Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Iowa. He was absolutely assured by people on our side that he would be allowed to bring up an amendment, and I am glad we have been able to do that. He certainly should be afforded that right. With that said, however, I can't match his opposition to the bill with his amendment. If you want to assure that the bill will not work, then adopt the Grassley amendment. It substitutes the existing title III in the bill, which is a very good title to ensure employee verification, with a potpourri of provisions that, frankly, look a lot like the status quo and will not ensure that employees are adequately checked to ensure they are entitled to be employed. For example, the Grassley amendment provides that none of the current employees are checked. In other words, the only people who have to be checked are future employees, so all the people working today, including all the illegal immigrants working today, don't have to be checked under the Grassley amendment. Secondly, amazingly, the only way to physically verify that the person seeking the job is, in fact, the person with the identity entitled to be employed is with a photograph. Nobody is proposing that we fingerprint people to get jobs, and that leaves the photograph as the best identity document. The bill provides that either a passport with a photograph or a driver's license with a photograph be the document. You have to verify that the person standing in front of you is the person to whom the document has been issued and the rightful owner of the Social Security number he has given you. The Grassley amendment does not require that a photograph be used in the identification process. This is one of the first things that was recommended by the 9/11 Commission, to have a secure document with a photograph with which you can confirm identity. Third, and this is amazing, and I honestly don't understand why this would be in the Senator's amendment, but it gives foreign temporary workers the right to file legal complaints against employers who hire American workers instead--basically, to file a discrimination complaint based upon the fact that they were not hired. Current law does not permit temporary workers to file these complaints. The basic bill would not allow workers to file these complaints. But the amendment does this by eliminating current laws that prohibit temporary workers from filing a discrimination claim based on immigration status. Next, one of the key things we did after 9/11 was to ensure that Government agencies could share information with each other. When we determined the best way to ensure people are legally eligible to work, we quickly understood that we had to have sharing of information from the Social Security Administration, from the Department of Homeland Security, even, in some cases, from the Internal Revenue Service. Unless these agencies are able to share the information with each other when we access the databases, we are not going to know for sure whether the individual is entitled to be employed. What the amendment provides is that after 5 years, the information-sharing provisions are sunsetted. None of these are really calculated to ensure that we can have a good employee verification system. They undercut that system and, as a result, they would weaken our ability to ensure employee eligibility to work. Finally, in some cases, we have employers who are violating IRS rules because they don't report income. The underlying bill allows the IRS to identify those employers and go after them. This is one of the things the American people are upset with today, that we are not going after employers who are violating the law, who commit tax violations in hiring unlawful workers. The underlying bill allows us to do that. The amendment doesn't allow us to do that, and I don't understand why. The bottom line is that title III of the underlying bill is a very good, strong provision supported on a bipartisan basis to ensure that we can verify the eligibility of workers to be employed. Title III, unfortunately, is weakened dramatically by this Grassley amendment which would in all the five ways I indicated undercut our ability to verify employment. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. KYL. Yes, for debate only.

Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object, if this is a unanimous consent request, I have comments to make in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from Iowa and would like to be afforded an opportunity to do so. So if the agreement is to afford time to one side, but the other side won't get an opportunity to speak, then I will object to that. I hope we can work something out where I would get at least 5 minutes. The Senator from Iowa should have time to debate his amendment, but I want time to respond.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, may I be notified after 5 minutes so I might yield time to Senator Kennedy?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have a question for the majority leader. Do I understand that currently the pending business before the Senate--or will be pending--is a motion to table the Dodd amendment; is that correct?

