[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 60 (Tuesday, May 16, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4619-S4626]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. ENZI (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Isakson, Mrs. Murray, 
        Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Byrd, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Santorum):
  S. 2803. A bill to amend the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 
1977 to improve the safety of mines and mining; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Senate Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions I am pleased to announce today 
the introduction of comprehensive legislation designed to make our 
Nation's mines and miners safer--the Mine Improvement and New Emergency 
Response Act of 2006, the MINER Act. I am particularly pleased to note 
that the MINER Act is the product of a truly bipartisan effort that 
includes Senator Kennedy, the committee's ranking member, Senators 
Isakson and Murray, the chair and ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Employment and Workplace Safety, and Senators Rockefeller and Byrd. 
They have all worked tirelessly to make this bill a reality, and I am 
grateful for their leadership on this issue and their co-sponsorship of 
the MINER Act.
  Mining, and coal mining in particular, is vital to our national and 
local economies, and to our national energy security. No aspect of 
mining is more important than protecting the health and safety of those 
whose hard work fuels the industry.
  This year our Nation has experienced tragic losses in the coal mines 
of West Virginia. Following the accident at the Sago mine, Senators 
Isakson, Kennedy, Rockefeller, and I traveled to West Virginia to meet 
with the families of those miners whose lives were lost. We were all 
deeply moved by that experience, and committed to do our best to ensure 
that such tragedies will not be repeated. To further that commitment, 
we have sought the views of experts and stakeholders on a wide range of 
mine safety issues and have conducted hearings and roundtables on such 
issues as mine safety technology. In the MINER Act, we have done much 
to reach our common goal of safeguarding the lives of all those who 
work in our Nation's mines.

  The legislation we introduce today addresses the issue of mine safety 
in a variety of ways. First, the MINER Act would require the 
development of mine-specific emergency response plans that incorporate 
safety and technology provisions designed to enhance miner safety. In 
the area of technology, in particular, the MINER Act recognizes that as 
safety technology evolves, so, too, must our approach. Thus, the plans 
that are initially developed must be periodically modified to reflect 
such changes.
  Second, the MINER Act recognizes the critical role of mine rescue 
teams, and those who serve on them, in enhancing the safety of miners. 
The legislation directs the Secretary of Labor to issue regulations 
that will make new provisions for mine rescue teams, and it creates 
liability protection for those who serve on those teams and their 
employers.
  Third, the MINER Act recognizes that in emergencies the ability to 
craft a prompt response is dependent upon prompt notification. Thus, 
the MINER Act provides that in the case of serious life-threatening 
accidents notification must be made to Federal Mine Safety officials 
within 15 minutes.
  Fourth, the legislation recognizes that despite all efforts, 
accidents may occur in the future, and that in those instances MSHA 
should be prepared to provide assistance to and communicate with the 
families of those affected. Accordingly, the MINER Act requires MSHA to 
establish a policy to meet both of these objectives.
  Fifth, the legislation recognizes the key role of technology in 
improving mine safety and the key role of the National Institute of 
Occupational Safety and Health in advancing such technological 
development. The MINER Act establishes an Office of Mine Safety within 
NIOSH, a NIOSH-administered grant and contract program designed to 
foster the development and manufacture of new mine safety equipment, 
and a NIOSH-chaired interagency working group designed to facilitate 
the transfer of technology that may be adaptable to mine usage from 
such other Federal sources as the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, NASA, the Department of Defense. The bill also contains 
provisions to streamline the testing of new technologies.
  Sixth, the MINER Act recognizes there are some areas regarding 
technology and engineering and mining practice about which uncertainty 
remains. The MINER Act recognizes that such issues are better addressed 
with the informed assistance of experts. Thus, the MINER Act creates a 
technical study panel to review the belt air issue and directs further 
NIOSH study and testing regarding refuge chambers. It also requires the 
Secretary to utilize the regulatory process to issue final regulations 
regarding the strength of seals used in abandoned mining sections. 
These directives do not prejudge the issues or dictate any result or 
action. They do, however, provide an important means of developing a 
body of expert opinion with regard to these Issues.

  Seventh, throughout the development of this legislation my long-held 
view that the vast majority of mine operators take their safety 
responsibilities with great seriousness has been reinforced. The 
conscientious efforts of mine operators throughout the country have 
been the principal reason behind our continual improvement in mine 
safety over the years. We must recognize this essential fact even as we 
must also recognize that there are a handful of operators who do not 
fall in this camp. In the instance of these ``bad actors,'' the MINER 
Act provides tools MSHA can use to more readily deal with those who 
fail to pay civil penalties. The MINER Act codifies a tenfold increase 
in the available criminal penalties, and it creates an increased 
maximum for flagrant violators in line with the administration's 
proposal and creates minimum penalties for the most serious types of 
infractions.
  Lastly, the legislation recognizes that training and education play a 
critical role in the effort to make mines and miners safer. Therefore, 
the legislation contains scholarship provisions to address the 
anticipated shortages of trained miners and MSHA personnel as well as 
fostering the skills of those who will work on the next generation of 
mine safety technology. It also contains provisions for the 
establishment of a program to provide a full range of mine safety 
training grants.
  These steps, when taken together, will help make our nation's mines a 
safer workplace today and in years to come.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is my honor today to join 
with several of my distinguished colleagues to introduce S. 2803, the 
Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response,

[[Page S4620]]

