B) to fail to submit by the required date any emission 
     allowances, or pay any penalty, for which the owner or 
     operator is liable under section 705;
       ``(C) to fail to provide and comply with any plan to offset 
     excess emissions required under section 705(f); or
       ``(D) to emit mercury in excess of the emission limitations 
     established under section 708; or
       ``(2) for any person to hold, use, or transfer any emission 
     allowance allocated under this title except in accordance 
     with regulations promulgated by the Administrator.

     ``SEC. 712. MODERNIZATION OF ELECTRICITY GENERATING 
                   FACILITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--Beginning on the later of January 1, 
     2014, or the date that is 40 years after the date on which 
     the electricity generating facility commences operation, each 
     electricity generating facility shall be subject to emission 
     limitations reflecting the application of best available 
     control technology on a new major source of a similar size 
     and type (as determined by the Administrator) as determined 
     in accordance with the procedures specified in part C of 
     title I.
       ``(b) Additional Requirements.--The requirements of this 
     section shall be in addition to the other requirements of 
     this title.

     ``SEC. 713. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAW.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as expressly provided in this 
     title, nothing in this title--
       ``(1) limits or otherwise affects the application of any 
     other provision of this Act; or
       ``(2) precludes a State from adopting and enforcing any 
     requirement for the control of emissions of air pollutants 
     that is more stringent than the requirements imposed under 
     this title.
       ``(b) Regional Seasonal Emission Controls.--Nothing in this 
     title affects any regional seasonal emission control for 
     nitrogen oxides established by the Administrator or a State 
     under title I.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 412(a) of the Clean Air 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7651k(a)) is amended in the first sentence by 
     striking ``opacity'' and inserting ``mercury, opacity,''.

     SEC. 3. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

       Section 193 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7515) is 
     amended by striking ``date of the enactment of the Clean Air 
     Act Amendments of 1990'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``date of enactment of the Clean Power Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 4. ACID PRECIPITATION RESEARCH PROGRAM.

       Section 103(j) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7403(j)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in subparagraph (F)(i), by striking ``effects; and'' 
     and inserting ``effects, including an assessment of--

       ``(I) acid-neutralizing capacity; and
       ``(II) changes in the number of water bodies in the 
     sensitive ecosystems referred to in subparagraph (G)(ii) with 
     an acid-neutralizing capacity greater than zero; and''; and

       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) Sensitive ecosystems.--
       ``(i) In general.--Beginning in 2005, and every 4 years 
     thereafter, the report under subparagraph (E) shall include--

       ``(I) an identification of environmental objectives 
     necessary to be achieved (and related indicators to be used 
     in measuring achievement of the objectives) to adequately 
     protect and restore sensitive ecosystems; and
       ``(II) an assessment of the status and trends of the 
     environmental objectives and indicators identified in 
     previous reports under this paragraph.

       ``(ii) Sensitive ecosystems to be addressed.--Sensitive 
     ecosystems to be addressed under clause (i) include--

       ``(I) the Adirondack Mountains, mid-Appalachian Mountains, 
     Rocky Mountains, and southern Blue Ridge Mountains;
       ``(II) the Great Lakes, Lake Champlain, Long Island Sound, 
     and the Chesapeake Bay; and
       ``(III) other sensitive ecosystems, as determined by the 
     Administrator.

       ``(H) Acid deposition standards.--Beginning in 2005, and 
     every 4 years thereafter, the report under subparagraph (E) 
     shall include a revision of the report under section 404 of 
     Public Law 101-549 (42 U.S.C. 7651 note) that includes a 
     reassessment of the health and chemistry of the lakes and 
     streams that were subjects of the original report under that 
     section.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Protection of sensitive ecosystems.--
       ``(A) Determination.--Not later than December 31, 2011, the 
     Administrator, taking into consideration the findings and 
     recommendations of the report revisions under paragraph 
     (3)(H), shall determine whether emission reductions under 
     titles IV and VII are sufficient to--
       ``(i) achieve the necessary reductions identified under 
     paragraph (3)(F); and
       ``(ii) ensure achievement of the environmental objectives 
     identified under paragraph (3)(G).
       ``(B) Regulations.--
       ``(i) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     Administrator makes a determination under subparagraph (A) 
     that emission reductions are not sufficient, the 
     Administrator shall promulgate regulations to protect the 
     sensitive ecosystems referred to in paragraph (3)(G)(ii).
       ``(ii) Contents.--Regulations under clause (i) shall 
     include modifications to--

       ``(I) provisions relating to nitrogen oxide and sulfur 
     dioxide emission reductions;
       ``(II) provisions relating to allocations of nitrogen oxide 
     and sulfur dioxide allowances; and
       ``(III) such other provisions as the Administrator 
     determines to be necessary.''.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR DEPOSITION 
                   MONITORING.

       (a) Operational Support.--In addition to amounts made 
     available under any other law, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2013--
       (1) for operational support of the National Atmospheric 
     Deposition Program National Trends Network--
       (A) $2,000,000 to the United States Geological Survey;
       (B) $600,000 to the Environmental Protection Agency;
       (C) $600,000 to the National Park Service; and
       (D) $400,000 to the Forest Service;
       (2) for operational support of the National Atmospheric 
     Deposition Program Mercury Deposition Network--
       (A) $400,000 to the Environmental Protection Agency;
       (B) $400,000 to the United States Geological Survey;
       (C) $100,000 to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration; and
       (D) $100,000 to the National Park Service;
       (3) for the National Atmospheric Deposition Program 
     Atmospheric Integrated Research Monitoring Network $1,500,000 
     to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
       (4) for the Clean Air Status and Trends Network $5,000,000 
     to the Environmental Protection Agency; and
       (5) for the Temporally Integrated Monitoring of Ecosystems 
     and Long-Term Monitoring Program $2,500,000 to the 
     Environmental Protection Agency.
       (b) Modernization.--In addition to amounts made available 
     under any other law, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated--
       (1) for equipment and site modernization of the National 
     Atmospheric Deposition Program National Trends Network 
     $6,000,000 to the Environmental Protection Agency;
       (2) for equipment and site modernization and network 
     expansion of the National Atmospheric Deposition Program 
     Mercury Deposition Network $2,000,000 to the Environmental 
     Protection Agency;
       (3) for equipment and site modernization and network 
     expansion of the National Atmospheric Deposition Program 
     Atmospheric Integrated Research Monitoring Network $1,000,000 
     to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and
       (4) for equipment and site modernization and network 
     expansion of the Clean Air Status and Trends Network 
     $4,600,000 to the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (c) Availability of Amounts.--Each of the amounts 
     appropriated under subsection (b) shall remain available 
     until expended.

     SEC. 6. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       Title IV of the Clean Air Act (relating to noise pollution) 
     (42 U.S.C. 7641 et seq.)--
       (1) is amended by redesignating sections 401 through 403 as 
     sections 801 through 803, respectively; and
       (2) is redesignated as title VIII and moved to appear at 
     the end of that Act.
                                  ____


                 Summary of the Clean Power Act of 2003

       Amends the Clean Air Act with a new title VII--Electric 
     Generation Emission Reductions.
       Caps--Sets annual emissions caps for three pollutants that 
     apply beginning in 2009: SOx--275,000 tons in 
     western region; 1,975,000 tons in eastern region; 
     NOx--1,510,000 tons; and CO2--
     2,050,000,000 tons.
       Mercury emissions are capped in 2008 at a rate that results 
     in 5 tons annually
       The Administrator is authorized to reduce these caps if the 
     Administrator determines that they are not reasonably 
     anticipated to protect public health or welfare or the 
     environment. In addition, the Administrator is authorized to 
     limit the emissions from an electric generating facility 
     (EGF), if she determines that its emissions may reasonably be 
     anticipated to cause or contribute to a significant adverse 
     impact on an area.
       Modernization--By the later of 2014, or 40 years after 
     commencing operation, each EGF must achieve emission 
     limitations reflecting the best available control technology 
     applied to a new major source of the same generating 
     capacity.
       Allownace Creation & Trading--Allowances are created 
     representing each of the caps' tons and may be traded, except 
     for mercury. They will have unique serial numbers to identify 
     them. Western and Eastern SOx allowances may be 
     traded between regions, but extra-regional allowances can't 
     be used to meet an EGF's obligations. Trading in emission 
     allowances with other sectors is prohibited, except if the 
     allowances are for

[[Page 3666]]

     carbon dioxide and are created by a cap on another non-
     electricity sector.
       Allowance Submission to Meet Caps--Three months after the 
     end of 2009, and every year thereafter, each electric 
     generating facility that generates 15 MW (or the thermal 
     equivalent) or greater from a fossil fuel combustion unit or 
     combination of units that sells electricity must give to EPA 
     at last the amount of allowances that represent the tons they 
     emitted in the previous year. Allowances created and banked 
     under Title IV (acid rain--SOx) or through Title I 
     regulations (ozone--NOx), may be used at the rate 
     of 4:1. However, if allowances are banked because a facility 
     meets NSPS in the period 2001-2008, they may be used 1:1 for 
     compliance with Clean Power Act. Allowances under the Clean 
     Power Act may be banked.
       Emissions Emission Penalties--By 2007 and every 3 years 
     thereafter, each state will identify the electric generating 
     facilities in that state and in other states that are 
     significantly contributing to non-attainment of an ozone 
     naaqs in that state. Beginning in 2009, the Administrator is 
     authorized, upon a petition from a state or a citizen 
     demonstrating that control measures are inadequate to prevent 
     that significant contribution, to require that each 
     identified and inadequately controlled facility submit 3 
     nitrogen oxide emission allowances for each ton of nitrogen 
     oxides emitted by that electricity generating facility during 
     the period of an ozone naaqs exceedance that occurred in the 
     previous year.
       An EGF that fails to submit enough allowances to EPA will 
     be required to submit additional emission allowances as a 
     penalty. This is similar to section 412 of CAA. For 
     SOx, NOx, and CO2, the 
     penalty is 3 times the excess emissions or shortfall in 
     allowances multiplied by the average annual market price of 
     the allowance. For mercury, the penalty is 3 times the excess 
     emissions and the average cost of mercury controls.
       Mercury Emissions Limitation--Starting in 2008, mercury 
     emissions are limited to no greater than 2.48 grams of 
     mercury per 1,000 megawatt hours. This is equivalent to 
     reducing aggregate emissions of mercury from EGFs by 90 
     percent from today's levels, and the emission limitation 
     imposed are deemed to be maximum achievable control 
     technology (MACT) for mercury. In the event that aggregate 
     emissions from EGFs go above the 5 ton cap, then EPA must 
     adjust the limitations downward. EGFs may average their 
     emissions over 30-day periods and between units at a single 
     facility. EPA must promulgate regulations to prevent the 
     rerelease of mercury into the environment from coal 
     combustion waste, i.e. fly ash.
       Non-Mercury Haps Rulemaking--EPA must proposed MACT 
     regulations to cover non-mercury hazardous air pollutants 
     from EGFs by 2005 and enforce them by 2008.
       Monitoring--Coal-fired EGFs above 50MW will be required to 
     conduct ambient air quality monitoring within a 30-mile 
     radius for hazardous air pollutants and sulfur dioxide 
     emitted by the facility. In general, EGFs must conduct 
     continuous emission monitoring.
       Allowance Allocation.
       Allowances representing the tons of pollution in the 
     emission caps for SOx, NOx, and 
     CO2, are distributed annually every year by the 
     Administrator in 2009 to five main categories: consumers/
     households, transition assistance, renewable energy-
     efficiency-cleaner energy, carbon sequestration, and existing 
     units.
       Consumers/Households--After the allowances described below 
     are distributed, the Administration will have a minimum of 
     62.5% of the total allowances to distribute to households. 
     EPA will arrange for a trustee to receive these allowances 
     and to convey their fair market value to households based on 
     the number of persons in the household and the ratio of the 
     household's state's residential electricity consumption to 
     the national residential electricity consumption.
       Transition Assistance--EPA will arrange for a trustee to 
     receive 6% of the allowance in 2009 (this declines over 10 
     years by increments of .5 to 1.5% in 2018), who must then 
     turn around and obtain fair market value for those allowances 
     and convey:
       80% of that value to dislocated workers and communities 
     that experience a disproportionate impact due to the emission 
     reductions required by the bill, and
       20% to producers of electricity intensive products (like 
     aluminum) based on their share of total output multiplied by 
     the average amount of power used by most efficient production 
     process multiplied by the national average emission rate of 
     the covered pollutants from fossil fuel generating facilities 
     in tons per MW.
       Renewable Energy Generating Units, Efficiency Projects and 
     Clean Energy Sources--EPA will allocate no more than 20% of 
     the total allowances to:
       (1) renewable electricity generating units based on their 
     output multiplied by the national average emission rate of 
     the covered pollutants from fossil fuel generating facilities 
     in tons per MWh. So, for each avoided ton of pollution per 
     unit of output, the renewable generator will get an allowance 
     equal to one ton.
       (2) owners and operators of energy efficient buildings, 
     producers of energy efficient products and entities that 
     carry out energy efficiency projects, based on the tons of 
     pollution that would have been emitted at the national 
     average rate for fossil fuel electricity generation or 
     natural gas combustion for each megawatt-hour or unit of 
     natural gas saved.
       (3) cleaner fossil fuel EGFs, based on their output 
     multiplied by half of the tons of pollution that would 
     otherwise have been emitted at the national average rate for 
     fossil fuel electricity generation or natural gas combustion 
     for the same amount of output.
       (4) combined heat and power facilities, based on their Btus 
     of thermal energy output multiplied by the tons of pollution 
     that would otherwise have been emitted in tons per Btu at a 
     fossil fuel EGF for the same amount of output.
       Carbon Sequestration--EPA will allocate up to .075% of the 
     total carbon dioxide allowances to states for developing 
     biological carbon sequestration inventories and for 
     establishing state revolving loan funds for loans to owners 
     of nonindustrial private forest lands to carry out carbon 
     sequestration. EPW will allocate up to 1.5% of the total 
     carbon dioxide allowances to entities conducting geologic 
     carbon sequestration, based on the national average rate of 
     carbon dioxide emissions from EGFs per ton sequestered.
       Existing Facilities. EPA will allocate 10% of the 
     allowances in 2009 (declining 1 point annually over time 
     until it reaches 1% in 2018) to EGFs based on share of 2000 
     output.
       Acid Precipitation and Sensitive ecosystem research--EPA 
     must expand the report completed every four years on the 
     reduction in acid deposition rates necessary to prevent 
     adverse ecological effects by including consideration of 
     changes in lakes and streams acid neutralizing capacity. In 
     addition, EPA must submit a report every four years on 
     sensitive ecosystems, including the Adirondacks, the mid-
     Appalachian Mountains, the Great Lakes, Lake Champlain, the 
     Rocky Mountains, and the southern Blue Ridge Mountains. If 
     necessary, EPA is authorized to promulgate regulations in 
     2012 to protect them.
       Failure of EPA to Issue Regs--EPA must promulgate 
     regulations by 2009 to implement and enforce these emission 
     limitations or each EGF must achieve specific emission 
     performance at each facility relative to an uncontrolled 
     source--95% for sulfur dioxide, 85% for nitrogen oxides, 25% 
     for carbon dioxide, and 90% for mercury.
       Small Generator Inventory--EPA will conduct an inventory of 
     emissions from Electric Generating Facilities (EGFs) with 
     generating capacity less than 15MW. Based on that inventory, 
     EPA will annually subtract those emissions from the total 
     amount of allowances allocated prior to distribution each 
     year.
       Savings Clause--Nothing in the Clean Power Act precludes a 
     State from adopting and enforcing any requirement for the 
     control of emissions of air pollutants that is more stringent 
     than the requirements imposed under this title.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Jeffords in 
introducing the Clean Power Act of 2003. This bill will remove the 
loophole that has allowed the dirtiest, most polluting power plants in 
the Nation to escape significant pollution controls for more than 30 
years.
  Maine is one of the most beautiful and pristine States in the Nation. 
It is also one of the most environmentally responsible States in the 
Nation. Maine has fewer emissions of the pollutants that cause smog and 
acid rain than all but a handful of states. Maine also has one of the 
lowest emissions of carbon dioxide nationwide.
  Unfortunately, despite the collective environmental consciousness of 
both the citizens and industries of Maine, Maine still suffers from air 
pollution. Every lake, river, and stream in Maine is subject to a state 
mercury advisory that warns pregnant women and young children to limit 
consumption of fish caught in those waters. Even Acadia National Park, 
one of the most beautiful national parks in the Nation, experiences 
days in which visibility is obscured by smog.
  Where does all this pollution come from? A large part of it comes 
from a relatively small number of mostly coal-fired power plants that 
use loopholes to escape the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Coal-fired 
power plants are the single largest source of air pollution, mercury 
contamination, and greenhouse gas emissions in the nation. A single 
coal-fired power plant can emit more of the pollutants that cause smog 
and acid rain than all of the cars, factories, and businesses in Maine 
combined.
  As the easternmost State in the Nation, Maine is downwind of almost 
all power plants in the United States. Many of the pollutants emitted 
by

