Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to honor one of our Nation's most courageous men, who fell while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. CPL Jeremy S. Jones gave his life on June 27, 2006 when an improvised explosive detonated while he was on patrol. Corporal Jones was a member of D company, 1st battalion, 67th Armored Regiment, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, TX. He was 25 years old.

My thoughts and prayers are with the Jones family, his father, Scott; his mother, Diane; his wife, Jennifer; and his two young children, Mackenzie and Anthony. Also, my deepest sympathies go out to Jeremy's friends, to the men and women of the 4th infantry, and to all who knew him.

Jeremy was a soldier, a patriot, and a father. Jeremy did not die in vain but gave his life defending freedom and protecting all of us back home. He is truly an American hero. Corporal Jones' sacrifice and the sacrifice of so many others will be remembered by all freedom-loving Americans.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume on the Oman Free Trade Agreement.

Yes, I will.

Mr. President, before I speak to the issue of the Oman Free Trade Agreement, I wish to take advantage of the opportunity to remind the public that trade agreements are not treaties, as we usually think of treaties, with just the Senate approving treaties with a two- thirds vote and the House of Representatives having nothing to do with a treaty. A free-trade agreement is negotiated by the President but must be approved by both Houses of Congress the same way that legislation is passed, except it is done under a time agreement under law with the idea that the agreement will be voted up or down and not amended But when the dust settles, it is the law of our land, just like any other law that Congress would pass.

Taking that into consideration then, the rationale behind that is the fact that the Constitution gives the Congress of the United States, as one of its specific 17 powers, the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. A free-trade agreement is foreign commerce. Congress has the authority completely--no questions asked--about what our trade laws are going to be.

Until the 1930s, for the most part, Congress passed those pieces of legislation, and that was the law after the President signed them. But starting in the 1930s, Congress would, to a greater extent or lesser extent from time to time, give the President the authority to negotiate certain agreements, and then Congress would approve them.

Since World War II, we have had a regime for 45 years that we called the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trades. Since about 1993, it has been referred to as the World Trade Organization, or WTO.

In not exactly the same way, but from time to time, Congress, in order to negotiate agreements since World War II, has extended authority to the President to negotiate those agreements, not because Congress wanted to give up any congressional authority as the Constitution prescribes over foreign trade, but, as a practical matter, if you are going to negotiate with another country, rather than unilaterally setting policy, Congress, as a body of 535 people, can't negotiate with another country or, for sure, with the World Trade Organization that has 149 members very efficiently, and never even tried. So from time to time we have negotiated--or we have delegated-- to the President of the United States, under strict guidelines, the authority to negotiate for Congress with an understanding that--well, under the Constitution with the practical end result that it has to be passed by the Congress of the United States by a majority vote in both Houses to become the law of the land.

Congress doesn't just willy-nilly say to the President: You negotiate any sort of an agreement you want. In the basic law, there are some stipulations--not very many but some--but, more importantly, for the Congress to preserve its power and not give the President of the United States free reign. We have a consultation process within what we now call Trade Promotion Authority where, during the process of negotiating multilaterally under the World Trade Organization, or negotiating bilaterally with another country, that the President and his negotiators would come to Congress whenever we would invite them, or even on their own initiative, and sit down and talk, sometimes in informal sessions, sometimes in regular committee meetings, to find out how the negotiations are going and what the problems are.

But the most important thing is for that negotiator and that agency to hear what Congress says needs to be done, what our input is, with the idea that if they don't negotiate something that Congress can pass, what good is doing the negotiation? So that consultation process is very important.

Now, sometimes I feel that there has not been enough consultation, and because I am chairman of the committee that has jurisdiction over that, sometimes I can legitimately claim fault for not having enough consultation, although we have considerable. And any members of the committee should likewise--the other 19 members of the committee should likewise feel that if there is not enough consultation, then maybe they have not been forward enough in preserving the constitutional power of the Congress and the specific authority of our committee to make that consultation happen.

Now, what sometimes happens--maybe every time--in bringing a Free Trade Agreement before our committee before it comes to the floor, there is an outburst on both sides of the aisle about not having consulted enough and that the process might be a sham. Well, the extent to which people feel that is the situation, then I guess I plead with myself as chairman of the committee, I plead with members of the committee, that we need to make more specific requests of the administration to come and talk to us about these agreements.

That can be going on right now in regard to the Doha round of negotiations that are going on between the United States as part of the World Trade Organization involving another 148 countries, or it can be going on right now anytime the committee members want it to happen in our process of negotiations with Thailand bilaterally, South Korea bilaterally, Egypt bilaterally, and there are other countries as well.

So I hope that each one of us in Congress feels that we are adequately safeguarding our constitutional authority. But I hope nobody lives in the wonderland that somehow Congress ought to be negotiating directly with these other countries because we don't have that capability or the time. But we ought to make sure that we don't compromise one iota the constitutional power that we have been given and that w have to cherish and protect.

I rise in strong support of the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement. The agreement will help cement our ties with a strong ally in the Middle East. It will contribute to greater economic opportunity and prosperity in the region. It will serve as a strong model for other economies in the region, and it will create new market access openings for farmers, manufacturers, and service providers in the United States. So I urge my colleagues to support the agreement in a strong bipartisan fashion.

We have enjoyed beneficial relations with Oman for nearly 200 years. In 1833, Oman was one of the first Arab states to sign a Treaty of Amity and Commerce with the United States. It was also the first Arab country to send an ambassador to our country. Our agreement with Oman is the fifth trade agreement that we concluded with a country in the Middle East.

It brings us one step closer to our President's vision of having a Middle East free trade area by 2013. The President's goal is very simply the same as every other free-trade agreement: to foster economic growth. But it isn't just an economic issue. It has something to do with promoting democracy, and millions of people every day doing business agreements around the world is going to do more for world peace than what we who are elected and our diplomats can do. So you ought to see a free-trade agreement not only economically in our interests, but promoting moral principles of democracy and peace through enhanced commercial ties with the world generally; in this case, to a greater extent with the Middle East.

The fact is, open economies that are actively engaged in international commerce tend to grow at much higher rates than closed economies, and that translates into greater economic opportunity. So a free trade area is in the best interests of the people of the Middle East, and it is in our best interests as well, but it is also in the interests of stabilizing that area and having peaceful relations and greater peace around the world.

This agreement enjoys strong support in the business community and in the agricultural community. It has been endorsed by a number of groups. I can't name them all, but I think it is important to note that the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Chemistry Council, the Association of Equipment Manufacturers, the National Foreign Trade Council, and the U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Coalition are among those of over 110 companies and associations supporting trade expansion in the Middle East, including this agreement.

