John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Mina, SD. The town of Mina commemorated its 125th anniversary of its founding with celebrations on July 3, 2008. Located in Edmunds County, Mina was founded in 1883. Since its beginning 125 years ago, the community of Mina has continued to serve as a strong example of South Dakota values and traditions. I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Mina on this milestone anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, like so many of my colleagues, I spent the week of the Fourth of July traveling my State of South Dakota. I met with members of the general public at an energy forum, met with small businesses, folks in the tourism industry. Everywhere I went it was the same story: High gas prices are crippling the American economy. I remember stopping in the small town of Parkston and visiting with someone who manages a small cafe there, and visiting with them about the impact that high gas prices are having on their business. She said: Well, it is not really the weekend travelers, the RV owners, the people who camp, but it is those people who are commuting to work every single day who now do not have the money to eat out nearly as often. Of course, Parkston is a small town. It is about 20 miles, give or take, from Mitchell, SD. There are a number of people who commute back and forth. It is those commuters who are feeling the most economic hardship as a result of high energy prices. I attended my parents' 65th wedding anniversary in my hometown of Murdo. In my hometown, tourism, the visitor industry, is the very lifeblood of that community. I grew up in that business, worked in restaurants, motels, that sort of thing. And I even had a forum, as well, with members of the tourism industry in South Dakota in Rapid City when I was home just to gauge the impact of high fuel prices on their individual businesses. The Rapid City mayor, who owns a campground, said: I think we are going to reach a tipping point where the very foundations of the travel industry could be shaken. Bill Honerkamp, president of the Black Hills, Badlands and Lakes Association said tourism fell about 7 percent in the region in May, and numbers for the rest of the summer are barely holding steady. Teddy Hustead, president of the popular South Dakota tourist stop Wall Drug, said tourist stops were down 1 percent in June. But he went on to say that Wall Drug needs to be up 4 to 5 percent to be a healthy, growing, viable concern, and it is hard to grow a business when gas is increasing by 10, 20, and 25 percent every single year. Sean Casey, the vice president of another popular South Dakota tourist destination, Bear Country USA, noted that visitation is down 7 percent for the year 2008. And he went on to say: Energy is pinching us. I always joke that we are going to a model like the space shuttle-- two visitors at $10 million each. Jo Casky of the Spearfish Convention and Visitors Bureau noted that convention is dropping because of high gas prices. One particular convention was booked with a prediction of 1,200 to 1,400 attendees. That is unlikely now because of the rising pump prices. Casky said: We are now at about 800. As soon as gas started getting to the $4 mark, we started to see reservations back off. High gas prices are having a dramatic impact on families, small businesses, the tourism industry, the airline industry, the agricultural industry, and virtually every sector of the American economy. I toured a UPS facility in Sioux Falls, SD. Many of my colleagues may have heard what they are doing in terms of dealing with the price of fuel. They actually now, as they diagram routes for their drivers, diagram routes that only allow them to make right turns so they do not sit in a left-turn lane and idle thereby using more energy. My point is that people are taking extraordinary steps to deal with the high cost of energy. Higher costs for companies such as UPS, transportation companies, get passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for everything they buy. They are looking for leadership in Washington, DC. But instead of leadership, they have seen a decade of inaction, as arguably the most important issue of impacting the American economy has been left unattended. We have done nothing to affect the basic law of supply and demand. Some argue, and perhaps rightly so, that high energy costs are partly a function of the weak dollar. They would be, as I said, accurate to say that because oil is denominated in dollars. When it takes $1.57 to purchase a Euro, it is going to make anything denominated in dollars more expensive. There are those who think speculators are driving up the cost of energy in this country, and it is true that trading in energy commodities has increased dramatically over the past 30 years since the exchanges were created. I, for one, happen to believe we need to look for ways to define the degree to which speculation is impacting energy prices in this country and also look at what we can do to address that issue in a way that makes matters better and not worse. Trading since 2004 on the NYMEX Exchange has nearly tripled. So we need to make sure our farmers, our ranchers, our airlines, our trucking companies, have the opportunity and ability that they need to manage risk. That is what those markets were created for. We also need transparent markets where all traders are subjected to the same sets of rules. I believe we need more cops on the beat. We need to make sure the CFTC has the funding it needs to do its job and to enforce our laws. I think we can do some things, such as codifying CFTC position limits and transparency for foreign boards of trade. I guess my point is that there are a number of things we can do to address the impact that speculators may be having on the price of energy in this country. And, frankly, I think that is a role and responsibility that Congress should fill. But if you take the weak dollar, and you take speculators out of the equation, we still have a major problem and a major crisis in this country. That problem is that we have greater demand for energy than we have supply. We use about 86, 85 to 86 million barrels of oil every single day worldwide. Of that amount, the United States uses about 20 million barrels or about 24 percent of the total. Of that amount of 20 million barrels that the United States uses every single day, about 12 million barrels are imported. In other words, 60 percent of the oil that we use every single day in America comes from outside the United States. We are transporting and shipping and transferring about a half trillion dollars every single year of American wealth outside of the United States to petro dictators who are being enriched by that American wealth and using it in ways that I think most of us would disagree with; in fact, in many ways to support terrorist organizations in places around the world. Now, we cannot solve our dangerous dependance upon foreign sources of energy absent affecting that basic law and rule of supply and demand. We have to find more energy in this country. We should be taking steps now to add supply and to reduce our demand. One of the things we need to continue to support and intensify, in my view, is our commitment toward renewable energy. I want to read something that Tom Friedman said in an op-ed on June 29. The op-ed was titled ``Anxious in America.'' But he said: My fellow Americans. We are a country in debt and in decline, not terminal, not irreversible, but in decline. Our political system seems incapable of producing long-range answers to big problems or big opportunities. We are the ones who need a better functioning democracy. More than the Iraqis and Afghans, we are the ones in need of nationbuilding as it is our political system