[[Page 3667]]

these power plants--mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and 
carbon dioxide--end up in or over Maine. Airborne mercury falls into 
our lakes and streams, contaminating freshwater fish and threatening 
our people's health. Carbon dioxide is causing climate change that 
threatens to alter Maine's delicate ecological balance. Sulfur dioxide 
and nitrogen oxides come to Maine in the form of acid rain and smog 
that damage the health of our people and the health of our environment.
  A single power plant can emit nearly a ton of mercury in a single 
year. That's equivalent to incinerating over 1 million mercury 
thermometers and is enough to contaminate millions of acres of 
freshwater lakes. In contrast, Maine has zero power plant emissions of 
mercury. This bill would reduce mercury emissions from power plants by 
90 percent by 2009.
  I am pleased that there has been so much recognition recently of the 
problems that so many States are facing on clean air. President Bush 
has proposed a ``Clear Skies'' initiative that will reduce emissions of 
mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. Last year, Senators 
Carper, Chafee, Breaux, and Baucus also introduced legislation that 
would reduce these pollutants, as well as carbon dioxide.
  There are important differences between these proposals. The 
Jeffords/Collins bill does more to reduce smog, acid rain, mercury 
pollution, and global warming than any other bill. Our bill provides 
more public health and environmental benefits than any other serious 
proposal, and it provides the benefits sooner. However, any step which 
reduces air pollution is a step in the right direction. Our parks and 
our people have waited far too long for clean air.
  I think virtually everyone agrees that we need to reduce power plant 
pollution. I look forward to working with the Administration and my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to provide cleaner air.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor Senator Jeffords' 
bill--as I did in the 106th and 107th Congresses--as I am dedicated to 
reducing power plant emissions that cause some of the Nation's--and 
Maine's--most serious public health and environmental problems.
  For too many years, coal-burning power plants exempt from emissions 
standards under the Clean Air Act have created massive pollution 
problems for the Northeast because whatever spews out of their 
smokestacks in the Midwest, blows into the Northeast, including my 
State of Maine, giving it the dubious distinction of being at the ``end 
of the tailpipe'', so to speak.
  The Jeffords' legislation calls for reductions of power plant 
emissions for pollutants that cause smog, soot, respiratory disease; 
acid rain that kills our forests; mercury that contaminates our lakes, 
rivers and streams; and climate variabilities that cause severe shifts 
in our weather patterns. Maine currently leads the Nation in asthma 
cases per capita, which is not a surprise, but which it can do little 
about when nearly 80 percent of the State's dirty air is not of their 
own making but is transported by winds blowing in from the Midwest and 
Southeast.
  The bill will dramatically cut aggregate power plant emissions by 
2009 of the four major power plant pollutants: nitrogen oxides 
NOX, the primary cause of smog, by 71 percent from 2000 
levels; sulfur dioxide, SO2, that causes acid rain and 
respiratory disease, by 81 percent from 2000 levels; mercury, Hg, which 
poisons our lakes and rivers, causing fish to be unfit for human 
consumption, through a 90 percent reduction by 2008; and carbon 
dioxide, CO2, the greenhouse gas most directly linked to 
global climate variabilities, by 21 percent from 2000 levels. Of note, 
the NOX, SO2, and mercury reductions are set at 
levels that are known to be cost effective with available technology.
  The bill will also eliminate the outdated coal-burning power plants 
that were grandfathered in the Clean Air Act unless they apply the best 
available pollution control technology by their 40th birthday or 2014, 
whichever is later. The thinking for the exemption in the Clean Air Act 
was based, at the time, on the assumption that the plants would not 
stay on line much longer. However, as energy has gotten more expensive, 
companies are keeping these older, dirtier plants up and running.
  Furthermore, just as the Clean Air Act already provides tradable 
allowances for sulfur dioxide that causes acid rain, the Jeffords' 
legislation also allows for tradable allowances to control emissions 
for three other pollutants--NOX, SOX, 
CO2,--by using market-oriented mechanisms to meet emissions 
reduction requirements.
  The tradable allowances would be distributed to five main categories, 
including 63 percent or more to households; six percent for transition 
assistance to affected communities and industries, which will decline 
over time; up to 20 percent to renewable energy generation, efficiency 
projects and clean energy sources, based on avoided pollution; 10 
percent to existing electric generating facilities based on 2000 
output; and up to 1.5 percent of the carbon dioxide allowances for 
biological and geological carbon sequestration. Of note, trading will 
not be allowed if it enables a power plant to pollute at a level that 
damages public health or the environment.
  I realize that the Administration's Clear Skies Initiative does not 
address carbon dioxide as a pollutant nor does it address emissions 
reductions for CO2. While I recognize that the pollutants 
listed under the Clear Air Act have been to achieve healthier air for 
humans by cutting back on smog and soot, and also for mercury 
contamination, I believe it is long past due that carbon dioxide be 
recognized as a pollutant that is harming the health of the planet.
  I am supporting the goal of CO2 emissions reduction in the 
Jeffords' bill in the hopes that the bill will be a rallying point to 
further the debate for reducing CO2 and at the same time, 
get our air cleaner on a quicker timeframe. In particular, Congress 
needs to develop a market mechanism approach for CO2 
emissions trading--such as we now have for acid rain--to allow U.S. 
industries the flexibility and certainty to reduce CO2 
emissions without the threat of higher energy production costs in the 
future that will be passed on to the consumer. I will continue to work 
with my colleagues, the White House and representatives from various 
industry groups, and environmental organizations to achieve this goal.
  The bottom line is that we have the opportunity to raise the bar for 
cleaner domestic energy production in an economically effective manner. 
Solutions exist in available and developing technologies, and most of 
all in the entrepreneurial spirit of the American people who want a 
cleaner and healthier environment, including those in Maine who want to 
ensure that the State's pristine lakes and coast will remain clean and 
our forests healthy for generations to come. States like Maine are 
leading the way in trying to reduce CO2 emissions--and the 
Jeffords' legislation sends a powerful message to those who would 
pollute our air: your days are numbered.
  I am optimistic that the Congress can come together with the 
President, industry and all those who want cleaner, healthier air to 
create a cohesive policy that is best suited for our nation, so I urge 
my colleagues to support the Jeffords' legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 367. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act 
to reauthorize and improve the temporary assistance to needy families 
program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to re-introduce a bill 
that reauthorizes the landmark welfare reform legislation passed in 
1996. It is basically the same bill as I introduced in the last 
Congress and it is designed to allow States to continue the important 
work to promote work and personal responsibility. This reauthorization 
bill is designed to allow States to continue to provide the flexible 
initiatives that have reduced national welfare caseloads by over 50 
percent and moved

[[Page 3668]]

millions of Americans from welfare to work.
  Welfare reform was a bold experiment to dramatically change a major 
social program. In 1996, Congress ended the entitlement of eligible 
families with children to cash aid. The results five years later are 
impressive. Over two-thirds of the people who are leaving the welfare 
rolls have left for work.
  Seven years ago, we agreed that the bipartisan goal of welfare reform 
should be to promote work and to protect children. We stood here 
together, on unchartered ground, and endorsed significant policy 
changes that we believed would help families gain independence and 
economic self-sufficiency, while protecting the children. States began 
to revise welfare service delivery with guidance based on the new 
reforms. Each State designed and implemented programs that were unique 
and specific to their populations. While the results have been mixed, I 
believe that encouraging progress has been made. The challenge this 
year will be to continue to build on our foundation, and be sensitive 
to the current economic situation and the fiscal crisis States face 
today.
  When we started welfare reform, we had a strong economy. Now, States 
are struggling and most of their reserves are gone. I believe we can 
continue the progress of welfare reform, but I strongly believe we must 
provide the key investments that help welfare parents make a successful 
transition from welfare to work, including increasing child care 
funding.
  In West Virginia, welfare reform has brought bold changes. Parents on 
welfare get extra support as they face new responsibilities and 
obligations to make the transition from welfare to jobs. In 2001, I 
hosted a roundtable discussion to meet with individual West Virginians 
who were undergoing major life transitions. They told me that they were 
proud to be working, but that it was often still a struggle to make 
ends meet and do the best for their children. The goal of this 
legislation is to help those parents, and millions more, to promote the 
well-being of their children, even as they work.
  Today, I am introducing the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act Amendments of 2003. States need help to 
continue making progress. We should continue to build on this 
foundation, and not reduce state flexibility. It is essential that we 
continue welfare reform, not unravel it, or restructure it.
  This bill acknowledges that we must keep the focus on work, by both 
requiring and rewarding work. To ensure a real focus on helping parents 
leave welfare rolls for a job, this legislation gradually replaces the 
caseload reduction credit with an employment credit, designed by 
Senator Lincoln of Arkansas and Congressman Levin of Michigan. Under 
this important provision, States will only get a bonus toward their 
work participation requirement if parents move from welfare to a job. 
This credit will acknowledge the dignity of all work by providing a 
bonus for parents who get jobs, both full and part-time. A mother who 
has never worked in her life and then gets a part-time job has achieved 
a true accomplishment, and that deserves recognition. It is also the 
first step toward independence. It is an empowering approach to 
promoting work and sends the proper message to families who are 
striving to become self sufficient. I am pleased to incorporate their 
proposal into my bill, and I look forward to working with them closely 
throughout the welfare debates during this Congress to develop an 
employment credit that truly rewards work.
  At this point, with a soft economy, I believe it is unwise to 
significantly change State TANF programs to impose drastically higher 
work participation rates requiring 40 hours per week of work and 
activities. Such changes, as suggested by the Administration, would 
double the work requirement for mothers with children under the age of 
6, and that does not seem right. Increasing work requirement without 
new funding for child care, transportation, and job placement 
activities would be, plain and simple, an unfunded mandate. It could 
hinder state efforts to move parents into private sector jobs. It could 
undermine our progress.
  State officials have testified before the Finance Committee that such 
changes would force states to restructure existing programs that are 
working and turn their focus away from those who need some assistance 
with child care or transportation, but are no longer dependent on a 
welfare check. We should not cut back on necessary child care and work 
supports for working families who are following the rules we set in 
1996.
  This comprehensive welfare reform bill makes the right investments. 
It invests $5.5 billion more in child care, which is the amount 
supported by the Finance Committee in a bipartisan vote last June.
  This bill also increases funding for the basic TANF block grant by 
$2.5 billion because of state need. It provides full funding for the 
Social Services at $2.8 billion, which was promised to the states in 
1996. My bill also would expand and increase the supplemental grants to 
help the states with high growth and high poverty deal with the 
challenges of welfare reform. With these new investments, states will 
be able to increase investment in the fundamental work supports like 
child care, transportation, and training, that help a parent succeed in 
moving from welfare to work. States would have flexibility in 
allocating the new resources, but I believe much of the funding can and 
will be directed into child care, which is a major priority.
  This bill would continue the transitional Medicaid program so 
families can keep health care coverage for a year as they move from 
welfare to work. In 1996, I was proud to work with Senator Breaux and 
the late Senator John Chafee to protect access to health care for such 
vulnerable families. I have incorporated Senator Breaux's bipartisan 
bill to continue transitional Medicaid coverage, and I appreciate his 
leadership on this and other key issues. Our bill also gives states 
more flexibility and options to place parents in vocational training 
and English as a Second Language programs, so parents can get real 
jobs. In recognition of Maine's success with the Parents as Scholar 
program, States have the option to follow the Maine model for 5 percent 
of their caseload to combine work and education.
  The bill also invests $200 million to create BusinessLink Grants, 
competitive grants to support public and private partnerships to help 
parents get jobs. The Welfare-to-Work Partnership is just one example 
of how nonprofits working with business leaders can make a real 
difference. The Partnership includes over 20,000 businesses that have 
provided more than 1 million jobs to parents moving from welfare to 
work. I have met with the board members of this group, and we should 
encourage such partnerships. I know that other groups, like the 
Salvation Army and Good Will, are doing important work on providing 
transitional job opportunities, and these organizations would be 
eligible for grants as well.
  A job is the first step, but for welfare parents to make a successful 
transition to independence, they need a range of supports. To achieve 
this goal, the bill will create Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Grants to 
improve the support network for parents. These grants are intended to 
provide incentives and support to TANF caseworkers and nonprofit 
organizations to help improve the comprehensive network of supports for 
working families, including Medicaid, CHIP, child care, EITC, and a 
range of services. Working mothers deserve to know what type of support 
will be available so that they do not slip back into welfare.
  Work is fundamental, but we also need to be concerned about important 
aspects of the lives of families and children. This legislation creates 
a Family Formation Fund to encourage healthy families, reduce teenage 
pregnancy, and improve child support and participation of parents in 
children's lives. The bill seeks to end certain discrimination and 
harsh rules for two-parent families in the current system. If our goal 
is to support marriage, we should not penalize married couples.

