Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Santorum amendment be laid aside for the purposes of me laying down an amendment.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, since last Tuesday, scores of my constituents have called my office and otherwise communicated with us, asking a very poignant question. Since last Tuesday, this country has mourned the deaths of two brave soldiers who were kidnapped and mutilated and killed, both Army PFC Kristian Menchaca, from Texas, and Thomas Tucker, of Oregon. The question my constituents are asking me is, How on Earth could the Senate be debating resolutions of withdrawal from Iraq in the same week that we discovered the mutilated bodies of these two American soldiers? Shouldn't our debate, rather, recall the famous words of Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg address, ``That they shall not have died in vain,'' and motivate us to redouble our efforts to support our troops in carrying out the unfinished business that remains in Iraq? There is unfinished business there, to bring to justice the people who committed these heinous acts and to rid that country and the region once and for all of the evildoers who support that kind of violence against both Americans and Iraqis and who promise in the future to commit that same kind of violence against us until they have become victorious. These are the terrorists. I found it interesting that one of our colleagues was arguing, wrongly, that there were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded the country and eliminated Saddam Hussein. The evidence is overwhelming that is not true. But in any event, of what importance is it, given the fact that they are there now, mutilating and killing American soldiers and Iraqi citizens? What do the terrorists have in mind if we pull out? The President recently and succinctly described the plans of the terrorists, directly quoting from a letter that Ayman al-Zawahiri, who is the second in command of al-Qaida behind Osama bin Laden, wrote to Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, who recently, of course, was brought to justice by American troops and was bin Laden's designated leader of al-Qaida in Iraq: Their objective is to drive the United States and coalition forces out of Iraq, and use the vacuum that would be created by an American retreat to gain control of that country. They would then use Iraq as a base from which to launch attacks against America, and overthrow moderate governments in the Middle East, and try to establish a totalitarian Islamic empire. In that same letter, Zawahiri stated that the battle in Iraq ``is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era.'' It doesn't matter if we are fighting them. They are going to fight us. The point is, they are going to fight us wherever the point of the battle is, based upon their choosing. Today they chose that battle to be in Iraq. In some respects, given the quality of American forces, that is a better place for us to be confronting this enemy, these evildoers, than waiting for them to come back and attack us in the United States. That is why we owe so much to the soldiers and to the sailors and to the airmen and to the Marines whom we have sent into harm's way to confront the enemy there. We owe them not just the best training and the best equipment and the best planning in the world to enable them to carry out their missions but support here at home. The question my constituents are asking me is, What message does it send to our troops, to our allies, and to our enemies, when we begin talk of withdrawal? You can sugarcoat it all you want. You can call it phased withdrawal, you can call it timelines, but whatever you call it, it pretty much amounts to the same thing. The distinguished minority leader, as a matter of fact, said just a couple of days ago, and I am quoting: I think that even though we have at least two positions, I think if you look at them closely, they're both basically the same, that there should be redeployment of troops. It's a question of when. Indeed. One resolution says: Right away; it has to be done this year. That is a time certain, this year. And another one talks about submission of a plan with estimated dates. Dates, of course, are times certain. Whenever they are established, you have a specific time within which the withdrawal is to occur, whether it is in a phased way or all at once, right next door or 1,000 miles away. The bottom line, whatever you want to call it, is withdrawal of American troops within certain timeframes to no longer be able to perform their mission there. Why would you take that kind of position when there is work yet to be done? It has to be based upon the guess that by the time that time comes the work will be finished, that we will have done sufficient work in Iraq and training up the Iraqi soldiers and performing, ourselves, that we will no longer be needed. But nobody supporting these resolutions knows that. The military commanders on the ground will tell you that they do not know it. No one can know what the circumstances on the ground will be by the end of 2006 or by the middle of 2007. All wars are based upon the circumstances at a given time on the ground. It would have been folly, for example, simply because we were losing significant numbers of American soldiers in World War II, for the U.S. Congress to pass a resolution, sending it to President Roosevelt, saying you have to be out of Germany by a date certain and you have to begin a phased withdrawal of our Pacific troops by a date certain. At that time, America was committed to performing the mission, to getting the job done, to winning the war. What should the condition for withdrawal be? Victory; the ability to say we have accomplished our mission, we have pacified the country to a sufficient extent that we can leave without creating a power vacuum into which the Iranians and the Syrians and perhaps the Turks or others might come into Iraq because of their interests in the area, not sending a message to our allies in the region that, instead of being on the winning side, it turned out that they chose the wrong side, the side that wanted to leave the battlefield before the battle was won. Think about the Iraqis who are supplying intelligence to us right now. They have calculated that we are the winning side and that they can give us information to help get these evildoers without fear of retribution--that when we leave they are going to be vulnerable to attacks by the insurgents and the terrorists who remain. They calculate that we will stay long enough to do the job. The same thing for the 12 million Iraqi people who elected their Government and the same thing for the Government that has now stood up in that country that does not want us to leave precipitously. Yes, of course they get the message that they have to eventually be responsible for their own security. Yes, of course they are participating in the training of their army so that they