Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise to share my deepest sympathies for the people of Norway who, as my colleagues know, experienced a despicable terrorist act this past Friday, July 22. In the Senate, I represent the State of Minnesota. It is a State that has the largest number of people of Norwegian heritage outside the country of Norway itself. The influence of Norwegian culture can be found throughout our State, and the bonds between Norway and Minnesota continue to be incredibly strong to this day. That is why the shock of Friday's violence hit us so close to home. This past weekend, I joined Minnesotans and the whole world in offering our country's prayers and sympathy to the people of Norway. I attended a memorial service at the Mindekirke Norwegian Lutheran Memorial Church in Minneapolis, where hundreds of people of Norwegian heritage gathered to go to mourn their loss. It is especially heartbreaking that a mass murder such as this would take place in a country such as Norway. The world knows Norway as a country that is both peaceful and peace-seeking. After all, Norway is home to the Nobel Peace Prize, and it has offered safe haven to refugees and the politically persecuted from all around the world. It just doesn't make sense. I am a parent. My daughter is the same age as many of the young people who were at that camp. She was there with our family at the memorial service on Sunday. The kids at this camp were idealistic kids. They were teenagers. They were at the camp because of their interest in their community and in democracy. It is very hard and very painful even to think about such a cold- blooded attack and the massacre of so many innocent children. It is a kind of terrible tragedy that puts all of us to the test. It tests our resilience, our trust, and our faith. On Saturday morning, I spoke with Ambassador Strommen, Norway's Ambassador to the United States. I conveyed the deepest sympathies of the people of our State. He assured me that, even though this is a very difficult time, Norway is strong, the Norwegian people are strong, and they will make it through this time of trouble and sorrow. We will stand by them. But we will also stand against the hate that inspired this action. We are starting to get a sense, over the last 2 days, of what motivated this madman. We know now that while most of the people attacked were native Norwegians, there were also people from other countries, immigrants to Norway, new citizens there. We all need to remember that my State was originally settled by Norwegians, Swedes, Danes, and Germans, but we also remember there were other waves of immigrants who came too, including Slovenians, such as my relatives, as well as people from Poland, Russia, and most recently in Minnesota the Hmong people have a major presence, as well as people from Somalia. We must remember what made our State, our country, and Norway such vibrant places for democracy is that openness, that freedom, and it is that tolerance. I reminded my friends at the Norwegian church on Sunday morning of something President Clinton actually said after the Oklahoma City bombing, when he spoke at that memorial. He said this: Let us let our own children know that we will stand against the forces of fear. When there is talk of hatred, let us stand up and talk against it. When there is talk of violence, let us stand up and talk against it. I call on my colleagues to stand true to those words. We will continue to confront the forces of fear and hatred with that same spirit of faith, tolerance, and good will. Let us continue to stand strong in support of our allies and friends in Norway. Today, our thoughts and prayers are with them.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 more minute.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. We all know this debt isn't just going to go away. We all know we can't just close our eyes and click our heels and wish our debts away. In their report, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform wrote that ``every modest sacrifice we refuse to make today only forces far greater sacrifices of hope and opportunity upon the next generation.'' And they are right. A relatively small industry such as ethanol is willing to put two-thirds of its tax breaks on the table for deficit reduction immediately. The much larger and much more profitable oil industry can certainly afford to do the same, if not more. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I am here to talk about the recent bipartisan compromise on biofuels. I have come to the floor a number of times to talk about this country's biofuels policy. In the last month, I have worked on a bipartisan basis with Senator Feinstein of California and Senator Thune of South Dakota to develop a compromise agreement that represents a good-faith effort to improve our energy policy under very difficult economic times. At a time of bitter budget debates and entrenched positions, we worked together to find common ground and we took a step in the right direction and that is a step of reducing the debt immediately by $1.3 billion of the $2 billion remaining on the subsidy. I will add that this is a subsidy this Congress voted for just in January of this year. The biofuels industry understands this subsidy was going to end at the end of this year, but they didn't just let it whittle away toward the end every year, knowing there was waning support for it; they came to the table and said let's see if we can do something good for energy policy and for this country's fiscal position. Under this deal, the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit will expire at the end of the month, instead of the end of 2011, as scheduled. I have continued to say this debate is not about whether we end this tax credit; it is about how we do it. This compromise agreement represents a responsible and cost-effective approach to reforming our Nation's biofuels