Floor Statements

Mr. President, as Americans go to the gas pump to fill up their gas tanks with gasoline, they are met with a very harsh economic reality. We have higher gas prices in this country. We don't have enough supply in this country. Of course, we have lots of demand, and demand continues to grow not only in the United States but around the world.

As the Senator from Oklahoma said, we have been trying to take steps now for a decade to address this issue of shortage of supply. As consumers look at the prices they are facing today and the fact that we, for the past decade, have really, for all intents and purposes, done nothing to lessen our dependence on foreign sources of energy or to add to energy resources we have in this country, that reality is starting to take root. I think people are realizing that now for the very first time, and they are taking the steps they can to curb demand. They are carpooling, buying more fuel-efficient vehicles, probably walking more than they used to. I think consumers are doing what they can on their side of the equation to try to address the demand issue.

We have a profound supply issue that has been complicated by a decade of obstruction in the U.S. Congress when it comes to increasing that supply. We have tried for the past decade--I was a Member of the House of Representatives for three terms and now as a Member of the Senate. We have had the opportunity to vote on numerous occasions to explore and produce oil on the North Slope of Alaska. There is somewhere between 6 and 16 billion barrels of oil on the North Slope of Alaska. There would be 1 million barrels a day in the pipeline if, when in 1995 the Congress acted, the President had acted and signed legislation into law that would have allowed us to take advantage of that rich resource right here in America.

We have tried on countless occasions to add to supply. We have offshore production. Why is it that Cuba can produce oil off the coast of Florida but we can't? We have to do something to help ourselves, and for the past decade we have been blocked at every turn by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, by the Democrats in the Senate and in the House, from being able to get into the resources in the State of Alaska and other places.

As the Senator from Oklahoma mentioned, we had a vote in the Environment and Public Works Committee on legislation that would allow us to expand our refinery capacity. It was blocked by a party-line vote. One Republican voted with the Democrats, but the Democrats voted as a party en bloc against expanding refinery capacity.

That is something, too, that we need to get done. I believe there would be a majority of Senators in the Senate who would be in favor of that, just as there is a majority of Senators who are in favor of exploring on the North Slope of Alaska and in favor of offshore production. But the rules of the Senate have been used repeatedly-- repeatedly, Mr. President--to block the clear will of the majority when it comes to adding to supply so we can lessen the crisis that we face in this country, putting more supply out there to bring that cost of gasoline, that cost of petroleum down. We have run into constant obstruction in the Senate from our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle.

So as consumers look at what they are facing today, it is important they begin to apply pressure to their leaders in the Senate and the House to take steps that should have been taken a long time ago and for which there is a clear majority of support in the Senate for exploration in Alaska, for building additional refinery capacity, for offshore production--for all these things that would add to the supply.

Having said that, I also believe it is not too late to do the right thing, and I have introduced bipartisan legislation with Senator Obama from Illinois that would help increase the use of renewable fuels to help meet the energy crisis, that would allow fuel retailers to defray the cost of installing E-85 pumps and other alternative fuel tanks at gas stations. Currently, only about 600 gas stations in the country have E-85 pumps. This would give many more Americans access to this alternative fuel and reduce our dependency on foreign energy.

There is more we can do. The President needs to push our oil- supplying countries to increase production to help ease this supply crisis.

Later today, I will introduce legislation that will provide immediate and short-term relief to American consumers. I will introduce legislation called the Gas Price Reduction Act of 2006 that will provide that relief. It will suspend the gas tax in its entirety for the remainder of this summer, until September 30, the period when Americans need the relief the most over the course of the summer months, when they are doing most of their traveling.

It calls for the elimination of the current 18.4-cents-per-gallon Federal gas tax on gasoline, relief that Americans will feel when they fill their gas tanks. The lost revenues will be reimbursed by temporary suspension of a number of tax credits and royalty

waivers received by oil corporations. The increased revenue to the Federal Government from this suspension of tax breaks and incentives will be used to reimburse the Federal Treasury and the highway trust fund dollar for dollar for lost revenue from the suspension of the gasoline tax. The temporary suspension of the tax credits and waivers will remain in place until the resulting revenue stream has fully reimbursed the Treasury.

As we see skyrocketing gas prices around the country, it is time for this Congress to act. It is time for the American consumer to realize some relief. When crude oil is selling for $73 a barrel, it seems to me that many of these incentives and tax credits that are in place for research, development, exploration, and even drilling costs for the oil companies could be used to offset a reduction in the gasoline tax that will bring immediate relief to hard-working consumers who are facing higher and higher costs for the fuel they need to get to work, to do their jobs.

I look forward to engaging in the debate about what we can do here and now, but I have to say that in the long term, steps should have been taken a decade ago to add to supplies in this country. It is never too late to do the right thing. We need to be moving forward to make sure America is energy independent, that America's future is energy secure. So we have to rely less and less on foreign countries around the world from which we derive today about 60 percent of our energy supply. That is an untenable situation to be in. It is something that should have been addressed. We tried to address it for years. There is majority support for many of these proposals that would increase supply in this country today, but we continue to run into obstruction in the Senate. I hope that will end so we can address this incredibly important crisis and issue to the American people.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kevin Howard, a defense fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the year.

Mr. President, there is no bigger issue facing the economy of the United States of America at the current time than the high cost of energy, and it has a ripple effect throughout the entire economy. In my State of South Dakota, we have farmers who are getting ready to go into the fields to plant. Obviously, agriculture is a very energy- intensive industry.

In my State of South Dakota, we rely heavily upon the travel industry. People come to our State to see the Black Hills and Mount Rushmore, so we are a very energy-intensive State. We have

long distances to cover. So when gas prices come up and shoot through $3 a gallon or near that level in my State, it has a profound impact on the economy of our State and on the pocketbooks of all South Dakotans. It is important that this issue be addressed.

We have heard a lot of speechifying on the floor of the Senate today and a lot of news conferences held in front of gasoline pumps across this country, everybody attacking and pointing fingers and playing the blame game as gas prices have steadily crept upward.

I will be the first one in this Chamber to say that if, in fact, the oil companies have profiteered at the expense of hard-working consumers in this country, that they should be prosecuted to the full letter of the law. If there is manipulation, collusion, price fixing, or any other form of anticompetitive behavior for which we have laws in this country, then they need to be held accountable under those laws.

Furthermore, I also happen to believe that if, in fact, they benefit from policies that are put in place, economic policies from which they can benefit, whether that be a tax incentive in the Tax Code today, that they have an accountability to us as Members of Congress to explain why, for example, they can pay out $400 million to a retiring executive or CEO.

It seems to me at least that there are some very hard questions that need to be asked and some very serious answers that need to be given by folks in that industry. They need to be accountable to the American public. As I said before, I believe we need that accountability. I believe we need to look at those policies in place today from which those companies benefit. If, in fact, they are making such enormous profits, then perhaps they don't need the support and the tax incentives that are given to them by the American taxpayers, by Congress. So I am not going to in any way defend what are the practices, I believe, of many of the big oil companies in this country.

Having said that, though, there is also a lot of hand wringing going on and self-righteous politicking going on right now about the high cost of energy and attempts again to cast aspersions, cast blame, try and blame the President, blame the Republicans, and all these efforts that are made by people who would rather have a political issue than they would have a solution.

