Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I recognize Robert Laurenz, who was named the South Dakota Minority Small Business Person of the Year by the Small Business Administration. This is a prestigious award that reflects the quality of small businesses that are found in South Dakota.

Mr. Laurenz's business, Dakota 2000, Inc., was founded in 1995 and supports Federal, State, local, and tribal government agencies with information technology services. Dakota 2000, Inc., sells millions of goods and services annually and has successfully completed contracts with several government agencies. Businesses such as Dakota 2000, Inc., are vital to the health and economic well-being of South Dakota's future.

It gives me great pleasure to rise with Robert Laurenz and to congratulate him on receiving this well-earned award. I wish him and Dakota 2000, Inc., continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor Boyd ``Butch'' Kitterman of Wall, SD. Butch is being honored for his many years of volunteer service with the Wall Volunteer Fire Department.

Butch has been with the Wall Volunteer Fire Department for 50 years. He has served as fire chief, truck captain, and is currently treasurer for the department. South Dakota's communities depend on volunteers like Butch to keep our citizens and homes safe during times of trouble. His initiative, expertise, and dedication to serving the city of Wall for 50 years is truly commendable.

Today I rise with Butch Kitterman's friends and family in celebrating his 50 years of selfless dedication and service to the city of Wall.

Mr. President, today I recognize GFWC Travelers Club of Chamberlain, SD. On September 12, 2006, GFWC Travelers Club celebrated its 100th anniversary.

As the oldest continuing volunteer club in Brule County, GFWC Travelers Club has been a leader in providing funding and assistance in numerous areas. They have been involved in founding and supporting libraries, both locally and nationally, granting educational scholarships, helping to maintain Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota and many other valuable and necessary community projects.

It gives me great pleasure to rise and recognize the great work that GFWC Travelers Club has done and to wish them all the best of luck as they celebrate their 100th anniversary.

Mr. President, today I recognize the Custer Senior Center of Custer, SD, on its 35th anniversary. Custer Senior Center truly deserves this recognition for its years of service to the seniors of Custer and of South Dakota.

The Custer Senior Center first began when VISTA volunteers Peggy and David Viers placed an advertisement in the Custer Chronicle asking those interested in starting a community senior center to meet at the Community Church on April 6, 1970. The citizens of Custer came together and the Senior Center officially opened in May of 1970 with 52 charter members.

Since this time, the Custer Senior Center has provided an invaluable community service by creating a welcoming place for Custer's senior citizens to meet together for fellowship and support. I am confident that the Senior Center will continue to bring together Custer's citizens of all ages in the years to come.

I would like to offer my congratulations to the Custer Senior Center on their 35th anniversary and wish them the best of luck as they celebrate this important event.

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

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

Mr. President, as we wind down this legislative session in this last week, we have a lot of work to do on the agenda. We have bills dealing with port security, Homeland Security appropriations, Defense appropriations, and border security, which is the subject of discussion right now, the Secure Fence Act of 2006, and those are probably going to be the things on which we can find consensus. We can add to that the issue of how we deal with detainees and continue to acquire high-value intelligence that will enable us to prevent future terrorist attacks. That legislation is coming down the pike, too. So we have a lot of things to vote on in the last few days before the election. And the assumption, of course, is that we will probably come back in after the election to wrap up some of the outstanding issues.

There are other pieces of legislation that could be dealt with in this period--legislation that is without controversy, legislation that has been acted on by the House of Representatives and on which there is broad bipartisan agreement. It seems to me, at least at this point in the legislative session, that in order to get these bills through, it is going to take considerable agreement on both sides of the political aisle, with enough critical mass behind them to get them through.

I have a bill that fits into that category. I have come to the Senate floor on a couple occasions to speak about it. It has been cleared by the House of Representatives by a vote of 355 to 9. Now it is sitting here, and Senator Salazar from Colorado and I have a substitute amendment to that, and as soon as it is picked up and the Senate passes it, it goes back to the House. The House has indicated that if we send it back, they will pass it. Then we can put it on the President's desk.

The bill has to do with an issue that I think is on the minds of a lot of Americans--energy independence. It is a fairly straightforward issue. As I have explained previously on the floor, it has to do with closing the gap in the distribution system between the production of ethanol, the supply of renewable energy in this country, and the demand for it, the ultimate consumer of renewable energy.

Right now, as you know, in the last year we passed an energy bill which required, for the first time ever, certain use of ethanol in this country--7.5 billion gallons by 2012. We are ramping up to that level now. In South Dakota, we already have 11 ethanol plants. We have three under construction, and in a short period we will be at a billion gallons a year--just in South Dakota. If you add to that the production underway in the Chair's home State of Minnesota and other States in the Midwest, there is a tremendous amount of ethanol that is in the pipeline. We have now a requirement that States around the country have to meet that 7.5 billion. I think we also have a ver robust demand for it because people in this country realize that if we are going to get serious about energy independence, we have to begin shifting away from some of the types of energy that we get from other places around the world. This is American energy, homegrown energy, renewable energy. We can raise it every year. We have a corn crop every year that can be converted into gallons of ethanol. We have other types of biomass materials that, raised in places such as the Midwest, are on the cusp in terms of the technology that will soon be available. One is switch grass. There is a research project at South Dakota State University right now looking at the probability in the near future of having the essential ingredients and processes that will enable us to make ethanol out of switch grass, something that is in abundance in the upper Midwest.

This movement toward renewable energy, American-grown energy, is long overdue. People are demanding that we begin to move in that direction. We have a renewable fuel standard, as a result of the Energy bill that passed, which is a great success for moving in that direction. We have, as I said, a lot of production now that is currently on line, with additional plants under construction. What we are missing is the method by which that ethanol or other renewable fuels--bioenergy--is distributed to consumers in this country.

Right now, we have about 180,000 filling stations in America, and only about 800 of those make available E85 or other alternative fuels. If you do the math on that, that is 1 filling station for every 10,000 cars that are currently capable of using E85 or some other form of alternative energy. The Auto Alliance--and probably Members of this Chamber have seen them--has run ads in some of the publications in town saying that today there are 9\1/2\ million cars on the road that can use alternative sources of energy. ``Flex-fuel vehicles'' is how we refer to them in most cases. If you look at the 9\1/2\ million cars already on the road and those currently in production, the car manufacturers are gearing up to come up with more vehicles that can run on alternative sources of energy, primarily 85.

We have an enormous opportunity out there, a great potential for increasing usage of ethanol and renewable fuels, thereby lessening our dependence upon foreign sources of energy, which has implications for our economy, for our national security, and foreign policy.

This is a win-win. This is flatout a no-brainer for America and for the Senate. Yet we have a hold--a secret hold--by someone on the Democratic side that is preventing this bill from moving forward.