[[Page 3669]]

  Our legislation also makes a simple, but important change. Under the 
current TANF program, each welfare parent has an Individual 
Responsibility Plan that serves as an assessment and work plan. In 
addition to having a responsibility to work, parents have a 
responsibility to protect their children's well-being. To emphasize 
this fundamental point, this bill adds language directing states to 
incorporate the concept of a child's well-being into each parent's 
Individual Responsibility Plan. States have great flexibility, but it 
is important to send a clear message that one of a parent's 
responsibilities is the well-being of their children.
  This legislation builds on the foundation of the 1996 Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. My hope is that 
this framework will help promote bipartisan discussion about how we can 
make even more improvements in our welfare system, while maintaining 
our partnership with the States, particularly at this time of severe 
fiscal problems in our States.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Graham of South Carolina):
  S. 368. A bill to amend title X of the Social Security Act to include 
additional information in social security account statements; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, there is a greater awareness of the 
precarious financial condition confronting our Nation's Social Security 
system. Unfortunately, partisanship has controlled the debate on 
reform, polarizing and paralyzing Congress, while the fate of Social 
Security has become more grim and the consequent need for reform has 
become more urgent.
  It is now time for us to come together to reform and revitalize this 
system, so that Social Security will continue to benefit both the 
seniors of today and tomorrow. As elected officials, we have an 
obligation to ensure that Social Security benefits are paid as 
promised, without unfairly burdening the workers of today.
  American workers deserve to know the true financial status of the 
Social Security program. Each individual should have the right to 
honest information, including the real value of their personal 
retirement benefits. Most Americans have little knowledge of the true 
financial status of Social Security because the current system does not 
provide them with practical, easy to understand information.
  Today, Senator Lindsey Graham and I are introducing a bill that will 
require the inclusion of that practical information in annual Social 
Security statements sent to all taxpaying Americans. These statements 
will include straight forward information regarding the average rate of 
return workers can expect to receive from Social Security as compared 
to the amount of taxes an individual pays into the program, the amount 
Social Security receives in payroll, how much revenue is needed to give 
promised benefits to seniors, and the date when the program will no 
longer have sufficient funds to pay promised benefits. It is only fair 
and just to provide everyone with the true facts about how much they 
will pay in payroll taxes and what the limited return will be on their 
contributions.
  We must talk straight to Americans about Social Security and begin 
working together in a bipartisan fashion to make the necessary changes 
to strengthen and save the Nation's retirement program for the seniors 
of today and tomorrow.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 368

       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 ``Straight Talk on Social 
     Security Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. MATERIAL TO BE INCLUDED IN SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT 
                   STATEMENT.

       Section 1143(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1320b-13(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (D) by striking the period and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) a statement of the current social security tax rates 
     applicable with respect to wages and self-employment income, 
     including an indication of the combined total of such rates 
     of employee and employer taxes with respect to wages; and
       ``(F)(i) as determined by the Chief Actuary of the Social 
     Security Administration, a comparison of the total annual 
     amount of social security tax inflows (including amounts 
     appropriated under subsections (a) and (b) of section 201 of 
     this Act and section 121(e) of the Social Security Amendments 
     of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 401 note)) during the preceding calendar 
     year to the total annual amount paid in benefits during such 
     calendar year;
       ``(ii) as determined by such Chief Actuary--
       ``(I) a statement of whether the ratio of the inflows 
     described in clause (i) for future calendar years to amounts 
     paid for such calendar years is expected to result in a cash 
     flow deficit,
       ``(II) the calendar year that is expected to be the year in 
     which any such deficit will commence, and
       ``(III) the first calendar year in which funds in the 
     Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the 
     Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund will cease to be 
     sufficient to cover any such deficit;
       ``(iii) an explanation that states in substance--
       ``(I) that the Trust Fund balances reflect resources 
     authorized by the Congress to pay future benefits, but they 
     do not consist of real economic assets that can be used in 
     the future to fund benefits, and that such balances are 
     claims against the United States Treasury that, when 
     redeemed, must be financed through increased taxes, public 
     borrowing, benefit reduction, or elimination of other Federal 
     expenditures,
       ``(II) that such benefits are established and maintained 
     only to the extent the laws enacted by the Congress to govern 
     such benefits so provide, and
       ``(III) that, under current law, inflows to the Trust Funds 
     are at levels inadequate to ensure indefinitely the payment 
     of benefits in full; and
       ``(iv) in simple and easily understood terms--
       ``(I) a representation of the rate of return that a typical 
     taxpayer retiring at retirement age (as defined in section 
     216(l)) credited each year with average wages and self-
     employment income would receive on old-age insurance benefits 
     as compared to the total amount of employer, employee, and 
     self-employment contributions of such a taxpayer, as 
     determined by such Chief Actuary for each cohort of workers 
     born in each year beginning with 1925, which shall be set out 
     in chart or graph form with an explanatory caption or legend, 
     and
       ``(II) an explanation for the occurrence of past changes in 
     such rate of return and for the possible occurrence of future 
     changes in such rate of return.

     The Comptroller General of the United States shall consult 
     with the Chief Actuary to the extent the Chief Actuary 
     determines necessary to meet the requirements of subparagraph 
     (F).''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMAS:
  S. 369. A bill to amend the Endangered species Act of 1973 to improve 
the processes for listing, recovery planning, and delisting, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Listing 
and Delisting Reform Act of 2003.'' The Endangered Species Act has 
become one of the best examples of good intentions gone astray. Today, 
I am taking one small step toward injecting some common sense into what 
has become a regulatory nightmare. It is my intention to start making 
the law more effective for local landowners, public land managers, 
communities and State governments who truly hold the key to any 
successful effort to conserve species. My legislation seeks to improve 
the listing, recovery planning and delisting processes so that 
recovery, the goal of the act, is easier to achieve.
  In Wyoming, we have seen first hand the need to revise the listing 
and delisting processes of the Endangered Species Act. Listing should 
be a purely scientific decision. Listing should be based on credible 
data that has been peer-reviewed. In 1998, the Preble's Meadow Jumping 
Mouse was listed in the State of Wyoming. The listing process for this 
mouse demonstrates how the system has gone haywire, devoid of good 
science. One of the more significant shortcomings regarding the 
handling of the Preble Mouse has been the confusion between the ``known 
range'' as opposed to the alleged ``historical range'' of the mouse. 
Historical

[[Page 3670]]

data and current knowledge do not support the high, short-grass, semi-
arid plains of southeastern Wyoming as part of the mouse's historical 
habitat range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has even admitted to 
uncertainties regarding taxonomic distinctions and ranges. further, the 
State was not properly notified causing counties, commissioners, and 
landowners all to be caught off guard. Such poor practices do not 
foster the types of partnerships that are required if meaningful 
species conservation is to occur. Clearly, changes to the Endangered 
Species Act are desperately needed.
  Not far behind the mouse in Wyoming, was the black tailed prairie 
dog. Petitions to list the prairie dog were filed with the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service. I've lived in Wyoming most of my life, and I've 
logged a lot of miles on the roads and highways in my State over the 
years. I can tell you from experience that there is no shortage of 
prairie dogs in Wyoming. Any farmer or rancher will concur with that 
opinion. This petition, and countless other actions throughout the 
country, makes it painfully clear that some folks are intent on 
completely eliminating activity on public lands, no matter what the 
cost to individuals or local communities that rely on the land for 
economic survival.
  My legislation will require the Secretary of the Interior to use 
scientific or commercial data that is empirical, field tested and peer-
reviewed. Right now, it's basically a ``postage stamp'' petition: any 
person who wants to start a listing process may petition a species with 
little or no scientific support. This legislation prevents this absurd 
practice by establishing minimum requirements for a listing petition 
that includes an analysis of the status of the species, its range, 
population trends and threats. The petition must also be peer reviewed. 
In order to list a species, the Secretary must determine if sufficient 
biological information exists in the petition to support a recovery 
plan. Under my proposal, States are made active participants in the 
process and the general public is provided a more substantial role.
  This legislation requires explicit planning and forethought with 
regard to conservation and recovery at the time the species is listed. 
Let me be clear about the intent of this requirement. I do not question 
the basic premise that some species require the protection of the 
Endangered Species Act. However, listing a species can cause hardship 
on a community. For that reason, it is critically important and only 
reasonable that every listing be supported by sound science. We should 
be sure of the need for a listing before we ask the members of our 
communities and private landowners to make sacrifices.
  In Wyoming, I have found that with several listings, the Secretary of 
the Interior was unable to tell me what measures were required to 
achieve species recovery. The Secretary could not tell me what acts or 
omissions we could expect to face as a consequence of listing. How can 
this be, if the Secretary is fully apprized of the status of the 
species? Conversely, if the Secretary cannot clearly describe how to 
reverse threatening acts to a species so that we can achieve recovery, 
how can we be sure that the species is, in fact, threatened?
  This ambiguity has caused much undue frustration to the people of 
Wyoming. If the Secretary believes that certain farming or ranching 
practices, or a private citizen's development of their own property is 
the cause for a listing, then the Secretary should identify those 
activities that have to be curtailed or changed. If the Secretary does 
not have enough information to indicate what activities should be 
restricted, then why list a species? Why open producers and others to 
the burden of over-zealous enforcement and even litigation without 
being able to achieve the goal of recovering the species?
  This legislation is ultimately designed to improve the quality of 
information used to support a listing. If the Secretary knows enough to 
list a species, that person should know enough to tell us what will be 
required for recovery. That should be the case under current law, and 
that is all that this provision would require.
  Additionally, we need to revise the end of the process, the de-
listing procedure. Recovery should be the goal of the Endangered 
Species Act. Yet, it is virtually impossible to de-list a species. 
There is no certainty in the process, and the State who has all the 
responsibility for managing the species once it is off the list are not 
true partners in that process. Once the recovery plan is met, the 
species should be de-listed.
  Wyoming's experience with the Grizzly bear pinpoints some of the 
problems with the current de-listing process. The Interagency Grizzly 
Bear Committee set criteria for recovery and in the Yellowstone 
ecosystem, those targets have been met, but the bear has still not been 
removed from the list. We've been battling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service for years over this issue to no avail. Despite rebounded 
populations, we keep funneling money down a black hole.
  The point is something needs to be done. People in Wyoming have grown 
weary of the Endangered Species Act and the efforts of a vocal minority 
to run roughshod over their lives and interests. It is imperative to 
the longevity of many species and our citizens in the West that we 
bring this Act to the snubbing post and gain control of the process. 
The changes I've suggested will have a significant affect on the 
quality of science, public participation, state involvement, speed in 
recovery and finally the delisting of a species. Species that truly 
need protection will be protected, but let's not lose sight of the real 
goal--recovery and delisting.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Reed).
  S. 371. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to ensure an 
adequate supply of vaccines; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague from 
New York, Senator Clinton, to introduce the Childhood Vaccine Supply 
Act--a bill that would help ensure that our nation's public health 
system has an adequate vaccine supply.
  Vaccinations are critical in our efforts to keep our population, 
particularly children and the elderly, healthy. They are key in 
protecting the elderly from influenza during flu season or protecting 
children from contracting polio or the mumps. They--vaccinations, 
inoculations, immunizations, whatever you want to call them--also help 
lessen the threat of bacterial or viral infections and potential 
disease outbreaks.
  Currently, it is recommended that children receive 12 routine 
vaccinations against preventable diseases. These vaccinations are given 
in a series of shots and booster shots by the age of two, with an 
additional four doses later in life. This ends up being about 16 to 20 
doses of vaccines for children. Yet, just last year, over half of the 
vaccines children need were in short supply.
  That shortage of vaccines was not acceptable, and we should do all we 
can to prevent any future shortage and do all we can to protect our 
kids from illness and disease. As a Senator, and more importantly, as a 
father of eight and grandfather of eight, nothing is more important to 
parents than the health and safety of our children.
  While we are not currently experiencing a shortage, we know that the 
vaccine market is unstable and unpredictable. According to the Centers 
for Disease Control's National Immunization Program, there were several 
reasons for the shortages last year. The CDC concluded and posted on 
its website that the ``reasons for these shortages were multi-factorial 
and included companies leaving the vaccine market, manufacturing or 
production problems, and insufficient stockpiles.'' The CDC did as good 
a job as it possibly could, especially considering the vaccine 
shortages our nation faced last year. The agency's website posted 
information about shortages and released revised vaccine schedules to 
keep our public informed and knowledgeable about vaccination shortages.
  But, even with the strong efforts of the CDC, we can work toward 
preventing a future vaccine shortage. We

[[Page 3671]]

can work toward a more permanent solution. The bill I am introducing 
with my colleague from New York will go a long way to do just that.
  The bill we are introducing today--the Childhood Vaccine Supply Act--
would help bring some stability to our fragile vaccine supply. Unlike 
drug manufacturers, vaccine manufacturers do not have to give notice 
when they stop making a vaccine--whether the vaccine is withdrawn from 
the market intentionally or because the manufacturer is simply unable 
to continue making the vaccine. Essentially, these manufacturers leave 
the marketplace with no notice and no warning. Most doctors and 
hospitals--and more importantly parents and older adults--often have no 
idea that a vaccine is in short supply until they line up for a flu 
shot or go to the doctor for their child's immunizations.
  Our bill would change this. It would require any manufacturer of a 
vaccine to give notice of discontinuance. By giving notice, the Centers 
for Disease Control, CDC, and the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, 
would be better able to ensure an adequate vaccine supply for our 
Nation's population. Additionally, our bill would require all drug and 
vaccine manufacturers to give notice when they withdraw from the 
market. This change would ensure that we have a better sense of who is 
making vaccines and drugs and would allow the CDC and FDA to monitor 
the manufacturer's production and release of vaccines. Let me explain 
why this is important.
  Vaccines, or biological products, are difficult to develop and 
manufacture. They are more complex than drugs. Because of this, it 
takes longer for a biological product to reach the market. For example, 
a pharmaceutical company that manufactured tetanus vaccine stopped 
producing it, leaving only one company to produce tetanus vaccine for 
the entire country. The remaining company increased production to 
accommodate all of the needs of the United States. Despite this, it 
still required about 11 months for the vaccine to be ready for release. 
In other words, it took 11 months for the company to ramp-up production 
to meet demand. Our bill would create a notification mechanism to 
capture those drugs and vaccines leaving the market so we can avoid 
future vaccine and drug shortages.
  Our bill would take another important step toward ensuring an 
adequate vaccine supply. It would confirm the authority of the CDC to 
develop a plan for the purchase, storage, and rotation of a supply of 
vaccines sufficient to provide routinely recommended vaccinations for a 
six-month period for children and adults. Essentially, our bill would 
create a framework for the CDC to develop a national vaccine stockpile 
to ensure that childhood vaccine shortages simply do not occur.
  Our children deserve timely vaccinations. When childhood vaccinations 
are in short supply or are unavailable, they do without, living 
unprotected against disease. That should never happen. Our bill is a 
step toward ensuring children get the vaccines they need and that they 
get them at the right time. I urge my colleagues to join us in support 
of this important public health legislation.
  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. 371

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SUPPLY OF VACCINES.

