Floor Statements

Mr. President, how much time is left?

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Alexander- Warner amendment. Again, this amendment proposes to usurp local control. I find it hard to believe that those who argue States rights at the same time want to impose additional Federal regulations over local, county, and State jurisdictions.

This amendment is simply an assault on the continued development of wind energy. It singles out wind for additional scrutiny. If the sponsors are so concerned about protecting our scenic areas, shouldn't this amendment be applied to all technologies?

Some may say these turbines are unsightly. The Senator from Tennessee may believe they are unattractive. But many others believe them to be visually attractive as they drive down the highway.

I just recently drove through Oklahoma and saw all these wind turbines out on the prairies of Oklahoma, and they look beautiful spinning in the wind with no pollution, providing electricity for our homes, our schools, and our factories. Yet they are unattractive? Come on, give me a break.

This is a pathway to our energy independence. More wind energy--we can put them up in Iowa. If the Senator from Virginia does not want them in Virginia, we will put them in Iowa. We will put them in North Dakota, South Dakota, and we will be glad to ship the electricity we are making from the force of the wind.

I urge my colleagues to turn down this ill-advised amendment.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I understand there is a parliamentary situation that I have 1 minute, and I guess Senator Alexander has 1 minute on the Alexander-Warner amendment.

Mr. President, I just ask one question. Why single out wind power? I ask my friends from Tennessee and Virginia, why not apply it to coal, coal-fired plants? Why not apply it to oil or gas? Maybe some people don't like seeing a smokestack out there on the horizon. Maybe people don't like to see the cooling towers of nuclear plants. Why not apply it to everything?

It seems to me some people are ready to drill in a wildlife area but not put a windmill within 20 miles. Why not apply it to transmission lines? We see big power transmission lines going across scenic areas, marring the views or vistas. Why not apply it to transmission lines?

Clearly, this amendment is aimed at wind power. I don't know why, but it is. I just say to restrict the development of the largest nonhydro renewable resource takes us in the wrong direction. So I ask my colleagues to please oppose the Alexander-Warner amendment and get on with building the windmills in Iowa, South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, and all of the places that will give us clean renewable energy.

Mr. President, we are on the eve of a turning point in the energy future of our country. As we move closer to voting on a comprehensive energy bill, we have a truly historic opportunity to transform the way we think about energy. We have an opportunity to make a decisive step away from dependence on foreign imports and fossil fuels and toward an independent future based on the abundant natural human and technological resources found right here within our borders.

As we wean ourselves from the oil fields of the unstable Middle East and other parts of the world and rely increasingly on field crops and fuel cells produced in America's heartland, we will build an energy future that will make us more secure and a future of which we can be proud.

This is the bottom line. When we talk about moving toward energy independence in this country, we are talking primarily about reducing America's dependence on imported oil. Petroleum accounts for more than 85 percent of our energy imports. As everyone is acutely aware, much of the 85 percent comes from some of the world's most unstable and, in some cases, openly hostile countries.

Today, rising global demand for petroleum is driving prices for gasoline and home heating oil to record levels. This year, China passed Japan as the world's second largest consumer of energy. China's use of oil is expected to grow exponentially over the next few years. So the focus of any national energy strategy must be to reduce our dependence on foreign oil in a sustainable way and as rapidly as possible.

By far, the largest use of petroleum in this country is in the transportation sector, and 97 percent of today's transportation fuel comes from petroleum. Thankfully, we know the solution. It is technologically feasible. We need to build vehicles that use less gasoline or no gasoline, and we need to make an aggressive transition to clean, renewable domestic fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel, and fuel cells.

The goal is a future of vehicles powered by fuel cells. The hydrogen is used to create the electricity to turn the motors that turn the wheels. The power from the fuel cell comes from hydrogen that will be made by renewable resources such as wind, photovoltaic, and other forms of renewable energy.

The biggest single step right now that we can take is to improve vehicle fuel economy. This bill takes a modest step in this direction, for example, by offering tax incentives for hybrid gas-electric vehicles, but we need improvements across the board, including raising the corporate average economy standard for vehicles.

Another commonsense way to reduce reliance on fossil fuels is to make greater use of clean and homegrown fuels. This bill has several provisions that take us in the right direction on this front, starting with the robust 8-billion-plus renewable fuel standard first proposed by Senator Lugar and I and overwhelmingly approved by this Senate last week.

It is very disturbing that even with the price of ethanol well below that of gasoline, fuel blenders are still turning their backs on this cleaner, cheaper, homegrown alternative and turning instead to imports of refined gasoline.

This chart illustrates that. Right now, going back to 5 years ago, there has been a steady increase in the imports of gasoline. This is weekly total gasoline imports--thousands of barrels per day. From April 28 of 2000 until March of this year, gasoline imports increased 66 percent. This is not oil, this is gasoline. This is oil that has been refined in some foreign country, put on a tanker, and shipped to this country. So right now, we are up to just about a million barrels a day. Think about that, that is just gasoline. Not too many people know that. Most people think we are just importing oil. We are importing about a million barrels a day of refined gasoline into this country. That is at the expense of American dollars and jobs. This is taking us in the wrong direction.

A recent report by the Consumer Federation of America found consumers would be saving up to 8 cents a gallon at the pump if refiners were instead adding it to the gasoline at just 10-percent blends.

My consumers in Iowa, right now, are saving as much as 10 cents per gallon on ethanol-blended fuels, for an average savings of at least $100 a year for a typical family.

I believe Americans all across the country deserve the cost and clean air benefits that ethanol-blended fuels provide. It is imperative we insist on our strong 8-billion-gallon renewable fuels standard when this Energy bill goes to conference with the House.

In addition to the renewable fuels standard, this bill in front of us includes tax incentives for alternative motor vehicles and fuels. This is very important. But we need to act more aggressively. For example, I believe we need to mandate that gasoline vehicles sold in this country be flexible-fuel vehicles that can run on E-85; that is, 85 percent ethanol or some other biofuel.

Now, flexible-fuel vehicles only cost maybe, right now, between $100 and $200 per vehicle. That is with just a small amount that are being made. If every vehicle was a flexible-fuel vehicle, the cost per vehicle would drop way below $100 per vehicle. The savings a consumer would get on that few dollars extra added to the sticker price of a car would be more than made up for, probably within the first year or so of buying flexible fuels.

So I am saying, right now we do not have that many flexible-fuel vehicles. We need to mandate that cars sold in America--not made here, sold in America--be a flexible-fuel vehicle. You might say: Is that possible? Well, Brazil is planning on having all of its new cars flexible-fuel ready by 2008. I want to ask the question: If the Brazilians can do it, why can't we? If the Brazilians can do it, of course we can do it.

Now, of course, consumers need access to the renewable fuels. So I am glad the bill in front of us includes incentives for the installation of flexible-fuel pumps at fueling stations. So now the bill has in it, as I said, incentives for installing flexible-fuel pumps at fuel stations. But we do not have a mandate to build flexible-fuel cars.

Right now, there is a fuel savings credit that auto manufacturers get for making E-85 vehicles. It is called the CAFE credits. But it is on the assumption that these vehicles will run on E-85 at least half the time. In other words, an auto manufacturer gets the credits for building a flexible-fuel vehicle on the assumption the vehicle will use E-85 half the time.

But the truth is, most people who own flexible-fuel vehicles do not even know it. So E-85 does not get used at all for that reason, and for the reason there are not many pumps out there. So we call this the dual-fuel loophole because carmakers get the credit for alternative fuels even if no alternative fuel is used. We should close that loophole now by tying CAFE credits to the amount of flexible fuel that is actually used, or by simply letting the credit expire.

So what I am saying is we need a three-pronged approach. We have the incentives in the bill to add flexible-fuel pumps at fueling stations. Secondly, we need to provide these credits will go only--only--on the amount of flexible fuel that is actually used. Third, what I am saying is we actually need a mandate that cars sold in America be flexible fueled.

Now, another important provision of the Energy bill extends the income tax credit for the production of biodiesel, another excellent renewable fuel. Biodiesel offers tremendous energy savings by providing 3.5 times more energy than is used to produce it, and by offering improved air quality over traditional diesel.

