Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I rise to thank Bill Blewett, an intern in my Sioux Falls, SD office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the state of South Dakota this summer.

Bill is a graduate of Stevens High School in Rapid City, SD, and Black Hills State University. Currently, he attends the University of South Dakota School of Law. He is a hard worker and has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I give my thanks to Bill and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Dan English

Mr. President, today I rise to thank Dan English, 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 summer.

Dan is a graduate of O'Gorman High School in Sioux Falls, SD, and after returning from a year abroad at the London School of Economics will be a senior at the University of Richmond where he is studying economics and political science. He is a hard worker and has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I give my thanks to Dan and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Kyle Holdt

Mr. President, today I rise to thank Kyle Holdt, 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 summer.

Kyle is a graduate of Cresbarb High School in Crebsarb, SD, and is currently a senior at South Dakota State University where he is majoring in political science. He is a hard worker and has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I give my thanks to Kyle and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Robin Ryno

Mr. President, today I rise to thank Robin Ryno, 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 this summer.

Robin is a graduate of Winner High School in Winner, SD, and is currently attending the University of South Dakota where she is majoring in political science. She is a hard worker and has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I give my thanks to Robin and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Vert and Doris Voigt and Clayton and Minnie Wittmeier of Avon, SD. The Voigts were married on September 7 while the Wittmeier's were married on August 24, both 50 years ago this year.

The Voigts and Wittmeiers are close neighbors and even closer friends. Both couples were married in the Emmanuel Reformed Church in Springfield, SD, and for many years since have been active in the First Baptist Church in Avon. The Wittmeiers and the Voights have served and continue to serve as a great example of dedication and commitment: both in their marriages and through their friendship.

I would like to offer my congratulations to Vert and Doris Voigt and Clayton and Minnie Wittmeier on their anniversaries and wish them continued happiness in the years to come.

Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague from Colorado, Senator Salazar, to inform

our colleagues of our efforts to expand the availability of alternative fuel infrastructure to assist American consumers who are increasingly looking to buy automobiles that can run on alternative fuels such as biodiesel, E-85 ethanol, natural gas, and other such fuels.

American automakers--Ford, GM, Daimler Chrysler--alternative energy groups, and environmental organizations have all expressed to Congress that the leading hurdle to allowing consumers greater access to vehicles that run on alternative fuels is the fact that there just aren't enough refueling stations across the country.

For instance, while there are over 6 million flex-fuel vehicles nationwide that can run on either gasoline or E-85 ethanol, less than 1 percent of all gas stations provide consumers with the option of fueling up with an alternative fuel that is American made, cleaner for the environment, and reduces our Nation's overreliance on foreign sources of oil.

On Monday of this week, the House of Representatives, by a vote of 355 to 9, overwhelmingly passed a bill by Congressman Mike Rogers from Michigan--H.R. 5534--that authorizes grants up to $30,000 for gas stations, and other eligible entities under the Clean Cities Program at the Department of Energy--including Government entities--that place in service alternative fuel infrastructure.

Subject to annual appropriations, Congressman Rogers' bill authorizes the use of penalties that are collected annually from foreign automakers who violate the CAFE standard for fuel efficiency.

This House-passed bill is currently being held at the Senate desk and Senator Salazar and I, along with Senators Talent and Hagel, have a substitute amendment that has the support of the majority leader and has been cleared by the chairman of the Commerce Committee. Again, I reiterate that this is simply an authorization and has no mandatory spending.

Our goal is to pass this substitute proposal by unanimous consent and send it back to the House of Representatives--which has indicated that they are prepared to pass the modified proposal so it can be enacted into law.

Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, while the Senate is currently debating a bill to expand the availability of oil and natural gas that is located off the coast of the U.S., we shouldn't miss the opportunity to pass a modified version of the alternative fuel grant legislation that the House overwhelmingly passed earlier this week.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, for his leadership on this issue and for yielding time and for bringing this important matter before the Senate.

My colleague from California mentioned that this is an election year ploy. But I think the last time this was voted on in the Senate was in 1998. That was a cloture vote. I don't know that there has ever been an up-or-down vote in the Senate. It has been voted on in the House.