       Title XXI of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300aa-1 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

                 ``Subtitle 3--Adequate Vaccine Supply

     ``SEC. 2141. SUPPLY OF VACCINES.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Plan.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary, acting through the 
     Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
     shall develop a plan for the purchase, storage, and rotation 
     of a supply of vaccines sufficient to provide routinely 
     recommended vaccinations for a 6-month period for--
       ``(A) a national stockpile of vaccines for all children as 
     authorized under section 1928(d)(6) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1396s(d)(6)); and
       ``(B) adults.
       ``(2) Supply.--The supply of vaccines under paragraph (1) 
     shall--
       ``(A) include all vaccines routinely recommended for 
     children by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices; 
     and
       ``(B) include all vaccines routinely recommended for adults 
     by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
       ``(3) Supply authority.--The Secretary shall carry out--
       ``(A) paragraph (2)(A) using the authority provided for 
     under section 1928(d)(6) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396s(d)(6)); and
       ``(B) paragraph (2)(B) using--
       ``(i) the authority provided for under section 317; and
       ``(ii) any other authority relating to the vaccines 
     described in such paragraph.
       ``(b) Submission of Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit the 
     plan developed under subsection (a) to--
       ``(A) the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
     Pensions of the Senate;
       ``(B) the Committee on Finance of the Senate; and
       ``(C) the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives.
       ``(2) Inclusions.--The plan shall include a discussion of 
     the considerations that formed--
       ``(A) the basis for the plan; and
       ``(B) the prioritization of the schedule for purchasing 
     vaccines set forth in the plan.
       ``(c) Implementation of the Plan.--Not later than September 
     30, 2006, the Secretary shall fully implement the plan 
     developed under subsection (a).
       ``(d) Notice.--
       ``(1) In general.--For the purposes of maintaining and 
     administering the supply of vaccines described under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall require by contract that 
     the manufacturer of a vaccine included in such supply provide 
     not less than 1 year notice to the Secretary of a 
     discontinuance of the manufacture of the vaccine, or of other 
     factors, that may prevent the manufacturer from providing 
     vaccines pursuant to an arrangement made to carry out this 
     section.
       ``(2) Reduction of period of notice.--The notification 
     period required under paragraph (1) may be reduced if the 
     manufacturer certifies to the Secretary that good cause 
     exists for reduction, under the conditions described in 
     section 506C(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 356c).
       ``(e) Proceeds.--Any proceeds received by the Secretary 
     from the sale of vaccines contained in the supply maintained 
     pursuant to this section, shall be available to the Secretary 
     for the purpose of purchasing additional vaccines for the 
     supply. Such proceeds shall remain available until expended.
       ``(f) Ongoing Reports.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after submitting 
     the plan pursuant to subsection (b), and periodically 
     thereafter, the Secretary shall submit a report to the 
     Committees identified in subsection (b)(1) that--
       ``(A) details the progress made in implementing the plan 
     developed under subsection (a); and
       ``(B) notes impediments, if any, to implementing the plan 
     developed under subsection (a).
       ``(2) Recommendation.--The Secretary shall include in the 
     first of such reports required under paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) a recommendation as to whether the vaccine supply 
     should be extended beyond the 6-month period provided in 
     subsection (a); and
       ``(B) a discussion of the considerations that formed the 
     recommendation under subparagraph (A).
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such 
     sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2004 
     through 2009.''.

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an important 
issue to which I have pledged my constant dedication throughout my 
career--ensuring that children have access to affordable and safe 
vaccines. These vaccines are one of the most successful and cost-
effective tools we have to prevent disease and death.
  Yet only a year ago, however, doctors had to turn families away at 
the door because of national vaccine shortages for eight out of the 
eleven vaccine-preventable diseases. During the vaccine shortage, 
children became ill with pneumococcal meningitis and pneumonia, 
diseases that could have been prevented with an adequate supply of the 
pneumococcal vaccine.
  Since the HELP Committee met to discuss the vaccine shortage crisis, 
we have witnessed some significant progress, which is a credit to a 
collaborative effort by public health officials, vaccine manufacturers 
and providers. Shortages for five vaccines have stopped, and childhood 
vaccines for eight different diseases are no longer

[[Page 3672]]

being delayed. These shortages, temporarily alleviated, could return at 
any time. I know that my home state of New York, like the rest of the 
Nation, only has a one-to-two month stockpile for some of the routinely 
recommended childhood vaccines.
  At the most recent HELP Committee hearing no vaccines, we listened to 
a GAO report that acknowledged two critical components to protecting 
our children's health security, and today I rise to present legislation 
that would take these two important steps.
  Having the government stockpile vaccines is important because vaccine 
production is a complex process. The GAO report confirmed that a pause 
in production for safety reasons could happen again and would have a 
critical and devastating impact on the ability to vaccinate children 
and adults. I appreciate the administration's announced commitment to 
provide funds in the 2004 Budget for a vaccine stockpile. The Childhood 
Vaccine Supply Act would strengthen and support the administration's 
authority in these efforts and assure that the stockpile includes 
adults as well as all children, who were affected by the tetanus-
diphtheria toxoid shortage last year.
  We also need an additional buffer because DCD acknowledges that it 
will take 4 years before we can have a 6-month stockpile of childhood 
vaccines. We need a notification mechanism so that CDC can work with 
other manufacturers to maintain the vaccine supply when a manufacturer 
cannot produce an adequate supply of vaccine. Each of the four major 
vaccine producers has stated that they do not object to this sort of an 
advance notice provision. The Childhood Vaccine Supply Act would create 
a notification mechanism for manufacturers to give one-year advance 
notice when they intend to stop making a vaccine.
  We have worked amicably with Senators Frist, Gregg, and Kennedy on 
both of these vaccine provisions. We have work amicably with Senator 
Frist on this issue and our vaccine provisions, and fully expect to 
continue working with this bipartisan group of Senators to accomplish 
the important goal of assuring safe vaccines for all children.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMAS (for himself and Mr. Craig):
  S. 372. A bill to amend the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
to require that Federal agencies consult with State agencies and county 
and local governments on environmental impact statements; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``State and 
Local Government Participation Act of 2003'' which would amend the 
National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. This bill is designed to 
guarantee that Federal agencies identify State, county and local 
governments as cooperating agencies when fulfilling their environmental 
planning responsibilities under NEPA.
  NEPA was designed to ensure that the environmental impacts of a 
proposed Federal action are considered and minimized by the federal 
agency taking that action. It was supposed to provide for adequate 
public participation in the decision making process on these Federal 
activities and document an agency's final conclusions with respect to 
the proposed action.
  Although this sounds simple and quite reasonable, NEPA has become a 
real problem in Wyoming and many States throughout the Nation. A 
statute that was supposed to provide for additional public input in the 
federal land management process has instead become an unworkable and 
cumbersome law. Instead of clarifying and expediting the public 
planning process on Federal lands. NEPA now serves to delay action and 
shut-out local governments that depend on the proper use of these 
Federal lands for their existence.
  The ``State and Local Government Participation Act'' is designed to 
provide for greater input from State and local governments in the NEPA 
process. This measure would simply guarantee that State, county and 
local agencies be identified as cooperating entities when preparing 
land management plans under NEPA. Although the law already provides for 
voluntary inclusion of state and local entities in the planning 
process, too often, the federal agencies choose to ignore local 
governments when preparing planning documents under NEPA. 
Unfortunately, many Federal agencies have become so engrossed in 
examining every environmental aspect of a proposed action on Federal 
land, they have forgotten to consult with the folks who actually live 
near and depend on these areas for their economic survival.
  States and local communities must be consulted and included when 
proposed actions are being taken on Federal lands in their State. Too 
often, Federal land managers are more concerned about the comments of 
environmental organizations located in Washington, DC or New York City 
than the people who actually live in the State where the proposed 
action will take place. This is wrong. The concerns, comments and input 
of state and local communities are vital for the proper management of 
federal lands in the West. The ``State and Local Government 
Participation Act of 2003'' will begin to address this troubling 
problem and guarantee that local folks will be involved in proposed 
decision that will affect their lives.
  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. 372

       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 ``State and Local Government 
     Participation Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. CONSULTATION WITH STATE AGENCIES AND COUNTY AND LOCAL 
                   GOVERNMENTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS.

       Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act 
     of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) is amended in the first 
     sentence of the matter following clause (v) by striking ``any 
     Federal agency which has'' and inserting ``each Federal 
     agency, State agency, county government, and local government 
     that has''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Akaka, Mrs. Clinton, 
        Mr. Corzine, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Levin, Mr. 
        Lieberman, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Sarbanes):
  S. 373. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for patient protection by limiting the number of mandatory 
overtime hours a nurse may be required to work in certain providers of 
services to which payments are made under the medicare program; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues, 
Senators Kerry, Clinton, Sarbanes, Corzine, Mikulski, Dodd, Levin, 
Reed, Lieberman, Feingold, Inouye, and Akaka in introducing the Safe 
Nursing and Patient Care Act.
  Current Federal safety standards limit work hours for pilots, flight 
attendants, truck drivers, railroad engineers and other professionals, 
in order to protect the public safety. However, no similar limitation 
currently exists for the Nation's nurses, who care for so many of our 
most vulnerable citizens.
  The Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act will limit mandatory overtime 
for nurses in order to protect patient safety and improve working 
conditions for nurses. Across the country today, the widespread 
practice of mandatory overtime means that over-worked nurses are often 
providing care in unacceptable circumstances. Restrictions for 
mandatory overtime will help ensure that nurses are able to provide the 
highest quality of care to their patients.
  Some hospitals have taken action to deal with this serious problem. 
Over the last few years in Massachusetts Brockton Hospital and St. 
Vincent Hospital agreed to limit mandatory overtime as part of 
negotiations following successful strikes by nurses. These limits will 
protect patients and improve working conditions for the

[[Page 3673]]

nurses, and will help in the recruitment and retention of nurses in the 
future.
  Job dissatisfaction and harsh overtime hours are major factors in the 
current shortage of nurses. Nationally, the shortfall is expected to 
rise to 20 percent in coming years. The goal of the Safe Nursing and 
Patient Care Act is to improve the quality of life for nurses, so that 
more persons will enter the nursing profession and remain in it.
  The bill limits mandatory overtime to declared states of emergency. 
Clearly, there are times when other options are exhausted and hospitals 
need additional help. The bill takes account of such needs. The bill 
requires health providers to notify nurses of these new rights, and 
nurses who report violations are guaranteed protection from workplace 
discrimination. In addition, the bill requires the Agency for Health 
Care Research and Quality to report to Congress on appropriate 
standards for the maximum numbers of hours that nurses should work in 
various health settings without compromising patient care.
  Improving conditions for nurses is an essential part of our ongoing 
effort to reduce medical errors, improve patient outcomes, and 
encourage more Americans to become and remain nurses. The power of 
providers to force nurses to work beyond what is safe for themselves 
and their patients is one of the major drawbacks to careers in nursing. 
The Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act is a significant step that 
Congress can take to support the Nation's nurses, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Crapo, Mr. 
        Burns, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Inofe, Mr. 
        Allen, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Miller):
  S. 374. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 
the occupational taxes relating to distilled spirits, wine, and beer; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I join my 
good friend and colleague, Senator Bunning today in introducing 
legislation that will repeal the Special Occupational Tax, (SOT), on 
taxpayers who manufacture, distribute, and sell alcoholic beverages. 
The special occupational tax is not a tax on alcoholic products, but 
rather operates as a license fee on businesses. The tax is imposed on 
those engaged in the business of selling alcohol beverages. Believe it 
or not, this tax was originally established to help finance the Civil 
War. That war is over, and this inequitable tax has outlived its 
original purpose. Clearly an example of an anticipated approach to 
Federal taxation, repealing the SOT has an element of simplification in 
it.
  The SOT on alcohol dramatically increased during the budget process 
in 1988 and has unfairly burdened business owners across the country 
since. From Thompson Falls to Sidney, from Chinook to Billings, small 
businesses are burdened with yet another tax in the form of the SOT. 
According to the ATF, there are 480,427 locations nationwide that pay 
SOT's every year, including 485,603 retailers. These retail 
establishments account for $114 million out of $126 million in SOT 
revenues.
  In Montana, there are 3,378 locations, including 3,254 restaurants 
and 494 convenience stores, which pay nearly $2 million dollars in the 
SOT every year. Seasonal resorts in Whitefish and Yellowstone, ``mom 
and pop'' convenience stores in Butte, and allowing alleys, flower 
shops, and restaurants across Montana, and the United States, pay the 
Federal Government almost $100 million per year for the privilege of 
running businesses that sell beer, wine, or alcoholic beverages.
  The SOT is extremely regressive. Retailers must annually pay $250 per 
location; wholesalers pay $500; vintners and distillers pay $1000. 
Because the SOT is levied on a per location basis, a sole 
proprietorship must pay the same amount as one of the Nation's largest 
retailers, and locally-owned chains having to pay per location, would 
have to pay as much as, if not more than, the Nation's largest single 
site brewery. In testimony before the Finance Committee last spring, a 
small business owner from Helena, MT who runs four convenience stores 
and three restaurants said it best. ``Whether it's a seasonal 
restaurant, an Elks Lodge or American Legion, a bowling center, 
campground, a florist who delivers gift baskets containing wine, or a 
convenience store operator, no one is spared from the tax.'' This is 
not what Congress had in mind 150 years ago, and I don't believe it's a 
situation we want today.
  Repealing the SOT on alcohol is supported by a broad-based group of 
business organizations and enjoys wide-spread bipartisan support on 
Capital Hill. Similar legislation is being introduced in the House 
today, and a bill, identical to this one, was introduced in the 
previous Congress, but for one reason or another, the law was not 
enacted.
  The legislation preserves ATF's record-keeping requirements, while 
removing the agency's enforcement burden, and will save up to $2 
million per year. The GAO examined SOT efficacy several times, and 
found it fundamentally flawed. The Joint Committee on Taxation called 
for the elimination of SOT in its June 2001 simplification study.
  More than 90 percent of all SOT revenue comes from retailers--a great 
majority of that number are small businesses. Recently, President Bush 
met with a group of small business owners and employees in St. Louis. 
He said, ``The best way to encourage job growth is to let [small 
businesses] keep more of their own money, so they can invest in their 
business and make it easier for somebody to find work.'' Repealing the 
SOT would provide an immediate and visible tax cut to small business 
owners.
  Now, as the Federal Government considers ways to provide additional 
economic stimulus to the people who need it most, the time is right for 
us to move forward and enact this legislation to repeal the SOT an 
alcohol. We urge our colleagues to join us in this endeavor.
  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. 374

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF OCCUPATIONAL TAXES RELATING TO DISTILLED 
                   SPIRITS, WINE, AND BEER.

       (a) Repeal of Occupational Taxes.--
       (1) In general.--The following provisions of part II of 
     subchapter A of chapter 51 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to occupational taxes) are hereby repealed:
       (A) Subpart A (relating to proprietors of distilled spirits 
     plants, bonded wine cellars, etc.).
       (B) Subpart B (relating to brewer).
       (C) Subpart D (relating to wholesale dealers) (other than 
     sections 5114 and 5116).
       (D) Subpart E (relating to retail dealers) (other than 
     section 5124).
       (E) Subpart G (relating to general provisions) (other than 
     sections 5142, 5143, 5145, and 5146).
       (2) Nonbeverage domestic drawback.--Section 5131 of such 
     Code is amended by striking ``, on payment of a special tax 
     per annum,''.
       (3) Industrial use of distilled spirits.--Section 5276 of 
     such Code is hereby repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1)(A) The heading for part II of subchapter A of chapter 
     51 of such Code and the table of subparts for such part are 
     amended to read as follows:

                  ``PART II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

``Subpart A. Manufacturers of stills.
``Subpart B. Nonbeverage domestic drawback claimants.
``Subpart C. Recordkeeping by dealers.
``Subpart D. Other provisions.''

       (B) The table of parts for such subchapter A is amended by 
     striking the item relating to part II and inserting the 
     following new item:

``Part II. Miscellaneous provisions.''

       (2) Subpart C of part II of such subchapter (relating to 
     manufacturers of stills) is redesignated as subpart A.
       (3)(A) Subpart F of such part II (relating to nonbeverage 
     domestic drawback claimants) is redesignated as subpart B and 
     sections 5131 through 5134 are redesignated as sections 5111 
     through 5114, respectively.
       (B) The table of sections for such subpart B, as so 
     redesignated, is amended--

[[Page 3674]]

       (i) by redesignating the items relating to sections 5131 
     through 5134 as relating to sections 5111 through 5114, 
     respectively, and
       (ii) by striking ``and rate of tax'' in the item relating 
     to section 5111, as so redesignated.
       (C) Section 5111 of such Code, as redesignated by 
     subparagraph (A), is amended--
       (i) by striking ``and rate of tax'' in the section heading,
       (ii) by striking the subsection heading for subsection (a), 
     and
       (iii) by striking subsection (b).
       (4) Part II of subchapter A of chapter 51 of such Code is 
     amended by adding after subpart B, as redesignated by 
     paragraph (3), the following new subpart:

                 ``Subpart C--Recordkeeping by Dealers

``Sec. 5121. Recordkeeping by wholesale dealers.
``Sec. 5122. Recordkeeping by retail dealers.
``Sec. 5123. Preservation and inspection of records, and entry of 
              premises for inspection.''

