Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN. That is right.

Mr. HARKIN. 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.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. 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.

Mr. HARKIN. 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?

Mr. HARKIN. I thought he still had the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Since my friend mentioned----

Mr. HARKIN. Will my friend yield for a question?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. 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. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. 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. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. 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.

Mr. HARKIN. 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. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. 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. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. 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. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. 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.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the House of Representatives just minutes ago took a historic stand on behalf of the millions of Americans who can benefit from the enormous promise of stem cell research. By a vote of 238 yeas to 194 nays, the House passed H.R. 810. I congratulate both Congressman Castle, a Republican from Delaware, and Congresswoman DeGette, a Democrat from Colorado, who led a bipartisan effort in this regard to have this very historic vote in the House of Representatives. Indeed, a bipartisan majority rejected the restrictive policies of this administration and voted to expand the number of stem cell lines that are eligible for federally funded research. In doing so, they have brought new hope to Americans who suffer from diseases such as Parkinson's and juvenile diabetes, ALS, as well as spinal cord injuries. Now it is up to us in the Senate to pass the same bill without amendments so we can send it to the President's desk as soon as possible. The American people cannot afford to wait any longer for our top scientists to realize the full potential of stem cell research. Regrettably, research has been stymied and slowed under the President's stem cell policy. When President Bush announced his policy, the administration said that 78 stem cells lines were eligible for federally funded research, meaning they had to be derived before the totally arbitrary date and time of August 9, 2001, at 9 p.m. Why it was permissible to use stem cell lines derived before 9 p.m. but not at 9:01 or 9:05 p.m. has always eluded me. Again, it is just an arbitrary time and date. The administration said there were 78 stem cell lines, but now we know today that only 22 of those are available for research, not nearly enough to reflect the genetic diversity that scientists need. But more importantly, all 22 stem cell lines--all 22--that are available under the President's policy are contaminated with mouse feeder cells, making them useless for humans. So the President's policy is not a way forward; it is, indeed, a dead-end street. It offers only false hope to the millions of people across this country who are suffering from diseases that could be potentially cured or treated through stem cell research. We need a policy that offers true, meaningful hope to these patients and their loved ones. That is why Senator Specter and I, along with Senators Hatch, Feinstein, Smith, and Kennedy, introduced a companion bill to the Castle-DeGette legislation that just passed the House. Our bill expands the number of stem cell lines that federally funded scientists can study by lifting the arbitrary eligibility date of August 9, 2001. Under our legislation, all stem cell lines would be eligible for Federal research regardless of the date they were derived, as long as they met strict ethical requirements. Since August of 2001, scientists have made great strides and great advances in deriving stem cell lines. Many of the new lines were grown without mouse feeder cells. So I ask, should not our top scientists be studying those lines that have great potential and which could be used to alleviate human suffering, instead of being limited to the 22 cell lines contaminated with mouse cells that will never be used in humans? We do not require our astronomers to explore the heavens with 19th century telescopes. We do not require our geologists to study the Earth with a tape measure. If we are serious about realizing the promise of stem cell research, our biomedical researchers need access to the best stem cell lines available. I also emphasize that none of the additional lines would require the creation of any new embryos. Instead, these lines could be derived from any of the more than 400,000 embryos that remain from fertility treatments and will otherwise be discarded. We are talking about embryos that are going to be thrown away, legally. Should we not use them instead to ease human suffering? Think about this: We have 400,000 frozen embryos left over from in vitro fertilization. When a woman who has been a donor of these eggs notifies that they are no longer wanted, that she is not going to use them--maybe she has already had a child or two and does not need these embryos--that person can give permission to discard them. Why should that person not be able to give permission to allow them to be used by our top scientists for stem cell research that could then save other lives? That is what some people are asking us to do--just throw them away, do not let them be used for research that could save human suffering and save human lives. To this Senator, that simply does not make any sense. So as I said, we have strict ethical guidelines that are set up so that they cannot be used for cloning, they cannot be used for other things; only to derive the stem cells. That is all. If there is a person who can give the authority right now to the in vitro fertilization clinic to discard them, why should that person not have the right to say, No, use those frozen embryos to derive stem cells so that someone with a spinal cord injury might walk again, so that someone with ALS can escape the death sentence, so that someone with Parkinson's can be returned to normal functioning? The House performed a great public service today. I thank both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, who stepped up and voted for this bill. By passing the Castle-DeGette bill, they have given hope to millions of suffering humans that we will indeed proceed with stem cell research that will alleviate their suffering. It is now time for the Senate to act. So together with Senator Specter, we are going to urge the majority leader to bring up the bill as soon as possible and let us have a vote in the Senate and get this bill to the President so we can move ahead with embryonic stem cell research in this country. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, do I understand the order is that when 9 o'clock comes what is in order is before the Senate right now?