In addition to investment in today's biofuels, we also need a strong investment in the future of bio-based fuels and products of all kinds. New technology is making it possible to produce biofuels and a host of industrial and commercial products out of biomass; that is, agricultural material such as corn stalks and wheat straw and switchgrass and wood pulp and things like that--dedicated energy crops that together are expected to produce 10 times the current volume of ethanol at prices equal to or less than that of gasoline, and, again, with tremendous benefits to our environment and our rural economy.

A recent study found that farmers can expect to earn an additional $35 per acre just by selling the excess biomass--the stalks and the straw--from traditional corn and wheat operations.

Now, ethanol made from this residual biomass is expected to have near zero or even negative net carbon dioxide emissions. How can that be? If you are using it, you are burning it, burning the fuel in a car, you put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That is true. But as these plants grow, they take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere more than what is burned in the automobile. So biomass is a vital part of combating climate change.

Now, the biorefineries that produce this ethanol will also give us bio-based products to supplement or replace everyday products now made from petroleum. I have a couple of posters that indicate that. Shipping materials, building construction materials, roofing materials, elastomeric-type roofing materials, paints, hand sanitizers, and even carpets are made from renewable resources, biodegradable resources. For home and automotive use, just think of all the plastic cups, all these containers made out of petroleum now. And there are lubricants, soy oil. Even rubber tires are made out of renewable resources which are biodegradable. All of these things can be made from the biorefineries that will be producing the ethanol and the biodiesel that we will use in transportation. Many of these products are on the market, not in the future but today.

Tripling the use of bio-based products could add $20 billion in economic benefits just by the year 2010--5 years from now. Replacing the Nation's petrochemicals with bio-based equivalents would save some 700 million barrels of petroleum a year. Just replacing plastics with bio-based counterparts would save another 100 million barrels or more. So there is great potential here. We need to get serious about supporting these bio-based products, and the Federal Government needs to take the lead.

Now, I know we are talking about the Energy bill, and that is what I have been talking about. But I am just going to digress for a minute and talk about a provision that was in the farm bill that was passed in 2002 because it has a lot to do with this Energy bill. Keep in mind what I have been saying is, by getting the biorefineries going and making more ethanol and biodiesel, we have byproducts that can also be made. As I mentioned, they are the plastic containers and the building materials and things like that. There is an important provision in the farm bill, section 9002, that we worked very hard to get in the farm bill, passed and signed by the President 3 years ago this month. Section 9002 requires all Government Departments and Agencies to give a purchasing preference to bio-based products. Now, here is the exact wording. This is section 9002. This is law. It has been the law for 3 years:

Each Federal agency . . . shall--

It does not say ``may''--

shall, in making procurement decisions, give preference to

such items composed of the highest percentage of bio-based

products practicable . . . unless such items (A) are not

reasonably available; (B) fail to meet performance standards;

or (C) are available only at an unreasonable price.

So price, performance, and availability--as long as it meets those three criteria, each Federal agency shall buy them. That is what it says, period.

Think of all the plastic cups and forks used every day in the Senate cafeteria alone.

Think of the Department of Defense, think about all of the plastic materials they use in serving the troops every day. Think of the millions of gallons of metal-working fluids, lubricants, and paint used by the Department of Defense. Yet 3 years after the passage of the farm bill, we still do not have a bio-based procurement program in place in the Federal Government. That has been there. It has been the law. And we are still not doing it. McDonald's can go buy plastic cups made out of renewable resources. Good for them. Why can't the Department of Defense? Why can't the Department of Interior that operates in our national parks? Why aren't they using more biodegradable materials? The law says they are supposed to, but they are not doing it because USDA has yet to issue the rules.

Again, I bring that up because this is part and parcel of the Energy bill. This saves us energy because right now all this material is made from imported oil, or most of it. It could be made by homegrown products here in America. We need to have the Federal Government setting an example and leading the way in reducing dependence on products made from foreign oil. I am sorry to say that 3 years later we still are not doing it.

We also need to invest in research and commercialization of bio-based fuels and products. That is why a few weeks ago, I, along with Senators Lugar, Obama, and Coleman, introduced the National Security and Bioenergy Investment Act of 2005. Our bill promotes targeted biomass research and development in order to expand the cost-effective use of bio-based fuels, products, and power. It provides incentives for the production of the first 1 billion gallons of biofuels from cellulosic biomass; that is, crop residues like corn stocks and wheat straw, or wood chips from lumber mills. It provides bioeconomy development grants to small bio-based businesses. It creates a new Assistant Secretary position at the Department of Agriculture to carry out energy and bio- based initiatives.

It requires the Capitol complex to lead by example by procuring bio- based products. This bill has the support of a broad coalition of agricultural producers, clean energy and environment groups, and national security experts. I have a number of letters from these organizations supporting the bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the letters be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. President, I am excited about this new bill. I hope my colleagues will get behind it. In fact, we may be offering an amendment to the Energy bill that would take a small part of that and add it to the Energy bill. I hope we can get that done this week.

America's dangerous dependence on fossil fuels extends beyond oil. Natural gas prices have skyrocketed, hurting everyone who uses gas to heat their home or fuel their appliances or to make fertilizer for our farmers. Americans now pay two to three times what Europeans pay for natural gas due to our ever-growing demand and limited availability. Farmers are hit hard. Our farmers rely on natural gas not only to heat homes and run much of their equipment but also for fertilizer in the fields. These impacts on farmers are severe and getting worse. We need an energy bill that looks for sensible ways to lower natural gas costs for all Americans. We need to look for environmentally sensitive ways to increase our supply.

That is why I keep saying, the House put in a bill to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but we all know that oil doesn't amount to anything. Most of that oil--I could be corrected--I believe all of that oil is going to go to Japan. It is a drop in the bucket compared to what we use. But what else they have in Alaska is a lot of natural gas, and we need to pipe that natural gas from Alaska down to the lower 48. That has been on the drawing boards in the past to get that natural gas down here. And for various and sundry reasons that I don't need to go into here, it has been held up.

I call upon the Governor of Alaska to move expeditiously to reach the agreements that are necessary to get the natural gas pipeline constructed and built to deliver the natural gas down to the lower 48. They have been talking a lot about how they would pipe it down--they would liquefy it and then send it down to the west coast, or maybe to the Gulf States. That costs a lot of money when you liquefy natural gas, when we could build a pipeline that could be environmentally safe and bring that gas right down to the Midwest where it is needed, not only for the Midwest but for the upper part, the northern part of the United States. So we need to move ahead aggressively on that, and we are not doing it.

We need to look for all environmentally sensitive ways to increase supply, and we need to look for solar and biomass and wind. I am glad so many colleagues from both sides of the aisle joined together in approving the amendment offered by Senator Bingaman requiring 10 percent of this country's electricity to come from renewable resources by 2020. Wind power in particular has tremendous potential to provide clean, abundant energy in many parts of the country. Wind power generation can provide thousands of dollars in additional revenue to our farmers and ranchers and people in rural areas, while continuing to allow for crop production and grazing. Valuable incentives for wind power production exist in the section 45 wind production tax credit. However, development of this vital industry has been tied up by Congress's refusal to provide a long-term extension of this incentive.

In 2004, when extension of the production tax credit was delayed, more than $2 billion in wind power investment was put on hold. I am pleased a 3-year extension of the production tax credit for wind has been included in this bill. We could do more, much more. It should be extended longer than that, but at least this minimal amount should provide developers the certainty they need to move ahead with wind power projects.

We also need to make sure farmers and farmer co-ops can be full participants in wind power projects. The farm bill's energy title, section 906, is providing grants and loans to farmers and rural small businesses to install wind and other renewable energy systems on their property. It also supports energy-efficient improvements to farm and small business operations. This program has been a real success over the past several years. We expect it to grow substantially in the years ahead.

I have also introduced a bill, S. 715, to help more farmers and other rural citizens become active investors in wind energy by removing restrictions that are in the production tax credit. This bill I am sponsoring includes a pass through of the wind production tax credit to cooperative members, just like the small ethanol producer credit pass through right now. This will provide another needed boost to rural America's wind power development. Right now, if a co-op builds an ethanol plant, they can get the production tax credits passed through to their members. If a co-op wants to build windmills, however, they can't pass it through to their members. Hopefully, we can lift this restriction, and we can do it on this Energy bill before us.

