Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his indulgence. I appreciate very much the opportunity to speak to the issue before the Senate today.

The debate over immigration has been a contentious one. Soon we are going to come to that moment of truth when we all have the opportunity to cast a vote either for or against the so-called ``grand bargain'' that is before the Senate. Most of us are going to make that vote formed by our own experiences, formed by our conscience, formed by our constituents, and like so many others in this Chamber, those are all factors that come into play and influence the way that I view this very important and serious issue.

In fact, to speak to some of the experiences I have had, it was not too long ago I was in a supermarket in my home State of South Dakota in Sioux Falls. I was approached by someone who was working there who had asked me to help with a problem. It turns out he was in this country, and his wife had been here illegally. They had a child here. The child, therefore, is a citizen. His wife determined that she wanted to be legal. So she left this country and went back home and decided to come here through a legal mechanism. That was a year ago. For the past year, she has been trying to come back to this country legally. I have been working with her. They have to first get an immigrant waiver and then ultimately go through the process where she can come into this country and come legally.

I make that point because I believe it is very relevant to the debate we are having on the floor of the Senate. If this woman who wanted to do the right thing and decided to go back because she wanted to come into the United States of America legally--she didn't want to be here illegally--had just stayed here, under this bill, she could become legalized. What does that say to all the people such as her who are trying to follow the laws, who are trying to play by the rules we have created?

That is one episode, one example, as I look at this debate and think about the consequences for those who have played by the rules, those who follow our laws, those who observe the rule of law in America, how it forms the way I view this issue.

We have been told throughout this debate that this is the best compromise

that can be achieved and, after all, isn't compromise the essence of what the Senate is all about, is coming to a consensus after a long debate? The difference with this grand bargain is that the die was cast long before the debate began. The process whereby this bill came to the floor bypassed the regular order, and its outcome has been ordained by the grand bargainers to prevent amendments that might actually improve the bill from becoming part of the solution to America's broken immigration system.

Opposing the underlying bill or proposing amendments to improve it has led to labels such as anti-immigrant or nativist or xenophobic. I am none of the above. It is not anti-immigrant to be for the rule of law. It is not nativist to be for enforcing America's laws. And it is not xenophobic to believe that those who come to America should come here legally.

America has a long tradition as a welcoming nation. I am a product of that tradition. In 1906, two Norwegian brothers named Nicolai and Matthew Gjelsvik came to America from Norway. The only English they knew were the words ``apple pie'' and ``coffee,'' which evidently they learned on the way over.

When they arrived at Ellis Island, the immigration officials determined that their given name would be too difficult to spell and pronounce for people in this country so they asked them to change it. G-j-e-l-s-v-i-k was how they spelled it. They picked the name of the farm where they worked near Bergin, Norway, which was called the Thune Farm. So Nicolai Gjelsvik became Nick Thune, my grandfather.

Then, as now, there was a great demand in America's economy for workers. They went to work on the transcontinental railroad doing hard manual labor. they learned English and made enough to start a small merchandising company which subsequently became a hardware store that to this day bears their name. They came here for the opportunity that America offered--the opportunity to succeed and the opportunity to fail.

Their story has been duplicated millions and millions of times over and continues today. Millions and millions of Americans came here from other places, but they came here legally. I support them and the millions more who are still to come. You see, you can be pro- immigration and pro rule of law. The two are not mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, the bill before the Senate violates that bedrock American distinction of the rule of law. Under this bill, somewhere between 12 and 20 million illegal immigrants will be immediately legalized.

Ironically, it is that very rule of law that serves as a magnet that attracts people to America. The reason America's economy is the most prosperous in the world is its foundation is in the rule of law. Concepts such as legal certainty, private property rights, and an independent judiciary provide the framework for the most successful economy in the history of civilization. It doesn't happen by happenstance. It happens because the rule of law is an inviolable principle of American democracy.

