A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a nonrefundable tax credit for contributions to congressional candidates.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a package of legislation--two bills--designed to put us back on track for improved fuel efficiency among automobiles.

I support a balanced, forward-looking energy policy, which should include a strong provision to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. In 2002, the Senate spent several weeks debating energy policy, including fuel efficiency. Unfortunately, a strong bill on this topic was not enacted into law last year.

Both chambers of Congress are currently crafting a national energy policy. As the challenging times we currently face demonstrates, we cannot delay in addressing our national energy policy, including oil consumption.

Throughout the debate on energy policy, I have emphasized that the best way to lessen our Nation's dependence on foreign oil is to improve the fuel efficiency of our automobiles. Transportation as a sector is the largest user of petroleum. If we are truly committed to crafting a forward-thinking energy policy, automobile fuel efficiency is the place to start.

In 1975 the United States Congress had a vision: to double the fuel efficiency of our Nation's passenger vehicles in ten years. By 1985 the automotive industry achieved the goal that Congress set. As of 2001, thanks to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, CAFE, law, oil consumption was about 2.8 million barrels per day lower than it otherwise would be.

Unfortunately, progress is now at a stand-still, and in fact, the average fuel economy in the United States has slipped since 1985. Since peaking at 22.1 mpg in 1987 and 1998, average fuel economy declined nearly eight percent to 20.4 in 2001, lower than it had been at any time since 1980. Average fuel economy for automobiles 8,500 pounds and fewer continues to decline. One major factor in this regression is the fact that passenger standards have not increased since 1985. While the Bush Administration has recently increased non-passenger standards by a modest 1.5 mpg, this is not enough to compensate for the progress we have failed to achieve for more than a decade.

Another reason why we are losing ground in terms of fuel efficiency is the exploitation of the ``non-passenger vehicle'' category. Originally intended to cover trucks used for business-oriented purposes, such as farming and construction, this category soon was seriously abused, so that it now includes minivans, sport utility vehicles, SUVs, and cross-over utility vehicles, CUVs.

In addition, out-dated provisions of our tax code have encouraged increased manufacturing and purchasing of non-passenger vehicles. For example, the Federal gas guzzler excise tax, enacted in 1978, exempted non-passenger vehicles. At the time, few non-passenger vehicles existed, aside from heavy duty trucks and vans. But today, sales of SUVs, minivans, and CUVs make up over 30 percent of new vehicle purchases. As these sales have grown, these vehicles have enjoyed increasing subsidies by the Federal Government. In 1999, the SUV loophole in the gas guzzler tax cost the government $5.6 billion in uncollected taxes.

For those in America who want to make a difference in terms of energy policy: take a look at the parking lots across America. Take a look at the inefficient vehicles we are driving on the road today, because this Congress and country have not shown the leadership to spur development of more efficient cars and trucks in America.

We can improve the fuel efficiency of vehicles. We have done it in the past, and we can do it again. A panel at the National Academy of Sciences, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and other reputable organizations have documented the myriad technologies available today, and emerging technologies, that will reduce or eliminate the need for oil in our vehicles.

Today we squarely face the question and challenge of energy security. I believe American families are ready to do their part for their country by purchasing more fuel-efficient vehicles. And I believe the auto manufacturers, scientists and engineers of this country are ready to step up to the plate and produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. By supporting improved fuel economy, we can lead and demonstrate to future generations that we are prepared to make a sacrifice for our national security, environment, and public health.

Many have already voiced their support for decreasing our dependence on oil. I am submitting for the record several editorials, which are just a sample of the many public calls for enacting an energy policy that includes a way to conserve oil. I also am submitting letters from national organizations calling for more fuel efficient vehicles. I ask that these documents be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

Today I am introducing two bills to get us back on the track of progress, to increase fuel efficiency for both passenger and non- passenger vehicles.

The Automobile Fuel Efficiency Improvements Act will increase the fuel economy standard for both types of vehicles. It will increase the CAFE standard of passenger automobiles to 40 miles a gallon by 2015, a 60 percent increase above the current average of 25 miles a gallon, with the first increase required in model year 2006. The bill also will increase the fuel economy of non-passenger automobiles to 27.5 miles a gallon by 2015, a 60 percent increase above the current average of 17.5 miles a gallon, with the first increase required in model year 2006. Through the CAFE standards required this bill, we will save a cumulative 123 billion gallons of gasoline, and over 250 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, by 2015.

