Floor Statements

Mr. President, like a lot of Members of the Senate, I also heard from my constituents last weekend about high energy prices. I do not know how any Member of Congress can go back into their congressional district and their State and not be inundated by people who are very concerned about the impact high fuel prices are having on their pocketbooks and on our economy.

In fact, in my State of South Dakota, the studies bear this out. I think it has a disproportionate impact because it is a rural area. In rural areas, we are very energy dependent. We drive long distances. We are very agriculturally dependent in terms of our economy. Tourism is a big thing in our economy in rural areas. We also, in most cases, have lower incomes relative to the incomes of people in other parts of the country. In fact, there are some studies out that suggest that 15 percent, 16 percent on average of a person's income in a rural area is spent just paying the energy bill. Now, that is something that ought to concern everybody across this country because even though it might disproportionally impact rural areas today, it is clearly going to impact all Americans and continue to impact our economic activities in this country as time goes on if we do not get our arms around these escalating and daily increasing energy costs.

I had someone in my office today who said that he has a small refinery. He

said if the cap-and-trade bill we debated last week had been enacted or passed, immediately they would have seen a 38-cent increase in the price per gallon of gasoline.

There is a proposal to build a powerplant in my State of South Dakota, a coal-fired powerplant. I was visiting with some folks last week in my State who informed me that if, in fact, that cap-and-trade proposal had passed, it would have tripled the cost to construct that powerplant, something that is necessary to provide base load energy for the energy demands and requirements we have in the upper Midwest.

So here we are talking about high energy prices, high fuel prices, and the only solutions our colleagues are putting on the floor are solutions that would actually increase fuel costs. The cap-and-trade proposal last week, by any estimate--and there were 11 studies that were done of the five cap-and-trade proposals put before or introduced in the Senate, one which was put before the Senate last week. All 11 studies concluded that if enacted, that proposal would increase fuel costs, it would increase electricity costs, and it would lead to negative gross domestic product growth. The question was not if, it was how much would it increase costs. By as much as a dollar a gallon for gasoline. There were a number of studies conducted that suggested that it would cost the economy up to $6 trillion in GDP, negative GDP, as a result of that cap-and-trade proposal.

So here we are on the floor of the Senate. Everyone, I assume, is hearing the same thing I am hearing, when they go back to their respective States, from their constituents: We have high energy prices; we need some action; we need you to do something about that. And everything that has been put before the Senate last week and this week by the Democratic leadership does one thing: increases energy costs.

We had a vote today on an ``energy bill.'' What did it do? It imposed new taxes on energy. That was tried. That was tried back in the 1980s, the windfall profits tax. It led to reduced energy production in this country. The other thing that was talked about today was, well, let's sue OPEC, let's sue OPEC; that will somehow drive down the cost of energy.

There is not anything in any of those proposals that does anything to address the problem because you cannot address this problem, you cannot fix the energy crisis in this country unless you address the issue of supply. There is not anything in any of those bills that have been put forward, that have been put forward by the other side, that addresses the fundamental issue of supply. I believe the American people understand that. They understand full well that you do not raise taxes to get more of something; if you raise taxes, you are going to get less of something. They realize that we cannot just sort of unilaterally decide to sue an oil cartel and expect that is going to lead to additional energy supply in this country.

There is one thing and one thing only that we can do to lower gasoline prices for people in this country; that is, increase homegrown domestic energy supplies so that we do not have to rely upon other nations around the world for our energy.

I wish to share a couple of statics that I think are important in this debate. One is that 60 percent of our oil comes from outside the United States. That means that on any given day we are getting 60 percent of our energy to fuel our automobiles and to keep our economy going from countries around the world, many of which are run by petro- dictators who have nothing but hostile and ill intentions toward the United States. Sixty percent of our oil supply is coming from outside the United States.

We use 140 billion gallons of gasoline every year in this country. I point that out because I want to use that to get to another point; that is, we are generating about 8 billion gallons of renewable energy or ethanol on an annual basis. At the end of this year, we will be generating 1 billion gallons in my State of South Dakota alone. But the studies that have been done have suggested that that 8 billion gallons of ethanol, out of the 140 billion gallons of fuel we use in this country, of gasoline we use in this country, has reduced energy prices by about 15 percent--price per barrel of oil, price per gallon of gasoline reduced by about 15 percent by the contribution that 8 billion gallons of ethanol is making to our overall fuel supply.

In today's gasoline prices, 15 percent would be about 50 cents, 60 cents on the gallon. So we have lower fuel prices today than we would otherwise have as a result of adding to our supply of energy, homegrown energy, through the hard work and production of our farmers across the country who raise the corn that is converted into ethanol.

I suggest perhaps the way to address this problem, if, in fact, 8 billion gallons of ethanol has helped reduce gasoline prices by 50 cents a gallon, maybe what we ought to be doing is looking at ways we can grow additional energy supply. We don't need less biofuels, we need more. We are going to be moving now from corn-based ethanol into cellulosic ethanol that can be made from other forms of biomass. We hope that technology will be progressing quickly enough that it will enable us to meet the targets we have of 36 billion gallons called for in the renewable fuels standard. That is what we are doing in the area of biofuels.

I say that because if we look at what we have in terms of domestic resources, whether that is biofuels or oil, if we could get some of that oil into the pipeline, we could do a lot to impact prices people are paying for a gallon of gasoline. Back in 1995, President Clinton vetoed a bill passed by Congress that would have allowed for exploration on the North Slope of Alaska. We have somewhere between 6 and 16 billion barrels of oil on the North Slope underneath the ground. With modern technology and in an environmentally friendly way, directional and horizontal drilling, with a minimal imprint on the surface, we can get access to somewhere between 6 and 16 barrels of oil. What does that translate into? That translates into 1 million barrels a day coming into this country--1 million barrels a day. And you figure a barrel translates into 42 gallons, and of that about half can be refined into gasoline, a million barrels a day would translate into about 7 billion gallons of gasoline a year or roughly equivalent to what we are generating in ethanol. And the 8 billion gallons in ethanol is reducing the price of gas by about 50 cents a gallon. So if you do the math, more energy, more supply at the margin is going to lead to lower cost. That is the fundamental economic rule of supply and demand that most people understand.

