Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to make some brief comments congratulating the chairman and ranking member. I think this is a big deal. I think it will be seen as a big deal. I think it is an enormously positive step forward on our relationships. I commend the chairman and ranking member and the leader for bringing up this topic. I believe this is going to help us cement the relationship back and forth with us and India. It is important that we do this. It will help environmentally and help energy-wise but, more importantly, I believe it will be a very important strategic relationship. This is a key movement forward. I hope we can move it forward through the conference committee. I hope we can get it to the President in short order and show India and the rest of the world this budding, growing, strengthening relationship back and forth. I commend Chairman Lugar for such insightful and supportive leadership on such an important topic. I suggest the absence of quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I wish to publicly recognize Jerold L. Harris, president and CEO of U.S. AgBank, FCB, in Wichita, KS. Jerold will retire in January 2007 following a 43-year career in the Farm Credit System. Jerold is a native of South Dakota, growing up near Denby. He attended high school in Gordon, NE, just across the State line. After receiving a bachelor's degree in agricultural business from Colorado State University in 1963, he went to work for the Farm Credit System, where he has served agriculture and rural America ever since. Throughout his distinguished career, Jerold has demonstrated a positive leadership style based on cooperation, mutual respect, and trust. His focus has always been on working toward solutions that serve all of agriculture. He exemplifies a statement he often quotes, ``There is no limit to progress when people work together.'' Jerold has certainly demonstrated this throughout his career. One particular achievement stands out during Jerold's 43 years of service. In January 2002, the Western Farm Credit Bank in Sacramento, CA, entered into a joint management agreement with the Farm Credit Bank of Wichita, KS. The board of directors named Jerold as president and chief executive officer. Under this agreement, Jerold combined the operations of these two banks while developing and implementing a merger strategy that resulted in the merger of the two banks and the formation of U.S. AgBank, FCB, effective October 1, 2003. A milestone was achieved with the unanimous approval of the merger by all voting stockholders. Following the merger, Jerold quickly leveraged the operational and financial strengths of the previous organizations and achieved the cost savings anticipated in the joint management agreement and merger. He focused the new organization on supporting associations in their objective of service to farmers and ranchers. He capitalized on the synergies created by the merger, increasing patronage and lowering costs to associations affiliated with U.S. AgBank. Significant credit goes to Jerold for establishing a culture within the new district that is based on trust and mutual respect between the bank and associations. Today, U.S. AgBank covers all or parts of 11 States and has total assets of almost $20 billion. While leading U.S. AgBank, or one of its predecessor institutions, Jerold implemented utilization of continuous improvement strategies that resulted in streamlined Bank operations, improved effectiveness of services provided to associations, and reduced costs. He improved competitive pricing and established effective asset/liability management, new loan products, sophisticated profitability measurement, and cost accounting systems. A correspondent lending function, focused on the purchase of large loan participations, was developed under his leadership. He also led the formation of AgVantis, Inc., a technology service provider for Farm Credit System institutions. Direct lender agricultural credit associations and Federal land credit associations were formed and patronage programs that resulted in payment of significant amounts of patronage to Associations were implemented on his watch. There is an old saying that a true warrior must be tested under fire. Many of you will remember the 1980s as a very difficult time for agriculture. From 1986 thru 1990, Jerold was the chief executive officer of the jointly managed Ninth District Federal Land Bank Association and Ninth District Production Credit Association. These entities were formed from the merger of 40 farm credit associations during that difficult agricultural lending climate. Jerold was successful in establishing an effective management structure for the new associations and achieved financial stability by significantly reducing risk and nonearning assets and focusing the organization on customer service. As agricultural conditions improved, Jerold developed and implemented a reorganization plan for the two associations, resulting in the establishment of six new production credit associations and eight new Federal land bank associations. While the 1980s may not be remembered by many in agriculture as a time of great reward, Jerold demonstrated the same ability to work with people and achieve great things in the difficult times, as he did when agriculture was more prosperous. During his career, Jerold held numerous leadership positions of progressively increasing