Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I honor those who lost their lives as well as those who survived Colorado's Big Thompson Flood of 1976.

Thirty years ago, more than 1 foot of rain fell in a matter of hours, causing a flash flood in Big Thompson Canyon. One hundred and forty- four people were killed, and over $30 million in property damage occurred. We remember those who died in this natural disaster and also the survivors who had to rebuild their lives, working as a community to start over again. Next week, outside of my hometown of Loveland, CO, survivors of this tragedy will gather to commemorate the Big Thompson Flood. Though I cannot be with them in this ceremony, my thoughts and prayers are with them, and I speak on the Senate floor today as a tribute to this special event.

I ask that the following letter, which I wrote for the commemoration ceremony of the Big Thompson Canyon Flood of 1976, be printed in the Record.

The material follows:

July 31, 2006.

Dear Families and Friends of the Victims of the 1976 Big

Thompson Canyon Flood: I very much wanted to join you today

as you gather to remember the 30th Anniversary of one of

Colorado's worst natural disasters.

As we look back thirty years, we recall the shock and

devastation that took place in this canyon. Joan, myself and

our two daughters, who were very young children at the time,

will never forget the Big Thompson Flood and the days that

followed. We arrived at home just after the flood tore

through the canyon and towards Loveland. We were overwhelmed

by the destruction we saw as we later viewed the damage.

A number of our friends and clients who lived in the canyon

were ravaged by the flash flood and brought their animals to

my hospital for care. As the Loveland city health officer at

that time, I also remember well the many health issues we

faced together as a community. The memories will remain

forever with each one of us who experienced this flood or

witnessed its devastating effect on so many lives.

Today, we can see the positive results of the communities

in the canyon working together to rebuild their lives and

their property. Joan's and my thoughts are with you today as

we remember the people who lost their lives and the ones who

survived and rebuilt.

Today I am entering this letter in the Congressional Record

as a tribute to the living and non-living victims of this

natural disaster.

Sincerely,

Wayne Allard,

U.S. Senator.

Mr. President, it is my pleasure to rise in support of Neil M. Gorsuch, President Bush's nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Mr. Gorsuch is an extraordinarily well qualified nominee. I begin by thanking Chairman Specter for swiftly and unanimously reporting this nominee out of committee. I also thank Majority Leader Frist for bringing this nomination to the floor for timely consideration.

As a fifth-generation Coloradan, I am pleased that President Bush chose a nominee with deep Colorado roots. Born in Denver, Mr. Gorsuch is a fourth-generation Coloradan who, if confirmed, would carry on his family history of public service to the State of Colorado. In fact, some may recognize Mr. Gorsuch from his service as a Senate page in the early 1980s. It was in the Senate he made his foray into public service and developed a passion for it that he exudes today.

If I were asked to succinctly characterize Mr. Gorsuch, I would have to say well rounded--well rounded educationally, professionally, and personally.

Mr. Gorsuch pursued a rigorous and geographically diverse course of academic study. He earned his undergraduate degree from Columbia University, including a summer at the University of Colorado; his law degree from Harvard; and a doctorate in legal philosophy from Oxford University.

Mr. Gorsuch began his distinguished professional career as a law clerk to Judge David Sentelle on the U.S. Court of Appeals to the DC Circuit. He then went on to clerk for two Supreme Court Justices, Justice Kennedy and Colorado's own Byron White. Following his prestigious clerkships, Mr. Gorsuch entered private practice. While in private practice, Mr. Gorsuch litigated matters for clients large and small, ranging from individuals to nonprofits to corporations. Moreover, he litigated cases on a range of issues from simple contract disputes to complex antitrust and securities fraud matters. He left private practice in 2005 to return to public service, this time at the U.S. Department of Justice where he currently serves as the principal deputy to the Associate Attorney General.

Looking collectively at his career, the picture of an appellate judge in training emerges. Mr. Gorsuch has served in all three branches of Government, including the highest levels of the judicial and executive branches. He has represented both plaintiffs and defendants. He has represented both individuals and corporations. He has litigated civil cases and criminal cases. He has litigated in both Federal and State courts. In sum, the breadth and depth of Mr. Gorsuch's experience makes him ideally suited to serve on the Federal appellate bench.

While Mr. Gorsuch is highly qualified, I also promised the people of Colorado I would support judicial nominees who would rule on the law and the facts before them, not judges who would legislate from the bench. My support for Mr. Gorsuch today is consistent with that promise. From my conversations with Mr. Gorsuch, I am certain he recognizes the proper role of the judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to interpret the law, not make the law. I believe Mr. Gorsuch is temperamentally and intellectually inclined to stick to the facts and the law in cases that would come before him and that he would refrain from legislating from the bench.

Moreover, Mr. Gorsuch's personal views would not determine the course of cases that come before him. Mr. Gorsuch himself says:

Personal politics or policy preferences have no useful role

in judging; regular and healthy doses of self-skepticism and

humility about one's only abilities and conclusions always

do.

I believe this statement also speaks to Mr. Gorsuch as a person. He is humble, unassuming, polite, and respectful. This sentiment is reflected in numerous letters pouring into my office from people of all political persuasions who have worked with him over the years. Mr. Gorsuch possesses the temperament befitting an appellate judge.

In conclusion, Mr. Gorsuch is a topflight nominee whom I am proud to introduce to my colleagues today. I urge my colleagues to support his confirmation.

Mr. President, may I inquire about the regular order?

Mr. President, I rise today deeply disturbed after watching the situation in Israel continuing to escalate over the last few days. Israel, over the last 3 years, has acted in a responsible manner and done everything possible, in my view, to reach out to those who desire peace. Unfortunately, there remain those who continue to disregard the Israeli State and refuse to recognize its legitimacy.

Sadly, these terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah remain committed to their ideology of hatred toward the Jewish people and appear determined to try to bring an end to the State of Israel. As such, I strongly support Israel's response to the unprovoked kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers and the unprecedented rocket bombardment of northern Israel.

The current Israeli action is justified. Action is necessary to stop those who are responsible for these despicable acts of terror. The attempts to defend Israel and rescue its captured soldiers with airstrikes and incursions by Israeli forces are not only appropriate but are absolutely necessary to protect Israeli citizens from future terrorist attacks.

Ultimately, I believe outside actors, such as Syria and Iran, which continue to support terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah are the main culprits. These nations have done nothing to promote peace in the region. I believe the United States and the community of nations should put these nations on notice that their support for terrorism is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

President Bush has likewise called out Syria and Iran for their support of Hezbollah by stating:

The one way to help heal the Middle East is to address the

root causes of the problems there, and the root cause of the

problem is Hezbollah and Syria and the Iranian connection.

