[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 20710-20715]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. AKAKA:
  S. 1729. A bill to extend the time during which persons affected by 
Hurricane Katrina may appeal certain decisions of the Board of 
Veterans' Appeals that are rendered during the period beginning June 1, 
2005, and ending November 30, 2005; to the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I want to discuss one of the many 
potential problems that will face this Nation in the aftermath of 
Hurricane Katrina. We have all heard the stories of the displacement of 
thousands of citizens from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Many of 
these people have lost everything--their homes and belongings 
destroyed.
  Undoubtedly, some of these people are veterans with claims they wish 
to appeal from the Board of Veterans' Appeals to the Court of Appeals 
for Veterans Claims. Under current law, a veteran has 120-days to file 
a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. If a 
notice of appeal is not filed within the 120-day window, the veteran 
essentially loses the right to appeal and might not receive benefits to 
which the veteran is entitled.
  Given the current conditions in the gulf coast region, Congress must 
conclude that 120 days is not enough time for a veteran to file a 
notice of appeal. The sheer stress of the situation and the possibility 
that veterans and their advocates may not have access to the 
appropriate files makes 120 days for appeals unreasonable.
  I have submitted legislation that extends the window for a notice of 
appeal from 120 days to 240 days for a veteran affected by Hurricane 
Katrina. This extension will provide appropriate relief to those 
attempting to rebuild their lives. Veterans should not be additionally 
burdened during these turbulent times.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation and it 
is my hope that this legislation will pass the Senate in the near 
future. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1729

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR APPEAL OF CERTAIN DECISIONS 
                   RENDERED BY BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS.

       (a) Appeal Period.--Notwithstanding section 7266(a) of 
     title 38, United States Code, a Hurricane Katrina-affected 
     person adversely affected by a final decision of the Board of 
     Veterans' Appeals, which is rendered during the period 
     beginning on June 1, 2005, and ending on November 30, 2005, 
     may file a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for 
     Veterans Claims at any time before the expiration of 240 days 
     after the date on which notice of such decision is mailed 
     pursuant to section 7104(e) of such title.
       (b) Definition.--In this Act, the term ``Hurricane Katrina-
     affected person'' means a person--
       (1) who, as of August 28, 2005, resided in a county 
     identified as being adversely affected by Hurricane Katrina 
     in Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, or Alabama by Federal 
     Disaster Declaration notice 1602, 1603, 1604, or 1605, 
     respectively (as amended), issued by the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency; or
       (2) whose claim is under the jurisdiction of the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs regional office in New Orleans, Louisiana 
     or Jackson, Mississippi.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself and Mr. Conrad):
  S. 1730. A bill to establish the Trust Fund Administration to invest 
in non-Federal Government debt instrument index funds all Federal trust 
fund revenues transferred to the Federal Government upon the issuance 
of special rate Treasury obligations to such trust funds, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Voinovich of 
Ohio in introducing a new Social Security lockbox proposal, the Truth 
in Budgeting Act of 2005. For years, I have urged my colleagues to stop 
what I believe is the reckless practice of raiding Social Security 
trust fund surpluses to pay for other things. By failing to save these 
surpluses, we are putting future generations in the position of having 
to borrow trillions of dollars to make good on our Social Security, 
Medicaid, Medicare, and other commitments.
  The legislation Senator Voinovich and I are introducing today would 
not only take Washington's hand out of the Social Security cookie jar, 
it would literally take the cookie jar away. If our bill is adopted, 
Social Security surpluses and other trust fund surpluses would no 
longer be used to fund other functions of Government and to mask the 
size of the Federal deficit. Instead, Social Security payroll taxes 
would be used to provide future Social Security benefits, as they were 
always intended.
  Our bill would end the practice of spending trust fund surpluses. 
Instead, it would require those surpluses to be set aside and invested 
in a broadbased bond index fund that will be drawn on to finance our 
future obligations. In many ways, this legislation is a truth-in-
budgeting bill because it will force us to recognize the true size of 
our fiscal deficit. It is our hope this will force Congress and the 
President to work together to address not only our current budget 
imbalances but our long-term entitlement challenges.