       (5)(A) Section 5114 of such Code (relating to records) is 
     moved to subpart C of such part II and inserted after the 
     table of sections for such subpart.
       (B) Section 5114 of such Code is amended--
       (i) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following new heading:

     ``SEC. 5121. RECORDKEEPING BY WHOLESALE DEALERS.'',

     and
       (ii) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d) and 
     by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Wholesale Dealers.--For purposes of this part--
       ``(1) Wholesale dealer in liquors.--The term `wholesale 
     dealer in liquors' means any dealer (other than a wholesale 
     dealer in beer) who sells, or offers for sale, distilled 
     spirits, wines, or beer, to another dealer.
       ``(2) Wholesale dealer in beer.--The term `wholesale dealer 
     in beer' means any dealer who sells, or offers for sale, 
     beer, but not distilled spirits or wines, to another dealer.
       ``(3) Dealer.--The term `dealer' means any person who 
     sells, or offers for sale, any distilled spirits, wines, or 
     beer.
       ``(4) Presumption in case of sale of 20 wine gallons or 
     more.--The sale, or offer for sale, of distilled spirits, 
     wines, or beer, in quantities of 20 wine gallons or more to 
     the same person at the same time, shall be presumptive 
     evidence that the person making such sale, or offer for sale, 
     is engaged in or carrying on the business of a wholesale 
     dealer in liquors or a wholesale dealer in beer, as the case 
     may be. Such presumption may be overcome by evidence 
     satisfactorily showing that such sale, or offer for sale, was 
     made to a person other than a dealer.''
       (C) Paragraph (3) of section 5121(d) of such Code, as so 
     redesignated, is amended by striking ``section 5146'' and 
     inserting ``section 5123''.
       (6)(A) Section 5124 of such Code (relating to records) is 
     moved to subpart C of part II of subchapter A of chapter 51 
     of such Code and inserted after section 5121.
       (B) Section 5124 of such Code is amended--
       (i) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following new heading:

     ``SEC. 5122. RECORDKEEPING BY RETAIL DEALERS.'',

       (ii) by striking ``section 5146'' in subsection (c) and 
     inserting ``section 5123'', and
       (iii) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d) and 
     inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Retail Dealers.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Retail dealer in liquors.--The term `retail dealer in 
     liquors' means any dealer (other than a retail dealer in 
     beer) who sells, or offers for sale, distilled spirits, 
     wines, or beer, to any person other than a dealer.
       ``(2) Retail dealer in beer.--The term `retail dealer in 
     beer' means any dealer who sells, or offers for sale, beer, 
     but not distilled spirits or wines, to any person other than 
     a dealer.
       ``(3) Dealer.--The term `dealer' has the meaning given such 
     term by section 5121(c)(3).''
       (7) Section 5146 of such Code is moved to subpart C of part 
     II of subchapter A of chapter 51 of such Code, inserted after 
     section 5122, and redesignated as section 5123.
       (8) Part II of subchapter A of chapter 51 of such Code is 
     amended by inserting after subpart C the following new 
     subpart:

                     ``Subpart D--Other Provisions

``Sec. 5131. Packaging distilled spirits for industrial uses.
``Sec. 5132. Prohibited purchases by dealers.''

       (9) Section 5116 of such Code is moved to subpart D of part 
     II of subchapter A of chapter 51 of such Code, inserted after 
     the table of sections, redesignated as section 5131, and 
     amended by inserting ``(as defined in section 5121(c))'' 
     after ``dealer'' in subsection (a).
       (10) Subpart D of part II of subchapter A of chapter 51 of 
     such Code is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 5132. PROHIBITED PURCHASES BY DEALERS.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in regulations 
     prescribed by the Secretary, it shall be unlawful for a 
     dealer to purchase distilled spirits from any person other 
     than a wholesale dealer in liquors who is required to keep 
     the records prescribed by section 5121.
       ``(b) Penalty and Forfeiture.--

  ``For penalty and forfeiture provisions applicable to violations of 
subsection (a), see sections 5687 and 7302.''

       (11) Subsection (b) of section 5002 of such Code is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``section 5112(a)'' and inserting ``section 
     5121(c)(3)'',
       (B) by striking ``section 5112'' and inserting ``section 
     5121(c)'',
       (C) by striking ``section 5122'' and inserting ``section 
     5122(c)''.
       (12) Subparagraph (A) of section 5010(c)(2) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``section 5134'' and inserting ``section 
     5114''.
       (13) Subsection (d) of section 5052 of such Code is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(d) Brewer.--For purposes of this chapter, the term 
     `brewer' means any person who brews beer or produces beer for 
     sale. Such term shall not include any person who produces 
     only beer exempt from tax under section 5053(e).''
       (14) The text of section 5182 of such Code is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``For provisions requiring recordkeeping by wholesale 
     liquor dealers, see section 5112, and by retail liquor 
     dealers, see section 5122.''
       (15) Subsection (b) of section 5402 of such Code is amended 
     by striking ``section 5092'' and inserting ``section 
     5052(d)''.
       (16) Section 5671 of such Code is amended by striking ``or 
     5091''.
       (17)(A) Part V of subchapter J of chapter 51 of such Code 
     is hereby repealed.
       (B) The table of parts for such subchapter J is amended by 
     striking the item relating to part V.
       (18)(A) Sections 5142, 5143, and 5145 of such Code are 
     moved to subchapter D of chapter 52 of such Code, inserted 
     after section 5731, redesignated as sections 5732, 5733, and 
     5734, respectively, and amended by striking ``this part'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``this subchapter''.
       (B) Section 5732 of such Code, as redesignated by 
     subparagraph (A), is amended by striking ``(except the tax 
     imposed by section 5131)'' each place it appears.
       (C) Subsection (c) of section 5733 of such Code, as 
     redesignated by subparagraph (A), is amended by striking 
     paragraph (2) and by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph 
     (2).
       (D) The table of sections for subchapter D of chapter 52 of 
     such Code is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following:

``Sec. 5732. Payment of tax.
``Sec. 5733. Provisions relating to liability for occupational taxes.
``Sec. 5734. Application of State laws.''

       (E) Section 5731 of such Code is amended by striking 
     subsection (c) and by redesignating subsection (d) as 
     subsection (c).
       (19) Subsection (c) of section 6071 of such Code is amended 
     by striking ``section 5142'' and inserting ``section 5732''.
       (20) Paragraph (1) of section 7652(g) of such Code is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``subpart F'' and inserting ``subpart B'', 
     and
       (B) by striking ``section 5131(a)'' and inserting ``section 
     5111(a)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     but shall not apply to taxes imposed for periods before such 
     date.

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I am happy to join my colleague, Senator 
Baucus, in the introduction of legislation to repeal the Special 
Occupational Tax on the sale of alcoholic beverages.
  This is an unfair tax imposed on all businesses that manufacture, 
distribute or sell alcohol products. It has a particularly egregious 
impact on the Nation's small businesses--the ``Mom and Pop'' 
convenience stores, the local bowling alleys, the small sandwich shop, 
the seasonal bait shop, and the community lodges. This regressive tax 
imposes the same tax on little businesses and large businesses. The tax 
is levied as a fixed amount per location--$250 for retailers, $500 for 
wholesalers, and $1,000 for vinters and distillers--with no adjustment 
for the size of a business. Thus, a family which owns two small 
convenience stores will pay twice as much as a large one-location 
``super'' party store. This tax results in small retail outlets paying 
a larger percentage of their revenue towards this tax. In addition, the 
tax is not prorated, meaning that seasonal businesses such as bait 
shops or marinas that are open for three months a year will pay the 
same rate as businesses that are open year-around.
  Largely due to the negative impact of this tax on small businesses, 
there has been strong bi-partisan support for its repeal in both the 
Senate and the House. The effectiveness of the tax--which is 
traditionally quite expensive to administer--has been found to be 
flawed by the General Accounting Office in several examinations. In a 
2001 study on the simplification of the Federal tax system, the Joint 
Committee

[[Page 3675]]

on Taxation recommended the repeal of the Special Occupancy Tax on 
alcohol. The Joint Committee found that the tax is in the nature of a 
business license fee and serves no tax policy purpose.
  I hope my colleagues will join Senator Baucus and me in repealing 
this burdensome tax once and for all.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Rockefeller, and 
        Mr. Thomas):
  S. 375. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
establish a minimum geographic cost-of-practice index value for 
physicians' services furnished under the medicare program of 1; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with my friends Senator 
Lincoln, Senator Rockefeller, and Senator Thomas to introduce the 
``Medicare Access Equity Act of 2003,'' a bill to address the 
inequality that exists in Medicare reimbursement levels to urban and 
rural physicians.
  Nothing is more important to our families than accessible and 
available health care. When we become ill and need treatment, we must 
turn to our doctors for help. But, imagine this, a hospital filled with 
the latest technology, and no doctors to administer treatment.
  Does this sound ridiculous? It's not. Rural patients often have 
difficulty obtaining timely care due to a shortage of physicians, and, 
the problem I have described is not just occurring in my home State of 
New Mexico, forty-one other States are experiencing similar problems 
because of a common set of rules and procedures.
  In most rural areas, Federal policy undermines a doctor's ability to 
see Medicare patients by establishing disparity in reimbursement 
levels. Rural physicians are among the lowest Medicare dollar 
reimbursement recipients in the country, and I submit that this is the 
reason these areas cannot effectively recruit and retain their 
physicians.
  Medicare payments for physician services are based upon a fee 
schedule, intended to relate payments for a given service to the actual 
resources used in providing that service. One component of this fee 
schedule is ``physician work.'' CMS defines ``physician work'' as the 
amount of time, skill and intensity necessary to provide service.
  Each component of the fee schedule is multiplied by a geographic 
index; designed to adjust for variations in cost. The geographic index 
as it relates to ``physician work'' is lower in rural areas than in 
metropolitan/urban areas. Thus, although rural physicians put in as 
much or even more time, skill, and intensity into their work as 
physicians in metropolitan/urban areas; rural physicians are paid less 
for their work.
  This practice is unfair and it is discriminatory. There is no reason 
doctors in Albuquerque, NM should be paid less for their time than 
doctors in New York City. Doctors should be valued equally, 
irrespective of geography.
  The ``Medicare Access Equity Act of 2003'' fixes this problem. The 
Bill creates a more equitable Medicare reimbursement formula for 
doctors in 56 different fee schedule areas in 42 different States. It 
continues to apply the current formula to determine geographic index as 
it relates to physician work. However, once the calculation has been 
completed, The Secretary will increase the work geographic index to one 
for any locality for which such index is below one. Those fee schedule 
areas that are currently at or above one will not be affected by this 
legislation.
  Our Bill builds upon the simple proposition that increased Medicare 
Physician reimbursements improve patient access to care and the ability 
of states to recruit and retain physicians. If Medicare physician 
reimbursement rates are raised, patients will be the ultimate 
beneficiaries.
  Thank you and I look forward to working with my colleagues Senator 
Lincoln, Senator Rockefeller, and Senator Thomas on this very important 
issue.
  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. 375

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare 
     Access Equity Act of 2003''.
       (b) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Americans have paid taxes in to the medicare program 
     equally across the country and every American should have 
     access to quality health care.
       (2) There is a national market for health care providers.
       (3) Increasingly, private insurance companies tie their 
     reimbursement rates to those paid by medicare.
       (4) The physician fee schedule formula for medicare 
     currently includes several adjustments for variable costs 
     throughout the nation. While it is appropriate for the cost 
     of running a practice to reflect overhead differences, 
     physicians should not be compensated for their time 
     differently based on where they live.
       (5) Medicare beneficiaries pay the same part B premium 
     regardless of location which forces subsidization of higher 
     reimbursement areas by seniors in lower reimbursement areas 
     without any corresponding benefit.
       (6) Areas of the country that currently receive the lowest 
     reimbursement from medicare are often the same areas that are 
     experiencing the greatest shortage of physicians. Attracting 
     more physicians to these areas cannot be achieved without 
     greater equity in medicare reimbursement.

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF FLOOR ON WORK GEOGRAPHIC ADJUSTMENT.

       Section 1848(e)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395w-4(e)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(E) Floor at 1.0 on work geographic indices.--After 
     calculating the work geographic indices in subparagraph 
     (A)(iii), for purposes of payment for services furnished on 
     or after January 1, 2004, the Secretary shall increase the 
     work geographic index to 1.00 for any locality for which such 
     geographic index is less than 1.00.''.

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

[[Page 3676]]

