Floor Statements

Mr. President, more than 41 million Americans suffer from a moderate or serious mental disorder each year. Unfortunately, because of the lingering stigma attached to mental illness, and lack of coverage under health insurance, these disorders often go untreated. I am particularly concerned that we are neglecting the mental health of our returning war veterans.

Earlier this year, I introduced a bill directing the Department of Veterans Affairs to create a program to address the shocking rate of suicide among veterans returning from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. That bill, the Joshua Omvig Suicide Prevention Act of 2006, was named in honor of a young hero from Grundy Center who killed himself soon after returning from a tour of duty in Iraq.

But we also need a broader strategy for addressing the mental health needs of service members exposed to the stress and trauma of war.

And that is why I introduced legislation today directing the Department of Veterans Affairs to develop a comprehensive plan to improve the diagnosis and treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, in our veterans. My bill would require the VA to create a curriculum and required protocols for training VA staff to better screen PTSD. It also would require the VA to commit additional staff and resources to this challenge.

During my years in the Navy, I learned one of the most important lessons of my entire life: Never leave a buddy behind. That's true on the battlefield--and it's also true after our service members return home.

Often, the physical wounds of combat are repaired, but the mental damage--the psychological scars of combat--can haunt a person for a lifetime.

One study shows that about 17 percent of active-duty service members who served in Iraq screened positive for anxiety, depression, or PTSD. This number is comparable to rates of PTSD experienced by Vietnam War veterans. But, in the decades since, scientists have learned that quick intervention is critical to ensuring that an acute stress reaction does not become a chronic mental illness.

This is exactly the aim of my bill: to improve early detection and intervention . . . to save lives . . . and to prevent long-term mental illness. The Federal Government has a moral contract with those who have fought for our country and sacrificed so much. This bill is about making good on that contract.

Mr. President, it is, indeed, a privilege to be here this morning to personally hear the words of our good friend, Senator Jeffords, and to hear other Senators get up and talk about Jim in such glowing terms.

However, I must say that all the years I have known Jim Jeffords, he is an old-fashioned New Englander, which means he is very modest. That means he is embarrassed to receive this kind of praise and adulation. Senator Jeffords will just have to endure it because we love you, we respect you, we admire you, and you are one of the most beloved Members of the Senate.

Thirty-two years ago, we came together in the House. You talked about that. Our colleague, Chris Dodd, was in that class, and also my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley. I didn't know Senator Jeffords at that time, obviously. We had just come in as freshmen Members. I found myself on the Committee on Agriculture with Senator Jeffords. We both sat down at the end. He was on one side and I was on the other side because we were just freshmen.

We had a farm bill coming up. After a few weeks on the Agriculture Committee, we dubbed Senator Jeffords ``the Senator from Dairy.'' He was tenacious in fighting for his dairy farmers of Vermont and, of course, New England. Those from Iowa and Minnesota and Wisconsin--we had dairy farmers, too, and there was, shall I say, a little bit of a conflict in how we viewed the world of milk and dairy. That was my first experience with Senator Jeffords because we had to work things out. And we did. That was the first time I got to see the kind of person Jim Jeffords is and always has been. He was tenacious in fighting for his dairy farmers but willing to understand that we all have to live together; somehow we have to seek our compromises. And we did. We reached a compromise and we moved the legislation forward. That was the first time I came to really know and respect Jim Jeffords.

As we moved ahead in agriculture, I found another area in which I respected and admired Senator Jeffords. That was the area of environment and conservation. In those days, people were thinking mostly about all the commodity programs, how much money we could get in the commodity programs. We were all protecting our interests. I was protecting my Iowa interests and Senator Jeffords was protecting his Vermont interests.

However, conservation transcended everything. That began back in the late 1970s, in the House Agriculture Committee. We began the move toward more conservation in our farm bills, which led to more of a ``greening'' of America. He did that work also on Environment and Public Works. When I think about the environment, cleaning up the environment--clean water, clean lakes, clean streams--I have to think of Jim Jeffords. He was there at the beginning.

Then in 1975, on the Committee on Education, Jim Jeffords coauthored what later became the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. I was not on the Committee on Education, but because of my family and because of my intense interest in disability rights, especially as it pertained to the hard-of-hearing and the deaf, I learned about this bill with Jim Jeffords and with Paul Simon--at that time, Senator Simon--and sort of stuck my nose in their business, if you don't mind my saying that, because I was not on the committee. I talked about how we had to help do some of these things. My focus was narrow at that time, just in hard-of-hearing and deafness at that time. My great respect for Senator Jeffords, or Jim, at that time grew because he was focused on how we make sure every kid in America gets an education, make sure kids with disabilities were mainstream, make sure they got the support in our schools.

It was Senator Jeffords who made sure that in the bill we passed, the Federal Government committed itself to providing at least 40 percent of the additional costs to States and local communities in educating kids with disabilities. Forty percent was the goal we set in the bill Senator Jeffords coauthored in 1975.

That moves me up to the year 2001. In the year 2001, the budget came from the White House, President Bush's budget, which severely underfunded our commitment to increasing funding. We have never reached 40 percent. I think the highest we have been is 18 percent. We have never gotten the 40 percent. Senator Jeffords wanted to move that up. Yet the budget came down and had a severe cut in the funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. That is when Senator Jeffords said no, he wanted to make sure that money was in there. That happened, mostly, on the Republican side of the aisle. I was not privy to all of that. That is when Senator Jeffords made his declaration of independence. A matter of conscience--he could not turn his back on all these years of moving our society forward to educating kids with disabilities in our schools and then all of a sudden say: No, we are going to turn the clock back; we are not going to do it. He wanted to keep moving forward. The budget would not allow it; he fought hard for it. Based upon the fact that the administration would not move on that, he declared his independence and became an Independent and left his party. We can all imagine how wrenching that must be, to leave the party that nurtured us, that we grew up with, that supported us all our adult life. It is a matter of conscience. You can read about it in his book, ``My Declaration of Independence.''

After that, I invited Senator Jeffords to come out to speak at the steak fry I have in Iowa every year. It was after the book came out. I will never forget the scene. We had thousands of people. It was a beautiful sunny Sunday afternoon. Thousands of people came to meet this person, to hear him and to hear his message. They had all these little books they were waiving, ``My Declaration of Independence.''

He had a wonderful message. His message was: don't ever turn our back on making sure every child in America has a decent education. It was a simple, straightforward message. But you should read his book.

Senator Kennedy mentioned another thing about Senator Jeffords that not too many people know about; that is, his support for a program called ``Everybody Wins.'' He brought it here to Washington in the late 1990s and then began badgering us to participate in it in his usual tenacious manner. So he got a lot of us hooked on it.

