Tsunami Early Warning and Relief Act of 2005

Mr. President, today I am introducing comprehensive legislation to ensure the reliable delivery of electric power in the United States.

Last Congress, in August of 2003, nearly 50 million people in the Northeast and Midwest were affected by a massive power outage. This event emphasized the vulnerability of the U.S. electricity grid to human error, mechanical failure, and weather-related outages. We must act to protect the grid from devastating interruptions in the future. That is why I am introducing this bill today to ensure greater reliability in our electricity delivery system.

My bill, the Electric Reliability Security Act of 2005, will help achieve reliability and security of the electricity grid in an efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally sound manner. It does so by creating mandatory, nationwide electric reliability standards.

The bill also mandates regional coordination in the siting of transmission facilities, and provides $10 billion dollars in loan guarantees to finance ``smart grid'' technologies that improve the way the grid transmits power.

While a $10 billion dollar investment may seem to be a large investment, it is significantly less than the transmission cost estimates that have circulated following the Northeast blackout. Industry experts estimated that it would cost consumers as much as $100 billion dollars to upgrade transmission systems and site new lines to meet future reliability needs.

However, even this hefty price tag does not factor in the costs of additional generation, does not consider the rising cost of natural gas due to increasing electricity consumption, and does not include the environmental and other social costs of continued expansion of our presently centralized power system. Power lines are expensive and are rarely welcomed by the nearby public. The loan guarantees in the bill will help balance the need for new transmission lines by providing federal resources to help improve existing ones.

In addition to addressing system operation and transmission needs, the bill also promotes sound system management. It establishes a Federal system benefits fund as a match for state programs. Historically, regulated electric utility companies have provided a number of energy-related public services beyond simply supplying electricity that benefit the system as a whole. Such services have included bill payment assistance and energy conservation measures for low-income households, energy efficiency programs for residential and business customers, and pilot programs to promote renewable energy resources. More than 20 states, including my home state of Vermont, have public benefits programs. This bill will provide needed federal matching money to States for these programs. Our states can use these funds. They will be able to move more quickly to deploy these low-cost strategies with federal help.

The Alliance to Save Energy estimates that a federal program to match existing state public benefits programs would save 1.24 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity over 20 years, and cut consumer energy bills by about $100 billion dollars. Mr. President, my bill, which has the potential to save consumers $100 billion dollars is far preferable to raising consumer electricity bills by the $100 billion dollars to raise money for grid expansion. My Vermont constituents would prefer to keep the lights on, and their money in their own pockets. The bill also establishes energy efficiency performance standards for utilities. The United States has experienced tremendous growth in electricity consumption over the past decade. Current estimates are that electricity consumption is increasing at roughly 2 percent per year.

Between 1993 and 1999, U.S. summer peak electricity use alone increased by 95,000 megawatts. This is the equivalent of adding a new, six-state New England to the nation's electricity demand every fourteen months. Energy experts estimate that as much as 50 percent of expected new demand over the next 20 years can be met through consumer efficiency and load management programs. Over the past two decades, utility demand-side efficiency programs have avoided the need for more than 100 300-megawatt power plants. However, with the advent of electricity deregulation, utility spending on these efficiency programs has dropped by almost half. The federal government should seek to correct this trend, and this bill takes a strong first step in that direction by phasing in a requirement that utilities reduce their peak demand for power and their customers' power use between 2006 and 2015.

Finally, the bill enacts standards that enable increased on-site, or distributed, generation to reduce pressure on the grid and lessen the impact of a blackout should one occur. We have an obligation, Mr. President, to ensure that the electricity grid is secure. We currently have a giant system consisting of almost 200,000 miles of interconnecting lines that constantly shift huge amounts of electricity throughout the country. Such a giant and complex system, traversing miles of city and countryside, is inevitably subject to unforseen problems. Simply making it bigger will never take away all uncertainty, nor can it eliminate the vulnerability of the grid to sabotage or terrorist attack. We should do all we can to make certain such vulnerabilities are reduced.

In summary, I am introducing this legislation because I feel that we should be cautious in our assumptions that the answer to our nation's reliability woes lies primarily in building a bigger, more expansive grid. Simply building more transmission lines is not the answer. Investments in energy efficiency and on-site generation can significantly improve the reliability of the nation's electricity grid and in most cases will be cheaper, faster to implement and more environmentally friendly than large-scale grid expansion. We also must fill the regulatory gaps in the system, which my bill does. Congress should establish mandatory reliability standards and close other regulatory gaps left by state deregulation of the electricity sector. In addition, no national reliability program will be effective or complete without strong incentives for demand-side management programs for efficiency and for on-site generation.

We cannot solve today's energy problems with yesterday's solutions. My bill is an innovative approach to ensuring electric reliability by maximizing energy efficiency, regulatory efficiency, and efficient investment. Given the high costs of power outages to our country, we cannot afford to do otherwise.

I invite my colleagues to join me in my efforts to advance energy security and reliability in the United States. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Renewable Energy Investment Act of 2005 to accelerate the use of clean, domestic renewable energy sources as an integral part of our Nation's electrical generation.

A recent episode of the television show, West Wing, portrayed renewable energy as science fiction. The truth is closer to Reality TV.

Eighteen States, plus the District of Columbia, have already instituted minimum renewable standards. This bill would establish a national renewable portfolio standard requiring that, by the year 2020, 20 percent of U.S. electricity be derived from clean, domestically produced renewable energy including wind, solar, biomass, geothermal and wave energy.

As the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I think obtaining 20 percent of our country's electricity from renewable energy represents the modest end of what we could achieve.

Let me offer five reasons why I believe we need a national commitment to encourage renewable power.

First, renewable power would help consumers by reducing electricity prices. According to data provided by the Bush administration's Energy Department, a 20 percent renewables requirement similar to that set forth in the bill I am introducing today would lower consumer energy costs by the year 2020. Why? Because adding additional renewables to our energy mix will decrease the pressure on natural gas supplies, bringing overall costs down.

This point is worth repeating. Despite concerns from those in the fossil fuel and nuclear industries, the Department of Energy has consistently found that a mandatory renewable portfolio standard would not raise overall energy costs and would have no significant adverse impact on America's wallets.

Estimates are that reaching 10 percent renewable energy production by the year 2020 could reduce the demand for natural gas by as much as 1.4 trillion cubic feet, and could reduce the price of natural gas by 6 percent. With the higher renewable portfolio standard in my bill, the price reductions are even greater.