I think most people see this particular provision as something that is a commonsense approach to this issue. Obviously, there are a lot of labels that are thrown around in this very contentious debate in our country. But when it comes to this particular issue, the courts have laid out some parameters under which States can operate when it comes to statutes that they adopted that impose conditions and restrictions on abortion. The undue burden requirement that came out of the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision many years ago created this scenario where if there is not an undue burden, that statutes enacted by States can impose restrictions. And many States have done that.

One that many States have adopted is the issue of parental consent or parental notification. In fact, there are about 37 States to date that have adopted in some fashion that particular legislation. Thirty-seven States have enacted statutes imposing legal obligations on pregnant minors to notify or gain the consent of their parents before getting an abortion. S. 403, which we are debating today, does not supercede or otherwise alter any of those laws, nor does it impose any parental notice or consent requirement on any State. These are States that adopted these laws. The bill would only give effect to a State's parental involvement law if that law is constitutional. Therefore, any State parental consent law given effect under this bill must contain a judicial bypass provision which allows the minor girl to petition a judge to waive the parental notification requirement.

Just to give you an example of States that have enacted these types of laws,

my State of South Dakota, for example, requires that a minor under the age of 18 have the consent of one parent or judicial bypass to obtain an abortion. States in my region and neighboring States such as North Dakota, require the same thing, only it requires two parents' consent or judicial bypass. Nebraska requires essentially the consent of one parent or judicial bypass. Iowa requires that a minor must have the consent of one parent or grandparent or judicial bypass. Wyoming requires that a minor under the age of a eighteen must have the consent of one parent or judicial bypass. In Minnesota you must have the consent of two parents or judicial bypass. Montana, again, one parent or judicial bypass.

My point very simply is that the States and State legislatures have found, within their purview, ways that are constitutional to address what is a very gripping issue for the country, one that has created a great deal, obviously, of debate for the past 30 some years, and I suspect will continue to be debated not only here in legislative bodies but in front of the courts.

The courts have laid out a framework, a set of parameters. States have acted accordingly. All this simply does is reinforce those State laws and allow parents to be involved in probably what, without argument, has to be one of the most consequential decisions a teenager will ever make. As a parent of two teenage daughters, we talk about everything. We talk about where our children want to go to college. I have a teenager who is starting college this year. We talk about who they hang out with on a regular basis. We talk about what they wear, obviously, their apparel. We talk about who they date. We talk about who they associate with, all the decisions that they make in their lives on a daily basis. We try to stay very involved and engaged in their lives, for obvious reasons, because that is important as a parent.

I have a 16-year-old who will be a junior in high school. Ironically, in 27 States in this country, my 16-year-old can't get a tattoo without the permission of a parent. In 27 States, my 16-year-old cannot get her body pierced without permission of a parent. Yet we would allow what, arguably, would be the most consequential decision that child could ever make to go without consultation with a parent. It seems to me that common sense dictates, and I think most people around this country would agree, whatever side of this issue they find themselves on, this is a very common sense way to proceed. Allowing someone to essentially bypass a parent and take a minor, a teenager, across the State line to have an abortion is something that crosses not only State lines but crosses the lines of what most Americans would concede makes common sense when it comes to the way we raise our children and the kind of culture we want to have in our country.

I have to say I sure as heck as a parent would not want some other person taking one of my daughters somewhere to have this procedure when the emotional, the health, the medical ramifications of that decision could be so consequential in terms of my daughters, or any daughter, any teenager or any minor's future. I cannot imagine that this does not meet the common sense threshold, the test that most Americans would apply--again, irrespective of what side they find themselves on this particular issue.

If you look at this bill, and ultimately what it is designed to do, there are several things that would happen. I believe, if this act passed, it would substantially cut down on the number of minors who obtain abortions. It has been shown that parental involvement laws can decrease abortions among minors by 8 to 9 percent. Furthermore, Senate bill 403 will likely magnify that effect since minors often cross State lines to evade their home State laws. The bill does not infringe on States' rights. It merely gives teeth to existing State laws. In fact, the Federal Government will prosecute individuals in violation of this act. Senate bill 403 does not mandate individual States to enforce laws which they have not passed.

Additionally, this legislation does not criminalize doctors or the young women who obtain abortions. It prosecutes only those who take minors across State lines in an effort to evade parental involvement laws. In States that do not have parental notification laws, nearly 40 percent of minors keep their pregnancies secret. Since abortion is a major surgical operation, I believe parents need to know if their daughters undergo an abortion so they will be able to help them with any potential complications, including both the physical, emotional, and mental complications that can arise from the procedure. In cases where this would be inappropriate because of an abusive relationship, the judicial bypass is still an option.

