A bill to require the Commodity Futures Trading commission to take certain emergency action to eliminate excessive speculation in energy markets.

Mr. President, as we are about to begin the Fourth of July district work period in my State and throughout this country, many people are going to be getting into their automobiles and they are going to be traveling. In general, people who live in rural States such as Vermont don't have the option of getting on a subway. They don't have the option of getting on a bus to get to work. They use their automobile. In Vermont and all across this country, people who are driving have noticed that the price of gasoline at the pump has soared and is today much higher than it used to be.

According to the Energy Information Administration, the national average retail price for regular unleaded gasoline is $3.70 a gallon-- the highest price for this time of year since 2008. According to the AAA, drivers in three States have paid over $4 a gallon at the pump for more than a month, and those States are Hawaii, California, and Alaska. In my home State of Vermont, the current average for a gallon of gas is about $3.73.

When the price of gasoline goes up, a lot of people get hurt and the economy gets impacted. But mostly it affects working people who have no other option but traveling by car, and many of

these workers are making $10, $12, $15 an hour; and many of these workers have seen declines in their wages in recent years. Yet, in order to get to work to make a living, they have to get in the car and they have no choice but to pay soaring gas prices.

While gas prices are soaring, people should not be shocked or will not be shocked to know that the big oil companies, which have racked up $1.2 trillion in profits since 2001, are now telling us that the reason gas prices are going up is because of the volatile situation in Iraq. That is why suddenly gas prices have gone up--because of the conflict in Iraq.

The American people are sick and tired of hearing from the big oil companies using every excuse they possibly can. If it is snowing, the price of gas goes up. If there is conflict in the Middle East, the price of gas goes up. If it is raining, if it is sunny, if it is somebody's birthday, the price of gas goes up. Interestingly enough, we don't see that same logic when the price of gas should be going down, but it always seems to be going up. Meanwhile, the five biggest oil companies in America--again, not too surprisingly--continue to make huge profits. During the first quarter of this year, ExxonMobil made a profit of $9.1 billion--the first quarter; Shell made $7.3 billion, Chevron made $4.5 billion, and ConocoPhillips made $2.1 billion. The price of gas at the pump soars and the major oil companies make huge profits.

Last year, these five major oil companies--ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips--made $93 billion in profits. ExxonMobil alone made nearly $33 billion in profits in 2013.

So in the State of Vermont and all over this country, working people are seeing, in many cases, declines in their wages. Yet they have to get to work. Meanwhile, the price of oil, the price of gas soars, and the oil companies make out like bandits.

Here is the interesting point: When I was in high school--and I suspect kids all over the country are still being taught this--we learned about a theory called supply and demand. What supply and demand is about is when there is a lot of supply and limited demand, prices go down. When there is limited supply and a lot of demand, prices go up.

Well, guess what. To nobody's surprise, that is not the way it works in the oil industry. Today, there is more supply and less demand for gasoline than there was 5 years ago when the average price of a gallon of gas was just $2.69 a gallon. So let me repeat that. More supply, less demand, and today the price of a gallon of gas is $3.70 a gallon, but 5 years ago it was $2.69 a gallon. Where is the logic of supply and demand? Where is that process?

According to the EIA, there has been a 9 million barrel increase in the supply of gasoline over the past 5 years--a 9 million barrel increase. Since 2009, the United States has increased gasoline supplies by 4.3 percent. Supply has gone up. What about demand? According to the EIA, the United States is consuming 96,000 fewer barrels of gasoline than it did in 2009--a 1-percent drop in demand compared to 5 years ago. If the supply and demand theory were true, gasoline prices would be a bit lower--a bit lower--than they were 5 years ago--somewhere perhaps in the neighborhood of $2.69 a gallon. Instead, despite the increase in supply, despite the lowering of demand, the average price for a gallon of gas in the United States has gone up by nearly 38 percent over the last 5 years, from $2.69 a gallon to $3.70 a gallon. Let me repeat. Since 2009 the supply of gasoline has gone up by more than 4 percent and demand for gasoline has gone down by 1 percent. Yet prices at the pump are up by nearly 38 percent.

People say: We need more oil, we need more gas. It doesn't matter-- supply up, demand down, prices of gas at the pump soaring.

