[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 149 (Thursday, November 10, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12684-S12689]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. Chafee):
  S. 1989. A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal 
Service located at 57 Rolfe Square in Cranston, Rhode Island, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Holly A. Charette Post Office''; to the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Rhode 
Island's brave soldiers, Lance Corporal Holly A. Charette, who was 
killed in Iraq on June 23, 2005. In honor of her sacrifice, I am 
introducing a bill, along with Senator Chafee, to name the post office 
at 57 Rolfe Square in Cranston, RI, the ``Holly A. Charette Post 
Office.''
  Twenty-one year old Holly Charette died when a suicide bomber in 
Fallujah attacked the military convoy in which she was riding. This was 
the deadliest attack on women in the U.S. military since the start of 
operations in Iraq, and yet another example of the violence that 
continues to plague our soldiers serving in this conflict.
  Those who were close to Holly describe her as a happy and positive 
young woman loved by all those who knew her. She was a cheerleader at 
Cranston East High School, where she worked hard in college-prep 
courses. Her teachers remember her as a ``bright, shining star.''
  Holly had dreams of becoming a postal worker. Instead, in 2002, she 
made the choice to serve her Nation by joining the U.S. Marine Corps.
  She was deployed to Iraq in March of this year with her unit from 
Camp Lejeune, NC, and assigned to Headquarters Battalion, 2nd Marine 
Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force. It was here that Holly was 
able to combine her dreams of postal service with that of serving her 
Nation.
  During her service in Iraq, Holly utilized her strong organizational 
skills to take on and complete various administrative tasks, including 
that of mail delivery to the troops. She became known as the ``Marine 
who brought the good news.'' Holly never forgot a name, and would often 
stop Marines in the mess hall to let them know that they had mail.
  The day that Holly was killed, she was working with Iraqi security 
forces to prevent insurgents from gaining a foothold in that country.
  Her tragic passing has touched the lives of Rhode Islanders. Holly's 
presence will be deeply missed by all those who knew and loved her.
  This legislation will pay proper tribute to this remarkable young 
woman, and commemorate her valor for future generations. I ask my 
colleagues to join me in honoring Lance Corporal Holly A. Charette by 
supporting this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation to name the 
post office in Cranston after Lance Corporal Charette be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1989

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

     SECTION 1. HOLLY A. CHARETTE POST OFFICE.

       (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal 
     Service located at 57 Rolfe Square in Cranston, Rhode Island, 
     shall be known and designated as the ``Holly A. Charette Post 
     Office''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be 
     a reference to the ``Holly A. Charette Post Office''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURR:
  S. 1990. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the 
outreach activities of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURR:
  S. 1991. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a 
financial assistance program to facilitate the provision of supportive 
services for very low-income veteran families in permanent housing, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to honor our Nation's veterans 
for their service and their sacrifice. We will celebrate Veterans Day 
tomorrow, and I am proud of the improvements we have made in providing 
benefits and care to our country's heroes.
  In the past 10 years, since I first came to Congress, the veterans 
budget has increased by 77 percent, an annual average increase of over 
7 percent. The VA's health care budget has increased over 85 percent 
during this time. We have also enacted a fix to the concurrent receipt 
problem and made groundbreaking progress with computerized health 
records at the Veterans Department. I am proud of these efforts, but I 
certainly understand the need to do more to stay ahead of the curve.
  I also want to detail the recent growth in the veterans population in 
North Carolina. Our State's veteran population has increased by over 
100,000, to 780,000 veterans since 1980.
  This growth rate comes at a time when the number of veterans in the 
United States is decreasing. Veterans are moving to the State because 
many of them were stationed there while on active duty, and they have 
moved back because of the quality of life in North Carolina.
  I have two bills I have introduced today that I believe will improve 
the services we currently provide to our veterans. The first is the 
Services to Prevent Veterans Homelessness Act which makes grants to 
nonprofit and faith-based organizations to provide services to 
extremely low-income veterans who are in permanent housing. The goal is 
to keep them from becoming homeless. The services provided for in this 
bill--from vocational counseling and personal finance planning to 
health and rehabilitation--were designed to address the root causes of 
homelessness.
  The VA estimates on any given night as many as 200,000 veterans are 
homeless and as many as 400,000 are homeless at some point during the 
year. We also know that 45 percent of the homeless veterans have a 
mental illness, and 50 percent have some sort of addiction.
  The cost of this bill is $25 million annually, a small sum to help 
the poorest of our veterans. In North Carolina alone, over 43,000 
veterans live below the poverty line. This bill would allow the VA to 
partner with nonprofits in order to help poor veterans escape the root 
causes of homelessness. I urge the Senate to consider whether we are 
doing enough on this issue. More importantly, I invite my colleagues to 
study this bill and to become a cosponsor.
  Next, I introduced the Veterans Outreach Improvement Act which 
authorizes the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to partner with State and 
local governments for outreach to veterans. This bill provides grants 
to State veterans agencies and county veterans service offices to help 
them with outreach and claims development and to provide education and 
training of officers. The bill would also authorize $25 million 
annually for this outreach program.
  County veterans service officers are charged with assisting veterans 
and their dependents in seeking benefits as a supplement to the work 
being performed by the Department of Veterans Affairs. They are 
overseen by the Division of Veterans Affairs in North Carolina and 
receive accreditation from organizations approved by the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs. Many veterans need assistance in filing claims in 
order to make sure that the claim is accurate and complete. County 
veterans service officers and officials from State veterans agencies 
are often the officials who can actually sit down face to face with a 
veteran to develop a claim and to send it to the VA. This bill makes 
the VA a partner in that outreach process.
  On the eve of Veterans Day this year, I join my colleagues in 
honoring veterans across this country for their heroic service to our 
Nation.

