Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank the majority and minority leaders for setting aside some time today to discuss the situation in the Middle East. While news of Israeli airstrikes and Hezbollah rocket attacks have dominated the airwaves for over a week now, the issue has not been extensively debated on the floor of the Senate. What we have now, today, is an opportunity to stand together as the Senate and send an unequivocal message of support to our Israeli allies in their time of need.

I am speaking about the Senate resolution which was adopted last evening, crafted in a bipartisan way by the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, a resolution which I am proud to cosponsor and which I believe eloquently expresses what I believe to be the true sense of this body and of the American people. It rightly points out that Israel has complied with the relevant Security Council resolutions regarding withdrawal from Lebanon and that, by contrast, Lebanon has failed to follow through on its obligation to disarm Hezbollah. The resolution correctly identifies the nexus of the problem not in Beirut or Gaza but in Tehran and Damascus, where State sponsorship of terrorism has reached new and disturbing levels.

Finally, this resolution encourages continued U.S. support for Israel and renewed international action to end the conflict by eliminating support and freedom of action of Hezbollah. It is, in summary, an important expression by the Senate.

I would like to take a moment now to address some arguments made by some over the years that Americans are too quick to equate our interests with those of Israel. There are recent articles by respected scholars who have argued that the role of the United States should be to push Israel toward an accommodation with these terrorists, the same terrorists bent on her destruction, rather than standing by her as she tries to lay the foundation for a lasting peace.

I think this past week's conflict exposes the utter fallacy of that perspective. Israel is under attack today, not just from Hezbollah and Hamas but from Iran and Syria, the two most active State sponsors of global terrorism. Right now the United States is struggling with these same two countries over their counterproductive roles in Iraq, their WMD programs, and their role in financing and equipping terrorists throughout the world.

The kind of attacks that Israel is enduring today could be visited on the United States or our troops tomorrow. For example, late last week an advanced Israeli warship was hit with an Iranian antiship missile. Despite the high-tech countermeasures on that ship, four sailors are now presumed lost. It is not hard to imagine these very same missiles used against American ships in the future, especially if the Iranians decide to blockade the Strait of Hormuz in response to U.S. pressure over that nuclear program. The attack on that ship can easily be perceived as directed as much against the U.S. Navy as it is against the Israeli Navy.

Those fighting international terrorism are bound at the hip in this conflict. To believe otherwise is the height of foolishness.

William Kristol stated in a editorial yesterday:

It's our war. For while Syria and Iran are enemies of

Israel, they are also enemies of the United States. We have

done a poor job of standing up to them and weakening them.

They are now testing us more boldly than one would have

thought possible a few years ago. Weakness is provocative. We

have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be

perceived as weak.

This conflict, in short, is not just about the interests of the Israeli or Palestinian or Lebanese people. It is

about a broader state-sponsored jihad against Western civilization, a war in which we cannot afford to stumble or waver or appear to be weak. The Senate resolution is a sign that we will not stumble, that we stand by our Israeli allies as they fight on the frontlines of this war against terrorists. That the people of Lebanon have gotten caught in the middle of this war is not simply regrettable, it is criminal. But make no mistake who the perpetrators are: Iran and Syria and the terrorist groups they equip and encourage. This axis of violence cannot be allowed to operate with impunity against the State of Israel.

The solution to this current crisis will not be easy. But the first step was identified by President Bush, in what some have characterized as an overly candid conversation with Tony Blair in Saint Petersburg. Paraphrasing the President, he said the international community must put pressure on Iran and Syria to curb the actions of their terrorist proxy armies.

At the same time, the Government of Lebanon must act swiftly and directly to dismantle the Hezbollah infrastructure that threatens northern Israel. When these processes are in motion and the kidnapped Israeli soldiers have been returned, then is the time to again move toward the end game of this crisis.

Many in the international community have urged restraint on the part of Israel in facing this crisis. They talk about proportionality. I think we can all agree that in international relations, restraint is generally a good thing, but Israeli restraint and forbearance should only be given in response to action on the other side. Israel's response against terrorism cannot be proportionate. It must be effective. Absent action by the international community and the Lebanese Government, restraint will look like weakness to Israel's enemies. And any show of weakness will only bring more blood-thirsty attacks.

This is the experience of the region. This is the history of the region. No sovereign nation would tolerate the type of attacks that Israel has endured, nor would they prioritize restraint above effectiveness in their response.

This is why I come back to the resolution that was passed in the Senate in a bipartisan expression of our support for the State of Israel, our condemnation of this action by terrorists and their State sponsors, and our commitment, as the Government of the United States, to do all we can to see to it that the terrorists are defeated, that the people in the region have an opportunity to live in peace, and that once and for all throughout the world the world can be safe from the threat of those who would attack others and to do so in the most heinous way.

The kind of action that has been taken by these terrorists cannot be justified in any way, shape, or form, and it is altogether fitting for the Senate to have expressed its resolve against this action.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, am I correct that we are now in a period of morning business?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise again today to discuss the situation in the Middle East where our Israeli allies are fighting unprovoked aggression by a terrorist army on their border. To date, over 1,000 rockets and missiles have been fired into Israel, killing more than a dozen civilians. It was especially disturbing to hear that the missile which collapsed a three-story building in Haifa earlier today was a Syrian model, loaded with ball bearings to cause maximum civilian casualties.

At a time when one of our closest allies is threatened by indiscriminate attacks on its population centers and our President and Secretary of State are overseas, it is incumbent on this body to remain united in standing behind Israel. I am pleased that the leadership is drafting a resolution expressing bipartisan condemnation of Hezbollah's attacks and in support of Israel's right to respond in the name of self-defense.

I am pleased that our allies, too, understand the grave nature of this crisis and its origins. The joint statement released over the weekend by the G8 states unequivocally that this violence:

Results from efforts by extremist forces to destabilize the

region and to frustrate the aspirations of the Palestinian,

Israeli, and Lebanese people for democracy and peace. These

extremist elements and those that support them cannot be

allowed to plunge the Middle East into chaos, and a wider

conflict.

Even some Arab governments, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan, took the commendable step of chastising Hezbollah for its ``unexpected, inappropriate, and irresponsible acts.''

In light of the chaos being precipitated by Hezbollah's rocket and missile capability--a capability being provided directly to Hezbollah by the governments of Syria and Iran--I thought it would be appropriate to take a moment today to talk about how that threat can be addressed. The estimated 13,000 missiles currently in Hezbollah's arsenal are hidden throughout Southern Lebanon, in private homes, caves, and factories. At present, the only way to destroy these systems is to search them out on foot--a risky and potentially provocative solution. Alternatively, Israeli forces can strike at missile launchers after they have fired, meaning that at least one salvo will already be en route. It would be a vast improvement if Israel had the option of neutralizing the Hezbollah threat through defensive, rather than offensive means.