I have received letters from the chemical industry expressing deep concern about the high price of natural gas, and imploring me to take steps to help alleviate shortages and reduce costs.

Much to my consternation, however, neither the chemical industry, nor this administration have addressed the obvious link between increasing renewable energy production and easing demand on natural gas supplies. Instead, their solutions have been to open sensitive lands to more drilling, reduce environmental compliance and advance clean coal technologies.

Whatever merits there may be to some of their suggestions, an obvious step that should be taken is diversifying our energy sector and easing the growing demand on natural gas by promoting other clean energies which can be readily produced on American soil.

The second reason for a national commitment to encourage renewable power is the public health and environmental benefits.

Electricity generation is the leading source of U.S. carbon emissions, accounting for over 40 percent of the total. Carbon dioxide emissions are the primary greenhouse gas, contributing to harmful climate change. A 20 percent renewables requirement would, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, reduce carbon emissions from power plants by up to 18 percent by the year 2020.

A 20 percent renewables requirement would also significantly reduce emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides. These pollutants contaminate our water, cause smog and acid rain, and contribute to respiratory illnesses. As a result, a renewable portfolio standard would help alleviate asthma, which has become the most common chronic disease for children.

Coal burning electric power plants are also the largest source of mercury pollution, releasing an estimated 98,000 pounds of mercury directly into the air, and generating an additional 80,000 pounds a year in mercury tainted waste. A renewable portfolio standard would help the estimated five million women and children regularly exposed to mercury at levels that EPA considers unsafe.

And according to the Department of Energy, these public health benefits would be achieved without raising consumer energy costs.

Third, a 20 percent renewable portfolio standard would enhance our national security by diversifying our energy supply. As we increase our reliance on natural gas, much of the demand may have to be met by liquified natural gas shipped to the U.S. from other countries. It is unthinkable that we should sink to greater reliance on foreign fuel imports when we have abundant, inexhaustible renewable energy right here.

Further, much of the U.S. energy system including power plants, refineries, and pipelines, present significant safety and security risks. Renewable energy facilities are generally smaller, more geographically dispersed and do

not involve disposal or transportation of radioactive or combustible materials.

A 20 percent renewable portfolio standard such as I offer today will help bring the costs of on-site generation down even further, making providing your own electricity a reality for a growing number of homes and facilities. In these times when we worry about the potential security of our energy grid, that option becomes increasingly attractive.

Fourth, a national renewable portfolio standard builds on the successful experiments by the States. To date, 18 States, plus the District of Columbia, have adopted mandatory renewable energy standards. These State programs provide excellent incentives for renewable energy. In September 2004, New York created the second- largest new renewable energy market in the country, behind only California, when the state Public Service Commission adopted a standard of 24 percent by 2013. Earlier in 2004, Hawaii, Maryland, and Rhode Island also enacted minimum renewable electricity standards.

Texas has one of the most successful state programs. The Texas Renewable portfolio standard was signed into law by then Governor George W. Bush, and administered by Pat Wood, who now chairs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. These men know the value of renewable energy. Texas now has enough wind power to run about 300,000 homes a year, with huge benefits to ranchers who can lease acreage for wind turbines.

However, as good as these State efforts are, they are subject to the inherent limitation that they can only address electricity sales and production within their own State boundaries. Yet as we know, electricity generation and transmission are regional in nature. State renewable requirements alone cannot provide the market and other mechanisms necessary to address regional and national electricity transmission.

But these State programs demonstrate that renewables requirements can work, and operate to the benefit of consumers.

Finally, I call for a national commitment to encourage renewable power because a cleaner energy future is in our grasp. The U.S. has the technical capacity to generate 4.5 times its current electricity needs from renewable energy resources. European investment continues to outstrip U.S. markets, but that is changing. Worldwide, approximately 6,500 megawatts of new wind energy generating capacity were installed, amounting to annual sales of about $7 billion. Almost a third of that came from the United States, which installed nearly 1,700 megawatts of new wind energy in 2001, or $1.7 billion worth of new wind energy generating capacity.

Yet, renewable energy still accounts for only a little over 2 percent of U.S. electricity generation.

It is not that we expect this renewable portfolio standard to make conventional energy sources obsolete. Undoubtedly, fossil, nuclear and other fuels will be with us for some time. But isn't it time that we charted our future with cleaner energies? The potential is there, but we have to give it the assistance of market incentives, as we have traditionally done for our more established fuel sources.

I urge my colleagues to again demonstrate our strong commitment to renewables and support my legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me to introduce today, along with my colleagues Senators Smith, Collins, Chafee, and Rockefeller, the ``Pathways to Independence Act of 2005.'' This legislation is the product of a bipartisan effort to ensure that those individuals in our welfare system who face the toughest barriers to work, such as individuals with disabilities or substance abuse problems, are provided the best opportunity for future success and productivity. This legislation gives states the tools and incentives necessary to assist them in moving individuals from welfare to work.

The current welfare system has been widely regarded as a success in moving individuals off the welfare rolls, and states have been given incentives to do so. While this approach has been regarded as successful, it has one major flaw. Although the states are provided incentives for removing people from the welfare rolls, no incentives exist for placing individuals into sustainable employment. States receive the same credit for moving a welfare recipient into a high paying job as they do for sanctioning that person outright. This perverse incentive has been particularly difficult for the many welfare recipients who have disabilities or struggle with substance abuse problems. In many states it is easier to write these people off than to give them the support necessary to become truly independent.

In Vermont, approximately 15 percent of the welfare caseload has been diagnosed with a disability and receive services through the Vermont Department of Vocational Rehabilitation. Vermont's effort to provide these services enables welfare recipients to, move from welfare to work. However, these services are not included in the core work activities allowed under the current welfare law. Vermont receives no credit or incentive for moving these individuals to independence. This policy is wrong. If we truly want welfare to be an initiative that helps people to become independent and self-sufficient, then our policies must reflect our intentions. That is where ``The Pathways to Independence Act of 2005'' comes into play.