that is not working. He goes on to say: I continue to be appalled at the gap between what is clearly going to be the next great global industry, renewable energy and clean power, and the inability of Congress and the administration to put in place the bold policies we need to ensure that America leads that industry. Well, one of the things that we did, and it was a moonshot in terms of renewable energy and making an investment in our future, is the renewable fuels standard. Last December there were 80 Senators who voted to increase the renewable fuels standard to 36 billion gallons by the year 2022. That was a policy that was put in place less than a year ago, and yet already we have people, Members of the Senate, politicians in Washington, who are talking about rolling that back. That could be the absolute worst thing that we do. We do not need less energy in this country, we need more energy in this country. We need more renewable fuels. The 8 or 9 billion gallons of renewable energy that we produce in this country every single year today is taking pressure off gasoline and oil prices by, according to a study conducted by Merrill-Lynch, up to about 15 percent. In the current market economy that is about 50 to 60 cents per gallon of gasoline. Someone has said it is ethanol and corn prices that are driving up the cost of everything we buy in this country, and particularly with regard to this whole food-versus-fuel debate. But the American Truckers Association recently did a study which found that in late 2004 it cost about 16 cents per box of cereal to transport that box of cereal to the marketplace. Today it costs about 36 cents per box of cereal. So we have seen a 20-cent increase in the transportation cost for a box of cereal. Couple that with the fact that the amount of corn in a box of Corn Flakes is about 10 cents per box, and you can see what is driving up the cost of everything in our economy. It is the increasing price per barrel of oil, increasing price of energy in this country. We need to speed cellulosic ethanol to the marketplace. We need to increase the blends of ethanol. We need not fewer gallons of renewable energy in this country, we need more gallons of renewable energy. I hope those in Washington, in the administration and Congress, who are talking about considering rolling back the renewable fuels standard would reconsider that and think about the importance of renewable energy and what it can do for America's future and our dangerous dependence on foreign sources of energy. The second thing, of course, we have to do is we have to increase our domestic supply. That means the Outer Continental Shelf. That means the oil shale in places in the Western States. It means ANWR. It means coal to liquid. It means nuclear. It means wind. We have all of these domestic energy supplies in this country, and we have heard people say it would take 5 to 100 years to develop some of these energy supplies. Well, that is what they were saying 5 or 10 years ago about many of these same things. We did not do it then, and now we are paying a price for it. Is it not our job as policymakers to be looking down the road to future generations to make decisions that are in the best interests of America's future. There is not any issue, I would argue, that is more important to America's future than energy security because it ties directly into and correlates directly into our national security. We have to have more domestic supply, and the last thing we have to do is we have to use less. We have to find more sources of energy, more domestic sources of energy, so we do not continue to get 60 percent of that energy from outside the United States. And we have to figure out ways in this country to use less energy. I have a bill that I have introduced. I am on a bill that Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, has introduced which has 43 cosponsors. I have introduced a bill of my own to deal with this energy situation. I am working with a group of both Republicans and Democrats. We need to put the politics aside, the partisanship aside, and work on getting a solution for the American people. In the bill that I introduced, one of the things I include is a provision that requires that of additional Government lands that are leased for energy production--whether they be offshore, whether they be oil shale in the Western States, whether it be ANWR, the lease revenue, half of the lease revenue that comes into the Federal Government be plowed back into research and development and new technologies, in renewables, alternative sources of energy, things like plug-in hybrid cars, cellulosic advanced biofuels, hydrogen fuel cells. Those are the types of things we also need to be investing in to make sure that not only are we increasing the supply of energy in this country, the amount that we have, but also that we are using less. We can do this. We can put aside the finger-pointing and the blame game and do something for our energy future. I believe when people come together, and when they decide that this is an important priority for America's future, we can get this done. But we can't do it by saying no to every proposal put on the table. My colleagues on the other side--many of them; not all, but many--have said no to offshore production, no to oil shale, no to nuclear, no to coal to liquid, no to additional refinery capacity. We can't solve this problem by saying no. We have to start saying yes to more domestic production and to more measures that would allow us to conserve and reduce the amount of energy we use. We have to get serious about this issue. It starts with addressing that fundamental law and rule of supply and demand. We can do all these other things, the dollar can start firming up, we can address the role of speculation in the marketplace. But at the end of the day, we don't solve the problem unless we get serious about increasing our domestic supply of energy and reducing and using less energy. When we do that, we will see the price per barrel start to come down, the price per gallon of gasoline start to come down, and we will see the American economy, in places such as South Dakota, where tourism and agriculture are so critically important, start to rebound and start to draw more visitors to the tourism industry and to make sure our farmers continue to produce food and fiber in a way that allows them to maximize their return on investment and not get choked with high input costs coming from higher energy costs. I hope before we adjourn for the August recess, we will come together behind an energy proposal and plan that is good for America's future, that emphasizes renewables, more domestic supply and production, and addresses the important issue of conservation. But we can't do that by continuing to say no. I ask my colleagues on both sides to quit saying no and to start saying yes to America's energy independence. Say no to our dangerous dependence upon foreign energy but yes to making America energy independent and making this country more prosperous for America's future. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last night, due to weather delays and an unexpected flight diversion to Columbus, OH, I missed the rollcall vote concerning cloture on the motion to concur with House amendment No. 2 to the Senate amendments to the housing bill, H.R. 3221. Had I been present for this vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, it is rare these days to see one couple make it to 65 years of marriage. It is even more rare to see two couples, who are best friends, make it to that rather remarkable milestone at the same time. This weekend in Murdo, SD, Harold and Pat Thune and John and Virginia Parker will both celebrate 65 years of marriage. When Harold Thune and John Parker graduated Murdo High School together in the spring of 1937, neither realized how entwined their lives would become over time. After high school graduation John moved to California. Harold went on to become a basketball star at the University of Minnesota and then a fighter pilot during World War II. Harold returned to Murdo with his young wife Patricia when the war ended to take over the family business at the request of his father who was in poor health. It was the summer of 1951 when John returned to Murdo with his wife Virginia and reconnected with his high school classmate, who by this time had three young children. In the intervening years since high school, John had found real purpose in his life through his Christian faith. Anxious to share that faith with his high school friend, he began a small Bible study in that summer of 1951. Through that Bible study, first Pat, then Harold made a profession of faith that has served as their life's foundation to this day. They would be the first to tell you that it is hard to imagine them celebrating this blessed occasion absent that life-changing experience. We honor both couples on this occasion of 65 years of marriage, for staying true to their God, to each other, and to their families. Their example of steadfast commitment and devotion is a powerful witness and inspiration to those who have come after about what a Christian marriage should be. Congratulations to the Parkers and the Thunes on this milestone 65th wedding anniversary.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Jonathon ``Jonny'' Reynolds, 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 months. Originally from Baltic, SD, Jonny recently graduated from the Air Force Academy where he majored in 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 Jonny 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 wish to recognize Hoven, SD. The town of Hoven will commemorate the 125th anniversary of its founding with celebrations July 4 to 6, 2008. Located in Potter County, Hoven was founded in 1883 and was named after a landowner with the last name of Hoven. Since its beginning 125 years ago, the community of Hoven has continued to serve as a strong example of South Dakota values and traditions. I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Hoven on this milestone anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Woonsocket, SD. The town of Woonsocket will commemorate its 125th anniversary of its founding with celebrations July 3 to 6, 2008. Located in Sanborn County, Woonsocket was founded in 1883 and was named after Woonsocket, RI. Since its beginning 125 years ago, the community of Woonsocket has continued to serve as a strong example of South Dakota values and traditions. I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Woonsocket on this milestone anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Shane Bryan, 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 months. Originally from Oacoma-Chamberlain, SD, Shane is currently a sophomore at the University of South Dakota and is majoring in political science and 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 Shane 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 wish to recognize Canova, SD. The town of Canova will commemorate the 125th anniversary of its founding with celebrations July 4 to 5, 2008. Located in Miner County, Canova was founded in 1883 and was named after Italian sculptor Antonio Canova. Since its beginning 125 years ago, the community of Canova has continued to serve as a strong example of South Dakota traditions, especially in its outstanding amateur baseball team, the Canova Gang. I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Canova on this milestone anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Jordan Feist, 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 months. Originally from Sioux Falls, SD, Jordan is currently a sophomore at the University of South Dakota and is majoring in political science and philosophy. 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. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Camden Helder, 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 months. Originally from De Smet, SD, Camden is currently a senior at South Dakota State University and is majoring in economics and political science. 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 Camden 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 wish to recognize Kayla Wolff, 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 months. Originally from Rapid City, SD, Kayla is currently a junior at the University of Central Arkansas and is majoring in economics and prepharmacy. 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 Kayla 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, I rise today to introduce a bipartisan bill that seeks to update the way in which the Federal Government tracks the shipment of hazardous waste. I am pleased that Senators Cardin and Lautenberg have joined me in introducing this bill, which builds upon the bipartisan legislation I introduced last Congress with Senator Jeffords and Senator Inhofe when I served as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund and Waste Management. Simply put, our legislation would direct the Environmental Protection Agency to begin a much needed transformation of the tracking of hazardous wastes. While the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, RCRA, that Congress passed in 1976 has done a great deal to protect human health and the environment, the paper manifest process that is used to track federally-regulated hazardous wastes from ``cradle to grave'' has turned into the single largest continuous paperwork burden imposed on regulated entities under Federal environmental law. On an annual basis, roughly 139,000 regulated entities track anywhere between 2.5-5 million hazardous waste manifests. This paperwork burden has been estimated to cost states and the regulated community between $200 million and $500 million annually. This is largely due to the fact that each paper manifest is comprised of numerous carbon copies that must be signed, mailed to waste generators and State agencies--and then ultimately stored by each regulated entity. To underscore just how cumbersome this paper manifest is, the Environmental Protection Agency has noted that roughly 22 States don't even keep copies because it represents too large of a paperwork burden. The benefits of using electronic manifests are numerous and each of the witnesses who testified at the EPW Subcommittee hearing that I chaired on September 26, 2006 spoke to the benefits it would have--both in terms of improving federal oversight of hazardous waste transport and lessening the paperwork burden on regulated entities. I would like to stress that this legislation builds upon the measure I introduced last Congress and incorporates a handful of changes made at the request of various stakeholders, including Senator Boxer who now chairs the EPW Committee. Because of the broad support that this measure enjoys, I look forward to the long awaited mark-up of this bill before the EPW Committee. I would like to thank both Senator Cardin and Senator Lautenberg for their support as we work to improve the arcane system currently utilized to track hazardous waste shipments. Transitioning to an electronic system is long overdue and this legislation would be paid for by the users of the system--the generators and waste companies that handle hazardous waste. In closing I would like to highlight just one of the statements of support I received for the legislation that I began working on over 2 years ago. The following statement of support came from Terrence Gray, President of the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, who noted: It is appropriate, many would say overdue, in the 21st Century economy to have the capability of using electronic reporting for such a tracking system, and we are supportive of your efforts to initiate this process. It is our understanding that [this bill] is the necessary first step in designating the detailed system for electronic manifesting, and for that reason we think it should go forward. I trust that my colleagues will recognize the benefits of setting up an electronic manifest system as is envisioned under the Thune-Cardin bill we have introduced today.