Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief bill on behalf of Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, his wife, Oliva Gonzalez Gonzalez and their son, Jorge Rojas Gonzalez. The Rojas family are Mexican nationals living in the San Jose area of California.

The story of the Rojas family is compelling and I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.

Mr. Rojas and his wife Ms. Gonzalez originally came to the United States in 1990 when their son Jorge Rojas, Jr. was just 2 years old. In 1995, they left the country to attend a funeral, and then re-entered on visitor's visas. The family has since expanded to include a son, Alexis Rojas now age 15 and a daughter Tania Rojas now age 14.

Since arriving in the United States, this family has dedicated themselves to community involvement, a strong work ethic and volunteerism. They have been paying taxes since their arrival in 1990. The family has been described by their friends and colleagues as a ``model American family.'' I would like to tell you some more about each member of the Rojas family.

Mr. Rojas is a hard-working individual who has been employed by Valley Crest Landscape Maintenance in San Jose, California, for the past 14 years. Currently, Mr. Rojas works on commercial landscaping projects. He is well-respected by his supervisor and his peers.

In addition to supporting his family, Jorge has volunteered his time and talents to provide modern green landscaping and a recreational jungle gym to Sherman Oaks Community Charter School, where his two youngest children attend school.

Ms. Gonzalez, in addition to raising her three children, has been very active in the local community. She has worked to help other immigrants assimilate to American life by working as a translator and a tutor for immigrant children at Sherman Oaks Community Charter School and the Y.M.C.A. Kids after-school program.

She has also coached soccer teams, and has recently directed a Second Harvest food drive for the school. Ms. Gonzalez also devotes many hours of her time to the organization People Acting in Community Together PACT, where she works to prevent crime, gangs and drug dealing in San Jose neighborhoods and schools.

Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family to remain in the United States is the impact their deportation would have on their three children. Two of the children, Alexis Rojas age 15 and Tania Rojas age 14, are U.S. citizens. Jorge Rojas, Jr. has lived in the United States since he was a toddler. For these children, this country is the only country they really know.

Jorge Rojas, Jr. is currently working at Jamba Juice. He graduated from Del Mar High School in 2007 and has been accepted to San Jose City College. However, his dreams and aspirations have been placed on hold because he remains subject to deportation.

Alexis and Tania Rojas are students at Sherman Oaks Community Charter School. They are described by their teachers as ``fantastic, wonderful and gifted'' students. In fact, the principal at Sherman Oaks has described all three of the children as ``honest, hard-working academic honor students'' and has commended all of them for their on-campus leadership.

It seems so clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream and their continued presence in our country would do so much to enhance the values we hold dear. I have received 30 letters from the community in support of this family. Enactment of the legislation I have introduced today will enable the Rojas family to continue to make significant contributions to their community as well as the United States.

I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief bill on behalf of Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, his wife, Oliva Gonzalez Gonzalez and their son, Jorge Rojas Gonzalez. The Rojas family are Mexican nationals living in the San Jose area of California.

The story of the Rojas family is compelling and I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.

Mr. Rojas and his wife Ms. Gonzalez originally came to the United States in 1990 when their son Jorge Rojas, Jr. was just 2 years old. In 1995, they left the country to attend a funeral, and then re-entered on visitor's visas. The family has since expanded to include a son, Alexis Rojas now age 15 and a daughter Tania Rojas now age 14.

Since arriving in the United States, this family has dedicated themselves to community involvement, a strong work ethic and volunteerism. They have been paying taxes since their arrival in 1990. The family has been described by their friends and colleagues as a ``model American family.'' I would like to tell you some more about each member of the Rojas family.

Mr. Rojas is a hard-working individual who has been employed by Valley Crest Landscape Maintenance in San Jose, California, for the past 14 years. Currently, Mr. Rojas works on commercial landscaping projects. He is well-respected by his supervisor and his peers.

In addition to supporting his family, Jorge has volunteered his time and talents to provide modern green landscaping and a recreational jungle gym to Sherman Oaks Community Charter School, where his two youngest children attend school.

Ms. Gonzalez, in addition to raising her three children, has been very active in the local community. She has worked to help other immigrants assimilate to American life by working as a translator and a tutor for immigrant children at Sherman Oaks Community Charter School and the Y.M.C.A. Kids after-school program.

She has also coached soccer teams, and has recently directed a Second Harvest food drive for the school. Ms. Gonzalez also devotes many hours of her time to the organization People Acting in Community Together PACT, where she works to prevent crime, gangs and drug dealing in San Jose neighborhoods and schools.

Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family to remain in the United States is the impact their deportation would have on their three children. Two of the children, Alexis Rojas age 15 and Tania Rojas age 14, are U.S. citizens. Jorge Rojas, Jr. has lived in the United States since he was a toddler. For these children, this country is the only country they really know.

Jorge Rojas, Jr. is currently working at Jamba Juice. He graduated from Del Mar High School in 2007 and has been accepted to San Jose City College. However, his dreams and aspirations have been placed on hold because he remains subject to deportation.

Alexis and Tania Rojas are students at Sherman Oaks Community Charter School. They are described by their teachers as ``fantastic, wonderful and gifted'' students. In fact, the principal at Sherman Oaks has described all three of the children as ``honest, hard-working academic honor students'' and has commended all of them for their on-campus leadership.

It seems so clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream and their continued presence in our country would do so much to enhance the values we hold dear. I have received 30 letters from the community in support of this family. Enactment of the legislation I have introduced today will enable the Rojas family to continue to make significant contributions to their community as well as the United States.

I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, June 18, 2008, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on Improving Energy Efficiency, Increasing the Use of Renewable Sources of Energy, and Reducing the Carbon Footprint of the Capitol Complex.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Howard Gantman at the Rules and Administration Committee, 224-6352.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

I thank the Chair.

This morning, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the portion of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which denied habeas corpus rights to detainees at Guantanamo Bay. In making its decision, the Supreme Court has recognized that detainees at Guantanamo cannot be denied the fundamental legal right to habeas corpus, enshrined in the Constitution.

Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy wrote:

The laws and the Constitution are designed to survive, and

to remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and

security can be reconciled; and in our system they are

reconciled within the framework of the law.

I think that is a very important statement. I think it crystallizes a lot of the debates this Senate has been having over the past 5 to 6 years. It recognizes the importance of the rule of law, one of the most fundamental values our country was founded upon.

Detainees at Guantanamo have been in a legal quagmire since 2002. As the Court recognized, some have been held without court review for more than 6 years--6 years--many in isolation for long periods of time. The Court specifically stated it was not ruling on the issue of whether the writ for habeas corpus should be issued or whether detainees should be released. Rather, the decision focused on the fact that the detainees are entitled to the fundamental right of habeas corpus as a means to review whether they are being properly held.

Four times now the Supreme Court has stepped in and struck down the Bush administration's policies at Guantanamo. Four times. In the Hamdi and Rasul decisions, the Court stated that U.S. law applied to Guantanamo and that detainees had to be determined enemy combatants before they could be held.

In the Hamdan decision, the Court struck down the administration's claim that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the detainees at Guantanamo and repudiated the legal framework the Bush administration tried to construct to handle the trials of detainees.