The ``Pathways to Independence Act of 2005'' would allow states to count certain rehabilitation services for individuals with disabilities and treatment for substance abuse toward work activities. Here's how it works: the legislation would give states the ability to count a welfare recipient who is engaged in work, or work preparation activities, to participate in a drug treatment program for three months. At the end of this 3-month period, the state would be given the opportunity to re- evaluate the status of the individual and decide whether to continue treatment for an additional 3 months. This is the same process that is envisioned in the ``Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone (PRIDE) Act'' that the Finance Committee is planning to consider this spring. The PRIDE approach would then require an individual with a severe barrier to meet the same standard as a non- disabled individual. However, the ``Pathways to Independence Act'' would allow the state to continue treatment for the individual, provided that the individual is meeting at least half of the regular work requirements and following their treatment program for the remaining hours.

This is a common sense proposal. It is consistent with the research on providing effective support programs for people with disabilities and effective treatment programs for people struggling with substance abuse leading to sustainable employment. By allowing states to count these individuals in the ``working'' category, we provide the states with the necessary incentives to engage those most difficult to serve in meaningful ways that will help them to work. It will allow the states to place people with disabilities and substance abuse problems on a pathway to independence.

The ``Pathways to Independence Act of 2005'' would supply the states with the tools and incentives necessary to provide welfare recipients with the greatest chance for independence and self-sufficiency. If we truly want to take the necessary steps towards achieving this goal and improving upon our current welfare system, this legislation must be part of any welfare reform reauthorization that is enacted.

I would like to thank the members of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities for their help in developing this legislation and their strong letter in support of this initiative. I especially want to thank my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, for his commitment to this legislation and all of our cosponsors in this endeavor.

Mr. President, this week the people of my State of Alaska pause to recognize two giant figures in the fight for equal rights and justice under the law, the late Elizabeth and Roy Peratrovich. On February 16, 2005, the State of Alaska once again observed Elizabeth Peratrovich Day. Activities to celebrate the legacy of Elizabeth and Roy Peratrovich are taking place in schools and cultural centers throughout Alaska this week. This coming Saturday, the Alaska Native Heritage Center in Anchorage will conduct a day-long celebration of the Peratrovich legacy.

Roy and Elizabeth are to the Native peoples of Alaska what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rosa Parks are to African Americans. Everybody knows about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks, but hardly anyone outside the State of Alaska knows about Roy and Elizabeth Peratrovich. Today, I rise to once again share the Peratrovich legacy with the Senate.

Elizabeth was born in 1911, about 17 years before Dr. King. She was born in Petersburg, AK. After college she married Roy Peratrovich, a Tlingit from Klawock, AK, and the couple had three children. Roy and Elizabeth moved to Juneau. They were excited about buying a new home. But they could not buy the house that they wanted because they were Native. They could not enter the stores or restaurants they wanted. Outside some of these stores and restaurants there were signs that read ``No Natives Allowed.'' History has also recorded a sign that read ``No Dogs or Indians Allowed.''

On December 30, 1941, following the invasion of Pearl Harbor, Elizabeth and Roy wrote to Alaska's Territorial Governor:

In the present emergency our Native boys are being called

upon to defend our beloved country. There are no distinctions

being made there. Yet when we patronized good business

establishments we are told in most cases that Natives are not

allowed.

The proprietor of one business, an inn, does not seem to

realize that our Native boys are just as willing to lay down

their lives to protect the freedom he enjoys. Instead he

shows his appreciation by having a `No Natives Allowed' sign

on his door.

In that letter Elizabeth and Roy noted:

We were shocked when the Jews were discriminated against in

Germany. Stories were told of public places having signs,

``No Jews Allowed.'' All freedom loving people were horrified

at what was being practiced in Germany, yet it is being

practiced in our own country.

In 1943, the Alaska Legislature, at the behest of Roy and Elizabeth considered an antidiscrimination law. It was defeated. But Roy and Elizabeth were not defeated. Two years later, in 1945, the antidiscrimination measure was back before the Alaska Terrritorial Legislature. It passed the lower house, but met with stiff opposition in the Territorial Senate.

One by one Senators took to the floor to debate the closely contested legislation. One Senator argued that ``the races should be kept further apart.'' This Senator went on to rhetorically question, ``Who are these people, barely out of savagery, who want to associate with us whites with 5,000 years of recorded civilization behind us?''

Elizabeth Peratrovich was observing the debate from the gallery. As a citizen, she asked to be heard and in accordance with the custom of the day was recognized to express her views.

In a quiet, dignified and steady voice this ``fighter with velvet gloves'' responded, ``I would not have expected that I, who am barely out of savagery, would have to remind gentlemen with 5,000 years of recorded history behind them of our Bill of Rights.''

She was asked by a Senator if she thought the proposed bill would eliminate discrimination, Elizabeth Peratrovich queried in rebuttal, ``Do your laws against larceny and even murder prevent these crimes? No law will eliminate crimes but at least you as legislators can assert to the world that you recognize the evil of the present situation and speak your intent to help us overcome discrimination.''

When she finished, there was a wild burst of applause from the gallery and the Senate floor alike. The territorial Senate passed the bill by a vote of 11 to 5. On February 16, 1945, Alaska had an antidiscrimination law that provided that all citizens of the territory of Alaska are entitled to full and equal enjoyment of public accommodations. Following passage of the anti-discrimination law, Roy and Elizabeth could be seen dancing at the Baranof Hotel, one of Juneau's finest. They danced among people they didn't know. They danced in a place where the day before they were not welcome.

There is an important lesson to be learned from the battles of Elizabeth and Roy Peratrovich. Even in defeat, they knew that change would come from their participation in our political system. They were not discouraged by their defeat in 1943. They came back fighting and enjoyed the fruits of their victory 2 years later.

Twenty-four years before Alaska's statehood and 18 years before Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of his dream for racial equity under the law, Alaska had a law protecting civil rights. Elizabeth would not live to see the United States adopt the same law she brought to Alaska in 1945. She passed away in 1958 at the age of 47, 6 years before civil rights legislation would pass nationally.

In addition to the annual observance of Elizabeth Peratrovich Day, the State of Alaska has acknowledged Elizabeth Peratrovich's contribution to history by designating one of the public galleries in the Alaska House of Representatives as the Elizabeth Peratrovich Gallery.

But what about Roy? Why has his role not been recognized? Roy Peratrovich passed away in 1989 at age 81. He died 9 days before the first Elizabeth Peratrovich Day was observed in the State of Alaska. Perhaps it was because Roy was still alive at the time this honor was bestowed, it is Elizabeth who has gotten all the credit for passage of the antidiscrimination

Members of the Peratrovich family tell me that this is not entirely unjustified because without Elizabeth's stirring speech the antidiscrimination law would not have passed. But they also point out, as does the historical record, that Elizabeth and Roy were a focused and effective team. History should recognize that the antidiscrimination law was enacted due to the joint efforts of Roy and Elizabeth Peratrovich. I rise today to do my part toward that end.