Senate bill 403 will help parents keep their daughters out of inappropriate and/or predatory relationships. The American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescents estimates that almost two-thirds of adolescent mothers have partners over the age of 20. Additionally, in 58 percent of cases where a daughter does not notify her parents of her pregnancy, her boyfriend is the one who accompanies her for the abortion.

Combining those two statistics suggests a substantial number of abortions are obtained in an attempt to avoid statutory rape laws. Underage children cannot obtain an aspirin at school without parental consent, but nothing prevents a minor from being transported from her current State where parental consent is required to another State where she can legally obtain an abortion without any parental consent. That is what this legislation intends to correct. Abortion clinics in States where there are no parental consent laws actually advertise in States requiring parental consent by using ``no parental consent required'' ads.

This legislation is not unreasonable. As I said earlier, 27 States require a minor, a person under the age of 18 today, to obtain parental consent to get a tattoo. Essentially, 27 States also require minors, persons under the age of 18, to get parental consent to get piercings, including ear piercings.

It seems to me, again, as a parent of two teenage daughters, as well as someone who is observing the debate we have in this country over this particular issue, this is a reasonable, commonsense approach, a measure that has been discussed and debated, the constitutionality of it addressed.

My colleague from California, Senator Boxer, said this is unconstitutional. As I said before, the courts have said as long as it does not impose an undue burden, these types of restrictions fit within the parameters of what is constitutional. Furthermore, under the Commerce Clause, the way this particular bill is worded fits within that constitutional framework. I don't think that is a valid argument.

One of the arguments that was made, as well, by my colleague from California had to do with the issue of incest. A judge found Arizona Planned Parenthood negligent for failing to report to Child Protective Services an abortion performed on a 13-year-old girl in foster care. This girl's case dates back to 1998 when she went in for an abortion at a Planned Parenthood abortion facility accompanied by her 23-year-old foster brother with whom she was having a sexual relationship. Planned Parenthood did not notify authorities until the girl returned 6 months later for a second abortion, according to court records.

There are lots of examples that can be used, obviously, to support what this legislation attempts to accomplish. As I said before, this issue has not been debated in the Senate for some time, although I will say it has been acted on by the Congress--not in the Senate but by the House of Representatives. The House earlier this year passed this bill by 270 to 157 or something like that, and had voted in 1998, 1999, and 2002. I was a Member of the House during those years and in every case this legislation passed the House and passed it by very sizable margins.

It would make sense that the House, having acted on it this year, having gotten approximately 270 votes in support, that we have a debate in the Senate and have an up-or-down vote on this legislation which, as I said earlier, I believe is a reasonable, commonsense approach to dealing with what is a very controversial, contentious issue in the country today.

Most Americans would agree that parental notification, parental consent, allowing parents to have involvement,

input, consultation, with a teenager who was pregnant and is considering having an abortion, rather than having that teenager taken across State lines in a way that contradicts the will of the parents, makes a lot of sense. Again, it is an affirmation of parental involvement, parental rights, an affirmation of States rights, for that matter, too, if you look at all the States that have enacted laws. Thirty-seven States have enacted, in some form, this kind of requirement. Whether it is notification of one parent and judicial bypass or two parents and judicial bypass, but, clearly, there is precedent with all the States that have taken steps. This does not circumvent in any way those State laws. It simply affirms those laws in many respects because the States that have acted in a way that would require this kind of a notification, this kind of consent, this kind of involvement on a parental level.

Right now, people who are going around that requirement and going across State lines to have abortion procedures are getting around State laws. This is simply a way of drawing parents into the debate and making sure that, regarding teen abortions in this country, the States have acted accordingly and have adopted statues that require some kind of consent, notification, consultation, that those laws are respected, and, again, that parents' rights are asserted in this process.

I simply add, in closing, my State of South Dakota has this kind of law on the books. This is something a vast majority of South Dakotans would be very supportive of. As someone who is raising teenage daughters, who on a daily basis is conferring and consulting and discussing the decisions they make, the day-to-day decisions they make, I cannot imagine, for the life of me, not having some input, some opportunity to weigh in on an issue of this consequence, that would have the kind of long-term effects--health and emotional effects--on a young girl.

