John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to speak to the amendment of the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, regarding renewable energy. As much as I appreciate the fact, as the Senator from Connecticut has pointed out, that this is a housing bill and there is a mortgage crisis out there that needs to be addressed, I would also argue, first of all, that, this being the Senate, we oftentimes consider amendments to bills that are not necessarily related to the underlying base bill, and secondly, that there probably is not an issue that impacts the folks I represent in South Dakota any more than does the high cost of energy. Now, granted, as you travel across the country--and this is true in my State, as I think it is in every State--people are following closely what is happening with the subprime mortgage crisis, and the Senate and the Congress are reacting to that with the legislation that is currently on the floor. But if you look at it in the context of the broader economy and what is impacting the pocketbooks of Americans every single day--and certainly of South Dakotans--there is no question that high energy prices are impacting the lives of everyone I represent in South Dakota. We are a very energy-dependent State, and we travel long distances; we are a farm economy, so those inputs are very important to our economic well-being. We are a cold-weather State, and so electricity is in very high demand, both during the cold-weather season but also during the hot-weather season. It seems to me that if we are going to address the economic issues that affect this country right now, we cannot do that without taking a hard look at what we can do to make energy more affordable to people in this country. So I would argue to my colleagues who have made the point that this is, in fact, a housing bill that, notwithstanding that is the basic focus of this bill, when we look at addressing the economy, I think in the broader context this is what this whole discussion is about: how can we bring relief to hard-working people who are struggling with the economic pains created by the housing crisis, by high energy prices, by high health care costs. Those are all factors that impact the pocketbooks of everyday Americans. So I think the discussion of this renewable energy extender amendment is perfectly appropriate in the context of this debate. I would also say, with respect to the Senator from Montana, who has worked very hard, along with the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, on an energy package that would extend many of the tax incentives that are in place for renewable energy, we have had that legislation now on the floor of the Senate several different times and have been unable to reach that magic 60-vote threshold that is necessary to end a filibuster and to move forward with the legislation. So I would argue that every opportunity we have, we need to move forward with this debate about energy and what we are going to do to lessen our dependence on foreign sources of energy to make energy more affordable to more Americans. So I think it fits perfectly within the context of this debate. I would also say, with regard to some of the extenders that will impact those that relate to energy production in my part of the world, I am particularly interested in the wind energy production tax credit, the 2-cent-per-kilowatt credit that applies to wind, and I have talked to investors who are looking at wind energy projects across this country and who are prepared to invest capital to build wind energy production but cannot deal with the uncertainty that exists with regard to Federal policy. The wind energy production tax credit expires at the end of this year, and if we do not do something in the very near future, those who are looking at making investments--that investment capital is going to dry up. We cannot afford to have that happen at a time when we have an increasing and growing demand for energy across this country. We are trying to look at the whole issue of greenhouse gas emissions and carbon emissions and find new renewable forms of energy that will help address our energy needs in a clean, environmentally friendly way. We cannot afford to allow these tax incentives for renewable energy production to lapse at the very time that there is investment sitting there on the sidelines waiting to invest in wind energy production and solar energy production, but with the lack of certainty that exists today because of the pending expiration of these production tax credits, that investment very well could end up staying on the sidelines and not be made. That would be a very tragic outcome, I would argue, for our country. So I would hope that every opportunity we have here in the Senate-- and frankly there will not be that many opportunities, regrettably, this year on legislation that actually is going to pass here in the Senate to which to attach these types of amendments. The Senator from Montana has said there will be a tax extender bill moving later. I hope he is right. I hope we have a window down the road to get addressed some of these tax measures that are expiring. But if, in fact, that does not happen or if it happens later in the year, sometime in the summer, we are going to miss a lot of opportunity, a lot of capital investment in wind energy and other types of renewable energy production that we otherwise would get if we had some certainty with regard to what the policy is going to be. So, again, as much as there are jurisdictional objections being raised by the Senator from Connecticut with regard to this bill being a housing bill, the Senator from Montana regarding the need to do this later on a piece of legislation that might be a tax bill moving through the Finance Committee and ultimately out to the floor, I would simply make the case to my colleagues that timing is important. Timing really is critical with respect to whether we are going to continue to have incentives in place, economic incentives for investment in renewable energy. Frankly, based on the conversations I have had with those who are looking at making those types of capital investments in wind energy and other forms of renewable energy production, they are very concerned that Congress has yet to act. I would much rather see a multiyear extension of the production tax credit for wind, and some of the other renewable energy tax credits, than doing this for 1 year because I do not think that provides the long-term certainty that is necessary. But I would much rather have a 1-year extension than face the prospect of this production tax credit expiring at the end of this year and us not addressing it and seeing a whole lot of capital investment that otherwise would be made in these areas of production stay on the sidelines and us continue to go down this path of increasing dependance on foreign sources of energy, growing demand for energy here in the United States, and a need to lessen the greenhouse gas emissions into our atmosphere and us doing nothing about that. So my fear is that if we do not act now, perhaps this thing gets punted down the road, perhaps it does not get addressed this year, in which case the production tax credit would expire. That would be a tragic outcome, a tragic result for this country and for the goals we have when it comes to renewable energy. I would simply say to my colleagues who are going to hear objections raised on procedural grounds about dealing with these production tax credits in the context of this particular bill that we need to look at the broader picture. We have an energy crisis in this country. We have those who want to invest in renewable energy products that would help address that, that would meet all of the goals I mentioned about clean energy, about lessening our dependence upon foreign energy. Frankly, the argument that was made by my colleague from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, with regard to wind energy being more of a localized, regional issue, that is predominately true. But so is oil production. There are lots of parts of the country that do not have certain energy sources. Yet we all rely upon all of those energy sources for our energy needs in this country. We happen to have an abundance of wind in the upper Midwest which I think has been underutilized, but it has the potential to meet the energy needs of people not just in South Dakota or North Dakota or Nebraska or Iowa or Minnesota but all across the country. We need to be making the investments in those types of energy sources, and we need to have the policies in place that would create the economic incentives for that to happen. I hope that in spite of the objections that will be raised on some procedural grounds to moving forward, that absent action to date and having seen in the past--looking historically at what has happened to this wind energy production tax credit over time, since 1992 when it was originally enacted, every time it comes to where it is about to expire or does expire--you will see this peak investment when it is in place. When it comes to where it is running out, the investment falls off, tails off; it expires, gets put back in place, and it takes off again. We need to even that out so we don't have these peaks and valleys, that we have consistent policies in place that will provide the certainty and the necessary incentives for those who want to invest in these types of energy sources to be able to do. So I hope we will pass the Ensign amendment and put it on this bill. The objection has been raised that this could derail the housing bill. Frankly, the House has voted not on one occasion but on several occasions already for these very same renewable energy tax credits, and I suspect that they would welcome the opportunity to have that vote again in the House of Representatives. I hope it will be part of this package because it does address the fundamental issue when it comes to our broader economy; that is, the high cost of energy that is plaguing and harming and impacting the pocketbooks of every single American. I urge my colleagues, when we have this vote, which I assume will be early next week, to vote yes for the Ensign amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise to speak to amendment No. 4268. This amendment would provide for a total of $200 million over the next 5 fiscal years for tribal justice and law enforcement. Specifically, this amendment would do two things in a fiscally responsible way. First, it would increase the BIA's