Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President.

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD. 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.

Mr. ALLARD. 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.

Mr. ALLARD. It is.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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.

Mr. ALLARD. 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.

Mr. ALLARD. 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.

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Six years, I believe, yes.

Mr. ALLARD. 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.

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

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

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

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, we are now talking about S.J. Res. 1, the Protection of Marriage Amendment. We have an allocation of time that has been set out for the Republican side. Later on there will be an allocation, I understand, of the Democrats' time. I will allocate myself 20 minutes. Would the Presiding Officer notify me when I have used 17 minutes of that?

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask that Larry Craig be added as a cosponsor to S.J. Res. 1.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, respect for the democratic process compels this Congress to protect traditional marriage in the face of a coordinated effort to redefine marriage through the courts. Marriage, the union between a man and a woman, has been the foundation of every civilization in human history. It is incorporated into the fabric of our culture and civic life. It is the platform on which children, families, and communities are nurtured. Unfortunately, the U.S. Constitution is being amended to reflect a new definition of marriage, not by democratically elected Members of Congress but by unaccountable and unelected judges. As a result, I introduced S.J. Res. 1, an amendment to the Constitution that simply defines marriage as the ``union of a man and a woman,'' while leaving State legislatures the freedom to address the question of civil unions. Democracy and representative government are at the core of this debate. In 2004 and 2005, voters in 14 Sates overwhelmingly passed constitutional amendments protecting marriage. Today, 19 States have constitutional amendments protecting marriage and another 26 have statutes designed to protect traditional marriage. The will of the people is clear. Unfortunately, dissatisfied with the outcome of the democratic process, activists have intensified their campaign to circumvent the democratic process and redefine marriage through the courts. Currently nine States face lawsuits challenging traditional marriage laws. Among these lawsuits are challenges to State constitutional amendments passed by an overwhelming majority of voters. Recent decisions by activist judges not only fail to respect the traditional definition of marriage, they also highlight a lack of respect for the democratic process. The courts are driving a redefinition of marriage contrary to democratic principles. The process to amend the U.S. Constitution is the most democratic in the world, requiring two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the States to ratify. It is a process the American people can trust. If we fail to define marriage, the courts will not hesitate to do it for us. My amendment reflects my belief that the institution of marriage is too precious to surrender to the whims of a handful of unelected, activist judges. The will of the people should prevail. Marriage is the foundation of every civilization in human history. As I said before, the definition of marriage crosses all bounds of race, religion, culture, political party, ideology and ethnicity. Marriage is not a partisan issue. Marriage is embraced and intuitively understood to be a union between a man and a woman by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike. As an expression of this cultural value, the definition of marriage is incorporated into the very fabric of civic policy. It is the root from which families and communities are grown. Marriage is the one bond on which all other bonds are built. Marriage is not some controversial ideology being forced upon an unwilling populace by the government, it is in fact the opposite. Marriage is the ideal held by the people and the government has long reflected this. The broadly embraced union of a woman and a man is understood to be the ideal union from which people live and children best blossom and thrive. As we have heard in hours of testimony, in eight hearings, in numerous Senate committees over the last several years, marriage is a pretty good thing. A good marriage facilitates a more stable community, allows kids to grow up with fewer difficulties, increases the lifespan and quality of life of those involved, reduces the likelihood of incidences of chemical abuse and violent crime, and contributes to the overall health of the family. It is no wonder so many single adults long to be married, to raise kids, and to have families. Today there are numerous efforts to redefine marriage to be something that it isn't. When it comes to same-gender couples there is a problem of definition. Two women or two men simply do not meet the criteria for marriage as it has been defined for thousands of years. Marriage is, as it always has been, a union between a man and a woman. I believe the Framers of the Constitution felt that this would never be an issue--and if they had it would have been included in the U.S. Constitution. Like the vast majority of Americans, it would have never occurred to me that the definition of marriage, or marriage itself, would be the source of controversy. Not too long ago it would have been wholly inconceivable that this definition--this institution that is marriage--would be challenged, redefined or attacked. But we are here today because it is. As a result of this coordinated campaign to redefine marriage through the courts, we stand here today, compelled by respect for the democratic process, to publicly debate an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Again, this amendment simply reads: Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman. The first sentence is straightforward: It defines marriage as an institution solely between one man and one woman--just as it has been