[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 147 (Tuesday, November 8, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12528-S12534]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. STABENOW:
  S. 1973. A bill to provide an immediate Federal income tax rebate to 
help taxpayers with higher fuel costs, to express the sense of the 
Senate regarding full funding of LIHEAP, and to provide consumer 
protections against fuel price gouging, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Energy Tax 
Rebate Act of 2005 and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  Michigan families and families across America are being delivered a 
one-two punch when it comes to energy prices. First, they continue to 
be hit hard by high gasoline prices. Now they are facing home heating 
costs this winter that are expected to rise dramatically compared to 
last year.
  We can do better than this for our families. So today I am 
introducing a bill that will provide families with an immediate $500 
tax rebate to help them pay for rising energy costs. My legislation 
also includes important consumer protections to make sure Americans are 
not the victims of unfair market practices and consumer price gouging. 
Finally, my bill includes a Sense of the Senate that the Low-Income 
Home Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP, should be fully funded 
to its authorized level of $5.1 billion. LIHEAP is a successful program 
that makes sure our most vulnerable families, those living on low 
incomes or fixed-incomes, are able to heat their homes during the cold 
winter months.
  Filling our cars with gasoline to take our children to school and 
heating our homes in the winter are not luxuries. They are necessities. 
Energy is a necessity. Together we can do better and together we will 
do better.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1973

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Energy Tax Rebate Act of 
     2005''.

                       TITLE I--ENERGY TAX REBATE

     SEC. 101. ENERGY TAX REBATE.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter B of chapter 65 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to rules of special 
     application in the case of abatements, credits, and refunds) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 6430. ENERGY TAX REBATE.

       ``(a) General Rule.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, each individual shall be treated as having made a 
     payment against the tax imposed by chapter 1 for the taxable 
     year beginning in 2005 in an amount equal to the lesser of--
       ``(1) the amount of the taxpayer's liability for tax for 
     such taxpayer's preceding taxable year, or
       ``(2) $500.
       ``(b) Liability for Tax.--For purposes of this section, the 
     liability for tax for any taxable year shall be the excess 
     (if any) of--
       ``(1) the sum of--
       ``(A) the taxpayer's regular tax liability (within the 
     meaning of section 26(b)) for the taxable year,
       ``(B) the tax imposed by section 55(a) with respect to such 
     taxpayer for the taxable year, and
       ``(C) the taxpayer's social security taxes (within the 
     meaning of section 24(d)(2)) for the taxable year, over
       ``(2) the sum of the credits allowable under part IV of 
     subchapter A of chapter 1 (other than the credits allowable 
     under subpart C thereof, relating to refundable credits) for 
     the taxable year.
       ``(c) Taxable Income Limitation.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the taxable income of the taxpayer 
     for the preceding taxable year exceeds the maximum taxable 
     income in the table under subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) of 
     section 1, whichever is applicable, to which the 25 percent 
     rate applies, the dollar amount otherwise determined under 
     subsection (a) for such taxpayer shall be reduced (but not 
     below zero) by the amount of the excess.
       ``(2) Change in return status.--In the case of married 
     individuals filing a joint return for the taxable year who 
     did not file such a joint return for the preceding taxable 
     year, paragraph (1) shall be applied by reference to the 
     taxable income of both such individuals for the preceding 
     taxable year.
       ``(d) Date Payment Deemed Made.--
       ``(1) In general.--The payment provided by this section 
     shall be deemed made on the date of the enactment of the 
     Energy Tax Rebate Act of 2005.
       ``(2) Remittance of payment.--The Secretary shall remit to 
     each taxpayer the payment described in paragraph (1) not 
     later than the date which is 30 days after the date specified 
     in paragraph (1).
       ``(e) Certain Persons Not Eligible.--This section shall not 
     apply to--
       ``(1) any individual with respect to whom a deduction under 
     section 151 is allowable to another taxpayer for a taxable 
     year beginning in the calendar year in which such 
     individual's taxable year begins,
       ``(2) any estate or trust, or
       ``(3) any nonresident alien individual.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1324(b)(2) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting before the period 
     ``, or enacted by the Energy Tax Rebate Act of 2005''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subchapter B of chapter 65 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 6430. Energy tax rebate.''.

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

[[Page S12529]]

              TITLE II--LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE

     SEC. 201. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING FULL FUNDING FOR THE 
                   LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should 
     appropriate $5,100,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 and each 
     subsequent fiscal year for the Low-Income Home Energy 
     Assistance Program, under section 2602(b) of the Low-Income 
     Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981.

                    TITLE III--CONSUMER PROTECTIONS

     SEC. 301. UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICE IN COMMERCE 
                   RELATED TO PRICING OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.