This bill also will close the loopholes in the non-passenger vehicle definition. It will update the weight cut-off for

passenger and non-passenger automobiles, to reflect changing trends in vehicle weight. Many vehicles, such as the new SUV called the Hummer, weigh more than 8,500 pounds, the current weight cut-off for regulation under CAFE. This bill will regulate vehicles up to 12,000 pounds, in order to prevent large passenger vehicles from circumventing the system. In addition, SUVs, minivans, and CUVs would be considered passenger vehicles under this bill.

Another provision of this bill would establish a Federal procurement requirement for the purchase of vehicles that exceed CAFE standards. The bill also requires a study to improve the accuracy of the EPA test for fuel economy, and would implement necessary changes to the test, so that we can better account for improvements in fuel efficiency based on how vehicles are truly performing on the roads. Finally, this bill would update the civil penalties for violating CAFE laws, to adjust the amounts for inflation.

The second bill I am introducing today, the Tax Incentives for Fuel Efficient Vehicles Act, would modify the tax code. First, this bill would create a new tax credit for purchasers of passenger and non- passenger vehicles that exceed CAFE standards by at least 5 miles a gallon. Second, this bill would modify the gas guzzler tax, effective at the beginning of Model Year 2006, so that SUVs and other passenger vehicles currently escaping the tax through an existing loophole would be included. Heavy-duty trucks and vans would continue to be excluded.

Modifying the gas guzzler tax to include SUVs, minivans, and CUVs will help us advance the policy goal of discouraging vehicles that are especially inefficient in terms of energy consumption, while at the same time raising revenues that can be used to provide an incentive for vehicles that are especially fuel-efficient. This approach will help spawn investment in automobiles that are better for our environment, energy security and consumers.

I would ask my colleagues to note that it is my intention that the Tax Incentives for Fuel Efficient Vehicles Act will have virtually no cost to the Federal Government. If the revenues raised by the expansion of the gas guzzler tax do not adequately compensate for the cost of the credit, I will adjust the size of the credit accordingly.

I am proud to have the support of Senators Nelson, FL, Jeffords, Corzine, Reed and Kennedy in introducing the Automobile Fuel Efficiency Improvements Act. Also I am pleased that the following organizations are supporting the Automobile Fuel Efficiency Improvements Act: Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, Natural Resources Defense Council, U.S. PIRG, National Environmental Trust, Friends of the Earth, Public Citizen, The Wilderness Society, Citizen Action Illinois, Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life, National Council of Churches, Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America, American Jewish Committee, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Central Conference of American Rabbis, MoveOn, and Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

For the benefit of our children and future generations, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Sierra Club,

Washington, DC, February 27, 2003.

Dear Congress Member: Protecting our environment and the

health and safety of our families are values that are clearly

and consistently supported by the majority of Americans. As

the nation's oldest and largest grassroots environmental

organization, the Sierra Club looks forward to working with

you and your staff to keep America's promise to leave a

cleaner planet to future generations.

The challenge facing the 108th Congress is not merely to

maintain existing protections, but to take common-sense steps

to protect our communities from environmental hazards and to

safeguard our natural heritage. Poll after poll confirms that

Americans--regardless of demographics or political

persuasion--care about protecting our special places,

restoring our forests, promoting smart growth, and improving

the safety or our clean air and water.

However, public support alone is not enough. It is for this

reason that the Sierra Club works with our more than 750,000

members nationwide to educate their neighbors about

environmental threats and opportunities, mobilize their

communities to demand environmental protection, and to hold

public officials accountable for their actions.