No one doubts that with the support these nations provide to Hezbollah they could bring an end to the hostilities in the region. Instead, they would rather Hezbollah continue to use innocent citizens as shields while the terrorist organization conducts attacks against a sovereign nation. They need to abide by the already passed United Nations resolution and end support for Hezbollah.

That is why I rise in support of S. Res. 534 condemning Hezbollah and their sponsors, and I also ask to be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, our ally, Israel, is entitled to the defense of its land. We as a body should again recognize this act and support Israel's right to self-defense while calling for the Syrians and the Iranians to take responsibility for these open hostilities. They must help immediately to withdraw all terrorist forces from Lebanon and end their support for Hezbollah's action against our allies. We also must ensure that the U.N. Security Council enforces the full implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559, which in 2004 called for disarming Hezbollah and the removal of all foreign forces from Lebanon. We must use all of the tools at our disposal to discontinue the financial, military, and political support Hezbollah and Hamas receive from these state sponsors of terror.

Of course, during this crisis I would be remiss if I did not mention my grave concern about the loss of innocent life in Israel, Lebanon, and Gaza. During the past week, Hezbollah has continued to fire rockets and mortars into civilian areas, killing multiple Israelis, among others. As much as I believe it is imperative that the United States stand behind Israel in its time of need, we also must provide assistance to those who have been hurt because of this conflict.

It is my strong belief that the United States should do everything in its power to assure Israel's right to exist and right to protect its borders. Israel must be allowed to live without fear within those borders. It is my hope that this conflict will be resolved peacefully in the coming days. The people of Israel have not asked for more than that, and I believe they certainly deserve as much.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have in my hand a report that has been released about 12 or so minutes ago. It is a report on the fiscal year 2007 midsession review. It is on the budget of the U.S. Government, put out by the Office of Management and Budget. It says pretty much what the Congressional Budget Office has been telling us for the last 30 days: That our tax cuts are working, the economy is strong, revenues are up, and deficits are down. Let me talk a little bit about the tax cuts and how they are bringing in additional revenues.

The Republican progrowth tax policies enacted in 2003 have triggered 2\1/2\ years of economic growth, unprecedented tax revenue increases and job creation. Since the 2003 tax cuts, America has increased the size of its entire economy by 20 percent or $2.2 trillion.

A remarkable observation was made by CNBC's Larry Kudlow over the weekend, which I think helps to put this in perspective:

This $2.2 trillion expansion is roughly the same size as

the total Chinese economy, and much larger than the total

economic size of nations like India, Mexico, Ireland, and

Belgium.

Pursuant to the extraordinary economic growth spawned by the 2003 tax cuts, Federal revenues have rebounded sharply following several years of decline. I would attribute most of this to the fact that we targeted reducing taxes on those industries that would create more jobs and create more revenue for the Government, particularly the small business sector. I think one of the greatest incentives for the economy to grow has been the expensing provisions that we directed toward small business which allowed the small business to write off a greater percent of their operations within 1 year. It was a huge tax benefit to small business which has resulted in a lot of increase in the number of jobs and a lot more productivity and innovation from the small business sector. It is the small business sector that drives the major portion of our economy.

Revenues grew by a dramatic 14.5 percent last year and are forecast this year to grow by $245 billion or 11.4 percent.

Last week, the Congressional Budget Office reported corporate tax receipts for the first three quarters of this fiscal year hit $250 billion, nearly 26 percent higher than the same time last year. Corporate tax receipts, the taxes that corporations are paying, increased nearly 26 percent higher than the same time last year. The deficit is down. The expanding economy is good news for the budget, specifically the budget deficit.

This morning, the White House Office of Management and Budget released its annual midyear budget update. This year's budget deficit is now forecast to be $296 billion, 30 percent below the administration's February forecast of $423 billion, or 3.2 percent of gross domestic product. This deficit represents 2.3 percent of our economy, equal to the historical average. Progrowth policies, combined with ongoing efforts to restrain spending, continue to reduce the deficit and have put us on track to cut the deficit in half in 2008, a year ahead of the President's goal.

Jobs are growing. Last Friday, the Department of Labor reported that job growth continued for the 34th consecutive month in June. The economy has created about 1.85 million jobs over the past 12 months and more than 5.4 million since August of 2003. Similarly, the unemployment rate dropped from its peak of 6.3 percent in June of 2003 to 4.6 percent today. To put that in perspective domestically, at 4.6 percent, today's unemployment rate is lower than the average of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.

Let me repeat: Today's unemployment rate is lower than the average of the last four decades.

To put that in perspective globally, since 2004, the United States has created nearly twice the number of jobs as

the rest of the G7 countries combined. This job growth is not isolated to just one part of the country. Employment increased in 48 States over the past 12 months, ending in May.

Not only is the number of jobs on the rise, so, too, are wages. Hourly compensation has risen 3.9 percent over the past year, while average weekly earnings have grown to 4.5 percent.

The economy is strong, strong and poised to stay strong. The gross domestic product, a broad measure of the economy, grew at an annual rate of 5.6 percent for the first quarter of this year. This is the fastest growth in 2\1/2\ years and even stronger than previous estimates. It follows economic growth of 3.5 percent in 2005, the fastest rate of any major industrialized nation.

This remarkable growth has come on the heels of the burst of the technology bubble, the devastating attacks of 9/11, corporate scandals and destructive natural disasters. Similar to the American people, the economy has weathered the storm. The economy has done so due, in large part, to the Republican tax cuts and progrowth policies instituted since 2001.

On restraining spending, the question becomes, What can we do to continue these positive trends? I believe the answer includes keeping taxes low and restraining spending. We need to work harder in holding down our excessive spending. With respect to the latter, I remain gravely concerned about the runaway growth of mandatory spending. For example, 20 years ago entitlements, or mandatory spending, comprised 45 percent of the budget. Today they comprise nearly 60 percent of our $2.8 trillion budget. If left unchecked, spending on just three entitlement programs--Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security--will consume 20 percent of our gross domestic product in just 30 years. To put that in perspective, the entire Government consumes 20 percent of gross domestic product today. Clearly, the growth is unsustainable and threatens our economic well-being, as well as that of our children and grandchildren.

