A bill to provide grants from moneys collected from violations of the corporate average fuel economy program to be used to expand infrastructure necessary to increase the availability of alternative fuels.

Mr. President, it has been more than a decade since the U.S. Senate last addressed fixing health care. I do not think it is morally right for the Senate to duck on health care any longer and that is why I am proposing legislation today to provide affordable, guaranteed, private health coverage for all Americans.

The legislation, called the Healthy Americans Act, ensures care for the 46 million Americans who now live without health insurance, frees business owners from the skyrocketing costs of insuring their workers, and promises every American health care coverage that can never be taken away. My proposal is fully paid for, holds down health care cost growth in the future and provides coverage just like Members of Congress can get now.

America spent $2.2 trillion on health care last year. PriceWaterhouseCoopers expects premiums will increase 11 percent this year alone and I believe the American health care system as we know it is not sustainable.

Our current employer-sponsored health insurance system is a historic accident. In the 1940s, employers needed a way to attract workers as wage and price controls continued. Our country needs a uniquely American solution that works for an economy that is competing not just with the company across town but the company across the world. Americans need a health care system that works for individuals and families, and encourages people to stay healthy instead of only seeking care after they are sick.

The Healthy Americans Act does this and more. It doesn't take long to explain how the Healthy Americans Act works. From the first day individuals, families and businesses win. The Healthy Americans Act cuts the link between health insurance and employment altogether. Under the Healthy Americans Act, businesses paying for employee health premiums are required to increase their workers' paychecks by the amount they spent last year on their health coverage. Federal tax law is changed to hold the worker harmless for the extra compensation, and the worker is required to purchase private coverage through an exchange in their State that forces insurance companies to offer simplified, standardized coverage, with benefits like a Member of Congress gets, and prohibits insurers from engaging in price discrimination.

Requiring employers to cash out their health premiums, as I propose in the Healthy Americans Act, is good for both employers and workers. With health premiums going up 11 percent this year, employers are going to be glad to be exempt from these increases. With the extra money in their paycheck, workers have a new incentive to shop for their health care and hold down their cost. If a worker can save a few hundred dollars on their health care purchase, they can use that money for something else they need.

In addition, the Healthy Americans Act is easy to administer and guarantees lifetime health security. Once you have signed up with a plan through an exchange in the State in which you live, that is it; you have completed the administrative process. Even if you lose your job or you go bankrupt, you can never have your coverage taken away. Sign up, and the premium you pay for the plan and all of the administrative activities are handled through the tax system. For those who cannot afford private coverage, the Healthy Americans Act subsidizes their purchases.

Businesses that have not been able to afford health coverage for their workers, under the new approach, will pay a fee--one that is tiered to their size and revenue, with some paying as little as 2 percent of the national average premium amount per worker for that basic benefit package.

It will be easy to administer, locally controlled, with guaranteed coverage as good as your Member of Congress gets. The Lewin Group has costed out my proposal and reports that it is fully paid for and in addition to expanding coverage for millions of people, guaranteeing health benefits as good as their Member of Congress gets, it also saves $4.5 billion in health spending in the first year. Money is saved by reducing the administrative costs of insurance, reducing cost shifting, and preventing those needless hospital emergency room visits. Also, there are substantial incentives that come about because insurance companies would have to compete for the business of consumers, who would have a new incentive to hold down health costs.

There are other parts of the Healthy Americans Act I wish to describe briefly. As the name of the legislation suggests, I believe strongly that fixing American health care requires a new ethic of health care prevention, a sharp new focus in keeping our citizens well, and trying to keep them from falling victim to skyrocketing rates of increase in diabetes, heart attack, and strokes.

Spending on these chronic illnesses is soaring, and it is especially sad to see so many children and seniors fall victim to these diseases. Yet many Government programs and private insurance devote most of their attention to treating Americans after they are ill and give short shrift to wellness.

Under the Healthy Americans Act, there will be for the first time significant new incentives for all Americans to stay healthy. They are voluntary incentives, but ones that I think will make a real difference in building a national new ethic of wellness and health care prevention.

Parents who enroll children in wellness programs will be eligible for discounts in their own premiums. Instead of mandating that parents take youngsters to various health programs--and maybe they do and maybe they don't--the Healthy Americans Act says when a parent takes a child to one of those wellness programs, the parent would be eligible to get a discount on the parent's health premiums.