       (a) Sales to Consumers at Unconscionable Price.--
       (1) In general.--It is unlawful for any person to sell 
     crude oil, gasoline, or petroleum distillates at a price 
     that--
       (A) is unconscionably excessive; or
       (B) indicates the seller is taking unfair advantage of 
     circumstances to increase prices unreasonably.
       (2) Factors considered.--In determining whether a violation 
     of paragraph (1) has occurred, there shall be taken into 
     account, among other factors, whether--
       (A) the amount charge represents a gross disparity between 
     the price of the crude oil, gasoline, or petroleum distillate 
     sold and the price at which it was offered for sale in the 
     usual course of the seller's business immediately prior to 
     the energy emergency; or
       (B) the amount charged grossly exceeds the price at which 
     the same or similar crude oil, gasoline, or petroleum 
     distillate was readily obtainable by other purchasers in the 
     area to which the declaration applies.
       (3) Mitigating factors.--In determining whether a violation 
     of paragraph (1) has occurred, there also shall be taken into 
     account, among other factors, the price that would reasonably 
     equate supply and demand in a competitive and freely 
     functioning market and whether the price at which the crude 
     oil, gasoline, or petroleum distillate was sold reasonably 
     reflects additional costs, not within the control fo the 
     seller, that were paid or incurred by the seller.
       (b) Prohibition Against Geographic Price-Setting and 
     Territorial Restrictions.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it is 
     unlawful for any person to--
       (A) set different prices for gasoline or petroleum 
     distillates for different geographic locations; or
       (B) implement a territorial restriction with respect to 
     gasoline or petroleum distillates.
       (2) Exceptions.--A person may set different prices for 
     gasoline or petroleum distillates for different geographic 
     locations or implement territorial restrictions with respect 
     to gasoline or petroleum distillates only if the price 
     differences or restrictions are sufficiently justified by--
       (A) differences in the cost of retail space where the 
     gasoline or petroleum distillate is sold;
       (B) differences in the cost of transportation of gasoline 
     or petroleum distillates from the refinery to the retail 
     location;
       (C) differences in the cost of storage of gasoline or 
     petroleum distillates at the retail location; or
       (D) differences in the formulation of the gasoline or 
     petroleum distillates sold.
       (c) False Pricing Information.--It is unlawful for any 
     person to report information related to the wholesale price 
     of crude oil, gasoline, or petroleum distillates to the 
     Federal Trade Commission if--
       (1) that person knew, or reasonably should have known, the 
     information to be false or misleading;
       (2) the information was required by law to be reported; and
       (3) the person intended the false or misleading data to 
     affect data compiled by that department or agency for 
     statistical or analytical purpose with respect to the market 
     for crude oil, gasoline, or petroleum distillates.

     SEC. 302. ENFORCEMENT UNDER FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT.

       (a) Enforcement by Commission.--This title shall be 
     enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. In enforcing 
     section 301(a) of this title, the Commission shall give 
     priority to enforcement actions concerning companies with 
     total United States wholesale or retail sales of crude oil, 
     gasoline, and petroleum distillates in excess of $500,000,000 
     per year but shall not exclude enforcement actions against 
     companies with total United States wholesale sales of 
     $500,000,000 or less per year.
       (b) Violation Is Unfair or Deceptive Act or Practice.--The 
     violation of any provision of this title shall be treated as 
     an unfair or deceptive act or practice proscribed under a 
     rule issued under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade 
     Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).

     SEC. 303. ENFORCEMENT BY STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL.

       (a) In General.--A State, as parens patriae, may bring a 
     civil action on behalf of its residents in an appropriate 
     district court of the United States to enforce the provisions 
     of section 301(a), or to impose the civil penalties 
     authorized by section 304 for violations of section 301(a), 
     whenever the attorney general of the State has reason to 
     believe that the interests of the residents of the State have 
     been or are being threatened by such violation.
       (b) Notice.--The State shall serve written notice to the 
     Commission of any civil action under subsection (a) prior to 
     initiating such civil action. The notice shall include a copy 
     of the complaint to be filed to initiate such civil action, 
     except that if it is not feasible for the State to provide 
     such prior notice, the State shall provide such notice 
     immediately upon instituting such civil action.
       (c) Authority to Intervene.--Upon receiving the notice 
     required by subsection (b), the Commission may intervene in 
     such civil action and upon intervening--
       (1) be heard on all matters arising in such civil action; 
     and
       (2) file petitions for appeal of a decision in such civil 
     action.
       (d) Construction.--For purposes of bringing any civil 
     action under subsection (a), nothing in this section shall 
     prevent the attorney general of a State from exercising the 
     powers conferred on the attorney general by the laws of such 
     State to conduct investigations or to administer oaths or 
     affirmations or to compel the attendance of witnesses or the 
     production of documentary and other evidence.
       (e) Venue; Service of Process.--In a civil action brought 
     under subsection (a)--
       (1) the venue shall be a judicial district in which--
       (A) the defendant operates;
       (B) the defendant was authorized to do business; or
       (C) where the defendant in the civil action is found;
       (2) process may be served without regard to the territorial 
     limits of the district or of the State in which the civil 
     action is instituted; and
       (3) a person who participated with the defendant in an 
     alleged violation that is being litigated in the civil action 
     may be joined in the civil action without regard to the 
     residence of the person.
       (f) Limitation on State Action While Federal Action Is 
     Pending.--If the Commission has instituted a civil action or 
     an administrative action for violation of this title, no 
     State attorney general, or official or agency of a State, may 
     bring an action under this subsection during the pendency of 
     that action against any defendant named in the complain of 
     the Commission or the other agency for any violation of this 
     title alleged in the complaint.
       (g) Enforcement of State Law.--Nothing contained in this 
     section shall prohibit an authorized State official from 
     proceeding in state court to enforce a civil or criminal 
     statute of such State.

     SEC. 304. PENALTIES.

       (a) Civil Penalty.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to any penalty applicable 
     under the Federal Trade Commission Act--
       (A) any person who violates section 301(c) of this title is 
     punishable by a civil penalty of not more than $1,000,000; 
     and
       (B) any person who violates section 301(a) or 301(b) of 
     this title is punishable by a civil penalty of not more than 
     $3,000,000.
       (2) Method of assessment.--The penalties provided by 
     paragraph (1) shall be assessed in the same manner as civil 
     penalties imposed under section 5 of the Federal Trade 
     Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45).
       (3) Multiple offenses; mitigating factors.--In assessing 
     the penalty provided by subsection (a)--
       (A) each day of a continuing violation shall be considered 
     a separate violation; and
       (B) the Commission shall take into consideration the 
     seriousness of the violation and the efforts of the person 
     committing the violation to remedy the harm caused by the 
     violation in a timely manner.
       (b) Criminal Penalty.--Violation of section 301(a) of this 
     title is punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000,000, 
     imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both.

