Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I honor Mr. Beasor Walker, who has lived a life of great service to our Nation and to my hometown of Tuscaloosa, AL.

Beasor was a celebrated soldier in the Second World War, where he fought in the June 6, 1944, Invasion of Normandy. Despite a wound to his side, Beasor stayed with his unit during the duration of the fight and was promoted to company commander. Wounded again, he returned to his unit a second time in order to fight against the Nazis in the December 1944 Battle of the Bulge. It was during this offensive that he earned the Distinguished Service Cross, two Silver Stars, three Bronze Stars, and two Purple Hearts. After 27 years of distinguished service to the U.S. Army, including time at Fort Jackson, where he trained replacement troops for the Korean War, Beasor retired as a colonel.

A graduate of the University of Alabama, Beasor was elected sheriff of Tuscaloosa County in 1970. He served as sheriff until 1991, and during his lengthy tenure he was able to greatly improve Tuscaloosa County. Beasor is responsible for integrating the Sheriff's Department, streamlining the homicide squads, and extensively working to improve the Alabama Boys' and Girls' Ranch. Beasor has been inducted to both the Alabama Military Hall of Honor and the Alabama Law Enforcement Hall of Fame.

His service to the Nation has been exceptional, and Beasor Walker is more than deserving of this recognition. His sacrifices are appreciated and important to the freedom we enjoy every day. I hope my colleagues will join me in thanking my friend Beasor Walker for his service to our Nation and to the State of Alabama.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following testimony given by Mr. Mallory Factor before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on September 29, 2004, and before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on June 15, 2004, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I honor LTG John R. Vines, the commanding general of the XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg.

General Vines, an outstanding American soldier from Alabama, will soon retire after more than 35 years of selfless service to this great Nation in the U.S. Army. General Vines' dedication to our soldiers, commitment to excellence, and performance of duty has been extraordinary throughout his career. General Vines' lifetime of service culminated in an assignment as the commanding general of the XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, which he has held since 2003.

During his time in uniform, General Vines served in a succession of command and staff positions worldwide. The embodiment of an Army Ranger, General Vines has served all over the world, commanding paratroopers in combat during three separate conflicts. As a battalion commander in the 82nd Airborne Division, General Vines led a combat parachute assault in Operation Just Cause in Panama in 1989 and then led the same soldiers in Operation Desert Shield as the first ground combat unit in the gulf.

Soon after the United States went to war in 2001, General Vines, as commanding general of the 82nd Airborne Division, led his forces into Afghanistan as head of Coalition Task Force 82 and then assumed control of Combined/Joint Task Force 180 in Bagram. From January 2005 until January 2006, General Vines served as the joint forces commander of Multi-National Corps Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom, becoming the first general officer to command forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

LTG John Vines holds a B.S. degree in chemistry from the University of Alabama and an M.A. degree in National Security and Strategy from the Naval War College. His numerous awards and accolades include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal; Distinguished Service Medal; Defense Superior Service Medal, with Oak Leaf Cluster; Bronze Star Medal, with Oak Leaf Cluster; Legion of Merit, with Oak Leaf Cluster; Combat Infantryman Badge; Master Parachutist Badge, with Combat Star and the Ranger Tab.

During his distinguished Army career, General Vines earned a reputation as one of the Department of Defense's most forward-thinking and insightful leaders. Remembered by those who served under his command as both an extraordinary man and leader, General Vines wrote personal condolence letters to the families of each one of his soldiers killed in combat. General John Vines represents the epitome of what Army leaders, soldiers, and the country expect from our military officers. He is a sterling roll model for young soldiers. Well known as the ``Soldiers' General,'' his commitment to the troops he led was unparalleled, even being quoted as saying that success in combat is not about military hardware or technology. ``It boils down to the individual soldiers. It's about having people who have the commitment, the courage, the will, and the warrior values to confront the forces that threaten us. And only so long as we have those men and women who are able and willing to confront this will we be safe.''

His service to the Nation has been exceptional, and General Vines is more than deserving of this recognition. His sacrifices are appreciated and important to the freedom we enjoy every day. I hope my colleagues will join me in thanking LTG John Vines for his commendable service to our Nation and the U.S. Army. I thank his wife Pamela and his sons, Joshua and Jacob, for their steadfast support while he fulfilled this essential duty to our country. I personally wish the Vines' family all the best as they celebrate General Vines' richly deserved retirement.

