Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to submit a resolution today with my colleague, Senator Wyden OR, designating the month of May as ``National Physical Fitness and Sports Month'' and the first week of May as ``National Physical Education and Sports Week.''

Developing healthy habits is important for all of us, as children, young

adults, and as we grow older. Current and past Presidents have recognized the month of May, the beginning of spring, as ``Physical Fitness and Sports Month'' for over 20 years. Around South Dakota and across the country, local YMCAs, afterschool programs, and other organizations take time during the month of May to recognize the need to get fit, stay active, and look at new ways to promote physical activity. This year, I am pleased we are able to recognize the importance of physical fitness through the Senate.

As we talk more about health care reform and the uninsured, it is important to remember that each of us has a responsibility concerning our own care and to educate our children on the importance of staying healthy. Too often I hear from constituencies, such as school groups and health care providers, that childhood obesity and diabetes are on the rise--and it is not just affecting our health, but also our pocketbooks.

According to my State and the Centers for Disease Control, more than 50,000 South Dakotans have diabetes and projections show that number will continue to increase. Diabetes of course can cause severe complications and takes a tremendous toll on our society. The disease is associated with significant personal and social costs due to impaired health and quality of life.

Heart disease is another significant and often related illness to diabetes that effects millions of Americans and costs Medicare and Medicaid, and therefore taxpayers, millions each year. In South Dakota, approximately 1,743 deaths--24.8 percent of all deaths--in 2006 were caused by cardiovascular diseases, including stroke.

Now much of the burden of heart disease is due to smoking--and that is another problem we will continue to tackle through education at the state and local levels. But it is also helpful to know that both heart disease and type 2 diabetes are largely preventable. Also, obesity and inactivity are two of the major risk factors associated with these diseases---which means a healthy diet and regular physical activity at all ages can go a long way toward improving our quality of life and reducing our health care bills.

For adults, it is recommended that minimum physical activity consist of moderate activity for 30 minutes, 5 days a week, or more vigorous activity for 20 minutes, 3 days a week. My daughters and I happen to have a passion for running, which is particularly popular this time of year in South Dakota.

The month of May is also a time to recognize the importance of sports to our State and to our schools. Getting involved in your local school team--high school or college--or in other local teams is a great way to stay motivated and focused through school and to develop healthy habits that will last for many years. It is also a tremendously important part of community life in South Dakota.

I am proud that this resolution has been endorsed by YMCA of the USA, AAHPERD--American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation & Dance--the American Heart Association, American Diabetes Association, and the National Coalition for Promoting Physical Activity.

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

Mr. President, today we debate the FAA reauthorization, and it is a debate that probably should have been joined a long time ago. This is a piece of legislation that has been kicking around here for a long time. I serve on the Senate Commerce Committee. I know both the House and the Senate reported bills out many months ago. We are finally now getting a bill on to the floor for debate. It is important we do this.

This is legislation that is critical to the infrastructure that supports our aviation industry, which is a critical industry to America's competitiveness, and if we look at what is happening in the airlines these days, obviously, we need to do everything we can to make sure we have a viable and effective aviation industry and commercial airlines are able to operate and provide the services to travelers who need to get, every single day, to places both here at home and around the world to conduct business and to recreate.

In the course of this debate, I cannot help but be struck by the fact that I do not see there is anything we can do in the FAA reauthorization that addresses what fundamentally is probably plaguing the airline industry more than anything else, and that is the high cost of energy.

I am looking at some information, graphs, some data. We can look at this graph for January of 2004 and see where the cost of crude oil and the cost of fuel for the airlines, for the aviation industry, was then and where it is today. Follow the red line, the way it tracks up. That spikes up. That is almost a straight vertical line.

If we take another graph which shows what the consumption of fuels is in the airline industry, the green line--you probably, Mr. President, cannot see this; it is too far away, but the green line shows consumption has been fairly static in terms of the amount of fuel that is used. But if we look at the expense or the cost of the fuel, it has increased at a sharp and dramatic rate.

My point very simply is that we cannot affect, I do not think, in a very substantial way, what is plaguing and ailing the airline industry and a lot of other industries in this country absent addressing the fundamental cost issue of energy independence.

If we look at where we are as a nation today and where we were 30 years ago, not much has changed. I remember as someone growing up during the oil embargoes and what we were experiencing in the late 1970s and a real concern at the time about our dependence, overdependence, dangerous dependence on foreign sources of energy. At that time it was 55, 60 percent. Here we are 30 years later and we are more than ever dependent on foreign sources of energy. Mr. President, 60 to 65 percent of our petroleum comes from outside the United States. We have very little control over the supply. The only way we fix that, the only way we can impact energy costs in this country in a meaningful way is to increase supply.

We can talk a lot about a lot of issues with regard to this problem, this challenge we face as a country. There are some things we can do to impact the demand side, too, and we did that in the Energy bill last year. We increased for the first time in a very long time fuel economy standards so now automobiles are going to be built to standards that will require more miles per gallon than they currently get. That will help control, to some degree, the demand side. Obviously, I think individual consumers in this country, drivers in this country, are going to begin to take steps to reduce the amount of fuel they consume because it is impacting so adversely their pocketbooks on a daily basis.

But there is not anything we can do totally on the demand side to get us out of this mess we are in. We have to do some things to impact supply. I can't help but think that if we had taken some of these steps years ago, back in 1995 or thereabouts when President Clinton vetoed legislation that would have allowed oil exploration on the North Slope of Alaska--at the time it was argued, oh, it will take 5 to 10 years for us to develop this resource and when we do, it will not be that much anyway. It is only 1 million or 1\1/2\ million barrels a day, and that is not that significant in the overall scheme of things. Here we are 10 years

later. If we had done that then, this would be fully developed, we would have the barrels of oil on a daily basis, the daily equivalent of what we get from Saudi Arabia, available to meet our demand in this country.

It has probably been, since that time, half a dozen times we voted on that. In the House of Representatives, I don't know how many votes we had over there that would have allowed authorized exploration for oil on the North Slope of Alaska. We have had that vote in the Senate, since I have been here, on at least one occasion, maybe two times, where we were a couple votes short of reaching that magic 60-vote threshold that would allow us to move forward and explore some of these opportunities that we have to grow our supply, our domestic supply of energy.

Because he had listened to this debate for some time--I have been in the Congress, now, for the better part of 10 years and always was interested when the debate would come to the floor of the House or the Senate and you would hear both sides come to the floor and make their arguments--I actually went up to Alaska and visited the section 1002 area where it is proposed we develop this oil resource. We landed in Barrow, AK, in February, a couple years ago. It was 38 below. We visited a couple of the existing sites at Prudhoe Bay and then we went over to section 1002, which is the vast area we are talking about for development. What struck me is we are talking about a 2,000-acre footprint that would be used to access the oil below the surface, and with modern technology, you can actually get to those reserves below the surface with horizontal or directional drilling, with a minimal footprint on the surface, and it would be done during certain parts of the year where it wouldn't impact wildlife or anything.

Incidentally, there were caribou everywhere. Anybody who is worried about the caribou on the North Slope of Alaska, they have nothing to worry about because, if anything, it has been increased since the activity that has taken place up there.

But this particular area is a very isolated, remote area on the North Slope of Alaska. The estimates run from somewhere between 6 billion and 16 billion barrels of oil beneath the surface or, as I said, the daily equivalent of about 1.5 million barrels a day, which is comparable to what we get from Saudi Arabia.

To put it in perspective, a 2,000-acre footprint, for those who come from my part of the country who have an agricultural background, that is the equivalent of three sections of farm ground. That in an area of some 19.2 million acres in what they call ANWR, this refuge area. But if you look at the State of Alaska in its totality, Alaska, believe it or not, is 7.5 times the size of the State of South Dakota. You could put South Dakota geographically into Alaska 7.5 times. That is how vast this area is up there. It is part of our country, part of an area that has enormous resources below the surface that could be very meaningful in terms of addressing America's energy needs.

When you visit that area, you cannot help but be struck with, No. 1, how supportive the governmental leadership is in that area--the Governor, the State legislature, in many respects most of the local citizens. There are always those who are opposed to this type of development. We heard from them as well. But overwhelmingly, the majority of people in that area want to see this development.

Here we are again facing a crisis as we head into the summer driving season, travel season, vacation season. Families are looking, making plans. In my State of South Dakota, farmers are getting into the field, and they are having to deal with the input costs associated with high fuel costs, diesel costs. This is an economic issue that affects literally every American but particularly those middle-income Americans and those who this summer are looking at making plans to travel. They are going to be facing $3.50 gasoline, perhaps higher than that. Who knows how high that is going to go?