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, like a lot of Members of the Senate, I also heard from my constituents last weekend about high energy prices. I do not know how any Member of Congress can go back into their congressional district and their State and not be inundated by people who are very concerned about the impact high fuel prices are having on their pocketbooks and on our economy. In fact, in my State of South Dakota, the studies bear this out. I think it has a disproportionate impact because it is a rural area. In rural areas, we are very energy dependent. We drive long distances. We are very agriculturally dependent in terms of our economy. Tourism is a big thing in our economy in rural areas. We also, in most cases, have lower incomes relative to the incomes of people in other parts of the country. In fact, there are some studies out that suggest that 15 percent, 16 percent on average of a person's income in a rural area is spent just paying the energy bill. Now, that is something that ought to concern everybody across this country because even though it might disproportionally impact rural areas today, it is clearly going to impact all Americans and continue to impact our economic activities in this country as time goes on if we do not get our arms around these escalating and daily increasing energy costs. I had someone in my office today who said that he has a small refinery. He said if the cap-and-trade bill we debated last week had been enacted or passed, immediately they would have seen a 38-cent increase in the price per gallon of gasoline. There is a proposal to build a powerplant in my State of South Dakota, a coal-fired powerplant. I was visiting with some folks last week in my State who informed me that if, in fact, that cap-and-trade proposal had passed, it would have tripled the cost to construct that powerplant, something that is necessary to provide base load energy for the energy demands and requirements we have in the upper Midwest. So here we are talking about high energy prices, high fuel prices, and the only solutions our colleagues are putting on the floor are solutions that would actually increase fuel costs. The cap-and-trade proposal last week, by any estimate--and there were 11 studies that were done of the five cap-and-trade proposals put before or introduced in the Senate, one which was put before the Senate last week. All 11 studies concluded that if enacted, that proposal would increase fuel costs, it would increase electricity costs, and it would lead to negative gross domestic product growth. The question was not if, it was how much would it increase costs. By as much as a dollar a gallon for gasoline. There were a number of studies conducted that suggested that it would cost the economy up to $6 trillion in GDP, negative GDP, as a result of that cap-and-trade proposal. So here we are on the floor of the Senate. Everyone, I assume, is hearing the same thing I am hearing, when they go back to their respective States, from their constituents: We have high energy prices; we need some action; we need you to do something about that. And everything that has been put before the Senate last week and this week by the Democratic leadership does one thing: increases energy costs. We had a vote today on an ``energy bill.'' What did it do? It imposed new taxes on energy. That was tried. That was tried back in the 1980s, the windfall profits tax. It led to reduced energy production in this country. The other thing that was talked about today was, well, let's sue OPEC, let's sue OPEC; that will somehow drive down the cost of energy. There is not anything in any of those proposals that does anything to address the problem because you cannot address this problem, you cannot fix the energy crisis in this country unless you address the issue of supply. There is not anything in any of those bills that have been put forward, that have been put forward by the other side, that addresses the fundamental issue of supply. I believe the American people understand that. They understand full well that you do not raise taxes to get more of something; if you raise taxes, you are going to get less of something. They realize that we cannot just sort of unilaterally decide to sue an oil cartel and expect that is going to lead to additional energy supply in this country. There is one thing and one thing only that we can do to lower gasoline prices for people in this country; that is, increase homegrown domestic energy supplies so that we do not have to rely upon other nations around the world for our energy. I wish to share a couple of statics that I think are important in this debate. One is that 60 percent of our oil comes from outside the United States. That means that on any given day we are getting 60 percent of our energy to fuel our automobiles and to keep our economy going from countries around the world, many of which are run by petro- dictators who have nothing but hostile and ill intentions toward the United States. Sixty percent of our oil supply is coming from outside the United States. We use 140 billion gallons of gasoline every year in this country. I point that out because I want to use that to get to another point; that is, we are generating about 8 billion gallons of renewable energy or ethanol on an annual basis. At the end of this year, we will be generating 1 billion gallons in my State of South Dakota alone. But the studies that have been done have suggested that that 8 billion gallons of ethanol, out of the 140 billion gallons of fuel we use in this country, of gasoline we use in this country, has reduced energy prices by about 15 percent--price per barrel of oil, price per gallon of gasoline reduced by about 15 percent by the contribution that 8 billion gallons of ethanol is making to our overall fuel supply. In today's gasoline prices, 15 percent would be about 50 cents, 60 cents on the gallon. So we have lower fuel prices today than we would otherwise have as a result of adding to our supply of energy, homegrown energy, through the hard work and production of our farmers across the country who raise the corn that is converted into ethanol. I suggest perhaps the way to address this problem, if, in fact, 8 billion gallons of ethanol has helped reduce gasoline prices by 50 cents a gallon, maybe what we ought to be doing is looking at ways we can grow additional energy supply. We don't need less biofuels, we need more. We are going to be moving now from corn-based ethanol into cellulosic ethanol that can be made from other forms of biomass. We hope that technology will be progressing quickly enough that it will enable us to meet the targets we have of 36 billion gallons called for in the renewable fuels standard. That is what we are doing in the area of biofuels. I say that because if we look at what we have in terms of domestic resources, whether that is biofuels or oil, if we could get some of that oil into the pipeline, we could do a lot to impact prices people are paying for a gallon of gasoline. Back in 1995, President Clinton vetoed a bill passed by Congress that would have allowed for exploration on the North Slope of Alaska. We have somewhere between 6 and 16 billion