The truth is the high gasoline prices have less to do with supply and demand and more to do with Wall Street speculators driving prices up in the energy futures market. Over a decade ago, speculators only controlled about 30 to 40 percent of the oil futures market. Today, Wall Street speculators control about 80 percent of this market. Let me repeat. Wall Street speculators control about 80 percent of the oil futures market, even though many of them will never use a drop of the oil. People think that when people own oil on the oil futures market, they actually own it because they are going to use it. Maybe it is the airline industry; maybe it is the trucking industry; maybe it is oil fuel dealers. Wrong. The oil futures market is controlled by speculators who never use the end product and whose only goal in life is to drive prices up to make a huge profit, and that is exactly what they do.

We, as the elected officials of this country, who are presumably representing working families around America, have a responsibility to do everything we can to make sure the price of gasoline at the pump is based on the fundamentals of supply and demand and not Wall Street greed. That is why I am introducing legislation today to require the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to use all of its authority, including its emergency powers, to eliminate excessive oil speculation.

This bill is cosponsored by Senators Levin, Nelson, Blumenthal, McCaskill, Franken, Brown, Cardin, Baldwin, Whitehouse, Markey, Klobuchar, Shaheen, Merkley, and Hirono. Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro is introducing the companion bill in the House. I thank all of these Members for their support.

Our legislation, the Energy Markets Emergency Act, is identical to bipartisan legislation that overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 402 to 19 during a similar crisis in June of 2008.

Specifically, our bill directs the CFTC to do the following within 14 days of enactment:

No. 1: Immediately curb the role of excessive speculation in any contract market within the jurisdiction and control of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, on or through which energy futures or swaps are traded.

No. 2: Eliminate excessive speculation, price distortion, sudden or unreasonable fluctuations or unwarranted changes in prices or other unlawful activity that is causing major market disturbances that prevent gasoline and oil prices from accurately reflecting the forces of supply and demand.

There is now a growing consensus--this is not just the opinion of Bernie Sanders--there is a growing consensus that excessive speculation on the oil futures market is significantly contributing to the high prices the American people are seeing at the pump.

ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs, the IMF, the St. Louis Federal Reserve, the American Trucking Association, Delta Airlines, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, the New England Fuel Institute, the Consumer Federation of America, and many other organizations have all agreed that excessive oil speculation has significantly increased oil and gas prices.

Just a few years ago, Goldman Sachs--perhaps the largest speculator on Wall Street--came out with a report indicating that excessive oil speculation is costing Americans 56 cents a gallon at the pump--56 cents a gallon. I personally think that is a conservative estimate, but it is interesting that it comes from Goldman Sachs itself.

The CEO--and what can we say--the CEO of ExxonMobil has testified in the past that he believes excessive speculation has contributed as much as 40 percent to the price of a barrel of oil.

So what you are hearing is some of the Wall Street people--in a rare moment of honesty--acknowledging the impact of speculation. You are hearing the head of the largest oil company in America acknowledging the impact of speculation on gas prices. I think we do not need a whole lot of evidence to suggest this is a serious problem.

Three years ago my office obtained confidential information about how much Wall Street speculators were trading in the oil futures market on just one day--and that day was June 30, 2008--when the price of oil was over $140 a barrel and gas prices were over $4 a gallon. Here is what some of the biggest oil speculators were doing back then, on just one day of trading: June 30, 2008. This goes on every day. One day: Goldman Sachs bought and sold over 863 million barrels of oil, Morgan Stanley bought and sold over 632 million barrels of oil, Bank of America bought and sold over 112 million barrels of oil, Lehman Brothers--obviously now bankrupt--bought and sold over 300 million barrels of oil, Merrill

Lynch--bought by Bank of America--bought and sold over 240 million barrels of oil.

The only reason these firms were betting on the price of oil was to speculate and to make money. Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, they do not use oil. Their only function in this process is speculation, driving up prices and making huge profits.

The rise in oil and gasoline prices was entirely avoidable. The Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act required the CFTC to impose strict limits on the amount of oil that Wall Street speculators could trade in the energy futures market by January 17, 2011--over 3\1/2\ years ago.