Joined by my colleagues, the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, and my distinguished colleague from the State of Washington, Ms. Cantwell, I am pleased to once again offer legislation to recognize the contributions of Roy and Elizabeth Peratrovich with a Congressional Gold Medal. I invite all of my colleagues to join with me in cosponsoring this important legislation. Congressional Gold

Medals have been awarded to a number of African Americans who have made contributions to the cause of civil rights, among them, Rosa Parks, Roy Wilkins, Dorothy Height, the nine brave individuals who desegregated the schools of Little Rock, Arkansas, and others involved in the effort to desegregate public education.

With the opening of the very popular National Museum of the American Indian last year our Nation is focusing on the many contributions of our first people and the challenges they have faced throughout our Nation's history. It is time that we also acknowledge the work of American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians in the struggle for civil rights and social justice. Honoring Elizabeth and Roy Peratrovich's substantial contribution with a Congressional Gold Medal is a fine start.

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

Mr. President, more than 30 years have passed since Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act which settled the aboriginal land claims of the first inhabitants of Alaska by making each eligible Alaska Native a shareholder in 1 of 13 regional corporations and many of these people shareholders in a village corporation as well. Each of the corporations was capitalized with land and money.

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was a bold experiment, and its implementation was not without controversy. As originally enacted, the law provided that a shareholder of an Alaska Native Corporation could sell his or her stock on or after December 18, 1991, without any intervening action by the corporation.

This provision could have resulted in massive sales of stock by Native shareholders in the ensuing years and caused the wholesale transfer of Native assets to non-Native interests. Thanks to the leadership of the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, this catastrophe was averted through a series of amendments to the Act, signed into law in 1987, which forbade the sale of corporate stock without the consent of the corporation's shareholders.

This landmark legislation brought an end to the speculation about whether the Native corporations would survive long enough to fulfill the goal that Congress set for them, which was to be the springboard for the economic, social and political empowerment of Alaska's Native people, or alternatively execute the temporary transfer of land and capital which would ultimately end up in non-Native hands. I am proud, that none of the Native corporations have opened their stock to purchase by outsiders. In fact, I see nothing on the horizon to suggest that any of the corporations will take up this question in the foreseeable future.

If history is any guide, the Alaska Native Corporations are destined to remain in Native hands for a long time to come. This is good news for the Native people of Alaska and it is good news for my State as a whole.

I rise today to offer legislation, requested by the Alaska Federation of Natives and the Association of ANCSA Presidents and CEOs, which is intended to address a piece of unfinished business left by the 1987 amendments to the act.

Under the act, as originally passed, stock in an Alaska Native corporation was generally only available to an Alaska Native born on or before December 18, 1971 and those who might inherit stock from a deceased shareholder. The original legislation gave little thought to offering those born after December 18, 1971 a role in the corporation. In effect, the original legislation disenfranchised an entire generation born after the cutoff date from having a stake in the Native corporations. It disenfranchised an entire generation of young people from playing a role in the governance of the Native corporations and from having an ownership interest in their Native lands.

The 1987 amendments allowed the shareholders of a Native corporation to remedy this unintended consequence by allowing new stock to be issued to the descendants of a corporation's original shareholders provided that a majority of the outstanding shares agreed. Under the 1987 amendments, such stock could only be issued to those descendants who had one quarter or more Alaska Native blood. A subsequent technical amendment allowed the stock to be issued to descendants without regard to their blood quantum, at the option of each corporation's shareholders.

Time has demonstrated that the remedy for incorporating the generation

born after December 18, 1971 is an imperfect one. This is sad because one of the most important responsibilities faced by the Board of Directors of any corporation is to plan for its own succession and the succession of the corporation's leadership.

Since 1987, less than a handful of the 13 regional Native corporations have put the question of enrolling the next generation to their shareholders. However, all of the corporations that have considered the question have voted in the affirmative.

Why then have more corporations not taken the question to a vote? The answer seems to lie in the voting requirements imposed by the 1987 amendments, which essentially requires an affirmative vote of a supermajority of the shares represented in person or by proxy at a shareholder meeting. In order for a corporation to obtain an affirmative vote of a majority of its outstanding shares, something of the order of 80 percent of the corporation's stockholders must be represented at the meeting in person or by proxy. Under present law, any shareholder who does not attend the meeting or submit a proxy is deemed to have voted in the negative.

When Doyon, Limited, the regional Native corporation for Interior Alaska, took the question of enrolling the generation of descendants born between 1971 and 1992 to its shareholders at its 1992 annual meeting, some 79.2 percent of the shareholders expressed an opinion in person or proxy. Still, the decision to approve the enrollment passed by the narrowest of margins. This was a record quorum for the corporation, which had 9,061 original shareholders, and the record has yet to be broken.

Sealaska Corporation, the regional Native corporation for Southeast Alaska, had more original shareholders than any other regional Native corporation. Sealaska had 15,700 original shareholders, each owning 100 shares of stock. Sealaska has never enjoyed a quorum of 79.2 percent and is pessimistic that such a quorum could ever be mustered. Accordingly, Sealaska, which has been pondering the question of enrolling the next generation for many years, has been deterred from putting the question to a stockholder vote by the supermajority voting requirement in the 1987 amendment.

Whether Sealaska enrolls the generation born after 1971 is not up to me. It is up to the shareholders of Sealaska. But I think the Congress owes it to the next generation of Alaska Natives to offer a level playing field when it comes to participation in their Native corporations.

In addressing the Alaska Native community, I often make reference to a marvelous book by Alexandra J. McClanahan entitled ``Growing Up Native in Alaska.'' In this book, A.J. profiled 27 Alaska Natives born between 1957 and 1976 and allowed them in their own words to speak about what it means to be an Alaska Native. Some of the people profiled in the book received stock under the 1971 act while others missed the deadline. I will quote from this book for the Record.

One of these 27 Alaska Natives is Jaeleen Kookesh-Araujo, a Tlingit Indian, who grew up in the village of Angoon, AK. Jaeleen is a bright young attorney who works at one of Washington's most respected law firms. She is precisely the type of person who is well positioned to lead her regional corporation, Sealaska, into the future. And she is one of many Alaska Natives who was born after December 18, 1971. Jaeleen has an opportunity to participate in Sealaska's governance because her parents gave her some of their stock as a gift, but she remains concerned that others of her generation have been left out.