public safety and justice account, which funds tribal law enforcement, tribal court systems, and tribal detention centers by $25 million a year for the next 5 years. Second, it would increase funding for U.S. attorneys to prosecute crimes in Indian Country by $15 million a year for the next 5 years. The need for this amendment on our Nation's reservations cannot be overstated, as the absence of basic levels of public safety is reaching a crisis point. The statistics are startling. Nationally, studies show that one of every three Native American women will be raped in their lifetime. Crime rates on remote reservations are an average of 10 times higher than the rest of the Nation. The Department of Justice has found that American Indian women are 2\1/2\ times more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than women throughout the rest of the country. In my home State of South Dakota, homicide rates within reservations are almost 10 times higher than those found in the rest of South Dakota. According to the BIA, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has the second highest rate of crime of all the reservations in the Nation. In order to start to help improve public safety on our Nation's reservations, there needs to be a two-part solution. First, we have to ensure there are adequate law enforcement personnel on the reservations to respond to, to investigate, and to deter crime--something that is not currently happening. For example, again, my home State of South Dakota, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which sits on the border of North and South Dakota and occupies over 2 million acres of land, currently has only 16 commissioned police officers. That works out to no more than three officers a shift for over 2 million acres of land. To put that in perspective, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe land is more than two times larger than the State of Rhode Island, which has 200 sworn State troopers plus additional county, city, and Federal officers. That means Rhode Island has 12 times as many State troopers as the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has law enforcement officers, to police half the land. Rhode Island also has 10 State trooper police dogs, meaning that at any given time, Rhode Island has more canine officers patrolling than Standing Rock Indian Reservation has human law enforcement officers. While there are population discrepancies between the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and Rhode Island, the differences between the two are still startling. My amendment addresses this need to increase the number of law enforcement officers on reservations by increasing funding for the BIA's public safety and justice account. Second, there has to be some assurance that those who have been arrested, especially those arrested for violent crimes, are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Over the past two decades, only 30 percent of tribal land crimes referred to U.S. attorneys were prosecuted, according to Justice Department data compiled by Syracuse University. This compares with 56 percent of all other cases. My amendment addresses this need with an increase in the BIA's Public Safety and Justice Account, which also funds tribal courts, and an increase for U.S. attorneys to prosecute crimes in Indian country. The bottom line is that violent crime has become a serious problem on our reservations, particularly on our reservations in South Dakota, and I am determined to help reduce it. This $20 million increase in spending in fiscal year 2009 is small, less than 4/1000 of 1 percent of the total discretionary spending in fiscal year 2009 in this budget resolution, but it will have a big impact on the reservations that are truly in need. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment so we can start restoring basic public safety to our Nation's Indian reservations.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this last year, Americans sent almost half a trillion dollars, almost $500 billion, overseas to purchase imported oil from other countries around the world. Think about that massive transfer of wealth and what that means for our national security because, in many respects, a lot of those dollars being used to purchase imported fuels are going to countries that are not favorable toward the United States. Of course, some say it is a world market, let the market work. The difference is that most of our trading partners around the world are people we consider to be at least friends, allies, folks we do business with. They are not countries that are funding organizations that are trying to kill Americans. Regrettably, what we end up doing is funding both sides of the war on terror, because we send almost half a trillion dollars annually to foreign countries, petro dictators around the world who use those dollars to fund terrorist organizations that are designed to kill Americans, and then we end up having, of course, to fund our military to go fight the very same terrorists. It seems like a very misguided policy. I make that point because I think we have a dangerous dependence on foreign energy. Today, 65 percent of our petroleum comes from outside of the United States. As most of us know, the fuels in this country are mostly petroleum based. The reason I say all that is I think we have an important decision to make in this country about whether we are going to continue to subsidize foreign governments, petro dictators who use those dollars that transfer wealth out of this country to fund terrorist organizations that attack Americans, or whether we are going to make an investment in the United States that provides benefits to the economy in America and provides jobs for Americans. I think that is an important decision we have to make. For the past several years, this Congress as a matter of policy has tried to put into place incentives to increase the production of renewable energy, and with some degree of success. If you look at last year and this year, by the end of this year, we will be at about 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol produced in the United States. There are some 160, I think, ethanol biorefineries in this country. If you look at it, 22 States are home to some of those, with a collective capacity of over 7.5 billion gallons. There are sixty biorefineries under construction and several plants are in the process of expansion. That is a great story for America and for our agricultural economy. It is also a great story for our national security, in my view. Lately, we have had a lot of attacks launched on the ethanol industry, and on renewable fuels generally. Many of them have been, again in my view, very misguided and misleading in terms of the reporting that has been done regarding food prices. If you look at several editorials recently, the New York Times went out of their way to discount the impact of high energy prices and worldwide demand for protein as reasons for food price increases. Rather, they decided to blame ethanol by stating, ``The most important reason for the price shock is the rich world's subsidized appetite for biofuels.'' The editorial board claims, ``The benefits of this strategy are dubious.'' A February Washington Post article, entitled ``The Problem With Biofuels,'' leads the public to believe that biofuels will only serve to starve people. The article quotes a university study and states, ``By putting pressure on global supplies of edible groups, the surge in ethanol production will translate into higher prices for both processed and staple foods around the world.'' The food versus fuel debate is an important debate to have. However, it has to be based upon facts and not anti- renewable fuel rhetoric. It is a fact that energy prices have a 2-to-1 greater impact on food prices relative to the price of inputs such as corn. Last year, John Uranchuck of LECG issued a report detailing the impact of rising energy prices on the price of food. According to that study, Increasing petroleum prices have about twice the impact on consumer food prices as equivalent increases in corn prices. A 33 percent increase in crude oil prices--the equivalent of $1 per gallon over current levels of retail gasoline prices-- would increase retail food prices measured by the CPI for food by 0.6 to 0.9 percent. An equivalent increase in corn prices--about $1 per bushel over current levels--would increase consumer food prices only 0.3 percent. In December 2007, Informa Economics issued a report called ``Marketing Costs and Surging Global Demand for Commodities Are Key Drivers of Food Price Inflation.'' This report also concluded that the price of raw commodities is not the leading component of the Consumer Price Index for food. Rather, this report correctly identified rising energy and transportation costs as leading causes of food inflation. To place the blame for food inflation on biofuels and the rising prices of certain commodities is simply misguided. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, costs of food inputs only account for a fraction of food prices. Specifically, labor, packaging, transportation, advertising, and profits account for 68 cents of every dollar a consumer spends on food. The long-term outlook for corn prices under the expanded renewable fuels standard is somewhere in the $3.25 to $3.50 per bushel range. To put that into perspective, so the average person around the country can understand what I am talking about, the average box of corn flakes contains about 10 ounces or one ninetieth of a bushel of corn. Even at $4 corn--$4 a bushel corn--that amounts to 5 cents of corn in a box of corn flakes. Think about that. A box of corn flakes. Everybody assumes the farmer, because of high corn prices, is cutting a fat hog, but 5 cents of that goes back into the farmer's pocket. Attributing food inflation to biofuels and corn-based ethanol is simply untrue. Now, with respect to climate change, because we have heard a lot of discussion as well and criticism of the ethanol industry with regard to how it impacts that debate, critics of renewable fuels have also started blaming climate change on renewable energy. I find that hard to believe, as well, because the purpose of biofuels is to replace petroleum as a fuel source. For years, environmentalists have decried petroleum as a major emitter of harmful carbon emissions. Today, we have a homegrown alternative that is displacing more and more petroleum by the day. Some are claiming now that ethanol is creating more global warming. If our national policy is to manage climate change, falsely blaming ethanol for global warming is not helpful to the cause. According to the Argonne National Laboratory, regular blends of ethanol, gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 18 to 29 percent relative to regular gasoline. As more ethanol is produced and consumed, our Nation's carbon footprint will continue to shrink. In 2006, ethanol use in the United States reduced carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 8 million tons. Such a reduction is the equivalent of removing 1.21 million cars from the road. As Congress continues to debate climate change legislation and the causes of global warming, it is important to set the record straight. Ethanol production is a carbon sink, not a net producer of carbon emissions. Furthermore, as new types of cellulosic ethanol come online, the carbon-reducing benefits of ethanol are only going to increase. Ethanol may be able to be blamed for some other transformations in our economy. For one, increased ethanol production is allowing our demand for gasoline to go down and displacing foreign imports of oil. Again, I point to some of the statistics that bear that out. If you look at the amount of ethanol that is being produced in America today-- and this is based on a 2007 number--in 2007, the ethanol that was produced, 6.5 billion, in this country displaced the need for 228 million barrels of oil, saving American consumers more than $16 billion or $45 million a day from going to countries, as I said earlier, outside the United States and enriching petrodictators who would do us ill will. If we look at the impact on tax revenues coming into the Treasury, the ethanol industry generated an estimated $4.6 billion in Federal tax revenue and $3.6 billion in additional tax revenue for State and local governments. So if you couple that with the fact that according to the USDA--and I think this is an important point to make, too, by those who would criticize ethanol--according to the USDA, the increased demand for grain use in ethanol production reduced Federal farm program costs by more than $8 billion last year, meaning that even with the cost of the tax incentive that we use to encourage more production of ethanol, ethanol saved U.S. taxpayers, when you couple that with the additional tax revenue coming into the Treasury and the $8 billion that was saved because the Federal Government was not making farm program payments to farmers in this country, U.S. taxpayers saved more than $9.2 billion as a result of this industry. Right now, about 50 percent of the gasoline in this country is blended with ethanol, and before very long, we hope that from coast to coast we will have every single gallon of gasoline in this country blended with ethanol. But my point very simply is: This has been a great success story, one which has benefited and enriched our country, our farmers, people in this country who are working hard making a living contributing to a better quality of life for all Americans, as opposed to shipping all that wealth outside the United States to other countries. Let me restate what I started by saying at the very beginning, and that is that last year, we spent almost half a trillion dollars, almost $500 billion, in purchasing imported oil. That, again, makes absolutely no sense to me in light of these statistics that I shared. I think as we look at the future of this industry and the promise it holds and the benefit it holds, not only for the economy in this country but also as we get away from this dangerous dependence on foreign sources of energy, renewable fuels, biofuels, have a great future for America, and I believe we ought to be continuing to invest in making sure that those who are involved with that industry--our farmers, those who are constructing ethanol plants around this country, that we provide not fewer incentives but more incentives for this kind of biofuel production that, again, gets rid of the carbon in our atmosphere, cleans up our environment, lessens our dependence on foreign sources of energy, and puts dollars back into the pockets of hard-working Americans, farmers, the rural economy, creating jobs, helping grow the economy right here at home in the United States rather than shipping those dollars to some foreign country where, again, many of these dollars are used to turn around and fund organizations that are designed to undermine America's interests around the world. This debate will continue to percolate around this country, but when we get into this debate about food versus fuel, it is important we have the facts in front of us because this industry has undergone a lot of criticism of late. As I said before, I think much of it is misguided because it is based on misinformation and wrong facts. We need to have the facts in front of us, and then we can have a meaningful debate. Until that happens, we are going to hear more of these false attacks against an industry that is creating American jobs, helping reduce our dependence on foreign energy, and I hope, in the very near future, we will be able to increase the amount not only of production in this country but the amount of consumption because I believe in the very near future we will start seeing more and more momentum for increasing the blend rate. Right now, we blend 10 percent ethanol, as I said, in 50 percent of the gasoline in the country. I hope in the future we can increase that to 20 percent. The University of Minnesota completed a study where they compared effects of 10 percent and 20 percent on materials compatibility, driveability--all those types of issues. The result of the data that came from that study was that you can move to a 20- percent blend, a higher blend, an intermediate blend right now and have no impact on any of those issues. The issue of emissions is still being studied. The renewable energy laboratory in Golden, CO, and the Department of Energy and EPA are undertaking some studies. When that data comes in, I believe it will show what the University of Minnesota study has shown and that is you can go to a higher blend with minimal impact and, in fact, in many cases with a better result; that we should move very quickly. I am going to encourage the administration and continue to try to influence that decisionmaking process in a way that will increase the amount of ethanol that is used in this country so, again, we can achieve the many benefits that I think dependence on American agriculture creates for us as opposed to our dependence upon foreign energy. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I rise to honor MSG Woodrow Wilson ``Woody'' Keeble for earning the Medal of Honor for his heroic service to our country in World War II and the Korean war. Although President Bush won't present the medal to Master Sergeant Keeble's family until next Monday, this is indeed an historic event as he is the first member of the Great Sioux Nation to be awarded this honor. Master Sergeant Keeble went beyond the call of duty not for a medal, but for the mission he believed in and the country he loved. His legacy is a great source of pride for his family, his fellow South Dakota Sioux, and all Americans. The example he set for the just cause of defending freedom and democracy is truly heroic. Master Sergeant Keeble was born in Waubay, SD, in 1917 to parents from the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux tribe. Master Sergeant Keeble's mother died at a young age, forcing his father to enroll him in the Wahpeton Indian School so he could get an education and three meals a day. After graduating, Master Sergeant Keeble worked at the school and became well known for his baseball pitching, a skill that would serve him well in combat. In fact, the Chicago White Sox were actively recruiting him to play professional baseball when he was called into action in World War II. After basic training, Master Sergeant Keeble served with ``I'' Company of North Dakota's 164th Infantry Regiment. He trained in Louisiana and was soon deployed to Australia to prepare for operations in the Pacific Theater. There, Master Sergeant Keeble's regiment was assigned to the 23rd Infantry Division, better known as the Americal Division. On October 13, 1942, Master Sergeant Keeble landed on Guadalcanal in support of the First Marine Division, which had suffered heavy losses from the relentless Japanese forces. This was the first offensive operation the U.S. Army had conducted against the enemy in any theater of World War II. Fighting alongside Marines, Master Sergeant Keeble gained valuable experience in jungle warfare that would later prove valuable in future operations. The campaign on Guadalcanal saw some of the most brutal combat of the war. Japanese troops adopted the ``banzai charge'' tactic of attacking in human waves and hand-to-hand combat would sometimes last through the night. During this operation, Master Sergeant Keeble developed expert control of his Browning automatic rifle. He also earned a reputation for bravery as one of the best fighters on the island because his pitching skills came in handy as he used his incredibly strong arm to effectively throw grenades into enemy bunkers. James Fenelon, a member of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe who fought beside Master Sergeant Keeble once said, ``The safest place to be was right next to Woody. I don't know how many rounds he carried, but he had bandoliers on each shoulder. His gun just never stopped--no matter where you were, there were Japanese. He was unbelievable.'' Master Sergeant Keeble was awarded his first Bronze Star and Purple Heart at Guadalcanal for his meritorious actions in ground operations against the Japanese. His division fought so valiantly that they received a Navy Presidential Unit Citation for their support of the Marines. After Japan surrendered, the 164th occupied the Yokohama region of Japan. After the war, Master Sergeant Keeble returned to Wahpeton and resumed work at the Wahpeton Indian School. He married Nattie Abigail Owen-Robertson on November 14, 1947, and settled down to start a family. However, Master Sergeant Keeble's rest would not be a long one as the 164th was reactivated in 1951 to serve in the Korean war. After training at Camp Rucker, Alabama, several of Master Sergeant Keeble's fellow sergeants were to be selected for deployment to the front lines in Korea. After agreeing to draw straws to decide who would take this unwanted duty, Master Sergeant Keeble