My point very simply is we should have been taking these steps many years ago. We are now paying a price for inaction on the part of this Congress when it comes to the things we can do to add to supply in this country, to make sure we are taking full advantage of the domestic resources we have right here at home so we do not have to continue to allow other countries around the world to hold us over a barrel when it comes to our energy needs.

The other thing we ought to have been doing--again this is something that is long overdue--is developing more refinery capacity. We are pretty much maxed out. We have not built a new refinery since 1976. They will tell you they have added or expanded existing refineries, and all that is true, but at the end of the day we have not done very much in terms of addressing the refinery shortage we have in this country either. So when it comes to raw resources such as the oil, petroleum resources below the surface on the North Slope of Alaska, when it comes to the ability to refine that into gasoline, we have some deficiencies that are of our own making. I regret the fact that we were not able to find the votes in this body to do these types of things many years ago, when today it would make a big difference in the challenge we face.

The other issue, the other point I will make--because I think it gets back at this issue of how doing some of these things, although at the time they may have seemed to be not that substantial, could make a difference at the margin--is what has happened with renewable energy in this country. We are now generating about 7.5, almost 8 billion gallons of renewable fuel or ethanol in America today. One would think perhaps, when you use 140 billion gallons of gasoline on an annual basis, that that is not that big of a dent. But there was a study done by Merrill Lynch, it was reported in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks back, that were it not for ethanol, the price per barrel of oil and the price per gallon of gasoline would actually be 15 percent higher than it is today. So even though it is 7.5 billion gallons out of a 140-billion- gallon annual demand for gasoline, it is affecting the price because it is impacting supply in a positive way.

In the same way, if we had opened the North Slope of Alaska when we had an opportunity to do so, we would have that 1\1/2\ million barrels a day coming into this country, which also would significantly impact the supply in a way that would begin to bring down prices. The only way we are going to bring downward pressure on prices is to increase supply. That is why I have been such a big advocate for renewable energy.

We are at 7.5 billion gallons today. The Energy bill that passed last year calls for 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by the year 2022. I think we can reach that. We are not going to reach it with corn-based ethanol. We have to diversify the production of ethanol in this country with other forms of biomass, whether that is by woodchips out of our forests, whether it is by switchgrass, which we have an abundance of on the prairies of South Dakota--but there are a lot of opportunities for what we call the next generation, for cellulosics, to meet the demands for energy in this country. I think we should be moving full steam ahead when it comes to support for renewables so we can lessen the demand on foreign energy and we can become more energy efficient here at home and develop the supplies of fuel we have.

That being said, even if we get to 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels, we still will be way short of what we need. We are going to need a mix of fuels. We are going to rely on some of those traditional sources of fuel such as petroleum. Coal-to-liquid holds great promise in terms of being able to be used as a fuel, and coal is something we have in infinite amounts. We ought to be developing these types of resources. I think we also ought to be allowing States that want to, particularly some States in the upper Midwest, where ethanol is produced, to go to higher blends. We are at 10 percent ethanol today. There are States I think would like to go to higher blends. We ought to allow them, particularly when the studies are concluded by the Department of Energy and the EPA, which are determining the impact on drivability, materials compatibility, emissions--all those sorts of things. When they come back, which I believe they will, and conclusively determine that going to higher blends would not in any way adversely impact any of those metrics I mentioned, we ought to be moving to higher blends of ethanol because I think that also will help take pressure off oil prices as we continue to use more and more renewable energy.

These are all parts of a solution. We need supply. But we have not taken the necessary steps to add to supply. If not now, I don't know when. When we get prices such as we are seeing, and the impact that is having on transportation industries such as aviation, such as trucking, such as agriculture, these are impacts on our economy that are only going to bring great economic strain to many industries and a loss of jobs.

We can do something about it. We ought to be doing something about it. We need to now authorize, even though we have had many opportunities to do it in the past--we ought to do it on the North Slope of Alaska and offshore and other places where we have these reserves. We ought to allow refineries to be built. We tried to get legislation through that would allow refineries to be built on BRAC bases; in other words, bases that were closed through the BRAC process, and it was blocked by the Democrats on the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Even when it came to the renewable fuel standard last year, that passed through the Senate and House and ultimately was signed into law, there is a deficiency there as well which has come to light now and a change that was made at the very 11th hour by the Speaker of the House that prevents biomass, residual types of biomass such as slash piles that are generated in our national forests, to be used to make cellulosic ethanol.

That makes absolutely no sense. We have waste products in our forests that add to fuel loads that create fire hazards. All we are simply saying is these types of products could be used to make next-generation biofuels and help grow our supply of renewable energy, and that was stripped out, at the 11th hour, by the House in the conference.

That is very unfortunate because it is steps such as that, it is steps such as blocking legislation that would allow for expedited permitting of refineries on BRAC bases, it is things such as blocking a vote on opening the North Slope of Alaska to oil exploration--those are the types of things that are stopping us. Those are the types of steps and maneuvers in the Senate and the House that are stopping us from adding to the supply of energy so we can do something about it, so we can impact, in a meaningful and positive way, the high prices that are affecting consumers across this country.

I wish to make one observation as well with regard to renewable energy because ethanol has come under a lot of criticism of late, much of it I think inspired by opponents of ethanol, such as oil companies. People are talking about the high cost of food, and food prices have gone up in this country. But if you think about it, the amount of corn that goes into a box of corn flakes, for example, it is about a nickel. If you think about what impacts the cost of the things we buy at the grocery store, transportation has a profound impact on the cost because you have transportation, you have packaging, processing--all those things which are very energy intensive. So when you have high energy prices, high fuel prices such as we are facing today, that has more to do with the costs of food than the cost for a bushel of corn is ever going to have, when it comes to corn flakes or when it comes to popcorn or many of the other things that are being mentioned now by some of these groups opposing ethanol.

I also would point out what I mentioned earlier and that is that were it not for ethanol--this again was reported upon by the Wall Street Journal a few weeks back, a study done by Merrill Lynch--oil prices, per-barrel oil prices and per-gallon gasoline prices would be about 15 percent higher. Couple that with the fact that a high commodity price means the Federal taxpayers under our farm programs are not making payments to producers to the tune of a savings of about $8 billion last year, according to the USDA, and there are lots of impacts that are not being mentioned by those who are specifically singling out ethanol and criticizing ethanol for the increase and runup in food costs.

Add to that or couple that with this piece of data that comes out of the USDA, that $8 billion in savings in taxpayer payments would be made under farm programs that were not made, that didn't go out this last year because of high product prices. That is a substantial savings to the taxpayers of this country. Again, couple that with the fact that ethanol has contributed 15 percent reduction in the overall costs of fuel in this country, ethanol is having the impact we hoped it would by increasing supply and taking pressure off the price at the pump in this country.

High fuel costs, high food costs, all these things are impacting consumers across this country. We cannot solve that problem. We cannot solve the problem of the airlines until we do something to develop our domestic resources right here at home.

We have some supplies, some reserves underground even in places that previously had not been contemplated as a source of energy, in places such as the Dakotas where we are now finding there are some reserves down there, that with prices being what they are may be economically recoverable. We should be doing everything we can to develop domestic resources, whether it is on the North Slope of Alaska, whether it is offshore, whether it is in the Dakotas, in the form of oil below the surface, or corn that grows above the surface that is renewable that we can use every single year. We need to be developing resources right here at home that will lessen our dependence upon foreign sources of energy and do something to take the pressure off these high gas prices we are seeing today that are affecting every single American.

I hope we will pass a comprehensive energy bill, one that includes increasing our supply, one that finally, once and for all, will allow us to get to that 6 to 16 billion barrels of oil beneath the surface on the North Slope of Alaska, which is widely supported by the political leadership in Alaska, the local citizenry there, that increases the amount of renewable energy we use in this country by allowing States that choose to increase and go to higher blends, perhaps to 20 percent or 30 percent ethanol. These are all things we could and should be doing today--allowing refineries to be built on bases that have been closed, and allowing for expedited permitting when it comes to constructing those refineries. These are all things that ought to be part of this energy solution. I think people are going to hold this Congress accountable if we do not take steps in that direction. My hope would be that before we move out of here before the next break--we have got a break coming up in a couple of weeks--we will take some action that will do something meaningful to lower energy prices for people in this country, increase our supply to build new refineries, to support the increased use of renewables. Those are all things that will happen and provide solutions and meaningful relief to the hard-working people in this country who are now faced with much higher gasoline prices.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I recognize Shannon Renae Vaux, an intern in my Aberdeen, SD 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.

Shannon is a graduate of Central High School in Aberdeen, SD. Currently she is attending Northern State University, where she is majoring in biology. 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 Shannon for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Madam President, today I recognize Catherine Alm, an intern in my Sioux Falls, SD 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.