Mr. President, I rise to engage the distinguished Senators in a colloquy.

Section 702 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 clarifies that written conditions in applications and written agreements with institution-affiliated parties are enforceable in order to protect the safety and soundness of insured depository institutions. Institution affiliated parties can include bank directors, officers and principal shareholders. This provision was included at the request of the regulatory agencies, and we have heard some concerns that the regulatory agencies may use this language to require personal guarantees from bank directors and officers in inappropriate circumstances.

I ask Senator Crapo if he can explain the legislative intent behind Section 702?

Mr. President, today I honor Mr. Jimmy Williamson, who will become the first Alabamian to serve as chairman of the board for the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

This is a tremendous honor, both for Jimmy and for Alabama. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants serves as the national professional association for more than 350,000 certified public accountants. Jimmy's education, experience, and passion for finance make him the best choice to take the helm of the organization.

Jimmy, a past president of the Alabama Society of CPAs, is a senior partner and stockholder in the MDA Professional Group accounting firm where he specializes in profit sharing plans, fringe benefits, nonqualified deferred compensation plans, estate and personal financial planning, business acquisitions, and investment review and analysis. I am also proud to say that Jimmy and I share an interest in fraud prevention and detection, one of the most important financial issues we face today. His professional work and leadership on committees, that are too plentiful to name, make him uniquely qualified and prepared for this position. I am proud to recognize his professional achievements and congratulate him on this important post.

Mr. President, today I honor William ``Bill'' Chandler, a pillar of the Montgomery, AL community. Bill devoted 50 years of his life to developing the YMCA in Montgomery and influencing the lives of thousands of youth.

Bill, known as ``Mr. YMCA'' in Montgomery, was a father figure to many young men and women in need of guidance. Bill believed that civic education and open discussions were important to developing youth into productive citizens. He was instrumental in creating and implementing innumerable youth programs focused on leadership development including the Alabama Youth Legislature, the YMCA Youth Conference on National Affairs, Lions International Youth Camp, and the Hi-Y and Tri-Hi-Y programs. Without a doubt, many of Montgomery's, Alabama's, and the Nation's leaders have been directly influenced by Mr. Chandler and the programs he championed.

Mr. Chandler also proved himself to be an effective leader and businessman as president of the Montgomery YMCA. Under his leadership, Montgomery's single YMCA grew into the multiple branches operating across the city. His commitment to service was also recognized when he was chosen to serve as the president of Lion's Club International.

Mr. Chandler also served as an important leader in Alabama throughout times of racial tension in Montgomery and the State. He worked to open facilities in all parts of the Montgomery community to serve people from all walks of life and was at the forefront of providing integrated services. In 1983, when racial discord was near its boiling point in Montgomery, Mr. Chandler worked with community and civil rights leaders to develop the biracial Youth One Montgomery organization to allow Black and White youth to conduct an open dialog and better understand the issues surrounding race.

Bill Chandler, a graduate of Rice University and the University of Georgia, served with distinction as an officer in the U.S. Navy during World War II. An accomplished athlete himself, Bill was also responsible for the creation of a city sports league and the Jimmy Hitchcock award to honor character in high school athletes.

Bill was an inspiration to many, and I am truly grateful for the endless contributions he made to the youth in Alabama. He was preceded in death by his wife, Martha Spidle Chandler and will be missed by his three children, Carroll Chandler Phelps, Elizabeth Chandler Walston, and William Robert Chandler; his seven grandchildren; and his sister, Evelyn Chandler Berg. His dedication to community service will be remembered and shared by those whose lives he touched for generations to come.

Mr. President, today I honor June Collier Fletcher, one of Alabama's most influential women, who died on September 9, 2006. She rose from a meager upbringing to become the president and CEO of National Industries, Inc. Once the largest private employer in Montgomery, June built National Industries from the ground up to become a major automotive supplier employing 5,000 Alabamians.

