National Emergency Family Locator Act

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to give the President the temporary authority to freeze the price of gasoline and other petroleum products at their levels just prior to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina on the Gulf Coast of the United States. This authority would expire once supplies of these products have been restored to their pre-hurricane levels.

Our topmost priority, of course, must be to provide immediate aid directly to the victims of this immense tragedy. Hundreds of thousands of people have been driven from their homes. Thousands may have died. The destruction along the Gulf Coast is extensive, and much of New Orleans is still submerged. We must continue to place the highest priority on providing food, clothing, and shelter for the people displaced by the hurricane.

At the same time, we must start to take measures to address other consequences of the damage caused by Katrina. Katrina has damaged a number of oil refineries along the Gulf Coast, knocking out about ten percent of our daily gasoline production. Current estimates are that it will take several months before production is restored to pre-hurricane levels.

Gasoline prices have skyrocketed in the wake of Katrina. Last Friday, the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline in Michigan reached $3.13. Today the national average is about $3.05 per gallon. These prices are record highs in the United States. Even adjusted for inflation, these prices are higher than they were during the energy crises of the 1970s, when high energy prices helped push the economy into a recession.

For most people, driving the car each day is not a luxury but a necessity. Millions of Americans depend upon affordable gasoline and other petroleum products for essential goods and services, including transportation to and from work, schools, grocery stores, and medical care; home heating oil; jet fuel for the other airlines; and a host of other daily needs.

Most people cannot drive less to get to work, school, or to buy groceries, so they are forced to pay whatever the oil companies charge for gasoline. In the language of economics, demand for gasoline is largely inelastic. Higher prices will not lead to a reduction in demand, or an increase in speed of repairs, since pre-Katrina production and profits were already at record levels and were more than sufficient to provide a major incentive to speed up repairs.

Moreover, the massive and unjustified gasoline price increases of the last week will not bring on more supply--only more profits for oil companies, as well as severe hardships for millions of Americans. Higher prices will not bring on additional supply, in the short term, only more profits for the oil companies and more pain for consumers.

I do not favor price controls when the market is working properly. In a properly functioning market, prices are set by the law of supply and demand.

However, in the current situation, we do not have a properly functioning market. Part of the market infrastructure has been physically destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. Price cannot play its normal role under the laws of supply and demand because increasing prices cannot produce either an increase in supply short-term or a significant reduction in demand. In a largely inelastic market, like our gasoline markets, where people depend upon gasoline for life's necessities, and cannot significantly reduce their consumption, increasing prices in the aftermath of a disaster serve no function other than to enrich the sellers at the expense of the buyers.

At a time of national crisis and tragedy, it is unseemly for a few to gain huge profits at the expense of everyone else. In the wake of the hurricane, millions of Americans are opening their hearts and homes to aid to the victims of the hurricane. It is unfair for a few to gain huge profits while many others are sacrificing.

A frequent comment in recent discussions about the effectiveness of price controls is ``Price controls didn't work in the 1970s.'' However, price controls in the 1970s were imposed for long periods of time, several years in fact. In the current situation, we are talking about a much shorter period of freeze--indeed I am urging a temporary freeze until supplies are restored to pre-hurricane levels. Until then, the market cannot function properly: supply cannot be increased no matter how high the price. Hence, the experience of the 1970s is not relevant to the current situation.

Under the bill I am introducing, once the market is restored to its pre-hurricane condition, the authority in this bill to freeze prices would expire.

There is a recent precedent for this action. In 2001, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission imposed price caps on the wholesale price of electricity in California and other western markets in times when demand outstripped supply. FERC found the market was ``dysfunctional'' under these circumstances and price controls were necessary to provide ``just and reasonable'' rates for consumers.

President Bush supported FERC's price controls in the California electricity market. In so doing, the President referred to FERC's action as a ``market-based mitigation plan'' rather than price controls. Whatever the name, however, the effect was the same: when supply was inadequate to meet demand, the FERC stepped in to cap prices to keep rates just and reasonable.

