Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, I wish to speak for a few moments about the coming retirement of one of the most dedicated public servants I have had the pleasure of knowing. Shortly after the first of the year, John Trezise will be leaving the Department of the Interior after 35 productive years.. Since 1998, John has served as the Director of the Interior Department's Office of Budget and for the 5 years before that as the Chief of the Office's Division of Budget. In short, John has been ``running the numbers'' at the Interior Department for the past 13 years. And I can vouch for the fact that during those years, no one has known more about the Department's budget than John. He is, to put it bluntly, a walking ledger. John first got his start with the Department in 1971 when he hired on as a young attorney in the Office of the Solicitor. For a number of years, he was Assistant Solicitor for administrative law and General Legal Services, specializing in appropriations law issues. It is this legal background that has made John such an important asset to those of us on the Appropriations Committee. The guidance and counsel John has been able to offer our Members and our staff has been invaluable. It is no exaggeration to say that without his help, we would have been, if not lost, at least temporarily delayed in getting our appropriations bill done each year on time and within our budget. As he prepares to leave the Department, I wish to take this opportunity to say thank you to John Trezise for all he has done and to let him know that he will be sorely missed by the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I appreciate the words of my friend from Florida as I rise today and say my farewell to this body. I do it with some sadness, but I also do it with some great pride. I also do it with a great appreciation for the Senate and for the people who serve here. It has always been one of my personal honors and privileges to serve the State of Montana and the country for the last 18 years, and with such distinguished and honorable men and women. We have seen a lot of changes. I want to answer my good friend from Florida, before he leaves the floor: We have seen some changes come over the body, and I would suggest that we turn off that eye that surrounds this body, turn it off and turn the Senate back into the debating body it was once known for, with collegiality, because the best I have ever seen the Senate operate is in executive session. When you turn off the television and we get to the issues--and we have some marvelous people, dedicated, on both sides of an issue, who can argue the issue--some of us who may not be as disciplined in that particular issue as others could learn and vote more intelligently. I suggest that, but I doubt that will ever happen, being that that is out in the public today. I thank the Senator for his observation. We need to get back to the great debates that were held on the floor of the Senate many years ago. It was back on January 3, 1989, when I was sworn in the Senate. It was a proud day in my life and, of course, for my wife and our family. I got to thinking during that day that only in America could something like this happen. I was fortunate and, of course, we had both my wife's family, who are Nebraska folks, and my family, who are Missouri folks, in attendance that day. They are just folks, but they are emblematic of those people who were born of the land and in the heart of America-- ranchers and farmers. It was on the prairies of Missouri where I was born and raised on a little old bitty farm of 160 acres--what I call ``2 rocks and 1 dirt''--not a very good farm. But I have fond memories of that place. I give thanks every day that I was born to that family and in that old house that still stands on that 160 acres. Of course, in my younger years I gained most of my philosophy in life. I was born of folks who weren't very wealthy, as you would define wealthy. They were a product of the Great Depression and the terrible droughts of the 1930s. They survived by hard work and great pride. The values they passed on to most of us in my generation were the love of this country first, community pride and loyalty to that community, and honesty to the core. Russell and Mary Francis were married 59 years on that day when I was sworn in. And I will tell you, when they witnessed proudly their son sworn into the most prestigious body in the world, only in America can that happen. It is truly the miracle of our country. It was also a proud day for all of our family. I will say right now that we could not do well in this body without the true support of a wife and family because it is from that source that we draw our strength and, yes, our wisdom, as long as they are by our side. Phyllis, of course, and Keely and Garrett were all here. What blessings God has bestowed upon me personally. One was missing and that was Kate. God called her home back in 1985, but she remains in our memories and hearts forever. Again, one cannot do this job without the support and sacrifice of our family. We have seen a lot of positive things happen in Montana. Montana has just begun to grow in new directions. Montana is a resource State, with timber, mining, oil, and agriculture. But we have new opportunities now, and they have opened. I am proud to say that it was me and my office that led the way on most of those changes. It is said that it is not bragging if you have done it. I was fortunate enough to attract a staff that shared the same vision of change, and change we did. Montana is not short of visionaries. It was my privilege to know them, work with them, and to move our State forward. There is one thing about Montanans: They are not afraid to dream. As you know, dreams never die; dreamers do. Our colleges and universities now are national leaders in research and development, agriculture, engineering, and communications. We have telemedicine and distance learning where none existed before. We have seen a real leap forward in our infrastructure and transportation and rural utilities. We have watched an elevated vocational educational system grow. Tribal colleges on our seven reservations are growing and now offer opportunities that have never been available to our Native Americans in the history of our State. More Montanans are working today and owning their own homes than at any other time in the history of our State. I had the honor of serving with three Presidents, and one could say four, as it was in the closing days of President Reagan's term. They are all honorable men and dedicated to this Nation. I know what it is like to be in the minority, and I know what it is like to be in the majority. One great statement was made: ``The majority is more funner.'' I have enjoyed my work with some of the best men and women in the Senate who represented both sides of the aisle, from different regions of our country and diverse cultures of our country. I will miss them. But we have welded some friendships that will last forever. The same could be said of nations to which we have traveled and met national and international leaders on all continents. During my tenure here, we have witnessed the crash of the Berlin Wall, freedom in the market base come to the Eastern block in Europe, and the electricity that was in the House of Representatives when a newly elected President of Poland made his historical speech in a joint session. I will tell you what: It brought joy, tears, and pride to all of us in that Chamber. Like every Member of Congress, I wept when two of our Capitol policemen died on that summer day protecting this Capitol and us who live and work here. Still, our hearts go out to their families. They will never be forgotten. I leave with many memories. I ask the Senate to return to the deliberative and collegial body it was designed to be. I know it has that ability because I have seen it firsthand. But the challenges ahead are tremendous for this Government. I can only list about six of them: taxation, regulation, energy, health care, education, and litigation. We must face those challenges if we are to live in this free entrepreneurial and economic country. I suggest that we don't just dwell on the national interests first and all others separate. Members of this body are just average men and women, but they have the capabilities of rising to any occasion of crisis. They are just average, but they also have a higher degree of dedication to our country. I never underestimated any Member of the Senate, and I regard them as quiet heroes in a time of peace and in a time of turmoil and even in the most stressful time in the process of developing legislation that sets policy for our land. I shall miss all of you. It has been my great privilege to serve with you. As I leave, I say God bless you all. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. No, thank you. I appreciate the Senator asking.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I wish to honor a man that has worked his way to and excelled in the highest level of athletic competition, Mr. Bill Zadick. Bill competed in the wrestling world championship in Gaungzhu, China, where he won the gold medal in the 66 kilogram weight class. The wrestling world championship brings together the top wrestlers from around the world, and to win a gold medal is evidence of determination, dedication, and elite talent. The semifinal match that Bill won exemplified these characteristics as he fought for every point in a weight class deemed to be the most difficult of all. Not to be overlooked was the silver medal victory achieved by Mr. Mike Zadick, brother to Bill, in the 60 kilogram weight class. As did Bill, Mike represented the fine qualities of a champion and the honor in his achievement will be long celebrated. Growing up in Great Falls, Bill excelled in wrestling during high school and later at the University of Iowa. His hard work ethic, adopted from his father, helped shape Bill into a world-class wrestler. After the 2001 world championships where Bill placed seventh, his desire for perfection landed him in Colorado Springs where he developed a training program that would eventually earn him a gold medal. Not only has Bill set an example for athletic excellence, but he has acted as a role model for fellow Montanans. Montana has enjoyed recognition on the world platform before, and it is because of men like Bill that we have the opportunity to continue this great honor. Considered to be a part of the greatest wrestling family in Montana, Bill and Mike Zadick deserve the praise and recognition given to them. We are proud as well as fortunate to have men such as Bill and Mike Zadick from Montana, demonstrating their amiable work ethic and acting as role models to younger generations of athletes and students alike.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I don't know of anything more frustrating to all of us who come from farm and ranch country than to try to get this taken care of. We tried to take care of it last year and didn't get it done. There was no urgency. We had a fairly good crop this year. We were not the epicenter of the drought. We have been in that bull's- eye now for 6, going on 7 years. It takes its toll not only on wells but reservoirs and streams. I am here in support of this because I will tell you that the Dakotas were the epicenter, and they helped us out when we needed it. We are going to try to help them out the best we can and do something. This year in range country, we probably had more range fires burning--over 800,000 acres in Montana alone. We had a lot of growth to our grass in the first part of the year. We hit July when it was terribly hot, and it became crisp. When August came, we got the fires. They were devastating, taking out fall pastures, hayfields, fences, even livestock, and we had to move a lot of livestock. We need to boost this legislation. We have it back down to where I think it is a pretty commonsense approach where nobody is getting rich. The only thing we are trying to do is just get the folks to next spring, get them into next year. That is what this piece of legislation is all about. There is nothing excessive in this piece of legislation or the money we will spend. There is not. All of that has been taken out. This is barebones. This is the basics to their operations. We need to pass it this afternoon. I call on the leadership from both sides of the aisle to urgently take a look at this and make sure we get it done before we go home. Mr. President, I heartily support this, and I know the man in the chair right now, who probably knows his State about as good as anybody--he was raised ``west of the river,'' as we call it, in South Dakota. I have never seen an area as devastated by drought as this area was. You could not raise a fence. So I would call on the leadership to take a look at this, pass it this afternoon, and get them some money before next spring rolls around. I thank my good friends from North Dakota for their leadership. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I want to take this moment to call the Senate's attention to a historic agreement that was signed today between the Federal Highways Administration and the Assiniboine & Sioux tribes at the Fort Peck Reservation in Montana. Today, Fort Peck entered into an agreement with FHWA to directly manage highway funds for the reservation, allowing increased focus on the local needs of tribal members. Fort Peck is one of five tribes that were selected for this new partnership. By empowering the tribes to administer these funds directly, FHWA is recognizing the critical need for improved transportation infrastructure on tribal lands. From increased safety to economic development, tribal authorities are best suited to direct this funding in a manner that will serve the needs of their communities. In the recently passed highway bill, the Indian reservation roads account was substantially increased, which also demonstrates the Federal commitment to tribal transportation needs. I was pleased to support this increase, and even more pleased that Montana is leading the way in this new era of government-to-government cooperation in administering these funds. I am a firm believer that empowering folks on the ground to address the specific needs of their communities generally yields the best results, and no where is that more true than in Indian Country. Montana's tribes are working tirelessly to improve the quality of life for their people, and investing in basic infrastructure, like roads, is the foundation of economic growth in these rural areas. Safe, reliable roads are needed to get kids to school, people to work, and products to market. This is a basic need we are talking about here, and I am confident that the leaders at the Fort Peck reservation are best suited to tackle these challenges. I would like to congratulate Fort Peck and FHWA for this groundbreaking partnership. I am hopeful that we can build on this initiative and expand the ability of tribal leaders to shape the future of their people.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today, September 19, 2006, I join with my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, in cosponsoring a resolution to designate September 24, 2006 as National Good Neighbor Day. I am proud to promote positive, meaningful friendships between citizens as part of a long-established tradition begun in 1971 by one of Montana's own citizens. National Good Neighbor Day was started by Becky Mattson of Lakeside, MT with the intent of fostering a strong community of friendship and interaction between neighbors. This day also serves to facilitate communication between senior citizens and children. So often the communications between America's greatest generation and our youngest citizens is not as strong as it could be, yet, Ms. Mattson has found a way to help encourage that important dialogue. Ms. Mattson began this tradition by doing what so many Montanans and Americans do: she wrote a letter to her Senator. That letter, to Senator Mike Mansfield, was met with great enthusiasm and as result, the National Good Neighbor Day has become an annual event, taking place on the fourth Sunday of September. Her efforts have been recognized by countless individuals, and have even been recognized through proclamations by three United States Presidents: Carter, Ford and Nixon. In addition, governors of many States have issued proclamations of Good Neighbor Day as well. In the spirit of Ms. Mattson, I encourage my colleagues in the Senate and in our communities to reach out and be a good neighbor. I urge children to visit with senior citizens and to share their life experiences. The efforts of each person matters, not just on this day, but everyday, and will make our communities stronger. I am proud of Ms. Mattson, and thank her for her contribution in making us all good neighbors.