Death Tax Fairness Act of 2003

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 tonight to introduce, along with my good friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, the distinguished Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the ``Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2003.'' Over the last several weeks, we have read front-page articles on the dangerous mix of sports and steroids, including a new ``designer'' steroid tetrahydrogestrinone, known as ``THG.'' Several premier athletes have allegedly tested positive for THG, and there is a Federal grand jury investigation into the alleged manufacture and distribution of this new substance. Our bill would make THG, and several other similar substances, subject to the Controlled Substances Act. Thus, these products would no longer be available over the counter. Absent a prescription from your doctor, you will not be able to buy them legally.

First, a bit of background on how we got here. Thirteen years ago I held a number of hearings on the dangers associated with steroid use and introduced legislation to make steroids Schedule III substances. After my bill became law, a number of steroid users continued to buy and use steroids only now they were buying them through a developing illicit market. Others relied on new products being developed or rediscovered by scientists, products which may not violate the letter of the law, but certainly violate the spirit of the law.

These substances, called steroid precursors or pro-steroids, are one step removed from the substances scheduled in the law: when ingested, they metabolize into testosterone or other illicit steroids. These are products which the United States Anti-Doping Agency, the group in charge of testing Olympic athletes for performance enhancing drugs, has called ``the functional equivalent of steroids.''

In writing about the lack of testing for steroid precursor use in professional baseball, Barry Rozner of the Chicago Daily Herald described the close relationship between steroids and steroid precursors. He wrote:

There's still no testing for andro (androstenedione)

because technically it's not a steroid. It's a steroid

precursor. Technically a cake mix isn't a cake but as soon as

you pour it in a bowl and stick it in the oven, it's a cake.

You put andro in the body, mix it with the body's chemicals

and let it bake, and it turns into a powerful steroid. If it

walks like a duck and talks like a duck, baseball calls it a

sparrow.

The most well known of the steroid precursors is androstenedione often called ``andro.'' Most recently Hiram Cruz, a 2001 national judo champion, was suspended from competition for two years after testing positive for andro. And it is widely thought that some East German Olympic athletes used it in the 1970s and 1980s to improve their performance. But perhaps the substance gained the most notoriety when professional baseball player Mark McGuire admitted that he used it when he broke Roger Maris's single season record for home runs. After McGuire revealed that he had taken andro, sales of the product quadrupled.

Andro increases both testosterone and estrogen levels in the body. According to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association ``orally administered adrostenedione increases serum testosterone and estrogen levels in healthy men, particularly at higher doses.'' The study further notes that ``long-term administration could be hazardous, particularly in women or children.'' Another study showed that even a single 100 milligram dose of andro can yield unhealthy levels of testosterone in women and can increase estrogen levels by 80 percent. Andro has also been associated with a decrease in HDL the ``good'' cholesterol and elevated levels of estradiol which may increase women's risk of breast cancer.

As I will discuss in greater detail later, in addition to the grave health effects associated with using andro and other steroid precursors, the physical effects can also be quite serious: women can develop masculine sex characteristics including changing of the sexual organs; men can develop feminine sex characteristics including breast development; and adolescent users can stunt their growth.

The International Olympic Committee, the National Football League and the National Collegiate Athletics Association have banned andro and other steroid supplements. Other sports, particularly baseball, have been criticized for refusing to agree to test players for steroid precursors. I should note that Major League Baseball has endorsed the legislation I am introducing today. And at a hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee last year, Donald Fehr, the Executive Director of the Major League Baseball Players Association, said that ``it may well be time for the Federal Government to revisit whether steroid precursors should also be covered by Schedule III.'' I agree with him. Interestingly enough, so do the 79 percent of major league baseball players and nearly 86 percent of baseball fans who, according to surveys conducted by USA Today last year, support testing for steroids and performance-enhancing drugs.

The USA Today survey also revealed that 80 percent of fans believe that steroid use is behind some of the major league records that have been broken recently. It is understandable, therefore, that some players may support testing to preserve the integrity of their records. As Yankees' shortstop Derek Jeter has been quoted as saying:

I don't have a problem with getting tested because I have

nothing to hide. Steroids are a big issue. If anything like a

home run or any injury happens, people say it's steroids.

That's not fair.

In my view, it is time for Congress to act so that we can put an end to the charade that androstenedione and similar products are any different from the anabolic steroids that are controlled under current law.

To be honest I would be less concerned about what professional athletes are doing to their bodies if their actions did not have such a profound effect on kids. A study by the Kaiser Family Foundation revealed that nearly three-quarters of kids say that they look up to and want to emulate professional athletes. Sadly, more than half of those kids believe that their sports heroes use steroids and other performance enhancing drugs to win. That may be why adolescent anabolic steroid use is at its highest level in the past decade, with 1 million teens having used them.