The solution to America's broken immigration system is really quite simple: Enforce the laws in the workplace and enforce the laws at the border. Sacrificing America's most basic foundational principle in the interest of a short-term fix betrays the belief of the millions who are here legally and the millions more to come that America is different because here the rule of law matters.

President Ronald Reagan once said that a nation that ``can't control its own borders can't control its destiny.'' We are a country, we are a nation. We need the strong border security measures in this bill, and we need the strong workplace verification measures in this bill, but the immediate legalization of 12 million people is a bridge too far.

It contradicts one of the great ideals of our democracy and sends wrong and conflicting signals to those who are here currently and those who will come in the future. The demand for workers in America can be met when those here illegally go back and return through legal channels or when they are replaced by those who wait to come legally. This bill is the wrong solution, and I believe and I hope that the Senate will reject it.

We can get a good immigration bill, a solid immigration bill that secures the border, that deals with the issue of workplace verification, and it sends the right message to those who are waiting to come to America that America is a nation, a welcoming nation, a nation that is pro-immigration, but a nation that fundamentally respects its great tradition as a nation that is based upon the rule of law.

I hope my colleagues, as they consider how they will vote tomorrow on these important votes, will think about the importance of that tradition of the rule of law, the importance of the message we send to those who have observed our laws, such as the lady I mentioned whose husband is in Sioux Falls, SD, and she hopes to come back to our great country and to our State. She made a fundamental decision that she was going to play by the rules, she was going to follow the laws. There are so many like her. What we want to do is send a message that people like her are welcome here, people who follow our laws. We don't want to reward those who come here illegally. I believe on a most basic level that is what the legislation before the Senate does.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on these important votes tomorrow.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that seeks to fix a potentially devastating mistake in the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007, Public Law No. 110-28.

In May 2007, Congress passed H.R. 2206, which included much-needed disaster assistance for our Nation's farmers and ranchers. After much delay, it is critical that those producers impacted by natural disasters receive the assistance they need and deserve.

Over the past few years, drought conditions and other natural disasters have financially strained tens of thousands of agriculture producers across the country. Congress has responded to the needs of America's producers by enacting emergency disaster assistance for our farm and ranch families.

However, it has been brought to my attention that many livestock producers will likely be ineligible for assistance due to an unintended technicality. Congress clearly intended disaster assistance to be available to those producers most impacted by years of devastating weather conditions. This assistance includes livestock producer eligibility for Livestock Indemnity Payments and Livestock Compensation Program without participation in the Non-Insured Crop Disaster Assistance program, NAP, or Federal crop insurance pilot program as a prerequisite.

However, it is my understanding that the Department of Agriculture will interpret section 9012 of Public Law 110-28 as Congress intending that all livestock producers must have NAP or pilot crop insurance coverage in order to be eligible for disaster payments. If disaster benefits are limited to only

those livestock producers with NAP or crop insurance coverage, the vast majority of livestock producers in drought-stricken regions will be ineligible for disaster assistance.

Only a small percentage of producers participated in the NAP program, which only paid $1 to $2 per acre. As a result, few grazing producers bought policies. It is not good policy to exclude producers from disaster assistance who chose not to participate in what many consider an ineffective program.

My legislation would strike section 9012 of Public Law 110-28, and ensure that those producers in need of assistance receive assistance in a timely manner.

It is my belief that both the Senate and the House of Representatives should pass my bill to ensure that livestock producers are able to qualify for the disaster assistance that President Bush signed into law earlier this year.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that seeks to fix a potentially devastating mistake in the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007, Public Law No. 110-28.

In May 2007, Congress passed H.R. 2206, which included much-needed disaster assistance for our Nation's farmers and ranchers. After much delay, it is critical that those producers impacted by natural disasters receive the assistance they need and deserve.

Over the past few years, drought conditions and other natural disasters have financially strained tens of thousands of agriculture producers across the country. Congress has responded to the needs of America's producers by enacting emergency disaster assistance for our farm and ranch families.