[[Page S12685]]

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Lugar, and Mr. Obama):
  S. 1994. A bill to require that an increasing percentage of new 
automobiles be dual fueled automobiles, to revise the method for 
calculating corporate average fuel economy for such vehicles, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, when we talk about moving toward energy 
independence in this country, we are really speaking to the issue of 
reducing America's dangerous dependence on imported oil. Our addiction 
to oil is most acute in the U.S. transportation sector where a stunning 
ninety-seven percent of our fuel comes from petroleum--97 percent. In 
the electricity sector we have largely turned away from oil but not so 
in transportation.
  Fortunately a growing percentage of transportation energy is now 
coming from clean, domestically-produced renewable fuels like ethanol 
and biodiesel. With the nearly 8-billion-gallon Renewable Fuels 
Standard now the law of the land, renewable fuels will supply 5 percent 
of the energy for our passenger vehicles by 2012, perhaps more. These 
home-grown, environmentally friendly alternatives made from corn, 
soybeans and other sources of biomass are helping to improve air 
quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance the rural economy 
while substantially reducing dependence on foreign oil.
  The best part of this trend is that the health, community, and 
domestic security benefits of renewable fuels come with the bonus of 
price savings at the pump. Ethanol prices in this country can be as 
much as 70 cents a gallon less than regular gasoline. Drivers in my 
State of Iowa are saving as much as 10 cents a gallon on E10--a blend 
of just 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline. This is a savings 
of about $100 a year for a typical family.
  A report earlier this year by the Consumer Federation of America 
found that consumers throughout our country would experience similar 
savings if all refiners offered E10. That is a significant savings in 
all regions of the country. Now, consider the savings if ethanol and 
other renewable fuels were blended not at 10 percent, but at 85 percent 
or more. That $100 a year savings turns into hundreds of dollars each 
year for a typical family.
  Unfortunately, right now only about two percent of vehicles on the 
road in the United States can use ethanol blends of 85 percent--what we 
call E85. It turns out standard gasoline engines aren't designed for 
the different fuel to oxygen ratio.
  The good news is, manufacturing a new vehicle to run on E85 or other 
clean alternative fuel blends is simple--the manufacturer adds a fuel 
sensor and modifies the engine calibration and fuel line to allow the 
vehicle to run on gasoline or a combination of gas and alternative 
fuels.
  Right now, these ``flex-fuel'' vehicles cost at most an additional 
$100 or so to produce. Some cost estimates are as low as $50. Many auto 
manufacturers offer them to customers at no additional cost. But few 
Americans are even aware of the option.
  At a time of record-high gas prices and continued instability in the 
Middle East and other oil-producing countries of the world, I believe 
that all Americans deserve the option to choose the fuel they put in 
their car.
  In Brazil, all new vehicles on the road are expected to be flex-fuel-
ready by 2008--meaning every new vehicle owner will have the choice to 
fill up with gasoline, ethanol, or a combination of the two. If the 
Brazilians can do it, why can't we?
  That's why today Mr. Lugar, Mr. Obama and I are introducing the Fuel 
Security and Consumer Choice Act to require that automobile 
manufacturers equip a growing percentage of new vehicles sold in the 
U.S. for flexible fuel operation. Mr. Lugar is a leader in promoting 
research and development into the conversion of cellulosic biomass into 
useable fuels. Mr. Obama is a leader in promoting renewable fuels and 
in particular E85.
  Starting eighteen months after the bill's enactment, manufacturers 
will be required to equip 10 percent of their cars and light trucks 
with flex-fuel vehicle, FFV, capability. This is a modest proposal. 
Several manufacturers are close to meeting or beating this requirement 