Finally, we need to look to the longer term future, and we need to do it now by laying the groundwork. To deliver truly sustainable energy that will not add to climate change and global warming, that will not pollute the environment, we must invest in clean technologies. What I am talking about is hydrogen. It offers real potential for a clean, domestic, sustainable energy future. But only if it is produced from renewable resources. That is why we need to support research and demonstration of technologies to produce hydrogen from ethanol and other renewable resources. My bill, S. 373, the Renewable Hydrogen Transportation Act, would do just that, by funding the installation of an ethanol-to-hydrogen reformer, as well as the operation of hybrid electric vehicles converted to run on renewable hydrogen instead of gasoline.

Making hydrogen from ethanol and other renewable fuels makes a lot of sense for transportation--one, because we can use the existing ethanol production and distribution network; two, because it could well be the least expensive renewable hydrogen option available. I appreciate the willingness of the chairman and the ranking member to work with me to put this modest, but meaningful, initiative in the bill.

Again, to get to that sustainable future, we have to think about making hydrogen from renewable resources. You use the wind power. When the wind blows at night and you don't need all that electricity and you cannot store it, what do you do with it? You waste it. It is gone. But if you can use that wind at night to turn a turbine that makes electricity, and you can use that electricity to hydrolyze water-- remember the old chemistry experiment where you put positive and negative in water, and off of one comes oxygen and off of the other comes hydrogen. There are two atoms for oxygen for every atom of hydrogen. As long as those turbines are turning, we can make hydrogen. You can store hydrogen. You can save it. You can compress it. You can pipe it. So, therefore, at times when you don't need a lot of electrical power and the wind is blowing, you can make hydrogen. You can store it and take the hydrogen and put it through a fuel cell to make the electricity when you need it. The beauty of doing that is you only get one product--H2O, water. Nothing else. It doesn't pollute, doesn't add to global warming or anything. So that is the cycle that we need. Use the Sun, use the wind, hydropower, whatever is renewable, take that and make hydrogen, store it, compress it, put it through a fuel cell, and make the electricity, and the cycle starts all over again. I know a lot of this is some years down the pike. We cannot do it tomorrow. But we can start now by building assistance that will enable us to move to a renewable hydrogen-based economy in this country.

Mr. President, let me close by thanking Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman for the extraordinary job they have done during the past months and during floor consideration of the bill. The bipartisan cooperation we are seeing is due largely to their example and impressive leadership, and the entire Senate owes them a debt of gratitude for a job well done.

Of course, we are not done yet. Hurdles remain. We are headed, though, toward concluding a strong, bipartisan bill that leads America decisively into the new world of clean, renewable, home-grown energy. When the time comes, we need to stand firm for the Senate provisions when we go to conference.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

June 9, 2005.

Re The National Security and Bioenergy Investment Act of

2005.

Hon. Tom Harkin,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Richard Lugar,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senators Harkin and Lugar: The National Corn Growers

Association (NCGA), the American Soybean Association (ASA),

and the Renewable Fuels Association are writing to express

our support for the National Security and Bioenergy

Investment Act of 2005. In particular, we strongly support

the increased procurement of biobased products by Federal

agencies and all Federal government contractors. Biobased

products represent a large potential growth market for corn

and soybean growers in areas such as plastics, solvents,

packaging and other consumer goods to provide markets for

U.S.-grown crops. The biobased product industry has already

started to grow, bringing new products to consumers, new

markets to growers and new investments to our communities.

The procurement of biobased products promotes energy and

environmental security. Products made from corn and soybeans

could replace a variety of items currently produced from

petroleum, and aid in reducing dependence on imported oil.

Already the production of ethanol and biodiesel reduces

imports by more than 140 million barrels of oil. The

production of biobased products generates less greenhouse gas

than traditional petroleum-based items. There are also

tremendous opportunities for grower-owned processing

facilities and rural America and agriculture as a whole. New

jobs and investments will be brought into rural communities,

as new processing and manufacturing facilities move into

those communities to be near renewable feedstocks.

NCGA, ASA and RFA applaud your continued efforts to promote

the use of biobased I products that will encourage the

development of new markets for corn and soybeans and

ultimately help to revitalize rural economies and the

agriculture industry as a whole. We have been avid supporters

of the biobased products industry, and we look forward to

working with you as you continue to provide vision and

direction for this emerging industry.

Sincerely,

Leon Corzine,

President, National Corn Growers Association.

Neal Bredehoeft,

President, American Soybean Association.

Bob Dinneen,

President, Renewable Fuels Association.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to celebrate a landmark achievement for former nuclear weapons workers in Iowa. Today marks the completion of an administrative process whereby workers from the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, who assembled some of the most significant nuclear weapons in this Nation's history and subsequently developed devastating forms of cancer, will become eligible for automatic compensation.

Reaching this point has been an example of both the best and the worst in our system of government. I first started working on this issue back in 1997 when I received a letter from a constituent, Bob Anderson, who wrote about how he and many of his former coworkers had become ill after working on nuclear weapons in Burlington, IA. I shake my head every time I think of what Bob's reaction must have been when he got a letter back from me, telling him that the Department of the Army had assured my office that they never made nuclear weapons in Burlington!

In fact, the list of weapons that were made by Bob and 4,000 other Iowans includes many familiar names: Polaris, Titan, Pershing, Minuteman the list just goes on and on. It's a tribute to the workers in Burlington that while the Cold War was going on, no one beyond the workers at the plant--including me--ever had a clue about the work that was occurring. They did their job with excellence, and they did it at great personal peril. The men and women of Burlington truly were on the front lines of the Cold War. They received no medals, no thank-you's, no special pay. Instead, they paid a terrible price. The levels and types of cancer that have afflicted this workforce are shocking. And along with these illnesses have come financial hardships--pain and suffering--which family members have witnessed and nursed loved ones through--and, in too many cases, premature death.

Today, finally, workers from IAAP, including Bob Anderson, at long last, will receive compensation. Equally importantly, at long last, they have some measure of justice.

This has been a long process. It seems like more than seven years since I brought then-Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson to the plant to meet with workers. It seems like more that six years since I got a team from the University of Iowa School of Public Health to track and analyze the illnesses that workers had developed. And it has been almost five years since Congress passed the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act to actually provide compensation to these workers.

For almost five years we have struggled through one of the worst bureaucratic processes that I have ever seen. We have been required to demonstrate that no documents existed that would allow the radiation doses the workers received to be accurately reconstructed. It has been mind-boggling that a program designed to compensate people who had been deceived by the government, could put those same people through a second bureaucratic nightmare.

But today is a day to celebrate. It is also a time to say thank you for the marvelous team effort that has made this day possible. IAAP was the first facility to file a petition for automatic compensation, and only the 2nd in the Nation to be approved. While I have worked hard to make that happen, it simply could not have happened without the workers themselves, as well as the University of Iowa scientists.

I would like to say a special thank you to Jack Polson, Sy Iverson, Paula Graham, and Vaughn Moore. It was their willingness to repeatedly challenge the assumptions that were made about the work performed at the plant, and about how that work was done, that forced the Government to acknowledge that the documents from the plant were just inadequate to accurately reconstruct the levels of radiation that workers were exposed to.

I also want to thank Joe Shannon, Laska Yerington, Sharon Shumaker, Marge Foster and Nancy Harman for there service on the Advisory Board here in Burlington and Shirley Wiley and Ed Webb for their help with the petition.

No thank-you is complete without acknowledging how fortunate we were to have the help of the University of Iowa team: Laurence Fuortes, Bill Field, Kristina Venske, Howard Nicholson, Christina Nichols, Marek Mikulski, Phyllis Scheeler, Stephanie Leonard, and Laura McCormick.

I would also like to thank my own staff. Alison Hart, my staffer in Davenport, Iowa, has put her heart into helping hundreds of workers and their families navigate this whole process.

I would also like to thank Peter Tyler, Lowell Unger, Michelle Evermore, Jenny Wing, Ellen Murray, and Beth Stein of my Washington, DC, staff for their years of sustained work on this effort. And a special thank you is owed to Richard Miller of the Government Accountability Project for his assistance and his commitment to making this compensation program work.

