[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 13, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3066-S3075]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
BY Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Cornyn):
S. 849. A bill to promote accessibility, accountability, and openness
in Government by strengthening section 552 of title 5, United States
Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act), and for
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Cornyn in
reintroducing the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National
Government Act'', the ``OPEN Government Act''. This bill contains
commonsense reforms to update and strengthen the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) for all Americans.
Last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported an
essentially identical bill. Sadly, the full Senate did not consider
this legislation before it adjourned last year. But, I hope that the
Senate will do its part to reinvigorate FOIA this year, by promptly
passing this bill.
During my three decades in the Senate, I have devoted a considerable
portion of my work to improving government openness, to make our
government work better for the American people. At times, this has been
a lonely effort. But, for the past 4 years, I have been delighted to
have Senator Cornyn as a partner on this important issue. I thank him
for his leadership on preserving and strengthening FOIA.
Now in its fourth decade, the Freedom of Information Act remains an
indispensable tool in shedding light on bad policies and government
abuses. But, today, FOIA also faces challenges like never before.
During the past 6 years, the Bush administration has allowed lax FOIA
enforcement and a near obsession with secrecy to undercut the public's
right to know. As we celebrate Sunshine Week this week, there is urgent
need to update and strengthen our FOIA law.
Chief among the problems with FOIA is the major delays encountered by
FOIA requestors. According to a report by the National Security
Archive, an independent nongovernmental research institute, the oldest
outstanding FOIA requests date back to 1989--before the collapse of the
Soviet Union. And, while the number of FOIA requests submitted each
year continues to rise, our Federal agencies remain unable--or
unwilling--to keep up with the demand. Just recently, the Government
Accountability Office found that Federal agencies had 43 percent more
FOIA requests pending and outstanding in 2006, than they had in 2002.
Although the Bush administration has taken modest steps to address
the growing problem with FOIA delays, that effort has not done nearly
enough to correct lax FOIA enforcement by Federal agencies. More than a
year after the President's directive to Government agencies to improve
their FOIA services, Americans who seek information under FOIA remain
less likely to obtain it. For example, a recent study by the Coalition
of Journalists for Open Government found that the percentage of FOIA
requestors who obtained at least some of the information that they
requested from the Government fell by 31 percent last year. These and
other shortcomings with the President's FOIA policy demonstrate that
the Congress must play an important role in preserving and
strengthening FOIA.
The legislation that Senator Cornyn and I introduce today takes
several important steps to help Americans obtain timely responses to
their FOIA requests and to provide government officials with the tools
that they need to ensure that our government remains open and
accessible. First, our bill restores meaningful deadlines for agency
action by ensuring that the 20-day statutory clock runs immediately
upon the receipt of the request and the bill impose real consequences
on Federal agencies for missing statutory deadlines. Our bill also
clarifies that FOIA applies to agency records that are held by outside
private contractors, no matter where these records are located.
In addition, our bill establishes a FOIA hotline service for all
Federal agencies, either by telephone or on the Internet, to enable
requestors to track the status of their FOIA requests. Finally, our
bill enhances the agency reporting requirements under FOIA and improves
personnel policies for FOIA officials to enhance agency FOIA
performance.
This legislation was drafted after a long and thoughtful process of
consultation with individuals and organizations that rely on FOIA to
obtain information and share it with the public, including the news
media, librarians, and public interest organizations representing all
facets of the political spectrum.
This legislation also reaffirms the fundamental premise of FOIA--that
government information belongs to all Americans. Again, I thank Senator
Cornyn for the time and effort that he has devoted to reinvigorating
FOIA, and I urge all Senators to join us in supporting this important
open government legislation.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 852. A bill to deauthorize the project for navigation, Tenants
Harbor, Maine; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 853. A bill to deauthorize the project for navigation, Northeast
Harbor, Maine; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 854. A bill to modify the project for navigation, Union River,
Maine; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 855. A bill to deauthorize a certain portion of the project for
navigation, Rockland Harbor, Maine; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 856. A bill to terminate authorization for the project for
navigation, Rockport Harbor, Maine; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 857. A bill to redesignate the project for navigation, Saco River,
Maine, as an anchorage area; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
[[Page S3067]]
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a series of
bills that are important to economic development along our long
coastline. Most of these bills were either included in the Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2006 or has passed the Senate as a
stand-alone bill. Unfortunately, much to my great disappointment, the
larger Corps of Engineers reauthorization legislation did not see
action before the Senate adjourned the 109th Congress. My hope is that
all of these noncontroversial bills will be included in the WRDA
legislation in the 110th Congress.
Importantly, all of my bills are supported by the various townspeople
and their officials, and State officials, who view these harbor
deauthorizations and river improvements as engines for economic
development. The bills also have the support of the New England
District of the Corps of Engineers.
The first bill pertains to Tenants Harbor, St. George, ME.
Deauthorizing the Federal Navigation Channel (FNC) would be of great
help to the town in appropriately managing the Harbor to maximize
mooring areas. Over the years there have been mounting problems with
the Army Corps of Engineers' mooring permit process as people seeking
permits for moorings that have existed for 30 years continue to be
notified that the mooring locations are prohibited because they fall
within the federal navigational channel.
My second bill concerns Northeast Harbor in Mt. Desert, ME. The
language will not only allow for more recreational moorages and
commercial activities, it will also be an economic boost to Northeast
Harbor, which is surrounded by Acadia National Park, one of the
Nation's most visited parks--both by land and by water. The removal of
the harbor from the FNC will allow the town to adapt to the high demand
for moorings and will allow residents to obtain moorings in a more
timely manner. The Harbor has now reached capacity for both moorings
and shoreline facilities and has a waiting list of over sixty people,
along with commercial operators who have been waiting for years to
obtain a mooring for their commercial vessels.
My third bill addresses the Union River in Ellsworth, ME. The bill
supports the city of Ellsworth's efforts to revitalize the Union River
navigation channel, harbor, and shoreline. The modification called for
in my legislation will redesignate a portion of the Union River as an
anchorage area. This redesignation will allow for a greater number of
moorings in the harbor without interfering with navigation and will
further improve the City's revitalization efforts for the harbor area.
My fourth bill, that passed the Senate as a stand-alone bill last
year, will make the mooring of an historic windjammer fleet in Rockland
Harbor a reality. Originally a strong fishing port, Rockland retains
its rich marine heritage, and it is one of the fastest growing cities
in the Mid-coast area. Like many of the port cities on the eastern
seaboard, Rockland has been forced to confront an assortment of
financial and environmental changes, but happily, the city has been
able to respond to these challenges in positive and productive ways.
The City of Rockland has hosted the Windjammer fleet since 1955,
earning a well-deserved reputation as the Windjammer Capital of the
World. Rockland's Windjammers are now National Historic Landmarks, and
as such, are vitally important to both the city and the State. The
image of The Victory Chimes, one of five vessels slated to be berthed
at the new wharf and a vessel whose historical designation I supported,
graces the Maine quarter. This beautiful fleet of windjammers
symbolizes the great seagoing history of Maine as well as the sense of
adventure that we have come to associate so closely with the American
experience.
Lermond Cove is perfectly situated in the Rockland Harbor to be the
new and permanent home for these cherished vessels. The proposed
Windjammer Wharf will also provide a safe harbor from storms, as it is
tucked nicely near the Maine State Ferry and Department of Marine
Resources piers.
The State of Maine capitalizes on the visual impact of the
Windjammers to promote tourism, working waterfronts and the natural
beauty that distinguishes our landscape. Over $300,000 is spent yearly
by the Maine Windjammer Association to advertise and promote these
businesses. Deauthorizing that part of the Federal navigational channel
will clearly trigger significant and unrealized economic benefits for
the region, providing many beneficial dollars to the local area and the
State of Maine. According to the Longwood study, which uses a
multiplier of 1.5, the economic impact of this spending is 3.8 million
dollars a year. Conservatively, the Windjammers spend over 2.5 million
dollars a year in the state.