already.
  Each model year thereafter, the requirement increases 10 percentage 
points, so in the second year the manufacturers would have to make at 
least 20 percent of their vehicles FFVs, and so on, until in about ten 
years' time 100 percent of new vehicles sold in the United States are 
flex fuel. I recognize that we could be more aggressive in our 
timetable, but I believe we've struck the right balance here in pushing 
and prodding.
  In addition, the bill allows auto manufacturers to bank and trade FFV 
credits toward meeting the requirements. In other words, if one company 
produced more than its required percentage of FFV vehicles in a given 
year, it could trade or sell extra credits earned to another company 
that would then use them to meet the bill's requirements. Credits would 
have a three-year window if banked or traded. This banking and trading 
provision is similar to others in law, in the RFS for example, making 
it that much easier for companies to meet statutory obligations at the 
lowest possible cost.
  Finally, the bill would leave intact the corporate average fuel 
economy (CAFE) credits for FFV production. However, the bill would 
change the way the credits are calculated for vehicles produced above 
the required percentages. Rather than keeping the assumption that the 
vehicle runs 50 percent of the time on fuel like E85, which isn't an 
appropriate figure since most don't run yet on E85, we phase-down the 
assumed use from 50 percent in the first model year the requirement 
applies to 30 percent in the second year, 10 percent the third year, 
and 0 percent thereafter. This should still spur interest among 
automakers in the early years of the requirement to go beyond the 
minimum FFV production levels outlined in the bill to get the extra 
credits. And in the meantime the FFV requirement is kicking in and the 
ramp up of FFVs won't dilute or weaken CAFE.
  This bill will give American consumers true choice in fuel selection 
for the first time. Drivers will have the option to choose low-price, 
high-performance E85, or another fuel. My firm belief is that consumers 
will choose to buy home-grown renewable fuels that directly reduce oil 
dependence rather than buy traditional fossil fuels often derived from 
unstable regimes around the globe.
  Now, I don't doubt some automobile manufacturers will complain that 
this requirement is unduly onerous, that it will hurt the industry 
somehow. Well, I heard the same thing back in 1989 when I proposed 
another revolutionary idea: closed captioning for TV sets. Industry was 
in an uproar when I suggested that the hearing impaired should have 
access to television programming on the public airwaves. The industry 
said closed captioning would bankrupt it and drive the price of 
televisions through the roof.
  But then, an amazing thing happened. Electronics manufacturers 
realized that they could reach a broad range of new audiences, 
including not just the hearing impaired, but also the learning 
disabled, and immigrants for whom English is a second language. Sales 
for several companies reached an all-time high, and with implementation 
across the electronics industry, the cost of the closed captioning chip 
dropped dramatically to less than a dollar a set.
  I have no doubt that vehicle manufacturers will discover similar 
unexpected efficiencies and benefits with flex fuel vehicles. As more 
Americans discover the savings from flexible fuels, the more they will 
seek them out. What better way to boost car sales than to market the 
fuel cost savings that flexible fuel vehicles offer? Any very small 
additional cost of the flex-fuel vehicle will be more than offset by 
the price benefits drivers will achieve from a flexible fuel supply 
over time, not to mention the tremendous energy security benefits for 
our Nation.
  The country will benefit from cleaner air, reduced greenhouse gas 
emissions, reduced dependence on foreign oil, and an enhanced rural 
economy. Simply, put, this is a low-cost measure with a tremendous 
payoff.
  It is already well-established that federal auto standards for the 
benefit of our Nation are an appropriate policy option. It's also 
important to note that auto manufacturers already comply