Israel currently has access to Patriot and Arrow missile defense technologies, great systems which are critical for defending against longer-range missiles, but poorly suited to defend Israeli territory from the types of rockets and missiles currently being fired by Hezbollah.

It is for this reason that I support the U.S. Missile Defense Agency efforts--in cooperation with the Israeli Missile Defense Organization-- to develop a system for short-range missile defense. Aimed at projectiles with a range of less than 200 kilometers, this system would provide Israel with another way to defend itself, rather than having to rely exclusively on offensive action. It is propitious that the Defense Appropriations Committee is marking up its bill this week. For more than a year, I have worked with Senators Stevens and Inouye to support the short-range missile defense program. Under their leadership, I believe that the committee will provide the investment necessary to accelerate fielding of the system. Unfortunately, the need for a redoubled effort is now clearer than ever.

We still do not know how the current crisis is going to end. What we can and should say, however, is that Israel has the full support of this body in its ongoing efforts to fight terrorists, protect its citizens, and create the circumstances for peaceful coexistence with Lebanon, and all of its neighbors.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 5672 be star printed.

The ACTING PRESIDING pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

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

The ACTING PRESIDING pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Santorum amendment be laid aside for the purposes of me laying down an amendment.

Madam President, my amendment is similar to that laid down by Senator Santorum in that the offset comes from the same housing loan program. It is an effort to reach the President's full goal rather than what the appropriations bill was able to accommodate, but in this situation to reach that goal for detention spaces rather than additional Border Patrol. If you combine the two amendments, what we will have accomplished is to achieve the funding of the full number of Border Patrol agents the President wanted to add and the full number of detention spaces the President wanted to add. That is the simple explanation. There simply was not quite sufficient money available to the Appropriations Committee to achieve 100 percent of both of those goals. Those goals were stated in the President's budget with respect to detention spaces.

I will describe the detention space problem in a moment, but the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request requested an additional 6,700 beds. The legislation before the Senate funds an additional 1,000. The supplemental appropriations bill we passed earlier

funded an additional 4,000. Adding those two together, you have 5,000 new beds. Subtract that from the 6,700 the President said he needed when he submitted the budget and we have an additional 1,700 beds we need to acquire. This legislation appropriated the funds for the additional 1,700 beds and uses the offset Senator Santorum will trigger in his bill, as well.

Why is it important to add these detention spaces? The primary reason is to end, once and for all, this program of catch and release. When we apprehend an illegal immigrant from a country other than Mexico, you cannot return that person to Mexico. The person is not a citizen of Mexico. We have to return that person to their country of origin. This is a very difficult thing to do.

First of all, some of the countries will not take their people back. Others will only do so after a great deal of time and effort are expended in paperwork to take them back. There are something like 40,000 Chinese nationals who need to go back to China but who are not being sent back to China.

What happens to those people in the meantime? The program in the past has been, as I said, catch and then release them because there is no place to detain them pending their removal to their country of origin.

The Secretary of Homeland Security would like to have enough detention space available that the people who need to be detained can be detained. They can be put on the airplane and sent back to their country of origin. The Secretary would like to expedite this removal so that in all cases it is done within a couple of weeks, if possible. Today, the average is about 3 weeks.

The problem is, many people are apprehended and simply told to return in 3 weeks, 90 days, or whatever the period might be. Of course, most of them do not come back to be removed to their country of origin. That is the release part of it. As a result, we have a large population of illegal immigrants in this country from countries other than Mexico who have been apprehended, have been asked to come back so they can be sent back to their country of origin but who never come back to be sent back. Without the detention spaces, that is not going to stop. Once those detention spaces are available, the Secretary believes these illegal immigrants will cease coming here because the expense of their getting here is not going to be worth it since they will have the certain knowledge they will be apprehended, detained, and then sent back rather than detained and then released into our society, never to be heard from again.

The President's 2007 budget did describe this practice of catch and release and described it as an unacceptable practice that must end. If we are going to end it, we need to have sufficient detention spaces, as the President pointed out, the additional 6,700 beds to accommodate these people.

A number of Members have continually talked to the administration and the Department of Homeland Security about this problem. For one reason or another, it has always been a matter of, we need more detention spaces and we cannot accommodate this many people. It is a major breakthrough; the administration has finally calculated how many more spaces it needs and has begun the process of acquiring those spaces. We need to support the administration's full request and not simply get 60 or 70 percent of it accomplished. We are not going to solve this problem of catch and release until we have sufficient detention space.

It is also a security problem for the United States because in many cases we do not know the identities of these people. These are not simply Mexican nationals coming across. They could be people from China, Russia, Vietnam, or countries of special interest to the United States in the Middle East, for example, countries from which terrorists have come. As a result, it is important not to simply release these people into the interior of our country never to be heard from again. They carry false documents. We do not know their true identities. It is important when we apprehend them to detain them.

Let me quote from a June 22 letter from me to the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Chertoff:

. . . because DHS lacks the detention space to hold OTMs

[other than Mexican nationals] it necessarily releases 70

percent of them into the interior of the United States with a

Notice to Appear for an immigration hearing. Approximately 70

percent of those released failed to appear for their

hearings; of those who do appear, 85 percent fail to comply

with final orders of removal and remain illegally in the

United States. In effect, therefore, our national policy

amounts to ``catch and release,'' and raises significant

national security concerns. Moreover, it does nothing to

deter further illegal immigration by OTM's. Indeed, it may

have the opposite effect: A June 4th article in the San Diego

Union Tribune indicates that Brazilians, who make up a large

portion of the OTM's, actively seek out border patrol agents

after illegally crossing the border, so that they may get a

Notice to Appear and pass unmolested into the interior.

In other words, it is actually a benefit for these people who have a piece of paper with them that, in effect, frees them from additional apprehension during this period of time prior to their notice to appear. When the time period is up and they are supposed to actually appear, they are gone. In the meantime, they basically had a free pass to travel wherever they want in the United States, unmolested by the Border Patrol or law enforcement.

In a November 15, 2005, letter to Secretary Chertoff, I joined Senators McCain, Hutchison, and Cornyn in advising the Secretary that:

. . . the Department should immediately resolve the ``catch

and release'' practice, under which these non-Mexican illegal

aliens are released into the interior due to lack of

detention space.

The result of that was an effort by the Department of Homeland Security to identify what was necessary in order to achieve the goal. As I said, their determination was 6,700 beds, the number called for in the administration's budget.

I applaud the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, Senator Gregg, for finding the funding to add an additional 1,000 beds to the 4,000 that were put in the supplemental appropriations bill, also due to his efforts. The Committee on Appropriations has gone a long way toward getting this funding, but we are still not quite there.

