A bill to exclude United States persons from the definition of "foreign power" under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 relating to international terrorism.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Crane Conservation Act of 2003. I am very pleased that the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, has joined me as a cosponsor of this bill. I propose this legislation in the hope that Congress will do its part to protect the existence of these birds, whose cultural significance and popular appeal can be seen worldwide. This legislation is important to the people of Wisconsin, as our State provides habitat and refuge to several crane species. But this legislation, which authorizes the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to distribute funds and grants to crane conservation efforts both domestically and in developing countries, promises to have a larger environmental and cultural impact that will go far beyond the boundaries of my home State. This bill is similar to legislation that I introduced in the 107th Congress, which was reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee but unfortunately did not receive floor action before the Congress adjourned. I have incorporated many of the changes made to my bill by the Environment Committee last year, and I hope that, by doing so, this bill can be swiftly reported and passed.

In October of 1994, Congress passed and the President signed the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. The passage of this act provided support for multinational rhino and tiger conservation through the creation of the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, or RTCF. Administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the RTCF distributes up to $10 million in grants every year to conservation groups to support projects in developing countries. Since its establishment in 1994, the RTCF has been expanded by Congress to cover other species, such as elephants and great apes.

Today, with the legislation I am introducing, I am asking Congress to add cranes to this list. Cranes are the most endangered family of birds in the world, with ten of the world's fifteen species at risk of extinction. Specifically, this legislation would authorize up to $3 million of funds per year to be distributed in the form of conservation project grants to protect cranes and their habitat. The financial resources authorized by this bill can be made available to qualifying conservation groups operating in Asia, Africa, and North America. The program is authorized from Fiscal Year 2004 through Fiscal Year 2008.

In keeping with my belief that we should balance the budget, this bill proposes that the $15 million in authorized spending over five years for the Crane Conservation Act established in this legislation should be offset by rescinding $18 million in unspent funds from funds carried over by the Department of Energy's Clean Coal Technology Program in the Fiscal Year 2002 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill. The Secretary of the Interior would be required to transfer any funds it does not expend under the Crane Conservation Act back to the Treasury at the end of Fiscal Year 2007. I do not intend my bill to make any particular judgments about the Clean Coal program or its effectiveness, but I do think, in general, that programs should expend resources that we appropriate in a timely fashion.

I am offering this legislation due to the serious and significant decline that can be expected in crane populations worldwide without conservation efforts. The decline of the North American whooping crane, the rarest crane on earth, perfectly illustrates the dangers faced by these birds. In 1941, only 21 whooping cranes existed in the entire world. This stands in contrast to the almost 400 birds in existence today. The North American whooping crane's resurgence is attributed to the birds' tenacity for survival and to the efforts of conservationists in the United States and Canada. Today, the only wild flock of North American whooping cranes breeds in northwest Canada, and spends its winters in coastal Texas. Two new flocks of cranes are currently being reintroduced to the wild, one of which is a migratory flock on the Wisconsin to Florida flyway.

This flock of birds illustrates that any effort by Congress to regulate crane conservation needs to cross both national and international lines. As this flock of birds makes its journey from Wisconsin to Florida, the birds rely on the ecosystems of a multitude of states in this country. In its journey from the Necedah National Wildlife Refuge in Wisconsin to the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge in Florida in the fall and eventual return to my home state in the spring, this flock also faces threats from pollution of traditional watering grounds, collision with utility lines, human disturbance, disease, predation, loss of genetic diversity within the population, and vulnerability to catastrophes, both natural and man-made. Despite the conservation efforts taken since 1941, this symbol of conservation is still very much in danger of extinction.

While over the course of the last half-century, North American whooping cranes have begun to make a slow recovery, many species of crane in Africa and Asia have declined, including the sarus crane of Asia and the wattled crane of Africa.

The sarus crane stands four feet tall and can be found in the wetlands of northern India and south Asia. These birds require large, open, well watered plains or marshes to breed and survive.

Due to agricultural expansion, industrial development, river basin development, pollution, warfare, and heavy use of pesticides prevalent in India and southeast Asia, the sarus crane population has been in decline. Furthermore, in many areas, a high human population concentration compounds these factors. On the Mekong River, which runs through Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and China, human population growth and planned development projects threaten the sarus crane. Reports from India, Cambodia, and Thailand have also cited incidences of the trading of adult birds and chicks, as well as hunting and egg stealing in the drop-in population of the sarus crane.

Only three subspecies of the sarus crane exist today. One resides in northern India and Nepal, one resides in southeast Asia, and one resides in northern Australia. Their population is about 8,000 in the main Indian population, with recent numbers showing a rapid decline. In Southeast Asia, only 1,000 birds remain.

The situation of the sarus crane in Asia is mirrored by the situation of the wattled crane in Africa. In Africa, the wattled crane is found in the southern and eastern regions, with an isolated population in the mountains of Ethiopia. Current population estimates range between 6,000 to 8,000 and are declining rapidly, due to loss and degradation of wetland habitats, as well as intensified agriculture, dam construction, and industrialization. In other parts of the range, the creation of dams has changed the dynamics of the flood plains, thus further endangering these cranes and their habitats. Human disturbance at or near breeding sites also continues to be a major threat. Lack of oversight and education over the actions of people, industry, and agriculture is leading to reduced preservation for the lands on which cranes live, thereby threatening the ability of cranes to survive in these regions.