[[Page S12686]]

with literally dozens of other requirements having to do with the make-
up, design, and performance of their vehicles. Making an FFV is a lot 
cheaper than putting in air bags, or many other components.
  Agriculture and renewable fuels producers are ready to provide the 
fuel. Automobile manufacturers have the technology to do it. Given the 
country's great energy and security challenges, all sectors must do 
their part to chart a path toward energy independence: government, 
individual citizens, energy companies, and yes, auto manufacturers.
  I'm grateful that this legislation has been endorsed by a wide array 
of renewable fuel, agriculture, clean energy and security 
organizations, including the Renewable Fuels Association, American 
Coalition for Ethanol, Alliance to Save Energy, Set America Free, and 
National Corn Growers Association.
  In closing I want to recognize Mr. Lugar and Mr. Obama for co-
sponsoring this legislation with me today. Mr. Lugar and I have teamed 
up many times over the years, most recently to enact the national 
Renewable Fuels Standard, which we did as part of the comprehensive 
energy bill. This bill builds upon the RFS, to guarantee that renewable 
fuels which are being produced in ever greater abundance can find a 
home in just about any vehicle on the market a few short years from 
now. I am thankful for his leadership on this and so many other 
important energy security issues. I am also grateful to Mr. Obama for 
his leadership.
  I hope we can rapidly enact this legislation.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, oil companies recently announced record 
profits. Those of us who drive cars and trucks could feel our wallets 
shrink at the news. Throughout most of this year, American drivers have 
paid the highest gas prices of all time--more so in the wake of 
refinery disruptions caused by Hurricane Katrina. While petroleum 
company shareholders enjoy healthy stock dividends, the rest of us 
hemorrhage the cash. Industry analysts explain it away as ``business is 
business.''
  Sound familiar? In the 1970s, political conflicts compelled Middle 
East oil sheiks to tighten their reins on oil production, sending 
shockwaves throughout our economy and creating long lines at the gas 
pump. Congress responded with laws promoting energy conservation and 
fuel efficiency that we thought would reduce our dependence on foreign 
oil.
  Unfortunately, 30 years later, here we are again. The Middle East 
remains in turmoil, and the engines of America remain firmly fueled on 
foreign oil. Exacerbating the problem is that the economies of China 
and India--two nations totaling over 2 billion citizens--are quickly 
expanding, and they are competing with the U.S. for the same pool of 
oil. Quite simply, worldwide production capacity cannot keep pace. And 
that means U.S. gas prices likely will remain high for the foreseeable 
future.
  More so than at any other time in a generation, our economy is 
exposed. In the year 2035, will the American market be shackled still 
to foreign oil? Will we question whether bolder past policies could 
have prevented future crisis?
  The response to these questions can be ``no'' if we begin now.
  For about $100 worth of hoses and sensors, we can make our cars run 
on ethanol made from homegrown corn. Automakers made 1 million of these 
cars this year. We have the technology, and it is proven. With 200 
million cars on the road, and 17 million more each year, why can't more 
cars run on ethanol?
  The answer is they can, and that is why I am pleased to join my 
colleagues from Iowa and Indiana, Senators Harkin and Lugar, in 
introducing legislation to require all cars made in the United States 
to be ethanol-capable vehicles within 10 years.
  Making ethanol cars is not expensive. It is less than the cost of 
airbags. It is less than the cost of a sunroof. It is less than the 
cost of foglights. It is less than the cost of a fancy CD player. It is 
less than the cost of heated seats.
  Making ethanol cars is not restrictive. These cars are known as 
flexible fuel vehicles. Where ethanol is not yet available, you simply 
fill up with regular gas.
  And making ethanol cars is good for American automakers, because 
American automakers have a head start. Already, 5 percent to 7 percent 
of their fleet can run on ethanol. We are only asking for an increase 
over a decade.
  I remind my colleagues that the renewable fuels standard enacted in 
the Energy bill of 2005 will incorporate enough ethanol into our fuel 
supply to reduce the use of foreign oil. The Harkin-Lugar-Obama bill, 
if enacted, would accelerate that reduction. And we can do it without 
hardship, without requiring drivers to purchase matchbox cars, without 
proposing futuristic technologies that only our great-great-
grandchildren's children will see.
  The Harkin-Lugar-Obama bill transforms existing, inexpensive, and 
simple technology into a genuine movement towards energy independence 
for the United States within a time period that we all can witness. I 
urge my colleagues' swift approval of this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. 
        Obama):
  S. 1995. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
enhance the security of wastewater treatment works; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Wastewater 
Treatment Works Security Act of 2005. This legislation is designed to 
improve the safety and security of our Nation's wastewater treatment 
systems.
  There are 16,000 wastewater treatment facilities across the United 
States serving almost 190 million people. Approximately 1,600 
facilities are located near large metropolitan areas. These industrial 
facilities use large quantities of toxic chemicals in their treatment 
and disinfection processes, and their collection systems run beneath 
every city and town in America.
  A recent Department of Homeland Security planning scenario estimates 
that a chlorine tank explosion could result in 17,500 deaths, 10,000 
severe injuries, and 100,000 hospitalizations. In February 2005, the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on wastewater 
security which ranks the release of chlorine as the number two security 
risk after damage to sewer collection systems.
  In the past few years alone, fatal accidents involving large 
quantities of chlorine have reminded us of the highly volatile nature 
of this popular wastewater disinfection agent. In January 2005, 9 
people were killed in South Carolina when a train carrying chlorine gas 
was involved in a crash. In June 2004, 3 people died when two freight 
trains collided in Texas and caused a chlorine tank to rupture.
  At the very least, wastewater facilities that use chlorine should 
evaluate how the chemical is stored on site and how to react in the 
event of a harmful intentional act. The GAO report on wastewater 
security recommends mandatory vulnerability assessments and emergency 
response plans as an immediate step towards addressing the security 
concerns.
  The Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act takes the essential first 
step in closing the security gaps that make our wastewater treatment 
systems vulnerable to terrorist attack. The provisions contained in 
this bill are the product of four years worth of lessons learned since 
9/11, mirroring similar legislative efforts to secure critical 
infrastructure and minimize potential terrorist targets.
  This legislation requires all wastewater facilities to conduct 
vulnerability assessments and to develop or modify site security and 
emergency response plans to incorporate the results of the 
vulnerability assessments. Treatment works must certify that 
alternative approaches, such as using smaller quantities or replacing 
substances of concern, were considered in their site security plans. It 
requires that these documents be submitted to EPA for review, and it 
includes significant security measures to protect this information from 
unauthorized disclosure.
  Additionally, the legislation authorizes $250 million for assistance 
in completing vulnerability assessments, for immediate security 
improvements, and for assistance to small treatment works. Finally, it 
authorizes $15 million for research to identify threats,