policy. First, this compromise dedicates $1.3 billion or two-thirds of the remaining ethanol subsidies in savings toward deficit reduction. It goes right into the coffers of the government to reduce the debt. At a time when our country is struggling with increasing debt and partisan bickering, the compromise represents a step forward. Two-thirds of the money goes toward the debt. What happens to the rest of the money? Normally, it would be going into that tax credit--$400 million every month--for the rest of this year. Instead, we take that existing $668 million--the other third--and use it to extend and expand support for the production of cellulosic biofuels. As the occupant of the chair knows, coming from New Hampshire, we have a lot of cellulosic biofuels in the Midwest, but it is something you can see all over the country. It is a commitment to a new generation of fuel--algae, biofuels, switchgrass, you name it. There are a lot of possibilities here when you look at what could be the next generation of cellulosic ethanol. In fact, many of the first advanced biofuels plants are expected to be retrofitted onto existing corn-based ethanol facilities, providing additional benefits to rural communities. This compromise also extends the small-producer tax credit for 1 year at a reduced rate. This tax credit benefits smaller ethanol plants, which were some of the earliest pioneers in the industry and often structured as farmer co-ops. Again, this is not new money. The money is ending, under our plan, as of July 31 for the tax credit. It simply takes one-third of the existing money and uses it in a smart way so that Congress won't have to spend any new money on very important areas, such as cellulosic biofuels. This extension helps provide small ethanol plants located in rural communities a glidepath to adjust to the elimination of the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit. Lastly, the compromise invests in the infrastructure we need to bring greater competition to the fuel market. This means extending tax credits--the existing money--to help gas stations install a variety of fuel-dispensing technologies, including ethanol, hydrogen, natural gas, and electric charging stations. So let me again repeat that this is not just about biofuels, it is about all kinds of alternative energy that competes with oil. We should encourage our homegrown fuels to compete with foreign oil, and this investment will help do just that and give consumers a real choice at the pump. I have always believed we should be investing in the farmers and workers of our country instead of the oil cartels in the Mideastern countries. The ethanol industry should be commended for coming to the table to offer over $1 billion in savings during these difficult budget discussions. I think this is most significant for some of the discussions Senator Schumer was having and we have all been having about the debt. This compromise, while it may be $1 billion instead of $1 trillion, is an example of what we can do if we are really serious about reducing our debt. It is a model for what can happen to reduce government subsidies going forward. Take for example the oil industry. Traditional ethanol is a maturing market providing only about 10 percent of America's fuel supply--10 percent of the fuel supply. We are now at the point where we are making more biofuels than we import oil from Saudi Arabia. That is pretty significant, but we are still only 10 percent with biofuels. How about oil? Well, the rest is oil. The oil industry has been a mature industry and collected subsidies for nearly 100 years. Americans have shouldered these costs for too long. The oil companies no longer need these tax breaks, and we simply can't afford them when we look at the debt we are facing. The list of the oil production tax deductions includes the domestic manufacturing tax deduction for oil production, costing $18.2 billion over 10 years; the expensing of intangible drilling, costing $12.5 billion to taxpayers over 10 years; the percentage depletion allowance, costing $11.2 billion over 10 years; and the dual-capacity rule for foreign tax credits, costing $10.8 billion to taxpayers over 10 years. The question isn't about whether the oil companies deserve the profits; it is a question about whether the American people should pay the cost of providing preferential tax treatment for the five largest oil companies in the United States, which have racked up almost $1 trillion in profits in just the past decade. That is the issue. When we are dealing with this debt, when we are dealing with a debt where middle-class families are paying multiple amounts every single year-- multiple dollars in interest on our debt--should they also be asked to foot the bill to pay for these subsidies to oil companies when these oil companies have made almost $1 trillion in profits in the past decade? That is the issue. It is a question about whether the mature oil industry should continue to receive billions in subsidies at a time when their profits are up 30 percent in the first quarter of 2011. I am not against drilling at all. I am pleased about what is going on in North Dakota, right to our west. But when I look at what is happening with this debt right now, we have to be smart, and this is clearly one place to look for savings. It is a question about whether a hugely profitable industry should continue to enjoy lucrative tax advantages at a time when our Nation can least afford it. With oil prices much higher than actual costs, the oil industry doesn't need extra money from the government. We must get serious about tackling the deficit and putting our country back on sound fiscal ground. The problem we are facing now is not only a crisis of dollars and cents, it is also a crisis of the divide and the deadlock. It is time to open the deadlock. We did it with biofuels. We came forward with a compromise with Senator Feinstein, who has spent her lifetime in the Senate fighting against ethanol. Senator Thune and I came together on a bipartisan basis and got it done. We did it--two-thirds of their immediate subsidy going to debt reduction. We know this deficit isn't going to fix itself.