Sierra Club members are looking to their elected

representatives to continue progress on protecting our

communities, improving the quality of our air and water, and

ensuring a natural heritage of wilderness, parks and open

spaces for future generations. As the 108th Congress begins,

I would like to inform you about the particular issues on

which the Sierra Club's members will be seeking your support:

Oppose efforts to weaken the framework of existing laws

that safeguard public health and the environment and improve

the quality of our air and water, and protect our communities

from toxic pollution;

Support measures that safeguard America's wildlife and

unique natural heritage from Alaska's Arctic National

Wildlife Refuge to the wildlands of Utah and California;

Provide adequate funding for the enforcement of

environmental protection programs;

In reauthorizing TEA-21, give priority to maintaining

existing roads and bridges over new construction, and defend

the National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Air

Conformity laws from attack;

Push for policies that reduce global warming pollution,

reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and increase our energy

security by increasing our fuel economy, energy efficiency

and reliance on clean renewable sources of energy;

Protect the health and integrity of National Forests along

with the public's right to participate in the management of

our public lands;

Fully fund international and domestic family planning

programs that are critically important to stabilizing

population;

Ensure tough environmental standards in future US trade

agreements, and the personal safety and civil liberties of

those on the front lines of environmental protection around

the world.

Many of your constituents are also our members, which is

why we would like to work together in Washington and in your

district to protect the land we all love. Attached is a

contact sheet of our issue experts in several policy areas.

If you have any questions about upcoming legislation, would

like to find out more about Sierra Club positions, or would

like to get in touch with our members in your district,

please do not hesitate to contact us.

We look forward to continuing to work with you and your

staff to protect America's environment, for our families, for

our future.

Sincerely,

Debbie Sease,

Legislative Director.

Mr. President, this past Sunday marked the beginning of National Crime Victims' Rights Week. We set this week aside each year to focus attention on the needs and rights of crime victims. I am pleased to take

this opportunity to introduce legislation with my good friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, and our cosponsors, Senators Corzine, Kerry, Murray, and Schumer. Our bill, the Crime Victims Assistance Act of 2003, represents the next step in our continuing efforts to afford dignity and recognition to victims of crime.

My involvement with crime victims began more than three decades ago when I served as State's Attorney in Chittenden County, VT, and witnessed first-hand the devastation of crime. I have worked ever since to ensure that the criminal justice system is one that respects the rights and dignity of victims of crime, rather than one that presents additional ordeals for those already victimized.

I am proud that Congress has been a significant part of the solution to provide victims with greater rights and assistance. Over the past two decades, Congress has passed several bills to this end. These bills have included: the Victims of Crime Act of 1984; the Victims' Bill of Rights of 1990; the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990; the Violence Against Women Act of 1994; the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996; the Victim Rights Clarification Act of 1997; the Crime Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act of 1998; the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000; the Victims of Terrorism Tax Relief Act of 2001; and the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001.

The legislation that we introduce today, the Crime Victims Assistance Act of 2003, builds upon this progress. It provides for comprehensive reform of the Federal law to establish enhanced rights and protections for victims of Federal crime. Among other things, our bill provides crime victims with the right to consult with the prosecution prior to detention hearings and the entry of plea agreements, and generally requires the courts to give greater consideration to the views and interests of the victim at all stages of the criminal justice process. Responding to concerns raised by victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, the bill provides standing for the prosecutor and the victim to assert the right of the victim to attend and observe the trial.

Assuring that victims are provided their statutorily guaranteed rights is a critical concern for all those involved in the administration of justice. Our bill would establish an administrative authority in the Department of Justice to receive and investigate victims' claims of unlawful or inappropriate action on the part of criminal justice and victims' service providers. Department of Justice employees who fail to comply with the law pertaining to the treatment of crime victims could face disciplinary sanctions, including suspension or termination of employment.

In addition to these improvements to the Federal system, the bill proposes several innovative new programs to help States provide better services to victims of State crimes. The bill authorizes technology grants for local authorities to develop state-of-the-art notification systems to keep victims informed of case developments and important dates. Grants would also be available to improve compliance with State victim's rights laws, encourage further experimentation with the community-based restorative justice model, streamline access to victim services through the use of case managers, and expand the capacity of victim service providers to serve victims with limited English proficiency.