These groups recognize that this is a commercially meaningful agreement

that is leveling the playing field for U.S. businesses. In the United States, Omani products already receive a substantial market access, with most duties ranging from zero to 5 percent. Without this agreement, U.S. exports won't have a level playing field, and haven't up until now had a level playing field, because they would continue to face those steep tariffs that Oman now has and will be giving up with this agreement.

While the economic effect of the agreement may be small in total world trade, it will certainly be possible. Upon entering into force-- in other words, when it becomes the law of our land--this agreement will have Oman grant immediate, duty-free entry to virtually all U.S. industrial and consumer products. As examples, in agriculture, 87 percent of Oman's tariff lines will go to zero for U.S. agricultural exports on day one of the agreement and the remaining tariffs will be phased out over 10 years. U.S. service providers will also receive substantial improvement in market access. I have constituents who are interested in seeing this agreement implemented, and I expect many of my colleagues do as well.

I will give you just a few examples. A small business located in Cedar Rapids, IA, Midamar Corporation, will benefit from new opportunities and low costs for specialty food exports that are specifically processed for Muslim diets. The HNI Corporation in Muscatine, the second largest manufacturer of office furniture in North America, will benefit. It has a fast-growing market in the Middle East. HNI expects to forge new business ties in Oman once the agreement enters into force.

Another company is Lennox in Marshalltown, IA, manufacturing heating and cooling products. This agreement will promote increased exports for Lennox.

In sum, I expect this agreement will have a real and positive impact for my constituents in Iowa, preserving or establishing good-paying jobs, because exporting jobs pay 15 percent above the national average, and if it does that in the State of Iowa, it will be the same across the United States.

In addition to pointing out the benefits of the agreement, I would respond to just a few criticisms. Some are alleging that this agreement will provide foreign port operators an absolute right to establish and acquire operations to run port facilities in the United States. That is just plain wrong.

The truth is, nothing in our agreement with Oman diminishes our right to determine for ourselves whether to block or unwind any foreign investment in the United States when the protection of essential security interests are at stake That includes any potential investment in land or site aspects of port activity in the United States. So our ability to advance our national security and promote it and protect it as we see fit remains fully protected under this agreement.

Separately, some colleagues have been critical of the process by which this agreement has come before the Senate. In this respect, I am repetitive of how I opened my remarks. In other words, I want to make it clear that this has received substantial consideration by the Congress of the United States. We concluded our negotiations with Oman on October 13, 2005, with 7 months at the negotiating table and opportunities for Congress to be consulted during that period of time. The administration did that, both at the Member and staff level, throughout negotiations. The agreement was signed January 19, this year, and our own Government's agency, called the International Trade Commission, issued its report on likely economic effects of the agreement in February of this year.

The International Trade Subcommittee of my Finance Committee held hearings on this agreement on March 6. The Finance Committee met May 18 to informally consider proposed legislation implementing this agreement--the proposal that is pretty much as we have it before our body this very minute.

During the committee's informal consideration, I introduced a chairman's modification to the proposed statement of administrative action. My modification called upon the administration to monitor and report on the Omani efforts to prohibit compulsory or coerced labor.

The administration took my modification and broadened it. The statement of administration action that accompanies the bill to the floor of the Senate this very day contains a commitment from the administration to update Congress periodically on the progress that Oman achieves in realizing all commitments made to labor law reform. I believe that is an improvement, even on my own modification. It is an example of how the process of trade promotion authority worked in this case and is a specific case of what I was trying to describe in the opening of my statement.

In sum, this is a strong trade agreement with an important ally. I urge my colleagues to enthusiastically support the implementation of legislation before the Senate.

I yield the floor under the previous unanimous consent agreement so that Senator Dorgan can have it.

Mr. President, I want to respond to some of the points made by my colleagues today.

First, I have heard concerns that the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement will give foreign port operators an absolute right to establish or acquire operations to run port facilities in the United States. As I explained earlier, that is just wrong. The United States clearly has the right to prohibit foreign investments in the United States that would harm our national security. Nothing in the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement changes that.

Some of my colleagues have also expressed concerns about the process by which the bill we are considering was brought to the Senate floor. They focus on a proposed amendment adopted by the Finance Committee during its informal consideration of proposed legislation to implement our trade agreement with Oman. This amendment was offered by Senator Conrad. It was meant to withhold benefits under the agreement to products made with the benefit of forced or indentured labor. I voted for the amendment because I shared some of Senator Conrad's concerns, and I subsequently transmitted the text of the adopted amendment to the U.S. Trade Representative.

In addition to voting for the Conrad amendment, I introduced a chairman's modification to the proposed statement of administrative action which was approved by the committee. My modification called upon the administration to monitor or report on the efforts of the Government of Oman to prohibit compulsory or coerced labor.

Separately, the House Ways and Means Committee had approved the same draft implementing legislation but without approving any amendments. So we had a situation where the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee sent different versions of informal nonbinding recommendations to the President. In this case the differences were limited and discrete. They were not of the type and degree that would warrant a mock conference.

The administration made the determination that existing law already precluded the legal importation of products made with forced or indentured labor. The administration therefore concluded that the Conrad amendment was not necessary or appropriate to implementation of the agreement. I received a letter from the general counsel of the Office of U.S. Trade Representative articulating the legal basis for the administration's position. I distributed this letter to all members of the Finance Committee prior to the committee's formal markup of this implementing legislation. I will ask unanimous consent that this letter be included in the record with my remarks.

I understand that some of my colleagues are upset that the proposed Conrad amendment isn't included in S. 3569. I believe that the process concerns raised by my colleagues could have been avoided if we had had more consultations by the U.S. Trade Representative with members of the Finance Committee. I am going to make it a point to see that there is better dialogue between the Finance Committee and the U.S. Trade Representative in the future. I want to see improved dialogue both during the negotiation of a trade agreements and prior to the point that the administration sends implementing legislation for a trade agreement to the Congress. I am confident that improved consultation and communication will help avoid such process concerns in the future.

With that, Mr. President, I say again that this is a very good trade agreement for both Oman and the United States. I urge my colleagues to lend their enthusiastic support to the bill before the Senate to implement this agreement.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter to which I referred be printed in the Record.

With today's passage of S. 3569, the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, we have solidified our commercial relations with Oman, a longstanding friend and ally for over 200 years. The agreement will result in new economic opportunities for U.S. farmers, manufacturers, and service providers.

None of this would have been possible without the support of my colleagues. In particular, the Senator from Montana, ranking Democrat of the Committee on Finance, Senator Max Baucus. I want to thank Senator Baucus for his cooperation and good faith in moving this legislation through the Senate with bipartisan support. We would not be here today without his strong commitment to raising the living standards of people in the United States and abroad.

Senator Baucus's trade staff deserves recognition. The Democratic Staff Director on the Finance Committee, Russ Sullivan, and the Deputy Staff Director, Bill Dauster, worked well with my staff and provided helpful insight throughout the process. I also appreciate the efforts of Brian Pomper, Chief International Trade Counsel, as well as Demetrios Marantis, Anya Landau, Janis Lazda, and Chelsea Thomas.