It is every Tuesday. I see Senator Kennedy goes about every Tuesday; Jim, of course, goes all the time; I go

every Tuesday we are here, and a lot of staff members. We go to Brent Elementary School. We read to a child for 1 hour every Tuesday. It has been a wonderful experience for me and I know for everyone who participates in it. In fact, we now talk about Jim as being sort of the Johnny Appleseed of this movement because now it is starting in other States. We took the idea to Iowa, and now it is sprouting in Iowa. Other States and businesses are involved. ``Everybody Wins'' is now moving around the country. Senator Kennedy said: Senator Jeffords doesn't just talk the talk, he walks the walk. When he brought it here, he was there every week reading to kids and getting us to go down and read to them, also.

I have in my office a big picture that is my favorite picture. It is a big picture taken at Tiananmen Square, a picture we all will remember of the young man holding a little briefcase, a young student holding a briefcase. There is a line of tanks. He is standing in front of the tanks, and the tanks have all stopped. To those of us who have seen the video of this, the tanks were coming down the street, the student went out in the street, he stopped, the tanks turned to go one direction and he moved over a few steps, then the tanks moved another direction to get around, and he moved over and stood there. Finally, the tanks stopped right in front of him. A hatch popped open, and a military guy got out and looked at him and stood there for a few minutes. The tanks all stopped, and then the young man turned and walked off the street.

A lot of people I talk to about that picture--did they ever know who he was? No, they never did find out his name. But I gave them the name. I call him Jim Jeffords. To me, that young man who did that represents the Jim Jeffords of the world, willing to stand on principle no matter what the odds are. No matter what is coming at them, they are willing to stand on principle.

So after 32 years, we will miss this soft-spoken and self-effacing New Englander who has a spine of steel. After 32 years, Senator Jeffords, you have left your mark: education, job training, disability rights, the environment and, lest we forget, the dairy farmers of New England, who will never forget Jim Jeffords.

Jim, we are going to miss you, your kindness, your leadership, your courage, your generosity of spirit, and your example. Know that our love, our admiration, our respect, and our best wishes go with you and with Elizabeth and your family. Know that you have left on our Nation and the world a mark for all of us to follow in how to make our Nation and our world a better place.

Senator Jeffords, Jim, Godspeed. Come back now and then. Come back on the floor. Retired Senators have the privilege of coming to the floor. Come back on the floor and remind us why we are here.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today the Senate pays tribute to a true American hero and fellow native Iowan in passing S. 2250, a bill to award Dr. Norman E. Borlaug the Congressional Gold Medal, which is the highest congressional expression of national appreciation for distinguished achievement and contribution. This is a fitting honor to a man who is frequently credited with saving more lives than anyone who has ever lived.

Commonly known as ``The Father of the Green Revolution,'' Dr. Borlaug's scientific and humanitarian efforts have saved countless people from starvation and hunger while raising standards of living throughout the world.

Dr. Borlaug was born in 1914 near Cresco, IA. Like many Iowans at the time, he grew up on a small farm and attended a one-room school house for his first 8 years of education. After graduating from high school, he attended the University of Minnesota and earned his bachelor of science in forestry. Immediately after receiving his degree in 1937, he worked for the U.S. Forestry Service. He returned to the University of Minnesota to receive his master's degree in 1939 and doctorate in 1942.

In 1944 Dr. Borlaug accepted an appointment as a geneticist and plant pathologist with the Cooperative Wheat Research and Production Program in Mexico. This program was a joint undertaking by the Mexican Government and the Rockefeller Foundation involving research in plant genetics, plant breeding, plant pathology, agronomy, soil science, and cereal technology. He spent two decades working with farmers in Mexico to develop a new disease resistant variety of wheat that could triple its output in grain. This breakthrough achievement in plant breeding enabled Mexico to become self-sufficient in wheat production while vastly improving the livelihood of many poor farmers.

The United Nations asked Dr. Borlaug to travel to India and Pakistan in the 1960s to help the warring countries, which were threatened with an imminent pandemic famine. Working with scientists from both countries, Dr. Borlaug convinced India and Pakistan to adopt his new seeds and approach to agriculture to avert potential starvation and famine. In a short time, both countries attained self-sufficiency in wheat production and millions of people were saved from hunger, famine and death. Dr. Borlaug continued his work in Southeast Asia, and the results were the same.

In 1970, Dr. Borlaug was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in agriculture, reversing food shortages and saving millions of lives. Today, at the age of 92, Dr. Borlaug continues his tireless work to alleviate and prevent hunger throughout the world. He is the head of the Sasakawa Global 2000 program, which is working to bring the Green Revolution to Africa and alleviate hunger and malnutrition in the sub- Saharan region. He founded the World Food Prize in 1986 as a means to recognize and inspire achievements in increasing the quality, quantity and availability of food in the world. He also continues his role as an educator at Texas A&M University while also continuing research at the International Center for the Improvement of Wheat and Maize in Mexico.

Dr. Borlaug has been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the National Academy of Science's Public Service Medal and the Rotary International Award for World Understanding and Peace. Today the Senate approves legislation to award Dr. Borlaug the Congressional Gold Medal. Dr. Borlaug is a true American hero and it is fitting that Congress honors this man who has done so much to alleviate hunger and human suffering, improve the quality of life around the globe and promote understanding and peace among all of the world's people.

I would like to thank Senator Grassley and the many cosponsors of this bill for their support and work to honor Dr. Borlaug with this high distinction.

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

Mr. President, earlier today, my colleague, Senator Durbin of Illinois, took the floor to describe a resolution he and I submitted and a number of others cosponsored with him to both recognize the contributions of our former colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone, and to, in that resolution which has now been submitted in the Senate, commit ourselves to making a mental health parity bill a high priority in the next Congress, the 110th Congress.

I want to join with Senator Durbin, Senator Coleman, and Senator Dayton, who also spoke on this topic today, in recognizing the contribution of our former colleague, Paul Wellstone, and to rededicating ourselves in his memory to trying to get this mental health parity bill passed once and for all.

It almost seems impossible that it was almost 4 years ago this next month when we tragically lost our friend and colleague, Paul Wellstone, and some others--his wife and others--in that tragic plane crash in Minnesota.

He was a very special individual to all of us. He was one of the best friends I ever had. Of course, I think he was to millions of other people around America. They thought he was one their best friends also because of what he stood for and what he fought for. He was always sticking up for the kind of little person--people who didn't have much voice or power around here.

Paul had one burning goal during his all-too-short tenure in the Senate, and that was to get mental health put on the same parity as physical health. He struggled mightily to get that done.

After his tragic death in October of 2002, many here talked about the need to pass in his memory the Paul Wellstone mental health parity bill. We still have not gotten it done. Four years later, we remember that political science professor who came to the Senate. He had a great impact.

Paul once said, politics is about what we create by what we do and what we hope for and what we dare to imagine. He dared to imagine and to fight for the end of neglect and denial surrounding issues of mental health, especially access to mental health services.

Right now, over 41 million persons suffer from moderate or serious mental disorders each year. Less than half receive any needed treatment. However, 80 to 90 percent of mental disorders are treatable by therapies and medications. Paul fought hard with his characteristic passion for the Mental Health Parity Act, to end this absurd practice of dividing mental health from physical health and putting them into different categories under health insurance.