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am very supportive of the Senator from Nebraska on this issue. I wish we could have gotten a vote and not have to deal with a point of order. I don't think the fires we have had in Montana and the dry weather we have had in Montana yield to a point of order. We do have people hurting. I appreciate the work done by the Senator from Nebraska. We will continue this exercise, passing an emergency disaster package for agriculture before we go home. I appreciate him allowing me some time. I pass along to the Senate and Montanans we are having a drought. In fact, our water is only testing 85 percent moisture. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska. I thank Senator Bingaman for his work on this amendment. We heartily approve the amendment. It has strong support on this side of the aisle.

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

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

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dorgan and I be added as cosponsors to amendment No. 4914.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Grassley and other distinguished Senate colleagues in cosponsoring S. Con. Res. 97. Under this concurrent resolution, the United States sets a goal to provide at least 25 percent of the total energy consumed in the United States from renewable resources by January 1, 2025. I have said many times and very firmly believe that our energy future will be grown on our farms, ranches, and forests. In my State of Montana, our farmers are already producing food and fiber for our country. Before long, they will be producing food, fiber, and fuel as agriculture will become part of the energy business. It is important we have the technology available so we do not have to choose between producing food or fuel. In Montana and elsewhere, technology is already being developed to produce cellulosic ethanol. Unlike traditional corn-based ethanol, cellulosic ethanol will use materials such as wheat straw and barley straw. These materials, once discarded as waste, can now be turned into energy. On August 8, 2005, this Congress passed one of the most comprehensive energy research, development, and conservation bills this country has seen in decades: the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Now, just 1 year later, the initial outcomes are impressive. Twenty-seven new ethanol plants have broken ground. Over 400 E85 pumps have been installed. New wind power production has spurred over $3 billion in economic activity and generated 2,000 megawatts of new usable wind power online. These figures are staggering but pale in comparison to the accomplishments that are possible in the next 20 years. We have set an ambitious goal. I am pleased this resolution does not include mandates for how to achieve this energy vision. The combination of American ingenuity and widespread public support for this initiative will move the free market toward achieving this attainable goal.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today because, despite the heroic efforts of law enforcement agencies in Montana and elsewhere around the country, the use of methamphetamine continues to rise. In the Senate, we have passed legislation to fund efforts to go after domestic production of meth--from provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, which restricted the sale of pseudoephedrine, to funds for the cleanup of meth labs. While law enforcement officials report that these efforts are in fact reducing the production of meth within our borders, they also tell me that foreign-produced meth is being imported to fill the supply void. For this reason, I have introduced the ``Methamphetamine Trafficking Prevention Act of 2006'' in order to bring additional Federal resources to bear on this problem. I want to thank my colleagues, Senate Majority Leader Frist, Senator DeWine, Senator Allard, Senator Coleman, Senator Allen and Senator Smith for joining me in sponsoring this legislation. The United States shares around 4,000 miles of border with Canada and almost 2,000 miles with Mexico. Controlling what comes across these borders must be a top priority for national security. A report recently released by the President's Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health and Human Services had this to say: The most urgent priority of the Federal Government toward reducing the supply of methamphetamine in the Untied States will be to tighten the international market for chemical precursors, such as pseudoephedrine and ephedrine, used to produce the drug. Most of the methamphetamine used in America--probably between 75 and 85 percent--is made with chemical precursors that are diverted at some point from the international stream of commerce . . . Although domestic enforcement continues to be a priority, the impact of State laws controlling retail access to precursors, together with Federal, State, and local enforcement efforts, has had a significant impact on the domestic production of methamphetamine. As a result, a larger proportion of the methamphetamine consumed in the United States is now coming across the border as a final product . . . Meth trafficking has quickly adapted to increased domestic efforts to stem production and the need for an international solution is clear. This legislation will provide an additional $15 million for the Department of Justice's Meth Hot Spots Program for the creation of ``Border Technology Grants'' to support technology used to detect meth and substances used to make meth on the border through aerial surveillance and to find meth labs around the border with hyperspectral sensors. Another $5 million will be provided to the Drug Enforcement Agency for trace chemical detectors to be used on U.S. borders. These sensors will also assist in locating explosive devices. The international nature of meth trafficking makes Federal action necessary, but the United States cannot act alone. This legislation will also coordinate Federal drug enforcement efforts with foreign counterparts in order to devise a strategy to fight meth production across national borders. Officials from the U.S. Trade Representative will discuss meth trafficking with trading partners in multi- and bi- lateral negotiations in order to curb the shipment of this dangerous substance. The impacts of the meth crisis are felt nationwide. In Montana, I have seen first-hand the consequences of meth addiction on individuals, their families, and communities. Nowhere are these problems more serious than on Indian Reservations. In Montana, there are several reservations on or near the Canadian border. While Montana's law enforcement has done a good job shutting down meth labs in Montana, the flow of meth from Canada and Mexico has more than replaced domestic meth production. This bill would require the Department of Justice to report to Congress the problems faced on these reservations with respect to meth abuse and trafficking. It is time to take the response to this crisis to a new-- international--level and I encourage my colleagues to support these efforts.