MINER Act of 2006. This is the first time Congress has taken a critical 
look at mine safety since the 1970s. It will be the first significant 
update of statutory mine safety standards in a generation. The advances 
in this legislation represent long overdue health and safety 
improvements for our Nation's miners. The MINER Act will affect every 
mine and every miner in the country. When fully implemented by the Mine 
Safety and Health Administration, MSHA, and coal operators, the MINER 
Act will make the men and women who work in our Nation's coal mines 
safer than they have ever been.
  Like many Americans, I was transfixed by the coverage of the tragic 
events at the Sago Mine in Upshur County, WV, this past January. My 
heart went out to the families of the miners as they waited and prayed 
for--and were cruelly denied--a happy ending. Except for the brief 
elation when we learned of Randal McCloy's miraculous survival, we were 
all heartbroken by the devastating outcome. Because these were miners 
and families in my State of West Virginia and because for years I lived 
and worked in nearby Buckhannon, the tragedy at Sago hit very close to 
home for me. For current and retired miners and their families across 
the country, the deaths of the Sago miners were very much the deaths of 
brothers.
  When two more miners went missing after a fire in the Alma No. 1 mine 
near Melville, in Logan County, WV, I knew my place was there with the 
families. There was little that could be done to ease the anxiety of 
the miners' families while they waited and prayed together in the 
church in Melville, having themselves lived through the Sago tragedy. 
That day, I was standing with Governor Manchin at the mine mouth and we 
got the news that no one wanted to hear. We returned to the church to 
be with the families when they heard the words that crushed their hopes 
for another miracle. No parent or spouse should have to live through a 
moment like that ever again. It was clear that better mine safety 
regulation was essential.
  One positive consequence of the broad news coverage of the Sago and 
Alma tragedies was that the world got a glimpse of West Virginia at its 
best: people who work hard, love their families, and trust in their 
God. My trip to Upshur County to meet with the families--and then the 
immensely sad and too-familiar repeat 2 weeks later to sit and to 
grieve with families of the Alma miners in Logan County--inspired what 
I hope will be a more lasting and tangible result. It became my mission 
to substantially improve and make more rigorous health and safety 
standards in American coal mines. I believe the MINER Act is 
legislation that will fulfill those goals and is the very least we can 
do as we recall the Sago and Alma miners, as well as those who lost 
their lives at the Longbranch No. 18, Black Castle, Candice No. 2, and 
Jacob No. 1 mines in West Virginia and at other mines in Kentucky, 
Utah, Alabama, and Maryland just this year.
  The MINER Act amends the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 
to do the following:
  Requires companies to submit to MSHA emergency preparedness and 
response plans, including requirements to deploy state-of-the-art 
technologies for two-way communications, miner tracking, improved 
breathing apparatuses, and lifelines. These improvements must be made 
immediately wherever feasible and no later than 3 years after 
enactment. Each miner must have enough breathable air accessible to 
last for a sustained period of time.
  Requires coal operators to supply miners with additional supplies of 
breathable air, both in working sections of coal mines and at intervals 
on escapeways so miners can walk out in the event of a disaster.
  Increases training on self-rescuers to make sure that technologies 
are properly deployed in the mine as soon as they become available.
  Requires operators to notify MSHA within 15 minutes of a disaster or 
face up to $60,000 in penalties.
  Improves the overall safety of miners by strengthening mine rescue 
team requirements for all underground mines. Now at least one miner per 
shift will have to be sufficiently familiar with the mine's operations 
to serve as a coordinator in the even of an accident, more miners will 
be rescue-trained, and response time will be cut in half--down to 1 
hour.
  Requires NIOSH to conduct research, including field testing, of 
refuge chambers and could result in the Secretary issuing a new 
regulation to require them.
  Creates an Office of Mine Safety in NIOSH to distribute mine safety 
research and development grants and to coordinate with other Government 
agencies on technology they use that might be adapted for mine safety 
purposes.
  Establishes a family liaison position for post-accident assistance to 
miners' families.
  Creates for the first time a schedule of higher minimum penalties for 
the most egregious health and safety violations--essentially doubling 
fines for serious violations.
  Tightens up MSHA fine collection procedures and gives MSHA new 
authority to shut down mines for failure to pay persistent violations.
  Requires the Secretary of Labor to improve standards for seals in 
abandoned areas of underground coal mines.
  Establishes a technical study panel made up of scientists and health 
and safety experts to review and report to the Secretaries of Labor and 
Health and Human Services on the use of ``belt air'' and the 
replacement of worn belts with fire-resistant materials.
  Creates three scholarship programs: for community college study in 
basic safety and mine skills for new miners; for college-level study 
leading toward employment with MSHA; and college and graduate study in 
mining-related disciplines.

  Creates the Brookwood-Sago Mine Safety Grants Program in the 
Department of Labor to fund education and training programs designed to 
identify, avoid, and prevent unsafe working conditions in and around 
mines.
  While television allowed the entire globe to look in on the 24-hour-
a-day vigils at Sago and then Alma, I received a number of calls of 
support and condolences from around the country and around the world. 
Among the first were calls from Senate Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions, HELP, Committee chairman Mike Enzi and his ranking Democrat 
member, Ted Kennedy. Chairman Enzi comes from a coal community in 
Wyoming and understands the bond between miners and their families. He 
also understands the hazards of mining coal, and he has been determined 
from the beginning to put out a good bill that can pass this Congress. 
I have known and admired Mike Enzi since he was the mayor of Gillette, 
WY, and I, while Governor of West Virginia, was serving as chairman of 
President Carter's Coal Commission. He is a fine and honest man, and it 
has been a pleasure to work with him on this vitally important 
legislation.
  As for Senator Kennedy, with the exception of his home State of 
Massachusetts, there can be few places where his long career in the 
Senate has had more positive impacts than in my State of West Virginia. 
Both Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi expressed to me their heartfelt 
sorrow and their unshakable commitment to work with me on mine safety 
legislation in this Congress.
  That commitment had its first demonstration when Chairman Enzi, 
Senator Kennedy, and HELP Employment and Workplace Safety Subcommittee 
chairman Johnny Isakson joined me on a trip to Upshur County so they 
could sit with the families of the Sago miners, as well as with 
survivors of the accident and company officials. Few meetings that I 
have attended in my public career were as powerful as the more than 2 
hours we spent with the Sago families. But the commitment has been 
proven beyond all doubt as Chairman Enzi and Senators Kennedy, Isakson, 
Murray, and Byrd have worked with me to negotiate the MINER Act over 
the course of the last several months.
  We have had some differences of opinion and worked through issues in 
which we were all trying to accomplish the same goal but from 
occasionally different angles. The good will and conscientiousness that 
Chairman Enzi and Senator Isakson have shown in this process give me 
hope for greater bipartisan cooperation in the future. I am extremely 
grateful to them for their willingness to work through our honest 
differences.
  While I believe the MINER Act will result in greatly improved safety 
in