June's drive and ambition allowed her to become a leader in an industry dominated by men. Under her guidance and leadership, National Industries became a flourishing $130 million-a-year electrical connection business.

Over the years, June was recognized for her hard work, dedication, and expertise and received numerous awards and accolades. She served as a member of the Commerce Department's prestigious Industrial Policy Advisory Committee, testified before Congress on automotive issues, and was a sought-after speaker on the subject of international trade. June received the Industry Week Excellence in Management Award and was selected to the Committee of 200, an organization of the top 200 women business leaders in America.

In addition to her work in the automotive industry, she was also active in petroleum exploration and production, farming, and garment manufacturing. In the 1980s, June's company was awarded a government contract to produce chemical warfare protective clothing which was used during the first gulf war.

June was an inspiration to many and I am truly grateful for the endless contributions she made to Alabama and our Nation. She will be missed by her husband Tim Fletcher; her five children, Kara Davis, Ondi Cain, Roessler Collier, Arin Burroughs, Kohler Collier; her stepchildren, Tom Fletcher, Jr., Carrie Fletcher; her 12 grandchildren and 2 great-grandchildren. She will also be missed by her many friends and the numerous people she worked with whose lives she touched throughout her magnificent journey.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer the amendment that has just been referenced on behalf of myself and Senator Sarbanes to the Port Security Improvement Act of 2006. This amendment is virtually identical to the Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act that the Banking Committee unanimously reported in November of 2005. In fact, the Senate passed an almost identical bill in the 108th Congress. I am hopeful that as we consider port security today, we can include this critically important legislation designed to help address the security vulnerabilities of our Nation's public transportation system.

The national dialog has appropriately been focused on aviation post- 9/11, and this week port security is at the top of this agenda here in the Senate. In addition to these key areas, I believe it is imperative that we make transit security a priority, too. We know full well from the occurrences in Great Britain, India, and Spain that our buses, our subways, and rail systems across the country are attractive targets for terrorist attacks. The Public Transportation Terrorism Act before us now is an appropriate first step to address widespread needs, and it paves the way toward making transit safer for the traveling public.

The language in this amendment was carefully crafted and is a result of several hearings on this topic, review of two comprehensive studies by the American Public Transportation Association and the Government Accountability Office, and negotiations with key industry leaders. This amendment authorizes $3.5 billion in capital investment grants, operation security assistance, and research. While this is short of the $6 billion worth of needs identified by the industry, it is an important and necessary first step.

I thank those who have worked hard over the course of several years to produce a sound piece of legislation that will result in safer public transportation systems, particularly my colleague on the Banking Committee and former chairman, Senator Sarbanes, as well as the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, Senators Allard and Jack Reed. I also thank Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye with the Commerce Committee for their steadfast support in this effort. In addition, I thank Chairman Collins and Senator Lieberman with the Homeland Security Committee.

I ask unanimous consent that Senators Allard, Bennett, Schumer, and Boxer be added as cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. President, at the proper time I will urge adoption of the amendment, but I think Senator Sarbanes wishes to speak.

I urge adoption of the amendment if there is no further debate.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we temporarily set aside the Leahy-Bond amendment for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an amendment I have filed regarding the Air Force's KC-135 Tanker Replacement Program.

Like my colleagues in the Senate, one of my top priorities is to keep our Nation safe. I am working to ensure that our servicemembers have the best equipment possible.

Our Air Force has a fleet of aging refueling tankers that are currently experiencing problems. I simply do not believe we can wait 35 years to replace them.

While I understand the fiscal constraints the Defense Subcommittee was under, I believe that the KC-X, the airframe that will replace our nearly 40-year-old fleet of KC-135 tankers, is vital to our national security and to the success of our servicemembers fighting abroad.

This acquisition effort is likely one of the most important ones we will execute for many years to come. Whether the objective is to respond to military aggression or to provide humanitarian relief, the combination of distance and time can pose a significant challenge. When we need to respond quickly and in force, tankers allow us to project globally.

With our current military commitments abroad, our national security has become dependent upon the tanker force. It is the way we deter, deploy, and fight. We cannot achieve our decisive range capabilities without the air refuelers.

The Air Force's current schedule is to award a contract for the new KC-X aircraft in 2007. However, that award could be indefinitely postponed if funding is not restored in the 2007 Defense appropriations bill.