can eventually do this job themselves. They don't need to receive a message from the United States that this is ultimately going to be their responsibility. They understand that. What we cannot do is send to the Iraqi people, who are now very increasingly cooperating with us, send a message to our allies in the region that they chose the wrong side, and send a message to our American troops that we are not willing to back them all the way to victory. That would be the way to lose this war. It has been said many times that the insurgents and terrorists cannot defeat our troops. The only way they can win the conflict is if they defeat us here at home by undermining our confidence, by undermining our credibility, and by undermining our support for our troops. Mr. President, this is the most serious business that the Senate could be debating. It has to do not just with the freedom of Iraqis in the future, or the lives of American soldiers, important as they are; it has to do with the security of the people of the United States of America from terrorists who are seeking places in the world from which to operate. We need to deny them that territory and that support and, in the process, persuade the neighbors of Iraq in the region that they need to stay with us, to continue to get the terrorists out of their country, continue to stop funding the terrorists, and to continue to support our efforts, so that the words of Osama bin Laden will be demonstrated as absolutely false. Remember what he said--that we are the weak horse, he's the strong horse. Where did he get that idea? Because of previous times in which we have withdrawn. We cannot make that same mistake again. I urge my colleagues to defeat both of these amendments when they are presented this morning.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Warner, would the Chair please advise me when I have consumed 10 minutes?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I, too, rise in support of this amendment of the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions. It is a modest increase in funding. But as the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee said, it will enable us to accelerate the pace of testing, which I think we are all supportive of. And as a result, I think it is a good amendment. I appreciate the support of both the minority and the majority. Because of that, I will not take a long time to detail the reasons why I think it is so important. Suffice it to say, with the recent news of the preparations of the North Koreans and our knowledge that they have been very closely connected to the development of weapon capabilities, in particular the missile capabilities of the Iranians, and given the fact that both of those countries have not only become increasingly capable but increasingly belligerent in recent months and years, it is very obvious that we have to move forward and accelerate our testing and development and our deployment of the missile interception system with all the speed we can muster. It is a program that we are developing as we go along, and we are learning a lot in the process. Our most recent tests have been successful. We can build on those successes. I am delighted that the missile defense system is receiving the kind of support that it needs to receive so that in the years to come, when the American people look back on this and realize that they are protected from a missile attack, they can say it was during these years when that threat was evolving and developing that we had the fortitude to put the money in the program for development and testing that would enable us to protect the American people. I remember back, right after 9/11, when the intelligence communities were criticized for not connecting the dots. Now the dots on the missile fronts are pretty clear. We are beginning to get big red circles coming at us with both North Korea and Iran, and others are on the way as well. It is during this period of time, before they become completely capable then, we have to develop our interceptor capabilities with our ground-based missile systems and the follow-on systems which we are working on as well. I applaud the efforts of my colleague from Alabama and his foresight for proposing this modest increase. I appreciate the support of the ranking minority member on the committee, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will respond quickly to make this point. A lot of folks over the years asked, Why has it taken us so long? It is a good question. There are several different answers to it. First of all, this is hard. It is hard to hit a bullet with a bullet. It has taken a lot of time and effort by very smart people. I am glad we were there at the beginning, providing them the resources they needed to conduct these kinds of tests and demonstrate that we could really intercept an intercontinental ballistic missile, which is the equivalent of hitting a bullet with a bullet. There were years in which there was opposition to the missile defense system, in which funding was cut from the program. That crippled the program and slowed it down. There were times when we were ready to deploy something and then opponents said we don't want to deploy yet, we want to do some more testing. As a result, every time we seemed to be ready to put up something, we were pulled back--all the way back to the early 1980s when Ronald Reagan started talking about this. You have to scratch your head and wonder why it has taken us this long to get to this point. I think the most important thing, as the Senator from Alabama pointed out, is we are now making tremendous progress. We have a system deployed. It is better with every subsequent test, and as time goes on, the American people can at least begin to feel a little bit more secure. We are not there yet, as everybody has pointed out. But we are making great progress. Because we worked hard during some of those lean years to keep the funding going and keep the progress going forward, we are at the stage we are today. I thank both Members of the minority and majority for their support for the program this year.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bill LaDuke, a legal intern in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor during my remarks on the floor.