Mr. HARKIN. I did not hear the unanimous consent request of my friend from Illinois.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent at the conclusion of the 30 minutes for the Senator from Colorado, the Senator from Iowa be recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Leahy, because of his time schedule, speak prior to my statement, and I still be allowed my 15 minutes and Senator Boxer still be allowed her 15 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to hear about the bipartisan agreement that preserves minority rights in the Senate, that preserves the right of the minority to extended debate, that preserves the checks and balances that our Founding Fathers prized so highly. My hope now is that after weeks of distraction, after weeks during which the majority leader threatened the nuclear option, to sort of blow up the Senate, now we hopefully can return to the people's business. I thank the 14 Senators, I guess 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans, who worked so hard to bring us back from the brink and get us away from this nuclear option that really would have destroyed the smooth functioning of the Senate. But we have been talking for weeks and weeks about this, about this nuclear option. People I have talked to have been absolutely astonished that the Senate has been distracted by these nuclear option threats. They keep asking me why haven't we been addressing the real concerns that keep Americans up at night: worrying about their jobs, their health care and their families' future. Why is the Senate spending its time on this narrow ideological agenda and ignoring the people's business? The majority leader, the Senator from Tennessee, had planned to keep the Senate up through the night tonight as a prelude to detonating this nuclear option. In anticipation of that, early yesterday, on my Senate Web site and through the news outlets, I informed the people of my State of Iowa I would be coming to the floor late this evening to share their concerns and their worries, the things that keep them up at night. The response has been overwhelming. I said that my Des Moines office and my Washington offices would be open all night, answering calls and receiving e-mails. I encouraged Iowans to keep the calls and e-mails coming all through the night and to let me know what keeps them up at night. I had planned to spend as much time as possible answering the phones myself. Since noon today, we have received over 600 e-mails and 500 phone calls. I thank all the Iowans who contacted me by e-mail or by phone. I had planned to read as many as I could tonight, during the long night that we were supposed to be here. Obviously, that is not going to happen. But we have been inundated with messages from Iowans telling us what they want the Senate to stay up all night working on. Believe me, detonating the nuclear option is not on their list. To the contrary, my fellow Iowans are deeply concerned about ``kitchen table'' issues such as health care, job security, pension security, education, increasing the minimum wage, the war in Iraq, the price of gasoline. Sherry, in Sioux City e-mailed me to make two points. One, I do not like the GOP violating the rules and violating the Founding Fathers' checks and balances; and, two, I am retiring from teaching tomorrow and I am afraid most of my students will not be in good enough jobs to afford their own health care. Plus I myself must wait 24 months for health coverage because I don't qualify for Medicare. Linda in Des Moines sent the following e-mail: Mr. Harkin, thank you for asking. I will tell you what keeps me up at night. The fear I will get sick and not be able to work. I have to work some overtime every week right now to just get by. I have not been able to accumulate a savings to fall back on. What with more health care costs my employer is putting on me, higher gas prices, higher grocery costs. I have to run as fast as I can to just barely keep up. Patricia in West Branch, IA, sent this e-mail: I work two jobs, my husband 3, to send our son to college. We all need some relief from this worry. Education, health care, the poor who do not have homes or food. So let's worry about the real issues here. Patty in Olin, IA, e-mailed me with what keeps her up at night: Two Things: Gas and College 1. Shirley in Eldridge, IA, e-mailed me with the following brief message: I am bothered about rising health costs for retirees. I am concerned about the rising cost of gasoline and the rising cost of a college education. I am concerned that my grandchildren may not have the same opportunities that I and my children had to obtain an advanced degree. This is the message that Al in Hinton, IA, sent me: Health Insurance--I am seeing many educators who want to retire, some who need to retire, however they cannot, due to the cost of health care. They have worked 30 years and must keep working until age 65. After 30 years in the classroom, an individual has earned the right to retire. Please address health care, this is the National Crisis. Sara in Anamosa, IA, shared a broad range of worries: Dear Senator Harkin: I am a teacher who is concerned that American High Schools are not given the funds needed to train our students to compete in a global economy. Sue, a librarian in Iowa City, told me: I am concerned about the rising cost of a college education. . . .I worry that the divide between those who can afford college and those who cannot is growing ever wider. I don't think our economy will be well-served by making an education an opportunity that only the wealthy can afford. Susan from Des Moines send me the following e-mail: The fear that the Social Security system is going to be changed keeps me up at night. . . . My