This is about the health of our young girls. It is about the rights of parents. It is about States that have acted in accordance with what the courts have given them authority to do and making sure we are standing behind those States and making sure their laws are enforced.

I hope when we vote on this--and, again, I appreciate the Senator from Nevada for his leadership on this issue--we will get a big vote in the Senate. It is the right vote. It has been a lot of years--8 years. 1998 was the last time we had this debate in the Senate. At that time, we got to a cloture vote, but we did not have an up-or-down vote on the underlying bill.

The substance of this bill needs to be voted on. I hope it will be voted on today, that it will be a big vote coming out of the Senate, and we can put this on the President's desk and have it signed into law, which I believe is what a vast majority, I know a vast majority of South Dakotans would believe, and I believe also a vast majority of Americans.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

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

Located in Day County, Webster was founded in 1881 and named after one of its first settlers, J.B. Webster. Webster has been a successful and thriving community for the past 125 years, and I am confident that it will continue to serve as an example of South Dakota values and traditions for the next 125 years.

I offer my congratulations to Webster on their anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman.

I congratulate the chairman of the committee and Senator Jeffords and Senator Bond and others who have worked so hard to get this measure to the floor.

Congress is long overdue in reauthorizing this important measure. As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am pleased to be part of efforts to improve the functionality of the Army Corps of Engineers.

While my home State of South Dakota doesn't have any new specific projects in this bill, I appreciate the hard work that has been put in on the part of Chairman Inhofe, Subcommittee Chairman Bond, and Senators Jeffords and Boxer in getting this long overdue legislation to the floor for consideration and hopefully a favorable vote.

I express my appreciation to the bill managers for their willingness to extend the provisions having to do with the Missouri River Restoration Act that was authorized in the 2000 Water Resources Development Act bill.

This particular provision will allow the State of South Dakota to move forward with a task force report from State, tribal, and Federal entities concerning siltation, erosion, and the status of Native American historical and cultural sites along the Missouri River.

My colleagues will be interested to know that my home State of South Dakota has four dams along the Missouri River which resulted in the flooding of hundreds of thousands of acres of State, tribal, and private lands. This particular provision will assist in addressing some of the consequences of the construction of those dams.

Additionally, I appreciate the inclusion of clarifying language in section 5010 that will assist the U.S. Treasury in managing the assets within the Habitat Restoration Trust Fund for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe that was created in the 1999 WRDA bill. These trust funds are close to being fully capitalized and will greatly assist mitigation of the terrestrial impacts that resulted with the construction of the Oahe and Sharpe reservoirs. This language was requested by the U.S. Treasury and will assure the trust fund's assets are properly invested.

I also would highlight that the Governor of South Dakota is very supportive of a provision I advocated in section 3126 which ensures that Missouri River recovery funds are available to upper basin States--States including Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota--that would be covered by that provision.

While there have been some previous disagreements among the upper basin States and lower basin States regarding the management of the Missouri River, I am pleased to see that section 5008 has been included to allow all the stakeholders along the Missouri River to work together in laying out what needs to be done to address long-term recovery and mitigation activities.

I rise today to again congratulate and give due credit to the leadership of Environment and Public Works Committee on both sides of the aisle, and our leadership here in the Senate in getting this legislation to the floor.

This is a bill, as I said, which I had some experience working on as a Member of the House of Representatives back in 2004. It is something that we reauthorize on a fairly regular basis. But this one in particular is long overdue.

There are many needs that have been raised for why we need a reauthorization of the Water Resources Development Act, and I also add in terms of the direct benefits to South Dakota and our issues with regard to the Missouri River which are many and have been going on for a very long time.

I also add that the agricultural groups in South Dakota have all weighed in in favor of getting this bill to the floor, voted on and on the President's desk because of the important projects that are included that will make it more possible for them to get their agricultural products to the marketplace.

It is widely supported by a lot of groups in my State--agricultural groups, the Governor of South Dakota, and obviously the tribes of South Dakota, who have been impacted as well when the Missouri River was dammed up and lands were taken to help in flood control issues downstream. There have been ongoing disputes over the years with respect to this river and how it is managed by the Corps of Engineers.