Mental disorders account for 4 of the 10 leading causes of disability for persons age 5 and older. In fact, depression is the leading cause of disability in the United States. Tragically, mental disorders are also major contributors to mortality. Some 30,000 Americans die by suicide each year.

According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, undertreated and untreated mental disorders cost the Nation in excess of $200 billion annually, hurting the economy, the profitability of businesses, and, of course, our Government budgets.

For example, a report released earlier this month by the Department of Justice found that more than half of all prison and jail inmates, including 56 percent of State prisoners, 45 percent of Federal prisoners, and 64 percent of local jail inmates were found to have a mental health problem.

We do not treat the mental health; we hire more police. People with mental health problems cause problems in society, and they turn, perhaps, to crime or illicit drugs to somehow treat themselves and their mental disorders and they wind up in our jails. And we pay and we pay and we pay for this as a society. More than half of all of the people in jails and prison in America have mental health problems.

A lot of opponents of mental health parity claim it will drive up the cost of health care. However, an interesting study released on March 30, 2006, in the New England Journal of Medicine released results of a study that evaluated the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the one we are under, to which we all belong. This has provided insurance parity for mental health since 2001. The researchers found that when the care was managed, the cost of coverage for mental health problems attributable to parity did not increase the cost, and the quality of the care remained constant.

Interesting. In our own health benefits program since 2001 we have had mental health parity. And guess what. The costs have not gone up, and the quality of care has remained constant. The Wellstone Mental Health Parity Act is modeled after the mental health benefits provided through the Federal program.

Many cost studies miss something that is very important: they fail to calculate and quantify the benefits and savings that will result from parity. They fail to weigh the offsetting cost-benefits to employers from increased productivity, reduced sick leave, reduced disability costs. Indeed, a true comprehensive assessment of the costs of parity must take into account the costs of not providing parity, including the economic costs in the workplace, the cost to taxpayers of shifting of burden to public systems--as I mentioned earlier, our prisons and jails--the cost of care of homeless persons, the cost of care of our public mental health systems, the increased cost in emergency room visits. Add up all that and the cost of not treating people with mental illnesses comes to around $79 billion a year.

When workers suffering from depression receive treatment, many of the medical costs decline by $882 per employee per year. Absenteeism drops by 9 days. Again, if we provide that care, we are saving money and increasing productivity.

Also, the good news is that millions of people with mental illness can recover. I don't know why so many people think once you have a mental illness, that person is doomed for life. That is like saying if I have a physical illness, forget it, I have to have it for the rest of my life. Not true. It is the same for mental health. People have problems; they need help; they get it; they get over it. They can reclaim their lives if they are provided treatment and support in a timely fashion.

To that end, it is time to do away with the discriminatory practice of treating mental and physical illnesses as two different categories under insurance. It is time to do away with the barriers to mental health treatment and coverage. It is time to pass mental health parity.

I might remind the Senate, we did pass it once on the 2002 appropriations bill. I happened to be chairman that year on the health appropriations bill. We passed mental health parity in the Senate. It got voiced-voted. No one even objected. Imagine that. We passed it. It went to conference. We kept it in on the Senate side, but we went to conference with the House and we lost it because the House objected to it, by two or three votes. By two or three votes in conference we lost it. We came that close in 2002 to getting mental health parity.

What has happened since? Why have we fallen so far backward? Why hasn't the Senate, since that time, brought it up? As I said, in 2002, we did it. Since 2003, it has not even been brought up. Hopefully, in the next Congress, we will bring it up again, we will pass it again, like we did before.

For those who had the privilege of serving with Paul Wellstone, his spirit is still very much with us. He still inspires us and he still calls us to conscience. Each day that we fail to pass this legislation, as we have for years, we are cheating millions of Americans. Each day that we do not step up to the plate and provide adequate mental health coverage to our citizens, we cheat them from reclaiming their health and well-being, and we starve society of the talent, contributions, and productivity they have to offer. It is a disservice to society to sweep mental illness under the rug and to deny people access and coverage of adequate treatment.

Congress should make the Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act a priority for the 110th Congress. With widespread support and widespread need, passage of this legislation is long overdue.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michelle Miller of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, this is a historic day. Last night we passed S. 1035, the Code Talkers Recognition Act.

As my fellow Senate colleagues may know, code talkers played a unique role in our battlefield successes by transmitting commands and messages in their native language, which, of course, completely baffled the enemy. I was fortunate to meet one of these heroes during a visit to the Meskwaki settlement a couple years ago. Frank Sanache was modest and soft spoken about his heroism. But history has recorded his deeds in battle. And his passing was a loss to all of us who knew and respected him.

In January of 1941, Frank and seven other Meskwaki tribal members-- Edward Benson, Dewey Roberts, Dewey Youngbear, Mike Twin, Jude Wayne Wabaunasee, Mike Wayne Wabaunasee, and Willard Sanache--enlisted in the Iowa National Guard. They were recruited for code talker training, and served in the 168th Infantry, 34th Division.

In the Second World War, communication in Native American languages proved to be the perfect tool for frustrating enemy eavesdropping. Indian languages were used to develop military codes that were difficult to intercept and impossible to break. This is ironic, because in the years prior to the war, the Meskwaki and other tribes had been under constant pressure to abandon their traditional languages and cultures.

The use of these codes is credited with saving countless lives. Until recently, however, only the Navajos and the Navajo code were given broad recognition and credit. But, in fact, at least 17 other tribes, including Iowa's Meskwaki, served as code talkers during the Second World War.

Congress has already recognized the courageous service of Navajo code talkers. And by passing S. 1035, the Code Talkers Recognition Act, last night, we are recognizing the service and sacrifice of all the code talkers and awarding congressional commemorative medals to these heroes.

I thank Senators Frist, Shelby, and Sarbanes for allowing this important and historic legislation to move forward and the bipartisan effort from Senators Inhofe, Johnson, Thune, and Grassley in gaining 79 cosponsors.

Mr. President, the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act was enacted by Congress in 1999 to level the playing field for independent producers. This Act is important because it improves market transparency by requiring packers, processors, and importers to provide critical price, contracting, supply and demand information to USDA, which in turn creates price reports for livestock producers.

Since the Livestock Mandatory Reporting program was implemented by USDA, I have heard repeated concerns from producers about the accuracy and overall transparency of the program. Since this law was due to sunset, to get as many facts as possible for purposes of reauthorizing this important law, Senator Grassley and I requested an audit by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to evaluate the accuracy of the program. This GAO audit found numerous instances of limited transparency and lengthy lag times by USDA in actions to correct problems when packers failed to report or provide accurate information, and instances where USDA was excluding packer data in price reports but not making information about the exclusions available to the public.

Thus far, USDA has provided very little information to Congress regarding USDA's implementation of the six recommendations made by GAO. In fact, USDA has known of many of the problems described by GAO since 2001, but failed to act. That is why there needs to be strong oversight by the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry to ensure this program is functioning correctly and that GAO's recommendations are fully implemented.