  Let me take a few minutes, if I could, to explain why I think this 
legislation is so important.
  Our budget situation has taken a dramatic turn for the worse. Over 
the last 5 years, we have gone from record surpluses to record 
deficits. The 2005 deficit is now projected to be $331 billion, the 
third worst in U.S. history. That is before Katrina. The increase in 
debt this year will be far higher.
  This is something that I find confuses the American people, confuses 
my

[[Page 20711]]

constituents, confuses the media, and perhaps even confuses our 
colleagues: The advertised deficit--$331 billion before Katrina--is not 
the amount the debt will increase by this year. The amount the debt 
will increase by is much larger, approaching $589 billion, and that is 
before Katrina. Why the difference? Because in the deficit calculation, 
borrowing from trust funds is ignored. It is not ignored when you 
consider how much the debt is increasing. It is ignored in the deficit 
calculation.
  But, for example, the $173 billion this year that will be borrowed 
from the Social Security trust fund and used to pay for other things, 
is not included in the deficit calculation. It is added to our debt. It 
has to be paid back. It is not included in the deficit calculation.
  There are $85 billion of other transactions, such as that one, that 
will add up to a total of a $589 billion increase in the debt. Again, 
that is before Katrina.
  Looking forward, our current budget takes every penny of Social 
Security surplus over the next 10 years to pay for tax cuts and other 
spending priorities. Over the next 10 years, under the budget that has 
been passed here, every penny of Social Security surplus is being taken 
to pay for other things--$2 .5 trillion.
  The reported shortfall in Social Security over the next 75 years is 
$4 trillion on a net present value basis. I, frankly, do not believe 
that. I think that shortfall is significantly overstated. But if it 
were real, if it were $4 trillion, look at the comparison here on this 
chart: We are taking $2.5 trillion in Social Security money over the 
next 10 years, using it to pay for other things, when we say Social 
Security has a $4 trillion shortfall on a net present value basis. What 
sense does this make? We are digging the hole deeper before starting to 
fill it in.
  I said something I want to go back to because I indicated I do not 
believe the projected $4 trillion shortfall in Social Security is 
correct. That is the estimate of the actuaries. I think they are wrong. 
Why do I think they are wrong? Because their whole scenario is based on 
economic growth for the next 75 years averaging 1.9 percent a year. 
Over the previous 75 years, the economy has grown at 3.4 percent a 
year. If the economy were to grow in the future as it has in the past, 
80 percent of the Social Security shortfall would disappear.
  Does that mean we do not have a problem? No. I wish it did. We have a 
huge problem. The problem we have, I believe, is a budget problem. The 
problem we have is, first, we are running very large deficits now 
before the baby boomers retire. No.2, the shortfall in Medicare is 7 
times the shortfall in Social Security, approaching $30 trillion. There 
is the real 800-pound gorilla.
  In Social Security, the problem is not so much the shortfall, at 
least from my perspective. I think the problem is that the assets in 
the Social Security trust fund--and there are assets there. Anybody who 
tells you there are no assets there is wrong. There are assets there. 
They are special-interest Government bonds, backed by the full faith 
and credit of the United States, that are in the trust fund. The 
problem is, those bonds have to be redeemed out of current income. That 
is the problem. Those bonds sitting in the Social Security trust fund 
have to be redeemed out of current income.
  We already have a circumstance in which we are running massive 
deficits. We have this looming shortfall in Medicare. Oh, yes, we have 
a problem. We have a big problem, and the sooner we get at it, the 
better. The first thing to do is stop diverting Social Security money 
to use for other purposes. As I have indicated, this increase in debt 
is happening at the worst possible time, right on the brink of the 
retirement of the baby boom generation. The number of Social Security 
beneficiaries is projected to climb to 81 million people by 2050. This 
is not a projection. It is not a projection. The baby boomers have been 
born. They are alive today. They are going to retire, and they are 
eligible for Social Security and Medicare. That has enormous 
implications for the future.