Finally, I would like to thank Bob Anderson and his wife Kathy. Bob and Kathy have weathered the ups and downs of this process with patience, good humor, and great fortitude. It will be a proud day for me when they actually receive a compensation check in hand from the Treasury. It speaks volumes that a letter from one Iowan can set in motion a monumental process that, in the end, will bring acknowledgement, compensation, and a measure of justice to so many.

While more than 700 former workers are still seeking compensation, today marks our first significant victory. The people who will now be receiving compensation include at least 364 of those who got the most serious illnesses from their work at IAAP. Unfortunately, this group includes far too many workers who are no longer with us. In their honor and in their memory, I thank all of the former workers of the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant for their patience, their persistence, and their service to America. They are genuine patriots.

Mr. President, with the passing of former Senator Jim Exon on Friday, a giant oak in the forest of public service has fallen. Political historians will remember him as a dominant force in Nebraska politics across nearly 3 decades, serving two terms as Governor and three as Senator. Those of us who were privileged to be his friend remember him, first and foremost, as a man of enormous decency, integrity, and common sense. We remember his quick mind; his slow, gravelly voice; his Midwestern directness and unpretentiousness.

Here on the Senate floor, I am privileged to sit at the same desk that Senator Exon used during the last of his 18 years in the Senate. I inherited it upon his retirement in 1996, and I have always considered it a special honor to carry on where he left off.

Of course, for people in Iowa, Jim Exon was a next-door neighbor. Over the years, Iowans got to know him well

as a stalwart friend of family farmers; as a tireless promoter of rural economic development; and, a time when the bioeconomy was in its infancy, as a true believer in the future of ethanol and other home- grown, renewable sources of energy.

Jim Exon was not just present at the creation of the ethanol industry, he was an important midwife of that industry. He took office as Governor in 1970, and in 1971 he created the Nebraska Ethanol Board. In the ensuing years of ethanol's infancy, it was Nebraska and Iowa that led the way in establishing this industry. At every step, Jim Exon was there as an advocate and champion.

I will always remember my partnership with Senator Exon and Senator John Melcher of Montana on the 1985 farm bill. We fought long and hard to fend off attacks on safety-net programs for family farmers. Night after night, we kept the Senate in session into the early hours of the morning. And, thanks to Jim's leadership and sheer relentlessness, we carried the day.

Throughout his political career, Jim Exon prided himself on reaching across party lines and forging bipartisan consensus. This is very much a Nebraska tradition, going back to the legendary George Norris, who founded the State's unicameral Legislature. Jim succeeded as a Democrat in an overwhelmingly Republican State because he knew how to reach out, how to unite people around shared interests. Senator Ben Nelson, a long-time friend and protege of Jim Exon, prides himself on continuing this tradition of bipartisanship and bridge-building.

They didn't call him Big Jim for nothing. He was big physically, tall and imposing. He was big politically--the only Nebraskan since George Norris to win five consecutive statewide elections. And Jim was big- hearted, a tough, relentless man, but also a compassionate person who cared deeply about other people and their wellbeing.

As a public official, he was an old- fashioned fiscal conservative. He railed against what he called ``wild-eyed spenders.'' As Governor, he repeatedly vetoed the Legislature's spending bills, 141 vetoes in all. And, here in the Senate, he took on Republicans and Democrats alike who, in his eyes, were being reckless with the taxpayer's dollar.

Senator Jim Exon has been lying in state in the Rotunda of the Nebraska Capitol. Funeral services will be held this afternoon at the same location. So, today, the Senate says farewell to a truly distinguished former member. Jim was a good friend to me, and he was much beloved in this body. Today, our thoughts are with him, his family, and the people of Nebraska. May Jim rest in peace.

Will my friend yield for a question?

Since my friend mentioned----

I thought he still had the floor.

I just wanted to respond to my friend from New York. Is my friend from New York aware of the fact that right now, the price of gasoline is around $2.03, or $2.05 a gallon? Ethanol right now is about $1.60 a gallon. My question to my friend from New York is, if the free market is at work, why aren't the oil companies blending more ethanol since they would make more money?

Will the Senator yield for another question?

My friend talked about the transporting of ethanol going down the Mississippi and then on barge around this and that. Has my friend ever considered how you get the oil from the Mideast over here? You have to go over there with a big tanker. You have to load it up. Then that tanker has to go across the oceans, and it has to come into New York or wherever the port is and unload it. Then it has to be shipped to a refinery to refine it.

Then, in order to protect that oil pipeline from the Mideast, we have to send 130,000 troops, our military. We have to protect our sea lanes--the billions of dollars that it costs to protect

shipping that oil from the Mideast and all that. I can assure my friend from New York that they will never have to send our young men and women to Iowa to fight.

You will never have to worry about that.

We have 16 ethanol sites in Iowa; 11 are predominantly owned by farmers. There is one that Cargill owns, and ADM owns one. Almost all of the new ethanol plants being built in the United States are owned and operated by farmer-owned enterprises. It so happens that ADM was there in the beginning.

But what is happening now--and especially with this legislation--is you are going to see more and more farmer-owned plants. That is what is happening. My friend is talking about the past. We are talking about the future.

The way to break the OPEC cartel is to get a lot of farmers around the country, using new technologies, making ethanol out of corn and cornstalks, and a variety of other feedstocks--and we will soon be making ethanol in the State of New York, as well as in New England. That is what this is about. It breaks the back of the OPEC cartel.

I respond that that is not the case. I will say more about that in my remarks following my friend. That is not the case at all. I wanted to correct something. I made a mistake. In all good faith, and in making sure that I speak correctly, I said earlier that a gallon of gasoline was $2.03 and ethanol was $1.60. What is it in New York?

I was wrong about ethanol. A gallon of ethanol is only about $1.22. I point out that it would be great if more people used it. It is only $1.22 and $2.25 for gasoline.

Mr. President, it is with a sense of sorrow that I rise today to speak about the practice of abusive and exploitative child labor, as well as to recognize the International Labor Organization's World Day against Child Labor, which occurred on June 12. Unfortunately, hundreds of millions of children are still forced to work illegally for little or no pay. The ILO has set aside this day to give a voice to these helpless children who toil away in hazardous conditions.

We should not only think about these children on June 12. We should think about this last vestige of slavery every day. I have remained steadfast in my commitment to eliminate abusive and exploitative child labor. It was in 1992 that I first introduced a bill to ban all products made by abusive and exploitative child labor from entering the United States.

Since I introduced that bill, we have made some progress in raising awareness about this scourge. In June of 1999, ILO Convention 182, concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor, was adopted unanimously in the ILO and here in the U.S. Senate. This was the first time ever that an ILO convention was approved without one dissenting vote. In record time the Senate ratified ILO Convention 182 with a bipartisan, 96-0 vote.

For the first time in history the world spoke with one voice in opposition to abusive and exploitative child labor. Countries from across the political, economic, and religious spectrum--from Jewish to Muslim, from Buddhists to Christians--came together to proclaim unequivocally that abusive and exploitative child labor is a practice which will not be tolerated and must be abolished.

Gone is the argument that abusive and exploitative child labor is an acceptable practice because of a country's economic circumstances. Gone is the argument that abusive and exploitative child labor is acceptable because of cultural tradition. And gone is the argument that abusive child labor is a necessary evil on the road to economic development. When this convention was approved, the United States and the international community as a whole laid those arguments to rest and laid the groundwork to begin the process of ending the scourge of abusive and exploitative child labor.

In 2001, Congressman Engel and I, along with the international chocolate industry, negotiated the Harkin-Engel Protocol. This agreement was precipitated by news reports that same year on the abuse of children on cocoa farms. We knew that if consumers learned about the brutal realities of cocoa production, their taste of chocolate would sour. Sales--and delicate African economies--would plummet. But that was not our goal. We wanted to stop child slavery, not chocolate production.

We viewed a legislative remedy not as a first resort but as a last resort. So, in good faith, we engaged the major chocolate companies in lengthy, intense negotiations. The result was the Harkin-Engel Protocol. The companies agreed to join with other stakeholders to produce an agreement for eliminating the worst forms of child and slave labor throughout the chain of chocolate production, and to do so expeditiously. They also agreed to implement an industrywide voluntary certification system to give a public accounting of labor practices in cocoa-growing countries. This would enable consumers to make better- informed choices.