health care they receive from their doctors.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Cochran, Mr. 
        Johnson, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Reid, Mr. 
        Santorum, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Lieberman, 
        Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Miller):
  S. 377. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins 
in commemoration of the contributions of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 
to the United States; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
pay tribute to one of our Nation's most prominent individuals, Dr. 
Martin Luther King, Jr. The Martin Luther King, Jr. Commemorative Coin 
Act of 2003 instructs the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins to 
recognize Dr. King's contribution to the people of the United States. 
Revenues from the surcharge on the coin would go to the Library of 
Congress to purchase and maintain historical documents and other 
materials associated with the life and legacy of Martin Luther King, 
Jr. This honor is long overdue.
  His contributions to our Nation are well known and well documented. 
From 1955 when he helped lead the Montgomery Boycott to his death at 
the hands of an assassin in 1968, Dr. King dedicated his life to the 
cause of civil rights. In those 13 years, he was jailed several times, 
got cursed at and stoned by mobs, reviled by racist attacks in the 
South. Civil rights marches for freedoms we take for granted today like 
the right to vote or drink from the same water fountain, were met with 
police dogs and fire hoses.
  Honoring Dr. King also means honoring those local leaders in the 
civil rights struggle who kept Dr. King's vision alive at the 
grassroots. In my particular home State of Louisiana, Rev. Dr. T.J. 
Jemison led a successful bus boycott in our State capital Baton Rouge. 
He became an advisor to Dr. King during the Montgomery Bus boycott. 
Many of these local leaders faced constant danger at home. One 
Louisianan, Dr. C.O. Simpkins of Shreveport had his home bombed simply 
because he dared to stand by Dr. King and demand that the buses in 
Shreveport be integrated.
  But Dr. King urged us to fight hate with love, quell violence with 
peace, and to replace ignorance with understanding. He believed in a 
higher calling for America. In his famous ``I Have a Dream'' speech at 
the Lincoln Memorial in 1963, he called on America to live up to its 
creed, that all men were created equal. America heeded his call by 
passing landmark civil rights legislation in 1958 and 1964. For his 
work, he received the Novel Peace Prize in 1964. At 35 years old, Dr. 
King was the youngest recipient of the Peace Prize.
  Today, our Nation is a better place than it was just 40 years ago. It 
is truly remarkable how much this nation has changed in the lifetimes 
of virtually everyone currently serving in the Senate. Our nation has 
made great strides forward, but race relations in our country are not 
perfect. But we are working to get there.
  A nineteenth century rabbi named Zadok Rabinwitz said that ``A man's 
dreams are an index to his greatness.'' Dr. King had a dream. His dream 
is becoming our nation's reality. By any measure his dreams were great 
and they made a great Nation even greater. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Martin Luther King, Jr. Commemorative Coin Act of 2003.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Conrad, Mr. 
        Baucus, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 378. A bill to recruit and retain more qualified individuals to 
teach in Tribal Colleges or Universities; to the Committee on Indian 
Affairs.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, our tribal colleges and universities have 
come to play a critically important role in educating Native Americans 
across the country. For more than 30 years, these institutions have 
proven instrumental in providing a quality education for those who had 
previously been failed by our mainstream educational system. Before the 
tribal college movement began, only six or seven out of 100 Native 
American students attended college. Of those few, only one or two would 
graduate with a degree. Since these institutions have curricula that is 
culturally relevant and is often focused on a tribe's particular 
philosophy, culture, language and economic needs, they have a high 
success rate in educating Native American people.
  I had the honor today of meeting with students, faculty and 
presidents from South Dakota's tribal colleges to talk about the 
educational needs of Native Americans and the role tribal colleges play 
in strengthening tribal communities. It, like so many of the meetings I 
have had with representatives of tribal colleges, was a fascinating 
conversation. I am consistently impressed by the enduring spirit, sense 
of community and hope for a better quality of life that these 
institutions support. After meeting these students and educators, I 
have no doubt that the future of Indian Country is in good hands.
  The results of a tribal college education are impressive. Recent 
studies show that 91 percent of 1998 tribal college and university 
graduates are working or pursuing additional education one year after 
graduating. In addition, the unemployment rate of recently polled 
tribal college graduates was 15 percent, compared to 55 percent on many 
reservations overall.
  While tribal colleges and universities have been highly successful in 
helping Native Americans obtain a higher education, many challenges 
remain to ensure the future success of these institutions. These 
schools rely heavily on Federal resources to provide educational 
opportunities for all students. As a result, I strongly support efforts 
to provide additional funding to these colleges through the Interior, 
Agriculture and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
Appropriations bills.
  In addition to resource constraints, administrators have expressed a 
particular frustration over the difficulty they experience in 
attracting qualified individuals to teach at tribal colleges. 
Geographic isolation and low faculty salaries have made recruitment and 
retention particularly difficult for many of these schools. This 
problem is increasing as enrollment rises.
  That is why I am introducing the Tribal College and University 
Teacher Loan Forgiveness Act. This legislation will provide loan 
forgiveness to individuals who commit to teach for up to five years in 
one of the 34 tribal colleges nationwide. Individuals who have Perkins, 
Direct, or Guaranteed loans may qualify to receive up to $15,000 in 
loan forgiveness. This program will provide these schools extra help in 
attracting qualified teachers, and thus help ensure that deserving 
students receive a high quality education.
  This measure will benefit individual students and their communities. 
By providing greater opportunities for Native American students to 
develop skills and expertise, this bill will spur economic growth and 
help bring prosperity and self-sufficiency to communities that 
desperately need it. Native Americans and the tribal college system 
deserve nothing less. I believe our responsibility was probably best 
summed up by one of my state's greatest leaders, Sitting Bull. He once 
said, ``Let us put our minds together and see what life we can make for 
our children.''
  I am pleased that Senator's Baucus, Bingaman, Conrad, Johnson, and 
Kohl are original cosponsors of this bill, and I look forward to 
working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Tribal College and 
University Teacher Loan Forgiveness Act be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 378

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

[[Page 3677]]



     SECTION 1. LOAN REPAYMENT OR CANCELLATION FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO 
                   TEACH IN TRIBAL COLLEGES OR UNIVERSITIES.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Tribal 
     Colleges and Universities Teacher Loan Forgiveness Act''.
       (b) Perkins Loans.--
       (1) Amendment.--Section 465(a) of the Higher Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087ee(a)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (H), by striking ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (ii) in subparagraph (I), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(J) as a full-time teacher at a Tribal College or 
     University as defined in section 316(b).''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3)(A)(i), by striking ``or (I)'' and 
     inserting ``(I), or (J)''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
     shall be effective for service performed during academic year 
     1998-1999 and succeeding academic years, notwithstanding any 
     contrary provision of the promissory note under which a loan 
     under part E of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1087aa et seq.) was made.
       (c) FFEL and Direct Loans.--Part G of title IV of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1088 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 493C. LOAN REPAYMENT OR CANCELLATION FOR INDIVIDUALS 
                   WHO TEACH IN TRIBAL COLLEGES OR UNIVERSITIES.

       ``(a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary shall carry out a 
     program, through the holder of a loan, of assuming or 
     canceling the obligation to repay a qualified loan amount, in 
     accordance with subsection (b), for any new borrower on or 
     after the date of enactment of the Tribal Colleges and 
     Universities Teacher Loan Forgiveness Act, who--
       ``(1) has been employed as a full-time teacher at a Tribal 
     College or University as defined in section 316(b); and
       ``(2) is not in default on a loan for which the borrower 
     seeks repayment or cancellation.
       ``(b) Qualified Loan Amounts.--
       ``(1) Percentages.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     shall assume or cancel the obligation to repay under this 
     section--
       ``(A) 15 percent of the amount of all loans made, insured, 
     or guaranteed after the date of enactment of the Tribal 
     Colleges and Universities Teacher Loan Forgiveness Act to a 
     student under part B or D, for the first or second year of 
     employment described in subsection (a)(1);
       ``(B) 20 percent of such total amount, for the third or 
     fourth year of such employment; and
       ``(C) 30 percent of such total amount, for the fifth year 
     of such employment.
       ``(2) Maximum.--The Secretary shall not repay or cancel 
     under this section more than $15,000 in the aggregate of 
     loans made, insured, or guaranteed under parts B and D for 
     any student.
       ``(3) Treatment of consolidation loans.--A loan amount for 
     a loan made under section 428C may be a qualified loan amount 
     for the purposes of this subsection only to the extent that 
     such loan amount was used to repay a loan made, insured, or 
     guaranteed under part B or D for a borrower who meets the 
     requirements of subsection (a), as determined in accordance 
     with regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
       ``(c) Regulations.--The Secretary is authorized to issue 
     such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of this section.
       ``(d) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to authorize any refunding of any repayment of a 
     loan.
       ``(e) Prevention of Double Benefits.--No borrower may, for 
     the same service, receive a benefit under both this section 
     and subtitle D of title I of the National and Community 
     Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12571 et seq.).
       ``(f) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `year', when applied to employment as a teacher, means an 
     academic year as defined by the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 2. AMOUNTS FORGIVEN NOT TREATED AS GROSS INCOME.

       The amount of any loan that is assumed or canceled under an 
     amendment made by this Act shall not, consistent with section 
     108(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, be treated as 
     gross income for Federal income tax purposes.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Thomas):
  S. 379. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
improve the medicare incentive payment program; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today 
with Senators Thomas, Lincoln, and Johnson entitled ``The Medicare 
Incentive Payment Program Improvement Act of 2003'' is designed to 
improve the flow of needed bonus payments to physicians serving 
Medicare patients in Health Professions Shortage Areas, HPSA.
  The Medicare Incentive Payment Program, MIPP, created by the Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, was meant to assist physicians in 
defraying the higher costs and burdens of serving Medicare patients in 
shortage areas. Rural areas are know to suffer from physician 
shortages, both primary care and specialty physicians. In fact, even 
though 20 percent of America lives in a rural area, less than 11 
percent of physicians in the U.S., practice in rural areas.
  In my own State, the ongoing loss of physicians from underserved 
areas has affected both primary care and in particular, specialty 
services. In many areas, the shortage of specialists exceeds that of 
the primary care physicians. The New Mexico Health Policy Commission 
reported in its year 2000 report that 22 percent of residents in Los 
Alamos and Santa Fe were unable to receive needed specialist care.
  While the national ratio of physicians per population is 198 doctors 
per 100,000 persons, New Mexico ranks 33rd in the country with only 170 
physicians per 100,000 population. We are not in a position to ``grow 
our own doctors'' either as New Mexico ranks 37th among the 46 States 
with medical schools in graduating physicians per capita.
  New Mexico, like many other States with large numbers health 
profession shortage areas, or HPSAs, must rely on its ability to 
recruit and retain physicians in underserved areas to meet the health 
care needs of its citizens. It was the original intent of the MIPP to 
do this, by allowing for physicians in underserved areas to receive an 
additional 10 percent add-on in payments for services rendered. These 
10 percent ``bonuses'' are meant to be an essential component in our 
ongoing effort to ensure Medicare beneficiaries access to medical 
services, particularly in underserved areas.
  Unfortunately, the Medicare Incentive Payment Program has fared 
poorly, with few providers choosing to receive the payments. In fact, 
the total annual physician payments have never exceeded $100 million, 
because of a series of disincentives in the legislation.
  The program requires a provider to do a number of things to obtain 
the bonus payments. First, providers must be aware that MIPP payments 
are available to them. Many providers are unaware of the program's 
existence. Next, physicians must find out if the patient's medical care 
occurred in a shortage area. Following this, a unique code must be 
attached to the Medicare claim, which is then forwarded to the carrier. 
Finally, after all these steps, providers are subjected to automatic 
Medicare audits, just for applying for the very payments for which they 
are eligible.
  Providers committed to serving Medicare patients in underserved areas 
deserve the support assured by the original legislation's intent.
  The Medicare Incentive Payment Improvement Act of 2003 addresses and 
improves shortcomings in the original legislation by: Placing the 
burden for determining the bonus eligibility on the Medicare carrier. 
Eliminating automatic provider audits. Directing the Center for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services to establish a Medicare Incentive 
Payment Program Educational Program for Providers. Establishing an 
ongoing analysis of the programs, ability to improve Medicare 
beneficiaries' access to physician services. Continue to provide the 
original 10 percent add-on bonus for Part B physician payments in 
Health Provider Shortage Areas.
  Medicare carriers are the logical arbiters to determine whether 
physician services occurred in a shortage area. Physicians, already 
overworked, lack sufficient time, resources and training to research 
and determine whether a service was provided in a HPSA. By placing the 
responsibility on carriers, with their sophisticated information 
systems, the physician's administrative burdens will be reduced.
  The automatic audits triggered by this program, which are costly, 
time intensive, and unwarranted, will be lifted under our legislation. 
By placing the responsibility on carriers to determine payment 
eligibility the need for provider audits is eliminated.
  While the MIPP program is intended to improve beneficiaries' access 
to physician services, there is no measure of

[[Page 3678]]

the program's effect on physician availability. The legislation offered 
today directs CMS to perform an ongoing analysis as to whether these 
payments actually do improve beneficiaries' access to physician 
services.
  I believe these improvements, in addition to others listed above, 
will greatly improve patient's access to care.
  The following organizations have expressed support for this 
legislation: American College of Physicians/American Society of 
Internal Medicine, and the National Rural Health Association.
  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. 379

       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 ``Medicare Incentive Payment 
     Program Improvement Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. PROCEDURES FOR SECRETARY, AND NOT PHYSICIANS, TO 
                   DETERMINE WHEN BONUS PAYMENTS UNDER MEDICARE 
                   INCENTIVE PAYMENT PROGRAM SHOULD BE MADE.

       Section 1833(m) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395l(m)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(m)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) The Secretary shall establish procedures under which 
     the Secretary, and not the physician furnishing the service, 
     is responsible for determining when a payment is required to 
     be made under paragraph (1).''.

     SEC. 3. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM REGARDING THE MEDICARE INCENTIVE 
                   PAYMENT PROGRAM.

       The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish 
     and implement an ongoing educational program to provide 
     education to physicians under the medicare program on the 
     medicare incentive payment program under section 1833(m) of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(m)).

     SEC. 4. ONGOING STUDY AND ANNUAL REPORT ON THE MEDICARE 
                   INCENTIVE PAYMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) Ongoing Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall conduct an ongoing study on the medicare 
     incentive payment program under section 1833(m) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(m)). Such study shall focus on 
     whether such program increases the access of medicare 
     beneficiaries who reside in an area that is designated (under 
     section 332(a)(1)(A) of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 254e(a)(1)(A))) as a health professional shortage area 
     to physicians' services under the medicare program.
       (b) Annual Reports.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the study conducted under subsection 
     (a), together with recommendations for such legislation and 
     administrative actions as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Carper, and Mr. Brownback):
  S. 380. A bill to amend chapter 83 of title 5, United States Code, to 
reform the funding of benefits under the Civil Service Retirement 
System for employees of the United States Postal Service, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today, I rise to offer to the Senate some 
good news for our mailers and, indeed, anyone who uses the United 
States Postal Service. The USPS, which has been losing significant 
amounts of money in recent years despite repeated increases in postage 
rates, has determined that its finances are in better order than 
previously thought. If Congress acts expeditiously on legislation that 
I am introducing today along with my colleague, Senator Carper, the 
Postal Service will avoid an imminent rate hike.
  In recent years, the United States Postal Service has been raising 
postal rates at a rapid pace. When the USPS last raised rates in 2002, 
it was the third such rate increase during an 18-month period. Such 
steep, irregular rate increases make it very difficult for businesses 
to plan for their postal costs. This is a particular problem for 
catalog companies and magazine publishers, which set their prices in 
advance based on assumptions about postal rates. Mailing costs for some 
smaller catalog businesses, I am told, now can exceed production costs.
  In so many ways, postage rate increases have a significant economic 
impact. As rates increase, so do the costs Americans bear to send 
letters, mail packages, and pay their bills. Rate increases also raise 
the cost of goods, which, of course, reflect not only the cost to ship 
but also the cost to advertise by mail.
  But rate increases reflect the price of maintaining an ever-expanding 
postal network and the infrastructure to sustain it. Each year, the 
Postal Service adds 1.7 million new addresses. This equates to 4,800 
new letter carriers making deliveries to over 513 million new delivery 
stops each year, all while maintaining one of the lowest first-class 
letter rates in the world.
  In addition to providing a critical service to individual postal 
patrons, the Postal Service is a powerful economic engine. The USPS is 
the eleventh largest enterprise in the Nation with $66 billion in 
annual revenue, more than Microsoft, McDonald's and Coca Cola combined. 
While the Postal Service itself employs more than 700,000 career 
employees, it is also the linchpin of a $900 billion mailing industry 
that employs nine million Americans in fields as diverse as direct 
mailing, printing and paper production.
  That is why the deteriorating state of the United States Postal 
Service's finances has been a source of great concern to many of us. 
After several years of large losses, the USPS has been slowly 
approaching its statutory borrowing limit of $15 billion.
  A few months ago, however, the Office of Personnel Management 
discovered that the USPS will dramatically over-fund its contributions 
to the Civil Service Retirement Fund unless the law is changed. After 
having based the Postal Service's annual contributions on the 
assumption that it had an actuarial deficit of $32 billion, OPM 
discovered instead that the USPS's CSRS deficit was actually only $5 
billion. The difference is primarily due to higher than expected yields 
on pension investments by the Department of the Treasury. If the USPS 
continues to fund the CSRS at its current pace, it will over-fund its 
CSRS liability by $78 billion.
  If Congress approves the changes to the payment schedule as my bill 
provides, the Postal Service's CSRS retirement expense would be reduced 
by $2.9 billion in fiscal year 2003 and another $2.8 billion in fiscal 
year 2004. The USPS would be able to reduce its debt by more than $3 
billion in fiscal year 2003, and anticipated rate increases would be 
delayed until at least 2006, ushering in an era of stable and 
predictable postal rates.
  My initial response upon hearing this good news was one of pleasant 
surprise but mixed, I admit, with a healthy dose of skepticism. As the 
old saying goes, ``if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.'' 
However, the Office of Management and Budget, as well as the U.S. 
Treasury Department, have confirmed OPM's analysis. Further, having 
spoken with experts outside the government as well, I have become 
satisfied that this situation represents a rare exception to the rule.
  That is why Senator Carper and I today introduce the Postal Civil 
Service Retirement System Funding Act of 2003. Our bill will correct 
the statutory funding mechanism for the Civil Service Retirement 
System, CSRS. This legislation is necessary to prevent the overpayment 
of retirement contributions by the U.S. Postal Service. Most important, 
this bill directs OPM to determine a new amortization schedule that 
will pay off the Postal Service's existing unfunded CSRS liability of 
$5 billion.
  In addition, the legislation requires that the savings resulting from 
this Act be used to reduce the postal debt in a manner that the 
Secretary of Treasury shall specify. It also expresses the sense of 
Congress that the Postal Service should use these savings to fulfill 
its commitment to hold postal rates unchanged until at least 2006, to 
begin to pay a portion of their massive unfunded health care 
liabilities, and that the savings not be used to pay bonuses to Postal 
Service executives.
  The USPS needs other changes as well, something acknowledged by 
everyone inside and outside the Postal Service. I was pleased that 
President