  As stunning as it may seem, we are only 3 years away from the 
beginning of the retirement of the baby boom generation. Social 
Security trust funds are running surpluses now. But starting in 2017, 
payroll tax revenue will no longer be sufficient to pay for benefits. 
Those bonds we are issuing to the Social Security trust fund will have 
to be redeemed out of current revenues at the time. At this point, as 
shown on the chart, the Social Security surpluses will turn into Social 
Security deficits--out here in 2017. When that happens, a serious 
budget crunch will ensue, unless we find a way now to save those 
surpluses.
  Another way of looking at this is by looking at the total balances in 
the Social Security trust funds, which are expected to peak at over $6 
trillion in 2026. As shown on this chart, this is the pattern of the 
Social Security trust fund assets. You can see, right now we are at 
about 2005, about right here, and we are still in the buildup phase. 
There are massive surpluses being run in the Social Security accounts. 
But instead of the money being used to prepay the liability or to pay 
down debt, the money is being used to pay for other things.
  So here we have it. We have this massive buildup. In 2026, roughly, 
the trust fund assets peak at $6 trillion, and then they begin being 
drawn down precipitously. We have a problem. It is a serious problem. 
It is a problem that is inexorable. Unfortunately, our current budget 
policy is contributing to the problem because it is taking the amount 
that is in surplus every year and using it to pay other bills. That is 
comfortable. That is easy. But it does not help us deal with the 
problem.
  In 2001, I urged my colleagues to set aside $900 billion of what was 
then projected to be surplus to either prepay the liability or pay down 
debt. For those who are advocates of personal accounts, the money could 
have been used to establish personal accounts, not borrowing it but 
putting real assets behind it. For those who do not like personal 
accounts, the money could have been used to pay down debt to better 
prepare ourselves for the time when the baby boomers retire.
  The chart I was showing before perfectly illustrates why this is no 
time to permanently or continually divert Social Security and other 
trust fund surpluses to other purposes. Failing to return to a fiscal 
path of saving trust fund surpluses will severely limit Congress' 
ability to address the looming pension and health care needs of the 
baby boomers and will shift a larger debt and tax burden on to future 
generations.
  Any private-sector corporation that behaved like the Federal 
Government is behaving would find its chief officers on their way to a 
Federal institution, but it would not be the Congress of the United 
States, it would not be the White House. Anybody who was running a 
private-sector entity that took trust fund assets, retirement fund 
assets of its employees, would be guilty of a Federal crime. They would 
be on their way to a Federal institution. It would not be Congress; it 
would not be the White House; they would be on their way to a Federal 
penitentiary.
  What is happening here is a shell game, and it is a shell game with 
enormous consequences, not like a shell game where somebody bets on 
some corner deal and loses $10 or $20. This is a shell game being 
played by society. I believe it is time to put a stop to this practice 
of borrowing against future commitments.
  That is why I am proud to join Senator Voinovich to introduce a newly 
designed bipartisan lockbox bill to stop the raid on Social Security 
and other trust funds. This legislation says enough is enough. The raid 
on Social Security and other trust funds has to stop. It is time to 
start saving Social Security surpluses for Social Security and to stop 
raiding the Social Security piggy bank to pay for other priorities.
  With this bipartisan legislation, Senator Voinovich and I intend to 
finally put Social Security in a lockbox that works. Our bill takes a 
new tack on the lockbox concept by fundamentally changing the way in 
which Social Security and other trust fund surpluses are invested. The 
legislation would create a new Office of Trust Fund Administration at 
the Treasury Department

[[Page 20712]]

that would be charged with investing Social Security and other trust 
fund surpluses in safe, non-Federal debt instruments, including State 
municipal bonds, corporate bonds, mortgage-backed securities, and bond 
index funds. These interest-bearing investments could only be used to 
meet the obligations of Social Security and other Federal trust funds.