barrels of oil on the North Slope underneath the ground. With modern technology and in an environmentally friendly way, directional and horizontal drilling, with a minimal imprint on the surface, we can get access to somewhere between 6 and 16 barrels of oil. What does that translate into? That translates into 1 million barrels a day coming into this country--1 million barrels a day. And you figure a barrel translates into 42 gallons, and of that about half can be refined into gasoline, a million barrels a day would translate into about 7 billion gallons of gasoline a year or roughly equivalent to what we are generating in ethanol. And the 8 billion gallons in ethanol is reducing the price of gas by about 50 cents a gallon. So if you do the math, more energy, more supply at the margin is going to lead to lower cost. That is the fundamental economic rule of supply and demand that most people understand. Any of my constituents in South Dakota, if I went home and told them that the Democratic leadership has put a bill on the floor that is going to allow us to file lawsuits against OPEC or that is going to impose new taxes on oil exploration, a windfall profits tax, they would say: What does that do to affect the law of supply and demand? Get more supply in the marketplace so that we can do something about reducing the price per gallon of gasoline? This problem gets addressed when America gets serious about domestic energy supplies. We have tried again and again to get a vote on exploration on the North Slope. We have tried again and again to get a vote on deep sea exploration for energy--all of which has been blocked in the Senate. We have even tried to get legislation moved that would expedite the permitting process for new refineries because we have a shortage of refining capacity. These are all things that we could be doing that would help address the supply problem. I suggest when we get to what we are focusing on that we can do, there are pieces of legislation on which there is broad agreement. We passed a bill a couple weeks ago that Senators Ensign and Cantwell offered of tax extenders that would help promote more investment in renewable energy. It passed out of the Senate by a vote of 88 to 8, broad bipartisan support. Why are we not focusing on those things we can do rather than spending our time having the Democrats throw out solutions that impose new taxes, new regulations, new bailouts to trial lawyers, which was included in this bill, an earmark for the Senator from New York at $1.2 billion, all of which we know are not going to pass? We aren't going to get the votes to get that sort of thing through. But there are things we can be doing, such as extending the production tax credit for wind, which was included in the Energy bill to which I just referred. Those are the things we ought to be looking at. What can we do to add to the supply of electricity, to add to the supply of fuels so that we don't have to get 60 percent of our energy from outside the United States, so we are actually doing something that will in a positive way impact the price our constituents pay for a gallon of gasoline? This impact is going to be felt all across the economy. Look at the statistics on airlines. We are using actually less fuel on airlines today, if we look at this green line, than we were going back even to 2000 and 2001. But look at the fuel costs of the airlines. They are exploding. We have airlines facing bankruptcy, making service cutbacks, not serving smaller communities, laying off employees because of high fuel costs. There is no end in sight. It is $4 today. What is to stop it from going to $5? If Ahmadinejad and Chavez decide they want to get $200 for a barrel of oil, what is to stop them, if we have no leverage? We need to be taking steps in the United States that will increase our domestic supply of energy so we don't have to rely upon those other countries for our energy supply. We have those resources here. We have oil. We have biofuels. We need new refineries. We can build new nuclear plants. All are being blocked. Let's focus on what we can do to affect the fundamental rule of supply and demand that will lead to lower energy costs, that will increase the amount of energy we have relative to demand. That is how we can impact in a positive way the price our constituents are paying for a gallon of gasoline. Until we get serious about that, all this other stuff done for optics because it is an election year and to gain some political upper hand to go back to a constituency saying, we did this or we are going to beat up the oil companies, raise taxes, regulations and lawsuits and litigation, those sorts of things don't solve the fundamental problem. We don't have enough domestic supply. Until we address that fundamental problem, we will continue to be held over a barrel and be at the mercy of these foreign countries telling us what the price per barrel of oil and price per gallon of gasoline is going to be. I hope we can focus on that. We have some great solutions. My State is a good example of what we have done with renewables. The Senator from Iowa has a lot of great examples in his State of what we are doing with renewable energy and wind. We have the resources to get this done. It is high time we did it. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, on behalf of the Republican leadership, I object.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bipartisan bill that seeks to update the way in which the Federal Government tracks the shipment of hazardous waste. I am pleased that Senators Cardin and Lautenberg have joined me in introducing this bill, which builds upon the bipartisan legislation I introduced last Congress with Senator Jeffords and Senator Inhofe when I served as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund and Waste Management. Simply put, our legislation would direct the Environmental Protection Agency to begin a much needed transformation of the tracking of hazardous wastes. While the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, RCRA, that Congress passed in 1976 has done a great deal to protect human health and the environment, the paper manifest process that is used to track federally-regulated hazardous wastes from ``cradle to grave'' has turned into the single largest continuous paperwork burden imposed on regulated entities under Federal environmental law. On an annual basis, roughly 139,000 regulated entities track anywhere between 2.5-5 million hazardous waste manifests. This paperwork burden has been estimated to cost states and the regulated community between $200 million and $500 million annually. This is largely due to the fact that each paper manifest is comprised of numerous carbon copies that must be signed, mailed to waste generators and State agencies--and then ultimately stored by each regulated entity. To underscore just how cumbersome this paper manifest is, the Environmental Protection Agency has noted that roughly 22 States don't even keep copies because it represents too large of a paperwork burden. The benefits of using electronic manifests are numerous and each of the witnesses who testified at the EPW Subcommittee hearing that I chaired on September 26, 2006 spoke to the benefits it would have--both in terms of improving federal oversight of hazardous waste transport and lessening the paperwork burden on regulated entities. I would like to stress that this legislation builds upon the measure I introduced last Congress and incorporates a handful of changes made at the request of various stakeholders, including Senator Boxer who now chairs the EPW Committee. Because of the broad support that this measure enjoys, I look forward to the long awaited mark-up of this bill before the EPW Committee. I would like to thank both