I do believe that some of the GAO recommendations would be better implemented if codified in law. Senator Grassley and I provided numerous farm and livestock groups and the packing industry draft legislation that would address the GAO recommendations and other outstanding producer concerns. This process has been difficult and has taken considerable time given the complexity of issues and diversity of the groups. Since a full consensus was not reached among these parties, the legislative changes will not be approved this year. Senator Grassley and I ask that Chairman Chambliss be willing to help us achieve these needed legislative changes in the next Congress.

I thank Chairman Chambliss for his patience throughout

this process and willingness and commitment to help Senator Grassley and me to get GAO's recommendations implemented. His commitment to help us pursue our legislative proposals next year is sincerely appreciated.

Mr. President, one of the great joys of my job as Senator is working closely with talented, dedicated Iowans from all walks of life. I would like to take a moment to salute one of those exceptional people, Tammy Mahan, an outstanding social worker, and a passionate advocate for adoption and foster care.

Tammy has dedicated her life to children, and has made a profound difference in the lives of countless foster and adopted youngsters in Iowa and across the United States. In her ``day job,'' Tammy works at Children and Families of Iowa, where she is responsible for assisting foster parents through the licensing process.

A year ago, Tammy went beyond the call of duty by starting up a new organization in Des Moines called Elevate. Elevate is a growing team of young people who are active in a variety of important ways. They recruit families to foster or adopt teenagers. They educate legislators and the public about foster care and adoption. And they work to empower and increase the self-esteem of other teenagers who join the team as advocates. Elevate is doing wonderful things nationwide to encourage foster care and adoption. And the young people who are active in Elevate are just fantastic; they are passionate about their work, and they are setting a wonderful example for their peers.

I am deeply grateful to Tammy Mahan for all that she is doing in the community. By the way, Tammy and her husband Mitchell, are adoptive parents of two children. While it is easy for some professionals to talk the talk of youth empowerment and improving the system, Tammy and her family are walking the walk. Ghandi said that ``You must be the change you want to see in the world.'' And that is exactly what Tammy and the young people of Elevate are doing.

This week, Tammy Mahan is in Washington to be honored for her outstanding public service. She is receiving a 2006 ``Angel in Adoption'' award from the Congressional Coalition on Adoption. This is an honor richly deserved. I congratulate Tammy, and I salute not only her work but also the good work being done by all the young activists in Elevate.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Rural Energy for America Act of 2006. This legislation will strengthen and expand the renewable energy and energy efficiency program established in section 9006 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 by increasing its overall funding, creating a new rebate) program, providing new grant options for wind energy projects, allowing rural schools to qualify for the program and fostering the administration of direct

loans. I am very pleased to have Senators Lugar, Durbin, Hagel and Nelson as co-sponsors.

The section 9006 Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements program--to be re-named under this legislation as the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP)--provides farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses with financial support for installing renewable energy systems and making energy efficiency improvements.

I authored section 9006 in 2002 as Chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry with the strong support of Senator Lugar, the Ranking Member at that time and a long-time ally in advocating for renewable energy production. This has proven to be one of the most important provisions we included in the 2002 farm bill's first-ever energy title.

During its first three years, the Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements program has distributed $63.9 million and catalyzed the development of 412 renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in 37 states. The awards have leveraged an additional $699 million, bringing the total program-related investment in clean energy systems for farms, ranches and rural communities to $763 million. Thus, this program has had remarkable success in stimulating investments that increase reliance on clean, domestic energy systems and enhance energy efficiency in our agricultural and rural business sectors.

Developing and expanding homegrown renewable energy is a key part of our national energy security strategy. Section 9006 provides grant support for many different forms of renewable energy, including solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and renewable hydrogen.

Prior to 2003, there were fewer than 30 locally-owned wind farms in operation. As a direct result of the section 9006 program, over 80 new community wind projects were awarded grants by the end of 2005. When completed, these projects will have a capacity of over 300 megawatts of wind power and provide new income for American farmers and cleaner air for all of us.

Section 9006 successfully promotes on-farm anaerobic digesters, which capture and use methane gas from livestock and poultry manure. Before 2003, there were fewer than 10 digesters in operation in the United States. Under the section 9006 program, 15 new digester projects are now operational and an additional 59 projects are under development. These projects provide new sources of farm income and help farmers deal with manure in a more environmentally sound manner.

The program also has funded bioenergy production and the adoption of energy efficiency technologies and practices. As a result, 124 million gallons of ethanol and biodiesel production capacity are coming online, and energy saving improvements have been installed at 160 farms, ranches and rural small businesses, resulting in a savings of 250 billion BTUs/year and millions of dollars in reduced electricity, diesel fuel, natural gas and propane expense.

Together, these renewable energy projects produce 16.9 trillion BTUs/ year in the form of fuels, electricity and thermal energy. The combination of renewable energy and energy efficiency projects also will reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere by 4 million metric tons a year, showing that our rural communities can be a part of the solution to global warming.

It is clear that the section 9006 program has been extraordinarily successful. However, we have only begun to tap into the potential for American ingenuity in homegrown clean energy production and energy efficiency measures. The demand for rural renewable energy and energy efficiency assistance far outpaces the program's resources. Today, the demand is almost triple the available program funding.

Our legislation will strengthen and expand the program to help agricultural producers and rural small businesses cope with high energy prices, move our rural economies forward and protect the environment. In addition to increasing overall program funding, this bill will allow rural schools to apply for REAP funding. Schools have been eager to participate in the section 9006 program since its inception. Allowing schools to qualify will help them mitigate high energy costs and help teachers educate our youth about the many benefits of energy efficiency and clean alternative energy sources.

This legislation further promotes wind energy expansion by giving farmers and other eligible developers an additional financing option. Currently, most of the funds granted for wind power projects under section 9006 are used to purchase and install wind turbine systems. Under Federal tax rules, however, grants used for such acquisition and construction costs have the potential to significantly reduce important tax credits for the project.

To avoid such counterproductive tax impacts, the legislation authorizes USDA in appropriate circumstances to structure grants as production incentives instead of equipment purchase or construction grants, thereby reducing the risk of negating the tax credit benefit. The need for such a change was highlighted in a recent report written by Berkeley National Lab entitled ``Avoiding the Haircut: Potential Ways to Enhance the Value of the USDA's Section 9006 Program.''

This legislation also includes a new rebate program providing the lesser of $10,000 or 50 percent of project costs for energy efficiency improvements and the purchase of renewable energy systems. Similar state-run rebate programs are recognized as effective mechanisms for promoting small-scale development projects. This rebate program will enable small and medium-sized farmers and rural small businesses to obtain rapid and long-lasting relief from high energy prices through a simple and proven mechanism. Grants for this purpose would be limited to no more than 20% of the total REAP funding.

This bill also urges USDA to initiate the use of direct loans to complement the REAP program grants, by expressing the sense of the Senate that USDA should implement the direct loan provisions of section 9006. Although the original legislation in section 9006 called for the establishment of a program of ``grants, loans and loan guarantees,'' USDA has not yet established a direct loan program. Our legislation urges USDA to move a direct loan initiative forward.

