[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6465-6471]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    VETERANS' BENEFITS ENHANCEMENT ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  Mr. KENNEDY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Levin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


              Diver Heroes of the Chicago Fire Department

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask a few minutes of the Senate's time 
to tell you about four men and a little boy.
  Last Friday, Stanko Bojanovic decided to take advantage of a warm, 
breezy spring afternoon to enjoy a walk with his 2-year-old grandson 
along Lake Michigan near Belmont Harbor in downtown Chicago.
  Mr. Bojanovic was sitting on a park bench at Belmont Harbor with his 
grandson nearby strapped in a stroller at his side, when a strong gust 
of wind blew up. Witnesses said the wind sent soda cans sailing by. 
That wind also pushed the stroller into the harbor with the little boy 
still strapped in.
  Mr. Bojanovic, the grandfather, immediately jumped into the harbor. 
Passersby saw him bobbing in the water, clinging to the side of the 
breakwall, and pleaded with him to try to swim to a nearby rescue 
ladder but the grandfather refused. In broken English, he kept yelling, 
``Boy! Boy!''
  Those standing nearby grabbed their cell phones and called 9-1-1.
  At the moment the call came in, a helicopter carrying Chicago Fire 
Department divers Brian Otto and Bill Davis was lifting off from nearby 
Midway Airport, where they had stopped for fuel. The men were already 
in scuba gear for a drill. Four minutes later, their helicopter landed 
at the harbor.
  At almost the same moment, another crew of a dozen Chicago Fire 
Department rescue divers were finishing an underwater training exercise 
at a pool not far from the harbor. They changed into scuba gear and 
arrived at the harbor just seconds after the helicopter.
  Divers Brian Otto, Bill Davis, Cedric Collins, and Bob Skwarek dove 
into the water near where the grandfather had pointed. There was zero 
visibility in the murky water so they searched in a grid pattern, 
feeling their way along the harbor's rocks.
  Diver Cedric Collins told a Chicago Sun Times reporter that he 
prayed, ``Let me find him.''
  Less than 3 minutes after the firefighters arrived, diver Brian Otto 
spotted the little boy's hair waving in the water.
  As he tried to lift the toddler, Otto realized that the boy was still 
strapped into his stroller. He was going to have to lift the little boy 
and his stroller 10 feet to the water's surface.
  Otto, who has a little 4-year-old son of his own, told the Sun Times: 
``You see this kid underwater, and you're a firefighter, you're a 
rescue diver, but you're also a father. I held nothing back.'' He told 
himself: ``No matter what, we're going to get to the surface. And we're 
doing it now.'' He lifted the little boy, stroller and all, to 
paramedics waiting on the pier.
  Three minutes passed between the time the firefighters arrived and 
the time they pulled the little boy, Lazar Ognjenovich from the water. 
His body was pale blue and icy cold. It is estimated that he was under 
water for 15 minutes.
  Today, little Lazar Ognjenovich remains in critical condition at 
Children's Hospital in Chicago.
  Medical researchers not involved in the case say there is reason to 
hope. They note that toddlers are sometimes able to survive long 
periods underwater better than adults and point to a Utah girl who was 
submerged in water for 66 minutes in 1986. Two years later, when an 
article about her appeared in a medical journal, she had made a full 
recovery.
  Lazar's grandmother said Sunday that the little boy is showing signs 
of improvement. She notes that last Saturday--the day after his 
rescue--was ``Lazarus Saturday,'' a special holiday for Serbian 
children. She told a Sun Times reporter that she believes God was 
watching over her grandson.
  As for the brave men who rescued the little boy--Brian Otto, Bill 
Davis, Cedric Collins and Bob Skwarek, members of the Chicago Fire 
Department's Air Sea Rescue Unit and Scuba Team 687--they were all back 
at work the next day.
  In a story in this morning's Sun Times, Bob Skwarek said that rescue 
divers train for moments like the one they experienced last Friday. 
Still, he said, ``You really do feel 10 feet tall'' after a rescue.
  Bill Davis and Cedric Collins have both been with the Chicago Fire 
Department for 9 years and with the scuba team for about a year and a 
half. Brian Otto has been with the department for 18 years and a diver 
for 3\1/2\ years. And Bob Skwarek has been with the fire department for 
28 years and a diver for about 2\1/2\ years.
  They come from the neighborhoods of North and South Chicago: Mount 
Greenwood, Hegewisch, Roseland and Gage Park.
  They have won praise from Chicago Fire Commissioner Ray Orozco and 
from people all over that great city who have read or heard about their 
heroism. They deserve every word of that praise.
  In his great book Working, Studs Terkel, the legendary Chicago 
writer, and a great friend interviewed all kinds of everyday working 
people about their jobs.
  Many of the jobs involved risk and backbreaking labor. Some of the 
people Studs spoke to disliked the work they did.
  He also spoke to a firefighter, who said he liked his work very much 
because you can actually see what a firefighter produces. You see the 
results of firefighters' work and sacrifice in homes saved, families 
rescued. And sometimes you see the results of their heroism in little 
boys pulled miraculously from the waters of Lake Michigan.

