John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I honor Art Dawson of Rapid City, SD, for receiving the President's Volunteer Service Award for volunteering 4,000 hours to his community and to the Nation over the course of his lifetime. Art Dawson's outstanding service for others began in 1950 when he joined the U.S. Army. After 30 dedicated years in the military, Art retired as a lieutenant colonel in medical administration, but his desire to serve others continued. Following his retirement Art worked in the veteran's administration in California and volunteered for 7 years with the Red Cross. Art moved to Rapid City, SD, in 1996 and immediately became an active and valuable member of the Rapid City Community. Since Art moved to the Rapid City area, he has volunteered himself to countless organizations including the Humane Society, the Pennington County Sheriff's Department, CASA, and the Meals Program. His selfless devotion and faithful service to others and to his community is truly commendable. It gives me great pleasure to congratulate Art Dawson for receiving this honorable award, and thank him for all his years of service to South Dakota and our Nation.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Whitewood Elementary School for being named a 2008 No Child Left Behind-Blue Ribbon School. The commitment to quality education that has been shown by the faculty, teachers and students at Whitewood Elementary School is truly invaluable in shaping the future leaders of this country. The work that they are doing to meet higher achievement standards and greater accountability serves as a model to other schools throughout our State and Nation. Again, congratulations to Whitewood Elementary School for being named a blue ribbon school and for making South Dakota proud.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Armour Elementary School for being named a 2008 No Child Left Behind-Blue Ribbon School. The commitment to quality education that has been shown by the faculty, teachers and students at Armour Elementary School is truly invaluable in shaping the future leaders of this country. The work that they are doing to meet higher achievement standards and greater accountability serves as a model to other schools throughout our State and Nation. Again, congratulations to Armour Elementary School for being named a blue ribbon school and for making South Dakota proud.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize the 85th birthday of Jack van der Geest of Rapid City, SD. A native of the Netherlands and author of ``Was God on Vacation?'', Jack's life story is a heroic depiction of courage and the willingness to act against the evils that threaten our world and our freedoms. Born in the Netherlands in 1923, Jack's younger years witnessed the horrifying and devastating effect of Nazi Germany in Europe. Jack endured many trials and tribulations after the Nazis invaded his homeland in 1940; however, none of them would prove to break Jack's spirit of perseverance. After his capture, Jack's resilience served him well as he became one of only eight prisoners to escape from the Buchenwald concentration camp. Following Jack's escape from terror in the heart of Nazi Germany, he further pledged his services to fight the Nazi occupation throughout Europe. Jack joined the French Underground and helped Allied paratroopers escape capture in Vichy, France. Soon after, Jack arrived in England where he became an interpreter for the storied 101st Airborne. Jack eventually immigrated to America and became a United States citizen in 1953. In 1995, Jack authored the book ``Was God on Vacation?'', an autobiography of his life during World War II. This astonishing work gives an in-depth account of Jack's struggles and endeavors from 1940- 1947. Jack's testimony truly shines a light on the persecution and challenges many Europeans endured during World War II and how some fought dearly to repel the Nazi aggressors. The story of Jack van der Geest reminds us to never take for granted the freedoms that so many have fought for in our armed services and around the world. I would like to send my heartfelt congratulations to Jack on his 85th birthday and thank him for telling his story and allowing us all to never forget how fortunate we are to be free.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to amendment No. 5413. I hope at some point to be able to call up that amendment and perhaps have it either included as part of the managers' package or have it debated and voted upon. Let me explain a little bit about the history of this and why I think this is so important to our Nation's military. The Defense Department authorization bill we have before us is a critical piece of legislation that we need as a Congress to deal with before Congress adjourns. We have done that for the past 42 years. It sets the policy and the framework and funding for matters that are important to our men and women in uniform and important to making America safe and secure as we head into the future. I believe this amendment fits right in with that overall objective. The amendment to which I speak today will advance innovative Air Force programs that are already positively affecting the critically important and complex issue of energy policy. As I said, that is a national security issue as well. Furthermore, this amendment will expand these valuable programs to other Department of Defense services. As we all know, the issue of fuel prices has significant implications not only for our economic security, but also for our military. In fact, the Department of Defense is the largest single consumer of fuel in the United States. Consider this: In the last 4 years, the Air Force fuel bill has tripled. Furthermore, the Air Force spent over $6 billion buying energy last year, even though they used 10 percent less than the year before. This is a substantial sum, and I can almost guarantee it will cost the Air Force more next year to buy the same amount of energy. As the lead paragraph in an article headlined ``Worries of Rising Fuel Costs Extend to DoD's Budget'' published in Defense News on May 19, 2008, noted: The skyrocketing cost of fuel isn't just hitting U.S. drivers in the pocketbook--it's blowing a bit of a hole in the Pentagon's budget as well. I ask unanimous consent that the entirety of this Defense News article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

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