responsibility and impact in the Farm Credit System. Jerold has served as a loan officer, an appraiser, a recruiter and a trainer, a supervisor and a manager, a leader and a follower, but always with the same dedication and sense of purpose. He mentored a long list of people who continue to serve Farm Credit and agriculture today, many of whom are in senior positions all around the Farm Credit System. But Jerold's service was not only on the local or district level, he also served on numerous national or system-wide boards and leadership groups. Jerold served 15 years as a member of the Farm Credit System Presidents Planning Committee, during 3 of which he served as chairman. Jerold also served 11 years on the board of directors of the Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation, with 3 of those years as chairman. He also serves on the board of directors of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, NCFC, and is a member of the NCFC Executive Council. Jerold is a familiar face here in Washington, DC. He has represented the Farm Credit System by testifying before the Senate and House Agriculture Committees of the U.S. Congress on numerous occasions. Jerold has always believed in honoring one's responsibilities locally but has also shown that it is possible to support initiatives that will provide benefits for the ``greater good'' of agriculture as well as those system borrowers and owners he served. His honesty and integrity, keen intelligence, and an understanding of people has earned him the respect of his peers, workers, the boards he has served, and the farmers and ranchers he has represented and served. Jerold's tireless efforts to improve agriculture and rural America will be truly missed. His countless contributions and leadership, including his steady voice of reason, helped ensure access to credit for both those who were and many who were not Farm Credit System borrowers. His accomplishments speak volumes about his dedication to agriculture and the people who work in agriculture. Jerold and his wife Janet are looking forward to his retirement as an opportunity to see old friends, travel to new places, and do a little fishing. It is a great pleasure for me to share his impressive record of service with my colleagues in the Senate, and I hope this U.S. Senate record will stand as an inspiration to others.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the pending legislation, the Secure Fence Act of 2006. I want to address this issue. I have worked on the immigration issue all this year. It has been a very difficult issue. It has been a very difficult discussion. It has been one that has involved a great deal of the time of this body. I serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee. We worked a long time to try to come up with some form of comprehensive legislation that we put forward. It was far from perfect, even as it was passed. Before it passed, people were questioning this provision and that provision. You look back on it and say: Well, I think that is a good question, and I think that is a good point, and it is something we need to deal with in conference to be able to address those concerns and topics. I think we could have come out with a good conference bill, but the volatility of the subject, the lateness in the session, the closeness to the elections really has just not made it possible for us to move forward on comprehensive immigration reform, as the President has requested, as most people in the country look at it and believe in some form we need to deal with immigration in a broad fashion. Yet almost everybody I have talked with on the immigration issue--a number of whom are passionately involved in the topic--virtually everybody who looks at it will say: OK, let's first get the border secure. First, let's stop the flow of illegal immigration into the United States, and then let's talk about comprehensive reform or you get a number of people saying: I don't think you are serious at the Government level of dealing with securing the border. When you show me that, then let's move forward with comprehensive reform because I do recognize we have 11 to 12 million people here in an undocumented status. We do have a need for workers in a number of places across the United States, that there are legitimate concerns, and the best way for us to move forward is in some fashion dealing with all the problems that are associated with this issue. We have a history in the United States, in the last 20 years, of dealing with this problem on a piecemeal basis. In 1986, there was an amnesty bill, but it did not deal with border enforcement at that point in time. That did not work. In 1996, we had an enforcement-only bill, but it did not deal with the future flow or did not deal with the people who were here in an undocumented status at that point in time. We come, then, to 2006. It is an interesting progression in the numbers as well. In 1986, we had roughly 3 million here in an undocumented, illegal status. In 1996, 10 years later, we had 7 million here in an illegal, undocumented status. We tried amnesty. We tried enforcement in 1996, and we had 7 million who were in an undocumented, illegal status in the United States. In 2006, we are at 11 million to 12 million. So we have tried this on a piecemeal basis before, and it just has not worked. Whether you come from either side of the argument, it has not worked