     SEC. 305. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.

       (a) Other Authority of Commission.--Nothing in this title 
     shall be construed to limit or affect in any way the 
     Commission's authority to bring enforcement actions or take 
     any other measure under the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 
     U.S.C. 41 et seq.) or any other provision of law.
       (b) State Law.--Nothing in this title preempts any State 
     law.

     SEC. 306. MARKET TRANSPARENCY FOR CRUDE OIL, GASOLINE, AND 
                   PETROLEUM DISTILLATES.

       (a) In General.--The Federal Trade Commission shall 
     facilitate price transparency in markets for the sale of 
     crude oil and essential petroleum products at wholesale, 
     having due regard for the public interest, the integrity of 
     those markets, fair competition, and the protection of 
     consumers.
       (b) Marketplace Transparency.--
       (1) Dissemination of information.--In carrying out this 
     section, the Commission shall provide by rule for the 
     dissemination, on a timely basis, of information about the 
     availability and prices of wholesale crude oil, gasoline, and 
     petroleum distillates to the Commission, States, wholesale 
     buyers and sellers, and the public.
       (2) Protection of public from anticompetitive activity.--In 
     determining the information to be made available under this 
     section and time to make the information available, the 
     Commission shall seek to ensure that consumers and 
     competitive markets are protected from the adverse effects of 
     potential collusion or other anticompetitive behaviors that 
     can be facilitated by untimely public disclosure of 
     transaction-specific information.

[[Page S12530]]

       (3) Protection of market mechanisms.--The Commission shall 
     withhold from public disclosure under this section any 
     information the Commission determines would, if disclosed, be 
     detrimental to the operation of an effective market or 
     jeopardize security.
       (c) Information Sources.--
       (1) In general.--In carrying out subsection (b), the 
     Commission may--
       (A) obtain information from any market participant; and
       (B) rely on entities other than the Commission to receive 
     and make public the information, subject to the disclosure 
     rules in subsection (b)(3).
       (2) Published data.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Commission shall--
       (A) consider the degree of price transparency provided by 
     existing price publishers and providers of trade processing 
     services; and
       (B) rely on such publishers and services to the maximum 
     extent practicable.
       (3) Electronic information systems.--
       (A) In general.--The Commission may establish an electronic 
     information system if the Commission determines that existing 
     price publications are not adequately providing price 
     discovery or market transparency.
       (B) Electronic information filing requirements.--Nothing in 
     this section affects any electronic information filing 
     requirements in effect under this title as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (4) De minimus exception.--The Commission may not require 
     entities who have a de minimus market presence to comply with 
     the reporting requirements of this section.
       (d) Cooperation With Other Federal Agencies.--
       (1) Memorandum of understanding.--Not later 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall 
     conclude a memorandum of understanding with the Commodity 
     Futures Trading Commission and other appropriate agencies (if 
     applicable) relating to information sharing, which shall 
     include provisions--
       (A) ensuring that information requests to markets within 
     the respective jurisdiction of each agency are properly 
     coordinated to minimize duplicative information requests; and
       (B) regarding the treatment of proprietary trading 
     information.
       (2) CFTC jurisdiction.--Nothing in this section limits or 
     affects the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures 
     Trading Commission under the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1 et seq.).
       (e) Rulemaking.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall initiate a 
     rulemaking proceeding to establish such rules as the 
     Commission determines to be necessary and appropriate to 
     carry out this section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NELSON of Florida:
  S. 1974. A bill to provide States with the resources needed to rid 
our schools of performance-enhancing drug use; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Drug 
Free Varsity Sports Act of 2005. This bill would provide States with 
the resources they need to rid our schools of steroids and other 
performance-enhancing drugs.
  I believe steroid use doesn't begin at the professional level. I am 
very concerned about performance-enhancing drug use among young 
athletes--specifically, high school athletes. Steroid use among high 
school students is on the rise. It more than doubled among high school 
students from 1991 to 2003, according to the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention. Furthermore, a study by the University of 
Michigan shows that the percentage of 12th graders who said they had 
used steroids some time in their lives rose from 1.9 percent in 1996 to 
3.4 percent in 2004. This is unacceptable and a health risk to our 
children.
  Last year, the Polk County School District became the first in 
Florida to establish random testing for high school athletes, and the 
Florida House passed a bill that would have made Florida the first 
State to require steroid testing for high school athletes. That bill 
stalled in the Senate, but now Florida and other States are considering 
a similar law. Currently, less than 4 percent of U.S. high schools test 
athletes for steroids, and no state requires high schools to test 
athletes. Schools and States say that cost is usually the reason they 
don't test.
  In response, I am introducing this legislation to help States with 
the resources they need to curb the use of steroids and other 
performance-enhancing drugs. My legislation would provide Federal 
grants directly to States so that they can develop and implement 
performance-enhancing drug testing programs.
  The Drug Free Varsity Sports Act of 2005 would authorize $20 million 
in grants to States to create statewide pilot drug testing programs for 
performance-enhancing drugs. States that receive the grants would be 
required to incorporate recovery, counseling, and treatment programs 
for those students who test positive for performance-enhancing drugs.
  Stopping the use of performance-enhancing drugs goes beyond testing. 
That is why my legislation also would require States that receive 
grants to allocate no less than 10 percent of the funding to establish 
statewide policies to discourage steroid use, through educational or 
other related means.
  In addition, at a recent Senate Commerce Committee hearing on this 
issue, I called on all of the heads of the major professional sports 
leagues and their unions to begin a major, multi-sport, national 
advertising campaign. This campaign should be paid for by the leagues 
and their players, and directed at young people. It should focus on 
discouraging the use of performance-enhancing drugs. We must get the 
message out about the dangers of these drugs, and who better to send 
that message to young people than the leagues they watch and the 
players they idolize?
  There is no simple solution to the issue of steroids in sports. 
Congress can do its part by enacting the Drug Free Varsity Sports Act 
of 2005. But the sports leagues, their players, coaches, and parents 
all must play an active role.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1974