This is what Jaeleen said about why it is important to make stock available to the descendants.

I am a shareholder thanks to my parents gifting me shares,

but there are a lot of young people who are never going to be

shareholders. If you have one parent with several children,

they can try to allocate shares to all of them, but some may

be left out. Or, maybe you have a Native child who has been

adopted who doesn't have parents with shares--whatever. There

are going to be a lot of young Native people left out of this

corporate structure, and it's really sad. Eventually, there

may be a problem because you're going to have a lot of

young, talented Alaska Native people going out to get

educated. They're going to have a lot of expertise and

education in ways that might benefit the corporation, and

yet you have to wonder if they're really going to want to

be involved in these Native corporations that they don't

even belong to. I do want to be involved in the Native

corporations because this is my ancestors' land that

they're managing and developing and protecting . . .

I am not going to tell you that each of the 27 young people that A.J. profiled feels the same way. Another young Native profiled in A.J.'s book supported the status quo in spite of the fact that he was born 2 days after the cutoff.

I really don't think it's necessary to adjust for the

future generations. The idea of gifting and willing stock is

a really efficient method, and I think we ought to stick with

that, rather than having to expand and degrade the stock,

allowing the children to be shareholders. It's unfair that we

as children born after December 18th are not shareholders,

but in order to keep the integrity of the stock, I think it's

essential that we continue on with the method of granting,

gifting and willing stock.

The final quote is from a Doyon shareholder who was involved in that company's decision to make new stock available to those born between 1971 and 1992.

When I first started I thought, ``I don't want my dividend

to get smaller.'' I was an intern in Doyon's Shareholder

Relations, so I was involved in the committee that was

studying the issue to enroll children born after 1971. When

it was time to vote, I thought: ``Darned if I'm letting my

nieces and nephews not be involved.'' I was a total

turnaround. There was no way I was going to leave them out.

There was no difference between me and them. They were just

born later.

As you can see, there may not be unanimity on the question of whether new stock should be made available to the descendants. But I think we all can agree that the debate is a healthy one and the debate will not take place in earnest unless Congress relaxes the supermajority standard imposed by the 1987 amendments.

The legislation I am introducing today would allow the shareholders of a Native corporation to authorize new stock for those born after December 18, 1971 by a majority vote of the shares present and voting at a duly constituted meeting of the shareholders. Shareholders who want to make the stock available will have the opportunity to vote yes. Those who do not will have the opportunity to vote no. Those who choose not to participate, place the fate of the question in the hands of those who choose to participate. The majority prevails.

The 1987 amendments authorized Native corporations to make additional shares available to Native elders and to enroll those who were eligible to receive stock as original shareholders but who failed to enroll. The number of missed enrollees is expected to be small. My legislation would change the voting standard for these two categories to a majority of the shares present and voting as well.

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

Mr. President, in the shadow of crude oil prices that have reached nearly $50 per barrel, and with the specter of higher gasoline prices forecast by the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, I rise today to introduce a bill that will help Hawaii and potentially other insular areas grapple with the difficult choices ahead with respect to energy independence.

The bill directs the Secretary of Energy to assess the short- and long-term prospects of oil supply disruptions and price volatility and their impacts on Hawaii. It also directs the Secretary to assess the economic relationship between oil-fired generation of electricity from residual fuel and refined products consumed for transportation needs of Hawaii. Hawaii uses crude oil to produce electricity, gasoline, and jet fuel. Changing the mix of these products will have significant economic implications for Hawaii. We need to have a clear picture of the impacts of going down these roads to a different energy mix. In addition, the study would address the technical and economic feasibility of increasing the contribution of renewable energy resources and the use of liquified natural gas, LNG, for generating electricity and other needs. In Hawaii, the costs of gasoline, electricity, and jet fuel are intertwined in an intricate relationship, because they all come from the same feedstock, and changes in the use of one could potentially drive consumer prices up or down. We need to know the implications of increasing the percentage of renewable sources of energy or switching to LNG, and whether these choices will leave us enough residual fuel for our transportation system and jets. Finally, the bill calls for an analysis of the feasibility of production and use of hydrogen from renewable resources on an island-by-island basis, an energy source I have championed for a long time.

Hawaii is heavily dependent on imported oil. About 90 percent of the State's energy needs for residents and visitors is produced by refining and burning crude oil. We import 28 percent of our oil from Alaska, but 72 percent comes from foreign sources including Indonesia, China, Papua New Guinea, and Vietnam. We use 26 percent of the oil for generating electricity. Being an island State, marine transportation between the islands is very important. Air transport for residents of Hawaii, as well as for our tourism industry, is critical. For many high school athletic and academic teams to compete in intramural activities, it means getting on planes to go to another island. Many families live on multiple islands. We use 32 percent of the oil for air transportation, and 23 percent for ground and marine transportation. My State's dependence on oil poses potential risks to Hawaii from sudden price increases or supply disruptions as were experienced several times in the last five years alone.

Hawaii uses its energy very efficiently. Our per capita energy use is well below the national average. In part, this is due to the fact that Hawaii is blessed with comfortable climate and short driving distances. Nonetheless, we have been paying some of the highest prices in the Nation for our energy. We continue to have the highest gasoline prices in the country. For a long time our electricity rates also have been the highest in the country. Consistent high energy prices affect the economic vitality of the State. Before we invest in a different energy mix and infrastructure, we need to make transparent all the relations between fuels and the consequences of the directions we choose.

Our State has been proactive in seeking energy solutions. The State of Hawaii has income tax credits for the installation of solar, photovoltaic, and wind energy. Hawaii has the largest solar water heating program in the Nation. Governor Linda Lingle has called for a 20 percent renewable energy standard by 2020. Last year we obtained about 7 percent of electricity sales from renewable sources, compared with a national average of about 2 percent. The Hawaiian Electric Company, HECO, Hawaii's largest utility, announced in January 2003 the formation of a new subsidiary that will invest in renewable energy projects for Hawaii.

