Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, in remembering their lives, we also honor them and celebrate the joy that they have brought to their families. To the Gold Star and Blue Star mothers and fathers, I salute you, and thank you for your service to this nation.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the approaching fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks against our Nation. I still vividly remember that morning. When my chief of staff came to tell me about the attacks on the World Trade Center, I was in a meeting on how to improve our 911 emergency response system to better suit the needs of our first responders in rural areas. Even then we knew right away that our country would be forever changed. The events of September 11 undoubtedly remain etched into the memory of every American. Five years later we are reminded daily of the profound impact that fateful morning had on our great Nation. Although deliberation and debate continues all across the county and in this body to determine the best way to keep our Nation safe, as we approach the anniversary of 9/11 we must commemorate and pray for those who lost their lives, for their surviving loved ones, and for the brave men and women serving in our Armed Forces around the world protecting our freedoms. I said it the day after the tragedy here on the floor of the Senate, and I still believe it: America is strong. No terrorist strike will undermine our country to a point that would make us lose our fundamental purpose as a nation and a people. We as a nation have adjusted to a new way of life since that day. We understand that these measures have changed our lives slightly but not our way of life. Increased security at airports, a transformed homeland security position, and a new national intelligence apparatus are but a few of the changes we have made in combating the new war of the 21st century. After that day in 2001, many of us in elected service had to answer ``what happens next?'' We knew then that the phrase ``war on terror'' had been used lightly before and that this war had been ongoing before September 11. But our eyes were opened that day, and our strategic outlook was dramatically altered. President Bush has called it the long war, and I agree with him. We are in a struggle for survival against a faceless enemy who uses terror as a weapon against civilians anywhere, anytime. It is this reality that has driven our foreign policy for the last 5 years and will continue to define how we fight against terror abroad. This is a different kind of war than what we have confronted before. Not only will we have to fight terrorists on the battlefield but also in urban areas, cyberspace, and over the airwaves. Not only are we fighting with bullets but also with ideas. Our greatest export continues to be freedom and democracy, and it will be these tools, not force, that will eventually lead us to victory. But any victory we have will be hard fought. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists that can flourish anywhere in the world. The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children. It is with this knowledge that we approach the global war on terror. After September 11, we could not sit back and wait for the terrorists to strike again. On the contrary, our President, with congressional backing, ordered our Government to go on the offensive. We have shut down sanctuaries of terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have cut off the terror financing, and we have worked with our friends and allies to track down and apprehend terror operatives wherever they may be. We have had many such successes against terrorism since 9/11. In the past, we would combat terrorism mostly using law enforcement mechanisms. We now combat these terrorists by taking the fight to them with our international partners using every available resource. Some of these resources come from our intelligence community. Prior to September 11, our intelligence and law enforcement communities were restricted from sharing certain information with one another. Thankfully, today our counterterrorism efforts are more comprehensive, and these barriers no longer exist. Al-Qaida used to train thousands of terrorists in Afghanistan under the nose of the international community without any repercussions to the organization or the Taliban. Thankfully, no longer is Afghanistan a safe haven for those brewing plots against our Nation. The Afghan people have been freed from the oppressive Taliban and fight with us side-by-side in the war on terror. Additionally, Iraq was governed by a mass-murderer and a state sponsor of terror and now boasts for the first time a democratically elected government. Of course, none of this could have been attained without the men and women of the armed services. Many of these servicemen have sacrificed everything to protect our freedoms abroad. Yet while the cost has been high, the cost of doing nothing would be even greater. Our country continues to mourn for the men and women who have lost their lives while on duty in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the globe. Despite the many difficulties in this war, our Armed Forces have not retreated nor walked away in the face of adversity. They continue to seek out terrorists to disrupt their plans of horror both in the Middle East and elsewhere. They also continue to provide support and guidance to the Iraqi and Afghani people in their newborn democracies. Our citizens in uniform have taken the battle to the enemy and achieved success. As we mourn the victims lost on September 11 and the Americans who have lost their lives since that day protecting us, let us remember that we are all Americans and must continue to remain committed to protecting what we hold dear. We will never forget the events of September 11. It will forever be a harsh reminder of the intentions of our enemies who detest freedom and democracy. That said, we must also never forget what we witnessed in the days following this tragedy as America came together for the greater good. From that experience we learned that we as Americans are much more united than not. Much has changed since that fateful day of September 11, but our country has emerged prepared for the new challengers of the 21st century. Let us remember those who lost their lives that day and never forget why we fight abroad today.