In today's decision, the Supreme Court has once and for all made it clear that even at Guantanamo our constitutional principles remain sound. It also recognizes that President Bush's repeated assertion that he has essentially unchecked powers in the war on terror is simply wrong.

Guantanamo Bay has been a case study in what not to do in the war on terror. Consider all the early choices this administration has made: to deny the protections of the Geneva Conventions, to establish military tribunals based on the theory of unchecked Presidential power, to deny habeas corpus and, finally, to reverse decades of old precedent and authorize the use of coercive interrogation and torture.

These decisions by the Bush administration and its operation of Guantanamo will go down in history as a black mark on the United States, decisions where this administration and this President simply forgot--or worse ignored--our own values and laws.

Today's decision provides another reason why Guantanamo should be closed. Closing this facility is critical to our Nation's credibility and stature and our ability to conduct foreign policy and counterterrorism operations worldwide. If there is one thing that is very clear, the credibility of the United States as a bastion of law, of constitutional rights, and of human rights has gone downhill all over the world. As I have said on this floor before, I have never seen a time in my lifetime where Americans are thought so poorly of by citizens of countries that are our firm allies as well as our adversaries.

Let me be clear: I have no sympathy for al-Qaida terrorists, Taliban fighters or anyone else around the world who wishes to harm Americans at home or abroad. But I strongly believe that continuing to operate Guantanamo, in the face of repeated reprimands from the Supreme Court, the stated wishes of senior administration officials, and a tidal wave of congressional and international condemnation, weakens the United States in its effort to fight the war on terror.

Last July, I submitted an amendment to the fiscal year 2008 Defense authorization bill to close Guantanamo. I was joined in that amendment by 15 cosponsors: Senators Harkin, Hagel, Dodd, Clinton, Brown, Bingaman, Kennedy, Whitehouse, Obama, Salazar, Durbin, Byrd, Biden, Boxer, and Feingold. I intend to offer this amendment again this year.

President Bush, Secretary Gates, Secretary Rice, Colin Powell, 9/11 Commission heads Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, numerous retired four-star generals and admirals, as well as Senator Obama and Senator McCain, have all expressed their support for closing Guantanamo.

It kind of boggles my mind. I was sitting in the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, when I asked the question of Secretary Gates, and he said: Yes, I am for closing Guantanamo. I have heard Colin Powell say: Yes, I am for closing Guantanamo. I would do it right now. I have heard generals and admirals say: Guantanamo does this Nation no good. Yet nothing changes. So the question of closing the facility is when and not if.

Guantanamo, as I have said, is a lightning rod of condemnation around the world, and not just because of a lack of adequate legal rights and remedies. It has also drawn criticism for the treatment of detainees that violates both American and international standards, laws and values. And coercive interrogation techniques undertaken there have failed to yield reliable and usable intelligence.

Both the Presiding Officer and I sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee. We hear the classified data which obviously cannot be discussed here. We know there are bad people in Guantanamo, but we also know there are people who are hapless victims, who may have been picked up just because they were in a certain place at a certain time.

This week I held a hearing on coercive interrogation techniques being used at Guantanamo. Glenn Fine, the inspector general of the Department of Justice, testified about his report that concluded that over 200 FBI agents observed or heard about military interrogators using a variety of harsh interrogation techniques, including but not limited to stress positions and short shackling, in which a detainee's hands are shackled close to his feet to prevent him from standing or sitting; isolation, sometimes for periods of 30 days or more; use of growling military dogs; twisting a detainee's thumbs back; using a female interrogator to touch or provoke a detainee in a sexual manner. Mr. Fine also argued these techniques are not only shocking but they are less effective and they produce less reliable intelligence than noncoercive means.

Experienced FBI interrogators agree. We heard yesterday afternoon-- and it was kind of interesting because the minority apparently exercised a rule that would prevent the hearing from continuing. When I asked the question, why, I found it was because of my hearing, which was to elucidate some, I think, valuable facts and timelines of how all this happened. Fortunately, and thanks to the majority leader who came to the floor and recessed the Senate, we were able to conclude our hearing.

One of the people testifying was a former FBI agent by the name of Jack Cloonan. Now, Jack Cloonan has interrogated at least six members of al-Qaida. He testified under oath that he was able to get convictions for three of them and was able to get actionable intelligence for every one of them using noncoercive techniques. As a matter of fact, he said these al-Qaida members were so struck by the process he used, the fairness of the process, they not only gave him information that was valuable, they are now in witness protection programs. I thought that is very relevant information. Why do this if it isn't effective?

The conditions at Guantanamo have led to at least 4 documented detainee suicides and another 41 attempted suicides, according to media reports from 2006 and 2007. More recent press accounts discuss how detainees have gone mad during extensive periods of isolation, sleep deprivation, and degrading treatment.

Finally, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my statement an article from the New York Times, dated April 26, 2008, entitled, ``Detainees' Mental Health is Latest Legal Battle.''

Mr. President, the article describes how Salim Hamdan ``has essentially been driven crazy by solitary confinement in an 8- foot-by-12-foot cell, where he spent 22 hours a day, goes to the bathroom, and eats all his meals.''

This is not about abuses from 2002 and 2003, like al-Qahtani and the Abu Ghraib scandal. This is 2008, and I fear it is going to continue as long as Guantanamo is able to operate in its isolated setting, in a highly confined environment, with no visitors and nobody able to go in and talk with inmates.

Let me say a little about the status of Guantanamo today. There are approximately 260 detainees being held. They can be divided into roughly three equal groups: those the administration intends on charging with a crime and prosecuting; those the administration says can be transferred to another country, if another country is willing to take custody--and I will admit there are problems there. There are detainees, I know, who are awaiting repatriation to their own country, if they will take them back. In many cases, they will not take them, and that is a problem. We, on the Intelligence Committee, need to pay attention to this and find a solution to it.

Third are those who can't be tried for a crime but who are deemed too dangerous to transfer and who, presumably, will be held indefinitely without charge.

I think we need to provide a legal framework for that kind of administrative detention so that the detainees in administrative detention have certain due process rights to ensure they can know why they are there, that they can have an opportunity to rebut the charges, and that they can have access to counsel.

Since the end of 2001, nearly 500 detainees have been transferred back to the custody of their home nations. A group of seven Chinese Uighers, who had committed no crime, were sent to Albania, where they are now held as refugees in poor conditions.

Exactly one man, in the 6 years Guantanamo has existed as a detention facility, has been convicted of a crime. He, of course, is David Hicks, a kangaroo skinner from Australia, who pled guilty in order to get out of Guantanamo. He has since been released by the Australian Government.

I believe there are 19 more detainees against whom charges have been brought. The military commissions process is in turmoil. It is my hope that with today's ruling these cases will be moved to the district and circuit courts rather than the deeply flawed and separate system of justice set up in the Military Commissions Act, which I voted against, and I am very pleased I did so.

Guantanamo began in the Bush administration, and it should end in the Bush administration. At every turn, the Supreme Court has struck down President Bush's policies with respect to Guantanamo.

John Adams said that ``we are a Nation of laws, not men.'' This administration has turned that concept on its head, with President Bush deciding that he alone should make the legal and policy decisions in the fight against terrorism, and that the rule of law does not apply.