The bill also allows USDA to provide grants for feasibility studies. Feasibility studies can ensure that projects are thoroughly assessed through technology and systems' analysis in their early stages, thus promoting successful and cost-effective projects. The amount of funds for feasibility studies would be capped to ensure that the majority of REAP funding continues to focus on deployment of renewable energy systems and energy efficiency improvements.

Farm-based energy initiatives encompass a wide range of proven technologies to produce or save energy. The unique and successful section 9006 program has been instrumental to adoption of renewable energy and energy efficiency systems in the agricultural and rural small business sectors. The record to date signals an opportunity for vastly expanding these alternative energy and energy efficiency benefits in rural America.

We have broad agreement in our country on moving farm-based renewable energy and energy efficiency forward. Let's help do that by updating and improving the section 9006--Rural Energy for America Program--for the future.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, the Senate really should not have to debate the need to replace Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense. If the Bush administration believed in accountability, if it believed in performance standards, if it believed in demanding competence from senior officials, Mr. Rumsfeld would have been dismissed long ago.

Instead, as disaster after disaster has followed disaster after disaster, and as Iraq descended first into guerrilla war and into civil war, Mr. Rumsfeld has been allowed to cling to his job.

For the record, I was the first Senator to call for Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation. I did so nearly 2\1/2\ years ago, on May 6, 2004, in response to the revelations of torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib prison. As I said then:

For the good of our country, the safety of our troops, and

our image around the globe, Secretary Rumsfeld should resign.

If he does not resign forthwith, the President should fire

him.

I said that on May 6, 2004. However, the scandal at Abu Ghraib is not the only disaster that can be traced directly to Mr. Rumsfeld. The Secretary of Defense has become virtually synonymous with disastrous decisionmaking. The litany of his catastrophic mistakes is familiar to all of us.

Before the invasion of Iraq, Mr. Rumsfeld sidelined General Shinseki, then the Army Chief of Staff, for daring to state that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to secure Iraq. Instead, Mr. Rumsfeld insisted on going to war on the cheap, with the bare minimum number of troops needed to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Mr. Rumsfeld gave no thought to securing the country after Saddam's fall. Indeed, he threw out the State Department's plan for restoring order. It was Mr. Rumsfeld, remember, who dismissed the postwar anarchy in Baghdad and other places with the phrase ``stuff happens.'' That is a direct quote from Mr. Rumsfeld.

He was complicit in the decision to disband the Iraqi Army which fed the chaos and drove many former Iraqi soldiers into the arms of the insurgency.

Again and again, he refused to increase U.S. troop strength to a level that would allow law and order to be restored in Iraq.

He gave a green light to abusive practices that led to the scandal at Abu Ghraib prison.

He dismissed the insurgency as the work of just a few ``dead-enders'' who would soon be routed.

He failed to adequately equip our Armed Forces in Iraq, including basic items such as body armor and fortified humvees.

Most recently--just last week--Mr. Rumsfeld lashed out at critics of the war in Iraq. He accused them of ``moral and intellectual confusion'' and of appeasing ``a new type of fascism.'' Those are his exact words, ``moral and intellectual confusion,'' ``a new type of fascism.''

Wait a minute. This is the same Donald Rumsfeld who visited Baghdad in 1983 and was photographed warmly shaking hands with none other than Saddam Hussein. He had been sent on that mission to court Saddam Hussein and to communicate the Reagan administration's desire to help the Iraqi dictator in his war against Iran.

Mr. Rumsfeld went on that mission after we knew that Saddam Hussein had committed mass murders, after we knew he had used chemical weapons to gas the Iraqi Kurds and Iranians. Mr. Rumsfeld is the last person to be preaching about ``moral and intellectual confusion.''

I don't know of anyone else, I don't know of anyone on this side of the aisle who has criticized the President and his mismanagement of the war, and Rumsfeld and his mismanagement, who ever went to Iraq to shake hands with Saddam Hussein, who went to tell Saddam Hussein we would share information and intelligence and whatever weapons we might need. This was after we knew that he had gassed the Kurds and Iranians, after he committed mass murders. Yet for Mr. Rumsfeld in 1983, Saddam was our guy. Let me rephrase that, Saddam was his guy, not ours.

Now, for Mr. Rumsfeld to be talking about moral and intellectual confusion, let's get real here, folks. The only person who is morally and intellectually confused is Donald Rumsfeld.

The litany of Donald Rumsfeld's mistakes and misjudgments go on and on. He has become almost a legend in his own time as a Secretary of Defense who has been catastrophically wrong again and again but who arrogantly refuses to acknowledge any mistakes.

Earlier this year, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the United States made tactical errors in Iraq, Mr. Rumsfeld dismissed her, too. He said:

If someone says, well, that's a tactical mistake, then I

guess it's a lack of understanding of what warfare is about.

Maybe we should listen to those who truly do understand what warfare is about. Maybe we should listen to some of the generals.

In early April, LTG Greg Newbold, the former Director of Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in Time magazine that the invasion of Iraq ``was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special provenance of those who have never had to execute these missions--or bury the results.''

He added:

The cost of flawed leadership continues to be paid in

blood.

About the same time, MG John Baptiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004 and 2005, said:

I believe we need a fresh start at the Pentagon. . . .We

need leadership up there that respects the military as they

expect the military to respect them.

Marine GEN Anthony Zinni, the former Chief of U.S. Central Command, accused Mr. Rumsfeld and his civilian advisers of ``dereliction of duty'' in failing to prepare adequately for war.

The remarkable thing about the debacle in Iraq is that nobody, aside from a few privates and sergeants, has been held accountable or dismissed. Isn't it the truth? It is always the grunts, it is always the noncoms and the privates who get the raw end of the deal. They were the ones who were thrown in prison for the scandals at Abu Ghraib. What about the people above them? No one is ever held accountable above them.

Incredible as it may seem, the four coarchitects of the Iraq debacle--Paul

Wolfowitz, George Tenet, GEN Tommy Franks, Paul Bremmer--have all been awarded the Medal of Freedom. They have all been awarded the Medal of Freedom. Paul Wolfowitz, who said we would pay for it with Iraqi oil, who said it would be over within 6 weeks, maybe 6 months at the most, was awarded the Medal of Freedom. Think about that, the architects of the debacle in Iraq. And Donald Rumsfeld has been rewarded with continued tenure as Secretary of Defense.

Meanwhile, our enterprise in Iraq continues to descend deeper and deeper into chaos, corruption, and crime. Who is surprised by this? The same Secretary of Defense whose decisions created the quagmire in Iraq is still in office, still in charge, still making key decisions.

It boggles the mind. I am reminded that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

We have the same disastrous civilian leadership in place at the Pentagon. Why should we expect anything but the same disastrous results?

I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said ``Support our troops, not poor leadership.'' I agree. Our soldiers and marines on the ground in Iraq are putting their lives on the line every day. They are trying their best to salvage some kind of positive outcome in Iraq. They deserve our respect and our support. They also deserve competent civilian leadership at the Pentagon.