Mr. KYL. Also, just for the purpose of propounding a unanimous consent request, Mr. President, my thought would be, given the fact we are about to vote on an amendment, it would help the body, obviously, to have a brief explanation of that amendment. I wonder if the body would agree to give the Senator from Connecticut 5 minutes to explain his amendment, for 5 minutes on this side, for me or----

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to propound a unanimous consent request, please. I ask unanimous consent that it not be in order for the Senate to consider any conference report on the 9/11 Commission legislation; that is, H.R. 1 and S. 4, that compromises the security of America's transportation system by eliminating the flexibility given to the Transportation Security Administration to manage its employees to most effectively counter terrorist threats against Americans. Before the Chair responds, if I could just make a very brief statement. The President has clearly said he will veto any measure that makes collective bargaining rights for airport screeners a higher priority than protecting our national security and defeating terrorists. Passing a conference report that includes such a provision would be an exercise in futility and a waste of time, as the legislation would certainly be vetoed. We should be working to write a conference report that we know can be signed into law so we can enhance our national security and better protect the American people from the terrorists we know are plotting every day to harm us. Mr. President, I renew my request that it not be in order for the Senate to consider any conference report on the 9/11 Commission legislation that compromises our national security by eliminating the critical personnel management flexibility given to the Transportation Security Administration to enable it to respond to terrorist threats.

Mr. KYL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KYL

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

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act. While the bill's title suggests it would protect an employee's right to join a union, my belief is it would actually jeopardize that right. Actually, I would like to vote for cloture to allow this bill to be debated because I, frankly, think it would be defeated were that to be the case, and I would strongly oppose it. However, I will oppose cloture, not because I wouldn't like to have a debate on the bill but because I want to get to the next item of business before us, which is the immigration bill, which I hope we can complete before July 4. As to the Employee Free Choice Act, as I think it is rather deceptively titled, it would remove the requirement that elections of union representation and leadership be conducted by secret ballot. The secret ballot, of course, is the ultimate protection for workers because it guarantees anonymity for every worker and protects workers from being submitted to coercion. Opposition to the bill even comes from the hometown newspaper of the bill's author, which notes in an editorial: [B]asing representation on whether a majority of signatures has been collected is a bad idea. . . . A worker who refuses to sign, or changes his or her mind and wants to revoke the signature, immediately becomes a target for pressure or retaliation by the union. That is from an editorial, ``Want a Union? Vote One In,'' the Boston Herald, February 11 of this year. Currently, if a union has signed cards representing 30 percent of the workers, it can inform the employer, and the employer can either accept unionization or request a secret ballot. The secret ballot must pass a 50-percent threshold among employees for unionization to take effect. What is more fair? That is democracy. That is what this country has been built on. It is how we have operated in this country ever since our inception. The so-called Employee Free Choice Act would remove the option of a secret ballot and allow a majority vote of the signed cards to justify the certification instead. As someone who was elected to my office by secret ballot, I am hesitant to uproot a process that is a cornerstone of American democracy, as I mentioned, and has proven to work very well. If American voters were forced to choose their Representatives and Senators by being presented with a card and then told to choose in front of the candidate's own staffer, let's say, I think we would dismiss this as nothing more than political thuggery. Why should union representation be anything different? In some cases, union representation affects a person's health care and wages more directly than Congressmen do, so the integrity of these elections is important, and it must be upheld. Speaking of the American voters, it is interesting to note that, according to recent surveys, 79 percent of voters oppose this so-called Employee Free Choice Act. Further, 89 percent of voters believe a worker's vote on union organization should remain private. My friend, the Senator from Massachusetts, spoke of fairness and morality and mentioned various organizations. The one I remember was the church of which I am a member, the Presbyterian Church. I am a Presbyterian, and I don't think it is fair to remove the secret ballot, so I am not exactly sure what point that makes. It is best to stick with what has been the cornerstone of American democracy from our inception--the secret ballot; majority rule. It has been common practice for unions and employers for the better part of the 20th century and into this century, and it doesn't seem to me it needs to be changed now, especially with an extreme lack of compelling evidence to indicate that the current process has failed and in view of strong public and union opposition to doing away with the secret ballot. The Employee Free Choice Act crushes employee democracy, eliminates free choice for workers to unionize, and could expose workers to coercion; therefore, it should be defeated. As I said I will join my colleagues in voting against cloture, not because I fear the debate--I think that would be healthy--but because clearly it is not going to pass. We might as well move on to our next item of business, which is the immigration bill. I thank the ranking member.