I want to thank the New England Corps of Engineers for their help in
drafting the language and working with the Maine Department of
Transportation, which runs the ferry line, and also the Rockland city
officials, the Rockland Port District, and the Captains of the
Windjammer vessels--Mainers and business people with the vision and
commitment needed to complete Windjammer Wharf and create a permanent
home for this historic fleet of windjammers in Rockland Harbor.
I am reintroducing my fifth bill for the Town of Rockport--this
request came in after the Environment and Public Works Committee passed
out the WRDA bill in the last Congress. It would deauthorize a part of
the Federal Navigation Channel in Rockport Harbor. The town, located on
the active Mid-Coast of Maine, has requested that Congress decommission
a 35 foot by 275 foot area directly adjacent to the bulkhead at Marine
Park. With this deauthorization, the Town will be able to install
permanent pilings to secure a set of new municipal floats, which would
replace the current temporary float system.
My sixth bill for reintroduction today is a bill for the City of
Saco, Maine that concerns the town's ability to allow the mooring of
boats on the Saco River. The bill changes the turning basin into an
anchorage while managing a 50-foot channel within the anchorage. The
town was not aware that it was in violation because of 21 moorings
located in the Saco River Federal Navigational Project. In an effort to
eliminate this encroachment, city officials have requested a
modification or de-authorization of the Federal Navigational Project to
resolve the issue.
The US Army Corps of Engineers suggested language that re-designates
the maneuvering basin into an anchorage area that will meet the needs
of the community. The language will allow for the legal moorage of
boats, the fairway for which would be maintained by the city of Saco as
is customary for towns with Federal anchorages. The two mayors of the
cities involved along with the Saco Yacht Club have agreed to the
Corps' language.
It is my hope that all of these non-controversial provisions will be
included in the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 and I am
writing Senator Boxer, the new Chairwoman of the EPW Committee
requesting inclusion of my bills in the upcoming WRDA bill. I am
pleased to hear that she is also anxious for the WRDA bill to move
forward just as quickly as possible. It has been six long years since
our last WRDA bill was signed into law--much too long even for the
patient people in Maine who want to urgently move forward on economic
development for their coastal communities.
Also, I am pleased to be cosponsoring a bill with Senator Collins
that addresses the project for the mitigation of shore damage at Camp
Ellis, ME. The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Army to carry out
the project, under the River and Harbor Act of 1968, to mitigate shore
damage attributable to the Saco River navigational project, waiving the
funding cap requirement for congressional authorization set forth in
that Act. The legislation is needed to complete the project as it will
cost more than authorized under current law, and is the preferred
project by non-Federal interests.
Studies have shown that the Army Corps jetty, built over 100 years
ago, has contributed to beach erosion and the loss of more than thirty
houses to the sea. The houses in danger currently were once six rows
back from the water. When the mitigation project is completed, it is
hoped that it will protect the residents, households, and businesses
along the shoreline adjacent to the Army Corps jetty in Saco.
______
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Collins, Mr. Enzi, Mr.
menendez, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Sanders):
[[Page S3068]]
S. 858. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
the transportation fringe benefit to bicycle commuters; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, about the most red, white and blue,
patriotic action our Nation could take is to develop a new energy
policy that reduces our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. And the
biggest source of our oil dependence is transportation--the cars,
trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) that our citizens drive every
day.
That's why I am pleased to be introducing a bill that will help
citizens who want to do their part to reduce oil dependence by
commuting to work by bicycle. I am joined in sponsoring the Bicycle
Commuters Benefits Act of 2007 by Senators Snowe, Collins, Durbin,
Menendez, Inouye, Enzi and Sanders.
I know that many people in our country want to do something concrete
about our Nation's dependence on oil and gas. As gas prices continue to
climb again this spring, more and more people are going to be looking
for actions that they can take to free themselves from this dependency.
The bill I am introducing today gives Americans more incentive to give
up the cars and trucks that they drive to and from work every day and
get on their bicycles instead.
According to recent Census reports, more than 500,000 people
throughout the United States commute to work by bicycle. They are
freeing themselves from sitting in traffic. They are saving energy and
overcoming their dependence on oil and gas. They are getting exercise;
avoiding obesity and helping us keep our air clean and safe to breathe.
Yet, they are commuting by bicycle at their own expense. Their fellow
employees who take mass transit to and from work have an incentive
created in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century that
enables their employers to pay for their bus or subway ride. And those
who commute to work by car or truck can receive tax-free parking
benefits provided by their employers. These incentives are great for
mass transit commuters or those who drive to work. But they also create
a financial disincentive for those riding their bikes to and from their
jobs. The Bicycle Commuters Benefits Act of 2007 will eliminate this
financial disincentive and level the commuting field for bicyclists.
The bill extends the fringe benefits that employers can offer their
employees for commuting by public transit, car or truck to those who
ride their bicycles to and from their jobs. Our bill amends the tax
code so that public and private employers can offer their employees a
monthly benefit payment that will help them cover the costs of riding
their bikes, instead of driving and parking their cars where they work.
The bill also provides employers the flexibility to set their own level
of benefit payment up to a specified amount. That way, employers and
their employees can decide how much of an incentive they need to stop
driving and start riding their bikes. Those who currently ride the bus
and/or subway to work would also gain an extra incentive to ride their
bikes. Employers can deduct the cost of their benefit payments from
their taxable income. This reduces the taxes that they pay to the
Federal Government. And, in turn, employees will receive anywhere from
$40-$110 per month as a non-taxable benefit, to help them pay for the
costs of riding their bikes.
This is a fair and modest proposal that will reward employees who
ride their bikes to and from their jobs.
Our Senate bill is a companion bill to a bill being introduced by my
fellow Oregonian, Congressman Earl Blumenauer. He has dozens of co-
sponsors from both sides of the aisle and every part of the United
States eager to offer bicycle commuters the same incentive that I want
to offer to those who take mass transit or drive.
In addition, our bill is supported by many regional and national
bicycling organizations such as Bikes Belong, Cycle Oregon, the Bicycle
Transportation Alliance, the League of American Bicyclists, the
Washington Area Bicyclist Association, Transportation Alternatives and
hundreds of Capitol Hill employees who commute by bike to work every
day.
When you look around our cities, the taxpayers have paid millions of
dollars for bike trails in all of America's urban areas and major job
markets. Now, bicycle commuters will have an extra incentive to make
greater use of this public investment to commute to and from their
jobs.
I look forward to working with our colleagues to enact this
legislation to reward citizens doing their part to put us on the road
to oil independence by biking to work.
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. 858
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 ``Bicycle Commuters Benefits
Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TRANSPORTATION FRINGE BENEFIT TO BICYCLE
COMMUTERS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 132(f) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to general rule for
qualified transportation fringe) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(D) Bicycle commuting allowance.''.
(b) Bicycle Commuting Allowance Defined.--Paragraph (5) of
section 132(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating
to definitions) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(F) Bicycle commuting allowance.--The term `bicycle
commuting allowance' means an amount provided to an employee
for transportation on a bicycle if such transportation is in
connection with travel between the employee's residence and
place of employment.''.