The legislation I am introducing would provide the President with the authority to temporarily freeze the price of gasoline and other refined products at or below the levels that prevailed before Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast of the United States. This authority would terminate when the President determines that the domestic supply of refined petroleum products meets or exceeds the level of domestic supply before Hurricane Katrina.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my profound gratitude and heartfelt best wishes to a dear friend and dedicated American, William B. Bonvillian, who has served as my legislative director and chief counsel since I first took office in the U.S. Senate in January 1989. It is truly a bittersweet occasion to bid farewell this week to an outstanding and valued staff member with whom I have worked for 17 years in this hallowed institution that we both dearly cherish and respect. I can only say that, as Bill embarks on his new venture as director of federal relations for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, my loss is most surely MIT's gain.

Bill came to my Senate office as an accomplished and respected attorney who had previously served in the executive branch from 1977- 1980 as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, where he was involved in major legislation relating to transportation deregulation and funding issues. However, our long association actually goes back much further than that, to the early 1970s. Bill was my first intern when I was elected to the State Senate; we rode from New Haven to the State Capitol in Hartford

in my old copper-colored Pinto several times a week after his classes at Yale Divinity School. Later, I hired him for a summer position with our State Senate committee investigating State construction issues. After I was elected to my first term here in the U.S. Senate, I sought to rehire Bill, who was by then a partner at a national law firm working on corporate, real estate, transportation, and administrative law matters. I was beyond delighted when Bill agreed to leave his partnership to reenter public service.

Bill's record of service in the U.S. Senate has been one of enormous distinction. When I look back with pride on the many legislative initiatives I undertook with Bill's advice and assistance, I recall with great admiration his determination, tenacity, and passionate involvement in crafting legislation. He built a stellar reputation on both sides of the aisle for his skill in nurturing innovative ideas and negotiating and advancing measures through an often complex legislative process. Bill's intuitive skills and strong leadership abilities have helped result in the successful passage of many crucial policy initiatives for which I have fought. Bill has played a key role in formulating and enacting vitally important legislative policy in the areas of science and technology; economic growth; innovation, research, and development in the fields of defense, manufacturing, health, and bioterrorism protection programs; and ensuring America's global competitiveness.

In addition, Bill's extensive and tireless work has resulted in many other significant legislative victories in our years together, including those pertaining to environmental and wilderness protection; energy security; defense and foreign policy; health and social welfare; campaign finance reform; media safeguards for children; education; and transportation and our Nation's infrastructure. Bill also had a firm hand in the landmark law that led to the creation of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and new intelligence reform initiatives to ensure the protection of our citizens. His ability to forge a consensus on these and countless other complex issues is unequaled. Bill's influence has been felt throughout the halls of Congress, and he has left a great legacy here.

I would like to highlight key legislation, grouped by subject area, on which Bill and his legislative team have assisted me over the years. I note that many of these bills or parts of them have gone on to become laws:

Economic Growth--National Innovation Act, S. 2109 (2005); National Nanotechnology R&D Act, P.L. 108-153 (2003); R&D Doubling Act, S. 2046 (2000) and predecessor bill, S. 1305 (1997); Individual Development Accounts, S. 2023 (2000); Enterprise Zone Act, S. 1032 (1991)

Defense, Homeland Security, and Foreign Policy--Rebuild the Army (increasing Army end-strength), S. 1397 (2005); Intelligence Reform Act, P.L. 108-458 (2004); 9/11 Commission Act, P.L. 107-306; Homeland Security Department Authorization, S. 2452 (2002); Establishment of the Quadrennial Defense Review, S. Amdt. 4156 to S. 1745 (1996); Bosnia Intervention, S.J. Res. 44 (1995); Gulf War Resolution, H.R. 2100 (1991)

Environment, Conservation, and Energy Security--Vehicle and Fuel Choices for America Act, S. 2025 (2005); Climate Change Act, S. 1151 (2005) and prior climate bills dating back to 1991; Clean Air Act of 1990, S. 1630 (1990); Conte Connecticut River National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Act, S. 821 (1991); Weir Farm National Historic Site,

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the September 11 Family Humanitarian Relief and Patriotism Act and to urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

On September 11, 2001, the world we live in was torn apart. Each of us, no matter where we lived, shared in the overwhelming sense of loss and grief. We shared our grief with the victims, their loved ones, and their friends. And each of us joined together in the midst of the devastation to unite as Americans and to show the terrorists that we will not be divided.