Any of my constituents in South Dakota, if I went home and told them that the Democratic leadership has put a bill on the floor that is going to allow us to file lawsuits against OPEC or that is going to impose new taxes on oil exploration, a windfall profits tax, they would say: What does that do to affect the law of supply and demand? Get more supply in the marketplace so that we can do something about reducing the price per gallon of gasoline?

This problem gets addressed when America gets serious about domestic energy supplies. We have tried again and again to get a vote on exploration on the North Slope. We have tried again and again to get a vote on deep sea exploration for energy--all of which has been blocked in the Senate.

We have even tried to get legislation moved that would expedite the permitting process for new refineries because we have a shortage of refining capacity. These are all things that we could be doing that would help address the supply problem.

I suggest when we get to what we are focusing on that we can do, there are pieces of legislation on which there is broad agreement. We passed a bill a couple weeks ago that Senators Ensign and Cantwell offered of tax extenders that would help promote more investment in renewable energy. It passed out of the Senate by a vote of 88 to 8, broad bipartisan support. Why are we not focusing on those things we can do rather than spending our time having the Democrats throw out solutions that impose new taxes, new regulations, new bailouts to trial lawyers, which was included in this bill, an earmark for the Senator from New York at $1.2 billion, all of which we know are not going to pass?

We aren't going to get the votes to get that sort of thing through. But there are things we can be doing, such as extending the production tax credit

for wind, which was included in the Energy bill to which I just referred. Those are the things we ought to be looking at. What can we do to add to the supply of electricity, to add to the supply of fuels so that we don't have to get 60 percent of our energy from outside the United States, so we are actually doing something that will in a positive way impact the price our constituents pay for a gallon of gasoline?

This impact is going to be felt all across the economy. Look at the statistics on airlines. We are using actually less fuel on airlines today, if we look at this green line, than we were going back even to 2000 and 2001. But look at the fuel costs of the airlines. They are exploding. We have airlines facing bankruptcy, making service cutbacks, not serving smaller communities, laying off employees because of high fuel costs. There is no end in sight.

It is $4 today. What is to stop it from going to $5? If Ahmadinejad and Chavez decide they want to get $200 for a barrel of oil, what is to stop them, if we have no leverage? We need to be taking steps in the United States that will increase our domestic supply of energy so we don't have to rely upon those other countries for our energy supply. We have those resources here. We have oil. We have biofuels. We need new refineries. We can build new nuclear plants. All are being blocked.

Let's focus on what we can do to affect the fundamental rule of supply and demand that will lead to lower energy costs, that will increase the amount of energy we have relative to demand. That is how we can impact in a positive way the price our constituents are paying for a gallon of gasoline. Until we get serious about that, all this other stuff done for optics because it is an election year and to gain some political upper hand to go back to a constituency saying, we did this or we are going to beat up the oil companies, raise taxes, regulations and lawsuits and litigation, those sorts of things don't solve the fundamental problem. We don't have enough domestic supply. Until we address that fundamental problem, we will continue to be held over a barrel and be at the mercy of these foreign countries telling us what the price per barrel of oil and price per gallon of gasoline is going to be.

I hope we can focus on that. We have some great solutions. My State is a good example of what we have done with renewables. The Senator from Iowa has a lot of great examples in his State of what we are doing with renewable energy and wind. We have the resources to get this done. It is high time we did it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bipartisan bill that seeks to update the way in which the Federal Government tracks the shipment of hazardous waste. I am pleased that Senators Cardin and Lautenberg have joined me in introducing this bill, which builds upon the bipartisan legislation I introduced last Congress with Senator Jeffords and Senator Inhofe when I served as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund and Waste Management.

Simply put, our legislation would direct the Environmental Protection Agency to begin a much needed transformation of the tracking of hazardous wastes. While the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, RCRA, that Congress passed in 1976 has done a great deal to protect human health and the environment, the paper manifest process that is used to track federally-regulated hazardous wastes from ``cradle to grave'' has turned into the single largest continuous paperwork burden imposed on regulated entities under Federal environmental law.

On an annual basis, roughly 139,000 regulated entities track anywhere between 2.5-5 million hazardous waste manifests. This paperwork burden has been estimated to cost states and the regulated community between $200 million and $500 million annually. This is largely due to the fact that each paper manifest is comprised of numerous carbon copies that must be signed, mailed to waste generators and State agencies--and then ultimately stored by each regulated entity. To underscore just how cumbersome this paper manifest is, the Environmental Protection Agency has noted that roughly 22 States don't even keep copies because it represents too large of a paperwork burden.

The benefits of using electronic manifests are numerous and each of the witnesses who testified at the EPW Subcommittee hearing that I chaired on September 26, 2006 spoke to the benefits it would have--both in terms of improving federal oversight of hazardous waste transport and lessening the paperwork burden on regulated entities.

I would like to stress that this legislation builds upon the measure I introduced last Congress and incorporates a handful of changes made at the request of various stakeholders, including Senator Boxer who now chairs the EPW Committee.

Because of the broad support that this measure enjoys, I look forward to the long awaited mark-up of this bill before the EPW Committee. I would like to thank both Senator Cardin and Senator Lautenberg for their support as we work to improve the arcane system currently utilized to track hazardous waste shipments. Transitioning to an electronic system is long overdue and this legislation would be paid for by the users of the system--the generators and waste companies that handle hazardous waste.