[[Page 6466]]

  On 9/11, we all received a poignant and painful reminder that the 
real heroes very often are not famous. Most are known only to their 
families and friends and the people with whom they work.
  Many times since 9/11, we seem to have forgotten that basic truth.
  Last Friday at Belmont Harbor, four firefighters from the great City 
of Chicago reminded us.
  I ask that this Senate join me in saluting their courage and the 
courage of all the working men and women in this country who take risks 
and make sacrifices to rescue others, literally and figuratively. They 
are truly American heroes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                             Equal Pay Day

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank our majority leader and our 
leadership for scheduling a vote on what is known as the Ledbetter 
legislation tomorrow. We expect that we will have that vote tomorrow 
evening sometime. I think it is important that the membership 
understand that we will. It is appropriate today that we have a number 
of our colleagues speak about the importance of this legislation 
because today is Equal Pay Day. It has been designated Equal Pay Day. 
It has been Equal Pay Day for a number of years.
  What do we mean by Equal Pay Day? We mean equal pay for equal work. 
That has been a goal of this country going back actually to 1963, when 
we passed the Equal Pay Act. At that time, the disparity between men 
and women for doing the same job was 60 cents to the dollar that the 
men were getting. We have seen that figure close over time, now to 77 
cents, but still there is a disparity. As long as we have had a 
disparity, it has been and is wrong.
  As a country, we have tried to remove forms of discrimination, 
bigotry, and prejudice that have existed in our society, and the 
bigotry and prejudice that exist in terms of pay has been there for 
some time. Since 1963, the Congress has taken action not only on pay 
for women but in terms of other groups as well. It has made progress in 
making sure that African Americans are not going to feel a disparity. 
We did that in 1964 with Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act under 
President Johnson. Look at the Senate vote, the ultimate vote, 73 to 
27. Republicans and Democrats alike said--the Civil Rights Act was 
primarily focused on public accommodations provisions but also had 
another very important provision--we will not permit a disparity and 
discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, gender, or 
religion in terms of pay. African Americans and other workers were 
going to be able to get equal pay.
  Then, we have the age discrimination. We said, under President 
Johnson, if individuals are going to be able to do the job, and they 
happen to be older but yet they have the competency and the skills and 
they are going to be able to do an equal job, we are going to make sure 
they are not going to be discriminated against. We have said women will 
not be discriminated against, minorities will not be discriminated 
against, and people will not be discriminated against by age.
  In 1973, we said: Well, what about those who have some disability? We 
said we are not going to discriminate against those people either. 
Maybe they have a mental or a physical disability, but if they are able 
to do the job, and they are qualified to do the job, they ought to get 
paid for doing the job. That is what we said. We saw that vote was a 
voice vote, under President Nixon, supported by the administration.
  Then, we had later provisions: the Americans with Disabilities Act, 
which was enacted to provide greater kinds of protections for the 
disabled; additional civil rights protections; and others; the Civil 
Rights Restoration Act. So the sum total, since 1963, has been a 
constant drumbeat, a constant march, a constant statement by the 
Congress and by the administrations by, as we have seen, Democrats and 
Republicans alike, that said: When it comes to equal pay, it is going 
to be equal pay for women and for men, it is going to be equal pay for 
people with disabilities, older workers, African-American workers, 
Hispanic workers, and others. This chart shows the various groups that, 
under the EEOC'd laws, have found out they have been discriminated 
against.
  This chart shows, as of a year ago, in 2007, the EEOC had received 
more than 7,000 pay discrimination claims. Here it is for disability 
cases--as I mentioned earlier, we passed the Americans with 
Disabilities Act--and for national origin cases--we have protections 
for that group, those people who come from different kinds of ethnic 
backgrounds--for age, race, and gender discrimination as well.
  We see that with regard to race, there have been 2,300 claims; with 
regard to gender, there have been some 2,400 claims. There are the 
cases for those with disabilities and the national origin cases. These 
are cases that were brought because we passed laws over the period of 
40 years that said: If you are going to work, and work hard, in the 
United States of America, and you are going to do effectively the same 
job as someone else, you should be paid the same. We have not solved 
all the problems of comparability in this legislation. That is another 
issue which is enormously important and one we should address, and I 
hope we will address, in this Congress because it is extremely 
important. All we are trying to do is deal with the pieces of 
legislation that I have mentioned and restore a remedy. We can have a 
right and, as all of us understand, a right is not worth very much if 
we do not have a remedy. That is what this legislation is all about: to 
give a remedy to victims of pay discrimination, like Lilly Ledbetter. 
The remedy is that when workers are given unfair pay for doing 
effectively comparable work, that they are entitled as a matter of 
right and a matter of law to fair compensation.
  It is interesting, in the dissent in the Ledbetter case, the dissent 
asks for congressional action. We are giving congressional action. That 
is why I am going to be interested in the arguments of those who are 
opposed to it. Here a Justice of the Supreme Court invites the Congress 
to take the action. We are taking the action. What we are effectively 
doing is restoring the law to what it was prior to the Supreme Court 
decision--nothing more than that.
  I will review what exactly this law does here. What this legislation, 
the Ledbetter legislation, does, is it reverses the Supreme Court's 
unfair Ledbetter decision. It holds employers accountable for ongoing 
discrimination. As we pointed out, the Supreme Court held that Lilly 
Ledbetter should have known she was being discriminated against by her 
employer on pay, even though the employer controlled the books, 
controlled all the documents and was not sharing that information with 
the employees. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court said: Well, she should 
have found out in any event. If she did not, it is tough luck on her. 
Tough luck on you. Tough luck on you. Imagine, the Supreme Court of the 
United States, after all of the legislation and all of the 
congressional intent in the last 40 years, saying: Tough on you.
  So the employer holds it in a safe, and Lilly Ledbetter cannot find 
it. Tough on her. Doesn't have a remedy. Too bad. Go ahead and continue 
to discriminate. In the United States of America, after what we have 
gone through in terms of civil rights--the battle to knock down the 
walls of discrimination over the period of these last 40 years? Tough 
on you.
  Is that what we have come to? Is that what the Supreme Court is 
saying to a hard-working mother who has worked hard, tried to provide 
for her children, has demonstrated and won award after award for good 
performance? Tough on you. You could not find it in that sacred safe of 
the employer. Too bad. You lost your remedies. Too bad.
  That is what this is all about. What we are doing is restoring 
congressional intent.
  So what this legislation does not do: It does not encourage workers 
to delay the filing of claims. It does not eliminate the statute of 
limitations in the