There are an estimated 1.5 million small cocoa farms spread across four desperately poor countries in Africa. The Protocol established a public-private partnership enlisting government, industry, labor unions, nongovernmental organizations and consumer groups. The U.S. Government's role is to ensure that whatever certification plan emerges from this process is credible and effective in eliminating abusive child and slave-labor practices in the cocoa industry and ensuring the rehabilitation of the victims.

Unfortunately, the chocolate industry has been slow to meet all of the terms of the Protocol. July 1, 2005, is the deadline for full implementation of the certification system. That is just 3 short weeks away. While I remain hopeful that industry will continue to engage in the elimination of child labor beyond July 1, it is clear that the exact terms of the Protocol will not be met by July. No public certificate has yet been issued. And only small regions of Ghana and Cote d'Ivore have been monitored for child labor. Nevertheless, we are continuing discussions with the chocolate industry and continue to believe that the Harkin-Engel Protocol remains a possible framework for engagement to fix the enormous problem of abusive and exploitative child and slave labor in the cocoa-growing countries of West Africa.

Forced child labor remains a significant problem. According to the ILO, there are some 246 million child laborers in the world; 73 million of these are under the age of 10, and approximately 22,000 children die in work related accidents every year. Abusive and exploitative child labor is prevalent in many parts of the world, including here in America.

Abusive child labor should be a thing of the past. The United Sates should not continue to turn a blind eye to this scourge. It is time that we enforce our laws and international standards and ensure that countries are raising their standards on this issue. If we did our part to ensure that children were learning and not laboring, there would not be a need to have a day dedicated to end child labor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Stephen Butschi of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Connecticut has a short statement. I ask the Senator about how long?

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Connecticut be recognized for his statement and then the Senator from Iowa and then the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. President, this is, indeed, an exciting time and moment. We have an 8-billion-gallon national renewable fuel standard that is going to be part of the Senate Energy bill. A previous bill I sponsored with Senator Lugar and 18 other Senators serves as much of the basis for what we now have before us. This amendment takes us a bold step closer to improving the Nation's energy security, domestic and farm economy, and our environment.

To say we have a growing problem with energy in this country is an understatement. Today, about 97 percent of our transportation fuel comes from oil, two-thirds of that from foreign sources. This excessive dependence on petroleum undermines our national security, as we all know, and it reeks havoc on consumers who are now dealing with record- high gasoline prices. Our policy today costs us jobs. There are 27,000 lost U.S. jobs for every $1 billion in imported oil. Our present policy damages our environment with fully one-third of the greenhouse gases now coming from vehicle emissions alone.

And the truth is, the problem is not going away, it is only getting worse.

Right now we are importing 60 percent of our oil from foreign countries. That percent is expected to increase, not decrease, to about 70 percent by 2025.

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, America spends $200,000 per minute on foreign oil, or $13 million an hour. And more than $25 billion goes to the Persian Gulf imports alone. A study by the Department of Energy found that our dependency on oil from unsteady regimes outside our borders has cost the country an astonishing $7 trillion over the last 30 years, measured in current dollars.

If these figures are not disturbing enough, here is one more. According to the National Defense Council Foundation, the economic penalties of America's oil dependence are between $297 billion to $304 billion annually.

The Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, using this data, calculated the hidden costs at the gas pump. Everyone thinks we are paying around--I heard my friend from New York say in New York the price of gas is $2.25, in Iowa it is around $2.03, $2.05, and around here it is about $2.10 a gallon. That is what we think we are paying. But the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, using the data about the hidden costs, has determined that the real cost of a gallon of gas at the pump is more than $7 a gallon. A typical tankful of gas really would cost more than $140.

What are those hidden costs? Add up what we are spending in the military alone in the Mideast and you come pretty close to the figure.

We have a choice. We can stand by, feed our addiction to foreign oil, or we can make a decisive shift now toward clean domestic renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. This will allow us to wean the U.S. economy from its dangerous level of dependence on foreign oil that is a clear and present danger to our economy and national security.

The renewable fuels standard will more than double the amount of ethanol and biodiesel in our fuel supply by 2012. It will firmly commit our Nation to clean, secure, diversified sources of domestic energy, not in some distant future but immediately in the years ahead.

Domestic ethanol production grew 21 percent in 2004 to more than 3.4 billion gallons. I might just add, ethanol was introduced seamlessly in California and New York, where it helped to buffer rising crude oil prices.

I know my good friend from New York had to leave, but I have since found out that right now there are two large production ethanol plants planned for construction in the State of New York; two big ones, one that is 100 million gallons a year, the other a bit smaller, being constructed right now in New York and more to come online later on.

Why is that? Because the technology is developing at a rapid pace to produce ethanol, not just from corn or sugar but from underutilized materials such as cornstalks, wood waste, cellulosic material, all kinds of biomass feedstocks.

So what we are doing makes sense. With an 8-billion-gallon renewable fuels standard, we establish a strong floor for the time frame under consideration. The fact is, we will have no trouble whatsoever producing enough ethanol to meet this standard. As I said, the industry already has the capacity to produce nearly 4 billion gallons of ethanol a year.

I will be frank. A lot of this does come from my State of Iowa. We lead

the Nation in biofuels production. I am proud of that. I am proud of the fact that 11 of the 16 ethanol plants in my State are predominantly owned by farmers. We have biodiesel plants as well. Biofuels plants are being built in many other places, too, but also in my State.

These farmer-owned biofuels plants are adding value to our rural economies. According to a recent study, each typical ethanol plant creates 700 jobs, expands the local economic base by more than $140 million, and provides an average 13-percent annual return on investment over 10 years to a farmer investor.

Iowa's 16 ethanol plants and 3 biodiesel plants, with more on the way, serve as local engines of economic growth. Our ethanol plants are expected to contribute $4 billion annually to the State's economy once all are in production, with more than 5,000 direct and indirect jobs. Once all of the plants are online, the industry will utilize about 500 million bushels of Iowa corn each year.

That was just for Iowa. Nationally, this renewable fuels standard is expected to create over 200,000 new jobs and add nearly $200 billion to our gross domestic product. Within 10 years, this standard will replace more than 3 billion barrels of foreign oil, more to reduce import dependence over this time than the economically recoverable oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, before production even begins there.

I say again to my friend from New York, there is a choice. We can continue to spend our money--approximately $25 billion a year--in the Persian Gulf, or we can start spending it at home, not just in Iowa but in Georgia, New York, Illinois, and all over this country, where we are going to see these plants being built.

So we know that renewable fuels are good products. We know we can meet the demand. We know that it will help us in a lot of ways.

The Consumer Federation of America came out with a study just a month ago that found consumers could save as much as 8 cents per gallon if more ethanol were blended into the Nation's fuel supply. Well, I bet my friend's moms who are driving kids to school, as he mentioned, would like to save 8 cents per gallon as they buy their gasoline.

A story in the New York Times over the weekend reported that consumers in my home State of Iowa are saving up to 10 cents per gallon with ethanol blended gasoline. I will bet consumers in other States would like to have that same savings.

I have heard one other comment made about this renewable fuels issue saying it is going to be bad for the environment. That is not true. First, it is renewable. It is made from homegrown renewable materials, not pumped out of wells half a world away and shipped to us. When is the last time one ever heard about an ethanol spill killing birds, marine life, or polluting coastlines? The answer is never, and it never will happen because ethanol is nontoxic and it is biodegradable.

Here is something else that my colleagues hear a lot about, that it takes more energy to produce it then is gotten out of it. Again, nonsense. Ethanol is energy efficient. Every 100 Btus of energy used to produce ethanol--that includes the planting, the harvesting, the cultivating, the processing--yields 135 Btus of ethanol. So 100 Btus in, 135 out. By comparison, the same 100 Btus of energy used in the transportation, shipping, and refining of oil yields only 85 Btus in gasoline.

Someone might ask: Well, why is that? Very simply, sunlight is free. The rain is free. These things grow. Sunlight and nature are being used as free assets to get ethanol. So just from an energy efficiency standpoint, we ought to be moving ahead aggressively.