Under the Healthy Americans Act, employers who financially support health care prevention for their workers get incentives for doing that as well. Medicare is authorized to reduce outpatient Part B premiums so as to reward seniors trying to reduce their cholesterol, lose weight, or decrease the risk of stroke. It has never been done before. For example, Part B of Medicare, the outpatient part, doesn't offer any incentives for older Americans to change their behavior. Everybody pays the same Medicare Part B premium right now. The Healthy Americans Act proposes we change that and ensures that if a senior from Virginia or Oregon or elsewhere is involved in a wellness program, in health care prevention efforts, like smoking cessation, they could get a lower Part B premium for doing that.

The preventive health efforts I have described are promoted through new voluntary incentives under the Healthy Americans Act, not heavy- handed mandates. What this legislation says is--let's make it more attractive for people to stay healthy and change their behaviors to promote the kind of wellness practices we all know we should do but need an incentive to follow.

Finally, and most importantly, the Healthy Americans Act does not harm those who have coverage in order to help those who have nothing. The legislation makes clear that all Americans retain the right to purchase as much health care coverage as they want. All Americans will enjoy true health security with the Healthy Americans Act, a lifetime guarantee of coverage at least as good as their Member of Congress receives.

A recent ``Health Affairs'' article pointed out that more than half of the Nation's uninsured are ineligible for public programs such as Medicaid, but do not have the money to purchase coverage for themselves.

At present, for most poor people to receive health benefits, they have to go out and try to squeeze themselves into one of the categories that entitles them to care. Under the Healthy Americans Act, low-income people will receive private health coverage, coverage that is as good as a Member of Congress gets, automatically. Like everyone else, they will sign up through the exchange in their State. When they are working, the premiums they owe are withheld from their paycheck. If they lose their job, there is an automatic adjustment in their withholding.

In addition, under the Healthy Americans Act, it will be more attractive for doctors and other health care providers to care for the poor. Those who are now in underfunded programs, such as Medicaid, are going to be able to have private insurance that pays doctors and other providers commercial rates which are traditionally higher than Medicaid reimbursement rates.

Because low-income children and the disabled are so vulnerable, if Medicaid provides benefits that are not included in the kind of package Members of Congress get, then those low-income folks would be entitled to get the additional benefits from the Medicaid Program in their State.

The Healthy Americans Act also makes changes in Medicare. As the largest Federal health program, Medicare's financial status is far more fragile than Social Security. Two-thirds of Medicare spending is now devoted to about 5 percent of the elderly population. Those are the seniors with chronic illness and the seniors who need compassionate end-of-life health care. The Healthy Americans Act strengthens Medicare for both seniors and taxpayers in both of these areas.

In addition to reducing Medicare's outpatient premiums for seniors who adopt healthy lifestyles and reduce the prospect of chronic illness, primary care reimbursements for doctors and other providers get a boost under the Healthy Americans Act. Good primary care for seniors also reduces the likelihood of chronic illness that goes unmanaged. This reimbursement boost is sure to increase access to care for seniors--and I see them all over, in Oregon and elsewhere--who are having difficulty finding doctors who will treat them.

To better meet the needs of seniors suffering from multiple chronic illnesses, the Healthy Americans Act promotes better coordination of their care by allowing a special management fee to providers who better assist seniors with these especially important services.

Hospice law is changed so that seniors who are terminally ill do not have to give up care that allows them to treat their illness in order to get the Medicare hospice benefit. In addition, the Healthy Americans Act empowers all our citizens wishing to make their own end-of-life care decisions. The legislation requires hospitals and other facilities to give patients the choice of stating in writing how they would want their doctor and other health care providers to handle various end-of- life care decisions.

When I announced the Healthy Americans Act last December, I stood with an unprecedented coalition of labor and business. Andy Stern, president of SEIU said ``It is time for fundamental, not incremental change and Senator Wyden has a plan that is practical and principle, and sets down a moral test'' 'Why doesn't every American have the right to the same health care as the President, the Vice President, 535 members of Congress and 3 million Federal workers?' '' Steve Burd, the CEO of Safeway, a Fortune 50 company that has focused on prevention and wellness, called the Healthy Americans Act ``an innovative proposal that lays a foundation to begin a serious discussion on health care reform in this country.''