[[Page 6467]]

pay cases. It does not increase the litigation. We have the CBO's 
analysis. I have referred to it. It does not create new grounds for 
filing lawsuits. We answered all of these arguments. This is what it 
does not do. We have given the answers. They are not just my answers, 
they are the answers of the CBO's independent review.
  What we are basically doing, and the reason why we are doing it, is 
to effectively restore the law to what it was previously. As this chart 
indicates: the lighter green being what the law was previously--that is 
what we are returning it to--the darker green being what the law was as 
interpreted by the EEOC, and the orange were the dissenting states. So 
this is going back to the previous rule.
  This would be right to do at any time, but it is particularly 
important now. The reason it is particularly important now is because 
of the kind of economic conditions we are facing in this country at 
this time, where families are being squeezed. Working families are 
being squeezed. The middle class is being squeezed. In that squeeze, no 
one is getting squeezed harder than the women in our society, 
particularly working women. Their participation pension and retirement 
plans is falling. Look at what has happened to women's participation in 
pensions over the last 6 or 7 years. It has dropped, I think, close to 
10 percent. We are finding out that their rates of unemployment are 
increasing faster than the unemployment figures in terms of men. Their 
savings are down. Women's savings are down. So they have a greater 
difficulty in dealing with the economic reversals we are facing at the 
present time. They have more home foreclosures because their savings 
have been down. So they are under an incredible squeeze.
  This chart is an example of how adult women are seeing a sharper rise 
in their unemployment rate. Their rate is going up 21 percent as 
compared to 15 percent for men. On earnings, women's earnings are 
falling faster than men's. So their earnings are going down faster. We 
are finding out that their unemployment is going up faster and their 
earnings are going down faster.
  If you take what happens to different women within the general group, 
look at women's net worth. Unmarried women have $13,000 less in net 
savings than unmarried men. Here it is, the difference, as shown on 
this chart. So in this time of recession and economic stress, these 
issues become much more acute. This is the right answer at any time, 
but it is particularly something that can be done now that can make a 
difference to these working women--something that can be done now: 
restore a right. That is what this is basically all about.
  As I mentioned, this is targeted on women, but the application is 
across the board. It affects other groups in our society. It affects 
African Americans and Hispanics, and they have been hard hit by the 
economic downturn. If pay is discriminatory against African Americans 
and Hispanics--and we saw the pie chart, which shows it is, with 
thousands of claims every single year--they are going to be denied the 
remedy. This legislation applies to women. It applies to minorities. It 
applies to people discriminated against because of their religion. It 
applies to the disabled. It applies to older workers. Otherwise, they 
are going to get shortchanged. They are facing the economic realities 
in a much harsher way now.
  We have an opportunity to do something about it. The House of 
Representatives has done something about it. Tomorrow we can do 
something about it. Show me something, anything, any piece of 
legislation that can have a better, more positive impact in terms of 
the income of working women than this vote tomorrow. That is what it is 
about.
  Finally, let me give you these figures to demonstrate what this meant 
to Lilly Ledbetter. This is a reflection of what was actually in the 
Court's decision. She was making $44,000 a year. She received $5,600 
less than the lowest paid male coworker during her last year at 
Goodyear. The highest paid male coworker was getting $62,000. She had 
the qualifications and was doing the job the same as her colleague who 
got $62,000. The lowest paid male worker--whose skills were much less 
than Lilly Ledbetter's--was still getting paid more. You cannot get it 
any clearer than this chart about what the facts are. These are not 