Catherine is a graduate of Eastview High School in Apple Valley, MN. Currently she is attending Augustana College, where she is majoring in government and spanish. 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 Catherine for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak today on an issue that is on the forefront of most Americans' minds this week, and that is the issue of tax day. Yesterday was the filing deadline, April 15, which comes around every year, and for most Americans it is greeted with a great deal of trepidation and anxiety.

April 15 represents the annual call of Uncle Sam, the tax collector, knocking on the doors of hard-working taxpayers, and it highlights the real tax burden that is placed on American families.

This year, Americans will work 74 days to pay their Federal taxes, 74 days to pay their Federal tax burden alone. In order to pay State and local taxes, Americans will work an average of 39 additional days. What that means is that the typical hard-working, taxpaying, law-abiding American in this country will have to work an average of 113 days to pay taxes in 2008.

If we look at a calendar, that pretty much takes care of the months of January, February, March, and April, up to the 23rd of this month. If you think about it, every American is still working this year to pay the tax man. They have not gotten to that point in the tax year when everything they make can then be dedicated to the expenses they have for their families, for their children's education, for retirement, for fuel costs--all the things we deal with in our daily lives. We are still at a point on the calendar where none of what we make can be applied to those necessities of life because we are still at a point on the calendar where everything we earn and make in this country is dedicated to paying the tax man. Literally 113 days of the calendar year of this year up until April 23, which will be next week, is dedicated to pay the tax man.

What does that mean? Another perspective: If you put it into an 8- hour work day, taxpayers are going to work 1 hour and 37 minutes every single day to pay Federal taxes, and an additional 51 minutes to pay State and local taxes.

Put that into perspective. All other categories of consumer spending pale in comparison to the annual tax burden. In fact, Americans only need to work 60 days to pay for annual housing costs, 50 days for health and medical care, 35 days to pay for their annual costs, and 29 days to pay for transportation.

So the expenses most people deal with in their every-day lives, whether, again, that is the cost of housing, health care, food, or transportation--all are basic necessities--pale in comparison to the number of days the American taxpayer works every single year to pay their tax burden.

That is a pretty remarkable chart, I think you would have to say, when you look at the tax burden and the number of days you have to pay relative to the things we spend the rest of our money on.

This year, the statistics are probably better, if you can imagine that, than they were a few years ago. In 2000, before the historic tax cuts took effect, taxpayers had to work an all-time high

of 123 days to pay their tax burden. We have gone from 123 days down to 113 days.

In that same year 2000, a record 33.6 percent of the Nation's income was dedicated to paying taxes. After the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, Americans were able to work an average of two fewer weeks to meet their Federal tax burden. That is why we find the average American working 113 days to meet their tax liability as opposed to 123 days a few short years ago. That is attributable to the tax relief that was enacted in 2001 and 2003.

Aside from paying taxes, filling out tax returns is a burden in and of itself. We have a Tax Code that is out of control, out of date, and is imploding under its own weight. The U.S. Tax Code spans over 54,000 pages. Some of the current provisions of the code were created 40 years ago. Each year individuals, families, and businesses spend needless hours poring over IRS forms and regulations trying to make sense of the endless exercise of filing taxes. In fact, in total, taxpayers dedicate over 6 billion hours to file their taxes and spend over $140 billion a year in compliance costs.

I read a story a couple of days ago that those who still fill out their own tax returns take an average of 34 hours to do so. That is almost a week. That is a workweek almost for most people to comply or fill out the tax return--for those who still fill out their own tax returns.

Bear in mind that a lot of Americans have gotten to the point where it is so complex, burdensome, and complicated they turn it over to a tax preparer. For those who still fill out their tax returns, 34 hours is the average they spend in complying with the Tax Code in this country.

Ironically, the complexity and uncertainty of filing taxes is only amplified by congressional action. Since 1986, we have made--I say we, the Congress--have made 15,000 changes to our Tax Code, or approximately 2 every single day. Many of these changes focus on 1- or 2-year extensions of expiring provisions.

For example, last year, Congress was unable to extend the alternative minimum tax until the IRS had published its 2007 tax return forms. Because of this delay, 13.5 million taxpayers had to wait until February 11 to file forms relative to the alternative minimum tax.

Only Congress can create a complex tax provision, such as the alternative minimum tax, and actually make it more complicated by extending it after the IRS publication deadline.

Unfortunately, the congressional leadership is simply either oblivious or unsympathetic to the tax burden on American families. Last month, the Senate Democrats called for the largest tax increase in American history. Under the Democratic budget, the reduced individual tax rates are set to expire in 20 months.

As millions of Americans have now finished coping with this year's April 15 deadline, I think it is important to point out that this deadline is going to be even more painful under the Democratic budget that passed the Senate earlier this year.

If the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are not extended, on January 1, 2011, the 10-percent tax bracket will expire, the tax bracket that was put into effect that impacts low-income earners, lowers their tax liability and took literally millions of American taxpayers completely off the tax rolls. The 25-percent tax bracket that currently applies to earners in that tax rate bracket is going to go up to 28 percent. The 28- percent tax rate will increase to 31 percent. The 33-percent tax rate will increase to 36 percent. And the 35-percent tax rate will increase to 39.9 percent.

On top of the increased tax rates that will happen on January 1, 2010, unless we take steps to extend and prevent those tax cuts from expiring, the increased child tax credit will expire as well. Families with children are going to see their tax burden increase substantially when the $1,000 tax credit is reduced to $500 after the year 2010.

Additionally, the marriage penalty is reinstated. The 3l million filers who report dividend income and the 26 million filers who report capital gains income also will see their taxes on their investments go up.

Finally, the death tax will be reinstated at pre-2001 levels of $1 million. In other words, you can exempt $1 million worth of your income, the wealth you acquired over the years, from the death tax liability. If we think about how that impacts small businesses, farmers, and ranchers--and I can share that as someone who lives in a rural State where we have a lot of farm and ranch families. We have a lot of people with lots of assets, lots of land, lots of equipment, but they are very cash poor. When you take $1 million anymore, with land values being what they are in a place such as even my State of South Dakota, you are going to have an awful lot of people who are going to be hit very hard by the death tax when it becomes reinstated at a $1 million-level exemption.

Attach to that a maximum statutory rate of 55 percent--which, incidentally, is one of the highest death tax rates in the world. So literally you are going to have for people now who worked their whole lives--small businesses, farmers, ranchers--to accumulate some things to pass on to the next generation, all but $1 million of that would be taxed at a rate as high as 55 percent.

Think about the impact that is going to have on family farm and ranch operations in this country and many of our small businesses, which is where most of the jobs in the country are generated.

In total, the average family is going to see their taxes increase by roughly $2,300 per year. That is enough to buy several months of groceries or several months worth of health care.

It does not have to be this difficult. Congress can work in a bipartisan manner to fix our broken Tax Code and to ease the tax burden for families and small businesses.

Commissions have been convened, hearings have been held, studies have been published, and yet another tax day has passed without comprehensive tax reform.

Streamlining our Tax Code will strengthen our economy, it will improve the competitiveness of our businesses, and it will greatly ease the tax burden for all American families.

The problem is not that Washington taxes too little. The problem is that Washington spends too much. The American people, when they start spending virtually a third of their year to pay the tax burden that is imposed on them at the Federal level, the State level, and the local level, we are asking way too much and imposing way too much a burden on the working men and women in this country and those small businesses that are creating the jobs and those who are trying to pass on those operations to the next generation so we can keep family farms, ranches, and small businesses in the family, contributing, creating jobs, and paying taxes. With a confiscatory death tax, which will happen if we do not take steps to extend the tax cuts, we are going to see a lot of those farms, ranchers, and small businesses go by the wayside.

I hope the sentiment in this body, the Senate, and the House of Representatives will change to the point that we recognize the importance of extending the tax relief that was enacted in 2001 and 2003 so we do not see these steep increases in income rates and return of the marriage penalty and a decrease in the per-child tax credit, dividend, and capital gains income being taxed at much higher rates, and the death tax being reinstated. If we are successful in extending those tax cuts, I think we will see an economy that, although experiencing an economic downturn right now, will improve, will start to grow again and create jobs. If we allow these tax cuts to expire, I think it is ``Katy, bar the door'' in terms of the adverse economic consequences and impact it will have on this economy and on the working men and women of this country and the entrepreneurs who make it work.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I honor the University of South Dakota Coyotes women's basketball team on their second place finish in the 2008 NCAA Division II Tournament. This was USD's first trip to the National Championship game.

The USD women's basketball team has a long history of success, including three NCC Conference Championships from 1982 to 1985, as well as eight appearances in the NCAA Division II National Tournament. South Dakota, which concluded the season with a 33 and 2 overall record, won the North Central Conference with a 12 and 0 record. This was USD's final season in Division II athletics and it was undoubtedly one of the best in school history.