[[Page 3679]]

Bush appointed a Commission on the U.S. Postal Service that is modeled 
along the principles outlined in legislation I introduced last year. I 
am hopeful that when the Commission reports this summer, it will 
provide us with a blueprint to ensure that our postal system is ready 
to serve twenty-first century America as ably as it has served us in 
the past. I look forward to receiving the Commission's report and any 
recommendations for legislation it may include.
  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. 380

       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 ``Postal Civil Service 
     Retirement System Funding Reform Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 8331 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (17)--
       (A) by striking ``normal cost'' the first place that term 
     appears and inserting ``normal cost percentage''; and
       (B) by inserting ``and standards (using dynamic 
     assumptions)'' after ``practice'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (18) and inserting the following:
       ``(18) `Fund balance'--
       ``(A) means the current net assets of the Fund available 
     for payment of benefits, as determined by the Office in 
     accordance with appropriate accounting standards; and
       ``(B) shall not include any amount attributable to--
       ``(i) the Federal Employees' Retirement System; or
       ``(ii) contributions made under the Federal Employees' 
     Retirement Contribution Temporary Adjustment Act of 1983 by 
     or on behalf of any individual who became subject to the 
     Federal Employees' Retirement System;'';
       (3) in paragraph (27), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (4) in paragraph (28), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(29) `dynamic assumptions' means economic assumptions 
     that are used in determining actuarial costs and liabilities 
     of a retirement system and in anticipating the effects of 
     long-term future--
       ``(A) investment yields;
       ``(B) increases in rates of basic pay; and
       ``(C) rates of price inflation.''.
       (b) Deductions, Contributions, and Deposits.--Section 8334 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking the 
     matter following the section heading through paragraph (1) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(a)(1)(A) The employing agency shall deduct and withhold 
     from the basic pay of an employee, Member, congressional 
     employee, law enforcement officer, firefighter, bankruptcy 
     judge, judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the 
     Armed Forces, United States magistrate judge, Court of 
     Federal Claims judge, member of the Capitol Police, member of 
     the Supreme Court Police, or nuclear materials courier, as 
     the case may be, the percentage of basic pay applicable under 
     subsection (c).
       ``(B)(i) Except in the case of an employee of the United 
     States Postal Service, an equal amount shall be contributed 
     from the appropriation or fund used to pay the employee or, 
     in the case of an elected official, from an appropriation or 
     fund available for payment of other salaries of the same 
     office or establishment. When an employee in the legislative 
     branch is paid by the Chief Administrative Officer of the 
     House of Representatives, the Chief Administrative Officer 
     may pay from the applicable accounts of the House of 
     Representatives the contribution that otherwise would be 
     contributed from the appropriation or fund used to pay the 
     employee.
       ``(ii) In the case of an employee of the United States 
     Postal Service, an amount shall be contributed from the 
     appropriation or fund used to pay the employee equal to the 
     difference between--
       ``(I) the product of--
       ``(aa) the basic pay of that employee; and
       ``(bb) the normal cost percentage applicable to the 
     employee category of that employee under paragraph (1)(A); 
     and
       ``(II) the product of--
       ``(aa) the basic pay of that employee; and
       ``(bb) the percentage applicable to that employee under 
     subsection (c) deducted from basic pay under paragraph 
     (1)(A).''.
       (c) Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.--
       (1) In general.--Section 8348 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking subsection (h) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(h)(1)(A) In this subsection, the term `Postal 
     supplemental liability' means the estimated excess, as 
     determined by the Office of Personnel Management, of the 
     difference between--
       ``(i) the actuarial present value of all future benefits 
     payable from the Fund under this subchapter attributable to 
     the service of current or former employees of the United 
     States Postal Service; and
       ``(ii) the sum of--
       ``(I) the actuarial present value of deductions to be 
     withheld from the future basic pay of employees of the United 
     States Postal Service currently subject to this subchapter 
     under section 8334;
       ``(II) the actuarial present value of the future 
     contributions to be made under section 8334 with respect to 
     employees of the United States Postal Service currently 
     subject to this subchapter;
       ``(III) that portion of the Fund balance, as of the date 
     the Postal supplemental liability is determined, attributable 
     to payments to the Fund by the United States Postal Service 
     and employees of the United States Postal Service, including 
     earnings on those payments; and
       ``(IV) any other appropriate amount, as determined by the 
     Office in accordance with generally accepted actuarial 
     practices and principles.
       ``(B)(i) In computing the actuarial present value of future 
     benefits, the Office shall include the full value of benefits 
     attributable to military and volunteer service for United 
     States Postal Service employees first employed after June 30, 
     1971, and a prorated share of the value of benefits 
     attributable to military and volunteer service for United 
     States Postal Service employees first employed before July 1, 
     1971.
       ``(ii) Military service included in the computation under 
     clause (i) shall not be included in computation of the 
     payment required under subsection (g)(2).
       ``(2)(A) Not later than June 30, 2004, the Office of 
     Personnel Management shall determine the Postal supplemental 
     liability, as of September 30, 2003. The Office shall 
     establish an amortization schedule, including a series of 
     equal annual installments commencing September 30, 2004, 
     which provides for the liquidation of such liability by 
     September 30, 2043.
       ``(B) The Office shall redetermine the Postal supplemental 
     liability as of the close of the fiscal year, for each fiscal 
     year beginning after September 30, 2003, through the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2038, and shall establish a new 
     amortization schedule, including a series of equal annual 
     installments commencing on September 30 of the subsequent 
     fiscal year, which provides for the liquidation of such 
     liability by September 30, 2043.
       ``(C) The Office shall redetermine the Postal supplemental 
     liability as of the close of the fiscal year for each fiscal 
     year beginning after September 30, 2038, and shall establish 
     a new amortization schedule, including a series of equal 
     annual installments commencing on September 30 of the 
     subsequent fiscal year, which provides for the liquidation of 
     such liability over 5 years.
       ``(D) Amortization schedules established under this 
     paragraph shall be set in accordance with generally accepted 
     actuarial practices and principles, with interest computed at 
     the rate used in the most recent valuation of the Civil 
     Service Retirement System.
       ``(E) The United States Postal Service shall pay the 
     amounts determined under this paragraph for deposit in the 
     Fund, with payments due not later than the date scheduled by 
     the Office.
       ``(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in 
     computing the amount of any payment under any provision other 
     than this subsection that is based upon the amount of the 
     unfunded liability, such payment shall be computed 
     disregarding that portion of the unfunded liability that the 
     Office determines will be liquidated by payments under this 
     subsection.''.
       (2) Technical and conforming amendment.--Section 8334 of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     subsection (m).
       (d) Other Payments.--
       (1) In general.--Section 7101(c) of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1990 (5 U.S.C. 8348 note; Public Law 
     101-508; 104 Stat. 1388-331) is repealed.
       (2) Effect on prior payments.--The repeal under paragraph 
     (1) shall have no effect on payments made under the repealed 
     provisions before the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. DISPOSITION OF SAVINGS ACCRUING TO THE UNITED STATES 
                   POSTAL SERVICE.

       (a) In General.--Savings accruing to the United States 
     Postal Service as a result of the enactment of this Act shall 
     be used to reduce the postal debt to such extent and in such 
     manner as the Secretary of the Treasury shall specify, 
     consistent with succeeding provisions of this section.
       (b) Amounts Saved.--
       (1) In general.--The amounts representing any savings 
     accruing to the Postal Service in any fiscal year as a result 
     of the enactment of this Act shall be computed by the Office 
     of Personnel Management in accordance with paragraph (2).
       (2) Methodology.--Not later than July 31, 2003, for fiscal 
     year 2003, and October 1 of the fiscal year before each 
     fiscal year beginning after September 30, 2003, and before 
     the date specified in paragraph (4), the Office of Personnel 
     Management shall--
       (A) formulate a plan specifically enumerating the methods 
     by which the Office shall

[[Page 3680]]

     make its computations under paragraph (1); and
       (B) submit such plan to the Committee on Government Reform 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate.
       (3) Requirements.--Each such plan shall be formulated in 
     consultation with the Postal Service and shall include the 
     opportunity for the Postal Service to request reconsideration 
     of computations under this subsection, and for the Board of 
     Actuaries of the Civil Service Retirement System to review 
     and make adjustments to such computations, to the same extent 
     and in the same manner as provided under section 8423(c) of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (4) Duration.--Nothing in this subsection or subsection (a) 
     shall be considered to apply with respect to any fiscal year 
     beginning on or after October 1, 2007.
       (c) Reporting Requirement.--The Postal Service shall 
     include in each report which is rendered under section 2402 
     of title 39, United States Code, and which relates to any 
     period after the date of the enactment of this Act and before 
     the date specified in subsection (b)(4), the amount applied 
     toward reducing the postal debt, and the size of the postal 
     debt before and after the application of subsection (a), 
     during the period covered by such report.
       (d) Postal Debt Defined.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term ``postal debt'' means the outstanding obligations of the 
     Postal Service, as determined under chapter 20 of title 39, 
     United States Code.
       (e) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) the savings accruing to the Postal Service as a result 
     of the enactment of this Act will be sufficient to allow the 
     Postal Service to fulfill its commitment to hold postage 
     rates unchanged until at least 2006;
       (2) because the Postal Service still faces substantial 
     obligations related to postretirement health benefits for its 
     current and former employees, some portion of the savings 
     referred to in paragraph (1) should be used to address those 
     unfunded obligations; and
       (3) none of the savings referred to in paragraph (1) should 
     be used to pay bonuses to Postal Service executives.
       (f) Report Relating to Unfunded Healthcare Costs.--
       (1) In general.--The United States Postal Service shall, by 
     December 31, 2003, in consultation with the General 
     Accounting Office, prepare and submit to the President and 
     the Congress a report describing how the Postal Service 
     proposes to address its obligations relating to unfunded 
     postretirement healthcare costs of current and former postal 
     employees.
       (2) President's commission.--In preparing its report under 
     this subsection, the Postal Service should consider the 
     report of the President's Commission on the United States 
     Postal Service under section 5 of Executive Order 13278 (67 
     Fed. Reg. 76672).
       (3) GAO review and report.--Not later than 30 days after 
     the Postal Service submits its report pursuant to paragraph 
     (1), the General Accounting Office shall prepare and submit a 
     written evaluation of such report to the Committee on 
     Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate.
       (g) Determination and Disposition of Surplus.--
       (1) In general.--If, as of the date under paragraph (2), 
     the Office of Personnel Management determines (after 
     consultation with the Postmaster General) that the 
     computation under section 8348(h)(1)(A) of title 5, United 
     States Code, yields a negative amount (hereinafter referred 
     to as a ``surplus'')--
       (A) the Office shall inform the Postmaster General of its 
     determination, including the size of the surplus so 
     determined; and
       (B) the Postmaster General shall submit to the Congress a 
     report describing how the Postal Service proposes that such 
     surplus be used, including a draft of any legislation that 
     might be necessary.
       (2) Determination date.--The date to be used for purposes 
     of paragraph (1) shall be September 30, 2025, or such earlier 
     date as, in the judgment of the Office, is the date by which 
     all postal employees under the Civil Service Retirement 
     System will have retired.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--This Act shall take effect on the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Application.--Section 8334(a)(1)(B)(ii) of title 5, 
     United States Code (as added by section 2(b) of this Act), 
     shall apply only with respect to pay periods beginning on or 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. CARPER. I am pleased today to be able to join my friend from 
Maine, the chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee, in introducing 
the Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act of 2003. 
This bill is of vital interest to the future of the Postal Service and 
enjoys the strong support of postal management, postal employees and 
postal customers.
  According to OPM and GAO, the Postal Service will significantly 
overfund its obligations to its employees enrolled in the Civil Service 
Retirement System if it continues paying at the current rate. The 
Reform Act addresses this by reducing the amount of money the Postal 
Service is required to pay into CSRS each year to reflect a more 
accurate estimate of its obligations that has been prepared by OPM. In 
the current fiscal year, this will reduce the Postal Service's annual 
CSRS payment by nearly $3 billion. These savings, and savings of 
similar size projected for future years, will be used to retire a 
portion of the Postal Service's $11.1 billion debt to Treasury. The 
Postal Service had previously only been able to budget $800 million for 
debt reduction this fiscal year.
  Most importantly, the savings the Postal Service will enjoy if the 
Reform Act becomes law will allow it to hold the price of postage 
steady until at least 2006. This is important because, while what the 
Postal Service charges for its services is still a bargain when 
compared to the prices charged by most foreign posts, postal customers 
have absorbed multiple rate increases in recent months that have raised 
the price of postage by more than the rate of inflation. At a time when 
the economy is weak and modes of communication like e-mail and 
electronic bill pay are more popular than ever, another rate increase 
this year could be a disaster for the Postal Service. If the price of 
postage goes up again in 2004, as I expect it to if the Reform Act is 
not enacted, the Postal Service will likely lose a good deal of 
business. Companies will be more aggressive in encouraging their 
customers to communicate with them online. Large mailers will reduce 
volume and let workers go. Everyday users of the mail will be forced to 
bear another large spike in the price of a first-class stamp. All of 
this would come at a time when the Postal Service is predicting an 
increase in volume for the first time in quite a while. The Reform Act 
will keep mail in the system and give mailers the opportunity to 
increase the amount of business they do with the Postal Service.
  The Reform Act, however, does not remove the Postal Service's 
obligation to continue on the modernization program begun under 
Postmaster General Jack Potter. General Potter came on the job at a 
difficult time for the Postal Service but has led them in a successful 
effort to streamline operations, taking billions of dollars in costs 
out of the system without hurting service. That process needs to 
continue.
  The Reform Act also does not eliminate the need for the Postal 
Service to deal with the future cost of retiree health benefits. These 
costs are estimated at about $50 billion. The Postal Service funds them 
now on a pay-as-you-go basis, meaning they are not reflected in the 
price of postage today. If not addressed soon, these costs will be 
pushed on to future ratepayers, forcing the Postal Service to begin 
raising rates dramatically once the baby boom generation begins to 
retire. Some of the savings the Postal Service will enjoy if the Reform 
Act becomes law should be used to prevent this from happening.
  Finally, the Reform Act does not remove Congress's obligation to 
enact postal reform legislation this year that will help the Postal 
Service and General Potter continue the transformation necessary to 
make the Postal Service viable in the electronic age. President Bush's 
Commission on the United States Postal Service will release a set of 
postal reform proposals this summer that I hope will offer some fair, 
balanced recommendations that we can use to begin drafting legislation. 
I plan to put forward a proposal of my own this year that maintains 
universal service and current delivery standards while giving the 
Postal Service the kind of flexibility its private sector competitors 
have to set prices and cut costs. I look forward to working with 
Chairman Collins and all of my colleagues on the Governmental Affairs 
Committee in getting a postal reform bill signed into law during the 
108th Congress.
  In closing, I would like to briefly address some of the similarities 
between the Reform Act and the Managerial