However, it has been brought to my attention that many livestock producers will likely be ineligible for assistance due to an unintended technicality. Congress clearly intended disaster assistance to be available to those producers most impacted by years of devastating weather conditions. This assistance includes livestock producer eligibility for Livestock Indemnity Payments and Livestock Compensation Program without participation in the Non-Insured Crop Disaster Assistance program, NAP, or Federal crop insurance pilot program as a prerequisite.

However, it is my understanding that the Department of Agriculture will interpret section 9012 of Public Law 110-28 as Congress intending that all livestock producers must have NAP or pilot crop insurance coverage in order to be eligible for disaster payments. If disaster benefits are limited to only

those livestock producers with NAP or crop insurance coverage, the vast majority of livestock producers in drought-stricken regions will be ineligible for disaster assistance.

Only a small percentage of producers participated in the NAP program, which only paid $1 to $2 per acre. As a result, few grazing producers bought policies. It is not good policy to exclude producers from disaster assistance who chose not to participate in what many consider an ineffective program.

My legislation would strike section 9012 of Public Law 110-28, and ensure that those producers in need of assistance receive assistance in a timely manner.

It is my belief that both the Senate and the House of Representatives should pass my bill to ensure that livestock producers are able to qualify for the disaster assistance that President Bush signed into law earlier this year.

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

Katie is a graduate of Lincoln Senior High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently she is attending the University of Tennessee-Martin, where she is majoring in political science and public relations. 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 Katie for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

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

Jan is a graduate of Mitchell High School in Mitchell, SD. Currently she is attending the University of South Dakota, where she is majoring in political science. 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 Jan for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

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

Kimberly is a graduate of Flandreau High School in Flandreau and Augustana College in Sioux Falls where she received a bachelor of arts in biology with a minor in chemistry. This fall she will begin studying at the University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Dentistry. 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 Kimberly for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

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

Adam is from Oral, SD, and a graduate of the Academy of the New Church in Bryn Athyn, PA. Currently he is attending Briar Cliff University, where he is majoring in political science. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.

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

Mr. President, today I recognize Kelsey Miller, an intern in my Rapid City, 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.

Kelsey is a graduate of Belle Fourche High School in Belle Fourche, SD. Currently she is attending Dakota Wesleyan University, where she is majoring in public service and leadership and church music. 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 Kelsey for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Badger, SD. The town of Badger will celebrate the 100th anniversary of its founding this year.

Since its beginning in 1907, Badger has been a strong reflection of South Dakota's values and traditions. As they celebrate this milestone anniversary, I am confident that Badger will continue to thrive and succeed for the next 100 years.

I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Badger on their anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Lowry, SD. The town of Lowry will celebrate the 100th anniversary of its founding this year.

Since its beginning in 1907, Lowry has been a strong reflection of South Dakota's values and traditions. As they celebrate this milestone anniversary, I am confident that Lowry will continue to thrive and succeed for the next 100 years.

I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Lowry on their anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. President, I wish to join my colleague from Iowa in opposing this amendment. In 2006, America's ethanol industry contributed over $41 billion to the national economy. Operation and construction of domestic biorefineries created 163,034 jobs in all sectors of the economy last year alone.

The bill before the Senate builds upon this success by boosting the renewable fuel standard to 36 billion gallons by the year 2022 and establishing other valuable incentives for renewable energy production. The amendment proposed by Senator Gregg, our colleague from New Hampshire, would send mixed signals to our ethanol producers, their investors, and the farmers who sell their products to ethanol plants.

In effect, what Congress would be doing is telling the ethanol industry: We are demanding more of your product, but at the same time we are going to open the back door and begin subsidizing foreign sources of ethanol. If this amendment is adopted, our marketplace would be flooded with heavily subsidized ethanol from foreign countries.