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today because, despite the heroic efforts of law enforcement agencies in Montana and elsewhere around the country, the use of methamphetamine continues to rise. In the Senate, we have passed legislation to fund efforts to go after domestic production of meth--from provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, which restricted the sale of pseudoephedrine, to funds for the cleanup of meth labs. While law enforcement officials report that these efforts are in fact reducing the production of meth within our borders, they also tell me that foreign-produced meth is being imported to fill the supply void. For this reason, I have introduced the ``Methamphetamine Trafficking Prevention Act of 2006'' in order to bring additional Federal resources to bear on this problem. I want to thank my colleagues, Senate Majority Leader Frist, Senator DeWine, Senator Allard, Senator Coleman, Senator Allen and Senator Smith for joining me in sponsoring this legislation. The United States shares around 4,000 miles of border with Canada and almost 2,000 miles with Mexico. Controlling what comes across these borders must be a top priority for national security. A report recently released by the President's Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health and Human Services had this to say: The most urgent priority of the Federal Government toward reducing the supply of methamphetamine in the Untied States will be to tighten the international market for chemical precursors, such as pseudoephedrine and ephedrine, used to produce the drug. Most of the methamphetamine used in America--probably between 75 and 85 percent--is made with chemical precursors that are diverted at some point from the international stream of commerce . . . Although domestic enforcement continues to be a priority, the impact of State laws controlling retail access to precursors, together with Federal, State, and local enforcement efforts, has had a significant impact on the domestic production of methamphetamine. As a result, a larger proportion of the methamphetamine consumed in the United States is now coming across the border as a final product . . . Meth trafficking has quickly adapted to increased domestic efforts to stem production and the need for an international solution is clear. This legislation will provide an additional $15 million for the Department of Justice's Meth Hot Spots Program for the creation of ``Border Technology Grants'' to support technology used to detect meth and substances used to make meth on the border through aerial surveillance and to find meth labs around the border with hyperspectral sensors. Another $5 million will be provided to the Drug Enforcement Agency for trace chemical detectors to be used on U.S. borders. These sensors will also assist in locating explosive devices. The international nature of meth trafficking makes Federal action necessary, but the United States cannot act alone. This legislation will also coordinate Federal drug enforcement efforts with foreign counterparts in order to devise a strategy to fight meth production across national borders. Officials from the U.S. Trade Representative will discuss meth trafficking with trading partners in multi- and bi- lateral negotiations in order to curb the shipment of this dangerous substance. The impacts of the meth crisis are felt nationwide. In Montana, I have seen first-hand the consequences of meth addiction on individuals, their families, and communities. Nowhere are these problems more serious than on Indian Reservations. In Montana, there are several reservations on or near the Canadian border. While Montana's law enforcement has done a good job shutting down meth labs in Montana, the flow of meth from Canada and Mexico has more than replaced domestic meth production. This bill would require the Department of Justice to report to Congress the problems faced on these reservations with respect to meth abuse and trafficking. It is time to take the response to this crisis to a new-- international--level and I encourage my colleagues to support these efforts.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I rise in support of S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act. This energy bill will open more than 8.3 million acres on the Outer Continental Shelf for oil and gas leasing. This area is estimated to produce 1.26 billion barrels of oil and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. I expect as new technologies are developed this estimate of recoverable resources will only grow. As oil and natural gas prices fluctuate, many Americans, especially Montanans, are feeling the strain of increased prices for energy use in their homes and businesses. The natural gas supply made available by this bill will heat and cool nearly 6 million homes for 15 years. Additionally, an increased supply of natural gas will greatly benefit Montana's agriculture producers who are particularly hard hit by skyrocketing costs of fuel and fertilizer. Natural gas is the primary feedstock in virtually all fertilizer manufactured in the United States. Increased production of domestic natural gas will help stabilize prices and decrease our dependence on foreign suppliers of natural gas such as Venezuela and Russia. In order to strengthen American energy security, it is our obligation to use our own domestic resources whenever we can. Offshore drilling has proven to be safe, reliable, and environmentally responsible for oil and gas production. While this bill is limited in scope, it is an important first step to increasing our energy supply to meet our country's demands. Lease area 181 is a phenomenal resource, and time after time in energy committee hearings when we ask expert witnesses for their opinions on how to best stabilize and lower natural gas prices, the answer is: Open lease area 181. I applaud the leadership of Chairman Domenici and the bipartisan groups of Senators that hammered out this compromise. I urge my fellow Senators to support this bill and pass this important piece of our energy security.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Galt family from my home State of Montana. The Galt family first came to Montana in 1910 settling in Judith Basin County. They have been leaders in their communities ever since. One member of the Galt family paid the ultimate sacrifice for his country at the young age of 24. U.S. Army CPT William Wylie Galt was awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously for his brave actions in 1944. The Medal of Honor is the highest award for valor in action against an enemy force that can be bestowed upon an individual serving in the armed services of the United States. Captain Galt's citation reads: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty. Capt. Galt, Battalion S3, at a particularly critical period following 2 unsuccessful attacks by his battalion, of his own volition went forward and ascertained just how critical the situation was. He volunteered, at the risk of his life, personally to lead the battalion against the objective. When the lone remaining tank destroyer refused to go forward, Capt. Galt jumped on the tank destroyer and ordered it to precede the attack. As the tank destroyer moved forward, followed by a company of riflemen, Capt. Galt manned the .30-caliber machinegun in the turret of the tank destroyer, located and directed fire on an enemy 77mm. anti- tank gun, and destroyed it. Nearing the enemy positions, Capt. Galt stood fully exposed in the turret, ceaselessly firing his machinegun and tossing hand grenades into the enemy zigzag series of trenches despite the hail of sniper and machinegun bullets ricocheting off the tank destroyer. As the tank destroyer moved, Capt. Galt so maneuvered it that 40 of the enemy were trapped in one trench. When they refused to surrender, Capt. Galt pressed the trigger of the machinegun and dispatched every one of them. A few minutes later an 88mm shell struck the tank destroyer and Capt. Galt fell mortally wounded across his machinegun. He had personally killed 40 Germans and wounded many more. Capt. Galt pitted his judgment and superb courage against overwhelming odds, exemplifying the highest measure of devotion to his country and the finest traditions of the U.S. Army. In 2005, the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, BRAC, decided to permanently close Galt Hall U.S. Army Reserve Center on Gore Hill in Great Falls, MT, and relocate units to a new Armed Forces Readiness Center near Malmstrom Air Force Base across town. The U.S. Army Reserve Center on Gore Hill was dedicated to Captain Galt in 1958. I believe it is a fitting tribute to name the U.S. Armed Forces Readiness Center in Great Falls, MT, ``The Captain William Wylie Galt Great Falls Armed Forces Readiness Center'' to carry on the history of this brave Montanan. Captain Galt may be gone, but with the naming of the Armed Forces Readiness Center in Great Falls after him, the memory of this true hero will live on and remind us that freedom is never free.