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the daunting fiscal challenges our country faces and the urgent need for comprehensive bipartisan action to address our Nation's debt. As we debate the path to securing our country's fiscal future, Greece is battling to keep from defaulting on its bonds. It is in the news. There are legitimate concerns that a default in Greece would send shock waves through the world financial markets, with an impact potentially as devastating as the 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers. To avert bankruptcy, Greece has enacted austerity measures so drastic that violent rioting has broken out in its streets. Despite these measures, and despite the aid of other European countries, many economists believe Greece will eventually succumb to its rising debt burden and default. Standard & Poors warned Monday that even with the planned bailout by European banks, Greece's credit rating could be still downgraded to ``selective default.'' While better than a full- blown default, this will almost certainly roil the markets and cut off Greece's access to credit. Alarmingly, Standard & Poor's gave a similar warning to the United States last week. In a statement to Reuters, Standard & Poors said it would drop the United States triple A rating to ``selective default'' if the Treasury Department misses its repayment on $30 billion in maturing bills on August 4. Although our long-term fiscal challenges are serious, they are not what caused Standard & Poor's to issue this warning at this very moment. Instead, what caused the warning was a growing concern that the Congress would fail to come together to pass a bipartisan deal on the debt ceiling--something Congress has done without incident almost 100 times since the limit was established. We must get serious about tackling the deficit and putting our country back on sound fiscal ground. But the problem we are facing now is not only a crisis of the dollars and the cents, it is also a crisis of the divide and the deadlock. We know what we need to do in order to avoid default and bring down the deficit. We have all the tools and information necessary to do it and avoid a situation such as we are seeing in Greece. Yet instead of working together to craft a fair and responsible path forward, some have chosen to draw lines in the sand and take the debt limit--and our Nation's economy--hostage. Addressing our country's fiscal challenges is something I have taken seriously. Since coming to the Senate, I have worked to reform the way Congress conducts its own business--reducing the budget of Congress, fighting for appropriations project reform, and working to restore the pay-as-you-go rule. I was one of a handful of Senators who fought for the creation of the fiscal commission, and I have supported efforts from both Republicans and Democrats to responsibly reduce the deficit. While I believe we have reached a defining moment as a country which should not be wasted, I also know we can't afford to play Russian roulette with our economy. What our country needs is for Congress to come together and build consensus around a comprehensive long-term deficit reduction package that will put us on the track to prosperity. Ever since the economic downturn, families across the country have huddled around the kitchen table, making tough choices about what they hold most dear and what they can learn to live without. They expect and deserve their leaders to do the same. The American people are counting on us to put politics aside, pull together, not pull apart, and agree on a plan to live within our means and make America strong for the long haul. If we are going to succeed in this challenge, we will ultimately have to accept things that we don't necessarily agree with. It is the only way to develop a plan that is both balanced and comprehensive. We already know much of what will need to be done. Our failure to act has not been because we lack solutions, but because too often Congress has lacked the political will to get behind a consensus proposal. After months of debate, it is clear what sort of plan is needed to garner the support necessary to get us across the finish line. First, a solution should match the scale of the problem. I want to see one that produces around $4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade. Second, it should include a mix of revenue with realistic spending cuts. One example we are seeing right now is biofuels. The biofuels industry has been willing to put a big chunk of change on the table, right in the middle of the year, as we are working with Senators Thune and Feinstein on an agreement in which it would be a template, where one industry says, OK, we understand that we have a big problem, and we are willing to put money upfront for the debt. We are willing to look at what we need to do in the long term to have a secure energy policy, but also help with the debt and end this subsidy. We want to see oil do the same thing. We want to see a lot of these loopholes closed, a lot of these subsidies end, and do it in a smart way. The budget Senator Conrad has been working on with the Budget Committee is an example of a mix of those revenues and spending cuts. That is what we have to look at. Third, we must be able to achieve bipartisan support with a proposal, which is why I continue to support the work that has been done by the Gang of 6. It is time we get serious about advancing a plan that is both fair and achievable. On August 2, the borrowing authority of the United States will be exhausted. No one benefits if we are unable to reach an agreement by this deadline. Every day that passes without a deal only increases uncertainty in the markets and puts