Mr. THUNE. We are at a moment in our history when we must move toward more secure, domestic energy sources. One need look no further than the embargos of the 1970s or the recent oil price spikes or the Russian-Georgian conflict to see the negative implications of relying on foreign sources for the preponderance of our energy needs. Additionally, continuing to fund unfriendly foreign regimes grows increasingly untenable by the day, and we should look to produce lower cost domestic alternatives that stop this capital flight. It is well past time that we further the development of these lower cost domestic alternatives through responsible public policy. Given this context, I am proud to report that the U.S. Air Force has already become a model for Government leadership in these areas. We should now expand these Air Force programs to the other Department of Defense services, as these valuable programs will undoubtedly pave the way for increased public-private cooperation. One example of Air Force leadership in this area is evident in existing programs to find alternatives to increasingly expensive aviation fuel. Not only has the Air Force already flight tested the B- 52, B-1, C-17, KC-135, F-15, and F-22s on a 50 percent synthetic fuel blend, it has plans to certify its entire inventory on this synthetic fuel blend by 2011. Moreover, the Air Force is dedicated to procuring at least half of its fuel needs from environmentally friendly, domesticaly produced, synthetic fuel blends by 2016. We should now call for the other services to do the same. We should seek to understand how the Department of the Army and the Department of the Navy can also use these fuels and how the buying power of the entire Department of Defense can achieve efficiencies and decreased costs due to large economies of scale. Because they are the largest user of fuel in the Department of Defense, this amendment specifies that the Air Force continue to be on the leading edge in finding lower cost, domestically produced alternatives to conventional aviation fuels. The amendment dictates that the Air Force continue to certify its entire fleet on a synthetic fuel blend and to press forward in its efforts to acquire half of its domestic fuel requirement by 2016 from a domestically sourced alternative fuel blend. To protect the American taxpayer, it is important to note this acquisition would only occur if the price is less than or equal to the market prices for petroleum based fuels. To protect the environment, the amendment specifies the fuel is ``greener'' than conventional petroleum based fuels. On this second point, it is important to note there has been recent uncertainty over section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The intent of this amendment is that the lifecycle emissions of these fuels will be lower than pending Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency baselines for conventional petroleum fuels. A binding authorization for the Air Force to acquire this fuel will have a dramatic effect on the domestic aviation and fuels industries. With the Air Force and the other services of the Department of Defense leading the way, it is likely commercial airlines and fuel producers will see the increasing viability of these fuels and wish to build on these efforts. To further civil-military cooperation, the amendment also encourages the services to partner with the commercial aviation industry to engage in further research and development. To encourage feedstock diversity, the language in the amendment is not specific regarding fuel source, and producers could use anything from cellulosic ethanol to biodiesel. Ultimately, this amendment positively impacts energy policies in this country at no additional cost to the American taxpayer. Simply put, if the alternative fuels cost more than conventional fuels, the Department of Defense doesn't have to buy them. In actuality, it is likely to actually lower the cost of these fuels by inducing market based competition among synthetic fuel producers. Some may argue this amendment is a Government giveaway program or that it is specially tailored to benefit a specific industry. This is simply not true. This amendment does not specify a specific feedstock from which to make fuels, nor does it offer loan guarantees or tax incentives to any specific industry. We are at the beginning of a long energy crisis which is already one of the defining issues of our time. If Government agencies are going to be part of the solution, we need sound, responsible public policy that allows them to partner with industry and solve these important problems. This amendment is exactly this type of policy. I hope my colleagues will support it. I hope, before we complete action on the Defense authorization bill, that we will have an opportunity to call up some of these amendments, to have them debated, have them voted on or, at a minimum, to have them accepted as part of a managers' package. But, in one way or another, I hope this very important issue of energy security can be addressed in the Defense authorization bill through the acquisition of fuels our services use to supply their energy needs and addressed in a way that not only helps America's energy security with regard to lessening this addiction we have to foreign sources of energy, but I also believe it will make our country safer because I think this is a national security issue that forces us to rely upon countries around the world that are hostile to our interests. I believe that becoming energy independent means we have to lead by example. Our Air Force has stepped up to that challenge. I hope the other services will follow. As I said before, this amendment does not require any particular feedstock. It is neutral with regard to the whole issue of whether that comes from cellulosic or whether that comes from biodiesel or whether that comes from coal to liquids. At the end of the day, we need to adopt this amendment. It will be a savings to our military services and a savings to the taxpayer. As I said before, there is a requirement in this amendment that, whatever that source is, it be greener than petroleum-based fuels used today. It has already been tested on a number of aircraft. The Air Force intends to move in the year 2016 to 50 percent, and I hope the other services will follow. This amendment will see that happens. I hope my colleagues will adopt it. Exhibit 1 [From Defense News, May 19, 2008] Worries of Rising Fuel Costs Extend to DoD's Budget (By William H. McMichael and Rick Maze) The skyrocketing cost of fuel isn't just hitting U.S. drivers in the pocketbook--it's blowing a bit of a hole in the Pentagon's budget as well. DoD officials have asked Congress to appropriate another $3.69 billion for all fuels--an increase of $2.2 billion from their initial request--according to a revised request for supplemental war funding for fiscal 2009, submitted May 2. That, of course, looks far ahead and could still prove to be inadequate. According to Pentagon budget documents, the request would support a crude oil price of $97.19 per barrel--and also assumes the military's overall fuel costs will drop by 4.8 percent. The current world price, however, has climbed to and is hovering around $120 per barrel, and many analysts think rising global demand and other factors will keep prices high. And 2009 isn't the only concern; the Pentagon needs more money for fuel to cover the