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, in closing the debate on this amendment, I will respond to the point that both the Senator from Vermont and the chairman have just made, and that is the need to promote renewable energy and to give incentives to those producers. That is a fine sentiment, but my amendment has nothing to do with that. My amendment doesn't affect these incentives one iota. It doesn't speak to them at all. So that is a straw man, just as it is a straw man to argue that we ought to have the right to sock it to the oil companies because they are making huge profits. I am not arguing that proposition. In fact, yesterday, I offered an amendment to eliminate a real loophole in one of those subsidies that one oil company is going to be taking advantage of, and both of the Senators whom I mentioned voted to support that subsidy. I voted to eliminate it. I am not trying to protect the oil companies, obviously. I am trying to protect the American consumer. My amendment says if the American consumer comes out OK, tax the oil companies. My amendment says if the American consumers are going to lose, then we say no, and then there are unintended consequences to these sentiments of socking it to the oil companies, creating subsidies for renewable energy producers and so on, fine. But if it adversely affects American consumers and increases our dependency upon foreign oil, then does anybody argue that we should do this? Wouldn't they instead try to find another way to achieve the objective? I think the answer is yes. My amendment says: Do what you want to do here, but if it adversely affects the American consumer or increases our dependence on foreign oil, that is where we say no, we need to find another way to do this. My amendment doesn't affect the underlying subsidies and doesn't say that you cannot impose additional taxes. These arguments are straw men. All I say is, if the American consumers end up being the losers, as they sometimes have been with our tax policies, if these are the unintended consequences and we become more dependent upon foreign oil, then we say no. That is all this amendment does. I urge my colleagues to think carefully about this, and I hope they will support my amendment. We are going to vote on it right now, but first I think the chairman wants to raise a point of order. I yield the floor at this time for him to do that.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable points of order with respect to my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, resuming debate on the amendment which I offered, the amendment is very straightforward. It simply says that notwithstanding the tax increases, $28.6 billion in tax increases in the amendment pending on the floor, they shall not take effect unless the Secretary of Energy certifies that those tax increases will not increase retail gasoline prices or the reliance of the United States on foreign sources of energy. The point of the amendment is to make it clear that sometimes tax increases on business can be passed on to consumers. If that happens in this case, we are going to see higher gasoline prices at the pump, not lower prices. One of the concerns many of us have with the underlying bill is it doesn't produce any new energy. Yet it spends $28.5 billion. To make up for that spending, it taxes an additional $28.6 billion. Somebody has to end up paying that tax. Most people in America know that when you put a tax on a business, that gets passed on to the consumers who buy the product--in this case, gasoline. So instead of reducing gasoline prices, this bill, if the underlying amendment passes, is going to add to the cost of gasoline. Yesterday I mentioned a Heritage Foundation study that confirmed that what I was saying was not simply my opinion but the facts as a result of a study that the Heritage Foundation had done. I would like to expand on that a little bit because we actually have the figures for two States, the State of the chairman of the committee, Montana, and my State of Arizona, to illustrate the point. The study projects that gas prices in Montana, for example, in May averaged at $3.17 per gallon. They would be $3.48 per gallon next year as a result of the Energy bill before the Senate. A Montana taxpayer would see spending on gasoline increase by $1,632.95 next year, as a result of the bill. In Arizona, we are paying about $3.09 per gallon. That would go up to $3.40 next year as a result of this bill, so Arizona taxpayers will see spending on gasoline increase by $1,140.51 next year as a result of this Energy bill. That is a huge increase in consumers' payment for gasoline. When we realize that for many people driving is not a luxury, it is a requirement--to get to work or perform work--it is clear we are costing the American consumer a huge amount of money that is important for our economy and for them to make a living. That is an unintended consequence of the tax increases embodied in this bill but real nevertheless. What we are saying is, if that