I commend the Budget Committee chairman, Chairman Gregg, for his leadership on this issue and for introducing, along with myself and 24 other cosponsors, the Stop Overspending Act of 2006. This bill proposes tough measures to force Congress and the administration to adhere to a disciplined budget process.

The bill includes a line-item veto, or expedited rescission process, to allow the President to identify items of wasteful spending and send them to Congress for an up-or-down vote. It creates a new mechanism to essentially balance the budget by 2012. It reinstates discretionary spending caps in law, and it creates a bipartisan commission to identify and eliminate agency duplication and programs that have outlived their usefulness, as well as a commission to ensure the solvency of entitlement programs. It ensures a budgeting process to allow Congress to have more oversight, and it addresses the shadow budget that has developed due to emergency spending by building reasonable assumptions of emergency spending into the discretionary caps.

In conclusion, the economy is strong, progrowth economic policies have fueled robust expansion which has, in turn, increased revenues at a rapid pace. As a result, the deficit is on target to be cut in half by 2008, a year earlier than the President's schedule. To continue these positive economic trends, we need to keep taxes low and further restrain spending.

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

Mr. President, I rise today on the 100th anniversary of Mesa Verde National Park to offer legislation that would expand the boundary of this national treasure. Mesa Verde is one of our Nation's most impressive national parks. In addition to its role preserving the home of some of our Nation's earliest inhabitants, it also serves as an impressive educational resource. The park also acts as the preeminent example of heritage tourism in the Nation. Allowing visitors to actively experience the rich historical and cultural history our Nation has to offer. The park is able to draw people with over 4,400 recorded archeological sites, including the impressive cliff dwellings which number more than 600. People travel from all around the world to see what we in Colorado are fortunate to have at our fingertips: one of the most well preserved and exhibited active archeological sites in the world. Mesa Verde also represents an impressive example of collaboration; they work with everyone from local elementary school students to international scholars. Mesa Verde, like its former inhabitants who flourished here for more than 700 years, has displayed an impressive resiliency and mystique over the years. The fire the park experienced a few years ago even revealed to us more of the area's secrets with newly discovered archeological sites.

I am pleased to be able to introduce this legislation today, because this legislation shows how the Government should preserve public lands. This is a good example of finding public support and working with outside groups and private property owners to find mutually beneficial ways to preserve our land. The majority of the land that will be added to the park will come from the Henneman family, who has owned this land for generations. During this time the Henneman family have been great stewards of their land. I commend them for their work as land managers. I would also like to commend the Conservation Fund for their willingess to work with the Henneman's and the park to protect this land. In addition I would like to thank the Mesa Verde Park Foundation for the land that they are generously donating to the park.

Mesa Verde National Park protects some of the best preserved and notable archeological sites in the world and this legislation will not only expand its boundaries but also its ability to preserve an important part of our history.

Mr. President, I rise today on the 100th anniversary of Mesa Verde National Park to offer legislation that would expand the boundary of this national treasure. Mesa Verde is one of our Nation's most impressive national parks. In addition to its role preserving the home of some of our Nation's earliest inhabitants, it also serves as an impressive educational resource. The park also acts as the preeminent example of heritage tourism in the Nation. Allowing visitors to actively experience the rich historical and cultural history our Nation has to offer. The park is able to draw people with over 4,400 recorded archeological sites, including the impressive cliff dwellings which number more than 600. People travel from all around the world to see what we in Colorado are fortunate to have at our fingertips: one of the most well preserved and exhibited active archeological sites in the world. Mesa Verde also represents an impressive example of collaboration; they work with everyone from local elementary school students to international scholars. Mesa Verde, like its former inhabitants who flourished here for more than 700 years, has displayed an impressive resiliency and mystique over the years. The fire the park experienced a few years ago even revealed to us more of the area's secrets with newly discovered archeological sites.

I am pleased to be able to introduce this legislation today, because this legislation shows how the Government should preserve public lands. This is a good example of finding public support and working with outside groups and private property owners to find mutually beneficial ways to preserve our land. The majority of the land that will be added to the park will come from the Henneman family, who has owned this land for generations. During this time the Henneman family have been great stewards of their land. I commend them for their work as land managers. I would also like to commend the Conservation Fund for their willingess to work with the Henneman's and the park to protect this land. In addition I would like to thank the Mesa Verde Park Foundation for the land that they are generously donating to the park.

Mesa Verde National Park protects some of the best preserved and notable archeological sites in the world and this legislation will not only expand its boundaries but also its ability to preserve an important part of our history.

Mr. President, I think Senator Kerry had asked for some additional time, and it is cutting our time on this side. I want to make sure we restore that time we would have lost.

Mr. President, I rise today, June 27, 2006, between Flag Day and Independence Day, to speak on behalf of the American flag.

The American flag is a symbol, a physical embodiment of the freedom and liberty that we as Americans are blessed to claim. More than a mere banner of red, white, and blue, our flag characterizes the fundamental essence

of what it means to be an American: liberty, justice and equality.

Whether flown at a high school football game, in an Olympic arena, or over this very building that we stand in today, the American flag is an image that commands worldwide respect, while at the time symbolizing the triumph of representative Government over the inequities of tyrannical rule.

To allow for the physical desecration of such a symbol of opportunity and liberty is not quite tantamount to condoning an assault on the very foundation of our individual freedoms, but so close as to have damaging effects. Strength in symbolism can oftentimes rely upon the extent to which an image is protected by the society it represents, which is why this is not an issue pertaining to freedom of expression, but rather an issue of patriotic reverence and national identity.

The American flag has done more than wave as a symbol of freedom; it has served as an inspiration, a guiding light to our men and women in uniform throughout our Nation's history.

On New Year's Eve, 1776, just 7 months before the signing of our Declaration of Independence, George Washington and the Continental Army were laying siege to the British-occupied Boston. In the midst of battle, Washington recognized the need to present a unifying symbol to his own troops, as well as the need to commemorate the birth of our truly unique sense of American pride. Inspired with the fortitude of his continental troops, Washington ordered the hoisting of the Grand Union flag. This was one of the first instances where our flag became more than a symbol of independence, but the physical representation of an ideal stemming from the innate human desire for freedom.

On June 14, 1777, almost a year-and-a-half after George Washington raised the Grand Union flag over Prospect Hill, the Continental Congress passed an act that officially gave America a flag. Though the intricacies of the design have changed several times in our nation's history, the principles that it represents have never faded.