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Drug Free Varsity Sports Act 
     of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. PILOT DRUG-TESTING PROGRAMS FOR PERFORMANCE-ENHANCING 
                   DRUGS.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to supplement 
     the other student drug-testing programs assisted by the 
     Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools of the Department of 
     Education by establishing, through the Office, a grant 
     program that will allow State educational agencies to test 
     secondary school students for performance-enhancing drug use.
       (b) Program Authorized.--The Secretary of Education, acting 
     through the Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe 
     and Drug-Free Schools, shall award, on a competitive basis, 
     grants to State educational agencies to enable the State 
     educational agencies to develop and carry out statewide pilot 
     programs that test secondary school students for performance-
     enhancing drug use.
       (c) Application.--A State educational agency that desires 
     to receive a grant under this section shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary of Education at such time, in 
     such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary 
     may require.
       (d) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     Secretary of Education shall give priority to State 
     educational agencies that incorporate community organizations 
     in carrying out the recovery, counseling, and treatment 
     programs described in subsection (e)(1)(B).
       (e) Use of Funds.--
       (1) Drug-testing program for performance-enhancing drugs.--
     A State educational agency that receives a grant under this 
     section shall use not more than 90 percent of the grant funds 
     to carry out the following:
       (A) Implement a drug-testing program for performance-
     enhancing drugs that is limited to testing secondary school 
     students who meet 1 or more of the following criteria:
       (i) The student participates in the school's athletic 
     program.
       (ii) The student is engaged in a competitive, 
     extracurricular, school-sponsored activity.
       (iii) The student and the student's parent or guardian 
     provides written consent for the student to participate in a 
     voluntary random drug-testing program for performance-
     enhancing drugs.
       (B) Provide recovery, counseling, and treatment programs 
     for secondary school students tested in the program who test 
     positive for performance-enhancing drugs.
       (2) Prevention.--A State educational agency that receives a 
     grant under this section shall use not less than 10 percent 
     of the grant funds to establish statewide policies that 
     discourage the use of performance-enhancing drugs, through 
     educational or other related means.
       (f) Report.--For each year of the grant period, a State 
     educational agency that receives a grant under this section 
     shall prepare and submit an annual report to the Assistant 
     Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools 
     on the impact of the pilot program, which report shall 
     include--

[[Page S12531]]

       (1) the number and percentage of students who test positive 
     for performance-enhancing drugs;
       (2) the cost of the pilot program; and
       (3) a description of any barriers to the pilot program, as 
     well as aspects of the pilot program that were successful.
       (g) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``State 
     educational agency'' and ``secondary school'' have the 
     meanings given the terms in section 9101 of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       (2) Separation of funds.--The Secretary of Education shall 
     keep any funds authorized for this section under paragraph 
     (1) separate from any funds available to the Secretary for 
     other student drug-testing programs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. OBAMA:
  S. 1975. A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections; 
to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today millions of Americans will exercise 
their most fundamental right under the Constitution the right to vote. 
As in every election, I hope all eligible Americans go to the polls to 
exercise this right. Voter participation is fundamental to our 
democracy, and we must do all we can to encourage those who can to 
vote.
  After seeing what happened over the last two presidential elections, 
I have some other hopes for this Election Day. I hope all voters who go 
to the polls find voting machines that work, non-partisan poll workers 
who understand the law and enforce it without bias, lines that move 
smoothly, and ballots that make sense and are easy to understand. I 
also hope voters go to the polls today with accurate information about 
what is on the ballot, where they are supposed to vote, and what our 
Nation's voting laws are.
  It might surprise some of you to know, but even in this awesome age 
of technological advancement and easy access to information, there are 
folks who will stop at nothing to try to deceive people and keep them 
away from the polls. These deceptive practices all too often target and 
exploit vulnerable populations, like minorities, the disabled, or the 
poor.
  Think about the story of the 2004 presidential election when voters 
in Milwaukee received fliers from the non-existent ``Milwaukee Black 
Voters League,'' warning that voters risk imprisonment for voting if 
they were ever found guilty of any offense--even a traffic violation. 
In that same election, in a county in Ohio, some voters received 
mailings misinforming voters that anyone registered to vote by the 
Kerry Campaign or the NAACP would be barred from voting.
  Deceptive practices often rely on a few tried and true tricks. Voters 
are often warned that an unpaid parking ticket will lead to their 
arrest or that folks with family members who have been convicted of a 
crime are ineligible to vote. Of course, these warnings have no basis 
in fact, and they are made with one goal and one goal only to keep 
Americans away from the polls.
  I hope voters who go to the polls today are not victims of such 
malicious campaigns, but I know hoping is not enough. That is why I am 
introducing the Deceptive Election Practices and Voter Intimidation 
Prevention Act of 2005 to provide voters with real protection from 
deceptive practices that aim to keep them away from the polls on 
Election Day.
  The bill I am introducing today provides the clear statutory language 
and authority needed to get allegations of deceptive practices 
investigated. It establishes harsh penalties for those found to have 
perpetrated them. And the bill seeks to address the real harm of these 
crimes--voters who are discouraged from voting by misinformation--by 
establishing a process for reaching out to these misinformed and 
intimidated voters with accurate and full information so they can cast 
their votes in time. Perhaps just as important, this bill creates 
strong penalties for deceptive election acts, so people who commit 
these crimes suffer more than just a slap on the hand.
  This legislation has the support of groups like the NAACP, the 
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Common Cause, the Arc of 
the United States, United Cerebral Palsy, People for the American Way 
and the National Disability Rights Network.
  Deceptive practices and voter intimidation are real problems and 
demand real solutions like those offered in my bill.
  I hope my colleagues will join me and support this bill and work to 
ensure that all eligible voters have the opportunity to have their 
votes count.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1975

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Deceptive Practices and 
     Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. DECEPTIVE PRACTICES IN ELECTIONS.