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Galt family from my home State of Montana. The Galt family first came to Montana in 1910 settling in Judith Basin County. They have been leaders in their communities ever since. One member of the Galt family paid the ultimate sacrifice for his country at the young age of 24. U.S. Army CPT William Wylie Galt was awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously for his brave actions in 1944. The Medal of Honor is the highest award for valor in action against an enemy force that can be bestowed upon an individual serving in the armed services of the United States. Captain Galt's citation reads: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty. Capt. Galt, Battalion S3, at a particularly critical period following 2 unsuccessful attacks by his battalion, of his own volition went forward and ascertained just how critical the situation was. He volunteered, at the risk of his life, personally to lead the battalion against the objective. When the lone remaining tank destroyer refused to go forward, Capt. Galt jumped on the tank destroyer and ordered it to precede the attack. As the tank destroyer moved forward, followed by a company of riflemen, Capt. Galt manned the .30-caliber machinegun in the turret of the tank destroyer, located and directed fire on an enemy 77mm. anti- tank gun, and destroyed it. Nearing the enemy positions, Capt. Galt stood fully exposed in the turret, ceaselessly firing his machinegun and tossing hand grenades into the enemy zigzag series of trenches despite the hail of sniper and machinegun bullets ricocheting off the tank destroyer. As the tank destroyer moved, Capt. Galt so maneuvered it that 40 of the enemy were trapped in one trench. When they refused to surrender, Capt. Galt pressed the trigger of the machinegun and dispatched every one of them. A few minutes later an 88mm shell struck the tank destroyer and Capt. Galt fell mortally wounded across his machinegun. He had personally killed 40 Germans and wounded many more. Capt. Galt pitted his judgment and superb courage against overwhelming odds, exemplifying the highest measure of devotion to his country and the finest traditions of the U.S. Army. In 2005, the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, BRAC, decided to permanently close Galt Hall U.S. Army Reserve Center on Gore Hill in Great Falls, MT, and relocate units to a new Armed Forces Readiness Center near Malmstrom Air Force Base across town. The U.S. Army Reserve Center on Gore Hill was dedicated to Captain Galt in 1958. I believe it is a fitting tribute to name the U.S. Armed Forces Readiness Center in Great Falls, MT, ``The Captain William Wylie Galt Great Falls Armed Forces Readiness Center'' to carry on the history of this brave Montanan. Captain Galt may be gone, but with the naming of the Armed Forces Readiness Center in Great Falls after him, the memory of this true hero will live on and remind us that freedom is never free.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Montana. The reason we filed that amendment on Monday was for this particular reason: The FAA controls all air space. Just like we found out a little while ago, they only have one area where a waiver has been granted, and this instructs that the Secretary of Homeland Security will work with the FAA, and the FAA will work with the other agency in order to allow this pilot program to move forward. It has already been established in Great Falls. That northern border security that we already have there and this pilot program can move forward with the UAV. So I thank my colleague for including that language. That is the reason we filed the amendment in the first place. He already put language in the immigration bill, but we needed that language that still recognizes the FAA as controller of our air space and is probably key in this pilot program moving forward. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the St. Mary Diversion and Conveyance Works and Milk River Project Act of 2006. In 1903, Secretary of Interior Hitchcock authorized construction of the Milk River Project as one of the first five reclamation projects under the new reclamation service. Two years later, construction was authorized for the St. Mary Diversion Facilities. Completed in 1915, the Milk River Project and the St. Mary Diversion Facilities have been in operation for nearly 100 years with minimum repairs and improvements. The Milk River Project and the accompanying St. Mary Diversion Facilities are known as the Lifeline of the Hi-Line. The St. Mary and Milk River basins are home to approximately 70,000 people with a meager per capita income of approximately $19,500. Most of these people depend--directly or indirectly--on the project and would be dramatically impacted by its failure and the loss of water. The Milk River is the backbone of the region's agricultural economy. It provides water to irrigate over 110,000 acres on approximately 660 farms. This project provides municipal water to approximately 14,000 people. Fisheries, recreation, tourism, water quality, and wildlife are all impacted by the water flow. But now the St. Mary Diversion Facilities and the Milk River Project are facing catastrophic failure. The steel siphons have leaks and slope stability problems. Landslides along the canal and the deteriorated condition of the structure make the project an unreliable water source. As authorized in 1903, the Milk River Project is operated as a single-use irrigation project. Since completion, nearly 100 percent of the cost to operate and maintain the diversion infrastructure has been borne by irrigators. The average annual O & M cost from 1998 to 2003 was $420,000, of which irrigators were responsible for 98 percent. In addition, irrigators are responsible for reimbursing reclamation for the initial construction costs of the diversion facilities. Maintenance costs have increased with the accelerating deterioration of the aging facilities. In 2003, the St. Mary Rehabilitation Working Group was formed to address the pressing needs of the system. This broad coalition of interests came together to find workable solutions. This legislation is a result of their efforts and dedication. The St. Mary Diversion and Conveyance Works and Milk River Project Act of 2006 will provide a feasible and comprehensive approach to rehabilitating the aging and deteriorating infrastructure while still meeting the needs of the folks in Montana. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to move this important piece of legislation forward.