remaining five months of this fiscal year. This would come by way of the $108 billion war supplemental appropriation request, which has yet to be approved. The Pentagon has asked for a total of $1.9 billion for fuel, an increase of $281.4 million over its original supplemental request. All told, that's an additional $2.48 billion on top of the amounts included in the Pentagon's 2008 and 2009 base budgets--and Defense officials already acknowledge the 2009 supplemental request won't cover that entire fiscal year. That would buy the Air Force another 19 F-22 fighters, or the Marine Corps 36 MV-22 Ospreys. In the seven months ending in March, the Pentagon's average monthly cost for its most-used jet fuel, JP-8, rose 34 percent, from $2.34 to $3.13 per gallon, according to the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). The cost of JP-5, used primarily by Navy jets operating from the sea, increased from $2.22 to $2.94 per gallon. Regular gasoline jumped from $2 to $2.79 per gallon, or 40 percent, over the same period. Only diesel fuel's rise was negligible, increasing just 5 cents per gallon. The Pentagon's prices normally do not fluctuate much because DLA's Defense Energy Support Center (DESC) buys in bulk and sells fuel to the individual services at a ``standard price'' based on market projections for the ensuing year, according to DLA spokesman Jack Hooper. In September 2007, for example, DESC set the standard price of JP-8 at $2.31 per gallon. In a less volatile market, that price might have been good for the next 12 months. But the market forced a change and in December, DESC raised its price for JP-8 to $3.04 per gallon. The House Armed Services subcommittee on readiness approved legislation May 8 to require the secretary of Defense ``to consider the full burdened cost of fuel and energy efficiency in the requirements development and acquisition process,'' said Rep. Randy Forbes of Virginia, the panel's ranking Republican.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I honor the Winner School District for being awarded the 2008 Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award. This award is the highest recognition given by the U.S. Government to employers for their outstanding support of their employees who serve in the National Guard and Reserve. The Winner School District is one of only 15 employers nationwide to be honored with this prestigious award. The support, encouragement, and flexibility that they provide to their employees who are called to serve their country in the South Dakota National Guard illustrates their deservedness for this high honor. The Winner School District serves as a fine example of South Dakotans coming together to support the cause of freedom around the world. The Winner School District goes the extra mile to accommodate our servicemen and women and thus ensure a safer, more secure America. Today, I rise with the entire State of South Dakota to commend the Winner School District for their commitment to serving our State and our Armed Forces.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Jamie Loftus, an intern in my Rapid City, SD, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Jamie is a graduate of Stevens High School in Rapid City, SD. Currently he is attending Black Hills State University, where he is majoring in accounting. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Jamie for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Kelsey McKay, an intern in my Rapid City, SD, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Kelsey is a graduate of T.F. Riggs High School in Pierre, SD. Currently she is attending the College of Saint Benedict, where she is majoring in political science. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Kelsey for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Allison Voelker, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Allison is a graduate of Canton High School in Canton, SD, and of Biola University, where she majored in psychology. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Allison for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Michael Merry, an intern in my Washington, DC office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Michael is a graduate of Washington High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently he is attending the University of South Dakota, where he is majoring in finance and economics. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Michael for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Robert Stork, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Robert is a graduate of Washington High School in Sioux Falls, SD, and of the University of Iowa, where he majored in communication studies. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Robert for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Sharayah Slaughter, an intern in my Rapid City, SD, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Sharayah is currently a student at Douglas High School in Box Elder, SD. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Sharayah for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Jordan Fink, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the state of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Jordan is a graduate of Tripp-Delmont High School in Tripp, SD. Currently he is attending South Dakota State University, where he is majoring in biology. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Jordan for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. With respect to what the Senator from Nevada said earlier today, indicating that we had an opportunity to offer amendments, that is flatly not the case. He has filled the amendment tree, which in Washington parlance means he has essentially prevented or blocked other Members from offering amendments. We are paralyzed because we can't have the debate we need to on all the amendments and solutions that Members are here to offer, all of which would add to the debate and most of which would actually address the fundamental problem the Senator from Tennessee has identified. We don't produce enough energy in this country, and we use too much. We need to find more and use less.