The Hawaii Energy Policy Forum, a deliberative body of over 40 community leaders and energy stakeholders, met many times over a period of a year and developed an energy vision for Hawaii through the year 2030. Its report, ``Hawaii at the Crossroads; A Long-Term Energy Strategy,'' identifies strategic principles for Hawaii's future, including diversifying the sources of imported energy and beginning the transition to a long-term hydrogen economy.

Mr. President, energy security includes supply security, price security, and economic security. Supply security means ensuring that energy is available despite market disruptions elsewhere. Price security means that energy consumers are protected against price fluctuations and chronically high prices. Economic security results from both of the above. Hawaii is dependent on oil for both transportation and electricity in ways that are without parallel in continental States. Hawaii also has an abundance of renewable energy resources. It is the intent of this bill to assess these challenges and opportunities, and to help us develop a suitable roadmap for Hawaii's energy future. This bill will help Hawaii identify the challenges and decision points along the way to energy security.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2005. My legislation amends the Animal Welfare Act to ensure that all companion animals such as dogs and cats used by research facilities are obtained legally.

Over 30 years ago, Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act, AWA, authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to set and enforce standards protecting animals used in biomedical research, bred for commercial sale, exhibited to the public, or commercially transported from inhumane treatment. Despite the well-meaning intentions of the AWA and the enforcement efforts of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, the act fails to provide reliable protection against the actions of some unethical animal dealers.

Under the AWA, class B animal dealers are defined as individuals whose business includes the purchase, sale, or transport of animals in commerce, including dogs and cats intended for use at research facilities. To the dismay of animal welfare advocates and pet owners, some class B, or ``random source,'' dealers have resorted to theft and deception to collect animals for resale. In many instances these animals were found living under inhumane conditions.

As recently as August of 2003, USDA agents executed a warrant to investigate a class B dealer from Arkansas suspected of violations of the AWA for the second time in several years. Many claims have been levied against this dealer, and approximately 125 dogs were seized by federal agents during this week-long search. The complaint investigated by the USDA against the dealer alleged that the respondents' veterinarian provided for them falsified official health certificates for cats and dogs, and also provided them with blank, undated, and signed health certificates. It also alleged that the dealer failed to provide the barest standards of care, husbandry, and housing for the animals on the premises. In addition, it alleged that its proprietors were aware that some of the companion animals brought to the facility were stolen, and that the business maintained a list of over 50 ``bunchers,'' individuals who obtain animals and sell them to ``random source'' animal dealers. Bunchers have a variety of methods of obtaining companion animals, including responding to newspaper ads offering free animals, trespassing on private property to abduct the animals from yards, and house burglaries.

I am pleased to report that the civil trial against this class B dealer was settled on January 28, 2005. Under the agreement, the dealer and others associated with the business had their licenses permanently revoked. In addition, fines up to $262,700 were imposed by the USDA, which included a personal civil penalty of $12,700. The dealer also is prohibited from engaging in any activities under which the licenses were revoked for 5 years.

While this case resulted in a landmark settlement, I would like to remind my colleagues that if it were not for an outside organization that filed a complaint with the USDA, this class B dealer could still be in operation today. We, in Congress, need to ensure that dealers such as the one in Arkansas are unable to acquire, house, and sell pets.

The Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2005 strengthens the AWA by prohibiting the use of class B dealers as suppliers of dogs and cats to research laboratories. Contrary to what others might say, my legislation will not be a burden on research facilities because only 2 percent of the approximately 2,051 class B dealers in the United States currently sell cats and dogs to research facilities.

I am not here to argue whether animals should or should not be used in research. Medical research is an invaluable weapon in the battle against disease. New drugs and surgical techniques offer promise in the fight against cancer, Alzheimer's, tuberculosis, AIDS, and a host of other life-threatening diseases. Animal research has been, and continues to be, fundamental to advancements in medicine. However, I am concerned with the sale of stolen pets and stray animals to research facilities and the poor treatment of these animals by some class B dealers.

My legislation preserves the integrity of animal research by encouraging research laboratories to obtain animals from legitimate sources that comply with the AWA. Legitimate sources for animals include USDA-licensed class A dealers, breeders, and research facilities, municipal pounds and shelters, and legitimate pet owners who want to donate their animals to research. These sources are capable of meeting the demand for research animals. The National Institutes of Health, in an effort to curb abuse and deception, have already adopted policies against the acquisition of dogs and cats from class B dealers.

The Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2005 also reduces the USDA's regulatory burden by allowing the Department to use its resources more efficiently and effectively. Each year, thousands of dollars are spent on regulating dealers. To discourage any future violations of the AWA, my bill increases the penalties to a minimum of $1,000 per violation.

I reiterate that this bill in no way impairs or impedes research but will end the fraudulent practices of some class B dealers, as well as the unnecessary suffering of these animals in their care. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague Senator McConnell in introducing the

Voter Protection Act of 2005. This legislation builds upon the progress made by the Help America Vote Act toward our goal of making it easier to vote and harder to cheat, while addressing some additional issues that came to light during the previous election.

This legislation will clarify the intent of our previous bill and try to alleviate some of the administrative burdens and misguided policies placed on dedicated, hard-working election workers by previous congressional intrusions into the State functioning of running elections.

Make no mistake about it, record numbers of Americans went to the polls in 2004. The overwhelming number of Americans were greeted by informed, dedicated, and properly trained election workers and were able to cast their ballot in a timely manner and in a secure environment. In Missouri, my home State, the elections were extremely well run. Large numbers of voters were accommodated at the polls in a timely fashion, and very few questions have been raised about administration or integrity.

I believe our recent enactment of HAVA, the Help American Vote Act, helped make it easier for States and localities to administer their elections.

I might add that once again Missouri voters voted on punch cards. Contrary to the bogeyman of hanging chads and other problems we heard about in the past, punch cards have served the voters of Missouri well, proving that trained poll workers, coupled with informed voters, can participate in clean and fair elections using punchcard voting machines.

I live in Audrain County, MO, which is a rural county with a wide diversity. It is very average and representative, although I think it is an outstanding county. I asked the county clerk: How many problems have you had with these punchcard voters? We have the whole range of voters, a very wide diversity. She told me in her memory and the memory of those in the county clerk's office, they had never had a single problem with hanging chads or punchcard machines.

Some people are saying the Help America Vote Act required getting rid of punchcard machines. It did not do that. Let's be clear, that is not required by the Help America Vote Act.