[[Page S4621]]

our mines, it is not the last word in health and safety protections for 
the men and women who work underground. More aggressive measures on 
mine safety may be needed. Chairman Enzi has produced a very good bill, 
but I would have included more definitive language to push the 
introduction of emergency refuge chambers in mines, and I would have 
prevented the use of belt air anywhere its use presents an unreasonable 
hazard to miners. In any event, miners should not have to wait much 
longer for Congress to act. Legislating can be a slow process, but in 
times of crisis--and I believe we are in a time of crisis in our 
mines--Congress must act.
  As we work to move this legislation through Congress, we must commit 
with equal dedication to ongoing oversight. I believe I have that 
commitment from the chairman of the HELP Committee. But we need to ask 
more of the administration also: in resources--real dollars; in a 
renewed dedication to an inspector workforce weakened by retirements 
and attrition; and in more vigilance on the part of mine inspectors, 
who must be willing to spend the time in those mines where safety 
concerns go unabated today. On the front lines, I believe our coal 
companies understand that safe mines are productive mines, and our 
miners come to work each day ready and willing to do their jobs in the 
safest way possible.
  I commit to work with my cosponsors and all in Congress and the 
administration who care about miners to get this bill enacted this year 
and to continue to improve mine safety even after the MINER Act 
passes.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Nelson 
        of Florida, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Carper, Mr. Talent, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. 
        Snowe, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Burns, Mr. 
        Conrad, Ms. Murkowski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 2810. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
eliminate months in 2006 from the calculation of any late enrollment 
penalty under the Medicare part D prescription drug program and to 
provide for additional funding for State health insurance counseling 
program and area agencies on aging, and for other purposes; read the 
first time.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.

                                S. 2810

       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 ``Medicare Late Enrollment 
     Assistance Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MONTHS IN 2006 FROM THE CALCULATION OF 
                   ANY LATE ENROLLMENT PENALTY UNDER MEDICARE PART 
                   D.

       (a) Elimination.--Section 1860D-13(b)(3)(B) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1895w-113(b)(3)(B)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new sentence: ``In no case 
     shall any month in 2006 be considered to be an uncovered 
     month under this subsection.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section 
     101(a) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and 
     Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173; 117 Stat. 
     2071).

     SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR STATE HEALTH INSURANCE 
                   COUNSELING PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Out of any funds in the Treasury not 
     otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated $13,000,000 to 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services for fiscal year 
     2007, for the purpose of providing grants to States for State 
     health insurance counseling programs receiving assistance 
     under section 4360 of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990.
       (b) Allocation.--
       (1) Allocation based on percentage of low-income 
     beneficiaries.--The amount of a grant to a State under this 
     section from \1/2\ of the total amount made available under 
     subsection (a) shall be based on the number of individuals 
     that meet the requirement under section 1860D-
     14(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395w-114(a)(3)(A)(ii)) relative to the total number of 
     part D eligible individuals (as defined in section 1860D-
     l(a)(3)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-101(a)(3))) in 
     each State, as estimated by the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services.
       (2) Allocation based on percentage of rural 
     beneficiaries.--The amount of a grant to a State under this 
     section from \1/2\ of the total amount made available under 
     subsection (a) shall be based on the number of part D 
     eligible individuals (as so defined) residing in a rural area 
     (as determined by the Administrator of the Centers for 
     Medicare & Medicaid Services) relative to the total number of 
     such individuals in each State, as estimated by the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.
       (c) Availability.--Amounts made available under subsection 
     (a) shall remain available--
       (1) for obligation until November 1, 2006; and
       (2) for expenditure until June 30, 2008.

     SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR AREA AGENCIES ON AGING.

       (a) In General.--Out of any funds in the Treasury not 
     otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated $5,000,000 to 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services for fiscal year 
     2007, to enable the Assistant Secretary on Aging to provide 
     grants to States for area agencies on aging (as defined in 
     section 102 of the Older American Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 
     3002)). Such assistance shall be used to provide eligible 
     Medicare beneficiaries with information regarding benefits 
     under title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
       (b) Allocation Based on Percentage of Low-Income and Rural 
     Beneficiaries.--The amount of a grant to a State under this 
     section from the total amount made available under subsection 
     (a) shall be determined in the same manner as the amount of a 
     grant to a State under section 4 from the total amount made 
     available under subsection (a) of such section is determined 
     under paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) of such 
     section.
       (c) Availibility.--Amounts made available under subsection 
     (a) shall remain available--
       (1) for obligation until November 1, 2006; and
       (2) for expenditure until June 30, 2008.

     SEC. 5. MEDICARE ADVANTAGE REGIONAL PLAN STABILIZATION FUND 
                   REVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1858(e)(5) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-27a(e)(5)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Additional Limitation.--In no case may the total 
     expenditures from the Fund--
       ``(I) prior to October 1, 2007, exceed $566,000,000;
       ``(II) during the period beginning on October 1, 2007, and 
     ending on September 30, 2011, exceed $4,507,000,000.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section 
     221(c) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and 
     Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173; 117 Stat. 
     2181).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 2813. A bill for the relief of Claudia Marquez Rico; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am offering today private relief 
legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Claudia 
Marquez Rico, a Mexican national living in Redwood City, CA
  Born in Jalisco, Mexico, Claudia was brought to the United States by 
her parents 16 years ago. Claudia was just 6 years old at the time. She 
has two younger brothers, Jose and Omar, who came to America with her, 
and a sister, Maribel, who was born in California and is a U.S. 
Citizen. America is the only home they know.
  Six years ago that home was visited by tragedy. As Mr. and Mrs. 
Marquez were driving to work early on the morning of October 4, 2000, 
they were both killed in a horrible traffic accident when their car 
collided with a truck on an isolated rural road.
  The children went to live with their aunt and uncle, Hortencia and 
Patricio Alcala. The Alcalas are a generous and loving couple. They are 
U.S. citizens with two children of their own. They took the Marquez 
children in and did all they could to comfort them in their grief. They 
supervised their schooling, and made sure they received the counseling 
they needed, too. The family is active in their parish at Buen Pastor 
Catholic Church, and Patricio Alcala serves as a youth soccer coach. In 
2001, the Alcalas were appointed the legal guardians of the Marquez 
children.
  Sadly, the Marquez family received bad legal representation. At the 
time of their parents' death, Claudia and Jose were minors, and 
qualified for special immigrant juvenile status. This category was 
enacted by Congress to protect children like them from the hardship 
that would result from deportation under such extraordinary 
circumstances, when a State court deems them to be dependents due to 
abuse, abandonment or neglect. Today, their younger brother Omar is on 
track to lawful permanent residence status as a special immigrant 
juvenile. Unfortunately, the family's previous lawyer failed to secure 
this relief for Claudia, and she has now reached the age of majority 
without having resolved her immigration status.