This legislation says this must be one of our priorities. As a result, having found a way to pay for it from other legislation, let's add these 1,700 so we can accommodate the full budget request of the President and say we have done everything we can to resolve this problem of catch and release.

There are some additional things we could talk about here, but it is probably relatively uncontroversial for us to complete this job. If there is no opposition to this amendment, I don't think it is necessary for me to talk about some of the additional things we could discuss to make the case; that it is very important to stop this program of catch and release. I think almost everyone agrees with that proposition. My amendment is what is necessary to complete that unfinished business.

I hope our colleagues would see the benefits of adding this to the bill and ensure we can complete the task of resolving this problem of catch and release.

If there is further debate, I am happy to respond and cite additional information that I think will help make the case we need to do this, but I don't think it is a case that needs a great deal of elaboration. I ask my colleagues when we have the opportunity to vote on this, to support this amendment, as well as Senator Santorum's amendment, which I also wholeheartedly join in supporting. I am an original cosponsor of it.

These are the two pieces of unfinished business we need to take care of in this legislation.

Madam President, when I described my amendment, I neglected to send it to the desk, so I send the amendment to the desk at this time.

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

Mr. President, thank you. First of all, I appreciate the explanation of the chairman of the subcommittee and conclude, as he has, unfortunately, that, good policy notwithstanding, taking money away from other good policy decisions we have made or intend to make in support of funding for more Border Patrol agents, more detention spaces, and so on, requires that we oppose the amendment that would take money from those programs to build more fencing.

Much of this fencing is in my State of Arizona. We need that fencing. I am convinced we will be able to get the fencing done, if not by the National Guard, then by construction that will, in fact, cost money, for which there is some in the budget. There is probably more needed, and we are going to have to find a way to add that. But this, unfortunately, has been constructed as a zero-sum game with this amendment. In order to put more money on fencing, we take more money away from Border Patrol. So that is going to make it a very difficult proposition.

Mr. President, the matter I would like to ask unanimous consent to speak on, I say to the chairman, actually is a matter not related to this bill. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 90 seconds as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise because of the recent attacks on Israel. The most recently breaking news: rocket attacks on the city of Haifa in Israel, which clearly represents an escalation of the attack from Lebanon. Therefore, I do rise to condemn the acts of war perpetrated against the nation of Israel by Hezbollah forces operating in southern Lebanon.

Dozens of Katyusha rockets were fired at northern Israel on Wednesday and Thursday, and additional salvos have continued to rain down. Israeli soldiers were attacked as they attempted to respond to this unprovoked assault across an internationally recognized border. As a result of this aggression, eight Israeli soldiers are dead, two more are prisoners of Hezbollah, and the citizens of northern Israel are living in fear.

I call on the international community to support Israel in its attempts to end terrorist operations in southern Lebanon, free the captive soldiers, and restore its territorial security.

In the name of peace, Israeli forces withdrew from all Lebanese territory in the year 2000. The United Nations recognized this withdrawal as fully compliant with all relative Security Council resolutions. Unfortunately, the government in Beirut has not done its part to ensure that this disengagement enhanced the security of both nations.

It is not surprising since 14 members of Lebanon's parliament and two cabinet ministers are members of Hezbollah. The Lebanese Government, which refuses to crack down on these terrorists, must be held accountable. In addition, Syria and Iran, whose governments sponsor Hezbollah's activities, must be condemned and, if they do not cease this support, sanctioned harshly.

I regret to say we will probably witness more violence in the days and weeks ahead. Many innocent people on both sides of the border will likely suffer. It is incumbent on the United States and the international community to stand by Israel as she fights foreign- sponsored aggression on her borders, aggression that no sovereign nation could possibly be expected to tolerate

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Warner, would the Chair please advise me when I have consumed 10 minutes?

Mr. President, since last Tuesday, scores of my constituents have called my office and otherwise communicated with us, asking a very poignant question. Since last Tuesday, this country has mourned the deaths of two brave soldiers who were kidnapped and mutilated and killed, both Army PFC Kristian Menchaca, from Texas, and Thomas Tucker, of Oregon. The question my constituents are asking me is, How on Earth could the Senate be debating resolutions of withdrawal from Iraq in the same week that we discovered the mutilated bodies of these two American soldiers? Shouldn't our debate, rather, recall the famous words of Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg address, ``That they shall not have died in vain,'' and motivate us to redouble our efforts to support our troops in carrying out the unfinished business that remains in Iraq?

There is unfinished business there, to bring to justice the people who committed these heinous acts and to rid that country and the region once and for all of the evildoers who support that kind of violence against both Americans and Iraqis and who promise in the future to commit that same kind of violence against us until they have become victorious. These are the terrorists.

I found it interesting that one of our colleagues was arguing, wrongly, that there were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded the country and eliminated Saddam Hussein. The evidence is overwhelming that is not true. But in any event, of what importance is it, given the fact that they are there now, mutilating and killing American soldiers and Iraqi citizens? What do the terrorists have in mind if we pull out?

The President recently and succinctly described the plans of the terrorists, directly quoting from a letter that Ayman al-Zawahiri, who is the second in command of al-Qaida behind Osama bin Laden, wrote to Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, who recently, of course, was brought to justice by American troops and was bin Laden's designated leader of al-Qaida in Iraq:

Their objective is to drive the United States and coalition

forces out of Iraq, and use the vacuum that would be created

by an American retreat to gain control of that country. They

would then use Iraq as a base from which to launch attacks

against America, and overthrow moderate governments in the

Middle East, and try to establish a totalitarian Islamic

empire.

In that same letter, Zawahiri stated that the battle in Iraq ``is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era.''

It doesn't matter if we are fighting them. They are going to fight us. The point is, they are going to fight us wherever the point of the battle is, based upon their choosing. Today they chose that battle to be in Iraq. In some respects, given the quality of American forces, that is a better place for us to be confronting this enemy, these evildoers, than waiting for them to come back and attack us in the United States. That is why we owe so much to the soldiers and to the sailors and to the airmen and to the Marines whom we have sent into harm's way to confront the enemy there. We owe them not just the best training and the best equipment and the best planning in the world to enable them to carry out their missions but support here at home.

The question my constituents are asking me is, What message does it send to our troops, to our allies, and to our enemies, when we begin talk of withdrawal? You can sugarcoat it all you want. You can call it phased withdrawal, you can call it timelines, but whatever you call it, it pretty much amounts to the same thing.

The distinguished minority leader, as a matter of fact, said just a couple of days ago, and I am quoting:

I think that even though we have at least two positions, I

think if you look at them closely, they're both basically the

same, that there should be redeployment of troops. It's a

question of when.