facts I am making up. These are the facts accepted by the courts, not 
questioned by the Supreme Court. There it is.
  The most powerful is listening to Lilly Ledbetter herself. She has 
testified. Anyone who is interested ought to read her testimony, and 
can read through the hearings in our committee about this. She explains 
it in great detail: how she first heard about it, and how she was 
treated, and what the Supreme Court decided. She has taken a double 
whammy because not only has she suffered, and will not recover her 
wages. We have a 2-year limitation on back pay--you can only recover in 
terms of the 2 years. Her retirement was based upon what she earned and 
so that has also been lost during this period of time. That was lost, 
will be lost, continues to be lost. Imagine that. Imagine the 
unfairness of that. We are not addressing that. We are not dealing with 
that. We should be, but we are not. That is basically and fundamentally 
wrong.
  I mentioned earlier the CBO. The Congressional Budget Office agrees 
that the Fair Pay Restoration Act will not increase the litigation. The 
Fair Pay Restoration Act will not establish a new cause of action for 
claims in pay discrimination. CBO experts said the bill would not 
significantly affect the number of filings with the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission. What they are basically saying is, what this 
will do is it will have the law enforced and people will pay attention 
to it.
  Many employers are, obviously, good employers, and are playing by the 
rules. But not all of them are. Those who are not playing by the rules 
should not be able to exploit people in the workplace on the basis of 
their gender, race, national origin, religion, disabilities or age.
  Finally, we have seen--and I have shown this chart previously of the 
various groups that support this legislation. These are only some of 
the groups. I have included a more complete list in the Record. We have 
the groups representing the disabilities community, the American 
Association of People with Disabilities; elderly people, the AARP feels 
very strongly about the discrimination against the elderly; the NAACP, 
for the obvious reasons, not only because of discrimination on the 
basis of race, but all the forms of discrimination they continue to 
fight and oppose. We have the auto workers, who see prejudice and 
discrimination and who are fighting for full rights and equality. We 
have the National Congress of Black Women and the Religious Action 
Center, because of the moral issues raised by this. And we have the 
U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce.
  We will have an opportunity to address this and speak more about it. 
I cannot think of an issue where it is more an issue of fundamental 
fairness. Americans try to understand some of the complex issues about 
which we deal here. They are not always easy to understand and to catch 
and find their way through. Probably one of the great mysteries is the 
ERISA law, which was put in by our old friend Jacob Javits. An amusing 
aspect of that was when Jacob Javits passed on to his eternal reward, 
he took all the knowledge about ERISA with him. All of us find 
complexities in trying to deal with that. It has important implications 
in terms of health and the job market.
  This is simple. Everyone gets it. The American people understand it, 
because it is about fairness. If there is one issue Americans 
understand, it is fairness. They believe that when somebody works, they 
ought to be adequately paid. Americans don't believe one person ought 
to be paid a different rate for doing the same job as another person. 
They don't believe that because their skin is a different color, or 
because of gender, or because of disability, or because of sexual 
orientation they should be paid less. They don't believe it. If the 
person is qualified to do the job, and does the job, they ought to get 
equal pay. This Senate has gone on record time and time

[[Page 6468]]

and time and time again over the last 40 years, by overwhelming votes, 
against pay discrimination. We have our chance tomorrow to restate that 
commitment. I hope the vote will be overwhelmingly in favor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to proceed for 15 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           High Energy Prices