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it is amazing to me that less than a week after the President returned from Iraq, having visited with the new Government leaders there, and having disclosed the death of the top al- Qaida leader Zarqawi, in Iraq, colleagues in the Senate would actually be proposing withdrawal from Iraq. The strategy there needs to be to win, not to withdraw. Withdrawal follows victory. If we think about the wars we have gone into--think about World War II, for example--would it have made any sense for the Congress of the United States to pass a resolution saying to Franklin Roosevelt: You set a deadline for getting out of Germany and for getting out of Japan or we are not going to continue to support this effort? It would have been ludicrous at the time. More importantly, it sends a message to our troops, to our enemies, and to our allies, and to the people in Iraq that is devastating. Let me read a letter that was written by one of our soldiers stationed in Fallujah recently to his hometown newspaper in Ridgefield, CT, which expresses what I suspect is the view of many of our soldiers. Here is what he said: In Fallujah, the people watch Al-Jazeerah. However, they also watch CNN. A lot of them fear the United States will soon cut and run. . . . Furthermore, they know that the insurgents will not end their efforts early . . . Therefore, if they help us, their lives and the lives of their loved ones will be in great jeopardy the minute we leave--if we don't finish the job. Much that they see on American television leads them to believe that we intend to abandon our efforts before the new Iraqi Government is capable of defending itself and its citizens. The bottom line is that the people in Iraq watch what we do, our friends and our enemies, and much of our ability to win there depends upon figuring out which is going to be the winning side. They want to be on the winning side. They don't want to side with us only to have us cut and run, leaving them with these insurgents who will find out who they are and take care of business. Obviously, we have to send a message to them that we intend to prevail and therefore they can side with us. What we will learn is that much of our ability to get al-Zarqawi and others depends upon the cooperation of the Iraqis themselves. A lot of our intelligence comes from the fact that Iraqis believe we are there to stay until the job is done, and if they help us, they can hasten that day. But if they come to believe that they help us, we leave, and then the insurgents find out who they are, we are not going to get any more help. It is going to delay the time that we can leave rather than accelerate that time. The people in the region, the countries that surround Iraq, would be in the very same position. They have decided that they are going to be on the side of the winner, and they believe right now the United States is the winner in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and certainly the leaders of Pakistan, of Saudi Arabia, of Lebanon, each of the countries surrounding has decided to throw in with us. As the President said, you are either for us or against us. If we cut and run from Iraq, those countries are not going to be able to stay with us, and what we will have done is to prove what Osama bin Laden said is true, and that is that instead of the strong horse, we are the weak horse. That is what the people in the region are waiting to see. So these concepts--whether it is an immediate withdrawal or simply the beginning of a phased withdrawal this year, with the President being required to submit a plan for complete withdraw by the end of next year--are all part and parcel of the same thing: a message to the enemy that we are leaving and here is our timetable for leaving. All you have to do is wait until we are gone and then it is yours for the taking. That is not just destructive for the Iraqi people; the whole point is that it is destructive for our whole policy in winning the war against the terrorists. They have to believe we are on the offensive, we are going after them, and we won't quit until we win. But by pulling out of Iraq, we are sending the signal that by simply hanging on, by causing us trouble with roadside bombs and other mechanisms, all they have to do is wait us out; we will lose patience, we will lose nerve, we will leave, and that is how they win the war on terror. So it is not just about the Iraqi people and their ability to govern themselves in freedom or the people of Afghanistan; it is about the message it sends to the people who are today with us in the war on terror. It is about our ability to continue to show that we are winning the war on terror, and that they better side with us rather than side with people who are going to lose. It is all about winning the war over there so that we don't have to worry as much about attacks in the United States. This is a multifaceted war. There are enemies all over the globe. The best way to win that war is through good intelligence and then taking the fight to the enemy. Right now, the bulk of that fighting is in Iraq, and it is there that we have to confront the enemy and defeat the enemy. If we pull out through these sort of sugar-coated notions of phased withdrawals--not a deadline--not cut and run--it is just a phased withdrawal, what kind of a signal does that send? It still creates a date, a timetable, and a message to the enemy that we are, in fact, going to be leaving, and all they have to do is wait us out. So I say to my colleagues, these kinds of proposals should be soundly rejected as they were last week, both in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, and we should be sending the signal to our troops, as well as to our enemies and to our allies: we are there to stay until victory, not until we achieve some artificial deadline.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, in introducing legislation to clarify the jurisdiction of the U.S. Tax Court in cases involving ``equitable relief'' for innocent spouse claims. In general, spouses who sign joint tax returns are held jointly and severally liable for taxes owed on such returns. An individual may be relieved from such liability if she meets the ``innocent spouse'' test set forth in section 6015 of the Internal Revenue Code. The current standards were put in place by the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. An article published in the New York Times in late 1999 notes that the number of innocent spouse applications increased sharply after the 1998 law and that as many as 90 percent of the people filing innocent spouse applications are women. Clearly, the 1998 law opened an important avenue for ex-spouses to challenge unexpected tax bills they received after their former spouses cheated on their taxes without the knowledge of the ``innocent'' spouse. Unfortunately, the 1998 law also left uncertain the Tax Court's jurisdiction to hear appeals from denials of ``equitable relief.'' The Treasury Secretary is authorized to grant equitable relief if a taxpayer does not meet any of the statutorily specified qualifications for being an innocent spouse. But while the Tax Court was given jurisdiction to hear appeals under those specific avenues spelled out in the Code, the Code is silent on whether the Tax Court can hear appeals based on the Treasury Secretary's equitable relief authority. Recent decisions by the Eight and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals have held that the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to hear petitions for innocent spouse equitable relief. The legislation Senator Feinstein and I have introduced makes clear that the Tax Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions denying equitable relief. The National Taxpayer Advocate has recommended that Congress pass this legislation, and I am hopeful that we can move this important bill through the Finance Committee in very short order.