Mr. THUNE. The Senator has correctly identified the problem. We use too much energy, and we don't produce enough. The solution to that problem is to find more and use less. That is exactly what we want to be discussing in the Senate, how do we increase supply and reduce demand in a way that will help lower fuel prices for Americans who are feeling the brunt of rising gasoline prices and rising oil prices. As the Senator from Tennessee noted, we have had great success in my State with biofuels. We are going to eclipse the 1 billion gallon mark this year in terms of ethanol production. If you couple that with next generation biofuels, cellulosic ethanol, there is enormous promise and potential for us to lessen our dangerous dependence upon foreign sources of energy by converting to biofuels. But having said that, I am for ANWR. I have voted for ANWR. I have actually been to ANWR with the Senator from Alaska. I am absolutely convinced that we ought to be accessing the incredible reserves we have there that could lessen our dependence on foreign energy. I am for more domestic supply, whether it is oil and gas, biofuels, nuclear, coal to liquid, oil shale. There are a lot of good options, none of which we are having an opportunity to talk about in the Senate because the Democratic leader has decided that no amendments are going to be allowed. We are stuck in the Senate on a Saturday. The American people are crying out for a solution to a big problem. Big problems require leadership. We are not providing leadership. We are not doing what the Senate should be doing, and that is working its will for the American people. The people I represent deserve a vote. They deserve a vote on energy issues that are important to South Dakota, as do the people in Alaska, Tennessee, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Utah, constituents of the Senators who are here in the Chamber now and want to see this issue debated. They want to see solutions. The only way we will get to a solution is by allowing an open process where we can debate finding more and using less. I am for all the things I have just mentioned. In the energy debate we had in the summer of 2005, we actually adopted 57 amendments. We stayed on the bill for 10 days. We had a full-throated debate on energy. In 2007, we debated energy again. We adopted 49 amendments, and we spent 15 days on the floor talking about it. But we had an opportunity to discuss amendments that would do something about the energy crisis. What we have instead now is a Democratic leadership that has drawn a line in the sand and said: We will not vote on any of these things. We will not debate any of these things. You take our way or the highway. Their way does nothing to add to our energy supply or to reduce dependence upon foreign sources. I appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Tennessee. I, along with him and my colleagues, urge the Democratic leadership to open the process and give us a fair opportunity to debate amendments and find meaningful solutions to America's serious energy problems.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Absolutely, the Senator from Tennessee is correct. I appreciate his leadership on the energy issue. I think putting it in very simple terms--finding more and using less--is something the American people understand and something that is seriously missing in this debate. The Democratic leadership, by filling the amendment tree, has prevented the opportunity for Senators on our side or Senators on their side to offer amendments that would address the very basic issue of finding more and using less. What we have before us on the floor is a very narrow solution that does nothing to address America's dangerous dependence upon foreign sources of energy, does nothing to add to our domestic supply in dealing with the ``finding more'' side of the equation, and, frankly, does nothing to deal with the ``using less'' because all the good amendments--and I have looked at the list of amendments here on our side, at least--we have 24 ``finding more'' type of amendments, 14 ``using less'' type of amendments. We have a number of people who would like to offer amendments with regard to conservation and renewable energy. As the Senator said, I am very much supportive of renewable energy. We are just going over--South Dakota will eclipse now the 1 billion- gallon level annually in ethanol, biofuels. We think there is a tremendous upside in the potential future in advanced, what we call next-generation biofuels, cellulosic ethanol, which would geographically diversify ethanol production in this country. So, I say to the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Tennessee, their States might be able to participate in that as well because they would be able to make it from other forms of biomass. I am very much for having a wide-ranging debate that includes opportunities to offer amendments on conservation, on renewable energy, on biofuels, on wind. South Dakota is home--maybe second to Washington, DC, because there is a lot of hot air in Washington--but when it comes to wind energy, South Dakota and the upper Midwest, the Great Plains States, probably have more of an abundance of wind than about anywhere in the country. Everybody says: Well, wind is intermittent, and it does not blow all the time. That is true, although you would have an argument from people in South Dakota because it does seem to blow all the time there. But we have very consistent wind which can be converted to energy and help address the ``find more'' part of the energy solution in this country. But here we are in the Senate, the world's greatest deliberative body, having amendments being blocked that would do anything to address this issue of supply and demand. In fact, as to the Energy bill we voted on in 2005, we adopted 57 amendments and we spent 10 days on the floor debating amendments. As to the Energy bill we passed in 2007-- late last year--we spent 15 days of time on the floor of the Senate and adopted 49 amendments. So we have a history on big issues such as this of allowing the Senate to work its will, and here we have probably the most important economic issue affecting America, not only currently but in the future, and the pocketbooks of every single American--and that is this incredible toll and economic hardship that the high price of fuel is taking on our economy and on Americans' pocketbooks. And we are being cut off from even offering any debate that would address these issues of conservation. We have some great ideas on conservation, renewable energy, advanced battery technology. The Senator from Tennessee talked about--and so did the Senator from Alabama--having these electric hybrids that run for 40 or 60 miles on electricity and then convert over to fuel. I would like to be able to talk about and offer some amendments that would--once they get to that, where they start kicking in and running on a gasoline engine, making those flex-fuel vehicles because then you could run on any type, whether it is gasoline, whether it is E85. You could use blends that could be used to not only run the cars but also move us away from dependence upon fossil fuels and petroleum and more toward biofuels. But in any event, the point of all this is, we are standing on the floor of the Senate with an opportunity to do something about an issue that is incredibly impacting Americans in this country, and we are being blocked from even having an opportunity to have some of these amendments that would impact the ``finding more'' side of the equation in additional domestic production and also the ``using less'' side, which is the conservation component.