While I have filed an amendment, I do not plan to call it up because, as a member of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, I understand the problem between the authorizers and the appropriators who may be receiving different information regarding the necessity for funding in fiscal year 2007. I have a letter from the Air Force Deputy for Budget, dated August 2, 2006, stating that the Air Force needs a minimum of $70 million in research and development, test and evaluation funds for the year 2007, in addition to the funds remaining in the tanker transfer fund. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

I also want to make certain that both the Armed Services Committee and the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations are receiving identical funding information from the Air Force. To that end, I am committed to working with my colleagues to ensure that we are all receiving the same information and have the same understanding of the needs of the program to move forward at this time.

The Tanker Replacement Program is vital to ensuring that our Armed Forces have the most reliable and effective equipment in the world. In a year when the Senate's Defense appropriations bill has been cut $9 billion, I appreciate the difficult funding choices that must be made. As a member of the committee, we have to make those choices. However, as our military aircraft become fewer in number and have to serve longer than those they replace, we cannot afford to take a misstep at the outset of this acquisition program. We must adequately fund the Tanker Replacement Program to ensure our servicemembers have the necessary equipment to successfully defend our Nation.

I appreciate Chairman Stevens' continuing assistance with this program, as well as Senator McCain's longstanding interest, and look forward to working with both of them in the coming months to ensure that we can move forward and replace our aging tanker fleet. A lot of those planes are over 40 years old.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the subject of the Air Force's KC-135 Tanker Replacement Program. Like my colleagues, one of my top priorities is to keep our Nation safe, and I am working to ensure that our servicemembers have the best equipment possible. Our Air Force has a fleet of aging refueling tankers that are currently experiencing problems. I simply do not believe we can wait 35 years to replace them.

Mr. President, as we move towards conference on the fiscal year 2007 Defense appropriations and authorization bills, it has come to my attention that the authorizers and appropriators may be receiving differing information regarding the necessity for funding in fiscal year 2007. I have a letter from the Air Force's Deputy for Budget dated August 2, 2006, stating that the Air Force needs a minimum of $70 million in research, development, test & evaluation funds for fiscal year 2007 in addition to the funds remaining in the tanker transfer fund. I want to make certain that both the Armed Services Committee and Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations are receiving identical funding information from the Air Force. To that end, I am committed to working with my colleagues to ensure that we are all receiving the same information and have the same understanding of the needs for this program to move forward.

Further, Mr. President, while I understand that the subcommittee's recommendation to reduce funding was based upon their belief that there are sufficient funds remaining in fiscal year 2005 and 2006 to support systems development and demonstration, the Air Force has stated that they would need at least $70 million in fiscal year 2007 to move forward and award a contract in 2007. I greatly appreciate Chairman Stevens' assistance with this program and look forward to continuing to work with him to replace our aging tanker fleet.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleagues from Alaska and Arizona.

vaccine health care centers

Ten minutes. I will try to do it in less.

Mr. President, at this point I rise to discuss the legislation currently before the Senate, S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy bill. I am an original cosponsor of this bill and strongly support its passage.

Over the last few years, we have seen drastic increases in the prices of crude oil and natural gas. While demand for these products in our country continues to grow, the domestic supply of these commodities remains stagnant at best. This lack of domestic productivity and the volatility of the global energy market are causing the everyday lives of Alabamians and people all across this Nation to become increasingly difficult.

I have no doubt that my colleagues have heard the same stories that I have heard from my constituents in Alabama--that they are having trouble making ends meet because of the prices at the pump. They tell me they cannot afford to commute to and from work, pay their monthly bills--particularly with record high temperatures--or run their small businesses.

These are not luxury costs. These are the basic costs of everyday life. Alabamians have asked that the Congress do something to alleviate the burden of rising energy prices, just as constituents have all over America. While the Gulf of Mexico energy bill will not immediately lower gas prices, it will take a significant step forward in addressing many of the problems that cause rising prices. Whether short or long- term effect, one thing is abundantly clear: The status quo is unacceptable. More importantly is the fact that because we have neglected to tap domestic resources that are currently available to us, we are forced to purchase energy sources from foreign nations that are often hostile to U.S. interests. Economic security is the underpinning of national security. Energy independence, as I have said many times, is vital to economic stability.