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, in introducing legislation to clarify the jurisdiction of the U.S. Tax Court in cases involving ``equitable relief'' for innocent spouse claims. In general, spouses who sign joint tax returns are held jointly and severally liable for taxes owed on such returns. An individual may be relieved from such liability if she meets the ``innocent spouse'' test set forth in section 6015 of the Internal Revenue Code. The current standards were put in place by the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. An article published in the New York Times in late 1999 notes that the number of innocent spouse applications increased sharply after the 1998 law and that as many as 90 percent of the people filing innocent spouse applications are women. Clearly, the 1998 law opened an important avenue for ex-spouses to challenge unexpected tax bills they received after their former spouses cheated on their taxes without the knowledge of the ``innocent'' spouse. Unfortunately, the 1998 law also left uncertain the Tax Court's jurisdiction to hear appeals from denials of ``equitable relief.'' The Treasury Secretary is authorized to grant equitable relief if a taxpayer does not meet any of the statutorily specified qualifications for being an innocent spouse. But while the Tax Court was given jurisdiction to hear appeals under those specific avenues spelled out in the Code, the Code is silent on whether the Tax Court can hear appeals based on the Treasury Secretary's equitable relief authority. Recent decisions by the Eight and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals have held that the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to hear petitions for innocent spouse equitable relief. The legislation Senator Feinstein and I have introduced makes clear that the Tax Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions denying equitable relief. The National Taxpayer Advocate has recommended that Congress pass this legislation, and I am hopeful that we can move this important bill through the Finance Committee in very short order.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Internet SAFETY Act of 2006. The word ``SAFETY'' in the bill's title stands for Stop Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Youth. It is a fairly descriptive acronym, for the provisions of the Internet SAFETY Act are designed to crack down on the spread of Internet child pornography and related conduct. The act does so by creating new Federal offenses and causes of action targeted at those who produce or knowingly facilitate Internet child pornography, by increasing penalties for child pornography, sex trafficking, and sexual abuse offenses, and by increasing resources available for prosecution and prevention of child sexual-abuse offenses, including authorizing 200 new assistant U.S. attorneys across the country to prosecute child pornography and sexual exploitation crimes. The need for renewed law-enforcement attention to child pornography is demonstrated in a recent report of the U.S. Justice Department titled ``Project Safe Childhood.'' I will ask to have an extended excerpt from the report printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. As the report notes, ``judging simply by [recent] crime statistics, it is clear that the Internet is helping to fuel an epidemic of child pornography'' in this country. Unfortunately, by providing greater technical ease and increased anonymity in trading images, the Internet has ``taken down barriers that one time served as a deterrent to child pornographers.'' In 2003, an estimated 20,000 images of child pornography were posted on the Internet every week. Between 1998 and 2004, child pornography reports made to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children increased from 3,267 to 106,119--a thirty-fold increase over a 6-year period. The Justice Department also notes that there has been an escalation in the severity of abuse depicted in child pornography in recent years, ``with the images found today more frequently involving younger children-- including toddlers and even infants--and despicable acts such as penetration of infants.'' The Project Safe Childhood report concludes that ``the nation should be alarmed at the fact that child pornography is being produced, possessed, and distributed in record numbers.'' As the report notes, child pornography's harm extends beyond that done to the children who are sexually abused to produce such images: ``child pornography [also] plays a central role in child molestations, serving to justify offenders' conduct, assist them in gaining compliance with their victims, and to provide a means to blackmail the children they have molested in order to prevent exposure.'' The Internet SAFETY Act does the following things. It creates a new Federal offense, punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison, for financially facilitating access to child pornography on the Internet. The act also deters Internet facilitation of child pornography by imposing civil penalties for Internet communications providers that fail to report child pornography, criminal penalties for Web site operators who insert words or images into source code with the intent to deceive persons into viewing obscene material on the Internet, and by requiring commercial Web site operators to place warning marks prescribed by the Federal Trade Commission on Web pages that contain sexually explicit material. The Internet SAFETY Act also punishes the operation of child pornography enterprises. It creates a new Federal offense, punishable by a minimum of 10 years in prison, for the operation of an enterprise that profits from the sexual exploitation of children. The act also imposes mandatory, consecutive 10 year sentences for any child pornography or exploitation offense committed by a registered sex offender. In addition, the act increases penalties for offenses involving child pornography, child prostitution and sex trafficking, child sexual abuse, and sexual assault. The Internet SAFETY Act also expands the Federal private right of action against child pornographers. It allows a victim, including parents of a minor victim, to seek civil remedies, and also allows a victim to seek remedies as an adult. This provision is inspired by a young girl named Masha who was adopted from Russia by a man who repeatedly molested her, photographed her, and posted pornographic images of her on the Internet. In addition, the act adds the obscenity and child pornography statutes to the RICO predicates and adds electronic mail fraud to the wiretap predicates. The Internet SAFETY Act also establishes within the Justice Department