  Under our proposal, trust fund surpluses would no longer be used to 
fund the general operations of Government, and the true size of the 
Federal deficit would be revealed, forcing us to tackle these deficits 
head on. This bill, if passed, would force Congress, the President, and 
the public to recognize the true cost of Federal borrowing, and it 
would force the Federal Government to invest in real assets that could 
be used to finance future financial obligations.
  I believe our Nation is in a precarious financial position. 
Unfortunately, our current budget policies have worsened our outlook by 
driving the Nation further into deficits and debt. We need to begin by 
returning to budget discipline and paying down debt.
  It is time for us to take a new direction. I believe this legislation 
is an important first step.
  I thank my colleague, Senator Voinovich, for his work on this matter. 
He has spent months pursuing the issue. I am honored to join him. I 
believe this is an important policy change for the country and for the 
Congress. I hope that my colleagues will support it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THUNE:
  S. 1733. A bill to establish pilot projects under the medicare 
program to provide incentives for home health agencies to utilize home 
monitoring and communications technologies; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as I traveled across my State of South 
Dakota this August, I heard from many constituents about the high cost 
of health care. Concerns about the cost of health care are not limited, 
however, to the people of South Dakota. These concerns span across 
state lines and across the minds of people of all ages.
  There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the issues of access and 
cost of health care.
  My State of South Dakota is rural. In South Dakota, 46 out of our 66 
counties are classified as medically underserved areas--areas that have 
insufficient health resources, manpower or facilities to meet the 
medical needs of the population. This poses a significant challenge in 
providing health care to the 750,000 residents of South Dakota.
  Providing high quality affordable health care will take the 
cooperation of both the public and the private sector. The use of 
technology in the delivery of health care has been a proven method in 
providing quality care while reducing cost.
  Telehealth uses telecommunications and information technologies to 
provide health care services at a distance. It provides individuals in 
remote underserved areas access to specialists and other health care 
providers through the use of technology. This means that when my 
constituent in Gregory, SD, needs his skin examined by a dermatologist, 
he does not need to travel the 185 miles to Sioux Falls.
  The practice of telemedicine, however, has been underutilized and 
underfunded despite numerous studies praising the ability of telehealth 
to deliver care to individuals in remote areas.
  The adoption of telehealth has been hampered by legal, financial, and 
regulatory barriers.
  My legislation, the Fostering Independence Through Technology Act of 
2005, takes a step in the right direction of breaking down the barriers 
that prevent the adoption of telehealth. It provides incentives for 
home health agencies to purchase and utilize home monitoring and 
communications technologies. My legislation is pro technology, pro 
quality, and pro savings.
  Specifically, my bill requires the Secretary of the Department of 
Health and Human Services to create demonstration projects that would 
encourage home health agencies to utilize remote monitoring technology. 
Utilizing technology in the home health setting would reduce the number 
of visits by home health aides while still providing quality care.
  Each demonstration project is required to include a performance 
target for the home health agency. This target will be used to 
determine whether the projects are enhancing health outcomes for 
Medicare beneficiaries as well as saving the program money.
  Each year, the home health agency participating in the pilot will 
receive an incentive payment based on a percentage of the Medicare 
savings realized as a result of the pilot project.
  The demonstration projects would be conducted in both rural and urban 
settings because medically underserved areas exist across the country. 
One project, however, is required to be conducted in a state with a 
population of less than one million.
  Technology is improving each and every day. I ask then, why one of 
the biggest industries in our Nation--health care--is not utilizing 
this technology to reduce costs and improve the quality of care 
delivered. Breaking down the barriers that prevent wider adoption of 
telehealth will improve our system of care and lower the cost of health 
care for individuals across the country.
  The practice of telehealth brings medicine to people, people who live 
in medically underserved areas and people who are too frail or too ill 
to leave the comfort of their homes.
  My legislation answers the call for wider adoption of telehealth and 
provides Medicare beneficiaries independence without sacrificing 
quality of care.
  It is time for Congress to tackle the legal, financial, and 
regulatory barriers that are preventing the implementation of 
technology into the health care field. The legislation that I am 
introducing today takes a giant step in this direction and I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 1734. A bill to establish the Valle Vidal National Preserve in the 
State of New Mexico; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
preserve a special place in my home state of New Mexico, the Valle 
Vidal.