This bill moves us a long way toward addressing some of those issues and making sure that we have good policies and a good process in place for the needs of the States that are impacted by the Missouri River--my State right down the center--which, as I said, has provided a number of benefits, construction of the dams and the area of recreation but also has created a number of challenges for landowners, and for many of the benefits that were promised when the dams were put in. People in my State don't believe they have been fully realized. It seems we have been fighting ever since between the up- and downstream States over getting policies in place that will effectively manage in a fair way the Missouri River.

The WRDA bill doesn't address all those legal issues, but it certainly does address many of the ongoing challenges we face in making sure that the Missouri River is a river that provides for all the various users.

There are many stakeholders, as I mentioned earlier, who have a vested interest in seeing this bill get passed. I am pleased today to be able to rise in support, and I urge us to get a vote on it, pass it, and get it on the President's desk and signed into law so this long

overdue legislation can be put into effect and begin to provide the benefits and the intended results for those who have been waiting for its passage.

I yield my time to the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and again give him due credit for getting this bill to the floor today. I hope we get a very favorable vote.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4610.

Mr. President, this particular amendment, which enjoys wide support here in the Senate, would dramatically increase the availability of alternative energy refueling systems, such as biodiesel, ethanol, and compressed natural gas, by reimbursing eligible entities up to $30,000 for the costs associated with installing these alternative gas pumps.

Like many of my colleagues in the Senate, I believe our Nation's homeland security is directly related to our Nation's energy security. The underlying goal of this amendment is to provide American consumers more opportunities to use American-made alternative fuels as we work to lessen our Nation's dependence upon foreign sources of energy.

As I noted yesterday when I offered this amendment, I am unaware of any opposition to what this amendment attempts and seeks to do. In fact, since I offered the amendment, a number of our colleagues here in the Senate have cosponsored this particular provision.

Additionally, American automakers, such as General Motors and Ford, support this effort, as do various agricultural groups--from the Farm Bureau to the National Corn Growers Association--as well as environmental groups. The reason is very simple. It makes a lot of sense for so many reasons, not the least of which is getting us away from this overdependence of foreign sources of energy. But it is good for the environment. It is good for the American consumer. It is good for the American agricultural producer.

I certainly appreciate the bill managers' patience regarding this amendment. And while I also appreciate the fact that the Homeland Security appropriations bill probably is not the appropriate vehicle to have this amendment considered and discussed, I am greatly encouraged by many of the calls and statements of support for this initiative that I have received since offering it, as well as some new ideas I have received that I hope to explore to make this particular provision even stronger.

So I expect we will revisit this issue. I fully am hopeful we will be able to get a vote in the Senate on this provision. Again, as I said before, I think it is important for our national security because of the direct correlation to energy security. It is also important for our economy. It is important for our environment.

For all those reasons, I intend to offer this amendment at a later time to what I hope will be a debate on an energy bill later this summer. But for the time being, I will withdraw the amendment.

I look forward to working with the chairman and other of my colleagues in the future as we work to get this provision signed into law. I believe it is that important. It is important for the future. Inasmuch as I would like to see it voted on today, I realize in the interest of keeping this debate about the issue at hand and trying to keep ancillary and nongermane business away from it, I will withdraw the amendment and look forward to having it debated at a later time.

So with that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn.

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

Madam President, maybe this has already been done, but I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

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

Madam President, the amendment I offer is something I feel very strongly about. A threat to America's energy security is a threat to our national security. Our dependence upon OPEC and foreign oil entangles us in the Middle East and makes us dependent on countries that are hostile to America and to American interests. The greater America's dependence upon foreign energy, the greater the threat to American national security.

Two decades ago, America alone drove the world's economy. We had Western Europe as competitors, but our economy was clearly on top and unchallenged. But things have changed. Right now, China is growing at about 10 percent a year in GDP. That is almost three times the rate of growth here in America. They do not have 300 million citizens; they have over a billion. People in that growth rate create an incredibly strong economy with serious economic demands; and one of those demands is oil.

China is not alone. India is also growing at a double-digit rate. They, too, are a huge economy. And both countries are expanding their manufacturing, expanding their technology, and, therefore, expanding their demand for oil.

The challenge for American consumers and, frankly, for American industry is that the supply of oil has not kept up with the demand for oil. When you have an essential economic commodity, and you are not producing a sufficient supply, then prices tend to go up, which is what we see happening across the country today. We are all fighting for the same gallon of oil. Until that changes, either we will need to increase supply or we are going to face higher prices.