In closing I would like to highlight just one of the statements of support I received for the legislation that I began working on over 2 years ago. The following statement of support came from Terrence Gray, President of the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, who noted:

It is appropriate, many would say overdue, in the 21st

Century economy to have the capability of using electronic

reporting for such a tracking system, and we are supportive

of your efforts to initiate this process. It is our

understanding that [this bill] is the necessary first step in

designating the detailed system for electronic manifesting,

and for that reason we think it should go forward.

I trust that my colleagues will recognize the benefits of setting up an electronic manifest system as is envisioned under the Thune-Cardin bill we have introduced today.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bipartisan bill that seeks to update the way in which the Federal Government tracks the shipment of hazardous waste. I am pleased that Senators Cardin and Lautenberg have joined me in introducing this bill, which builds upon the bipartisan legislation I introduced last Congress with Senator Jeffords and Senator Inhofe when I served as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund and Waste Management.

Simply put, our legislation would direct the Environmental Protection Agency to begin a much needed transformation of the tracking of hazardous wastes. While the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, RCRA, that Congress passed in 1976 has done a great deal to protect human health and the environment, the paper manifest process that is used to track federally-regulated hazardous wastes from ``cradle to grave'' has turned into the single largest continuous paperwork burden imposed on regulated entities under Federal environmental law.

On an annual basis, roughly 139,000 regulated entities track anywhere between 2.5-5 million hazardous waste manifests. This paperwork burden has been estimated to cost states and the regulated community between $200 million and $500 million annually. This is largely due to the fact that each paper manifest is comprised of numerous carbon copies that must be signed, mailed to waste generators and State agencies--and then ultimately stored by each regulated entity. To underscore just how cumbersome this paper manifest is, the Environmental Protection Agency has noted that roughly 22 States don't even keep copies because it represents too large of a paperwork burden.

The benefits of using electronic manifests are numerous and each of the witnesses who testified at the EPW Subcommittee hearing that I chaired on September 26, 2006 spoke to the benefits it would have--both in terms of improving federal oversight of hazardous waste transport and lessening the paperwork burden on regulated entities.

I would like to stress that this legislation builds upon the measure I introduced last Congress and incorporates a handful of changes made at the request of various stakeholders, including Senator Boxer who now chairs the EPW Committee.

Because of the broad support that this measure enjoys, I look forward to the long awaited mark-up of this bill before the EPW Committee. I would like to thank both Senator Cardin and Senator Lautenberg for their support as we work to improve the arcane system currently utilized to track hazardous waste shipments. Transitioning to an electronic system is long overdue and this legislation would be paid for by the users of the system--the generators and waste companies that handle hazardous waste.

In closing I would like to highlight just one of the statements of support I received for the legislation that I began working on over 2 years ago. The following statement of support came from Terrence Gray, President of the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, who noted:

It is appropriate, many would say overdue, in the 21st

Century economy to have the capability of using electronic

reporting for such a tracking system, and we are supportive

of your efforts to initiate this process. It is our

understanding that [this bill] is the necessary first step in

designating the detailed system for electronic manifesting,

and for that reason we think it should go forward.

I trust that my colleagues will recognize the benefits of setting up an electronic manifest system as is envisioned under the Thune-Cardin bill we have introduced today.

Mr. President, as the American public observes and listens to the debate on climate change and global warming, I think there are probably three fundamental questions everybody wants answered. The first question is an obvious one, and that is: Is climate change occurring? Is global warming a fact and a reality that we need to deal with? I think you have to assume the answer to that question is yes. There are changes going on in our climate, on our planet, some of which we can explain and some of which we cannot explain.

Honestly, I will use South Dakota as a case in point. We have experienced--probably for the last decade--successive and continuous years of drought. Yet, this year, in May, we had the wettest year in western South Dakota--in Rapid City--ever since they started keeping historical records. So there are changes that occur that have to be viewed in the context of time--not just a decade period but a hundred- or thousand-year period--to determine what are the causes of the changes we are seeing in the climate. We had, in South Dakota, the coldest April this year we have had historically, going back 50 to 100 years, and blizzards into the month of May. So there are a lot of changes that are going on, some of which I think can be explained and some of which cannot be explained. We need to look at them in the broader context of what has happened over a long period of time with respect to our climate.

The second question the American people would ask is this: If, in fact, climate change is occurring--and we assume the answer to that is yes--is human activity contributing to that? If we, again, assume the answer to this question is yes, then we have to get to the next question. I think, frankly, I would answer, if we look at the question of whether human activity is contributing to that, we cannot put our heads in the sand. Obviously, changes are occurring. We assume that the presence of humanity on this planet and some of the things we are emitting into the atmosphere are creating changes. I think we need to acknowledge that.

That leads to the next question that I think has become the focus of the debate in the Senate, and that is this question: If the answer to question No. 1 is yes, it is occurring, and 2, it is occurring at least on some level--and we don't know how to quantify that because of human activity--what are we going to do about it and at what cost? That is really the focal point of the debate in the Senate today.

In my view, there are many problems associated with the bill currently under consideration on the floor of the Senate. First off, it provides a minimal environmental benefit since it is a unilateral solution. China has exceeded us in terms of CO2 emissions. It will not get them to stop their CO2 emissions because the United States chooses to implement a cap-and-trade program. So you don't gain environmental benefit. In fact, it could likely have some profound and devastating impacts on our economy.

With regard to the first point about the other polluting countries around the world, this was said recently by President Clinton with regard to the Kyoto protocol. He said that 170 countries signed the treaty, and only 6 out of 170 reduced their greenhouse gases to the 1990 level, and only 6 will do so by 2012 at the deadline.