To achieve a higher level of energy independence, we must increase domestic capacity and production. While no single solution will immediately solve our current problem, there are immediate steps we can and must take toward that end. I believe the legislation before us, crafted by Senator Domenici, myself and other Senators, represents a critical step in that direction.

According to the Minerals Management Service, MMS, S. 3711 would open more than 8.3 million acres on the Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas leasing. MMS estimates these 8.3 million acres contain at least 1.26 billion barrels of oil and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, perhaps more. Tapping these resources would reduce the cost of energy nationwide and serve to move us further down the path of energy independence as we continue to explore and develop new sources of energy.

For Gulf States--and my State of Alabama is one--that choose to allow drilling off their coast, the legislation also contains a long overdue revenuesharing mechanism. Gulf States allowing oil and gas production off their shorelines will receive 37.5 percent of revenues from new leases. In addition, 12.5 percent of the revenues will go to the stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund for the acquisition of parks and recreation facilities across the Nation. The remaining 50 percent will flow into the coffers of the Federal Treasury.

Some in this Chamber will surely object to the provisions of S. 3711. They will say that the legislation diverts needed revenue from the Federal Treasury and bestows upon gulf producing States a financial windfall. It is important to point out that CBO estimates this legislation will produce nearly $1 billion in new and unexpected revenue for the Federal Treasury over the next 10 years. In my view, assertions that the gulf producing States should not receive a share of these revenues assumes that those States have done and sacrificed nothing to deserve a share of the revenues. For too long the gulf producing States have borne the brunt of our Nation's domestic energy needs while receiving virtually nothing in return.

I would also point out that 37.5 percent is less than the 50 percent currently provided to States with onshore production. And I would dare to guess that the impact to our coasts is as significant as any impact from onshore drilling. I would also reiterate that the bill provides 12.5 percent of the stateside LWCF which will be made available to all 50 States. The Gulf States portion will ensure that the States of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas are compensated for the decades of oil and gas exploration and production that has taken place off their coasts, the impact the production has had on our coastal areas and the billions of dollars this production has brought into the Federal Treasury.

The legislation clearly lays out a formula that compensates the States according to their proximity to drilling as well as their historic production and does so while positively impacting the budget. The legislation also ensures that the coastal counties and parishes that are impacted the most have a dedicated funding source to address the needs of their communities.

This agreement also represents a commitment by the gulf producing States to continue energy exploration and production off their coasts. This commitment contributes to the energy independence of the Nation. It is time that the gulf producing States were rewarded for their contributions and sacrifices. And while it is difficult to estimate what this will mean in the way of revenues over the next 60 years, there is no doubt it will be a great resource to the Nation and provide substantial revenues to Federal and State treasuries.

I have no doubt this legislation will provide billions of dollars to Alabama and its producing partners in the Gulf of Mexico. These funds will be available to our State and local coastal governments to address the problems that come with drilling production and its required infrastructure. It will ensure we can begin to reverse the coastal erosion and begin barrier island restoration that will protect our States from the all-too-familiar hurricanes. These funds will allow Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and Louisiana to enhance their

fisheries and coastal infrastructure and put hurricane mitigation programs in place to help us better prepare for the storms of the future.

The sponsors of this legislation have also worked closely with the State of Florida to address the longstanding concerns of the State regarding offshore drilling on their coast. Specifically, the legislation includes a 125-mile moratorium on drilling off the coast of Florida until the year 2022. I strongly believe all revenues leading to U.S. energy independence should be aggressively pursued. We should continue to develop alternative sources of energy. We should promote energy efficiency. We should encourage refinery capacity expansion, and we certainly should continue to explore and develop resources that are currently available to us. We recognize that some of these options will take time to affect our current crisis. Others, however, remain current capabilities.

S. 3711 provides that leasing must commence in a substantial portion of the 8.3 million acres within at least 1 year of enactment. It says that leasing must occur in the remainder of the 8.3 million acres as soon as practicable. In the context of Federal energy policy, these are tangible measures that would have a considerable and direct effect in the short term on consumers and businesses and on the Nation's economy as a whole.