I would also like to thank President Bush for his leadership. His commitment to improving the U.S. economy through increased access to foreign markets has made this agreement a reality. Oman is just one of his latest successes on this front.

The dedication of two former United States Trade Representatives, Robert Zoellick and Rob Portman, merits special thanks. Their efforts at the negotiating table produced a comprehensive, commercially- meaningful agreement. I would like to recognize the current United States Trade Representative, Susan Schwab. Ms. Schwab was confirmed in her current position after negotiations of the agreement were concluded. Her consultations with the U.S. Congress are appreciated. Her negotiating skills and experience make her well suited for future talks. I also appreciate the service and hard work of Assistant United States Trade Representative for Europe and the Middle East Shaun Donnelly.

My trade staff on the Finance Committee deserves recognition. First, my Chief Counsel and Staff Director, Kolan Davis, merits special mention. His legislative expertise has been instrumental in moving countless bills. The work of the Finance Committee's International Trade Counsel, David Johanson and Stephen Schaefer, is invaluable. Their depth of knowledge, dedication, and ability to juggle several policy issues at that same time is key in advancing the Committee's trade agenda. Their long hours are much appreciated. I would like to recognize my former Chief International Trade Counsel, Everett Eissenstat. While on my staff, he worked diligently on this agreement and others. I want also want to thank Tiffany McCullen Atwell, International Trade Policy Advisor on the Committee for her hard work that produces results behind the scenes. Claudia Bridgeford, International Trade Policy Assistant, has also contributed significantly to the Committee's work. Russ Ugone, my detailee from Customs and Border Protection, has lent us his technical expertise.

I am grateful to Justin McCarthy, Assistant United States Trade Representative for Congressional Affairs, and Andy Olson, Deputy Assistant United States Trade Representative for Congressional Affairs, for their work with Congress on the U.S-Oman Free Trade Agreement.

Finally, I would like to thank Polly Craighill of the Office of the Senate Legislative Counsel for the long hours she put into working on this legislation. Without her patience and hard work, today's vote would not have been possible.

I look forward to the signing of this legislation into law by President Bush.

I ask unanimous consent that Russ Ugone, a detailee of my staff working for the Senate Finance Committee, and Calvin Dane, an intern in my office but working in the Finance Committee, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

Mr. President, I hope before the day is out that we are able to help a very good American citizen by the name of Henry Paulson to be the next Secretary of the Treasury. Mr. Paulson had his hearing yesterday. That was before the Finance Committee that I chair. He was reported out on a unanimous voice vote this very morning in the Finance Committee.

Since the Treasury Secretary is the top economic policy official in the administration, and the Treasury Department implements so many of our Nation's laws--be it tax, trade, or commerce--we have a tradition in the Senate of moving with all deliberate speed on nominations to fill that post.

That tradition has held no matter which party controlled the White House or the Congress. I have moved aggressively on this nomination, but the timeline is consistent with past Treasury Secretary nominations.

Just as an example, everybody remembers Secretary Rubin in the Clinton administration. That timeline is something like: The Senate receives his nomination January 4, 1995. That was the first day of the session that year. The official ethics-related paperwork was received on January 5 of 1995. The Finance Committee staff expedited review of the complicated financial details of Secretary Rubin, also a senior official at Goldman Sachs--Henry Paulson being the CEO of that same firm. The Finance Committee held a hearing 5 days later, on January 10, 1995. On that same day, the committee reported Secretary Rubin's nomination. On that same day, the full Senate confirmed Mr. Rubin, and he was sworn in as Treasury Secretary.

So we are moving with a similarly aggressive schedule. I appreciate the cooperation of Members on what I will acknowledge is relatively short notice.

I thank the committee tax staff on both sides, especially the joint committee staffer Gray Fontenot, and the hard work that not only he did, but a lot of others, and it took a lot of long hours to process these papers over just a period of a few days prior to today.

My staff examined Mr. Paulson's complicated financial records, his tax return, and the activities of his firm, Goldman Sachs. We do this most often in the area of tax planning. We have received very good cooperation. Then, of course, after the review, we have high confidence in his qualifications for this position.

Mr. Paulson brings to the table an enviable set of assets, meaning qualifications to do a good job as Secretary of the Treasury, although I presume he brings a lot of other assets to the table as well. Mr. Paulson spent a good amount of his youth--would you believe it--in the cornfields of Illinois. As a bright young man with excellent academic credentials, he served in the Pentagon and in the White House.

After Government service, Mr. Paulson joined Goldman Sachs and rose through the ranks to the highest position of chief executive officer.

When you look at Mr. Paulson's story, you come away with a view that this is a guy who gets the best results at whatever he tackles, and that is just the sort of a person we need as Secretary of the Treasury because we have a very good economy, measured by long-term standard measures of the economy--creating 5.3 million jobs in the last less than 3 years, having 4.6 percent unemployment, having growth on average that we had during the 1990s; lots of measurements of the economy that are very good.

I am not picking out things that are never used to measure the economy. I am talking about things that have been used to measure the economy over the last 60 or 70 years. Those measurements say it is good. But if we don't have the right people setting the right policy for carrying out those policies that Congress might set, it could be in jeopardy.

That is why we need a person of Paulson's background--a person who comes out on the right end of almost everything he tackles--to be the chief economic voice for our country and to be the voice for this administration. But his work is the administration's work, his work is the country's work, and I think he is up to doing the country's work.

The impression I have and gave you about Mr. Paulson is reinforced when you have a personal meeting with him. I think it is fair to say that after yesterday's hearing, Members on both sides of the aisle came away very impressed with Mr. Paulson as a thoughtful and intelligent nominee who appreciates the concerns raised by Senators and will work with Senators on trying to solve those concerns.

I will touch briefly on one matter that came up at the hearing, and which I know is of concern to some Members. It is well known that Mr. Paulson is active in environmental issues. He is an avid bird watcher and is chairman of the board of the Nature Conservancy. I share the worry that Mr. Paulson knows his job is to be Secretary of the Treasury and not head of EPA. Mr. Paulson's response on this concern to about three of us on the committee who brought this up was this. He said:

The President of the United States has nominated me to be

Secretary of the Treasury, he hasn't nominated me to be

Secretary of Interior, he hasn't nominated me to be head of

the Environmental Protection Agency, that really big focus I

have is going to be dealing with so many of the issues that

we've been talking about today, the economic issues that are

the core of our agenda . . .

Considering his sincerity--and I don't think he is a person capable of misleading--I think he is very transparent. I came away with the confidence that Mr. Paulson knows where his focus needs to be and where his responsibilities lie.