Unfortunately, the CFTC has been unable to implement position limits due to opposition from Wall Street and a ruling by the DC Circuit Court. This is simply unacceptable. Millions and millions of Americans who are filling up their gas tanks today are disgusted. They know they are being ripped off, and they want us to protect their needs. The time is now to provide the American people relief at the gas pump before the situation gets even worse.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. President, as we are about to begin the Fourth of July district work period in my State and throughout this country, many people are going to be getting into their automobiles and they are going to be traveling. In general, people who live in rural States such as Vermont don't have the option of getting on a subway. They don't have the option of getting on a bus to get to work. They use their automobile. In Vermont and all across this country, people who are driving have noticed that the price of gasoline at the pump has soared and is today much higher than it used to be.

According to the Energy Information Administration, the national average retail price for regular unleaded gasoline is $3.70 a gallon-- the highest price for this time of year since 2008. According to the AAA, drivers in three States have paid over $4 a gallon at the pump for more than a month, and those States are Hawaii, California, and Alaska. In my home State of Vermont, the current average for a gallon of gas is about $3.73.

When the price of gasoline goes up, a lot of people get hurt and the economy gets impacted. But mostly it affects working people who have no other option but traveling by car, and many of

these workers are making $10, $12, $15 an hour; and many of these workers have seen declines in their wages in recent years. Yet, in order to get to work to make a living, they have to get in the car and they have no choice but to pay soaring gas prices.

While gas prices are soaring, people should not be shocked or will not be shocked to know that the big oil companies, which have racked up $1.2 trillion in profits since 2001, are now telling us that the reason gas prices are going up is because of the volatile situation in Iraq. That is why suddenly gas prices have gone up--because of the conflict in Iraq.

The American people are sick and tired of hearing from the big oil companies using every excuse they possibly can. If it is snowing, the price of gas goes up. If there is conflict in the Middle East, the price of gas goes up. If it is raining, if it is sunny, if it is somebody's birthday, the price of gas goes up. Interestingly enough, we don't see that same logic when the price of gas should be going down, but it always seems to be going up. Meanwhile, the five biggest oil companies in America--again, not too surprisingly--continue to make huge profits. During the first quarter of this year, ExxonMobil made a profit of $9.1 billion--the first quarter; Shell made $7.3 billion, Chevron made $4.5 billion, and ConocoPhillips made $2.1 billion. The price of gas at the pump soars and the major oil companies make huge profits.

Last year, these five major oil companies--ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips--made $93 billion in profits. ExxonMobil alone made nearly $33 billion in profits in 2013.

So in the State of Vermont and all over this country, working people are seeing, in many cases, declines in their wages. Yet they have to get to work. Meanwhile, the price of oil, the price of gas soars, and the oil companies make out like bandits.

Here is the interesting point: When I was in high school--and I suspect kids all over the country are still being taught this--we learned about a theory called supply and demand. What supply and demand is about is when there is a lot of supply and limited demand, prices go down. When there is limited supply and a lot of demand, prices go up.

Well, guess what. To nobody's surprise, that is not the way it works in the oil industry. Today, there is more supply and less demand for gasoline than there was 5 years ago when the average price of a gallon of gas was just $2.69 a gallon. So let me repeat that. More supply, less demand, and today the price of a gallon of gas is $3.70 a gallon, but 5 years ago it was $2.69 a gallon. Where is the logic of supply and demand? Where is that process?

According to the EIA, there has been a 9 million barrel increase in the supply of gasoline over the past 5 years--a 9 million barrel increase. Since 2009, the United States has increased gasoline supplies by 4.3 percent. Supply has gone up. What about demand? According to the EIA, the United States is consuming 96,000 fewer barrels of gasoline than it did in 2009--a 1-percent drop in demand compared to 5 years ago. If the supply and demand theory were true, gasoline prices would be a bit lower--a bit lower--than they were 5 years ago--somewhere perhaps in the neighborhood of $2.69 a gallon. Instead, despite the increase in supply, despite the lowering of demand, the average price for a gallon of gas in the United States has gone up by nearly 38 percent over the last 5 years, from $2.69 a gallon to $3.70 a gallon. Let me repeat. Since 2009 the supply of gasoline has gone up by more than 4 percent and demand for gasoline has gone down by 1 percent. Yet prices at the pump are up by nearly 38 percent.

People say: We need more oil, we need more gas. It doesn't matter-- supply up, demand down, prices of gas at the pump soaring.