If we do not act now, not only will cranes face extinction, but the ecosystems that depend on their contributions will suffer. With the decline of the crane population, the wetlands and marshes they inhabit can potentially be thrown off balance. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting legislation that can provide funding to the local farming, education and enforcement projects that can have the greatest positive effect on the preservation of both cranes and fragile habitats. This small investment can secure the future of these exemplary birds and the beautiful areas in which they live. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support the Crane Conservation Act of 2003.

Mr. President, this week, the University of Maryland released the findings of its landmark 2-year study on Maryland's death penalty system. The report reveals disturbing racial and geographic disparities in the administration of the death penalty in Maryland. It confirms the alarming conclusion that the administration of our criminal justice system's ultimate punishment is flawed and far from fair or just.

That is why I rise today to reintroduce the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act. This bill seeks to apply the wisdom of out-going Maryland Governor Parris Glendening and out-going

Illinois Governor George Ryan to the Federal Government and all States that authorize the use of capital punishment. The bill would place a moratorium on Federal executions and urge States to do the same. The bill would also create a National Commission on the Death Penalty to review the fairness of the administration of the death penalty at the State and Federal levels. This Commission would be an independent, blue ribbon panel of distinguished prosecutors, defense attorneys, jurists and others. I am pleased that my distinguished colleagues, Senators Levin, Corzine, and Durbin, have joined me in cosponsoring this bill.

The University of Maryland study was conducted by Professor Raymond Paternoster of the University's Institute of Criminal Justice and Criminology, and is the most exhaustive study of Maryland's application of the death penalty in history. Professor Paternoster and other researchers examined records of every homicide prosecution in which the death penalty could have been sought, dating back to 1978.

The study released this week found that blacks accused of killing whites are simply more likely to receive a death sentence than blacks who kill blacks, or than white killers. According to the report, black offenders who kill whites are four times as likely to be sentenced to death as blacks who kill blacks, and twice as likely to get a death sentence as whites who kill whites.

The study also confirms geographic disparity in Maryland's death penalty system. Those convicted of murder in Baltimore County, a jurisdiction with a high number of white murder victims, are 26 times as likely to be sentenced to death as those convicted in Baltimore City, and 14 times as likely as those convicted in Montgomery County.

Two years ago, when Governor Glendening learned of these suspected disparities, he did not look the other way. Then last year, faced with the rapid approach of a scheduled execution, he acknowledged that it was unacceptable to allow executions to take place while the study he had ordered was not yet complete. So, in May 2002, he placed a moratorium on executions. That was the right thing to do.

I urge Governor-elect Ehrlich to do the right thing by extending the moratorium. It would be contrary to our Nation's founding principles of fairness and justice to execute anyone in Maryland before the questions raised by the study are addressed.

The year 2002 was a landmark year for the examination of the death penalty. Last year the 102nd person was exonerated from death row in the modern death penalty era; 102 innocent people have been exonerated, in some cases just days from execution, after being found innocent of crimes for which they served sometimes years on death row. That is not a small number. In the modern death penalty era, our Nation has executed 820 people. That means that according to our best estimates, since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, for every 8 people executed, one who had been convicted and sentenced to death has been found innocent.

That is an unacceptable high error rate in the administration of a punishment for which errors caught too late cannot be fixed. That's a rate of error with which none of us should be comfortable.

We should learn from the example set by Governor Glendening and by Governor Ryan. Their voices are two of the many that have chimed in over recent years to express doubt about the fairness of our Nation's system of capital punishment. As evidence of the flaws in our system mounts, it has created an awareness that has not escaped the attention of the American people. Layer after layer of confidence in the death penalty system has been gradually peeling away, and the voices of those questioning its fairness are growing louder and louder. Now they can be heard from college campuses and court rooms and podiums across the nation, to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room, to the Supreme Court. We must not ignore them.

In 2002, Governor Ryan's Commission on Capital Punishment issued its report, which concluded with 85 recommendations for reforming the death penalty system. In June 2002, I held a hearing in the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution on the report of the Illinois Governor's Commission on Capital Punishment. We were fortunate to have Governor Ryan and other members of the Commission testify about the many flaws in the Illinois death penalty system and their recommendations for reform.

The Illinois study and report are invaluable to the study of fairness in our justice system. Governor Ryan's Commission provides a model for the nation for how we can respond to the indisputable proof of errors in our justice system. I am confident that as Governor Ryan leaves office next week, his greatest legacy to our nation will be the courage he showed three years ago when he suspended executions and acknowledged that the death penalty system in Illinois was broken.

