[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.
____________________