the brakes on economic activity. Failure to bring the national debt under control threatens America's future, but the danger of default threatens our economy today. The way I see it, we have two options. We can either set a precedent of holding our debt hostage to political maneuvering, raising the cost of borrowing and increasing the deficit, or we can show the world that we are serious about addressing our fiscal challenges, reducing the cost of borrowing and strengthening our financial outlook. I believe the choice is clear. The sooner we can agree on a long-term package, the better for our economy and our country. I hope we can put partisan differences aside to work on an agenda that strengthens our economy, promotes fiscal responsibility, and increases global competitiveness, because if we refuse to have an honest conversation about this, if we insist on using the debate as a vehicle for rhetoric only, we will not just be doing ourselves a disservice, we will be cheating our children and grandchildren out of knowing the America we grew up in. The deficit isn't going to fix itself. We all know that. We all know we can't close our eyes, click our heels, and wish the debt would go away. In their report, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility wrote that ``every modest sacrifice we refuse to make today only forces far greater sacrifices of hope and opportunity upon the next generation.'' They are right. The longer we wait, the more wrenching the choices become. Look at Greece. Who will be making those painful choices? Our children and our children's children. None of us wants to see interest rates soar by playing Russian roulette with our economy. Democrats don't want it, Republicans don't want it. So what are we waiting for? It is time for Congress to step forward and show some leadership. It is time for us to work together to show the American people that Washington isn't broken, and that instead we are willing to put aside politics to do what we were elected to do-- to do what is right for America. This is our challenge, and it will be a hard challenge to meet. But I am confident we can come together to make these tough choices, to do what is right for our economy, and to renew the American promise of progress and opportunity for generations to come. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I honor and pay tribute to a true leader from my home state of Minnesota, William A. Hawkins. Bill most recently retired with distinction as the chairman and CEO of Medtronic, the world's leading medical technology company. He is an individual whose life personifies the Medtronic Mission Statement. The Medtronic mission, in part, states, ``To contribute to human welfare by application of biomedical engineering in the research, design, manufacture, and sale of instruments or appliances that alleviate pain, restore health, and extend life.'' Not every CEO gets the privilege to lead a company that makes lifesaving products, but for Bill the Medtronic mission is very personal and is a source of encouragement for his distinguished career. Several members of his own family received medical technology products developed and manufactured by the very company he has led. In 2008 when he was made chairman, he recalled the personal feeling he experienced during an assembly for employees. Included in the audience were the family members who had received coronary stents, a heart valve and a pacemaker, and a deep brain stimulator to control tremors caused by a World War II injury. I have most especially appreciated Bill Hawkins in my role as chair of the Subcommittee on Competitiveness, Innovation, and Export Promotion, where my focus has been creating an innovation agenda that can help grow our economy and create jobs in America. Bill has a true passion for advancing innovation to make the world healthier and has been a major influence on all of Medtronic's innovation-related policies. I could not have asked for a more inspired or committed partner with which to work during the last few years. Bill has nearly 35 years of career experience in the medical device industry, serving in leadership positions at Novoste Corporation, American Home Products, Johnson & Johnson, Guidant Corporation, and Eli Lilly. He began his medical technology career with Carolina Medical Electronics in 1977. He joined Medtronic in 2002 as senior vice president and president of the company's vascular business before serving as corporate president and chief operating officer. Bill Hawkins was named chief executive officer of Medtronic in 2007 and assumed the additional role of chairman in 2008. Under his guidance, Medtronic's capacity to serve patients extended further to provide an array of diagnostic, preventive, and chronic disease management solutions. During his decade of service and leadership, the company launched many important new technologies, made major investments in quality and innovation, and successfully navigated through an increasingly challenging environment. I have been pleased to work with Bill on health care and FDA reform and a host of matters that have ensured improved patient access to advanced medical technology. In March of 2010 Bill received the Biomedical Engineering Society's Distinguished Achievement Award. This award is given to recognize those who have made great contributions to the field of biomedical engineering/bioengineering. Bill serves on the board of visitors for the Duke University School of Engineering and the board of directors for the Guthrie Theater and the University of Minnesota Foundation. I know that my colleagues join me, his friends, family, and colleagues in commending Bill Hawkins on his numerous accomplishments and wishing him well as he begins a new phase of his career. Congratulations, Bill Hawkins.