[[Page S12687]]

detection methods and response actions. This bill makes tangible 
progress towards more secure and better prepared wastewater treatment 
works.
  By contrast, drinking water facilities have conducted vulnerability 
assessments under the Safe Drinking Water Act since 2002, when Congress 
passed H.R. 3448, the Public Health and Bioterrorism Preparedness 
Response Act, P.L. 107-188. These plants are often co-located. It makes 
no sense to adopt strong standards for one infrastructure sector and 
not the other. In anticipation of congressional action on wastewater 
security, EPA has already issued guidance on conducting vulnerability 
assessments of wastewater treatment works, and many plants have already 
completed them.
  The Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act will codify what are now 
voluntary prevention and security measures and require all wastewater 
facilities to complete vulnerability assessments and emergency response 
plans, just as drinking water facilities have done since 2002.
  Our homeland security strategy begins with protecting critical 
infrastructure, and wastewater treatment facilities can no longer 
remain the exception. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL:
  S. 1996. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Energy to temporarily 
prohibit the exportation of a finished petroleum product or liquefied 
petroleum gas from the United States if the Secretary determines that 
the supply of the product or gas in any Petroleum Allocation Defense 
District has fallen or will fall below expected demand; to the 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to address an issue that I know 
my constituents in Wisconsin are worried about; indeed, something that 
all Americans should be concerned about. On Tuesday, the Energy 
Information Administration (EIA) announced the most recent outlook for 
home heating costs. For the average family, the cost of heating oil 
will increase approximately $325. And for families relying on propane, 
they can expect to pay an increase of about $230. I would like to 
stress that this is the average; in some areas, the prices could be 
much higher. And while these increased costs will place an undue burden 
on all sectors of the economy, the heaviest toll will clearly be on 
middle and low-income families.
  Yesterday, executives from several major oil companies were called to 
Capitol Hill, to defend the nearly $33 billion they earned last 
quarter. The answers they gave, for why Americans could expect to pay 
significantly more to heat their homes this winter, often were directed 
at the economics of supply and demand. The Chairman and CEO of 
ConocoPhillips argued that prices are ``a function of longer-term 
supply-and-demand trends, and lost energy production during the recent 
hurricanes.'' John Hofmeister, the President of Shell Oil Company, told 
Senators that the industry is doing everything in its power to ``supply 
shortfalls.''
  Given the testimony of Mr. Hofmeister, I find it surprising to note 
that currently, American companies are actually exporting products that 
could be used for home heating. According to the EIA, between January 
and August 2005 more than 48 million barrels of refined product was 
exported out of the U.S. This amount is 24 times the size of what is 
stored in the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve. While some of this went to 
both Canada and Mexico, large quantities were also sent to Argentina, 
Chile, France and Peru.
  I believe my constituents would be shocked to hear that while the oil 
companies are blaming high prices on low supplies, they are also 
reaping the benefits of exporting home heating oil abroad. That is why, 
on November 4th, I, along with 11 of my colleagues, wrote to several of 
the major oil companies and refiners, asking them to voluntarily halt 
all unnecessary exports of products that could be used for home 
heating. Such action would not be without precedent: in 2000, some 
refiners, including Shell Oil, voluntarily suspended heating oil 
exports after consulting with then Energy Secretary Richardson. We have 
not yet heard a response from any of the companies.
  I remain hopeful that these companies will help American consumers by 
temporarily suspending their unnecessary exports. Yesterday's hearing, 
however, did not inspire confidence in the companies to act on behalf 
of consumers rather than profits. That is why I am introducing the Stop 
Heating Oil Exports bill today.
  My legislation would grant emergency powers to the Energy Secretary 
to halt all unnecessary exports in the face of a serious price spike or 
supply shortfall. It is that simple. If the Secretary finds that demand 
will heavily outpace supply, then he or she should be able to stop 
exports--thereby temporarily improving supply, and preventing a major 
price spike, such as the one we can expect this winter.
  Yesterday, the oil companies cautioned those of us in Congress 
against policy changes that would amount to long-term involvement in 
energy markets. I would assure these executives that my legislation is 
a simple, short-term answer that is designed to protect American 
consumers. The companies have a chance to do the right thing, to 
increase supply and avoid the significantly increased home heating 
prices that have been forecasted.
  I believe that in the future, if they fail to use such an 
opportunity, the Energy Secretary should have the power to intervene on 
behalf of consumers. I would remind my colleagues that in 2000, as many 
as 4 refiners voluntarily suspended exports, citing ``market 
conditions'' and the desire to ensure adequate supplies of home heating 
oil for the winter. And I would remind the President of Shell that his 
company was one of them.
  Americans across the country could face potentially life-threatening 
conditions this winter, when temperatures drop and home heating prices 
soar. I believe that the oil companies have it in their power to 
prevent such a crisis--if they fail to use it, I believe it is the 
responsibility of the Federal Government to protect American families. 
I ask unanimous consent that the text of our legislation be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1996