I have to say it seems to me that at the heart of this very issue is also what I would call a decade of obstructionism. We have tried for many years--I served for three terms as a Member of the House of Representatives--to get legislation through that would allow us to lessen our dependence upon foreign sources of energy, to add to the supplies we have in this country, to allow us to take advantage of the rich resources we have in America. Every time we have tried to do that since I have been here as a member of the majority party in the House of Representatives and now in the U.S. Senate, we have been blocked. We have been rebuffed by the folks on the other side of the aisle. In many cases, those have been tactics employed which haven't reflected the majority in the Senate. There have been steps taken to create a supermajority, a filibuster threshold over which we would have to get in order to get some of these policies put in place.

I go back to 1995 when, at that time, the Republicans had just taken control of the Congress and they passed in the budget that year legislation that would authorize exploration on the North Slope of Alaska. It passed the House and Senate, went to President Clinton's desk, and it was vetoed. We hear this still being debated in the Senate today. We get up and talk about the importance of taking advantage of the resources we have here in the United States of America, including the North Slope of Alaska; we hear the Democrats on the other side get up and say: Well, you can't do that. It could take 10 years for us to get that production on line. Well, it is 10 years later. That was 1995. It is now 2006, and we could have a million more barrels of oil in the pipeline today addressing what is a very serious supply problem in this country, had that bill been signed into law back in 1995.

We have tried repeatedly since that time, a number of times as a Member of the House of Representatives, where we voted. We voted to allow for that development to occur, for that exploration to occur, and perhaps eventually production to occur, and, of course, again it was blocked and stopped.

Most recently in December, in the Senate, before we adjourned for the Christmas holiday, we had a vote on whether we were going to do something to help ourselves in the area of energy independence and to develop that rich resource we have, somewhere between 6 billion and 16 billion barrels of oil on the North Slope of Alaska, or about a million barrels a day. We get about a million and a half barrels a day from Saudi Arabia. Can you imagine how it would lessen the supply problem if we were able to bring that energy on line in this country? Yet again it was filibustered. We had 57, 58 votes in the Senate--a clear majority for doing something about our supply problem. Yet the other side again blocked and now wants to blame, instead of doing what we ought to have been doing all along, and that is working in a bipartisan way to address what is a very serious crisis in America.

I remember when I was growing up back in the 1970s, and people who were around at that time also remember the gas lines, remember the talk at the time about we are way too dependent upon foreign energy; we have to do something to lessen our dependence on foreign sources of energy. At that time, we were 50 to 55 percent dependent upon foreign sources of energy. Here we are some 30 years later, and 60 percent of our supply comes from outside the United States. We have had opportunities throughout the course of the time that I have been here to do something about that. Every time I have voted to develop, explore, and to bring on line many of those resources which are available to us for development, it has been blocked and stopped by those on the other side who insist on having a political issue rather than a solution.

Just because I was interested in this debate, as a Member of the House--and as I said, I voted on energy exploration on the North Slope of Alaska, what we know as ANWR--I went up there last year because I wanted to find out what the debate was all about because in trying to understand these issues, when you come down here on the floor of the Senate, I believe it is important that you have a full perspective and insight into the arguments that are made by those on the other side. So we went to some of the development sites. We went to Prudhoe Bay, we went to the Alpine site, we went to Kabarak, and we went to the section 1002 area, which is the area which was proposed for development by an agreement that occurred way back in 1980, I believe between Senator Stevens and someone on the other side of the aisle at that time. We looked at that area. We took one of those little planes, and we flew out there and walked around in that particular area, and we looked at the technology that is available today at some of those sites and how they, with a very minimal footprint on the surface, are able to access enormous amounts of energy below the surface in an environmentally sound way. They use ice roads, and then during the summer months when everything melts, the roads disappear; they are gone.

It is a remarkable thing for anybody who wants to see it. You walk away from that saying: Hold on just a minute here. I don't understand what the big issue is. We have an opportunity to do something about what are the most pressing economic issues and one of the most pressing national security issues facing our country, and that is energy and energy independence, energy security, and we have this vast resource up there and we can't get at it because it is consistently filibustered here in the Senate even though there is majority support, 57, 58 votes in favor of that. Yet after it passed the House and it went through the Senate, it got to conference and it came back, and we had an opportunity to do something that would allow us finally--finally--to explore and hopefully bring on line that incredible resource on the North Slope of Alaska.

For those who are concerned about the impact on the environment, you should know that the caribou are doing fine. Caribou numbers have actually increased, and they have dramatically over the past 30 years in that area.

My point very simply is this: We as a nation have to do something to help ourselves. We cannot continue to be

held over a barrel by the sheiks and the mullahs in the Middle East or by Venezuela or any of the other countries from which we derive the majority or the vast majority of our energy supplies in this country. America needs to be energy independent.

I believe that consists of many things. I have been a big proponent of renewable fuels. As a Member of the House and now as a Member of the Senate, I was delighted that we were able last summer in the Energy bill to include in there a renewable fuel standard for the first time. As a matter of policy in this country, we have said we are going to guarantee a market for renewable fuels. Frankly, why would we not, when we have all of these things which we raise and grow, take a bushel of corn and be able to convert it into 2\1/2\ gallons of fuel we can use to run our economy here in this country, do that? It makes so much sense, and it lessens our dependence upon our addiction to oil, which, as the President said in his State of the Union Address, and I give him great credit for that, is something we need to do, a direction in which we need to move. Renewable energy is an important component of that. I believe there are a number of things that we need to be doing in the area of conservation as well, but I want to see more partnerships between manufacturers and retailers and producers of ethanol and biodiesel and other renewable energy so that we can begin to get away from that enormous amount of dependence we have on oil.

Even today, we hope to produce in the very near future 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol, which is what is called for in the renewable fuel standard. I think we are going to have to increase that dramatically because we are going to be there very soon. We are already at the 4.5 billion gallon level, on our way very quickly to 7.5 billion gallons, because we have a desperate need in this country, and production is coming on line more and more all the time. But even at that level, we use about 140 billion gallons of gasoline a year in this country. So ethanol represents about 3 percent of what the total demand or total consumption in America is for energy today. So it is important in this whole debate that we continue to develop those other sources, those traditional energy sources until such time as we can get where we begin that transition toward renewable energy.

But in the short term, we have a need. We have a need for oil resources. As I said, in places such as Alaska, we have an opportunity to do some things offshore in this country. We have a lot of offshore resources and reserves that are available, not only of oil but of natural gas, which is also a desperate situation which many people in my part of the country, in farm country, depend upon because that is what fertilizer is made from.

Every time we have had an opportunity to do something to address the long-term issue of supply in this country, we have met the politics of obstruction. I mentioned earlier going back to 1995 when Congress passed legislation that would authorize exploration of energy in Alaska. But if you look more recently than that, going back even to 2003--when the President took office in 2001, they created an energy task force, they made recommendations, they came up with an energy plan, and there was an energy bill that was debated up here on Capitol Hill, several different permutations of that, and ultimately one passed. In 2003, an energy bill passed. It passed the House and Senate, and it went into conference. The conference came out with a report that passed overwhelmingly in the House, came back to the Senate in November of 2003, and it was filibustered.

It failed by two votes. Fifty-eight votes to shut off a filibuster here in the Senate that would have gotten us an energy bill 2 years sooner, gotten us down the path toward a renewable fuel standard 2 years sooner, and addressed some of those supply issues 2 years sooner. But no, it was blocked. It was delayed, it was filibustered, and it was killed in 2003 by that Congress.

So to have people getting up now and many of my colleagues on the other side going out and holding news conferences and getting up on the floor of the Senate and beating their chests and making all these self- righteous speeches, to me it seems to be the very essence of hypocrisy, if you look at a decade-long practice of obstructionism when it comes to putting in place sound energy policies that would have lessened our dependence upon foreign sources of energy and put us much closer on a path toward energy independence.

So as we get into this, I have a piece of legislation which I have introduced along with Senator Obama from Illinois that would provide additional incentives for fuel retailers to begin to install pumps that would pump E-85, to build the demand and continue to create this market, this opportunity to work on the production side. On the retail side, again, we need to be working with the manufacturers when it comes to these flex fuel-type vehicles. I will continue to press forward on renewable fuels. That legislation--it is a bipartisan bill--and I hope it is something we can move through this Chamber, along with other types of initiatives, including additional supply initiatives.

Frankly, there is one other issue which I should also mention because, there again, we ran into basically party-line resistance in the Environment and Public Works Committee. We tried to pass through the Environment and Public Works Committee earlier this year legislation that would expand our refinery capacity. We have not built a refinery since 1976. We had Katrina wipe out much of our refinery capacity in the gulf and, as a consequence, we are having a difficult time not only with the supply, but we are also having a difficult time with refineries. We have what, in my view, we ought to be doing, and that is waiving a lot of these requirements on these boutique fuels because right now, at this particular time of year, the refineries have to go through this exercise of remixing and coming up with all of these different types of blends. It seems to me that at a minimum, we ought to be able to at least give them some temporary relief from that, but we also need to be building more refineries in this country.

We voted on that in the Environment and Public Works Committee, and it went down for all intents and purposes on a party-line vote. There was one Republican who voted with the Democrats. The fact is, that is true. But we had a wall of opposition from the Democrats on the Environment and Public Works Committee to even reporting the bill to the floor so that we could engage in a debate so that all Senators have an opportunity to participate in that debate about whether we ought to do something about the issue of refinery capacity in this country.

So my point again very simply is this: Since I have been here, in three terms in the House and during my time in the Senate, I focused on energy because it is important to my State, as I said earlier, and because I am a big proponent of increased use of renewable fuels. But every time we have had a chance to vote, whether it is ANWR, whether it is offshore production, whether it is refineries, whether it is the Energy bill in 2003, we run into the same arguments. And you will hear the same arguments that we heard in December and that we heard back in 1995 when we debated at that time the authorization of exploration in Alaska, and that is: It will take 10 years. Well, like I said, 10 years ago, if President Clinton had signed that bill into law, that 10 years would now be up. But the point is, we can't afford to wait another decade. We can't allow another decade of obstructionism to prevent us from doing what we ought to be doing to make America's energy future more secure. It is important that we focus as Senators, and I hope in a bipartisan way. But it doesn't help the issue to have all of this partisan hand-wringing and politicking. I know it is a year divisible by two. Whenever it is a year divisible by two, the rhetoric escalates a lot, and when everything gets said and done, a lot more gets said than done.

The reality is, we have an issue on which the American people want action. They should have had action 10 years ago. They should have had action 6 years ago. They should have had action 4 years ago. They should have had action in November of 2003, when that particular Energy bill was filibustered by our colleagues on the other side. But it is never too late to do the right thing.

We have an opportunity to do the right thing for the American people. If

that consists of, as I said earlier, taking on the oil companies if there is any evidence whatsoever that there has been collusion or price fixing or gouging or any form of anticompetitive activity, then let's put the screws to them. Let's prosecute them to the full letter of the law. But let's also do something we should have done a long time ago, and that is begin to develop the resources that we have in this country and do something to help ourselves so 30 years from now, when my kids are my age, they are not saying the same thing that I am saying today, and that is that we have wasted 30 years and we are still as dependent on foreign sources of energy.

Frankly, I don't think we can wait that long because I do believe energy security is a matter of national security, and there is nothing that has a more profound impact and effect on the pocketbooks of working Americans. It is important that we do something about this. It is time to end the obstruction. It is time to end the block-and-blame game. It is time to get down to the business of taking care of the needs of the American people that they expect us to address.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize Hogan's Hardware of Kadoka, SD. Hogan's Hardware has enjoyed a long and rich history in my home State.

In April of 1946, Marvis and Florence Hogan opened Hogan's Hardware for business in Kadoka. Now some 60 years later Florence, her son Baxter, daughter Randi, and her son-in-law Don are keeping the business going strong. Small businesses are the back bone of the great State of South Dakota, and I commend the Hogan's for their contributions to their community and the State.

It gives me great pleasure to rise with the town of Kadoka in congratulating Hogan's Hardware and the Hogan family for their 60 years of service.

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the town of Parker, SD. Parker was recently named the 2006 Small Community of the Year in my home State.

Each town and city in South Dakota may submit an application to be considered for this prestigious honor by our Governor and the Office of Economic Development. The citizens of Parker have seen rapid economic growth in their community, with over 10 businesses opening their doors in 2005. Clearly, the efforts of the Parker Development Corporation have been successful for both the past and present growth of the town. Small businesses are the backbone of the great State of South Dakota, and I commend the citizens of Parker for their contributions to their community and the State.

It gives me great pleasure to rise in congratulating the town of Parker for being recognized as South Dakota's 2006 Small Community of the Year.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation along with my colleague from Illinois, Senator Obama, concerning what we believe is yet another important step in reducing our Nation's dependence on petroleum fuels.

S. 264, the Alternative Energy Refueling System Act of 2006 would provide an incentive for gas station owners across the country to install alternative refueling systems for automobiles. This legislation builds upon the existing tax credit that gas station owners can receive for installing alternative energy tanks. Most importantly, I would like to point out to my colleagues that this legislation does not require any additional taxes.

Currently, as a result of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, a tax credit of up to $30,000 is available through 2009 for gas station owners who install an alternative refueling system. Eligible alternative fuels include those that contain 85 percent by volume of ethanol, natural gas, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, hydrogen, or any mixture of biodiesel or diesel fuel that is composed of at least 20 percent biodiesel.

Our legislation basically allows gas station owners and operators to be reimbursed for 30 percent of the costs--not to exceed $30,000--of installing an alternative energy system.

One of the primary benefits of this legislation is that it can be used for up to two alternative refueling systems per gas station. This is important because under the tax credit that was part of last year's energy bill, a gas station owner can only utilize the $30,000 tax credit one time--even for those individuals who own multiple refueling stations.

For example, if a gas station owner in South Dakota, Illinois, or elsewhere wanted to install three new alternative refueling systems at his or her gas station, under the current system that owner would be limited to the $30,000 tax credit for a single alternative fuel system.

Under our legislation, that same gas station owner would continue to receive the tax credit for the first alternative fuel system. However, the station owner could also be reimbursed for 30 percent of the costs--not to exceed $30,000--for up to two additional alternative refueling systems. Therefore, the legislation we have introduced today would drastically increase the incentives for gas station owners to install additional alternative fuel systems.

I am hopeful that if this bill is signed into law, gas station owners across the country will be able to use this reimbursement mechanism to help consumers who already own or are thinking of purchasing an alternative fuel vehicle.

Senator Obama and I are both strong supporters of alternative fuels. In fact, South Dakota and Illinois are leaders in the production of ethanol--our Nation's leading renewable fuel. The legislation we are introducing today in no way preferences ethanol over other alternative fuels. In fact, they are all treated equally under our bill.

Alternative fuels such as E-85, which is composed of 85 percent ethanol, are starting to gain popularity. However, while automakers such as Ford and General Motors are producing an increasing number of flex fuel vehicles, which can run on either E-85 or gasoline, there is a critical need for more alternative refueling sites across the country. Many individuals would be shocked to know that of the 180,000 gas stations across the country, only 600--far less than 1 percent-- offer alternative fuels such as E-85.

There are approximately 5 million flexible fuel vehicles on the road today. The addition of alternative refueling systems--such as E-85, compressed natural gas, biodiesel, and hydrogen--will allow American consumers the ability to refuel their vehicles with alternative fuels that are better for both the environment and our Nation's security.

As President Bush noted in his State of the Union Address earlier this year, ``America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.'' Since being elected to Congress I have worked hard in promoting the development of alternative energy sources. In fact, last year's energy bill marked an important milestone due to the 7.5 billion gallon renewable fuels standard that I and others advocated.

S. 2614 utilizes the interest earned from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, which currently has a $2.6 billion surplus, to reimburse eligible gas station owners who add alternative refueling systems.

This trust fund continues to grow from a portion of the Federal gas tax--one-tenth of a cent per gallon--which amounted to roughly $190 million last year. The fund also continues to grow from the interest that is earned on the balance of the fund, which amounted to roughly $67 million in 2005.

I firmly believe that the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program serves an important function in keeping our land and water safe from storage tank releases. Our legislation simply seeks to use a portion of the interest earned annually to reimburse gas station owners for a portion of the costs associated with the installation of new alternative refueling systems.

An added benefit of using a portion of the interest from this trust fund is that the installation of alternative refueling systems reduces the overall number of petroleum tanks that can cause leaks.

Additionally, this bill ensures that States are not required to use their annual allocation of appropriated funding to reimburse gas station owners for the installation of alternative refueling systems. Such reimbursement would come directly from the EPA Administrator.

Mr. President, this bill would help to lessen our Nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil and--increase the use of alternative fuels. It is a step in the right direction, and is something I hope my colleagues will support.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation along with my colleague from Illinois, Senator Obama, concerning what we believe is yet another important step in reducing our Nation's dependence on petroleum fuels.

S. 264, the Alternative Energy Refueling System Act of 2006 would provide an incentive for gas station owners across the country to install alternative refueling systems for automobiles. This legislation builds upon the existing tax credit that gas station owners can receive for installing alternative energy tanks. Most importantly, I would like to point out to my colleagues that this legislation does not require any additional taxes.

Currently, as a result of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, a tax credit of up to $30,000 is available through 2009 for gas station owners who install an alternative refueling system. Eligible alternative fuels include those that contain 85 percent by volume of ethanol, natural gas, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, hydrogen, or any mixture of biodiesel or diesel fuel that is composed of at least 20 percent biodiesel.

Our legislation basically allows gas station owners and operators to be reimbursed for 30 percent of the costs--not to exceed $30,000--of installing an alternative energy system.

One of the primary benefits of this legislation is that it can be used for up to two alternative refueling systems per gas station. This is important because under the tax credit that was part of last year's energy bill, a gas station owner can only utilize the $30,000 tax credit one time--even for those individuals who own multiple refueling stations.

For example, if a gas station owner in South Dakota, Illinois, or elsewhere wanted to install three new alternative refueling systems at his or her gas station, under the current system that owner would be limited to the $30,000 tax credit for a single alternative fuel system.

Under our legislation, that same gas station owner would continue to receive the tax credit for the first alternative fuel system. However, the station owner could also be reimbursed for 30 percent of the costs--not to exceed $30,000--for up to two additional alternative refueling systems. Therefore, the legislation we have introduced today would drastically increase the incentives for gas station owners to install additional alternative fuel systems.

I am hopeful that if this bill is signed into law, gas station owners across the country will be able to use this reimbursement mechanism to help consumers who already own or are thinking of purchasing an alternative fuel vehicle.

Senator Obama and I are both strong supporters of alternative fuels. In fact, South Dakota and Illinois are leaders in the production of ethanol--our Nation's leading renewable fuel. The legislation we are introducing today in no way preferences ethanol over other alternative fuels. In fact, they are all treated equally under our bill.

Alternative fuels such as E-85, which is composed of 85 percent ethanol, are starting to gain popularity. However, while automakers such as Ford and General Motors are producing an increasing number of flex fuel vehicles, which can run on either E-85 or gasoline, there is a critical need for more alternative refueling sites across the country. Many individuals would be shocked to know that of the 180,000 gas stations across the country, only 600--far less than 1 percent-- offer alternative fuels such as E-85.

There are approximately 5 million flexible fuel vehicles on the road today. The addition of alternative refueling systems--such as E-85, compressed natural gas, biodiesel, and hydrogen--will allow American consumers the ability to refuel their vehicles with alternative fuels that are better for both the environment and our Nation's security.

As President Bush noted in his State of the Union Address earlier this year, ``America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.'' Since being elected to Congress I have worked hard in promoting the development of alternative energy sources. In fact, last year's energy bill marked an important milestone due to the 7.5 billion gallon renewable fuels standard that I and others advocated.

S. 2614 utilizes the interest earned from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, which currently has a $2.6 billion surplus, to reimburse eligible gas station owners who add alternative refueling systems.

This trust fund continues to grow from a portion of the Federal gas tax--one-tenth of a cent per gallon--which amounted to roughly $190 million last year. The fund also continues to grow from the interest that is earned on the balance of the fund, which amounted to roughly $67 million in 2005.

I firmly believe that the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program serves an important function in keeping our land and water safe from storage tank releases. Our legislation simply seeks to use a portion of the interest earned annually to reimburse gas station owners for a portion of the costs associated with the installation of new alternative refueling systems.

An added benefit of using a portion of the interest from this trust fund is that the installation of alternative refueling systems reduces the overall number of petroleum tanks that can cause leaks.

Additionally, this bill ensures that States are not required to use their annual allocation of appropriated funding to reimburse gas station owners for the installation of alternative refueling systems. Such reimbursement would come directly from the EPA Administrator.

Mr. President, this bill would help to lessen our Nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil and--increase the use of alternative fuels. It is a step in the right direction, and is something I hope my colleagues will support.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his good work in producing a bill that has become the subject of debate in the Senate dealing with a very important issue to our Nation, something that people are extremely engaged in, one that has generated a lot of debate and a lot of controversy around the country but clearly one that needs to be addressed.

I have listened and observed as the debate has gone forward and listened to the content of that debate over the past several days and come to somewhat of an objective point of view because I come from a State that is not a border State. We do not have to deal with the issues on a daily basis affecting many of our States on the northern or southern border.

Having said that, it is an issue which has captured the discussion being held across this country even in States such as mine, the State of South Dakota. The reason for that is very simple: People see day in and day out some of the images broadcast across the television screen and the people who come to the United States illegally. They deal with the burden and cost associated with some of the public services associated with illegal immigration in this country. So they view it very much as taxpayers. They view it as an issue that, frankly, needs to be addressed. They want to see the Senate act in an appropriate and a timely way.

I have to say, too, I have heard a lot of people in the Senate reference their ancestry. Various Members of the Senate have described in detail how their ancestors came to this country, the personal perspective they have on the issue, and the experiences that have helped shed light and inform their opinions about it. I, too, am not the exception to that. I have roots that go back, with a grandfather that came here from Norway, back in 1906, along with my great-uncle Matt, when they came through Ellis Island. The name that I now have, the Thune name, was not their name. Their name was Gjelsvik. They came through Ellis Island and the immigration officials asked them to change their name because they thought it would be difficult for people in these United States both to spell and pronounce. They did not speak a word of English. I should say, almost no English. My understanding is that when they boarded the train that took them to South Dakota, the only English they knew were the words ``apple pie'' and ``coffee.'' So they had a lot of apple pie and coffee between Ellis Island and South Dakota.

They came to this country for the same reason that people all over the world come to this country. I am very sympathetic to those who want to come to the United States for everything that we stand for: for opportunity, for freedom, to live the American dream.

My grandfather and my great-uncle came here and worked on the railroads when they were building the Transcontinental Railroad into South Dakota. They put their money together to start a merchandising company that later became Thune Hardware. So they were small business people in this country, something that so many people aspire to all over the world. They want to come to the United States for the miracle and for the dream that is America.

I am sympathetic to the history and the culture and the tradition we have as a nation of being a welcoming country, a country that says to bring your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. I approach the debate on immigration from that perspective, that context of having a grandfather, one generation removed from me, who came to this country for all the various reasons that people today continue to want to flock to America.

As I have listened to the debate, I have tried to give consideration to all the different perspectives that are presented. It seems to me, at least as I try to make decisions about this, formed by my constituents in South Dakota and formed by my experience, background, and my history, to come to conclusions in the best interests of our Nation, in the best interests of continuing that tradition of treating those who come here fairly, but also the importance of American principles.

One of those American principles is the rule of law. We are a nation of laws, and that entails that we have to be able to enforce those laws. If we cannot enforce those laws, if we are not going to apply and adhere to those laws, those laws end up being pretty meaningless and irrelevant in the long run. I come to this debate with some principles in mind, not having drawn any hard conclusions on any specific piece of legislation but wanting to see the Senate do its work, wanting to see the Senate do what the people in this country expect us to do, and that is to confront the big issues, to deal with the challenging issues, to vote on the big issues, to bring resolution and clarity to the problems and the challenges that face this country.

What is perplexing about what is happening in the Senate right now is we have a base bill that has been reported out by the Judiciary Committee. Granted, it may not be the perfect bill. Frankly, there are many who would like to see that particular piece of legislation amended. Many of us would like to vote on some of those types of amendments that could be offered. Regrettably, the minority has decided they are not going to allow votes on amendments, allegedly because they are votes they do not want to put their Members in precarious political situations, having to make votes on amendments they would rather not vote on.

As a consequence, we are not having votes on amendments. We are just basically blocking the whole substance of this debate from going forward and the Senate from doing the work that the American people expect us to do and, frankly, what the tradition and history of the Senate would suggest that we ought to be doing; that is, amending this base bill, having this debate, this discussion, allowing people with different ideas and different perspectives and different points of view to come in and offer their amendments, to have those amendments debated, to have

people listen to that debate, and then come and vote on those amendments so that eventually we can produce a product that is the composite view of the Senate, reflective of a majority of the Senators.

What has happened in the Senate is the minority has decided, one, we are not going to vote on amendments. If we do have any votes on amendments, they will dictate what those amendments are that we will vote on. So far as tomorrow, insisting on a cloture vote on the underlying bill without having allowed any of the debate on any of the amendments so that we have an opportunity for people to be heard, people to offer their amendments, and people to improve, in their view, in their particular point of view, the legislation before it is ultimately passed out of the Senate and goes to conference with the House and enacted into law.

The fundamental problem with the way the Senate is functioning in this debate is that if we fail to allow individual Members to follow what is the protocol of the Senate, what is the tradition of the Senate, and that is the institution that allows for open debate, the institution that allows for amendments to be offered to legislation, for individual Senators to come over and to have their point of view heard in that debate and offer amendments that are more reflective of their particular idea about how this problem ought to be addressed or this challenge ought to be met, we are undermining the basic foundation of what this Senate and this institution is all about. But, more importantly, we are keeping the people's business from being done.

We are, if we have this cloture vote tomorrow--and I suspect the minority will insist on this cloture vote because they want to have a vote on this bill without having any debate on any of the amendments that our side wants to have votes on and report a bill out. You have the minority of the Senate dictating the terms and conditions under which we will have this debate, the amendments that will be voted on, and, ultimately, the shape of the bill that will come out of here.

This side of the aisle, the majority, 55 Members of the Senate, want to be heard on this issue, as well. What we need to understand is, yes, there are rules that allow the Senate to slow things down, to allow for extended debate on subjects, but ultimately we need to move the process forward. That means voting on legislation.

We had a big debate in the last couple of years about inaction in the Senate due to obstruction, due to blockage, due to dilatory tactics employed by the minority. People have rejected that. People in this country want action. They want action on this specific issue. This is an issue that generates strong emotions all across the country.

Frankly, I believe the American people expect and they deserve better than what they are getting from the minority in the Senate who have insisted, again, that we not vote on amendments that the majority wants to offer. Basically, we report the bill out, they dictate the bill that passes the Senate.

That is not right. We have heard people get up on both sides today, both Democrats and Republicans, and speak to this issue. We heard earlier today the Democrats get up and say: We are not really trying to block this. We are willing to vote on amendments--our amendments, just not your amendments, not amendments that are offered by the majority side in the Senate.

That is not to say they do not have some good ideas, but the truth is, there is not a monopoly on good ideas on either the Republican or Democrat side, and this Senate ought to be allowed to work in the way it was intended to work. Republicans and Democrats can both offer their amendments and they can both be voted on and we can shape the legislation in a way that is reflective of the majority view in the Senate.

Tomorrow we will have a cloture vote. It will fail because the minority is going to insist we have a cloture vote. But no one on this side is going to allow the minority to dictate the terms of this debate or the amendments that ought to be considered or to block having votes on amendments that the Republicans in the Senate would like to have votes on.

As I said before, I tried to approach this debate in a very objective way and, frankly, as I look at it, there are some very critical components that need to be in a bill. First and foremost, border security. As I said earlier, one of the reasons that America stands unique in all the world is we are a nation of laws. We respect the rule of law. It means something in America.

There are other places in the world where the rule of law does not mean much, and tyrants and dictators come up with their own version of what the laws are. Here in the United States, we have a Constitution. We are a constitutional Republic. We have laws. We abide by those laws. We need to enforce those laws.

We have not been doing the job we need to be doing of enforcing our laws with respect to the borders, controlling the borders in this country. That has all kinds of implications. This should not be lost on the American people. One of the reasons people in South Dakota care about this issue, even though we are not a border State is, they understand, as I do, that controlling and protecting and securing our borders is a matter of national security. Irrespective of where you come from in the world, if you come to the United States--as I said earlier, I have Norwegian ancestry, but if you have Hispanic ancestry, European ancestry, Asian ancestry, whatever--when the terrorists come across the border like they did on September 11 to destroy and kill Americans, they do not discriminate about where that individual comes from in the world. They want to kill Americans, pure and simple. I don't care what your race or national origin, ethnicity is, flatly, very simply, this is a matter of national security. And securing our borders has to be the fundamental component around which we build this debate.

That is one of the principles I come to the debate with. Again, I have no previous position as we enter this debate about individual pieces of legislation. I am listening to it. I will have the opportunity, I hope, at some point, if the Democrats will allow us to, to vote on amendments. But the reality is right now we are not having that opportunity. Again, I simply say that as a matter of principle, ultimately we need to report a bill out of here that does secure the borders of the United States so that people in this country can know with confidence and can trust that we are serious about keeping our borders secure if for no other reason than as a matter of national security.

Secondly, I would say, as a fundamental principle, we have to enforce our laws. There has been a big debate about: What do you do about people who are already here illegally? I think that is a very important question in this debate. There are somewhere between 11 and 12 million people, we are told, who have come to this country who are now here illegally, and we have to figure out, from the standpoint of status, how we deal with those people in this country.

But, again, a fundamental underlying principle ought to be that we cannot reward illegal behavior. We want to reward legal behavior. We want to reward people who came here and who followed the rules. I heard lots of people get up and talk on the floor about their ancestry and how they came to this country, but I suspect most of them, like my grandfather and great-uncle, came here by the rules that were put in place. They followed the law.

We want to encourage and provide incentives for that kind of behavior. For people who want to come to America, we have a process by which they can come here, but it is consistent with a set of rules and laws we have in place. We have to make sure we are encouraging legal behavior, that we are discouraging illegal behavior, that we are not putting incentives in place for illegal behavior and, furthermore, condoning or conferring benefits on people who systematically decide to break the law.

So I happen to be of a view that I believe in a guest, temporary worker program, perhaps some form of permanent resident status. But I think, again, when you start talking about conferring the benefits of citizenship on people in this country who are here illegally without some sort of penalty for that--in other words, if we just wave our magic wand and say anybody who is here can stay, and so be it, we have done a disservice to our history and our traditions as a nation of laws.

I think it is important we understand there needs to be consequences to illegal behavior. We have talked about amnesty. It has been thrown around a lot here. Essentially, what that means is there is no consequence to behavior that is illegal. I think it is important we make it fundamentally clear to people who do want to come to this country that we are a nation, yes, of immigrants, we welcome people, but we want people to come here according to the laws.

I would say that at the end of day, when this is all said and done, again, we need to have votes because this is an issue that around the country is generating tremendous heat, tremendous emotion, and has been percolating for some time. As people look at the images on their television of people who come here illegally, they are worried about national security, they are worried about the economic consequences, the consequences to the taxpayer of providing services to people who are here illegally.

People want action. They want action by the U.S. Senate. I think we have a responsibility, in this body, after everything is said and done--and usually what happens in the Senate is more gets said than done--but when everything is said and done, to come together on legislation that would accomplish the goal; that is, to address the issue of immigration in a way that is fair and in a way that is consistent with our culture and our history and our tradition as a welcoming country but is also consistent with our tradition as a nation of laws. I believe we can come to that kind of a resolution here in the Senate if--if--our colleagues on the other side will allow us to vote on amendments.

Now, the Senator from Georgia, who is currently the Presiding Officer in the Senate, has an amendment I would like to vote on. It is called the trigger amendment. Basically, it says that until it is certified that the borders are secure, then all these other issues we are talking about with respect to this debate are just conversation; that, first and foremost, we have to secure the borders, and it has to be certified we have made the efforts, that we are serious about doing that. I think it is a good approach. At least it ought to be an approach that is voted on.

Now, our colleagues on the other side, the Democrats, do not want a vote on the amendment of the Senator from Georgia because they do not think that would be a good political vote for them. What it suggests to me is we have colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are a lot more concerned about having an issue, a political issue, than they are about having a solution to this problem. What we need in the Senate are more people on both sides, Republicans and Democrats, who will confront this issue for what it is.

That is probably the most difficult, challenging issue that is facing the country, on a domestic level at least, currently or for some time. We are fighting a war on terror in Iraq. It has demanded a lot of attention and a tremendous amount of resources. But when it comes to domestic issues--and there are many. I am very interested in this body working on issues. As we move forward throughout the year, we have votes scheduled on health care reform because health care costs are critical. We have to get that under control in this country.

We are going to have votes on extending some of the tax relief that will allow the economy to continue to grow and to create jobs and to make sure the economic engines are keeping this country moving forward. We are going to have votes on those types of issues as we go forward. And, of course, we are going to deal with the annual appropriations and budget process, and a whole range of other issues before the year is out.

They are important issues. They are all important to the American public. But I would submit to you that right now there is no more urgent issue, no issue that demands an answer, that demands a solution, that demands action by the Senate than the issue of immigration.

And what is the Senate going to do? Are we going to move forward? Are we going to, consistent with the tradition and the history of the Senate, allow for debate and allow for votes on amendments or are the Democrats, the minority in the Senate, going to continue to insist on blocking amendments, votes on amendments, simply because they do not want to vote on certain amendments because those amendments might be tough political votes for them?

Well, we all make tough political votes. There are amendments they are going to offer that I will not want to vote on. In fact, there may be some amendments offered by colleagues on my side of the aisle that I really do not want to vote on. But we are here to vote. That is what people send us here to do. It is to do the people's business.

It is important we have the opportunity to deal with what is the most important singular issue I think the American public is focused on today and that they want us to deal with. It is the responsibility of the Senate to debate--allow for extended debate--to consider amendments, but ultimately to vote. That means voting on amendments that are offered both by my colleagues on the Democratic side as well as my colleagues on the Republican side, even if they are amendments that I may not want to vote on.

I have to say again, there are amendments I probably would rather not vote on, if I was thinking purely about the political consequences of some of these votes. But the fact is, we are here to vote. We are here to do the people's business. It is high time we did it.

I encourage and I urge my colleagues on the Democratic side to join with my colleagues on the Republican side in putting aside the politics, putting aside the delaying tactics, putting aside the obstruction and the blocking of the agenda, and allow us to move forward to vote on amendments and to report out of the Senate a bill-- and it may not be everything we want but allow this institution to act in the manner in which the people of this country expect us to act, and, frankly, in a way the American people deserve.

So I hope tomorrow will be the day we will break the logjam, that we will be able to get a bill we can report that the Senate can take a final vote on but that is reflective of the majority views in the Senate, including an opportunity to vote on individual amendments and to move this debate and this process forward so we can get into conference with the House and shape a bill we can put on the President's desk that will send a loud, clear message to the American people we are serious about border security, we are serious about our Nation's history as a nation, a welcoming culture, a nation of immigrants, but we are serious about enforcing the rule of law in America.

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

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

Mr. President, today I rise to honor the women's gymnastics team from Madison Central High School. In February, the Lady Bulldog gymnasts won their 12th straight South Dakota State championship.

The Lady Bulldogs already held the record for consecutive South Dakota Prep Team Titles in any sport with their win last year. The Madison gymnastics program is currently in second place nationally for most consecutive victories and is now just one win shy of the national record. The Lady Bulldogs is the only team in the top 10 nationally that have an active winning streak.

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the hard work and dedication of so many in the Madison Central

School District: Coach Maridee Dossett; Athletic Director Bud Postma; Principal Sharon Knowlton; and Superintendent Dr. Frank Palleria. The efforts put forth by these individuals have made it possible for the students to participate and perform at the highest level. I would also like to commend the gymnasts' parents for all the support and time they have put into the program.

Most of all I would like to congratulate the women who won this years State Championship and the women who have been a part of this impressive program. You have created an atmosphere that is conducive to success and made the most of your opportunity. Again, congratulations and the best of luck as you look toward next season.

Mr. President, I rise today to highlight an Issue that has great importance, not just to my home state of South Dakota, but to our entire Nation. On the front page of yesterday's Wall Street Journal, a copy of which I will ask to have printed in the Congressional Record, there was an extensive article that highlighted the significant rail capacity problems that exist in the Powder River Basin coal fields of Wyoming.

These rail capacity problems are starting to have a negative impact on electric utilities and rate payers around the country. The Wall Street Journal article highlighted an Arkansas power plant that ``can't get enough coal to run its power plants because the trains that serve as its supply line aren't running on time'' and went on to note: ``Snags in railroad service are fueling fears that railroads won't be able to meet the growing demand for coal, casting a cloud over a goal set by President Bush and key members of Congress to make America energy independent.''

I bring this article to the attention of my colleagues as a reminder that we need to be doing more to address the significant rail capacity problems that exist, not just in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, but across the country. My colleagues will be interested to know that the U.S. Department of Transportation projects that there will be a 55- percent increase in freight rail transportation demand by 2020.

While major railroads such as Union Pacific, Burlington Northern and Santa Fe, and Norfolk Southern are making significant improvements to their rail systems, these investments can't keep up with the demand they face--even though U.S. railroads are slated to invest a record $8 billion in capital expenditures this year. Just to

show how expensive rail infrastructure is, it costs private railroads anywhere from $1 million to $3 million per mile to lay new track, not to mention the costs associated with ongoing maintenance.

While the larger Class I railroads are in a much better financial position to make infrastructure investments, the smaller Class II and III railroads are not as capable of making large-scale infrastructure improvements--even though they are responsible for roughly 30 percent of the 140,000 miles of rail that exist in our country.

In an effort to assist the smaller Class II and III railroads as they work to make much needed improvements to their rail infrastructure, Congress passed the short line railroad tax credit as part of the 2004 FSC/ETI tax bill. This tax credit has started to bolster rail improvements among smaller railroads across the country. However, it is slated to expire in 2007.

There is also an additional Federal rail program that seeks to improve the overall condition of our Nation's rail system. In the 1970s, Congress created a loan program to spur rail improvements among Class I, II, and III railroads. This loan program, the Railroad Rehabilitation Improvement Financing Program, commonly referred to as RRIF, was dramatically improved as part of the Transportation Reauthorization bill, SAFETEA-LU, that was signed into law last year. These RRIF improvements not only increased the program's overall lending authority from $3.5 billion to $35 billion, but a number of much needed improvements were made to ensure that the RRIF Program functions as Congress originally intended it to.

The RRIF Program is unique because it allows a railroad to receive a loan for infrastructure improvements at the Government lending rate. This assists small railroads in particular because they don't have the financial wherewithal that their large Class I counterparts have. RRIF loans must be paid back with interest by qualifying applicants who are also required to provide full collateral to protect the Federal Government and the American taxpayer against the risk of default. Since the program's creation in 1976, there has been only one default, which underscores the overall success of the program.

The Wall Street Journal article I am submitting for the Record went on to describe the fact that a railroad based in my home State of South Dakota, the Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad, DM&E, has recently received approval from the Surface Transportation Board for their expansion project that would add much needed rail capacity to the Powder River Basin of Wyoming. When completed, this project will not only add rail capacity, but it will dramatically reduce shipping costs for agricultural products, ethanol, coal, and other commodities.

As a result of the RRIF improvements in last year's Transportation Bill, this is just one example of how smaller railroads across the country are working to address a serious need that if left unmet will drive utility rates up and hamstring our Nation's ability to efficiently move finished goods and raw materials across the country and in the global marketplace.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article to which I referred.

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

Mr. President, the economy, as has been noted, has been performing extremely well of late with 10 consecutive quarters of economic growth, with job creation at 4.5 million jobs created in the last 2\1/2\ years. There are a lot of good things happening in our economy. One of the dark clouds that hovers over our economy right now, however, is the cost of energy. For several years, going back to the very first year of the Bush administration, there was an effort made by the administration to move a comprehensive energy bill through Congress, get it passed and put into law, that lessens our dependence upon foreign sources of energy.

Regrettably, in the last Congress, that bill, after it had been negotiated through the conference committee, was filibustered by the Senate Democrats and prevented from becoming law.

In this session of Congress, last July, the Senate and the House came together in a conference committee and reported out a conference report, an energy bill that was signed into law by the President that will make remarkable strides forward in doing what all agree is an important goal for this country, which is to reduce our dependence upon foreign sources of energy.

Statistics today show we are now 59 percent dependent upon imports for our U.S. energy demand. That is expected to be 60 percent not too far into the future. The Energy Information Agency says U.S. oil consumption will grow from 20.7 million barrels a day in 2005 to 26.1 million barrels a day in 2025. We are using more energy. Worldwide demand for energy is growing. Countries such as India and China are demanding more and more energy. We rely on energy that exists outside the United States in areas of the world that are unpredictable and unreliable and unstable.

We have a great solution. We have seen significant success in my State of South Dakota with renewable energy. The products we raise and grow right here in the United States, in States

such as South Dakota, corn and soybeans, can be converted into energy that will lessen that dependence upon foreign sources of energy and, at the same time, create jobs. We are creating enormous numbers of jobs across this country, particularly in the Midwest.

New technologies will allow ethanol, cellulose ethanol, to be made from other products, from other feedstocks. This will be a trend that will continue to create jobs all across this country.

The ethanol industry and the economic gains we have seen have benefited our rural economy. Over the next year, ethanol will displace 2 million barrels of imported oil, create 234,840 jobs and boost American household incomes by $43 billion. Because of the ethanol requirement in the Energy bill we passed last summer, 34 new ethanol plants are under construction, 8 existing plants will be expanded today, and more than 150 plants are in the works. Each plant employs between 40 and 50 people directly and creates hundreds of jobs throughout the local economy. These new plants will add more than 2 billion gallons of ethanol to the Nation's fuel supply by 2007, a 50- percent growth in ethanol production.

This is a good story for the American economy because the American economy relies upon affordable energy. My State of South Dakota is a case in point. We are an agriculture intense economy, energy intense economy, and rely on tourism. We have long distances to cover. We need affordable energy to continue to grow the economy and create jobs in states such as South Dakota.