defined for thousands of years in hundreds of cultures around the world. The second sentence simply ensures that the people or their elected representatives, not judges, can decide whether to confer the legal incidents of marriage on people. Citizens remain free to act through their legislatures to bestow whatever benefits to same-sex couples that they choose. It is aimed squarely at the problem of judicial activism. Just as important as what it does do, is what it does not do. I have said it time and time again and I say here again today for the record: The amendment does not seek to prohibit, in any way, the lawful, democratic creation of civil unions or domestic partnerships. It does not prohibit private employers from offering benefits to same-sex couples. It denies no existing rights. What our amendment does is to define and protect traditional marriage at the highest level, the U.S. Constitution. Importantly, the consideration of this amendment in the Senate represents the discussion of marriage in America in a democratic body of elected officials. I am not willing to surrender this issue to the courts. I also believe it is important to make clear that on the question of federalism and States' rights I stand where I always have. While an indisputable definition of marriage will be a part of our Constitution, all other questions will be left to the States. Contrary to assertions of those who believe my amendment infringes on the rights of the States, my amendment actually protects States' rights. Forty-five States have spoken with laws or constitutional amendments designed to protect traditional marriage. Unfortunately, same-sex advocates have, through the courts, systematically and successfully trampled on laws democratically enacted in the States. If marriage is redefined for anybody, it is redefined for everybody. 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 people. Now is the time for Congress to fulfill its responsibility and send a constitutional amendment to the States for ratification. Marrige, the union between a man and a woman, has been the foundation of every civilization in human history. This debate is not about politics or discrimination, it is about marriage and democracy. Unfortunately, the U.S. Constitution is being amended to reflect a new definition of marriage--not by democratically elected Members of Congress but by unaccountable and unelected judges. If we fail to define marriage, the courts will not hesitate to do it for us. I, for one, believe that the institution of marriage and the principles of democracy are too precious to surrender to the whims of a handful of unelected, activist judges. Mr. President, I have behind me a number of charts I would like to go over for Members of the Senate. This is what the amendment is all about: Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman. In this very simple-to-understand chart form I have laid out for Members of the Senate exactly what happens when it is sent to the States and what it does to the courts. The State and Federal courts, what can they impose? They cannot redefine marriage. The courts cannot go ahead and redefine civil unions or domestic partnerships. The courts cannot grant rights or benefits of marriage. But it doesn't affect in any way employee benefits offered by private businesses. Then we go down and look at the legislatures. What can they do? They can't redefine marriage. But they can deal with the creation of civil unions or domestic partnerships--that is left up to the State legislatures, granting the rights or benefits of marriage. Again, that is left up to the State legislatures. Again, through the States, we don't mandate anything that affects private businesses. The next chart I would like to show to my colleagues in the Senate is how America is weighing in on the issue of marriage. We have a map of the United States here that clearly outlines those States where amendments have passed--in the dark green. If we look at those results from within the States, the State that passed with the least majority was Oregon with 57 percent, and the largest majority--it looks like it was in Mississippi: 86 percent. But the average margin of where States have enacted the constitutional amendment is greater than 70 percent. Then we see that marriage amendments are expected in 2006 in a number of States throughout the country. The percentage of the voters who support the idea of the definition of marriage is a large percentage, a large margin. Now I would like to go to our next chart to outline what the States have done to protect traditional marriage through statutory and constitutional defense of marriage acts. The blue lines show how the States have acted on the definition of marriage as it was allowed to occur through the defense of marriage acts. Obviously, we all recall that in the Senate we passed the Defense of Marriage Act by a large percentage and it passed the House by a large percentage. And it also passed in many States with a large percentage, with 45 States ending up passing the Defense of Marriage Act. The problem with the Defense of Marriage Act is it will not hold up against State challenges. Those court cases that have been brought forward could have an adverse impact on what a large majority of State legislatures have said and what a large majority of houses have said. The red reflects what has happened in regard to a constitutional amendment. We have 19 States that have passed those constitutional amendments and a number of amendments are pending before the States. Now let me look at the following chart, and this is the number of States in which marriage laws have been challenged in court. Between 1992 and 1994, we had 5 cases that were challenged in court, and as these cases have accumulated through the years, now, in 2006, we have 22 cases that have been challenged. So we have a significant threat from the courts. This is an important issue to the American people, it is an important issue to the Congress, and it is something that should be addressed. I believe that the institution of marriage and the principles of democracy are simply too precious to surrender to the whims of a handful of unelected activist judges. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Marriage Protection Amendment. I now yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time today from 6 to 6:30 be under the control of the majority and from 6:30 to 7 o'clock be under the control of the minority.