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I understand there is a pending amendment. I ask unanimous consent that amendment be laid aside and that I be allowed to speak for 7 minutes in morning business.

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

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the recent successes of the Missile Defense Agency. Last Friday, a week ago from today, the Missile Defense Agency conducted a test of the ground-based midcourse system and scored an intercept. This exercise was designed to evaluate the performance of several elements of the ballistic missile defense system, and it appears that all elements worked remarkably well. Although it was not a primary objective for the data collection flight test, an intercept of the target warhead was achieved. The test marked the first time an operational interceptor was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base while the target flew from Alaska. It was conducted by crews who were manning operational fire control systems in Colorado Springs. It also marked the first use of the early warning radar at Beale Air Force Base in California. I congratulate the head of the Missile Defense Agency, General Obering, and especially all the dedicated men and women of the MDA who helped make this test a success. General Obering stated that the test is about as close as we can come to an end-to-end test of our long-range missile defense system. This success only builds upon a long record of missile defense intercepts and, more importantly, it is the fourth intercept in the last 90 days that used hit-to-kill technology. In June, we launched a sea-based AEGIS interceptor that was successful in intercepting a separating warhead. In July, we launched a land-based terminal-phase interceptor, Terminal High Altitude Air Defense--or the THAAD--interceptor, successfully intercepting the target. Very recently, we had a successful Patriot-3 intercept that was conducted by the U.S. Army in collaboration with the Missile Defense Agency. There have been many naysayers and doubters on missile defense, but I am proud to have supported the Missile Defense Agency over the past several years as it has grappled in an intensive effort to track down and eliminate or minimize risks that have contributed to setbacks in the past. There is an emphasis on quality that is paying off, as witnessed by our most recent tests. We learn from our mistakes, and we now see the fruit of the combined efforts of a wide range of dedicated military, civilian, and contractor personnel. Testing will continue. We will encounter difficulties, but the program will move forward. We are succeeding in building an integrated and layered ballistic missile defense system. Our defenses will continue to improve, and our citizens will be increasingly protected and grateful. While I am pleased that we have a limited missile defense capability, I believe our missile defense system needs to be challenged even further. We need more testing so that we can better understand the task at hand and discover the errors that must be corrected. I am confident that the Missile Defense Agency is on the right path. I look forward to supporting the Agency testing plan in the future. I do not expect perfection. In fact, I expect some failures. But in the context of several missile defense intercept tests per year, one or two failures only means that we are pushing to find out the real capabilities of the system. We all know hit-to-kill technology works. We now need to further develop the midcourse system and introduce greater capability to that system. I look forward to assisting the Missile Defense Agency in its future programs so our Nation can rest assured that we are protected from rogue nations that wish to do us harm.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to engage my colleague, the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, regarding a specific point involving the charitable reform provisions for Type III supporting organizations, particularly the authority of the Secretary to exempt an organization from the application of the excess business holdings rules. My colleague has worked hard to address the unintended consequences that may arise with regard to some of these changes as they related to the important work of many fine organizations that support worthy and noble causes. I have one of these organizations in my State of Colorado--the Reisher Family Foundation--that benefits many underprivileged students throughout my State and provides them the means to attend college in my State.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, specifically, I want to draw the chairman's attention to the excess business holdings provision and the language that allows the Secretary to waive the application of the excess business holdings provisions if the holdings of the Type III supporting organization are held consistent with the purpose or function constituting the basis for its exemption under section 501. I want to emphasize that my understanding is correct that the Secretary should make a final determination very quickly after a currently existing Type III supporting organization seeks exemption from the excess business holdings rules. It is extremely important that the determination be made within 6 months after the organization seeks exemption so that the organization knows how it must structure its holdings. Is that my friend's understanding?

Mr. ALLARD. I commend the chairman for his work and for working with others, such as the distinguished ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, and Senator Santorum on this much needed exemption. There is no question that we intend to encourage more charitable giving in this country. I thank my colleague for engaging me in this colloquy. Mr. President, I yield the floor. credit counseling organizations