[[Page S4622]]

  I should note that their former lawyer, Walter Pineda, is currently 
answering charges on 29 counts of professional incompetence and 5 
counts of moral turpitude for mishandling immigration cases and appears 
on his way to being disbarred.
  I am offering legislation on Claudia's behalf because I believe that, 
without it, this family would endure an immense and unfair hardship. 
Indeed, without this legislation, this family will not remain a family 
for much longer.
  Despite the adversity they encountered, Claudia and Jose finished 
school and now work together in a pet grooming store in Redwood City, 
where Claudia is the store manager. They support themselves, and they 
are dedicated to their community and devoted to their family. In fact, 
last year Claudia became the legal guardian of her 14-year-old sister 
Maribel, who lives with her and Jose at their home in Redwood City. 
Omar, now 17 years old, continues to live with the Alcalas so as not to 
interrupt his studies at Aragon High School in San Mateo. Again, 
Maribel is a U.S. citizen, and Omar is eligible for a green card.
  Claudia has no close relatives in Mexico. She has never visited 
Mexico, and she was so young when she was brought to America that she 
has no memories of it. How can we expect her to start a new life there 
now?
  It would be a grave injustice to add to this family's misfortune by 
tearing these siblings apart. This is a close family, and they have 
come to rely on each other heavily in the absence of their deceased 
parents. This bill will prevent the added tragedy of another wrenching 
separation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record along with a letter from Claudia and Jose Marquez Rico.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2813

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

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR CLAUDIA MARQUEZ 
                   RICO.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1151), Claudia Marquez Rico shall be eligible for issuance of 
     an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an 
     alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing 
     an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 
     section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful 
     permanent resident.
       (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Claudia Marquez Rico enters 
     the United States before the filing deadline specified in 
     subsection (c), she shall be considered to have entered and 
     remained lawfully and, if otherwise eligible, shall be 
     eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--
     Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the application 
     for issuance of an immigrant visa or the application for 
     adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees not later 
     than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Reduction of Immigrant VISA Number.--Upon the granting 
     of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Claudia 
     Marquez Rico, the Secretary of State shall instruct the 
     proper officer to reduce by 1, during the current or next 
     following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas 
     that are made available to natives of the country of the 
     alien's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the 
     total number of immigrant visas that are made available to 
     natives of the country of the alien's birth under section 
     202(e) of such Act.
       (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for 
     Certain Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and 
     sisters of Claudia Marquez Rico shall not, by virtue of such 
     relationship, be accorded any right, privilege, or status 
     under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et 
     seq.).
                                  ____

                                                  January 3, 2005.
     Senator Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Congress,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: We are writing to request your 
     assistance in introducing a private bill in the United States 
     Senate on our behalf. We are currently in deportation 
     proceedings before the Immigration Court in San Francisco, 
     California. We are twenty-one and eighteen years old 
     respectively. We have two other siblings, Omar, sixteen, and 
     Maribel, twelve.
       Our parents entered the United States without documents in 
     1990. We were very young at the time and don't remember 
     entering the United States or ever living in Mexico. Our life 
     in the United States is the only thing we have ever known, it 
     is where our family, friends, and community are and have 
     always been.
       In October 2000 our parents were both killed in a terrible 
     car accident. We were so sad to suddenly not have our parents 
     and scared about what our future would bring. After the 
     accident we went to live with our aunt and uncle, Hortencia 
     and Patricio Alcala, in San Mateo, California and they became 
     our legal guardians. It was difficult to adjust to life 
     without our parents. We lived in a new home, in a new 
     environment, and attended different schools with new people. 
     Everything in our lives had changed.
       Before their deaths, our parents had a case before the 
     Immigration Court in San Francisco, California and we were 
     included in that case. Our youngest sister Maribel was born 
     here in the United States and so she is a citizen and not 
     part of the case. We know that despite the deaths of our 
     parents that case continues and that we may be deported to 
     Mexico. We have a lawyer who is trying to help us with our 
     case, Angela Bean. She said she will be able to help our 
     brother Omar in his case because he is still a minor but that 
     there are few options for us to remain in the United States 
     legally. We are trying to find a solution for our case but 
     are scared we may be deported before we are able to do so.
       Our parents came to this country because they wanted a 
     better future for us and all we want is the chance to have 
     the kind of opportunities they sought for us. Jose Elvis 
     wants to study mechanics and then open his own shop and 
     Claudia wants to go to college. All of our dreams would be 
     lost if we had to return to Mexico. We have no family there 
     and no way of supporting ourselves. Even though we were born 
     there, we came to the United States at such a young age it's 
     as if we have never been there before.
       We not only worry about our future, but about our sister 
     Maribel if we were forced to go back to Mexico. She is the 
     youngest and we want to be here for her as she grows up and 
     to protect her and teach her things. All we have is each 
     other now and we don't want to be separated from the family 
     we have left.
       We ask for your help so that we can remain in the United 
     States and so we can continue to grow and be surrounded by 
     the people and places we know and love, Our lives have been 
     very difficult since the deaths of our parents and we hope 
     that we can remain in this country where we have the 
     opportunities our parents wanted for us and the family 
     support that we need.
           Sincerely,
     Claudia Marquez-Rico.
     Jose Elvis Marquez-Rico.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD:
  S. 2815. A bill to establish the Commission on Economic Indicators to 
conduct a study and submit a report containing recommendations 
concerning the appropriateness and accuracy of the methodology, 
calculations, and reporting used by the Government relating to certain 
economic indicators; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I introduce legislation today to improve the 
way we measure the condition of America's economy. My bill, the 
Economic Indicators Commission Act of 2006, would establish a 
nonpartisan commission of experts to make recommendations concerning 
the appropriateness and accuracy of the methodology, calculations, and 
reporting of the government's economic statistics. I am joined in this 
effort by Representative Emanuel in the other body.
  The statistics that describe our economy provide essential 
information and guidance for private market actors and public 
policymakers. Statistics like Gross Domestic Product, GDP, the 
inflation rate, and the unemployment rate help investors decide how to 
allocate their money, help entrepreneurs decide whether to start a new 
business, and help job-seekers decide where to look for new 
opportunities. Policymakers ranging from central bankers to elected 
officials rely on the same statistics to make informed decisions about 
monetary and fiscal policy and public sector investments.
  Yet while we rely on these indicators, we know that they paint an 
imperfect picture. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS, for example, 
reports two separate measures of employment, which, as many of us may 
remember, created some controversy in 2003 and 2004 when they provided 
conflicting assessments of our economy's health. The BLS's two series 
never match up perfectly, but at one point, one measure showed a loss 
of 1 million jobs since the recession's official end in November 2001, 
while the other reported an increase of 1.4 million. The 2004 Economic 
Report of the President called such a large and sustained divergence 
``unprecedented.''
  Ben Bernanke, now Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors,