Donald Rumsfeld ought to have the decency to step aside and allow for fresh leadership at the Pentagon. Instead, he stubbornly refuses to admit any error. He stubbornly refuses to change course. He stubbornly refuses to go.

Quite frankly, Mr. Rumsfeld has a pre-9/11 mentality, a pre-9/11 mindset. He talks about World War II, fascists, and Nazis. That is World War II.

Then, he said we have to stop the terrorists in Iraq before they get into the Philippines, Indonesia, and other places. I remember as a staff aide to a committee in the House in 1970 going to Vietnam and sitting in a meeting with then-President Nguyen Van Thieu with a bunch of Congressmen. I remember him lecturing how the Communist goal was not South Vietnam; it was just a stepping stone to the Philippines and Indonesia. And the Congressmen there lapped it up. They lapped it up. Oh, yes, we have to stop the Communists in Vietnam before they get to America. This is Rumsfeld saying this about terrorists.

As it has been pointed out, there are more terrorists in Iraq now than prior to 9/11. It seems as though for every terrorist we kill, four or five spring up.

So Mr. Rumsfeld has a pre-9/11 mindset, that he is fighting World War II or maybe even fighting the Vietnam war. That is why we need a change at the Pentagon. His tenure at the Pentagon has been disastrous-- disastrous for our economy, disastrous for Iraq, disastrous for the world, disastrous for so many of our troops now injured, now deceased, killed in Iraq.

It is unacceptable. It is time for the Senate to go on record saying that it is unacceptable. That is what the amendment is all about. It is about holding Mr. Rumsfeld accountable for his tragic mistakes. It is about giving our troops the credible, competent civilian leadership they deserve, someone with a post-9/11 mindset on the world, not a pre- 9/11 mindset, such as Mr. Rumsfeld has.

It is about charting a new course in Iraq. It is also about charting a new course in the war against terrorists who attacked us on September 11, 2001.

It is time for Mr. Rumsfeld to go. It is time for new leadership at the Pentagon.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Brianna Rodriguez of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman. I did not want to interrupt any amendments. I just thought as long as there was time when no one was offering amendments, I would take the opportunity to speak briefly about the issue that will be confronting us today and tomorrow outside the action on the Defense appropriations bill, and that is the so-called deal the House of Representatives sent over to us regarding estate taxes and the minimum wage.

For 9 long years, the majority party here has blocked any increase in the minimum wage. During that time, the real value of the minimum wage has declined by 21 percent. The minimum wage now is a poverty wage. One can work for a minimum wage, but one is still in poverty. A breadwinner working full time for minimum wage earns $6,000 less than the Federal poverty level for a family of three. Yet the Republicans again and again have adamantly refused to allow an increase.

Just think what it would feel like to anyone here if our salaries we make as Senators and Congressmen had decreased in value by 21 percent over the last 9 years. Think how that would feel to you and your families. How about people at the bottom of the economic ladder? That is exactly what has happened to them.

However, now 3 months before the election, I think the majority party is looking at the polls. A Pew poll this week showed that 83 percent of the American people favor increasing the minimum wage. My friends on the other side of the aisle don't want to appear coldhearted and callous, so they have offered us a deal, and what a deal it is. They have crafted a perverse minimum wage bill that actually cuts wages for nearly a million workers, then increases the minimum wage for others over 3 years, and then they say: We will give you this only if you agree to another giant tax break for some of the wealthiest people in America.

Let me be specific. What my friends on the other side of the aisle are saying is that the lowest income working Americans do not deserve on average a $1,200-a-year increase in the minimum wage; they don't deserve it. But the estates of billionaires should get a tax break worth tens of millions--in some cases billions--of dollars.

Let me repeat that. People at the lowest end of the spectrum don't deserve a $1,200-a-year increase. They will only get it, you see, if we tie it to another huge tax giveaway for the richest Americans.

This so-called deal we have been given takes cynicism to a new level. It takes greed to a new level. And by draining the Treasury of more than three-quarters of a trillion dollars over 10 years to give another huge tax break to the wealthy, it takes fiscal recklessness to a new level. Let's be clear. This is a deal the Senate should reject. It is shameful that the majority party would attempt to hold the minimum wage hostage to yet another tax bonanza for the wealthy--I might add, the sixth in 6 years--the sixth tax break for the wealthiest in 6 years. The Walton family alone--we all know the Walton family; not the ones on TV, the ones that started the Wal-Mart stores--the Walton family alone stands to get a tax break worth billions, upwards of $16 billion over the coming generation if we pass this estate tax near-repeal.

So the near repeal of the estate tax is a tax cut we can't afford, for people who don't need it, paid for by the children and grandchildren of the working middle class in America. And the huge loss of revenue, creating even more massive deficits in the coming decade, will force deep cuts in health care, education, veterans' benefits, agriculture, and other programs on which working Americans depend.

But the cynicism doesn't stop there. Republicans have taken the Democrats' minimum wage bill and they have twisted it in ways that will actually result in a pay cut--a pay cut--for nearly 1 in 6 Americans earning the minimum wage. Because of the delayed, 3-year phase-in, the bill would benefit nearly 2 million fewer workers. And here is the kicker: The bill before us will nullify laws in seven States that provide minimum wage protections for workers who earn tips. Those workers in those seven States actually, under this bill, will receive a pay cut of up to $5.50 an hour in seven States. I find it interesting that my friends on the other side who have always championed the causes of States rights and that the Federal Government should not be taking power away from the States, with this bill they are telling seven States: We don't care what you want to do, we are telling you we know better. We are going to take away your right to give your working people who earn tips a better deal. We are going to take that away.

So much for States rights.

This is not a deal; it is a deception. It does a grave injustice to the 6.6 million Americans earning the minimum wage, hard-working people on the margins of our economy desperate for an increase. With this bill, my friends on the Republican side are saying to them: You are hostages. You get nothing. You get nothing unless 3 out of every 1,000 of the wealthiest estates in America get an average tax break of $1.4 million. That is right. This estate tax bill helps only 3 out of every 1,000 estates in America--3 out of 1,000 of the richest estates in America. So that is their deal: You are hostages. You don't get a thing unless we help these 3 out of 1,000 of the richest. This violates our most basic sense of decency, fairness, and justice. And, just as importantly, the near repeal of the estate tax would pile another massive load of debt onto our children and grandchildren. It will be toxic for our Nation's economy.

We will hear our colleagues on the other side tell us it is mostly teenagers, summertime workers, part-time workers flipping burgers working for the minimum wage. Facts are nagging things because facts nag at myths, and this is one of the myths we hear all the time. What are the facts? Thirty-five percent of those earning the minimum wage are their family's sole breadwinners. Sixty-one percent of the people earning the minimum wage in America today are women. You want a women's issue? This is a women's issue. Sixty-one percent earning the minimum wage are women. As I said, 35 percent are the sole breadwinners of the family. Seventy-six percent of the women who would directly benefit from an increase are over the age of 20. So it is not just teenage women. In my State of Iowa, if the minimum wage were raised to $7.25 an hour, which is what we have been proposing, some 257,000 Iowans--that is, 18 percent of all of the

workers in my home State--would receive an hourly wage increase averaging 60 cents. Now, again, of those workers in my State, 75 percent are over the age of 20, 58 percent are female, 42 percent work full time, and 20 percent are parents.