At that time of grief, we stood together as families, as communities, and as one Nation. We were all personally touched by this outrageous crime. And we stood together to show the terrorists that although they might destroy our buildings, they could never destroy the foundation of our democracy.

Over the years our Nation has matured, and we have become a vast melting pot of cultures and of people, joining together to create the America of today that we love and cherish.

The terrorists sought to destroy our great Nation and the very values upon which our country was built. But they were sorely mistaken. No matter how hard they try, they will never force us to turn our back on our values.

And that means that we can never turn our back on the victims of the terrorist attacks or on their family members. On September 11, almost three thousand people were killed. Many of the victims left behind husbands, wives, sons, and daughters. We cannot turn our back on them. We can not allow these attacks, and the terrorists who perpetrated them, to undercut the love of freedom, justice, and community that makes us who we are.

Terrorists did not distinguish non-documented immigrants from documented immigrants or natural born citizens on September 11. On that date, we were all Americans, attacked by a determined enemy who sought to break our spirit and destroy our way of life.

That is why I have joined with my colleagues to introduce this legislation, which will provide legal recognition and protection to family members of non-citizen victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Many of our immigrant residents lost loved ones that day, and no person who has faced such personal heartache and hardship at the hands of terrorists should be forced to face deportation.

Moreover, these family members should be permitted to remain here to visit the memorials that are presently being built in New York and other locations to honor the victims who perished in the terrorist attacks. In many cases, these memorials will be all that husbands, wives, and children, have left to remember their loved ones.

This bipartisan bill will end deportation procedures, and allow husbands, wives, sons, and daughters of non-citizen victims killed in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia nearly four years ago to apply for green cards that will allow them to become permanent legal residents. The act will apply to dependents of the deceased victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as determined by the September 11 Victims Compensation Fund.

The USA Patriot Act initially allowed many of these individuals to stay in the country. However, that provision expired on September 10, 2002. Moreover, many others were never protected by the Patriot Act legislation. All of these individuals today face the prospect of deportation.

Although our government has not moved forward with deportation procedures, the status of these families, who have already been through so much, remains uncertain. This Act would provide the permanent relief these families need and deserve.

And so I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and in demonstrating to the spouses and children of the non-citizen victims of September 11 that we are all Americans.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the teacher tax act of 2005, which I am offering along with my good friends, Senator Warner and Senator Landrieu. Our bill increases to $400, and makes permanent, the tax deduction available to teachers who incur out-of-pocket expenses to purchase classroom supplies. It would also allow this above-the-line deduction for expenses related to professional development.

This bill builds upon the $250 tax deduction established by legislation we authored in 2001, which became law as part of that year's tax relief package. The Tax relief provided by that bill was later extended through the end of this year.

Increasing the deduction for teachers who buy classroom supplies is warranted by the facts. So often teachers in Maine, and throughout the country, spend their own money to improve the classroom experiences of their students. While many of us are familiar with the National Education Association's estimate that teachers spend, on average, $400 a year on classroom supplies, other surveys show that they are spending even more than that. Indeed, I have spoken to dozens of teachers in my home State who tell me they routinely spend far in excess of the $250 deduction limit--a few even as much as $1,000--on materials they use in their classrooms. At every school I visit, I find teachers who are spending their own money to improve the educational experiences of their students by supplementing classroom supplies. One such teacher is Debra Walker, who teaches kindergarten and first grade in the town of Milo, ME. She has taught for more than 25 years. Year after year, she spends hundreds of dollars on books, bulletin boards, computer software, crayons, construction paper, tissue paper, stamps and inkpads. She even donated her own family computer for use by her class. She described it well by saying, ``These are the extras that are needed to make learning fun for children and to create a stimulating learning environment.''