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I see I am joined by the Senator from Iowa, who I know will speak shortly and has been a leader in biofuels and energy for many years. I rise to speak about the votes we will have later today on the amendments that would immediately cut off support for our homegrown energy industry with I guess a few days' notice. I did not think there was precedent for this decision. If this were to ultimately pass--I am not certain this is the vehicle that would allow it to go into law, but if it were to pass, we would have made a decision that is different from the decision in January affecting an industry that employs nearly 500,000 people. I wish to talk about the amendment offered by my friend, the Senator from California. And I would hope, I would say first, that if we were voting twice on an amendment in just a few days, it would be something that creates jobs or decreases our dependence on foreign oil, but that is not the case here. We are talking about pulling the rug out from an industry that provides 10 percent of the Nation's fuel supply and supports nearly 500,000 jobs. I don't think people quite understand that about biofuels. I think they think it is some boutique industry. Madam President, 10 percent of our Nation's fuel supply at a time when gas is up near $4 a gallon. We know there is support for phasing out the current ethanol tax credits. I have a bill to do that. Senator Grassley has another bill to do that. We understand that at a time when our country is facing severe budget constraints. But the question is not if we should do it--we will--it is when and how. We all know homegrown energy has played an important part in reducing our dependence on foreign oil and supported thousands of jobs. We also know that as we continue to move our Nation toward energy independence--by the way, we actually are moving up in terms of our own energy independence, which is a goal that I believe every Member strongly supports, and that is that homegrown energy will be a significant part of our solution. We need a glidepath and not a cliff for the only alternative to oil. Immediately ending all support for the biofuels industry, as the amendments we are considering propose to do, would stifle investment in not only the existing ethanol industry but also the newly developed cellulosic--yes, that is part of this--cellulosic, algae, and the next generation of biofuels, which I think holds the most hope for this country. In fact, many of the first advanced biofuel plants are co- located with corn ethanol plants. You cannot promote next-generation fuels by ending a tax policy for existing biofuels 6 months into a 1- year extension with only a few days' notice. Again, the real debate is not about whether we end this tax credit-- we know we should do it, and I believe we should do it with oil, too, but right now we are on biofuels--it is about how we do it. That is why the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune, and I continue to work toward the bipartisan compromise to reduce our deficit and offer a reasonable way to reform the biofuels industry and achieve significant deficit savings immediately. And I appreciate our colleagues talking to us. We have had many meetings, and we are working very hard to get this done. We need to work toward a pragmatic solution that reforms the ethanol industry without harming jobs or driving up gas prices at a time when gas is over $3.70 a gallon. An article in the Chicago Tribune underscored the fact that if we cease to produce the 13 billion gallons of ethanol we make every year, it will drive up prices at the pump by as much as $1.40 per gallon in the short term. Does the Senate actually think we can afford to raise gas prices by $1.40? Do my colleagues think we can afford $5-per-gallon gas? I look forward to working with my colleagues on a more responsible option that will reduce the deficit and not suddenly disrupt an industry that supports $3 billion in economic activity in my State alone. I also wish to say a few words in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend from Arizona, Senator McCain. Our current policies provide incentives for many different kinds of fuel-dispensing technologies-- from hydrogen to natural gas, to electric hookups, to ethanol--but the McCain amendment singles out only biofuel blender pumps and proposes to cut all incentives for investment in these pumps at a time when we need to be expanding our fuel supply options, not limiting them to oil from Saudi Arabia. We should be investing in the farmers and workers of the Midwest and not the oil cartels of the Mideast. What the McCain amendment does is focus on limiting those blender fuel pumps. Blender pumps do not require customers to use ethanol. That is why they are blender pumps. They give consumers a choice at the pump and help lower gas prices for all consumers, even those who do not use the higher blends of ethanol. From 2000 to 2010, competition from ethanol reduced wholesale gasoline prices by an average of 25 cents per gallon, saving American consumers an average of $34.5 billion annually. During the gasoline price runup in 2010, the impact of ethanol and gasoline prices was substantially larger, reducing gasoline prices by a national average of 89 cents per gallon. Giving consumers a choice of using higher blends of renewable fuel has allowed the country of Brazil to become energy independent, and we can do the same here. The McCain amendment would also do more than limit consumers' options at the pump. I know North Carolina is a good military State. This would prohibit the U.S. military from constructing blender pumps or storage tanks that can use more fuels that would be more resilient in case of a fuel supply cutoff from OPEC or other disruptions in the global fuel supply. Our dependence on foreign oil has been widely recognized by our military and diplomatic leaders as a major strategic vulnerability. To respond to this, we have taken important steps in recent years to encourage U.S. Government and military fleet vehicles to be fuel