  New Mexico is a State filled with natural wonders, so when you hear 
people referring to the Valle Vidal as ``New Mexico's Yellowstone'' you 
have to stop and take notice. Any visitor to the place won't find it 
hard to see what inspires such a grand comparison. The scenic and 
wildlife features of the Valle Vidal stand out, even in the spectacular 
country of northern New Mexico.
  For decades the area was admired from afar by the public as a famous 
private hunting and fishing ranch, until it was finally taken into 
public ownership in 1982. Since then, the Valle Vidal has become a 
premier destination for all manner of lovers of the outdoors. Whether 
you are drawn to its beautiful aspen stands, its wide meadows and the 
spectacular views they afford, its abundant wildlife, or the 
outstanding camping opportunities that the Boy Scouts take advantage of 
every year, there is much to cherish in the Valle Vidal.
  As the home and crucial wintering ground of the State's largest elk 
herd the area is of iconic value to New Mexican hunters. The elk herd 
is so prized that the State only allows for a once-in-a-lifetime permit 
to hunt there. I am told those that do get a permit rarely return 
unhappy.
  The Valle Vidal is also home to native Rio Grande cutthroat trout and 
will play an important role in the State's plans to recover that 
species from its depressed numbers today.
  The Forest Service has recognized the unique values of the Valle 
Vidal and manages the area with a special emphasis on wildlife but they 
are required under current law to consider developing the eastern half 
for coalbed methane production. They have completed their estimates of 
the available gas resources under the Valle Vidal and any further 
analysis would be the responsibility of the lessee. Based on the 
estimates the Forest Service has done it is clear that, although there 
is certainly money to be made drilling for gas in the Valle Vidal, the 
amounts

[[Page 20713]]

that could be produced are of no national significance. The Forest 
Service has begun the process of amending their management plan for the 
area and would later begin analyzing the potential conflicts that 
drilling would encompass sometime late next year. This bill would 
remove the need for the second part of that process.
  New Mexico has significant coalbed methane resources in both the 
Raton Basin, where the eastern half of the Valle Vidal is, and the San 
Juan Basin. In fact, the San Juan basin is one of the Nation's foremost 
natural gas production areas, generating about 1 trillion cubic feet of 
gas each year. New Mexico is one of this country's foremost producers 
of oil and natural gas and we are proud of what we do for our Nation's 
energy picture. But New Mexicans are also proud of our wild country. 
The places we love define our character as much as the work we do.
  The undefinable characteristic of being a New Mexican is shown the 
most clearly in the places we cherish--the places that we recognize as 
so special that we want to set them aside for our children and our 
grandchildren. This is particularly true when it is not an easy choice 
to set them aside. It would be easy to simply pursue resources wherever 
we find them. We certainly need the energy and have shown remarkable 
ingenuity in extracting oil and gas from places previously thought 
unreachable and with gradually lessening effects on the surrounding 
landscape. But our essential character is revealed in making the harder 
choice to slow down and recognize that some places are special and 
warrant special treatment. The Valle Vidal is such a special place.
  Even if there were significant gas resources under the Valle Vidal it 
would be very difficult to risk turning it into an industrial zone. But 
we don't really face that choice here. The eastern half of the Valle 
Vidal comprises less than 1 percent of the gas-producing Raton Basin. 
According to the Forest Service, even with the most optimistic 
projections the gas resources are less than one-half of 1 percent of 
the Raton Basin resources. Using those same projections and even with 
intensive development we could only expect enough gas to come out of 
the Valle Vidal over its 20 year development to meet our Nation's gas 
needs for less than 3 days. In short, drilling the Valle Vidal wouldn't 
make a dime's worth of difference in our national energy picture.