is the result of tax increases, then those tax increases would not go into effect. I think that is an important principle for us to establish. I would like to respond to a couple of points made by opponents of my amendment. The chairman of the Finance Committee argued the tax increases in the underlying bill are simply loophole closers, but that is not true. The largest tax increase in the bill is a brandnew tax. It is not a loophole closer, it is a new 13-percent tax on new oil production in the Gulf of Mexico. How is that going to help bring down gasoline prices? I suggest it is not. It will help to raise prices. The second largest tax increase in the bill raises the corporate tax rate. That is not a loophole closer either, it is simply needed to pay for the other costs of the bill, so it was a ready source of revenue that they decided to tap. This is a raise in the corporate tax rate for oil and gas companies, which would then make it higher on those companies than others in manufacturing--something we were trying to promote when we passed the bill 2 years ago. Raising the corporate tax rate is obviously not a loophole closer. I suggest when you raise marginal tax rates, you either get less production or higher prices--more likely, both--not good results from raising taxes. Finally, the Senator from Oregon argued yesterday that with oil over $55 a barrel, oil companies should not need incentives to drill for new oil and gas. I certainly agree with that; they do not need any new incentives to drill for oil and gas. I have always been against those kinds of targeted incentives or taxpayer subsidies for any form of energy. But imposing a new tax or raising the corporate rate is not the same thing as repealing targeted incentives, which is what we should be doing. Moreover, with oil over $60 a barrel right now, renewable energy companies should not need any further taxpayer subsidies either. The market is providing all the incentives necessary to produce hybrid cars and advanced fuels. These tax increases are not necessary. They are going to be counterproductive to our economic growth. They are going to hurt our producers vis-a-vis foreign producers, they are going to further increase our dependence on foreign oil and, most importantly, they are going to raise the cost of gasoline at the pump for American consumers. All my amendment says is if that happens, then these tax increases should not go into effect. If it doesn't have that effect, then the tax increases would go into effect. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would be happy to take half of my time right now and then let the Senator from Montana close, and I will close after that.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to respond to some of the arguments that have been made. First, I do appreciate the candor of both the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Iowa. Rather than arguing that these tax increases are loophole closers, as has been suggested, they candidly acknowledge the reason for the tax increases is to pay for the costs of the bill. As the Senator from Iowa said, we want to avoid offsets, but we can't. We have to pay for the costs of the bill. So, so much for the argument that these tax increases are loophole closers. They are, very plainly, necessary to pay for the cost of the bill, so they are tax increases. I appreciate that. Another bit of candor: The Senator from Montana quoting--or paraphrasing, anyway--the former chairman of Exxon Oil Company, essentially argued that it is OK to add these taxes on oil companies because they make too much money, and they make too much profit, so we are justified in taxing them. I am not going to argue with that theory. If they make too much money, we are going to tax them, if that is the argument for imposing these new taxes. All I say is as long as it doesn't raise the price of gasoline for American consumers, then I guess the question would be: Who cares? But if they do raise the cost of gasoline for American consumers, then I think we should care. That is all this amendment does. It says: If it doesn't raise the cost of gasoline, go ahead and impose the tax. If these oil companies are making too much money, go ahead and tax them. But if the result of it is not just to hurt the oil companies but to hurt the American consumer, then Congress says: Wait a minute; not so fast. We are not going to allow that to happen. That is all this amendment does. So we don't say you can't tax. What we say is, you can't tax if it has a negative impact on the American consumer. Now, there was a question about the Heritage study. I noticed there was no attack on the numbers, no refutation of the numbers, just: Well, who paid for the study? I don't know who paid for the study. I presume Heritage paid for the study. It is their study. What does it say and why is it such a burr under the saddle of those who oppose my amendment? Well, it found that the tax provisions in this bill, setting aside the other mandates, will likely increase gas prices by 21 cents per gallon over the next 8 years, and taking all of the provisions of the bill together, it can increase the price of regular unleaded gas from $3.14 a gallon to $6.40 a gallon in the year 2016, over the next 10 years. That is a 104-percent increase. If that is the case, even if it is only half that much, it is a huge hit to the American consumer and we shouldn't even be thinking about that kind of a hit on the American consumer. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this point a letter from the Chamber of Commerce of the United State of America. It is dated June 20, 2007.