Mr. THUNE. There is no doubt the folks I represent in South Dakota, as well as the people of Tennessee and the people of Alabama, are speaking loudly and clearly about this. They want this addressed. They think all this finger-pointing and playing the blame game in Washington isn't doing anything to solve their problem, which is the tremendous toll and impact this is having on their pocketbooks. I would hope we would be able to have a wide-ranging debate, be able to vote on amendments, look at a balanced, comprehensive approach that includes more production, that includes conservation, that includes use of renewables. That is not happening in the Senate, and it is not happening because the Democratic leadership has decided they don't want to take votes. They don't want to take votes on additional production, and so they have done what they call in Washington ``filling the tree.'' In simple terms that basically prevents anybody--including Members on their side but Members on our side as well--from offering amendments that would actually solve the problem. It is unfortunate where we are, but the Senator is exactly right.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague from Wyoming for his comments. His State of Wyoming and my State of South Dakota share a border. We have a lot of very similar ways of making a living. We share a commonality when it comes to the people we represent, their values. And he is exactly on point when he talks about the importance of energy to a State like Wyoming and a State like South Dakota and its impact on the economy and how families in our States are struggling and sacrificing with this extraordinary challenge that faces our Nation today, and that is the high cost of energy. I want to speak to that subject today as well because on Tuesday, July 22, the Interagency Task Force on Commodity Markets released its Interim Report on Crude Oil. I think it is important and it bears on the debate we are having in the Senate today because the primary purpose of the bill that is before us, as put forward by the Democratic leadership as a solution to energy, is to focus on the very narrow issue of speculation in the marketplace. Well, the task force is chaired by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and includes staff members from the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, and the Treasury, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Although its final report is not expected until September, I think the interim report provides some valuable insight on the energy markets and the record increase that we are seeing in oil prices. The report concludes that record oil prices are caused by the simple economic laws of supply and demand. The report states: Current oil prices and the increase in oil prices between January of 2003 and June of 2008 are largely due to fundamental supply and demand factors. The report describes that worldwide demand for petroleum has greatly increased over recent years due to population growth and rising incomes. Specifically, the report states: World economic activity has expanded to close to 5 percent per year since the year 2004, marking the strongest performance in two decades. Between 2004 and 2007, global oil consumption grew by 3.9 percent, driven largely by rising demand in emerging markets that are both growing rapidly and shifting toward oil-intensive activities. It continues to say: China, India, and the Middle East are among the fastest growing in the world; together they have accounted for nearly two-thirds of the rise in world oil consumption since 2004. The report also states: Since 2003, world oil consumption growth has averaged 1.8 percent per year, representing an estimated 1 million barrels per day in 2008. On the supply side, on the other side of the equation, the report also details how the worldwide supply of oil is inadequate. Both non- OPEC and OPEC supplies are failing to keep pace with increasing demand. The report states: In the past 3 years, non-OPEC production growth has slowed to levels well below historical averages, and world surplus capacity has fallen below historical norms. Preliminary inventory data also shows that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) stocks have fallen below 1996-2002 levels. The report continues: World oil consumption growth has simply outpaced non-OPEC production growth every year since 2003. OPEC production is also falling behind. The report describes the failure to meet what they call the ``call on OPEC,'' which is the difference between global demand for oil and oil produced by non-OPEC countries. Since 2003, OPEC oil production has grown by only 2.4 million barrels per day while the ``call on OPEC'' has increased by 4.4 million barrels per day. As a result, the world oil market balance has tightened significantly. Recently, the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reinforced the Interagency Task Force's conclusion. This working group consists of the Secretary of the Treasury, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, U.S. Security and Exchange Commission, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. In a recent letter to congressional leadership, the Working Group on Financial Markets stated: Prices appear to be reflecting tight global supplies and the growing world demand for oil, particularly in emerging economies. The Interagency Task Force and the President's Financial Working Group have concluded what several Members of Congress and, I think, what the majority of the American people have known for a long time: we have a supply and demand problem. The solution to that problem is to find more energy, to produce more and to use less. Now, with regard to the supply solution, we have lots of solutions that are out there. We have talked about the North Slope of Alaska. We know there are about 10 billion barrels of oil on the North Slope of Alaska. We have had numerous votes since I have been in the Senate, and prior to that in my service in the House, on opening the North Slope of Alaska to more production. Every time, it gets defeated by the opponents. In fact, in 1995, it was actually passed by Congress, and it was at the time vetoed by President Clinton. If it had not been vetoed back then, we would have an additional 1 million barrels of oil in the United States each and every single day. Ironically, we hear the same arguments against that today that we heard back then: that it will take 5 to 10 years to develop it. Well, that is exactly the argument that was used in the debate 10 years ago. If we had acted then, now, 10 years later, we would have that extra 1 million barrels of oil a day available to us, which is the equivalent of about what we get from Venezuela. The Outer Continental Shelf is home to about 18 billion barrels of oil, and that, too, is off-limits. Some of the Outer Continental Shelf data is almost 30 years old. There are estimates that there are 86 billion barrels of undiscovered reserves that exist right off our very own coasts. Oil shale--there are estimates of 2 trillion barrels of oil shale that is currently off-limits; 800 billion barrels of that, of the U.S. oil shale, could be economically recoverable. Now, Saudi Arabia has the world's largest proven reserves of oil in the world; that is, 263 billion barrels. The next largest is Iran with 133 billion barrels, followed by Iraq with 115 billion barrels. Kuwait and Venezuela bring up the next, with 100 billion and 77 billion barrels, respectively. But the point very simply is that Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado may have more oil than Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and Venezuela combined. Right now, U.S. energy companies are ready to invest billions of dollars in developing this domestic research. They are not asking for Government funding. They are not