  The Raton Basin will continue to be developed and I'm sure we will 
continue to find additional areas in New Mexico to meet this nation's 
growing energy needs but I hope we can set aside this place to meet 
some of our other needs. Our need to get outside and experience the 
best the natural world has to offer. By creating the Valle Vidal 
National Preserve with this bill we can take the opportunity to 
preserve an essential piece of New Mexican character and demonstrate 
once again that value is more than a question of dollars and cents.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Inouye, 
        Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. 
        Wyden, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. 
        Jeffords, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Biden, Mr. Lieberman, 
        Mr. Harkin, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Salazar):
  S. 1735. A bill to improve the Federal Trade Commission's ability to 
protect consumers from price-gouging during energy emergencies, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Energy 
Emergency Consumer Protection Act of 2005. I want to thank the original 
cosponsors of this legislation, which include Senate Minority Leader 
Reid, and Senators Durbin, Feinstein, Kerry, Feingold, Clinton, Kohl, 
Schumer, Stabenow, Dorgan, and Corzine.
  This legislation would put in place a Federal law to prohibit 
gasoline price-gouging during national emergencies, and would institute 
new protections for American consumers from manipulation of oil and 
gasoline markets.
  Even before the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina and its 
tragic aftermath, skyrocketing oil and gasoline prices were burdening 
American families and our Nation's economy--with the notable exception 
of the oil industry, which continued to rack up record profits. Already 
in my home State of Washington, prices had reached 74 cents a gallon 
more than last year before the storm hit. After the storm--though our 
supplies were not directly affected--prices topped $3 per gallon in 
some areas of my State, including some of the most rural and 
economically challenged. And following that tragic storm, gas prices in 
some areas of this Nation reached almost $6 per gallon.
  The volatility in oil and gasoline prices shows few signs of abating. 
Just yesterday, we saw oil set the new record for a one-day spike in 
prices. At the New York Mercantile Exchange, those prices rose more 
than $4 per barrel just yesterday, to close at $67.39. That's the 
largest single-day price spike since oil started trading on the 
exchange, in 1983.
  It's clear to me that we have a lot of work to do, if we're going to 
get serious about addressing one of the most important challenges 
facing our generation of Americans: improving our Nation's energy 
security. We need a long-term plan and national commitment to free us 
from our over-dependence on oil in general. We need to make the 
American economy more fuel efficient, and position this Nation to 
compete in the 21st Century economy. It is in our Nation's long-term 
economic and national security interests to improve the fuel efficiency 
of American vehicles, provide consumers with the tools to make smart 
choices, provide those same consumers with a broader array of fuel-
flexible vehicles and transportation options, and expand our production 
of home-grown biofuels, in more diverse regions of this country. 
Especially when it comes to fuel efficiency, this body has to date 
lacked the political will necessary to take the steps we must to 
bolster this Nation's energy and economic security. Along with my 
colleagues who have been tireless champions on this issue for so long, 
Senators Feinstein and Durbin, I will continue to fight to put our 
Nation on the right path when it comes to fuel efficiency.
  But in the short-term, we also need to take a close look at the lack 
of transparency and increased concentration in the oil and gasoline 
markets, which has left us in a situation where the very few can set 
the prices that impact the lives of so many. And we need to make sure 
we have a national plan--triggered in cases of national emergencies--
that makes it clear profiteering at the gas pump will not be tolerated.
  Right now, the oil companies know we don't have a plan to protect 
American consumers. That's why we need a Federal law that's going to 
prohibit price gouging, and assess Federal penalties from those who 
exploit national tragedies to maximize their profits. That is why my 
colleagues and I have come together today to introduce this 
legislation.
  In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, we have already heard gas station 
owners complaining that the big oil companies ordered them to raise 
prices. Investigating those claims should be the top job of federal 
regulators--and there should be harsh penalties for that kind of 
behavior, profiteering in the midst of a national disaster.
  Today, 28 States have anti-gouging laws on the books. Unfortunately, 
my own State is not among them. But in crafting this legislation, I 
have looked to those other state laws--focusing specifically on the law 
of the State of New York, where price gouging cases have been 
successfully prosecuted in the past, related to natural disasters.