Certainly, this historic season would not have been possible without the players themselves. The members of the 2007-2008 University of South Dakota women's basketball team are as follows: Natalie Carda, Shannon Daly, Michelle Dirks, Anne Doshier, Kelli Fargen, Amber Hegge, Jeana Hoffman, Jenna Hoffman, Kara Iverson, Jasmine Mosley, Amy Robinette, Ashley Robinette, Annie Roche, Kendra Schomer, Bridget Yoerger, Maggie Youngberg.

Although this accomplishment was truly a team effort, I would like to pay special recognition to their coach Chad Lavin, who will be retiring after 14 years with the USD women's basketball team. Coach Lavin is USD's career wins leader with 271. Lavin's coaching success has not gone unnoticed as he has been named the NCC Coach of the Year four different times and has been selected as the Russell Athletic/WBCA North Central Regional Coach of the Year for the 2007-2008 season.

The coaches and student athletes of USD's women's basketball team should be very proud of all of their remarkable achievements this season. On behalf of the State of South Dakota, I am pleased to say congratulations to the Coyotes on this impressive season.

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

I ask I be allowed to speak in morning business.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments today to talk about an important topic affecting individuals and families from all across the country, and that is the rising cost of health care. It is an issue that affects every individual, every family's pocketbook. It is an issue that is affecting our small businesses across the country as they try to keep up with the rising cost of health care.

I thank my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Vitter, who last week spearheaded a discussion along with seven of my Senate colleagues on the conservative principles of health care reform. This is a discussion we plan to highlight over the next several weeks and which we will continue to focus on in the future.

I had the privilege of visiting a number of hospitals around South Dakota over the March work period, to hear from providers on issues of concern to them and to discuss health care reform. I was primarily focused on small hospitals, critical access hospitals, providers that deliver health care services in very rural and remote areas of this country.

My State of South Dakota has lots of land and not a big population base. Yet people's expectation out there is they will have access to high-quality health care. As I visited these hospitals and health care providers as I visited my State over the March work period, I heard lots of different messages, and one of them was we have to figure out a way to keep up with these rising costs. Fortunately, for many of the smaller hospitals in the rural areas that are critical access hospitals, they are able to get cost-based reimbursement, and that is something I think has led to the survival of lots of health care providers that otherwise would have had to close their doors.

It is important the American people hear the message of choice and affordability championed by many Republicans in the health care debate. Unfortunately, we are up against an opposing message, which is one of a quick fix or universal plan that Washington will decide for everyone. This message too often sticks in the minds of the media, with health care trade associations, and with many of our constituents.

The goal of universal coverage, or allowing every person in America the opportunity to afford health care insurance, is an important goal. How we work toward this goal is where the debate lies. That is where a Clinton or Obama health care plan differs strikingly from that offered by our colleague from Arizona, Senator John McCain.

I would like to focus today on one of the most basic principles which should guide all our health care reform proposals we debate in the coming years and that is to reject this movement toward more Government-run health insurance. Instead, we ought to make long-lasting reforms to both our tax system and the insurance market to increase access to privately owned health care coverage. That is private insurance you, the individual, can choose and you can keep from job to job.

What we have today is already a mixture of Government-run insurance, including Medicare, which provides coverage to over 40 million seniors, and Medicaid, a program available to the poor and the disabled, and private insurance, usually offered through medium or large employers.

Only about 7 percent of the population in this country actually purchase their insurance on their own directly from an insurance company. In lots of ways, the way people access health insurance today is very limiting when you consider the Government or your employer does not choose other important services in your life, such as the food you eat or the car or the home you buy.

Rising health care costs are also a huge problem, not only for those who have private insurance but also for our Government programs. The Medicare trustees now report that into the future, the trust funds have over $36 trillion in long-term unfunded obligations. By that I mean benefits that are promised but not paid for, which amounts--if you can belief this--to 2\1/2\ times the size of the entire U.S. economy. Let me repeat that, $36 trillion in long-term unfunded liabilities or 2\1/ 2\ times the entire U.S. economy.

This is money somebody has to pay, and it is an added burden on future

generations and on our economy. Left unchecked, the Federal Government will be forced to cut benefits or substantially increase taxes. If there is one thing that should be obvious to all of us, it is that a system such as traditional Medicare or Medicaid is not sustainable financially. There are no natural incentives under these programs to control costs. It is not just the cost of these programs that presents a problem. While over 40 million seniors have Medicare coverage, most beneficiaries also have some form of supplemental coverage, or other insurance, that wraps around because traditional Medicare is not enough.

In 2004, only 9.3 percent of Medicare beneficiaries relied solely on the traditional fee-for-service program, and over 60 percent had some form of private supplemental coverage.

Also, for many providers in my State of South Dakota, Medicare's prices and regulations do not account for the challenges patients and providers face in rural areas. Once again, one size fits all, Government-run health insurance is neither financially sustainable nor is it even sufficient for those it is meant to help. For the next several weeks, the Senator from Louisiana, myself, and Senators DeMint, Burr, Coburn, Martinez, Isakson, and Corker will be talking about the alternatives that are out there to our current rules and regulations and how we can achieve affordable coverage for all Americans through expanding access to private insurance.

While some of my colleagues in this body would like to expand Medicare to cover everyone to achieve the goal of universal coverage, or to expand Medicaid and SCHIP to cover many more Americans, I strongly oppose the expansion of Government insurance at the expense of choice, quality, and affordability.

Frankly, I want much more for my constituents back home in South Dakota and others across the country. I don't want the next President to push through a health care plan that will put more families on Government insurance, simply so we can say we have provided coverage.

As we were having the SCHIP debate last year, this point came up. Expanding SCHIP, which is essentially Medicaid in my State and in most other States, to families making as much as $80,000 per year, would have made it harder to attract good physicians to South Dakota, something we struggle with constantly in rural States. At a time when as many as 50 percent of physicians nationwide are limiting or dropping Medicaid patients because it simply does not cover their costs, why would we want to expand this program even further?

There is a better way. In my State, most of the uninsured are employees of small businesses. These are individuals capable of owning their own insurance, but it is simply not affordable or is not offered through their place of employment. What Senator McCain has proposed-- and even one Senator from the other party, Senator Wyden from Oregon-- is to reform the tax incentives in place now that only benefit large employers, CEOs and their employees, in purchasing health insurance, and level the playing field for everyone else. This can be accomplished by eliminating the tax benefit employers receive when offering insurance to their employees, which equals more than $200 billion over 1 year, and instead taking that money and offering it in the form of a tax credit or standard tax deduction to every American toward the purchase of health insurance.

With a tax credit proposal, we would be able to give every American a credit--$2,000 for an individual or $4,500 or $5,000 for a family-- which is advanceable and refundable toward the purchase of insurance.

You could still choose to get your insurance through your employer or keep it, if that is the best option for you. But for anyone else, they would also have a substantial tax benefit to be able to choose their own plan that fits their needs and which is not tied to their employer. This would allow individuals and families to keep their insurance when moving from job to job.

By giving all Americans the option of a tax credit, we would empower millions of families who normally could not afford to buy insurance on their own to do so on the individual market, putting millions of consumers in the driver's seat, demanding more personalized, convenient, and affordable insurance plans. Right now, it is simply not possible for families or individuals in most States to afford their own insurance plan. But by redirecting this tax incentive and creating a more vibrant market, quality insurance plans will become more affordable and more accessible. This will drive down the cost of insurance for everyone.

Finally, by giving individuals a tax credit toward the purchase of insurance, we allow people to choose their own health insurance and the type of plan they desire. They could choose the plan that fits their needs, rather than having their employer do it for them. In many cases, their employer is only going to offer a very limited number of options--perhaps doesn't know the health care needs from one person in the plan to the next. More people will know what they are purchasing and will know what their premiums are going toward each and every single month, making us all better consumers of health care services.

Now, more than ever, words and phases such as Washington bureaucracy, Government-run health care, wage garnishment, and mandates describe the direction many in this Congress wish to take. I believe that is the wrong direction, and I will continue to support health care reforms which expand choices and which give people more freedom to access the health care that is right for them.

This is a debate that needs to be joined in the days and weeks and months ahead. My hope is it will get underway this year. My expectation is anything done this year will probably be very incremental because I think the big, bold decisions that need to be made regarding America's health care system will probably, regrettably, get punted into next year, after the Presidential election. But the debate needs to begin.

What I and my colleagues I mentioned have decided is, we need to start that dialog now. We need to get the American people engaged in this debate in a way that allows them to see what the options are, what the alternatives are, what their choices are. I believe a majority of constituents in my State of South Dakota, and I would daresay across this country, will chose a system that is based in the market, that gives them more choices, more alternatives, that creates competition--a competitive model, and, yes, that covers more Americans who, today, do not have access to health insurance.