I did kid him the other day. There is a superintendent of that building you call the Treasury Department down there that is trying to get his favor. So they are probably right now building a bird-watching station for him outside of the Treasury building someplace because he is known very much for that.

But I think he is going to tend to business and not get over into other areas of the Government.

I also note that Mr. Paulson is here at just the right time. He is here to deal with tax reform, China currency, and with other major economic issues facing America.

I am pleased that Mr. Paulson has answered the call to return to public service.

I encourage Members to vote in favor of a highly qualified nominee to be Secretary of the Treasury.

For the public at large that does not quite follow everything every day in Washington, DC, I hope you understand that there are some people in America who are willing to give up the multimillion dollar salaries as CEOs of Wall Street firms to serve the public good, to serve as Secretary of the Treasury and a lot of other positions in Government and make less than $200,000 a year compared to the tens of millions of dollars that they make. Most people who like to make big money like to keep on making big money. But there are some people, such as Mr. Paulson, who are willing to serve the American public, to do what is right for our country and do it willingly and selfishly.

I urge my colleagues to vote for a very good citizen, a person who I believe will be a very good Secretary of the Treasury.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 12, the proposal to amend our Constitution to return to Congress the authority to legislate on the issue of flag desecration. Like my colleagues, I do not take lightly the concept of amending our Constitution, but in this area, a runaway judiciary has left us no choice.

No other emblem is as synonymous or representative of our Nation as the American flag. No other image depicts as readily the freedoms and ideals our men and women in uniform have battled for. Americans proudly fly our flag to demonstrate their love for our country and for their neighbors. Schoolchildren have been pledging allegiance to it every morning for decades. The American flag has been flown in times of battle, of victory, and of national tragedy. It is the most recognized symbol of freedom and democracy in the world.

Our flag should be protected from those who would desecrate it and demonstrate a basic lack of respect for our national heritage. At the very least, decisions about whether and how to protect our flag should be made by the legislative branch, not the unelected judiciary.

The proposal before us today would not immediately ban flag desecration, as its opponents would lead you to believe. Rather, it would return the power to legislate on the issue to Congress and the States, where it belongs. This constitutional amendment will restore the legislative authority to protect our flag to the legislative branch.

I will be voting in favor of this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me in doing the same.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am proud to introduce today with Senator Dorgan the Restitution for Victims of Crime Act of 2006.

This bill is needed to recover some of the mounting uncollected Federal criminal debt. The Federal Government is collecting just pennies on each dollar of Federal criminal debt that is owed. In my home State of Iowa for fiscal year 2005, for example, the Justice Department has an outstanding balance of nearly $82 million in uncollected criminal debt. Compared to other districts, Iowa's northern and southern districts have relatively small outstanding balances. Nationwide, over $41 billion remains outstanding.

The Restitution for Victims of Crime Act improves the procedures used to collect restitution. It also provides the authority to preserve assets to satisfy restitution orders. This bill gives our Federal criminal justice system the channels they need to not only successfully prosecute criminals but to recover the debts owed.

Both the Justice Department and the victims' rights community support this bill and recognize that it will significantly improve the current collection system.

This is an important bill and I am glad to join my good friend from North Dakota in introducing it.

Mr. President, I am proud to introduce today with Senator Dorgan the Restitution for Victims of Crime Act of 2006.

This bill is needed to recover some of the mounting uncollected Federal criminal debt. The Federal Government is collecting just pennies on each dollar of Federal criminal debt that is owed. In my home State of Iowa for fiscal year 2005, for example, the Justice Department has an outstanding balance of nearly $82 million in uncollected criminal debt. Compared to other districts, Iowa's northern and southern districts have relatively small outstanding balances. Nationwide, over $41 billion remains outstanding.

The Restitution for Victims of Crime Act improves the procedures used to collect restitution. It also provides the authority to preserve assets to satisfy restitution orders. This bill gives our Federal criminal justice system the channels they need to not only successfully prosecute criminals but to recover the debts owed.

Both the Justice Department and the victims' rights community support this bill and recognize that it will significantly improve the current collection system.

This is an important bill and I am glad to join my good friend from North Dakota in introducing it.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will take a bold step in reducing our dependence on fossil fuel and foreign oil. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Johnson and others in introducing the ``10 by 10 Act.''

The ``10 by 10 Act'' will require that 10 percent of each gallon of motor fuel sold beginning January 1, 2010, contain at least 10 percent renewable fuel. The ``10 by 10 Act'' is a signal that Congress remains interested and adamant in seeking energy independence by promoting the development of renewable fuels in the United States.

As President Bush stated in his State of the Union Address, America is addicted to oil. He also declared that we could displace at least 75 percent of the oil we import from the Middle East by 2025. I am here to say to America's agriculture community, that we're serious and we're going to do something about it.

Because the U.S. imports more than 60 percent of the crude oil we need, we have become dangerously reliant on foreign sources of energy. It is a threat to our national security for the United States to be dependent upon countries like Iran and Venezuela for our energy needs. It is also a threat to our economic security to be dependent on foreign countries for the energy that drives our economy. It is up to our farmers and ranchers to help liberate our consumers and our economy from the stranglehold of OPEC and other foreign countries on our energy needs.

This legislation will demonstrate to consumers, in a commonsense way, that each and every gallon of gasoline will contain at least 10 percent of domestically produced renewable fuel. It will show that we are serious about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and it will show in a tangible way that we are working to reduce that dependence.

The ``10 by 10 Act'' is a commitment to our constituents that we are working to lower that dependence, and reduce our consumption of foreign oil in every gallon of fuel they pump. With this legislation, Americans would know with certainty that 10 percent of each gallon of motor fuel was home-grown by farmers and ranchers right here in America.

It is important for consumers to recognize that for the vast majority of cars on the road today, no modifications are necessary to operate on a 10-percent renewable fuel blend. No significant changes are required to the fuel distribution network to allow for a 10-percent blend. The only thing standing in the way of reduced dependence on foreign oil is a signal from Congress that we recognize the virtue of homegrown alternatives to foreign oil.

Today, ethanol, a renewable fuel produced from corn, is blended in more than 30 percent of the gasoline sold in the United States. There are currently 101 biorefineries prducing nearly 5 billion gallons of ethanol annually. By the end of 2007, it is projected that we will have the capacity to produce nearly 7 billion gallons annually.

We owe it to the American people to pursue aggressive policies to free our country from our foreign oil dependence. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to replace 10 percent of each gallon of gasoline with homegrown, environmentally friendly, renewable fuel.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the first female Iowan to have lost her life in the Iraq conflict. Petty Officer 2nd Class Jaime Jaenke was a naval reservist who had been in Iraq for only 3 months. She was killed on Monday, June 5, when the humvee she was traveling in was hit by an improvised explosive device. She was 29 years old and was assigned to the Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 25 at Fort McCoy, WI.