The truth is the high gasoline prices have less to do with supply and demand and more to do with Wall Street speculators driving prices up in the energy futures market. Over a decade ago, speculators only controlled about 30 to 40 percent of the oil futures market. Today, Wall Street speculators control about 80 percent of this market. Let me repeat. Wall Street speculators control about 80 percent of the oil futures market, even though many of them will never use a drop of the oil. People think that when people own oil on the oil futures market, they actually own it because they are going to use it. Maybe it is the airline industry; maybe it is the trucking industry; maybe it is oil fuel dealers. Wrong. The oil futures market is controlled by speculators who never use the end product and whose only goal in life is to drive prices up to make a huge profit, and that is exactly what they do.

We, as the elected officials of this country, who are presumably representing working families around America, have a responsibility to do everything we can to make sure the price of gasoline at the pump is based on the fundamentals of supply and demand and not Wall Street greed. That is why I am introducing legislation today to require the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to use all of its authority, including its emergency powers, to eliminate excessive oil speculation.

This bill is cosponsored by Senators Levin, Nelson, Blumenthal, McCaskill, Franken, Brown, Cardin, Baldwin, Whitehouse, Markey, Klobuchar, Shaheen, Merkley, and Hirono. Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro is introducing the companion bill in the House. I thank all of these Members for their support.

Our legislation, the Energy Markets Emergency Act, is identical to bipartisan legislation that overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 402 to 19 during a similar crisis in June of 2008.

Specifically, our bill directs the CFTC to do the following within 14 days of enactment:

No. 1: Immediately curb the role of excessive speculation in any contract market within the jurisdiction and control of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, on or through which energy futures or swaps are traded.

No. 2: Eliminate excessive speculation, price distortion, sudden or unreasonable fluctuations or unwarranted changes in prices or other unlawful activity that is causing major market disturbances that prevent gasoline and oil prices from accurately reflecting the forces of supply and demand.

There is now a growing consensus--this is not just the opinion of Bernie Sanders--there is a growing consensus that excessive speculation on the oil futures market is significantly contributing to the high prices the American people are seeing at the pump.

ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs, the IMF, the St. Louis Federal Reserve, the American Trucking Association, Delta Airlines, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, the New England Fuel Institute, the Consumer Federation of America, and many other organizations have all agreed that excessive oil speculation has significantly increased oil and gas prices.

Just a few years ago, Goldman Sachs--perhaps the largest speculator on Wall Street--came out with a report indicating that excessive oil speculation is costing Americans 56 cents a gallon at the pump--56 cents a gallon. I personally think that is a conservative estimate, but it is interesting that it comes from Goldman Sachs itself.

The CEO--and what can we say--the CEO of ExxonMobil has testified in the past that he believes excessive speculation has contributed as much as 40 percent to the price of a barrel of oil.

So what you are hearing is some of the Wall Street people--in a rare moment of honesty--acknowledging the impact of speculation. You are hearing the head of the largest oil company in America acknowledging the impact of speculation on gas prices. I think we do not need a whole lot of evidence to suggest this is a serious problem.

Three years ago my office obtained confidential information about how much Wall Street speculators were trading in the oil futures market on just one day--and that day was June 30, 2008--when the price of oil was over $140 a barrel and gas prices were over $4 a gallon. Here is what some of the biggest oil speculators were doing back then, on just one day of trading: June 30, 2008. This goes on every day. One day: Goldman Sachs bought and sold over 863 million barrels of oil, Morgan Stanley bought and sold over 632 million barrels of oil, Bank of America bought and sold over 112 million barrels of oil, Lehman Brothers--obviously now bankrupt--bought and sold over 300 million barrels of oil, Merrill

Lynch--bought by Bank of America--bought and sold over 240 million barrels of oil.

The only reason these firms were betting on the price of oil was to speculate and to make money. Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, they do not use oil. Their only function in this process is speculation, driving up prices and making huge profits.

The rise in oil and gasoline prices was entirely avoidable. The Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act required the CFTC to impose strict limits on the amount of oil that Wall Street speculators could trade in the energy futures market by January 17, 2011--over 3\1/2\ years ago.