worry is not just for myself but everyone affected by the proposed revisions in the social security system. Barbara from Mount Vernon, IA, had this to say: What keeps me up at night is how I'm going to pay my bills and still provide care for the kids. I serve at my job at Four Oaks, Inc. I'm a youth counselor at 4 Oaks serving children in a residential setting who have been abused or neglected. Some of the needs these children are the need for deep relationships with adults. With the high turnover in facilities such as mine, children go through hardship once again. Staff needs to move on to other fields where the pay will meet their day to day obligations. As a supervisor I do stay up at night worrying about the children and my own financial needs. Shannon from Garwin, Iowa, sent me this message: Dear Senator Harkin. I can easily tell you what keeps me up at night. Thank you for asking. I am a 30 year old Registered Nurse. . . . I have a very expensive health insurance plan that goes up every year. It does not cover my family, me only. My husband works as an electrician and has no insurance. Our children have health insurance that we pay for out of pocket. We have no dental. We worry constantly. Save for college? That is a joke in its self. Ron, in La Mars, IA, said: We need an aggressive program for alternative fuels. If we do not break away from foreign oil we will be bogged down in the Middle East forever. Ann, an elementary school principal in Waukon, IA, had this to say: There are many things that keep me up at night. Among these concerns are the rising meth problem in Iowa. The reduction of services to families through medicaid cuts and cuts in the department of human services. I have families who fear their foodstamps will be cut. Here is Fabian from Bellevue, IA: Collapse of the general economy in industrial and manufacturing sectors. Patrick from Sioux City, IA: We need to reform the health care and transportation systems in America. Kim of Cresco, IA: We need to be more focused on education in America than the filibuster. Here is Sandra, who e-mailed me: Dear Senator Harkin, these are the things that keep me up at night: 1. Social security--I think we just need to improve on the program that exists. I know that my husband and I and our children will not have the needed money to start our own savings account. Our children have good jobs, but there is no way they will be able to set-aside enough needed money to retire on. 2. As a health professional, I can tell you first-hand what is happening to people who cannot afford to pay health insurance and also, prescription drugs needed. I treat the results of that each day. Each month, we personally pay, out of our own pocket, nearly $2000.00 for insurance and drugs. Our drugs are for diabetes and prostate problems, something we cannot help. That is $24,0000 a year, and farming is not that profitable. Something has got to change or we will not survive! This is a comment from George: I am 62 years old. I had surgery for prostate cancer 4 years ago. Post op I can not afford $1000 month for health insurance and have not seen a doctor in 3 years for follow up procedures. I am sinking into depression (and debt) and see no way out . . . . Doris, from Wellman said: We need to raise the minimum wage. Here is Ann, another person who e-mailed me: I have families without jobs or such low-paying jobs they work several to make ends meet. Children are left unsupervised. How about increasing the minimum wage? Mr. President, this is what Iowans are telling me, in 600 plus e- mails, and over 500 phone calls today. This is what they want the Senate working on. And we spent all this time talking about a filibuster, a nuclear option: This judge, that judge. People must wonder if we have become totally dysfunctional around here, so I am hopeful that, with this agreement, we are going to see a new day. I am hopeful that the majority leader will now turn his leadership and his energy to turn the Senate to the people's business. Let's have a bill out here to raise the minimum wage and let's get an up-or-down vote on it. Let's get the Energy bill here on the floor so we can amend it and then have an up-or-down vote. Let's do something about health care. Why don't we extend the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program that all of us have--why don't we extend it to small businesses all over America so they, too, can have the same kind of health coverage that we in the Congress have? How about pension security? Let's get legislation on the floor so we do not have more United Airlines, next maybe all the other airlines, perhaps even General Motors has now said they may not be able to meet their pension guarantees. Education funding? How many times do we hear from our schools that we are not funding No Child Left Behind, that the guarantee we made almost 30 years ago now that we were going to fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act at 40 percent of the cost, now we are still at less than 20 percent? This is what the vast majority of my Iowans say we should be working on. So I hope a new day is here. I hope, with this agreement that was forged, we can leave that past behind us and that we can now bring this type of legislation to the floor. Forget about the nuclear option and get on with the people's business here in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, before I object, I could not hear the Senator.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Democratic leader, myself and, I might add, others on this side, because of the importance of the debate that is taking place on the Senate floor today, the Senate's attention ought to be turned to this and not to committee meetings, and therefore I object.