Ron Pollack of Families USA, listed the principles embodied in the Healthy Americans Act that he believes are important: universality; subsides to make the coverage affordable; community rating rules so the sicker and older are not priced out of the market; and benefits like a Member of Congress has today.

Also at my press conference was Mike Roach, of Portland, OR, a 30- year member of National Federation of Independent Businesses. He owns a clothing store in Portland and employs eight people. He believes the Healthy Americans Act will help him attract good employees. And Bob Beal, president of Oregon Iron Works, an Oregon-based company that competes internationally, believes that we must also address the skyrocketing health care costs that make it harder for companies like his in the international market place.

Like me, the people who stood by me when I announced the Healthy Americans Act believe we need to move the health care debate forward and cannot afford to let more time to go by. The last time Congress took a serious look at reforming health care, there wasn't anything resembling this kind of coalition of labor, business, low-income and end-of-life advocates standing together to call for action.

In tackling one-seventh of the economy, invariably technical issues arise. I want to thank many people who have assisted along the way. Len Nichols of the New America Foundation sent me e-mails at 2 in the morning that helped refine provisions. John Sheils, Randy Haught and Evelyn Murphy of the Lewin Group assisted in telling us our numbers worked or didn't. The Congressional Research Service staff followed up on questions from the common to the obscure. That group included: Bob Lyke, Jeanne Hearne, April Grady, Julie Whitaker, Christine Scott, Chris Peterson, Richard Rimkunas, Karen Trintz, Julie Stone and Andrew Sommers. The Senate Legislative Counsel staff translated the ideas and concepts into legislative language. They devoted an enormous amount of time in getting the ideas and the language right. I'd like to thank Mark Mathiesen, Mark McGunagle, Bill Baird, John Goetcheus, Stacy Kern- Sheerer, Kelly

Malone and Ruth Ernest for their patience and extraordinary effort.

On my staff, Joshua Sheinkman, my legislative director and Jeff Michaels, my administrative assistant, were instrumental in completing the tax and business sections of the bill. Emily Katz who started in my office as a legislative fellow and became a permanent part of the Wyden health team made sure we had credible facts and statistics. Last but not least, I would like to thank Stephanie Kennan, my Senior Health Policy Adviser for the last 9 years who played devil's advocate, worked through the conflicting and evolving ideas, and kept the many threads of the bill working together.

The full text of the Healthy Americans Act and the Lewin analysis are available on my Web site.

In closing, I believe that without your health, you don't get to the starting line of life. For too long, the Congress has dodged the debate and chosen to slice off parts of the issue. And as worthy as those past efforts have been to help certain segments of our citizens, all Americans deserve guaranteed coverage like their Member of Congress, and no one should go to bed at night worrying about losing their health care. It is time for Congress to provide 21st century solutions to one of the most important issues our country must address. The Healthy Americans Act starts that debate.

I ask unanimous consent, that the Healthy Americans Act section-by- section summary, and examples of how the legislation would affect individuals and families and employers be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Senators Craig, Kennedy, Martinez, Boxer, Voinovich, and several others are once again introducing legislation that will address the chronic labor shortage in our Nation's agricultural industry. This bill is a priority for me and for the tens of thousands of farmers who are currently suffering--and I hope we will move it forward early in this Congress.

The Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act, or AgJOBS, is the product of more than ten years of work. It is a bipartisan bill supported by growers, farmers, and farm workers alike. It passed the Senate last year as part of the comprehensive immigration reform bill last spring in the 109th Congress. It is time to move this bill forward.

The agricultural industry is in crisis. Farmers across the Nation report a twenty percent decline in labor.

The result is that there are simply not enough farm workers to harvest the crops.

The Nation's agricultural industry has suffered. If we do not enact a workable solution to the agricultural labor crisis, we risk a national production loss of $5 billion to $9 billion each year, according to the American Farm Bureau.

California, in particular, will suffer. California is the single largest agricultural State in the Nation. California agriculture accounts for $34 billion in annual revenue. There are 76,500 farms that produce half of the Nation's fruits, vegetables, and nuts from only 3 percent of the Nation's farmland. California farms produce approximately 350 different crops: pears, walnuts, raisins, lettuce, onions, cotton, just to name a few.

Many of the farmers who grow these crops have been in the business for generations. They farm the land that their parents and their grandparents farmed before them.