Finally, the Crime Victims Assistance Act would improve the manner in which the Crime Victims Fund is managed and preserved. Most significantly, the bill would eliminate the annual cap on spending from the Fund, which has prevented millions of dollars of Fund deposits from reaching victims and supporting essential services. We should not be imposing artificial caps on VOCA spending while substantial unmet needs continue to exist. The Crime Victims Assistance Act would replace the cap with a self-regulating system, supported by crime victim groups, that would ensure the stability and protection of Fund assets, while allowing more money to be distributed for victim programs.

These are all matters that can be considered and enacted this year with a simple majority of both Houses of Congress. They need not overcome the delay and higher standards necessitated by proposing to amend the Constitution. They need not wait the hammering out of implementing legislation before making a difference in the lives of crime victims.

I have on several occasions noted my concern that we not dissipate the progress we could be making by focusing exclusively on efforts to amend the Constitution. Regretfully, many opportunities for progress have been squandered. One notable exception was the passage, as part of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, of several significant amendments to the Victims of Crime Act that Senator Kennedy and I had proposed in an earlier version of the Crime Victims Assistance Act. I am glad that we could get those important provisions signed into law, but we still have more to do.

I look forward to continuing to work with the Administration, victims groups, prosecutors, judges and other interested parties on how we can most effectively enhance the rights of victims of crime. Congress and State legislatures have become more sensitive to crime victims rights over the past 20 years and we have an opportunity to make additional, significant progress this year to provide the greater voice and rights that crime victims deserve. It is my hope that Democrats and Republicans, and supporters and opponents of the proposed constitutional amendment, will join in advancing the Crime Victims Assistance Act through Congress. We can make a difference in the lives of crime victims right now.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the section-by- section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the legislation I have offered, along with Senator Hatch, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, is called the Lifetime Consequences for Sex Offenders Act of 2003. It is supported by the U.S. Department of Justice.

We will be seeking to include it within the child crimes bill, otherwise known as the PROTECT Act.

Studies show that sexual offenders are prone toward recidivism throughout their lives. A 1988 study of sexual recidivism factors on child molesters showed that 43 percent of offenders sexually reoffended within a 4-year followup period--43 percent, almost half of them who were caught. Within a 4-year period, maybe others reoffended and were not caught. So one way to help curb that recidivism is to place the defendant on supervised release for a period of years after he or she is released from prison.

Currently, under 18 U.S.C. Section 3543, a Federal judge is allowed to impose a term of 1 to 5 years supervised release on a convicted sex offender. In a review of 42 studies regarding sexual-offender recidivism in which researchers followed up on the offenders, the researchers have found that the longer the followup period is, the greater is the percentage of those who will commit another crime. So it means they tend to reoffend way out into extended periods of time.

So this will give the sentencing court discretion to place a sex offender on supervised release for a term of up to life if the court thinks that is appropriate.

Mr. President, I had one of America's finest citizens in my office this afternoon, John Walsh of the ``America's Most Wanted'' program, of which he is known so well. He has been a champion of protecting children from sexual predators and abuse. He told me there is no doubt--and there is no doubt scientifically or any other way--that child predators and sexual offenders and child molesters tend to be recidivists. Pedophiles continue that activity. We wish it were not so, but we see that in the papers every day--people who have had prior problems, who have not just offended one time.

When I was a Federal prosecutor, I prosecuted a number of individuals charged with sexual based offenses. In almost every instance, those who are apprehended--possessing child pornography, making child pornography--had a history prior to that, over a period of years, of the molestation of other children. In fact, I remember one who did not appear to have that history, and the agent ended up talking to his daughter or step-daughter, and she said when she was a young girl, he had molested her. So there was never one defendant that I had, in the fifteen years I prosecuted, who did not have a history of it.

It is a problem that we know is real. And it is not correct or wise to have a judge maybe sentence somebody to jail for 5 years in custody, and then they get out, and the most the judge can supervise them is 1 to 5 years. They may still be molesting children 25 years down the road. Supervision can help them avoid repeat offenses and can help protect children. And they will have a probation or parole officer supervising their activities, making them report, on a daily basis, knowing where they are working, making sure they are not working in an area that could endanger children.

I think this is a commonsense bill. Senator Hatch and I are pleased to offer it. It is something that needs to be made a part of American law.