flexible as part of our efforts to reduce both our spending on fuel and our dependence on foreign oil. Shouldn't we allow our homegrown ethanol to compete with foreign oil to fuel these vehicles? I urge my colleagues to oppose the McCain amendment. At a time when families and businesses across the Nation are battling high fuel costs, we should be giving them more options at the pump, not less. Today's votes on the Feinstein amendment and the McCain amendment are part of a process. We all know it is not the final result. While I strongly oppose both amendments, I also know that regardless of the outcome today or even the outcome of that vote 2 days ago, we still have work to do. I appreciate the willingness of the Senator from California and the Senator from Oklahoma to continue to negotiate with Senator Thune and myself. These are serious ongoing negotiations. I am hopeful that in the coming days we can reach a bipartisan compromise. It is not just about one amendment on a bill that is not the vehicle where we can get this done, but, in fact, we actually have a bipartisan compromise that balances our need to continue to support homegrown biofuels with our need to reduce our deficit and to do this in a way that actually puts money right now back to our government to pay off this debt. I see Senator Grassley, who knows a little bit about finances with his major role on the Finance Committee, and also, as a farmer, a little bit about the biofuels industry. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am speaking on this amendment. I oppose the amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same. There is going to be a change with biofuels in this country. We are going to see a phasing out of the support for biofuels in terms of Federal policy. But the time to do it is not in the middle of the year after 7 years of Federal support with 5 days' notice. Senator Thune and I have an alternative bill that actually takes the rest of the year, the last 6 months of this year, the funding, and puts $1 billion into deficit reduction, and then allows the industry to keep its footing so it can actually compete with oil. I would remind my colleagues that this is now 10 percent of our fuel supply. There have been studies done that show the price of gasoline would escalate up to $1 more a gallon if the rug were suddenly pulled out from under this industry. It is the only competition with oil. So while this industry, unlike the oil industry, has acknowledged that there is change ahead and that they are willing to be part of this change and actually put money on the table, the time to do it is not now on an unrelated bill with no discussion of a comprehensive energy plan for this country. I know Senator Thune would like to talk about his opposition to this amendment.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, again, we just hope our colleagues will look at this bill. It is a serious bill and very different than other bills that have been proposed in the past, and it actually takes existing money that was set out for the end of this year and puts a big number--$1 billion--into debt reduction.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, if I may continue, I thank Senator Thune for his work. One point I think he made that is incredibly important: I think not all of our colleagues understand that the way it is under the current rules is VEETC, which has been in place to make sure we have an alternative to oil in this country, ends at the end of this year. The one piece of it that continues for another year is the cellulosic research, the cellulosic credit. But the rest of it ends at the end of this year. So instead of looking at a glidepath, as suggested in our bill, where we could take $1 billion and put it into deficit reduction, and take another $1 billion or so--which would be going right now as a credit-- and put that into the infrastructure, the alternative that is suggested by the amendment offered by our colleague from Oklahoma is just to cut it off today, basically, with a few days' notice. What I have heard time and time again from businesses--whether it is in the energy area or in the medical device area--is they want certainty. They do not want Washington just coming in with one day's notice and changing things. That is why I ask my colleagues to look at this bill as an alternative. We are glad to discuss details with them. One of the things we have tried to do with this bill is to acknowledge the emerging field of cellulosic with algae and other forms of research into biofuels. That would continue into next year. But, basically, the proposal Senator Thune and I have put forward would end VEETC as we know it. We look at the comparisons here. Over the last few decades more than $360 billion worth of subsidies have gone to the oil companies. That is nearly 10 times greater than the investments we have made in home-grown biofuels. Now they are set up in a different way, but those are the numbers. We have to remember the jobs with biofuels are jobs that are made in America. We are basically investing in the farmers and the workers of the Midwest instead of the oil cartels in the Mideast. I have seen the boom in oil drilling in North Dakota. That has been a good thing. So I am not just a one-size fuel person. But I think to disrupt an industry like this, with no notice, is the wrong way to go. I hope our colleagues will look at our bill seriously, talk to us about this, think about the gas prices which have now topped $3.75 per gallon. While they are high now, look at the fact that the Chicago Tribune looked at the fact that if we ceased to produce the 13 billion gallons of ethanol we make every year, as Senator Thune has pointed out, it would drive up prices at the pump by as much as $1.40 per gallon. I do not think that is something we can afford right now. We have put together a good-faith proposal that basically even those who have a lot of questions about biofuels right now, about ethanol, will have to admit is a dramatic change. It ends VEETC as we know it. It puts a big chunk of change, $1 billion--that otherwise would be going to subsidies this year, right now--toward deficit reduction while still allowing for that infrastructure investment, and then looking into next year for just some of the key pieces but severely changing any kind of subsidy for this industry. So with that, I thank Senator Thune. I do not know if the Senator has something else to add.