Lastly, my friend also said something about emissions. Well, the fact is ethanol reduces key emissions such as carbon monoxide, particulates that cause smog. In a recent study by the Argonne National Lab, ethanol was found to significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions, the main gas contributing to global warming.

A lot of people in this body want to address the issue of climate change. Yet some fail to see how biofuels are an essential component of any greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategy. Keep in mind, when ethanol is burned, is carbon dioxide being put out there? Yes, it is. So you might say that adds to greenhouse gases, but keep in mind, that the corn plant or that tree or whatever it is that is grown that one gets the ethanol out of, it is taking carbon dioxide out of the air. Not true of the oil that is pumped out of the ground. It puts carbon dioxide into the air but never takes it out. That is why renewable fuels are so important for our environment. Yes, it would put carbon dioxide in the air, but as it grows, using that sunlight and rain to grow, it takes carbon dioxide out.

The renewable fuels standard is sound public policy. It is a key part of any plan to wean our Nation off of foreign oil. Contrary to what my friend from New York said--I am sorry he had to leave--there is a built-in flexibility through a system of tradable credits for oil refiners who exceed their minimum requirement. It includes waiver language from the requirements of the renewable fuels standard for a region or a State if circumstances warrant it. It rewards production of emerging biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol that provide tremendous value to our country, our farmers, and the environment.

Again, these and other provisions are all in the renewable fuels standard amendment that is being offered to the energy bill. That is why it is so important that we keep the standard in there, that we move ahead, wean ourselves off of Persian Gulf oil, clean up the environment, and put the money in this country. Let us spend our money developing energy in America rather than over in the Persian Gulf.

I yield the floor, and I thank my colleague from Illinois.

That is right.

I join with the Senator. We will do a little educating for him.

Mr. President, I am here to speak on the Senate's need to redress a past wrong. For more than 6 decades, the Senate attempted to pass legislation outlawing the terrible act of lynching. And for more than six decades, against the wishes of many Presidents and a majority of Congressmen and Senators, a small minority of Senators prevented any antilynching legislation from passing this body. Three times the House passed bills with severe penalties for perpetrators of this crime, and three times companion bills failed to garner enough support to stop a filibuster in the Senate. Today, it is time for atonement--and for a belated apology on behalf of the United States Senate.

My colleagues and I have drafted this resolution to apologize for the past mistakes of this governing body. This terrible crime was a widespread phenomenon in the late 19th century and throughout the first half of the 20 century. It was practiced in some 46 states.

Mark Twain once termed lynching as an ``epidemic of bloody insanities.'' Compounding the tragedy of lynching is that fact that some 99 percent of the perpetrators of these crimes failed to receive any punishment for their actions.

This resolution cannot make up for the Senate's past failures, but it will serve as a statement of remorse from this body. It has been said that one cannot judge the past through the lens of the present, but lynching should have been viewed as a crime in any time. The Senate, through this legislation, apologizes for its past mistakes, and seeks to redress the failure of this body to protect Americans from violent and sadistic behavior.

No longer will this body permit an ``epidemic of bloody insanities'' to overtake this Nation.

Mr. President, I am here to speak again, as so many before me, on the nomination of William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Now, we have heard many concerns and complaints about Mr. Pryor. We have heard that Mr. Pryor cost his State millions of dollars when he refused to join litigation seeking to hold tobacco companies accountable for the cost of smoking because he believes that ``smokers, as a group, do not impose the cost of their habit on the government'' and, listen to this, that the premature deaths of smokers actually save the Government the cost of ``Social Security, pensions, and nursing home payments.''

We have heard about Mr. Pryor's vigorous defense of Alabama's use of the hitching post as a punishment, a practice the Supreme Court held to be cruel and unusual punishment.

So there has been a lot of talk about different things about Mr. Pryor and what he has stood for, but I am here specifically to talk about Mr. Pryor's persistent, repeated efforts to eliminate the ability of people with disabilities to receive equal treatment in our society. I am here to talk about this nominee's hostility toward the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Most of my colleagues know that I had a brother who was deaf. Through his eyes, my family and I saw firsthand what discrimination against persons with disabilities looks like. It was, and still is, very real.

When we in Congress sought to remedy this history of discrimination, we spent years laying out, piece by piece, a legislative record fully documenting the overwhelming evidence that discrimination against people with disabilities in America was rampant. At the time we passed this bill, we took care to make sure that this important civil rights law had the findings and the constitutional basis to pass muster with the Supreme Court. The signing of the ADA was the culmination of a monumental bipartisan effort that sought to right decades worth of wrongs.

So what did William Pryor have to say about this bill that was signed by

President Bush in 1990, supported overwhelmingly by the American people, supported overwhelmingly by both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and the House? What did he have to say about it? In the case of Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, he argued that Congress did not identify ``even a single instance of unconstitutional conduct'' to support the Americans with Disabilities Act.

This is complete and utter nonsense. We documented it, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of cases of unconstitutional discrimination against people with disabilities--cases of the forced sterilization of people with disabilities, the denial of educational opportunities, unnecessary institu- tionalizations, among others.

Mr. Pryor has made no secret of the fact that he does not believe we in Congress have the power to pass laws to protect people from discrimination. He has worked hard to find cases with which to challenge the power of Congress to protect victims of domestic violence, victims of age discrimination, and women seeking to take maternity leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. He has also repeatedly filed cases challenging Congress's authority to allow Americans with disabilities to live full and productive lives under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Now, some of my colleagues may remember that 2 years ago I stood on this floor and asked Senators to oppose the nomination of Jeffrey Sutton because Mr. Sutton had devoted a significant portion of his legal career to trying to have the Americans with Disabilities Act and other laws designed to protect Americans from discrimination declared unconstitutional. At that time, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argued that Jeffrey Sutton should be confirmed because he was simply doing the work on behalf of his client. Well, guess who his client was. The client was William Pryor, then-attorney general of Alabama.

It is hard to imagine any other nominee with such a record of aggressive negative activism. Given the record of William Pryor, it is impossible to imagine that someone with a disability rights or civil rights claim will get a fair decision by him.

So I cannot support putting someone on a Federal circuit court who has gone out of his way and worked hard affirmatively to undermine the Americans with Disabilities Act. And that is what he has done.

Mr. President, I have a list of 68 groups, disability-related groups. They represent the interests of individuals with disabilities, both nationally and some in States. I ask unanimous consent that the list of these 68 organizations, along with a few letters from a number of the groups, be printed in the Record.

Here are 68 different disability groups from all over the United States.

This is from the National Association of the Deaf:

The National Association of the Deaf is opposing [Mr.]

Pryor because of his outspoken activism against federal civil

rights protections for people with disabilities and other

minorities. His commitment is to ideology, not to justice.

Here is the Illinois/Iowa Center for Independent Living:

We strongly feel that Mr. Pryor and his record as the

Attorney General in Alabama do NOT support nor represent the

millions of people with disabilities or their basic civil

rights.

The National Disabled Students Association stated the nomination of Judge Pryor would be ``devastating to the rights of over 54 million Americans with disabilities protected by the Americans with Disabilities act. . . .''

So, Mr. President, there may be a lot of reasons that people have for opposing this nominee to go on the circuit court. I want to make it crystal clear that my major objection to this person going on the circuit court is his open, consistent, and persistent opposition to the Americans with Disabilities Act. He has made no secret of it. He does not think we had the power to pass it.

He said, in his own opinion, that we did not even document one single instance of unconstitutional conduct against people with disabilities. Well, I am sorry, courts have held differently: forced sterilizations of people with disabilities, forced institutionalizations of people who did not need to be institutionalized, denying people with disabilities educational opportunities. Maybe he never heard of the case of PARC v.

Pennsylvania. Perhaps he did not know that courts had held there was a record, a strong record, of discrimination in public education against kids with disabilities, not letting them go to school, denying them educational opportunities.

The courts held that as long as a State provides a free public education, just as they could not discriminate on the basis of race, or sex, or national origin, they cannot discriminate on the basis of disability either. So the courts held that there is a constitutional right for kids in our country to get a free, appropriate public education, as long as the State is providing that. The kids with disabilities have to be allowed in the public schools, also.

