[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.
____________________