Indeed. One resolution says: Right away; it has to be done this year. That is a time certain, this year. And another one talks about submission of a plan with estimated dates. Dates, of course, are times certain. Whenever they are established, you have a specific time within which the withdrawal is to occur, whether it is in a phased way or all at once, right next door or 1,000 miles away. The bottom line, whatever you want to call it, is withdrawal of American troops within certain timeframes to no longer be able to perform their mission there.

Why would you take that kind of position when there is work yet to be done? It has to be based upon the guess that by the time that time comes the work will be finished, that we will have done sufficient work in Iraq and training up the Iraqi soldiers and performing, ourselves, that we will no longer be needed. But nobody supporting these resolutions knows that. The military commanders on the ground will tell you that they do not know it. No one can know what the circumstances on the ground will be by the end of 2006 or by the middle of 2007.

All wars are based upon the circumstances at a given time on the ground. It would have been folly, for example, simply because we were losing significant numbers of American soldiers in World War II, for the U.S. Congress to pass a resolution, sending it to President Roosevelt, saying you have to be out of Germany by a date certain and you have to begin a phased withdrawal of our Pacific troops by a date certain.

At that time, America was committed to performing the mission, to getting the job done, to winning the war. What should the condition for withdrawal be? Victory; the ability to say we have accomplished our mission, we have pacified the country to a sufficient extent that we can leave without creating a power vacuum into which the Iranians and the Syrians and perhaps the Turks or others might come into Iraq because of their interests in the area, not sending a message to our allies in the region that, instead of being on the winning side, it turned out that they chose the wrong side, the side that wanted to leave the battlefield before the battle was won.

Think about the Iraqis who are supplying intelligence to us right now. They have calculated that we are the winning side and that they can give us information to help get these evildoers without fear of retribution--that when we leave they are going to be vulnerable to attacks by the insurgents and the terrorists who remain. They calculate that we will stay long enough to do the job. The same thing for the 12 million Iraqi people who elected their Government and the same thing for the

Government that has now stood up in that country that does not want us to leave precipitously. Yes, of course they get the message that they have to eventually be responsible for their own security. Yes, of course they are participating in the training of their army so that they can eventually do this job themselves. They don't need to receive a message from the United States that this is ultimately going to be their responsibility.

They understand that. What we cannot do is send to the Iraqi people, who are now very increasingly cooperating with us, send a message to our allies in the region that they chose the wrong side, and send a message to our American troops that we are not willing to back them all the way to victory.

That would be the way to lose this war. It has been said many times that the insurgents and terrorists cannot defeat our troops. The only way they can win the conflict is if they defeat us here at home by undermining our confidence, by undermining our credibility, and by undermining our support for our troops.

Mr. President, this is the most serious business that the Senate could be debating. It has to do not just with the freedom of Iraqis in the future, or the lives of American soldiers, important as they are; it has to do with the security of the people of the United States of America from terrorists who are seeking places in the world from which to operate. We need to deny them that territory and that support and, in the process, persuade the neighbors of Iraq in the region that they need to stay with us, to continue to get the terrorists out of their country, continue to stop funding the terrorists, and to continue to support our efforts, so that the words of Osama bin Laden will be demonstrated as absolutely false. Remember what he said--that we are the weak horse, he's the strong horse. Where did he get that idea? Because of previous times in which we have withdrawn.

We cannot make that same mistake again. I urge my colleagues to defeat both of these amendments when they are presented this morning.

Mr. President, I, too, rise in support of this amendment of the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions. It is a modest increase in funding. But as the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee said, it will enable us to accelerate the pace of testing, which I think we are all supportive of. And as a result, I think it is a good amendment. I appreciate the support of both the minority and the majority. Because of that, I will not take a long time to detail the reasons why I think it is so important.

Suffice it to say, with the recent news of the preparations of the North Koreans and our knowledge that they have been very closely connected to the development of weapon capabilities, in particular the missile capabilities of the Iranians, and given the fact that both of those countries have not only become increasingly capable but increasingly belligerent in recent months and years, it is very obvious that we have to move forward and accelerate our testing and development and our deployment of the missile interception system with all the speed we can muster.

It is a program that we are developing as we go along, and we are learning a lot in the process. Our most recent tests have been successful. We can build on those successes.

I am delighted that the missile defense system is receiving the kind of support that it needs to receive so that in the years to come, when the American people look back on this and realize that they are protected from a missile attack, they can say it was during these years when that threat was evolving and developing that we had the fortitude to put the money in the program for development and testing that would enable us to protect the American people.

I remember back, right after 9/11, when the intelligence communities were criticized for not connecting the dots. Now the dots on the missile fronts are pretty clear. We are beginning to get big red circles coming at us with both North Korea and Iran, and others are on the way as well. It is during this period of time, before they become completely capable then, we have to develop our interceptor capabilities with our ground-based missile systems and the follow-on systems which we are working on as well.

I applaud the efforts of my colleague from Alabama and his foresight for proposing this modest increase.

I appreciate the support of the ranking minority member on the committee, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. President, I will respond quickly to make this point. A lot of folks over the years asked, Why has it taken us so long? It is a good question. There are several different answers to it.

First of all, this is hard. It is hard to hit a bullet with a bullet. It has taken a lot of time and effort by very smart people.

I am glad we were there at the beginning, providing them the resources they needed to conduct these kinds of tests and demonstrate that we could really intercept an intercontinental ballistic missile, which is the equivalent of hitting a bullet with a bullet.

There were years in which there was opposition to the missile defense system, in which funding was cut from the program. That crippled the program and slowed it down. There were times when we were ready to deploy something and then opponents said we don't want to deploy yet, we want to do some more testing. As a result, every time we seemed to be ready to put up something, we were pulled back--all the way back to the early 1980s when Ronald Reagan started talking about this. You have to scratch your head and wonder why it has taken us this long to get to this point.

I think the most important thing, as the Senator from Alabama pointed out, is we are now making tremendous progress. We have a system deployed. It is better with every subsequent test, and as time goes on, the American people can at least begin to feel a little bit more secure. We are not there yet, as everybody has pointed out. But we are making great progress.

Because we worked hard during some of those lean years to keep the funding going and keep the progress going forward, we are at the stage we are today.

I thank both Members of the minority and majority for their support for the program this year.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bill LaDuke, a legal intern in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor during my remarks on the floor.

Mr. President, it is amazing to me that less than a week after the President returned from Iraq, having visited with the new Government leaders there, and having disclosed the death of the top al- Qaida leader Zarqawi, in Iraq, colleagues in the Senate would actually be proposing withdrawal from Iraq.