Well, 3 months before the election, we are proposed this deal. It is a devil's deal. My friends on the other side say: We will grudgingly give poor working Americans an increase, but first you have to agree to a near repeal of the estate tax for the richest of Americans, despite the fact that we are facing a deficit this year of about $300 billion, despite the fact that they have run up more than $2 trillion in new debt since President Bush took office, despite the fact that they have increased spending by 25 percent in just 5 years' time, despite the fact that we are spending almost $10 billion a month on seemingly endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The level of irresponsibility here is just breathtaking.

As I said, this is a tax break we cannot afford, benefiting people who don't need it, and it is going to be paid for by the children and grandchildren of hard-working, middle-class Americans. Slashing the estate tax would not create a single new job. It will not increase productivity or competitiveness. It will do nothing to build one new school or to improve the education of our children. To the contrary, by driving up the deficits and the debt, it will create more pressure to cut already underfunded efforts to support education, health care, veterans, and other domestic priorities.

This Senate went on record this spring in the budget to add $7 billion to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. It went on record with an overwhelming vote-- 73 to 26--to put in $7 billion--to increase it? No. Just to get us to the level we were 2 years ago in 2005--just to get us to the level we were in 2005. Well, through the committees and the conferences, we got that bill down to $5 billion. So we have a $5 billion increase. So we can't even get back to the level we were in health care, medical research at NIH, education, all of the programs that help kids, Title I, Individuals With Disabilities Education Act--none of those will be able to get back to the 2005 level.

I am told the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill again is being held hostage, that we won't bring it up until after the elections. We won't bring it up until after the elections. Why? Because we will probably vote on putting that $2 billion in there, and it will win--it will win--it will win. I don't think my friends on the other side want to go into the election having suffered that kind of defeat here on the Senate floor.

So I take this time, since no one else was offering amendments, to talk about this so-called deal which is being called a trifecta, for some reason or another, to just say we have to reject this devil's deal, as I called it, this deception. What we need to do is to say no to the House of Representatives and what they have tried to do to us, defeat that, take the tax extenders on which we all agreed--on which both sides agreed--put it on the pension bill, and send it back to the House, and then we will address the issue of the minimum wage and perhaps estate taxes sometime later.

We should reject this perverse deal being offered. I reject giving away another three-quarters of $1 trillion in tax breaks for the wealthiest of Americans. If we are going to pass new tax breaks, let's focus on working Americans who need them for increased college tuition, increased gasoline prices, increased heating bills, and increased health care premiums. Those are the people who need the tax breaks, not the 3 out of 1,000 who have the biggest estates in America.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I do not believe that the pension bill should treat different, very competitive companies within the airline industry in the very disparate manner that it does. This was an unresolved issue in the pension conference when the House leaders decided not to complete the negotiations and instead sent us the measure before us. While I understand that an amendment tonight is not going to happen, I do believe that the Senate move to and insist that this wrong be fixed.

airline pension reform

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak in opposition to the so-called Energy bill that we have before us, on which we will be voting cloture later this afternoon. I want to make my position very clear. I am certainly not against drilling for oil and gas here in the United States or in the Gulf of Mexico. Fossil fuels are an essential component of our Nation's energy infrastructure, and I support appropriate steps to build our supply and use. For example, I have repeatedly, for several years, called for the construction of the Alaskan natural gas pipeline. I voted for last year's Energy bill which contained numerous incentives and provisions for the development of fossil fuels. In fact, I voted for previous Energy bills over the past several years.

However, unlike those previous Energy bills, the bill before us today is not comprehensive. Far from it; it is a narrow bill, focused strictly on drilling for oil and gas in certain portions of the Gulf of Mexico. There simply is not that much gas being made available under this bill.

I mentioned a moment ago the Alaska natural gas pipeline. Every day, they are reinjecting into the ground gas already discovered in Alaska that could be shipped to the lower 48 if we had a pipeline in place. In fact, if we had started on this several years ago we would just about be completed with that pipeline right now. The pipeline is projected to provide some 2.2 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable gas each year for the next 100 years. But the bill before us today would provide perhaps 5 or so trillion cubic feet lasting less than 3 years.

What does that all mean? It means there is about 40 times the amount of natural gas in Alaska than we would ever get from this bill before us in the Gulf of Mexico. That may not even be including the Mackenzie gas bill in Canada.

The Minerals Management Service indicates the gas made available under the bill before us, if you project 50 years into the future, could be about 2\1/2\ months of supply. In other words, of all the natural gas we are going to need for the next 50 years, the bill before us will provide about 2\1/2\ months of supply. Over the next 15 years-- another way of looking at it--we get about 9 days' worth. And we won't get any at all until 2012. This is not going to have any significant impact on our supply.

As Senator Bingaman noted, in order to get access to this very modest amount of gas--as I said, perhaps 5 trillion cubic feet--we are locking away 21 trillion cubic feet in the eastern gulf until 2022 by placing these areas under a 16-year moratorium. What a deal for the American consumer. What a deal. We can get 5 trillion cubic feet, but in exchange for that we are going to lock away, for 16 years, up to 21 trillion cubic feet that could be made available in the eastern gulf. That is not a very good deal for the American consumer.

I think the better bet is for Congress to find a way to get the Alaska natural gas pipeline built. Yet we have done nothing on that. Unfortunately, key parties in the State of Alaska are not getting the job done, and we have not done anything to really move them in that direction. My understanding is that the legislature there is not satisfied with the concurrent contract proposal negotiated by the Governor, and he is not satisfied with them. It goes back and forth and back and forth.

Earlier this year, Senator Snowe and I wrote a letter to the Energy Committee asking them to investigate this and hopefully to come up with some suggestions so that in some way we here in Congress might break that logjam.

Anyway, there is little hope for them getting it settled by the end of the year, but we are focusing on this--5 trillion cubic feet, when we have 40 times that amount in Alaska that could be piped down. That is just one facet of how bad this bill is.

Second, this drilling legislation would drain the Federal Treasury of billions of dollars in lost revenue that would otherwise be available for urgent national priorities--priorities, I might add, such as agricultural and rural development assistance, health care and education, in addition, of course, to real energy security.

I know a number of farm groups--my farmers--need more natural gas. We use it to make fertilizer. We use a lot of it to make ethanol, also. The point here being that the amount of money we are going to lose under this bill means that we are going to be draining money away from the Federal Treasury that we will need in the next farm bill, which is coming up, which we are going to need for a safety net for farmers, which we are going to need for conservation payments, which we are going to need to provide more incentives for ethanol and biodiesel and biomass production.

Again, the offset is not good. Agriculture really comes up a loser.

The reason I say that--one other bad facet of this bill is that it provides 37.5 percent of the revenue from the new leases in areas beyond their areas to four Gulf Coast States. In other words, four States are going to get 37.5 percent of all the revenues from gas and oil that is way, way beyond their territorial waters.