But for Mr. Pryor, no. He says, no, not even one instance do we have of an unconstitutional discrimination. I do not know where Mr. Pryor went to law school. I did not even look it up. It does not make any difference to me. But whatever he learned there he must have forgotten. It seems to me, here is an individual with an ideological perception that he is right and everyone else is wrong, that only he knows what is constitutional and not--not the Congress, not the Senate, not even the Supreme Court. He alone has a right to decide that. He alone has a right to decide whether people with disabilities are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

We have come too far in our country. We spent years developing the Americans with Disabilities Act. When President Bush signed it in 1990, we had accumulated a voluminous record of discrimination, from the earliest childhood to the latter stages of life, with people with disabilities being discriminated against. We sought to remedy that with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

When it passed the Senate, I said it was the proudest day of my legislative career, and it still is--when the ADA passed the Congress and was signed into law. And we have not looked back. We look around our country now and we see people with disabilities in education, traveling, going out to eat, holding down good jobs, getting the civil rights that all the rest of us enjoy.

But for Mr. Pryor, people with disabilities do not have those rights. They only have the right--these are my own words--it seems to me Mr. Pryor has said, in his decisions and in his writings and in his perceptions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, that people with disabilities only have the right to be pitied, they only have the right to get whatever it is that those of us who are not disabled choose to give to them.

Well, I am sorry, that is not enough. People with disabilities have every right, Mr. President, that you and I have. So it is for that reason, that he has gone out of his way--I could see if a judge made one mistake and maybe made a decision but came back and rectified it, looked at the law, looked at the history, but Mr. Pryor did not do that. He did not go back and look at the history of the ADA. He did not go back and find out all these examples that we had come up with that is in the record. He just simply said: I know what is best. I know what is best for people with disabilities.

Well, people with disabilities have been hearing that for far too long in our country: We know what is best for you--that paternalizing attitude. People with disabilities said: No, we are going to be on our own. We are going to have our own civil rights. We are going to decide our own future. We are going to decide how we want to live, not how you, the Government, or you, society, want us to live.

Well, we have come a long way in 15 years since the ADA was signed. This is one circuit court judge who would turn the clock back. And he will get these cases. He will get them. And people with disabilities will be on the short end of the stick.

So for that reason, and perhaps a lot of other reasons but for that reason alone--for that reason alone--Mr. Pryor should not be confirmed for this circuit court position.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, over the past 100 years, the economy of the United States has become inextricably tied to the supply of petroleum. In the early part of the 20th century, America's abundant sources of petroleum helped drive tremendous improvements in quality of life, offering greater mobility through gasoline-powered transportation, and a whole host of new and innovative products made from plastics and other petroleum-based chemicals.

But as the 20th century wore on, the costs of a petroleum-based economy grew increasingly apparent: pollution of air and water became a growing risk to our health and environment, and a growing dependence on foreign imports became an increasing risk to our economic and national security. Today, nearly two-thirds of the oil we use comes from overseas, much of it from hostile and unstable regimes.

Instability in the oil-producing regions of the world, the growing threat of global warming, and record-high prices for gasoline at the pump all call for a new kind of economy for the 21st century: one based on a resource that is not only abundant, but clean, renewable and home- grown.

Today, biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel are making great inroads in reducing our foreign oil dependence. The biofuels industry will provide nearly 4 billion gallons of clean, domestically-produced fuel alternatives to gasoline and diesel this year. We need to ensure continued growth of renewable fuels, first by supporting a robust Renewable Fuels Standard of at least 8 billion gallons a year by 2012, and then by supporting additional measures to grow the ``bioeconomy.''

That is why I am very proud today to be joined by my colleagues, Senator Lugar, Senator Obama, and Senator Coleman, in introducing the National Security and Bioenergy Investment Act of 2005. This important bipartisan legislation provides the research, development, demonstration, and market mechanisms necessary to move this country from an economy based largely on foreign oil, to one increasingly fueled with clean, renewable, domestically-grown biomass. It is an important compliment to a robust RFS, and a vital element of our energy future.

According to the National Academies of Science, this country generates nearly 300 million tons of biomass each year--everything from corn stalks and wheat straw to forest trimmings and even segregated municipal waste. This biomass is currently sent to landfills or left in the fields after harvest in quantities greater than that needed to provide natural cover and nutrient replacement.

The Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that by 2025, an additional 200 million tons of biomass could be generated each year from dedicated biomass crops such as native switchgrass, hybrid poplar and other woody crops, grown throughout the country. These crops require little or no fertilizer or chemical treatment, while helping to enhance soil quality and reduce runoff.

Cellulose from biomass can be converted to ethanol, to provide a clean transportation fuel with potentially near-zero net carbon dioxide and sulfur emissions, and substantially reduced carbon monoxide, particulate and toxic emissions compared to petroleum-based fuel. The Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that by 2050 biomass could supply 50 percent of the nation's transportation fuel, dramatically reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

Other products of the biomass refining process, such as biochemicals and bioplastics, can also complement or replace less environmentally- friendly petroleum-based equivalents. For example, if all of the plastic used in the United States were made from biomass instead of petroleum, the Nation's oil consumption would decrease by 90 to 145 million barrels a year. Biobased plastics can also be composted and converted back to soil instead of being thrown in a landfill.

Biobased chemicals, lubricants and metal-working fluids are all available in the marketplace today, and offer safe, non-toxic alternatives to their petroleum-based counterparts. The National Academies of Science found that biomass could meet all of the Nation's needs for organic chemicals, replacing 700 million barrels of petroleum a year.

But perhaps one of the greatest benefits of biobased fuels and products is to our rural economy. A mature biomass industry would create more than 1 million jobs and generate $5 billion annually in revenue for farmers. This represents a tremendous opportunity to grow and diversify sources of rural income, while reducing our dependence on foreign oil, bolstering national security and protecting the environment.

However, several obstacles still remain. Current Federal programs to develop biomass crops, establish supply chains, and reduce the cost of biofuels production are under-funded and lack appropriate targeting. Potential biomass refinery developers remain reluctant to invest in construction of ``next generation'' plants due to the high level of financial risk. And, according to a recent report from the Government Accountability Office, biobased

purchase requirements and other bioeconomy measures at the U.S. Department of Agriculture have not been given the necessary priority for full implementation.

A wide range of groups, including the Energy Future Coalition, the National Commission on Energy Policy, the Governors' Ethanol Coalition, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, is calling on Congress to invest in the bioeconomy as the best direction for the country's energy future.

The time to act is now.

This legislation implements several critical measures to help ensure the widespread deployment and commercialization of biobased fuels and products over the next 10 years.

The bill substantially updates and improves the Biomass Research and Development Act by refining its objectives, providing greater focus on overcoming remaining technical barriers, and increasing funding. It authorizes $1 billion in research and development over five years to help today's successful biorefineries become the biorefineries of tomorrow, while developing advanced biomass crops, crop production methods, harvesting and transport technology to deliver abundant biomass to the refinery door.

It creates a reverse auction of production incentives to deliver the first billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels at the lowest cost to taxpayers. Each year, cellulosic biofuels refiners will bid for assistance on a per gallon basis. Refiners who request the lowest level of assistance will earn production contracts. As the volume of biofuels production grows, competition will increase, and per gallon incentive rates will decrease. After the first billion gallons of annual production, cellulosic ethanol is expected to be competitive with gasoline without government assistance.

It establishes a new Assistant Secretary position for Energy and Bioproduct Development at USDA to provide the necessary priority and resources for bioenergy and bioproduct programs. It expands the Federal Government biobased product procurement program of the 2002 farm bill to include government contractors. It also extends the program to the U.S. Capitol Complex, and establishes the Capitol as a showcase for biobased products.

It creates grant programs to help small biobased businesses with marketing and certification of biobased products, and funds bioeconomy development associations and Land Grant institutions to support the growth of regional bioeconomies.

The legislation calls on Congress to create tax incentives to encourage investment in production of biobased fuels and products, and it provides for education and outreach to promote producer investment in processing facilities and to heighten consumer awareness of biobased fuels and products.