The strategy there needs to be to win, not to withdraw. Withdrawal follows victory. If we think about the wars we have gone into--think about World War II, for example--would it have made any sense for the Congress of the United States to pass a resolution saying to Franklin Roosevelt: You set a deadline for getting out of Germany and for getting out of Japan or we are not going to continue to support this effort? It would have been ludicrous at the time. More importantly, it sends a message to our troops, to our enemies, and to our allies, and to the people in Iraq that is devastating.

Let me read a letter that was written by one of our soldiers stationed in Fallujah recently to his hometown newspaper in Ridgefield, CT, which expresses what I suspect is the view of many of our soldiers. Here is what he said:

In Fallujah, the people watch Al-Jazeerah. However, they

also watch CNN. A lot of them fear the United States will

soon cut and run. . . . Furthermore, they know that the

insurgents will not end their efforts early . . . Therefore,

if they help us, their lives and the lives of their loved

ones will be in great jeopardy the minute we leave--if we

don't finish the job. Much that they see on American

television leads them to believe that we intend to abandon

our efforts before the new Iraqi Government is capable of

defending itself and its citizens.

The bottom line is that the people in Iraq watch what we do, our friends and our enemies, and much of our ability to win there depends upon figuring out which is going to be the winning side. They want to be on the winning side. They don't want to side with us only to have us cut and run, leaving them with these insurgents who will find out who they are and take care of business. Obviously, we have to send a message to them that we intend to prevail and therefore they can side with us.

What we will learn is that much of our ability to get al-Zarqawi and others depends upon the cooperation of the

Iraqis themselves. A lot of our intelligence comes from the fact that Iraqis believe we are there to stay until the job is done, and if they help us, they can hasten that day. But if they come to believe that they help us, we leave, and then the insurgents find out who they are, we are not going to get any more help. It is going to delay the time that we can leave rather than accelerate that time.

The people in the region, the countries that surround Iraq, would be in the very same position. They have decided that they are going to be on the side of the winner, and they believe right now the United States is the winner in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and certainly the leaders of Pakistan, of Saudi Arabia, of Lebanon, each of the countries surrounding has decided to throw in with us. As the President said, you are either for us or against us. If we cut and run from Iraq, those countries are not going to be able to stay with us, and what we will have done is to prove what Osama bin Laden said is true, and that is that instead of the strong horse, we are the weak horse. That is what the people in the region are waiting to see.

So these concepts--whether it is an immediate withdrawal or simply the beginning of a phased withdrawal this year, with the President being required to submit a plan for complete withdraw by the end of next year--are all part and parcel of the same thing: a message to the enemy that we are leaving and here is our timetable for leaving. All you have to do is wait until we are gone and then it is yours for the taking. That is not just destructive for the Iraqi people; the whole point is that it is destructive for our whole policy in winning the war against the terrorists.

They have to believe we are on the offensive, we are going after them, and we won't quit until we win. But by pulling out of Iraq, we are sending the signal that by simply hanging on, by causing us trouble with roadside bombs and other mechanisms, all they have to do is wait us out; we will lose patience, we will lose nerve, we will leave, and that is how they win the war on terror.

So it is not just about the Iraqi people and their ability to govern themselves in freedom or the people of Afghanistan; it is about the message it sends to the people who are today with us in the war on terror. It is about our ability to continue to show that we are winning the war on terror, and that they better side with us rather than side with people who are going to lose. It is all about winning the war over there so that we don't have to worry as much about attacks in the United States.

This is a multifaceted war. There are enemies all over the globe. The best way to win that war is through good intelligence and then taking the fight to the enemy. Right now, the bulk of that fighting is in Iraq, and it is there that we have to confront the enemy and defeat the enemy. If we pull out through these sort of sugar-coated notions of phased withdrawals--not a deadline--not cut and run--it is just a phased withdrawal, what kind of a signal does that send? It still creates a date, a timetable, and a message to the enemy that we are, in fact, going to be leaving, and all they have to do is wait us out.

So I say to my colleagues, these kinds of proposals should be soundly rejected as they were last week, both in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, and we should be sending the signal to our troops, as well as to our enemies and to our allies: we are there to stay until victory, not until we achieve some artificial deadline.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, in introducing legislation to clarify the jurisdiction of the U.S. Tax Court in cases involving ``equitable relief'' for innocent spouse claims.

In general, spouses who sign joint tax returns are held jointly and severally liable for taxes owed on such returns. An individual may be relieved from such liability if she meets the ``innocent spouse'' test set forth in section 6015 of the Internal Revenue Code. The current standards were put in place by the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998.

An article published in the New York Times in late 1999 notes that the number of innocent spouse applications increased sharply after the 1998 law and that as many as 90 percent of the people filing innocent spouse applications are women. Clearly, the 1998 law opened an important avenue for ex-spouses to challenge unexpected tax bills they received after their former spouses cheated on their taxes without the knowledge of the ``innocent'' spouse.

Unfortunately, the 1998 law also left uncertain the Tax Court's jurisdiction to hear appeals from denials of ``equitable relief.'' The Treasury Secretary is authorized to grant equitable relief if a taxpayer does not meet any of the statutorily specified qualifications for being an innocent spouse. But while the Tax Court was given jurisdiction to hear appeals under those specific avenues spelled out in the Code, the Code is silent on whether the Tax Court can hear appeals based on the Treasury Secretary's equitable relief authority. Recent decisions by the Eight and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals have held that the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to hear petitions for innocent spouse equitable relief.

The legislation Senator Feinstein and I have introduced makes clear that the Tax Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions denying equitable relief. The National Taxpayer Advocate has recommended that Congress pass this legislation, and I am hopeful that we can move this important bill through the Finance Committee in very short order.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, in introducing legislation to clarify the jurisdiction of the U.S. Tax Court in cases involving ``equitable relief'' for innocent spouse claims.

In general, spouses who sign joint tax returns are held jointly and severally liable for taxes owed on such returns. An individual may be relieved from such liability if she meets the ``innocent spouse'' test set forth in section 6015 of the Internal Revenue Code. The current standards were put in place by the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998.

An article published in the New York Times in late 1999 notes that the number of innocent spouse applications increased sharply after the 1998 law and that as many as 90 percent of the people filing innocent spouse applications are women. Clearly, the 1998 law opened an important avenue for ex-spouses to challenge unexpected tax bills they received after their former spouses cheated on their taxes without the knowledge of the ``innocent'' spouse.

Unfortunately, the 1998 law also left uncertain the Tax Court's jurisdiction to hear appeals from denials of ``equitable relief.'' The Treasury Secretary is authorized to grant equitable relief if a taxpayer does not meet any of the statutorily specified qualifications for being an innocent spouse. But while the Tax Court was given jurisdiction to hear appeals under those specific avenues spelled out in the Code, the Code is silent on whether the Tax Court can hear appeals based on the Treasury Secretary's equitable relief authority. Recent decisions by the Eight and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals have held that the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to hear petitions for innocent spouse equitable relief.