Another example is Tyler Nutter, a middle school math and reading teacher from North Berwick, ME. After teaching for just two years, Tyler incurred substantial ``startup'' fees as he built his own collection of needed teaching supplies. In his first years on the job, he spent well over $500 out-of-pocket each year, purchasing books and other materials that are essential to his teaching program. This tax deduction is, in Tyler's words, ``a nice recognition of the contributions that many teachers have made.''

It is important that this deduction also be available to teachers who incur expenses for professional development. While this tax relief provides modest assistance to educators, it is my view that students are its ultimate beneficiaries. Studies consistently show that well- qualified teachers, and involved parents, are the most important

contributors to student success. Educators themselves understand just how important professional development is to their ability to make a positive impact in the classroom. Teachers in Maine repeatedly tell me that they need, and want, more professional development. But tight school budgets often make funds to support this development impossible to get. By making professional development expenses deductible, this bill will help teachers take that additional course or pursue that advanced degree that will make them even better at what they love to do.

The teacher tax relief we have made available since 2001 is a step in the right direction. Increasing that deduction, and making it permanent, would be a small but appropriate means of recognizing our teachers for a job well done.

Mr. President, some folks were looking for a place to go on summer vacation on the Internet. A lot of people go to national parks. A couple of summers ago, my family and I went to Alaska and visited Denali, a national park bigger than my State. We had a wonderful time in Alaska. But if you go to the national park Web site, you can find national parks to visit in 49 States. There is one State that has no national park. It is my State.

I am reintroducing legislation Senator Biden and I introduced at the end of the last Congress. We will reintroduce that so we get our State on the road to having our own national park and providing people around the country and the world the opportunity to learn about our coastal heritage, which included the landing of the first Swedes and Finns when they came to America. They landed in Wilmington, DE, to establish the colony of New Sweden. I don't think the Finns called it that, but the Swedes did. We want to have a national park of our own that would include that discovery, commemorate that discovery.

Our bill authorizes the National Park Service to conduct a Special Resource Study of Delaware's coastal region. This study is the first step toward establishing the first national park in Delaware.

Delaware's coastal region is rich in historical sites, parks, and wildlife areas. This Special Resource Study will trace the various threads that make up the fabric of Delaware, which are an ideal microcosm for the tapestry of America. Together, these sites highlight the threads of history, heritage, commerce, and nature. The result would be a national park highlighting America's history, cultural heritage, commercial progress and natural beauty.

The study would be anchored on Fort Christina and the 7th Street Peninsula in Wilmington. It would extend south from there to include old New Castle and points along Delaware's coast in Kent and Sussex Counties, which have been the location of many significant events throughout America's history.

This proposed study will help encapsulate the human and natural activity that has occurred along our coast that has helped create the very fabric of our society.

I am confident this study will prove that a national park highlighting Delaware's rich coastal heritage would be a very appropriate and fitting addition to the National Park system. Our national park would demonstrate that coastal regions like those found in Delaware are a vital part of America's past, present, and future.

Delaware is first in so many ways, but it is the only state without a national park. Every year, millions of Americans plan their vacations around our nation's national park system. They log onto the Park Service web site and search for ideas for their family vacations. Right now, that search will turn up nothing for Delaware. With a national park unit here in Delaware, that will change.

In the future, those families will be considering a trip to Delaware to visit our national park. Those trips will be a significant boost to our economy and will teach new generations of Americans about Delaware's rich cultural heritage.

I have described to you today a vision resulting from the hard work of many dedicated Delawareans. Today, I take the next step in making their vision a reality.

I believe this is an exciting proposal and one that, when incorporated into the National Park System, will become an important element in preserving the wonderful human and natural history presented by our coastal region.