[[Page 3681]]

Flexibility Act President Bush proposed during the 107th Congress and 
make an important distinction between the two proposals. Like the 
Managerial Flexibility Act would have done for all Federal agencies, 
the Reform Act makes the Postal Service responsible for benefits due to 
its CSRS enrollees as a result of prior military service and amortizes 
its unfunded CSRS obligations over a period of 40 years. The Managerial 
Flexibility Act also would have required Federal agencies to begin 
funding their retiree health benefits on a cost accrual basis, 
something the Postal Service should be able to do if the Reform Act 
becomes law and it begins to see some savings. This kind of accounting 
makes sense in the case of the Postal Service, which by law must be 
self-sufficient and must pay its employees' pension and health costs 
through the price of postage. The utility of requiring all Federal 
agencies to account for their employees' retirement costs in this way 
is not clear to me. As CBO points out in its January 23rd evaluation of 
the version of the Reform Act proposed by OPM late last year, 
recognizing the accrual cost of agency retirement benefits by mandating 
payments between agencies and the Treasury does not provide the 
government with the resources necessary to make future payments when 
they come due and does not lessen the burden on future taxpayers to pay 
them. In the case of the Postal Service, however, the kind of 
accounting contained in the Managerial Flexibility Act will give postal 
customers, who must plan how much they mail in future years based on 
how much they anticipate postage will cost, a more realistic idea of 
what the Postal Service's future costs of doing business will be.
  If the Reform Act is not enacted before April 1st, the Postal Service 
will need to assume that they will be required to make the large CSRS 
payment required of them under current law, forcing them to file the 
rate case they have been preparing. This will force mailers to begin 
litigating the case, meaning they will begin spending resources paying 
lawyers instead using the mail. I call on my colleagues to act quickly 
on the Reform Act to prevent this from happening.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. 
        Inouye, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Warner, 
        Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. Talent):
  S. 382. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for coverage of cardiovascular screening tests under the 
medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing today the 
Medicare Cholesterol Screening Coverage Act of 2003, along with my 
colleagues, Senators Campbell, Bingaman, Inouye, Lincoln, Landrieu, 
Warner, Johnson, Cantwell and Talent. Companion legislation is being 
introduced in the House of Representatives today by Representative Dave 
Camp and Representative William Jefferson.
  I think it is appropriate to be introducing this bill during 
``American Heart Month.'' For the last 40 years, Congress and the 
President have recognized American Heart Month because of the need to 
continue the fight against heart disease--our country's #1 killer and a 
leading cause of disability. Cardiovascular diseases take an enormous 
human and financial toll on our Nation. Every 33 seconds, an American 
dies from cardiovascular disease. About 41 percent of deaths each year 
are from cardiovascular diseases--more than the next 6 leading causes 
of death combined. Adding cholesterol screening testing to the menu of 
preventive services already covered by Medicare is yet another step we 
can and should take in the fight against these insidious diseases.
  Cardiovascular diseases account for one-third of all of Medicare's 
spending for hospitalizations. Yet the identification of one of the 
major, changeable risk factors for cardiovascular disease--high levels 
of cholesterol--is not covered by Medicare.
  The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the American Heart 
Association recommend that all Americans over the age of 20 have their 
cholesterol levels tested at least once every five years. But when an 
American turns 65 and enters the Medicare program, their coverage for 
cholesterol screening stops. That is just not right.
  Adding a cholesterol screening benefit to Medicare is a common-sense, 
cost-effective step. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this 
benefit would cost only $20 million a year--a small fraction of the $26 
billion that Medicare spends each year for hospitalizations of patients 
with cardiovascular diseases.
  I am pleased that language similar to my bill was included in S. 
3018, bipartisan Medicare legislation introduced last fall by the 
leaders of the Finance Committee, Senators Grassley and Baucus. 
Unfortunately, however, the Senate did not act on this bill before 
adjourning last year.
  I hope Congress will act soon to provide Medicare coverage of 
cholesterol screening, and I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this 
bill.
  Another way my colleagues can help in the fight against heart disease 
is by joining the Congressional Heart and Stroke Coalition. The 
Congressional Heart and Stroke Coalition was founded in 1996 and I am 
honored to serve as one of its co-founders and co-chairs. Since its 
inception, this bicameral, bipartisan Coalition has grown to nearly 200 
Members.
  Its purpose is to raise awareness among Congress and the public about 
heart attack, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases and to support 
public policies to prevent, treat, and ultimately cure these diseases. 
I encourage those Members who have not already joined the Congressional 
Heart and Stroke Coalition to do so.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to add a cholesterol 
screening benefit for Medicare beneficiaries and to make progress in 
the fight against cardiovascular diseases.
  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. 382

       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 ``Medicare Cholesterol 
     Screening Coverage Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF CARDIOVASCULAR SCREENING TESTS.

       (a) Coverage.--Section 1861(s)(2) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (U), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (V)(iii), by inserting ``and'' at the 
     end; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(W) cardiovascular screening tests (as defined in 
     subsection (ww)(1));''.
       (b) Services Described.--Section 1861 of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:

                    ``Cardiovascular Screening Tests

       ``(ww)(1) The term `cardiovascular screening tests' means 
     the following diagnostic tests for the early detection of 
     cardiovascular disease:
       ``(A) Tests for the determination of cholesterol levels.
       ``(B) Tests for the determination of lipid levels of the 
     blood.
       ``(C) Such other tests for cardiovascular disease as the 
     Secretary may approve.
       ``(2)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall 
     establish standards, in consultation with appropriate 
     organizations, regarding the frequency and type of 
     cardiovascular screening tests.
       ``(B) With respect to the frequency of cardiovascular 
     screening tests approved by the Secretary under subparagraph 
     (A), in no case may the frequency of such tests be more often 
     than once every 2 years.''.
       (c) Frequency.--Section 1862(a)(1) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (H);
       (2) by striking the semicolon at the end of subparagraph 
     (I) and inserting ``, and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(J) in the case of a cardiovascular screening test (as 
     defined in section 1861(ww)(1)), which is performed more 
     frequently than is covered under section 1861(ww)(2).''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to tests furnished on or after January 1, 2004.

[[Page 3682]]


                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. STABENOW.
  S. 383. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to prohibit the 
importation of Canadian municipal solid waste without State consent; to 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
address the growing problem of Canadian waste shipments to Michigan.
  In 2001, Michigan imported almost 3.6 million tons of municipal solid 
waste, more than double the amount that was imported in 1999. This 
gives Michigan the unduly distinction of being the third largest 
dumping ground of waste in the United States.
  My colleagues may be surprised to know that the biggest source of 
this waste was not another State, but our neighbor to north, Canada. 
More than half the waste that was shipped to Michigan in 2001 was from 
Ontario, Canada, and these imports are growing rapidly. On January 1, 
2003, as another Ontario landfill closed its doors, the City of Toronto 
switched from shipping two-thirds of its trash, to shipping all of its 
trash--1.1 million tons--to a Michigan landfill. And this deal could 
last 20 years! Experts predict that soon there will be virtually no 
local disposal capacity in Ontario, which could mean even more waste 
being shipped across the border to Michigan.
  Not only does this waste dramatically decrease Michigan's own 
landfill capacity, but it has a tremendous negative impact on 
Michigan's environment and the public health of citizens. Currently, 
Canadian municipal solid waste is sent to landfills in seven different 
Michigan counties--Genesee, Huron, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, Wash-
tenaw, and Wayne counties. Based on current usage statistics, the 
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, DEQ, estimates that 
Michigan has capacity for 15-17 years of disposal in landfills. 
However, with the proposed dramatic increase in importation of waste, 
this capacity is less than 10 years. The Michigan DEQ estimates that 
for every five years of disposal of Canadian waste at the current usage 
volume, Michigan is losing a full year of landfill capacity. The 
Canadian waste also hampers the effectiveness of Michigan's State and 
local recycling efforts, since Ontario does not have a bottle law 
requiring recycling.
  These Canadian waste shipments also present a threat to homeland 
security. Currently, 130 truckloads of waste come into Michigan each 
day from Canada. These trucks cross the Ambassador Bridge and Blue 
Water Bridge and travel through the busiest parts of Metro Detroit. In 
addition to causing traffic delays, and filling our air with the stench 
of exhaust and garbage, these trucks also present a security risk at 
our Michigan-Canadian border, since by their nature trucks full of 
garbage are harder for Customs agent to inspects then traditional 
cargo.
  Last year, I joined with Senator Levin and Congressman Dingell to 
introduce legislation to enforce the protections that Michigan is 
already entitled to which are contained in an international agreement 
between the United States and Canada. I continue to be supportive of 
this bill and I was proud to join as an original co-sponsor when it was 
reintroduced last month. However, with the recent landfill closings in 
Ontario, this problem has spiraled out of control.
  That is why today I am introducing ``the Canadian Waste Import Ban 
Act of 2003.'' This bill would stop these shipments by placing an 
immediate federal ban on the importation of Canadian municipal solid 
waste. The ban will be in place until the EPA enforces ``the Agreement 
Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste.'' Under this 
existing agreement, the EPA is supposed to receive notification of 
Canadian waste shipments, and then would have 30 days to consent or 
object to the shipment. Not only have these notification provisions not 
been enforced, but the EPA has indicated that they would not object to 
the municipal waste shipments.
  In addition, the bill requires the EPA to Michigan's or any State's 
consent before receiving any shipment of Canadian municipal solid 
waste. In enforcing the agreement, the EPA must obtain the consent of 
the receiving State, before consenting to a Canadian municipal solid 
waste shipment. The EPA must also consider the impact of the shipment 
on homeland security, the environment, and public health.
  This legislation will stop the importation of Canadian trash until 
Michigan residents are given the voice they deserve in deciding whether 
or not this waste should be sent to their landfills. We need to give 
the states a real voice in these decisions and my bill guarantees that 
the states through the EPA will get to decide whether or not they want 
to receive this Canadian waste. 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. 383

       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 ``Canadian Waste Import Ban 
     Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. CANADIAN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6941 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 4011. CANADIAN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Agreement.--The term `Agreement' means--
       ``(A) the Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement 
     of Hazardous Waste between the United States and Canada, 
     signed at Ottawa on October 28, 1986 (TIAS 11099) and amended 
     on November 25, 1992; and
       ``(B) any regulations promulgated to implement and enforce 
     that Agreement.
       ``(2) Canadian municipal solid waste.--The term `Canadian 
     municipal solid waste' means municipal solid waste that is 
     generated in Canada.
       ``(3) Municipal solid waste.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `municipal solid waste' means--
       ``(i) material discarded for disposal by--

       ``(I) households (including single and multifamily 
     residences); and
       ``(II) public lodgings such as hotels and motels; and

       ``(ii) material discarded for disposal that was generated 
     by commercial, institutional, and industrial sources, to the 
     extent that the material--

       ``(I)(aa) is essentially the same as material described in 
     clause (i); or
       ``(bb) is collected and disposed of with material described 
     in clause (i) as part of a normal municipal solid waste 
     collection service; and
       ``(II) is not subject to regulation under subtitle C.

       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `municipal solid waste' 
     includes--
       ``(i) appliances;
       ``(ii) clothing;
       ``(iii) consumer product packaging;
       ``(iv) cosmetics;
       ``(v) debris resulting from construction, remodeling, 
     repair, or demolition of a structure;
       ``(vi) disposable diapers;
       ``(vii) food containers made of glass or metal;
       ``(viii) food waste;
       ``(ix) household hazardous waste;
       ``(x) office supplies;
       ``(xi) paper; and
       ``(xii) yard waste.
       ``(C) Exclusions.--The term `municipal solid waste' does 
     not include--
       ``(i) solid waste identified or listed as a hazardous waste 
     under section 3001, except for household hazardous waste;
       ``(ii) solid waste, including contaminated soil and debris, 
     resulting from--

       ``(I) a response action taken under section 104 or 106 of 
     the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9604, 9606);
       ``(II) a response action taken under a State law with 
     authorities comparable to the authorities contained in either 
     of those sections; or
       ``(III) a corrective action taken under this Act;

       ``(iii) recyclable material--

       ``(I) that has been separated, at the source of the 
     material, from waste destined for disposal; or
       ``(II) that has been managed separately from waste destined 
     for disposal, including scrap rubber to be used as a fuel 
     source;

       ``(iv) a material or product returned from a dispenser or 
     distributor to the manufacturer or an agent of the 
     manufacturer for credit, evaluation, and possible potential 
     reuse;
       ``(v) solid waste that is--

       ``(I) generated by an industrial facility; and
       ``(II) transported for the purpose of treatment, storage, 
     or disposal to a facility (which facility is in compliance 
     with applicable State and local land use and zoning laws and 
     regulations) or facility unit--

       ``(aa) that is owned or operated by the generator of the 
     waste;

[[Page 3683]]

       ``(bb) that is located on property owned by the generator 
     of the waste or a company with which the generator is 
     affiliated; or
       ``(cc) the capacity of which is contractually dedicated 
     exclusively to a specific generator;
       ``(vi) medical waste that is segregated from or not mixed 
     with solid waste;
       ``(vii) sewage sludge or residuals from a sewage treatment 
     plant;
       ``(viii) combustion ash generated by a resource recovery 
     facility or municipal incinerator; or
       ``(ix) waste from a manufacturing or processing (including 
     pollution control) operation that is not essentially the same 
     as waste normally generated by households.
       ``(b) Ban on Canadian Municipal Solid Waste.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     until the date on which the Administrator promulgates 
     regulations to implement and enforce the Agreement (including 
     notice and consent provisions of the Agreement), no person 
     may import into any State, and no solid waste management 
     facility may accept, Canadian municipal solid waste for the 
     purpose of disposal or incineration of the Canadian municipal 
     solid waste.
       ``(2) Election by governor.--The Governor of a State may 
     elect to opt out of the ban under paragraph (1), and consent 
     to the importation and acceptance by the State of Canadian 
     municipal solid waste before the date specified in that 
     paragraph, if the Governor submits to the Administrator a 
     notice of that election by the Governor.
       ``(c) Authority of Administrator.--
       ``(1) In general.--Beginning immediately after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Administrator shall--
       ``(A) perform the functions of the Designated Authority of 
     the United States described in the Agreement with respect to 
     the importation and exportation of municipal solid waste 
     under the Agreement; and
       ``(B) implement and enforce the Agreement (including notice 
     and consent provisions of the Agreement).
       ``(2) Consent to importation.--In considering whether to 
     consent to the importation of Canadian municipal solid waste 
     under article 3(c) of the Agreement, the Administrator 
     shall--
       ``(A) obtain the consent of each State into which the 
     Canadian municipal solid waste is to be imported; and
       ``(B) consider the impact of the importation on homeland 
     security, public health, and the environment.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents of the 
     Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. prec. 6901) is amended by 
     adding after the item relating to section 4010 the following:

``Sec. 4011. Canadian municipal solid waste.''.

                          ____________________