The legislation Senator Feinstein and I have introduced makes clear that the Tax Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions denying equitable relief. The National Taxpayer Advocate has recommended that Congress pass this legislation, and I am hopeful that we can move this important bill through the Finance Committee in very short order.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator McCain to introduce the Las Cienegas Enhancement Act of 2006. This legislation directs a land exchange between the Bureau of Land Management and the Las Cienegas Conservation, LLC. in southeastern Arizona. The bill is the product of consensus. State and local officials, conservationists, and other stakeholders have worked together to structure an exchange that is fair and in the public interest.

Let me explain the details of the exchange. The land to be transferred out of Federal ownership, approximately 1,280 acres, is referred to as the ``Sahuarita property.'' This property is BLM-managed land south of Tucson near Corona de Tucson. The land is low-lying Sonoran desert and has been identified for disposal by the BLM through its land-use planning process.

The private land to be brought into Federal ownership is approximately 2,392 acres of land referred to as the ``Empirita- Simonson property.'' This property lies north of the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area managed by the BLM. The Empirita-Simonson property lies within the ``Sonoita Valley Acquisition Planning District'' established by Public Law 106-538, which designated the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area. The act directed the Department of the Interior to acquire lands from willing sellers within the planning district for inclusion within the conservation area to further protect the important resource values for which the area was designated.

Although this bill is centered on the land exchange I just described, it also accomplishes two other important objectives: addressing water withdrawals at Ciengas Creek and providing road access to a popular recreation destination, the Whetstone Mountains controlled by the Forest Service.

Let's talk about water. Arizonans understand that protecting our water supply is crucial to the State's future. For this reason, when we can, we look for ways to promote responsible use of our limited water supply. This bill is one of those examples of responsible use. There is a prior claim to a well site on the private land that will be exchanged. That prior claim would allow the developer to withdraw 1,600 acre feet of water a year. Pima County and the community at large are concerned about the future of Ciengas Creek and the entire riparian area if these water withdrawals occur.

To address this concern, the land exchange is conditioned on Las Cienegas Conservation Inc. conveying the well site to Pima County and relinquishing those water rights it controls. The net result is a water savings of 1,050 acre-feet per year. This is a significant benefit to this riparian area.

Overall, this bill allows us to accomplish important environmental and conservation objectives while managing our development. It is a bill with broad support that includes the Governor of Arizona, Pima County, the city of Tucson, and many others. I urge my colleagues to work with me to approve this legislation at the earliest possible date.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Internet SAFETY Act of 2006. The word ``SAFETY'' in the bill's title stands for Stop Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Youth. It is a fairly descriptive acronym, for the provisions of the Internet SAFETY Act are designed to crack down on the spread of Internet child pornography and related conduct. The act does so by creating new Federal offenses and causes of action targeted at those who produce or knowingly facilitate Internet child pornography, by increasing penalties for child pornography, sex trafficking, and sexual abuse offenses, and by increasing resources available for prosecution and prevention of child sexual-abuse offenses, including authorizing 200 new assistant U.S. attorneys across the country to prosecute child pornography and sexual exploitation crimes.

The need for renewed law-enforcement attention to child pornography is demonstrated in a recent report of the U.S. Justice Department titled ``Project Safe Childhood.'' I will ask to have an extended excerpt from the report printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. As the report notes, ``judging simply by [recent] crime statistics, it is clear that the Internet is helping to fuel an epidemic of child pornography'' in this country. Unfortunately, by providing greater technical ease and increased anonymity in trading images, the Internet has ``taken down barriers that one time served as a deterrent to child pornographers.'' In 2003, an estimated 20,000 images of child pornography were posted on the Internet every week. Between 1998 and 2004, child pornography reports made to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children increased from 3,267 to 106,119--a thirty-fold increase over a 6-year period. The Justice Department also notes that there has been an escalation in the severity of abuse depicted in child pornography in recent years, ``with the images found today more frequently involving younger children-- including toddlers and even infants--and despicable acts such as penetration of infants.'' The Project Safe Childhood report concludes that ``the nation should be alarmed at the fact that child pornography is being produced,

possessed, and distributed in record numbers.'' As the report notes, child pornography's harm extends beyond that done to the children who are sexually abused to produce such images: ``child pornography [also] plays a central role in child molestations, serving to justify offenders' conduct, assist them in gaining compliance with their victims, and to provide a means to blackmail the children they have molested in order to prevent exposure.''

The Internet SAFETY Act does the following things. It creates a new Federal offense, punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison, for financially facilitating access to child pornography on the Internet. The act also deters Internet facilitation of child pornography by imposing civil penalties for Internet communications providers that fail to report child pornography, criminal penalties for Web site operators who insert words or images into source code with the intent to deceive persons into viewing obscene material on the Internet, and by requiring commercial Web site operators to place warning marks prescribed by the Federal Trade Commission on Web pages that contain sexually explicit material.

The Internet SAFETY Act also punishes the operation of child pornography enterprises. It creates a new Federal offense, punishable by a minimum of 10 years in prison, for the operation of an enterprise that profits from the sexual exploitation of children. The act also imposes mandatory, consecutive 10 year sentences for any child pornography or exploitation offense committed by a registered sex offender. In addition, the act increases penalties for offenses involving child pornography, child prostitution and sex trafficking, child sexual abuse, and sexual assault.

The Internet SAFETY Act also expands the Federal private right of action against child pornographers. It allows a victim, including parents of a minor victim, to seek civil remedies, and also allows a victim to seek remedies as an adult. This provision is inspired by a young girl named Masha who was adopted from Russia by a man who repeatedly molested her, photographed her, and posted pornographic images of her on the Internet. In addition, the act adds the obscenity and child pornography statutes to the RICO predicates and adds electronic mail fraud to the wiretap predicates.

The Internet SAFETY Act also establishes within the Justice Department an Office on Sexual Violence and Crimes Against Children to coordinate sex offender registration and notification programs and grant programs, and to assist State, local, and tribal governments and other entities with sex offender registration or notification and other measures.

Finally, the act authorizes and directs the Attorney General to make grants to States, local governments, Indian tribes, and nonprofit organizations for child sexual abuse prevention programs. In addition, the act authorizes appropriations for 200 additional child exploitation prosecutors in U.S. Attorneys' Offices around the country and 20 additional Internet Crimes Against Children task forces.

I ask unanimous consent that the following passages from the Justice Department's report Project Safe Childhood be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator McCain to introduce the Las Cienegas Enhancement Act of 2006. This legislation directs a land exchange between the Bureau of Land Management and the Las Cienegas Conservation, LLC. in southeastern Arizona. The bill is the product of consensus. State and local officials, conservationists, and other stakeholders have worked together to structure an exchange that is fair and in the public interest.