[[Page S4623]]

described well the challenge of relying on imperfect indicators in a 
2004 speech to the National Economists Club in Washington, DC. In the 
speech, Dr. Bernanke made light of a common analogy used to describe 
American monetary policy, which compares the Federal Reserve's Federal 
Open Market Committee to the driver of a car--the U.S. economy--who 
must decide whether to tap the accelerator or the brake in order to 
maintain proper speed. Dr. Bernanke offered a slightly modified 
comparison: ``[I]f making monetary policy is like driving a car,'' he 
said, ``then the car is one that has an unreliable speedometer, a foggy 
windshield, and a tendency to respond unpredictably and with delay to 
the accelerator or the brake.''
  While our economic statistics will likely never provide perfect, 
real-time gauges of our economy's performance, that does not mean we 
should cease seeking to improve them. Chairman Bernanke's predecessor 
at the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, was known for his search for 
insight not only by reading economic data, but also by knowing its 
limitations and pushing for better ways to measure what was happening 
in the national and global economies. As Chairman Greenspan recognized 
in a speech to the American Economic Association on January 3, 2004, 
``the economic world in which we function is best described by a 
structure whose parameters are continuously changing.''
  Chairman Greenspan makes an important point. As our economy evolves, 
so too should our methods for measuring it. In a recent Business Week 
cover story, reporter Michael Mandel outlines one example of how modem 
features of the 21st century economy may be challenging the accuracy of 
traditional economic indicators. America's economy, Mandel argues, has 
become increasingly ``knowledge-based,'' driven by intangible 
investments in addition to the production of tangible goods. 
Intangibles, however, are notoriously difficult to measure, so as a 
result, our traditional indicators may be leaving out a growing portion 
of the economic picture. If intangibles truly are growing in 
importance, our statistics must better account for them in order to 
provide a full and accurate measure of economic activity.
  Intangibles aren't the only economic factor that our current 
indicators may not capture accurately. Researchers in academic and 
public policy institutions have also questioned the way we measure 
poverty in America. They suggest that the government's use of 
``reported household income'' as the primary measurement tool does not 
properly account for regional differences in the cost of living or 
noncash items such as food stamps. As a result, we may be 
systematically undercounting the number of Americans living in poverty, 
especially those living in high-cost areas. Mr. President, if we as a 
Nation are going to effectively fight the scourge of poverty, we must 
know where to aim and have the ability to measure our progress.
  Properly accounting for intangibles and developing more realistic 
standards of poverty represent only two of the many challenges we face 
in improving the way we measure our economy. Public servants at each of 
our government statistical agencies, along with independent 
researchers, are working continuously and diligently to better the 
techniques for collecting and reporting information. But the challenge 
is to bring these efforts together in a larger, coordinated context, 
with the mission to fundamentally re-examine the way we measure 
economic activity and our progress as a society.
  The legislation I introduce today, the Economic Indicators Commission 
Act of 2006, will achieve this goal. It establishes a nonpartisan panel 
of eight experts appointed by Senate and House leadership, in 
consultation with the chairman and ranking members of the Banking and 
Finance Committees in the Senate, the Financial Services and Ways and 
Means Committees in the House, and the Joint Economic Committee. The 
bill directs the Commission to consult with both users and reporters of 
data, such as the Federal Reserve and Council of Economic Advisers and 
the Commerce and Labor Departments, and report its findings and 
recommendations to the Congress within 12 months.
  In order to formulate effective policy and improve market efficiency, 
we need a full and accurate picture of the economy. Our economic data 
has the power to literally move markets; it influences billions of 
dollars worth of investment and public policy decisions. The 
legislation I introduce today will help Americans make more informed 
decisions by improving these statistics. Going back to Chairman 
Benanke's joke about the analogy of the economy as a difficult-to-drive 
car, this bill will help drivers de-fog the windshield and upgrade the 
speedometer, for the benefit of all.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2815

       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 ``Commission on Economic 
     Indicators Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Federal and State governments and private sector 
     entities depend on the economic statistics published by the 
     Federal Government;
       (2) questions have been raised about the accuracy of 
     various measures including productivity, poverty, inflation, 
     employment and unemployment, and wages and income; and
       (3) it is essential that these indicators accurately 
     reflect underlying economic activity and conditions.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established the Commission on 
     Economic Indicators (in this Act referred to as the 
     ``Commission'').
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 8 
     members of whom--
       (A) 2 shall be appointed by the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate, in consultation with the Chairmen and Ranking Members 
     of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of 
     the Senate, the Committee on Finance of the Senate, and the 
     Joint Economic Committee;
       (B) 2 shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     Senate, in consultation with the Chairmen and Ranking Members 
     of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of 
     the Senate, the Committee on Finance of the Senate, and the 
     Joint Economic Committee;
       (C) 2 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, in consultation with the Chairmen and 
     Ranking Members of the Committee on Financial Services of the 
     House of Representatives, the Committee on Ways and Means of 
     the House of Representatives, and the Joint Economic 
     Committee; and
       (D) 2 shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     House of Representatives, in consultation with the Chairmen 
     and Ranking Members of the Committee on Financial Services of 
     the House of Representatives, the Committee on Ways and Means 
     of the House of Representatives, and the Joint Economic 
     Committee.
       (2) Qualifications.--Members of the Commission shall be--
       (A) appointed on a nonpartisan basis; and
       (B) experts in the fields of economics, statistics, or 
     other related professions.
       (3) Date.--The appointments of the members of the 
     Commission shall be made not later than 60 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--Members shall be 
     appointed for the life of the Commission. Any vacancy in the 
     Commission shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled 
     in the same manner: as the original appointment.
       (d) Initial Meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     on which all members of the Commission have been appointed, 
     the Commission shall hold its first meeting.
       (e) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairman.
       (f) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may 
     hold hearings.
       (g) Chairman and Vice Chairman.--The Commission shall 
     select a Chairman and Vice Chairman from among its members.