Mr. President, I understand the traditions and the rules of the Senate allow for that sort of thing to happen, but whoever it is--and I have my suspicions about who it is--who has a hold on the bill, I wish they would come forward and defend that hold. This is a noncontroversial piece of legislation which has broad bipartisan support, has passed the House with a 355-to-9 vote, and is ready for action in the Senate. But as of right now, it is being held up by someone on the other side. Again, I don't know who that is. I would like to know who that is and have the opportunity to visit with them to find out what their objection is.

The reality is that this is a piece of legislation which makes so much sense for our economy and, as I said, for our need for energy independence, to have American energy so we can get away from our dependence on foreign sources of energy. It is good for the environment. There are so many benefits to moving this legislation forward. Again, it is heading in a direction that gets us away from dependence upon foreign energy and more energy independence in this country.

I come to the floor to urge my colleagues--it has been cleared on the Republican side. It is ready for action in the House. It is teed up to go there; we have talked with our colleagues in the House. It passed once there.

The amendment Senator Salazar and I have offered, the substitute amendment, is a modification of that bill, but it keeps in place the basic concept of the bill. Very simply, in terms of explanation, it provides up to a $30,000 cash incentive for fuel retailers to install pumps that would provide E85 or other types of energy. The average cost to install that pump is somewhere between $40,000 and $200,000, depending on where you are in the country. We believe the convenience stores and the gas stations across this country would take advantage of this if it were in place. It would do something about this ratio I just mentioned where we have 1 filling station for every 10,000 cars in this country that are capable of running on E85 or some other form of alternative energy.

Again, I commend this to my colleagues in the hopes that we can move ahead. We have a few days left this week before everybody heads home for the elections. We don't know what will happen with the elections. This is legislation which, as I said, is broadly supported on a bipartisan, bicameral basis and has the support of the auto manufacturers across the country and the National Association of Convenience Stores. I submitted letters previously for the Record expressing the support of the entire ethanol industry and environmental groups. I think it has been cleared on the Republican side, and I hope that whoever on the Democratic side who has placed a hold on the bill will make that known so we can discuss what the objection is and, hopefully, clear it for action so we can get something meaningful done about the issue of energy security before Congress goes home for the elections.

Mr. President, I raise the issue again, and I urge and ask and request that my colleagues work together to accomplish what I think is a very important objective before we leave for the election; that is, moving America in the direction of lessening our dependence upon foreign energy, becoming energy independent, and helping to address the issue of high gas prices in this country. This bill would do that. I simply ask my colleagues to work with me to get that done.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize Navy Lieutenant Chris Hart of Rapid City, SD. Lieutenant Hart was awarded the Bronze Star Medal with Valor for his courageous service in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Lieutenant Hart served as Explosive Ordinance Disposal Team Officer- in-Charge with Multinational Forces Iraq, Multinational Division West from July to September 2005. He took part in 52 combat operations, and showed outstanding leadership in the face of enemy fire. Thanks to Lieutenant Hart's efforts, insurgents were denied explosive materials and thwarted in their attempts to cause harm. Lieutenant Hart's service is a shining example of the dedication and bravery that makes America's soldiers the greatest in the world.

It gives me great pleasure to rise in congratulating Lieutenant Hart for his heroic service in defense of our Nation and our freedoms.

Mr. President, I would just like to add to what my colleague from Arizona has said about the importance of border security. One of the clear priorities in the debate about immigration is what are we going to do to take steps to ensure that we stem the flow of illegal immigration in this country. The Senator from Arizona has been a great leader on this issue. I commend him for that. Of course his State is right down there on the border. But, ironically, even in my State, the State of South Dakota, which is somewhat removed from the border, we are experiencing the effects, some of the negative effects of immigration.

In fact, I had a meeting not long ago with law enforcement personnel in my State--State, Federal, local law enforcement--to talk about the methamphetamine issue which has become a real epidemic in my State like it has in many other places. In fact, methamphetamine arrests were up 45 percent last year in Sioux Falls, which is

our biggest city. There is what is known as the I-29 corridor, from Sioux City to Sioux Falls, beyond to South Dakota, and up into North Dakota. It has become afflicted with the methamphetamine crisis.

As I met with them, one of the things that became very clear is that much of what is driving the methamphetamine scourge in our area of the country is people who have come here illegally. It is illegal immigrants who come in and set up these distribution systems in this country, and they are targeting the Indian reservations. There have been a number of stories about how the methamphetamine--if you want to call them cartels or whatever--have looked for places in the United States where they have wide open space, which we have on our reservations in South Dakota and we do not have sufficient law enforcement to necessarily keep up with some of those problems. They are targeting Indian reservations.

I talked to one law enforcement individual from one of the reservations who said they had just sent back somebody who had come into this country, broken the law on the reservation, for the ninth time. That is how easy it has become to get in and out of this country illegally. That is why it is important this issue be addressed.

I understand there are differences of opinion in the Senate about how to address this; whether or not we ought to have a comprehensive approach or how we deal with those who are already here illegally. I think those are all points of debate and issues we need to continue to discuss and resolve. But we have to start fundamentally with stopping the problem now. The people of this country expect us to act. It is a matter of national security.

We have the possibility of terrorist organizations using our open, porous border as an opportunity to get a foothold in this country. As I have said, we have a lot of law enforcement issues related to people who come here illegally and then commit illegal acts--the methamphetamine incidents I talked about in South Dakota being one example. But, clearly, we need to start sealing, securing this southern border to make sure the people of this country have confidence that we are taking the steps necessary to stem the flow of illegal immigration and to get this issue under control.

I appreciate the work the chairman of the Budget Committee and others have done to put more resources and funds toward that because I think it has made a profound difference already. But, frankly, this legislation we are considering today is important because it will send a loud, clear message to the people in this country that we are serious about this issue of illegal immigration, starting with securing the border.

The other issues that follow from that we can debate. There is an agreement on that. I think the one thing there is agreement on, the one thing people in this country want to see action on now is let's get this border secure. So this border security bill that has come over from the House and is being debated in the Senate, I hope we will get a vote on it and be able to pass it through the Senate and put something on the President's desk that will move us in the right direction, a direction that will discourage people from coming here illegally. The thing we want to do is discourage people from coming here illegally.

I say that as a person one generation removed from immigrant status. My grandfather and great-uncle came here from Norway in 1906. We are a nation of immigrants. People come for the same reason they did: they want to experience the American dream.

We are a welcoming nation, and we are also a nation of laws. We need to enforce those laws, and this legislation moves us in that direction. It deals with what is the first priority in this debate, and that is securing the American border so that not only from a national security standpoint, a law enforcement standpoint but, frankly, just so people in this country know and people in other countries in the world who want to come here illegally know that we are a nation of laws, and we are going to enforce those laws.