Unfortunately, the CFTC has been unable to implement position limits due to opposition from Wall Street and a ruling by the DC Circuit Court. This is simply unacceptable. Millions and millions of Americans who are filling up their gas tanks today are disgusted. They know they are being ripped off, and they want us to protect their needs. The time is now to provide the American people relief at the gas pump before the situation gets even worse.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a bill I am introducing that will provide the Department of Interior the necessary and appropriate authority to seek compensation from responsible parties who cause injury to public resources managed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service like National Wildlife Refuges, National Fish Hatcheries, and other Service facilities. The proposal would allow the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, USFWS, to recover costs for assessing injury and to restore, replace, or acquire equivalent resources without further Congressional appropriations. The National Park Service, NPS, under the Park System Resource Protection Act PSRPA--16 U.S.C. 19jj, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, NMSA-- 16 U.S.C. 1431, currently have similar authorities and its time USWFS were afforded this authority as well.

The Service Resource Protection Act, RPA, would enhance the protection and restoration of USFWS resources found on National Wildlife Refuges, National Fish Hatcheries and other Service lands, should injury or harm occur. The RPA is a proposed statute that specifically protects all living and non-living resources within Service lands and waters. Any funds collected to compensate for injury or destruction of Service resources would be used to rectify that specific harm without further Congressional appropriation. Under this authority, damages could be used to reimburse assessment costs; prevent or minimize resource loss; abate or minimize the risk of loss; monitor ongoing effects, and/or restore, replace, or acquire resources equivalent to those injured or destroyed.

Currently, USFWS Service manages more than 150 million acres of National Wildlife Refuge lands and 71 National Fish Hatcheries. The sum of USFWS's acres is greater than those lands and water resources managed by the NPS

and NOAA combined. USFWS has significant land based management responsibilities that are quite different from NOAA, in addition to marine and estuarine areas USFWS manages. Compared to National Parks, Refuges allow for a broader range of activities--such as hunting, fishing, and wildlife dependent activities. The large size of the USFWS's resource portfolio and the unique and varied stressors on these resources makes it imperative that the USFWS have the appropriate authority to seek damages from responsible parties who degrade or destroy USFWS resources and property.

Unlike NPS and NOAA, USFWS does not have the authority to recover damages, e.g., monetary compensation, from responsible parties to assess and restore injured resources without prior Congressional appropriation. Today, when Service resources are damaged or destroyed, the costs for repair and restoration of these resources falls upon the appropriated budget for the affected Refuge, often at the expense of other Refuge programs. Competing priorities can leave Service resources languishing until the refuge obtains appropriations from Congress to address the injury. This may result in more intensive injuries, higher costs, and long-term degradation of publicly-owned Service resources.

When bad actors harm public resources managed by USFWS the responsibility for remedying the problems caused by bad actors should not fall to the taxpayer to solve. More over the fact that currently to repair damages to USFWS resources may require earmarks in the budget to ensure these problems are resolved is doubly unfair in that such budget requirements take resources away from other worthwhile projects that are unrelated to fixing the problems caused by irresponsible actors. It is patently unfair for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of solving the mistakes and negligence of others. The public expects that Refuge resources--and the broad range of activities they support--will be available for future generations. Our bill ensures that persons responsible for harm, not taxpayers, should pay for any injury they cause.

While the Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration program established under the Oil Pollution Act and CERCLA establishes a unique process for the USFWS to seek damages in limited circumstances involving oil spills and or the release of hazardous substances. These laws do not apply to situations when toxics materials and regular solid waste are dumped on or near a refuge that are not formally defined as hazardous substances and the USFWS is not authorized to recover funds to address injury from the responsible party in these situations under existing statute. Additionally, for injuries caused by actions or mechanisms other than a `spill' of oil or release of a hazardous substance, such as illegal cutting of vegetation, destruction or vandalism of real property and facilities, e.g., kiosks, visitor centers, fire and abandoned debris, the USFWS has no statutory mechanism to recover costs for assessing and restoring the public's resources. In contrast, NPS and NOAA have statutory authority to recover civil damages for these types of injuries, and the funds go to the agencies for assessment and restoration.