     SEC. 4. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Study.--The Commission shall conduct a study of--
       (1) economic statistics collected and reported by United 
     States Government agencies, including national income, 
     employment and unemployment, wages, personal income, wealth, 
     savings, debt, productivity, inflation, and international 
     trade and capital flows; and
       (2) ways to improve the related statistical. measurements 
     so that such measurements provide a more accurate and 
     complete depiction of economic conditions.
       (b) Consultation.--In conducting the study under this 
     section, the Commission shall consult with--
       (1) the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors;
       (2) the Secretary of Commerce;
       (3) the Secretary of Labor;
       (4) the Secretary of the Treasury;

[[Page S4624]]

       (5) the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers; and
       (6) the Comptroller General of the United States.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     first meeting of the Commission, the Commission shall submit 
     a report to Congress which shall contain a detailed statement 
     of the findings and conclusions of the Commission, together 
     with recommendations for such legislation and administrative 
     actions as the Commission considers appropriate, including a 
     recommendation of the appropriateness of establishing a 
     similar commission after the termination of the Commission.

     SEC. 5. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Hearings.--The Commission may hold such hearings, sit 
     and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and 
     receive such evidence as the Commission considers advisable 
     to carry out this Act.
       (b) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Commission may 
     secure directly from any Federal department or agency such 
     information as the Commission considers necessary to carry 
     out this Act. Upon request of the Chairman of the Commission, 
     the head of such department or agency shall furnish such 
     information to the Commission. The Commission shall maintain 
     the same level of confidentiality for such information made 
     available under this subsection as is required of the head of 
     the department or agency from which the information was 
     obtained.
       (c) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.

     SEC. 6. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.

       (a) Compensation of Members.--Each member of the Commission 
     who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government 
     shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily 
     equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for 
     level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of 
     title 5, United States Code, for each day (including 
     travel time) during which such member is engaged in the 
     performance of the duties of the Commission. All members 
     of the Commission who are officers or employees of the 
     United States shall serve without compensation in addition 
     to that received for their services as officers or 
     employees of the United States.
       (b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Commission shall 
     be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services for the Commission.
       (c) Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The Chairman of the Commission may, 
     without regard to the civil service laws and regulations, 
     appoint and terminate an executive director and such other 
     additional personnel as may be necessary to enable the 
     Commission to perform its duties. The employment of an 
     executive director shall be subject to confirmation by the 
     Commission.
       (2) Compensation.--The Chairman of the Commission may fix 
     the compensation of the executive director and other 
     personnel without regard to chapter 51 and subchapter III of 
     chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, relating to 
     classification of positions and General Schedule pay rates, 
     except that the rate of pay for the executive director and 
     other personnel may not exceed the rate payable for level V 
     of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such title.
       (3) Personnel as federal employees.--
       (A) In general.--The executive director and any personnel 
     of the Commission who are employees shall be employees under 
     section 2105 of title 5, United States Code, for purposes of 
     chapters 63, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, 89A, 89B, and 90 of that 
     title.
       (B) Members of board.--Subparagraph (A) shall not be 
     construed to apply to members of the Commission.
       (d) Detail of Government Employees.--Any Federal Government 
     employee may be detailed to the Commission without 
     reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption 
     or loss of civil service status or privilege.
       (e) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
     The Chairman of the Commission may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, at rates for individuals which do not 
     exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
     prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of such title.

     SEC. 7. TERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION.

       The Commission shall terminate 90 days after the date on 
     which the Commission submits its report under section 4.

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Dorgan, 
        and Mr. Biden):
  S. 2816. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
an income tax credit for the manufacture of flexible fuel motor 
vehicles and to extend and increase the income tax credit for 
alternative fuel refueling property, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. HARKIN. Today, I am introducing, along with Senators Lugar, 
Johnson, Dorgan and Biden, tax legislation that is designed to 
complement the Biofuels Security Act of 2006, also being introduced 
today. I will walk through these provisions very briefly.
  The legislation amends the existing tax credit for installing 
alternative fueling infrastructure, such as E85 fueling pumps and tanks 
which was enacted as part of last year's energy bill. That existing 
provision allows a tax credit of 30 percent of the cost of 
installation, with a maximum credit of $30,000. Our bill modifies this 
credit in three ways. First, we would eliminate availability of the 
credit for the large oil companies that would be required to install 
such E85 pumps under the companion Biofuels Security Act. These 
companies have the financial wherewithal to install these pumps without 
the need for a tax credit. Second, for retailers who would not be 
required to install E85 pumps and tanks under our proposed legislation, 
our bill would enhance the tax credit to 50 percent of the cost of 
installation, with a maximum credit of $30,000. Third, for small 
retailers, that is, those with 5 or fewer stations, our bill would 
increase the credit to 75 percent of the cost of installation, up to a 
maximum credit of $45,000.
  This tax legislation would also create a new consumer tax credit for 
the purchase of flexfuel vehicles if the vehicles have no fuel 
efficiency loss from the use of E85 as compared to regular gasoline. 
Current flex-fuel models do have some mileage loss. We understand that 
there is technology available--for example, a Saab ``biofuel'' flex-
fuel E-85 vehicle on the market in parts of Europe--allowing vehicles 
to have no fuel efficiency loss when burning E85 in comparison to 
gasoline, and perhaps even some mileage gain. The tax incentive we 
propose here will help foster further development of biofuels-related 
technology and promote better fuel efficiency as well.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I join Senators Harkin, Lugar, and 
Dorgan in introducing a broad package of initiatives to jump-start the 
distribution of renewable fuels, empower consumers, and achieve our 
long-standing goal of displacing foreign sources of energy.
  The Biofuels Security Act of 2006 stakes out three broad approaches 
toward increasing production of renewable fuels and connecting the 
infrastructure required to deliver biofuels to a new fleet of flexible 
fuel vehicles. In combination these policies can extend home-grown 
renewable fuels to a predominate place in America's energy mix.
  The Biofuels Security Act of 2006 moves forward to aggressively 
increase the amount of renewable fuels used in the marketplace to a 
requirement of 60 billion gallons in 2030. Our approach is phased 
through a realistic and technically feasible glide path beginning with 
a 10 billion gallon requirement in 2010, escalating to 30 billion 
gallons in 2020 and doubling that standard in the final decade. 
Existing ethanol capacity is anticipated to grow by approximately 30 
percent in 2006, from 4.4 billion gallons to 6.3 billion gallons by the 
end of 2006. Domestic ethanol production is meeting demand and ethanol 
from corn has the capability of producing upwards of another 10 to 15 
billion gallons in the next decade. As ethanol production from corn 
matures, new feedstocks, such as switch grass will compliment corn as a 
driver toward ethanol production. Setting benchmarks and creating long-
term market stability through a demand-driven standard will ensure a 
competitive biofuel market and help drive down the cost of gasoline and 
other refined products that pinch consumer budgets.
  Tying together future demand are 2 sets of standards and incentives 
that will transform the availability of higher blends of ethanol fuels. 
Our bipartisan approach requires auto manufactures to produce vehicles 
that can run on higher blends of renewable fuels. Flexible fuel 
vehicles are capable of optimal performance with high ethanol blended 
fuels, such as E85--a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent 
gasoline. Auto manufacturers are gradually