In 2006, Brazil exported 433 million gallons into the United States, which is an increase of 400 million gallons over the year 2005. That same year, Brazil paid over $220 million in duties to import this amount of ethanol. They were already importing ethanol into this country through the Caribbean Basin Initiative. They have not reached that cap, but I think it is fair to expect they are going to continue to flood the U.S. market every opportunity they get with ethanol that is produced in Brazil.

The tax credit that currently is in place for domestic ethanol is critical to the success of our industry, and it does not discriminate between domestic or foreign sources of ethanol. So what happens is, as soon as the Brazilian ethanol is blended with gasoline in the United States, taxpayers begin paying 51 cents for each gallon of foreign ethanol. If Senator Gregg's amendment is accepted, American taxpayers will immediately begin subsidizing hundreds of millions of gallons of foreign-made ethanol each year with no offsetting duty. Simply put, by eliminating this tariff, we would trade our dependence upon foreign sources of oil for a new and growing dependence upon foreign ethanol.

I would add the critics of this tariff have argued that it inflates the cost of gasoline in this country. In fact, gasoline prices, as my colleague from Iowa has noted, would not be affected by removing the tariff on imported ethanol. Ethanol itself represents less than 5 percent of U.S. motor fuel supplies, and imported ethanol represents a small fraction of that percentage.

The factors truly driving the price of gasoline higher have nothing to do with ethanol supplies. Record crude oil prices, tight refining capacity, lower gasoline production, and limited expansion of domestic refining expansion all play a much greater role than the supply of ethanol in today's higher gasoline prices.

Critics of the tariff also claim we will need ethanol imports to meet the growing demand for ethanol and to comply with the strengthened renewable fuel standard. Again, the facts tell a very different story. Our Nation's current domestic production capacity is 6.2 billion gallons of ethanol. According to industry experts, an additional 6.4 billion gallons of capacity are currently under construction and will soon be refining ethanol. That is a total of 12.8 billion gallons in current planned production, which is more than enough--more than enough--to meet the heightened renewable fuel standards in the near term.

Additionally, we have to keep in mind the limitations placed on ethanol demand due to blend restrictions. Right now, only E10, 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline, is approved for use in nonflex-fuel vehicles. There is a point at which we are going to hit the E10 wall. Domestic production, as you can see if you look at this chart of ethanol production in this country, is more than adequate to meet the full market potential for E10. Some industry analysts predict we will very soon have excess ethanol production capacity when we hit the E10 wall.

That is why it is so important we expand ethanol and allow for higher blends--E15, E20--which in my view is something long overdue. The E10 wall is the point at which the market for E10 ethanol is saturated if ethanol production continues to grow at a record pace. While some in the industry disagree on when we will hit the E10 wall, it is clear it would have a harmful effect on the overall ethanol industry if Congress fails to act. Lifting the tariff on ethanol imports would only flood the marketplace with foreign ethanol, further magnifying the impact of the E10 wall.

Clearly, there are several reasons why my colleagues in the Senate

should oppose this amendment, which undermines our national energy policy of greater energy independence. So I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to this amendment. I worked closely with my colleague from Oklahoma on a number of issues when I was a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I worked with him last week on an amendment to expand refinery capacity because we have a shortage of refinery capacity. It is something that needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, that amendment failed. This amendment, however, is not necessary because we don't have a shortage of corn. In fact, demand for corn has increased because of ethanol production. It is expected to increase further thanks in part to the growth and expansion of renewable fuels. But to suggest for a minute that somehow we are going to run out of corn simply is not true. In fact, one of the most respected economists in the agricultural community, USDA's Dr. Keith Collins, has testified before the Senate Agriculture Committee about corn and ethanol production. I will highlight some of the points he made.

First, since 1948, corn yields have increased fourfold--from 40 bushels per acre to 160 bushels per acre--due to fertilizer, better management, technology, and improved crop genetics. Corn yields in the past couple of years have moved above the long-term trend and may continue to do so in coming years as well, helping to meet biofuel demand and reduce pressure on corn prices and acreage. Over the past few years, new-generation rootworm-resistant corn has been introduced and is showing strong yield increases in many areas.