USFWS manages 556 National Wildlife Refuges and 38 Wetland Management Districts, covering over 150 million acres, and accounting for 25 percent of public lands and waters managed by the Department of the Interior. The agency is also responsible for 71 National Fish Hatcheries and a National Conservation Training Center, which would also be covered by the proposed legislation. Management of the Refuge System prioritizes wildlife conservation and habitat management, but encourages the American public to enjoy the benefits of these lands. In the organic legislation, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, activities such as hunting, fishing, photography, wildlife observation, environmental education and interpretation were identified as priority public uses on Refuges.

Found in every U.S. State and territory, and within an hour's drive of most metropolitan areas, National Wildlife Refuges: attract approximately 45 million visitors each year; protect clean air and safe drinking water for nearby communities; protect more than 700 bird species, 220 mammals, 250 reptiles and amphibians, and 1,000 fish species; offers hunting on 322 refuges and fishing on 272 refuges; and generates more than $1.7 billion for local economies, creates nearly 27,000 U.S. jobs annually, provides $543 million in employment income, and adds more than $185 million in tax revenue.

The fiscal year 2014 appropriated budget for the Refuge System is approximately $72 million dollars, but it is estimated that the current operations and maintenance, O&M, backlog tops $3 billion dollars. The National Fish Hatchery System has a backlog in excess of $300 million. Because the Service does not have statutory authority to pursue recovery of damages from responsible parties, the cost of replacing or restoring injured Refuge or Hatchery resources typically gets included in the O&M project list, and requires tax-payer funding to fix. This legislation would allow the Service to recover damages directly from the person or persons that harmed the resource, thus removing this additional financial burden from taxpayers.

The legislation is not intended to generate revenue for the Service; instead, it aims to be budget neutral. Any funds collected to compensate for resource injuries will be used to rectify that specific injury without the need for Congressional appropriation. Under this authority, damages would be required to reimburse assessment costs; prevent or minimize resource loss; abate or minimize the risk of loss; monitor ongoing effects, and/or restore, replace, or acquire resources equivalent to those injured or destroyed.

By way of example, NPS has recovered damages on cases ranging from $125.00--$10 million dollars for assessment and restoration of injuries to resources on their lands. However, a direct comparison between USFWS and NPS is of limited value, since the two agencies have dissimilar missions and allow for different activities on their lands. The Refuge and Hatchery systems also manage many more individual land units and twice the acreage of the NPS.

USFWS administers several laws, such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, that provide for penalties and fees as part of civil or criminal proceedings. The RPA is a civil authority that would allow the Service to recover compensation in the form of monetary damages for costs associated with assessment and restoration of injured resources. It is intended to make the public whole: it is not meant to be punitive towards the person or persons who caused the injury. As part of the Annual Uniform Crime Report, AUCR, Service Law Enforcement has identified several categories of crimes in which they have prosecuted individuals for criminal violations and received associated fines. These fines are remitted to the U.S. Treasury and do not provide any means to assess injury or recover restoration costs associated with repairing or replacing resources. The Service has used Tort law to recover damages on occasion, but many of our cases do not meet the dollar threshold for pursuing a civil lawsuit by the Department of Justice. As a result, even though cases may be criminally prosecuted, most of them are not pursued as a potential civil claim.

However, if the Service had RPA authority, we could use a civil process to recover costs for assessment and restoration. The AUCR provides many examples of areas where the Service could use the civil authority under RPA in conjunction with other criminal procedures. In 2010, 39 arson offenses were reported on Service lands. Monetary loss to the government resulting from these cases totaled almost $850,000, but neither restoration funds, nor repair of the public's resources resulted from these prosecutions. Similarly, over 2,300 vandalism offenses, totaling $314,000 in monetary loss were documented. Other reported offenses number in the thousands and could lead to recovery of damages for many field stations: These include, illegal off-road use

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Core Opportunity Resources for Equity and Excellence Act with my colleague Senator Brown. I would also like to thank Representatives Fudge, Hinojosa, and Frederica Wilson for introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. Our accountability systems in education should help us measure our progress towards equity and excellence. The CORE Act will help advance that goal by requiring States to include fair and equitable access to the core resources for learning in their accountability systems.

Sixty years after the landmark decision of Brown v. Board of Education, one of the great challenges still facing this Nation is stemming the tide of rising inequality. We have seen the rich get richer while middle class and low-income families have lost ground. We see disparities in opportunity starting at birth and growing over a lifetime. With more than one in five school-aged children living in families in poverty, according to Department of Education statistics, we cannot afford nor should we tolerate a public education system that steers resources and opportunities away from the children who need them the most.