These countries signed a binding agreement, and yet they are doing really nothing to get back to the goal or targets called for in that protocol.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the European Union, which began to operate its cap-and-trade system in 2005, has actually seen carbon dioxide emissions rise by 1 percent per year since that time. Interestingly enough, in the United States, since that same time when Europe implemented their cap-and-trade system, carbon dioxide emissions have actually declined by about 1 percent.

I guess the bigger question here to this last question is, if this is occurring, what do we do about it and at what cost? We have to think long and hard about that in light of some of the things that are occurring in the country. We have $3.99 gasoline and $4.67 diesel. We have had devastating impacts on the economy in the United States as a result of our dependence upon foreign sources of energy. We need to lessen that dependence and look for technologies that will clean up our environment. Imposing an onerous, burdensome system from the top in which we impose a big tax burden on literally every American, because with $3.99 gasoline and all the studies done by the Energy Information Agency--11 studies have been done, all of which have concluded that they will increase gas prices substantially and electricity prices substantially. We have to take a hard look at what the impact will be on our economy.

I understand the time for morning business is going to expire. I would like to address some of those impacts as this debate on the climate change legislation gets underway. If I could wrap up morning business, I would like to continue with the debate on the climate change legislation, if that would be in order.

Mr. President, I want to start with, regarding these economic impacts, looking generally at the economy.

In the fourth quarter of last year, the economy grew at six-tenths of 1 percent, and in the first quarter of this year it grew at nine-tenths of 1 percent. Some analysts and elected officials are looking at the record-high energy prices, the crisis in the financial services and housing markets, and the recent job losses as signs that we are already in a recession. In the last few weeks, we have seen oil traded at $130 a barrel, which has caused the price of virtually all consumer goods in this country to increase. However, after months of debating high energy prices and a sluggish economy, we are now debating a bill that would actually raise energy prices and slow economic growth. I don't blame my constituents when they wonder how Washington works and complain that Congress seems to be out of touch with their everyday reality.

Over the Memorial Day weekend, millions of families were faced with record-high gas prices. As they planned their vacations to travel to see loved ones, they were met with average gasoline prices that hovered around $4 per gallon.

I point out that as the economy has slowed down, high energy prices have gone up, and the impact it has had on

every American family--again, the EIA analyzed this bill on the floor today, and it would project gasoline prices to increase at 21 percent, or higher, in 2020 and 41 percent in the year 2030 under this proposal before us today. The Environmental Protection Agency also looked at the bill and concluded that gas prices would increase over 20 percent by 2030.

As we have debated this bill this week, there has been one particular impact that I think may have been overlooked in the legislation that has been drafted, and that is the impact on our Nation's domestic aviation sector.

Many of my colleagues and consumers in the country have witnessed firsthand in the first few months of this year that the domestic airlines are being crippled by the record price of aviation fuel, which will continue to rise in price under the cap-and-trade structure of this legislation. I will point out headlines of a few articles from yesterday and today: ``Continental Airlines to cut 3,000 jobs and capacity''; ``Summer airfares double, triple, quadruple''; ``United to cut back service, eliminate jobs.''

The U.S. airline industry recently sent a letter to all Senators in anticipation of the debate on this climate change legislation we have in front of us today. Here is what it says:

The proposed bill adds a significant additional increment

to the cost of transportation fuel. Assuming that emissions

allowances are modestly priced at $25 per metric ton of

carbon dioxide equivalents in 2012, when the bill would go

into effect, this legislation would add another $5 billion to

U.S. airline fuel costs, escalating each year thereafter.

Assuming a lower-end estimate in the prices in 2020, a $40

per metric ton CO2 price, the bill would impose a

$10 billion additional fuel tax on the U.S. airlines,

again escalating annually thereafter. Such costs will

result in further job losses, losses in air services to

small communities, and negative economic effects.

I certainly agree we should all be doing more to promote cleaner forms of energy. But the legislation, as drafted, that we have before us today has significant ramifications that I think many individuals haven't fully considered.

I have been a strong supporter of renewable fuels that can be produced in the United States and used in automobiles to reduce our dangerous dependence upon foreign oil. These alternative fuels are not applicable to our Nation's aviation sector. Now, it would be one thing to require sectors of the economy to transition to cleaner forms of energy, but this legislation, as drafted, would have a significant cost on our domestic airlines, which are already being significantly impacted by the record cost of oil, by adding additional costs that will be passed on to the consumer, which, in my opinion, could result in not only fewer people traveling but could bankrupt U.S. air carriers, while at the same time not requiring foreign air carriers to be subject to the same taxes that will be passed along under the cap- and-trade system that is envisioned in this legislation.

So one impact that I don't think has been entered in this debate as heavily as it should have been is the aviation sector of our economy, which is going through tumult and is experiencing economic hardship because of high fuel prices. This would complicate that further, and because they don't have access to using some of the cleaner fuels we are able to run through automobiles, it only worsens the situation they face. That is on top of what we are talking about today in terms of our headlines on job losses, capacity losses, airfares doubling, tripling, quadrupling, and cutbacks in service.

What do we do, then, in response to the question, If this is occurring--climate change--and if human activity is contributing to it, what do we do about it and at what cost? I think there are a lot of things we could and should be doing.

Honestly, irrespective of the answers to the first two questions, we should be making every effort we can to get emissions such as CO2 out of our atmosphere. We ought to work as hard as we can to do that. Rather than creating a cumbersome new bureaucracy that would increase the price of gasoline, Congress ought to look to lowering gas prices through increased domestic production and refining capacity and investment in alternatives, such as biofuels.

With respect to electricity rates, again, according to the EIA, electricity prices are projected to increase up to 27 percent in 2020 and a 64-percent increase in electricity prices by 2030. Under the bill before us, average annual household energy bills, excluding transportation costs, would be $325 higher in 2020 and $123 higher in the year 2030.