That is where this debate should start. This will give us an opportunity to do something about which I think there is broad agreement. We can address the other issues in due time, but right now, in the time we have left in the Senate before we adjourn, it is important we address this issue.

I want to speak to one other matter. I came to the floor yesterday, and I want to follow up on something I said.

For anybody who watched the comments at the United Nations made by Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, it should have removed any doubt about the importance of American energy independence. We need to become energy independent. We get a million barrels of oil a day from Venezuela. This is a country whose leader was spewing hatred at the United States; someone who, in the past, has said that the President and his administration were responsible and behind the 9/11 attacks.

This is a country, and many of the other countries like that one, where we get the majority of our energy. They are countries that are hostile to the United States. They want to use the leverage they have as a political weapon against the United States.

The way we avoid that from happening is America becomes energy independent. We need more sources of American energy. We need to take steps so that we have the supply in this country that will enable us to meet the needs that we have in our economy, without having to get energy from the Middle East or from Venezuela, OPEC, other countries that have very hostile intentions toward the United States.

Yesterday, I came down here to talk about a bill that will move us in that direction. I have legislation that is pending in the Senate. It has passed the House. As a matter of fact, it passed the House by a huge margin, 355 to 9, broad bipartisan support coming from the House. It comes here from the Senate. Senator Salazar and I have a substitute amendment to that which has been cleared by the Republicans in the Senate. The House has said as soon as we send it back to them they will pass it and it will be put on the President's desk. But we have a series of secret holds on the Democratic side in the Senate.

I know that is part of the tradition of the Senate. I don't happen to think it is a good part of the tradition of the Senate, that people can put a secret hold on a bill and you don't have any idea who has a hold on it, what their issues are. I have my suspicions, since this is an even-numbered year, about why some of these holds are being placed on this bill. Nevertheless, it has the relevant committee's blessing. It has been approved by the committees here.

As I said, we have cleared all the traps on the Republican side of the aisle in the Senate. So the legislation is ready to be passed, sent back to the House, sent to the President, and signed into law. But we have a series of secret holds on the Democratic side in the Senate. That is wrong. Whatever the motivations are, this is policy that is important to the country.

I just mentioned the issue of energy security, of energy independence. This is an issue that strikes at the very heart and core of almost every issue we are debating in the country today, whether it is the economy and the cost of energy, whether it is national security, foreign policy--energy, the fact that we depend upon foreign sources for our energy supply in this country, is a very serious and vexing problem. We have to address it. We need to put policies in place that will create more supply here in America.

This legislation, again, very briefly--to explain it because I explained a little bit yesterday--fills the distribution gap that we have in the area of renewable energy. We passed an energy policy last summer. Part of our policy is a renewable fuels standard which guarantees a market for ethanol and other types of bioenergy. We now have a lot of plants around the country that are operating at full capacity, producing ethanol. We have plants under construction. My State of South Dakota has been at the forefront of that movement, but we will very shortly be at a billion gallons a year production of ethanol.

The problem we have is we do not have a way of getting it to the consumer in this country because we don't have enough refueling stations, gas stations, and convenience stores that have installed the pumps that are necessary to deliver E85 to consumers in this country.

This was an ad that was run in one of the local publications here, Congress

Daily. I saw it a few days ago. I saw it again today in that same publication. It is put out by the Auto Alliance. The Auto Alliance in this country, which represents the major car manufacturers, is very much supporting this legislation. What this ad says is that there are 9 million alternative fuel autos in this country today--and counting: 9 million cars in America today that are what we call flex-fuel vehicles; that is, they are capable of running either on traditional gasoline or E85 ethanol. Nine million vehicles--they are ramping up, building, and manufacturing more flex-fuel vehicles. If you watch the television advertisements today and you see the auto manufacturers run their advertising, they are talking more and more about flex-fuel vehicles. This is an important priority for the auto industry. They have the cars that are out there that are capable of using E85. The problem is, there are not enough filling stations that have it available.

In their letter that they sent in support of this bill, the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers says--and I used the number yesterday. This is a slightly different number, but it is in the ballpark. I said there were 600 gas stations in this country that offer E85 out of a total of 18,000. In their letter they say 830 gas stations, so maybe it has gone up a little bit, out of the total number of gas stations in the country that have E85 ability.

There are 9 million vehicles and counting that can run on flex fuel using E85 or other bioenergy--only using the high number of 830 refueling stations where they can get that.

In the Midwest where I am from, in South Dakota, we have a number of filling stations that make E85 available. But that is the exception and not the rule.

Our bill provides an incentive for these refuelers to install E85 pumps, not just E85. This isn't just an ethanol issue; other alternative energy types of fuels can be used. But it provides an incentive for them to install pumps to make renewable energy and alternative sources of energy more readily available to consumers in this country. It does it very simply by providing grants up to $30,000 per pump at the gas station. Because they can install more than one, they can take advantage of the incentive more than once. If they install an E85 pump, they can get up to $30,000 to do that. The cost of installing one of those pumps, depending on where you are in the country, is between $40,000 and $200,000.

The simple fact is, this incentive will go a long way. As has been noted, and as I said, the auto manufacturers sent a letter supporting the bill, as has the National Association of Convenience Stores which represents all of the gas stations around the country. They are supporting this; the auto manufacturers are supporting this.

It does not affect the budget because we paid for it. The way we paid for it is by using the fines that are paid by foreign auto manufacturers for violations of fuel efficiency standards. Take a fine which has been paid and apply those dollars toward a program that provides incentives for fuel retailers to install five pumps and other pumps that offer other forms of alternative energy.

But, frankly, as I said before, it is an important priority. We have auto manufacturers making the cars, ethanol producers that are producing the ethanol, you have consumers in this country who want this product, and you have a requirement now, because of the renewable fuels standard that we passed last year and put into law in the Energy bill, that States meet those standards. You have all of these things clicking. And Hugo Chavez comes to the United States and at the U.N. in a vitriolic way attacks our country and our leaders. Here we are getting a million barrels of oil a day from that country.

We need American energy. We need to be energy independent. We need to move America in a direction toward the future and take us away from relying on the traditional sources of energy.

We get almost 55 percent of our energy from outside the United States--and that has to change.

This legislation is broadly supported. It came out of the House by a vote of 355 to 9. It is broadly supported.

I have had Senators from both sides of the aisle come up to me--and, of course, I said it is cleared on the Republican side. I have had Democratic Senators say they really support the legislation. This is a good thing.