Patrick Henry aptly summed up this uniquely American commitment to personal liberty by stating, ``I know not what course others may take but as for me; give me liberty or give me death.'' President Calvin Coolidge once commented, ``We do honor to the stars and stripes as the emblem of our country and the symbol of all that our patriotism means.'' Henry and Coolidge spoke of a liberty that was fought for, and won by the sacrifice of thousands of our American sons and daughters. As it stands today, the American flag is a monument to their heroic effort, and a testament to the price those serving our country are willing to pay for our freedom.

With the 230th birthday of our Nation fast approaching, we will undoubtedly see even more American flags on display in front yards, on top of skyscrapers, and in the hands of people celebrating the birth of our Nation. While many of these patriotic displays will coincide with the festivities of this national holiday weekend, the unifying message behind every one of these flags is that we as Americans understand the power behind our national symbol.

It is time that we, as the Nation's legislature, restored the ability of the America people to protect the flag as the symbol of our country. This ability has been eroded over the years by judicial decisions that have stripped away the people's right to protect the American flag and all that it stands to represent.

This sentiment has garnered wide support across the Nation, as is evidenced by all 50 states passing resolutions calling upon Congress to enact some constitutional protections for the flag. In each of the past five Congresses, the House has passed a constitutional amendment designed to protect the flag from all forms of desecration, with the latest measure passing almost a year ago by a vote of 286 to 130. Here in the Senate, we came up only 4 votes short of the required two-thirds majority in 2000.

Today, we stand closer than ever to passing this vital constitutional provision. Some of my colleagues have expressed concerns regarding the potential first amendment ramifications of passing this initiative. First of all, this amendment does not ban anything. It simply restores the authority of Congress, the representatives of the American people, to pass a flag desecration statute if it chooses.

Second, even if such a statute were subsequently passed, it would not place a restriction on the content of the speech, only on the means by which the speaker wishes to communicate. Someone seeking to burn the flag would still retain their right to express any political viewpoint they wish to advance. They would, however, not have the ability to desecrate the flag as a substitute for other forms of expressive conduct.

This is why the resolution was reported out of the Judiciary Committee with broad support originating from both sides of the aisle. This bipartisan support is evidence that this issue transcends all political ideology; and to me, this unity could not have come at a more critical moment in history.

Internationally, our enemies have consistently used the desecration and burning of our flag to symbolize plight of international democracy at the hands of Islamist tyranny. Domestically, Americans are daily assaulted with media images of home-grown extremists groups burning the American flag in an attempt to speak out against the actions of their Government. The irony, however, is not lost on the American people when they see these political ideologues desecrate the very symbol that gives them the right to speak in the first place.

This tendency to overshadow our flag's positive symbolism with negative contextual imagery is the reason why the majority of Americans support this amendment. We understand the power of this national symbol, believe in the principles that our flag represents, and we know that past generations have fought and died to ensure that those principles resonate well into the future.

I ask the Senate to stand in unity with the American people and the 50 states and ask them to not let this opportunity pass us by without acting to protect this still vibrant national symbol.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the amendment offered by my good friend, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who has worked hard on this issue. I know he is a strong, dedicated Senator as far as making sure that we have a good, strong national defense, which is important in today's times.

There is no doubt that this has been an unusual approach where we develop and purchase at the same time. But these are unusual times. We have had an emerging threat that, according to many of our defense experts, is real. We had to move forward at an unprecedented rapid pace.

Over the last 2 weeks, the North Koreans have moved toward the brink and have been preparing to test fire a long-range ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States. We were in the same position in 1998. Then all we could do is threaten to retaliate if North Korea launched a ballistic missile attack against us. We did not have a system that was capable of defending our country from attack.

Today the situation is different. Acting upon the direction of Congress, which mandated in 1999 that our country deploy a missile defense system as quickly as technologically possible, the Department of Defense has developed and deployed a missile defense system that is capable of defending our Nation against limited ballistic missiles.

Given the real-world ballistic threats, such as North Korea, the Department of Defense has pursued a strategy of concurrent tests and operations. The Department recognizes that our current missile defense system does not have sufficient capability and needs more testing. That is why the Department continues to test the system and add new capabilities.

At the same time, it is clear that situations such as the ongoing North Korean threat require that our missile defenses be ready in case of a ballistic missile attack. Leaving our Nation defenseless to ballistic missile attack while such situations persist is folly in the extreme. We currently have 11 ground-based interceptors deployed and operational. We have also upgraded our early warning radars, improved our Aegis tracking radars, built new forward-based and sea-based radars, and created an integrated command-and-control battle management system.

These are significant achievements that together provide our country with a limited ballistic missile defense. Yet, as we all know, our missile defense still needs more work. It has a limited capability, which is certainly better than having none at all, but we need to do more--particularly with regard to testing.

The amendment offered by Senator Sessions puts us on the right track. The Missile Defense Agency needs to test its ballistic missile defense system more often and under more complicated conditions. This amendment, offered by Senator Sessions, will help in that effort.

The amendment will also help pay for the unexpected costs of operating the missile defense system 24 hours a day over the last couple of weeks. Soldiers who man the system in Colorado and Alaska have performed exceptionally well, and there is cost for keeping the system on full-time alert status. This amendment helps address this cost.

This body mandated that the Department of Defense deploy a missile defense system as quickly as technologically possible. I supported this mandate and believe that our current missile defense system can provide a limited defense against a ballistic missile attack. It still needs work, which is why this amendment is so important and necessary.

I do support the Sessions amendment and urge my colleagues to do so as well. I am pleased to hear that the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee has agreed to support this amendment.

I thank, again, Senator Sessions, for his leadership on this very important issue. I think this is a valuable system, and we need to be very sure that we do not get behind in this kind of technology.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and thank the Members for their support.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss amendment No. 4528. This amendment honors Representative Joel Hefley, Congressman of Colorado's 5th district, for his outstanding service to the people of Colorado and to our Nation.

As you may know, Mr. President, Representative Hefley made the decision earlier this year to retire after 2 decades of service in Congress. This was a very difficult decision for him. He was the 3rd ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee and had garnered considerable influence because of his integrity and his respect of the legislative branch as an institution. He worked diligently over his 20 years in Congress and served the people of Colorado's 5th District well.

Representative Hefley was first elected to represent Colorado's 5th Congressional district in 1986 and has served in the House of Representatives since that time with distinction, class, integrity, and honor. As his current and former colleagues will attest, Representative Hefley is a fair and effective lawmaker who works for the national interest while never forgetting his Western roots.