The sad consequence of the labor shortage is that many of these farmers are giving up their farms. Some are leaving the business entirely. Others are bulldozing their fruit trees--literally pulling out trees that have been in the family for generations--because they do not have the labor they need to harvest their fruit.

Once the trees are gone, they are replaced by crops that do not require manual labor. And our pears, our apples, our oranges will come from foreign sources. The trend is quite clear. If there is not a means to grow and harvest our produce here, we will import produce from China, from Mexico, from other countries who have the labor they need.

We will put American farmers out of business. And there will be a ripple effect felt throughout the economy: in farm equipment, inputs, packaging, processing, transportation, marketing, lending and insurance. Jobs will be lost and our economy will suffer.

The reality is that Americans have come to rely on undocumented workers to harvest their crops for them.

In California alone, we rely on approximately one million undocumented workers to harvest the crops. The United Farm Workers estimate that undocumented workers make up as much as 90 percent of the farm labor payroll. Americans simply will not do the work. It is hard, stooped labor, requiring long and unpredictable hours. Farm workers must leave home and travel from farm to farm to plant, prune, and harvest crops according to the season. We must come to terms with the fact that we rely on an undocumented migrant work force. We must bring those workers out of the shadows and create a legal and enforceable means to provide labor for agriculture. That realization is what led to the long and careful negotiations creating AgJOBS.

The AgJOBS bill is a two part bill. Part one identifies and deals with those undocumented agricultural workers who have been working in the United States for the past 2 years or more. Part two creates a more usable H-2A Program, to implement a realistic and effective guest worker program.

The first step requires undocumented agricultural workers to apply for a ``blue card'' if they can demonstrate that they have worked in American agriculture for at least 150 workdays over the past 2 years. The blue card entitles the worker to a temporary legal resident status. The blue card itself is encrypted and machine readable; it is tamper and counterfeit resistant, and contains biometric identifiers unique to the farm worker.

The second step requires that a blue card holder work in American agriculture for an additional 5 years for at least 100 workdays a year, or 3 years at 150 workdays a year. Blue card workers would have to pay a $500 fine. The workers can travel abroad and reenter the United States and they may work in other, non-agricultural jobs, as long as they meet the agricultural work requirements.

The blue card worker's spouse and minor children, who already live in the United States, may also apply for a temporary legal status and identification card, which would permit them to work and travel. The total number of blue cards is capped at 1.5 million over a five year period and the program sunsets after 5 years. At the end of the required work period, the blue card worker may apply for a green card to become a legal permanent resident.

There are also a number of safeguards. If a blue card worker does not apply for a green card, or does not fulfill the work requirements, that individual can be deported.

Likewise, a blue card holder who commits a felony, three misdemeanors, or any crime that involves bodily injury, the threat of serious bodily injury, or harm to property in excess of $500, cannot get a green card and can be deported.

This program, for the first time, allows us to identify those hundreds of thousands of farm workers who now work in the shadows. It requires the farm workers to come forward and to be identified in exchange for the right to work and live legally in the United States. And it gives farmers the legal certainty they need to hire the workers they need. The program also modifies the H-2A guest worker program so that it realistically responds to our agricultural needs.

Currently, the H-2A program is bureaucratic, unresponsive, expensive, and prone to litigation. Farmers cannot get the labor when they need it.

AgJOBS offers a much-needed reform of the outdated system. The labor certification process, which often takes 60 days or more, is replaced by an ``attestation'' process. The employer can file a fax-back application form agreeing to abide by the requirements of the H-2A program. Approval should occur in 48 to 72 hours. The interstate clearance order to determine whether there are U.S. workers who can qualify for the jobs is replaced by a requirement that the employer file a job notification with the local office of the State Employment Security Agency. Advertising and positive recruitment must take place in the local labor market area.

Agricultural associations can continue to file applications on behalf of members. The statutory prohibition against ``adversely affecting'' U.S. workers is eliminated. The Adverse Effect Wage Rate is instead frozen for 3 years, and thereafter indexed by a methodology that will lead to its gradual replacement with a prevailing wage standard. Employers may elect to provide a housing allowance in lieu of housing if the governor determines that there is adequate rental housing available in the area of employment.

Inbound and return transportation and subsistence is required on the same basis as under the current program, except that trips of less than 100 miles are excluded, and workers whom an employer is not required to provide housing are excluded.