an Office on Sexual Violence and Crimes Against Children to coordinate sex offender registration and notification programs and grant programs, and to assist State, local, and tribal governments and other entities with sex offender registration or notification and other measures. Finally, the act authorizes and directs the Attorney General to make grants to States, local governments, Indian tribes, and nonprofit organizations for child sexual abuse prevention programs. In addition, the act authorizes appropriations for 200 additional child exploitation prosecutors in U.S. Attorneys' Offices around the country and 20 additional Internet Crimes Against Children task forces. I ask unanimous consent that the following passages from the Justice Department's report Project Safe Childhood be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator McCain to introduce the Las Cienegas Enhancement Act of 2006. This legislation directs a land exchange between the Bureau of Land Management and the Las Cienegas Conservation, LLC. in southeastern Arizona. The bill is the product of consensus. State and local officials, conservationists, and other stakeholders have worked together to structure an exchange that is fair and in the public interest. Let me explain the details of the exchange. The land to be transferred out of Federal ownership, approximately 1,280 acres, is referred to as the ``Sahuarita property.'' This property is BLM-managed land south of Tucson near Corona de Tucson. The land is low-lying Sonoran desert and has been identified for disposal by the BLM through its land-use planning process. The private land to be brought into Federal ownership is approximately 2,392 acres of land referred to as the ``Empirita- Simonson property.'' This property lies north of the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area managed by the BLM. The Empirita-Simonson property lies within the ``Sonoita Valley Acquisition Planning District'' established by Public Law 106-538, which designated the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area. The act directed the Department of the Interior to acquire lands from willing sellers within the planning district for inclusion within the conservation area to further protect the important resource values for which the area was designated. Although this bill is centered on the land exchange I just described, it also accomplishes two other important objectives: addressing water withdrawals at Ciengas Creek and providing road access to a popular recreation destination, the Whetstone Mountains controlled by the Forest Service. Let's talk about water. Arizonans understand that protecting our water supply is crucial to the State's future. For this reason, when we can, we look for ways to promote responsible use of our limited water supply. This bill is one of those examples of responsible use. There is a prior claim to a well site on the private land that will be exchanged. That prior claim would allow the developer to withdraw 1,600 acre feet of water a year. Pima County and the community at large are concerned about the future of Ciengas Creek and the entire riparian area if these water withdrawals occur. To address this concern, the land exchange is conditioned on Las Cienegas Conservation Inc. conveying the well site to Pima County and relinquishing those water rights it controls. The net result is a water savings of 1,050 acre-feet per year. This is a significant benefit to this riparian area. Overall, this bill allows us to accomplish important environmental and conservation objectives while managing our development. It is a bill with broad support that includes the Governor of Arizona, Pima County, the city of Tucson, and many others. I urge my colleagues to work with me to approve this legislation at the earliest possible date.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Internet SAFETY Act of 2006. The word ``SAFETY'' in the bill's title stands for Stop Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Youth. It is a fairly descriptive acronym, for the provisions of the Internet SAFETY Act are designed to crack down on the spread of Internet child pornography and related conduct. The act does so by creating new Federal offenses and causes of action targeted at those who produce or knowingly facilitate Internet child pornography, by increasing penalties for child pornography, sex trafficking, and sexual abuse offenses, and by increasing resources available for prosecution and prevention of child sexual-abuse offenses, including authorizing 200 new assistant U.S. attorneys across the country to prosecute child pornography and sexual exploitation crimes. The need for renewed law-enforcement attention to child pornography is demonstrated in a recent report of the U.S. Justice Department titled ``Project Safe Childhood.'' I will ask to have an extended excerpt from the report printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. As the report notes, ``judging simply by [recent] crime statistics, it is clear that the Internet is helping to fuel an epidemic of child pornography'' in this country. Unfortunately, by providing greater technical ease and increased anonymity in trading images, the Internet has ``taken down barriers that one time served as a deterrent to child pornographers.'' In 2003, an estimated 20,000 images of child pornography were posted on the Internet every week. Between 1998 and 2004, child pornography reports made to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children increased from 3,267 to 106,119--a thirty-fold increase over a 6-year period. The Justice Department also notes that there has been an escalation in the severity of abuse depicted in child pornography in recent years, ``with the images found today more frequently involving younger children-- including toddlers and even infants--and despicable acts such as penetration of infants.'' The Project Safe Childhood report concludes that ``the nation should be alarmed at the fact that child pornography is being produced, possessed, and distributed in record numbers.'' As the report notes, child pornography's harm extends beyond that done to the children who are sexually abused to produce such images: ``child pornography [also] plays a central role in child molestations, serving to justify offenders' conduct, assist them in gaining compliance with their victims, and to provide a means to blackmail the children they have molested in order to prevent exposure.'' The Internet SAFETY Act does the following things. It creates a new Federal offense, punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison, for financially facilitating access to child pornography on the Internet. The act also deters Internet facilitation of child pornography by imposing civil penalties for Internet communications providers that fail to report child pornography, criminal penalties for Web site operators who insert words or images into source code with the intent to deceive persons into