If we are prepared to admit, as Illinois and Maryland have, that there are flaws in the death penalty system, then it is unconscionable to allow executions to continue without a thorough, nationwide review. The problems in the Illinois and Maryland systems are not unique to their states. Since reinstatement of the modern death penalty, 81 percent of capital cases have involved white victims, even though only 50 percent of murder victims are white. Nationwide, more than half of the death row inmates are African-Americans or Hispanic-Americans. There is evidence of racial disparities, inadequate counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and false scientific evidence in death penalty systems across the country.

In 2002, we saw progress here in Congress in addressing problems plaguing the death penalty. The Innocence Protection Act, introduced by my distinguished colleague and ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, was favorably reported from the Judiciary Committee in July. This legislation takes an important step by recognizing the need for access to modern DNA testing and certain minimum standards of competency for defense counsel in capital cases.

I commend Senator Leahy and the bipartisan effort of my colleagues who helped move this important bill and I hope we will finish the job and enact it into law this year. But I also urge them and the rest of the Senate to recognize that if we are prepared to admit that we need these reforms, a time-out is also needed to ensure that we do not execute a single innocent person. The stakes are too high and the consequences are far too devastating to allow executions to proceed.

Also in 2002, in a significant turning point for our Nation, the Supreme Court reversed itself and ruled unconstitutional the execution of the mentally retarded in Atkins versus Virginia. The Court's decision further confirms that our Nation's standards of decency concerning the ultimate punishment are indeed evolving and maturing.

While last year's events are steps toward fairness and indications of progress, they also serve as shocking reminders that our system is seriously flawed. The statistics reflecting unfairness and stories of innocent people wrongly convicted are clear and disturbing to all Americans who believe in the founding principles of our Nation, liberty and justice for all.

When examined collectively, these facts paint a devastating picture that needs to be examined in much greater detail.

That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act.

The courts in this country have already made, by our best, conservative estimates, 102 very grave mistakes. One hundred and two mistakes in the death penalty system qualifies as a crisis. And a crisis calls for immediate action. The time for a moratorium is now.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation at the start of this new Congress to protect those living along the California-Mexican border from harmful power plant emissions.

This bill, which Congressman Duncan Hunter is also re-introducing today in the House of Representatives, will prevent power plants built in Mexico from using natural gas from the United States, unless firms operating these plants agree to comply with California's air pollution standards.

Currently there are two new power plants planned for Mexicali, Mexico, a city right across the border from Imperial County, California. The Imperial Valley produces much of our Nation's wintertime vegetables. The Valley is the region in Southern California that will be impacted most by pollution from these power plants in Mexico. And since Imperial County has some of the worst air quality in the United States and one of the highest childhood asthma rates in the State, I believe these new plants must meet California emission standards.

One of the Mexicali plants, which is being built by Sempra Energy, will have pollution mitigation technology to minimize the impact of air pollution on the residents of the Imperial Valley. However, the other plant, to be built by InterGen, will not. InterGen officials have repeatedly stated that their Mexicali plant will meet ``domestic standards or World Bank standards.'' The problem is these are not U.S. standards and are far below California standards.

I am introducing this legislation today to make sure any plant that comes online along the California-Mexican border meets the same air quality standards as plants in California.

The residents of Imperial County and the entire Southern California region deserve nothing less.

I have heard from many constituents in Southern California concerned about the InterGen plant and local officials in Imperial County are adamantly opposed to the InterGen plant because the company has refused to install pollution control devices on all four operating units.

This legislation has the support of the Imperial County Board of Supervisors, the Imperial District, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, and San Diego Mayor Dick Murphy.

This legislation will ensure energy plants along the border employ the best technology available to control pollution and protect the public health for residents of Southern California and other border regions in a similar situation.

The bill will prohibit energy companies from exporting natural gas from the United States for use in Mexico unless the natural gas fired generators south of the border meet the air standards prevalent in the United States. This will effectively cut power plants off from the natural gas supply if they do not meet higher emissions standards.

This legislation will not constrain power plants that were put online prior to January 1, 2003. It will apply to plants built after the new year and projects that come online in the future.

This bill will only apply to power plants within 50 miles of the U.S.-Mexican border.

And the legislation will only apply to power plants that generate more than 50 megawatts of power. We do not want to block any moves to replace dirty diesel back-up generators with cleaner natural-gas fired small power sources.

The bill calls for collaboration between the Secretary of Commerce and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to determine if a power plant is in compliance with relevant emission standards.

I support the development of new energy projects for California because I believe we need to bring more power online. However, I do not believe the fact that we need more power in California should allow companies to take advantage of this need and use it as an excuse to devote less attention to clear air and public health.

It is not unreasonable to ensure that companies making money in California energy market meet strict environmental standards. This legislation is meant to strike a balance between promoting new sources of energy south of the border and protecting the environment throughout the border region. It is not a final resolution of these cross-border issues, but I believe it is a good first step.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Hutchison in re-introducing the National AMBER Alert Network Act. This legislation builds on the proven successes of the AMBER Alert program.

AMBER Alerts are official bulletins transmitted over the airwaves to enlist the public's help in tracking down child abductors fleeing a crime scene.

AMBER Alerts are such powerful tools because they can be issued within minutes of an abduction and reach a wide public audience.

Statistics show that children in the most dangerous abduction cases have precious little time until their safety is compromised.