I believe that is a goal that is achievable. I believe the debate needs to start now. I also believe that whoever the next President of the United States is, needs to work together with this Congress, we need to work together as Democrats and Republicans on a health care plan that is based on these very simple principles.

It is the principles that have served this country and this American economy so well for so many years--freedom, choice, competition, quality--that ought to be the model for the health care of the future. I look forward to continuing this discussion throughout the coming months.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I recognize Black Hills State University as they celebrate their 125th anniversary.

Throughout the past 125 years, Black Hills State University, BHSU, has served the State of South Dakota by providing a quality educational experience. BHSU's commitment to education began in 1883 when the school was founded as the Dakota Territorial Normal School. With only 40 students and a 2-year budget of $2,000, BHSU began its journey in becoming a premier educational institution in South Dakota.

The school underwent a name change in 1941 and became the Black Hills Teacher's College. In the early 1940s, the rise of World War II resulted in a nationwide decline in university enrollment. In response, BHSU chipped in and hosted the training operations for Air Corp Cadets for the Manpower Commission to assist the war effort. After the war, the school rebounded and enrollment increased rapidly with the help of the G.I. Bill of Rights and BHSU's addition of graduate courses to its university catalogue.

Black Hills State University received its present name in 1964, and since, has continued to thrive in the South Dakota educational community. Now with three different colleges, an excellent academic environment, and many athletic opportunities, I am confident that BHSU will continue to serve the Spearfish community and the State of South Dakota for the next 125 years.

It gives me great pleasure to rise with the students, faculty, and alumni of Black Hills State University on this milestone anniversary and wish them continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, what is the unanimous consent agreement?

Mr. President, I wish to speak to the amendment of the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, regarding renewable energy.

As much as I appreciate the fact, as the Senator from Connecticut has pointed out, that this is a housing bill and there is a mortgage crisis out there that needs to be addressed, I would also argue, first of all, that, this being the Senate, we oftentimes consider amendments to bills that are not necessarily related to the underlying base bill, and secondly, that there probably is not an issue that impacts the folks I represent in South Dakota any more than does the high cost of energy.

Now, granted, as you travel across the country--and this is true in my State, as I think it is in every State--people are following closely what is happening with the subprime mortgage crisis, and the Senate and the Congress are reacting to that with the legislation that is currently on the floor. But if you look at it in the context of the broader economy and what is impacting the pocketbooks of Americans every single day--and certainly of South Dakotans--there is no question that high energy prices are impacting the lives of everyone I represent in South Dakota. We are a very energy-dependent State, and we travel long distances; we are a farm economy, so those inputs are very important to our economic well-being. We are a cold-weather State, and so electricity is in very high demand, both during the cold-weather season but also during the hot-weather season.

It seems to me that if we are going to address the economic issues that affect this country right now, we cannot do that without taking a hard look at what we can do to make energy more affordable to people in this country. So I would argue to my colleagues who have made the point that this is, in fact, a housing bill that, notwithstanding that is the basic focus of this bill, when we look at addressing the economy, I think in the broader context this is what this whole discussion is about: how can we bring relief to hard-working people who are struggling with the economic pains created by the housing crisis, by high energy prices, by high health care costs. Those are all factors that impact the pocketbooks of everyday Americans. So I think the discussion of this renewable energy extender amendment is perfectly appropriate in the context of this debate.

I would also say, with respect to the Senator from Montana, who has worked very hard, along with the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, on an energy package that would extend many of the tax incentives that are in place for renewable energy, we have had that legislation now on the floor of the Senate several different times and have been unable to reach that magic 60-vote threshold that is necessary to end a filibuster and to move forward with the legislation. So I would argue that every opportunity we have, we need to move forward with this debate about energy and what we are going to do to lessen our dependence on foreign sources of energy to make energy more affordable to more Americans. So I think it fits perfectly within the context of this debate.

I would also say, with regard to some of the extenders that will impact those that relate to energy production in my part of the world, I am particularly interested in the wind energy production tax credit, the 2-cent-per-kilowatt credit that applies to wind, and I have talked to investors who are looking at wind energy projects across this country and who are prepared to invest capital to build wind energy production but cannot deal with the uncertainty that exists with regard to Federal policy. The wind energy production tax credit expires at the end of this year, and if we do not do something in the very near future, those who are looking at making investments--that investment capital is going to dry up. We cannot afford to have that happen at a time when we have an increasing and growing demand for energy across this country.

We are trying to look at the whole issue of greenhouse gas emissions and carbon emissions and find new renewable forms of energy that will help address our energy needs in a clean, environmentally friendly way. We cannot afford to allow these tax incentives for renewable energy production to lapse at the very time that there is investment sitting there on the sidelines waiting to invest in wind energy production and solar energy production, but with the lack of certainty that exists today because of the pending expiration of these production tax credits, that investment very well could end up staying on the sidelines and not be made. That would be a very tragic outcome, I would argue, for our country.

So I would hope that every opportunity we have here in the Senate-- and frankly there will not be that many opportunities, regrettably, this year on legislation that actually is going to pass here in the Senate to which to attach these types of amendments. The Senator from Montana has said there will be a tax extender bill moving later. I hope he is right. I hope we have a window down the road to get addressed some of these tax measures that are expiring. But if, in fact, that does not happen or if it happens later in the year, sometime in the summer, we are going to miss a lot of opportunity, a lot of capital investment in wind energy and other types of renewable energy production that we otherwise would get if we had some certainty with regard to what the policy is going to be.

So, again, as much as there are jurisdictional objections being raised by the Senator from Connecticut with regard to this bill being a housing bill, the Senator from Montana regarding the need to do this later on a piece of legislation that might be a tax bill moving through the Finance Committee and ultimately out to the floor, I would simply make the case to my colleagues that timing is important. Timing really is critical with respect to whether we are going to continue to have incentives in place, economic incentives for investment in renewable energy. Frankly, based on the conversations I have had with those who are looking at making those types of capital investments in wind energy and other forms of renewable energy production, they are very concerned that Congress has yet to act.

I would much rather see a multiyear extension of the production tax credit for wind, and some of the other renewable energy tax credits, than doing this for 1 year because I do not think that provides the long-term certainty that is necessary. But I would much rather have a 1-year extension than face the prospect of this production tax credit expiring at the end of this year and us not addressing it and seeing a whole lot of capital investment that otherwise would be made in these areas of production stay on the sidelines and us continue to go down this path of increasing dependance on foreign sources of energy, growing demand for energy here in the United States, and a need to lessen the greenhouse gas emissions into our atmosphere and us doing nothing about that. So my fear is that if we do not act now, perhaps this thing gets punted down the road, perhaps it does not get addressed this year, in which case the production tax credit would expire. That would be a tragic outcome, a tragic result for this country and for the goals we have when it comes to renewable energy.

I would simply say to my colleagues who are going to hear objections raised on procedural grounds about dealing with these production tax credits in the context of this particular bill that we need to look at the broader picture. We have an energy crisis in this country. We have those who want to invest in renewable energy products that would help address that, that would meet all of the goals I mentioned about clean energy, about lessening our dependence upon foreign energy.

Frankly, the argument that was made by my colleague from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, with regard to wind energy being more of a localized, regional issue, that is predominately true. But so is oil production. There are lots of parts of the country that do not have certain energy sources. Yet we all rely upon all of those energy sources for our energy needs in this country. We happen to have an abundance of wind in the upper Midwest which I think has been underutilized, but it has the potential to meet the energy needs of people not just in South

Dakota or North Dakota or Nebraska or Iowa or Minnesota but all across the country. We need to be making the investments in those types of energy sources, and we need to have the policies in place that would create the economic incentives for that to happen.

I hope that in spite of the objections that will be raised on some procedural grounds to moving forward, that absent action to date and having seen in the past--looking historically at what has happened to this wind energy production tax credit over time, since 1992 when it was originally enacted, every time it comes to where it is about to expire or does expire--you will see this peak investment when it is in place. When it comes to where it is running out, the investment falls off, tails off; it expires, gets put back in place, and it takes off again. We need to even that out so we don't have these peaks and valleys, that we have consistent policies in place that will provide the certainty and the necessary incentives for those who want to invest in these types of energy sources to be able to do.

So I hope we will pass the Ensign amendment and put it on this bill. The objection has been raised that this could derail the housing bill. Frankly, the House has voted not on one occasion but on several occasions already for these very same renewable energy tax credits, and I suspect that they would welcome the opportunity to have that vote again in the House of Representatives. I hope it will be part of this package because it does address the fundamental issue when it comes to our broader economy; that is, the high cost of energy that is plaguing and harming and impacting the pocketbooks of every single American.