[[Page S4625]]

moving toward production methods that can inexpensively modify trucks 
and cars to perform at the highest standards on E85 fuel. The Nation 
lacks, however, a long-term policy that sets benchmarks and targets to 
manufacture dual-fueled vehicles. Today, there are approximately 6 
million dual-fueled vehicles in the United States, a small fraction of 
the 230 million gasoline an diesel-fueled vehicles filling our roads. 
Through introducing this bill we are committing to the public that a 
decade after enactment of the Biofuels Security Act all vehicles sold 
in the in the United States will be dual-fueled vehicles providing 
maximum performance on all fuel blends.
  The second basket of requirements and incentives is targeted toward 
ensuring that as Americans purchase dual-fueled vehicles that the 
fueling infrastructure is in place to meet the demand. Retail gasolene 
stations that market E85 and B20--diesel fuel mixed with biodiesel and 
petroleum diesel fuel--are few and far between. Fuel distributors and 
retail station owners who want to market E85 are often locked out 
through contractual agreements with big oil companies offering certain 
fuel blends. Accordingly, most gasoline marketers offering E85 are 
independent distributors and station owners that understand the 
competitive advantage from distributing alternative fuels. The Biofuels 
Security Act ties together dual-fueled vehicles with refueling 
infrastructure through an enhanced tax credit of 75 percent capped at 
$45,000 for the installation of refueling equipment for small business 
gas station owners. The credit is phased-back to 50 percent and capped 
at $30,000 for larger retail gasoline station owners. Our goal is that 
in a decade at least 40 percent of all retail gasoline stations include 
an alternative fuel pump.
  The Biofuels Security Act of 2006 builds upon the strong consumer 
demand pushing our country toward portfolio of biofuels--ethanol, 
biodiesel--from diversified feedstocks grown and refined throughout the 
country. Combining a long-term renewable fuel requirement to 
infrastructure and vehicle preference can decrease our reliance on 
imported energy sources and lower consumer energy costs. All 3 of these 
pieces need to move in concert in order to maximize the transition from 
a hydrocarbon-based society to a more balanced and sustainable model.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Dorgan, 
        and Mr. Biden):
  S. 2817. A bill to promote renewable fuel and energy security of the 
United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, high prices for gasoline, diesel fuel and 
other petroleum-based energy continue to cause pain for millions of 
people, in Iowa and all across the country. Our dependence on foreign 
oil is a clear and present danger to our national security.
  If we are serious about national security, we need a bold national 
commitment to renewable energy--a commitment on par with the Apollo 
moon-shot program in the 1960s. Today, I am pleased to be joined by my 
colleague from Indiana, Senator Lugar in proposing a major component of 
such a program--the Biofuels Security Act--a comprehensive plan to 
ramp-up ethanol and biodiesel production, and to make it available and 
usable at the pump in every State in America.
  Perhaps Senator Lugar said it best earlier this year when he 
commented that energy is the albatross around the neck of U.S. national 
security. The distinguished senior Senator from Indiana has been a 
thoughtful, prescient thinker about the national security implications 
of our addiction to foreign oil, and I am delighted to be joining with 
him, today.
  Senators Johnson, Dorgan and Biden are also original cosponsors of 
this legislation, for which I am grateful. The Senators have been 
outspoken champions of biofuels for many years now, and strong 
advocates for their home States.
  The goal of this legislation is to help restore America's energy 
security--which, in this day and age, is synonymous with national 
security. Transportation fuels, accounting for two-thirds of our oil 
imports, are the place to start this transition.
  Our plan has three key components. First, we are proposing a 
substantially higher, but achievable, renewable fuels standard or RFS, 
requiring that our Nation blend into the gasoline supply 10 billion 
gallons of renewable fuel annually by the year 2010, 30 billion gallons 
of renewable fuel annually by the year 2020 and 60 billion gallons 
annually in the year 2030. The current RFS is 7.5 billion gallons of 
renewable fuels in 2012. At the time we enacted the present RFS in last 
year's energy bill, many of us believed this was a reasonably ambitious 
schedule. However, it is now evident that biofuels growth will outpace 
this figure within the next couple of years--well in advance of the 
2012 target date. This is very good news.
  Second, our plan would make E85--the blend of gasoline and 85 percent 
ethanol--available at gas stations all across America. Major oil 
companies would be required to increase the number of E85 pumps at 
their stations by 5 percentage points annually. Within a decade, 
approximately 25 percent of gas stations nationwide would be required 
to have E85 pumps.
  The major oil companies have the financial wherewithal--and the 
ability--to provide E85 infrastructure at a growing percentage of 
gasoline stations over the next decade. This is a reasonable, 
responsible reinvestment of a fraction of their recent earnings in the 
many billions of dollars. The bottom line is that our domestic oil 
companies have a shared responsibility to help enhance our energy 
security, and this is one excellent way for them to contribute.
  Third, our plan would make flex-fuel vehicles nearly universal in the 
United States. Automakers would be required to increase the production 
of flex-fuel vehicles--capable of using both gasoline and 85 percent 
ethanol blends--by 10 percentage points annually, until nearly all new 
vehicles sold in the U.S. are flex-fuel within a decade. Our 
legislation calls for all of the auto manufacturers to produce 
increasing numbers of FFVs, rising to 100 percent of vehicles 10,000 
pounds or less over the next decade. This is eminently achievable, and 
probably easy enough to do much sooner than that.
  Recent estimates for the extra cost of manufacturing an FFV are as 
low as $30. It is a matter of modifying the engine, fuel line and 
adding a fuel sensor, which most vehicles have anyway. That is less 
expensive than many other federal requirements for the auto industry. 
Air bags are more expensive, for instance. And the bottom line is FFVs 
are being sold for the same price as regular cars.
  America's dependence on foreign oil is the source of so many of our 
problems, today. We are transferring vast amounts of wealth to regimes 
that are not friendly to our interests. We are vulnerable to price 
hikes and embargoes. Millions of petrodollars are finding their way 
into the hands of terrorists and other extremists. And we are 
accelerating the pace of global warming.
  Substituting biofuels for oil in the transportation sector won't 
solve these problems overnight, but it will make a difference, and a 
potentially dramatic one in the longer run.
  Let me mention a few eye-opening facts and figures to illustrate 
these points. The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's 
population, but we consume 25 percent of the world's oil. If crude oil 
prices remain above $60 a barrel this year, we will spend well over 
$300 billion on oil imports. Projections indicate that, over the next 
25 years, world demand for energy will grow by 50 percent. All of this 
growth in energy use, of course, contributes to dangerously rising 
levels of greenhouse gas emissions.
  The reality is that gasoline is much more costly than most Americans 
realize, even at $3 a gallon. According to a recent study entitled the 
``The Hidden Cost of Oil,'' gas really costs more than $10 a gallon. 
This is because of all the costs we don't factor into its price at the 
pump, including wars, other military expenses, subsidies, and so on.
  There is no question that the ambitious goals set forth in this bill 
are achievable.
  Several decades ago, Brazil committed itself to a similar course. 
Renewable fuels have played a big part in Brazil's achieving energy 
independence. Currently, ethanol production in