According to a study by the U.S. Department of Justice, 74 percent of children who were abducted, and later found murdered, are killed in the first hours after being taken.

Simply put, we need more AMBER Alerts because they may be the best tool law enforcement has to save kidnapped children facing imminent danger.

Last Fall, Senator Hutchison and I first introduced the ``National AMBER Alert Network Act.'' The bill attracted tremendous support in the Senate. Just seven days after it was introduced, the bill passed the Senate.

While the legislation did not pass the House, President Bush issued an executive order putting some of the pieces of the National AMBER Alert Network Act into effect.

Specifically, on October 3, 2002, President Bush announced that the Administration would create a national AMBER Alert coordinator in the Department of Justice, would draft national standards for AMBER Alerts; and allocate $10 million in funding for the creation of new AMBER Alert programs.

While President Bush's actions were an important first step, we now need to ensure the long-term viability of the national AMBER Alert program by enacting authorizing legislation.

The bill we introduce today has three key components.

First, the legislation would authorize $20 million to the Department of Transportation and $5 million to the Department of Justice in FY 2004 to provide grants for the development of AMBER Alert systems, electronic message boards, and training and education programs in states that do not have AMBER Alerts.

To date, AMBER Alert systems exist in 33 States and a total of 83 local, regional and State jurisdictions. This bill would help the expansion of AMBER Alerts to new jurisdictions.

Second, the bill would build upon the President's Executive Order by authorizing a national coordinator for AMBER Alerts in the Department of

Justice to expand the network of AMBER Alert systems and to coordinate the issuance of region-wide AMBER Alerts.

Third, the bill provides a framework for the Department of Justice to establish minimum standards for the regional coordination of AMBER alerts.

The Department of Justice, working with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and other private organizations with expertise in this area, would build upon the best standards currently in place.

Today, an AMBER Alert is typically issued only when: a law enforcement agency confirms that a predatory child abduction has occurred, the child is in imminent danger, and there is information available that, if disseminated to the public, could assist in the safe recovery of the child.

The effectiveness of AMBER Alerts depends on the continued judicious use of the system so that the public does not grow to ignore the warnings.

Furthermore, it is the specific intent of this bill not to interfere with the operation of the 83 AMBER plans that are working today.

Participation in regional AMBER plans is voluntary, and any plan that wishes to go it alone may still do so.

I urge members to support this bill because AMBER Alerts have a proven track record.

Nationally, since 1996, the AMBER Alert has been credited with the safe return of 42 children to their families, including one case in which an abductor reportedly released the child after hearing the alert himself.

I would like to briefly describe two of these cases: the rescues of 10 year-old Nichole Timmons from Riverside and four-year old Jessica Cortez from Los Angeles.

Last fall, Nichole Timmons and her mother Sharon attended a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government information on the AMBER Alert program.

In moving testimony, Sharon described how Nichole was abducted from their Riverside home on August 20, 2002 and how an AMBER Alert brought her daughter back to her within hours of the abduction.

In Nichole's case, an Alert was issued not just in California, but in Nevada as well.

After learning about the Alert, a tribal police officer in Nevada spotted the truck of Nichole's abductor and stopped him within 24 hours of the abduction.

He was found with duct tape and a metal pipe.

The AMBER Alert was the only reason that Nichole was able to return home to her mother, safe.

I can't think of any testimony in support of a bill more powerful than the sight of a mother sitting next to her daughter who she thought might be gone forever.

The second case I want to mention is that of Jessica Cortez. Jessica disappeared from Echo Park in Los Angeles on August 11, 2002.

But when Jessica's abductor took her to a clinic for medical care, receptionist Denise Leon recognized Jessica from AMBER Alert and notified law enforcement.

Without the publicity generated by the Alert, Jessica could have been lost to her parents forever.

Through this legislation, we will extend to every corner of the Nation a network of AMBER Alerts that will protect our children.

This program will increase the odds that an abducted child will return to his or her family safety.

But importantly, it will deter potential abductors from taking a child in the first place.

As Mark Klaas said at a hearing on the bill last Fall, this legislation will ``save kids lives.''

Once again, let me thank Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for her tremendous leadership on this issue.

It is my hope that this bill will continue to see the strong, bipartisan support that led to its swift passage in the Senate last year. Thank you.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill, with Senator Chafee, to freeze the top income tax rate at its current level of 38.6 percent, until such time as the Federal budget returns to surpluses. We believe the ballooning deficit is bad for the economy, bad for interest rates, and bad for the health of the Nation.

Under current law, the top income tax rate is scheduled to drop from 38.6 percent to 37.6 percent in 2004 and then to 35 percent in 2006. This rate is applied to the adjusted gross income of those who earn over $312,000. This top rate freeze would save $88 billion between now and 2010, and $132 billion through 2012, every penny of which would go toward reducing the Federal deficit.

Everyone should understand that this top tax rate is paid by just 908,000 of the more than 128 million taxpayers nationwide, just 0.7 percent of American taxpayers. This is not a time for tax policies which benefit only a small portion of the population. It is a time for fiscally responsible policies that will ensure long-term growth and provide an immediate stimulus to our economy.