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the St. Mary Diversion and Conveyance Works and Milk River Project Act of 2006. In 1903, Secretary of Interior Hitchcock authorized construction of the Milk River Project as one of the first five reclamation projects under the new reclamation service. Two years later, construction was authorized for the St. Mary Diversion Facilities. Completed in 1915, the Milk River Project and the St. Mary Diversion Facilities have been in operation for nearly 100 years with minimum repairs and improvements. The Milk River Project and the accompanying St. Mary Diversion Facilities are known as the Lifeline of the Hi-Line. The St. Mary and Milk River basins are home to approximately 70,000 people with a meager per capita income of approximately $19,500. Most of these people depend--directly or indirectly--on the project and would be dramatically impacted by its failure and the loss of water. The Milk River is the backbone of the region's agricultural economy. It provides water to irrigate over 110,000 acres on approximately 660 farms. This project provides municipal water to approximately 14,000 people. Fisheries, recreation, tourism, water quality, and wildlife are all impacted by the water flow. But now the St. Mary Diversion Facilities and the Milk River Project are facing catastrophic failure. The steel siphons have leaks and slope stability problems. Landslides along the canal and the deteriorated condition of the structure make the project an unreliable water source. As authorized in 1903, the Milk River Project is operated as a single-use irrigation project. Since completion, nearly 100 percent of the cost to operate and maintain the diversion infrastructure has been borne by irrigators. The average annual O & M cost from 1998 to 2003 was $420,000, of which irrigators were responsible for 98 percent. In addition, irrigators are responsible for reimbursing reclamation for the initial construction costs of the diversion facilities. Maintenance costs have increased with the accelerating deterioration of the aging facilities. In 2003, the St. Mary Rehabilitation Working Group was formed to address the pressing needs of the system. This broad coalition of interests came together to find workable solutions. This legislation is a result of their efforts and dedication. The St. Mary Diversion and Conveyance Works and Milk River Project Act of 2006 will provide a feasible and comprehensive approach to rehabilitating the aging and deteriorating infrastructure while still meeting the needs of the folks in Montana. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to move this important piece of legislation forward.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today, Flag Day, in support of S.J. Res. 12, which seeks to establish a constitutional amendment to ban the desecration of our flag. From the time of our Revolutionary War to this very moment, Old Glory has been the undying symbol of our Nation. While it is a symbol that has many different meanings to many different people, it is the one symbol that represents the hopes and dreams of millions of people who have fled tyranny in another land and fought to preserve freedom here at home. More than anything else, it represents the selfless sacrifices of previous generations who have willingly laid down their lives so that we can live in the most prosperous and free nation in the history of the world. As a Marine, I served under our flag as I proudly do now as the Senator from the great State of Montana. Thus, I know a thing or two about what our flag stands for--as does most every veteran who served and sacrificed under our flag, or who has fired and been fired upon in combat defending what our flag stands for. Countless millions of American soldiers have done and continue to do the same. As we speak, there are over 14,000 Montanans in the service of their country, 1,365 of whom are now serving overseas. It is simply an insult to these brave Americans that the sacrifices they have made in the name of liberty under the American flag are spit on by people who would burn, trample, or otherwise willfully desecrate our flag. While we rightly honor the brave men and women who have sacrificed their lives, we do not yet honor the symbol for which those sacrifices were made by protecting our flag. That is why we need a constitutional amendment. Some argue that that it is a form of speech. However, it is sad that someone cannot defend their arguments or clearly state their national hatred without setting a fire? Frankly, if the totality of your argument can be summed with gasoline and matches, then you just do not have much of an argument to begin with. Even more striking is that these people, devoid of new ideas, resort to tactics used by our enemies abroad. Look at the video of those who would destroy us--protests in Iran, for example. Our enemies burn our flag while calling for our deaths because they know it is our symbol They want to destroy us and have no respect for our freedoms and way of life. Sadly, there are some in this country that, while they may or may not share that goal, do share that tactic. We owe it to the generations who came before us and to the brave men and women who protect us now to protect the symbol which meant so much to them. Far too many have sacrificed too much serving under our flag for me to sit on the sidelines and do nothing. That is why I see it as my duty to voice my support on behalf of all Montanans for a constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the events of the past week. We have received word that the leading terrorist in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was the mastermind of countless brutal attacks and taking lives of members of the U.S. Armed Forces and thousands of innocent Iraqis, was killed. This has been a long time coming. I commend those who worked tirelessly over the past year to finally see the fruits of their labors. Their dedication has saved countless lives. But that does not mean the war on terror is over. We still have a lot of work to do. We know the terrorists never give up. The greatest weapon they have is, of course, fear. Last weekend, we also heard of a terrorist plot uncovered in Canada. Fortunately, those behind that plot were arrested before they could carry out their plans to murder the Canadian Prime Minister. We are getting better at our intelligence. We are stopping these attacks. Of course, this will continue to be our mission, and for the people who are in the business of short-circuiting these plots, their job may never end. Terrorists will stop at nothing to incite fear in the minds and hearts of Americans and free-loving people all over the world. We will fight as long as it takes to defeat them. Part of that fight is ensuring our security at home. My State of Montana borders Canada. In our part of the country, I like to say there is a lot of dirt between light bulbs. That makes it difficult to effectively patrol the border between my State and our friends to the north. Next time, will terrorists enter somewhere along that 550-mile border that my State shares with Canada? What makes it even more difficult is we are used to going back and forth between my State and Canada. We have farmers who farm on both sides of the border. They own farms in Canada, and they also own farms in Montana. Of course, we like the freedom of that movement. The arrests last weekend have proven that illegal activity happens on our northern border, just like the problems we have on our southern border. I have said many times during the discussion of the immigration bill that we must know who is coming in this country and what for, and we also cannot have any credibility with the American people until we secure the border. The Senate recently passed a massive immigration bill. There were a number of border security measures in the legislation--recommendations for a security fence, using the National Guard as backup and technical support, and other features. There were also provisions to enhance the security of our northern border, although I think even those could be stronger. Most notably, however, this legislation did something else with which the American people do not agree: this legislation gave a pathway to citizenship for millions of illegal aliens. For this reason, I simply could not support the bill. Not only is it bad policy, but it sends the message that entering this country illegally is somehow OK. Folks in my State have said: No amnesty for illegal aliens. They have been saying that until they are blue in the face. They feel strongly about it, so strongly that I received bricks in the mail with big letters on them: Secure the border and build the wall. I am not a big fan of walls. They have never had a history of success. But nonetheless, it sends a strong message on the things we should