I think there are some really good things that can be done and should be done. We need to start by investing in clean energy. I agree that we need to research and develop a new, reliable low-carbon energy source.

In South Dakota, we have examples of how that works. We are going to be producing a billion gallons of ethanol by the end of this year. New corn-based ethanol plants are producing ethanol with a 20-percent reduction in life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions relative to regular gasoline. In the coming years, we will be producing cellulosic ethanol that will reduce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80 percent. South Dakota also has an abundant source of wind, which is a zero-carbon-emitting source of energy.

A recent DOE study noted that the United States has the ability to meet 20 percent of its generation needs with wind by 2030. We can promote low-carbon energy without destroying jobs. We can do this without raising taxes, and we can do this without raising gasoline prices.

The climate change bill before the Senate puts the cart before the horse. The bill enacts mandates on at least 2,000 entities, and then the Federal Government collects the revenue through annual allowance auctions, and then the Government invests in new technologies. Meanwhile, jobs are lost, our economic growth slows, and family budgets get squeezed. If we are willing to make a bipartisan commitment to research and development of new technologies today, carbon reductions, in the very near future, will be considerably less expensive.

In November of 2007, the Senate Commerce Committee held one of many hearings on clean coal technology, which will play a major role in the future of our Nation's energy portfolio. The nonprofit Electric Power Research Institute, which was represented at that hearing, identified the research and development pathways to demonstrate, by 2025, a full portfolio of economically attractive, commercial-scale, advanced coal power and integrated CCS technologies suitable for use with the broad range of coal types. If we make the commitment today to fund the research, finance the demonstration projects, and fund the loan guarantees first--if we do all those things first--reducing carbon emissions in the future will be far less costly to our economy.

Mr. President, my message to my colleagues is very simply that we need to develop the technology before enacting onerous Government mandates on virtually every single part of our economy. Higher gas prices, higher electricity rates, a shrinking GDP, job losses, and minimal environmental benefit is what will come about as a result of this legislation if enacted.

There is a better way. We ought to be doing everything we possibly can to get CO2 emissions and other pollutants out of our atmosphere to address the concerns we have about our environment, to be good stewards, to pass on a better world to the next generation, but there is a way we can go about this that is incentive based, that gets away from the heavy-handed, onerous regulations imposed by this bill and the enormous cost that will be imposed on literally every sector of our economy and, most importantly, on the hard-working American families who will be faced with higher prices for gasoline, higher prices for electricity at a time when we should be desperately looking for ways to reduce those prices and to lessen the economic hardship that every family in this country is experiencing.

I hope my colleagues will vote no. I, too, have some amendments to offer to the bill if we get the opportunity to offer the amendments. My understanding is the amendment tree has been filled. That is unfortunate. This is a bill of enormous consequence to this country. Some have described it as the biggest reorganization of the Government since the 1930s. Given the complexities and the enormous impact this would have on Americans' everyday lives, we need to go about this in a way

that allows us to have open debate, offer amendments, and improve this bill.

I regret the fact that the Democratic leadership has decided to abandon that open process in exchange for filling the amendment tree and preventing us from having an open debate and considering amendments that actually would protect consumers from higher gas and energy prices that would be the result of this legislation.

If we get to an open process, I hope to have further debate and amendments we can consider.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 496.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, the resolution that was adopted by the Senate is S. Res. 496, which I introduced on April 2, 2008, along with my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Tim Johnson. The resolution honors the 60th anniversary of the Crazy Horse Memorial.

The Crazy Horse Memorial, located in the Black Hills of South Dakota, honors the culture, the tradition, and the living heritage of Native Americans. Once completed, the memorial will stand more than 22 stories high and be the largest mountain sculpture in the world. Every year, there is an event called the Volksmarch, in which people start at the base and walk up to the very top of the monument. You cannot appreciate the size and the dimension of this great monument from

a distance. It is only when you get up close that the true dimensions of this monument come into full view. I have had that opportunity on the Volksmarch, with my family, to walk up and stand next to this monument and to have an appreciation for its true dimension and for what it means to my State of South Dakota and to the Native American culture.

The sculptor of this monument, Korczak Ziolkowski, had no formal training and originally came to South Dakota to assist Gutzon Borglum in the carving of Mount Rushmore. In 1939, Chief Henry Standing Bear invited him to construct another mountain monument, this one to honor a great Native American hero. However, it was not until June 3, in 1948, that the project was officially dedicated.

Crazy Horse, a great Lakota chief, was selected as the Native American hero worthy of the mountain monument because of his courage in battle, his visionary leadership, and his commitment to the preservation of the traditional Lakota way of life. The memorial was placed in the Black Hills of South Dakota because they are sacred to the Lakota people. While Crazy Horse was never photographed, the completed monument will feature a likeness of him riding a horse and pointing with his left hand out toward the Black Hills.

Ziolkowski, who worked tirelessly and without salary on the Crazy Horse Memorial until his death in 1982, believed in individual initiative and private enterprise and worked to build the memorial without any Federal funding. As my colleagues can see from the photo we have here, the face of Crazy Horse is complete, the rest of the mountain has been roughly blocked out, and efforts are currently focused on carving the horse's head.

While there is no way to predict the date of completion because of weather, financing, and the challenges of carving a mountain, Ziolkowski's wife Ruth, who is an amazingly determined woman, and his family, along with the help of thousands of donors and visitors, continues Ziolkowski's mission of honoring Native Americans through the construction of this monument.

Therefore, today I rise to honor the 60th anniversary of the Crazy Horse Memorial and send my best wishes to all those working to make Korczak Ziolkowski's vision a reality.

I thank the Senate for its adoption of the resolution, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I honor Wilfred Kadlec, who served in the Pacific theater of World War II with the U.S. Navy. On this Memorial Day, I would like to commend him for his brave actions and devoted service to our country.