As Dr. Bernard Greisemer, a pediatrician and sports medicine specialist, testified before the Senate last year, many of these products are marketed to kids who want to be like their favorite sports hero. Dr. Greisemer said:

[P]rofessional athletes are major role models for our young

athletes; in the clothes they wear, the cars they drive, the

food they eat, and the drugs and dietary supplements they

take. The millions of dollars that are spent by major

corporations in linking their products to a particular

athlete, team, or sporting event, counter any argument that

professional athletes are not affecting the lifestyles of our

young athletes. Use of and media exposure of the use of,

anabolic steroids in professional athletes also directly

affects the interest in, the perception of benefits of, and

the use of these substances.

There are plenty of children and adults who believe that supplements will make them faster and stronger. That they'll have bigger muscles and be more like their favorite athlete. That they'll have a competitive advantage or have what it takes to win. In reality, they are jeopardizing their health. The ignorance of the consequences of using these substances is astounding. A study by Blue Cross/Blue Shield found that 70 percent of kids and half of parents surveyed were unable to identify even one negative side effect associated with performance- enhancing drugs. And 80 percent of kids reported that their parents have never talked to them about the dangers of steroid use. Clearly there is quite a bit of education to be done about these very dangerous substances.

Let me go through just a few of the side effects of steroid use. In both males and females it can lead to increased blood pressure, increased risk of heart attack and stroke, liver and cardiac dysfunction, increased libido, aggressiveness and appetite, and acne. For males, steroid use can lead to breast development, premature balding, testicular atrophy, decreased sperm count and prostate enlargement. Females can develop masculine sex characteristics including increased body hair, facial hair, deepening of the voice, male pattern baldness and changes to the sex organs. And among adolescent users, steroid precursor use can lead to stunted growth due to hardening of cartilage. Many of these side-effects are irreversible.

Quite troubling to me is that some people are taking these substances unwittingly. It is not unusual for manufacturers of creatine or other performance enhancing substances to put andro or another precursor into their product to give them a competitive edge over a competitor's products.

Clearly these substances are dangerous and they should not be widely available over the counter. That is why I am joining with Senator Hatch and Senator Grassley today to introduce the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2003.

My bill does four things. First, it amends the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990 by adding THG, androstenedione and their chemical cousins to the list of anabolic steroids controlled under the Controlled Substances Act and makes it easier for the DEA to add similar substances to that list in the future. This would prohibit people from obtaining these substances over the counter without a prescription in either their pure form or as an additive to another product.

Second, it directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review the Federal sentencing guidelines for crimes involving anabolic steroids and consider increasing them. Currently, the maximum sentence for offenses involving anabolic steroids is only 33-41 months for first time offenders. And to receive the maximum sentence an offender would have to have between 40,000 and 60,000 units, which is defined as a 10 cc vial or 50 tablets. That means that someone trafficking 300,000 doses faces a maximum of three and a half year behind bars. That does not seem to be enough of a deterrent and I hope the Sentencing Commission will consider raising the guidelines for steroid trafficking.

Third, the bill authorizes $15 million for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants to public and non-profit entities to carry out science-based education programs in elementary and secondary schools to highlight the harmful effects of anabolic steroids. Preference will be given to programs based on the Athletes Training and Learning to Avoid Steroids program (ATLAS), the Athletes Targeting Healthy Exercise and Nutrition Alternatives (ATHENA) program, and other programs which the National Institute on Drug Abuse has determined to be effective. ATLAS, which is aimed at male student athletes, has been named as one of the Department of Education's Exemplary Programs and is one of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Model Programs. ATHENA is ATLAS's companion program designed for female athletes.

Finally, the bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to include questions about steroid use in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, an annual survey to measure the extent of alcohol, drug and tobacco use in the United States. The bill authorizes $1 million for this purpose.

I'm proud to say that the bill has been endorsed by a wide range of medical, athletic and drug policy organizations including: American Academy of Family Physicians; American Academy of Pediatrics; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American College for Sports Medicine; American Council on Exercise; American Medical Association; Association of Tennis Professionals; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association; Boys and Girls Clubs; Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America; Consumer Healthcare Products Association; Council for Responsible Nutrition; The Endocrine Society; The Hormone Foundation; Little League; Major League Baseball; National Athletic Trainers Association; The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University; National Collegiate Athletic Association; National Federation of State High Schools Association;

National Football League; National High School Athletic Coaches Association; National Junior College Athletic Association; National Nutritional Foods Association; Pharmacists Planning Services, Inc.; United States Anti-Doping Agency; U.S. Olympic Committee; U.S. Biathlon Association; U.S. Soccer Federation; USA Cycling; USA Luge; USA Swimming; USA Track and Field and Utah Natural Products Alliance.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I hope that it will be enacted into law soon.

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

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 the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act of 2003, which is cosponsored by my colleagues Senators Mikulski, Warner, and Allen. This bill will guarantee transit benefits to all Federal employees in the National Capital Area and will remove a restriction that currently forbids Federal agencies from providing employee shuttles to and from transit stations. This measure is an important step forward in our efforts to encourage transit ridership and improve the quality of life for Federal employees in the Washington, D.C. region and throughout the nation.