  But I also want to remind my colleagues again that, while Hurricane 
Katrina exposed the underlying vulnerability of the American economy to 
supply disruptions, average U.S. gasoline prices were already 75 cents 
more than they were a year earlier--and many consumers had begun to ask 
why. While the oil companies have filled

[[Page 20714]]

their coffers with record profits over the past few years, our Nation's 
airlines, truckers, farmers and small businesses across the board are 
struggling to make ends meet because of skyrocketing fuel costs. Worker 
pensions are in jeopardy, and families are already feeling the squeeze.
  That's why this legislation also contains provisions to ban 
manipulation in oil and gasoline markets, and institutes new market 
transparency, investigation and enforcement mechanisms. These measures 
are based on provisions in the recently enacted bipartisan energy bill 
that prohibited these practices in other sectors of the energy 
industry. It provides for the same kind of anti-manipulation and 
transparency rules as those with which electricity and natural gas 
industries must comply. This legislation would apply the same sort of 
anti-manipulation and transparency standards to the oil industry that 
we already apply to companies that sell other essential energy 
commodities.
  Already, these prices are impacting a diverse swath of the U.S. 
economy and hurting hard-working Americans. According to the Department 
of Energy, Americans will spend over $200 billion more on energy this 
year than they did last year, totaling over one trillion dollars.
  These energy prices are also costing us jobs. On average, every time 
oil prices go up 10 percent, 150,000 Americans lose their jobs--based 
on the calculations of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Federal 
Reserve Board.
  What's more, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget 
Office, a 40 percent increase in gas prices this month will decrease 
total domestic consumption by 0.4 percent. And unless prices come down 
in the fourth quarter, our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will fall by 
0.9 percent. These energy price spikes are strangling economic growth. 
According to the Congressional Research Service, every time oil prices 
go up by 10 percent for a sustained period of time, we lose somewhere 
between $80 billion and $160 billion in economic growth.
  But while these prices are hurting the economy as a whole, they are 
having a particularly profound impact on our Nation's energy-intensive 
industries. For example, they are hampering the American airline 
industry. The airline industry estimates it will pay $9.2 billion more 
for fuel in 2005 than in 2004, a 103 percent increase from 2001. As 
Southwest CEO Steve Kelly told the Seattle Times just last week, ``We 
are now facing energy prices that no airline can make money at, at 
least with today's [ticket prices].''
  These prices are also making it impossible for our farmers to break 
even. Even during a good year, farmers operate on profit margins of 
only about 5 percent, so fertilizer, fuel, and pesticide price 
increases of 20 percent or more have made it very difficult to get by.
  Other sectors of the transportation industry are also being 
dramatically impacted. Take, for example, the trucking industry. Diesel 
fuel accounts for a quarter of the trucking industry's operating 
expense, or $85 billion in 2005. Each penny increase in diesel costs 
the trucking industry $350 million over a full year.
  And these prices are impacting essential services in this country. 
School districts and local governments are feeling the pain, as are 
federal agencies themselves. Higher fuel prices are expected to add 
$300 million to the Postal Service's transportation costs nationwide 
this year.
  What about the pain these prices are causing, in other ways? Energy 
costs are putting pensions at risk and requiring taxpayer bailouts. 
That's particularly true when it comes to the hundreds of thousands of 
airline workers in this country. United Airlines has already 
transferred $6.6 billion of its pension obligations to the government 
pension agency. If Delta and Northwest terminate their pension plans 
following their bankruptcy declarations, taxpayers would have to cover 
another $12 billion.
  And these prices are especially harmful to low-income Americans. 
Households with incomes under $15,000--about one-fifth of all 
households in this country--this year will spend around 10 percent of 
their total income on gasoline alone.
  And what's going to happen this winter? Heating costs for the average 
family using heating oil are projected to hit $1,666 during the 
upcoming winter months. This represents an increase of over $400 over 
last winter's prices and $700 more than the winter heating season of 
2003 and 2004. For families using natural gas, prices are projected to 
hit $1,568, representing an increase of over $600 over last year's 
prices and $640 more than 2003 and 2004.