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, our Nation faces record high energy 
prices, affecting almost every aspect of daily life. The price of 
gasoline, home heating oil, and diesel is creating tremendous hardships 
for American families, for truckdrivers, and for small businesses. High 
energy prices are a major cause of the current economic downturn.
  It is clear we need a dramatic change in our energy policy to protect 
ourselves from rapid increases in oil prices, without sacrificing our 
environment for future generations. We must rally around a national 
effort to achieve energy independence for our economic, environmental, 
and national security.
  I have recommended that we establish a national goal of energy 
independence by the year 2020. I don't know if we can get all the way 
to energy independence by that year, but I do know if we do not 
establish a goal, if we do not strive to achieve energy independence by 
a date certain, we will never get there. I believe that had our country 
embraced this goal in the 1970s, when we were reacting to the embargo, 
we would be nearly at energy independence right now.
  I am proposing today a 10-point plan to get us started on this 
important effort. It is a plan that includes both actions that we can 
take in the short run to help mitigate the impact of high prices, as 
well as actions to achieve energy independence in the long term.
  Many causes appear to be responsible for the skyrocketing increase in 
oil prices: the timing of Government purchases for the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve; speculative trading on futures markets; increased 
global demand for crude oil; instability in the Middle East, Mexico, 
and Venezuela; supply decisions of the OPEC cartel; insufficient U.S. 
refining capacity; and the declining value of the dollar.
  We will always use oil for part of our energy needs, but we need to 
decrease our reliance on foreign oil and be smarter about managing our 
supplies. It is appropriate that Senator Levin is in the chair as I 
discuss the first step that I believe we should take right now to help 
curb the increase in oil prices.
  The administration's decision to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
when oil prices are at all-time highs defies common sense. As the 
Presiding Officer is well aware, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is an 
emergency stockpile of oil that already contains some 700 million 
barrels. In 2005, the Presiding Officer, Senator Carl Levin of 
Michigan, and I joined forces on a bipartisan amendment that directed 
the Department of Energy to better manage the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve by requiring the Department to avoid purchases when prices are 
high.
  There are two reasons why that should be done. First, the Federal 
Government should not be removing oil from the marketplace at a time 
when there is a lot of pressure on supplies, as there is right now.
  Second, it makes absolutely no sense for the Department of Energy to 
be buying oil at the height of the market. That is a bad deal for us as 
taxpayers. Unfortunately, I don't believe the Department of Energy is 
abiding by the Levin-Collins law. We questioned the Department at a 
recent hearing before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and 
there was no indication that the kind of analysis the law requires is 
being done. So I have called upon the President to stop filling the 
reserve until prices drop. It simply does not make sense for the 
administration to be making purchases right now.
  The Energy Information Administration has estimated that the impact 
on gas prices of these purchases for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is 
between 4 and 5 cents a gallon. Other experts believe it is 
considerably higher than that. At the hearing I mentioned, one energy 
expert said:

       DOE's actions added between 5 and 20 percent to the price 
     of oil.

  The Department of Energy should stop purchasing oil for the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, and it should stop immediately. There is simply no 
compelling homeland security or national security reason for these 
purchases to be made now.
  No. 2, we need to extend Federal regulation to the oil futures 
markets. Excessive speculation on futures markets is likely another 
factor pushing up oil prices. Unfortunately, there is a lack of 
publicly available data to track the effect of speculation on prices, 
and manipulation can go undetected on certain electronic markets that 
are unregulated. Experts testifying before our Investigations 
Subcommittee all agreed that greater transparency and better reporting 
of trades could help prevent abuses such as were documented in the 
natural gas markets in 2006. One of the experts testified that he 
believed the current high oil prices are inflated by as much as 100 
percent--driven by excessive speculation. Other experts think it is not 
that high. But shouldn't we know and the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission, which oversees the trading of agricultural commodities on 
the futures markets and also oversees the regulation of the energy 
futures markets as well? That would not prevent these markets from 
performing their important risk-hedging functions, but it would allow 
regulators to spot and act quickly upon evidence of deliberate attempts 
to distort prices and excessive speculation.
  No. 3, we should curtail the tax breaks for major oil industry 
companies and, instead, redirect those funds to consumers and to 
alternative energy.
  With net profits of a single oil company reaching almost $10 billion 
in a single quarter, we simply should not expect taxpayers who are 
struggling to pay their energy bills to continue to subsidize the oil 
industry. Congress should act to repeal the needless tax breaks for big 
oil companies and instead use those billions of dollars to fund the 
remaining proposals that will move us toward energy independence.
  During consideration of this year's budget resolution, the Senator 
from Michigan and I joined forces again to provide for the rescission 
of needless tax breaks for major oil companies. Our proposal would 
redirect the revenue to support renewable energy and energy efficiency 
initiatives. Our amendment was accepted as part of the Senate budget 
resolution. We need to build on that momentum and quickly take up 
legislation to enact this proposal once and for all.
  The fourth step we can take in the short-term: One program with an 
immediate impact is the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, 
better known as the LIHEAP program. It is the Federal grant program 
that provides vital funding to help our low-income and elderly citizens 
meet their home energy needs. Nationwide, over the last 4 years, the 
number of households receiving assistance under this program increased 
by 26 percent, but during that period, Federal funding increased by 
only 10 percent. So the obvious result is that, at a time of record 
high prices, the average benefit under the LIHEAP program actually 
dropped.
  We need to fully fund this program. I tell my colleagues that while 
it is a glorious spring here in Washington, Maine and many other States 
are still struggling with temperatures that drop into the thirties at 
night. We need to fully fund the LIHEAP program at the authorized level 
of $5.1 billion. And for the long term, we should also restructure this 
program to make it more flexible so that States can take a reasonable 
approach to low-income energy issues and better balance energy bill 
assistance so we can provide some grants to winterize the homes of 
those who qualify for low-income heating assistance.
  No. 5--and now I am getting into the long-term aspects of this plan--
we need to improve energy efficiency.