volunteered to take a short straw saying, ``Somebody has to teach these kids how to fight.'' The leadership and bravery Master Sergeant Keeble displayed in volunteering continued through his time in Korea. He was assigned to George Company, 19th Infantry Regiment, 24th Infantry Division. His strong character, robust leadership, and jungle combat experience brought him several quick promotions to the level of Master Sergeant. The Regimental leadership saw his potential, and placed him in charge of the first platoon. On October 15, 1951, in a particularly bloody battle near Kumsong, North Korea, all of the officers of G Company were either wounded or killed in combat. Master Sergeant Keeble was among the wounded, but demanded he be released after treatment and volunteered to lead the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Platoons in assaults against the enemy. On October 17, Master Sergeant Keeble was again wounded, and again returned to battle after being treated. His actions on the following day, October 18, earned him the Silver Star for continuing to lead his men after being hit by grenade shrapnel. During this battle, Master Sergeant Keeble suffered two bullet wounds to his left arm, a grenade blast near his face that nearly removed his nose, and a badly twisted knee. On October 19, doctors removed 83 pieces of shrapnel from Master Sergeant Keeble's wounds. The following day, October 20, 1951, would prove to be Master Sergeant Keeble's most heroic. After insisting he be allowed back to combat, Master Sergeant Keeble cemented his place in history. While leading the 1st Platoon up a steep hill during this battle, he saw that machine gun fire from three enemy emplacements had pinned down the entire 2nd Platoon on the same hill. The steep, rocky terrain was of tactical importance and Master Sergeant Keeble took it upon himself to ensure the operation carried on. Master Sergeant Keeble crawled ahead to the 2nd Platoon. He then continued to advance on the enemy by crawling forward on his own. Although the enemy began to train all of its fire on Master Sergeant Keeble, he continued to hug the ground and advance until he was close to the emplacements. He then activated a grenade and successfully destroyed one of the enemy positions. Continuing his assault, Master Sergeant Keeble moved towards the remaining two machine gun posts and single handedly destroyed both of them with grenades. After removing the last position, he was stunned with an enemy concussion grenade, but pressed on after he recovered. Master Sergeant Keeble then resumed his advance and neutralized the remaining enemy personnel with his rifle. In all, Master Sergeant Keeble eliminated nine machine gunners and seven riflemen. His heroic determination to press on and endure enemy fire inspired his fellow servicemen to rally and continue advancing on the enemy. By the end of the campaign, Master Sergeant Keeble had received five separate wounds to his chest, both arms, and both legs. Despite all of these injuries, Master Sergeant Keeble only received one Purple Heart, with the Oak Leaf Cluster, bringing his total to two. He was also awarded the Distinguished Service Cross and the Bronze Star First Oak Leaf Cluster. Although he has been recommended twice for the Medal of Honor, it was never granted. That is why I rise today and honor Master Sergeant Keeble for finally being recognized for his truly remarkable heroism and valor. While he died in 1982 in part due to complications resulting from his war injuries, I am sure he would be proud to know that he has finally been given this honor he earned long ago. Master Sergeant Keeble stood proudly for his country, his tribe and his family. He was strong, humble, compassionate, and committed to defending freedom. His actions were extraordinary and his bravery overcame the chaos that surrounded him. Master Sergeant Keeble once said, ``There were terrible moments that encompassed a lifetime, an endlessness, when terror was so strong in me, that I could feel idiocy replace reason. Yet, I have never left my position, nor have I shirked hazardous duty. Fear did not make a coward out of me.'' I am proud that next Monday, President Bush will be presenting this honor posthumously to Master Sergeant Woodrow Wilson ``Woody'' Keeble. His bravery is undoubtedly deserving of the Medal of Honor he has finally been awarded after a 55-year wait. The legacy he has left is a source of pride for his family, the Great Sioux Nation, and the country he nobly served. Madam President, I would like to, if I might, shift gears and speak for a moment to some of the debate that has been going on on the Senate floor this week dealing with, primarily, the resolution that has been offered by the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, dealing with the withdrawal from Iraq and also the more recent resolution which has been the subject of debate here today on the Senate floor. But I think it is important that we also, as we debate these issues, acknowledge the good work that has been done by our troops. Make no mistake about it, we are making progress in Iraq. The Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, GEN Michael Maples, who was this week here in Washington and testifying in front of the Armed Services Committee, commented that violence across Iraq has declined to its lowest level since April 2005 and violence against coalition troops is at the lowest level since March of 2004. Things are, indeed, trending in the right direction, especially compared to a year ago. Although these trends are certainly reversible, the fact remains that the security situation in Iraq has improved significantly. The surge has and is working. The surge has worked despite relentless efforts to undermine it by several Members on the other side of the aisle. At one point last year, we had people saying the surge had not accomplished anything. We heard a Democrat on the floor of the Senate saying that General Petraeus, our commander in Iraq who has so brilliantly led the surge, had been ``made the de facto spokesman for what many of us believe to be a failed policy'' and that ``the reports you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.'' Thankfully, they were wrong--utterly wrong. Nevertheless, the other side is continuing their wrongheaded approach by offering legislation again this week that would undo all of the progress our troops have made in Iraq. Once again, the extreme left in this country has demanded a vote on cutting off funds for our troops and near immediate withdrawal from Iraq. The leadership on the other side continues to make obligatory gestures to satisfy that extreme leftwing base. The Senate voted four times last year on versions of this bill that we debated earlier this week to cut off funds for the troops in Iraq, and on four separate occasions the Senate rejected it. The legislation was defeated by overwhelming bipartisan margins. It never received more than 29 votes. Yet again this week, we went through the exercise of having yet another debate on this issue. I think it was about a year ago this week, actually, we had a rare Saturday session where Members were called back in to make votes on an Iraq withdrawal resolution, again designed to score political points to undermine progress in Iraq rather than to get anything else done. I think it is important to note--as we think about how we best combat the terrorist threat we face in this country and how we assist those young men and women who are carrying that fight overseas for us--we find today the House of Representatives has adjourned for the week after having acted on, I think, the naming of five post offices, when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has still yet to be voted on in the House of Representatives. The Senate, before we took off for our last recess, voted by a margin of 68 to 29 to pass the terrorist surveillance bill through the Senate. It had broad bipartisan support in the Senate. If it had been taken up on the floor of the House, it would have passed there with broad bipartisan support as well. Yet we have the House today adjourning to go home, having acted on five resolutions to name post offices, without addressing what is one of the most important issues we all need to deal with here; that is, making sure our intelligence community and our law enforcement community and our men and women in uniform have the tools at their disposal to do the job we asked them to do. It is critical that the intelligence community have that legislation passed so we can close gaps in our intelligence collection. We need that to get a better understanding of international al-Qaida networks and to gain insight into future terrorist plans and to disrupt potential terrorist attacks. So I would hope cooler heads will prevail around here, that Congress will do the right thing for the protection of the American people, the right thing to aid those who are diligently working day in and day out--those in our intelligence community, those in our law enforcement community, those men and women in uniform who are fighting to keep this country safe--that they have the tools at their disposal to carry out the important responsibility we have given them to protect Americans. Acting on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and giving our intelligence community, under this terrorist surveillance bill, the authorities it needs to intercept communications that are being conducted by terrorists around the world would be an important place to start. Right now, we have a gap in that intelligence collection because the House has failed to act on this very important piece of legislation. It is irresponsible. It is important that we put the politics of this matter aside and we deal with the important issues that will keep America safe and ensure future generations of Americans are not subject to terrorist attacks. So I hope my colleagues will get the message, will come back into session, and take care of business, which is to get this important legislation passed, and act with the Senate in a broad bipartisan way to put a bill on the President's desk that he can sign into law that will make sure our intelligence community has the resources and the tools they need. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a member of my staff, Jon Abdnor, be granted the privileges of the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I want to pick up where I left off regarding the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, which is the pending business before the Senate. As I stated earlier, we will be having a series of votes tomorrow on a number of amendments. One, I think, improves this bill and addresses an issue which is important to me and a number of my colleagues. The amendment is offered by our colleague from Louisiana, Senator Vitter, amendment No. 3896. If the amendment is adopted, it would codify Federal Indian health care service funds. I hope that is an amendment that will be adopted to the bill. I think that is important to have. Also, as we consider these final amendments, I hope we can also see action in the other body, the House of Representatives, because the Senate acting on this is long overdue. It is critically important to the tribes I represent that we get an Indian Health Care Improvement Act reauthorization in place. But the fact that the Senate has acted won't amount to much if in fact the other body doesn't also take up this legislation and pass it and enable us to go into conference and get a bill we can put on the President's desk that he can sign into law. I wish to speak specifically to one amendment that was adopted. Again, I thank my colleagues Senators Murkowski and Dorgan for working with me to have it adopted. It has to do with tribal justice in the Dakotas. One of the amendments I offered to this bill, No. 4021, goes a long way toward attempting to improve the issue that, in my view, is at the core fundamentally to a lot of issues we are having in Indian country, and that is law enforcement. The amendment simply attempts to help with the process, the analysis of what is happening with regard to justice and law enforcement in Indian Country by having the GAO complete a study within 1 year of the tribal justice systems within North Dakota and South Dakota, two States that have a high incidence of crime on our reservations. Specifically, I am asking the study to focus, one, on how tribal courts currently function and how they are supposed to function; second, an analysis of the components of tribal justice systems; third, a review of the origins and development of tribal justice systems; fourth, an analysis of the weakness of the tribal justice systems; five, an analysis of tribal leader suggestions to the current problems. This is where I think it is important that we listen to the elected leadership on the reservations. Last week during the congressional break, I happened to have had the opportunity to travel across my State. I stopped at a couple different reservations. I was up on the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's reservation and also at the Sisseton- Wahpeton Oyate reservation with the tribal chairmen. The chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is Ron His Horse Is Thunder, and the chairman of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate tribe is Michael Selvage. One of the issues that came up in the meetings was this issue of law enforcement. There is, of course, in the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe a good example of what I am talking about in terms of the dimensions of this problem. You have 2.4 million acres of land on the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe reservation. Yet you have about 10,000 people and you only have about 9 policemen, law enforcement personnel out there, who are committed to that large geographic area. At any given time, you are only going to have a couple of them on duty. So you have all kinds of issues that come up relating to being able to respond in a timely way to calls and to make arrests. I think it is a very difficult challenge that we face on the reservations partly because of the geography but also because of the sparsity that we have today of law enforcement personnel. I think the GAO study will look at a lot of issues and that will be one component. It will look at the tribal court system, which is also something we need to look at and determine what, if anything, can be done to improve the workings of the system. We clearly have a problem that, if you look at the data, needs to be addressed. If you don't contemplate or understand the need for this amendment, let me give you a couple of pieces of information. Studies show that one out of every three Native American women will be raped in their lifetime. The Department of Justice has found that American Indian women are 2\1/2\ times more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than women throughout the rest of the country. Remote reservations in North Dakota and South Dakota have an average of 10 times as much crime as the rest of the Nation. What this GAO study would do is it would assist the tribes not only in North Dakota and South Dakota but I think assist policymakers in Congress concerning possible solutions that could be used to reduce the higher rates of crime on reservations. Having met numerous times with members of the tribal government, tribal councils, and the chairmen on these reservations, and having listened to the stories of people who live there, there isn't anything we can do that is more important, in my view, than to provide security. We are talking about the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. This is a health and public safety issue. If you don't have that, you cannot have economic development; you cannot have kids learning in a safe and secure environment. They are not going to be able to learn at the very fastest rate possible if they are worried about their security. This is an important issue, one that I think needs to be addressed. Again, I appreciate the willingness on behalf of the managers of the bill to accept this amendment. I hope as the process moves forward, we will see action by the House of Representatives that will allow us to get a bill passed through the Congress and on the President's desk, signed into law, which will address the serious health care needs on the reservations, but also this important amendment, the GAO study, will allow us to take a close look--for the first time, a sort of outside objective third-party look at tribal justice in the Dakotas. As I mentioned, it is a very serious need and challenge we face. I got lots of good information during my visit last week from members of the tribal council and the chairmen regarding that subject. I think they are all anxious to get the study under way and anxious to get the results so we can move forward with policies that make sense and that will keep our reservations safe for young people to learn and for those who want to come there and start businesses and have a safe environment in which to do that. With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President today I wish to honor the Madison High School gymnastics team for winning their 14th consecutive South Dakota State Gymnastics title and breaking the national record for most consecutive State gymnastics team titles. This is truly an impressive accomplishment, and I am proud to have such fine athletes representing the State of South Dakota. Last year, the Madison High School Bulldogs were tied with Sehome High School from Bellingham, WA, for most consecutive championship wins. However, as a result of their countless hours of hard work and dedication, the Bulldogs have shown to the Nation their outstanding athletic talent and determination by winning the 2008 State Championship and clinching the national record. Not only did the Lady Bulldogs top the national record for most consecutive State wins, they also beat their State-best score from last year. Madison had four of the top scores in the vault, the top three in the balance beam, three of the top five in the uneven bars, and two of the top three in the floor exercise. This is evidence of the team's ability to perform well and work together in all of the categories of the championship. The Lady Bulldogs sealed their 14th win with a final score of 141.896 points. I would like to congratulate all the young women who have worked so hard this year to win the State championship. The gymnasts of the Lady Bulldogs for the 2007-2008 season, in alphabetical order, are as follows: Laura Blom, Danielle Bloom, Katie Breuer, Kassie Finck, Lexi Finck, Theresa Knapp, Katie Mackenzie, Heidi Mogck, Mara Riedel, Sara Rogers, Jessica Strom, Kaitlyn Walker, and Heather Williams. This remarkable accomplishment would not have been possible without the guidance and encouragement of the team's excellent coaching staff, head coach Maridee Dossett and assistant coach Kindra Wiese. Coach Dossett has been a Lady Bulldog since 1995, first as an athlete and now as a coach. She was part of the team when they won their first State title in 1995. Upon graduation, she has continued to contribute to the team and spur them on to continued success. Bud Postma, the athletic director of the Lady Bulldogs, said the streak was a testament to past gymnasts and coaches at Madison. Linda Collignon was the coach who started the recordbreaking streak 14 years ago. This national record was made possible by the dedication of the gymnasts and coaching staff of the Madison High School gymnastics team throughout the years. I would also like to acknowledge the support and devotion of the families of the Madison Gymnastics team members and the community of Madison. Without the encouragement and sacrifice from the gymnasts' families and the dedicated support of the Madison community, this amazing accomplishment would not have been possible. On behalf of the State of South Dakota, I am pleased to congratulate the Lady Bulldogs Gymnastics team on their recordbreaking national accomplishment and wish them the best of luck for their continued success.