Again, I am at a loss--it is a mystery to me--to try to explain why anyone would be opposed to this. The only thing I can suggest is there are perhaps some election year motivations. I don't know the answer to that. I hope that is not the case.

This is the right thing to do for the country. It is the right policy to put in place for America's future. I call on my colleagues on the Democratic side who have these anonymous, secret holds--we don't know who is holding it up. I wish I knew the answer to that. I would love to have them come down here and defend their position because there is absolutely no logical reason anybody would object to this piece of legislation which implements policy, consistent with the energy policy that we adopted last summer, the renewable fuels standard, and make available for people in this country E85 ethanol.

There are 9 million automobiles in this country and counting that can run on E85. If you use the generous estimate, there are 850 refueling stations. That is a terrible gap. We need to fill that gap in the distribution system in this country. This legislation would do that.

It is ready for action in the House, and it is ready to go to the President for his signature.

But we have, as I said, some anonymous and secret holds on the Democrat side preventing this legislation from moving forward.

I ask my colleagues--I urge my colleagues--on the other side of the aisle to release those holds and allow this bipartisan legislation, this important legislation, to get to the President's desk so we can begin to lessen our dependence on foreign sources of energy, on dictators, and countries like Venezuela and Iran, and have American- grown energy that will make America independent as we head into the future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 21, 2006, at 10 a.m. to mark up an original bill entitled the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2006.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a full committee hearing on pending nominations on Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 2:30 p.m.

President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 21 at 10 a.m. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nomination of Mary Amelia Bomar, of Pennsylvania, to be Director of the National Park Service, Vice Frances P, Mainella, resigned.

Mr. President: I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, September 21st, 2006 at 10:15 a.m. the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold a Business Meeting to consider the following agenda:

Legislation:

H.R. 1463, To designate a portion of the Federal building located at 2100 Jamieson Avenue, in Alexandria, VA, as the `Justin W. Williams United States Attorney's Building.'

Nominations:

Roger Romulus Martella, Jr. to be Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency

Alex A. Beehler to be Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency

William H. Graves to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority

Brigadier General Bruce Arlan Berwick to be a Member of the Mississippi River Commission

Colonel Gregg F. Martin to be a Member of the Mississippi River Commission

Brigadier General Robert Crear to be a Member of the Mississippi River Commission

Rear Admiral Samuel P. DeBow, Jr. to be a Member of the Mississippi River Commission

Resolutions:

6 Committee resolutions authorizing prospectuses from GSA's fiscal year 2007 Capital Investment and Leasing Program

Committee resolution to direct GSA to prepare a Report of Building Project Survey

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 21, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Afghanistan.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, September 21, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Agenda

I. Nominations

Terrence W. Boyle, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit; William James Haynes II, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit; Kent A. Jordan, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit; Peter D. Keisler, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit; William Gerry Myers III, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit; Norman Randy Smith, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit; Valerie L. Baker, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California; Francisco Augusto Besosa, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico; Nora Barry Fischer, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Gregory Kent Frizzell, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma; Philip S. Gutierrez, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California; Marcia Morales Howard, to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida; John Alfred Jarvey, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa; Sara Elizabeth Lioi, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio; Lawrence Joseph O'Neill, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of California; Lisa Godbey Wood; to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Georgia.

II. Bills

S. 2831, Free Flow of Information Act of 2006, Lugar, Specter, Schumer, Graham, Biden, Grassley;

S. 155, Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2005, Feinstein,

Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, Kyl, Specter;

S. 1845, Circuit Court of Appeals Restructuring and Modernization Act of 2005, Ensign, Kyl;

S. 394, Open Government Act of 2005, Cornyn, Leahy, Feingold;

S. 3880, Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, Inhofe, Feinstein;

S. 2644, Perform Act of 2006, Feinstein, Graham, Biden;

S. 3818, Patent Reform Act of 2006, Hatch, Leahy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Corrections and Rehabilitation be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Oversight of Federal Assistance for Prisoner Rehabilitation and Reentry in Our States'' on Thursday, September 21, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. in SD226.

Witness List:

Panel I: Mason Bishop, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC, Regina Schofield, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Robert Bogart, Director, Center for Faith Based and Community Initiatives, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC, Cheri Nolan, Senior Policy Advisor, Criminal and Juvenile Justice at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.

Panel II: Roger Werholtz, Secretary of Corrections, Kansas Department of Corrections, Topeka, KS, Diane Williams, President and CEO, Safer Foundation, Chicago, IL.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2006 at 2:30 p.m to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet Thursday, September 21, 2006 from 10 a.m.-12 p.m. in Dirksen 562 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 21 at 2:30 p.m.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1106, to authorize the construction of the Arkansas Valley conduit in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes; S. 1811, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the feasibility of enlarging the Argur V. Watkins Dam Weber Basin Project, UT, to provide additional water for the Weber Basin Project to fulfill the purposes for which that project was authorized; S. 2070, to provide certain requirements for hydroelectric projects on the Mohawk River in the State of New York; S. 3522, to amend the Bonneville Power Administration portions of the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000 to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2006 through 2012, and for other purposes; S. 3832, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish criteria to transfer title to reclamation facilities, and for other purposes; S. 3851, to provide for the extension of preliminary permit periods by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for certain hydroelectric projects in the State of Alaska; S. 3798, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to exclude and defer from the pooled reimbursable costs of the unused capacity of the Folsome South Canal, Auburn-Folsom South Unit, Central Valley Project, and for other purposes; H.R. 2563, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility studies to address certain water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and Payette River systems in Idaho, and for other purposes; and H.R. 3897, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Madera Irrigation District for purposes of supporting the Madera Water Supply Enhancement Project.

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

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, on July 24, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 5534 by a vote of 355 to 9. This bipartisan legislation seeks to provide grants, not to exceed $30,000, to assist gas station owners and other eligible entities who install alternative fuels such as biodiesel, natural gas and E85 ethanol.

As all of my colleagues know, the American public has been calling on Congress to address our Nation's overdependence upon foreign sources of energy. Senator Salazar from Colorado and I have a bipartisan substitute to the House-passed bill that is currently being held in the Senate at the desk. The substitute has been cleared by the relative committees, as well as by my colleagues on this side of the aisle; however, for some unknown reason, some of my Democratic colleagues have placed secret holds on this very noncontroversial bill.

The Thune-Salazar substitute has the support of the U.S. Automakers Alliance, alternative energy groups, and environmental organizations that have called upon Congress to increase the availability of alternative fuels.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers, which includes BMW Group, DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota, and Volkswagen.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition and the National Association of Convenience Stores, representing the fuel retailers across this country.

Mr. President, simply put, our substitute has no budgetary score and simply authorizes future appropriations for the annual penalties collected each year from foreign automakers who violate CAFE standards.