As we look out over the next decade, USDA trend projections suggest that U.S. corn yields per acre are going to rise to 168 bushels per acre by the year 2016, and some seed companies suggest they are going to go even higher, as much as 20 bushels per acre above that level. Every 5-bushel increase in yield above the current trend level would be the equivalent of adding around 2.5 million acres to corn plantings, enough to produce 1 billion gallons of ethanol each year.

If you look State by State, Arkansas growers are expected to plant 560,000 acres of corn in 2007, up from 190,000 in 2006, a nearly 300 percent increase in corn acreage in 1 year. Louisiana farmers intend to plant 700,000 acres in 2007, up from 300,000 acres in 2006, a 233- percent increase in corn acreage. In Mississippi, corn producers are expected to plant 950,000 acres in 2007, up from 340,000 acres in 2006, a 280-percent increase in corn acreage.

My point is, in the underlying bill, basically, there is a stipulation that ethanol production can't exceed about 15 billion gallons. USDA's Dr. Keith Collins, who is an expert economist down there, says we can get to 15 billion gallons of ethanol based on corn production. Today, we are producing about 6.5 billion gallons of ethanol. So to get to 15 billion gallons, which is what the USDA's Chief Economist says we can reach, we have a long way to go. There is a lot of headroom to 15 billion gallons. To suggest for a minute that somehow we need this sort of an amendment that would put all these additional restrictions on the renewable fuels standard, I submit is unnecessary.

The underlying bill has provisions already that address this issue and waivers in place for economic hardships experienced by certain regions or States. Specifically, the President can waive the RFS if one of the following conditions is met: implementation of the requirement would severely harm the economy or environment of a State or region or the United States; if extreme and unusual circumstances exist that prevent distribution of an adequate supply of domestically produced renewable fuel to consumers.

I would also add that this particular amendment creates lots of problems for areas of the country because it forces investors to make investment decisions based upon the weather. We all know we can't protect the weather or predict the weather with certainty.

This amendment is misguided and unnecessary. I hope we will vote it down.

Madam President, I rise today in support of my amendment to create clean energy corridors, which will greatly enhance our grid system to transmit clean and renewable energy.

Much of the debate in this Energy bill has focused on renewable energy. How much renewable energy should we use? How should it be produced? Who should be required to use it? However, this debate has overlooked a key component in this argument, which is, how do we transport this energy from areas with high concentrations of renewable resources to areas with high demand for electrical power?

Oftentimes, clean, renewable sources of power are located in rural areas with low demand for electricity and limited capacity to transmit large amounts of power long distances. At the other end of the spectrum, States with larger urban areas are passing State laws that require the use of renewable energy. In many cases, it is more economical to import that energy from other areas of the country.

It is critical that we create the infrastructure to allow that movement of energy to happen. I have to point to this chart to illustrate exactly how my State of South Dakota serves as a prime example of this dilemma. In South Dakota, we are blessed to have abundant sources of wind. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, South Dakota has enough wind to produce 566 gigawatts of electric power from wind, which is the equivalent of 55 percent of the Nation's electricity demand.

I will refer to the chart. If you look at these red areas and the pink areas, the purple areas around the country, all these different colors demonstrate varying amounts of wind energy.

Of course, as you can see, South Dakota and North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, have enormous amounts of wind energy available. Although South Dakota has an abundant source of wind, this renewable resource is dramatically underdeveloped in my State.

In fact, we have less than one-tenth the wind energy production of our neighboring States, even though our wind resources are far superior. The fundamental problem is we don't have the population markets to use large amounts of wind power within my State's borders.

More importantly, we lack the transmission capacity to carry wind power from rural areas in South Dakota to urban areas in other areas of the country. This amendment includes simple provisions that would significantly improve transmission development for renewable sources of energy.