on a piecemeal basis. What I am hopeful we can do in passing this legislation--in the secure fence area; and I do support this legislation--is that we can deal with the precursors that a number of people have identified, saying, first, we really need to secure the border and show the country we are serious about securing the border. Then let's move forward with the comprehensive legislation. What this, I hope, will be is the first step in dealing, in a comprehensive, long-term fashion, with our failed immigration system and huge immigration problem. We need to do this, and we need to do this first. I was hopeful we could do this in one whole package and move it on forward and see the practicality of that whole package, that the first thing you would do is to secure the border--and the President has already dispatched National Guard troops to the border. The border enforcement efforts have already stepped up and they are showing fruit from their efforts. We are stepping up and doing this now. I was hopeful we could do this as a comprehensive piece of legislation, recognizing the practicality that, first, the border would be secure because that is the thing you could do first, and then you could deal with a future flow guest worker program that would take you several years to implement. And you could deal with those who are here and in an undocumented status? That would take some period of time to deal with as well. We are not going to be able to, this legislative session, get that broad piece of legislation through. Yet I think this shows to people in the country deeply concerned about our border--as I am, as we all are in the Congress and in this country--is that we are serious about dealing with this issue. And I think there will still remain the political impetus to deal with this on a broad-scale basis, but first we step up and do first things first and we secure the border and we show to the country we are, indeed, serious about securing the border, and we are doing everything we can to secure the border. It will not permanently seal the border. This effort, the Secure Fence Act of 2006, will not achieve that. It is going to be very difficult to completely secure the border, but this bill will take a strong step forward for us. I also say to my colleagues who believe we should just do enforcement or we should do enforcement first, that we then, in the future, need to take the next steps necessary to deal with this in a comprehensive fashion. I think it is going to be very important that, OK, yes, we do this, and we move this forward, but then we need to move forward with the rest of it. What do we do with those who are here in an undocumented status? How do we do more on interior enforcement at work sites? What do we do on a guest worker future flow program? So that we will deal with this in a totality, so that as to those who are concerned we are just going to do this and not deal with the rest of the system, we can say: No, part of what we are talking about and doing is securing the border first. We do that we are going to hold true to what we said. Yes, we do that. And, then, let's talk about how we can move forward in the comprehensive fashion because that is the way--and the only way--I think you actually deal in some sort of long-term fashion with the very real problems we are facing and that really a number of countries around the world are facing--certainly the Europeans are facing--in a major fashion. It seems to me that one of the things that happened after the fall of the Berlin Wall, in particular--some time before but certainly after-- was people started moving to opportunity. They started moving to where they felt they could have a better life for themselves and their families. It is certainly an impetus I recognize, and it is hard to fault people for that. You want it to be conducted in a legal fashion and to see that national sovereignty rules are obeyed. People in this country who talk about security first, when they talk with me about that, they are not against immigration. They want it to be legal. They want the system to be a legal system, and then we can work with it. But they don't want an illegal system that has devolved or, as we have seen, broken down in this country. I think this is an important first step forward for us in dealing with this problem in a comprehensive fashion. It is not what a number of us had worked for in getting a comprehensive bill. I think it is the first step in us getting comprehensive legislation moving forward and convincing the country that we are serious about securing the borders so that we can do comprehensive reform of an immigration system that is so desperately needed. Mr. President, I have worked a long time and for a number of years on human rights issues and dignity of the individual, and I believe fundamentally in my bones about this. I believe it is important and it is a big statement, what a country does in taking care of the least of us, including the widows and orphans. In those statements, it also says that the foreign are amongst you, citing those who are in a difficult situation. They are in a hard situation. We need to help them and work with them in any way we can. We need to be able to craft a legal solution to do that. I think it is important. It is also a statement of the nature of our society and our Nation that we do that. We need to reach out to those in the most difficult