For most of his two decades in the House, Representative Hefley poured his time and energy into the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives. He served as chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities from 1995 through 2000 and, since 2001, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness.

Representative Hefley's efforts on the Committee on Armed Services have instrumental to the military value of, and quality of life at, installations in the State of Colorado, Cheyenne Mountain, Peterson Air Force Base, Schriever Air Force Base, Buckley Air Force Base, and the United States Air Force Academy.

Representative Hefley was a leader in efforts to retain and expand Fort Carson as an essential part of the national defense system during the Defense Base Closure and Realignment process.

Representative Hefley has also consistently advocated for providing members of the Armed Forces and their families with quality, safe, and affordable housing and supportive communities.

Representative Hefley's leadership on the Military House Privatization Initiative has allowed for the privatization of more than 121,000 units of military family housing, which brought meaningful improvements to living conditions for thousands of members of the Armed Forces and their spouses and children at installations throughout the United States.

In honor of Representative Hefley's achievements and his work on military housing privatization, this amendment designates the military family housing areas at Fort Carson, Colorado in his name.

I served with Representative Hefley in the House of Representatives for 6 years before I was elected to the Senate. I consider him to be one of my closest colleagues in Congress and a dear friend. I have tremendous respect for his character and for his ability to get things done. He has been a champion for over two decades for the Colorado Springs community and for conservative values. I know that he will be sorely missed in the House of Representatives.

I believe Representative Hefley deserves the honor and recognition that this amendment provides. I am pleased my colleagues agreed to join me in adopting this amendment.

Amendment No. 4424

Mr. President.

Mr. President, I would just like to take a moment to express some accolades to my fellow colleagues who are on the Senate floor and say that it is an honor and a pleasure to have an opportunity to serve on the Armed Services Committee under the leadership of the chairman, Senator Warner, as well as the ranking member, Senator Levin. It has also been an honor for me to serve on the Appropriations Committee under the leadership of Senator Byrd, as well as the chairman, Senator Cochran. It is the institutional memory that they bring to the process that so many of us appreciate. It is the bipartisan approach they take to solving our legislative problems that brings some peace and understanding, I think, to this process.

I just want to take a moment before I make my official remarks honoring my Congressman from Colorado, to express to the Senators on the floor how much I appreciate their leadership and what they have done and congratulate them on a great Defense bill that we have just passed.

I thank the Chairman. I still recognize him as ``Mr. Chairman.'' He has connections to Colorado. I want to share with him my connection I have with Virginia. I have an ancestor who fought in the Revolutionary War who came right out of Bedford, VA. We have deep roots in Virginia. It is always a pleasure for me to get to know your State. I venture to say I have probably spent a lot more time in his State than he realizes, just getting to know it because of my family roots there.

It is.

That is worth noting. I thank him again for his gracious hospitality and the help he has extended to me in trying to serve the people of Colorado in the debate on this very important bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the situation in Iraq and to ask several questions about the withdrawal proposals being offered by the other side.

Why would we risk our success by a premature withdrawal? Why would we risk handing over Iraq to the terrorists when they are on the run? Why would we send a message to the families who had loved ones die fighting for freedom that it was all in vain? Why would we pass legislation that calls for the withdrawal of our troops and that undermines everything we have achieved? These same questions are being asked by many of my constituents in Colorado.

According to the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, a key newspaper in Colorado's western slope:

President Bush and Congress are right not to set a date

certain for moving all the troops out of Iraq. That would

signal terrorists they only need to hide out until the

Americans leave, then reignite their attacks. . . . And it

would tell others that our commitment to freedom in the

Middle East is limited.

I ask unanimous consent that the editorial from the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel be printed in the Record.

Relationships between the 3rd Armored Cavalry and the local community were so strong that the Iraqi mayor of the city of Tall Afar actually traveled to Colorado Springs to present these soldiers with a proclamation from the city.

I ask unanimous consent that the full copy of the proclamation be printed in the Record.

Let me read a portion of the proclamation as written by the Najim Abdullah Al-Jibouri, Iraqi mayor of Tall Afar:

To the Courageous Men and Women of the 3rd Armored Cavalry

Regiment, who have changed the city of Tall' Afar from a

ghost town, in which terrorists spread death and destruction,

to a secure city flourishing with life. . . . Our city was

the main base of operations for Abu Mousab Zarqawi. The city

was completely held hostage in the hands of his henchmen. . .

. Their savagery reached such a level that they stuffed the

corpses of children with explosives and tossed them into the

streets in order to kill grieving parents . . . this was the

situation of our city until God prepared and delivered unto

them the courageous soldiers of the 3rd Armored Cavalry

Regiment, who liberated this city, ridding it of Zarqawi's

followers after harsh fighting.

The commander of Iraq's 3rd Army Infantry Division, MG Khorsheed Al- Dosekey, wrote the following in a letter to our soldiers:

Your ability to plan, the excellent coordination, the

overall supervising and the right decisive decisions along

with your great leadership have helped us build up the

individual soldier and increase his abilities. Your

leadership and devotion to duty have helped form an army from

the gathered people. Your behavior and your actions have

built strong friendships that will last a lifetime.

I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

That is the message from the Iraqi people for the heroic efforts fighting for freedom. I know most if not all the Members of this body share in their appreciation for the valiant service of our men and women in uniform. I was pleased last night when we passed my sense-of-the-Senate amendment which commends the members of our Armed Forces for their outstanding service to our Nation in Iraq and for their commitment to the highest ideals and values of our Nation. It also honors the families of our servicemembers who have given so much in the fight against terror. Our soldiers deserve our support and our trust.

In conclusion, I ask, why would we risk all this by a premature withdrawal and set a specific date for withdrawal?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate this.

I rise today to discuss several noteworthy provisions in the fiscal year 2007 Defense authorization bill. I will provide an overview of a couple of amendments I will offer.

First, I commend the managers of this bill, Senators John Warner and Carl Levin, for the work they have put into this legislation. I also recognize in a public way the fine work Chairman Warner has done. I have had an opportunity to work with the chairman both as a member of the Committee on Armed Services, and after leaving that committee to serve on the Committee on Appropriations. I found Senator Warner certainly has been very gracious and helpful on many issues and has certainly kept the men and women of the Armed Forces primary in his mind.

It is comprehensive and addresses many of the issues important to our Armed Forces. Indeed, many of the provisions in this bill are essential to the health and well being of our soldiers and are needed in order to defeat terrorism and defend our Nation from future attacks.

In the missile defense arena, for example, the Senate Armed Services Committee took several steps to encourage the Department of Defense to focus on near-term missile defense systems over longer-term next generation

systems. I support this direction and agree that MDA is not investing enough time and money in those systems that may be able to provide limited defense capability in the near term.

I personally believe we need to be conducting more tests within the missile defense mid-course intercept program. Although the Missile Defense Agency will be conducting two flight intercepts later this year, the agency only requested funding for one intercept in fiscal year 2007. This test plan is insufficient in my eyes and should be greatly expanded.

We need to conduct many more flight intercepts, much more often. We need to be challenging the system with our tests and working on the areas we need improve upon. I do not expect perfection. In fact, I expect some failures. But, in the context of several missile defense intercepts tests per year, one or two failures only means that we are pushing to find out the real capabilities of the system. They do not mean missile defense is not possible.

The bottom line here is that I do expect for the Missile Defense Agency to try. We all know that hit-to-kill technology works. We have used it successfully in the Patriot and Aegis Programs. We now need to further develop the mid-course system and introduce greater capability to that system.

Let me turn to another provision in the Senate version of the defense authorization bill that I thought was appropriate and deserved mention. That provision pertained to the Department's request for $127 million for the development and procurement of Trident conventional submarine launched ballistic missiles. Under the Pentagon's proposal, the Navy would equip several of its Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines with Trident missiles tipped with conventional warheads.

These missiles are intended to give the President a real option for a responsive, global strike capability in the short term.

I support the concept of developing a conventional ballistic missile capable of reaching almost any target in the world in under an hour. In an era when targets of opportunity shift rapidly, there is a real need for systems that can reach these targets within narrow time frames. A conventional ballistic missile is perhaps the best option for this purpose in the near term.

That being said, this is still a very new concept, and the Department of Defense has yet to work out all the details. Of particular concern is the fact that the Department is still developing a variety of transparency, confidence building, and operational measures to ensure, there is no confusion about our intentions. The last thing we want is for Russia or China to think we are launching a nuclear strike when we use one of these submarine-launched conventional missiles.

To address this concern, the Senate Armed Services Committee included a provision in this bill that prohibits the expenditure of this funding until the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State submit a joint report that discusses potential alternatives, describes the discrimination capabilities of other nations, and states how the United States would work with other nations to prevent an inadvertent nuclear attack by another country.

I believe this provision is a reasonable approach to this issue and still allows the Department of Defense to go forward with the development and procurement of this system. I think there might be other less challenging global strike options available, such as land- based conventional ballistic missiles in California or Guam, so I look forward to the Department's discussion about possible alternatives.

I next wish to address the Senate Armed Services Committee's decision to increase by $30 million the Department of Defense buffer zone conservation projects account. These projects help military bases around the country address the growing problem of encroachment from residential and industrial development. At Fort Carson, CO, we have seen the fruits of conservation projects such as those funded under this account.

Fort Carson's southeastern and southern borders are now protected with money from this account. I believe as more conservation projects come on line, competition for the funding in this account will grow exponentially. We needed extra money to meet this demand, and the funding provided by this bill is a step in the right direction.

Now let me turn to another provision in the bill that I think should be highlighted. Section 372 provides the Secretary of Defense with authority to include incentivized clauses in contracts for the destruction of chemical weapons within the U.S. stockpile.

To my extreme disappointment, the Department of Defense announced last April that it most likely would not be able to comply with our treaty obligations under the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention. I was displeased by this announcement because the way the Department had managed its chemical demilitarization program virtually assured our Nation's noncompliance.

Nevertheless, I still believe if we use the incentivized contracts this section provides, we might be able to complete the destruction of our chemical weapons stockpile earlier than what is currently expected. Those contractors who can meet a more aggressive schedule should be rewarded for their effort. At the same time, I believe that the penalties for safety or environmental violations should also be increased.

At Rocky Flats, a former Department of Energy plutonium pit production facility located just outside of Denver, we have seen the value of these contracts. This facility was initially expected to cost as much as $70 billion and take over 30 years to clean up. The Department of Energy was able to find a contractor who was willing to accelerate the contract in return for a huge incentive. I am pleased to tell you today that the contractor safely completed the cleanup of Rocky Flats last December, over a year ahead of schedule and several hundred million dollars under budget.

This incentive provision puts the Department of Defense in position to use similar contracts to encourage contractors to finish earlier and cheaper than expected while protecting the environment and ensuring safety. I strongly support it and commend the managers of the bill for including it in the bill before us.

The last provision I would like to discuss is section 911. This provision creates an office for the management and acquisition of operationally responsive space capabilities. I support this provision because the Department of Defense has not done enough to investigate the value of operationally responsive space.

One of the reasons why this has occurred is because of the absence of a dedicated office to manage our operationally responsive space, known as ORS, efforts. The GAO recently reported that the absence of a strategic direction within the Department on operationally responsive space activities was hindering the program. This provision solves that problem and should encourage the Department to move forward with ORS types of systems.

Over the next couple of days, I plan to offer several amendments which I hope will be accepted by the managers of this bill. Most of these amendments should be noncontroversial and helpful but are important to the global war against terror and to helping the families of our servicemembers. I look forward to working with Chairman Warner and Senator Levin so we can get these amendments cleared as quickly as possible.

Again, I thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee for his exceptionally good work on this bill. I know he has put in hours of thought and deliberation on this bill, and his committee, working with him, has done a good job.

So, I say to the Senator, I want to recognize that I believe this is your last year as the chairman of the Armed Services Committee because of our term limits, and I am sorry to see you have to step down because I think you have done a tremendous job as chairman. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to work with you as chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Six years, I believe, yes.

I thank the chairman. We do these things by working together as a team, and the Senator is a great team leader. I appreciate all the support of my efforts in trying to get some of these things done. The Chairman has always set a good example for the rest of us by way of his diligence and working through legislation. So I want to thank him publicly for a job well done.

Mr. President, last Monday was a somber anniversary for our Nation--it marked the second anniversary of President Ronald Reagan's passing. I did not come to the floor last Monday, because I knew that today, just a week later, would be another important anniversary in Reagan's life, and one I would rather note.

Nineteen years ago, on this day in 1987, President Ronald Reagan stood at the Berlin Wall, at the Brandenburg Gate and issued his-- issued liberty's--famous challenge to Soviet tyranny:

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek

prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you

seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev,

open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

I believe the power and significance of this quote has been acknowledged. I believe history recognizes what President Reagan's steadfast determination to resist communist expansion and even the communist status quo meant to that great struggle. Many spoke on this floor 2 years ago on his contributions, and most have acknowledged the significance of those contributions.