Senator Cardin and Senator Lautenberg for their support as we work to improve the arcane system currently utilized to track hazardous waste shipments. Transitioning to an electronic system is long overdue and this legislation would be paid for by the users of the system--the generators and waste companies that handle hazardous waste. In closing I would like to highlight just one of the statements of support I received for the legislation that I began working on over 2 years ago. The following statement of support came from Terrence Gray, President of the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, who noted: It is appropriate, many would say overdue, in the 21st Century economy to have the capability of using electronic reporting for such a tracking system, and we are supportive of your efforts to initiate this process. It is our understanding that [this bill] is the necessary first step in designating the detailed system for electronic manifesting, and for that reason we think it should go forward. I trust that my colleagues will recognize the benefits of setting up an electronic manifest system as is envisioned under the Thune-Cardin bill we have introduced today.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, on behalf of the Republican leadership, I object.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I want to start with, regarding these economic impacts, looking generally at the economy. In the fourth quarter of last year, the economy grew at six-tenths of 1 percent, and in the first quarter of this year it grew at nine-tenths of 1 percent. Some analysts and elected officials are looking at the record-high energy prices, the crisis in the financial services and housing markets, and the recent job losses as signs that we are already in a recession. In the last few weeks, we have seen oil traded at $130 a barrel, which has caused the price of virtually all consumer goods in this country to increase. However, after months of debating high energy prices and a sluggish economy, we are now debating a bill that would actually raise energy prices and slow economic growth. I don't blame my constituents when they wonder how Washington works and complain that Congress seems to be out of touch with their everyday reality. Over the Memorial Day weekend, millions of families were faced with record-high gas prices. As they planned their vacations to travel to see loved ones, they were met with average gasoline prices that hovered around $4 per gallon. I point out that as the economy has slowed down, high energy prices have gone up, and the impact it has had on every American family--again, the EIA analyzed this bill on the floor today, and it would project gasoline prices to increase at 21 percent, or higher, in 2020 and 41 percent in the year 2030 under this proposal before us today. The Environmental Protection Agency also looked at the bill and concluded that gas prices would increase over 20 percent by 2030. As we have debated this bill this week, there has been one particular impact that I think may have been overlooked in the legislation that has been drafted, and that is the impact on our Nation's domestic aviation sector. Many of my colleagues and consumers in the country have witnessed firsthand in the first few months of this year that the domestic airlines are being crippled by the record price of aviation fuel, which will continue to rise in price under the cap-and-trade structure of this legislation. I will point out headlines of a few articles from yesterday and today: ``Continental Airlines to cut 3,000 jobs and capacity''; ``Summer airfares double, triple, quadruple''; ``United to cut back service, eliminate jobs.'' The U.S. airline industry recently sent a letter to all Senators in anticipation of the debate on this climate change legislation we have in front of us today. Here is what it says: The proposed bill adds a significant additional increment to the cost of transportation fuel. Assuming that emissions allowances are modestly priced at $25 per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2012, when the bill would go into effect, this legislation would add another $5 billion to U.S. airline fuel costs, escalating each year thereafter. Assuming a lower-end estimate in the prices in 2020, a $40 per metric ton CO2 price, the bill would impose a $10 billion additional fuel tax on the U.S. airlines, again escalating annually thereafter. Such costs will result in further job losses, losses in air services to small communities, and negative economic effects. I certainly agree we should all be doing more to promote cleaner forms of energy. But the legislation, as drafted, that we have before us today has significant ramifications that I think many individuals haven't fully considered. I have been a strong supporter of renewable fuels that can be produced in the United States and used in automobiles to reduce our dangerous dependence upon foreign oil. These alternative fuels are not applicable to our Nation's aviation sector. Now, it would be one thing to require sectors of the economy to transition to cleaner forms of energy, but this legislation, as drafted, would have a significant cost on our domestic airlines, which are already being significantly impacted by the record cost of oil, by adding additional costs that will be passed on to the consumer, which, in my opinion, could result in not only fewer people traveling but could bankrupt U.S. air carriers, while at the same time not requiring foreign air carriers to be subject to the same taxes that will be passed along under the cap- and-trade system that is envisioned in this legislation. So one impact that I don't think has been entered in this debate as heavily as it should have been is the aviation sector of our economy, which is going through tumult and is experiencing economic hardship because of high fuel prices. This would complicate that further, and because they don't have access to using some of the cleaner fuels we are able to run through automobiles, it only worsens the situation they face. That is on top of what we are talking about today in terms of our headlines on job losses, capacity losses, airfares doubling, tripling, quadrupling, and cutbacks in service. What do we do, then, in response to the question, If this is occurring--climate change--and if human activity is contributing to it, what do we do about it and at what cost? I think there are a lot of things we could and should be doing. Honestly, irrespective of the answers to the first two questions, we should be making every effort we can to get emissions such as CO2 out of our atmosphere. We ought to work as hard as we can to do that. Rather than creating a cumbersome new bureaucracy that would increase the price of gasoline, Congress ought to look to lowering gas prices through increased domestic production and refining capacity and investment in alternatives, such as biofuels. With respect to electricity rates, again, according to the EIA, electricity prices are projected to increase up to 27 percent in 2020 and a 64-percent increase in electricity prices by 2030. Under the bill before us, average annual household energy bills, excluding transportation costs, would be $325 higher in 2020 and $123 higher in the year 2030. I think there are some really good things that can be done and should be done. We need to start by investing in clean energy. I agree that we need to research and develop a new, reliable low-carbon energy source. In South Dakota, we have examples of how that works. We are going to be producing a billion gallons of ethanol by the end of this year. New corn-based ethanol plants are producing ethanol with a 20-percent reduction in life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions relative to regular gasoline. In