I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will work with Senator Salazar and me to clear this important measure. The House has agreed to take up and pass the Thune-Salazar substitute once it clears our Chamber, allowing the bill to be sent to the President for his signature. In light of the very clear message from the American people that they want Congress to do more to increase the availability of alternative fuels, I hope my colleagues drop any objections they have so this measure can be passed by the Senate.

If we look at the state of the renewable fuel industry today and the state of our energy situation in this country, it is very clear that we need to be doing more to promote the use of alternative energy and renewable fuels.

If you look at the Energy bill that was passed last summer, it included a renewable fuels standard for the first time ever as a matter of policy for this country. We have in law a requirement that a certain amount of renewable fuel--ethanol and other types of bioenergy--be used. Now, that creates a market for ethanol.

We also have on the other side, on the production side, a lot of ethanol plants either currently in production or under construction. In fact, back in my State of South Dakota, we have 11 ethanol plants and 3 others under construction. In just a few short months from now we will be somewhere around a billion gallons of ethanol produced annually.

So we have the production side of it. Our ethanol production is gearing up. We have the market now, the renewable fuels standard we passed last year as a part of the Energy bill, which is something I think was long overdue and much needed in terms of our energy policy in this country.

What we have is a gap in the distribution system. We do not have enough retailers out there, convenience stores, filling stations, that make E-85 available at the pump. In fact, there are 180,000 fuel retailers in this country, and of those only about 600 make E-85 available at the pump.

So what we are talking about is dealing with what, in my view, is a real sort of gap in our system; that is, making all that production that is being brought on line available to consumers in this country who really want to buy and use alternative fuels but do not have access to them because fuel retailers across this country simply do not want to deal with the cost of installing the pumps.

So what this bill does, the Thune-Salazar bill, is provide up to $30,000. The cost for installing a new E-85 pump is considered to be somewhere between $40,000 and $200,000, depending on where you are in the country. But the simple fact is, we think this incentive will go a long way toward filling in that distribution gap so the ethanol production side of it, the supply side of it, can meet the demand; the demand being, of course, the renewable fuels standard we passed last year, as well as Americans' appetite for using renewable fuels and moving increasingly away from our dependence upon foreign sources of energy.

It makes perfect sense. We have an energy crisis in our country. People have reacted with extreme intensity toward $3-a-gallon gasoline. They want to see us take steps that will make America energy independent, that will provide American energy to meet the demands that we have out there in the marketplace, to continue to drive our economy, to provide fuel for those who travel long distances.

I will say, in my State of South Dakota, we are a predominantly agricultural State. We are a State that relies heavily upon tourism. We drive long distances. We are a big user of fuels to get to where we need to go, to get to our destinations--whether it is part of our economy to get to jobs, the marketplace, whether it is farmers in the field or ranchers, or whether it is, again, tourism, which is an important component in our State's economy.

For all these very obvious reasons, we need policies that will make renewable fuels more available to more people in this country. Today, as I said,

there is a point in that distribution system that has been closed off. We have the production over here, the ethanol plants under construction, and those that are already fully operating that are producing more and more ethanol. And we have, again, the demand side, consumers who want to use renewable energy. And we have the renewable fuels standard we passed last summer as part of our policy. There is now a requirement for many of our States to get in compliance with that policy.

What we are missing right now is at the fuel retailer level. This is an opportunity to address that, to do something that is meaningful about lessening our dependence upon foreign sources of energy, about using more American energy, and meeting what is a very serious need in our economy.

So, again, I would refer people to the letters I have included in the Record. We have auto manufacturers in this country that are increasingly--you see more and more production of E-85, or what they call flex-fuel vehicles, those vehicles that can use E-85. I have to say, our bill does not preclude other alternative sources of energy from the pumps being installed, from them offering other energy other than E-85.

But I think it is fair to say there is a growing demand in this country for E-85. There are more and more flex-fuel cars being manufactured in America today, as evident from the letter from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. But all the car companies in this country are building more and more cars that are flex-fuel vehicles that could use E-85.

The simple fact is, they cannot get access to the fuel because it does not exist, because we do not have the number of pumps that are necessary out there to provide people in this country who want to use renewable energy and want to use E-85 the opportunity to do that.

In my State of South Dakota, we have E-85 pumps installed in most of the cities across the State. Where that has been true, the cost of E-85 is somewhere from 50 cents a gallon less to up to $1 a gallon less, in places such as Aberdeen, SD.

But the simple reality is, we could do a lot to help ease the pressure on fuel prices in this country. We could do a lot to lessen our dependence upon foreign sources of energy. We could do a lot to meet the demand that American consumers have for using renewable energy. But today we have this gap in the distribution system, and we need to address that.

This is such a straightforward piece of legislation. It is so clear and obvious that it is supported--broadly supported--with, as I said, a big bipartisan vote of 355 to 9 coming out of the House of Representatives. We have holds on it in the Senate. I do not know what those holds are. The rules of the Senate, obviously, preclude us from knowing who has holds on bills. I, urge and plead with my colleagues on the other side who are holding up this legislation to release those holds.

It is important. This is noncontroversial. It is broadly supported. It is very necessary if we are going to follow through on the commitment we made last summer in the renewable fuels standard we passed in the Energy bill to increase the use of renewable energy in this country.

We have the production out there. These plants are coming on line. We have car manufacturers that are making flex-fuel vehicles. We have a renewable fuels standard in place that requires usage of a certain amount of ethanol, renewable or E-85. We have consumers who I believe are very conscious of, again, lessening our dependence upon foreign sources of energy and supporting American-grown energy.

For all those reasons, this bill makes so much sense. I am at a loss to explain why anybody would put a hold on it. I understand there are lots of cross pressures in an election year, but I hope that will not get in the way of doing what is right for the country, following through on the commitment that was made last year in the Energy bill in the renewable fuels standard, to put in place the distribution system, the mechanism whereby people can have access to renewable energy, to ethanol, E-85, other types of alternative fuels that would be made available under this legislation by allowing these fuel retailers to install the pumps that are necessary to deliver it to the American people.

Again, as I said, I have a letter from the National Association of Convenience Stores which represents all the fuel retailers across the country. It is important this legislation move, that it not get bogged down, and it move before Congress adjourns at the end of next week for the elections this year.

I know my colleague from Colorado is here. He has been a great advocate and supporter of this legislation. I enjoyed very much the opportunity to work with him on this legislation. I think he is as frustrated as I am at some of the secret holds that have been put on this bill. But, again, I would urge my colleagues in this Chamber, and those on the other side who have been obstructing and stopping this from moving forward, to release those holds.