I am submitting legislation today because President Reagan's contributions to winning the cold war, defending liberty, strengthening America and brightening our future can, in my mind, be adequately summarized by the moment he went to Berlin, stood in the shadow of a communist tyranny, summoned up the force of the American spirit, and called for the removal of the infamous wall.

My resolution calls for an artistic rendering of that moment in time to be painted into the Capitol, along with the other significant scenes of our Nation's past. As we walk through the building today, we can see scenes from the Nation's founding, from the Civil War, our westward expansion, even the Moon landing and Challenger astronauts. I would like to also see Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate. I think it would be entirely appropriate to have this image added. It would be an important reminder of the struggle this Nation undertook. It would stand for the millions of Americans who did their part for nearly half a century in that struggle, military and civilian. And it would testify to the greatness of our Nation, and the greatness of our 40th President.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss recent events that are positive steps in the war on terror for the United States and our allies abroad. The first is the announcement that the United States and foreign counterterrorism officials have worked together to make a series of arrests that appear to be linked to a web of Islamic extremists in Canada, the United States, and Europe. The recent death of Iraqi insurgent leader and al-Qaida member Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi is another. These are significant victories against those who wish our country harm.

Last week, Canadian officials arrested 17 people for allegedly plotting to carry out a campaign of bombings, kidnappings and other terrorist acts in Ottawa and Toronto. The arrests were made possible by the monitoring of Internet chat rooms and e-mail accounts tied to suspected Islamic extremists. The arrests came after three tons of ammonium nitrate--common garden fertilizer that is easily transformed into an explosive--was allegedly purchased from undercover officers. Two of 17 suspected terrorists were caught trying to smuggle guns and ammunition from the United States into Canada via the Peace Bridge last summer.

These individuals were allegedly using the Internet to communicate with terrorist facilitators abroad, such as a 22-year-old Web site operator with direct links to al-Qaida who was arrested by British police last October on charges of financing and supporting terrorist activities. Authorities believe the Web site operator was in contact with the individuals in the Canadian arrests, as well as two men in the U.S., sharing surveillance videos and other information for potential terrorist attacks. Included in the surveillance videos were many Washington, DC, landmarks.

Also, just last Tuesday British police arrested an American student in London as he prepared to board a flight to Pakistan. He was wanted in New York for allegedly providing military equipment to people who took it to members of Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization in Pakistan. Authorities have not ruled out a connection to the Canadian arrests.

Here in the U.S., the New York and Atlanta joint terrorism task forces recently arrested two men in connection with an alleged terrorist plot. The plot included discussions about blowing up oil refineries and disabling navigational aids on airplanes. The investigation began when California police arrested two men for a gas station robbery. A subsequent search of their home turned up documents listing the addresses of U.S. military recruiting stations, the Israeli Consulate, and synagogues in the Los Angeles area. The investigation eventually revealed the existence of a terrorist cell that had been spawned by a small radical group operating in Folsom Prison who considered themselves the ``al-Qaida of California.''

American counterterrorism officials are joining forces with their colleagues around the world to unravel intricate webs of terrorist organizations that would do us great harm if not for the efforts of these countterror experts. I commend them for their efforts to discover terrorist plots and bring them to a stop before they are carried out.

Much further from home, but still close to our hearts are the brave men and women of our Armed Forces deployed in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

I thank our servicemen and servicewomen in the U.S. Armed Forces for their on-going service to their country, their commitment to American ideals, and their determination to win the global war on terror. We need to continually express our gratitude to the families of the U.S. military personnel, especially those families who have lost loved ones during our most recent deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Most important, our Armed Forces continue to seek out terrorists to disrupt their plans both in the Middle East and abroad. They also continue to provide support and guidance to the Iraqi and Afghani people in their newborn democracies. With their steadfast courage, our citizens in uniform have taken the battle to the enemy and achieved success.

Their most recent victory was the elimination of insurgent leader and al-Qaida member Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. His death is an enormous blow to those who continue to terrorize the Iraqi people. Zarqawi, whom Osama Bin Laden has heaped praise upon, has lead a horrific campaign against our troops in Iraq and against the Iraqi people. I am thankful to say that this mass murderer will no longer be able to carry on attempts at undermining the Iraqi national government and the coalition.

Of note in his demise is the international cooperation that spearheaded the operation. After receiving tips and intelligence of his location from Jordanian sources, Coalition forces killed Zarqawi and many of his lieutenants yesterday in an airstrike. It was this exchange of intelligence information between the United States and Jordan that helped to permanently end Zarqawi's operations. I should also note that the Iraqi police were first on the scene after the air strike to help identify our success.

Also, perhaps lost among this news yesterday was another announcement made by Prime Minister Al-Maliki of Iraq that candidates have been named for important cabinet posts in the Iraqi government. After much negotiation, consensus picks were made to fill the defense and interior ministries--both key to a more secure and stable Iraq. Much of our success depends on the men and women forming the Iraqi government, and these are important steps to meeting the security challenges.

The recent announcements in Iraq and our international counterterrorism efforts, while significant, are only small victories in the overall global war on terror. There are more extremists who will line up to preach against democracy and freedom. There are still those that will attack the free people of this world and want to do us much harm.

After news of Zarqawi's death, the forces of al-Qaida in Iraq vowed publicly to continue their so-called ``holy war'' on innocent civilians. They have stated:

The death of our leaders is life for us. It will only

increase our persistence in continuing holy war so that the

word of God will be supreme.

In fact, only two hours after the Zarqawi announcement a bomb blew up in Baghdad killing at least nineteen people. It is clear that our success in Iraq against this enemy depends greatly on our continual cooperation with the Iraqi government and the new ministers in charge of security there.

The global war on terror has been a great challenge for our Nation. Yet while the cost has been high, the cost of doing nothing would be even greater. And we cannot do this alone. Only with help of our neighbors, countrymen, and allies throughout the world can we assure that our democratic ideals defeat those of the terrorist extremists. I thank all of them for a job well done.

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

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

Mr. President, I begin by thanking the majority leader and the 32 cosponsors of S.J. Res. 1, the Marriage Protection Amendment. I thank the Senator from Kansas for his leadership, courage, and for standing in support with me of marriage.