The motor vehicle safety standards for U.S. workers are extended to H-2A workers. Petitions for admission of H-2A workers must be processed and the consulate or port of entry notified within 7 days of receipt. Requirements are the same as current law.

Petitions extending aliens' stay or changing employers are valid upon filing. Employers may apply for the admission of new H-2A workers to replace those who abandoned their work or are terminated for cause and the Department of Homeland Security is required to remove H-2A aliens who abandoned their work. H-2A visas will be secure and counterfeit resistant.

A new limited Federal right of action is available to foreign workers to enforce the economic benefits required under the H-2A program, and any benefits expressly offered by the employer in writing. A statute of limitations of 3 years is imposed.

Finally, lawsuits in State court under State contract law alleging violations of the H-2A program requirements and obligations are expressly preempted. Such State court lawsuits have been the venue of choice for litigation against H-2A employers in recent years.

AgJOBS is the one part of the immigration bill about which there is uniform agreement. Everyone knows that agriculture in America is supported by undocumented workers. As immigration enforcement tightens up, and increasing numbers of people are prevented from crossing the borders or are being deported, the result is our crops go unharvested. We are faced today with a very practical dilemma and one that is easy to solve. The legislation has been vetted over and over again. Senator Craig, I, and a multitude of other Senators have sat down with the growers, with the farm bureaus, with the chambers, with everybody who knows agriculture, and they have all signed off on the AgJOBS bill. This is our opportunity to solve a real problem.

I ask my colleagues to join this bipartisan coalition and support this legislation. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today before the Senate. This is an issue this Senate visited 9 months ago in the month of May. Nine months ago, the Senate tackled what I submit is the most important domestic issue in the United States of America and in every State. That is the issue of legal immigration and illegal immigration.

In that debate of what became known as a comprehensive immigration reform bill, I submitted an amendment that ended up being amendment No. 1. The amendment simply said that before any provision of this act that grants legal status to someone who is in America illegally takes effect, the Secretary of Homeland Security will certify to the Congress that all of the provisions of border security contained in the bill were funded, in place, and operational. It become known as a trigger-- and it was a trigger--because the immigration issue is not like when you can never figure what is the chicken, what is the egg, and what came first. There is no way to reform illegal immigration unless you first stop the porous borders we have and the flow of illegal immigrants. But to do only one without the other is a terrible mistake.

The result of last year's debate was the Senate passed a bill without the trigger that granted new legal statuses. Although it provided for the authorization of border security, it did not provide for the guarantee of border security. The House reaction was, we want border security only, and the debate to this day between the House and the Senate has been the Senate is for comprehensive reform and the House is for border security only and never the twain will meet. The twain must meet. It is the No. 1 domestic issue.

I come to the Senate today to introduce a major immigration reform bill that is the bridge from where we are to where we must go. For a moment, I will discuss the provisions of that proposal.

First of all, it contains the trigger. It predicates any reform of immigration that grants legal status to someone here illegally to be noneffective until we have first closed the doors to the south and to the north. It provides for all the security measures the Senate passed last year--and they are 2,500 new port-of-entry inspectors, 14,000 border inspectors, trained and ready to deploy, $454 million for unmanned aerial vehicles to give us the 24/7 eyes in the sky essential to enforcement on our border, authorization and ultimate appropriation for those barriers and those fences and those roads that are necessary for our agents to patrol, 20,000 beds for detention, to end the practice of cash and release.

When I came to the Senate 2 years ago as a Georgian and one who loves the outdoors, I thought ``catch and release'' was a fishing term. I found out it became a border term, where we would catch people, tell them to go home, release them and they would wait for us to leave and come back again.

We must remember the reason we have this problem is we have the greatest Nation on the face of this Earth. We do not find anyone trying to break out of the United States of America. They are all trying to break in and for a very special reason: The promise of hope, opportunity, and jobs. But we must make the right way to come to America be the legal way to come to America, not the ease of crossing our border in the dark of night under some other cover.

Lastly, an integral part of border security is a verifiable program, where

America's employers can be given a verifiable ID by someone who is here legally that verifies they are who they say they are. The biggest growth industry in the United States of America on our southwestern border is forged documents. We have a proliferation today of forged documents, where illegal aliens have legal-looking documents and we have a customs and immigration system that cannot tell an American farmer or an American employer that, in fact, the document they were shown is, in fact, right or wrong. That has to be fixed.