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I am pleased we are making headway and are approaching finality and conclusion in regard to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. I give great credit to Senator Dorgan from North Dakota and Senator Murkowski from Alaska for their persistence in working with the leaders on both sides to get this legislation moved and ultimately adopted. It has been a long time since we have had the Indian Health Care Improvement Act reauthorized. I think it goes back to about 2001. So this is a long overdue step toward attempting to improve health care throughout Indian Country, and I applaud the work that has been done. I hope tomorrow we can dispose of the final amendments that remain and get to a final vote on this legislation so we can begin to address what are some very serious needs regarding Indian Country and health care. I wish to specifically acknowledge a couple of amendments--one that is still pending and one that has been adopted. Amendment No. 3896 First, Mr. President, I wish to speak to the Vitter amendment, which is going to be voted on tomorrow. If adopted, this amendment would codify longstanding policy against the funding of abortions with Federal Indian Health Service funds. Senator Vitter's amendment would permanently apply to the IHS the policy set forth by the Hyde amendment, which prohibits the Federal funding of abortions and has been national policy since 1976. For over 30 years, Democratic and Republican administrations, the U.S. Supreme Court, and bipartisan Congresses have all upheld and affirmed this essential policy. In addition to maintaining this legislative precedent, amendment No. 3896 includes important exceptions to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. Now, some of my colleagues may ask why statutory codification of this policy is necessary. Let me assure them it is necessary to ensure this decades-long legislative precedent does not fall needlessly through procedural and political cracks. Without this amendment, there is no true assurance that Federal IHS funds will not be used to pay for abortions on demand in the future. As everyone in this Chamber knows, the language of future HHS appropriations bills depends upon a host of political and legislative contingencies which can shift suddenly and unpredictably. This amendment would extend and codify good policy--policy that protects the vulnerable rather than restricting rights. The Federal Register contains scores of national policies that are in place to protect women, young children, and citizens of minority status from harm. Abortion is a practice that can harm women physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Statistics clearly demonstrate that abortion in this country falls disproportionately on minority populations, including Native Americans. By supporting this amendment, we affirm life. As a nation we have come a long way in protecting the unborn since the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. However, we still have a long way to go in the fight to protect life in this country. I believe there is an essential human dignity attached to all persons, including the unborn, and I will continue working with my colleagues in the Congress to promote a culture of life in this Nation. As a cosponsor of this amendment, I offer my strong support of amendment No. 3896, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I hope when the vote comes up tomorrow, we will have a good, strong bipartisan vote in support of this amendment. Mr. President, I see the majority leader has come on the floor. I yield to him at this time. I assume he has some business to dispose of.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I wish to recognize Sioux Falls Seminary located in Sioux Falls, SD, as they celebrate their 150th anniversary. The Sioux Falls Seminary is a North American Baptist Seminary, which prides itself on the strength of their Bible focused curriculum and the valuable hands on ministry experience that they provide their students. The dedication of the Sioux Falls Seminary to educating its students for more than 150 years is truly commendable. I am proud to have such a fine institution in the State of South Dakota. I would like to offer my congratulations to the Seminary of Sioux Falls on this milestone accomplishment and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I honor Mr. Jim White, who is being recognized by the Wellspring Treatment Center in Rapid City, SD, for his many years of service to the local community, his outstanding generosity, and his dedication to encouraging local small businesses. It is people like Jim who make up the backbone of South Dakota's communities. Jim White is the owner and founder of Sound Pro, a small business that he has operated for the past 32 years. He began the business as a young man and through hard work and dedication, grew the business into an establishment that is both customer and employee friendly. He has been a shining example of a hard-working and reliable businessman. In addition to his dedication to the local business community, Mr. White has a special concern for the local young people. After reading a newspaper article about a local girl in need of a kidney transplant, he didn't hesitate to get tested as a potential donor. Upon hearing that he was a perfect match, Mr. White generously and selflessly gave his kidney to the young girl in order to save her life. Mr. White is not only a generous local businessman, he also actively gives his time as a volunteer for many community organizations. He currently serves as a board member and also participates as a Big Brother mentor himself. Jim is a positive influence and great role model for these boys as well as the rest of his community. Outside of Big Brothers and Big Sisters, Mr. White also willingly donates his time to mentor those in the community struggling with substance abuse and addiction. Despite his extremely busy schedule, he puts a high priority on encouraging and supporting people in the community from all walks of life. This support is also shown by his service as a member of the board of directors of the Wellspring Treatment Center, a local nonprofit agency that provides treatment and services to young people struggling with behavioral, emotional and chemical dependency problems. In addition to all of his other commitments, Mr. White is the chairman of the Military Affairs Committee for the Rapid City Chamber of Commerce. He is extremely dedicated to this position and has even been given the title of ``Honorary Commander'' for the Ellsworth AFB Wing Commander. This honorable recognition is clearly well-deserved. It is dedicated folks like Jim who make up the backbone of South Dakota's communities and it gives me great pleasure to commemorate Jim White on this special occasion and to wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I honor Sara Mellegard of Rapid City, SD, who has been named the Black Hills Workshop Artist of the Year. This is an impressive accomplishment that reflects Sara's hard work and dedication and I am proud to have such a fine young artist representing the state of South Dakota. Sara has developed her artistic skills with the help of the staff and resources at the Suzie Cappa Center for Art Expression and Enjoyment, which is part of the Black Hills Workshop. In addition to her painting, Sara also draws and works with ceramics. As a result of her award, Sara's work will be displayed at the Suzie Cappa Center, the Dahl Fine Arts Center and a reproduction of one her paintings, Doves, will be available for purchase as a postcard. It gives me great pleasure to recognize Sara Mellegard and to congratulate her on receiving this well-earned award. I wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I honor Don Meyer, the head men's basketball coach at Northern State University, NSU, in Aberdeen, SD. Coach Meyer recently won his 880th coaching career victory and currently has the most wins of any active coach in men's basketball. This accomplishment places Coach Meyer in second place on the collegiate all-time win list, trailing only Bobby Knight. Coach Meyer began coaching at NSU in 1999 and has led the Wolves to 178 victories. Prior to coming to Aberdeen, he coached for 24 seasons at David Lipscomb University in Nashville, TN, and three seasons at Hamline University in Minneapolis, MN. Despite his many accomplishments, Don Meyer has remained extremely humble. He is always quick to praise his assistant coaches, players, and fans for the invaluable role they play in his accomplishments. This humility has earned him the respect and admiration of his players. His excellent example of leadership and teamwork has even inspired one of his former players to write a book chronicling his time playing for Coach Meyer. Coach Meyer is truly an example of the dedication and inspiration that is found in South Dakota's coaches. He has given the young people of South Dakota a fine example of what it means to be leader both on and off the court. On behalf of the State of South Dakota, I am proud to commend Coach Meyer on this impressive accomplishment and wish him and the Wolves all the best for their continued success.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I honor Louie Krogman from White River, SD. On December 20, 2007, Louie scored his 2,826th point to become South Dakota's all-time leading boys basketball scorer. Louie broke the former record of 2,825 points when he sank a free throw in the first half of White River's game against Pine Ridge during the Lakota Nation Invitational Tournament in Rapid City, SD. The 5,000 fans in attendance rose to their feet and honored him with a standing ovation. Before the game continued, the Lakota Nation honored Louie with a Lakota name and serenaded him with a Lakota honor song while he donned a traditional Native quilt. When the game resumed, Louie continued his dominance and led the Tigers to a decisive victory. Louie broke the 50-year-old record notably early in the 2007-2008 season, which leaves him plenty of time to continue to build on an amazing high school career. This prestigious achievement is a direct result of the hard work and dedication that Louie has demonstrated throughout his career at White River High School. During his career, Louie was twice selected to the all-state basketball first team, named all-conference first team four times, named the Argus Leader player of the year, and chosen for the State ``B'' Tournament All-Tourney team. Through his hard work, leadership, athletic abilities, and a great supporting cast Louie has helped the Tigers become one of South Dakota's top basketball teams. Mr. President, it gives me great honor today, along with Louie's friends, family, and the State of South Dakota, to congratulate him on this impressive accomplishment.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I would just echo what my colleague from North Dakota said and would agree that now we will have dealt with FISA and the economic stimulus bill, which I know are matters of great importance and urgency--this is a matter of great urgency to the people we represent. It is long overdue that we get this done. So I will do everything I can on our side to make it possible for us to limit any further amendments or anything that might further delay moving to a final vote. I appreciate the leader's indulgence, along with my colleague from North Dakota, and would simply ask that when we complete action on this, we move to this bill.