There may be other issues associated with this legislation that I am not aware of, but the reality is that this bill, on the merits, is broadly supported in both Chambers by both parties. It is a necessary part of our energy policy in this country. It is high time, for the good of the American people, that we get it passed.

The Senator from Colorado is here. I am sure he wants to take some time to speak to this issue. But I appreciate his support and hard work to get it to where we are today. I know he shares my interest in getting the holds released and being able to proceed forward.

So, Mr. President, I yield back my time to allow the Senator from Colorado to be heard.

Mr. President, today I honor South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks for being awarded the 2006 Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award.

South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks is 1 of only 15 employers nationwide to be honored with this prestigious award. The support, encouragement, and flexibility they provide to their employees who are called to serve their country with the South Dakota National Guard illustrates that they are truly deserving of this high honor. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks serves as a fine example of South Dakotans coming together to support the cause of freedom around the world. They are going the extra mile to accommodate our service men and women and thus ensure a safer, more secure America.

Today I together with the entire State of South Dakota, commend South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks for their commitment to serving our State and our Armed Forces.

Mr. President, today I honor Jean Smith of Tiospaye Topa School in Howes, SD. Jean was named the 2006 Teacher of the Year by the National Indian School Board Association.

As the computer teacher and technology coordinator at Tiospaye Topa School, Jean has played an integral and unique role in furthering the education of South Dakota's students. Her initiative, expertise, and kind heart has created an exceptional learning environment at Tiospaye Topa School. Her selfless dedication to educating students for almost 20 years is truly commendable. I am proud to have such a fine teacher influencing our State's future leaders.

Jean is a graduate of the University of South Dakota. She resides in rural Gettysburg with her husband, Frank, and children, Lindsay and Kyle. Today I rise with Jean Smith's friends, family, and colleagues in honoring her selfless dedication and service to South Dakota's students.

Mr. President, today I recognize the appointment of Reverend Stan Gruneich of Flandreau, SD, to the post of National Chaplain for the American Legion. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Reverend Gruneich for his years of service and congratulate him on his promotion to this prestigious post.

Reverend Gruneich was choosen as the National Chaplain after years of serving as Department Chaplain for the American Legion Department of South Dakota. He has graciously provided guidance and leadership to America's veterans and their families throughout his tenure, and will now continue to do so at the national level.

It gives me great pleasure to commemorate Reverend Stan Gruneich on this special occasion and to wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Arthur A. Kroetch of Philip, SD, and his company Scotchman Industries, Inc. Scotchman Industries has enjoyed a long and rich history in my home State.

In October of 1956, Art Kroetch, with the help of his wife Eleanor, started a small scrap metal business in Philip. Since its start, Art's business has steadily progressed from a scrap metal business into an agricultural tool manufacturer, to a national machine tool manufacturer, and finally into what it is today, an industry leading, multinational machine tool manufacturer. Small businesses are the backbone of the great State of South Dakota and I commend Art not only for his success with Scotchman Industries, but also for his contributions to his community and State.

It gives me great pleasure to rise with the town of Philip in congratulating Scotchman Industries and Art Kroetch on 50 years of successful operation.

Mr. President, my understanding is that we are in morning business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to address some issues that are pending before the Senate, and I also want to acknowledge what I hope will be action we will take somewhere down the road regarding a situation in South Dakota that we are experiencing this year.

We are experiencing what is, I would say, probably a 100-year drought. We are having extraordinarily high temperatures. We haven't had rain. In fact, the rain accumulations this year in South Dakota are less than the rain in many years throughout the Great Depression back in the 1930s, and it is having a devastating impact on our economy and the farmers and ranchers in South Dakota on which our economy relies.

In fact, if one looks at the small grain crop, the wheat crop in South Dakota was a complete bust, a 100-percent loss in many areas of South Dakota.

The row crops, corn and soybeans, are extremely stressed. Much of that crop will be lost this year as well. Cattle producers are selling their herds, liquidating their herds, creating all kinds of economic issues for my State of South Dakota.

What I hope is that as time goes on, we will have an opportunity to address in some fashion that crisis in South Dakota in the form of an emergency disaster relief package.

There is some money attached, currently, to the agriculture appropriations bill that passed at the committee level of the Senate-- it hasn't seen floor action--about $3.9 billion that would apply to 2005. Obviously, 2006 is much worse in many parts of the country and for sure in my State of South Dakota. So I am hopeful we will be able to amend that or perhaps move on to some other legislation. I am looking at introducing a piece of freestanding legislation, too, that would address this situation for 2006.

My point is this is something which is a dire emergency in my State of South Dakota. It literally is burning up out there. We have had temperatures that have shattered State records, in the high hundreds-- 115, 118--temperatures like that for days and days at a time without any rain. In fact, in many cases, there was very little rain going back all the way to the very first of this year. It is a historic event. As I said, it is probably up to a 100-year type event in terms of the actual weather conditions we are experiencing in South Dakota. I hope we can draw attention to that issue and get the support of our colleagues here in the Senate to address it.

I also wish to speak to an issue which has some bearing on that in a lot of ways--trying to keep people on the family farm, on the ranch, keeping these small businesses active, and allowing the next generation to move in and assume those operations and continue to create jobs and keep the economy going in South Dakota. It is really important.

Many pieces of legislation with which we will be dealing this week bear on this. One, the Energy bill has huge economic consequences to farmers and ranchers and small businesses that have to get their products to the marketplace and rely heavily on transportation, that need the inputs to get the crop planted, and the fertilizer and everything with it--all those costs are going through the ceiling as a result of high energy costs. Increasing energy supplies is critical.

The bill we just moved is important. I have another piece of renewable fuel legislation which I hope we will be able to get agreement on and be able to move across the Senate floor, too, this week and get some relief and move the country in the direction that is expanding the use of renewable fuels and expanding the sources of energy and lessening our dependence on foreign sources of energy.

We will also be voting on a pension bill this week, which is important, but the piece of legislation I want to speak to now is the tax bill which will come before the Senate later this week.

There are several provisions in the bill. One on which I have been working for some time is to provide permanent death tax relief. If we want to keep farmers and ranchers on the farm, continuing to grow and contributing to our economy in this country, we need to do something to address what is a very real issue. If we do not take action, in a few years here the death tax will rise back up to 55 percent, the top rate, and the exemption will drop back to $1 million. Anybody who knows agriculture knows that today, with land values being what they are and the capital costs associated with agriculture, we need to provide some additional relief.

The death tax reform bill which is going to be considered and voted on in the Senate would raise that exemption

over a course of time to $5 million, indexed for inflation, and then for anything over that amount, over $5 million, it would tax it at the capital gains rate, which is 15 percent, and then on amounts above $25 million it would go up to 30 percent. It would also unify the estate and gift tax to simplify planning for people who are having to address, for planning purposes, what happens when it comes time to deal with the issue of the next generation.