I can't blame my friends from those States for fighting hard for this bill. I can't blame the Senators from Texas and Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama--they are making out. This is a heck of a deal for them. Like I said, I can't blame them, but what about the rest of the Senators here? We represent other States.

This is not unique. This came up once before back in 1952, when the President of the United States was Harry S Truman, from Missouri. The issue again was, to whom do these minerals, oil and gas, in the Gulf of Mexico belong? I want to read this for the Record. Here is what a courageous, gutsy President had to say:

The minerals that lie under the sea off the coast of this

country belong to the Federal Government--that is, to all the

people of this country. The ownership has been affirmed and

reaffirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States . . .

I am quoting Harry Truman. He said:

If we back down on our determination to hold these rights

for all the people, we will act to rob them of this great

national asset. That is just what the oil lobby wants. They

want us to turn the vast treasure over to a handful of

States, where the powerful oil interests hope to exploit it

to suit themselves.

Talk about corruption. Talk about stealing from the people.

That would be robbery in broad daylight--on a colossal scale.

It would make Teapot Dome look like small change.

I got a letter from a fellow in Texas today, who is a

friend of mine, and he was weeping over what the

schoolchildren of Texas were going to lose if Texas didn't

get its oil lands 9 miles out from the shore.

Nine miles. Here we are talking about 100 miles, and more. This was 9 miles. Listen to what Truman was saying about the oil and the gas 9 miles off the shore:

And I composed a letter to him, and then didn't send it. I

said what about the schoolchildren in Missouri and Colorado,

and North Dakota and Minnesota and Tennessee and Kentucky and

Illinois, do they have any interest in this at all? Evidently

not, it should all go to Texas. Well, it isn't going there,

if I can help it.

Boy, why don't we have a President like that today? Talk about telling it like it is. And Truman did veto it.

Here is his closing.

I can see how the Members of Congress from Texas and

California and Louisiana might like to have all the offshore

oil for their States. But I certainly can't understand how

Members of Congress from the other 45 States can vote to give

away the interest the people of their own States have in this

tremendous asset. It's just over my head and beyond me how

any interior Senator or Congressman could vote to give that

asset away. I am still puzzled about it. As far as I am

concerned, I intend to stand up and fight to protect the

people's interest in this matter.

President Harry Truman, May 17, 1952.

Where is Truman when we need him today? Yet we read history and look back and say: Boy, that Truman, he was brave, he was courageous, he fought for real people. He was on our side. How, he said, can Members of Congress from other States--Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, Nebraska, Illinois--how can they vote for something like this to give away a national asset to four States? Truman said it in 1952. Here we are back again, back again.

As I said, 37.5 percent goes to these four States. As Truman said-- how did he say it? He said here, ``Talk about corruption. Talk about stealing from the people. That would be robbery in broad daylight--on a colossal scale. It would make Teapot Dome look like small change.''

Truman had it right then. He is right today, too.

Another reason to be opposed to this bill is it is such a narrow and controversial bill when we consider the components of what we really need for a 21st century sustainable energy policy for our Nation. By that I mean an aggressive and continuing effort to promote conservation and to ramp up renewable energy. It is as true today as it was 10 years ago, 20 years ago, and 30 years ago. It is cheaper right now to conserve a barrel of oil or a trillion cubic feet of natural gas than it is to go out and drill for it. It is easier and cheaper--cheaper to conserve. Yet we have this bill before us, this very narrow bill, very contentious bill, that gives all this--37.5 percent of these royalties--to these four States.

You might say the average American out there listening to this debate would say: Harkin, why don't you amend it? If you feel so strongly about this, offer an amendment; see what happens.

Guess what. We can't offer any amendments. Yes, that is right. You may wonder, Is this the Senate? You mean we can't offer an amendment? That is right. I cannot offer an amendment to this bill because of the games the leader on the other side played in terms of how he brought it up under cloture and filled the tree, as they say. That is just gobbledygook, meaning the majority leader is able to engineer the way the bill is brought up so we cannot offer amendments to it. When the bill comes up for a vote, it is up or down. We can't even offer an amendment. We can't offer an amendment on conservation or renewable energy or to say maybe it shouldn't be 37.5 percent for four States, and maybe other States something else. Fifty amendments were filed on this bill. None of them will be considered.

We have time to talk for days around here about flag desecration and about gay marriage. I am not saying those aren't important issues. But let's get real, folks. We are talking about something here that affects every American every day. People are hurting out there with an unusually hot summer. People are struggling to pay these big gasoline prices--upwards of about close to $3 a gallon, 71 cents more than a year ago. Natural gas prices are the highest of anywhere in the world right here in America. Yet how do we go about achieving some energy price relief for my Iowans or other Americans? How do we go about it?

We have this bill--this very narrow bill. We should be discussing other parts of what we need for energy. The Senate leaders, Senator Frist and Senator Reid, were asking last week that we include a period for energy debate while addressing the measure before us. Again, we spent all this time this year debating this and that. And if we have time for those, we surely have time to debate America's energy security challenges, offer our amendments, debate them, and let's see what comes out of the process.

I filed two amendments to this bill. One contains the Biofuels Security Act. It is a bipartisan measure to improve our ability to deliver renewable fuels to motoring consumers. I am not going to explain every little bit of it, but basically it would increase the amount of renewable fuels we make.

Second, it would make E-85 ethanol available at gas stations across America.

Third, it would require the automobile companies to make more flexible fuel cars such as they are doing in Brazil right now so we could have E-85 pumps across America.

I filed a second amendment that would require the EPA to adjust the fuels standards to meet a 10 billion gallon target by 2010. That shouldn't be too much. We are going to meet that, anyway. We should do it higher.

We need to spur growth of cellulosic biofuel production--fuels made from fibrous materials such as corn stover, wheat straw, wood waste and switchgrass.

Lastly, in terms of conservation, I cosponsored an amendment with Senator Obama and others to increase vehicle fuel economy standards for the first time in two decades. Imagine that. We have not increased fuel standards in this country in 20 years. Yet here is a bill on energy and we can't amend it.

Conservation of energy coupled with increased availability of renewable fuels is the pathway to the future while at the same time doing what we can to increase our natural gas production.

The best thing would be the pipeline from Alaska.

As I said, I am not opposed to drilling for gas and oil in the gulf, but I am the way this bill is set up. If you do not have a component in the bill for renewable energy production, biomass, biofuels, wind energy for electricity and others, photovoltaics as a component of it, and also conservation, all this bill says is basically we are going to continue to do what we have been doing in the past--getting more fossil fuels. We may need fossil fuels, but the sad truth is that this bill before us is a missed opportunity to do big things for our energy future and our energy security.

Again, I assume that the votes are cut and dry on this the way they have it. I just want to make sure people know we can't offer amendments. We are being precluded from doing so. But hopefully we will be back and hopefully we can have a more serious discussion and debate about how we provide for America's energy security in the future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Matt Miller and Justin Cohen of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor during the duration of today's session.