In June 2001, I voted for the President's tax plan. It was truly a different time: 9/11 had not taken place; war had not appeared on the horizon; revelations of corporate fraud had not surfaced; and a recession was not evident.

Those times are as different from today as day is from night. At the time, Senator Chafee and I, along with twelve other Senators from both parties, supported a ``trigger'' on the 2001 tax reduction. This would have frozen future tax reductions under the Bush Tax Cut if the budget returned to deficit. Unfortunately, we were able to attract only 49 votes on the amendment. I wish we had that trigger today.

Now, it is estimated that we face $1.4 trillion in cumulative budget deficits between now and 2012. And that is why we return to the idea of the trigger. I believe that we should not allow the rate reduction for the top rate to proceed, until we return to budget surpluses.

And that brings us to the Bush Administration's $674 billion tax cut and economic stimulus package. In my view, this is the wrong plan at the wrong time. It digs the Nation deeper into debt. It is not a stimulus. It is skewed to the wealthy. And it severely limits the government's ability to pay for needed programs, like education, transportation, and law enforcement.

First, the President's plan would be a major contributor to massive budget deficits. The proposal would result in a budget deficit of approximately $482 billion this year alone, if the social security trust fund surpluses were not used to fund the budget. Using the social security trust fund, the deficit would still be $312 billion. This does not include the costs of a possible war with Iraq, an extension of Federal unemployment benefits, and the FY 2003 and FY 2004 appropriations bills.

Furthermore, as the Federal debt increases, the government will spend billions more in tax dollars on servicing the debt, instead of priorities like homeland security, healthcare, education, transportation, or the environment. Interest on the debt over ten years is already projected to be $1.3 trillion higher than expected, even before this new package, and this package would add more than $100 billion in new interest payments over the next ten years. Unlike home mortgage payments, interest on the debt is rolled over and compounds, which makes a rising debt extremely dangerous over the long-term.

Second, the President's tax cut is skewed to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. Taxpayers with income over 1 million would receive an average of more than $88,000 in benefits, while the typical middle- income taxpayer would only benefit by $265. This is clearly unfair. In fact one-third of all benefits would go to the wealthiest 1 percent, while less than 10 percent of the benefits would go to the 60 percent of taxpayers making under $54,000.

Third, the proposal is not stimulative. The central feature of the Administration's plan, an elimination of

taxes on corporate dividends, would not begin to be felt until April 2004. And when those savings do kick in, they would largely benefit the wealthiest people--with more than half the benefits, $225 billion, going to the top five percent of taxpayers. So to say this is a stimulus is simply inaccurate and misleading.

So, today we are urging the Senate to consider freezing a single element of the 2001 tax package. I urge my colleagues to approve a fiscally responsible package of tax proposals that reduce the deficit and stimulate the economy, instead of a massive tax cut which will do neither.

Mr. President, I request that the attached table be included for the Record with my statement of support for the Feinstein-Chafee Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2003.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend and colleague, Senator McCain, to introduce the first ever comprehensive legislation to limit the emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States. Today we take the first step up a long mountain road, a road that will culminate with this country taking credible action to address the global problems of our warming planet. The rest of the world is now taking on the challenge this problem presents. The United States, as the world's largest emitter of the gases and the home of the world's strongest economy, must not have its head in the clouds.

Climate change is not a new problem. Recently, I had come across my desk a 1979 document produced by the National Academy of Sciences at the request of then-President Carter. The document says, ``When it is assumed that the CO2 content of the atmosphere has doubled, the more realistic of the modeling efforts predict a global surface warming of between 2 degrees and 3.5 degrees with greater increases at higher altitudes.'' That is remarkably similar to last year's national communication on climate change that predicted a warming of 2.5 degrees to 4 degrees over the next century. So in some sense, we have known about this problem for over two decades. That's two decades of neglect. We don't need to spin our wheels in the mud any longer. It is time to get traction. It is time to take action.

I do not believe there is any longer any credible dissent on the central question: namely, whether human-caused climate change is happening. The thermometer mercury is creeping up, glaciers are melting, and waters are rising. According to a NASA study released last month, the permanent, summer ice cap over the Arctic Ocean is disappearing far faster than previously thought and will at this rate be gone by the end of the century. And just last week, two major new research studies said global warming is already posing a dire threat to the world's plants and animals, a danger that is likely to rise dramatically, with the temperature, in the coming years.

The scientific evidence is potent and persuasive. But we've witnessed other changes across the globe that have anecdotally announced the arrival of global warming to human populations. I noticed two examples recently that resonated with me; both come from the Arctic north, and in my view are canaries in the climate change coalmine.

The first example comes from the Native American populations of Alaska and Northern Canada. In just the past few years, a robin appeared in an Inupiat village in Alaska. Unfortunately, the elders, despite an intimate awareness of their 10,000 year old language, did not know what to call the bird. You see, there is no word for robin in their language.

A second example comes from the town of Nenana, AK, which has an annual lottery to determine when a tripod placed on the frozen Tenana River would break through the ice. And over the past 50 years, that breakthrough has occurred earlier and earlier.