be doing. It is a plain fact that illegal activity happens every day on our borders. We are in a great project in the State of Montana called the Montana Meth Project. We are finding out that meth houses have been shut down. Law enforcement has done their job in our State. What we are finding now is meth coming in from outside our borders. Crystal meth is one of the worst fights we have in our State. Other criminal activities pose a threat to the safety of local communities and to our national security as a whole. I know folks in my State have seen this happen firsthand. Up on the hi-line, border agents in Havre, MT, have arrested illegal immigrants from as many as 35 different countries. Many of these illegal immigrants are found hiding on trains as they pass through Havre and several other towns on the hi-line of Montana. In February, a fugitive thought to be armed and dangerous led the Montana Highway Patrol on two high-speed chases near Kalispell, MT, before being apprehended. He was trying to escape to Canada. Last October, Border Patrol agents spotted a man driving in a stolen pickup toward the Canadian border outside of Cut Bank, MT. After a standoff, the man was shot by officers acting in self-defense. I know my colleagues from States that share international borders, northern and southern, have stories like this. They can go on forever. We have illegal aliens still flooding into this country through our southern border every day and, yes, some through the northern border. It is not too much to ask for our law enforcement agencies to find, detain, and deport those who have broken the law. It is overwhelming. It is amazing to me that we can so diligently pursue terrorists as dangerous and as murderous as al-Zarqawi in Iraq and be successful, yet we do not meet with the same success here in this country. When it comes to our own borders, our own immigration policies, mistakes continue to be made both on the ground and here in this Congress. More importantly, when we allow illegal aliens to stay, what kind of a message does that send to the rest of the world about our immigration policy? If you come here illegally, just wait it out. That is the message we are sending now. We will give you amnesty eventually. It seems that 20 years from now, it will be amnesty once again for even more of those who would enter this country illegally. The 1986 immigration reform act didn't work. Basically, the bill that recently passed the Senate--not with my support--almost mirrors the 1986 act. What good is history if we don't learn the lesson? As the House and Senate come together to conference on this legislation, I advise taking into account what the American people are telling us. They are telling us what they want, and they are very clear with the message. Just as we continue our efforts in Iraq and our fight in this war on terrorism abroad, we must also ensure a secure border and sound immigration policy at home. There is no way we can skirt the issue. It burns in the hearts of everybody in my State. They are very clear about the message. You do first things first and second things second. The first thing we have to do to gain any credibility with the American people is to secure the border, knowing what the cost will be and knowing the job that is ahead of us. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 8, a bill that would permanently repeal the death tax. This burden is especially harmful to many Montana farms, ranches, and small businesses. As we have heard many times in the past several days, the value of a person's estate is measured by its fair market value at the time of death. In Montana, as you can imagine, land value has appreciated significantly in recent years. When the death tax hits, often part of the ranch or farm must be sold off to pay federal taxes. The death tax is not only about the wealthy--it harms working families in Montana who have farmed or ranched on the same land for generations, but now, due to no fault of their own, are forced to give up their way of life just to pay the tax bill. Land appreciation in Montana is a double-edged sword. While soaring property values benefit sellers and the local tax base, for those with no intention to sell their property to the highest bidder, the death tax helps make a difficult decision even easier. We already face high out-migration from frontier counties in Montana. It is difficult enough to keep younger generations involved in the family business, but even harder when a death sets in motion a series of unpleasant financial events, including payment of this burdensome tax. I have been a strong supporter of the permanent, full repeal of the death tax. It isn't fair to families who have worked all of their lives to build assets and a way of life that then is taken away. At the very least, the Federal Government should not punish small businesses, farms, and ranches for filling such an important role vital to our economic well-being. I have spent a lot of time on these ranches, and I am here to tell you that these Montanans are some of the hardest working people in the country. By and large, they are not multimillionaires who purchase dude ranches as a pleasant distraction from the hustle and bustle of city life. These are folks who spend a lot of hot days in June swathing hay to make sure the cows are fed throughout the winter. They invest blood, sweat, and tears, often for a dwindling profit. For example, let's look at the case of Mary Jo Lane from Livingston, MT. She wrote to me, saying: My husband Tom operates the family ranch east of Livingston on the Yellowstone River. My father-in-law, Tom Lane, Sr. is the epitome of the American success story. His father was a first generation American and his mother was an Irish immigrant. He started ranching on his family's ranch out of Three Forks with his brother and became a cattle buyer. Through much hard work, determination and moderate living, along with a little Irish luck, he was able to buy the Livingston ranch in 1972, and his brother took over the ranch in Three Forks. Over the last thirty years Tom Sr. has been able to put together a ranching operation large enough to keep all four of his sons working on the family ranch. In addition to my husband on the Livingston ranch, his brothers operate ranches in Cascade, Harlowton and Ismay. In 1972, I am sure he never imagined what would happen to land values in this area. The ultra-wealthy and celebrities have been driving up land values which agriculturally we can never gain enough income to support. This would be great for anyone interested in selling their land, but it puts a huge burden on the family rancher interested in maintaining the dream of passing the land down to their kids and staying true to the family heritage. With these new purchasers gaining land for purely aesthetic reasons, with no consideration to generating income from the land, we just can't keep up with rising estate costs. In our case, we already know it is not a matter of if we have to sell a piece of land, but which piece to sell that will have the least effect on the operation. This issue is not purely agricultural; it flows into so many other segments of society. As you know, this land is like our factory and when part of the factory is sold, that reduces production which in turn reduces income and reduces taxes paid to the government. No matter how much the land is valued, it still requires about 25 acres to carry one cow/ calf pair. Consider too, what selling out does to the small ag communities in the state that rely on ranchers to buy their farming implements, parts, fuel, etc. etc. Estate taxes have a direct impact on the environment as well. Ranches and farms keep the Western land open, limiting development and giving wildlife and people room to roam. Many people come from all over America to visit our beautiful state, but they don't appreciate the fact that the family rancher is paying quite a price to keep it that way. This experience shows how the death tax has affected just one working Montana ranch, and makes a powerful case for permanent and