Floor Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 37 be called up.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly to this amendment before asking that it be set aside.

Currently, Federal grant recipients are generally prohibited from using their Federal grant funds to lobby Congress or to influence legislation or appropriations. Current law also generally prohibits 501(c)(4) civic leagues and social welfare organizations from all lobbying activities, even with their own funds, if they receive a Federal grant, loan or award. But these prohibitions do not prevent Federal grant recipients from lobbying or engaging in political advocacy. Most Federal grant recipients are free to use other parts of their budget, beyond their Federal grant, for lobbying or political advocacy. Even 501(c)(4) organizations whose prohibitions are more stringent can simply incorporate an affiliated organization to engage in lobbying activities or political advocacy.

While the appropriateness of Federal grant recipients engaging in any lobbying or political advocacy, even with their own funds, could be debated, the least we should ask these Federal grant recipients is that they disclose their lobbying and political advocacy activities. Federal grant recipients who are engaging in lobbying should register under the current public disclosure requirements for lobbyists. The public

should also have a right to know if recipients of Federal grants are engaging in political advocacy and to what extent.

In the wake of last year's transparency legislation, information on Federal grants and their recipients will soon be on a publicly available and searchable database. This amendment builds on that concept by requiring Federal grant recipients to disclose any and all political advocacy activities. The amendment would also require a good- faith estimate of the grantee's expenditures on political advocacy.

This, in my view, is a fairly straightforward amendment that adds to the transparency of organizations that engage in political advocacy and lobbying and I think sheds further light on the whole process of getting involved in Federal issues by organizations that actually are receiving Federal funding. I believe that is something the American people would like to see happen.

The Transparency Act that was passed last year, as I said earlier, will bring about disclosure of those organizations. They will have to now disclose, those who receive Federal funds.

All this amendment does is take that a step further and say that those organizations that receive Federal funds need to disclose if they are engaging in a form of political advocacy and to what extent--in other words, how much money are they spending on those types of activities.

The definition of ``political advocacy'' in the amendment is pretty straightforward, but it has to do with:

(A) carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to

influence legislation or agency action, including, but not

limited to monetary or in-kind contributions, endorsements,

publicity, or similar activity;

(B) participating or intervening in (including the

publishing or distributing of statements) any political

campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for

public office, including but not limited to monetary or in-

kind contributions, endorsements, publicity, or similar,

activity;

(C) participating in any judicial litigation or agency

proceeding (including as an amicus curiae) in which agents or

instrumentalities of Federal, State, or local governments are

parties, other than litigation in which the entity or award

applicant--

(i) is defendant appearing in its own behalf;

(ii) is defending its tax-exempt status; or

iii) is challenging a government decision or action

directed specifically at the powers, rights, or duties of

that entity or award applicant. . . .

This is a fairly straightforward amendment. I am simply trying to shine additional light on this process. It is in line with the thinking behind this underlying bill; that is, bringing greater transparency, greater accountability to the process of lobbying and the whole exercise that we undertake around here and outside organizations undertake in trying to influence Federal legislation and Federal issues.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the many and great achievements of Vernon Ashley. Vernon proudly served his country in World War II and later went on to graduate from Dakota Wesleyan College at the age of 34. He proceeded to be elected tribal chairman of the Crow Creek Indian Reservation and was later appointed South Dakota's Indian Affairs Coordinator under three different Governors.

Mr. Ashley's achievements do not end there however. Vernon served as the executive director for Vista for both North and South Dakota and supervised all volunteer service during the recovery of the Rapid City flood disaster. Vernon was also a founding member of the American Indian Veterans Association and is a dedicated husband and the loving father of seven.

Mr. President, today with Vernon's friends and family, I congratulate him on his many and most recent accomplishments. I have known Vernon for many years. He is a man of impeccable character and integrity. Governor Rounds and the State legislature of South Dakota have rightly declared that in South Dakota, January 15, 2006, is Vernon Ashley Day. Today I join the Governor and members of the legislature in congratulating this great American.

Mr. President, today I recognize Paige McPherson of Sturgis, SD, for her success in the martial art of tae kwon do. Paige is considered one of the top female Tae Kwon Do fighters in the country in the 130- to 139-pound weight class.