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I first wish to thank my colleague from Minnesota who spoke before me for his strong words. Also, I am here with the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune, to speak about the legislation we are introducing today, along with several other Senators, to find a good way to handle this--not the way it thus far has been handled. My colleague from Minnesota talked about Senator Coburn's amendment, which we will be voting on tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. First of all, I believe we need to invest in homegrown energy. The Coburn amendment would abruptly eliminate the VEETC--the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit--without any kind of a glidepath during this year. Consequently, the 450,000 people who are directly or indirectly employed in this industry--when we think about all of the jobs we work on every single day, just because jobs are in States that maybe some people don't live in, including North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa, these are very important jobs throughout the country. The other piece of this I think we can't neglect is the effect this would have on gas prices. That being said, both Senator Thune and I understand this is a situation that needs to change. We are in a difficult budget situation in the Senate, and that is why we are introducing legislation today and working with stakeholders and Members from both sides of the aisle to find a reasonable solution that offers a responsible and cost-effective approach to reforming our biofuels policy. This bill would transition to a more sustainable model of support for renewable fuel production in America instead of pulling the rug out from under an industry, with 4 days' notice, that employs hundreds of thousands of people in this country, as well as provides an alternative to oil. Senator Thune is here, and maybe he wishes to address this a bit. We will go back and forth. But I think one thing people need to understand is that this biofuels industry has become a major component of our fuel supply. One statistic is that the gasoline that is made from the oil we import from Canada-- people know Canada is our biggest trading partner for oil. We literally produce as much biofuels as we produce gas from the oil we import from Canada, so it is a major part of our fuel supply. So we shouldn't just decide with 4 days' notice to change the rules of the game. In fact, as a recent vote showed us, oil is keeping every single cent of its subsidy. Senator Thune and I have a bill which basically gives away the subsidies for the rest of the year that the biofuels industry has and puts $1 billion toward deficit reduction--$1 billion toward deficit reduction--as well as making some investment with the remaining money in the infrastructure that this industry needs to be able to compete on any kind of an even playing field with oil. So I know Senator Thune has some thoughts on this as well, and I would like to come back and talk a little bit about what has been going on with oil versus ethanol in this country. But I think it is important to understand the bill we are introducing today could be a major help with $1 billion in deficit reduction.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, if I may continue, I thank Senator Thune for his work. One point I think he made that is incredibly important: I think not all of our colleagues understand that the way it is under the current rules is VEETC, which has been in place to make sure we have an alternative to oil in this country, ends at the end of this year. The one piece of it that continues for another year is the cellulosic research, the cellulosic credit. But the rest of it ends at the end of this year. So instead of looking at a glidepath, as suggested in our bill, where we could take $1 billion and put it into deficit reduction, and take another $1 billion or so--which would be going right now as a credit-- and put that into the infrastructure, the alternative that is suggested by the amendment offered by our colleague from Oklahoma is just to cut it off today, basically, with a few days' notice. What I have heard time and time again from businesses--whether it is in the energy area or in the medical device area--is they want certainty. They do not want Washington just coming in with one day's notice and changing things. That is why I ask my colleagues to look at this bill as an alternative. We are glad to discuss details with them. One of the things we have tried to do with this bill is to acknowledge the emerging field of cellulosic with algae and other forms of research into biofuels. That would continue into next year. But, basically, the proposal Senator Thune and I have put forward would end VEETC as we know it. We look at the comparisons here. Over the last few decades more than $360 billion worth of subsidies have gone to the oil companies. That is nearly 10 times greater than the investments we have made in home-grown biofuels. Now they are set up in a different way, but those are the numbers. We have to remember the jobs with biofuels are jobs that are made in America. We are basically investing in the farmers and the workers of the Midwest instead of the oil cartels in the Mideast. I have seen the boom in oil drilling in North Dakota. That has been a good thing. So I am not just a one-size fuel person. But I think to disrupt an