First, this amendment would direct the Department of Energy to identify areas with transmission constraints that increase costs to consumers, limit resource options to serve load growth or limit access to sources of clean, renewable energy, such as wind, solar, geothermal energy, and biomass.

Upon completion of this study, after verifying all alternatives and public comments, the Department of Energy could then designate these areas as ``National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors.''

These corridors, which enjoyed broad bipartisan support as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, are important tools for transmission development. Under current law, these corridors are targeted toward areas experiencing heavy grid congestion. My amendment would expand the designation of these corridors to include access to clean, renewable sources of energy.

This amendment also directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to establish regulations that allow public utilities to allocate and recover costs associated with building the additional transmission infrastructure for wind and other forms of renewable energy. It ensures that rates associated with this development are reasonable, just, and nondiscriminatory.

By overcoming some of the inherent obstacles associated with transmitting renewable energy long distances, I believe this amendment promotes clean, renewable sources of energy in a commonsense fashion.

This amendment will serve as the blueprint for the 21st century grid by facilitating the national scale designation and construction of clean energy corridors that will enable the delivery of clean, sustainable, reliable power to consumers across this country.

As I have met with people from the industry, as I have traveled my State, as I have talked with those who invest in energy projects, it is clear that this is one of the issues that presents a major obstacle to wind energy development in this country. This amendment helps address that by creating and opening these corridors, clean energy corridors that would allow clean green wind energy to make it from areas where it is in abundance, places such as the State of South Dakota, to places in the country that desperately need affordable power.

So I hope my colleagues in the Senate will support this amendment and do something that will significantly address and further the production of wind energy and affordable electricity to America's consumers.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Before I yield back my time, I thank both Senators from New Mexico. They have both been great leaders on the energy issue.

The 2005 Energy Act was a landmark accomplishment in the Congress. It set a lot of new policy with regard to energy and moved us in a direction that gets us less dependent upon foreign sources of energy and more energy independent, which I think is what this debate is all about.

I argue with respect to this amendment that it builds upon the work we did in 2005. In fact, that amendment that was talked about in 2005 which deals with those areas which are experiencing heavy grid congestion--this simply expands that designation to those corridors to include access to clean, renewable sources of energy, which I believe is what a part of this debate is all about; that is, how do we take energy sources in this country, make them more available to people across the country, and lessen the dependence on foreign sources of energy?

I use my State as a prime example. There are lots of different regulatory bodies, whether it is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Western Area Power Administration, the Midwest Independent System Operators, whether it is the Public Utilities Commission of the State of South Dakota, there is a balkanization of networks out there that has evolved over time that has created these barriers in the grid to getting power from where it is generated, where it is produced, to where it is needed. My State is a good example of that. On the border of South Dakota, we have what is called a pancaking problem where there is a stacking of fees that makes it difficult to get wind generated in South Dakota across State lines into other areas that could benefit from it.

This is fairly straightforward and consistent with the good work that was done in the Energy bill in 2005. It doesn't in any way undermine or contradict that but complements it in a way that is consistent with what our priorities should be and what our objectives are in terms of energy policy.

I appreciate the comments of both of my colleagues from New Mexico, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak about an amendment I filed that would extend the current tariff on imported ethanol by 2 years. Over the past 2 years, I have been proud to stand with my colleagues in the Senate as we have made clean renewable energy a top priority in our national energy policy. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, passed in the previous Congress, made a historic commitment to renewable fuels by establishing a national renewable fuels standard and extending several important renewable energy tax credits. This law has effectively promoted homegrown sources of energy such as ethanol and biodiesel. The bill before the Senate today builds upon that success by boosting the renewable fuels standard to 36 billion gallons by the year 2022 and establishing other valuable incentives for renewable energy production.

The amendment I have offered to the underlying bill would significantly add

to the existing renewable energy incentive promoted by this bill. My amendment would extend the 54-cents-per-gallon tariff on ethanol imports through 2010. The current tariff is set to expire at the end of 2008.