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Viorel G. ``Vi'' Stoia, a great South Dakotan who passed away on January 28, 2008. Vi Stoia was born on February 13, 1924 in Aberdeen, SD, and began his lifetime of service and leadership at Aberdeen Central High School where he served as senior class president. Vi continued this leadership and service while he served in the U.S. Navy and attended the University of Minnesota. In 1949, Vi graduated with a degree in business administration and married his lifelong companion, Donna Marie Maurseth. Vi's thirst for knowledge along with his extraordinary leadership abilities served him well during his lifetime. His long and illustrious professional career included countless distinguished appointments, awards, and honors. Vi will be remembered by the Aberdeen community because of his exuberant service and dedication to constant improvement of the city, county, and State. Vi was a member of numerous community organizations, including the Aberdeen Jaycees and the Aberdeen Area Chamber of Commerce. Additionally, Vi's dedication and leadership were instrumental in rallying support for dozens of community projects. The profound wisdom and deep commitment that Vi possessed is reflected through his role in the businesses, health organizations, educational affiliations, and political organizations for which he so diligently served throughout his life. Vi also received many awards recognizing his excellent work and service including: Distinguished Alumni Award--NSU, 1976; the George Award, 1979 and 1994; South Dakota Community Volunteer of the Year, 1991; Distinguished Service Award, Excellence in Economic Development, 2000; and South Dakota Medal of Distinguished Excellence, 2008. Vi will be lovingly remembered by his wife Donna as well as his children and grandchildren as a loving husband, father, and a great man. He will forever remain in our hearts for his contributions to the Aberdeen area and the entire State of South Dakota. Few men will ever give as much of themselves or make as much of a difference in the lives of others as Vi Stoia. Today we celebrate the life and accomplishments of this great man. Although he does not stand among us, his legacy will live on for a time without end. For all that has been accomplished and achieved, for all of the lives that have been touched and enhanced, thank you, and God bless Viorel G. Stoia.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life of John Rock, who passed away in November of 2007. John was an invaluable member of the Black Hills community, and he will be truly missed by all who knew him. John will be remembered for his dedication to service in the Black Hills region. He made many invaluable contributions to the region through his extensive knowledge and life experiences. This dedication was evident through John's support of the Mammoth Site museum in Hot Springs, SD. He worked with the finance/personnel and governance committees and the board of directors of the Mammoth Site of Hot Springs, SD, Inc., from 2001 to 2007. In addition to his being recognized by the Mammoth Site board, two theater seats will be dedicated to John and his wife Bonnie. A plaque in John's honor will also be placed on the Memorial Wall at the Mammoth Site. John Rock's absence will be deeply felt in the Black Hills community. He was a truly dedicated individual who will be remembered for his lifetime of service to others.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues in the Democratic leadership to move forward with the 2007 farm bill. Last July, the House of Representatives passed the 2007 farm bill by a vote of 231 to 191. Last December, the Senate followed suit by passing its version of the 2007 farm bill by a vote of 79 to 14. Certainly there are controversial provisions in each bill that must be addressed as we move forward. However, the bipartisan support for these bills is overwhelming. In fact, with 79 votes, this Senate-passed farm bill received more votes than any farm bill in the past 30 years. Unfortunately, little progress has been made since that time. The respective chairs of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees need to focus on naming conferees and working together to reconcile their differences. Right now, my understanding is both chairs have been meeting with the administration, both saying they are making no headway. It seems to me that ultimately we need to work in a bipartisan manner to resolve the differences between the House and the Senate versions of the farm bill, and that begins by naming conferees to a farm bill conference committee. We only have 6 weeks left to name conferees, reconcile the Senate and House-passed farm bills, and deliver a farm bill that meets the needs of America's producers and can be signed into law by the President. Additionally, in March, the Congressional Budget Office will issue a new baseline for agricultural programs. On account of high prices and a successful agricultural industry, the CBO will likely predict that few farm payments will be made in the coming years. The result is that Congress will have even fewer dollars to write the new farm bill, which will further magnify our current budgetary issues associated with this farm bill. Our farmers and ranchers are already making their planting decisions for this spring. Many are wondering what regulatory regime will impact their operations. Will it be the 2007 farm bill--now the 2008 farm bill--which Congress and the Agriculture Committees have been debating for the past 12 months? Will it be the 2002 farm bill which has served our producers well but expires in 45 days or will it be the 1949 and 1938 farm bills, which are the last farm bills with permanent authorizations? In recent days, some have threatened to let the 2002 farm bill expire and revert to a permanent farm bill policy which was drafted almost 60 years ago. The two laws that would govern most farm programs passed in either 1938 or 1949 are what we refer to as permanent law. If Congress fails to approve new legislation that would set aside those permanent laws, and if Congress also fails to extend the current farm bill, then these two old laws once again become operational. Now, among other things, permanent legislation would require USDA to establish acreage allotments and marketing quotas for price-supported crops and for producers to vote whether to approve quotas. Some agricultural producers actually might benefit from the permanent farm bill, while other producers in our conservation programs would dramatically suffer. If you are a wheat grower, the loan rate for wheat would be $8.32. That is something a lot of wheat growers would probably like to see. Corn loan rates would be $4.12, and, of course, there would be no countercyclical or direct payments that we have in the farm bill that we are operating under today, and no support program for soybeans under the permanent farm law we would revert to--the 1938-1949 laws I referred to--if, in fact, we don't take action to either extend the current farm bill or get the new one passed. Milk purchases by the Commodity Credit Corporation would be established at $28.20 per hundredweight, far more expensive than provisions in the 2002 and 2007 farm bills. Most conservation programs would also expire on March 15 of this year, 2008, including the CRP. If conservation programs expire, no new acres could be signed up by producers. I call on the leadership--the Democrat leaders are the ones who get this process rolling by naming conferees and allowing the process to move forward, but I think that both sides, frankly, need to put aside any bickering and fingerpointing that is going on and move forward with a farm bill process that will enable us to get a bill, a signable bill on the President's desk before March 15 when the current farm bill expires. Moving forward on the farm bill debate requires a few critical steps. First, as I said before, there has to be an announcement and naming of farm bill conferees, and that should happen immediately. Conferees need to begin meeting to iron out policy differences between both bills and to come to an agreement on funding. As the conferees do that, and the committee works, then they can negotiate in good faith with USDA in an attempt to reach an agreement on a bill the President could sign. Congress then could pass the bill, get a conference report, move it through the House, move it through the Senate, and get it on to the President for his consideration. Our agricultural producers, our conservation organizations, our school nutrition groups, our renewable energy sector are all waiting patiently for Congress to work its will with this farm bill. The time for action is now. We simply cannot afford further delay. Probably the most frequently asked question when I am back in my home State of South Dakota as I travel around the State is: When are we going to get a farm bill? Are we making any headway on the farm bill? When is the conference going to meet on the farm bill? Agricultural organizations that come here to Washington to visit pose that same question, because they have every reason to believe that based on the action that was taken by the House and the Senate last year, this conference committee process would be underway and we would be well on the way to getting a new farm bill enacted. We can't afford to wait any longer. We have farmers and ranchers who are depending upon us, who are relying on us to make good decisions and good judgments and to get a bill passed that will serve the purposes of promoting agriculture, making us globally competitive, and in the years ahead. I simply urge my colleagues in the leadership--and again, my assumption at this point is, of course, that the reason we haven't gotten conferees named is for some reason the leadership--the Democrat leader, perhaps--doesn't want to name conferees. I think the same thing is happening on the House side. My understanding is House conferees have not been named either. This process cannot move forward until that happens. Now, I am told too that there is a belief that we have to get this worked out with the White House or the administration before conferees can begin to meet. That is simply, to me, the reverse of how this ought to work. Chronologically, Congress has to act before we can put a bill on the President's desk for his consideration and ultimately his signature or veto. So