We as Senators are called to duty to debate this issue today out of respect for the democratic process. The voice of the people has been heard loud and clear. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

It has been heard in the 20 States with constitutional amendments passed by an average of over 70 percent of voters. It has been heard in the 26 States with statutes protecting traditional marriage. It has been heard in 45 States and in this Congress.

Unfortunately, dissatisfied with the outcome of the democratic process, a handful of activists have launched a carefully coordinated campaign to circumvent the democratic process and redefine marriage through the courts.

As a result, I introduced S.J. Res. 1, an amendment to the Constitution, that simply defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman, while leaving all other issues of civil unions or domestic partnerships to the States. I am pleased the issue has this week been debated in a democratically elected and deliberative body--where it belongs.

Throughout the course of the past 2 days, I have heard countless arguments in favor of marriage from both sides of the aisle. Surprisingly, many of the same people making those arguments will not vote for our amendment to protect marriage.

Equally as surprising, notwithstanding their opposition, I heard few arguments opposing my amendment on the merits. Instead, most of those opposed to the amendment shifted the debate to issues other than the pending business. I suspect these shifts were meant to divert attention away from their intent to vote differently than an average of 70 percent of their constituents do when they vote on the issue of same- sex marriage at home.

While other issues are without a doubt very important, the Senate has and continues to devote considerable time and will likely devote even more time to debate on these important issues this year. With the overwhelming support that was voiced on this floor for the institution of marriage, one would think that addressing the nationwide attack on marriage that is underway would warrant at least 1 full day of debate on the issue.

The one tack taken by those opposed to the amendment most closely resembling an argument on the merits came in the form of States rights. While well meaning, the argument is unfounded.

First, my amendment actually protects States rights. Same-sex advocates have, through the courts, systematically and successfully trampled on laws democratically enacted in the States. My amendment takes the issue out of the hands of a handful of activist judges and puts it squarely back in the hands of the States.

Secondly, the process to amend the Constitution is the most democratic, federalist process in all our government. It is neither an exclusively Federal nor an exclusively State action. It is the shared responsibility of both. Once passed by the Congress, legislatures in all 50 States will have the opportunity to debate and decide this issue for themselves.

Finally, under my amendment, States remain free to address the issue of civil unions and domestic partnerships. Citizens acting through their State legislatures can bestow whatever benefits to same-sex couples they choose. The real danger to States rights would be to do nothing and to acquiesce to the recognition of unenumerated constitutional rights in which the States have had no participation.

The truth is, the Constitution will be amended whether we pass this bill or not. The only question is whether it will be amended through the amendment process or by unaccountable activist judges. If we fail to redefine marriage, the courts will not hesitate to do it for us.

I, for one, believe the institution of marriage and the principles of democracy are too precious to surrender to the whims of a handful of unelected activist judges. I urge my colleagues to join me in my stand for democracy and marriage by voting yes on S.J. Res. 1, the Marriage Protection Amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. President, I yield 1 minute 15 seconds to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. President, you just heard the latest report from Alabama, a state constitutional amendment protecting marriage just passed with 81 percent of the vote. That is what my amendment is all about--to protect that vote conducted in Alabama from being subverted by a minority of activists going to court to try to overturn a vote like we just saw in Alabama.

I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for S.J. Res. 1.

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

Mr. President, I rise to offer my strong support for permanent repeal of the death tax.

It is said that ``a penny saved is a penny earned.'' Unfortunately, that is not the case for many Americans--especially those who have family businesses and farms. Instead of being rewarded for their initiative and determination, entrepreneurs are penalized for taking advantage of all this country has to offer.

For much of the 21st century, the death tax has burdened this country's hardest working citizens. It is finally time for Congress to permanently repeal this unfair tax. That is why I am pleased to support the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act. Death should not be a taxable event.

Fortunately, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 increased the amount that taxpayers can exempt from estate and gift taxes and slowly reduced the rate over the period 2002 through 2009. This act will fully repeal the death tax for 1 year in 2010.

However, if Congress does not act to make this repeal permanent, then the death tax will return to its pre-2001 levels. Failure to permanently repeal this tax results in estate-planning uncertainty for family-owned businesses and farms that are not sure whether or not to anticipate the return of the tax in 2011. Furthermore, failure to permanently repeal this tax would reinstate an unfair regime that taxes people twice--once on their income and again at their death.

One of the tenets of a fair tax system is that income is taxed only once. Income should be taxed when it is first earned or realized, it should not be repeatedly re-taxed by Government. The death tax violates this tenet. At the time of a person's death, much of their savings, business assets, or farm assets have already been subjected to Federal, State, and local tax. These same assets are then unfairly taxed again under the death tax.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the tax is that it can destroy a family business, or force the sale of a family ranch or farm. Despite what the opponents may claim, this can and does happen. To prove this point, I would like to share the story of some of my constituents. The Laurence family was forced to sell their 1,810 acres of ranch

land just north of Carbondale, CO. The daughter of the late Rufus Merrill Laurence explained that the death tax forced the sale of the family's ranch, land Mr. Merrill had hoped to keep in the family for generations to come.

No American family should lose its business or ranch because of the death tax. The problem is that the death tax fails to distinguish between cash and non-liquid assets, and since family businesses are often asset-rich and cash poor, they can be forced to sell assets in order to pay the tax. This practice can destroy the business outright, or leave it so strapped for capital that long-term survival is jeopardized.

Similarly, more and more large ranches and farms are facing the prospect of break-up and sale to developers in order to pay the estate tax.

The death tax also discourages savings and investment. Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan repeatedly warned about the dangers of a low national savings rate, and current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has continued to raise the same concerns. Yet the death tax sends the message that it is better to consume today than invest and make more money in the future.

The death tax also undermines job creation. The Heritage Foundation estimates that the death tax alone is responsible for the loss of between 170,000 and 250,000 potential jobs each year. These jobs are never added to the U.S. economy because the investments that would have resulted in higher employment are simply not made.

The death tax also holds back overall economic growth. The Joint Economic Committee found that the tax reduces the stock of capital in the economy by $497 billion, or 3.2 percent. Permanent repeal of the death tax would allow individuals to save more money, spur job creation, and allow business resources to be put toward productive economic activities.

America is a nation of tremendous economic opportunity--opportunity for ownership that is available to all who go in search of it. Success is determined principally through hard work and individual initiative. Our tax policy should focus on encouraging greater initiative rather than on attempts to limit inherited wealth. The death tax is a relic, and should be treated as such. It constitutes double taxation, damages family businesses, and harms the overall economy. It is time for the death tax to go--and this time, for good.

I yield the floor.