In rejecting this notion, the Supreme Court's decision today once again reiterated that it would be wrong ``to hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will.'' I hope the administration hears that. To me, this clearly indicates that the President's article 2 powers are limited, that his powers as Commander in Chief are limited, and that his powers under the war resolution and the authorization for use of military force in Afghanistan are limited, and he must follow the Constitution of the United States. That is what this decision says to me.

So I commend the Court for its decision. I hope the President will recognize this. I suggest that he should. I suggest that after being repeatedly rebuffed by the Supreme Court, the administration come to us and say that the time has come to close Guantanamo. I would expect, now that we have both potential presidential nominees supporting closure of Guantanamo, we will close it. The Secretary

of Defense, the former Secretary of State, the present Secretary of State, the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, Governor Kean and Representative Hamilton, and dozens of admirals and generals, recommend the closure of Guantanamo.

When I present this amendment on the Defense authorization bill, I hope I will be able to press this toward a successful vote.

Signing Authorization

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Montana, Mr. Tester, be authorized to sign the enrollment of H.R. 6124.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce The Oil Speculation Control Act, a bill to reduce the impact of excessive speculation in the oil markets.

The legislation is cosponsored by Senator Ted Stevens.

Last week the price of oil hit $138 per barrel. A commodity that used to be priced at $11 a barrel is now swinging $11 in a single day. Yesterday it jumped $5--supposedly in response to a single Department of Energy report.

Gasoline prices now average more than $4.50 in California. Some gas stations have to charge by the half gallon. Their pumps cannot calculate in prices this high.

There seems to be no relief in sight for consumers as we enter the summer travel season.

In the Farm Bill Congress finally closed the ``Enron Loophole,'' and placed all major electronic trades that could drive energy prices under the watchful eye of the Commodity Futures Trading commission, CFTC.

Today I and Senator Levin introduced the Close the London Loophole Act to close another loophole. This bill would bring oversight to American energy commodities being traded beyond our borders.

I also joined Senator Durbin in calling for the President to add 100 I enforcement professionals to the ranks of the CFTC.

However, these steps are not enough.

I believe we must do more to reduce the excessive speculation of institutional investors in oil markets.

So today I am introducing the Oil Speculation Control Act.

Let me explain what this bill would do.

First, it requires CFTC to review the trading practices of institutional investors and their dealers within 30 days:

It ensures that their trading is not adversely impacting the market price.

It determines whether different regulations are necessary:

It proposes to Congress regulations and legislation necessary to prevent the dramatic increase of fuel costs in the futures markets.

Second, the bill establishes reporting requirements. It requires institutional investors, such as pension funds or endowments, to report their energy market positions to the CFTC, even when trades are executed by a third party broker.

To further increase transparency, it would force CFTC regulations and reports to begin distinguishing between the institutional investors and the ``swaps dealers'' or ``index traders'' who broker their trades.

Third, the bill would force CFTC to limit institutional investor and index trader positions, as CFTC limits the positions of more traditional market speculators.

Fourth, it prevents CFTC from considering the positions of institutional investors or their brokers to be ``bone fide hedges'' that would be exempt from speculative position limits.

Finally, it requires that the Office of the CFTC's Inspector General be removed from the CFTC Chairman's Office and established as an independent office.

This bill is necessary because I believe that speculation in oil futures by large institutional investors and index funds is inflating the price of oil.

The unconstrained and overwhelming entrance of these new commodity investors, who have bet more than 99 percent of their funds on prices rising, must be controlled.

Recent testimony before numerous Congressional Committees indicates that between 2000 and 2002, major institutional investors began to view commodity futures markets as a new ``asset class'' suitable to be used in large financial portfolios. Since 2000, investment fund managers have come to believe that investing in commodities balances a stock portfolio.

As Daniel Yergin, one of the Nation's leading energy market experts put it: ``Oil has become the `new gold'--a financial asset in which investors seek refuge as inflation rises and the dollar weakens.''

Never before have so many institutional investors made large scale investments in commodity markets, but from 2003 to 2008, investments in commodity index funds rose from $13 billion to $260 billion.

The implications for consumers of this shift are potentially devastating. Unlike gold, energy and agricultural commodities meet essential needs in the everyday lives of average Americans, and the potential risk that investment strategies will push the price of these goods higher during economic downturns presents a threat to the public welfare. I do not believe this is in the best interest of the American public.

Under the Commodity Exchange Act, the CFTC must impose speculation limits on the size of energy trader positions. Crude oil speculative positions are limited to a total of 20 million barrels of oil and 3 million barrels of oil in the last three days of a contract.

However, it is CFTC's practice to exempt institutional investors from such limits when investors execute their trades through brokers or dealers.

This is a mistake.

They are not hedging against the risk of changing oil prices, as airlines or utilities frequently must do.

They never take delivery of the product.

They participate in the oil markets only on paper.

This bill will assure that the existing speculation limit powers will constrain the market distortion resulting from this massive influx of capital. It will ensure a regulatory system that limits the size and influence of institutional investor positions in energy markets.

Even CFTC has realized that its policy may be mistaken.

Last month it announced that it will review the trading practices for index traders in the futures markets to ensure that this type of trading activity is not adversely impacting the price discovery process. They also plan to determine whether different practices should be employed.

Today's markets evolve quickly, and we need to make sure our market oversight responds just as quickly.

We now know that over the last few years a whole new kind of investor has entered oil markets. Institutional investors only bet that the price will go up. No matter how high the price goes, they pour into the market to push it higher.

We have ways to control this. We have speculation limits. But we are not using them. I am introducing this bill to make sure we use the tools we have.

As the markets continue to evolve, so must our regulation. I believe the Oil Speculation Control Act takes this step, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce The Oil Speculation Control Act, a bill to reduce the impact of excessive speculation in the oil markets.

The legislation is cosponsored by Senator Ted Stevens.

Last week the price of oil hit $138 per barrel. A commodity that used to be priced at $11 a barrel is now swinging $11 in a single day. Yesterday it jumped $5--supposedly in response to a single Department of Energy report.

Gasoline prices now average more than $4.50 in California. Some gas stations have to charge by the half gallon. Their pumps cannot calculate in prices this high.

There seems to be no relief in sight for consumers as we enter the summer travel season.

In the Farm Bill Congress finally closed the ``Enron Loophole,'' and placed all major electronic trades that could drive energy prices under the watchful eye of the Commodity Futures Trading commission, CFTC.

Today I and Senator Levin introduced the Close the London Loophole Act to close another loophole. This bill would bring oversight to American energy commodities being traded beyond our borders.

I also joined Senator Durbin in calling for the President to add 100 I enforcement professionals to the ranks of the CFTC.

However, these steps are not enough.

I believe we must do more to reduce the excessive speculation of institutional investors in oil markets.

So today I am introducing the Oil Speculation Control Act.

Let me explain what this bill would do.

First, it requires CFTC to review the trading practices of institutional investors and their dealers within 30 days:

It ensures that their trading is not adversely impacting the market price.

It determines whether different regulations are necessary:

It proposes to Congress regulations and legislation necessary to prevent the dramatic increase of fuel costs in the futures markets.

Second, the bill establishes reporting requirements. It requires institutional investors, such as pension funds or endowments, to report their energy market positions to the CFTC, even when trades are executed by a third party broker.

To further increase transparency, it would force CFTC regulations and reports to begin distinguishing between the institutional investors and the ``swaps dealers'' or ``index traders'' who broker their trades.

Third, the bill would force CFTC to limit institutional investor and index trader positions, as CFTC limits the positions of more traditional market speculators.

Fourth, it prevents CFTC from considering the positions of institutional investors or their brokers to be ``bone fide hedges'' that would be exempt from speculative position limits.

Finally, it requires that the Office of the CFTC's Inspector General be removed from the CFTC Chairman's Office and established as an independent office.

This bill is necessary because I believe that speculation in oil futures by large institutional investors and index funds is inflating the price of oil.

The unconstrained and overwhelming entrance of these new commodity investors, who have bet more than 99 percent of their funds on prices rising, must be controlled.

Recent testimony before numerous Congressional Committees indicates that between 2000 and 2002, major institutional investors began to view commodity futures markets as a new ``asset class'' suitable to be used in large financial portfolios. Since 2000, investment fund managers have come to believe that investing in commodities balances a stock portfolio.

As Daniel Yergin, one of the Nation's leading energy market experts put it: ``Oil has become the `new gold'--a financial asset in which investors seek refuge as inflation rises and the dollar weakens.''

Never before have so many institutional investors made large scale investments in commodity markets, but from 2003 to 2008, investments in commodity index funds rose from $13 billion to $260 billion.

The implications for consumers of this shift are potentially devastating. Unlike gold, energy and agricultural commodities meet essential needs in the everyday lives of average Americans, and the potential risk that investment strategies will push the price of these goods higher during economic downturns presents a threat to the public welfare. I do not believe this is in the best interest of the American public.

Under the Commodity Exchange Act, the CFTC must impose speculation limits on the size of energy trader positions. Crude oil speculative positions are limited to a total of 20 million barrels of oil and 3 million barrels of oil in the last three days of a contract.

However, it is CFTC's practice to exempt institutional investors from such limits when investors execute their trades through brokers or dealers.

This is a mistake.

They are not hedging against the risk of changing oil prices, as airlines or utilities frequently must do.

They never take delivery of the product.

They participate in the oil markets only on paper.

This bill will assure that the existing speculation limit powers will constrain the market distortion resulting from this massive influx of capital. It will ensure a regulatory system that limits the size and influence of institutional investor positions in energy markets.

Even CFTC has realized that its policy may be mistaken.

Last month it announced that it will review the trading practices for index traders in the futures markets to ensure that this type of trading activity is not adversely impacting the price discovery process. They also plan to determine whether different practices should be employed.

Today's markets evolve quickly, and we need to make sure our market oversight responds just as quickly.

We now know that over the last few years a whole new kind of investor has entered oil markets. Institutional investors only bet that the price will go up. No matter how high the price goes, they pour into the market to push it higher.

We have ways to control this. We have speculation limits. But we are not using them. I am introducing this bill to make sure we use the tools we have.

As the markets continue to evolve, so must our regulation. I believe the Oil Speculation Control Act takes this step, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the Consumer-First Energy Act, and in particular title V, which would increase oil market transparency and accountability.

Oil prices continue to set records. Last week the price of oil hit $138 per barrel. Not too long ago $38 seemed like an unheard of price, not $138.

Gasoline prices now average above $4 per gallon nationwide. Some gas stations have to charge by the half gallon.

Their pumps cannot calculate in prices this high.

And there seems to be no relief in sight for consumers as we enter the summer travel season.

Energy markets are not working--and speculation is adding an extra $20-$25 per barrel to the price of oil. We must protect these markets from manipulation, excessive speculation and fraud.

In the farm bill Congress finally closed the ``Enron loophole,'' and placed all major electronic trades that could drive energy prices under the watchful eye of the CFTC.

However, I remain concerned that there are no comparable protections in place when U.S. energy futures are traded on international markets-- presenting yet another regulatory loophole for energy traders to exploit. So title V of this bill would close that loophole and ensure that the trading of all U.S. energy futures--whether on foreign or domestic markets--is done with transparency and with an audit trail.

Title V is based upon the Oil Trading Transparency Act, which I introduced recently with Senator Carl Levin.

The Oil Trading Transparency Act would close the London loophole, whereby traders of West Texas Intermediate Crude Oil execute trades on an electronic exchange ``located in'' London, England, outside the jurisdiction of American regulators.

Specifically: the bill directs the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, to ensure that any foreign exchange operating a trading terminal in the United States for the trading of a U.S. energy commodity meets two regulatory requirements that currently apply to U.S. exchanges: (1) It must impose speculative trading limits to prevent price manipulation and excessive speculation, and (2) It must publish daily trading information to ensure market transparency.

The bill would also require the CFTC to obtain information from the foreign exchange to enable it to establish an audit trail and determine how much trading in U.S. energy commodities is due to speculation.

Today the CFTC's weekly publication of speculation data for U.S. markets lacks any information about the oil trading conducted in London which makes up approximately 30 percent of the trading volume in West Texas Intermediate Crude Oil.

Let me explain why this provision is necessary. The United States places limits on speculative energy trades that contribute to high prices.

But traders of U.S. crude oil know that they can avoid U.S. limits and transparency requirements by trading crude oil futures on the London's ICE Futures Europe instead of the NYMEX exchange in New York.

CFTC acknowledged in a June 2 letter to me that traders can even use London as a refuge from U.S. speculation limits. CFTC's acting chairman wrote:

If CFTC instructed an oil trader to reduce the size of his

NYMEX West Texas Intermediate crude oil position, the trader

would not be prohibited, under either the [Commodity Exchange

Act] or the Commission's regulations, from establishing a

similar position in the ICE Futures Europe WTI crude oil

contract.

That regulatory disparity means U.S. traders trading U.S. oil on the London exchange can engage in excessive speculation that affects U.S. prices and not report their trades.

The traders can do it by using computer terminals in the United States with direct access to the London exchange. The contracts in London settle on the price in New York, so they are functionally equivalent ``look alike'' contracts.

According to CFTC, every single week since 2006 at least one trader has held positions in London above the NYMEX spot month speculative limit of 3 million barrels of oil.

Most weeks, five to eight traders have been above these limits, and at one point 22 traders were above the NYMEX limit.

And its not only contracts in the spot month. Sixty-four percent of the time since 2006, at least one trader in London has exceeded out month position accountability levels that are set at 20 million barrels of oil in New York. CFTC reports that 48 different traders have been above these limits at one time or another since 2006.

This legislation is necessary in order to close this loophole and require that foreign boards of trade that operate trading terminals in our country comply with the same speculation trading limits and reporting requirements that apply to U.S. trades.

What is Traded in London? Trading in London is regulated by the British, so some might wonder why we would ask our friends in London to impose American regulatory standards.

I believe some of London's contracts matter more to America than England, and we need to make sure they are subject to our position limit system.

For example, ICE Futures Europe lists U.S. crude oil--West Texas Intermediate--New England heating oil, and U.S. gasoline contracts.

West Texas Intermediate crude oil is produced here, used here, and never leaves the United States.

Heating oil and gasoline are refined and used within our borders.