       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 ``Stop Heating Oil Exports Act 
     of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) according to the Energy Information Administration, 
     households heated primarily with heating oil can expect to 
     pay an average increase of $378, or 32 percent more than last 
     year, to heat their homes;
       (2) households relying on propane can expect to pay, on 
     average, $325 more this winter;
       (3) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
     projects a 3.2-percent colder winter than last year, and if 
     colder weather prevails, home heating expenditures will be 
     significantly higher;
       (4) high home heating prices will disproportionately impact 
     moderate- and low-income families;
       (5) in October 2000, the Secretary of Energy, Bill 
     Richardson, successfully worked with major refiners to 
     temporarily halt heating oil exports, to ensure adequate 
     supplies of home heating oil for the winter;
       (6) between January and August 2005, refiners in the United 
     States have exported more than 48,000,000 barrels, or 
     2,000,000,000 gallons, of product that could be used for home 
     heating; and
       (7) at a time when consumers in the United States can 
     expect nearly double their home heating costs in 2004, 
     refiners in the United States should not be diminishing the 
     supply by exporting home heating products.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORITY TO TEMPORARILY PROHIBIT EXPORT OF CERTAIN 
                   PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.

       If the Secretary of Energy determines that the supply of a 
     finished petroleum product or liquefied petroleum gas in any 
     of the 5 Petroleum Allocation Defense Districts has fallen or 
     will fall below expected demand for the product or gas, the 
     Secretary may temporarily prohibit the exportation of the 
     product or gas from the United States.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. 
        Bingaman, and Mr. Reed):
  S. 1997. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Energy to establish a 
program of energy assistance grants to local educational agencies; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

[[Page S12688]]