Like many of his generation, Kadlec responded honorably to the call of duty in the Second World War. Kadlec served his country bravely as a Petty Officer, Second Class, on the USS Radford and the USS Klondike. Kadlec's sacrifice is evident as he received the Purple Heart among many other medals during his service in the U.S. Navy.

Kadlec continued to serve his local and veterans' communities long after his military service ended in 1946. He served as an officer on the Liberty Township board for over 60 years. Also, he is a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 3179 of Faulkton, SD, and the American Legion Post 259 of Roscoe, SD.

Kadlec is one example of the great generation that carried our Nation through its most difficult times. We are indebted to their sacrifice and their

willingness to fight for the American people and way of life.

Again, I would like to thank Wilfred for his service as we remember all those who have protected freedom around the world and have made sacrifices to keep America safe on this Memorial Day.

Mr. President, today I recognize Dr. Charles Ruch, outgoing president of the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology in Rapid City who is retiring after 5 years of service to the university.

The School of Mines was established in 1885 and enjoys a nationwide reputation for excellence in engineering, the sciences, and computer technology. President Ruch has received praise from the South Dakota Board of Regents for his keen focus on the academic, research and public service missions at the university. Since his arrival in 2003, the number of doctoral programs has doubled and the awards for research-related grants and contracts have increased 35 percent in the last 4 years to $17.2 million. Under his tenure, a new business incubator on campus has created important links between higher education, economic development and the Black Hills region. Additionally, under his visionary leadership, the School of Mines has conducted ``cutting edge'' defense research projects on pressing current day issues such as detecting and defeating improvised explosive devices and developing new technologies to inexpensively repair combat vehicles. He has been recognized by faculty, students and alumni as a strong advocate for the institution.

His leadership and dedication to the School of Mines will be greatly missed. It gives me great pleasure to congratulate Dr. Ruch on a successful career in higher education and wish him the best on his retirement.

Mr. President, today I recognize the 90th birthday of Mr. Squire Rudolph Broel.

A native South Dakotan, Squire was born in Lesterville, SD, on May 29, 1918, to Rudolph and May Broel. Upon graduation from Lesterville High School in 1936, Squire was employed in various jobs throughout the area including at the Stuelpnagals Chicken Hatchery. On June 24, 1940, Squire married another Lesterville native Evelyn Hladky and they would eventually have three children: Larry Broel, Carolyn McDonald, and Jean Lehn. During World War II Squire served in the Army Air Corps and for most of his service was stationed in Mississippi.

Soon after his discharge and return to South Dakota, Squire and his family moved to Sturgis, SD, where he still lives today. It was in Sturgis, that Squire became a fireman at the Fort Meade Veterans Hospital in 1951. He worked there until his retirement in 1978, and during that time he earned many awards, including the Veterans Hospital Civil Service Award for South Dakota in 1964.

After his retirement from Fort Meade, Squire continued to serve as a fireman for the Sturgis Volunteer Fire Department and in 1985 he was honored by the Governor of South Dakota for his 50 years of fire service with the proclamation of ``Squire Broel Day'' throughout the State. In 1994, Squire earned the South Dakota Outstanding Fire Service Award. During his career as a fireman Squire was also a member of the Black Hills Safety Council, the South Dakota Fire Chiefs Association, and the Keep South Dakota Green Association.

Now officially retired from the Sturgis Volunteer Fire Department, Squire remains active with numerous volunteer activities and in various civic organizations. He also enjoys hunting, watching baseball, traveling, and spending time with his five grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren.

It gives me great pleasure to commemorate the 90th birthday of Squire Broel and to wish him continued health and happiness in the years to come.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, for their extraordinary leadership on this bill and for the imposing staff work that was involved in bringing this to conclusion. At long last we are going to have a farm bill.

This farm bill is important for a lot of reasons. I don't have time to get into all the details of why I think this bill is important, but it does preserve a strong safety net. It does provide a permanent disaster title, which is something many of us have sought to achieve for some time, and fought long and hard for. It has conservation provisions that increase funding for certain conservation programs.

On balance, this is a farm bill that is reflective of all the needs, the desires, the priorities of the Members--not only of the Agriculture Committee but also of this Congress. I think it will move agriculture forward in a positive direction. I congratulate the leaders on the committee and those who have been involved all through this process for their hard work in bringing us to where we are today.

I want to make one point, though, because I think if there is anything in this bill as important as any of it, it is the energy title in this farm bill. The reason for that is we have an energy crisis in this country. You cannot go anywhere in my State of South Dakota, I daresay anywhere in this country, without hearing people talk about the high cost of gasoline. There is one thing we have done that is positive in terms of reducing the cost of oil, reducing the cost of gasoline in this country, and that is biofuels, bioenergy.

There is a lot of debate. I want to set one thing straight for the record because there has been a lot of criticism lately of corn-based ethanol and we talk about this whole food versus fuel debate going on in the country today. So people know what the facts are, here are the facts. In 2002, the United States grew 9 billion bushels of corn. Of that, we turned 1.1 billion bushels into 3 billion gallons of ethanol.

In 2007, farmers grew 13.1 billion bushels of corn and turned 3 billion bushels of it into 8 billion gallons of ethanol, leaving 10.1 billion bushels for food, more than the 7.9 billion bushels in 2002.

If you do the math, despite a nearly threefold increase--growth--in the corn ethanol industry, the net corn food and feed product of the United States increased 34 percent since 2002.

Even though we dramatically increased the amount of ethanol we are producing in this country, we still, because of the great hard work of our farmers in this country and the productivity and increases in technology, produced dramatically more corn, so much so that we have 34 percent more corn in 2007 than we did in 2002, notwithstanding the threefold increase in renewable fuels.