We should look to hold our education system accountable for results and resources. We know that resources matter. A recent study by scholars at Northwestern University and UC Berkeley found that increasing per pupil spending by 20 percent for low-income students over the course of their K-12 schooling results in greater high school completion, higher levels of educational attainment, increased lifetime earnings, and reduced adult poverty.

The recent Office of Civil Rights survey points to some gaps that we need to address, including that Black, Latino, American Indian, Native Alaskan students, and English learners attend schools with higher concentrations of inexperienced teachers; nationwide, one in five high schools lacks a school counselor; and between 10 and 25 percent of high schools across the nation do not offer more than one of the core courses in the typical sequence of high school math and science, such as Algebra I and II, geometry, biology, and chemistry.

The CORE Act will require State accountability plans and State and district report cards to include measures on how well the State and districts provide the core resources for learning to their students. These resources include: high quality instructional teams, including licensed and profession-ready teachers, principals, school librarians, counselors, and education support staff;

Rigorous academic standards and curricula that lead to college and career readiness by high school graduation and are accessible to all students, including students with disabilities and English learners; equitable and instructionally appropriate class sizes; up-to-date instructional materials, technology, and supplies; effective school library programs; school facilities and technology, including physically and environmentally sound buildings and well-equipped instructions space, including laboratories and libraries; specialized instructional support teams, such as counselors, social workers, nurses, and other qualified professionals; and effective family and community engagements programs.

These are things that parents in well-resourced communities expect and demand. We should do no less for children in economically disadvantaged communities. We should do no less for minority students or English learners or students with disabilities.

Under the CORE Act, states that fail to make progress on resource equity would not be eligible to apply for competitive grants authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. For school districts identified for improvement, the state would have to identify gaps in access to the core resources for learning and develop an action plan in partnership with the local school district to address those gaps.

The CORE Act is supported by a diverse group of organizations, including the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, American Federation of Teachers, American Library Association, First Focus Campaign for Children, League of United Latin American Citizens, National Education Association, Opportunity Action, and the Coalition for Community Schools. Working with this strong group of advocates and my colleagues in the Senate and in the House, it is my hope that we can build the support to include the CORE Act in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I urge my colleagues to join us by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. President, on December 30, 2013, outside of Casselton, ND, a train carrying crude oil derailed setting off a series of explosions and fire. The first on the scene that day were our local first responders from the Casselton Fire Department, a small volunteer department.

Whether floods, tornados, accidents, or man-made incidents, our local first responders are on the front line and we need to make sure they are trained and prepared to handle anything that may come their way and that they have the equipment necessary to do their jobs effectively and efficiently. The incident in Casselton and others across the country have shined a bright light on the need to make sure our local first responders are prepared specifically for emerging threats and hazards.

Only a few short years ago, trains carried very little crude. And when crude was carried by rail, it was in relatively small amounts mixed in with a variety of other commodities and container shipments. Since that time, our country has experienced impressive economic growth in the oil industry, but with that important growth we have seen an exponential increase in shipments of crude by rail. According to the Association of American Railroads, the number of carloads carrying crude oil on major freight railroads in the U.S. grew by more than 6,000 percent between 2008 and 2013. Now, we are seeing entire trains of linked tanker cars carrying more than half a million barrels of crude to market.

As we witnessed in Casselton, had the first responders not had the training they did, this disaster could have been much worse. It's important that our local first responders have access to training to prepare them for these emerging threats and hazards. Traffic continues to increase on our rail system, and we must make sure local first responders in our communities are equipped to respond quickly and appropriately.

To improve first responder training, I am introducing the RESPONSE Act to bring together relevant agencies, emergency responders, technical experts and the private sector under FEMA's National Advisory Council to review the training, resources, best practices and unmet needs on emergency response to railroad hazmat incidents, including crude oil transport. This group would be tasked with reviewing current training, funding, existing emergency response plans and providing recommendations on steps to enhance emergency responder training and improve the allocation of resources to meet the needs.

Our local first responders are on the front lines and will be the first to respond in an emergency. We need to make sure they are equipped with the knowledge and training to protect our communities. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort.