Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend and colleague from Mississippi, Senator Lott, to introduce legislation to reform and raise the corporate average fuel economy standard for the first time since its inception over 30 years ago.

In 1975 this body passed, as a part of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, the very first fuel economy standards for our passenger car fleet, setting a standard that all manufacturers must achieve 27.5 miles per gallon. This was done in response to the first oil embargo and the energy crisis of the early 1970s. Americans realized for the first time that we as a nation must set and achieve attainable goals for energy conservation, not only for our economic security but also for our national security.

At that time, the fuel economy of passenger cars averaged around 14 miles per gallon. Ten years after CAFE was enacted, the fuel economy of passenger cars had almost doubled, saving an estimated 2.8 million barrels of oil a day. There can be no doubts as to the benefits of the original CAFE standard. Still 20 years after reaching this peak around 1985, the fuel economy of the Nation's passenger car fleet has stagnated. Some have even argued the fleet of vehicles entering the marketplace today gets less fuel economy than those models in 1985. While fuel efficient technology has improved over the years, the fuel economy of the Nation's passenger fleet has not. Also today, our dependence on oil is greater than ever before. This dependence has complicated decisions we make as a country, such as foreign policy decisions, and as individuals, such as whether or not to fill up your gas tank or buy groceries.

I believe we must do better for families in Arkansas and around the Nation. We must protect our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil and uncomplicating our foreign policy decision-making in oil-rich regions. We must protect the environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We must reduce the cost of transportation for consumers. We must begin implementing more stringent CAFE standards now before these problems worsen. Gasoline is over 70 cents higher than this time last year, and the number of miles driven by every American over the age of 16 has risen over 60 percent since 1970--and is continuing to climb at a rapid pace.

This is why I have joined my colleague and worked in a bipartisan manner to introduce comprehensive CAFE reform. For over 30 years the original CAFE standard has remained in place while a rapidly advancing marketplace and rapidly advancing technology have left it behind. Each time fuel economy standards have been debated in this body, they have been mired in partisan politics resulting in nothing but stalemate.

Senator Lott and I are choosing progress over politics with our common sense legislation, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Reform Act of 2006. The bill will help accomplish our national security and energy conservation goals while preserving motor vehicle safety, American manufacturing jobs, and consumer choice for vehicles.

Specifically, it will clarify the authority of the Secretary of Transportation to raise and reform CAFE standards. It requires the Secretary to begin the reform process within 60 days in addition to requiring the Secretary to complete an expedited rulemaking to immediately amend the current CAFE standard before a reformed standard takes effect.

For the first time, it will require the Secretary to consider greenhouse gas emissions when promulgating a CAFE standard as well as require the Secretary to obtain comments from the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on the impact of any new rule on the environment.

Our legislation also gives automobile manufacturers more flexibility in the way they can apply CAFE credits in order to help them preserve American jobs. It preserves the 18-month lead time required before the Secretary can issue more stringent CAFE standards. It also allows the Secretary to use the fines collected for violations of the CAFE standard for research and development of fuel saving technologies and to conduct CAFE rulemakings. Finally, our bill provides a backstop fuel economy average which no manufacturer can go below, regardless of their fleet mix.

There is no silver bullet in accomplishing our national security and energy goals, and we must seek short-term alternatives in addition to long-term solutions. CAFE reform is one part of a long-term solution to reduce our dependence on oil, but it is one that can have lasting impact. Still, I believe for the long-term security of our country, this is as good a place as any to start. We must start now.

I thank my colleague from the Commerce Committee, Senator Lott, for his hard work on this bipartisan legislation. I look forward to working with him and the rest of my colleagues to ensure that this reform becomes law.

Mr. President, as President Bush prepares for his meeting with President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan, I rise to address important human rights concerns in that country.

Although hundreds of political prisoners have been freed due in part to pressure brought by the United States, it is believed that as many as 50 political prisoners remain in Azeri jails. Prior to the November elections in Azerbaijan, a group of businessmen and government officials were arrested on charges of planning a coup. Among this group, there were former Minister of Economic Development Farhad Aliyev, and his brother, Rafiq Aliyev. Because of his well-known opposition to Russia's increased influence in Azerbaijan and his pro- Western stance, in addition to the antimonopoly initiatives he led prior to his arrest, many fear that Mr. Aliyev's and his colleague's arrests were politically motivated. They are being held in the pretrial detention center at the National Security Ministry, which is notorious for its poor conditions and harsh treatment of prisoners. Human rights organizations in this country and in Europe have expressed concern about the violations of the due process rights of the detainees in connection with this case. Farhad Aliyev is a cardiac patient suffering from hypertension and hypertrophy. In a recent fact-finding mission, the International League for Human Rights has verified that Mr. Aliyev has been denied proper medical care and medicine for his heart condition. As recently as this week, the International League for Human Rights has indicated that Mr. Aliyev may have undergone another health crisis and his lawyers believe he may have suffered a heart attack.

I urge President Bush and this administration to remind President Aliyev of Azerbaijan's obligations before the international community and the importance of human rights in Azerbaijan and to request Mr. Aliyev's immediate release on bail in light of his need for adequate medical care. The case of Mr. Aliyev may be the litmus test of the Azeri government's good will and commitment to human rights. I ask unanimous consent that recent newspaper articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I commend Senators Collins and Lieberman on their great work on this underlying bill. I am on the Homeland Security Committee with them, and it is always great to work with them. They work in a very nonpartisan and bipartisan fashion.

Also, I wish to thank Senator Voinovich and Senator Johnson for their leadership on the Ethics Committee on which I also serve. They have demonstrated what being real Senators is all about because they take their responsibility on ethics very seriously, and I am here today to support their position on this amendment and to oppose this amendment.

The Ethics Committee works with diligence and without politics. I have only been on this committee for a little more than a year, and I will be the first to tell you that there is a problem with the House Ethics Committee. I think everybody agrees on that. But also, I am adamant to say that there is really not a problem at all on the Senate Ethics Committee because we take our responsibilities very seriously. We are there to protect the Senate, the integrity of this institution, and, just as the Constitution says, we are there to oversee the behavior of our colleagues. We do that in a very confidential manner.

I must say that it is sometimes frustrating to outside forces who look and see us, and they may file something and they may not get an immediate response.

I remember when I was starting out practicing law in Arkansas, a lawyer told me: Never try your case in the newspaper. I think that is very true when it comes to the world of ethics inside the Senate. If we allow the confidentiality to go away, then, in my view, we would be opening a Pandora's box. I can just imagine--again, in today's realistic political world--I can just imagine what it would be like if someone were to file a complaint and the next thing you know, there would be radio ads, television ads, Internet ads, blogs, et cetera, out there saying that so-and-so has ethics charges pending against him.

The Senate Ethics Committee, although not perfect, is a much better option than the Office of Public Integrity. Again, I believe that is one of the reasons this amendment or something very similar to this was defeated in the committee on a bipartisan basis.

I also notice that there are groups around Washington, DC, who are very supportive of the Office of Public Integrity. Basically, one of their complaints is that when they file a complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee, the complaint seems to go in a black hole. In fact, I have an e-mail that says we--the Ethics Committee--ignore outside complaints. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am here to tell you, nothing could be further from the truth. We consider all the complaints, wherever they come from, very seriously. We look at them, and we act on outside complaints, complaints that come from outside this body. We have spent a lot of time--hours and hours, in fact--on complaints that originated outside this body.

Also, I think some of these groups say they acknowledge that the House has a problem with their Ethics Committee, but they say that both committees are in need of repair. Really, they can't point to anything in the Senate Ethics Committee that has gone wrong or any way that we failed on the Senate Ethics Committee. There is a reason for that. You can look back over the last 20 years, and you will see a number of high profile, very difficult, very tough, and oftentimes very complicated investigations the Senate Ethics Committee has undertaken which have led to some sort of admonishment of their own Members in the Senate.

The last thing I wanted to say, is this: Being on the Ethics Committee, every day when I walk in that room, I ask myself, what did I do to make Harry Reid mad? Why did he put me on this committee? Because I will tell you, as the chairman will or as the cochairman will tell you, it is not an easy assignment. In fact, it is grueling.

One thing we need to understand is that oftentimes, to get down to the facts and to get down to the truth, it takes time. It takes a lot of time. Sometimes you have witnesses who are no longer here. Some of these witnesses live in other parts of the country and even, in some cases, other parts of the world.

There are meetings and meetings and meetings on these allegations. One thing I love about the Senate Ethics Committee is the high level of trust among the members in that committee. There is a culture of integrity in that committee. As I said, even though it is no fun to sit in judgment of our colleagues, it has worked very well.

Because of the committee's policy of keeping its meetings closed and confidential, it allows a freedom within the Ethics Committee to really drill down and get into details and ask hard questions, questions that you might be afraid to ask in a public forum because you may not know the answer, and that answer may be very embarrassing and just by asking the question, it could turn into an allegation.

The process we have right now--although it is closed, although it is confidential--works very well. In a lot of ways it is similar to turning the case over to the jury, where you allow the jury to go back into deliberations and hash it out however they want to do it. In the end, they come back and they do justice. I think our Founding Fathers got it right in article I, section 5, paragraph 2 when they said that:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,

punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and with the

Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

I think our Founding Fathers expected us to do this and not set up a third party office to do this.

Again, I rise to join my two chairmen, the chairman and cochairman on the Ethics Committee, in opposing this amendment, and I encourage all my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, today I would like to share with you Garland Rash's inspiring story of bravery and determination that saw him use his remarkable talent for woodwork to serve his country during the dark days of World War II.

Born in 1924, Garland was raised in Drew County, AR, where he put himself through school and developed an interest in carpentry. Like so many other Americans, he was horrified at the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 and immediately set out to aid in the country's war effort. This led him to California, where he dedicated himself to building wooden racks that could be used to raise ships out of the water to be repaired.

Garland soon realized during a visit home on Mother's Day in 1943 that he wanted to do more for his county. That summer, he enlisted in the Navy and underwent a grueling period in boot camp. Garland was then assigned to the 116th Naval Battalion as part of the construction unit of the Navy, nicknamed the ``Seebees.''

After more training in Rhode Island and Bay St. Louis, Garland was shipped to Pearl Harbor where he, alongside many other talented carpenters, was part of a covert operation to equip U.S. military planes with a more advanced type of engine. While there, Garland decided to collect several pieces of wood and Plexiglas from the debris of the 1941 bombing. During his nonworking hours, Garland used these pieces to fashion two wooden boxes, using parachute scraps for the lining and Plexiglas from windshields to create a beautiful inlaid mosaic pattern on the lid.

While in Pearl Harbor, a young marine named Bob Crosby, brother of famed singer Bing Crosby, was struck by the workmanship of these boxes. He asked Garland whether he would be willing to sell one to him and Garland agreed. Though Garland never saw him again, Bob Crosby would go on to become an accomplished actor and musician through the 1950s.

Garland continued his distinguished military service in Iwo Jima, the Philippines, and Japan where he and his fellow American troops accepted the surrender of Japanese forces in 1945. After returning to the United States in December of that year, Garland resumed his relationship with Kathleen Lawson, a woman he had dated while on leave from the Navy during the war. They were married on March 1, 1946.

Today, their home in Monticello, AR, is filled with loving pictures of several grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Remarkably, Garland managed to hold on to the other wooden box that he carved from the rubble of Pearl Harbor and keeps it today as a remembrance of the war and his service.

Looking at this box today, I, like Bob Crosby so many years ago, am amazed by the extraordinary craftsmanship, and I am awestruck knowing its historical significance. Garland, like so many World War II veterans, is truly a part of the ``greatest American generation'' and I hope you will join me in paying tribute to his extraordinary service to this Nation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized as in morning business and that the time I use be charged against my time postcloture.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Leahy.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this week marks the 6-month anniversary of when Hurricane Katrina ravaged the gulf coast, destroying lives and dreams along the way. Thousands upon thousands of homes were also ruined, and today they remain simply a heap of debris.

I saw this devastation firsthand a few weeks ago when, as a member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, we traveled to Gulfport and New Orleans for field hearings to see what resources are necessary to help the region recover from the largest natural disaster in our history.

In fact, this photograph was taken by one of the press people who was on that trip. So we saw this scene firsthand. Alison Vekshin of Stephens Media took this photo.

I remind my colleagues that Hurricane Katrina completely destroyed 205,330 homes in Louisiana. It completely destroyed 68,729 homes in Mississippi. And 363 homes were completely destroyed in Alabama. For many of these families who lost everything, a place to live would offer opportunity for them to go back to work and begin rebuilding their lives.

I was told by local and State leaders that housing is the catalyst to get businesses open, to get people back to work, to pump money back into the local economy, and to restore the infrastructure that once existed.

Many people along the gulf coast who lost their houses have also lost hope. In Arkansas, we have a place called Hope where 10,777 manufactured homes sit on an airfield.

These homes--ordered by FEMA and paid for by FEMA--now sit in a FEMA- leased site, only to be restricted from use in the gulf region because of a FEMA-imposed rule that prevents them from being located in a floodplain.

FEMA is now accepting bids to gravel the area where the homes are sitting on dirt, costing taxpayers another $4 to $7 million. In addition, FEMA is buying a specially designed jack for each corner of each home to prevent sagging and further damage.

These manufactured homes epitomize FEMA's ineptitude in planning, communication, and response. Taxpayers have now spent an estimated $475 million for these homes to sit gridlocked in bureaucracy, even as evacuees are evicted from hotel rooms and thousands of others struggle to find affordable housing.

Congressman Mike Ross of Arkansas asked FEMA to waive the floodplain restriction that stands in the way between the homeless and a home. But FEMA refused, citing that manufactured homes are ``sitting ducks'' for the next natural disaster. These homes, I have to remind my colleagues, were built to high wind zone 3 specifications, so while they may not withstand the next hurricane--although they may--they will not tumble over during a storm.

Now, we are telling FEMA to let hope travel to where it is needed most, from

Arkansas to Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama.

My legislation, the Hope Housing Act of 2006, allows manufactured homes bought for Katrina and Rita victims to be located in floodplains, protects FEMA from responsibility if the homes are subsequently flooded, and directs FEMA to publicize this change so people will know they are available.

This is a one-time change that I believe is necessary in the face of what I hope will be a one-time disaster. We have people without homes and homes without people. Let's allow the homes to go where they are needed so the people in New Orleans and the gulf coast can return to their communities and help rebuild them. The alternative seems to be to let them sit and deteriorate in Hope, Arkansas.

Mr. President, 6 months is too long to allow this nonsense to continue. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense solution that allows hurricane victims a little hope and opportunity for their future.

The bottom line is that basically FEMA ordered these homes, paid for these homes, and now they are storing these homes, but their own regulation will not allow them to use them where they are most needed. So what our legislation does is allow FEMA to put these homes down where they are needed to try to get the economic cycle in New Orleans and the gulf coast area going again because right now the cycle is broken. They do not have people down there to work the jobs. They do not have people down there to be consumers. And the reason they do not have people is because they do not have a place to live.

So I urge my colleagues to consider helping in this effort. The Hope Housing Act of 2006 is a very commonsense solution for this very critical need.

Mr. President, this week marks the 6-month anniversary of when Hurricane Katrina ravaged the gulf coast, destroying lives and dreams along the way. Thousands upon thousands of homes were also ruined, and today they remain simply a heap of debris.

I saw this devastation firsthand a few weeks ago when, as a member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, we traveled to Gulfport and New Orleans for field hearings to see what resources are necessary to help the region recover from the largest natural disaster in our history.

In fact, this photograph was taken by one of the press people who was on that trip. So we saw this scene firsthand. Alison Vekshin of Stephens Media took this photo.

I remind my colleagues that Hurricane Katrina completely destroyed 205,330 homes in Louisiana. It completely destroyed 68,729 homes in Mississippi. And 363 homes were completely destroyed in Alabama. For many of these families who lost everything, a place to live would offer opportunity for them to go back to work and begin rebuilding their lives.

I was told by local and State leaders that housing is the catalyst to get businesses open, to get people back to work, to pump money back into the local economy, and to restore the infrastructure that once existed.

Many people along the gulf coast who lost their houses have also lost hope. In Arkansas, we have a place called Hope where 10,777 manufactured homes sit on an airfield.

These homes--ordered by FEMA and paid for by FEMA--now sit in a FEMA- leased site, only to be restricted from use in the gulf region because of a FEMA-imposed rule that prevents them from being located in a floodplain.

FEMA is now accepting bids to gravel the area where the homes are sitting on dirt, costing taxpayers another $4 to $7 million. In addition, FEMA is buying a specially designed jack for each corner of each home to prevent sagging and further damage.

These manufactured homes epitomize FEMA's ineptitude in planning, communication, and response. Taxpayers have now spent an estimated $475 million for these homes to sit gridlocked in bureaucracy, even as evacuees are evicted from hotel rooms and thousands of others struggle to find affordable housing.

Congressman Mike Ross of Arkansas asked FEMA to waive the floodplain restriction that stands in the way between the homeless and a home. But FEMA refused, citing that manufactured homes are ``sitting ducks'' for the next natural disaster. These homes, I have to remind my colleagues, were built to high wind zone 3 specifications, so while they may not withstand the next hurricane--although they may--they will not tumble over during a storm.

Now, we are telling FEMA to let hope travel to where it is needed most, from

Arkansas to Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama.

My legislation, the Hope Housing Act of 2006, allows manufactured homes bought for Katrina and Rita victims to be located in floodplains, protects FEMA from responsibility if the homes are subsequently flooded, and directs FEMA to publicize this change so people will know they are available.

This is a one-time change that I believe is necessary in the face of what I hope will be a one-time disaster. We have people without homes and homes without people. Let's allow the homes to go where they are needed so the people in New Orleans and the gulf coast can return to their communities and help rebuild them. The alternative seems to be to let them sit and deteriorate in Hope, Arkansas.

Mr. President, 6 months is too long to allow this nonsense to continue. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense solution that allows hurricane victims a little hope and opportunity for their future.

The bottom line is that basically FEMA ordered these homes, paid for these homes, and now they are storing these homes, but their own regulation will not allow them to use them where they are most needed. So what our legislation does is allow FEMA to put these homes down where they are needed to try to get the economic cycle in New Orleans and the gulf coast area going again because right now the cycle is broken. They do not have people down there to work the jobs. They do not have people down there to be consumers. And the reason they do not have people is because they do not have a place to live.

So I urge my colleagues to consider helping in this effort. The Hope Housing Act of 2006 is a very commonsense solution for this very critical need.

Mr. President, as the distinguished Senator from Virginia acknowledged, we have a problem when it comes to the high cost of natural gas. We feel strongly that this bill which we are cosponsoring can be part of the solution.

About one-quarter of all natural gas is used to produce electricity, but the rest is used to manufacture plastics that go into things such as cars, computers, and medical equipment. Fertilizer and pharmaceutical production is highly dependent on natural gas. In fact, for nitrogen fertilizer, a total of 93 percent of the production cost of that fertilizer is the component of natural gas.

The price of natural gas--which, by the way, is one-quarter of the energy of this country--has more than doubled in the past year and it is anticipated that over the next 20 years you will see a 40-percent increase for the usage and need of natural gas in the United States.

Another thing about natural gas that makes it very different than oil is natural gas is not easy to ship across oceans. Certainly there is some liquid natural gas technology out there, but a vast majority--all but a tiny fraction of the natural gas we use in this country--comes from United States wells, or comes out of Canada. We have a great reserve of natural gas, not only in the Continental United States, not only in Alaska, but also off our shores. Most notably, the one that most people are aware of is in the Gulf of Mexico.

Our legislation will allow the Secretary of the Interior to offer natural gas leases as part of the Outer Continental Shelf leasing program.

Let me say this: As Senator Warner of Virginia said a few moments ago, we are referring only to natural gas. We have been very careful to make sure this bill does not include petroleum or oil.

I hope no one will be confused by an earlier draft because we included some references to oil, but we have very carefully taken all of those out of the bill. I think the bill is very clear on that point now, that this refers only to natural gas supply and exploration.

Yes.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, another very important point, which is the essence of this legislation, goes to the moratorium on exploration of the Outer Continental Shelf. This bill allows that moratorium

to stay in place until the year 2012. It allows coastal States to, either out of that moratorium, if they so choose, or if after that moratorium expires, to opt into continuing that moratorium. It gives States, legislatures, Governors, State officials, elected officials, et cetera, the ability to control some of the things that are going on on their coastlines.

I think that is a very important point here because this could be a good revenue source for these States. It could be a good economic boom to some of these States. Certainly we have included revenue sharing, which I think is important to make this work.

I am very pleased that Senator Warner and I have been able to work together and come up with what we think is a very commonsense solution, or at least part of a solution, to a very serious problem our country is facing.

Arkansas farmers--and I am sure it is true with most other States' farmers as well--had a difficult and disastrous year last year when it came to agriculture. One of the main reasons it has been so hard is their costs have gone up--the high cost of fertilizer and fuel. They use a lot of natural gas when it comes to drying grain, et cetera. The high cost of energy is killing our farmers, and it is certainly hurting our manufacturing sector as well.

The high price of natural gas is bad for the economy, but it is also bad for our energy security. That is one thing which I don't think we can overemphasize here today. I think it is critical that we have a high level of energy security for this country. I am proud to join my very distinguished colleague from Virginia to do our very best to offer a solution to help American families and help American businesses.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as the distinguished Senator from Virginia acknowledged, we have a problem when it comes to the high cost of natural gas. We feel strongly that this bill which we are cosponsoring can be part of the solution.

About one-quarter of all natural gas is used to produce electricity, but the rest is used to manufacture plastics that go into things such as cars, computers, and medical equipment. Fertilizer and pharmaceutical production is highly dependent on natural gas. In fact, for nitrogen fertilizer, a total of 93 percent of the production cost of that fertilizer is the component of natural gas.

The price of natural gas--which, by the way, is one-quarter of the energy of this country--has more than doubled in the past year and it is anticipated that over the next 20 years you will see a 40-percent increase for the usage and need of natural gas in the United States.

Another thing about natural gas that makes it very different than oil is natural gas is not easy to ship across oceans. Certainly there is some liquid natural gas technology out there, but a vast majority--all but a tiny fraction of the natural gas we use in this country--comes from United States wells, or comes out of Canada. We have a great reserve of natural gas, not only in the Continental United States, not only in Alaska, but also off our shores. Most notably, the one that most people are aware of is in the Gulf of Mexico.

Our legislation will allow the Secretary of the Interior to offer natural gas leases as part of the Outer Continental Shelf leasing program.

Let me say this: As Senator Warner of Virginia said a few moments ago, we are referring only to natural gas. We have been very careful to make sure this bill does not include petroleum or oil.

I hope no one will be confused by an earlier draft because we included some references to oil, but we have very carefully taken all of those out of the bill. I think the bill is very clear on that point now, that this refers only to natural gas supply and exploration.

Yes.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, another very important point, which is the essence of this legislation, goes to the moratorium on exploration of the Outer Continental Shelf. This bill allows that moratorium

to stay in place until the year 2012. It allows coastal States to, either out of that moratorium, if they so choose, or if after that moratorium expires, to opt into continuing that moratorium. It gives States, legislatures, Governors, State officials, elected officials, et cetera, the ability to control some of the things that are going on on their coastlines.

I think that is a very important point here because this could be a good revenue source for these States. It could be a good economic boom to some of these States. Certainly we have included revenue sharing, which I think is important to make this work.

I am very pleased that Senator Warner and I have been able to work together and come up with what we think is a very commonsense solution, or at least part of a solution, to a very serious problem our country is facing.

Arkansas farmers--and I am sure it is true with most other States' farmers as well--had a difficult and disastrous year last year when it came to agriculture. One of the main reasons it has been so hard is their costs have gone up--the high cost of fertilizer and fuel. They use a lot of natural gas when it comes to drying grain, et cetera. The high cost of energy is killing our farmers, and it is certainly hurting our manufacturing sector as well.