Mr. KYL. This is a letter from R. Bruce Josten, who makes the point that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes the tax increases in the bill and supports the amendment which I offer, which would condition that tax increase on not hurting American consumers. He says: This amendment would require the Secretary of Energy to certify that the tax provisions included in H.R. 6 will not lead to increased reliance on foreign oil or higher gasoline prices for American consumers. As a result, they support the amendment, and I believe they will key it as a key vote. He goes on to say: The Chamber strongly opposes the tax title of this bill because it contains many proposals that amount to little more than a modern-day Windfall Profits Tax. When that tax was enacted in 1980, it resulted in higher prices for consumers, long waits at gasoline lines, and increased consumption of foreign oil. That is what we are concerned about here. If the tax increases don't have that effect, then nobody has to worry about it. But if they do have that effect on the American consumers, they would not go into effect. My penultimate point is the argument that we have to do something to wean ourselves from OPEC, so what do we do? We slap a new 13-percent tax on the production of new oil. How does that help wean us from OPEC? What it does is to say to the producers of oil: You go out and find some, and by the way, if you do, we are going to hit you with a new tax. This is a perverse incentive, not a proper incentive. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to add Senator Cornyn as a cosponsor of my amendment.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I note that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Americans For Tax Reform I expect will also key vote the Kyl-Lott amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, to advise those on the other side how Senator Domenici and I intend to divide our time, I have 15 minutes. I think what I will do is take 5 minutes right now and then defer to Senator Domenici for his 20 minutes. Then I will conclude. Of course, the majority will be fitting their time in there as well. That is what we intend to do.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. That is the end of my time. I will resume this argument tomorrow morning and remind my colleagues why it is that I think we don't want to pass the tax increases in the bill.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McConnell be added as a cosponsor to my amendment.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to respond to some of the comments my colleagues made to remind everyone many of the dire predictions, including the ones of my good friend from Oregon, are a little beside the point. If you look at the actual wording of my amendment, it does not say anything about subsidies to big oil companies or anything of the like. Maybe I better read it again: Notwithstanding the provisions of this subtitle-- And those are the tax increases on oil companies, as well as the other tax increases in the legislation-- the amendments made by this subtitle shall not take effect unless the Secretary of Energy certifies that such amendments shall not increase gasoline retail prices and the reliance of the United States on foreign sources of energy. That is all it says. There isn't any more. There isn't anything about subsidies to oil companies or anything of the like. What the Senator from Oregon might be saying is that the provisions of the bill are not going to go into effect because it is true that the tax increases will, in fact, raise prices for American gasoline consumers and will increase our dependency on foreign oil. If, as the chairman of the committee said, that is not true, there is no relationship--in fact, his exact words were: It is fallacious to argue that these new taxes in the bill will raise fuel costs. If that is true, then there would not be any effect. The argument of the Senator from Oregon then falls. But if it is true the taxes in this legislation will raise prices for oil consumers or gasoline consumers and will further our dependence on foreign oil, then the Senator from Oregon at least has a point to argue because one provision out of the three major tax provisions relates to the general subject that he and I have worked on in the past and that he was talking about, which is the royalties that should be paid by offshore oil companies. One of two things is true, but they can't both be true. It might be true the tax increases in this legislation are going to raise the cost of gasoline to American consumers and increase our dependency on foreign oil, and then at least one of the things the Senator from Oregon talked about would at least come into play. Or it could be, as the Senator from Montana said, there would not be any effect because this would not raise gasoline prices, in which case the Senator from Oregon is simply incorrect when he says that the effect of my amendment is to provide subsidies for oil companies. They can't both be true. What is the probability? I think the probability is that the tax increases in this legislation will raise prices for American consumers and will increase our dependency on foreign oil. And that is just not my guess, although it is fairly intuitive if you understand anything about economics. If you tax something, more generally the producer of that product is going to reflect the prices in what he charges to consumers, and the price, therefore, paid at the pump, in the case of gasoline, goes up. A recent study by the Heritage Foundation found that the tax provisions alone in this legislation, setting aside the other mandates in the Energy bill, will likely increase gas prices by 21 cents per gallon over the next 8 years. Taking all of the provisions together, the Energy