the coming years, we will be producing cellulosic ethanol that will reduce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80 percent. South Dakota also has an abundant source of wind, which is a zero-carbon-emitting source of energy. A recent DOE study noted that the United States has the ability to meet 20 percent of its generation needs with wind by 2030. We can promote low-carbon energy without destroying jobs. We can do this without raising taxes, and we can do this without raising gasoline prices. The climate change bill before the Senate puts the cart before the horse. The bill enacts mandates on at least 2,000 entities, and then the Federal Government collects the revenue through annual allowance auctions, and then the Government invests in new technologies. Meanwhile, jobs are lost, our economic growth slows, and family budgets get squeezed. If we are willing to make a bipartisan commitment to research and development of new technologies today, carbon reductions, in the very near future, will be considerably less expensive. In November of 2007, the Senate Commerce Committee held one of many hearings on clean coal technology, which will play a major role in the future of our Nation's energy portfolio. The nonprofit Electric Power Research Institute, which was represented at that hearing, identified the research and development pathways to demonstrate, by 2025, a full portfolio of economically attractive, commercial-scale, advanced coal power and integrated CCS technologies suitable for use with the broad range of coal types. If we make the commitment today to fund the research, finance the demonstration projects, and fund the loan guarantees first--if we do all those things first--reducing carbon emissions in the future will be far less costly to our economy. Mr. President, my message to my colleagues is very simply that we need to develop the technology before enacting onerous Government mandates on virtually every single part of our economy. Higher gas prices, higher electricity rates, a shrinking GDP, job losses, and minimal environmental benefit is what will come about as a result of this legislation if enacted. There is a better way. We ought to be doing everything we possibly can to get CO2 emissions and other pollutants out of our atmosphere to address the concerns we have about our environment, to be good stewards, to pass on a better world to the next generation, but there is a way we can go about this that is incentive based, that gets away from the heavy-handed, onerous regulations imposed by this bill and the enormous cost that will be imposed on literally every sector of our economy and, most importantly, on the hard-working American families who will be faced with higher prices for gasoline, higher prices for electricity at a time when we should be desperately looking for ways to reduce those prices and to lessen the economic hardship that every family in this country is experiencing. I hope my colleagues will vote no. I, too, have some amendments to offer to the bill if we get the opportunity to offer the amendments. My understanding is the amendment tree has been filled. That is unfortunate. This is a bill of enormous consequence to this country. Some have described it as the biggest reorganization of the Government since the 1930s. Given the complexities and the enormous impact this would have on Americans' everyday lives, we need to go about this in a way that allows us to have open debate, offer amendments, and improve this bill. I regret the fact that the Democratic leadership has decided to abandon that open process in exchange for filling the amendment tree and preventing us from having an open debate and considering amendments that actually would protect consumers from higher gas and energy prices that would be the result of this legislation. If we get to an open process, I hope to have further debate and amendments we can consider. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as the American public observes and listens to the debate on climate change and global warming, I think there are probably three fundamental questions everybody wants answered. The first question is an obvious one, and that is: Is climate change occurring? Is global warming a fact and a reality that we need to deal with? I think you have to assume the answer to that question is yes. There are changes going on in our climate, on our planet, some of which we can explain and some of which we cannot explain. Honestly, I will use South Dakota as a case in point. We have experienced--probably for the last decade--successive and continuous years of drought. Yet, this year, in May, we had the wettest year in western South Dakota--in Rapid City--ever since they started keeping historical records. So there are changes that occur that have to be viewed in the context of time--not just a decade period but a hundred- or thousand-year period--to determine what are the causes of the changes we are seeing in the climate. We had, in South Dakota, the coldest April this year we have had historically, going back 50 to 100 years, and blizzards into the month of May. So there are a lot of changes that are going on, some of which I think can be explained and some of which cannot be explained. We need to look at them in the broader context of what has happened over a long period of time with respect to our climate. The second question the American people would ask is this: If, in fact, climate change is occurring--and we assume the answer to that is yes--is human activity contributing to that? If we, again, assume the answer to this question is yes, then we have to get to the next question. I think, frankly, I would answer, if we look at the question of whether human activity is contributing to that, we cannot put our heads in the sand. Obviously, changes are occurring. We assume that the presence of humanity on this planet and some of the things we are emitting into the atmosphere are creating changes. I think we need to acknowledge that. That leads to the next question that I think has become the focus of the debate in the Senate, and that is this question: If the answer to question No. 1 is yes, it is occurring, and 2, it is occurring at least on some level--and we don't know how to quantify that because of human activity--what are we going to do about it and at what cost? That is really the focal point of the debate in the Senate today. In my view, there are many problems associated with the bill currently under consideration on the floor of the Senate. First off, it provides a minimal environmental benefit since it is a unilateral solution. China has exceeded us in terms of CO2 emissions. It will not get them to stop their CO2 emissions because the United States chooses to implement a cap-and-trade program. So you don't gain environmental benefit. In fact, it could likely have some profound and devastating impacts on our economy. With regard to the first point about the other polluting countries around the world, this was said recently by President Clinton with regard to the Kyoto protocol. He said that 170 countries signed the treaty, and only 6 out of 170 reduced their greenhouse gases to the 1990 level, and only 6 will do so by 2012 at the deadline. These countries signed a binding agreement, and yet they are doing really nothing to get back to the goal or targets called for in that protocol. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the European Union, which began to operate its cap-and-trade system in 2005, has actually seen carbon dioxide emissions rise by 1 percent per year since that time. Interestingly enough, in the United States, since that same time when Europe implemented their cap-and-trade system, carbon dioxide emissions have actually declined by about 1 percent. I guess the bigger question here to this last question is, if this is occurring, what do we do about it and at what cost? We have to think long and hard about that in light of some of the things that are occurring in the country. We have $3.99 gasoline and $4.67 diesel. We have had devastating impacts on the economy in the United States as a result of our dependence upon foreign sources of energy. We need to lessen that dependence and look for technologies that will clean up our environment. Imposing an onerous, burdensome system from the top in which we impose a big tax burden on literally every American, because with $3.99 gasoline and all the studies done by the Energy Information Agency--11 studies have been done, all of which have concluded that they will increase gas prices substantially and electricity prices substantially. We have to take a hard look at what the impact will be on our economy. I understand the time for morning business is going to expire. I would like to address some of those impacts as this debate on the climate change legislation gets underway. If I could wrap up morning business, I would like to continue with the debate on the climate change legislation, if that would be in order.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize the 90th birthday of Mr. Squire Rudolph Broel. A native South Dakotan, Squire was born in Lesterville, SD, on May 29, 1918, to Rudolph and May Broel. Upon graduation from Lesterville High School in 1936, Squire was employed in various jobs throughout the area including at the Stuelpnagals Chicken Hatchery. On June 24, 1940, Squire married another Lesterville native Evelyn Hladky and they would eventually have three children: Larry Broel, Carolyn McDonald, and Jean Lehn. During World War II Squire served in the Army Air Corps and for most of his service was stationed in Mississippi. Soon after his discharge and return to South Dakota, Squire and his family moved to Sturgis, SD, where he still lives today. It was in Sturgis, that Squire became a fireman at the Fort Meade Veterans Hospital in 1951. He worked there until his retirement in 1978, and during that time he earned many awards, including the Veterans Hospital Civil Service Award for South Dakota in 1964. After his retirement from Fort Meade, Squire continued to serve as a fireman for the Sturgis Volunteer Fire Department and in 1985 he was honored by the Governor of South Dakota for his 50 years of fire service with the proclamation of ``Squire Broel Day'' throughout the State. In 1994, Squire earned the South Dakota Outstanding Fire Service Award. During his career as a fireman Squire was also a member of the Black Hills Safety Council, the South Dakota Fire Chiefs Association, and the Keep South Dakota Green Association. Now officially retired from the Sturgis Volunteer Fire Department, Squire remains active with numerous volunteer activities and in various civic organizations. He also enjoys hunting, watching baseball, traveling, and spending time with his five grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. It gives me great pleasure to commemorate the 90th birthday of Squire Broel and to wish him continued health and happiness in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Dr. Charles Ruch, outgoing president of the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology in Rapid City who is retiring after 5 years of service to the university. The School of Mines was established in 1885 and enjoys a nationwide reputation for excellence in engineering, the sciences, and computer technology. President Ruch has received praise from the South Dakota Board of Regents for his keen focus on the academic, research and public service missions at the university. Since his arrival in 2003, the number of doctoral programs has doubled and the awards for research-related grants and contracts have increased 35 percent in the last 4 years to $17.2 million. Under his tenure, a new business incubator on campus has created important links between higher education, economic development and the Black Hills region. Additionally, under his visionary leadership, the School of Mines has conducted ``cutting edge'' defense research projects on pressing current day issues such as detecting and defeating improvised explosive devices and developing new technologies to inexpensively repair combat vehicles. He has been recognized by faculty, students and alumni as a strong advocate for the institution. His leadership and dedication to the School of Mines will be greatly missed. It gives me great pleasure to congratulate Dr. Ruch on a successful career in higher education and wish him the best on his retirement.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 496.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the resolution that was adopted by the Senate is S. Res. 496, which I introduced on April 2, 2008, along with my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Tim Johnson. The resolution honors the 60th anniversary of the Crazy Horse Memorial. The Crazy Horse Memorial, located in the Black Hills of South Dakota, honors the culture, the tradition, and the living heritage of Native Americans. Once completed, the memorial will stand more than 22 stories high and be the largest mountain sculpture in the world. Every year, there is an event called the Volksmarch, in which people start at the base and walk up to the very top of the monument. You cannot appreciate the size and the dimension of this great monument from a distance. It is only when you get up close that the true dimensions of this monument come into full view. I have had that opportunity on the Volksmarch, with my family, to walk up and stand next to this monument and to have an appreciation for its true dimension and for what it means to my State of South Dakota and to the Native American culture. The sculptor of this monument, Korczak Ziolkowski, had no formal training and originally came to South Dakota to assist Gutzon Borglum in the carving of Mount Rushmore. In 1939, Chief Henry Standing Bear invited him to construct another mountain monument, this one to honor a great Native American hero. However, it was not until June 3, in 1948, that the project was officially dedicated. Crazy Horse, a great Lakota chief, was selected as the Native American hero worthy of the mountain monument because of his courage in battle, his visionary leadership, and his commitment to the preservation of the traditional Lakota way of life. The memorial was placed in the Black Hills of South Dakota because they are sacred to the Lakota people. While Crazy Horse was never photographed, the completed monument will feature a likeness of him riding a horse and pointing with his left hand out toward the Black Hills. Ziolkowski, who worked tirelessly and without salary on the Crazy Horse Memorial until his death in 1982, believed in individual initiative and private enterprise and worked to build the memorial without any Federal funding. As my colleagues can see from the photo we have here, the face of Crazy Horse is complete, the rest of the mountain has been roughly blocked out, and efforts are currently focused on carving the horse's head. While there is no way to predict the date of completion because of weather, financing, and the challenges of carving a mountain, Ziolkowski's wife Ruth, who is an amazingly determined woman, and his family, along with the help of thousands of donors and visitors, continues Ziolkowski's mission of honoring Native Americans through the construction of this monument. Therefore, today I rise to honor the 60th anniversary of the Crazy Horse Memorial and send my best wishes to all those working to make Korczak Ziolkowski's vision a reality. I thank the Senate for its adoption of the resolution, and I yield the floor.