In closing, this legislation is the product of careful coordination among affected States on behalf of the needs of the entire country. It makes much needed contributions to the Nation's energy supply and compensates participating States justly. At the same time it accommodates the concerns of those who do not want oil and gas production to occur off their shorelines, and it provides a mitigating mechanism for States that elect to participate. The American people rightly expect their elected representatives to act on their behalf to stem the escalation of our current energy crisis. While this measure alone is not sufficient to solve our energy crisis, it is absolutely a necessary component of the overall solution.

I urge my colleagues' strong support for this crucial legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 474, S. 3549.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the antiflag desecration resolution that is before the Senate this afternoon.

Mr. President, 229 years ago this month, the Continental Congress adopted a resolution giving the United States a flag, the stars and stripes, the American flag that we know today. There is no greater symbol of our freedom and our liberty.

The stars and stripes epitomize the underpinnings of the United States, that which was envisioned and created by the Founders of this great Nation, solidified by the Framers of the Constitution, and represented at that first Continental Congress.

Old Glory was raised at Iwo Jima, was placed on the Moon, and drapes the coffin of every servicemember who has sacrificed his life for our Nation. Our flag is emblematic of liberty and democracy. It honors all those who have defended our Nation from enemies at home and abroad, and all those who carried it into battle and never returned.

Yet there are some throughout this country who have chosen to express their views and opinions by defacing and even burning the flag. They believe the flag is simply a piece of fabric upon which stars and stripes have been sewn. They refuse to respect and revere the flag as a true monument to the freedoms and ideals of our great Nation. These notions were bolstered by a 1989 Supreme Court decision that protected the desecration of the flag.

Throughout the history of our Nation, the flag has been protected by laws. In fact, before the Supreme Court decision in 1989, 48 States and the District of Columbia had laws regulating the physical misuse of the American flag. Even today, a majority of Americans continue to believe the flag should be protected, that the Court was basically wrong in their decision.

It is that strong support and my firm belief that we must protect the flag that has sent me here today to advocate for this resolution. While some

have argued we should simply accept court interpretations of first amendment issues as final, irreversible truths, I disagree. Our system of government is based upon checks and balances and allows for legislative reactions to judicial decisions.

While rarely invoked, amending the Constitution is a reasonable reaction to a controversial and clearly wrongheaded court decision. The American system of government provided for amendments, and there are some issues that deserve that attention. I believe protecting the flag is one.

In debating this issue, we must look beyond burning the flag and protecting one's freedom of expression. This issue must be considered in a broader context. We must remember that this issue is about respecting the single unifying symbol of this great democracy, the American flag.

Defacing the U.S. Capitol or the Washington Monument would never be considered legitimate acts of free speech. The flag should be entitled to the same considerations. The flag is a national treasure, a monument, even, and like other national treasures, it deserves to be protected and respected.

Our flag is a unique national symbol that represents common values, shared aspirations, and the sacrifices of millions of Americans. The argument is not about legitimate free speech, in my judgment, but, rather, the extent to which free people must tolerate offensive acts. While some will say that a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning unduly inhibits free speech, I respectfully disagree.

Let me be clear. It will not diminish the Bill of Rights, in my judgment, to allow Congress to define and enforce a law which protects the American flag much like other national treasures are protected. To desecrate the American flag, in my judgment, is to desecrate the memory of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have sacrificed their lives to keep our flag flying. It is to destroy everything this country represents.

There are some things that just need to be treated with respect and reverence for no other reason than to honor all those who have served and died for this country.

When we look at our flag, I believe we should see more than a piece of fabric colored red, white, and blue. We should see our Nation and all that it symbolizes. Our Armed Forces put their lives on the line daily to defend what Old Glory represents. We have a duty and a responsibility to honor their sacrifices by giving the flag the constitutional protection it deserves.

At this time, before I yield the floor, I thank Senator Hatch for all of his work in this regard and also for yielding me time.

Mr. President, today, I wish to honor the life of Jean Sullivan, who was instrumental in making the Alabama Republican Party what it is today. Jean gracefully represented Alabama for 20 years while serving as a powerful force on the Republican National Committee. She was a close personal friend of mine, and I deeply respected her.