       (a) Civil Action.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 2004 of the 
     Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1971(b)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``No person'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) No person''; and
       (B) by inserting at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) No person, whether acting under color of law or 
     otherwise, shall knowingly deceive any other person 
     regarding--
       ``(A) the time, place, or manner of conducting a general, 
     primary, run-off, or special election for the office of 
     President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of 
     the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, or 
     Delegate or Commissioner from a territory or possession; or
       ``(B) the qualifications for or restrictions on voter 
     eligibility for any election described in subparagraph 
     (A).''.
       (2) Private right of action.--
       (A) In general.--Subsection (c) of section 2004 of the 
     Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1971(c)) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``Whenever any person'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) Whenever any person''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Any person aggrieved by a violation of subsection 
     (b)(2) may institute a civil action or other proper 
     proceeding for preventive relief, including an application in 
     a United States district court for a permanent or temporary 
     injunction, restraining order, or other order.''.
       (B) Conforming amendments.--
       (i) Subsection (e) of section 2004 of the Revised Statutes 
     (42 U.S.C. 1971(e)) is amended by striking ``subsection (c)'' 
     and inserting ``subsection (c)(1)''.
       (ii) Subsection (g) of section 2004 of the Revised Statutes 
     (42 U.S.C. 1971(g)) is amended by striking ``subsection (c)'' 
     and inserting ``subsection (c)(1)''.
       (b) Criminal Penalty.--Section 594 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Whoever'' and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Intimidation.--Whoever''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Deceptive Acts.--
       ``(1) Prohibition.--
       ``(A) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person to 
     knowingly deceive another person regarding the time, place, 
     or manner of an election described in subparagraph (B), or 
     the qualifications for or restrictions on voter eligibility 
     for any such election, with the intent to prevent such person 
     from exercising the right to vote in such election.
       ``(B) Election.--An election described in this subparagraph 
     is any general, primary, run-off, or special election for the 
     office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, 
     Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, 
     Delegate of the District of Columbia, or Resident 
     Commissioner.
       ``(2) Penalty.--Any person who violates paragraph (1) shall 
     be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 1 
     year, or both.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. REPORTING FALSE ELECTION INFORMATION.

       (a) In General.--Any person may report to the Assistant 
     Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division of the 
     Department of Justice, or the designee of such Assistant 
     Attorney General, any act of deception regarding--
       (1) the time, place, or manner of conducting a general, 
     primary, run-off, or special election for Federal office; or
       (2) the qualifications for or restrictions on voter 
     eligibility for any general, primary, run-off, or special 
     election for Federal office.
       (b) Corrective Action.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), not 
     later than 48 hours after receiving a report under subsection 
     (a), the Assistant Attorney General shall investigate such 
     report and, if the Assistant Attorney General determines that 
     an act of deception described in subsection (a) occurred, 
     shall--
       (A) undertake all effective measures necessary to provide 
     correct information to voters affected by the deception, and
       (B) refer the matter to the appropriate Federal and State 
     authorities for criminal prosecution.

[[Page S12532]]