circumstances in this country. This is a step forward, but it is not and cannot be the final step. I remind the individuals who have pushed this route forward that we are taking you at your word as well, saying first secure the border and then we go to comprehensive reform. We are going your path. This would be the path that you said is the way to go. We cannot just stop here and say: OK, we have done that, and now we are not going to talk about the rest of the issues. We need to see this on through to what people had said was the right route to go--first securing the border and then dealing with the rest of it. We are going that path, your path, forward. I hope we can move this through and then continue the discussion on how we move forward with comprehensive immigration reform. I believe it is critical for us to do that for the future of the Republic. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague from Maine on an excellent accomplishment, a huge vote on an important piece of legislation. It is critical. A number of colleagues, the Senator from Wyoming and others on both sides of the aisle, did so much good work on this legislation.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I will not take my colleagues' time for long, but I draw attention to a situation that has further developed-- or devolved and deteriorated--and that is the situation in Darfur. It is a situation this Senate has spoken to often. We have spoken on resolutions, on amendments; we have added funds. What we have feared is now upon us. We are now seeing in the IDP camps, the individuals that are displaced internally, diseases such as asthma, malaria, cholera and dysentery. We have had 12 humanitarian workers killed in the last 2 months. That is driving a number of the humanitarian groups out of the region. The NGO, the nongovernment organizations, currently now serve only 60 percent of the people they were serving. The Government of Sudan has reportedly resumed aerial bombings taking place in the northern and southern parts of Darfur. The situation is growing worse. We don't know how many people have died already, but it is set to escalate rapidly. NGOs are fleeing because people are getting killed. The people are concentrated in the camps. They are now not getting food and clean water. Now we have cholera, more misery, malaria and the numbers of people getting killed escalating dramatically. It is going to escalate further and more dramatically if we do not act. We have the government in Khartoum saying they want the African Union troops out. We do not have a big enough force there now. They are scheduled to leave the end of September. We have a United Nations group that is forming to go in, and the government in Khartoum, Sudan, is saying, We are not going to let them in. We have African Union troops preparing to leave. We have the U.N. troops not yet prepared to come in or being allowed in. And we have chaos. There are a lot of people dying in this region. It is escalating. It is time we step up and push again. This Senate has been excellent on this issue. The administration has been very good. I cite particularly Assistant Secretary Zoellick who spent a lot of time working on this issue, trying to bring people together, getting a peace agreement signed a couple of months ago. It was an important peace agreement. The problem that has taken place now, after the peace agreement was signed, the African Union troops were starting to organize to pull out, the government of President al-Bashir in the Sudan decided: This is our time to take over because the rest of the world is looking at Lebanon, they are dealing with Hezbollah, the United States is focused on its election cycle. This is the time for us to move. This is a very difficult, dire situation for people on the ground. I met with a number of the aid organizations today. Their people are getting killed, so they are pulling back, as I cited. When this situation first started developing about 3 years ago, the very situation we are most concerned about is a lot of people getting into the displaced camps, not having access to clean water, disease spreading in the camps, spreading because of the concentration of individuals and the lack of sanitation and clean water, and we really get a mess. That is now where we are.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank my colleague for her interest. I wish her Godspeed in New York with the U.N. My colleague in Connecticut will address this same topic. It is very important to speak. We need to pass the Darfur Accountability Act. It has passed here and in the House. We need to resolve the issues. It is important that the President, in his meetings at the U.N. for General Assembly meetings, raise this issue. It is important to press the Sudanese Government to stop the aerial bombings--they can do that first and foremost--and that the African Union forces stay until a U.N. force is put in place, we pressure the Sudanese Government to accept a U.N. force, or, if not, put in targeted sanctions toward Sudanese officials preventing traveling, dealing with their own personal accounts. There are a series of recommendations of a number of Senators addressed in a letter to the President. It is a bipartisan effort. It is a genocide already. It is one that is set to become a far worse situation. We really need to act. I yield to the floor to the set of speakers listed.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent the following Senators be recognized to speak: myself, for 10 minutes; Senator Lincoln, for 10 minutes; Senator Dodd, for 15 minutes; and Senator Stabenow, for 10 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes as in morning business. I want to speak about the Iranian President who is going to be in Washington speaking today.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, how much time is remaining in morning business on our side?