Once those provisions are in, we have a secure border. Interestingly enough, it takes about the same amount of time to put in the barriers, get unmanned aerial vehicles in the air, train the border security and port-of-entry people as it takes to get the verifiable identification system in place. We know both will take about 24 months.

When we have the trigger, it does not protract reform, but it precedes the implementation of what is going to take 24 months to do anyway. And all of a sudden we have a new paradigm in America. Those who want to come here realize the way to come is the legal way, not the illegal way. They learn there are consequences to coming illegally and employers know when they get an ID they can either swipe it on a computer or they can go up on the Internet and code to customs and immigration and find out that person is legal. The paradigm changes, and then the hope and opportunity of reforming legal immigration in this country can become a reality.

I am not an obstructionist to doing it. In fact, if anything needs to be done, we need to reform the legal system because we almost promote, through the rigidity and difficulty of legal immigration, coming here illegally because we are looking the other way on the border. We have a historical precedent.

In 1986, we reformed immigration with the Simpson Act. We granted 3 million people amnesty, said we were going to secure the border and didn't. Today, we have 12 million because we did not secure that border. That can never happen again.

Second, if the border is secure and we give people who are here illegally but are lawfully obeying the laws a chance to come forward, we can identify who is here who is not a problem.

And you, also, leave open, for those who do not come forward whom you must concentrate on, to see to it they are not here for the wrong reasons and they go home. But you can never enforce the system internally before you first close the external opportunity to come through illegal immigration.

Mr. President, in May 1903, Anders Isakson came through Ellis Island because of the potato famine in Scandinavia. In 1916, my father was born to him and his wife, Josephine. My father became a citizen of this country because he was born on our soil. In 1926, my grandfather became a naturalized citizen of the United States of America.

In my home today, framed and hanging on the wall, are his naturalization certificates from 1926, when he raised his right arm and pledged his allegiance to the United States of America. There is no one who has greater respect and greater joy in the promise of this country and the opportunity of immigration. But we must begin restoring the respect for legal immigration and shutting the door on illegal immigration, or else those lines become blurred, and the stress we have on our social service system, civil justice system, public health system, and public education system that is stretched to the limit because of illegal aliens today will increase.

We owe it to the history of our country and the greatness which makes us great to secure our borders, to honor legal immigration, and to move forward with a reform of illegal immigration that matches the economic needs of the United States of America.

I stand on the Senate floor today committed to work with any Member of this Senate for comprehensive reform, as long as its cornerstone in its foundation is that we fix the problem on our borders, have it certified, and have that fix be the foundation for the modernization and reform of our immigration laws.

Mr. President, I thank you for the time and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague from Colorado, Senator Salazar, regarding S. 331, the Alternative Energy Refueling Systems Act of 2007. The bill is a very straightforward measure that seeks to increase the number of alternative refueling stations across our country, something that I hope the full Senate will support later this year.

Today, there are over 9 million alternative fuel automobiles on the road in America. However, while automakers have pledged to produce an increasing number of these vehicles, there is a serious shortfall in the number of gas stations to support these vehicles. For instance, while there are more than 6 million flex-fuel vehicles on the road today which can run on E-85 or gasoline, less than 1 percent of all gas stations in this country offer E-85 fuel. Clearly, more must be done to increase the availability of alternative fuels at the retail level.

The Alternative Energy Refueling Systems Act would authorize the Department of Energy, through the existing Clean Cities Program, to provide grants to gas station owners who will install alternative refueling systems. These grants would greatly assist in expanding the availability of alternative fuels such as E-85, which is a mix of 15 percent gasoline and 85 percent ethanol, or biodiesel, natural gas, compressed natural gas, hydrogen, or liquefied petroleum gas.

Under this legislation, gas station owners who wish to install a new alternative fuel tank would be reimbursed for up to 30 percent of the cost, not exceeding $30,000, of expenses related to the purchase and installation of a new alternative refueling system. Keep in mind that subject to an annual appropriations, funding for these grants would come from a portion of the penalties that are collected annually from auto manufacturers who violate the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE standards, most of which are foreign automakers.