So, it's not only in the language of statistics that climate change is occurring. It's in the language of everyday life.

The nature of this problem is that it gets worse every year we fail to face it head on. It's not unlike the federal budget deficit. The weight of the interest payments bearing down on us grow over time and dig us deeper and deeper into a hole of our own making. So too with global warming. Today the problem is manageable. Tomorrow, quite literally, we could be up to our waists in it.

There are a few remaining skeptics who still doubt that human greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to climate change but even they should understand the wisdom of taking preventive action. Even they should realize that reducing greenhouse gas emissions now is the best insurance policy against the possibility of future catastrophe.

The question remains, then, what we should do about it. There is no easy fix. Carbon dioxide, once released, stays in our atmosphere for about a century, so any solution needs to be long-term. But I believe that the legislation we have drafted and will soon introduce will take us on the path to that ultimate solution, and do so in a way that can provide an economic boost, not an economic burden, to American businesses. Given our flagging economy, this is a critical point for us all to absorb.

Our approach works like this. The country's overall emissions will be capped, then individual companies will have the flexibility to find the most innovative and cost-effective ways to drive their emissions down. They will trade pollution credits, also called allowances, with each other rather than paying penalties to the government.

The result of that innovative model is that we will unleash and focuses the genius of American enterprise to take on a critical common challenge. And the innovation unleashed as companies compete will create a boomlet of new, high-paying jobs. It's no wonder the Wall Street Journal editorial page endorsed this approach saying that it would achieve the same amount of overall pollution reduction at a lower cost than traditional regulation, and urging the Bush Administration to sign on.

In making its endorsement, The Wall Street Journal looked, as we did, at the record. Many similar programs have helped solve pollution problems throughout the country and the world. The most well-known example is the Acid Rain Trading Program in the 1990 Clean Air Act, one of the most successful environmental programs in history and something I was proud to have a hand in creating. This program secured strict cuts in sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants at less than a quarter of the predicted costs to industry.

We have some initial reaction to our proposal from our country's leading economists, and the response has been positive. For instance, Steven DeCanio, a professor of economics at the University of California, Santa Barbara and the former staff economist on this issue in the Reagan White House, stated the following about our proposal:

The Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 is a good first step

towards the ultimate goal of stabilizing levels of greenhouse

gas emissions that will prevent dangerous anthropogenic

interference with the climate. The Bill embodies market

mechanisms that will enable emissions reductions to be

accomplished efficiently, and has provisions for an equitable

allocation of the emissions permits. Funds are set aside to

assist workers and communities that may be adversely affected

by the transition. The Bill permits flexibility in the manner

by which the emissions reductions are achieved, including

allowing credits for verifiable enhancement of carbon sinks

and limited international emissions trading. The proposed

legislation also encourages investment in energy-efficiency

technologies, as well as the establishment of a national

emissions database and funding for new research. All of these

features of the Bill are components of a strategy that can

enable the United States to begin to make meaningful

reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in a way that is

supportive of economic growth and beneficial to our standard

of living. It is entirely appropriate that the risks of

global climate change be addressed in specific legislation at

this time.

But this bill is more than a broad policy proposal. It is a detailed legislative design for the system. Our staffs have been working ardently over the past 16 months to craft a detailed proposal that could find support both in the halls of industry and amongst the nation's leading environmental organizations. Hopefully that means that both sides of the aisle in Congress will find something to their liking. I hope all involved realized that this is no marker bill; it is a comprehensive proposal. Please indulge me as I run through a few of the key details.

Our bill covers the four main sectors of the U.S. economy that emit greenhouse gases: electric utilities, industrial plants, transportation, and large commercial facilities. For each of these sectors, we ease back on the greenhouse gas accelerator, spreading the burden equally amongst the companies. The progress required is real but

realistic. By the year 2010, we ask only that they return to 2000 levels. By 2016, we ask that they return to their 1990 levels, in keeping with our treaty commitment under the Rio Convention.

In doing so, we provide each participant with a generous amount of flexibility on how to comply with their obligations. There is no limit on the amount of allowances that they may obtain from other participants in the system. Moreover, companies in the system can avail themselves of ``alternative compliance'' options, including sequestration projects, international reductions, and verified reductions made by parties outside the system. Such ``alternative compliance'' options can be used to satisfy 300 percent of the average companies' obligation.

These alternative compliance options will have other benefits as well. As many members of this committee already know, sequestration projects can produce environmental benefits beyond the benefit to the climate, including reduced deforestation and more sustainable agricultural practices. Such projects also bring a needed infusion of money into the farm economy not through subsidies, but through the sale of a new ``crop,'' sequestered carbon dioxide. Even now, with a purely speculative market in greenhouse gases, Entergy Services and Pacific Northwest Direct Seed Association brokered a deal for 30,000 million metric tons of carbon over 10 years. The sale price was not divulged, but the point is that the deal was made even in the absence of a real market. Our program would greatly increase the opportunity for these types of sales by farmers.