Let me explain the details of the exchange. The land to be transferred out of Federal ownership, approximately 1,280 acres, is referred to as the ``Sahuarita property.'' This property is BLM-managed land south of Tucson near Corona de Tucson. The land is low-lying Sonoran desert and has been identified for disposal by the BLM through its land-use planning process.

The private land to be brought into Federal ownership is approximately 2,392 acres of land referred to as the ``Empirita- Simonson property.'' This property lies north of the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area managed by the BLM. The Empirita-Simonson property lies within the ``Sonoita Valley Acquisition Planning District'' established by Public Law 106-538, which designated the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area. The act directed the Department of the Interior to acquire lands from willing sellers within the planning district for inclusion within the conservation area to further protect the important resource values for which the area was designated.

Although this bill is centered on the land exchange I just described, it also accomplishes two other important objectives: addressing water withdrawals at Ciengas Creek and providing road access to a popular recreation destination, the Whetstone Mountains controlled by the Forest Service.

Let's talk about water. Arizonans understand that protecting our water supply is crucial to the State's future. For this reason, when we can, we look for ways to promote responsible use of our limited water supply. This bill is one of those examples of responsible use. There is a prior claim to a well site on the private land that will be exchanged. That prior claim would allow the developer to withdraw 1,600 acre feet of water a year. Pima County and the community at large are concerned about the future of Ciengas Creek and the entire riparian area if these water withdrawals occur.

To address this concern, the land exchange is conditioned on Las Cienegas Conservation Inc. conveying the well site to Pima County and relinquishing those water rights it controls. The net result is a water savings of 1,050 acre-feet per year. This is a significant benefit to this riparian area.

Overall, this bill allows us to accomplish important environmental and conservation objectives while managing our development. It is a bill with broad support that includes the Governor of Arizona, Pima County, the city of Tucson, and many others. I urge my colleagues to work with me to approve this legislation at the earliest possible date.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Internet SAFETY Act of 2006. The word ``SAFETY'' in the bill's title stands for Stop Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Youth. It is a fairly descriptive acronym, for the provisions of the Internet SAFETY Act are designed to crack down on the spread of Internet child pornography and related conduct. The act does so by creating new Federal offenses and causes of action targeted at those who produce or knowingly facilitate Internet child pornography, by increasing penalties for child pornography, sex trafficking, and sexual abuse offenses, and by increasing resources available for prosecution and prevention of child sexual-abuse offenses, including authorizing 200 new assistant U.S. attorneys across the country to prosecute child pornography and sexual exploitation crimes.

The need for renewed law-enforcement attention to child pornography is demonstrated in a recent report of the U.S. Justice Department titled ``Project Safe Childhood.'' I will ask to have an extended excerpt from the report printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. As the report notes, ``judging simply by [recent] crime statistics, it is clear that the Internet is helping to fuel an epidemic of child pornography'' in this country. Unfortunately, by providing greater technical ease and increased anonymity in trading images, the Internet has ``taken down barriers that one time served as a deterrent to child pornographers.'' In 2003, an estimated 20,000 images of child pornography were posted on the Internet every week. Between 1998 and 2004, child pornography reports made to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children increased from 3,267 to 106,119--a thirty-fold increase over a 6-year period. The Justice Department also notes that there has been an escalation in the severity of abuse depicted in child pornography in recent years, ``with the images found today more frequently involving younger children-- including toddlers and even infants--and despicable acts such as penetration of infants.'' The Project Safe Childhood report concludes that ``the nation should be alarmed at the fact that child pornography is being produced,

possessed, and distributed in record numbers.'' As the report notes, child pornography's harm extends beyond that done to the children who are sexually abused to produce such images: ``child pornography [also] plays a central role in child molestations, serving to justify offenders' conduct, assist them in gaining compliance with their victims, and to provide a means to blackmail the children they have molested in order to prevent exposure.''

The Internet SAFETY Act does the following things. It creates a new Federal offense, punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison, for financially facilitating access to child pornography on the Internet. The act also deters Internet facilitation of child pornography by imposing civil penalties for Internet communications providers that fail to report child pornography, criminal penalties for Web site operators who insert words or images into source code with the intent to deceive persons into viewing obscene material on the Internet, and by requiring commercial Web site operators to place warning marks prescribed by the Federal Trade Commission on Web pages that contain sexually explicit material.

The Internet SAFETY Act also punishes the operation of child pornography enterprises. It creates a new Federal offense, punishable by a minimum of 10 years in prison, for the operation of an enterprise that profits from the sexual exploitation of children. The act also imposes mandatory, consecutive 10 year sentences for any child pornography or exploitation offense committed by a registered sex offender. In addition, the act increases penalties for offenses involving child pornography, child prostitution and sex trafficking, child sexual abuse, and sexual assault.

The Internet SAFETY Act also expands the Federal private right of action against child pornographers. It allows a victim, including parents of a minor victim, to seek civil remedies, and also allows a victim to seek remedies as an adult. This provision is inspired by a young girl named Masha who was adopted from Russia by a man who repeatedly molested her, photographed her, and posted pornographic images of her on the Internet. In addition, the act adds the obscenity and child pornography statutes to the RICO predicates and adds electronic mail fraud to the wiretap predicates.

The Internet SAFETY Act also establishes within the Justice Department an Office on Sexual Violence and Crimes Against Children to coordinate sex offender registration and notification programs and grant programs, and to assist State, local, and tribal governments and other entities with sex offender registration or notification and other measures.

Finally, the act authorizes and directs the Attorney General to make grants to States, local governments, Indian tribes, and nonprofit organizations for child sexual abuse prevention programs. In addition, the act authorizes appropriations for 200 additional child exploitation prosecutors in U.S. Attorneys' Offices around the country and 20 additional Internet Crimes Against Children task forces.

I ask unanimous consent that the following passages from the Justice Department's report Project Safe Childhood be printed in the Record.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, we are going to have an opportunity very shortly to do something historic; that is, to begin consideration of a process by which we can either eliminate or substantially reduce the impact of this most unfair tax of all, the estate tax, on small businesses, on family farms, on Americans of all stripes who worry that they will have to pay up to half of what they have put into their life savings, their business, their farm, to the Government in an estate tax.

It has been found by Gallup surveys and others that the American people believe this is the most unfair tax and by percentages, 60 to 70 percent agree that it should be eliminated. To some extent there has been an argument that I have to address because it is a straw man. That argument is that this is all about helping the most wealthy families. That is not correct. Here is why. What we have proposed is that immediately upon going to the House bill, there be a cloture vote on that bill which, frankly, I think all would agree, is doubtful of passing. That is to say that there aren't 60 votes in this Chamber to permanently repeal the estate tax. That is what the Senator from Illinois was talking about. We all know that.