I have to say the cost to install a pump like this generally runs somewhere from $30,000 to $40,000 to about $200,000, depending on where you are in the country. So obviously, it is a big investment for a lot of these filling station owners. But the fact is, they need to have an incentive and some assistance to make sure we are closing the gap that exists in this country between the production of renewable energy--a lot of ethanol production is going on in the country. In my State alone we have 11 plants currently operating, 5 more under construction, and we will be, by 2008, at 1 billion gallons annually of ethanol in South Dakota alone. So when you add to that the ethanol that is produced in other areas of the Midwest, we have a lot of production out there, and I think we have a big market growing. We have a renewable fuels standard that requires that we use 7.5 billion gallons annually by the year 2012, which, frankly, I think we will eclipse way before that time. Because at the current rate of production, we are going to blow by that in a very short time.

But that being said, there is a requirement out there that a market develop for this. We have a lot of consumers around the country who would like to have access to renewable energy who believe for a lot of reasons, as I do, that it makes sense to lessen our dependence upon foreign sources of energy, to become more energy secure. It cleans up the environment and, obviously, in my part of the country, it is very good for American agriculture. But what we are missing in that distribution system is the retail level. We have the production, we have the demand, we have a renewable fuels standard, we have a market, but we don't have a way of joining those. Because of the costs associated with installing some of these pumps, a lot of filling station owners are reluctant to do so. What this would do is provide up to $30,000 or 30 percent of the cost not to exceed $30,000 toward that end. So we think this is a very commonsense approach to doing something that we really need to be doing in America today, and that is moving away from our dependence upon the oil industry for our energy.

I wanted to tell my colleagues a little bit about who supports this piece of legislation. We have a number of businesses, agricultural and alternative energy groups, including General Motors, Ford Motors, Daimler Chrysler--all the big domestic automakers--Wal-Mart, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition, the National Association of Fleet Administrators, the Renewable Fuels Association, the National Biodiesel Board, the National Corn Growers Association, the American Soybean Association, the American Coalition for Ethanol, and the National Association of Truck Stop Operators.

So up and down the so-called food chain, from the production, the corn growers, the manufacturers of vehicles in this country, those who are involved at the retail level with getting fuel out there--filling stations, convenience stores--all the agricultural organizations, as I said, the ethanol industry, are all very much supportive of this particular piece of legislation.

A measure very similar to this overwhelmingly passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 355 to 9 back on July 4 of 2006. Unfortunately, the Senate was unable to consider our companion measure before adjourning last year.

So Senator Salazar and I wholeheartedly believe this is a commonsense measure that will significantly increase the number of alternative refueling stations nationwide. As I said earlier, it accomplishes a lot of objectives that are important from a policy standpoint, a national security standpoint, energy security standpoint, and an environmental standpoint. This, to me, is a win-win, and I hope the Senate will act on it before this year is out. Hopefully, we will start to consider very seriously in the weeks and months ahead energy legislation and another farm bill, which I hope will have a very robust energy title included in it. It is high time we did something substantial to lessen or to close this gap we have and this problem that needs to be addressed in terms of our ability to continue to grow the renewable fuels industry in this country, home-grown energy, energy that we get on an annual basis.

We raise a corn crop every year in South Dakota, as they do in Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska and in other States across this country which are all starting to realize the benefits of ethanol production and what it means to their agricultural economy. So this

is a good piece of legislation that makes sense in so many ways. I hope the very clear logic of it will help us prevail in getting it passed in the Senate this year.

This legislation is cosponsored by Senator Hagel of Nebraska and Senator Conrad of North Dakota. I again put this bill before the Senate, and I look forward to its consideration.

Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague from Colorado, Senator Salazar, regarding S. 331, the Alternative Energy Refueling Systems Act of 2007. The bill is a very straightforward measure that seeks to increase the number of alternative refueling stations across our country, something that I hope the full Senate will support later this year.

Today, there are over 9 million alternative fuel automobiles on the road in America. However, while automakers have pledged to produce an increasing number of these vehicles, there is a serious shortfall in the number of gas stations to support these vehicles. For instance, while there are more than 6 million flex-fuel vehicles on the road today which can run on E-85 or gasoline, less than 1 percent of all gas stations in this country offer E-85 fuel. Clearly, more must be done to increase the availability of alternative fuels at the retail level.