I appreciate the leadership that John Walsh has committed to these issues and the PROTECT Act, in particular.

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

Mr. President, victims of crime deserve to have their voices heard and be notified about important events in the criminal justice system relating to their cases, and they deserve enforceable rights under the law.

Today, my colleagues and I are introducing the Crime Victims Assistance Act. It is especially appropriate that we do so this week, which is National Crime Victims' Rights Week. Our bill is intended to define the rights of victims more clearly, and establish effective means to implement and enforce these rights. Equally important, it does so without taking the unnecessary and time-consuming step of amending the Constitution.

Our bill strengthens protections for victims of both violent and nonviolent Federal crimes, and gives them a greater voice in the criminal justice system. It gives victims a number of important rights, such as the right to be notified and consulted on detention and plea agreements; the right to be present and heard at trial and at sentencing; and the right to be notified of a scheduled hearing on a sentence adjustment, discharged from a psychiatric facility, or grant of clemency.

The rights established by this bill will fill existing gaps in Federal criminal law and will be a major step toward guaranteeing that victims of crime receive fair treatment and are afforded the respect they deserve. Our bill achieves these goals in a way that does not interfere with the rights of the States to protect victims in ways appropriate to each State.

Rather than mandating that States modify their criminal justice procedures in particular ways, our bill authorizes the use of Federal funds to establish effective programs to promote victim rights compliance. It increases resources for the development of state-of-the- art systems for notifying victims of important dates and developments in their cases. It provides funds for the development of community- based programs relating to those rights. It also provides funds for case management programs to streamline access to victims services and reduce ``revictimization'' by the criminal justice system, and enable service providers to help victims with special communication needs, such as limited English proficiency, hearing disabilities, and developmental disability.

Finally, our bill replaces the cap on spending form the Crime Victims Fund, which has prevented millions of dollars of fund deposits from reaching victims and supporting essential services. The bill adopts a new approach supported by victim groups to strengthen the stability of the fund and protect its assets, while allowing more funds to be distributed for victim programs.

We do not have to amend the Constitution to achieve these important goals. The Constitution is the foundation of our democracy. It reflects the enduring principles of our country. The Framers deliberately made the Constitution difficult to amend because it was never intended to be used for normal legislative purposes. If it is not necessary to amend the Constitution to achieve particular goals, it is necessary not to amend it. Our legislation is well-designed to establish effective and enforceable rights for victims of crime, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Durbin of Illinois, and others, in introducing a Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency bill that requires passenger vehicles to have an average fuel efficiency of 40 miles per gallon and nonpassenger vehicles to have an average fuel efficiency 27.5 miles per gallon by 2015.

This proposal should be an important part of the upcoming debate on the energy needs of our country. I was very disappointed last year during the energy debate when several meaningful CAFE proposals were defeated.

Now, as we again embark on the important task of determining how our country's energy needs will be met in the coming decades, CAFE increases should be a part of the plan.

It has been said many times, but is worth repeating: the purpose of increasing CAFE is to reduce fuel consumption.

The U.S. consumes 25 percent of the world's oil, but only has 3 percent of the world's reserves--so we have to use less of it and find alternatives.

Our national security depends on it. If we don't have to rely on other countries, many of whom do not support our policies and may be in fact be working against us, for our energy, we as a nation are more secure.

And increasing CAFE protects the environment. Toxic air emissions and carbon dioxide emissions are reduced--thereby slowing global warming.

The automobile manufacturers won't embrace this proposal, but they should. The 2001 National Academy of Sciences' report said 40 mph is possible and feasible.

The technology exists to raise CAFE significantly with no net consumer costs. And, developing technologies, including hybrid vehicle designs, could improve vehicle fuel economy by 20-40 percent. We're perfectly willing to give auto manufacturers the lead time necessary to make these strides, but the benchmark has to be there to spur them into action.

The pay off to our national security, environment, level of technological expertise and market share will be worth the effort.

I have faith in the ingenuity of our automakers and the adaptability of the American consumer to make an increased CAFE standard profitable.

For these reasons, I lend my support to Senator Durbin's measure and look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue during the upcoming energy debate.