(c) Limitation on Exclusion.--Subparagraph (A) of section
132(f)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
limitation on exclusion) is amended by striking
``subparagraphs (A) and (B)'' and inserting ``subparagraphs
(A), (B), and (D)''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Lugar):
S. 859. A bill to require the Secretary of Energy to award funds to
study the feasibility of constructing dedicated ethanol pipelines to
increase the energy, economic, and environmental security of the United
States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Ethanol
Infrastructure Expansion Act of 2007. This bill directs the Department
of Energy, DOE, to study and evaluate the feasibility of transporting
ethanol by pipeline. I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Lugar of
Indiana, is joining me as a cosponsor of this bill.
There is broad recognition that we need to reduce our almost-complete
dependence on oil for energy in our transportation sector. We also
understand that there is not a single, simple solution to this
dependence. I believe that we need to use energy more efficiently and
promote alternatives to petroleum-based fuels in transportation.
The most promising liquid fuel alternative to conventional gasoline
today is ethanol. Use of ethanol as an additive in gasoline and in the
form of E85 is expanding rapidly, and for good reasons. First of all,
as a domestically-produced fuel, ethanol contributes to our national
energy security. As a gasoline additive, ethanol provides air quality
benefits by reducing auto tailpipe emissions of air pollutants. Because
ethanol is biodegradable, its use poses no threat to surface water or
groundwater. Finally, the production of ethanol provides national and
regional economic and job-growth benefits by using local resources and
labor to contribute to critical national transportation energy needs.
My Congressional colleagues and I have recognized the benefits and
potential of ethanol and have promoted its expanded production and use
in numerous bills, including most recently in the 2005 energy bill. A
key provision in that legislation is the renewable fuels standard under
which motor vehicle fuel sold in the United States is required to
contain increasing levels of renewable fuels. Several other provisions
promote the production of ethanol from a broad variety of plentiful and
low-cost biomass including corn stover, wheat straw, forest industry
wastes woody municipal wastes and dedicated energy crops.
The viability of ethanol is reflected in the rapid expansion of its
production
[[Page S3069]]
and use, which has increased by more than 20 percent annually for the
past several years. Moreover, ethanol's longer-term potential to become
a very significant energy source for transportation is gaining
attention. A number of studies have concluded that ethanol can
contribute 20 to 30 percent or more of our transportation fuel in the
future. Several of my Senate colleagues have joined me to introduce S.
23, the Biofuels Security Act of 2007, which calls for increased access
to ethanol at the pump and greatly expanded production of flexible-fuel
vehicles. The Act also provides a directive for domestic production of
renewable fuels to reach 60 billion gallons a year by 2030. I am
especially proud of the leadership role that my State of Iowa and
communities across rural America are going to play in this expansion.
Given this outlook, it is time for us to consider the full
implications of such a transition. One issue that deserves prompt
attention is that of ethanol transport. The volumes of ethanol to be
shipped in the future strongly suggest that pipeline transport should
be considered due to the potential economic and environmental
advantages this alternative might offer as compared to shipment by
highway, rail tanker, or barge. As production volumes increase,
especially in the Midwest, it is likely to be more economical to pump
ethanol through pipelines than to ship it in containers across the
country. Pipeline shipping could provide for reduced vehicle emissions
and superior energy efficiency compared to rail or tanker shipment.
For all of these reasons, we should begin to consider development of
an ethanol pipeline network. Given the pace of ethanol's growth, it is
likely that our Nation could begin to benefit from pipeline transport
of ethanol as early as 2015. The current state of knowledge regarding
transport of ethanol by pipeline is limited. Although it is being done
in Brazil, a world leader in the production and use of ethanol,
challenges remain. The water solubility of ethanol introduces technical
and operational issues that affect the shipment of ethanol in multi-
product pipelines. Thus, the largest associated research costs will be
in the planning, siting, design, financing, permitting and construction
of the first ethanol pipelines. This work may well take as long as a
decade, perhaps longer. For that reason, we need to begin now to
develop a solid understanding of this ethanol transport option.
This bill initiates that process by directing the Department of
Energy to conduct ethanol pipeline feasibility studies. It calls for
analyses of the technological, economic, regulatory, financial and
siting issues related to transporting ethanol via pipelines. A
systematic analysis of these issues will provide the substantive
information necessary to assess the costs and benefits of this
transport alternative. The Act would allow DOE the option of funding
private sector studies or conducting the studies on its own. The
results of these studies will provide a clearer picture of the benefits
and challenges of pipeline transport of ethanol. They will provide
critical information, both for the ethanol industry as it contemplates
ethanol transport alternatives, and for policy-makers seeking to
understand what policies or programs might be appropriate to promote
the most cost-effective and environmentally sound ethanol transport
into the future.
We have broad agreement on the need to do all that we can to reduce
our dependence on oil. We are promoting expanding production and use of
renewable fuels in many ways, but we need to take into account the full
range of infrastructure issues that broader ethanol use entails. The
rapid growth of ethanol production and use necessitates the very near-
term study of transporting ethanol by pipeline. I urge my Senate
colleagues to join me in passing this important and timely legislation.
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. 859
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 ``Ethanol Infrastructure
Expansion Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) it is in the national interest to make greater use of
ethanol in transportation fuels;
(2) ethanol is a clean, renewable fuel that provides public
health benefits in the form of reduced emissions, including
reduced greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change;
(3) ethanol use provides economic gains to agricultural
producers, biofuels producers, and rural areas;
(4) ethanol use benefits the national security of the
United States by displacing the use of petroleum, much of
which is imported from foreign countries that are hostile to
the United States;
(5) ethanol can reduce prices at the pump for motoring
consumers by extending fuel supplies and due to the
competitive cost of ethanol relative to conventional
gasoline;
(6) ethanol faces shipping challenges in pipelines that
transport other liquid transportation fuels;
(7) currently ethanol is shipped by rail tanker cars,
barges, and trucks, all of which could, as ethanol production
expands, encounter capacity limits due to competing use
demands for the rail tanker cars, barges, and trucks;
(8) as the United States ethanol market expands in the
coming years there is likely to be a need for dedicated
ethanol pipelines to transport ethanol from the Midwest,
where ethanol generally is produced, to the Eastern and
Western United States;
(9) as of the date of enactment of this Act, dedicated
ethanol pipelines do not exist in the United States and will
be challenging to construct, at least initially;
(10) Brazil has already shown that ethanol can be shipped
effectively via pipeline; and
(11) having an ethanol pipeline study completed in the very
near term is important because the construction of 1 or more
dedicated ethanol pipelines would take at least several years
to complete.
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.
In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
Energy.
SEC. 4. FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, in coordination with the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Transportation,
shall spend up to $1,000,000 to fund feasibility studies for
the construction of dedicated ethanol pipelines.
(b) Conduct of Studies.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
(A) through a competitive solicitation process, select 1 or
more firms having capabilities in the planning, development,
and construction of dedicated ethanol pipelines to carry out
the feasibility studies described in subsection (a); or
(B) carry out the feasibility studies in conjunction with
such firms.
(2) Timing.--
(A) In general.--If the Secretary elects to select 1 or
more firms under paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary shall award
funding under this section not later than 120 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(B) Studies.--As a condition of receiving funds under this
section, a recipient of funding shall agree to submit to the
Secretary a completed feasibility study not later than 360
days after the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Study Factors.--Feasibility studies funded under this
Act shall include consideration of--
(1) existing or potential barriers to dedicated ethanol
pipelines, including technical, siting, financing, and
regulatory barriers;
(2) potential evolutionary pathways for the development of
an ethanol pipeline transport system, such as starting with
localized gathering networks as compared to major interstate
ethanol pipelines to carry larger volumes from the Midwest to
the East or West coast;
(3) market risk, including throughput risk, and ways of
mitigating the risk;
(4) regulatory, financing, and siting options that would
mitigate risk in these areas and help ensure the construction
of dedicated ethanol pipelines;
(5) financial incentives that may be necessary for the
construction of dedicated ethanol pipelines, including the
return on equity that sponsors of the first dedicated ethanol
pipelines will require to invest in the pipelines;
(6) ethanol production of 20,000,000,000, 30,000,000,000,
and 40,000,000,000 gallons per year by 2020; and
(7) such other factors that the Secretary considers to be
appropriate.