asking for Federal financing. They are not asking for environmental exemptions or any kind of special treatment. All they are asking for is for the U.S. Government to govern. They simply want consistent regulation that will allow them to move forward with their research. Unfortunately, this Congress has said no--no to ANWR, no to the Outer Continental Shelf, no to oil shale, no to coal to liquid, no to nuclear, no to all of the things that could lessen our dependence on foreign sources of energy. Meanwhile, I think the American family is asking, why? Why will Congress not work to lower gas prices? Why is Congress standing in the way of American ingenuity? Why is Congress limiting access to our resources while we send, Americans send, $1.6 billion each and every single day outside the United States for imported oil to petro dictators around the world, where we are propping up and enriching people in places such as Iran and Venezuela who have nothing but hostile intentions toward our country? Well, it is past time for Congress to act on a supply solution. It is time for us to deal with this issue of our supply, and it is also important that we deal with the issue of demand because, as I mentioned earlier, when you are talking about impacting supply and demand, you can do one of two things. You can affect supply by increasing domestic production or you can affect the demand side by using less energy. I think the solution consists of both, but neither are getting a vote in the Senate. Congress must invest in advanced technology, batteries and hydrogen fuel cells. Those are new technologies that we have to support, and we need to continue to invest in renewable fuels. There has not been a bigger advocate in the Senate than I am of renewable energy. It is already reducing domestic demand for traditional petroleum by about 130,000 gallons per day. We also need to address America's fleet of vehicles. Last year, Congress raised the vehicle efficiency standards by 40 percent to 35 miles per gallon for cars and light trucks. I think we can and we must do more. We should extend the tax credits for fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles. I believe Congress should create a new tax credit for next-generation electric plug-in hybrid vehicles which can go 20 to 40 miles before using an internal combustion engine. In addition to tax credits, Congress should require the production of flex-fuel vehicles. This week, a tripartisan group of Senators, led by Senator Brownback, introduced a bill that would dramatically change our transportation sector. Senators Brownback, Lieberman, Salazar, Collins, and I have introduced the Open Fuel Standard Act, which essentially requires that starting in 2012, 50 percent of new vehicles be flex-fuel vehicles that are warranted to operate on gasoline, on ethanol, on methanol, or on biodiesel. This requirement increases 10 percent each year until 2015 when 80 percent of new vehicles would be required to operate on renewable fuel. We will never break OPEC's monopoly over our fuel supply without enacting bold policies. And the one I just mentioned is an example of such a policy. That bill would give consumers a choice at the pump and give all consumers the option of purchasing cheaper, homegrown fuel such as ethanol and biodiesel when it comes to addressing their energy needs. But the fact is, as I noted in the study that I cited, we cannot solve America's energy problem by simply dealing with a narrow solution, a minimalist solution such as that which has been put on the floor by the Democratic leadership in the Senate. What they have attempted to do is to block the consideration of amendments that would address those other issues that I think are so important to this debate. There is not anything in this bill that was put forward by the Democratic leadership that reduces the dangerous dependence that we have on foreign energy. Now 60 percent of our energy is coming from outside the United States. There is not one thing in this bill that affects that. They can talk about lawsuits. They can talk about taxing oil companies. You can talk about regulating, further regulating the commodities markets. I am all for some of the things that are being proposed with regard to speculation and the commodities market. I, frankly, think there are things in the bill that are good. But the bottom line is, it does nothing. It does nothing to affect the fundamental rule of supply and demand, which, as I just noted, is what is driving energy prices higher in this country. And if we try to do something in the Senate or in Congress to address energy in this country and the tremendous economic impact it is having on American families and businesses without going at this fundamental basic issue of increasing our domestic supply or domestic production and reducing our demand, we will not have done anything meaningful for the American people to address the issue that is impacting their pocketbooks more than anything else today; and that is, the high price of gasoline. If you are serious about getting the commodities futures market to reflect or to bring down the futures price for energy stocks and all this trading that is going on, the way to do that is to send a clear, unequivocal signal to the energy markets that America is serious, that American ingenuity and hard work and our entrepreneurship in this country--that we are serious about increasing the domestic supply of energy that we have, about increasing domestic production because the market will interpret that. The market looks down the road and says: OK, in the future, what is the price of oil going to be based upon the current supply of oil and the current demand? If we are serious about increasing supply and reducing demand, the market will reflect that. We will see lower prices per barrel of oil, per gallon of gasoline, and some relief for hard-working American families and small businesses taking on tremendous water in their personal households and in the needs they have to meet for families because they are spending all their money, literally, to fill their cars with gasoline and to pay for the high cost of energy. It is affecting literally every sector of the economy. South Dakota, as my colleague from Wyoming spoke to earlier, is a vastly rural State and sparsely populated, heavily dependent upon transportation. The energy issue impacts in a dramatic way our ability to grow our economy and create jobs. I hope the debate today will include more than only a narrow issue and will get to the fundamental issue of supply and demand, that we can have an open debate in which we may offer amendments so this issue will be addressed.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, America faces a great many challenges today, particularly with regard to our economy, but none greater than our dangerous dependence upon foreign oil. I have come to the floor several times in the past few months to talk about what I call the ``terrorism tax.'' The terrorism tax is the transfer of wealth outside of this country to import billions of barrels of foreign oil. A substantial portion of American dollars spent on foreign oil goes to countries that wish to do us harm. This year, with regard to oil prices, the terrorism tax will total $700 billion. That $700 billion could have been used to pay for health care, groceries, or alternative forms of domestic energy. That $700 billion terrorism tax is more than the annual budget of the Department of Defense and is four times the annual cost of the war in Iraq. The record high price of gas has been hurting American families and benefitting foreign adversaries for way too long. It is now the No. 1 issue on consumers' minds, and the Senate has been debating this issue for months. However, the Senate has failed to act on reasonable provisions to address historically high energy