ICE Futures Europe is a wholly owned subsidiary of an American company, Atlanta based Intercontinental Exchange, or ICE.

Since buying ICE Futures Europe, ICE has shut down the trading floor in London and replaced it with a virtual, electronic floor.

Their American and British systems are so integrated that trading ``in London'' recently shut down because an ICE data center in Chicago, IL, lost power.

And most importantly, British regulators are accountable to the British people who would naturally prefer that their government use its resources to prevent manipulation in markets that affect British people, not Americans.

The British only have 80 people monitoring market abuses, investigating, and enforcing rules in all of their financial markets-- including stocks, bonds, futures, swaps, and currency. Not one of these 80 people is specifically assigned to monitor trading of West Texas Intermediate, American Gasoline, or New England heating oil.

This may explain why the CFTC tells me that British regulators are yet to bring a single manipulation case against traders in any of the contracts for U.S. delivery.

That is why the audit trail established by this legislation is so important.

If CFTC gets trading data from London, it can pursue manipulation and fraud cases under their existing authority. But CFTC needs the records. It needs the data to monitor markets that impact the price of energy in the United States.

Bottom Line: CFTC needs this legislation in order to protect American oil markets from manipulation and excessive speculation.

In the farm bill we took a major step in closing the Enron loophole. It took us 7 years to close it, and millions of consumers paid the price.

This legislation is needed to close a new loophole that opened in 2006 when ICE Futures Europe began listing a U.S. based energy commodity on its exchange in London. If we vote to pass the Oil Trading Transparency Act, we will close the London loophole in only 2 years.

Today's markets evolve quickly, and we need to make sure our market oversight responds just as quickly. Let us not wait 6 years to close a loophole so large you could drive an oil tanker through it.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief bill on behalf of Ruben Mkoian, his wife, Asmik Karapetian and their son, Arthur Mkoyan. The Mkoian family are Armenian nationals who have been living and working in Fresno, California for over a decade.

The story of the Mkoian family is compelling and I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.

Let me first start with how the Mkoian family arrived in the United States. While in Armenia, Mr. Mkoian worked as a police sergeant at in a division dealing with vehicle licensing. As a result of his position, he was offered a bribe to register 20 stolen vehicles.

He refused the bribe and reported the incident to the police chief. He later learned that his co-worker had registered the vehicles at the request of the chief.

After he reported the offense, Mr. Mkoian's supervisor informed him that the department was to undergo an inspection. Mr. Mkoian was instructed to take a vacation during this time period. Mr. Mkoian believed that the inspection was a result of the complaint that he had filed with the higher authorities.

During the inspection, however, Mr. Mkoian worked at a store that he owned rather than taking a vacation. During that time, individuals kept entering his store and attempted to damage it and break merchandise. When he threatened to call the police, he received threatening phone calls telling him to ``shut up'' or else he would ``regret it.'' Mr. Mkoian believed that these threats were related to the illegal vehicle registrations occurring in his department because he had nothing else to be silent about.

Later that same month, three men grabbed his wife and attempted to kidnap his child, Arthur, on the street. Mrs. Mkoian was told that her husband should ``shut up.'' No one suffered any injuries from the incident. In October 1991, a bottle of gasoline was thrown into the Mkoian's residence and their house was burned down. The final incident occurred on April 1, 1992, when four or five men assaulted Mr. Mkoian in his store. He was beaten and hospitalized for 22 days.

Following that experience, Mr. Mkoian left Armenia for Russia, and then came to the United States on a visitor's visa in search of a better life. Two years later he brought his wife Asmik and his then 3- year old son Arthur to the United States, also on visitor's visas. The family applied for political asylum, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied their request in January 2008. Thus, the family has no further legal recourse by which to remain in the country other than this bill.

Since arriving in the United States, the family has thrived. Arthur is now 17 years old and the family has expanded to include Arsen, who is a U.S. citizen.

Both Arthur and Arsen are very special children. What is noteworthy about Arthur, is that out of the 562 students graduating from Bullard High School he is one of three valedictorians for the Class of 2008. Today is his graduation day. He has long dreamed of attending the University of California, Davis. He was accepted this past Spring and plans to complete a degree in chemistry. In addition to maintaining a 4.0 grade point average and taking a rigorous academic course load, Arthur also finds the time to volunteer at the St. Agnes Medical Center emergency room.

Arsen is following in his older brother's footsteps. At age 12, he stands out among his peers at Kratt Elementary School and has been invited to apply to the magnet Computech Middle School next year.

In addition to raising two outstanding children, Mr. and Mrs. Mkoian have maintained steady jobs and have devoted time and energy to the community and their church. Mr. Mkoian has been employed for years at G.A.C. Trucking in Glendale, California. According to his supervisor, he is one of their best employees, having earned a reputation for trustworthiness and skill.

His wife, Asmik, has also been working part-time for 4 years at Gottshalks department store. In addition, she has taken classes at Fresno Community College and has completed their Medical Assistant Program.

The family are active members of the St. Paul Armenian Church, and Mr. Mkoian is a member of the PTA of the St. Paul Armenian Saturday School.

There has been an outpouring of support for this family from their church, the schools their children attend, and the community at large.

To date, we have received over 200 letters of support for the family in addition to numerous telephone calls. I also note that I have letters from both Congressman George Radanovich and Jim Costa, requesting that I offer this bill for the Mkoian family.

I truly believe that this case warrants our compassion and our extraordinary consideration.

I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief bill on behalf of Ruben Mkoian, his wife, Asmik Karapetian and their son, Arthur Mkoyan. The Mkoian family are Armenian nationals who have been living and working in Fresno, California for over a decade.

The story of the Mkoian family is compelling and I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.

Let me first start with how the Mkoian family arrived in the United States. While in Armenia, Mr. Mkoian worked as a police sergeant at in a division dealing with vehicle licensing. As a result of his position, he was offered a bribe to register 20 stolen vehicles.

He refused the bribe and reported the incident to the police chief. He later learned that his co-worker had registered the vehicles at the request of the chief.

After he reported the offense, Mr. Mkoian's supervisor informed him that the department was to undergo an inspection. Mr. Mkoian was instructed to take a vacation during this time period. Mr. Mkoian believed that the inspection was a result of the complaint that he had filed with the higher authorities.

During the inspection, however, Mr. Mkoian worked at a store that he owned rather than taking a vacation. During that time, individuals kept entering his store and attempted to damage it and break merchandise. When he threatened to call the police, he received threatening phone calls telling him to ``shut up'' or else he would ``regret it.'' Mr. Mkoian believed that these threats were related to the illegal vehicle registrations occurring in his department because he had nothing else to be silent about.

Later that same month, three men grabbed his wife and attempted to kidnap his child, Arthur, on the street. Mrs. Mkoian was told that her husband should ``shut up.'' No one suffered any injuries from the incident. In October 1991, a bottle of gasoline was thrown into the Mkoian's residence and their house was burned down. The final incident occurred on April 1, 1992, when four or five men assaulted Mr. Mkoian in his store. He was beaten and hospitalized for 22 days.

Following that experience, Mr. Mkoian left Armenia for Russia, and then came to the United States on a visitor's visa in search of a better life. Two years later he brought his wife Asmik and his then 3- year old son Arthur to the United States, also on visitor's visas. The family applied for political asylum, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied their request in January 2008. Thus, the family has no further legal recourse by which to remain in the country other than this bill.

Since arriving in the United States, the family has thrived. Arthur is now 17 years old and the family has expanded to include Arsen, who is a U.S. citizen.

Both Arthur and Arsen are very special children. What is noteworthy about Arthur, is that out of the 562 students graduating from Bullard High School he is one of three valedictorians for the Class of 2008. Today is his graduation day. He has long dreamed of attending the University of California, Davis. He was accepted this past Spring and plans to complete a degree in chemistry. In addition to maintaining a 4.0 grade point average and taking a rigorous academic course load, Arthur also finds the time to volunteer at the St. Agnes Medical Center emergency room.

Arsen is following in his older brother's footsteps. At age 12, he stands out among his peers at Kratt Elementary School and has been invited to apply to the magnet Computech Middle School next year.

In addition to raising two outstanding children, Mr. and Mrs. Mkoian have maintained steady jobs and have devoted time and energy to the community and their church. Mr. Mkoian has been employed for years at G.A.C. Trucking in Glendale, California. According to his supervisor, he is one of their best employees, having earned a reputation for trustworthiness and skill.

His wife, Asmik, has also been working part-time for 4 years at Gottshalks department store. In addition, she has taken classes at Fresno Community College and has completed their Medical Assistant Program.

The family are active members of the St. Paul Armenian Church, and Mr. Mkoian is a member of the PTA of the St. Paul Armenian Saturday School.

There has been an outpouring of support for this family from their church, the schools their children attend, and the community at large.

To date, we have received over 200 letters of support for the family in addition to numerous telephone calls. I also note that I have letters from both Congressman George Radanovich and Jim Costa, requesting that I offer this bill for the Mkoian family.

I truly believe that this case warrants our compassion and our extraordinary consideration.

I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of amendment No. 4950, which I have offered to the Climate Security Act, S. 3036, along with Senators Snowe, Wyden, and Cantwell.

This amendment is intended to improve section 412, the market oversight and enforcement provisions. I helped author section 412 of the Climate Security Act with Senator Dodd and Senator Whitehouse, and I believe this amendment will improve the underlying provision by even more clearly prohibiting speculation, fraud, and false reporting by traders in carbon markets.

Specifically, this amendment would add a ``prohibitions'' subsection to section 412, to establish that it is illegal:

No. 1, to knowingly provide to the President, or his

designee, any false information relating to the price or

quantity of emission allowances sold, purchased, transferred,

banked, or borrowed by the individual or entity, with the

intent to fraudulently affect the data being compiled;

No. 2, to use in connection with the purchase or sale of an

emission allowance any manipulative or deceptive device or

contrivance--within the meaning of section 10(b) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78j(b))--or;

No. 3, to otherwise cheat or defraud another market

participant.

Including these prohibitions, which were part of the Emission Allowance Market Transparency Act that I introduced with Senator Snowe, clearly establishes the legal framework under which market manipulation in these markets will be pursued. But unlike our legislation, the amendment does not instruct the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce these prohibitions. Instead, the amendment instructs the President to decide which agency must conduct enforcement within 270 days of enactment.

I believe this amendment is necessary because it will establish that the full legal history of the Securities Exchange Act's antimanipulation provision forms the foundation upon which the carbon market's principles-based regulation must stand. It gives guidance to future regulators on the intent and meaning of the core principle that ``the market shall be designed to prevent fraud and manipulation.'' And it adds teeth to that principle by making manipulation and fraud in this market a defined crime subject to severe penalty.

With this amendment, authority to prevent fraud and manipulation in carbon markets will mirror the authority over natural gas and electricity markets that Congress granted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 2005, as well as the authority over crude oil that Congress granted to the Federal Trade Commission in 2007. By mirroring proven market oversight mechanisms that protect market participants and consumers, this amendment allows us to slip already broken-in regulatory concepts onto a new market.

I believe this amendment will strongly discourage traders from seeking to manipulate the market. If we don't set up a framework for oversight, the greenhouse gas market could turn into a Wild West. The market--estimated to be worth as much as $100 billion annually--would invite the worst kind of manipulation, fraud, and abuse. The resulting volatility would affect consumer energy costs.

This is not a hypothetical. In 2000 and 2001, newly created California energy markets lacked the basic protections in this bill. The electricity and related natural gas markets emerged before the law caught up, and much of the manipulation that resulted, shockingly, was legal.

Enron, for instance, ran a market where only they knew the prices. Without market transparency laws, this one-sided market was legal. Enron manipulated natural gas and electricity prices--but nothing in the Natural Gas Act or the Federal Power Act made this manipulation unlawful.

Only years later, after millions of consumers had been harmed, after billions of dollars had been lost, and after the entire West had endured an energy crisis largely fabricated by traders, did Congress act.

In 2005, Congress succeeded in prohibiting manipulation in natural gas and electricity markets. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has put this authority to good use. It has performed aggressive natural gas market oversight, and has brought its first manipulation case, against Amaranth--a notorious hedge fund that allegedly manipulated natural gas prices month after month.

This Nation needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and most economists agree that a cap-and-trade system with a greenhouse gas market would be the most cost efficient way to guarantee emissions reductions.

Economists also tell us that markets are most efficient when buyers and sellers have complete information, no market participant can cheat another, and prices result from supply and demand, not manipulation.

Bottom line: this amendment improves a provision designed to protect the integrity of greenhouse gas emissions markets, and it should be included as part of any cap-and-trade legislation approved by Congress.

Madam President, I would like to explain the purposes of the amendment I have filed today with Senators Klobuchar and Snowe to the greenhouse gas registry provisions of the Climate Security Act.

This amendment attempts to clarify the relationship between the greenhouse gas registry provisions in the Climate Security Act, and existing law requiring greenhouse gas reporting. The existing law is a provision that I included in the fiscal year 2008 omnibus appropriations legislation, Public Law 101-161.

The fiscal year 2008 omnibus appropriations legislation requires the Administrator of EPA to do the following:

publish a draft rule not later than 9 months after the date

of enactment of this act, September 26, 2008, and a final

rule not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of

this act, June 26, 2009, to require mandatory reporting of

greenhouse gas emissions above appropriate thresholds in all

sectors of the economy of the United States.

Thus, under existing law, by June 2009, EPA must publish a final rule requiring mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions.

Sections 101 and 102 of the Climate Security Act build on these provisions in existing law. The Administrator of EPA must complete a new rulemaking within 2 years of enactment of the Climate Security Act.

As clarified in my amendment, this new rulemaking shall establish a Federal greenhouse gas registry that ``builds upon the regulations completed pursuant to [existing law].''

The new regulations will make ``changes necessary to achieve the purposes described in section 101,'' which includes the substantive requirements for the new registry set forth in section 102(c).

Finally, the new regulations will ``require emission reporting to begin no later than calendar year 2011.'' This final provision acknowledges that emission reporting will likely begin in 2010 under existing law, given that the Administrator must complete regulations by June 2009 requiring mandatory emission reporting. Emission reporting that is fully consistent with the provisions of the Climate Security Act will then begin no later than 2011.

I would like to thank Senators Klobuchar and Snowe for their dedicated leadership in support of the greenhouse gas registry provisions in this bill. It is a pleasure to work with them on this issue.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Imported Ethanol Parity Act of 2008.

This legislation is cosponsored by Senators Gregg, Cantwell, Allard and Collins.

First, let me explain what this bill does. The Imported Ethanol Parity Act instructs the President to lower the ethanol import tariff, so that it is no higher than the subsidy for blending ethanol into gasoline.

This legislation is necessary because the Farm Bill extended the tariff for two more years at $0.54 per gallon, even though the Farm Bill reduced the ethanol blending subsidy to $0.45 per gallon.

In effect, the Farm Bill has turned the tariff from an ``offset'' into a true trade barrier of at least $0.09 per gallon.

The Ethanol tariff poses many problems.

It increases the cost of Gasoline in the United States by making ethanol more expensive.

It prevents Americans from importing ethanol made from sugarcane. Sugar ethanol is the only available transportation fuel that works in today's cars and emits considerably less lifecycle greenhouse gas than gasoline;.

It taxes imports from our friends in Brazil, India, and Australia, while oil and gasoline imports from OPEC enter the United States tax free.

It hinders the emergence of a global biofuels marketplace through which countries with a strong biofuel crop could sell fuel to countries that suffered drought or other agricultural difficulties in the same crop year. Such a global market would permit mutually beneficial trade between producing regions and stabilize both fuel and food prices.

It makes us more dependent on the Middle East for fuel when we should be increasing the number of countries from whom we buy fuel. When it comes to energy security for the United States, which has less than 3 percent of proven global oil reserves and 25 percent of demand, we must diversify supply.

Bottom Line: until the tariff is lowered, the United States will tax the only fuel it can import that increases energy security, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and lowers gasoline prices.

In 2006 I introduced legislation to eliminate the ethanol tariff entirely, and in 2007 I cosponsored an amendment to the Energy Bill which would have eliminated the tariff.

The Imported Ethanol Parity Act is a different proposal that I believe addresses the concerns of tariff defenders.

The advocates of the $0.54 per gallon tariff on ethanol imports have always argued that the tariff is necessary in order to offset the blender subsidy that applies to the use of all ethanol, whether produced domestically or internationally. They argue that the ethanol subsidy exists to support American farmers who produce ethanol at higher cost than foreign producers.

For instance, on May 6, 2006, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee stated on the Senate floor that, ``the U.S. tariff on ethanol operates as an offset to an excise tax credit that applies to both domestically produced and imported ethanol.''

On May 9, 2006, the Renewable Fuels Association stated in a press release: ``the secondary tariff exists as an offset to the tax incentive gasoline refiners receive for every gallon of ethanol they blend, regardless of the ethanol's origin.''

In a letter to Congress dated June 20, 2007, the American Coalition for Ethanol, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the National Sorghum Producers, and the Renewable Fuels Association stated that the ``(blender) tax credit is available to refiners regardless of whether the ethanol blended is imported or domestic. To prevent U.S. taxpayers from subsidizing foreign ethanol companies, Congress passed an offset to the tax credit that foreign companies pay in the form of a tariff.''

Just this month, the Renewable Fuels Association's Executive Director asserted that ``The tariff is there not so much to protect the industry but the U.S. taxpayer.''

Bottom Line: the tariff cannot be justifiably maintained at $0.54 per gallon if its intent is to offset a $0.45 per gallon blender subsidy, and it should be reduced.

Ethanol from Brazil or Australia should not have to overcome a trade barrier that no drop of OPEC oil must face.

Tariff defenders either should support this legislation or explain how a tariff can justifiably be higher than the subsidy it is designed to offset.

Climate Change is the most significant environmental challenge we face, and I believe that lowering the ethanol tariff will make it less expensive for the United States to combat global warming.

The fuel we burn to power our cars is a major source of the greenhouse gas emissions warming our planet. To reduce this impact, we need to increase the fuel efficiency of our vehicles and lower the lifecycle carbon emissions of the fuel itself.

For this reason, in March 2007, I introduced the Clean Fuels and Vehicles Act with Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

The legislation proposed a ``Low Carbon Fuels Standard,'' which would require each major oil company selling gasoline in the United States to reduce the average lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy in their gasoline by 3 percent by 2015 and by 3 percent more in 2020.

The legislation was modeled on the state of California's Low Carbon Fuels Standard, which also requires a reduction in the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels.

This concept became a major aspect of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, in which Congress required oil companies to use an increasing quantity of ``advanced biofuels'' that produce at least 50 percent less lifecycle greenhouse gas than gasoline.

Unfortunately the ethanol tariff puts a trade barrier in front of the lowest carbon fuel available, making it considerably more expensive for the United States to lower the lifecycle carbon emissions of transportation fuel.

The lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol vary depending on production methods and feedstocks, and these differences will impact the degree to which ethanol may be used to meet ``low-carbon'' fuel requirements under California law and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

For instance, sugar cane ethanol plants use biomass from sugar stalks as process energy, resulting in less fossil fuel input compared to current corn-to-ethanol processes. By comparison, researchers at the University of California concluded that ``only 5 to 26 percent of the energy content (in corn ethanol) is renewable. The rest is primarily natural gas and coal,'' which are used in the production process.

The 2007 California Energy Commission Report entitled Full Fuel Cycle Assessment: Well-to-Wheels Energy Inputs, Emissions, and Water Impacts

concluded that the direct lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of imported sugar based ethanol are 68 percent lower than gasoline, while the direct lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of corn based ethanol from the Midwest are 15 to 28 percent lower than gasoline.

Further research released in 2008 suggests that the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of corn based ethanol may be higher than gasoline, when land use change is factored into the equation.

The bottom line: biofuels that protect our planet may be produced abroad, and we should not put tariffs in front of these fuels, while we import crude oil and gasoline tariff free.

Energy and food prices are both rising at unprecedented rates, and there is a great deal of debate about whether the renewable fuels standard mandating ethanol use is causing the problem.

I have always opposed corn ethanol mandates. But I remain concerned that the blending subsidy and the ethanol tariff have as much to do with rising corn prices as the ethanol mandate.

Corn ethanol production has considerably exceeded the renewable fuels standard every year since its adoption in 2005. With oil prices this high, it is profitable to produce ethanol at record corn prices with or without the mandate. The low value of renewable fuels standard credits, known as RINs, confirms that using ethanol is not a burden for oil companies.

To address the rising cost of corn, we have to address the underlying economics of corn ethanol production, and effectively increasing the tariff on imports, as the Farm Bill has done, is a step in the wrong direction.

This legislation corrects the Farm Bill's mistaken policy that imposed a real trade barrier on clean and climate friendly ethanol imports, giving gasoline imports a competitive advantage over cleaner fuel that simply should not exist at a time we are trying to combat climate change.

It prevents ethanol producers abroad from receiving American ethanol subsidies, which is supposedly the intent of the ethanol tariff.

I think it strikes the right balance, and I urge Congress to pass this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Imported Ethanol Parity Act of 2008.

This legislation is cosponsored by Senators Gregg, Cantwell, Allard and Collins.