I urge my colleagues, when we have this vote, which I assume will be early next week, to vote yes for the Ensign amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak to amendment No. 4268. This amendment would provide for a total of $200 million over the next 5 fiscal years for tribal justice and law enforcement. Specifically, this amendment would do two things in a fiscally responsible way. First, it would increase the BIA's public safety and justice account, which funds tribal law enforcement, tribal court systems, and tribal detention centers by $25 million a year for the next 5 years. Second, it would increase funding for U.S. attorneys to prosecute crimes in Indian Country by $15 million a year for the next 5 years. The need for this amendment on our Nation's reservations cannot be overstated, as the absence of basic levels of public safety is reaching a crisis point.

The statistics are startling. Nationally, studies show that one of every three Native American women will be raped in their lifetime. Crime rates on remote reservations are an average of 10 times higher than the rest of the Nation. The Department of Justice has found that American Indian women are 2\1/2\ times more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than women throughout the rest of the country.

In my home State of South Dakota, homicide rates within reservations are almost 10 times higher than those found in the rest of South Dakota. According to the BIA, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has the second highest rate of crime of all the reservations in the Nation.

In order to start to help improve public safety on our Nation's reservations, there needs to be a two-part solution. First, we have to ensure there are adequate law enforcement personnel on the reservations to respond to, to investigate, and to deter crime--something that is not currently happening. For example, again, my home State of South Dakota, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which sits on the border of North and South Dakota and occupies over 2 million acres of land, currently has only 16 commissioned police officers. That works out to no more than three officers a shift for over 2 million acres of land.

To put that in perspective, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe land is more than two times larger than the State of Rhode Island, which has 200 sworn State troopers plus additional county, city, and Federal officers. That means Rhode Island has 12 times as many State troopers as the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has law enforcement officers, to police half the land.

Rhode Island also has 10 State trooper police dogs, meaning that at any given time, Rhode Island has more canine officers patrolling than Standing Rock Indian Reservation has human law enforcement officers. While there are population discrepancies between the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and Rhode Island, the differences between the two are still startling. My amendment addresses this need to increase the number of law enforcement officers on reservations by increasing funding for the BIA's public safety and justice account.

Second, there has to be some assurance that those who have been arrested, especially those arrested for violent crimes, are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Over the past two decades, only 30 percent of tribal land crimes referred to U.S. attorneys were prosecuted, according to Justice Department data compiled by Syracuse University. This compares with 56 percent of all other cases.

My amendment addresses this need with an increase in the BIA's Public Safety and Justice Account, which also funds tribal courts, and an increase for U.S. attorneys to prosecute crimes in Indian country.

The bottom line is that violent crime has become a serious problem on our reservations, particularly on our reservations in South Dakota, and I am determined to help reduce it. This $20 million increase in spending in fiscal year 2009 is small, less than 4/1000 of 1 percent of the total discretionary spending in fiscal year 2009 in this budget resolution, but it will have a big impact on the reservations that are truly in need.

I hope my colleagues will support this amendment so we can start restoring basic public safety to our Nation's Indian reservations.

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

Mr. President, this last year, Americans sent almost half a trillion dollars, almost $500 billion, overseas to purchase imported oil from other countries around the world. Think about that massive transfer of wealth and what that means for our national security because, in many respects, a lot of those dollars being used to purchase imported fuels are going to countries that are not favorable toward the United States. Of course, some say it is a world market, let the market work.

The difference is that most of our trading partners around the world are people we consider to be at least friends, allies, folks we do business with. They are not countries that are funding organizations that are trying to kill Americans. Regrettably, what we end up doing is funding both sides of the war on terror, because we send almost half a trillion dollars annually to foreign countries, petro dictators around the world who use those dollars to fund terrorist organizations that are designed to kill Americans, and then we end up having, of course, to fund our military to go fight the very same terrorists. It seems like a very misguided policy.

I make that point because I think we have a dangerous dependence on foreign energy. Today, 65 percent of our petroleum comes from outside of the United States. As most of us know, the fuels in this country are mostly petroleum based. The reason I say all that is I think we have an important decision to make in this country about whether we are going to continue to subsidize foreign governments, petro dictators who use those dollars that transfer wealth out of this country to fund terrorist organizations that attack Americans, or whether we are going to make an investment in the United States that provides benefits to the economy in America and provides jobs for Americans. I think that is an important decision we have to make.

For the past several years, this Congress as a matter of policy has tried to put into place incentives to increase the production of renewable energy, and with some degree of success. If you look at last year and this year, by the end of this year, we will be at about 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol produced in the United States. There are some 160, I think, ethanol biorefineries in this country. If you look at it, 22 States are home to some of those, with a collective capacity of over 7.5 billion gallons. There are sixty biorefineries under construction and several plants are in the process of expansion. That is a great story for America and for our agricultural economy. It is also a great story for our national security, in my view.

Lately, we have had a lot of attacks launched on the ethanol industry, and on renewable fuels generally. Many of them have been, again in my view, very misguided and misleading in terms of the reporting that has been done regarding food prices. If you look at several editorials recently, the New York Times went out of their way to discount the impact of high energy prices and worldwide demand for protein as reasons for food price increases. Rather, they decided to blame ethanol by

stating, ``The most important reason for the price shock is the rich world's subsidized appetite for biofuels.'' The editorial board claims, ``The benefits of this strategy are dubious.''

A February Washington Post article, entitled ``The Problem With Biofuels,'' leads the public to believe that biofuels will only serve to starve people. The article quotes a university study and states, ``By putting pressure on global supplies of edible groups, the surge in ethanol production will translate into higher prices for both processed and staple foods around the world.''

The food versus fuel debate is an important debate to have. However, it has to be based upon facts and not anti- renewable fuel rhetoric.

It is a fact that energy prices have a 2-to-1 greater impact on food prices relative to the price of inputs such as corn.

Last year, John Uranchuck of LECG issued a report detailing the impact of rising energy prices on the price of food. According to that study,

Increasing petroleum prices have about twice the impact on

consumer food prices as equivalent increases in corn prices.

A 33 percent increase in crude oil prices--the equivalent of

$1 per gallon over current levels of retail gasoline prices--

would increase retail food prices measured by the CPI for

food by 0.6 to 0.9 percent. An equivalent increase in corn

prices--about $1 per bushel over current levels--would

increase consumer food prices only 0.3 percent.

In December 2007, Informa Economics issued a report called ``Marketing Costs and Surging Global Demand for Commodities Are Key Drivers of Food Price Inflation.'' This report also concluded that the price of raw commodities is not the leading component of the Consumer Price Index for food. Rather, this report correctly identified rising energy and transportation costs as leading causes of food inflation.

To place the blame for food inflation on biofuels and the rising prices of certain commodities is simply misguided. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, costs of food inputs only account for a fraction of food prices. Specifically, labor, packaging, transportation, advertising, and profits account for 68 cents of every dollar a consumer spends on food.

The long-term outlook for corn prices under the expanded renewable fuels standard is somewhere in the $3.25 to $3.50 per bushel range. To put that into perspective, so the average person around the country can understand what I am talking about, the average box of corn flakes contains about 10 ounces or one ninetieth of a bushel of corn. Even at $4 corn--$4 a bushel corn--that amounts to 5 cents of corn in a box of corn flakes. Think about that. A box of corn flakes. Everybody assumes the farmer, because of high corn prices, is cutting a fat hog, but 5 cents of that goes back into the farmer's pocket. Attributing food inflation to biofuels and corn-based ethanol is simply untrue.

Now, with respect to climate change, because we have heard a lot of discussion as well and criticism of the ethanol industry with regard to how it impacts that debate, critics of renewable fuels have also started blaming climate change on renewable energy. I find that hard to believe, as well, because the purpose of biofuels is to replace petroleum as a fuel source. For years, environmentalists have decried petroleum as a major emitter of harmful carbon emissions. Today, we have a homegrown alternative that is displacing more and more petroleum by the day. Some are claiming now that ethanol is creating more global warming. If our national policy is to manage climate change, falsely blaming ethanol for global warming is not helpful to the cause.

According to the Argonne National Laboratory, regular blends of ethanol, gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 18 to 29 percent relative to regular gasoline.

As more ethanol is produced and consumed, our Nation's carbon footprint will continue to shrink. In 2006, ethanol use in the United States reduced carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 8 million tons. Such a reduction is the equivalent of removing 1.21 million cars from the road.

As Congress continues to debate climate change legislation and the causes of global warming, it is important to set the record straight. Ethanol production is a carbon sink, not a net producer of carbon emissions. Furthermore, as new types of cellulosic ethanol come online, the carbon-reducing benefits of ethanol are only going to increase.

Ethanol may be able to be blamed for some other transformations in our economy. For one, increased ethanol production is allowing our demand for gasoline to go down and displacing foreign imports of oil. Again, I point to some of the statistics that bear that out. If you look at the amount of ethanol that is being produced in America today-- and this is based on a 2007 number--in 2007, the ethanol that was produced, 6.5 billion, in this country displaced the need for 228 million barrels of oil, saving American consumers more than $16 billion or $45 million a day from going to countries, as I said earlier, outside the United States and enriching petrodictators who would do us ill will.