The Alternative Energy Refueling Systems Act would authorize the Department of Energy, through the existing Clean Cities Program, to provide grants to gas station owners who will install alternative refueling systems. These grants would greatly assist in expanding the availability of alternative fuels such as E-85, which is a mix of 15 percent gasoline and 85 percent ethanol, or biodiesel, natural gas, compressed natural gas, hydrogen, or liquefied petroleum gas.

Under this legislation, gas station owners who wish to install a new alternative fuel tank would be reimbursed for up to 30 percent of the cost, not exceeding $30,000, of expenses related to the purchase and installation of a new alternative refueling system. Keep in mind that subject to an annual appropriations, funding for these grants would come from a portion of the penalties that are collected annually from auto manufacturers who violate the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE standards, most of which are foreign automakers.

I have to say the cost to install a pump like this generally runs somewhere from $30,000 to $40,000 to about $200,000, depending on where you are in the country. So obviously, it is a big investment for a lot of these filling station owners. But the fact is, they need to have an incentive and some assistance to make sure we are closing the gap that exists in this country between the production of renewable energy--a lot of ethanol production is going on in the country. In my State alone we have 11 plants currently operating, 5 more under construction, and we will be, by 2008, at 1 billion gallons annually of ethanol in South Dakota alone. So when you add to that the ethanol that is produced in other areas of the Midwest, we have a lot of production out there, and I think we have a big market growing. We have a renewable fuels standard that requires that we use 7.5 billion gallons annually by the year 2012, which, frankly, I think we will eclipse way before that time. Because at the current rate of production, we are going to blow by that in a very short time.

But that being said, there is a requirement out there that a market develop for this. We have a lot of consumers around the country who would like to have access to renewable energy who believe for a lot of reasons, as I do, that it makes sense to lessen our dependence upon foreign sources of energy, to become more energy secure. It cleans up the environment and, obviously, in my part of the country, it is very good for American agriculture. But what we are missing in that distribution system is the retail level. We have the production, we have the demand, we have a renewable fuels standard, we have a market, but we don't have a way of joining those. Because of the costs associated with installing some of these pumps, a lot of filling station owners are reluctant to do so. What this would do is provide up to $30,000 or 30 percent of the cost not to exceed $30,000 toward that end. So we think this is a very commonsense approach to doing something that we really need to be doing in America today, and that is moving away from our dependence upon the oil industry for our energy.

I wanted to tell my colleagues a little bit about who supports this piece of legislation. We have a number of businesses, agricultural and alternative energy groups, including General Motors, Ford Motors, Daimler Chrysler--all the big domestic automakers--Wal-Mart, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition, the National Association of Fleet Administrators, the Renewable Fuels Association, the National Biodiesel Board, the National Corn Growers Association, the American Soybean Association, the American Coalition for Ethanol, and the National Association of Truck Stop Operators.

So up and down the so-called food chain, from the production, the corn growers, the manufacturers of vehicles in this country, those who are involved at the retail level with getting fuel out there--filling stations, convenience stores--all the agricultural organizations, as I said, the ethanol industry, are all very much supportive of this particular piece of legislation.

A measure very similar to this overwhelmingly passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 355 to 9 back on July 4 of 2006. Unfortunately, the Senate was unable to consider our companion measure before adjourning last year.

So Senator Salazar and I wholeheartedly believe this is a commonsense measure that will significantly increase the number of alternative refueling stations nationwide. As I said earlier, it accomplishes a lot of objectives that are important from a policy standpoint, a national security standpoint, energy security standpoint, and an environmental standpoint. This, to me, is a win-win, and I hope the Senate will act on it before this year is out. Hopefully, we will start to consider very seriously in the weeks and months ahead energy legislation and another farm bill, which I hope will have a very robust energy title included in it. It is high time we did something substantial to lessen or to close this gap we have and this problem that needs to be addressed in terms of our ability to continue to grow the renewable fuels industry in this country, home-grown energy, energy that we get on an annual basis.

We raise a corn crop every year in South Dakota, as they do in Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska and in other States across this country which are all starting to realize the benefits of ethanol production and what it means to their agricultural economy. So this

is a good piece of legislation that makes sense in so many ways. I hope the very clear logic of it will help us prevail in getting it passed in the Senate this year.

This legislation is cosponsored by Senator Hagel of Nebraska and Senator Conrad of North Dakota. I again put this bill before the Senate, and I look forward to its consideration.