[[Page 6469]]

  Let me discuss the six steps toward the goal of energy independence. 
First is to make more efficient use of the energy to heat and power our 
homes, our offices, and our buildings.
  I have introduced a comprehensive energy bill that would double 
funding for the Department of Energy's weatherization program. On 
average, weatherizing a home reduces heating bills by 31 percent, and 
overall energy bills by $358 per year.
  The legislation would also provide predictable funding for the 
valuable Energy Star Program, which helps consumers buy energy-
efficient appliances. It would extend the renewable energy tax credit 
through 2011 and the residential investment tax credit for solar and 
energy-efficient buildings through 2012.
  It also includes an energy efficiency performance standard for 
utilities that would help them improve their efficiency. According to 
the Alliance to Save Energy, an energy efficient performance standard 
for utilities could save consumers $64 billion and avoid the need to 
build 400 powerplants, preventing 320 million metric tons of carbon 
dioxide emissions. Making buildings, appliances, and utilities more 
energy efficient would dramatically reduce our use of oil and save 
money for consumers at the same time.
  No. 6, we need to implement a renewable electricity standard. Another 
component in my 10-point energy plan would revamp the way we produce 
electricity in this country. We need a national renewable electricity 
standard that would require the utilities to generate at least 15 
percent of their electricity from environmentally sound, renewable 
energy sources by the year 2020. This would move us away from a 
reliance on coal and natural gas for electricity and diversify our 
energy supply to provide more price stability.
  (Mr. Sanders assumed the Chair.)
  Ms. COLLINS. There are 28 States, including Maine, that already have 
a renewable electricity standard. We should follow their lead and 
establish a national renewable electricity standard.
  I do wish to say, in enacting a standard, we need to make sure the 
benefits of renewable electricity reach rural areas, and that means 
building adequate transmission capabilities.
  I know the new Presiding Officer, the Senator from Vermont, is also 
very committed to this goal.
  No. 7, we should invest in cellulosic ethanol and renewable fuels. I 
want to distinguish between cellulosic ethanol versus corn-based 
ethanol. We have oversubsidized corn-based ethanol. It is causing 
tremendous distortions. It is causing shortages in food supplies. It is 
driving up the cost.
  I have talked with a baker in Lewiston, ME, who cannot buy rye flour 
anymore because it has been displaced by farmers switching to grow 
corn. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the very 
promising development of cellulosic ethanol which could be made, for 
example, from switchgrass and from wood chips, waste wood, for example. 
That is why I am proposing to expand tax credits for cellulosic 
biomass. At the same time, those fuels have a much smaller life cycle 
environmental footprint than does corn-based ethanol and traditional 
fuels.
  We can do so much in this area. I am proud researchers at the 
University of Maine have been at the forefront of developing 
commercially viable technologies to produce ethanol from cellulosic 
sources.
  In addition to cellulosic ethanol, my 10-point energy plan calls for 
the expansion of other sources of clean renewable energy. During the 
height of the oil crisis in the 1970s, many Maine families turned to 
wood as an affordable way to heat their homes. With oil prices soaring, 
wood is once again the fuel of choice for an increasing number of 
consumers.
  Unfortunately, many of the wood stoves that were purchased three 
decades ago are outdated, they are inefficient, they waste fuel, and 
they contribute to air pollution. The good news is the new style wood 
stoves emit 70 percent fewer emissions, and they produce as much energy 
with 30 percent less wood. This is a real breakthrough that allows 
consumers to get more energy out of their wood stoves and also to 