The ethanol success story could not have happened had it not been for the Republican leadership in the Senate and the House coming together last summer on a bill that would put in place a renewable fuel standard that guarantees a market for ethanol moving forward in the year 2012. As a consequence, we are seeing remarkable improvements in the economy in places that had been struggling economic areas in this country, in rural areas of America that had been losing jobs and suffering from outmigration. It is a success story and one that could not have happened had it not been for the leadership that moved forward with an energy bill last year, that put in place the renewable fuel standard for the first time as a matter of policy in this country.

There are lots of other areas in the Energy bill currently being developed. If you look at wind energy, solar energy, nuclear energy, the Energy bill passed last summer provides great strides forward as we strive to achieve energy independence in this country and deal with what is a fundamental issue for our national security; that is, our energy security.

I rise this morning to again take note of the fact that we are an economy that is in some respects growing, seeing job expansion and a lot of good things happening in our economy, but also acknowledging that unless we do something to decrease the amount, the 60 percent of the energy that we get from outside the United States, we run the risk of dramatically undermining and harming the economic growth we have experienced.

The energy policies we put in place last summer and some of the things currently under consideration in the Senate as we move forward will make great strides forward in helping America deal with what is an economic security issue, what is a national security issue, and that is the crisis of energy we see not only in the United States but across the world as more and more countries have an energy demand and the consumption continues to increase with a very limited supply.

We have a supply right in the Midwest. We grow corn each year, we grow soybeans each year. Other areas produce products that, as technology continues to improve, will enable us to convert those products into usable energy for America's future.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Cornyn substitute amendment to S. 852. I thank the Senator from Texas for his work on this issue. He is someone who comes to this debate with great knowledge of the subject matter and has modeled his legislation after what has been a very successful model in the State of Texas.

As the Senator from Texas has noted, this is a problem that needs to be addressed. Out-of-control asbestos litigation has become a disease in our economy. It threatens to drive scores of companies into bankruptcy. It diverts compensation away from legitimate victims of asbestos. It discourages investment in companies under suit and drives stock values down and diverts funds away from expansion and growth and results in job loss. In short, it has become an obstacle to economic recovery.

Few of us in this Chamber can disagree with those very basic facts. However, I am not persuaded that creating

a new Federal program, yet another entitlement program, one more compensation program, is the right solution. We need to seriously assess the wisdom of Congress's growing inclination to create more of what are virtually uncapped entitlement funds. The problem is in the courts. That is where the solution should be. We cannot continue to have the Government take every litigation quagmire out of the court system and put the problem on the back of the Federal Government and ultimately on the backs of the taxpayers. We cannot continue to do so.

I voted to proceed to debate on this bill because this is a problem. It needs to be solved. Indeed, Congress must act. But what is the best solution? Should we create yet another entitlement trust fund or should we reform the tort system by imposing reasonable medical criteria standards in the courts?

We need to find a solution that protects both the economy and the legal rights of those truly injured by asbestos or who will develop asbestos-related injuries in the future. It is my belief that it would be a mistake to establish an asbestos trust fund. I know this fund relies on private financing. Unfortunately, this may turn out to be only the seed money and unable, over time, to sustain the fund for very long, creating a high risk that Congress, at some point in the future may have to step in to keep it operating. The last thing we need is another uncapped Government entitlement, especially with our existing deficits.

The major problem with the trust fund is that the private funding is capped but the potential liability is not. We have to face reality. This fund will go insolvent. I don't believe it is a question of if; it is a question of when. The underlying bill supposedly answered that by putting in a sunset provision that, when the fund goes insolvent, sends all unpaid claimants back to the tort system, the same broken tort system that we have today. Does anybody really believe that will happen? This Senator certainly does not.

With hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of unpaid claimants, would those claimants be happy about going back into a court system to spend 3 or more years litigating a case for an award that probably would be less than they could have received under this trust fund bill? I don't think they will do that.

Political pressure on Congress from union and victims groups to bail out the trust fund and sustain it would be immense. These liability trust funds typically do not go back to the tort system. Trust funds in general rarely ever go away, not after creating an entirely new class of entitled people. So let's not delude ourselves.

President Reagan once said that the closest thing to immortality on this planet is a government program. Once we create a whole new class of entitled people, it will be very difficult to go back or in any way sunset this program. The result would be the taxpayers being left on the hook. That is why I support the Cornyn substitute amendment.

I ask my colleagues to seriously consider where Congress is going if it creates such a fund. What kind of precedent is this creating and where will this end?

There has been a dangerous inclination by Congress to rescue segments of our economy from out-of-control litigation by simply taking claims out of the courts and creating a Government-administered liability trust fund. The solution should be commonsense tort reform, not to have the Government become some gigantic claims processing and payment agency.

The best solution, one that has no cost to the Treasury, that does not require the creation of new Government agencies or battalions of Government administrators and one that will have immediate positive effect for both business and victims is a simple solution that, one, establishes reliable and verifiable medical criteria standards in the courts; two, tolls the statute of limitations to protect future victims; and, three, prohibits abusive venue shopping. That is it. It is simple. It is not loaded up with tort reform that our friends on the other side of the aisle often object to. And importantly, many trial lawyers who represent malignant claims of asbestos exposure have in the past endorsed this approach.

It is time to consider a more modest solution. It may not provide the grand, comprehensive solution that many have wished for, but it takes a substantial bite out of the problem and is certainly better than nothing, which is what all parties will have if we continue to pursue the impossible.

I ask my colleagues to vote against the motion to table and to support the Cornyn substitute amendment.

Mr. President, today I rise to honor William ``Bill'' Tallman. Bill was the meteorologist in charge at the Aberdeen office of the National Weather Service. At the time of his death, Bill was on a voluntary, temporary assignment with the Federal Emergency Management Agency helping with the relief efforts in the gulf coast region that was devastated by hurricanes this last season.

Bill was successful in many endeavors. While in Aberdeen he transitioned a small office to a large weather forecasting site responsible for providing severe weather warnings to 28 counties. One of Bill's most notable accomplishments was founding the ``Women in Science'' conference. This conference introduces high-school aged girls to the many exciting career opportunities available in the science field. Bill started this conference in 2002 with only one class held in Aberdeen. This year the conference will be held in five different locations around the State of South Dakota.

Bill Tallman was a retired Air Force major, having served 20 years in the Air Force as a meteorologist. Bill also taught high school math before enlisting in the service. He is survived by his wife Julie; two children, Jeff and Sarah; four grandchildren; his mother, three brothers, and two sisters. Today I rise with Bill Tallman's friends and family in remembering his selfless dedication and service to those who had the pleasure to meet him and to the United States of America.

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize Martha Tschetter for her tireless work bringing warmth and kindness to total strangers. Mrs. Tschetter, at the age of 85, has worked tirelessly since 1988 hooking quilts for a Mennonite charity. In November, Martha donated her 3,000th quilt to charity. Martha's contribution to her community does not stop there.

Martha's service to her community did not start eighteen years ago but began many decades ago. Mrs. Tschetter served as a teacher in the Freeman area for the better part of five decades. Martha spent thirty six years as a full time teacher in the Freeman area only to serve another twelve years as a substitute teacher at Freeman Elementary.

Martha is a shining reminder to us all that life does not end at 65. She has never stopped giving of herself to help those in need. Today, I am glad to rise with Martha's friends and family in congratulating her on her continual service to her community.