If we look at the impact on tax revenues coming into the Treasury, the ethanol industry generated an estimated $4.6 billion in Federal tax revenue and $3.6 billion in additional tax revenue for State and local governments. So if you couple that with the fact that according to the USDA--and I think this is an important point to make, too, by those who would criticize ethanol--according to the USDA, the increased demand for grain use in ethanol production reduced Federal farm program costs by more than $8 billion last year, meaning that even with the cost of the tax incentive that we use to encourage more production of ethanol, ethanol saved U.S. taxpayers, when you couple that with the additional tax revenue coming into the Treasury and the $8 billion that was saved because the Federal Government was not making farm program payments to farmers in this country, U.S. taxpayers saved more than $9.2 billion as a result of this industry.

Right now, about 50 percent of the gasoline in this country is blended with ethanol, and before very long, we hope that from coast to coast we will have every single gallon of gasoline in this country blended with ethanol.

But my point very simply is: This has been a great success story, one which has benefited and enriched our country, our farmers, people in this country who are working hard making a living contributing to a better quality of life for all Americans, as opposed to shipping all that wealth outside the United States to other countries.

Let me restate what I started by saying at the very beginning, and that is that last year, we spent almost half a trillion dollars, almost $500 billion, in purchasing imported oil. That, again, makes absolutely no sense to me in light of these statistics that I shared. I think as we look at the future of this industry and the promise it holds and the benefit it holds, not only for the economy in this country but also as we get away from this dangerous dependence on foreign sources of energy, renewable fuels, biofuels, have a great future for America, and I believe we ought to be continuing to invest in making sure that those who are involved with that industry--our farmers, those who are constructing ethanol plants around this country, that we provide not fewer incentives but more incentives for this kind of biofuel production that, again, gets rid of the carbon in our atmosphere, cleans up our environment, lessens our dependence on foreign sources of energy, and puts dollars back into the pockets of hard-working Americans, farmers, the rural economy, creating jobs, helping grow the economy right here at home in the United States rather than shipping those dollars to some foreign country where, again, many of these dollars are used to turn around and fund organizations that are designed to undermine America's interests around the world.

This debate will continue to percolate around this country, but when we get into this debate about food versus fuel, it is important we have the facts in front of us because this industry has undergone a lot of criticism of late. As I said before, I think much of it is misguided because it is based on misinformation and wrong facts. We need to have the facts in front of us, and then we can have a meaningful debate. Until that happens, we are going to hear more of these false attacks against an industry that is creating American jobs, helping reduce our dependence on foreign energy, and I hope, in the very near future, we will be able

to increase the amount not only of production in this country but the amount of consumption because I believe in the very near future we will start seeing more and more momentum for increasing the blend rate.

Right now, we blend 10 percent ethanol, as I said, in 50 percent of the gasoline in the country. I hope in the future we can increase that to 20 percent. The University of Minnesota completed a study where they compared effects of 10 percent and 20 percent on materials compatibility, driveability--all those types of issues. The result of the data that came from that study was that you can move to a 20- percent blend, a higher blend, an intermediate blend right now and have no impact on any of those issues.

The issue of emissions is still being studied. The renewable energy laboratory in Golden, CO, and the Department of Energy and EPA are undertaking some studies. When that data comes in, I believe it will show what the University of Minnesota study has shown and that is you can go to a higher blend with minimal impact and, in fact, in many cases with a better result; that we should move very quickly. I am going to encourage the administration and continue to try to influence that decisionmaking process in a way that will increase the amount of ethanol that is used in this country so, again, we can achieve the many benefits that I think dependence on American agriculture creates for us as opposed to our dependence upon foreign energy.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I rise to honor MSG Woodrow Wilson ``Woody'' Keeble for earning the Medal of Honor for his heroic service to our country in World War II and the Korean war. Although President Bush won't present the medal to Master Sergeant Keeble's family until next Monday, this is indeed an historic event as he is the first member of the Great Sioux Nation to be awarded this honor.

Master Sergeant Keeble went beyond the call of duty not for a medal, but for the mission he believed in and the country he loved. His legacy is a great source of pride for his family, his fellow South Dakota Sioux, and all Americans. The example he set for the just cause of defending freedom and democracy is truly heroic.

Master Sergeant Keeble was born in Waubay, SD, in 1917 to parents from the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux tribe. Master Sergeant Keeble's mother died at a young age, forcing his father to enroll him in the Wahpeton Indian School so he could get an education and three meals a day.

After graduating, Master Sergeant Keeble worked at the school and became well known for his baseball pitching, a skill that would serve him well in combat. In fact, the Chicago White Sox were actively recruiting him to play professional baseball when he was called into action in World War II.

After basic training, Master Sergeant Keeble served with ``I'' Company of North Dakota's 164th Infantry Regiment. He trained in Louisiana and was soon deployed to Australia to prepare for operations in the Pacific Theater. There, Master Sergeant Keeble's regiment was assigned to the 23rd Infantry Division, better known as the Americal Division.

On October 13, 1942, Master Sergeant Keeble landed on Guadalcanal in support of the First Marine Division, which had suffered heavy losses from the relentless Japanese forces. This was the first offensive operation the U.S. Army had conducted against the enemy in any theater of World War II.

Fighting alongside Marines, Master Sergeant Keeble gained valuable experience in jungle warfare that would later prove valuable in future operations.

The campaign on Guadalcanal saw some of the most brutal combat of the war. Japanese troops adopted the ``banzai charge'' tactic of attacking in human waves and hand-to-hand combat would sometimes last through the night. During this operation, Master Sergeant Keeble developed expert control of his Browning automatic rifle. He also earned a reputation for bravery as one of the best fighters on the island because his pitching skills came in handy as he used his incredibly strong arm to effectively throw grenades into enemy bunkers. James Fenelon, a member of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe who fought beside Master Sergeant Keeble once said, ``The safest place to be was right next to Woody. I don't know how many rounds he carried, but he had bandoliers on each shoulder. His gun just never stopped--no matter where you were, there were Japanese. He was unbelievable.''

Master Sergeant Keeble was awarded his first Bronze Star and Purple Heart at Guadalcanal for his meritorious actions in ground operations against the Japanese. His division fought so valiantly that they received a Navy Presidential Unit Citation for their support of the Marines. After Japan surrendered, the 164th occupied the Yokohama region of Japan.

After the war, Master Sergeant Keeble returned to Wahpeton and resumed work at the Wahpeton Indian School. He married Nattie Abigail Owen-Robertson on November 14, 1947, and settled down to start a family.

However, Master Sergeant Keeble's rest would not be a long one as the 164th was reactivated in 1951 to serve in the Korean war. After training at Camp Rucker, Alabama, several of Master Sergeant Keeble's fellow sergeants were to be selected for deployment to the front lines in Korea. After agreeing to draw straws to decide who would take this unwanted duty, Master Sergeant Keeble volunteered to take a short straw saying, ``Somebody has to teach these kids how to fight.''

The leadership and bravery Master Sergeant Keeble displayed in volunteering continued through his time in Korea. He was assigned to George Company, 19th Infantry Regiment, 24th Infantry Division. His strong character, robust leadership, and jungle combat experience brought him several quick promotions to the level of Master Sergeant. The Regimental leadership saw his potential, and placed him in charge of the first platoon.

On October 15, 1951, in a particularly bloody battle near Kumsong, North Korea, all of the officers of G Company were either wounded or killed in combat. Master Sergeant Keeble was among the wounded, but demanded he be released after treatment and volunteered to lead the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Platoons in assaults against the enemy.

On October 17, Master Sergeant Keeble was again wounded, and again returned to battle after being treated. His actions on the following day, October 18, earned him the Silver Star for continuing to lead his men after being

hit by grenade shrapnel. During this battle, Master Sergeant Keeble suffered two bullet wounds to his left arm, a grenade blast near his face that nearly removed his nose, and a badly twisted knee. On October 19, doctors removed 83 pieces of shrapnel from Master Sergeant Keeble's wounds.

The following day, October 20, 1951, would prove to be Master Sergeant Keeble's most heroic. After insisting he be allowed back to combat, Master Sergeant Keeble cemented his place in history. While leading the 1st Platoon up a steep hill during this battle, he saw that machine gun fire from three enemy emplacements had pinned down the entire 2nd Platoon on the same hill. The steep, rocky terrain was of tactical importance and Master Sergeant Keeble took it upon himself to ensure the operation carried on.