       (2) Reports within 72 hours of an election.--If a report 
     under subsection (a) is received within 72 hours before the 
     election described in such subsection, the Assistant Attorney 
     General shall immediately investigate such report and, if the 
     Assistant Attorney General determines that an act of 
     deception described in subsection (a) occurred, shall 
     immediately undertake all effective measures necessary to 
     provide correct information to voters affected by the 
     deception.
       (3) Regulations.--
       (A) In general.--The Attorney General shall promulgate 
     regulations regarding the methods and means of corrective 
     actions to be taken under paragraphs (1) and (2). Such 
     regulations shall be developed in consultation with the 
     Election Assistance Commission, civil rights organizations, 
     voting rights groups, State election officials, voter 
     protection groups, and other interested community 
     organizations.
       (B) Study.--
       (i) In general.--The Attorney General, in consultation with 
     the Federal Communications Commission and the Election 
     Assistance Commission, shall conduct a study on the 
     feasibility of providing the corrective information under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) through public service announcements, 
     the emergency alert system, or other forms of public 
     broadcast.
       (ii) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to 
     Congress a report detailing the results of the study 
     conducted under clause (i).
       (c) Reports to Congress.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after any primary, 
     general, or run-off election for Federal office, the Attorney 
     General shall submit to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress a report compiling and detailing any allegations of 
     deceptive practices submitted pursuant to subsection (a) and 
     relating to such election.
       (2) Contents.--
       (A) In general.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1) 
     shall include--
       (i) detailed information on specific allegations of 
     deceptive tactics;
       (ii) any corrective actions taken in response to such 
     allegations;
       (iii) the effectiveness of any such corrective actions;
       (iv) any suit instituted under section 2004(b)(2) of the 
     Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1971(b)(2)) in connection with 
     such allegations;
       (v) statistical compilations of how many allegations were 
     made and of what type;
       (vi) the geographic locations of and the populations 
     affected by the alleged deceptive information; and
       (vii) the status of the investigations of such allegations.
       (B) Exception.--The Attorney General may withhold any 
     information that the Attorney General determines would unduly 
     interfere with an on-going investigation.
       (3) Report made public.--The Attorney General shall make 
     the report required under paragraph (1) publicly available 
     through the Internet and other appropriate means.
       (d) Federal Office.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``Federal office'' means the office of President, Vice 
     President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member 
     of the House of Representatives, or Delegate or Commissioner 
     from a territory or possession of the United States.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Attorney General such sums as may 
     be necessary to carry out this section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Kyl):
  S. 1976. A bill to make amendments to the Iran Nonproliferation Act 
of 2000; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern 
about the almost daily series of alarming developments in Iran and 
Syria. Both are state sponsors of terrorism. Both have worked to 
undermine our rebuilding efforts in Iraq. Tehran and Damascus both have 
a history of refusing to comply with global nonproliferation standards, 
and experts routinely cite disturbing trends that suggest these 
governments are aggressively pursuing programs to develop weapons of 
mass destruction. Iran clearly has the intention to develop nuclear 
weapons and is well on its way to doing so. It has been belligerent and 
dishonest in its dealings with the International Atomic Energy Agency 
and our European partners who are negotiating with Tehran. This led to 
the historic vote on September 24 of this year, when the IAEA Board of 
Governors found that Iran had breached its obligations under the 
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and noted Iran's policy of concealing 
its nuclear work and facilities. What was Tehran's response to the 
international community? More defiance and the outrageous comments by 
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calling for Israel to be ``wiped 
off the map.''
  Since coming into office, this administration has mostly allowed 
these problems with Iran and Syria to fester while its focus was 
elsewhere. It has paid only intermittent attention when crises flare up 
and has not formulated a long-term and comprehensive strategy for 
dealing with the proliferation threat presented by these regimes. The 
situation has deteriorated to such an extent--with the rapid nuclear 
developments in Iran, the increasing proliferation risk that it and 
Syria pose, the undermining of our work in Iraq, and the extreme 
statements and actions recently taken by both Tehran and Damascus--that 
we must take immediate action.
  Congress took action to augment the U.S. nonproliferation regime in 
2000 when it overwhelmingly passed the Iran Nonproliferation Act, INA, 
in response to repeated transfers of ballistic missile technology and 
know-how from Russia and other countries to Iran. Known and suspected 
assistance from Russia, China, and Pakistan has also helped Iran make 
progress in its nuclear program. I believe that the 2000 legislation 
has winnowed the pool of transgressors by highlighting the most 
egregious among them; however, determined governments, industries, and 
individuals continue to find it a worthwhile risk to trade in goods and 
technology that can contribute to an Iranian WMD program. Clearly, it 
is time to strengthen the INA to prevent these transactions. A more 
robust INA can also serve as a model for curbing proliferation 
involving other countries--starting with Syria, whose policies may 
still be influenced by such determined and effective measures.
  Congress is on the cusp of adopting some important changes to the INA 
with S. 1713. If enacted, the reporting and sanctions provisions of the 
statute would also apply to transactions involving Syria. In addition, 
the law would also target exports of WMD and missile technology from 
these two countries. The revamped Iran and Syria Nonproliferation Act, 
ISNA, would be a positive step. However, we must do more.
  Today, I along with my colleague from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, introduce the 
Iran Nonproliferation Enhancement Act of 2005. This bill would 
intensify and broaden the sanctions provisions in the INA. First, it 
requires mandatory sanctions for violators, an approach that Congress 
favored overwhelmingly when it passed the Iran Missile Proliferation 
Sanctions Act of 1997. Second, it requires a more detailed 
justification from the President if he chooses to exercise a national 
security waiver. Third, it introduces requirements that make parent 
companies subject to INA sanctions, in addition to their proliferator 
subsidiaries. And fourth, it expands the list of sanctions to include 
prohibitions on U.S. investment, financing, and financial assistance 
for proliferators, in addition to the current arms and dual use export 
prohibitions.
  The current sanctions mechanism is too weak. Under the INA, sanctions 
are authorized rather than required. Since 2000, the administration has 
chosen to impose INA sanctions on foreign companies or individuals on 
65 occasions, with some entities having been sanctioned several times. 
The State Department has not revealed in unclassified form how many 
entities were reported but not sanctioned and why they were not 
sanctioned.
  If we accept that a successful Iranian or Syrian WMD program poses a 
major threat, then we must get serious about our sanctions and make 
them mandatory. Our bill does just that. Making sanctions mandatory has 
precedents. As I previously noted, Congress overwhelmingly approved 
mandatory sanctions against foreign persons and entities engaged in 
missile proliferation to Iran as part of the Iran Missile Proliferation 
Sanctions Act of 1997. President Clinton vetoed the bill, however, 
largely because at that time his administration was engaged in 
negotiations with Russia over export controls. The sense was that the 
newly formed government needed time to develop its controls over 
Russian business. In the end, the administration exercised its 
Executive order authority to impose broad sanctions on several Russian 
companies. However, we must let the international community know that 
the threat from proliferation is great and that export controls must be 
in place and enforced. Making sanctions mandatory sends that message.