Congress has to do its work first before the administration can do its. I have some concerns, based upon comments that have been made by the administration, about their intentions with regard to the farm bill. There have been veto threats hanging over this bill. I think that would be a big mistake. I will convey that in no uncertain terms, and have, to members of the administration. The administration is raising a couple of issues about how the bill is paid for. They don't like the way the bill was paid for in the House, which included a tax increase. I accept that. I think that would create big problems here in the Senate as well. But the financing mechanisms that were used by the Senate, many of them are financing mechanisms that had been proposed by the administration in previous budgets submitted to Congress. So it seems to me at least we can work through that issue. They would like to see additional reforms in the area of payment limits. Until we get the conferees together and start meeting and working out these differences, none of this is going to happen. To get this process jump started, we need to have conferees announced and named and get the process moving forward again with an eye toward a March 15 deadline that if we don't meet, we are going to put our producers in a very precarious position relative to their decisions they have to make about this new planting year and, furthermore, jeopardize a lot of programs that are in this farm program that are so good, not just for agriculture but for the rural economy and arguably for our national economy. The conservation title in this farm bill includes programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wetland Reserves Program, the Grasslands Reserve Program, the EQIP program. Some of the best environmental policy that we do as a Congress is found in the farm bill. If we don't take action by March 15, that conservation title would expire and no producers could be enrolling in those programs. The energy title in the farm bill is a tremendous policy with regard to promoting advanced biofuels, the next generation of biofuels. We have had great success in agriculture with corn-based ethanol. It has been a wonderful story, a remarkable story, frankly, of what our producers can do. We are already at about 7 billion gallons of ethanol. In my State of South Dakota alone by the end of this year, we will be producing 1 billion gallons. The two largest ethanol producers in the country are headquartered in South Dakota. We have taken the policies that were put in place in the 2005 farm bill--the renewable fuel standard and other incentives--and used them to grow an industry that not only is expanding the economic base in rural areas, but it is accomplishing a major policy objective that I think we all share, and that is reducing our dependence on foreign sources of energy. All those energy provisions in this new farm bill which provide financial, economic incentives for the development, commercialization, and research into cellulosic ethanol will all be lost if we cannot get a new farm bill enacted, and that would be a tremendous loss not only, again, for agricultural areas of this country that can benefit economically from the production of renewable energy, but it would be a tremendous loss as well to our Nation as we strive to get less dependent on foreign energy and become energy independent. For all those reasons, this bill needs to move forward and needs to move forward now, but it starts simply with the naming of conferees. As I look at the calendar, we are already almost to the end of January. We will have a break over President's Day in February. Pretty soon March will be here. March 15 is the deadline. Typically, when you have a bill that is 1,000 pages long, such as the Senate-passed farm bill, it has to be reconciled with the House bill. Even though there are many similarities, there are differences between the two bills that will have to be worked out. As a consequence, it is going to take a certain amount of time for the conferees to sit down and reconcile and iron out those differences. Then, of course, the conference report has to go back to the House and Senate for final approval and adopted by the House and Senate, and then we have to get it down to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue for consideration by the President, hopefully a signature on that bill. We are talking about 6 weeks for all that to happen. That would be a record in terms of congressional time when it comes to processing, deliberating, and acting on legislation, but it cannot get started until conferees are named and both House and Senate conferees agree to sit down and schedule some meetings so we can move forward with this process. I am very concerned about this situation. As I said, I don't think there is a day that goes by when I am back in my State of South Dakota--and it doesn't matter where I am in my State--that I am not running into somebody who is impacted by the farm bill. In many cases, it is producers, farmers, and ranchers, and they are very anxious because they are probably most directly dependent on the policies we put in place in the farm bill. The conservation community, those interested in wildlife habitats--Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited, groups such as that. We have an extraordinary program in South Dakota that has benefited the economy enormously by creating recreational opportunities, hunting opportunities, and it all comes back to having the right kind of habitat and that comes back to conservation policy that is in place in this farm bill. As I said, anybody who is connected to the renewable energy industry, the nutrition programs, this farm bill has a very broad reach in terms of who it impacts. It is not just about farmers and ranchers, it is about renewable energy, it is about conservation programs, it is about nutrition programs. As a consequence, the ramifications of our lack of action are very far reaching. I am very hopeful this will happen and happen soon. But I wanted to come down here this evening and convey to my colleagues in the Senate and to the leaders the importance of this happening and happening in a very short order. I again suggest the leadership appoint conferees and the conferees begin to meet and let's get this train moving forward. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I honor the 2008 Agri-Business Farm Family of the year. This award goes to the VanDerVliet family: Rod and Lois VanDerVliet and their children, Ryan and Sarah VanDerVliet, Lisa and Jamie Johnson, and Lori and Ryan Fods; and their grandchildren Rhegan Oberg, Tyson VanDerVliet, Weston VanDerVliet, Parker Johnson, Devin Fods, and Clara VanDerVliet. For over 30 years the VanDerVliets have raised livestock and grain on their farm west of Colton, SD. Today, Rod's son Ryan, daughters Lisa and Lori, and son-in-law Ryan are an important part of the farm operation. Over the past several years the family has navigated the quickly changing farm industry and successfully utilized technology to ensure that the farm stays competitive and productive. Although Rod VanDerVliet sees farms becoming more business oriented than ever, he and his family love the farming lifestyle. Rod enjoys it because of its flexibility, connection to nature, and most importantly, because it is something that involves the whole family. Ryan shares his dad's love of farming and says he ``like[s] being around the animals and the farming lifestyle.'' Both men would like to pass this way of life on to the next generation. And, with six grandchildren under the age of six, there shouldn't be any shortage of help. The family's hard work has passed beyond the farmyard and into the community. The children grew up participating in 4-H and FFA. Rod has served on the Colton Farmers Elevator Board for more than 20 years and the MCWC Rural Water Board; Ryan serves on the township board, and the entire family is involved in numerous community organizations and activities. The VanDerVliets are an example of families that embody South Dakota values and form the bedrock of our great State. I am very proud to see a family-run farm successfully evolving in the changing industry while maintaining a commitment to their community and family. I commend them for this award, and I wish them continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I honor Larry Healy, who has been named the 2008 Agri-Business Citizen of the Year. Larry has been employed by Campbell Supply Company for 20 years, and currently manages one of its Sioux Falls stores. He is also actively engaged in community activities and embodies the true spirit of the American farmer. Larry grew up in Montrose, SD, where he first worked in his father's welding and repair shop before becoming employed in the farm department at Campbell Supply in Sioux Falls. In 1990, he was promoted to store manager at the Rock Rapids, IA, store, a position in which he proudly served for 11 years. In 2001, Larry transferred back to Sioux Falls where he continued to serve as store manager. Since then, Larry has become involved with the Sioux Falls Area Chamber of Commerce Agri-Business Division, where he has served on the Agri-Business Division Council and volunteers with Agri-Business activities. Larry chaired the Ag Appreciation Day for 2 years and has worked with the chamber and hundreds of volunteers on events such as an event during the Sioux Empire Fair that provided a complimentary meal to approximately 5,000 area farmers. He also chaired the Ag Division in 2006-07. Larry is proud to work for Campbell Supply Company, which has been family owned since its founding. The Campbell family believes in giving back to the community and supporting local agriculture, something Larry sincerely appreciates because he understands the important role farmers play in American cities and towns. Larry sets a fine example for all involved in advancing our Nation's great agricultural foundations. I commend him for this award, and I wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last night, due to airline flight delays in South Dakota and Minneapolis, I missed the rollcall vote on H.R. 4986, the amended version of the Department of Defense authorization bill. Had I been present for this vote, I would have voted ``yes''--similar to my vote in December when the Senate initially passed H.R. 1585, the conference report to the Department of Defense authorization bill.

Mr. THUNE

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