(d) Confidentiality.--If a recipient of funding under this
section requests confidential treatment for critical energy
infrastructure information or commercially-sensitive data
contained in a feasibility study submitted by the recipient
under subsection (b)(2)(B), the Secretary shall offer to
enter into a confidentiality agreement with the recipient to
maintain the confidentiality of the submitted information.
(e) Review; Report.--The Secretary shall--
(1) review the feasibility studies submitted under
subsection (b)(2)(B) or carried out under subsection
(b)(1)(B); and
(2) not later than 15 months after the date of enactment of
this Act, submit to Congress a report that includes--
(A) information about the potential benefits of
constructing dedicated ethanol pipelines; and
[[Page S3070]]
(B) recommendations for legislation that could help provide
for the construction of dedicated ethanol pipelines.
SEC. 5. FUNDING.
There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to
carry out this Act $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, to remain
available until expended.
______
By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Brown,
Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Specter, Mr. Nelson
of Florida, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr.
Durbin, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Collins, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Wyden, Mr.
Bayh, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Sanders, and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 860. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
permit States the option to provide Medicaid coverage for low-income
individuals infected with HIV; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Early
Treatment for HIV Act, or ETHA. I ask unanimous consent that the full
text of this bill, along with the numerous letters of support I have
received from advocacy organizations, be printed in the Record. I am
pleased that Senator Clinton is joining me once again to introduce
ETHA. I thank her for the steadfast support she has shown people living
with HIV. This terrible illness knows no party affiliation, and I am
pleased to say that ETHA's 20 cosponsors span both sides of the aisle.
ETHA provides States the ability to extend Medicaid coverage to low-
income, HIV-positive individuals before they develop full-blown AIDS.
Today, the unfortunate reality is that most patients must become
disabled before they can qualify for Medicaid. Nearly 50 percent of
people living with AIDS who know their status lack ongoing access to
treatment. In my home State of Oregon, there are approximately 5,700
persons living with HIV/AIDS. It is estimated that approximately 40
percent of these Oregonians are not receiving care for their HIV
disease. I believe it is our moral responsibility to do everything we
can to ensure that all people living with HIV--regardless of their
income or their insurance status--have access to timely, effective
treatment.
Unfortunately, safety net programs across the country are running out
of money, and as a consequence, they are generally unable to cover all
of the people who need assistance paying for their medical care. For
instance, Oregon's Ryan White funded AIDS Drug Assistance Program
(ADAP) is experiencing significant financial hardship due to years of
inadequate funding. As a consequence, the program has been forced to
impose burdensome cost-sharing requirements and limit the scope of
drugs it covers on its formulary. Fortunately, Oregon's ADAP has not
had to resort to service waiting lists, a cost control mechanism that
many States have been forced to adopt. As safety net programs like ADAP
continue to struggle, ETHA gives States another way to reach out to
low-income, HIV-positive individuals.
I believe ETHA represents a promising opportunity to turn the tide
against this devastating epidemic. In 2005, there were 220 newly
infected HIV cases reported in my home State of Oregon. If we were able
to provide even a fraction of those individuals access to early
treatment, we could prevent the progression of their condition to full-
blown AIDS. Experience has shown that current HIV treatments are very
successful in delaying the progression from HIV infection to AIDS, and
help improve the health and quality of life for millions of people
living with the disease.
Studies conducted by Pricewaterhouse Cooper (PWC) support providing
early healthcare to individuals diagnosed with HIV because it has both
the potential to save lives and control costs. Specifically, providing
individuals coverage through ETHA could reduce the death rate of
persons living with HIV by more than half. Similarly encouraging is the
potential cost-savings ETHA could generate in the Medicaid program. Due
to its preventive aim, ETHA is estimated to begin saving the Medicaid
program $31.7 million each year after the effects of expanded access to
care are fully realized.
I believe ETHA is a key example of the type of reform Congress needs
to be implementing to the federal entitlements. The short term
investment required to expand Medicaid coverage will ultimately result
in significant long-term savings to the program--at no harm to the
beneficiary. But most importantly, ETHA takes an important step toward
ensuring that all Americans living with HIV can get the medical care
they need to lead healthy, productive lives for as long as possible.
One of the strongest features of ETHA is the enhanced Federal
Medicaid match rate it provides to encourage States to expand coverage
to individuals diagnosed with HIV. This provision closely models the
successful Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment and Prevention Act of
2000, which allows States to provide early Medicaid intervention to
women with breast and cervical cancer. We can build upon this success
by passing ETHA and extending similar early intervention treatments to
people with HIV.
HIV/AIDS touches the lives of millions of Americans from a variety of
backgrounds. Some get the proper medications they need to keep healthy,
but far too many do not. The inability to access life-saving treatment
literally creates a ``life and death'' situation for many of our most
vulnerable citizens. Fortunately, ETHA can give those individuals
access to the care they need so they can look forward to a long,
healthy life.
I again want to thank the strong group of bipartisan Senators that is
joining me as original cosponsors of ETHA. I also wish to thank all of
the organizations around the country that have expressed support for
this bill, in particular, Oregon's Cascade AIDS Project. The work they
do on behalf of individuals living with HIV/AIDS in my home State is
truly commendable, and I appreciate the support they have shown ETHA
over the years.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 860
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 ``Early Treatment for HIV Act
of 2007''.
SEC. 2. OPTIONAL MEDICAID COVERAGE OF LOW-INCOME HIV-INFECTED
INDIVIDUALS.
(a) In General.--Section 1902 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(10)(A)(ii)--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (XVIII);
(B) by adding ``or'' at the end of subclause (XIX); and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(XX) who are described in subsection (dd) (relating to
HIV-infected individuals);''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(dd) HIV-infected individuals described in this
subsection are individuals not described in subsection
(a)(10)(A)(i)--
``(1) who have HIV infection;
``(2) whose income (as determined under the State plan
under this title with respect to disabled individuals) does
not exceed the maximum amount of income a disabled individual
described in subsection (a)(10)(A)(i) may have and obtain
medical assistance under the plan; and
``(3) whose resources (as determined under the State plan
under this title with respect to disabled individuals) do not
exceed the maximum amount of resources a disabled individual
described in subsection (a)(10)(A)(i) may have and obtain
medical assistance under the plan.''.
(b) Enhanced Match.--The first sentence of section 1905(b)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)) is amended by
striking ``section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XVIII)'' and inserting
``subclause (XVIII) or (XX) of section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1905(a) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)) is amended in the matter
preceding paragraph (1)--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (xii);
(2) by adding ``or'' at the end of clause (xiii); and
(3) by inserting after clause (xiii) the following:
``(xiv) individuals described in section 1902(dd);''.
(d) Exemption From Funding Limitation for Territories.--
Section 1108(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1308(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Disregarding medical assistance for optional low-
income hiv-infected individuals.--The limitations under
subsection (f) and the previous provisions of this subsection
shall not apply to amounts expended for medical assistance
for individuals described in section 1902(dd) who are only
eligible for such assistance on the basis of section
1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XX).''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to calendar quarters beginning on or after the
date of
[[Page S3071]]
the enactment of this Act, without regard to whether or not
final regulations to carry out such amendments have been
promulgated by such date.
____
HIV Medicine Association,
Alexandria, VA, January 30, 2007.