[[Page S4626]]

the U.S. is increasing by 25 percent annually. If we sustain that rate 
of increase, we will be able to reach the aggressive renewable fuels 
standard in the Harkin-Lugar plan. In fact, we will be able to beat it.
  For example, Brazil, years ago directed that all gasoline stations 
carry ethanol as an alternative fuel. Our legislation would require the 
major oil companies to do their share by installing E85 pumps over the 
next decade. This should not pose too much of a challenge or burden.
  Another key to Brazil's success is the fact that, in just 3 years' 
time, nearly 70 percent of new vehicles sold there are flex-fuel 
vehicles. We are asking the auto companies to accomplish a similar goal 
of nearly universal production, only we are giving them a decade to 
phase in the production and sale of flex-fuel vehicles. Most of the 
companies that sell vehicles in the United States also sell them in 
Brazil. If they can produce flex-fuel vehicles for Brazil, they can 
also produce them for the United States.
  Let me explain in more detail why what Senator Lugar and I are 
proposing can be accomplished.
  The 10 billion gallon goal can certainly be met by 2010. The ethanol 
industry will produce more than 4.5 billion gallons this year. There 
are 97 ethanol plants in operation, with 35 more coming on-line in the 
near future. Biodiesel production is growing remarkably, as well, at 
more than 60 plants nationwide.
  The 30-billion-gallon and 60-billion-gallon targets are attainable, 
as well. A joint study by the Department of Agriculture and the 
Department of Energy found that biofuels could supply 60 billion 
gallons of renewable fuels a year--30 percent of current U.S. gasoline 
consumption--on existing lands without any disruption to our food or 
feed supply.
  The key to ramping-up production will be commercializing ethanol made 
from feedstocks in addition to corn and other grains, including corn 
stover, straw from wheat and other crops, switchgrass or even trees. 
There are a host of provisions that I and others authored in the energy 
bill-- ranging from loan guarantees to increased biomass research and 
development--to make cellulosic ethanol production a reality.
  Currently, at least three companies are planning commercial-scale 
cellulosic ethanol plants. They could be operating within the next 2 to 
3 years. One company, Iogen, has the backing of Shell Oil. Just 2 weeks 
ago, according to reports, Iogen received a cash infusion from Goldman 
Sachs. By setting an ambitious new RFS, with a sufficient lead time, I 
believe the 60-billion-gallon threshold is not only attainable, but 
beatable.
  In any case, should something unexpected happen to interfere with 
reaching these benchmarks, the Environmental Protection Agency has, 
within the existing RFS, authority to waive the requirement in whole or 
in part based on a finding of insufficient supply.
  If we take bold actions to guarantee the fuel supply, if we increase 
the number of flex-fuel vehicles capable of running on E85, and if we 
increase the infrastructure ofE85 pumps, we will be poised to usher in 
a new era of energy security much sooner than previously imagined. That 
is the foundation we lay in this legislation.
  This bill would also require that 100 percent of new vehicles 
purchased for federal fleets be alternative-fueled vehicles, which 
could include flex-fuel vehicles. The current requirement is 75 
percent. I do not see why we shouldn't expect the federal government to 
be as aggressive as possible in this area.
  Last year's energy bill closed a loophole in the purchasing 
requirement that had allowed agencies to buy alternative-fuel vehicles 
but not use alternative fuels such as E85. That was a step forward. 
Requiring all the federal fleet to be alternative fueled is yet another 
step forward in having the Federal Government lead by example when it 
comes to alternative fuels.
  We also update the Gasohol Competition Act of 1980, legislation 
designed many years ago to ensure the reasonable availability of 
ethanol at the pump, so it applies to high blends such as E85 and so 
that oil companies cannot prevent a franchisee from installing E85 
pumps.
  The concern back then, and still today, is that petroleum companies 
were unreasonably preventing or prohibiting ethanol-blended fuels from 
being offered at gasoline stations. The Gasohol Competition Act did two 
things. First, it made it unlawful to charge additional credit card 
fees for gasohol. Second, it prohibited unreasonable discrimination 
against the sale of gasohol. Our legislation would update the Gasohol 
Competition Act to prohibit discrimination against E85.
  We are also proposing several relatively modest tax components 
designed to bolster this legislation which will be introduced as stand-
alone legislation.
  The oil-producing countries think they have us over a barrel, but 
they will soon get the message: We have had enough. And we are dead 
serious about determining our own energy future.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

                          ____________________