[[Page S12533]]

  Furthermore, nonproliferation legislation should ensure that national 
security waivers are issued only under the most compelling of 
circumstances. The current national security waiver is too broad, and 
the administration can simply classify the reason for the waiver in 
order to remove almost all scrutiny. The message sent to those 
assisting Iran and Syria with WMD development is that, even if the 
United States catches them, there is only a small chance that we will 
actually do anything about it. There are legitimate reasons for 
classifying parts of these responses and that is why our bill allows 
the administration to submit part of the waiver explanation in a 
classified annex. However, our bill requires the Administration to 
provide more detailed explanations for such waivers and an explanation 
of why a justification is classified.
  Currently, the INA sanctions restrict only U.S. arms and dual-use 
exports to violators, and an Executive order authorizes some additional 
restrictions. Our bill will ensure that all the significant tools in 
our sanctions arsenal are brought to bear on proliferators. It broadens 
INA sanctions to also include prohibitions on U.S. investment, 
financing, and financial assistance for violators, and if S. 1713 is 
enacted, also ban their imports into the United States. In an example 
identified by the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, China 
National Aero-Technology Import Export Corporation, CATIC, which was 
sanctioned under the INA in 2002 and 2004, has subsidiaries that export 
to the U.S. Under our bill, the investment sanction would prevent U.S. 
companies from making new capital investments in CATIC factories. It 
would also forbid the purchase by U.S. persons of shares of CATIC 
Shenzhen Holdings and CATIC International Holdings, two CATIC-
controlled companies that are listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. 
The new import ban would block the sale of CATIC products in the United 
States, cutting off an important source of revenue. Put simply, this 
bill would make it clear for companies like CATIC that they must make a 
choice--profit from their dealings with the vast U.S. market or 
continue to assist Iran or Syria with their WMD and missile programs. 
It is long past due that companies make such a choice.
  Under the INA, parent companies can continue to do business with the 
U.S. and profit from our economy, even if their subsidiaries openly 
assist Iran with missile and WMD-related activities. Our bill attempts 
to end this aberration by expanding the scope of the sanctions to 
include the parent companies. The Wisconsin Project has identified 
serial proliferators who have flouted U.S. law because they know they 
cannot be touched by the current INA. China Aerospace Science and 
Technology Corporation, CASC, for example, has had three subsidiaries 
sanctioned--two of them repeatedly--for missile technology transfers to 
Iran. Meanwhile, CASC is marketing its commercial satellite launch 
program in our country. This amendment would force CASC to choose 
between selling missile technology to Iran and the business potential 
in future U.S. satellite launches. The bill's ban on investment would 
also affect the subsidiaries CASC has listed on the Hong Kong Stock 
Exchange. Similarly, the Chinese oil giant Sinopec has been selling 
glass-lined vessels useful for making poison gas to Iran through its 
subsidiaries. While INA sanctions were imposed on one of its 
subsidiaries, however, Sinopec remained free to raise billions of 
dollars on the New York Stock Exchange and even receive U.S. technology 
and U.S. foreign aid. This is absurd, and will no longer be possible if 
our bill becomes law.
  In conclusion, I want to emphasize the urgency of this matter. The 
intelligence community expects that Iran will be able to produce a 
nuclear weapon within a decade, and the CIA has highlighted concern 
about Iran's robust missile program. Iran has pursued various methods 
for enriching uranium and experimented with separating plutonium. 
Iran's WMD program is making news headlines again, and the IAEA Board 
of Governors found Iran in noncompliance with the NPT. The 
Congressional Research Service reported in its review of the INA that 
Iran's efforts to acquire foreign WMD technology seem to have continued 
unabated. Similarly, Syria continues to rely on technology and 
assistance from abroad to develop its ballistic missile program. 
According to recent unclassified CIA reports, Syria's chemical weapon 
program also depends on equipment and precursor chemicals it receives 
from foreign sources.
  We need to make a serious effort to inhibit WMD development by Iran 
and Syria. Strengthening the INA is one concrete way to do that for 
Iran, and when S. 1713 is enacted, also for Syria. We must make clear 
to the world that assisting Tehran and Damascus in developing the most 
dangerous weapons cannot and will not be tolerated. For example, China 
is a country with which we continue to build closer ties. However, a 
recent Rand study concluded that although China has improved its export 
control system on paper, it does not consistently and effectively 
implement these controls. Russia is also an important partner, but it 
has continued to provide Iran with nuclear technology. India is another 
nation with which the United States continues to grow closer, and the 
President has even committed to helping it with nuclear energy 
technology. Yet India also has very close ties to Iran. We must make 
clear to these nations and to the entire world that it is in the best 
interest of the international community that Iran and Syria do not 
expand their WMD capabilities. We must also make it crystal clear that 
if you assist these nations with their quest for weapons, there will be 
serious consequences for you in your relationship and dealings with the 
United States. Strengthening the INA as we suggest will make that 
message clear and further our national security goals.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1976

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Iran Nonproliferation 
     Enforcement Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. SANCTIONS APPLICABLE UNDER THE IRAN NONPROLIFERATION 
                   ACT OF 2000.

       (a) Application of Certain Measures.--Section 3 of the Iran 
     Nonproliferation Act of 2000 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is 
     amended--
       (1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a) Application of Measures.--Subject to sections 4 and 
     5, the President shall apply, for a period of not less than 2 
     years, the measures described in subsection (b) with respect 
     to--
       ``(1) each foreign person identified in a report submitted 
     pursuant to section 2(a);
       ``(2) all successors, subunits, and subsidiaries of each 
     such foreign person; and
       ``(3) any entity (if operating as a business enterprise) 
     that owns more than 50 percent of, or controls in fact, any 
     such foreign person and any successors, subunits, and 
     subsidiaries of such entity.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) Executive order no. 12938 prohibitions.--The measures 
     set forth in subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 4 of 
     Executive Order 12938.'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``to that foreign person''; and
       (ii) by striking ``to that person'';
       (C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``to that person''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(4) Investment prohibition.--Prohibition of any new 
     investment by a United States person in property, including 
     entities, owned or controlled by--
       ``(A) that foreign person;
       ``(B) any entity (if operating as a business enterprise) 
     that owns more than 50 percent of, or controls in fact, such 
     foreign person; or
       ``(C) any successor, subunit, or subsidiary of such entity.
       ``(5) Financing prohibition.--Prohibition of any approval, 
     financing, or guarantee by a United States person, wherever 
     located, of a transaction by--
       ``(A) that foreign person;
       ``(B) any entity (if operating as a business enterprise) 
     that owns more than 50 percent of, or controls in fact, such 
     foreign person; or
       ``(C) any successor, subunit, or subsidiary of such entity.
       ``(6) Financial assistance prohibition.--Denial by the 
     United States Government of any credit, credit guarantees, 
     grants, or other financial assistance by any department, 
     agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government 
     to--
       ``(A) that foreign person;
       ``(B) any entity (if operating as a business enterprise) 
     that owns more than 50 percent