Hon. Gordon Smith,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Hillary Clinton,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Smith and Clinton: I am writing on behalf of
the HIV Medicine Association (HIVMA) to offer our strong
support for the Early Treatment for HIV Act (ETHA). HIVMA
represents more than 3,500 HIV medical providers from across
the United States. Many of our members serve on the front
lines of the HIV epidemic providing care and treatment in
communities ranging from the rural South to the large urban
areas on the east and west coasts of the nation.
As you know, ETHA would allow states to expand their
Medicaid programs to cover people with HIV disease, before
they become disabled and progress to AIDS. This important
program change would allow more people with HIV disease to
benefit from the remarkable HIV treatment available today--
treatment that has reduced mortality due to HIV disease by
nearly 80 percent.
Many of our members still report high percentages of
patients with HIV presenting at their clinics with advanced
stage disease. These patients are often sicker; less
responsive to treatment and more costly due to the need for
more intensive interventions, such as inpatient
hospitalization. With earlier access to medical care and
treatment through Medicaid, these patients could remain
relatively healthy and enjoy longer and more productive
lives.
Now is the time to help these patients and the many new
ones that will enter HIV care systems as a result of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) new
recommendations to make HIV testing a routine component of
medical care. While we are strong supporters of routine HIV
testing as a tool to promote earlier diagnosis and linkage to
care, we are concerned that our current federal and state
health care safety-net programs are ill-equipped to care for
the influx of patients that we expect to be identified
through routine HIV testing. Passage of ETHA would be a
critical step forward in the battle to ensure that all low-
income Americans with HIV disease have the healthcare
coverage that will allow them to benefit from the lifesaving
HIV treatment widely available in the U.S. today.
Thank you very much for your continued commitment to expand
access to care for low-income persons living with HIV/AIDS
and other vulnerable Americans. Please consider HIVMA a
resource as you move forward with the passage of this
important legislation.
Sincerely,
Daniel R. Kuritzkes,
Chair.
____
National Alliance of State
& Territorial-AIDS Directors,
Washington, DC, February 16, 2007.
Hon. Gordon Smith,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith: On behalf of the National Alliance of
State and Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD), I am writing
to offer our support for the ``Early Treatment for HIV Act.''
NASTAD represents the nation's chief state and territorial
health agency staff who are responsible for HIV/AIDS
prevention, care and treatment programs funded by state and
federal governments. This legislation would give states an
important option in providing care and treatment services to
low-income Americans living with HIV.
The Early Treatment for HIV Act (ETHA) would allow states
to expand their Medicaid programs to cover HIV positive
individuals, before they become disabled, without having to
receive a waiver. NASTAD believes this legislation would
allow HIV positive individuals to access the medical care
that is widely recommended, can postpone or avoid the onset
of AIDS, and can enormously increase the quality of life for
people living with HIV.
State AIDS directors continue to develop innovative and
cost-effective HIV/AIDS programs in the face of devastating
state budget cuts and federal contributions that fail to keep
up with need. ETHA provides a solution to states by
increasing health care access for those living with HIV/AIDS.
We would also like to commend the hard work of your staff,
particularly Matt Canedy who has been extremely helpful on a
myriad of HIV/AIDS policy issues. We look forward to working
with him to gain support for the legislation.
Thank you very much for your continued commitment to
persons living with HIV/AIDS.
Sincerely,
Julie M. Scofield,
Executive Director.
____
The Aids Institute,
Washington, DC, January 29, 2007.
Re the Early Treatment for HIV Act (ETHA).
Senator Gordon Smith,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Senator Hillary Clinton,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Smith and Clinton: The AIDS Institute
applauds you for your continued leadership and commitment to
people living with HIV/AIDS in our country who are in need of
lifesaving healthcare and treatment. While the HIV/AIDS
epidemic in sub-Sahara Africa and other parts of the world
often overshadow the epidemic in the United States, we must
not forget about the approximately 1.1 million people living
in the U.S. who have HIV or AIDS.
Those infected with HIV are more likely to be low-income,
and the disease disproportionately impacts minority
communities. In fact, the AIDS case rate per 100,000 for
African Americans was 10 times that of whites in 2006.
According to a recent Institute of Medicine report titled,
``Public Financing and Delivery of HIV/AIDS Care: Securing
the Legacy of the Ryan White CARE Act'', 233,000 of the
463,070 people living with HIV in the U.S. who need
antiretroviral treatment do not have ongoing access to
treatment. This does not include an additional 82,000 people
who are infected but unaware of their HIV status and are in
need of antiretroviral medications.
One reason why there are so many people lacking treatment
is because under current law, Medicaid, the single largest
public payer of HIV/AIDS care in the U.S., only covers those
with full blown AIDS, and not those with HIV. The Early
Treatment for HIV Act (ETHA), being re-introduced in this
Congress under your leadership, would rectify an archaic
mindset in the delivery of public health care. No longer
would a Medicaid eligible person with HIV have to become
disabled with AIDS to receive access to Medicaid provided
care and treatment.
Providing coverage to those with HIV can prevent them from
developing AIDS, and allow them to live a productive life
with their family and be a healthy contributing member of
society. ETHA would provide states the option of amending
their Medicaid eligibility requirements to include uninsured
and under-insured, pre-disabled poor and low-income people
living with HIV. No state has to participate if they choose
not to. As all states have participated in the Breast and
Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act, upon which ETHA
is modeled, we believe all States would opt to choose this
approach in treating those with HIV. States will opt into
this benefit not only because it is the medically and
ethically right thing to do, but because it is cost
effective, as well.
A recent study prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers found
that if ETHA was enacted, over 10 years:
--the death rate for persons living with HIV on Medicaid
would be reduced by 50 percent;
--there would be 35,000 more individuals with CD4 levels
above 500 under ETHA versus the existing Medicaid system; and
it would
--result in savings of $31.7 million.
The AIDS Institute thanks you for your bipartisan
leadership by introducing ``The Early Treatment for HIV Act
of 2006''. It is the type of Medicaid reform that is
critically needed to update the program to keep current with
the Federal Government's guidelines for treating people with
HIV.
We were very pleased the US Senate passed an ETHA
demonstration project during the last Congress. In this
Congress, we hope ETHA will finally become a reality. We look
forward to working with you and your colleagues as it moves
toward enactment.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Dr. A. Gene Copello,
Executive Director.
____
American Academy
of HIV Medicine,
Washington, DC, Jan. 22, 2007.
Hon. Gordon Smith,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Hillary Clinton,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith and Senator Clinton: The American
Academy of HIV Medicine is an independent organization of HIV
specialists and others dedicated to promoting excellence in
HIV/AIDS care. As the largest independent organization of HIV
frontline providers, our 2,000 members provide direct care to
more than 340,000 HIV patients--more than two thirds of the
patients in active treatment for HIV disease.
The Academy would like to thank and commend you for co-
sponsoring the Early Treatment for HIV Act (ETHA). We believe
this legislation would allow many HIV positive individuals
access to the quality medical care vital towards postponing
or avoiding the onset of AIDS, and be cost-effective in doing
so.
ETHA addresses a flawed anomaly in the current Medicaid
system--that under current Medicaid rules people must become
disabled by AIDS before they can receive access to
Medicaidprovided care and treatment that could have prevented
them from becoming so ill in the first place. The U.S. Public
Health Service guidelines have consistently recommended for
several years that the treatment of HIV patients, before
their immune systems have been severely damaged by HIV, will
greatly or even prevent the disabling effects of HIV disease.
ETHA would bring Medicaid eligibility rules in line with
the clinical standard of care for treating HIV disease, which
has changed dramatically over the last twenty
[[Page S3072]]
years due to the revolutionary and increasingly more
simplified life-saving drug regimens. The science of HIV
medicine is clear on this point: Today, when appropriately
treated, HIV can be managed as a serious chronic illness;
however, appropriate treatment requires early and continuous
access to highly-active antiretroviral therapy (HAART).