In my view, the long-term strategy and solution is to power our automobiles with something other than gasoline. Technology is the way to help change America for the better. Years of investment in fuels such as ethanol have put us on the threshold of major breakthroughs. Those breakthroughs are becoming a reality for consumers here in this country.

In my home State, the community of Aberdeen, SD, is, right now, selling E85 fuel for under $2 a gallon when other fuel prices are going for $3 a gallon and sometimes higher because they have an abundant supply of ethanol. It is produced locally, and the fuel retailers have made the investment to install the tanks. That is the very thing we want to see happen in other places across this country because American consumers and Congress realize we have to do more to reduce our dependence upon foreign sources of energy.

The amendment I am offering would significantly help in providing alternatives for the American consumer while lessening our dependence upon foreign oil. This amendment, very simply, would allow station owners around this country to be reimbursed for 30 percent--not exceeding $30,000--of the expenses related to the purchase and installation of alternative refueling systems.

This amendment provides partial reimbursement for eligible alternative refueling systems, such as E85--which, I mentioned, is something we are starting to see more of in my State--biodiesel, natural gas, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, hydrogen, and other alternative fuels as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency. This amendment utilized penalties that are primarily paid by foreign automakers who violate CAFE standards. Last year, these penalties generated about $20 million. It will complement the growing number of alternative fueled vehicles across our country, protect the environment, and allow our country to reduce its dependence upon foreign sources of oil.

The car companies in this country have announced recently they are going to double the number of flex-fuel vehicles they are going to put on the roads here in the future. If you look at already what we have on the roads today, there are more than 5 million flexible-fuel vehicles on the road that can run on either E85 or regular gasoline. However, the problem is that we have 180,000 gas stations across this country and only 800 currently offer E85 ethanol. In short, this means that less than 1 percent of all stations in America today offer E85 as an alternative.

The average cost of purchasing and installing an E85 refueling system is approximately $40,000 to $200,000, depending on the geographic area and the size of the tank. Ethanol production is at an all-time high of 4.5 billion gallons per year. Nationwide, there are currently 103 plants producing ethanol, with 35 more under construction. Those 35 additional plants will add an additional 2.3 billion gallons of ethanol production by next year. The Energy Policy Act, passed last year, requires the annual use of 7.5 billion gallons of alternative fuel by the year 2012.

The amendment is very straightforward. It acknowledges the fact we have auto manufacturers who are producing more and more automobiles that are capable of using alternative sources of fuel such as E85. It acknowledges the fact that we have production in this country going, with 2.3 billion additional gallons becoming available this year of ethanol. And it also acknowledges there is a consumer out there in the country today who is looking not only to get the very best possible price per gallon for the fuel they put in their vehicle, but also to do something about the long-term problem that faces this country; that is, this enormous appetite for oil that furthers our dependence upon foreign sources of energy.

What we need in this country is American energy and American independence so we do not have to worry about getting all that fuel, all that oil, from places outside the United States that are hostile to this country and to American interests.

This is about energy independence. It is about closing that distribution gap, so that now that we have the supply, we have the demand for ethanol, that we have the fuel retailers in this country moving in a way, putting policies in place, that would make it possible for them economically to install the very pumps that would provide the fuel that is being increasingly demanded by American consumers and which those in the ethanol industry in this country are continually gearing up, in terms of production, to meet.

So this is a very straightforward amendment. It applies to this particular piece of legislation, I believe, for a lot of reasons, one of which is, as

I said earlier, it is a very, very clear and established connection that a threat to America's energy security is a threat to our national security.

We talk about protecting our homeland and making sure America is safe and secure going forward for future generations. A key component in that debate ought to be: What steps are we taking as a nation, what policies are we putting in place that will enable our country to become energy independent, to have American energy meet the needs and the demands that our economy has to grow in this country?

So, Madam President, I offer this amendment to this legislation. There are others who I believe are interested in this issue. I introduced a bill that is very similar to this amendment. I have made some slight modifications to it, which was cosponsored by Members on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats. A similar bill is calendared for action in the House of Representatives.

I believe it is high time as a nation, as a U.S. Senate, that we put as a priority getting away from that dependence upon foreign sources of energy, having an abundant supply of an American energy, so we can provide the supply that is necessary to fuel our economy, keep it growing, keep it strong, and make sure that it is affordable for American consumers.