industry like this, with no notice, is the wrong way to go. I hope our colleagues will look at our bill seriously, talk to us about this, think about the gas prices which have now topped $3.75 per gallon. While they are high now, look at the fact that the Chicago Tribune looked at the fact that if we ceased to produce the 13 billion gallons of ethanol we make every year, as Senator Thune has pointed out, it would drive up prices at the pump by as much as $1.40 per gallon. I do not think that is something we can afford right now. We have put together a good-faith proposal that basically even those who have a lot of questions about biofuels right now, about ethanol, will have to admit is a dramatic change. It ends VEETC as we know it. It puts a big chunk of change, $1 billion--that otherwise would be going to subsidies this year, right now--toward deficit reduction while still allowing for that infrastructure investment, and then looking into next year for just some of the key pieces but severely changing any kind of subsidy for this industry. So with that, I thank Senator Thune. I do not know if the Senator has something else to add.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, again, we just hope our colleagues will look at this bill. It is a serious bill and very different than other bills that have been proposed in the past, and it actually takes existing money that was set out for the end of this year and puts a big number--$1 billion--into debt reduction.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I first wish to thank my colleague from Minnesota who spoke before me for his strong words. Also, I am here with the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune, to speak about the legislation we are introducing today, along with several other Senators, to find a good way to handle this--not the way it thus far has been handled. My colleague from Minnesota talked about Senator Coburn's amendment, which we will be voting on tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. First of all, I believe we need to invest in homegrown energy. The Coburn amendment would abruptly eliminate the VEETC--the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit--without any kind of a glidepath during this year. Consequently, the 450,000 people who are directly or indirectly employed in this industry--when we think about all of the jobs we work on every single day, just because jobs are in States that maybe some people don't live in, including North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa, these are very important jobs throughout the country. The other piece of this I think we can't neglect is the effect this would have on gas prices. That being said, both Senator Thune and I understand this is a situation that needs to change. We are in a difficult budget situation in the Senate, and that is why we are introducing legislation today and working with stakeholders and Members from both sides of the aisle to find a reasonable solution that offers a responsible and cost-effective approach to reforming our biofuels policy. This bill would transition to a more sustainable model of support for renewable fuel production in America instead of pulling the rug out from under an industry, with 4 days' notice, that employs hundreds of thousands of people in this country, as well as provides an alternative to oil. Senator Thune is here, and maybe he wishes to address this a bit. We will go back and forth. But I think one thing people need to understand is that this biofuels industry has become a major component of our fuel supply. One statistic is that the gasoline that is made from the oil we import from Canada-- people know Canada is our biggest trading partner for oil. We literally produce as much biofuels as we produce gas from the oil we import from Canada, so it is a major part of our fuel supply. So we shouldn't just decide with 4 days' notice to change the rules of the game. In fact, as a recent vote showed us, oil is keeping every single cent of its subsidy. Senator Thune and I have a bill which basically gives away the subsidies for the rest of the year that the biofuels industry has and puts $1 billion toward deficit reduction--$1 billion toward deficit reduction--as well as making some investment with the remaining money in the infrastructure that this industry needs to be able to compete on any kind of an even playing field with oil. So I know Senator Thune has some thoughts on this as well, and I would like to come back and talk a little bit about what has been going on with oil versus ethanol in this country. But I think it is important to understand the bill we are introducing today could be a major help with $1 billion in deficit reduction.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Ms. Klobuchar and Mr. Thune pertaining to the introduction of S. 1185 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Veterans' Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 4 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask unanimous consent that the Murray amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the concurrent resolution, as amended, be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 56, H.R. 754.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to S. Res. 203, submitted earlier today.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 49, 97, 106, 107, 111, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168; and nominations placed on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Foreign Service, Marine Corps, Navy, and Public Health Service, with the exception of: Kenia P. Altamirano, Rebecca M. Kibel, Timothy N. Onserio, Justin R. Plott, Brandy Torres; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I understand that S. 1125, introduced earlier today by Senator Leahy, is at the desk. I ask for its first reading.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements be printed in the Record.