I have always maintained that when someone dies, they should not have to see the undertaker and the IRS on the same visit. We need to do something that addresses this issue, that will bring some relief for hard-working farmers and ranchers across this country who are trying to provide a nest egg, something for the next generation to assume those operations and continue to be a part of the business that is an integral part of our economy in this country, not just in South Dakota but across the entire country. You have small businesses, farmers, and ranchers who are adversely impacted tremendously by the death tax. It is high time we did something about that.

There are a lot of people who would argue, and I have heard this argued before by Democrats in the Senate, that this is something which just benefits the rich. The reality is, regarding the death tax today, the people who are actually opposing repealing or reforming the death tax are the superrich. The reason is the superrich are not the ones who are paying the taxes. They use accountants and lawyers to figure out ways around paying the tax. It is those small farm and ranch operations, small businesses, that get stuck with the bill.

There are a lot of reasons we need to permanently deal with this death tax issue, but one of the reasons is the death tax revenues that come into the Federal Government are not all that consequential in terms of the overall budget relative to what it costs to collect and comply. Death tax revenues were $24.8 billion in 2005. They have averaged about 1.3 percent of Federal revenues annually over the past 10 years. The other side will argue that requiring this tax isn't too much to ask from the superwealthy. What they don't consider is all the costs imposed on family farms or small businesses to avoid or reduce their tax burden. Basic estate planning documents can cost up to $50,000. Plans involving limited partnerships can cost up to $250,000. One study concluded that in New York, family-owned businesses can spend an average of $125,000 on estate planning.

At the time of death, tax preparation fees can range from $5,000 to $50,000, according to some estimates. Often, family-owned farms and businesses right on the cusp of the death tax exemption will be required to fill out the IRS paperwork to ensure they do not owe anything. In 2004, there were 62,718 estate tax returns filed, but only 30,276 owed any taxes to the Federal Government. What that means is that 52 percent of the estates filing a return were required to hire a team of accountants, lawyers, and other professionals, only to file a few dozen papers with the IRS but pay no tax. What is the point? According to what one estimate indicates, the amount spent on avoiding the death tax could be approximately equal to the amount of revenue generated.

This is not good policy. The cost of repealing the death tax raised the ire of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and here is what they said:

The Joint Committee on Taxation refuses to take any account

of the potential economy-wide benefits of repeal: more

investment in family businesses, more money spent on creating

jobs than on buying life insurance to pay death taxes, and a

higher savings rate. Many studies have found these positive

effects could be large and would mean much smaller revenue

losses from getting rid of the tax.

If you listen again to the rhetoric of those who are opposed to reforming the death tax, I think we have to be careful when we hear that rhetoric as they begin to describe the cost of this tax relief because their record really has not been very good of late.

In 2003, we reduced the capital gains and dividend tax rate as part of the economic stimulus package. At that time, Democrats in the Senate argued it would add to the deficit and burden our budget. In fact, earlier today the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, was in the Chamber talking about how this would adversely impact the long-term budget outlook and how it would impact the deficit. But he said the same things back in 2003 when talking about capital gains and dividend tax relief. He said these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the Nation's projected chronic deficits.

Three years later, we now see the other side of the aisle could not have been more wrong on this issue. The capital gains and dividend rate reductions have paid for themselves many times over in the form of increased Government revenue. May's budget report from the Treasury Department has tax receipts up by about $206 billion, which is a 13- percent increase for the first 9 months of fiscal year 2006. The year before--between 2004 and 2005--there was a $274 billion increase, or 14.6 percent more in Federal revenues for fiscal year 2005 than 2004.

Again, let me emphasize, reducing capital gains and dividends tax rates generated more Government revenue to the Federal Treasury, not less. That sometimes seems counterintuitive to the Democrats, people on the other side.

I would argue as well that some of the people who are doing these estimates have, certainly in this case, been proven wrong. I think the same would be true with respect to reforming the death tax in the way that has been proposed here and that we will have a chance to vote on later this week. But reducing capital gains and dividends taxes spurred economic growth, and it increased Government revenue--not decreased-- increased Government revenue by $275 billion between 2004 and 2005, and already in the first 9 months of this year, $206 billion, which is a 13-percent increase over the previous year.

Again, I would say that as it relates to the estimates that have been made in the past and the rhetoric and many of the prognostications that have come from the other side, it clearly has been a very different outcome, a very different result, a very different record when it comes to revenues coming into the Federal Government from reducing capital gains and dividends rates.

Some on the other side are also arguing that only the superrich pay the death tax and that Warren Buffett and the Gates family are the ones who are really going to benefit from this. Warren Buffett and the Gates family have both been vocal in their support of keeping the death tax. As I said earlier, the reason is they are not the ones paying it. They have armies of accountants and lawyers to figure out ways to get around it. Don't let yourself think their estates will be subject to the tax. There are lots of folks who will make sure they never have to see the 55 percent of the value of their estates being taxed. In fact, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have both figured out ways to shelter their net worth in charitable foundations. That is obviously their right, and we appreciate and are grateful for their generosity. But if the superrich support keeping the death tax but have figured out ways to avoid it, who actually is paying the tax? The smaller, family-owned farms and businesses are the ones that pay it because they didn't spend the money preparing to avoid it. That is why agriculture and big industry support repealing this very onerous tax.

If you look at the folks who are in favor of getting rid of this tax, it is not the superrich that the other side argues would benefit from repealing the tax or at least reforming it in the fashion that has been proposed. It is the organizations that represent the small, family- owned businesses and farmers and ranchers in this country. The list of those who support repealing the Federal death tax includes the Farm Bureau Federation, the National Cattleman's Beef Association, National Pork Producers Council, the National Federation of Independent Business, National Association of Home Builders, Large Equipment Distributors Association, Beer Wholesalers Association, National Tax Limitation Committee, National Wholesalers and Distributors Association, National Taxpayers Union, Forest Landowners Association, American Family Business Institute, National Grocers Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, American Tool Manufacturers Association. In my State, South Dakota, Petroleum and Propane Marketers Association, South Dakota

Association of Convenience Stores, the National Restaurant Association, American International Automobile Dealers Association, Family Research Council, the Black Chamber of Commerce--the list goes on and on.

My point simply is that as we engage in this debate this week, the arguments are going to be made, as they have been already, and the issue framed in a way by the Democrats that, again, this is somehow something which will benefit the superrich. As I noted, the superrich are the ones coming out to say we don't need to repeal this. The reason they say that is because they are not going to be paying it because they have at their disposal the lawyers and accountants and professionals who can figure out a way to keep them from having to pay it. The people who get stuck paying the death tax in this country are the small farms, the ranch operations, the small businesses, the people who are just trying to put together a little bit of equity, a little bit of assets that they can then pass on to the next generation and keep that family business growing and prospering.