reduce the air pollution from wood stoves. In fact, I saw a 
demonstration where you could not see any emissions at all coming from 
these new clean-burning wood stoves because there is a second burn of 
the emissions so they are far more efficient.
  Unfortunately, making that change from an old dirty, inefficient wood 
stove to a modern, clean, and safer wood stove or a wood pellet stove 
is expensive. That is especially difficult for many families today. 
That is why I have introduced legislation to provide a tax credit so 
consumers can afford to trade in to these better wood stoves, and I am 
delighted the authors of the housing bill we recently passed agreed to 
include, at my behest and at the urging of others, a $300 tax credit 
for consumers who purchase these new clean-burning wood or pellet 
stoves.
  Wood is a renewable resource and its increased use for home heating 
is inevitable in these times of high oil prices. We now have the 
technology that makes their use better for the environment and for 
human health, as well as safer and more affordable.
  No. 8, we need to promote tidal, geothermal, solar, and wind energy. 
Other clean renewable energy sources include the tide in our oceans and 
the moderate temperatures that can be tapped under our land.
  The U.S. wave and tidal energy resource potential that could 
reasonably be harnessed is about 10 percent of national energy demands. 
We have to put all these sources together and look at the broader 
comprehensive picture.
  Once again, I am very proud that a consortium of the University of 
Maine, the Maine Maritime Academy, and industry is poised to become a 
key test bed for improved tidal energy devices.
  It still is more costly than traditional electricity production, and 
that is why we need to provide some tax incentives to spur this kind of 
alternative development in tidal, geothermal, solar, and wood energy.
  No. 9, we need to improve vehicle efficiency and alternatives to 
gasoline. We must provide more efficient transportation options. Last 
year, we took a giant step forward because Congress enacted, and the 
President signed into law, a long overdue increase in fuel economy 
standards for automobiles, SUVs, and light trucks that will save a 
million barrels of oil a day. That is a great start, but we can do even 
more.
  The amount of gasoline used in transportation amounts to 9.2 million 
barrels of oil a day. That is almost half our national consumption of 
20 million barrels of oil each day. Currently, we import about 12 
million barrels of oil a day. So if we reduce the consumption of oil 
products for transportation purposes, it goes a long way toward 
reducing our reliance on foreign oil and decreasing overall energy 
prices, or at least stabilizing them for consumers.
  Flex-fuel vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles can help us meet the 
challenge of energy independence and lower prices. We should extend the 
existing tax credits for alternative fuel vehicles and consider 
providing a tax credit for consumers who modify their existing vehicles 
to be flex-fuel capable.
  We need to put more money into research, into plug-in hybrid 
vehicles, and expand the tax credits in that area as well.
  Plug-in hybrids hold great promise. If all the new vehicles that are 
added to the American fleet for the next 10 years were plug-in hybrids, 
an additional 80 billion gallons of gasoline could be saved each year. 
That translates into almost 2 billion barrels of oil. It is 
significant. It cannot happen overnight, but let's put in place the 
policy that will help us get there.
  We also must do more to help existing vehicles be more energy 
efficient. The Energy bill I have introduced would direct the 
Department of Transportation to create a national tire fuel efficiency 
program that would include tire testing and labeling, energy-efficient 
tire promotions through incentives and information, and the creation of 
minimum fuel economy standards for tires. That makes a difference as 
well.
  Heavy-duty vehicles also deserve our attention. They move our 
economy. The Energy bill I have introduced