All across the Nation, congestion and gridlock are taking their toll in terms

of economic loss, environmental impact, and personal frustration. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, in 2001 Americans in 75 urban areas spent 3.6 billion hours stuck in traffic, with an estimated cost to the nation of $69.5 billion in lost time and wasted fuel. In response, Americans are turning to alternative transportation options in record numbers. The American Public Transportation Association estimates that Americans now take over 9 billion trips on transit per year, the highest level in more than 40 years.

Transit benefit programs are playing a vital role in increasing transit ridership, which benefits both transit users and drivers. In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century amended the tax code to allow financial incentives related to commuting costs for employers and employees. These transit benefits allowed employers to offer a tax-free financial incentive toward the costs of transit commuting, starting at $65 per month and raised in 2002 to $100 per month.

Based upon the findings of the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Transportation, there are clear improvements to congestion, energy efficiency, and air quality from transit benefit programs. According to their findings, an employer with 1,000 employees that participates in a combination of transit benefits, carpool, and telecommuting programs can take credit for taking 175 cars off the road, saving 44,000 gallons of gasoline per year, and cutting global warming pollution by 420 tons per year on average.

In April 2000, an Executive Order was signed requiring all executive branch agencies in the National Capital Region to offer transit benefits to their employees. As a result, Federal employees commuting to Washington, D.C. from Montgomery, Prince George's, and Frederick Counties, Maryland, several counties in Northern Virginia, and as far away as West Virginia, are encouraged to choose transit as their means to get to work.

According to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and the U.S. Department of Transportation, by 2001 more than 110,000 employees--approximately one-third of all Federal employees in the National Capital Region--joined the Federal transit benefit program created by the Executive Order. These program participants alone have eliminated an estimated 12,500 single-occupancy vehicles from Washington, D.C. area roads, helping to reduce congestion and improve air quality for our region.

The Executive Order, however, is limited. It does not cover the more than 100,000 Federal employees in the legislative and judicial branches, and the dozens of independent Federal agencies located in the Washington, D.C. region. While many of these organizations provide transit benefits to their employees, the implementation and level of benefit is up to the discretion of individual offices. As such, many of these organizations provide limited benefits or do not provide any benefits at all. Guaranteed transit benefits would give these employees more choice in their commuting options and provide an additional incentive to move off our congested roadways and onto public transit.

Of course, such incentives will be ineffective if employees lack access to transit services. In my own state of Maryland, the United States Food and Drug Administration planned to use its own resources to provide a shuttle service for its employees from its new White Oak facility to an area Metro station. When they investigated providing this service, FDA officials found that the current law does not allow Federal agencies to use their own vehicles to shuttle employees to mass transit stations.

The potential impact of this restriction on regional congestion is not insignificant. By 2005, FDA estimates 1,700 employees will work at the new White Oak facility, and plans have been made to eventually house more than 7,000 FDA researchers and administrators at the new facility. The lack of access from FDA's new campus to a transit station represents a lost opportunity for reducing congestion, improving our environment and elevating the quality of life for employees.

This type of lost opportunity occurs across the nation. Nationally, the Federal Government employs more than 2.6 million civilian workers at more than 3,000 Federal government office buildings. At Federal offices throughout the country, transit use is often limited as a commuting option due to lack of employee access to a transit station or a bus stop.

The Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act would address both of these issues faced by Federal employees. First, the bill would put into law the Executive Order's requirement that transit pass benefits be made available to all qualified Federal employees in the National Capital Region. The bill also extends the requirement beyond executive branch agencies to include the legislative and judicial branches and independent agencies, providing guaranteed transit benefits to an additional 100,000 employees in the Washington, DC region.

Second, the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act would remove the restriction that prohibits a Federal agency from operating a shuttle service to a public transit facility. With this legislation, any Federal agency, anywhere in the United States, can choose to provide a transit shuttle service for their employees. By providing access to commuting alternatives, Federal agencies will be able to provide a benefit to their employees that can make getting to work easier, more affordable, and more employee-friendly. It will also provide an opportunity to help reduce congestion and improve air quality across the Nation.

Since 1982, the U.S. population has grown 20 percent, but the time spent by commuters in traffic has grown 236 percent. Each year, traffic congestion wastes nine billion gallons of fuel. By encouraging Federal employees to look to transit and by providing access to transit stations, we can help reduce congestion, improve the environment, and promote an improved quality of life.

I am introducing the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act because of the opportunities it will give Federal agencies to support public transportation, both by providing employee access to transit facilities across the nation, and by providing transit benefits to Federal employees in the Washington, D.C. region. Both of these improvements will aid our efforts to fight congestion and pollution by encouraging the use of transportation alternatives. This legislation is strongly supported by Federal employees, transit providers, and local elected officials, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, along with their letters of support, be printed in the Record. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act.