Our businesses will benefit dramatically from the regulatory certainty that our bill will provide. Businesses now receive a confusing set of messages from the Federal Government. On the one hand, they know that, with climate change worsening every year, government will somehow and sometime have to require them to reduce their emissions. As the Conference Board recently noted in a June 2002 report, ``climate change is an issue business executives ignore at their peril.'' On the other hand, businesses are being left uncertain about Washington's ultimate global warming policy plans, and therefore have a perverse incentive to put off any real anti-pollution technology investments.

Indeed, our innovation economy more broadly is unwilling or unable to engage while the Federal Government continues to vacillate. As a result, we are losing countless dollars in new market and job opportunities. Europe and Japan already have an early head start in the pollution reduction industry. That lead will only grow if our government stands pat.

Finally, I want to mention one other, perhaps unlikely reason to support this legislation beyond our economic and environmental well being, and that's foreign policy. Many of our most important allies are much more worried about climate change than we in the United States have historically been. When the Bush administration plays down the risks of global warming and shows no interest in devising a serious solution, it frays our relationship with those allies. That's especially true since we as a nation are responsible for about a quarter of the world's total climate change problem.

We should never compromise critical American policy simply to satisfy the international community. But in this case, doing what's in our own best environmental and economic interests will also earn respect and support around the world. And lest we forget it also happens to be the right thing to do.

The Earth is not only ours to use; we are stewards of it, who must hold it in trust for future generations to live in, breathe in, and, yes, prosper in. Regrettably, this Nation's climate change policy to date has not respected our role as stewards. It is time we reverse that trend, and our bill will help do exactly that.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to provide permanent tax relief from one of the most egregious, anti- family aspects of the tax code, the marriage penalty. Relieving American taxpayers of this burden has been one of my highest priorities as a U.S. Senator.

Today, millions of couples across America are penalized by our tax code simply because they are married. The Treasury Department estimates that 48 percent of married couples pay this additional tax, and, according to a study by the Congressional Budget Office, the average penalty paid is $1,400 per couple.

Fortunately, the 107th Congress took a step in the right direction. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 will provide marriage penalty relief to millions of couples by increasing the size of the standard deduction and the width of the 15 percent tax bracket, so those applied to a married couple will be twice the size of those for an individual. In addition, the phase-out levels for the earned income tax credit will be adjusted so as to reduce the penalty on married couples.

But once again, we face the infamous ``sunset provision'' that will wipe away these reforms in 2011. Another problem is that relief does not begin to be phased in until 2005, with the full impact not taking effect until 2009. President Bush has called for making marriage penalty relief effective immediately as part of his economic stimulus package.

I agree that this is an important step. Given the state of the economy and the difficulty many families are having in making ends meet, we cannot wait any longer to give young couples the break they deserve.

The bi-partisan bill I am offering with Senator Bayh and others would make the 2001 reforms effective immediately and permanently. People will no longer have to decide between love and money.

The benefits for couples are significant. A couple earning $30,000 could keep $800 they now pay in taxes, while a couple earning $80,000 could save more than $1,300. 35 million couples will benefit from enacting marriage penalty relief in 2003, including 2.4 million Texas families.

The tax code provides a significant disincentive for people to take marriage vows. Marriage is a fundamental institution in our society and should not be discouraged by the IRS. The benefits of marriage are well established. Children living in a married household are far less likely to live in poverty or to suffer from child abuse. Research indicates they are less likely to be depressed or have developmental problems. Scourges such as adolescent drug use are less common in married families, and married mothers are less likely to be victims of domestic violence.

At the very least, marriage should not be a taxable event.

I call on the Senate to finish the job we started and say ``I do'' to providing permanent marriage penalty relief today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am introducing today with my friend from California, Senator Feinstein, and 26 other senators, the National AMBER Network Act. This legislation will establish a National Amber Network and improve the current system of AMBER Alert plans that exist in various states. Our legislation recognizes the tremendous work that those involved in AMBER alerts are doing and seeks to build on their efforts.

In 1996, 9-year-old Amber Hagerman of Arlington, Texas was abducted and brutally murdered. Her death had such an impact on the community that local law enforcement and area broadcasters developed what is now known as AMBER Alert, America's Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response. An AMBER Alert is activated by law enforcement to find a child, when a child has been abducted. An Alert triggers highway notification and broadcast messages throughout the area where the abduction occurred.

As we have seen, AMBER plans in different communities have worked to bring children home safely. To date, AMBER Alert has helped recover 42 children nationwide. Many communities and States have outstanding AMBER plans. However, the vast majority of States do not yet have comprehensive, statewide coverage and lack the ability to effectively communicate. This is a critical issue particularly when an abducted child is taken across State lines.

The bill I am introducing today establishes an AMBER Alert Coordinator within the Department of Justice to assist states with their AMBER plans. Last year, President Bush ordered the Attorney General to establish an AMBER Alert Coordinator, and this bill will codify that position for future Administrations. While we have witnessed successful stories of AMBER alerts helping to recover a child within a region, huge gaps exist among the AMBER plans around the country. The AMBER Alert Coordinator will facilitate appropriate regional coordination of AMBER alerts, particularly with interstate travel situations, and will assist states, broadcasters, and law enforcement in establishing additional AMBER plans.