The high price of natural gas is bad for the economy, but it is also bad for our energy security. That is one thing which I don't think we can overemphasize here today. I think it is critical that we have a high level of energy security for this country. I am proud to join my very distinguished colleague from Virginia to do our very best to offer a solution to help American families and help American businesses.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is with the greatest pleasure that I rise today to honor an outstanding student athlete from Springdale, AR, Mitch Mustain. As I am sure many of you know, Mitch was named the 2005 Gatorade National High School Football Player of the Year and the Player of the Year on Parade Magazine's 43rd annual All- America High School Football Team. He received these awards not only for his outstanding leadership and athletic skill but also for his academic achievements and overall character.

During the 2005 season, senior quarterback Mitch Mustain led Springdale High School to a No. 2 national ranking and the State Class 5A title. He completed 190 passes for 3,817 yards and 47 touchdowns. He also rushed for seven scores and was sacked only twice. In the school's 54 to 20 state final win, Mitch connected on 17 passes for 5 touchdowns.

I also take this opportunity to say how proud and excited I am that Mitch Mustain has signed with my alma mater, the University of Arkansas. I foresee great things ahead for the Razorbacks.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me today in ``Calling the Hogs'' in

recognition of this future Razorback's outstanding accomplishments. We all look forward to following Mitch's career and anticipate that he will make lasting contributions to his team and to the University of Arkansas.

Mr. President, Dr. King was a light for America. At times, he was a searching, probing light in the dark, seeking to find the truth and expose it to all humanity. He spoke plainly and eloquently of the great injustices that were occurring during his time. He focused his spotlight on places like Selma, Atlanta, Birmingham, and Little Rock, places that were in such need of healing at that time. And he was often a stark, blinding light for many in this country who were unwilling to come to terms with the great evil represented in segregation, discrimination, and humiliation, all of which were fueled by hatred and ignorance.

For so many people of his generation, Dr. King was the first light of the morning, awakening them from their naive slumber to confront great moral questions. He and all the champions of the civil rights movement are responsible for forcing America to look inward and recognize the sickness that plagued our Nation's soul. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said that ``sunlight is the best disinfectant.'' Dr. King fully recognized the meaning of these words as he exposed our culture's illness to the light of day, eventually helping America begin to heal.

He was also a guiding light, navigating the civil rights movement through largely uncharted waters, and helping a great many minority Americans come to the realization that they were all in the same boat. They were no longer alone in their struggle against oppression. Indeed, there were many at the time who cautioned against ``rocking the boat'' too much. But King's leadership proved to a weary and discouraged people that there was a great Promised Land at the end of their journey. The path he illuminated required the strongest of wills, and for that guiding light, we are all thankful.

Since Dr. King's time, the American people have made great strides toward racial equality and the elimination of poverty, yet there still remains much to be accomplished. And in the spirit of Dr. King's life, our Nation must continue to turn the light inward and expose injustice. Dr. King's purpose in life did not end in his death, nor did it end in the court cases and legislation that have further expanded freedom and opportunity in America since that time. Dr. Martin Luther King's legacy is an undying light that serves as a constant reminder of the noblest cause to protect and promote liberty that our Nation began with its founding. His undying light also calls on us never to forget our humanity. Even a country founded on the highest moral principles can retreat into oppression and injustice in periods of darkness. For helping lead us out of the darkness, we honor Dr. King on this day, and we pledge to always remember the struggle that marches on.

Mr. President, I would like to state for the record that I am disappointed we were not able to pass a version of the PATRIOT Act today. My vote against cloture should not be viewed as a vote against the PATRIOT Act. It should be seen as a vote for balance.

I think most Americans want legislation that keeps us safer from the threat of terrorism, but they also want their civil liberties protected. The version of the PATRIOT Act, which passed the Senate earlier this year with my support, struck that balance. Unfortunately, the conference report we have before us today does not. This conference report is invasive and vague. It takes focus off of preventing terrorism instead permitting government fishing expeditions that invade the privacy of all Americans.

My vote against cloture should not be seen as a parliamentary move to kill this bill. I am voting today to allow conferees more time to get it right. I join my colleagues in a bipartisan push to extend the current PATRIOT Act 3 months so that the problems that brought this bill down can be resolved. It is my hope that the distinguished majority leader allows us to move forward with a vote on this extension.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the career of my colleague Senator Jon Corzine of New Jersey. This institution has benefited greatly from his presence, and the people of New Jersey can be proud that such an energetic and compassionate man will continue to serve them as their new Governor.