full repeal of the death tax. Another Montanan called the death tax ``un-American'' since ``ranches are having to be sold in part or entirety to pay the estate tax.'' This point is well taken--the death tax is not levied only against the rich, but against hard-working Montanans. Robert Rumney from Cascade, MT, wrote: My father has been building this family ranch for almost 50 years, and I have been working with him full time for over 25 years. This winter, we have been updating our estate planning, so that my son and I will be able to continue to work and live on this family ranch. We did research on fair market value of ranch land, and came up with a very conservative estimate of over $10,000,000 value. This included land, cattle, and presently owned equipment. All of these are absolutely necessary to continue to operate this cattle ranch. With the recreational buyers driving up the price of land far beyond its actual agricultural value, it is becoming virtually impossible to pass on a long-time family ag-operation to the next generation. What is this going to do to our nation? What is the purpose of eliminating the family- owned farm or ranch? The affluent buyers are not operating these ranches as producers, but rather using them as private hunting and fishing retreats. How are we going to feed our nation? The estate tax of any kind is going to affect all of us, not just the poor rancher or farmer who is trying to pass along his hard work to the next generation. Please don't allow this to happen. Please vote to eliminate the estate tax. Robert's letter points to an inevitable result stemming from the death tax. If our working farms and ranches are taxed out of existence, the economic impact would extend far beyond these families, and would affect domestic agricultural production. This statement may well be a reality should the 55 percent tax rate come back in full force in 2011 without any congressional action. The death tax is unfair because it represents essentially a double taxation. Ms. Merelee Manuel from Winnett, MT, explained to me: Dear Senator Conrad Burns, I'm deeply concerned about the repeal of the Death Inheritance Tax. I want to explain what happened to the Gjerde Ranch. I was married to Bud Gjerde. We lost his Dad, John Gjerde. We paid the death tax on the ranch when his mother Margaret Gjerde inherited the ranch. She passed away and death tax was paid again. Bud and I bought the ranch, and then Bud passed away Feb. 3, 1975. The death tax was paid again. This took place in a time span of 10 to 12 years. The death tax was paid 3 times! We were NOT RICH. We saved and scraped and did without so that we could put some savings away for a rainy day. Guess what? It had to be used to pay Death Inheritance Tax. This is the most unfair tax of all. Income tax was being paid on this ranch every year. Please don't think it's just the rich who benefit from not having to pay death inheritance tax. I think it's fair to say that Federal share of this ranch in Winnett was far larger than it should have been. As this letter shows, it's becoming more and more difficult to maintain the family farm in the wake of such excessive taxation. The death tax not only poses hardship on Montana's farms and ranches, but on a variety of other small businesses. Donald Dulle, Jr., runs the Flathead Beverage Company in Kalispell, MT. In a letter to me, he said: I am counting on you to provide permanent relief from the death tax so I may plan for the future of my business and my family. Evidence has shown that a mere one-third of family- owned business survive the next generation. Too often liquidation is the only choice for family members who have worked side by side with parents and siblings to create a business of value in order to provide certainty for generations to come. I urge you and your colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, to put aside your differences and demonstrate the leadership for which you were elected by putting America's family-owned businesses first. The damaging impact the death tax has on Montana's small businesses and estate planning is widespread. This experience is not limited to just a few Montana businesses but extends across the country. In the Statement of Administration Policy dated June 8, 2006, the administration notes that ``Fundamentally, the death tax penalizes savings and risk-taking, reduces capital formation in the economy, and ultimately, reduces living standards . . . The time to fix this problem is now, so American families can plan for the future without worrying about whether the death tax will reemerge.'' For those of you who may be familiar with the band the Beatles, they had a song called the ``Taxman.'' Though the lyrics were written in 1966, they still remain especially true today, even with a reference to payment of taxes at death. The lyrics say, ``Now my advice for those who die, Declare the pennies on your eyes.'' In the Senate, we have tried to provide relief for small businesses. Unfortunately, we were prevented from continuing work on small business health plans. I urge my colleagues to support the full and permanent repeal of the death tax to provide basic fairness to these small businesses that are the engine that drives not only Montana's economy, but the Nation's as well.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am generally hesitant to amend the Constitution; there are few things as permanent as a constitutional amendment, and it is something that clearly should not be done lightly. However, when activist judges repeatedly take steps to overrule the clear voice of a majority of the people, we are left with very few options. As we have seen over the past several years, Federal and State judges have time and time again struck down traditional marriage protections laws--laws overwhelmingly approved by voter ballot initiatives. This is simply unacceptable, and therefore I will vote in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment in order to ensure that traditional marriage laws approved by the voters in a majority of the States are protected. In my State of Montana, the people have overwhelmingly spoken on this issue on more than one occasion. In 1997, the Montana Legislature passed a State law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Then in 2004, the people of Montana approved a ballot initiative by 67 percent which amended the Montana Constitution to state: ``Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this State.'' Nationally, 19 States have adopted similar State constitutional amendments, and 26 more have statutes designed to protect traditional marriage. Unfortunately, the overwhelming consensus of the people is not good enough for some. As we have seen over the past several years, a handful of activist judges have taken it upon themselves to decide what should constitute marriage. By now, we are all well aware of the actions taken by the judges of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. In that State, the court essentially mandated same-sex marriage. More recently, a Federal district court invalidated a Nebraska constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage that had earlier been adopted with over 70 percent approval by Nebraska voters. As we debate this amendment, legal challenges are currently being brought against democratically approved traditional marriage laws in nine States. I fear it is only a matter of time before similar challenges are brought against the marriage protections approved by the voters of Montana. Personally, I have always believed that marriage is between one man and one woman. However, the ultimate decision in an issue as important as what constitutes marriage must fully reflect the desire of the people, not just those of us in Washington and certainly not that of a handful of judges. Therefore, the solution is clear: we must send the States a constitutional amendment that protects traditional marriage laws, protects the will of the people, and prevents judicial activism. No other process is guaranteed to prevent the redefinition of marriage.