prices. Variable and oftentimes unpredictable forces impact cyclical gas prices. However, over the long run, increasing supply while decreasing demand will moderate, if not lower, gas prices for American consumers. The very simple equation is to produce more and to use less. A comprehensive national energy policy that is focused on finding more energy while using less will put us on the path toward affordable and reliable energy. Recently, the President made a historic announcement that he ended the Executive moratorium on Outer Continental Shelf energy exploration. Congress cannot wait another day to follow suit by lifting the congressional moratorium as well. This outdated moratorium is blocking access to offer 18 billion gallons of proven reserves in the Outer Continental Shelf. In addition to the proven reserves, an estimated 86 billion gallons of undiscovered reserves exist off of our shores, 85 percent of which is still off limits. Congress should give coastal States the right to explore for oil and natural gas more than 50 miles off their shores. Another promising area for domestic production is the development of oil and natural gas in section 10-02 of the Alaska Wilderness Wildlife Refuge. Congress authorized production in this remote area of Alaska's North Slope over 12 years ago. If it hadn't been vetoed by the Clinton administration, the United States would have an additional 1 million barrels of domestic production each and every day. One of the objections that gets raised by those who oppose exploration on the North Slope of Alaska is something that has been used for a long time: It would take 5 or 10 years to bring that energy on line. That is an old and tired argument. Evidence of that is when it becomes the punchline on the Jay Leno show. Jay Leno himself, in a monolog, has made that very same observation--that the argument being used today by our political leaders to avoid having to deal with this issue of developing some of our domestic resources is that it would take 5 or 10 years to develop. That is the very same argument that was made by political leaders over a decade ago. It is important that we get past that argument, that we deal with the issue of our dangerous dependence upon foreign countries for our energy supply, and that we do so by developing the resources we have here at home, including the 6 to 16 billion barrels we know exist on the North Slope of Alaska. In addition to the traditional sources of oil and gas, unconventional sources of oil are an important solution to our energy crisis as well. Coal to liquids and oil shale in Western States and oil sands in Canada are abundant supplies of fuel and should be fully developed to meet our growing energy needs. Unfortunately, Congress is once again standing in the way of domestic energy production. The United States has an estimated 2 trillion barrels of oil shale in Western States--more than three times the reserves of Saudi Arabia. Unbelievably, politicians here in Washington are keeping this resource off limits. As we continue to debate this issue, American energy companies stand ready to invest billions of dollars to make oil shale production economical and environmentally sound. This investment remains stifled since Congress is prohibiting the rules for such production from moving forward. In addition to oil and natural gas, the Federal Government needs to stand by its commitment to renewable energy. According to Merrill Lynch: Biofuels are making up a huge portion of oil supply growth. Biofuels are now the single largest contributor to world oil supply growth. As biofuel production increases, our infrastructure to transport and use this fuel must increase as well. Congress has to break the monopoly of oil on the U.S. economy by investing in renewable fuel dedicated pipelines, biofuel refueling stations, and by requiring the production of flex fuel vehicles. Approximately 7 million flex fuel vehicles are on the road today. This is significant progress from a few years ago, and American automakers deserve to be applauded for their dedication to biofuels. However, millions of vehicles are still being produced and purchased without the flex fuel option. That means the vast majority of Americans have no choice but to pull up to the pump and fill up on traditional gasoline at whatever price the oil company wishes to charge. In this sense, there is virtually no competition in our transportation fuel marketplace. Congress should also continue to promote the use of hybrid vehicles and create incentives for plug-in electric hybrids, which will lessen the use of gasoline and diesel fuel. Finally, we should enact moderate reforms and reasonable reforms to limit excessive speculation. Noncommercial investors are playing a historically high role in all commodities, including oil futures. Many analysts say this is adding a premium to the price of oil, which does not reflect the fundamentals of supply and demand. Congress needs to take commonsense steps to limit excessive speculation, without overreacting. Any overreaction will simply move trading overseas to markets with less transparency and oversight. It is important to note that regulation alone is not going to bring down the price of gas. We need a comprehensive plan that includes all promising solutions to our energy crisis. I want to make one observation, as well, regarding this issue of speculation, because I know a bill has been filed, and cloture was filed on a motion to proceed to legislation that would be a speculation response, or answer, to the energy crisis in this country. Frankly, I may vote for it. I haven't seen all of the details of it. I understand from people who are close to it that a lot of it is good--about 80 percent, and 20 percent might be things I won't like. I might be willing to vote for something like that, but it cannot be that alone. That is a minimalist solution and we don't have a minimalist problem. This is a problem that demands a major and comprehensive solution and attention from the Congress that includes not only addressing that issue--the narrow issue of speculation--but also the important issue of domestic production, increasing our supply, increasing the production of energy in this country, and also looking at ways to reduce our demand. With regard to the issue of speculation, I want to read from an op ed in the Wall Street Journal by Martin Feldstein, back on July 1. This is what it says: Now here is the good news. Any policy that causes the unexpected future oil price to fall can cause the current price to fall, or to rise less than it would otherwise do. In other words, it is possible to bring down today's price of oil with policies that will have their physical impact on oil demands or supply only in the future. For example, increases in government subsidies to develop technology that will make future cars more efficient, or tighter standards that gradually improve the gas mileage of the stock of cars would lower the future demand for oil and therefore the price of oil today. Similarly, increasing the expected future supply of oil would also reduce today's price. That fall in the current price would induce an immediate rise in oil consumption that would be matched by an increase in supply from the OPEC producers and others with some current excess capacity or available inventories. Any steps that can be taken now to increase the future supply of oil, or reduce the future demands for oil in the U.S., or elsewhere, can therefore lead both to lower prices and increased consumption today. The best thing we can be doing for American consumers is not a narrow minimalist response to the narrow issue of speculation but one that addresses the fundamental issue of supply and demand, because that drives marketplace prices. I believe if the world market believes we in the Congress are serious about addressing