[[Page 6470]]

would help keep them on the move while helping to reduce both fuel 
consumption and emissions. It would require the Department of 
Transportation to develop a testing and assessment program to determine 
what is feasible to improve the efficiency of heavy-duty vehicles and 
then develop appropriate fuel economy standards.
  Additionally, we should provide a Federal tax credit for the purchase 
of idling-reduction technology for heavy vehicles, such as big trucks. 
That could save a trucker almost $1,600 in fuel costs and $2,000 in 
maintenance costs each year. It seems almost every week I read or hear 
or talk with another trucker in Maine who has gone out of business 
because of the cost of diesel. Think if through these policies we could 
help those truckers save that kind of money in fuel costs and 
maintenance each year. It would make the difference for many truckers 
between staying in business or being forced out of business.
  Finally, the 10th point of my plan involves public transportation. 
Public transportation is difficult in a State such as the Presiding 
Officer's and mine. There are only three cities in Maine that have 
regular public transportation. But it is important for the overall goal 
nationally of energy independence that we focus on public 
transportation for those areas where it is feasible.
  It is one of the most efficient ways we can get more passenger miles 
per gallon of gasoline. The energy legislation I have introduced would 
promote the development of the use of public transportation by 
subsidizing fares, encouraging employers to assist their employees with 
fares, as we do in the Senate, where we subsidize the employees who use 
the subway, and by authorizing funding to build energy-efficient and 
environmentally friendly modes of transportation, such as clean buses 
and light rail.
  The bill would direct the Department of Transportation to designate 
20 transit-oriented developmental corridors in urban areas by the year 
2015 and 50 by the year 2025. These corridors could be developed with 
the aid of grants to State and local governments to construct or 
improve facilities for motorized transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. We 
have to look at everything.
  In these times of high energy prices, when American families are 
struggling with the costs of filling their gas tanks and heating their 
homes, we must act in the short term to provide them some relief, and 
we must embrace fervently a national effort to achieve energy 
independence.
  This Nation has demonstrated time and time again throughout our 
history our ability to rise to the challenge. I remember when President 
Kennedy, in the 1960s, challenged our Nation to be the first to land a 
man on the Moon and how everyone rallied toward that challenge and we 
achieved the goal that the President set forth for us. Let's now 
establish another goal and embrace it as fervently. Let's establish the 
goal of energy independence by the year 2020. It is vital to our 
economic, our environmental, and our national security. If we embrace 
this goal, Mr. President, I am confident we can achieve it.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am glad Senator Akaka from Hawaii is on 
the Senate floor. As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, he 
has done terrific work on this bill. S. 1315 was reported out of 
committee 9 months ago--9 months ago. Senator Akaka has worked on a 
bipartisan basis to come up with a new set of benefits for our 
veterans, benefits that are long overdue to help those veterans who are 
returning from war and faced with serious medical challenges--to help 
them with housing, with education, and job training, and to right a 
wrong.
  Since World War II, we have realized those Filipinos who fought next 
to our soldiers in that war have not been treated fairly, and I want to 
thank Senator Akaka and Senator Inouye for their leadership in making 
certain the Filipinos who were there when we needed them in World War 
II have a chance in this bill to receive at least some benefit for that 
service.
  There were some 470,000 who originally served. There may be only 
20,000 left. Time has taken its toll. But for those remaining veterans, 
we owe them a debt of gratitude, and we should compensate them for 
service rendered on behalf of the United States. President Franklin 
Roosevelt called on the Army of the Philippines to stand with us, and 
they did. They fought and many were wounded. Some died in the process. 
If the United States is going to be known as a country that remembers 
its friends, we should remember our friends in the Philippines.
  This provision is opposed by the Republican side--maybe not all, but 
some, and they object to it. They will have a chance to debate that, 
and I hope we can draw a conclusion soon and move this bill forward.
  It is unfortunate that this bill, as important as it is for the 
veterans of the United States, has been subjected to a filibuster by 
the Republicans. They have done everything they can to stop this bill 
from coming to the floor. You would think that something as basic as 
veterans' benefits would be bipartisan. It certainly was in the 
committee. It should be on the floor of the Senate.
  Last Thursday, Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader, 
tried to call up this bill, and he was told no; that he would have to 
file cloture. To put that in common terms, it means we would have to 
wait--wait over the weekend, not finish the bill last week--and have a 
vote, which we had earlier today. The vote was at 12 o'clock, a vote 
which the Republicans insisted on before going to the bill. The final 
total on that vote was 94 to nothing. There wasn't a single Senator of 
either political party who voted against proceeding to this bill.
  So all we did was delay this bill for another 4 or 5 days, and we 
find ourselves at this very moment in the same position. The 
Republicans refuse to come forward and offer a plan for considering 
amendments under the bill. The time may come, and I hope it doesn't, 
when we face another cloture motion, another effort to stop this, a 
delay tactic from the Republican side of the aisle.
  Last week, the Republicans used this delay tactic to stop a technical 
corrections bill, a bill which just cleaned up some mistaken language--
poor grammar, poor spelling--in a bill passed years ago, and a bill 
that was important because it related to highway and bridge projects 
and that created good-paying jobs in the United States. The Republicans 
filibustered that bill. It went on for days and days and days. We 
thought, well, when it comes to a veterans bill, they are not going to 
use that filibuster again. But they did.
  To date, the Republicans have engaged in 67 filibusters during this 
session of Congress. They have broken the record. I guess it is a 
source of pride within their Republican conference. The previous record 
was 57 filibusters over a 2-year period. They have broken that record 
in 16 months with 67 filibusters. Each and every time they engage in 
these delaying and stalling tactics, it is an effort to stop 
legislation that would move us forward either in creating jobs, which 
are important for an economy that is facing a recession, or creating 
veterans' benefits for the thousands of veterans who expect and need a 
helping hand.
  The Republicans continue to use this strategy. I don't know, perhaps 
someone has inspired them to do this, but I wish they would think 
twice. This country's veterans and their families expect us to work in 
a bipartisan way to try to help them. We have many times. But in this 
bill, in this critically important bill on veterans' benefits, the 
Republicans have thrown every obstacle in our path that they can 
legally under the rules of the Senate. That still leaves us with a 
major responsibility. We owe it to the veterans to get this job done.

[[Page 6471]]

  I am glad Senator Akaka is here, keeping his lonely vigil on the 
Senate floor. I know in a minute we are going to recess and come back 
in about an hour, but I thank him for his leadership on this important 
bill. I am hopeful after the break we can come back to the floor and 
finally find an accommodation and agreement on both sides of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during today's 
session, all time during any previous recess and any upcoming recess be 
charged postcloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________