Petty Officer Jaenke has given her life for our country, and I would ask that all Americans join me today in remembering and honoring Petty Officer Jaenke. Her loss will be felt deeply in the town of Iowa Falls. Although she had lived in Wisconsin for a number of years, she returned to Iowa 2 years ago and last fall opened an equestrian business outside Iowa Falls. My thoughts and prayers are with Petty Officer Jaenke's daughter, Kayla, her parents, Susan and Larry, as well as all those other family and friends who are grieving the loss of this young mother.

We owe a huge debt of gratitude to Petty Officer Jaenke for her sacrifice. I am greatly saddened by her passing but deeply proud and grateful for what she gave for America. Her loss remains tragic but she died a true patriot.

Mr. President, I strongly support traditional marriage, the bedrock of our society, and I therefore support the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Like some of my colleagues, I believe that marriage is typically a State issue. Unelected, lifetime-appointed judges, however, have forced our hand on this issue. We can no longer sit idly by while a handful of activist judges lay the groundwork to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act and redefine marriage for the entire Nation.

I voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act a decade ago, which reinforced States rights on this issue. Since then, 26 States have passed statutes designed to protect traditional marriage by defining marriage only as the union of a man and a woman. Further, 19 States now have constitutional amendments that contain this same definition. Voters in seven additional States will vote on constitutional amendments this year. Another four State legislature--including that of my own State, Iowa--are considering sending constitutional amendments to voters within the next 2 years. Ballot initiatives are currently underway in three States. Only a handful of States have redefined marriage to include same-sex partnerships, created a version of civil unions, or lack actual or planned protection for traditional marriage.

The states have spoken. A great majority of them have decided that marriage, in their States, shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. But, it has become a common prediction that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act will be overturned by the judiciary. In that case, the full faith and credit clause of our Constitution would require every State to recognize so-called marriages performed in States that allow the union of same-sex couples, many only by judicial decree. We cannot allow unelected judges to force their will upon the people, who have acted through the democratic process to defend traditional marriage.

Under our Constitution, Congress has the responsibility to enact legislation. Congress also has the responsibility to initiate the constitutional amendment process. We must fulfill this duty to protect traditional marriage. We must provide the States the opportunity to defend marriage as they have defined it.

Mr. President, I strongly support the nomination of Susan Schwab to serve as U.S. Trade Representative.

It is almost 7 months to the day since the Senate unanimously confirmed Ambassador Schwab to be Deputy U.S. Trade Representative.

During her service in that position, Ambassador Schwab has amply demonstrated her qualifications to take over as our next trade representative.

She successfully concluded negotiations of trade agreements with Peru and Columbia and has been actively engaged in the ongoing negotiations of the Doha Development Round of the World Trade Organization.

Given her strong background in trade policy, it is not surprising, then, that Ambassador Schwab has served so well in her current position.

Ambassador Schwab formally served as Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Director General of the United States and Foreign Commercial Service. That is an agency within the Department of Commerce with people on the ground in foreign countries pushing for the interest of U.S. businesses.

She, herself, worked abroad to advance U.S. trade objectives while serving as a trade policy officer in the U.S. embassy in Tokyo.

Her first job in Washington was as an agricultural trade negotiator for the Office of U.S. Trade Representative. Ambassador Schwab thus knows full well the importance and the challenge of advancing the trade interests of U.S. family farmers.

Ambassador Schwab also has extensive experience working for the Congress of the United States, the very committee that I chair. She spent 8 years during the 1980s as a trade policy specialist and then as legislative director for then-Senator Danforth at a time when he chaired the trade subcommittee of this Committee on Finance.

Ambassador Schwab is well aware of the important role Congress plays in U.S. trade policy. I look forward to working closely with her in advancing U.S. trade objectives.

In addition, Ambassador Schwab has experience working on trade issues also in the private sector. At one point, she was director of corporate business development for Motorola. In that position, she engaged in strategic planning on behalf of Motorola in the continent of Asia.

More recently, she served as dean of the University of Maryland School of Public Policy. That was from 1995 through the year 2003, and then as president and CEO of the University System of the Maryland Foundation, as well as serving as vice chancellor for advancement.

Her academic and private-sector experiences complement her strong background in Government service. She is well rounded, in other words. Given the major challenges we face in advancing a robust trade agenda, it is especially important we have someone of Ambassador Schwab's caliber serving as U.S. Trade Representative dealing with 149 countries that are members of the World Trade Organization.

We need to achieve substantial progress in Doha Round negotiations, and soon, if we are going to succeed in getting an agreement before trade promotion authority for the President of the United States expires next year. We still have a long way to go on those negotiations to reach an ambitious outcome that would be acceptable to me as chairman of the committee, but I think I can speak for the entire Congress on that point.

We are also in the process of negotiating free trade agreements with a number of important trading partners, including South Korea and Malaysia. These are going to represent terrific challenges. These are going to represent yet new challenges for her, particularly in addressing regulatory and other nontariff barriers to trade.

It is essential our bilateral negotiations with South Korea, Malaysia, and other nations conclude in time to be considered under trade promotion authority which expires July next year.

In addition, it is important our next trade representative continue to encourage meaningful regulatory reform in other major trading partners, especially Japan and China.

I expect Ambassador Schwab to continue to push our trading partners to come into compliance with their existing trade obligations such as and not limited to these: Mexico's obligation under NAFTA and the World Trade Organization regarding the importation of U.S. agricultural products and China's obligations to protect intellectual property rights.

Separately, I expect any bilateral agreement on Russia's access to the World Trade Organization will be concluded on strong, commercially meaningful terms and will not be rushed to meet some artificial deadline. Russia must demonstrate its willingness, its ability, and its commitment to abide by World Trade Organization rules.

It is important we remind ourselves of the tremendous benefits we derive from open international trade because too often we hear criticism of our trading regimes. As an example, on average, over the past decade, our economy has created a net of 2 million jobs each year. In 2005, our unemployment rate dropped to 4.7 percent, which is well below the averages of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.

An important part of our economic success is due to our trade. During the last decades, our exports have accounted for about one-quarter of U.S. economic growth. Jobs created by exports are estimated to pay 13 to 18 percent more on average compared to jobs unrelated to exports.

With respect to agriculture, approximately one-third of the acres planted in the United States are exported. Our service sector, which accounts for almost 70 percent of the U.S. economy, is anxious to break down barriers to our exports of services around the world.

Today our services exports account for a little more than a quarter of the total U.S. exports of goods and services, so breaking down barriers to our

services exports would go a long way toward helping us improve our trade deficit.

Therefore, we in the Congress need to recommit ourselves to securing improved market access for our exporters, both in the Doha Round negotiations and by means of bilateral and regional trade agreements.