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I thank my colleagues for this opportunity to speak. Later today, President Khatami of Iran will be speaking at the National Cathedral. I hope he is asked and he answers a number of questions about what happened during his reign of terror in Iran. President Khatami was the President of Iran, the lead sponsor of terrorism around the world. President Khatami was President of Iran, a country that seeks to have the United States bow down in front of Iran and to Iran. President Khatami worsened the human rights record in Iran to its own people. As we speak right now, a press conference is going on at the National Press Club of Iranians who have somehow gotten out of that country who were tortured under President Khatami and President Ahmadi- Nejad, the current President of Iran. I hope that as we deliberate the Department of Defense appropriations bill, we recognize this threat. This is a country, Iran, that seeks to destroy Israel, seeks to attack and destroy the West, seeks to have us bow down. I will read the quote from President Ahmadi-Nejad that he said in July. He called on America and the West to bow before Iran saying: If you would like to have good relations with the Iranian nation in the future, bow down before the greatness of the Iranian nation and surrender. If you don't accept to do this, the Iranian nation will force you to surrender and bow down. Those are his words. We will not bow down. We are in a war on terrorism. We are in a war against Islamic fascism, which this is a statement of. I hope we recognize that. In the war on terrorism, terrorism is their tactic, and they use it through Hezbollah and Hamas, which Iran is supporting and operating. They direct it at us. We have to confront this and we have to confront this Islamic fascism. What they seek to establish is a militant dictatorship, an Islamic fascist dictatorship. This group has an object. They don't just wander around. Step 1 is to remove the United States from the Middle East. Step 2 is to establish an Islamic caliphate. This is an Islamic dictator over an entire region--a Shia crescent over an entire region of the world. These are his words. This is what they seek. They seek a nuclear weapon to be able to threaten the region, to be able to use in this region. Ayatollah Khamenei, the lead sponsor and organizer of the current Islamic Republic, in 1979, removing the Shah, came in and said if we destroy Israel, Allah will reward us. This is a governing theological philosophy that has not been walked away from by the current leadership in Iran. Let's listen to the words they say themselves. Former President Khatami is going to be speaking in Washington, DC, tonight. He said in October 2000: If we abide by the Koran, all of us should mobilize to kill. This is October 2000. He should be asked, does he still believe that statement or support that statement. Today, I will be introducing the Iran Human Rights Act, legislation designed to focus our attention on the human rights abuses taking place in Iran today and support the efforts of the Iranian people to enact peaceful, democratic reforms. While we have been focusing on the nuclear weapon development by the Iranians and on their support for terrorism, we should not forget about the plight of the Iranian people and their difficulties under this regime. The bill creates a special envoy to focus on human rights abuses in Iraq and to work with groups who support human rights and democracy in Iran. The bill provides financial supports to these groups supporting human rights and that are working toward democracy in Iran. Finally, it ensures that the United States broadcast into Iran emphasize U.S. support for the rights and well-being of the Iranian people. We need to focus on the nuclear weapons, and we also need to focus on the rights of the Iranian people being abused by this regime. It is also my hope that we will grant visas to this country to professors being kicked out of universities in Iran because they don't tow the line of the ruling clerics in that country. Currently, the universities are being purged in Iran of the dissident voices of these professors. We stand with the Iranian people. We stand against this Iranian tyrannical regime. I hope we can move this legislation forward to show our support for the suffering people. I ask the people who go to the meetings where President Khatami is speaking to ask these questions: Why did he support terrorism? Why did the human rights record get worse under his 8 years of leadership in Iran? Why do they persecute religious minorities and women? Why do they persecute those who have peaceful protests inside Iran? Why does Iran need to enrich uranium when they have plentiful oil and gas supplies? These are serious questions in serious times. I hope that as we consider this Department of Defense bill, we will consider what the words of those who have vowed to destroy us are and that we take appropriate action against them. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, next week marks the fifth anniversary of the attacks of September 11. On this solemn occasion, we reflect upon the lives of those who were lost and the families they left behind. Images of the planes hitting the two massive towers filled with innocent Americans are emblazoned in our minds and stir our conscience. Heroic tales of firefighters, police officers and first responders falling in the line of duty evoke deep pangs of sadness yet fill our hearts with great pride for our country. It is important that during this time we remember the families of these victims of terror. They have suffered greatly, and we continue to mourn for their loved ones and honor their memories. But there are some families whose grief is also mixed with fear. The victims for whom they grieve were immigrants working in the World Trade Center, and the families that are left behind face potential deportation. Thus, in addition to the already incalculable loss inflicted upon them by the terrorists, these relatives face yet another hardship. It is in the context of this situation that I wish to recognize the work of Debra Brown Steinberg. For the past 5 years, Ms. Steinberg has tirelessly sought to undo this injustice and allow these relatives to grieve alongside the thousands of other victims' families without fear of arrest and removal. Ms. Steinberg has dedicated her time--pro bono-- to this cause and has been recognized time and again for her efforts. My colleagues and I introduced legislation, known as the September 11 Family Humanitarian Relief and Patriotism Act, which would provide the necessary relief for these families. Now that a year has passed since the bill's introduction, and as we approach the fifth anniversary of 9/ 11, it is time to bring closure for the sake of the families and for the sake of honoring the memories of those killed. Our tradition teaches us to have compassion for the widow, the orphan, and the stranger among us. Debra Steinberg's action on behalf of the immigrant victims' families exemplifies such compassion. We have much to learn from her on this day, and I am proud to honor her achievements.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, thank you very much. First, I want to do a housekeeping piece of business. I ask unanimous consent that Kristina Rolph, a staffer with the Energy Committee, be granted floor privileges for the consideration of S. 3711.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. If my colleague from Washington would be willing to allow 5 minutes for my colleague from Alabama to finish up his comments? Is that asking too much? I don't want to press it too far.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I would inquire of my colleague from Washington a timeframe she would want, in an effort to establish some order.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I would be happy to yield during the remainder of my time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the pending business before the Senate, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Act, S. 3711. I wholeheartedly support this bill. We face a dire situation in this country regarding our energy dependence. I believe this debate is about two numbers and those numbers are 3 and 75--$3-a-gallon gasoline and $75-a-barrel oil. That is what this debate is about, 3 and 75. We are reminded about this every day. There are probably places in this country paying well over $3 a gallon for gasoline. The price of oil hit $75 this past Friday. There is a good possibility it will even go up from there. We need more domestic drilling to take place. We must reduce our foreign dependency, our dependency on foreign oil. In the future and in the near term as well we have to reduce our dependency on oil. Things are striking. In the United States we burn 10,000 gallons of oil per second. The United States uses four times more oil than any other nation. Relative to economic output, the United States consumes 7.5 gallons of oil for every thousand dollars of GDP. Oil imports cost us--this is a 2003 number, so they are higher now--oil imports cost us $10 billion a month, as a nation. Those are 2003 numbers. Energy economists estimate that since World War II, oil price spikes have cost the economy 15 percent growth and $1.2 trillion in direct losses. There is a $7.4 billion increase in the U.S. oil bill per year for each $1 increase in the price of oil. Imagine what that adds up to when you push $75-a-barrel oil. A $1 increase in the price of oil costs U.S. companies and consumers about $828 million in trucking costs each year. In addition to these facts, we get a large amount of our oil from regions that are unstable at best and unfriendly at worst; 65.3 percent of the world's proven oil reserves are in the Middle East. The Middle East OPEC States already supply the United States with 2.5 million barrels per day, 25 percent of our daily imports. Further, every day, 26 million barrels of oil flow through two points. One of those points is the Straits of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf. We know the instability that can happen there. A few targeted strikes against one of these two states or against oil facilities in Saudi Arabia, which holds a quarter of the world's oil reserves and essentially all spare capacity--if you