Paige McPherson trains and teaches out of the Black Hawk tae kwon do center in Black Hawk, SD. She has successfully competed in tae kwon do tournaments at the national level and has secured a spot for the 2007 Senior National Team and Pan American Game Trials.

It gives me great pleasure to congratulate Paige McPherson on this special occasion and to wish her continued success in the years to come.

I will try to do it in 5 minutes. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota to the Agriculture appropriations bill. I have been

listening to the discussion in the Senate between my colleagues from North Dakota and my colleague from Oklahoma over the whole issue of whether this ought to be paid for and how it is paid for. Frankly, I am with all of you--I will stay here as long as is necessary to get this done. If we can come up with a mechanism that doesn't run into an objection that allows us, by unanimous consent or whatever mechanism is necessary, to pay for it, I am for that because I agree entirely. I happen to think if there is a mechanism whereby we can offset this, we ought to make every effort we possibly can to do that.

However, if you look at the impact the drought had on the Dakotas this year--it has been described on the maps shown earlier this day as the epicenter--the bull's-eye of the drought across this country, and the upper Midwest, the upper Plains States, South Dakota and North Dakota in particular, have been crippled by it. It was not just a 1- year event but a multiple-year event. It has been successive years, year after year after year, of drought. This last summer in particular was dreadful for producers across South Dakota. It was the hottest July in 70 years. The rainfall accumulations we received this year were lower than the average during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

I traveled my State of South Dakota on numerous days in the month of June. I visited Sully County in the middle of our State. In the month of July, I was in Walworth County in the middle of our State. In the month of August, Senator Johnson and I went on a five-county tour in central South Dakota. Everywhere we went, the story was the same: The drought had destroyed our crops; destroyed the wheat crop; it wiped out much of the corn crop. Cornstalks, where there should have been corn growing, were very short. And even cornstalks that were a little taller than that, when you would look further--took a closer look--there were no ears on the cornstalks. Where there were soybeans that should have been lush and thick, they were not. Where there should have been hay and grass, there was not. And now, this fall, where there should have been cows, there aren't any because producers have had to sell their herds.

We have a practice in the Senate and the Congress of responding when a disaster strikes an area of the country. All of us voted to support the people in the gulf area who were impacted, just devastated by the effects of the hurricanes. We do not have hurricanes in the Midwest. We have droughts. And it does not happen overnight. It is not a 24-hour news cycle. It is not something that gets the same focus or attention. But it has the same effect in terms of the way it affects people's lives.

If you look at droughts, you might describe them as slow-motion disasters, but the economic impact on farmers, ranchers, small businesses, and rural communities is just as devastating. In the aftermath of one of the worst drought conditions since the Great Depression, the people of the Midwest are looking for us in Washington to provide assistance.

I am in agreement with my colleagues who have argued we ought to be looking at how we can, in farm bills, design programs that will anticipate these things so we do not have to continue to do it on an ad hoc basis. I, for one, hope in the next farm bill we will be writing next year that we can insert provisions that would accomplish just that. But the reality is, we have had year after year after year of drought. We have written a bill that, as my colleague from North Dakota has noted, addresses some of that problem, not on a level that has been addressed in previous years. The whole issue of crop insurance is addressed in here. I think that is a good idea. We ought to encourage people to buy crop insurance. This does do that. It reduces the payment that would be made available to those who do not buy crop insurance.

But the simple reality is, we need to do something to respond to what is a very devastating and real disaster for the people of South Dakota and other States in the Midwest whose futures are dramatically impacted by the drought we have experienced in this last year.

Agriculture is the backbone of our State's economy. That is true in a lot of the States in the Midwest. I would hope, before we leave this year, we can get this issue addressed, whether that is in the form of emergency relief such as this that is fashioned today or, as my colleague from Oklahoma has suggested, some sort of offset. Whether that takes unanimous consent, I am for that. I am all for that.

But the simple fact is, we need to respond. We need to do it in a timely way. I hope, before we leave today, we will be able to get an affirmative vote in support for farmers and ranchers and small businesspeople and citizens in the rural economy across this country who have been devastated by one of the worst drought disasters literally in the last century.