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the School Energy 
Crisis Relief Act. This bill would authorize the Secretary of Energy to 
award School Energy Grants to the poorest school districts in each 
State. I am pleased that Senators Schumer, Clinton, and Bingaman have 
joined me in sponsoring this bill.
  With cold weather setting in, people all across the country are 
worried about the sky-high cost of energy. Americans are feeling pain 
at the pump, and they are feeling even more pain at home, with home-
heating costs expected to rise as much as 70 percent above last year's 
levels.
  At the same time, many public school districts across the country are 
struggling to cope with a dramatic, unexpected surge in their energy 
costs. Schools are facing a double hit: they operate large fleets of 
buses, and they must heat large, sprawling buildings. This problem is 
especially acute in the West and Midwest, where many school districts 
cover large geographic areas, and in urban areas, which are burdened 
with some of the nation's oldest and often least energy-efficient 
buildings.
  For affluent suburban districts, these unanticipated energy costs are 
a challenge. But for poor school districts, they are a full-blown 
crisis. Many school boards face a choice between paying their higher 
energy bills or cutting instructional staff and programs.
  My bill would allow the Secretary of Energy to award grants to 
schools districts with the highest percentage and highest number of 
students eligible for Title I assistance. The grant amounts would be 
awarded based on the population of school-age children in the district, 
as well as the regional costs of transportation and heating fuel.
  This is a nationwide crisis, and it calls for an urgent Federal 
response. School districts across the country are already implementing 
drastic measures in response to higher energy costs. In Kentucky, for 
instance, several school districts have cut back to four days of 
classes per week. In September, most of Georgia's schools cancelled 
classes for two days in an effort to conserve energy and cut costs.
  In my State, the Iowa Association of School Boards estimates that, 
this winter, there will be $40 million shortfall in funding to cover 
school heating costs. Higher fuel costs for school buses could worsen 
the shortfall by another $8 million. And because that will come out of 
the fixed general fund for public education, every additional dollar 
spent on energy costs will come at the expense of classroom and 
instructional quality. For example, Charles City, IA, expects to spend 
$140,000 more on fuel this winter. That's enough to pay the salaries of 
four teachers.
  According to the Iowa Association of School Boards, school districts 
are responding to the energy crisis by reducing staff, increasing class 
sizes, reducing course offerings, postponing technology purchases, or 
cutting Headstart transportation programs. Many school districts are 
lowering their thermostats to unhealthful levels. In fact, just 
yesterday, I heard that the school district in Ottumwa, IA, has asked 
parents to start sending kids to school with coats to keep them warm 
indoors. This is just not acceptable.
  In addition, I remind my colleagues that school districts--especially 
high-poverty school districts--are struggling heroically to try to meet 
the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. It is penny wise and 
pound foolish to force these districts to cut instructional staff and 
classroom resources in order to pay their higher energy bills. And none 
of us can be comfortable with the prospect of children sitting at their 
school desks in coats and scarves to fight off the chill. As I said, 
this is just not acceptable.
  The poorest school districts all across America are in desperate need 
of assistance with their energy costs. Low-income children deserve the 
opportunity to learn and achieve in classrooms that are properly 
heated. And we certainly don't want schools to be eliminating school 
days and laying off teachers because of higher energy costs. So we need 
to act. I urge my colleagues to support the School Energy Crisis Relief 
Act so we can respond to this emergency as expeditiously as possible. 
According to the Iowa Association of School Boards, this has led to 
some schools deciding to scale back after-school activities because of 
heating costs and to cut non-varsity sports because they lack funding 
necessary to take them to games. It is very troubling to me that 
schools have been forced to make cuts that have directly affected the 
educational experience of the children in their schools, in the name of 
rising fuel costs. For instance, some schools have had to cut back on 
field trips, put off buying new text books and school supplies, while 
reducing course offerings in fine arts and academics.
  In addition, the Iowa Association of School Boards has reported that 
schools have cut back on staff and increased class sizes while also 
turning down the thermostat in the classroom. I ask, Mr. President, are 
we supposed to expect students to learn at a high-level when rising 
energy costs have put them in overcrowded, cold classrooms?
  But this problem is not specific to my home State of Iowa. As the 
sponsor of companion legislation in the House of Representatives, 
Congressman Joe Baca, pointed out that some schools in Kentucky have 
cut back to four-day school weeks to keep their energy costs down. 
Recently, Georgia schools cancelled two days of classes in an attempt 
to keep their costs down. In Colton Joint Unified District in 
Congressman Baca's congressional district, the price of a gallon of 
diesel fuel has risen from under a dollar at one point to $2.72 a 
gallon increasing annual fuel costs by over $300,000.
  So I have come to the floor today to introduce the School Energy 
Crisis Relief Act. This legislation meets the needs of struggling 
school districts by authorizing the Secretary of Energy to award grants 
to poor school districts struggling to balance skyrocketing energy 
costs with providing a quality education. Grants would be awarded to 
the poorest urban and rural school districts in each state. In Iowa 
alone, this means both poor rural and urban districts would be eligible 
to receive grants.
  I ask for my colleagues support for the School Energy Crisis Relief 
Act and urge the Senate to work quickly to pass this crucial 
legislation and provide relief to those school districts in need.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Nelson 
        of Nebraska, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Thune, Mr. Hagel, 
        Mr. Isakson, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mrs. Dole):
  S. 1998. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to enhance 
protections relating to the reputation and meaning of the Medal of 
Honor and other military decorations and awards, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, it is an honor for me to introduce the 
Stolen Valor Act of 2005. This legislation will honor the brave 
veterans of our Nation who have been awarded valorous medals for their 
service to our Nation. It is only appropriate that this bill be 
introduced today, the day before our country remembers all servicemen 
and women--past and present--who have served America in uniform.
  Recipients of the Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Awards, 
Silver Star, or Purple Heart have made incredible sacrifices for our 
country. They deserve our thanks and respect.
  Unfortunately, however, there are some individuals who diminish the 
accomplishments of award recipients by using medals they have not 
earned. These imposters use fake medals--or claim to have medals that 
they have not earned--to gain credibility in their communities. These 
fraudulent acts can often lead to the perpetration of very serious 
crimes.
  Currently, Federal law enforcement officials are only able to 
prosecute those who wear counterfeit medals. The statute does not apply 
to individuals who claim to be award recipients either verbally or in 
writing, or to those who display fake medals in their offices or homes.
  My legislation will allow law enforcement officials to prosecute 
those who falsely claim, either verbally or in writing, to be medal 
recipients. It calls for a six-month jail sentence and a fine for 
improper use of most medals, and includes a maximum sentence of one 
year for perpetrators who claim to have earned the Medal of Honor, 
Distinguished Service Awards, Silver Star, or Purple Heart.
  The Military Order of the Purple Heart, the VFW, and the FBI Agents

[[Page S12689]]