First, let me explain what this bill does. The Imported Ethanol Parity Act instructs the President to lower the ethanol import tariff, so that it is no higher than the subsidy for blending ethanol into gasoline.

This legislation is necessary because the Farm Bill extended the tariff for two more years at $0.54 per gallon, even though the Farm Bill reduced the ethanol blending subsidy to $0.45 per gallon.

In effect, the Farm Bill has turned the tariff from an ``offset'' into a true trade barrier of at least $0.09 per gallon.

The Ethanol tariff poses many problems.

It increases the cost of Gasoline in the United States by making ethanol more expensive.

It prevents Americans from importing ethanol made from sugarcane. Sugar ethanol is the only available transportation fuel that works in today's cars and emits considerably less lifecycle greenhouse gas than gasoline;.

It taxes imports from our friends in Brazil, India, and Australia, while oil and gasoline imports from OPEC enter the United States tax free.

It hinders the emergence of a global biofuels marketplace through which countries with a strong biofuel crop could sell fuel to countries that suffered drought or other agricultural difficulties in the same crop year. Such a global market would permit mutually beneficial trade between producing regions and stabilize both fuel and food prices.

It makes us more dependent on the Middle East for fuel when we should be increasing the number of countries from whom we buy fuel. When it comes to energy security for the United States, which has less than 3 percent of proven global oil reserves and 25 percent of demand, we must diversify supply.

Bottom Line: until the tariff is lowered, the United States will tax the only fuel it can import that increases energy security, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and lowers gasoline prices.

In 2006 I introduced legislation to eliminate the ethanol tariff entirely, and in 2007 I cosponsored an amendment to the Energy Bill which would have eliminated the tariff.

The Imported Ethanol Parity Act is a different proposal that I believe addresses the concerns of tariff defenders.

The advocates of the $0.54 per gallon tariff on ethanol imports have always argued that the tariff is necessary in order to offset the blender subsidy that applies to the use of all ethanol, whether produced domestically or internationally. They argue that the ethanol subsidy exists to support American farmers who produce ethanol at higher cost than foreign producers.

For instance, on May 6, 2006, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee stated on the Senate floor that, ``the U.S. tariff on ethanol operates as an offset to an excise tax credit that applies to both domestically produced and imported ethanol.''

On May 9, 2006, the Renewable Fuels Association stated in a press release: ``the secondary tariff exists as an offset to the tax incentive gasoline refiners receive for every gallon of ethanol they blend, regardless of the ethanol's origin.''

In a letter to Congress dated June 20, 2007, the American Coalition for Ethanol, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the National Sorghum Producers, and the Renewable Fuels Association stated that the ``(blender) tax credit is available to refiners regardless of whether the ethanol blended is imported or domestic. To prevent U.S. taxpayers from subsidizing foreign ethanol companies, Congress passed an offset to the tax credit that foreign companies pay in the form of a tariff.''

Just this month, the Renewable Fuels Association's Executive Director asserted that ``The tariff is there not so much to protect the industry but the U.S. taxpayer.''

Bottom Line: the tariff cannot be justifiably maintained at $0.54 per gallon if its intent is to offset a $0.45 per gallon blender subsidy, and it should be reduced.

Ethanol from Brazil or Australia should not have to overcome a trade barrier that no drop of OPEC oil must face.

Tariff defenders either should support this legislation or explain how a tariff can justifiably be higher than the subsidy it is designed to offset.

Climate Change is the most significant environmental challenge we face, and I believe that lowering the ethanol tariff will make it less expensive for the United States to combat global warming.

The fuel we burn to power our cars is a major source of the greenhouse gas emissions warming our planet. To reduce this impact, we need to increase the fuel efficiency of our vehicles and lower the lifecycle carbon emissions of the fuel itself.

For this reason, in March 2007, I introduced the Clean Fuels and Vehicles Act with Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

The legislation proposed a ``Low Carbon Fuels Standard,'' which would require each major oil company selling gasoline in the United States to reduce the average lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy in their gasoline by 3 percent by 2015 and by 3 percent more in 2020.

The legislation was modeled on the state of California's Low Carbon Fuels Standard, which also requires a reduction in the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels.

This concept became a major aspect of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, in which Congress required oil companies to use an increasing quantity of ``advanced biofuels'' that produce at least 50 percent less lifecycle greenhouse gas than gasoline.

Unfortunately the ethanol tariff puts a trade barrier in front of the lowest carbon fuel available, making it considerably more expensive for the United States to lower the lifecycle carbon emissions of transportation fuel.

The lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol vary depending on production methods and feedstocks, and these differences will impact the degree to which ethanol may be used to meet ``low-carbon'' fuel requirements under California law and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

For instance, sugar cane ethanol plants use biomass from sugar stalks as process energy, resulting in less fossil fuel input compared to current corn-to-ethanol processes. By comparison, researchers at the University of California concluded that ``only 5 to 26 percent of the energy content (in corn ethanol) is renewable. The rest is primarily natural gas and coal,'' which are used in the production process.

The 2007 California Energy Commission Report entitled Full Fuel Cycle Assessment: Well-to-Wheels Energy Inputs, Emissions, and Water Impacts

concluded that the direct lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of imported sugar based ethanol are 68 percent lower than gasoline, while the direct lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of corn based ethanol from the Midwest are 15 to 28 percent lower than gasoline.

Further research released in 2008 suggests that the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of corn based ethanol may be higher than gasoline, when land use change is factored into the equation.

The bottom line: biofuels that protect our planet may be produced abroad, and we should not put tariffs in front of these fuels, while we import crude oil and gasoline tariff free.

Energy and food prices are both rising at unprecedented rates, and there is a great deal of debate about whether the renewable fuels standard mandating ethanol use is causing the problem.

I have always opposed corn ethanol mandates. But I remain concerned that the blending subsidy and the ethanol tariff have as much to do with rising corn prices as the ethanol mandate.

Corn ethanol production has considerably exceeded the renewable fuels standard every year since its adoption in 2005. With oil prices this high, it is profitable to produce ethanol at record corn prices with or without the mandate. The low value of renewable fuels standard credits, known as RINs, confirms that using ethanol is not a burden for oil companies.

To address the rising cost of corn, we have to address the underlying economics of corn ethanol production, and effectively increasing the tariff on imports, as the Farm Bill has done, is a step in the wrong direction.

This legislation corrects the Farm Bill's mistaken policy that imposed a real trade barrier on clean and climate friendly ethanol imports, giving gasoline imports a competitive advantage over cleaner fuel that simply should not exist at a time we are trying to combat climate change.

It prevents ethanol producers abroad from receiving American ethanol subsidies, which is supposedly the intent of the ethanol tariff.

I think it strikes the right balance, and I urge Congress to pass this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Through the Chair to the Senator from Florida, I am the first speaker on the global warming bill. Do what you need to do. I thank the Senator.

If I may, it is my understanding there is an agreement that I would be the first speaker on global warming. I have about 21 minutes. I could use 7 of them now. If the Senator from Oklahoma--I see him on the Senate floor--if he would prefer some time in morning business, I am prepared to yield to him, and then if I could be recognized as soon as we go to the bill?

Mr. President, I am going to yield back the morning business time so we can go to the bill and I will be able to speak without interruption.