Preserving an immune system is much more effective, if even
possible, than rebuilding one already destroyed. Patients who
do not receive proper treatment until they are diagnosed with
AIDS may not fully respond or benefit from treatment once it
begins.
The benefits of early treatment also extend to the
population at large. Good data (Quinn et al.; Porco et al.)
now supports what we have long suspected--that successful and
consistent treatment of the infected individual decreases a
patient's infectivity, further benefiting the health of the
American public and reducing the number of individuals
ultimately needing costly medical care.
Beyond the public's health, the cost-benefits of this
bill's implementation are similarly clear. States that adopt
this option to their Medicaid program would likely see cost-
savings to Medicaid by limiting costly hospital admissions
and reducing unnecessary, preventable illness. With reduced
morbidity, mortality and inpatient costs as a result of
state-of-the-art outpatient treatment, receiving early,
quality outpatient care is cost-effective (Valenti, 2001;
Freedberg et al. 2001) compared with the alternatives.
Passage of the Early Treatment for HIV Act will save lives,
increase the length and quality of life for people living
with HIV/AIDS, help ensure their medical coverage, and save
money over time.
We will work in vigorous support of this legislation, and
we appreciate your impressive leadership in doing the same.
Sincerely,
Jeff Schouten,
Chair.
____
Project Inform,
San Francisco, CA, February 28, 2007.
Re Support for Early Treatment for HIV Act
Hon. Gordon Smith,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith: On behalf of Project Inform, a national
HIV/AIDS health care and treatment advocacy organization
based in San Francisco, we are writing to express our strong
support for the Early Treatment for HIV Act (ETHA). We
commend you for your leadership in reintroducing this
important bipartisan legislation.
ETHA would address a cruel irony in the current Medicaid
system. Currently most individuals with HIV must become
disabled by AIDS before they can receive access to Medicaid's
care and treatment programs that could have prevented them
from becoming so ill in the first place.
ETHA would modernize this system by allowing states to
extend Medicaid coverage to low-income, pre-disabled people
living with HIV. It would assure early access to care and
treatment for thousands of people living with HIV across the
country. It would also help relieve the financial crisis
facing many discretionary HIV/AIDS programs, such as the AIDS
Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) and other services funded by
the Ryan White CARE Act.
Access to healthcare and treatment is a high priority for
Project Inform as it ranks in the top concerns we hear from
people through our treatment hotline and community meetings.
We need long-term solutions like ETHA to ensure that people
have the care and treatment they need to remain healthy and
productive for as long as possible.
We greatly appreciate your longtime efforts on behalf of
people living with HIV/AIDS. If there is anything we can do
to help you with your efforts to pass this legislation,
please do not hesitate to let us know.
Sincerely,
Anne Donnelly,
Director, Health Care Advocacy.
Ryan Clary,
Associate Director, Health Care Advocacy.
______
By Mr. SESSIONS. (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Vitter, Mr.
Cornyn, and Mr. Grassley):
S. 863. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to
fraud in connection with major disaster or emergency funds; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the
Emergency and Disaster Assistance Fraud Penalty Enhancement Act of
2007. The bill creates a specific crime of fraud in connection with
major disasters or emergency benefits and increases the penalties
currently available for such acts. I am happy my good friends and
colleagues, Senators Landrieu, Vitter, Cornyn, and Grassley have joined
me in this important effort. I commend them for their leadership on
this issue and look forward to working with them to pass this important
piece of legislation.
As a former Federal prosecutor myself for 12 years on the gulf coast
of Alabama, and one who has been involved in prosecuting fraud in the
aftermath of hurricanes, I can tell you that it goes on, unfortunately,
and there are some weaknesses in our laws that we can fix.
The ideas in my bill have received strong congressional support. In
fact, the House of Representatives passed this same bill last Congress,
H.R. 4356. Last March, the House Judiciary Committee approved the
Emergency and Disaster Assistance Fraud Penalty Enhancement Act because
both Democrats and Republicans wanted to move as quickly as possible
against disaster assistance fraud. The committee submitted a report
expressing its favor for the bill and recommended it be passed without
amendment.
Last June, the Department of Justice sent a letter to members of the
Senate Judiciary Committee in strong support of the bill, noting that
it would ``provide important prosecutorial tools in the government's
efforts to combat fraud associated with natural disasters and other
emergencies.''
The goal of my bill is to protect the real victims of disasters such
as Hurricane Katrina by specifically making it a crime, under the
existing fraud chapter of title 18, USC chapter 47, to fraudulently
obtain emergency disaster funds.
After an emergency or disaster, such as the recent tornadoes that
devastated the city of Enterprise in my home State, we should do
everything we can to make sure 100 percent of the relief funds gets
into the hands of real victims. Taxpayers should not sustain a
financial loss at the hands of scam artists, and these wrongdoers
should not profit from exploiting the victims of horrific events.
Common sense requires that those who deceive the government and obtain
emergency disaster funds by fraud be subject to criminal punishment.
I want to share some thoughts about the scope of the problem.
Hurricane Katrina produced one of the most extraordinary displays of
loss, pain, and suffering, and of scams and schemes that we have ever
seen. The scope of the fraud and the audacity of the schemers was
astonishing.
One of the most heinous examples is a woman who tried to collect
Federal benefits by claiming she watched her two daughters drown in the
rising New Orleans waters. In truth, she did not even have children and
she was living in Illinois at the time of the hurricane. Her outrageous
claims are an affront to the many people who actually did lose loved
ones in that terrible storm.
Another example of blatant and widespread fraud after Katrina
include, in Texas, a hotel owner who submitted bills for phantom
victims who never stayed at his hotel. Across the gulf coast, roughly
1,100 prison inmates collected more than $10 million in rental and
disaster relief assistance by claiming they were displaced by the
storm. People in jail were being sent checks.
You say: How can that happen? Well, they are trying to get money out
to people in a hurry. I think they could do a better job, frankly. I
think FEMA could do a better job in analyzing these claims. But the
truth is, in the rush to make sure that people who have lost everything
have money to find a room to stay in so they are not out on the
streets, it does require them to take more risk than normally would be
the case. People who take advantage of that to defraud the taxpayers
and to rip off the system ought to go to jail for it.
In California, a couple posed as Red Cross workers and fraudulently
obtained donations, saying they were working for the Red Cross. Also,
in California, 75 workers at a Red Cross call center were charged in a
scheme to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Red Cross.
One individual received 26 Federal disaster relief payments by using 13
different Social Security numbers. In my home State of Alabama, FEMA,
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, paid $2,748 to an individual
who listed a P.O. box as his damaged property.
As of January 3, the Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force has charged
525 individuals in 445 indictments brought in 35 judicial districts
around the country. These numbers continue to grow every day. The
Justice Department is aggressively prosecuting these
[[Page S3073]]
crooks, but they have asked us for this additional tool. They have
asked us to pass this legislation so that the Federal statute
adequately addresses and deters fraud in connection with emergency
disaster assistance.
The fact is, some people think in a disaster they can run in and make
any kind of bogus claim they desire--that money will be given to them
and people will be too busy to check. And if they do, nothing is ever
going to happen to them. We need to completely reverse that mentality.
We need to create a mindset on the part of everybody that these
disaster relief funds are sacred; that they are for the benefit of
people who have suffered loss, and only people who have suffered loss
should gain benefit of it. We need to make it clear that those who
steal that money are going to be prosecuted more vigorously and
punished more severely than somebody who commits some other kind of
crime because I think it is worse to steal from the generosity of the
American people who intended to help those in need.