Association have endorsed this legislation because of the capabilities 
it will provide law enforcement officials to prosecute these fraudulent 
acts.
  It is my hope that this legislation will serve to honor the 
courageous heroes who have rightfully earned these awards. We must 
never allow their service and sacrifice to be cheapened by those who 
wish to exploit these honors for personal gain.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 1999. A bill to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to 
transfer the YouthBuild program from the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development to the Department of Labor, to enhance the program, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
would transfer the YouthBuild program from its current home in the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development to the Department of Labor. 
Transferring departmental jurisdiction over this program will help 
ensure that Youthbuild continues to receive the funds it needs to help 
unemployed and undereducated young people ages 16-24 work toward their 
GED or high school diploma while learning job skills by building 
affordable housing for homeless and low-income people. It is supported 
by the YouthBuild Coalition.
  Poverty, neglect, abuse, and deprivation of all kinds can prevent 
people from reaching their true potential. Many of those who have 
fallen off track, suffered losses, and made mistakes can recover. If 
given the opportunity, they can learn to cope with obstacles and care 
effectively about themselves, their families and their communities. 
YouthBuild helps young people who have lost their way to turn their 
lives around.
  YouthBuild is a uniquely comprehensive program that offers at-risk 
youth an immediate productive role rebuilding their communities. While 
attending basic education classes for 50 percent of program time, 
students also receive job skills training in the construction field, 
personal counseling from respected mentors, a supportive peer group 
with positive values, and experience in civic engagement. They build 
houses for homeless and low-income people while earning their own GED 
or high school diploma.
  YouthBuild is built on success. The first YouthBuild program was 
created in 1978. At that time, YouthBuild's future founder, Dorothy 
Stoneman, formed the Youth Action Program to rebuild homes in New York 
City. The successful renovation of an East Harlem tenement led to a 
city-wide coalition and in 1990, led to YouthBuild USA, an organization 
created to replicate this program around the Nation.
  In 1992, I introduced legislation which was enacted into law as part 
of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, authorizing 
federal funding for YouthBuild through the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development.
  In its first 10 years of Federal funding, YouthBuild has demonstrated 
the ability to bring the most disadvantaged youth into productive 
employment, higher education, and civic engagement. Since 1994, more 
than 40,000 YouthBuild students have helped rebuild their communities, 
creating more than 12,000 units of affordable housing, while 
transforming their lives at the same time.
  YouthBuild has earned majority bipartisan support for Federal funding 
in the Senate due to its great success in local communities. Today 
there are 226 YouthBuild programs in 44 States engaging 7,000 young 
adults.
  The number of programs could easily be expanded. Last year alone, 260 
communities were denied YouthBuild funding. The programs that exist 
could easily grow. In 2004, local programs turned away 10,000 
applicants solely for lack of funds.
  The expansion of YouthBuild would help address critical national 
problems: the construction industry is short 80,000 workers; over 
500,000 youth are dropping out of high school every year with no 
prospects of becoming gainfully employed; states are spending huge 
amounts on prisons, housing 365,000 16 to 24 year olds, 65 percent of 
whom have dropped out of high school.
  Consider this story of success: Manny Negron grew up in New Britain, 
CT. He left school during his Sophomore year after having some personal 
problems. He started selling drugs and getting into trouble. Then he 
joined YouthBuild, obtained a GED and learned more about the 
construction industry. ``Before YouthBuild, I didn't know what I wanted 
to do with my life.'' Manny said. ``I had no goals, no plans--I had 
nothing. If it was a weekend when I was partying and in the street, I 
had no plans. Now it's completely different and YouthBuild did that for 
me. Now that I'm away from all that, I actually see a future for myself 
and see what I'm capable of and what I can do with my life.''
  Research on 900 YouthBuild graduates several years after program 
completion showed that 75 percent were employed at an average wage of 
$10/hour or in college. They were voting and paying taxes. Of those who 
had committed felonies, the recidivism rate was a strikingly low, 15 
percent.
  The legislation I am introducing today responds to the Bush 
administration's attempt to move YouthBuild from HUD to DoL in its FY 
2006 budget request. I did not agree with the Administration attempt to 
transfer YouthBuild in the budget; it was simply the wrong approach. 
However, my staff has met with Administration officials, with 
YouthBuild and with YouthBuild's strong supporters. And I believe that 
we can find a way to do this, and I appreciate that the Administration 
has shown a willingness to work with us so far. If done properly, I 
transferring YouthBuild from HUD to DoL could increase YouthBuild's 
scope, helping it to reach the communities and young people that are 
currently denied access due to a lack of funds. This legislation not 
only authorizes the transfer of YouthBuild from HUD to DoL, but also 
allows unlimited future federal funding, continues centralized 
management at DoL and continues the historic role of YouthBuild USA as 
the partner and contractor for quality assurance.
  This legislation is an attempt to help move the process of 
transferring the YouthBuild program forward. I look forward to working 
with Senators Enzi and Kennedy, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions to develop 
compromise legislation that will ensure that YouthBuild continues to 
assist young people around the nation. I ask that all my colleagues 
support this legislation and continue to support the YouthBuild.

                          ____________________