Long before Alabama became a red State on the national election map, Jean was fighting to gain popularity for the party she so adamantly supported. She worked on the forefront of molding what the Republican Party would mean for Alabama. Her efforts in promoting and electing Republican candidates are undeniable. She was outspoken and unafraid to fight for what she believed. Her energy will be missed in our State.

Jean was hard-working, energetic, and a true Republican icon. I am proud of her efforts, and I am grateful for her endless dedication to Alabama politics. I know she will be missed not only by her three sons, Kent, Arthur, and Jim Sullivan, her two daughters, Teresa Collins and Connie McAfee, and her many friends, but also by the many people she worked with and inspired in Alabama politics.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the issue of religious freedom. The freedom to believe and worship how one chooses is essential. However, as we strive for greater religious freedom and tolerance throughout the world, we have witnessed activist judges chip away at our own religious freedoms. These activist judges have worked diligently to restrict our rights to express our religious beliefs under the guise of separation of church and state.

Many of the court decisions that have broadened Americans' first amendment right to free speech, overreach. In an effort to promote tolerance, religious expression is in fact, being censored.

Our Founding Fathers proclaimed liberty to be an unalienable right bestowed by our Creator--``We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness . . .'' Yet unelected, activist judges are rewriting history. They have decided that, in fact, the Founding Fathers did not intend for there to be freedom of religious expression but, rather, freedom from religious expression.

Thirty years of public opinion polls have shown that more than 75 percent of Americans support a constitutional amendment to protect voluntary school prayer. However, the Supreme Court has said such an act violates the constitutional separation of church and state--again, another act that forces freedom from religious expression rather than freedom of religious expression.

It is not simply this decision but a growing and disturbing trend in our Federal courts to deny the rights of our States and our citizens to acknowledge God openly and freely. In fact, reciting the words ``one Nation under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance has been ruled unconstitutional as has displaying the Ten Commandments in a State building in my home State of Alabama. These tortured legal decisions distort our Constitution, our Nation's history and its tradition in an effort to secularize our system of government and divest morality from our rule of law.

We simply cannot divest God from our country. Our country has no foundation without a basic recognition that God invests us at birth with basic individual rights that we all enjoy as Americans. In fact, our Government and our laws are based on Judeo-Christian values and a recognition of God as our Creator.

Our motto is ``In God We Trust.'' It is enshrined on our currency.

Our national anthem recognizes our motto as ``In God is Our Trust.''

As Federal officials, each of us has taken an oath of office. The President takes a similar one. State and local officials and our military personnel all swear a similar oath. Jurors and witnesses in our State and Federal courts take an oath as do witnesses before Congress. We all swear to uphold the Constitution or tell the truth, ``so help me God.''

Our courts, including the Supreme Court, recognize God in their official proceedings, both the House and Senate acknowledge God through an opening prayer every morning. Our public buildings and monuments honor this heritage through various depictions of the basic moral foundations of our laws and system of government.

My point is that you simply cannot divest God from our country. Despite the actions of these activist judges, our country has no foundation without a basic recognition that God invests us at birth with basic individual rights--such as the blessings of liberty--that we all enjoy as Americans.

Again, I believe that the courts have exceeded their power. They have overreached. To that end, I have introduced the Constitution Restoration Act. This legislation recognizes the rights of the States and the people as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution--9th and 10th amendments--to acknowledge God.

The Constitution Restoration Act goes to the very foundation of our country and the legitimacy of our system of government. Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural address said that ``The wisdom of our sages and the blood of our heros have been devoted to [the] attainment'' of our liberty and form of government.

If we are to maintain our form of government, we must ensure that activist judges are not permitted to take away our religious liberties. The very foundation of our government cannot and should not be expunged from public view--an unelected Federal judiciary should not be allowed to outlaw all public acknowledgments of God. We must protect our very basic freedom of religious expression.

Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to work with me to protect this basic freedom by supporting the Constitution Restoration Act.

Would the Senator from Iowa let me speak for 2 or 3 minutes as in morning business?

I support the nominee. There is no objection by Senator Dorgan.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.