that issue--the fundamental issue of supply and demand--it will be reflected in those future prices. That isn't to say we should not have a solution that addresses the issue of speculation as well. I am for a number of ideas being proposed. I think we need to have more cops on the beat. We need to authorize increased funding and staff for the CFTC, and I think we need to require the CFTC to gather information on index traders and swap dealers, to codify position limits and transparency for foreign boards of trade. Those are reforms that I think are important to address in any comprehensive energy bill. But you cannot address the narrow issue of speculation and expect to impact, in the long term, the dangerous dependence we have on foreign sources of energy. We could address the issue of speculation, but what does that do to affect the basic fact that every single day we get 60 percent of our oil from outside the United States? We use 20 million barrels a day in the United States, or about 24 percent of the world demand, and about 12 million barrels of that, or 60 percent, comes from outside of the United States. That is not a sustainable place to be for a country that is worried about the impact high gas prices are having on its economy, and the impact it could have on our economy in the future if we don't address that dependence upon foreign energy. We have to have production, and I think the American people get this. I think the American people are interested in this issue of speculation. I think they believe there is a role that plays in the price of oil and the price of a gallon of gasoline. I also think they understand we cannot solve the problem we have in this country absent addressing the issue of domestic production. Increasing our domestic supply, reducing domestic demand--that is how we go about solving, in the long term, an issue or addressing a problem I think will affect the economy for years to come and make future generations of Americans continue to be held over a barrel by countries around the world that are hostile to the United States. We cannot address the issue of energy by this bill alone. As I said, I am open to supporting and voting for the bill that is going to be introduced that addresses speculation, but that cannot be it. If that is all we do, we have done very little to address the long-term problem we have, and that problem is that we get 60 percent of our energy from outside the United States. You cannot say no to domestic production. You cannot say no to offshore production. You cannot say no to oil shale. You cannot say no to coal to liquids. You cannot say no to nuclear or to new refineries. You cannot say no to all those things that would help increase our domestic supply and affect that calculation, that basic equation of supply and demand, which is absolutely disastrous for the economy of this country. I have traveled my State, as most Members of Congress do, on a regular basis. I had a number of meetings over the Fourth of July break where I met with people who are impacted by energy. I met this morning with corn growers who are in town, and also with agriculture and the tourism industry--all of those types of small business interests, people who are impacted, and families who are impacted by the high cost of gasoline. In my view, there is probably no bigger issue in the short term, and no bigger issue in the long term, that impacts the American economy and that could do more harm to that economy than this issue of high gas prices and the dangerous dependence we have on foreign sources of energy. We cannot solve it by saying no. We have to say yes to additional domestic production, yes to conservation measures that will use less energy, yes to renewables and biofuels, and yes to addressing this issue of speculation. We need a comprehensive approach, not a rifle shot that deals with one aspect of it but doesn't solve the fundamental problem we have, and that is the fact that in every single State we pay a terrorism tax to countries outside the United States. There is $700 billion of wealth this year that we will shift outside of the United States and pay to other countries around the world--in many ways, petro-dictators--a ``terrorism tax,'' because we have to get energy from them. They set the price and we pay it. Until we change that fundamental calculation and dynamic, we are going to continue to see high gas prices and high oil prices. And that is not something this economy can withstand. It is certainly not fair to the American people for us to sit by and not take serious, meaningful action. When the markets recognize we are serious, I believe we will see relief for the American people on the price of a gallon of gasoline and the price for a barrel of oil. That is why we need a comprehensive solution. When this debate gets joined in the next week and following week, I am going to do everything I can to see that it is not addressing just one narrow issue but addresses this issue of production, addresses the issue of demand. That is the only way, in my view, that we will solve this problem. I look forward to that debate. I hope we have opportunities to offer amendments. I hope it is not going to be one of those deals where the tree gets filled and we do not have a chance to vote on meaningful solutions to our energy crisis. The Senate needs to be heard. All of us need to have an opportunity to offer amendments and have them voted on, and I hope the process will allow for that. I yield back the remainder of my time. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize the Heath- Headley American Legion Auxiliary Post No. 0199 for their Veteran's Day program entitled ``Honoring Those Who Served''. This event took place on November 9, 2007, at the Henry School Gymnasium with the help of the school's students and staff. The day's events were held to honor all veterans who have served their country. Local veterans were invited by the auxiliary which publicized the event, registered guests, decorated the school, helped serve lunch, and organized the event with school personnel. The Kampeska Marine Corps League presented and retired the colors. The Henry School Band, directed by Mrs. Deanna Martens, played patriotic music. Students sang ``Proud of Our Veterans'' and gave a ``Living Flag'' presentation. Superintendent Brian Sieh welcomed all and presented the guest speaker, Army National Guard Chaplain Joseph Holzhauser, who addressed the crowd on the topic, ``Why All The Fighting?'' Voice of Democracy winner, student Shantel Gassman, presented her winning essay and was awarded a plaque and a scholarship from Watertown Veterans of Foreign Wars Commander Duwayne Mack. Students Matthew Harms and Owen Redinger gave a proper flag folding demonstration and presented the flag to the guest speaker. The Henry High School choir sang ``God Bless America'' and students Randy Owen and Sarah Montgomery played echo taps. A flag retirement ceremony followed the program under the direction of Marine veteran Joel Montgomery. The school technology committee took pictures of all veterans and gave prints to each as a thank you. The pictures were taken in front of a mural that senior students and auxiliary member Jane Green created. It depicts the American eagle with wings made of over 200 stars, each naming a local veteran. Auxiliary members who helped with the activities include Donna Clyde, unit president; Veta Aker, unit treasurer; Jean Lian, unit chaplain; Wanda Clyde, membership chairman; Christy Clyde, junior auxiliary member; Jane Green, unit member and school coordinator for the program. Violet Wicks, district III president, was the auxiliary's guest for the day. It gives me great pleasure to rise with the Heath-Headley American Legion Auxiliary Post No. 0199 and Henry School to thank our veterans for their dedication and service to our country.