[[Page S12534]]

     of, or controls in fact, such foreign person; and
       ``(C) any successor, subunit, or subsidiary of such 
     entity.''; and
       (3) by amending subsection (d) to read as follows:
       ``(d) Publication in Federal Register.--
       ``(1) In general.--The application of measures pursuant to 
     subsection (a) shall be announced by notice published in the 
     Federal Register.
       ``(2) Content.--Each notice published pursuant to paragraph 
     (1) shall include the name and address (where known) of each 
     person or entity to whom measures have been applied pursuant 
     to subsection (a).''.
       (b) National Security Waiver.--Section 4 of such Act is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 4. WAIVER ON BASIS OF NATIONAL SECURITY.

       ``(a) In General.--The President may waive the imposition 
     of any sanction that would otherwise be required under 
     section 3 on any person or entity 15 days after the President 
     determines and reports to the Committee on International 
     Relations of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Foreign Relations of the Senate that such waiver is 
     essential to the national security of the United States.
       ``(b) Written Justification.--The determination and report 
     of the President under subsection (a) shall include a written 
     justification--
       ``(1) describing in detail the circumstances and rationale 
     supporting the President's conclusion that the waiver is 
     essential to the national security of the United States; and
       ``(2) identifying--
       ``(A) the name and address (where known) of the person or 
     entity to whom the waiver is applied pursuant to subsection 
     (a);
       ``(B) the specific goods, services, or technologies, the 
     transfer of which would have required the imposition of 
     measures pursuant to section 3 if the President had not 
     invoked the waiver authority under subsection (a); and
       ``(C) the name and address (where known) of the recipient 
     of such transfer.
       ``(c) Form.--The written justification shall be submitted 
     in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. STEVENS:
  S. 1977. A bill to repeal section 5 of the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act of 1972; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to introduce this 
bill, which repeals a provision in the 1977 reauthorization of the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972--a provision which unduly 
restricts our ability to get States on the west coast the petroleum 
supplies they need.
  In the last several weeks, some of our colleagues have participated 
in press conferences, sent out news releases, and come to the floor to 
talk about the impact of high energy prices. They have expressed 
concern about the effect these prices are having on our economy, our 
consumers, our businesses, and our national security.
  I share their concerns. In fact, for over 3 years, I have been urging 
the Senate to deal with this situation.
  It took one of the worst natural disasters in the history of our 
Nation for many to evaluate our energy policy. While the circumstances 
are tragic, I am glad our colleagues are taking a closer look at this.
  The plan our colleagues now support aims to achieve the right goal, 
but it offers the wrong solution. Their plan calls for energy 
independence--a goal which I support. But they tout conservation as the 
only way to reach this goal. This approach would put us on the wrong 
course and fail to solve the larger problem.
  Our country is in the midst of an energy crisis, and we cannot 
conserve our way out. To suggest otherwise does a great disservice to 
all Americans. We don't need a hollow plan, we need results.
  We cannot get out of this crisis by blaming Americans--who are just 
trying to live their lives, run their businesses, and get to and from 
work--for the situation we are in. This is not solely a consumption 
problem; much of this crisis stems from misguided policies which have 
locked up our lands and prevented us from building new refineries.
  The only way to become energy independent is through a combination of 
initiatives. Conservation is one part of the broader solution.
  But we also need to develop renewable and alternative sources of 
energy and invest in nuclear power and we must develop our domestic oil 
and gas resources which exist on Federal lands.
  The end to this crisis lies in the balance between conservation and 
development. Yes, I believe that Americans need to conserve our energy 
resources, but this alone won't solve our energy crisis. To suggest it 
will is to greatly mislead the American public.
  We need to get serious about our energy policy.
  My good friend and colleague, Senator Domenici, has told us we must 
expand on the Energy bill.
  I agree with Senator Domenici, and I look forward to working with him 
on an energy policy for this country that makes sense.
  Hurricanes Katrina and Rita exposed a weakness in our domestic 
production and refining capability, weakness some of us have been 
warning about for years. All Americans have been hit with higher energy 
prices in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
  Some colleagues have expressed concern that this situation was 
compounded by price gouging. Senator Inouye and I, along with our 
colleagues on the Commerce Committee, are evaluating several bills 
pertaining to that issue. In the coming days, we will be moving forward 
to address some of those concerns.
  In the process of reviewing these concerns, the claims by those on 
the west coast were of particular interest to me. Due to current 
restrictions in the MMPA, it is almost impossible for companies to 
expand their refineries to increase supply. The provision repealed by 
my bill is currently impacting the largest refinery on the west coast, 
affecting more than 300,000 gallons of fuel per day.
  I introduce this bill to enable us to get petroleum resources to west 
coast States quickly and urge my colleagues to support this initiative.

                          ____________________