This energy legislation does some great things for renewable fuels such as corn-based ethanol and advanced biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol. However, if we increase the renewable fuels standard without extending the tariff on ethanol imports, we are sending a mixed signal to our ethanol producers, their investors, and the farmers who sell their products to ethanol plants. In essence, Congress is telling the ethanol industry that we are demanding more of your product, but at the same time we are going to open the backdoor and begin subsidizing foreign sources of ethanol.

We need to ask: What is the purpose of the ethanol import tariff, and what will happen if the tariff is allowed to expire? First, the ethanol tariff serves to offset heavily subsidized ethanol from foreign countries. Brazil, which is a world leader in ethanol production, has been subsidizing its ethanol industry for the past 30 years. Now that Brazil's ethanol industry is mature and meeting a high percentage of Brazil's fuel needs, Brazil is hungry to export their subsidized ethanol to the United States. In 2005, Brazil exported 33 million gallons into the United States. In 2006, that number increased more than tenfold to 433 million gallons. That same year Brazil paid over $220 million in duties to import this amount of ethanol. Further, Members of Congress and the American public have every reason to believe this trend will continue well into the future and will certainly be expedited if the tariff is allowed to expire.

According to media reports, Brazil's state-run oil firm, Petrobas, has publicly announced plans to build an ethanol-only pipeline from central Brazil to ports in the western part of Brazil in order to more easily export ethanol to North America and Asia. According to the Inter-American Development Bank's Global Biofuels Outlook for 2007, Brazil will be exporting almost 1.6 billion gallons of ethanol by 2012. Clearly, foreign producers of ethanol would love to import billions of gallons of unregulated ethanol into our country.

The second purpose of the ethanol tariff is to offset the current tax credit available to domestic blenders of ethanol. It is important to remember that each gallon of ethanol that is blended with gasoline in the United States currently receives a 51-cent-per-gallon tax credit. This tax credit, which has played a leading role in ethanol's success story, does not discriminate between domestic or foreign sources of ethanol. If a shipment of Brazilian ethanol arrives at a U.S. port and is blended with gasoline on U.S. soil, this Brazilian ethanol is eligible for the blenders tax credit. This tax credit is currently scheduled to expire at the end of 2010.

Extending the ethanol import tariff to correspond with the expiration of the tax credit is in the best interest of our ethanol producers and the American taxpayer. If the tariff expires before the ethanol blenders tax credit expires, American taxpayers will be subsidizing hundreds of millions of gallons of foreign-made ethanol each year. Simply put, the well-intentioned policy of boosting the renewable fuels standard could have serious unintended consequences, if the ethanol tariff expires at the end of 2008. In fact, we would merely trade our dependence upon foreign sources of oil for a new and growing dependence upon foreign ethanol. This tradeoff is dangerous and will undermine hard-fought efforts to grow our domestic ethanol industry which is creating jobs and economic growth in America's heartland.

Critics of the tariff claim that we will need ethanol imports to meet a growing demand for ethanol and to comply with the strengthened renewable fuels standard. However, the facts tell a very different story. Our Nation's current domestic production capacity is 6.2 billion gallons of ethanol. According to industry experts, an additional 6.4 billion gallons of capacity are currently under construction and will soon be refining ethanol. That is a total of 12.8 billion gallons in current and planned production. By comparison, the heightened renewable fuels standard in this bill is 12 billion gallons in 2010, the year the ethanol import tariff would expire under my amendment. The renewable fuels standard will require 12.6 billion gallons in 2011. Clearly we do not need imported ethanol to meet the renewable fuels requirement included in this bill.

The Senate has also voted on extending the ethanol tariff to the year 2010. During debate on the transportation reauthorization bill in the 108th Congress, 76 Senators voted in favor of extending the ethanol tariff through the year 2010. Again, I stress, the Senate is already on record in support of the very proposal outlined in my amendment.