I am confident Ambassador Schwab will effectively meet each of the many challenges she will face as our next trade representative. Her experience and her skills make it quite evident she is the right person for the job. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting her nomination. Once confirmed, I look forward to working with her to advance an ambitious trade agenda and would expect her to consult under the law trade promotion authority with our committees when we ask her to and when she thinks it is necessary for her to make advances to us on that sort of communication because consultation between us prior to a negotiation being signed is the basis for the success and the opportunity to get such an agreement through the Congress.

The Senator can have whatever time he desires.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Government Credit Card Abuse Prevention Act to address, in a comprehensive way, the abuse, misuse, and fraud that has occurred with Government charge cards. Some people might ask, ``Why are you bothering with legislation? Is it that big of a problem?'' It is true that most Government employees who are entrusted with a travel card or a purchase card do not abuse it. It may also be true that the amount of money concerned is only a fraction of any agency's annual budget. Well, when you have agencies like the Department of Defense with an over $500 billion budget, even a small fraction means a lot of taxpayers' money. When I asked GAO to look into instances of waste, fraud, and abuse with Government charge cards, starting with the Department of Defense, we found that purchase cards were used to spend taxpayer money for a sapphire ring, LA-Z-Boy reclining rocking chairs, and a dinner party for a general at Treasure Island Hotel and Casino that included $800 for alcohol. Government travel cards were used for gambling, sporting events, concerts, cruises, and even gentlemen's clubs and legalized brothels. Government travel cards are for official travel-related expenses only, not tickets to a Dallas Cowboys game or a Janet Jackson concert, but these are real examples of improper purchases GAO uncovered in reports I had requested. While travel cards are not paid directly with taxpayers' money like purchase cards, failure by employees to repay these cards results in the loss of millions of dollars in rebates to the Federal Government. Also, when credit card companies are forced to charge off bad debt, they raise interest rates and fees on everyone else.

Based on what we found in DoD, I worked with GAO to uncover similar problems in the U.S. Forest Service where one employee purchased five digital cameras at a cost of $2,960, six computers for $6,019, three palm pilots totaling $736, jewelry worth $1,967, and $6,101 in other items like cordless telephones, figurines, and Sony Playstations, all for personal use and all at taxpayer expense. GAO subsequently found similar problems at

other agencies like the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Housing an Urban Development. I have cited just some of the extreme examples, but there are many more instances where employees purchased items that were not needed by the agency or where a cheaper alternative would meet the purpose just as well. This occurred because of weak internal controls within the agencies and is something that clearly needs to be addressed governmentwide. Based on oversight from Congress, GAO, and agency inspectors general, the situation has improved in many agencies and I am pleased that the Office of Management and Budget has begun to bring about an improved control environment through direction contained in OMB Circular 123. However, there is more to be done and my experience has convinced me that legislation is necessary.

The Government Credit Card Abuse Prevention Act is largely based on the recommendations by GAO regarding what controls are necessary to prevent the kinds of waste, fraud, and abuse we have uncovered. Since I originally introduced this legislation in the last Congress, I have collected input and ideas and worked to refine the bill to make it both comprehensive and workable. The provisions in my bill are simply commonsense internal controls that should be present in every Federal agency to prevent improper purchases. These include: performing credit checks for travel cardholders and issuing restricted cards for those with poor or no credit to reduce the potential for misuse; maintaining a record of each cardholder, including single transaction limits and total credit limits so agencies can effectively manage their cardholders; implementing periodic reviews to determine if cardholders have a need for a card; properly recording rebates to the Government based on prompt payment; providing training for cardholders and managers; utilizing available technologies to prevent or catch fraudulent purchases; establishing specific policies about the number of cards to be issued, the credit limits for certain categories of cardholders, and categories of employees eligible to be issued cards; invalidating cards when employees leave the agency or transfer; establishing an approving official other than the purchase cardholder so employees cannot approve their own purchases; reconciling purchase card charges on the bill with receipts and supporting documentation; submitting disputed purchase card charges to the bank according to the proper procedure; making purchase card payments promptly to avoid interest penalties; retaining records of purchase card transactions in accordance with standard Government recordkeeping polices; utilizing mandatory split disbursements when reimbursing employees for travel card purchases to ensure that travel card bills get paid; comparing items submitted on travel vouchers with items already paid for with centrally billed accounts to avoid reimbursing employees for items already paid for by the agency; and submitting refund requests for unused airline tickets so the taxpayers don't pay for tickets that were not used.

My bill would also provide that each agency inspector general will periodically conduct risk assessments of agency purchase card and travel card programs and perform periodic audits to identify potential fraudulent, improper, and abusive use of cards. We have had great success working with inspectors general using techniques like data mining to reveal instances of improper use of government charge cards. Having this information on an ongoing basis will help in strengthening and maintaining a rigorous system of internal controls to prevent future instances of waste, fraud, and abuse with government charge cards. In addition, my bill requires penalties so that employees who abuse Government charge cards cannot get away scotfree. In cases of serious misuse or fraud, the bill provides that employees must be dismissed and suspected cases of fraud will also be referred to the appropriate U.S. attorney for prosecution under Federal antifraud laws. Hopefully this will send a clear message that such activity will not be tolerated so as to act as a deterrent for others.

I am proud of the oversight work that I do to uncover waste, fraud, and abuse, but sometimes I feel like Sisyphus, doomed to eternally roll a boulder up a hill only to see it fall again. Instead of eternally looking over the shoulder of agencies to find waste that should never have occurred and then poking and prodding them to close the barn door after the horse has gotten out, we need to put the internal controls in place to make sure these problems don't happen in the first place. This bill will accomplish that for the Government charge card programs so that American taxpayers can sleep soundly knowing that their money isn't being charged away by some bureaucrat. I hope my colleagues will support this commonsense measure and that it will be enacted into law in short order.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Government Credit Card Abuse Prevention Act to address, in a comprehensive way, the abuse, misuse, and fraud that has occurred with Government charge cards. Some people might ask, ``Why are you bothering with legislation? Is it that big of a problem?'' It is true that most Government employees who are entrusted with a travel card or a purchase card do not abuse it. It may also be true that the amount of money concerned is only a fraction of any agency's annual budget. Well, when you have agencies like the Department of Defense with an over $500 billion budget, even a small fraction means a lot of taxpayers' money. When I asked GAO to look into instances of waste, fraud, and abuse with Government charge cards, starting with the Department of Defense, we found that purchase cards were used to spend taxpayer money for a sapphire ring, LA-Z-Boy reclining rocking chairs, and a dinner party for a general at Treasure Island Hotel and Casino that included $800 for alcohol. Government travel cards were used for gambling, sporting events, concerts, cruises, and even gentlemen's clubs and legalized brothels. Government travel cards are for official travel-related expenses only, not tickets to a Dallas Cowboys game or a Janet Jackson concert, but these are real examples of improper purchases GAO uncovered in reports I had requested. While travel cards are not paid directly with taxpayers' money like purchase cards, failure by employees to repay these cards results in the loss of millions of dollars in rebates to the Federal Government. Also, when credit card companies are forced to charge off bad debt, they raise interest rates and fees on everyone else.