The smoothness leading up to the elections in Missouri was not the case everywhere. I continue to have concerns about the registration process and voter registration lists. Election officials are still laboring under an unnecessarily burdensome system heaped upon them by the motor voter bill. Motor voter required States to accept anonymous mail registration cards without supporting documents and voter registration cards from election drives. Motor voter prohibited authentication of registrations, making it extremely difficult for names to be removed from voter rolls, such as Mickey Mouse, the deceased, or those who had left the State years before. That is why to many of us, motor voter had become auto-fraudo, and we took steps in the Help America Vote Act to change that.

The evidence is still overwhelming that this poor policy continues to result in tremendous administrative burdens on our election officials, with registration lists being bloated and inaccurate but limited recourse for election officials to address the situation. All this makes it more difficult to run clean, fair, and accurate elections.

The Help America Vote Act required minimum identification for first- time voters who take advantage of the mail-in voter registration procedures. While the law is clear, some States chose to find ways around this reasonable requirement. This bill makes it clear that voters who do not register before a government official in person will have to provide the ID requirement. We heard reports of partisan election workers who brought in bundles of voter registration cards, and when they told the governmental election officials they had seen the voter ID, those cards were accepted. Anybody who would accept that ought to be buying the 14th Street bridge. To say somebody who is not a government official and is partisan is going to fulfill the governmental requirements is a stretch too far.

Furthermore, in some Federal elections, I think it is past time to go to a full ID provision. So this legislation requires voters in Federal elections to present identification at the polls while creating a program to ensure that all voters have access to an ID if they cannot afford one.

We now ask our citizens to provide a photo ID for so many tasks of everyday life. To provide it once more for election officials on election day seems a small request in order to help ensure our elections are fair and accurate.

If a person does not have a photo ID and cannot afford to procure one, our bill provides the requirement and the resources to ensure that one is provided.

Let's make sure every legal vote gets counted, and only the legal votes and only one vote per person, only one vote per human. No dogs, please.

The practice of dropping off registration cards in bulk at the registration deadline continues. It is proving to be a huge burden on election officials. The practice of submitting cards for fictitious people, deceased, and ineligible voters is alive and well, so to speak.

Also, a troubling practice by some voter registration groups has come to light--registrations not being delivered to the election authorities. Whether intentional, through oversight or neglect, this is simply unacceptable. Would-be voters place their faith in those conducting registration drives, and the States accept the registration drives will be conducted on the level. Sloppy practices can only result in people being denied the right to vote. So there must be oversight.

This legislation will bring some accountability to voter registration drives while relieving some of the burdens on election authorities by mass dumping of registrations.

I call on our law enforcement officials, the Department of Justice, and our U.S. attorneys to review the process and look at those areas where fraud has been suggested to find out if it is prosecutable, if Federal criminal procedure is required and warranted. I can tell you that we will pass all the laws in the world, but until we see some voter fraud proponents going to jail, spending time in the cells, we are not going to have the effect this bill and our previous bill anticipated.

We need to clean up the registration process by permitting States to use Social Security numbers. I think this bill brings some sense to voter rules by clarifying the provision in motor voter for name removal. The bill also includes a provision for dealing in a reasonable manner with registration cards that are incomplete.

We found in the past, if you did not specifically indicate you were a U.S. citizen, the courts refused to prosecute those knowing they were not eligible to vote because they were not citizens; they could not be prosecuted. Now there is a specific requirement that you indicate you are a U.S. citizen, eligible to vote. If you do not do that, the card should not be accepted, and if you falsely certify you are a U.S. citizen, you ought to be prosecuted.

As we expressed throughout the debates on Help America Vote Act, minimum standard requirements for elections are to be implemented by the State. On provisional voting, the language is explicit. Questions on the implementation of provisional balloting are for State legislators and election officials to decide. But as is too often the case in this country, what cannot be achieved through legislation will be pursued in the courtroom. Some 65 lawsuits were pursued to overturn decisions to preserve the precinct system used at the State level. This was a conscious effort to screw up the elections. Fortunately, the courts got it right. They overruled them 65 times. But there will be more litigation. Therefore, this legislation clarifies further the clear language of HAVA that the decision on the precinct system and decision on the proper polling place for voters is a State question.

The goal of the lawsuits, as I said, seemed to introduce complete chaos which would have ensued were voters allowed simply to vote anywhere they wanted. Additionally, those voters would not have been able to vote in local elections and balloting initiatives. The purpose of the suits did not make sense, but they were filed anyhow. The arguments for throwing out State law made less sense. It is simply the height of illogic to argue on one hand that States should permissively allow voters to cast ballots from anywhere in the State they chose, only to

complain later that the number of election machines at a polling place was inadequate.

Many people lodging this complaint also complained it rained on election day. Sorry, we cannot change that by law. So their concerns must be evaluated accordingly. Among other things, the precinct system allows election officials to plan for election day, assign voters to voting places in manageable numbers, and dispatch the proper level of resources.

Once again, after election day, the newspapers were filled with stories pointing out irregularities on election day. The election day problems have grown out of bloated and inaccurate voting lists and sloppy registration procedures. The stories clearly establish that sloppy laws, poor lists, and chaos at the polls invite efforts to cheat on election day. That is unacceptable to voters and to candidates and people who depend upon a free, fair system of democracy. If a voter has his or her vote canceled by a vote that should never have been cast, whether cast by fraud or ineligible voter, he or she has lost the civil right to be heard and to have the vote counted. It is a disenfranchisement of the voter. It also is a grave offense to the candidates who spend countless amounts of their time and their supporters' resources on elections.

Our goal should be elections that are free of suspicion, doubt, and cynicism about the results. There are steps that remain to be taken to ensure that elections are conducted in a sound and secure manner so that the integrity of the ballot box remains beyond doubt. These simple steps will begin to clean up the mess created in the registration process, while taking away the remains of enticements to game the system.

I look forward to the debate on the floor about these reasonable measures. I commend our deputy majority leader for his work on this effort, and look forward to discussing this and pursuing it with our colleagues.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to make the 15-year depreciation recovery period for improvements to restaurants permanent, and to extend this treatment to cover new restaurant construction as well. Last year, in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-357), Congress set the depreciation recovery period for renovations and improvements made to existing restaurant buildings at 15 years, but this treatment only applies to property placed in service before the end of 2005.

The legislation I am introducing today will permanently set the depreciation recovery period for new restaurant construction and for improvements to existing restaurants at 15 years. It simply makes no sense that the current law providing a 15-year life for improvements to restaurant properties expires at the end of 2005. Restaurants are businesses, and they need the certainty to plan investments several years in advance. Further, Congress should expand the treatment to apply to new construction, as well as to improvements.