viewing obscene material on the Internet, and by requiring commercial Web site operators to place warning marks prescribed by the Federal Trade Commission on Web pages that contain sexually explicit material. The Internet SAFETY Act also punishes the operation of child pornography enterprises. It creates a new Federal offense, punishable by a minimum of 10 years in prison, for the operation of an enterprise that profits from the sexual exploitation of children. The act also imposes mandatory, consecutive 10 year sentences for any child pornography or exploitation offense committed by a registered sex offender. In addition, the act increases penalties for offenses involving child pornography, child prostitution and sex trafficking, child sexual abuse, and sexual assault. The Internet SAFETY Act also expands the Federal private right of action against child pornographers. It allows a victim, including parents of a minor victim, to seek civil remedies, and also allows a victim to seek remedies as an adult. This provision is inspired by a young girl named Masha who was adopted from Russia by a man who repeatedly molested her, photographed her, and posted pornographic images of her on the Internet. In addition, the act adds the obscenity and child pornography statutes to the RICO predicates and adds electronic mail fraud to the wiretap predicates. The Internet SAFETY Act also establishes within the Justice Department an Office on Sexual Violence and Crimes Against Children to coordinate sex offender registration and notification programs and grant programs, and to assist State, local, and tribal governments and other entities with sex offender registration or notification and other measures. Finally, the act authorizes and directs the Attorney General to make grants to States, local governments, Indian tribes, and nonprofit organizations for child sexual abuse prevention programs. In addition, the act authorizes appropriations for 200 additional child exploitation prosecutors in U.S. Attorneys' Offices around the country and 20 additional Internet Crimes Against Children task forces. I ask unanimous consent that the following passages from the Justice Department's report Project Safe Childhood be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator McCain to introduce the Las Cienegas Enhancement Act of 2006. This legislation directs a land exchange between the Bureau of Land Management and the Las Cienegas Conservation, LLC. in southeastern Arizona. The bill is the product of consensus. State and local officials, conservationists, and other stakeholders have worked together to structure an exchange that is fair and in the public interest. Let me explain the details of the exchange. The land to be transferred out of Federal ownership, approximately 1,280 acres, is referred to as the ``Sahuarita property.'' This property is BLM-managed land south of Tucson near Corona de Tucson. The land is low-lying Sonoran desert and has been identified for disposal by the BLM through its land-use planning process. The private land to be brought into Federal ownership is approximately 2,392 acres of land referred to as the ``Empirita- Simonson property.'' This property lies north of the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area managed by the BLM. The Empirita-Simonson property lies within the ``Sonoita Valley Acquisition Planning District'' established by Public Law 106-538, which designated the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area. The act directed the Department of the Interior to acquire lands from willing sellers within the planning district for inclusion within the conservation area to further protect the important resource values for which the area was designated. Although this bill is centered on the land exchange I just described, it also accomplishes two other important objectives: addressing water withdrawals at Ciengas Creek and providing road access to a popular recreation destination, the Whetstone Mountains controlled by the Forest Service. Let's talk about water. Arizonans understand that protecting our water supply is crucial to the State's future. For this reason, when we can, we look for ways to promote responsible use of our limited water supply. This bill is one of those examples of responsible use. There is a prior claim to a well site on the private land that will be exchanged. That prior claim would allow the developer to withdraw 1,600 acre feet of water a year. Pima County and the community at large are concerned about the future of Ciengas Creek and the entire riparian area if these water withdrawals occur. To address this concern, the land exchange is conditioned on Las Cienegas Conservation Inc. conveying the well site to Pima County and relinquishing those water rights it controls. The net result is a water savings of 1,050 acre-feet per year. This is a significant benefit to this riparian area. Overall, this bill allows us to accomplish important environmental and conservation objectives while managing our development. It is a bill with broad support that includes the Governor of Arizona, Pima County, the city of Tucson, and many others. I urge my colleagues to work with me to approve this legislation at the earliest possible date.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Yes.

Mr. KYL. Yes, because of the great work of the Senator from Oklahoma, we have been made aware of that. He has helped to lead the effort to collect this money and save the money the Government is wasting. The Senator knows that we support fully his efforts in that regard and intend to pursue it. I will conclude my remarks by simply saying that we have an opportunity to do something very historic for an awful lot of folks in this country who deserve the relief. I hope colleagues will give us the opportunity by supporting the cloture motion when that comes up.

Mr. KYL. He concludes that ``any estate tax big enough to collect substantial revenue is also big enough to have a substantial negative effect on saving and the economy. Reducing the rate will benefit the economy.'' The bottom line is this: We are going to have an opportunity to vote yes on cloture to take up the House repeal bill. For those who believe in full repeal, the next vote would be to support full repeal. Presumably, that won't pass. The next thing that will happen--and the majority leader made this crystal clear, and I reiterate this commitment--is that we will have an opportunity then to vote on the proposal that Senator Baucus and Senator Lincoln and Senators Bill Nelson and Ben Nelson and others of us have been working on to provide a substantial exempted amount--$5 million per spouse--capital gains rate to apply to whatever has to be paid. But when an estate hits $30 million, from then on, it gets hit with a 30-percent rate. That is a fair way to help the people at the lower end of the spectrum and yet collect the revenue from those very wealthy estates which we all agree can pay part of this estate tax.

Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair. Madam President, we are going to have an opportunity very shortly to do something historic; that is, to begin consideration of a process by which we can either eliminate or substantially reduce the impact of this most unfair tax of all, the estate tax, on small businesses, on family farms, on Americans of all stripes who worry that they will have to pay up to half of what they have put into their life savings, their business, their farm, to the Government in an estate tax. It has been found by Gallup surveys and others that the American people believe this is the most unfair tax and by percentages, 60 to 70 percent agree that it should be eliminated. To some extent there has been an argument that I have to address because it is a straw man. That argument is that this is all about helping the most wealthy families. That is not correct. Here is why. What we have proposed is that immediately upon going to the House bill, there be a cloture vote on that bill which, frankly, I think all would agree, is doubtful of passing. That is to say that there aren't 60 votes in this Chamber to permanently repeal the estate tax. That is what the Senator from Illinois was talking about. We all know that. As a result, the majority leader has made an absolute commitment--and I reaffirm it--that immediately following that vote, the majority leader would lay down a substitute, a compromise, if you will, that provides that the estate tax will be substantially modified but not repealed. It will be modified in a way that will help those who, because land values have been increasing or because they put all of their money into a small business, would be either required to pay substantial amounts of money to plan for the potential of paying the estate tax, paying lawyers and accountants and buying insurance and the like, would be responsible for a substantial estate tax bill, it would give them relief from that obligation, but it would still say that the wealthiest families, the Warren Buffetts and others mentioned a moment ago, would still have to pay a substantial amount of estate tax. The specific proposal that will be offered provides that there will be $5 million exempted and that that would be indexed to inflation and that after that, the capital gains rate would be the rate that would apply to estates that would be taxed. But when you get to the superrich the Senator from Illinois referred to, those with a $30 million estate who would probably qualify in that category, anything above that amount would be taxed at a 30 percent rate which would bring in, obviously, a substantial amount of revenue given the wealth of some of those estates. We are not here debating whether it is going to be either all or nothing, a permanent repeal of the estate tax or the status quo. What we are talking about is going to a process by which we consider a compromise which will, in fact, tax the most wealthy but will allow those small businesses and farms the opportunity to continue their existence. It is interesting that there is a suggestion that this somehow wouldn't help the small business or the family farm. Let's quote some actual data. For example, the Senator from Illinois challenged us to show one farm that had to sell property in order to pay the estate tax. Here is one, Sam and Ann Payne in Georgia, not too far north of Atlanta. The farm had been in their family since the early 1800s. When their father died in 1968, they had their first experience with the death tax. But then Sam's mother was still alive and it was manageable. When she died 6 years ago, they had to pay close to $400,000 in estate tax. Their land had increased in value. So in order to pay that tax, they had to sell part of their farm to local developers, including an airport. Here is what Sam Payne said: At a certain point, you sell off too much land and your farm gets so small that you are not a viable agricultural unit, making it difficult to turn a profit. There are many other examples. Here is what the American Farm Bureau said in a survey. They surveyed their members and nearly 20 percent of the farmers responded to a survey that said that they had to pay Federal estate taxes in the previous 5 years; 44 percent said they would have to mortgage the farm to pay the death tax; 28 percent said that all or part of the farm's business would have to be sold; 39 percent said that any plans for growth would have to be delayed or canceled. Here is a pernicious aspect of this. A lot of people spend a fortune trying to avoid the tax: 77 percent of farmers reported that they had to spend money each year on estate planning; 40 percent said that they paid more than $10,000 a year; 13 percent more than $25,000 a year; 5 percent pay more than $100,000 a year. That is a real impact, the same kind of impact on small business. We can provide examples. I gave an example yesterday. Minority businesses are the most hard hit. Here is what Robert Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment TV, had to say: Elimination of the estate tax will help close the wealth gap in this nation between African-American families and white families. A 2004 study by Impacto Group LLC surveyed Hispanic family-owned business owners; 20 percent of Hispanic family business owners said they would have to sell their business or property in order to pay the estate tax. Only about half of the respondents believe that they are prepared to deal with the death taxes if the principal owner dies. Surveys conducted by the Family Enterprise Center of Kennesaw State College and the Center for Family Business at Loyola University found that 90 percent of black-owned, family firms say that paying estate taxes makes growth of the business more difficult; 87 percent say paying the estate tax makes the survival of the business more difficult. Nobody who has run a small business or family farm or has accumulated wealth, perhaps simply by the growth in the value of real estate, will argue that this is not a matter of concern to them. As the Wall Street Journal editorialized today, even the people who appreciate the fact that it won't apply to them favor repeal. I will quote from the editorial: Americans favor repealing the death tax not because they think it will help them directly. They're more principled than that. Two-thirds of the public wants to repeal it because they think taxing a lifetime of thrift due to the accident of death is unfair and even immoral. They also understand that the really rich won't pay the tax anyway because they hire lawyers to avoid it. That is the point of the argument we heard a moment ago. I ask unanimous consent to print the editorial in the Record.