The AMBER Alert Coordinator will set minimum, voluntary standards to help states work together, and will help to reconcile the different standards and criteria for issuing an AMBER Alert. In doing so, the Coordinator will work with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, local and State law enforcement and broadcasters to define minimum standards. Overall, the AMBER Alert Coordinator's efforts will set safeguards to make sure the AMBER alert system is used to meet it intended purpose.

In addition, the bill provides for matching grants to states with AMBER programs. The grant program will help localities and States build or further enhance their efforts to disseminate AMBER alerts. To this end, Federal matching grants will fund road signs and electronic message boards along highways, broadcasts of information on abducted children, education and training, and related equipment.

Our bill has the strong support of the National Center of Missing and Exploited Children and the National Association of Broadcasters, who play essential roles in the AMBER Alert system. I urge the Senate to act expeditiously on this legislation to protect America's children.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the child Support Enforcement Act. This bill will bring much-needed relief to the millions of families who are not receiving the child support they desperately need.

The importance of this bill is clear. Each year, nearly 60 percent of the 20 million children who are owed child support receive less than the amount they are due. And more than 30 percent receive no payment at all. California is no exception; preliminary findings from the 2000 Census Report found that of more than 2.3 million Californians who were owed child support, only 39 percent received those payments.

Clearly, millions of individuals, largely women and children, are in crisis when it comes to child support. It is time to treat delinquent child support the same way all other bad debt is treated in the tax law.

The Child Support Enforcement Act would allow custodial parents to deduct the amount of child support they are owed from their adjusted gross income on their income taxes. This is true for all taxpayers, regardless of whether they itemize.

This bill will also penalize the non-custodial parent who is not paying his or her legally obligated child support. It will force the deadbeat parent to add the owed amount to his adjusted gross income.

This is not creating new tax law. It is extending current tax law on bad debts to delinquent child support payments. It's that simple.

The relief provided in this bill is extremely important for single parents. Child support payments can literally mean the difference between paying rent or being homeless; the difference between putting food on the table or being forced to let children go hungry; the difference between making ends meet or going on welfare.

I am pleased to be joined in the effort by Senator Snowe. And Representative Cox has introduced the House version of the bill this week as well. As you can see, this is not a partisan issue. This is a family issue. It will help families and children nationwide. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Truth in Tuna Labeling Act.'' This important legislation

will ensure that the fishing of tuna labeled ``dolphin safe'' does not kill, harm or attack dolphins, and that consumers are given accurate information on how the tuna they purchase is caught. My bill will guarantee that tuna products labeled ``dolphin safe'' will be truly safe for dolphins.

In 1990, the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act, introduced by myself in the House and Senator Biden in the Senate, created a ``dolphin safe'' label for consumers. This legislation was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, and it allowed American consumers to buy tuna bearing the ``dolphin safe'' label with confidence, knowing that their purchase did not trade dolphin mortalities for tuna fishing profit.

Dolphin and yellowfin tuna tend to run together in some waters. Dolphin swim closer to the surface to breathe. Under the destructive ``chase and encirclement'' practice, helicopters spot the schools of dolphin. Speedboats deliberately encircle the dolphins and cast a mile- wide net, knowing that the tuna will be below. While the tunas are to be harvested, the hope is that the dolphins will escape the edges of the net and suffocation or capture. This practice is termed ``purse seine netting.''

According to the annual reports of the Marine Mammal Commission and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, dolphin mortality in the eastern tropical Pacific alone has decreased from more than 100,000 dolphin kills each year to fewer than 2,000 kills each year since the passage of the ``dolphin safe'' label in 1990.

Unfortunately, on New Year's Eve, the Commerce Department announced its plans to make the labeling standard largely meaningless by changing the definition of ``dolphin safe'' tuna to allow the label to be put on tuna harvested through deadly purse seine netting.

This flies in the face of all available scientific information.

According to the Marine Mammal Commission, ``. . . the results of the [National Marine Fisheries] Service's research program . . . provide evidence that the practice of chasing and encircling dolphins is having adverse effects on the recover of depleted dolphin stocks and that the magnitude of those effects, at both the individual and population levels, may be significant.''

The report prepared by the Commerce Department reached a similar conclusion. It said, ``. . . despite considerable effort by fishery scientists, there is little evidence of recovery, and concerns remain that the practice of chasing and circling dolphins somehow is adversely affecting the ability of those depleted stocks to recover.''

The new rule completely undermines the integrity of the ``dolphin safe'' label, allowing ``dolphin safe'' labels to be placed on dolphin deadly tuna, and misleading the public. These changes fly in the face of the bipartisan legislation that was enacted in response to public outcry and consumer demand.

As one who fought in the past to protect dolphins and inform consumers, I believe that the effectiveness of the label will be severely undermined by the change and will allow the continued deterioration of dolphin populations. This administration has once again continued its attack on the environment by weakening protections for marine mammals, ignoring science, and providing yet another favor to industry.

Therefore, I am introducing the ``Truth in Tuna Labeling Act'' to reinstate the original ``dolphin safe'' label.