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Officer Michel O. Conley, who lost his life in 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. This week, outside of my hometown of Loveland, CO, survivors of this tragedy gathered to commemorate the Big Thompson Flood. Though I could not be with them, my thoughts and prayers were. 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 Memorial Service for Officer Michel O. Conley, be printed in the Record. The material follows. July 31, 2006 Memorial Service for Officer Michel O. Conley; 30th Anniversary of the Big Thompson Flood Dear Ms. Marks and Guests: As we look back thirty years ago today we remember the shock and devastation that took place in the Big Thompson Canyon, and the loss of Officer Michel O. Conley. Joan and I arrived just after the crest from the flood had passed through Loveland and were astounded by the destruction. We were devastated by the tragedy which affected our community. The loss of Officer Michel Conley of the Estes Park Police Department is part of that tragedy. However, in his acts of service and selflessness he helped to prevent what could have been more losses. He helped to save approximately 60 people before he was lost in flood. His gallantry and bravery are to be commended. Joan's and my prayers and thoughts are with you today as you commemorate the Big Thompson Canyon Flood and the life of Officer Conley, and with all whose lives were affected by this tragedy. Sincerely, Wayne Allard, U.S. Senator.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on behalf of S. 3711 and that the time not be counted against the Republican time.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 3711, which is the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act. I am heartened by the fact that this is a bipartisan effort, agreed to by those Senators who represent our Gulf States. It is an important step in continuing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and we need to increase our supply of domestic oil and gas. Certainly, this is a step in the right direction. My approach to the energy needs of this country has always been that we need to have a broad-based approach. I was pleased with the Energy bill we passed in the last session of Congress which provided for a broad approach to meet our energy needs in this country. I think we understood as a body that in order to meet the short-term needs of this country's energy needs, we need to continue to rely on fossil fuels. We need to continue to expand exploration for oil and gas. We need to continue to rely on coal. But in addition, we also need to be looking at additional sources of energy, particularly the renewable energy area, which is wind, solar, geothermal, and biofuels, as well as looking at sources such as hydroelectric and nuclear power. As I look back on the effects of that bill we passed last session, I am already beginning to see positive effects from that legislation, and I am heartened by that. I can see those energy developments occurring in my own State, which involves new technologies, such as looking at oil shale as a source of a high-grade fuel that requires little refinement. Our current energy prices clearly still indicate that all is not well with supply, and the demand is still greater than supply. We need to also look at conservation. But right now with this bill, we are concerning ourselves with supply. While the price of natural gas is well below what it was this time last year, these prices are still well above what we were paying several years ago; and, as my colleague from Missouri mentioned, it is having an adverse impact throughout our economy, not the least of which it is having a serious adverse impact on our agricultural sector. I believe the fact that prices have decreased at all is directly due to the fact that we passed the Energy Policy Act last year. We have all seen the figures: 27 new ethanol plants have broken ground; 401 E-85 fueling pumps have been installed. These are pumps that provide an ethanol-gasoline mixture. And the number of hybrid vehicles has increased. Between now and the year 2020, the 15 new efficiency standards included in the bill will save 50,000 megawatts of energy, and the amount of electricity generated from renewable sources has increased dramatically. But we need to do more to encourage domestic production of oil and gas. It is argued--and I think argued well--that we should be reducing our energy consumption and increasing the amounts of energy we get from renewable and alternative sources. I agree. But the reality is that reducing consumption and increasing alternative resources does not happen overnight. I cannot ask my constituents to park the car and turn off the lights until we get there. The estimates of the resources that will be made available under this proposal are 1.26 billion barrels of oil and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. These are not insignificant amounts. These resources will provide a strong source of domestic energy for our country. I believe that the compromise struck by this bill is a good one. The fact that almost every Member who represents a coastal State that is affected cosponsored this bill strikes me as significant. I strongly believe in local control, and as part of that, I often defer to Members who represent a State if a bill will directly affect that State. I use the example of wilderness designation. If a bill designating wilderness in a certain State is sponsored and supported by both Members of that State, I see no reason not to support it. The same is true here. If the Members from the coastal States are supportive of this bill, I support them. I was hopeful that we would have the chance to address an amendment I wanted to offer on funding for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program. This particular program is extremely important to States, such as Colorado, that have a high percentage of federally owned land. Many people are unaware of the fact that 35 percent of Colorado is owned by the Federal Government. Federal ownership of these lands can be beneficial, but there is an unseen cost to local communities, to local governments. The Federal Government does not pay property taxes, and this translates into reduced revenue for local governments while there are some costs that they are burdened with in trying to meet the needs of the Federal agencies that are in that county or local community. For Colorado, it means $129 million each year in lost property tax revenue. This is funding that could be used for education, law enforcement efforts or road building. Unfortunately, PILT, or payment in lieu of taxes, is chronically underfunded, and the amendment I planned on offering would have helped to overcome this annual shortfall. Regardless of the fact that my amendment will not be considered, I am pleased that we are moving on this bill. I am hopeful that we can continue to put in place policies that will allow us to increase domestic production of all energy sources which will, in turn, reduce our reliance on foreign sources. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD. I withhold my request, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD. 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