Mr. President, I understand my time has expired, so I yield back to the Chair.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding additional time because I do not think that oftentimes we give enough attention on the floor to the effect this drought has had on the agricultural economy or the conditions our farmers and ranchers are facing in many of the Midwestern States. And we need to have a good, robust debate about the future of agriculture and how we anticipate, in the future dealing, with this type of disaster.

But, as I said before, it is important for us to respond in the same way we did when the gulf area was hit by the hurricanes, to make sure people of this country understand that when disaster strikes, the people in the Congress are hearing their voices and are willing to take the necessary steps to provide assistance.

I also note, because it has been stated earlier today, the Agriculture Department does have a lot of unobligated funds on hand. One of the reasons they do is the payments that are normally made under the farm bill have not been made. So there are a lot of unobligated balances there because countercyclical payments and loan deficiency payments have not been made.

I had suggested, in the previous iteration of this a few years back, that we use those savings, those offsets, to apply them to disaster relief. They say for scoring purposes that does not count. But the reality, again, is that when you look at the balances that are available at USDA, they are in a position to respond. This is a $4.8 billion, $4.9 billion disaster bill that applies, as the Senator from North Dakota noted, to 2 years, 2005 and 2006.

It seems to me at least that this is a minimum level of effort we ought to make to respond to the disaster in the Midwest and provide direct assistance to our farmers and our ranchers and our small businesses.

So, again, I ask my colleagues in the Senate to support the vote on this when it comes up. I hope we can get a good, strong vote out of the Senate and ultimately act on the underlying bill, send it to the House, and get it on the President's desk, so we can get disaster assistance out there.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to thank Colin Hauck, 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 this fall.

Colin is a graduate of Aberdeen Central High School in Aberdeen, SD, and after graduating from the University of Arizona with a bachelor of arts in Anthropology, Colin received a master of arts in international relations and diplomacy at Leiden University in the Netherlands. He is a hard worker and has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to rise and give my thanks to Colin and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I rise to thank Eric Rodawig, 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 years.

Eric is a graduate of Dakota Valley High School in Dakota Dunes, SD, where he was the Valedictorian. Currently he is attending Georgetown University where he is majoring in government and economics and is active in writing for the school newspaper, The Hoya. He is a hard worker and has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to rise and give my thanks to Eric and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I rise to thank Tony Ancelj, 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 this fall.

Tony is a graduate of Saint Mary's College of California where he received a bachelor of arts in philosophy and political science. After attending the London School of Economics and Political Science in the United Kingdom, Tony was accepted at Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law. He is a hard worker and has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to rise and give my thanks to Tony and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Robert Cook of Central High School in Rapid City, SD. Robert was named the 2006 Teacher of the Year by the National Indian Education Association.

As the English and social studies teacher at Central High School, Robert has played an integral and unique role in furthering the education of South Dakota's students. His initiative, expertise, and kind heart, has created an exceptional learning environment at Central High School. His selfless dedication to educating students for 17 years is truly commendable. I am proud to have such a fine teacher influencing our State's future leaders.

Robert is a graduate of Black Hills State University and he resides in Rapid City. Today I rise with Robert Cook's friends, family, and colleagues in honoring his selfless dedication and service to South Dakota's students.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Ethan School District No. 17-1 for being named a No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon School. The commitment to quality education that has been shown by the faculty, teachers, and students at the Ethan School District is truly invaluable in shaping the future leaders of this country. The work that they are doing to develop higher education standards and greater accountability serves as a model to other schools throughout our State and Nation.

Again, congratulations to Ethan School District No. 17-1 for being named a Blue Ribbon School and for making South Dakota proud.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize White Lake Independent School District No. 1-3 for being named a No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon School. The commitment to quality education that has been shown by the faculty, teachers, and students at the White Lake Independent School District is truly invaluable in shaping the future leaders of this country. The work that they are doing to develop higher education standards and greater accountability serves as a model to other schools throughout our State and Nation.

Again, congratulations to White Lake Independent School District No. 1-3 for being named a Blue Ribbon School and for making South Dakota proud.

Mr. President, I am glad to join my colleague from North Dakota today and support him and the other 20 Senators who are on this bill in moving disaster assistance through the Senate.

As the Senator from North Dakota has noted--you saw the drought chart he put up earlier--the Dakotas were the epicenter when it comes to drought this year. We had the bull's-eye, the area where the most severe drought hit.