The total price tag for the fraud committed after Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita is not yet known, but the Government Accountability Office
investigators have testified that it will, at the very least, be in the
billions of dollars. I am not talking about millions. This is the GAO
saying it will be, at the very least, in the billions of dollars.
Now I have seen people, I have been down to Bayou La Batre and Coden
and areas in my home area of Alabama who were devastated by this storm,
and it is heartbreaking to see people who have lost everything. The day
after the storm, my wife and I were there. The Salvation Army showed up
and it was the only group there providing meals. There was a long line,
and we walked down the line and just talked to the people about what
had happened to them. Repeatedly, we were told:
Senator, all I have is what is on my back.
Now we want to help people like that, but we don't want to help
people who are somewhere unaffected in Illinois or somewhere in jail
claiming they deserve displaced housing money.
So it is an insult to the victims of these natural disasters and an
insult to the ultimate victim in this fraud, the American taxpayer.
Natural disasters and emergency situations often create an opportunity
for unscrupulous individuals to take advantage of both the immediate
victims of the disaster or emergency, as well as those who offer
financial and other assistance to the victims. The American people are
extremely generous in responding to disasters, but they should not be
expected to tolerate the fraud of those who deceitfully exploit their
generosity.
In addition to creating a new Federal crime that specifically
prohibits fraud in connection with any emergency or disaster benefit--
including Federal assistance or private charitable contributions--my
bill would also update the current mail and wire fraud statutes found
in chapter 63 of title 18--title 18 sections 1341, 1343. Those are the
bread-and-butter criminal statutes for most frauds. My bill, though,
changes the Federal mail and wire fraud statutes by adding emergency or
disaster benefits fraud to the 30-year maximum penalties that are
currently reserved for cases involving fraud against banks or financial
institutions.
My bill is timely. Just this month we have seen tornadoes that killed
at least 20 people in the Southeast and Midwest and damaged or
destroyed hundreds of homes from Minnesota to the gulf coast. I
recently toured many of the areas hit by the storms, and I was shocked
by the devastation. The loss of eight Alabama schoolchildren at
Enterprise High School was especially heartbreaking.
I had the opportunity to be with President Bush on the second day I
was there. He came down and met with the families of those eight young
people who were killed. He spent almost an hour with them--almost 10
minutes a person. It was a moving experience to be a part of that. I
talked with each one of those families and felt the pain and loss they
suffered.
Of course, money is not an answer to their pain. But I would say
this: People do want to help. If people take advantage and steal from
those who want to help families like that, who are in pain and loss, it
is a despicable crime, to me.
The President has declared Enterprise and several other Alabama
localities Federal disaster areas, including Millers Ferry, AL, in my
home county, where one individual was killed. I knew him and his
family, and saw the people there who I knew who suffered a total loss
of their homes, caused by this incredibly powerful tornado. Being
declared a disaster area means victims will be eligible to receive
Federal financial aid. It is my responsibility to make sure the money
goes to the right people and is not scammed off by criminals posing as
victims.
I know my colleagues share my deep sympathy for the families who lost
loved ones and suffered injuries last week, but it is simply not enough
to have sympathy. We must ensure the full resources of the Federal
Government are quickly deployed to the affected States, and we must
ensure these resources are protected and distributed only to real
victims, not individuals seeking to take advantage of the disaster.
It is disheartening that there was so much fraud associated with the
relief following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, but it is not surprising.
I have been there in the aftermath of hurricanes as a prosecutor. I
have seen such fraud and abuse firsthand.
Our resources are not unlimited, and it is critical that we ensure
that every relief dollar goes to legitimate victims. It is important we
give prosecutors the tools they need to protect legitimate victims and
to protect American taxpayers.
By passing this legislation, the Senate will send a strong signal
that exploiting the kindness of the American people in times of crisis
is a serious crime that will be treated with appropriate severity. We
will not tolerate criminals stealing from the pockets of disaster
victims. A vote for this bill is a vote to ensure that victims and the
generous members of the American public are not preyed upon by
criminals attempting to profit from these disasters and emergencies.
I think it is a reasonable piece of legislation. We worked hard, on a
bipartisan basis, with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and
the Department of Justice. Senator Leahy has indicated he will bring
the bill up in the Judiciary Committee this week. We are looking
forward to an analysis of it.
We will be glad to listen to any suggestions for improvements that
may be made, and I think it is a piece of legislation we should move
forward with.
______
By Mr. BUNNING (for himself and Mr. McConnell):
S. 864. A bill to amend the Federal Power Act to clarify the
jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Access to
Competitive Power Act of 2007 with my friend and colleague, Senator
Mitch McConnell.
I have spent years negotiating and working with the Tennessee Valley
Authority. I have long believed we could work together to address the
problems facing my customers in Kentucky. But every time I think I see
the light at the end of the tunnel, representatives of TVA change their
offer or make up a new rule.
I was optimistic that the expanded Board of Directors of the TVA
Congress authorized last session would be able to change the problems
of the past. But after many meetings and negotiations, I am convinced
that TVA believes it has monopoly status and does not answer to anyone.
Today, I am telling TVA that the people of Kentucky deserve better.
For too long the TVA has acted against the best interests of the
people of Kentucky. Five electric distributors, Paducah, Princeton,
Warren County, Glasgow and Monticello, gave their notice to TVA to
leave the system when they realized they could get cheaper electricity
on the open market--and save their customers millions of dollars.
During the past few years, they have negotiated in good faith for
basic services that are considered routine in the utility industry. But
unfortunately, the electric customers of Kentucky are stuck on the TVA
island. We forced them onto that island 75 years when we created the
Tennessee Valley Authority. Their options are limited and they
[[Page S3074]]
are wholly reliant on TVA for generation and transmission service. TVA
knows this--and that is why they have continued to stall on providing
reasonable services.
But the distributors who still intend to leave will now build
hundreds of miles of new high voltage power lines to get access to the
national electric grid. One may even need to run the city on diesel
generators. Despite these costs, the numbers show that their customers
will still save money.
The legislation I am introducing today, with Senator Mitch McConnell,
will give FERC full jurisdiction in relation to the Tennessee Valley
Authority--the same jurisdiction that FERC has over utilities
throughout the country.
Let me be clear--this legislation does not mandate contract language.
It simply requires TVA to negotiate these services in good faith.
It defines the rights of two classes of TVA distributors--those who
provided notice of termination prior to calendar year 2007 and those
who did not provide notice.
For distributors in Kentucky and Tennessee who have previously given
notice that they would like to leave TVA service, this legislation
would put their rights into law.
Specifically, it would allow them to negotiate partial requirements
services--making sure that TVA is not an all or nothing deal. For some
customers it may make sense to get some power from TVA and some power
from another generator.
It also requires TVA to provide transmission service for these
customers. Because of Federal law, TVA is their only access point to
the national electric grid. As such, they should provide reasonable
transmission service.
It prevents TVA from charging these customers for stranded costs or
imposing a reintegration fee and provides the customers the right to
rescind their notice of termination if they ultimately decide they
would like to stay with TVA.
And lastly, it allows everyone who enjoys the benefits of cheap,
Federal power from the Power Marketing Administrations to retain a
right to that power regardless of whether or not they choose to be a
customer of TVA.
For all those customers who would like to stay in TVA, this
legislation would give them the right to get partial requirements
service from outside of TVA in an amount equal to TVA load growth.
I also believe that it is time the Government looks closely at the
Tennessee Valley Authority. That is why my legislation asks for two
important G.A.O. studies. First, it commissions a comprehensive study
on the privatization the Tennessee Valley Authority. Second, it
requests an analysis of the debt level of the Tennessee Valley
Authority.
All Kentuckians deserve to choose where they receive their power.