can consider any of the capacity spare today--it could take several million barrels of oil off the global market every day for months and send oil prices soaring. These facts, coupled with the increases in demand that are taking place in countries such as China and India, do not bode well for our national and economic security. There will be very difficult if not potentially disastrous consequences to our economy if we do not reduce our dependence on foreign oil and, in the future, oil period. If we remain so dependent on foreign oil, we court disaster. Currently, we have these two mega numbers, 3 and 75; $3-a-gallon gasoline and $75-a-barrel oil. This bill, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Act, will help lessen the dire situation we are currently in. It opens up 8.3 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico for oil and natural gas exploration. It is something we need to do, we must do now to be able to help reduce our demand for oil products, for foreign oil. I want to also talk about the midterm of what we need to do. This is something we have to do now to mitigate the situation we are currently in. We really need to do it. But on a midterm basis, we have to reduce our dependence on oil, period. That is why a bipartisan group of 28 Senators has put forward the Vehicle and Fuel Choices for America Security Act, S. 2025. I urge my colleagues to look at cosponsoring this legislation. I think it is the most bipartisan and comprehensive energy legislation pending in front of the Senate today. We filed it as an amendment on this bill, but as I understand the procedural situation we are in, it is unlikely this is going to come up now. It is still important that we look at this legislation and others to reduce our long-term dependence on oil. It is appropriate Members of Congress from every region of the country and every political stripe-- conservative, liberal, everything in between--have all arrived at this same point. For our national security and our economic security, we must reduce our dependency on oil. It is common sense to reduce our oil consumption, and it is doable. This bill uses new ideas and does not visit old debates or fights. We know the edges of this debate where we divide this body. This doesn't go there. It says what areas can we agree upon, and let's press forward there. For too long our foreign policy has been dictated in part by our need for foreign oil. It is in the interest of America's security for us to look at ways of lessening our dependence on foreign oil, and it is also in the interests of our economy. The pocketbook of every American is affected when the price of oil goes up. We can create market incentives to use the technology available today to deal with the problem that we are facing right now. We don't have to wait for any new inventions. We can start solving the problem today simply by sending the marketplace the correct signals. There is broad public support for reducing our oil consumption. This, to me, is one of those American-type problems. We have a problem and it needs to be addressed and we can do it with good, old- fashioned American ingenuity. It exists. The great thing about this bill, S. 2025, is that our 10-year goal is for reduction in oil consumption of 2.5 million barrels per day. That is roughly 10 percent of our total oil consumption and the same amount we import daily from the Persian Gulf region. How do we do it? Ethanol and renewable fuels must play a clear role in this fight. They are homegrown. We need to be more dependent on the Midwest than the Middle East. Therefore, this helps keep the money at home. We ventured down this road before, but we have never fully committed as a nation to renewable fuels. Now is the time to do it. I am encouraged by the fact that so many people are literally buying into ethanol today, and into biodiesel--soybean-based diesel fuel. Bill Gates has invested over $100 million of his own money into ethanol. Richard Branson of the Virgin Empire, famous for his success in venture capitalism, is investing in ethanol. These are great signs for the future of renewable fuels, as it is an industry that needs capital investment. As a government and as a people, we need to fully commit to make renewable fuels a viable alternative to petroleum-based fuel. As long as oil remains above $70 a barrel, the economics of renewable fuels makes good sense. It makes sense for us to continue to push its development, and it makes clear sense regarding our foreign policy and security needs. Biodiesel is another renewable fuel option and is a farm success story. After Operation Desert Storm in the early 1990s, soybean farmers were struggling to maintain profitability. I was the Secretary of Agriculture in my State of Kansas at that time. Because of high energy prices and low commodity prices, the farmers were struggling. The soybean farmers started investments in the development of biodiesel. It was a priority for farmers eager to contribute to our energy supply and develop a new market for soybeans. Farmers invested more than $50 million of their check-off dollars. These are dollars they tax themselves to be able to promote their industry. They did this to be able to conduct research and development in biodiesel. As a result, the biodiesel industry has shown slow but steady success since the early 1990s. However, in the past 2 years it has grown exponentially. In 2004 