  These alarming statistics lead me to question where is all this money 
going? The Congressional Budget Office wrote recently that increased 
gasoline prices are ``basically a temporary redistribution of income 
from consumers of gasoline to the stockholders of refiners.''
  This is a situation that is causing gross inequities between 
different industries themselves. Oil industry profits have nearly 
tripled over the last three years to roughly $87 billion last year--
likely to be even more this year--while the airline industry has lost 
over $32 billion over the last four years.
  How is this happening? While we watch all of these economic impacts 
transpire, our federal regulators have allowed the oil industry to 
strengthen its choke-hold on American consumers and businesses. 
According to the independent Government Accountability Office, mergers 
and increased market concentration with the U.S. petroleum industry has 
led to higher wholesale gasoline prices in this country.
  That's why it's time for this body to do something about it. The 
Energy Emergency Consumer Protection Act is a common-sense approach to 
protect American consumers from gasoline price gouging during national 
emergencies. And it begins to shine the spotlight on the marketing 
practices of the oil industry in general.
  I thank my cosponsors for their support, and I ask my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Cantwell in co-
sponsoring the Energy Emergency Consumer Protection Act of 2005. This 
bill will, for the first time, give our Federal Government the needed 
tools to prosecute those unscrupulous individuals and companies that 
seek to take advantage of emergencies and disasters by price gouging 
consumers in the sale of gasoline and other petroleum products. With 
the tremendous suffering caused by Hurricane Katrina resulting in gas 
supply disruptions, and with gas prices at record levels well in excess 
of $3.00 per gallon in many places throughout the Nation, the time is 
now for passage of this essential legislation.
  In the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster and the associated 
disruptions to supply and distribution networks, the national average 
price of gas is now at record levels. Allegations of price gouging and 
drastic price spikes were unfortunately commonplace in the immediate 
days following the disaster--including, for example, gas being sold at 
$6.00 per gallon in the Atlanta area. Many believe that the human 
suffering caused by loss of life, housing, and employment, has been 
compounded by some unscrupulous individuals and businesses who have 
taken advantage of the emergency by gouging consumers. Yet, under 
current law, the Federal Government has virtually no ability to 
prosecute such price gouging. Our bill will correct this critical 
deficiency.
  This legislation contains several important provisions. First, it 
gives the President the authority to declare an energy emergency during 
times of disruptions in the supply or distribution of gasoline or 
petroleum products. Second, the bill, for the first time, declares 
illegal under federal law selling gasoline or petroleum products at a 
price unconscionably high or when circumstances indicate that the 
seller is taking unfair advantage to increase prices unreasonably in 
times of energy emergency. Those who violate this law face civil 
penalties of up to $3,000,000 per day and criminal penalties, including 
jail terms of up to five years for individuals, as well. The bill also 
forbids market manipulation in connection

[[Page 20715]]

with the sale of gasoline and petroleum products and empowers the 
experts at the Federal Trade Commission to write regulations setting 
forth specific conduct constituting market manipulation. Additionally, 
our bill gives states Attorneys General the power to enforce these 
provisions as well.
  These measures are an urgently needed deterrent to prevent all those 
who would seek to profit from this enormous tragedy by price gouging 
consumers in the price of gasoline. It will protect consumers--both 
those who were the victims of the immediate effects of Hurricane 
Katrina and those around the country--who suffer every day at the gas 
pumps from the real and growing economic pain caused by record high gas 
prices. As Ranking Member on the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, I 
believe that this legislation is necessary to prevent unscrupulous 
companies using the disaster on the Gulf Coast to justify uncompetitive 
gas price hikes. All of us can agree that profiteering and price 
gouging in the price of an essential commodity like gasoline is simply 
unacceptable. Such conduct violates every principle of free and fair 
competition. We must give the Federal Government the necessary tools to 
prevent such misconduct, and prosecute those who do so.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Energy Emergency Consumer 
Protection Act.

                          ____________________