Master Sergeant Keeble crawled ahead to the 2nd Platoon. He then continued to advance on the enemy by crawling forward on his own. Although the enemy began to train all of its fire on Master Sergeant Keeble, he continued to hug the ground and advance until he was close to the emplacements. He then activated a grenade and successfully destroyed one of the enemy positions. Continuing his assault, Master Sergeant Keeble moved towards the remaining two machine gun posts and single handedly destroyed both of them with grenades. After removing the last position, he was stunned with an enemy concussion grenade, but pressed on after he recovered. Master Sergeant Keeble then resumed his advance and neutralized the remaining enemy personnel with his rifle.

In all, Master Sergeant Keeble eliminated nine machine gunners and seven riflemen. His heroic determination to press on and endure enemy fire inspired his fellow servicemen to rally and continue advancing on the enemy. By the end of the campaign, Master Sergeant Keeble had received five separate wounds to his chest, both arms, and both legs. Despite all of these injuries, Master Sergeant Keeble only received one Purple Heart, with the Oak Leaf Cluster, bringing his total to two. He was also awarded the Distinguished Service Cross and the Bronze Star First Oak Leaf Cluster.

Although he has been recommended twice for the Medal of Honor, it was never granted. That is why I rise today and honor Master Sergeant Keeble for finally being recognized for his truly remarkable heroism and valor. While he died in 1982 in part due to complications resulting from his war injuries, I am sure he would be proud to know that he has finally been given this honor he earned long ago.

Master Sergeant Keeble stood proudly for his country, his tribe and his family. He was strong, humble, compassionate, and committed to defending freedom. His actions were extraordinary and his bravery overcame the chaos that surrounded him. Master Sergeant Keeble once said, ``There were terrible moments that encompassed a lifetime, an endlessness, when terror was so strong in me, that I could feel idiocy replace reason. Yet, I have never left my position, nor have I shirked hazardous duty. Fear did not make a coward out of me.''

I am proud that next Monday, President Bush will be presenting this honor posthumously to Master Sergeant Woodrow Wilson ``Woody'' Keeble. His bravery is undoubtedly deserving of the Medal of Honor he has finally been awarded after a 55-year wait. The legacy he has left is a source of pride for his family, the Great Sioux Nation, and the country he nobly served.

Madam President, I would like to, if I might, shift gears and speak for a moment to some of the debate that has been going on on the Senate floor this week dealing with, primarily, the resolution that has been offered by the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, dealing with the withdrawal from Iraq and also the more recent resolution which has been the subject of debate here today on the Senate floor. But I think it is important that we also, as we debate these issues, acknowledge the good work that has been done by our troops.

Make no mistake about it, we are making progress in Iraq. The Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, GEN Michael Maples, who was this week here in Washington and testifying in front of the Armed Services Committee, commented that violence across Iraq has declined to its lowest level since April 2005 and violence against coalition troops is at the lowest level since March of 2004. Things are, indeed, trending in the right direction, especially compared to a year ago.

Although these trends are certainly reversible, the fact remains that the security situation in Iraq has improved significantly. The surge has and is working. The surge has worked despite relentless efforts to undermine it by several Members on the other side of the aisle.

At one point last year, we had people saying the surge had not accomplished anything. We heard a Democrat on the floor of the Senate saying that General Petraeus, our commander in Iraq who has so brilliantly led the surge, had been ``made the de facto spokesman for what many of us believe to be a failed policy'' and that ``the reports you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.'' Thankfully, they were wrong--utterly wrong. Nevertheless, the other side is continuing their wrongheaded approach by offering legislation again this week that would undo all of the progress our troops have made in Iraq. Once again, the extreme left in this country has demanded a vote on cutting off funds for our troops and near immediate withdrawal from Iraq. The leadership on the other side continues to make obligatory gestures to satisfy that extreme leftwing base.

The Senate voted four times last year on versions of this bill that we debated earlier this week to cut off funds for the troops in Iraq, and on four separate occasions the Senate rejected it. The legislation was defeated by overwhelming bipartisan margins. It never received more than 29 votes. Yet again this week, we went through the exercise of having yet another debate on this issue.

I think it was about a year ago this week, actually, we had a rare Saturday session where Members were called back in to make votes on an Iraq withdrawal resolution, again designed to score political points to undermine progress in Iraq rather than to get anything else done.

I think it is important to note--as we think about how we best combat the terrorist threat we face in this country and how we assist those young men and women who are carrying that fight overseas for us--we find today the House of Representatives has adjourned for the week after having acted on, I think, the naming of five post offices, when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has still yet to be voted on in the House of Representatives.

The Senate, before we took off for our last recess, voted by a margin of 68 to 29 to pass the terrorist surveillance bill through the Senate. It had broad bipartisan support in the Senate. If it had been taken up on the floor of the House, it would have passed there with broad bipartisan support as well. Yet we have the House today adjourning to go home, having acted on five resolutions to name post offices, without addressing what is one of the most important issues we all need to deal with here; that is, making sure our intelligence community and our law enforcement community and our men and women in uniform have the tools at their disposal to do the job we asked them to do.

It is critical that the intelligence community have that legislation passed so we can close gaps in our intelligence collection. We need that to get a better understanding of international al-Qaida networks and to gain insight into future terrorist plans and to disrupt potential terrorist attacks.

So I would hope cooler heads will prevail around here, that Congress will do the right thing for the protection of the American people, the right thing to aid those who are diligently working day in and day out--those in our intelligence community, those in our law enforcement community, those men and women in uniform who are fighting to keep this country safe--that they have the tools at their disposal to carry out the important responsibility we have given them to protect Americans. Acting on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and giving our intelligence community, under this terrorist surveillance bill, the authorities it needs to intercept communications that are being conducted by terrorists around the world would be an

important place to start. Right now, we have a gap in that intelligence collection because the House has failed to act on this very important piece of legislation. It is irresponsible.

It is important that we put the politics of this matter aside and we deal with the important issues that will keep America safe and ensure future generations of Americans are not subject to terrorist attacks. So I hope my colleagues will get the message, will come back into session, and take care of business, which is to get this important legislation passed, and act with the Senate in a broad bipartisan way to put a bill on the President's desk that he can sign into law that will make sure our intelligence community has the resources and the tools they need.

Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a member of my staff, Jon Abdnor, be granted the privileges of the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased we are making headway and are approaching finality and conclusion in regard to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. I give great credit to Senator Dorgan from North Dakota and Senator Murkowski from Alaska for their persistence in working with the leaders on both sides to get this legislation moved and ultimately adopted.

It has been a long time since we have had the Indian Health Care Improvement Act reauthorized. I think it goes back to about 2001. So this is a long overdue step toward attempting to improve health care throughout Indian Country, and I applaud the work that has been done. I hope tomorrow we can dispose of the final amendments that remain and get to a final vote on this legislation so we can begin to address what are some very serious needs regarding Indian Country and health care.

I wish to specifically acknowledge a couple of amendments--one that is still pending and one that has been adopted.

Amendment No. 3896

First, Mr. President, I wish to speak to the Vitter amendment, which is going to be voted on tomorrow. If adopted, this amendment would codify longstanding policy against the funding of abortions with Federal Indian Health Service funds.

Senator Vitter's amendment would permanently apply to the IHS the policy set forth by the Hyde amendment, which prohibits the Federal funding of abortions and has been national policy since 1976. For over 30 years, Democratic and Republican administrations, the U.S. Supreme Court, and bipartisan Congresses have all upheld and affirmed this essential policy. In addition to maintaining this legislative precedent, amendment No. 3896 includes important exceptions to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.

Now, some of my colleagues may ask why statutory codification of this policy is necessary. Let me assure them it is necessary to ensure this decades-long legislative precedent does not fall needlessly through procedural and political cracks.

Without this amendment, there is no true assurance that Federal IHS funds will not be used to pay for abortions on demand in the future. As everyone in this Chamber knows, the language of future HHS appropriations bills depends upon a host of political and legislative contingencies which can shift suddenly and unpredictably.

This amendment would extend and codify good policy--policy that protects the vulnerable rather than restricting rights. The Federal Register contains scores of national policies that are in place to protect women, young children, and citizens of minority status from harm.

Abortion is a practice that can harm women physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Statistics clearly demonstrate that abortion in this country falls disproportionately on minority populations, including Native Americans.

By supporting this amendment, we affirm life. As a nation we have come a long way in protecting the unborn since the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. However, we still have a long way to go in the fight to protect life in this country. I believe there is an essential human dignity attached to all persons, including the unborn, and I will continue working with my colleagues in the Congress to promote a culture of life in this Nation.

As a cosponsor of this amendment, I offer my strong support of amendment No. 3896, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I hope when the vote comes up tomorrow, we will have a good, strong bipartisan vote in support of this amendment.

Mr. President, I see the majority leader has come on the floor. I yield to him at this time. I assume he has some business to dispose of.