This bill will not only give them that choice, but it will also create
a more competitive environment among Kentucky distributors and allow
our businesses and residential consumers to keep more money in their
pockets.
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. 864
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 ``Access to Competitive Power
Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF EQUAL ACCESS AND TREATMENT WITH
RESPECT TO FEDERAL POWER RESOURCES.
Section 212(i) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824k(i))
is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (5) as
paragraphs (3) through (6), respectively;
(2) by striking the subsection designation and heading and
all that follows through the end of paragraph (1) and
inserting the following:
``(i) Establishment of Equal Access and Treatment With
Respect to Federal Power Resources.--
``(1) Definition of generator.--In this subsection, the
term `generator' means--
``(A) the Bonneville Power Administration;
``(B) the Southeastern Power Administration;
``(C) the Western Area Power Administration;
``(D) the Southwestern Power Administration; and
``(E) the Tennessee Valley Authority.
``(2) Authority and duties of commission.--
``(A) In general.--Pursuant to sections 210, 211, and 213,
the Commission--
``(i) may order the administrator or board of directors, as
applicable, of any generator to provide transmission service,
including by establishing the terms and conditions of the
service; and
``(ii) shall ensure that--
``(I) the provisions of otherwise applicable Federal laws
shall continue in full force and effect and shall continue to
be applicable to the system;
``(II) the rates for the transmission of electric power on
the system of each Federal power marketing agency--
``(aa) are administered in accordance with applicable
Federal law, other than sections 210, 211, and 213; and
``(bb) are not unjust, unreasonable, or unduly
discriminatory or preferential, as determined by the
Commission.
``(B) Tennessee valley authority rates.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Commission shall have jurisdiction over the rates,
terms, and conditions of the provision of transmission
service in interstate commerce by the Tennessee Valley
Authority.
``(ii) Tariff.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
pursuant to sections 205 and 206, the Board of Directors of
the Tennessee Valley Authority shall have on file with the
Commission an open access transmission tariff that contains
just, reasonable, and not unduly preferential or
discriminatory rates, terms, and conditions for the provision
of transmission service in interstate commerce by the
Tennessee Valley Authority.'';
(3) in paragraph (3) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))--
(A) by striking ``(3) Notwithstanding'' and inserting the
following:
``(3) Procedure for determinations.--Notwithstanding'';
(B) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting
``of a Federal power marketing agency'' after ``service'';
and
(C) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``when the Administrator of the Bonneville
Power Administration either'' and inserting ``if the
Administrator of any Federal power marketing agency''; and
(ii) by striking ``on the Federal Columbia River
Transmission System'';
(4) in paragraph (4) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))--
(A) by striking ``(4) Notwithstanding'' and inserting the
following:
``(4) Judicial review.--Notwithstanding'';
(B) by striking ``the Administrator of the Bonneville Power
Administration'' and inserting ``the Administrator of a
Federal power marketing agency''; and
(C) by striking ``United States Court of Appeals'' and all
that follows through the end of the paragraph and inserting
``United States court of appeals of jurisdiction of the
Federal power marketing agency.'';
(5) in paragraph (5) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), by
striking ``(5) To the extent the Administrator of the
Bonneville Power Administration'' and inserting the
following:
``(5) Exception.--To the extent that an Administrator of a
Federal power marketing agency'';
(6) in paragraph (6) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))--
(A) by striking ``(6) The Commission'' and inserting the
following:
``(6) Prohibition.--The Commission''; and
(B) by striking ``the Administrator of the Bonneville Power
Administration'' and inserting ``the Administrator of a
Federal power marketing agency''.
SEC. 3. EQUITABILITY WITHIN TERRITORY RESTRICTED ELECTRIC
SYSTEMS.
Section 212(j) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824k(j))
is amended--
(1) by striking ``With respect to'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
with respect to'';
(2) by striking ``electric utility:'' and all that follows
through ``electric utility.'' and inserting ``electric
utility.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) and subsection (f) shall
not apply to any area served at retail by a distributor
that--
``(A) on October 24, 1992, served as a distributor for an
electric utility described in paragraph (1); and
``(B) before December 31, 2006, provided to the Commission
a notice of termination of the power supply contract between
the distributor and the electric utility, regardless of
whether the notice was later withdrawn or rescinded.
``(3) Stranded costs.--An electric utility described in
paragraph (1) that provides transmission service pursuant to
an order of the Commission or a contract may not recover any
stranded cost associated with the provision of transmission
services to a distributor.
``(4) Rights of distributors.--
``(A) Notice not provided.--A distributor described in
paragraph (2) that did not provide a notice described in
paragraph (2)(B) by December 31, 2006, may--
``(i) construct, own, and operate any generation facility,
individually or jointly with another distributor; and
``(ii) receive from any electric utility described in
paragraph (1) partial requirements services, unless the
cumulative quantity of
[[Page S3075]]
energy provided by the electric utility exceeds a ratable
limit that is equal to a proxy for load growth on the
electric utility, based on--
``(I) the total quantity of energy sold by each affected
agency, corporation, or unit of the electric utility during
calendar year 2006; and
``(II) a 3-percent compounded annual growth rate.
``(B) Notice provided.--
``(i) In general.--A distributor described in paragraph (2)
that provided a notice described in paragraph (2)(B) by
December 31, 2006, may--
``(I) construct, own, and operate any generation facility,
individually or jointly with another distributor;
``(II) receive from any electric utility described in
paragraph (1) partial requirements services;
``(III) receive from any electric utility described in
paragraph (1) transmission services that are sufficient to
meet all electric energy requirements of the distributor,
regardless of whether an applicable contract, or any portion
of such a contract, has been terminated under this section;
and
``(IV) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment
of this paragraph, elect to rescind the notice of termination
of the distributor without the imposition of a reintegration
fee or any similar fee.
``(ii) Treatment.--On an election by a distributor under
clause (i)(IV), the distributor shall be entitled to all
rights and benefits of a distributor described in
subparagraph (A).
``(5) Right to retain access to services.--
``(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(i) Affected distributor.--The term `affected
distributor' means a distributor that receives any electric
service or power from at least 2 generators.
``(ii) Generator.--The term `generator' means an entity
referred to in any of subparagraphs (A) through (E) of
subsection (i)(1).
``(B) Retention of services.--An affected distributor may
elect to retain any electric service or power provided by a
generator, regardless of whether an applicable contract, or
any portion of such a contract, has been terminated under
this section.
``(C) Effect of notice of termination.--
``(i) In general.--The provision or execution by an
affected distributor of a notice of termination described in
paragraph (2)(B) with 1 generator shall not affect the
quantity of electric service or power provided to the
affected distributor by another generator.
``(ii) Price.--The price of electric services or power
provided to an affected distributor described in clause (i)
shall be equal to the price charged by the applicable
generator for the provision of similar services or power to a
distributor that did not provide a notice described in
paragraph (2)(B).
``(D) Transmission service.--On an election by an affected
distributor under subparagraph (B) to retain an electric
service or power, the affected distributor shall be entitled
to receive from a generator transmission service to 1 or more
delivery points of the affected distributor, as determined by
the affected distributor, regardless of whether an applicable
contract, or any portion of such a contract, has been
terminated under this section.''.
SEC. 4. STUDY OF PRIVATIZATION OF TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY.
(a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study of the costs, benefits, and other
effects of privatizing the Tennessee Valley Authority.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to Congress a report that describes the
results of the study conducted under this section.
SEC. 5. STUDY OF DEBT LEVEL OF TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY.
(a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study of the financial structure of, and the
amount of debt held by, the Tennessee Valley Authority, which
(as of February 1, 2007) is approximately $25,000,000,000.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to Congress a report that describes the
results of the study conducted under this section.
____________________