It just seems to me that as a matter of principle, death should not be a taxable event. We should not be taxing people throughout their entire lifetime on everything they earn, on everything they acquire, on everything they buy, and then when death rolls around say: We are going to take 50 percent of everything you have acquired during the course of your lifetime and give it to the Federal Government. And as I said, much of the cost associated with either collecting or complying with the death tax actually negates, I believe, the positive revenue benefit that comes into the Federal Treasury to start with.

As I said earlier, I think you will find when this happens--and I hope it does happen because I hope we get the votes to pass it later this week--that you will see what happens with the death tax repeal is the same thing that happened when we reduced capital gains and dividend tax rates, and that is you will see more expansion, more investment, and actually more Federal revenues coming into the Treasury, which has been the record with the capital gains and dividend tax reductions.

I might again repeat, because I think it is worth noting and because it is an important part of the debate and the other side maybe will come over here and talk about how this will add to the deficit, how much this is going to cost the Government in terms of lost revenue, how it is going to only benefit the superwealthy. Let's remember again who is paying the tax, and let's also remember again when we reduced capital gains and dividend tax rates, we got more Government revenue and not less.

Let's move forward. Let's do something that has been on the agenda here for a very long time. Failure to act on the part of this Congress means that in the year 2010 going into 2011, these rates start kicking back in. We provided some temporary relief in previous tax bills. But if we don't take action to permanently address this issue, then people who pass on in the year 2010 and beyond that rate are going to be paying on everything they pass on to their next generation; 55 percent is going to be taken by the Federal Government.

It is an issue that needs to be addressed. It has been acted on in the House--not once but on multiple occasions. In fact, the House voted last week on this total package which includes the death tax repeal. It also includes extension of some other tax relief measures and an increase in the minimum wage. The vote coming out of the House was a fairly big bipartisan vote, with 34 Democrats in the House of Representatives voting with the majority of Republicans in the House to send it over to the Senate. We are faced right now with this vote on Friday on whether we are going to do something that will address once and for all this situation that the death tax creates for estates, for businesses, family farms and ranch operations going forward, whether we are going to address these other tax issues which also expire.

I might add that in my State of South Dakota, there is one on this list that is extremely important to the people I represent, and that is the State and local sales tax reduction. We are not an income tax State. We don't have a personal or corporate income tax. We do have a sales tax. For a long time, people who paid State income tax got to deduct that on their Federal tax return. People who had sales tax and used the sales tax as basis for taxation were not able to take the same benefit. We changed that in 2003. That is set to expire. If we don't do something to extend that tax relief, then people in my State of South Dakota and other States across this country who use the sales tax as their primary source of raising revenue to fund State governments are going to lose this deduction. That again creates an inequity between States that use the sales tax and those States that use the income tax to fund their governments.

There are other things on this list as well--college tuition deduction, work opportunity tax credit, welfare to work tax credit, timber capital gains that are also on the list of taxes, tax revenue that would be extended, teachers' classroom expenses deduction, something a lot of teachers across this country have benefited from.

My point very simply is these are all things included in this package. This is our one opportunity to get this vote. I think there are those on the other side who are hopeful they can take this down and then they will figure out a way to split these things off. But I think it is fair to say we have this one opportunity. We get one shot. We get one shot at providing some permanent death tax relief by extending these death tax relief measures that are set to expire, and we get one shot at an increase in the minimum wage.

I think if you look at this body and the way it works, there is a sort of sense of finding a consensus. It has been a long-time priority for our colleagues on the Democratic side to get an increase in the minimum wage. There is a phased increase in the minimum wage in this bill.

There has been a long-term priority for those of us on this side to be able to provide some death tax relief for farmers and ranchers and small businesses in this country. This bill accomplishes that.

It is not a total repeal. As I said, I think it is a very modest approach. It goes to $5 million for an individual and $10 million for a couple, basically if you have a spouse, and it also uses after that amount the capital gains tax rate as a level of taxation up to $25 million at which point it would be a 30-percent rate.

So it is not a complete repeal. You are still going to capture the superrich who are going to pay the 30-percent rate because most of their estate assets are going to be well over the $25 million threshold or limit.

So this is a moderate, modest approach. It represents what this institution is about; that is, trying to bring both sides together, trying to figure out where that middle ground is and form a consensus around these issues. The minimum wage, as I said, is phased in. The estate tax death tax relief is phased in. It doesn't happen overnight. It is phased in to get up to the $5 million unified credit, or the exemption. And then these other tax extenders are something I think most Members here in the Senate on both sides at one time or another have supported and voted for. I would argue it is very important to many of their constituencies.

Again, if you are a State such as my State of South Dakota that relies on State sales tax as your primary source of revenue to fund State government, extending the deductibility of that is a matter of fairness for those States that have income tax and, therefore, are able to deduct the State income taxes they pay.

Again, it has been voted on in the House by a big bipartisan vote coming out of the House.

This is an opportunity, I think, for this Senate to come together on a set of priorities which reflect, I think, the agendas of both sides.

As he said, the minimum wage increase is something that the Democrats have been advocating for some time. I voted for a minimum wage increase in the past coupled with small business tax relief.

The estate tax--or death tax--relief is something our side has been actively working on for years. As a Member of the House, we voted numerous times on this and now as a Member of the Senate I will have that same opportunity.

Of course, the extension of the other forms of tax relief are in this bill. We

get one shot. I hope Members on both sides will recognize what an incredible opportunity we have right now to address this whole range of issues that have been languishing here for a long time, and do something that will be meaningful in terms of continuing to give our entrepreneurs in this country, small businesses, farm and ranch operations the opportunity to grow, to continue to build wealth, to create jobs, and to keep the economy strong. That is what this particular bill and what it contains is all about.

Again, my hope is that at the end of the day we will see a good, strong, bipartisan vote in the Senate as we saw in the House of Representatives, and be able to send this on to the President where he can sign it into law and we can demonstrate to the people of this country that we are addressing the issues they care deeply about and, most importantly, I say to them the issue of the economy, and dealing with energy costs today with an energy bill, dealing with the death tax, dealing with the minimum wage, dealing with these other forms of tax relief are all things that have been on the agenda for some time.

I believe we have an opportunity to get this done. I hope we can.

I appreciate the work of my colleagues who have labored so diligently to get this far in the process, to get it on the floor for a vote. I hope when Friday rolls around and we have this vote that we will have the 60 votes necessary to move forward and to get this done once and for all.

I yield the floor.