I visited in South Dakota in June. At that point, we had no wheat crop. In all of central South Dakota, both winter wheat and spring wheat were all wiped out.

I went back in July to central South Dakota and looked at other parts of the State. By then, we could tell we were not going to have a corn crop. I went to western South Dakota in August with my colleague Senator Johnson. We traveled to areas west of the Missouri River and again to the central part of the State. We looked at corn that rivaled what the Senator from North Dakota showed that was about this tall--or about this tall--when it ought to have been in full bloom.

The livestock producers in western South Dakota had no hay crop. As a consequence, many of them had to liquidate their herds. What that means is that effect is felt not only directly by them and those families, but by the entire rural area, the entire farm economy in my State and States such as North Dakota.

It would be one thing if it were a 1-year deal. But this is successive years of drought, 6 years in a row, 1999, 2000, on through 2005. We have had these types of weather conditions in our States. The month of July was the hottest July on record in my State. In the months of May and June we normally would get precipitation. We had less precipitation than the average during

the years of the Great Depression--the biggest disaster to ever hit farm country.

We respond as a country, as a Congress, when other areas of the country are impacted.

We do it when we have hurricanes. Many stepped up and supported the assistance for areas in the gulf. This is the same sort of disaster. It has the same sort of effect. It may not have the immediate aftermath you see when a hurricane strikes. It is a slow-motion disaster, but the effect on the economy in places in the Midwest is just as disastrous and devastating.

Mr. President, we need action. We need the Senate to do what it has done in the past; that is, step forward and provide relief for these hard-hit farmers and ranchers in the Midwest. It was noted by my colleague from North Dakota that the Senate has, on a couple occasions, passed drought disaster relief. We need to get it passed. I am happy to join in that effort.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, today I rise to thank Charlie Battery, 1st Battalion, 147th Field Artillery, and congratulate and welcome them home after a year spent proudly serving their country in Iraq. Charlie Battery, based in Yankton, SD, has certainly earned this homecoming and the gratitude of our Nation.

These brave soldiers have been away from their loved ones for over a year, and they have accomplished an enormous amount in that time. Charlie Battery served commendably in some of the most dangerous areas of Iraq. They performed transition team missions with Iraqi police and conducted joint patrols that included route security, reconnaissance, rescue and recovery, and personal security detachment missions all over Baghdad.

The soldiers of Charlie Battery were not immune to the violence that has plagued Iraq. On this day of celebration and reunion, let us remember those who were wounded and those who made the ultimate sacrifice protecting and serving our Nation, as well as the family members and friends they left behind. Those who gave their lives in Iraq include SSG Greg Wagner, SFC Richard Schild, SSG Daniel Cuka and SGT. Allen Kokesh, Jr.

But let us also remember that these sacrifices were not in vain. Charlie Battery, 1st Battalion, 147th Field Artillery, trained more than 1,000 Iraqi police and created stability in the southern and eastern districts of Baghdad. Charlie Battery's efforts enabled a district in the center of Baghdad to become the first to transition responsibility of security to Iraqi police. While the mission is not over, Charlie Battery has done the Iraqi and the American people a great service by their accomplishments, and they have made their country proud. I thank them, I applaud their courage, and I welcome them home.

Mr. President, today I recognize the students who participated in the Truancy Court Project for the Pennington County Juvenile Diversion Program.

The students who participated are Emanuel Martindel Campo, Christopher Eagle Bull, Randolph Two Bulls, Alan Shaw, Corey Johnson, Alicia Moon, Brian Dooley, Jennifer Martell, Collin McCracken, Amanda Hastings, Shane Watkins, Timothy Gerry, Darrin Leenknecht, Adam Erickson, Eldon Jennesse, Corey Johnson, and Lalita Isabel.

These students successfully participated in the Truancy Court Project and deserve the special recognition they are receiving today. After starting off the school year with a rocky beginning, each individual student took it upon themselves to volunteer for this project and to excel at it. Each of them has improved attendance, improved their relationships with their teachers, and most importantly learned the value of education.

It gives me great pleasure to rise with the citizens of Rapid City and Ellsworth in congratulating the Truancy Court Project students for their successful participation in the program.