Restaurants are high-volume businesses. Every day, more than half of all Americans eat out. Restaurants get more customer traffic and maintain longer hours than the average commercial business--many staying open 7 days a week. This tremendous amount of activity causes rapid deterioration in a restaurant building's systems, from its entrances and lobbies to its flooring, restrooms, and interior walls.

Restaurants improve and renovate constantly to accommodate the wear and tear of heavy customer traffic and to keep pace with changing consumer preferences. Clearly, a 39-year depreciation recovery period-- which is what the recovery period will revert to after 2005--does not match the economic life for new restaurant buildings or for improvements to existing structures.

Moreover, permanently setting the depreciation recovery period at 15 years will encourage significant economic activity. According to the National Restaurant Association, a 15-year depreciation recovery period for

new restaurant construction and improvements to existing properties would generate an additional $3.7 billion in cash flow for the restaurant industry over the next 10 years. If restaurants use just 25 percent of this influx of cash to expand and undertake additional renovations, the Restaurant Association study predicts that the 10-year economic impact would be $853 million.

I hope all of my colleagues will join me in this effort to bring certainty and a rational depreciation recovery period to the restaurant industry so that restaurant owners can continue to expand their businesses and provide good jobs to American workers.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005 along with Senator Bill Nelson. This bipartisan legislation will make the death tax a thing of the past.

As we all know, Congress, working with President Bush, enacted bipartisan legislation in 2001 to phase out and eventually repeal the death tax in 2010. Unfortunately, because we did not have the 60 votes we needed to avoid a filibuster by opponents of the cuts, we could not make the repeal permanent. Rather, under Senate rules, the cuts could only be extended for the term of the budget: 10 years. As a consequence, the death tax springs back to life in 2011, at its old rate of up to 60 percent and at its old exemption level of only $1 million. Senator Nelson and I understand that this tax structure is simply unworkable for families and family businesses. We agree that the best solution is to simply get rid of the death tax once and for all. That's why we are introducing legislation today to make death tax repeal permanent.

Senator Nelson and I are joined in this effort by Senators Allard, Allen, Burns, Inhofe, Talent, and Thune, and we have the full support of President Bush, who once again included permanent repeal of the death tax in his Fiscal Year 2006 budget proposal.

The death tax is an unfair, inefficient, economically unsound and, frankly, an immoral tax that should be removed from the tax code. A recent survey found that 58 percent of Americans believe the death tax is ``completely unfair.'' In contrast, only 10 percent of those surveyed said the same about sales taxes. Moreover, this view is shared by Americans across income levels and political parties: 61 percent of Americans making less than $30,000 a year believe the death tax is ``completely unfair''; 89 percent of respondents who supported President Bush in the last election and 71 percent of respondents who supported his opponent in the last election label the death tax somewhat or very ``unfair.''

And the death tax is unfair, first of all, to the decedent and to his or her heirs. We are talking about people who work hard throughout their lives, perhaps start businesses, or perhaps buy homes in fast- growing metropolitan areas where real estate values are skyrocketing. Or it could be such a person owns a farm or just works hard in a company owned by others, but that person saves and invests and eventually accumulates a small but respectable nest egg. As you can see, the tax reaches far more than the ``ultra-rich,'' its intended targets when it was first imposed. The American dream is to be able to leave these assets to one's children so that they might enjoy a better life than their parents. It is simply unfair and immoral for the government to take more than half of these assets at death.

Americans understand that the death tax is unfair because it falls on families when they have the least ability to make significant economic decisions: at the time they lose a loved one. Further, it is unfair because expensive tax planning can significantly ease the effect of the death tax. If you have the money to hire the right lawyer, buy the large insurance policies that are needed, and do the proper planning, your family can be spared much of the financial pain caused by the death tax. If, on the other hand, you die without warning or if you have an unexpectedly large estate due to increased property values and prudent investments, you are caught paying a larger tax. Taxes required as a result of intentional, planned economic decisions are one thing; taxes on an untimely death are quite another.

Not only is the death tax unfair; it hurts economic growth. The death tax creates a disincentive to build a family farm, ranch, or other business with the goal of passing it on to one's children. In some cases, it makes more sense for a family business to be sold when the owner retires, since the taxes, primarily capital gains taxes, are going to be much lower if the assets are sold while the owner is still alive. Further, planning for the death tax makes it harder to expand a family business because needed resources are spent on attorneys and life insurance instead of growing the business. As much is spent each year on such ``avoidance planning'' as is collected in death taxes by the government.

The death tax also hurts economic growth by discouraging savings and investment. Whether it falls on a family business built through hard work or on a family with a home and a lifetime of investments in 401(k) and IRAs thanks to prudent living, it claims nearly half of an estate over the unified credit amount ($1.5 million in 2005) for the federal government. Such confiscatory tax rates give people little incentive to save and invest. What's more, the American people understand that the death tax represents multiple levels of taxation. Fully 80 percent of those in a recent survey said that the tax represents an ``extreme'' form of ``triple taxation.''

The death tax has a broader economic reach than to just those immediately hit with the tax. Suppose a small business employs 25, maybe 30 people, all of whom rely on the business for their livelihood, health insurance, and retirement savings. The entrepreneur's heirs may not have enough cash to pay the applicable death tax, so they may be forced to liquidate the business. Depending on who buys the assets and what is done with them, the employees may now have to find other jobs. Moreover, all of the companies that sold items to or bought items from this business might need to find other suppliers or customers, leaving a hole in the economy. According to the IRS ``Statistics of Income,'' estate and gift taxes only brought in about $22.8 billion in fiscal year 2003 barely more than one percent of all gross tax collections by the Treasury Department. For such a small amount of revenue, the death tax inflicts a disproportionately large amount of damage on the economy.

One of the most interesting statements about the death tax was made by Edward J. McCaffrey, a law professor from the University of Southern California and self-described liberal, in testimony before Congress several years back. He said, ``Polls and practices show that we like sin taxes, such as on alcohol and cigarettes. . . . The estate tax is an anti-sin, or a virtue, tax. It is a tax on work and savings without consumption, on thrift, on long term savings.''

I urge Congress to act this year to end this tax on virtue, work, savings, job creation and the American dream, and to end it permanently.