Together, these measures will send a strong signal to innovators, investors and biobased businesses that Congress is committed to advancing the bioeconomy. With full funding, this bill will deliver the technological advances needed to help make biobased fuels and products cost competitive with petroleum-based equivalents, and it will take a big step toward a future in which our cars run on clean-burning renewable fuels, our plastics turn to compost, and our Nation's farmers fortify our energy security.

The bill has strong support from a broad coalition of agricultural producers, industry, clean energy, environment and national security groups. I have here several letters of endorsement.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, and the accompanying letters of endorsement, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, over the past 100 years, the economy of the United States has become inextricably tied to the supply of petroleum. In the early part of the 20th century, America's abundant sources of petroleum helped drive tremendous improvements in quality of life, offering greater mobility through gasoline-powered transportation, and a whole host of new and innovative products made from plastics and other petroleum-based chemicals.

But as the 20th century wore on, the costs of a petroleum-based economy grew increasingly apparent: pollution of air and water became a growing risk to our health and environment, and a growing dependence on foreign imports became an increasing risk to our economic and national security. Today, nearly two-thirds of the oil we use comes from overseas, much of it from hostile and unstable regimes.

Instability in the oil-producing regions of the world, the growing threat of global warming, and record-high prices for gasoline at the pump all call for a new kind of economy for the 21st century: one based on a resource that is not only abundant, but clean, renewable and home- grown.

Today, biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel are making great inroads in reducing our foreign oil dependence. The biofuels industry will provide nearly 4 billion gallons of clean, domestically-produced fuel alternatives to gasoline and diesel this year. We need to ensure continued growth of renewable fuels, first by supporting a robust Renewable Fuels Standard of at least 8 billion gallons a year by 2012, and then by supporting additional measures to grow the ``bioeconomy.''

That is why I am very proud today to be joined by my colleagues, Senator Lugar, Senator Obama, and Senator Coleman, in introducing the National Security and Bioenergy Investment Act of 2005. This important bipartisan legislation provides the research, development, demonstration, and market mechanisms necessary to move this country from an economy based largely on foreign oil, to one increasingly fueled with clean, renewable, domestically-grown biomass. It is an important compliment to a robust RFS, and a vital element of our energy future.

According to the National Academies of Science, this country generates nearly 300 million tons of biomass each year--everything from corn stalks and wheat straw to forest trimmings and even segregated municipal waste. This biomass is currently sent to landfills or left in the fields after harvest in quantities greater than that needed to provide natural cover and nutrient replacement.

The Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that by 2025, an additional 200 million tons of biomass could be generated each year from dedicated biomass crops such as native switchgrass, hybrid poplar and other woody crops, grown throughout the country. These crops require little or no fertilizer or chemical treatment, while helping to enhance soil quality and reduce runoff.

Cellulose from biomass can be converted to ethanol, to provide a clean transportation fuel with potentially near-zero net carbon dioxide and sulfur emissions, and substantially reduced carbon monoxide, particulate and toxic emissions compared to petroleum-based fuel. The Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that by 2050 biomass could supply 50 percent of the nation's transportation fuel, dramatically reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

Other products of the biomass refining process, such as biochemicals and bioplastics, can also complement or replace less environmentally- friendly petroleum-based equivalents. For example, if all of the plastic used in the United States were made from biomass instead of petroleum, the Nation's oil consumption would decrease by 90 to 145 million barrels a year. Biobased plastics can also be composted and converted back to soil instead of being thrown in a landfill.

Biobased chemicals, lubricants and metal-working fluids are all available in the marketplace today, and offer safe, non-toxic alternatives to their petroleum-based counterparts. The National Academies of Science found that biomass could meet all of the Nation's needs for organic chemicals, replacing 700 million barrels of petroleum a year.

But perhaps one of the greatest benefits of biobased fuels and products is to our rural economy. A mature biomass industry would create more than 1 million jobs and generate $5 billion annually in revenue for farmers. This represents a tremendous opportunity to grow and diversify sources of rural income, while reducing our dependence on foreign oil, bolstering national security and protecting the environment.

However, several obstacles still remain. Current Federal programs to develop biomass crops, establish supply chains, and reduce the cost of biofuels production are under-funded and lack appropriate targeting. Potential biomass refinery developers remain reluctant to invest in construction of ``next generation'' plants due to the high level of financial risk. And, according to a recent report from the Government Accountability Office, biobased

purchase requirements and other bioeconomy measures at the U.S. Department of Agriculture have not been given the necessary priority for full implementation.

A wide range of groups, including the Energy Future Coalition, the National Commission on Energy Policy, the Governors' Ethanol Coalition, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, is calling on Congress to invest in the bioeconomy as the best direction for the country's energy future.

The time to act is now.

This legislation implements several critical measures to help ensure the widespread deployment and commercialization of biobased fuels and products over the next 10 years.

The bill substantially updates and improves the Biomass Research and Development Act by refining its objectives, providing greater focus on overcoming remaining technical barriers, and increasing funding. It authorizes $1 billion in research and development over five years to help today's successful biorefineries become the biorefineries of tomorrow, while developing advanced biomass crops, crop production methods, harvesting and transport technology to deliver abundant biomass to the refinery door.

It creates a reverse auction of production incentives to deliver the first billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels at the lowest cost to taxpayers. Each year, cellulosic biofuels refiners will bid for assistance on a per gallon basis. Refiners who request the lowest level of assistance will earn production contracts. As the volume of biofuels production grows, competition will increase, and per gallon incentive rates will decrease. After the first billion gallons of annual production, cellulosic ethanol is expected to be competitive with gasoline without government assistance.

It establishes a new Assistant Secretary position for Energy and Bioproduct Development at USDA to provide the necessary priority and resources for bioenergy and bioproduct programs. It expands the Federal Government biobased product procurement program of the 2002 farm bill to include government contractors. It also extends the program to the U.S. Capitol Complex, and establishes the Capitol as a showcase for biobased products.

It creates grant programs to help small biobased businesses with marketing and certification of biobased products, and funds bioeconomy development associations and Land Grant institutions to support the growth of regional bioeconomies.

The legislation calls on Congress to create tax incentives to encourage investment in production of biobased fuels and products, and it provides for education and outreach to promote producer investment in processing facilities and to heighten consumer awareness of biobased fuels and products.

Together, these measures will send a strong signal to innovators, investors and biobased businesses that Congress is committed to advancing the bioeconomy. With full funding, this bill will deliver the technological advances needed to help make biobased fuels and products cost competitive with petroleum-based equivalents, and it will take a big step toward a future in which our cars run on clean-burning renewable fuels, our plastics turn to compost, and our Nation's farmers fortify our energy security.

The bill has strong support from a broad coalition of agricultural producers, industry, clean energy, environment and national security groups. I have here several letters of endorsement.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, and the accompanying letters of endorsement, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dan Stevens of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, I recently had the pleasure of attending a truly unique theater production at Ford's Theater--a production that is a testament to the Positive impact of Federal funding of the arts. The Deaf West Theater production of Big River: The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, in conjunction with the Roundabout Theater Company and the Mark Taper Forum, utilizes American Sign Language and a cast of hearing and deaf actors working seamlessly together to, tell this classic Mark Twain story. The exceptional quality of this production was recognized with a 2004 Tony Honor for Excellence in the Theater.

This production of Big River is a superb example of how the performing arts can lead by example, in this case, by offering a dramatic example of people who bridge the gap between the deaf and hearing communities. Deaf and hearing actors are an integral part of the show. Deaf and hearing audiences have an equal opportunity to enjoy the production. And the perspective of deaf culture is seamlessly integrated into the performance.

Federal funding was critical in achieving these important goals. Authorization for grant funding of deaf theater has been in Federal law, in one form or another, since 1967. In the case of the current production of Big River, grants from the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services supported the training of deaf actors in the show, allowed the production to reach national audiences through touring, and helped to fund educational outreach.

I understand that our distinguished majority leader, Senator Frist, recently saw the production, and was as dazzled by it as I was. So I encourage all of our colleagues, their families, and staffs to go see Big River, which will be at Ford's Theater until June 4. And I also encourage my colleagues to join with me in working to restore funding to keep Deaf West's work alive for audiences in the future.