I say all that to set the record straight because there is a real debate going on in this country about whether ethanol is to be blamed for higher food prices. Frankly, oil has way more to do with the cost of food and everything else we purchase in this country than does ethanol. But that is not enough. We can do a lot more. The reason the energy title in this bill is so important is because it moves us in a new direction. The next generation of biofuels is what we call cellulosic ethanol, made from biomass, made from wood chips, made from corncobs, made from switchgrasses and other types of grasses that are grown in abundance on the prairies of South Dakota and other places across this country.

We have an enormous opportunity here to not shrink the amount of biofuels we have in this country, but to grow the amount of biofuels because it is the one thing that is keeping gas prices under control. According to an analysis that was done by Merrill Lynch that was reported upon in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks back, if it were not for ethanol, gas prices and oil prices in this country would be 15 percent higher than they are today. That is about 50 cents a gallon for gasoline. We do not need less volume of biofuels, we need more volume of biofuels. That is why the energy title in this farm bill is so important, because it provides important incentives for the next generation of biofuels, cellulosic ethanol, to encourage farmers to grow energy-dedicated crops that can be converted into cellulosic ethanol. As we transition from corn-based ethanol to cellulosic ethanol, we have an incredible opportunity for this country to become less dependent upon foreign sources of energy, to grow our domestic supply of energy in this country in a way that is environmentally clean, in a way that helps support the economy of the United States of America and does not ship billions and billions of dollars every single year outside the United States to purchase imported oil.

This is an important farm bill for a lot of reasons, but the energy title is critical and I hope my colleagues here in the Senate, if for no other reason, will support it because of its energy provisions.

I see my time has expired, so I yield the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to call up amendment No. 4731 which I filed earlier today with my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Tim Johnson.

Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the Senator from New Mexico for his comprehensive energy bill which he introduced. It is a solution we need to take a hard look at, perhaps moving to it sometime in the not too distant future here in the Senate. I think his bill starts the debate.

Unfortunately, he has tried over and over and over again to start the debate here in the Senate. The legislation he introduced--and I am a cosponsor of that bill last week--is comprehensive in that it addresses the supply issue. We can't address America's high energy costs absent addressing the issue of supply. We are sending, as was already noted, $1.6 billion every single day outside the United States and, in some cases, to countries that would do us harm, in order to meet our demand for energy here at home. The Senator from New Mexico has put forward a solution which is broad based and which addresses the supply issue by making available some of the reserves we have in this country on the North Slope of Alaska, on the Outer Continental Shelf, and he addresses the need for additional refinery capacity. We haven't built a refinery in 30 years, since 1976. He also addresses some of the new technologies such as coal to liquid, which was talked about earlier.

I should say he changes a definition that was modified very late in the Energy bill debate last year that precludes forest waste residues from being a source of cellulosic ethanol because in many respects, the future of renewable energy in this country is transitioning from corn- based ethanol to cellulosic ethanol. We have enormous biomass available in this country in forests in the form of switchgrass that can be grown in abundance on the prairies in this country and other forms of biomass that can be available and can be converted into cellulosic ethanol. So his solution is to create additional supply--the supply of fuels but also the capacity of refineries--in order to be able to process more of those natural resources into refined gasoline. If we don't do that, we are going to continue to send billions and billions and billions of dollars every single year to countries outside the United States which, in many cases, use those very dollars to turn around and fund terrorist organizations that attack Americans, that to the tune of about almost $500 billion. Half a trillion dollars last year left the United States in order to meet the demand we have for energy here at home.

I congratulate the Senator from New Mexico and hope we can get a debate going here in the Senate that addresses the supply issue.

I am all for conservation measures. There are some conservation measures as well, and there are lots of steps we can be taking. Last year as part of the Energy bill, we created the first change in a long time--something like 20 years--in fuel efficiency standards. That is something we need to be pursuing as well. But at the end of the day, our appetite for energy in this country and the world's appetite for energy is not going away. In fact, the Department of Energy estimates that even with intensive conservation efforts in place, maintaining our economic growth through the year 2025 will require a 36-percent increase in energy supply, including a 39-percent increase in oil consumption. Sixty percent of our oil is currently imported. So as demand rises and domestic supply is not increased, we are subject to prices that are set by foreign countries, including, as I mentioned, some hostile regimes.

Senator Domenici has put forward several ideas in his plan that are not new. Some of them have been debated previously, some of them blocked by bipartisan politics. But I hope that $3.50, $4-a-gallon gasoline will change some of that. In my State of South Dakota, the average price of gasoline today is $3.60. Oil, of course, traded at an all-time high of $122 per barrel. Diesel is $4.18 a gallon. As the farmers in my State continue another planting season, they are faced with those diesel fuel costs that are substantially higher than previous years. They are faced with higher fertilizer costs because natural gas prices have gone up.

This is a crisis that reaches into the pocketbooks of every American. I was talking in my State of South Dakota

this week with someone in the tourism business who was saying the numbers this year are already down 11 percent from the previous year. I think that is a sign of more to come in terms of the economic hardship that is going to be imposed on the economy all across this country. My State of South Dakota, because it is so energy dependent as a result of tourism and agriculture and some of the industries that are very energy intensive, is particularly hard hit. Since I was first elected to Congress over 10 years ago, we voted on opening a small section of ANWR at least five times. Most recently, in the 2006 Defense appropriations bill, we had that vote.