bill could increase the price of regular unleaded gasoline from $3.14 a gallon to $6.40 a gallon by the year 2016, a 104-percent increase. For comparison, current policies will lead to gas prices climbing from $3.14 to $3.67 in the year 2016. And in just the next year alone, consumers can expect to pay between $3.16 to $3.79 due to the impact of this bill. During the next decade, between now and the year 2016, due to this bill alone, consumers can expect to spend an average of $1,445 more per year on gasoline. Again, that is not just speculation. It is obviously the law of supply and demand. It is the law of economics. If you are going to impose this tax, it is going to be passed on by the people who pay the tax. So American consumers can expect to pay a lot more for gasoline at the pump. I don't think anybody would argue that our dependence on foreign oil is going to decrease. In fact, because of one of the three provisions of this bill, the foreign tax credit tax increase, it is obvious our oil producers are going to be put at an economic disadvantage vis-a-vis those abroad, and it is obvious we are going to have to be more dependent on foreign oil, not less. It was interesting that the Senator from Montana started out his argument saying the purpose of this bill is to get more energy, especially from renewable fuels. It is true the purpose of a good energy bill should be to get more energy. The problem is, this bill doesn't provide any more energy. It does focus some subsidies on renewable fuels, and the only way we are going to get more renewable fuel energy, obviously, is by subsidizing those particular energy sources. But the bill itself provides not a drop of new oil. Yet somehow or another it costs $28.5 billion, and that gets to the second point the Senator from Montana made. He said this is not a tax-increase bill; this is a tax-decrease bill. But then he lets the cat out of the bag by saying: Of course, we must still pay for what we are doing. Well, indeed. We do have to pay for what we are doing, and what we are doing is spending $28.5 billion. So the bill raises taxes by $28.6 billion. That is the estimate the Congress must use. That is what the Finance Committee is required to use, $28.6 billion in new taxes. The reason: to pay for what we are doing, for what the bill spends. Granted, some of the spending in the bill is in the form of tax breaks, such as the last tax break we talked about. Unfortunately, my amendment was not adopted, so a tax break is going to be misused, and we are going to be paying billions of dollars because of that misuse. But I think there is no question that the tax increases that are provided for in this bill will be seen as tax increases. Mr. President, has my time expired?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have an amendment I send to the desk.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to ask the chairman of the committee, is it not correct that at this time there is agreement to have a debate--40 minutes equally divided--on this particular amendment, and the vote to be set at a later time, but we would try to conclude the debate at this time?

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the Baucus amendment from the Finance Committee would extend the tariff on imported ethanol for 2 more years. The Gregg amendment properly repeals the tariff. Now, why do I say properly? Because the ethanol tariff acts as a tax on U.S. consumers at the gasoline pump. It increases the cost of gasoline because the cost of ethanol is increased due to the tariff. If Americans want anything out of this Energy bill, it is a reduction in gasoline prices. In fact, in a recent Associated Press poll, 60 percent of the respondents said that gas prices--which, by the way, are currently around $3 a gallon--are causing them hardships. Now, it is one thing to maybe have to pull back a little on your family vacation this summer, but an awful lot of people have to drive to get to work and have to drive as part of work. Clearly, when over half of Americans are caused hardships by the current high level of gasoline prices, Congress has the responsibility to do something about that. We should act. One of the few ways in which we can directly impact the price of gasoline at the pump is to eliminate the tariff of 54 cents per gallon on ethanol that is brought into the United States. Nothing else in this bill will directly bring down gasoline prices. In fact, there are several provisions that will actually have the effect of increasing gasoline prices. Promoting a competitive market for ethanol will help bring down gasoline prices because it increases the supply that is available and provides, therefore, access to lower cost ethanol. The bottom line is this: When there is a supply of potential fuel out there and our companies are trying to find that supply so they can bring it into the United States to meet the demand of consumers, but they have to pay 54 cents a gallon on part of that supply, they are either going to buy the supply at 54 cents a gallon and pass the cost on to the consumer or they are not going to be able to do that, thereby reducing the supply of gasoline available. What happens when you have more demand and less supply? The cost goes up anyway. Either way, having this tariff in place causes an escalating cost of the price of gasoline because it reduces available supply to the American consumer. We have a mandate now to use ethanol. That is required. That mandate means the companies that provide the gasoline to consumers have no choice but to acquire ethanol. If much of that ethanol is abroad, and we are charging 54 cents a gallon for it, obviously, you can see it is going to increase the cost of gasoline for the American consumer. Americans are a competitive people who know how the free market works.