Based on what we found in DoD, I worked with GAO to uncover similar problems in the U.S. Forest Service where one employee purchased five digital cameras at a cost of $2,960, six computers for $6,019, three palm pilots totaling $736, jewelry worth $1,967, and $6,101 in other items like cordless telephones, figurines, and Sony Playstations, all for personal use and all at taxpayer expense. GAO subsequently found similar problems at

other agencies like the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Housing an Urban Development. I have cited just some of the extreme examples, but there are many more instances where employees purchased items that were not needed by the agency or where a cheaper alternative would meet the purpose just as well. This occurred because of weak internal controls within the agencies and is something that clearly needs to be addressed governmentwide. Based on oversight from Congress, GAO, and agency inspectors general, the situation has improved in many agencies and I am pleased that the Office of Management and Budget has begun to bring about an improved control environment through direction contained in OMB Circular 123. However, there is more to be done and my experience has convinced me that legislation is necessary.

The Government Credit Card Abuse Prevention Act is largely based on the recommendations by GAO regarding what controls are necessary to prevent the kinds of waste, fraud, and abuse we have uncovered. Since I originally introduced this legislation in the last Congress, I have collected input and ideas and worked to refine the bill to make it both comprehensive and workable. The provisions in my bill are simply commonsense internal controls that should be present in every Federal agency to prevent improper purchases. These include: performing credit checks for travel cardholders and issuing restricted cards for those with poor or no credit to reduce the potential for misuse; maintaining a record of each cardholder, including single transaction limits and total credit limits so agencies can effectively manage their cardholders; implementing periodic reviews to determine if cardholders have a need for a card; properly recording rebates to the Government based on prompt payment; providing training for cardholders and managers; utilizing available technologies to prevent or catch fraudulent purchases; establishing specific policies about the number of cards to be issued, the credit limits for certain categories of cardholders, and categories of employees eligible to be issued cards; invalidating cards when employees leave the agency or transfer; establishing an approving official other than the purchase cardholder so employees cannot approve their own purchases; reconciling purchase card charges on the bill with receipts and supporting documentation; submitting disputed purchase card charges to the bank according to the proper procedure; making purchase card payments promptly to avoid interest penalties; retaining records of purchase card transactions in accordance with standard Government recordkeeping polices; utilizing mandatory split disbursements when reimbursing employees for travel card purchases to ensure that travel card bills get paid; comparing items submitted on travel vouchers with items already paid for with centrally billed accounts to avoid reimbursing employees for items already paid for by the agency; and submitting refund requests for unused airline tickets so the taxpayers don't pay for tickets that were not used.

My bill would also provide that each agency inspector general will periodically conduct risk assessments of agency purchase card and travel card programs and perform periodic audits to identify potential fraudulent, improper, and abusive use of cards. We have had great success working with inspectors general using techniques like data mining to reveal instances of improper use of government charge cards. Having this information on an ongoing basis will help in strengthening and maintaining a rigorous system of internal controls to prevent future instances of waste, fraud, and abuse with government charge cards. In addition, my bill requires penalties so that employees who abuse Government charge cards cannot get away scotfree. In cases of serious misuse or fraud, the bill provides that employees must be dismissed and suspected cases of fraud will also be referred to the appropriate U.S. attorney for prosecution under Federal antifraud laws. Hopefully this will send a clear message that such activity will not be tolerated so as to act as a deterrent for others.

I am proud of the oversight work that I do to uncover waste, fraud, and abuse, but sometimes I feel like Sisyphus, doomed to eternally roll a boulder up a hill only to see it fall again. Instead of eternally looking over the shoulder of agencies to find waste that should never have occurred and then poking and prodding them to close the barn door after the horse has gotten out, we need to put the internal controls in place to make sure these problems don't happen in the first place. This bill will accomplish that for the Government charge card programs so that American taxpayers can sleep soundly knowing that their money isn't being charged away by some bureaucrat. I hope my colleagues will support this commonsense measure and that it will be enacted into law in short order.

Mr. President, I speak in favor of doing away with the death tax. To follow a principle of taxation and not just for the sole purpose of doing away with the tax, but following on what the Senator from South Dakota said, an obvious one is that death should not be an incident of taxation--not because it is death, but because when you collect taxes in an instance like that, it is like a fire sale. When you force a sale at a particular time to pay taxes, the value is going to be less than if the marketplace works. So by letting the asset pass from one generation to the other and letting the succeeding generation sell it according to the willing buyer/willing seller, more money is going to come in. That is a principle that has been laid out by the Senator from South Dakota.

Another principle that hasn't been spoken about yet is when to tax for Government services--tax income the earliest it is made, and tax it once. Beyond that, you ought to let the marketplace decide the value of something and tax it accordingly. Under both circumstances, more money is going to come into the Federal Treasury.

So I believe that death should not be a taxable event. Since I have been in the U.S. Senate, I have been working on reform of the estate tax. Taxing people's assets upon their death is just plain wrong--not wrong to the heirs as much as it is wrong to think that you are going to get more money into the Federal Treasury that way than if you let the marketplace work and determine the true value of something with a willing buyer and a willing seller.

Heirs should not be forced to sell a single asset in order to meet an arbitrary tax due date--the due date caused by death. Assets should not have to be sold to pay taxes. The market should determine when things are bought and sold. That is the best measurement--when a willing buyer meets a willing seller and they agree on a price and a time when that asset should be sold.

Unfortunately, under existing law, we have it all wrong. Under current law, in 2011 when we will once again have an estate tax due and owing within 9 months of death of 55 percent, and even in some cases up to 60 percent, that is just not right. It is not right for the family involved and it is not the best thing for the Federal Treasury, because that is not going to bring in the massive amount of revenue that would come in if the marketplace were working. It is not right because we have forced many unwilling sellers to have to deal with a very willing shark of a buyer who is waiting in the murky waters of tax uncertainty.

Some people wonder why I care so much about this issue. I have reporters from big city newspapers calling me, because I am a U.S. Senator, to remind me that Iowa is somewhat economically poor compared to very so-called wealthy places, like New York City, and that land and companies in the Midwest are not worth much. They take great joy in calling up my constituents--probably very randomly--and maybe stopping by once or twice for a so-called investigation about the haves and the have-nots of our State. They do it trying to find out the grassroots feeling about this great tax debate.

I may not get to write on the front page of a fancy urban newspaper, but I do get to talk to a lot of my constituents because I visit every county every year to find out what is important to my constituents through my town meetings. I will give you, from those meetings, a couple of examples, as my colleague from South Dakota did for his State, of why I think this debate is so important and this bill is so important and this cloture vote should pass.