Senator Corzine is a man that knows how to be successful, whether as a leader in the field of investment banking or as a champion on behalf of the interest of working families as a U.S. Senator. His commitment to public service is commendable, and he has set a positive example for his fellow lawmakers when it comes to establishing the right priorities for Government. His philosophy is one of inclusion, which seeks to ensure that no American is left out of the enterprise of this great Nation.

I am particularly grateful for Senator Corzine's work on the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. His was an early voice for revamping the laws governing corporate accounting practices, long before the events of WorldCom and other accounting scandals destroyed the savings of thousands of loyal employees and shareholders, tarnishing the reputation of corporate America. Before, during, and after the debates that produced the landmark Sarbanes-Oxley corporate accountability legislation, Senator Corzine was there with the knowledge and energy to provide much needed solutions to a serious problem. He has also championed many other inventive policies to tackle our Nation's problems, including his ``Kid's Account'' lifetime savings plan, his work to protect individuals from identity theft, and his initiatives to promote financial literacy for all Americans.

In addition to finding creative solutions to the financial problems that our country faces, Senator Corzine has also been a reliable defender of public education, affordable health care and prescription drugs, and support for our men and women in uniform. As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, he has championed the priorities of everyday, working Americans time and again. He consistently opposed the fiscal policies that have led our Nation to such a dangerous budget deficit, choosing instead to vote for sound economic and social policies that would keep America strong and healthy.

I wish my colleague from New Jersey the best of luck as he enters into this new chapter in his public life. His presence will be missed but his work on behalf of working Americans will not be forgotten.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend and thank my colleagues for including a 1-year extension of the Tax Relief for Americans in Combat Act as part of the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005. This measure corrects a discrepancy in the Tax Code that penalizes certain service men and women serving in combat situations.

To give my colleagues a bit of history on this, in 2003, I approached the distinguished chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley, and the ranking member of that same committee, Senator Max Baucus, and asked them to join me in an effort to get a fresh look at the overall picture of how our Tax Code treats our military. I was very pleased when they agreed to work with me, and was delighted to jointly request an expedited study by the Government Accountability Office. It was an honor for me to work with them. I also must say their staff have been nothing but a delight to work with throughout this process.

The GAO made their study, and they had some interesting findings.

One of those findings was especially important and necessitated immediate attention. In a nutshell, what they found is service men and women who were serving in combat zones and receiving nontaxable combat pay were not able to also take advantage of the earned-income tax credit and the childcare tax credit. Imagine that. The result was thousands of our men and women serving in combat--in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places around the globe--were seeing a reduction or the elimination of their earned-income tax credit or child tax credit and, in effect, losing money. In other words, the Tax Code has the impact of penalizing them for serving in combat.

The GAO report characterized this as an unintended consequence. I say it is plain wrong. I was pleased to introduce legislation to try to fix this glitch. Back in 2004 we passed Tax Relief for Americans In Combat Act. The bill allowed men and women in uniform serving in combat to include combat pay for the purpose of calculating their earned-income and child tax credit benefits. In other words, they were able to continue receiving their rightful combat pay exclusions while also being able to take full advantage of other tax credits. However, what we passed in 2004 expires at the end of this year. So I am pleased today's action in effect extends the legislation for one more year.

I thank, again, Senator Max Baucus for his leadership in helping extend it for another year. Also, I thank Senators John Kerry and Barack Obama for their leadership in taking up the fight when someone saw the opportunity to do so, to ensure our men and women in combat are fairly treated.

The urgency of this situation is highlighted especially when you focus on our troops whom it affects. We are talking about troops in combat for more than 6 months. They are at lower pay grades and tend to be married with children. They have little or no savings or spousal income. The GAO suggested the amount of tax benefit loss could be up to $4,500 for enlisted personnel and $3,200 for officers. That is real money. That is make-or-break money for a lot of these people. They are already under enormous stress.

I am glad we could come together in this bipartisan fashion and extend this for another year. The bill corrects the problem and lets our troops who are risking life and limb for us know that while they are away fighting for us, we are in the Senate fighting for them and for their families.

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