As a result, the majority leader has made an absolute commitment--and I reaffirm it--that immediately following that vote, the majority leader would lay down a substitute, a compromise, if you will, that provides that the estate tax will be substantially modified but not repealed. It will be modified in a way that will help those who, because land values have been increasing or because they put all of their money into a small business, would be either required to pay substantial amounts of money to plan for the potential of paying the estate tax, paying lawyers and accountants and buying insurance and the like, would be responsible for a substantial estate tax bill, it would give them relief from that obligation, but it would still say that the wealthiest families, the Warren Buffetts and others mentioned a moment ago, would still have to pay a substantial amount of estate tax.

The specific proposal that will be offered provides that there will be $5 million exempted and that that would be indexed to inflation and that after that, the capital gains rate would be the rate that would apply to estates that would be taxed. But when you get to the superrich the Senator from Illinois referred to, those with a $30 million estate who would probably qualify in that category, anything above that amount would be taxed at a 30 percent rate which would bring in, obviously, a substantial amount of revenue given the wealth of some of those estates. We are not here debating whether it is going to be either all or nothing, a permanent repeal of the estate tax or the status quo. What we are talking about is going to a process by which we consider a compromise which will, in fact, tax the most wealthy but will allow those small businesses and farms the opportunity to continue their existence.

It is interesting that there is a suggestion that this somehow wouldn't

help the small business or the family farm. Let's quote some actual data. For example, the Senator from Illinois challenged us to show one farm that had to sell property in order to pay the estate tax. Here is one, Sam and Ann Payne in Georgia, not too far north of Atlanta. The farm had been in their family since the early 1800s. When their father died in 1968, they had their first experience with the death tax. But then Sam's mother was still alive and it was manageable. When she died 6 years ago, they had to pay close to $400,000 in estate tax. Their land had increased in value. So in order to pay that tax, they had to sell part of their farm to local developers, including an airport. Here is what Sam Payne said:

At a certain point, you sell off too much land and your

farm gets so small that you are not a viable agricultural

unit, making it difficult to turn a profit.

There are many other examples. Here is what the American Farm Bureau said in a survey. They surveyed their members and nearly 20 percent of the farmers responded to a survey that said that they had to pay Federal estate taxes in the previous 5 years; 44 percent said they would have to mortgage the farm to pay the death tax; 28 percent said that all or part of the farm's business would have to be sold; 39 percent said that any plans for growth would have to be delayed or canceled.

Here is a pernicious aspect of this. A lot of people spend a fortune trying to avoid the tax: 77 percent of farmers reported that they had to spend money each year on estate planning; 40 percent said that they paid more than $10,000 a year; 13 percent more than $25,000 a year; 5 percent pay more than $100,000 a year. That is a real impact, the same kind of impact on small business. We can provide examples. I gave an example yesterday.

Minority businesses are the most hard hit. Here is what Robert Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment TV, had to say:

Elimination of the estate tax will help close the wealth

gap in this nation between African-American families and

white families.

A 2004 study by Impacto Group LLC surveyed Hispanic family-owned business owners; 20 percent of Hispanic family business owners said they would have to sell their business or property in order to pay the estate tax. Only about half of the respondents believe that they are prepared to deal with the death taxes if the principal owner dies.

Surveys conducted by the Family Enterprise Center of Kennesaw State College and the Center for Family Business at Loyola University found that 90 percent of black-owned, family firms say that paying estate taxes makes growth of the business more difficult; 87 percent say paying the estate tax makes the survival of the business more difficult. Nobody who has run a small business or family farm or has accumulated wealth, perhaps simply by the growth in the value of real estate, will argue that this is not a matter of concern to them.

As the Wall Street Journal editorialized today, even the people who appreciate the fact that it won't apply to them favor repeal. I will quote from the editorial:

Americans favor repealing the death tax not because they

think it will help them directly. They're more principled

than that. Two-thirds of the public wants to repeal it

because they think taxing a lifetime of thrift due to the

accident of death is unfair and even immoral. They also

understand that the really rich won't pay the tax anyway

because they hire lawyers to avoid it.

That is the point of the argument we heard a moment ago.

I ask unanimous consent to print the editorial in the Record.

A lot of the superrich don't care. That is true. There are certain people I will not name, but they have been named, who support continuation of the tax. They have the wealth to be able to get around it with estate planning and to buy the insurance. You heard me quote from minority business owners and farmers who say they cannot afford to pay the cost of that insurance and the estate planning.

Of all of the groups, there is only one that opposes what we are trying to do, and that is the insurance industry. Why not? They make money off of it. If we are talking about special interest legislation, let's understand that the special interests we are trying to protect here are the family-owned businesses, the family farms, the minority businesses; and the special interests that are fighting us are the big insurance companies and the estate planners that make millions of dollars every year.

Alicia Munnell, who was a member of the Clinton administration, has said that the American people pay each year about the same amount to plan against paying the estate tax as the Federal Government collects in revenues from the estate tax. So in effect it is a double tax. Sure, the superwealthy don't care because they have enough money to plan against that. What we are going to do in this proposed compromise is make sure that they pay, but that the people who get caught simply because of the increased value of their property or business will not have to pay.

I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article by Harvey Rosen from the Market Watch, dated June 8, which makes the point that the American people will benefit when we reduce the rates on the estate tax because it enables capital formation by entrepreneurs and that the economy is better off as a result of the reduction of these rates.

He concludes that ``any estate tax big enough to collect substantial revenue is also big enough to have a substantial negative effect on saving and the economy. Reducing the rate will benefit the economy.''

The bottom line is this: We are going to have an opportunity to vote yes on cloture to take up the House repeal bill. For those who believe in full repeal, the next vote would be to support full repeal. Presumably, that won't pass. The next thing that will happen--and the majority leader made this crystal clear, and I reiterate this commitment--is that we will have an opportunity then to vote on the proposal that Senator Baucus and Senator Lincoln and Senators Bill Nelson and Ben Nelson and others of us have been working on to provide a substantial exempted amount--$5 million per spouse--capital gains rate to apply to whatever has to be paid. But when an estate hits $30 million, from then on, it gets hit with a 30-percent rate. That is a fair way to help the people at the lower end of the spectrum and yet collect the revenue from those very wealthy estates which we all agree can pay part of this estate tax.

Yes.

Yes, because of the great work of the Senator from Oklahoma, we have been made aware of that. He has helped to lead the effort to collect this money and save the money the Government is wasting. The Senator knows that we support fully his efforts in that regard and intend to pursue it.

I will conclude my remarks by simply saying that we have an opportunity to do something very historic for an awful lot of folks in this country who deserve the relief. I hope colleagues will give us the opportunity by supporting the cloture motion when that comes up.