Unfortunately, we have it all wrong. Under current law, in 2011 we will once again have an estate tax due and owing within 9 months of death of 55 percent and even in some cases up to 60 percent. That just is not right. We have forced many unwilling sellers to have to deal with a very willing ``shark'' of a buyer waiting in the murky waters of tax uncertainty. These are real people who live in Iowa. They have devoted their entire lives, for multiple generations, to building businesses and creating good jobs for people of rural Iowa.

Over 40 years ago, Eugene and Mary Sukup started a grain handling and storage manufacturing company in Sheffield, IA. On my family farm, my son and I used Sukup equipment to store our corn and soybeans and to use drying equipment for drying corn for storage. So I know that the Sukups, as a family manufacturing business, have a quality product and they serve their customers well, and they serve all Iowa well in the sense of jobs. Today, the Sukup family and the next generation of two sons and their families are involved; they are still headquartered in this little community of Sheffield, IA, with a population of 968 people. But they employ over 300 people from 5 different counties, in good-paying jobs, with good retirement plans. In fact, the original employee team that started with them 40 years ago is still there today, and, in many cases, the next generation of that family has also joined the team.

In addition, the Sukups' facilities in other States, also contributing to the economy of those other States, like Defiance, OH; Jonesboro, AR; Arcola, IL; Aurora, NE; and Watertown, SD-- places where good jobs and hard work that isn't flashy and doesn't make the scandal page of big city papers are valued as important ingredients of down- home, good living. These are the places where people invest in the local economy and contribute to the community as good taxpaying citizens.

Let me tell you about another little Iowa town, Shenandoah. That is where Lloyd Inc. is located. It, too, is not a flashy company. They started making

animal dietary mixes in 1958 and now is a significant provider of veterinary drugs. Eugene Lloyd is a doctor of veterinary medicine and the CEO of the company. He tells me that the company has never laid off employees due to poor business cycles and employs over 80 well-educated people in Shenandoah, a town of less than 6,000 people.

The company has also provided generous health care and retirement plans to their employees and, like I said, in rural America, those benefits are very important.

Unfortunately, even after vigilant estate planning, these two family- owned companies will be facing a combined estate tax bill of well over $40 million. That is $40 million that will leave the State of Iowa. The companies will probably face a fire sale and so often, it is sold to someone with no interest or desire to maintain the current location or contributions to the community. So there are two companies, two towns, 6 counties, 4 families and hundreds of employees, all of which will be hurt if we don't do something about the death tax. Businesses will be sold, locations will be shut down, and real people will lose good jobs and the State of Iowa will lose $40 million of hard capital invested for almost 90 years between the two companies. Not to even mention how much salary, retirement plans and charitable contributions they have made to those little Iowa communities.

So when the multinational or foreign companies come calling, we have no one else to blame but ourselves for letting these family owned companies committed to the community go away.

All of us from rural America are trying to battle what is called out- migration. If we leave the death tax in place in its punitive form in 2011, it will suck jobs, businesses, and people out of rural America.

That is why I care about this death tax debate--real people, in real Iowa counties that have entire communities that would care. It is strange, in New York City, how many multimillionaires live on any one block in Manhattan?

Those so-called multimillionaires seem a little different when you check out the Iowa corn crop, or you sit together at church or the grandson's baseball game. They are, as the popular book says ``the millionaire next door,'' they are the pillars that help hold up all those 99 counties that I visit every year. I know these are not the kind of stories that make the front page of the big city papers, but when family businesses get sold and shut down or moved out of State or even out of the United States, it certainly makes the front page of the newspapers about which I really care.

So when you hear about the number of estates affected, keep in mind, to some extent, that statistic is only a snapshot. The estate tax return is filed by the representative of the dead person. Those statistics, so often dwelled on by many of the proponents of the death tax, don't capture the full picture. The statistic is only a look at the dead person who owned the business or farm. It doesn't take into account the dead person's family, employees, or neighbors. All of those folks are affected if the death tax burdens that family business or farm.

I plan to vote for cloture, and I hope 60 other Senators also vote for cloture on Thursday. It is time we had a real debate on a reasonable solution to this problem. Kicking the can of tax uncertainty is draining dollars out of these family owned businesses, just as well as the estate tax, only the expense of planning for these uncertainties takes money every month and not just all of it within 9 months of death. Vote yes on cloture. We owe these folks an answer.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a concurrent resolution which expresses the goal of the United States to provide 25 percent of the Nation's energy needs from renewable resources by 2025. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Salazar, Lugar, Harkin, DeWine and Obama.

The goal of this 25 by 25 resolution is quite simple: to replace 25 percent of our total energy needs with renewable resources like wind, hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass and biofuels by 2025. This is a bold goal, but given our current energy situation in the U.S., it is a necessary goal.

In the past few years, we have seen the price of crude oil skyrocket from $25 a barrel to nearly $75 a barrel. This has caused prices at the pump to escalate beyond $3 a gallon. Natural gas, used for electricity generation and industrial uses, has hovered above $6 per million BTU's, while hitting over $15 following the devastating hurricanes along the gulf coast.

The impact of these increased prices is being felt around the country by working families, farmers, businesses and industries. The increased cost for energy at the pump, in home heating and for industrial uses has the potential to jeopardize our economic security and vitality.

And, because we are dependent upon foreign countries for over 60 percent of our crude oil, our dependence is a threat to our national security. President Bush heightened the awareness of the problem by stating in his 2006 State of the Union Address that we are addicted to foreign oil. He highlighted as his goal to reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East by 75 percent by 2025.

Our effort with this concurrent resolution is to signal to America's farmers, ranchers and forestry industry, that we believe they have the ability and resources to generate 25 percent of our energy needs. An that it is in our economic and national security interest to do so.

There are many inherent virtues in producing our own domestic energy from renewable resources. It is good for our environment. It is good for our national and economic security. It will provide an economic boost for our rural economies. And perhaps most importantly, it will ensure a stable, secure, domestic supply of affordable energy.

Already, our farmers and ranchers are working hard to use their resources to produce electricity from wind, biomass and other agricultural wastes. In addition, corn, soybeans and other crops are being used to produce transportation fuels like ethanol and biodiesel. It is evident that rural America has the drive to achieve this goal.

While this concurrent resolution states our renewable energy goal, it does not prescribe a way to achieve the goal. Rather, it recognizes the benefit of implementing supportive policies and incentives to stimulate the development and use of renewable energy. It also identifies the benefits of technological improvements to the cost and market appeal of renewable energy. The supporters of this goal commit to support sensible policies and proper incentives to work toward the goal.

I am hopeful that my colleagues will recognize the importance and timeliness of this effort, and will consider supporting us in this goal to produce 25 percent of our energy needs from renewable resources by 2025.