In addition to extending an effective renewable fuels policy, my amendment would also shed light on a disturbing loophole in our trade policy which allows foreign ethanol producers to avoid the ethanol tariff by shipping ethanol through the Caribbean Basin Initiative. The CBI is a Cold-War-era policy established to promote the political and economic stability of 24 Caribbean countries. Under the Caribbean Basin Initiative, many goods, including ethanol, can be shipped into the United States duty free. Brazil is currently shipping wet ethanol, ethanol that contains 10 percent water, to beneficiary countries, only to be dehydrated and shipped to the United States duty free. According to the Congressional Research Service, ethanol dehydration plants are currently operating in Jamaica, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Trinidad, and Tobago, all of which are Caribbean Basin Initiative countries.

Although Caribbean Basin Initiative imports are capped relative to the size of the U.S. ethanol market, these imports are increasing rapidly and could reach 2.5 billion gallons by the year 2022, under an expanded renewable fuels standard.

The troubling part of this policy is that it is unclear how much of this ethanol actually originates in Caribbean countries. If the majority of this ethanol is simply dehydrated in Caribbean countries, then the purpose of the ethanol tariff and of the Caribbean Basin Initiative is being subverted. My amendment calls for a study of Caribbean Basin Initiative imports to determine the origin of these imports and the economic impact on both the domestic ethanol market and the economies of the Caribbean Basin Initiative countries.

My amendment also promotes renewable energy on another front. Part of the revenue generated by duties applied to ethanol imports would be directed to a renewable energy fund within the United States Treasury.

This fund would be dedicated to funding renewable energy systems rebates, which were authorized in section 206 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Transfers from this fund would be subject to appropriations.

The section 206 rebate program offers incentives for the installation of renewable energy systems in homes and small businesses. The amount of the rebate is 25 percent of the costs for purchasing or installing the equipment or $3,000, whichever is less.

According to the Energy Information Administration, section 206 rebates could increase residential renewable energy consumption between 7 trillion to 14 trillion Btu's by the year 2010.

The Energy Information Administration also predicts that section 206 rebates would greatly increase the use of geothermal heat pumps, residential wood stoves, solar technologies, residential wind turbines, and wood-pellet and corn-burning stoves.

This commonsense, bipartisan measure gives consumers choice and flexibility to produce and consume renewable energy in their homes. Although it was supported by the Senate in 2005, it is yet to be funded. My amendment would direct some of the revenue generated from extending the tariff toward funding this important program.

Specifically, it would direct up to $100 million in 2009 and $150 million in 2010 to fund the renewable energy systems rebate program-- well below the $250 million authorized level.

In conclusion, ethanol is being produced here at home at record levels, but it is an industry that is still in its infancy, and we need to be doing all we can to invest in it and encourage its growth--not the growth of foreign ethanol companies. I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment

which will keep American-made, homegrown renewable fuels at the forefront of our national energy policy.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Bristol, SD. The town of Bristol will celebrate the 125th anniversary of its founding this year.

Located in Day County, Bristol was founded as a result of railroad expansion and named after the English city of Bristol by district railroad surveyor C.P. Prior. The town is a designated spot on the Yellowstone Trail, which once served as a route for covered wagons heading west. Found in the Glacial Lakes Region of northeastern South Dakota, Bristol offers excellent hunting and fishing opportunities. The town is also home to the Zucchini Festival, an annual summer event with games and activities centered on zucchini.

Bristol has served as home to famous residents throughout its abundant history. One such resident is longtime ``NBC Nightly News'' anchor Tom Brokaw. Mr. Brokaw's great-grandfather, Richard P. Brokaw, was one of the first families to settle in Bristol. He operated the Brokaw House, the first structure built in town. The hotel was built and rebuilt through the years to accommodate people attracted to Day County.

Since its beginning, Bristol has been a strong reflection of South Dakota's values and traditions. As they celebrate this milestone anniversary, I am confident that Bristol will continue to thrive and succeed for the next 125 years.

I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Bristol on their anniversary, and I wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.