It is important to note at that time the Senate Democrats blocked oil and gas exploration in ANWR oil was trading for just over $50 a barrel. Well, now it is at $122 a barrel, and at that time it was argued it would take at least 10 years to develop the resources in ANWR. But I think it is high time we began the process of authorizing that exploration and production. We have up to 16 billion barrels of oil, we are told, up there, or a million barrels of oil each day that could be coming into our pipeline in this country and taking pressure off of gas prices. So I hope the fact that today the high price of gasoline is impacting more and more consumers across this country, more and more small business owners, more and more families, we will see a change in the mindset that will enable us to move forward with legislation such as that introduced by my colleague from New Mexico that will get at the heart of this problem. The problem is we don't have enough supply to keep up with the demand either at home or around the world, but at a minimum, we ought to be coming up with those solutions that are domestic, that are home grown, and by that I mean the oil reserves we have here in the United States or off our shores, the infinite amounts of coal we have that can be converted into fuels, the enormous potential we have out there for renewable energy such as ethanol made not only from corn but from other sources of biomass, and that we take steps to add refinery capacity.

It is absolutely critical, in my mind and in my view, that we start moving in this direction. I heard a report earlier today that some projections are that oil prices could get up to somewhere around $200 a barrel. I can't imagine that happening or what the impact would be on our economy, but it is never too late to do the right thing, and we need to move quickly now and decisively on an energy policy that will increase our supply, our domestic supply, take pressure off of oil prices and prices at the pump that American consumers are dealing with every single day.

I congratulate again the Senator from New Mexico for his bill. I am happy to be a cosponsor of it. I hope we are able to get a vote on it, and I hope we can do something once and for all about high gas prices and bring some relief to the American consumer.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have an amendment which I understand the manager for the majority will object to me calling up, but I would like to make some remarks about it, if I might, at this time.

I thank the chairman, the Senator from Connecticut, for those words. Let me, if I might, make a couple of remarks with regard to the amendment and again suggest that if at all possible, we could figure out a way to make it a part of this Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act. I think it is very fitting on this bill. There are some jurisdictional issues that have been raised. But what I would like to point out is that this is a bill which obviously has a lot of important content and legislation that needs to be acted upon by the Congress, by the Senate. The amendment that Senator Johnson and I have offered is directly relevant to the bill because it seeks to reduce the potential impact of FEMA's revised flood map for residents of Sioux Falls, SD, which is the largest city in my State. Above all, this amendment allows the City of Sioux Falls to have the ability to advance the funds associated with the Big Sioux Flood Control Project which was authorized by the Congress in 1996.

Keep in mind, roughly 20 years ago, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determined that the original flood control project in Sioux Falls was ineffective due to two significant flood events that occurred in 1957 and in 1969. The city and the Federal Government have been working since 2000 to raise the height of the levees and to construct a dam. However, without the authority contained in this amendment, the completion of the Big Sioux Flood Control Project will languish until the Federal Government's remaining share of the project is appropriated.

Effectively, with roughly $21 million in remaining Federal costs and the fact that the average funding provided by Congress over the past 7 years has been about $2 million per year, the city is at the mercy of the Federal Government to complete this important project. If these flood protection improvements are not made, roughly $750 million in property damage could result in homes and businesses in a major flood event.

Adding to the urgency for completing this important flood control project is the fact that following Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency proposed modifications to the city's 100- year flood plain, just as FEMA has done in other communities across the country, to ensure that homeowners are aware of potential flood risks. As a result of FEMA's proposed flood plain modifications in Sioux Falls, until the Army Corps certifies completion of its project, roughly 1,600 homeowners and businesses will be required to purchase flood insurance. The quickest way to eliminate or reduce the need for flood insurance for the 1,600 homeowners and businesses is to complete construction of the Big Sioux Flood Control Project as soon as possible.

While the city has expressed a willingness to advance fund the Federal Government's remaining portion of the project, this would require Congress to act in a couple of ways. One is to allow the Army Corps to accept advance funding from the city for the Federal Government's portion of the project; second, to authorize the Army Corps to reimburse the city through future appropriations from the Federal Government's portion of the project.

This straightforward amendment doesn't add any costs to the Federal Government. In fact, allowing the city to advance fund the remainder of the project would actually reduce the Federal Government's overall cost because the project would be completed in a much shorter timeframe.

Such authorities have been extended to other Federal flood control projects in the past. Senator Johnson and I are simply seeking additional flexibility that will allow the city to expedite construction of the Big Sioux Flood Control Project. I believe the city's willingness to advance fund this flood control project underscores their commitment to finishing this much needed project.

I look forward to working with the bill managers to try to get this amendment voted on, to get it included in the underlying bill as we work to reform our Nation's flood insurance program.

I hope we can work through this jurisdictional issue because this is an issue of timing. There is another WRDA bill that may come down the road, but the last one took 7 years to get on the floor of the Senate. I don't believe the next one will take that long. In any case, the city of Sioux Falls--the largest community in my State--is looking at 11 years to complete this project.

As soon as FEMA designates this flood plain, 1,600 homeowners will be faced with an insurance bill. All the city is trying to do is take the initiative to complete this project in a more timely way by advance funding it and then allowing the Federal Government, through the Corps, to reimburse through what would be annual appropriations, which could take perhaps 11 or more years to get. I think this is a commonsense, practical solution. The city has stepped forward on this. I hope we can include it in this bill before we get to final passage.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. President, today, I wish to recognize David Stevens, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months.

David is a graduate of O'Gorman High School in Sioux Falls, SD, and the University of South Dakota. In the fall he will attend the Sanford School of Medicine at the University of South Dakota. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to David for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today, I wish to recognize Renee Latterell, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months.

Renee is a graduate of Central High School in Aberdeen, SD, and of North Dakota State University, where she majored in Spanish and international studies. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Renee for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Sam Griffin, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months.

Sam is a graduate of Jefferson Senior High School in Alexandria, MN. Currently he is attending American University, where he is majoring in Political Science. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Sam for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Jonathan Abdnor, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months.

Jonathan is a graduate of Prospect High School in Mount Prospect, IL. Currently he is attending the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, where he is majoring in news editorial journalism. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Jonathan for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.