Madam President, at this point I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be laid aside, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 11, 2006, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Insurance Regulation Reform.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 11, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony relating to implementation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 11, 2006, at 9 a.m., to hold a briefing on North Korea.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 11, 2006, at 2 p.m. to hold a Subcommittee hearing on Somalia.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, July 11, 2006, at 10 a.m. to consider the nominations of the Honorable Anna Blackburne-Rigsby to be Associate Judge, District of Columbia Court of Appeals; Phyllis D. Thompson to be Associate Judge, District of Columbia Court of Appeals; and Jennifer M. Anderson to be Associate Judge, Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Hamdan V. Rumsfeld: Establishing a Constitutional Process'' on Tuesday, July 11, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Hart Senate Office Building Room 216. Witness list:

Panel I: Mr. Steve Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

Mr. Daniel Dell'Orto, Principal Deputy General Counsel, United States Department of Defense, Washington, DC.

Panel II: The Honorable Theodore Olsen, Former Solicitor General, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Washington, DC.

Professor Harold Koh, Dean, Yale Law School, New Haven, CT.

Mr. Paul ``Whit'' Cobb, Former Deputy General Counsel, United States Department of Defense, Washington, DC.

Lt. Commander Charles Swift, Office of Military Commissions, Office of Chief Defense Counsel, United States Department of Defense, Washington, DC.

Professor Scott L. Silliman, Former Judge Advocate General, USAF, Center on Law, Ethics and National Security, Duke University School of Law, Durham, NC.

Mr. Daniel Collins, Former Associate Deputy Attorney General, Partner, Munger, Tolles & Olson, Los Angeles, CA.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations'' on Tuesday, July 11, 2006, at 2:15 p.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness list

Panel I: Members of Congress.

Panel II: William James Haynes, II to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit.

Panel III: Frances Marie Tydingco-Gatewood to be United States District Judge for the District of Guam.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 11, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing.

The PRESIDNG, OFFICE. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, today I wish to thank Tom Cota, an intern in my Sioux Falls office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota this summer.

Tom is a graduate of Lincoln High School in Sioux Falls, SD, and is currently a student at the University of South Dakota. He is a hard worker and has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I give my thanks to Tom and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I wish to thank Dustin Adams, an intern in my Sioux Falls, SD, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past year and a half.

Dustin is a graduate of Belle Fourche High School in Bell Fourche, SD, and the University of South Dakota. In the fall, he plans to attend George Washington University Law School. He is a hard worker and has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I give my thanks to Dustin and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor Charles Whitepipe, Sr. Charles was 1 of 11 Sioux codetalkers who served in World War II. He defended our country as an army radio operator using the Dakota, Lakota, and Nakota languages.

Charles played an integral and unique role in furthering our Nation's ability to defeat our enemies in times of war. His willingness to put himself in harm's way for the American people is truly inspiring, and I commend him for his bravery. The pride and dignity with which the Sioux codetalkers served our Nation makes them true American heroes.

Today I rise with Charles Whitepipe, Sr.'s friends and family in remembering his selfless dedication and service to our country as a Sioux codetalker. I, along with the citizens of South Dakota and the entire United States, owe Charles and the other codetalker's a debt of gratitude that we will never be able to repay.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Russell and Betty Beck of Pierre, SD. Russell and Betty Beck will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary this year on December 22.

Russell and Betty met in June of 1956 at the Central States Fair in Rapid City, SD. Russell, a fly boy in the Air Force, was stationed at Ellsworth AFB, and Betty, who was just a few years out of high school, was working in Rapid City at the time. The couple was later married in their pastor's home with Nancy Gibson and William Clarkson as their witnesses. Russell and Betty eventually made their home in Murdo, SD. where they raised four children: Bernard, Bernardine, Darsey, and Robin.

I offer my congratulations to Russell and Betty on their 50th wedding anniversary and wish them many years of continued happiness.

Mr. President, today I wish to thank Kristen 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 this summer.

Kristen is a graduate of Yankton High School in Yankton, SD, and is currently a rising sophomore at the University of South Dakota where she is studying English and psychology. She is a hard worker and has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I would like to give my thanks to Kristen and wish her continued success in the years to come.