there were approximately 25 million gallons of biodiesel sales. That increased to 90 million gallons in 2005, and currently it is on track to exceed 150 million gallons this year. Likewise, we went from 22 biodiesel plants in 2004 to more than 60 biodiesel plants currently, and there are over 40 more plants currently under construction. Congress has, and continues to put in place, policies that enhance our Nation's energy security. Renewable fuels are playing a significant role in helping to achieve this objective while providing economic benefits to farmers and rural communities. Another key element to freeing ourselves from our foreign oil dependency is to introduce electricity as a transportation fuel option. Recently, I and many of my colleagues in the House and Senate test drove plug-in hybrid vehicles on Capitol Hill. These cars drive exclusively on electricity for the first 30 miles of every trip. After 30 miles, these cars switch to a normal combustion engine. Over 50 percent of all Americans drive less than 30 miles each day. That means we could have over half of our drivers in America driving exclusively on electricity, not using any oil at all. The good news is that our electricity generation is produced here in America, whether it is coal, natural gas, nuclear, or renewable sources such as water power and wind. We would be fueling a majority of our transportation sector with American sources of energy as opposed to foreign oil. Plugging in your car during offpeak hours when power is in a surplus and cheaper would soon just become part of the modern daily routine like plugging in your cell phone before you go to bed. Offpeak electricity can be the equivalent of 50-cent-a-gallon gasoline. The car I sat in, and other Members drove, went 100 miles a gallon by using the plug-in technology, the hybrid technology in the car, and fuel in a combustion engine--100 miles to the gallon, a car available today. This was a modified Prius. I don't want to tell everybody that this is broadly available. But the people who have modified it to include plug-in technology were using this hybrid vehicle. Not only will we be sending out money to countries that dislike us, but we will be buying American-made power instead. Another great bit of news is that we already have the infrastructure in place to produce electricity as a transportation tool. All you will need is an extension cord and a wall outlet. We can't drill enough domestic oil to break our addiction to foreign oil. However, this bill takes an innovative market-based approach to solve these problems. We can provide tax credits for the production and purchase of advanced technology cars. We expand the renewable fuels infrastructure through a variety of means. We also expand research and development in critical areas such as light-weight materials and cellulosic ethanol. This ethanol, instead of being made out of grain, is made of plant fibers or out of woodchips. We amend the Federal fleet requirements to reduce oil consumption by allowing electric drive technology to qualify under the EPA act. We require 30 percent of the Federal fleet requirements to be met by advanced diesel, hybrids, or electric plug-in hybrids by 2006. We also provide tax credits for companies that have fleets of 100 or more vehicles to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles. We are all solidly behind the ideas in this bill. It has 28 cosponsors, and we look forward to moving these ideas forward because it is critical for our national and economic security and our economy and our future that we do so, plus it is just good old American ingenuity that we would do something like this and lead the world in moving toward an important electric renewable source fleet of vehicles for our consumers. Clearly, if we are to continue to live freely in this country, we must figure out a solution to our rising dependency on foreign oil. That is part of my support for S. 3711. Near term, we have to do more production. Longer term, we have to reduce our dependency and our addiction to oil, period. Here is a bill and a way we can do it. As we observe what is taking place in the Middle East--even today we can see volatility in that region. As we observe what is taking place in our marketplace, I believe you can see a yearning for vehicles that get higher mileage and we can use with plug-in technology. I think we have to pass S. 3711, and then in the future let's move this car fleet to be based more on renewables and to be based on plug- in technology using electricity. I look forward to working with my colleagues to be able to accomplish that. I urge us in the near term to do what we have to do--pass this bill which is before us today. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I believe I am to be recognized for 15 minutes. If the Presiding Officer will notify me when 2 minutes remain?

Mr. BROWNBACK. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank my colleague from Washington in particular for allowing us to do this. It is very much appreciated.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if I could inquire of my colleague from Washington--and I have my colleague from Alabama who seeks recognition--maybe we can get some order set up here. I have a 15- minute presentation. I believe my colleague from Alabama is seeking recognition, if I could inquire.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the chairman.