Mr. KYL. A lot of the superrich don't care. That is true. There are certain people I will not name, but they have been named, who support continuation of the tax. They have the wealth to be able to get around it with estate planning and to buy the insurance. You heard me quote from minority business owners and farmers who say they cannot afford to pay the cost of that insurance and the estate planning. Of all of the groups, there is only one that opposes what we are trying to do, and that is the insurance industry. Why not? They make money off of it. If we are talking about special interest legislation, let's understand that the special interests we are trying to protect here are the family-owned businesses, the family farms, the minority businesses; and the special interests that are fighting us are the big insurance companies and the estate planners that make millions of dollars every year. Alicia Munnell, who was a member of the Clinton administration, has said that the American people pay each year about the same amount to plan against paying the estate tax as the Federal Government collects in revenues from the estate tax. So in effect it is a double tax. Sure, the superwealthy don't care because they have enough money to plan against that. What we are going to do in this proposed compromise is make sure that they pay, but that the people who get caught simply because of the increased value of their property or business will not have to pay. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article by Harvey Rosen from the Market Watch, dated June 8, which makes the point that the American people will benefit when we reduce the rates on the estate tax because it enables capital formation by entrepreneurs and that the economy is better off as a result of the reduction of these rates.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday June 7, 2006 at 9 a.m. in 329A, Senate Russell Office Building. The purpose of this committee hearing will be to discuss Agricultural Conservation Programs.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 7, 2006, at 9 a.m. to hold a hearing on Oil Dependence and Economic Risk.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``S.3274: The Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2006'' on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Witness list: Panel I: Governor John Engler, President, National Association of Manufacturers, Washington, DC; Peter Ganz, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Foster-Wheeler, Clinton, NJ; Eric Green, Founder, Principal Resolutions, LLC, Professor, Boston University, Boston MA; Flora Greene, National Spokesperson, Seniors Coalition; Jim Grogan, General President, International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Latham, MD; Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director, Council on Foreign Relations, Washington, DC; Edmund F. Kelley, Chairman, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company; Bob Wallace, Executive Director, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Washington, DC.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Madam President, today and tomorrow could be historic days in the Senate--indeed, in the history of our country--because we have an opportunity to eliminate what some have called the most unfair tax of all. I speak of what has been called the estate tax, or the inheritance tax, or more recently has become known as the death tax. Just a word of the history of this tax would be interesting to my colleagues before I discuss the process by which this consideration will occur and some of the reasons why we need to proceed with it. It is very interesting that the history of the estate tax actually can be traced back to ancient times and the Roman Empire, but the more relevant history for purposes of the United States, because we borrowed this concept from England, came from the Middle Ages when the sovereign or the state, of course, owned all of the assets--the land and even the personal property--within the country. What would happen is, when the king owned all of the feudal property in England, he would grant the use of that property to the people within the kingdom. Certain individuals during their lifetimes--let's say a farmer--would have the land to till and the farm animals to take care of. When that farmer died, in effect, his family would have to buy back that property from the king in order to continue to farm that land, to raise those farm animals and so forth. When the king died, the king would let the estate retain the property on which the payment of an estate tax, called a relief, existed. That would then enable the family to continue to run the family farm or the family business, to put it in modern-day terms. It seems very strange indeed in the 21st century we would retain this odd and clearly out-of-place custom of having to buy back our property from the king. We do not have a king anymore. There has never been a king in the United States of America. Our right to property is guaranteed in the Constitution. So it seems strange, indeed, that we should be following a custom which required us to buy back from the king our property when our father or our mother dies, for our children to have to buy it back when we die. Yet that is the etiology of the estate tax, that you pay the state to continue to enjoy the right to the property that you always thought was yours. It is a very expensive price, indeed. In recent years, it has been 55 percent for the largest estates. Clearly, a lot of people could not afford this, people who put their life savings into their farm or their business. I had a friend from Phoenix who owned a printing company. He started it himself, and after 40 years built it up to a prosperous printing company. He took a modest sum out for he and his family but basically plowed everything back into the company because to stay ahead in the printing business you had to buy the most modern printing equipment and technology. On paper, his family had a lot of wealth. He had a lot of wealth when he died. But it was literally tied up in the company. His family looked at the estate tax. They had spent a lot of money buying insurance and so on. They found they were going to basically have to pay over half of the value of this company to the Government. They did not have that money. They did not have that liquid cash. So they had to sell this printing company in order to collect the money to pay the Government about half of it in the form of an estate tax. What happened? This particular man was one of the most generous people in the city of Phoenix. He contributed millions of dollars. In fact, there is a Boys and Girls Club named after him. Every year his wife and his daughter would be involved in charitable activities. I know because my wife is one of the best friends of his daughter. They headed up charity events and raised millions of dollars for our community. When his family had to sell the business to pay the estate tax to the Government, they were no longer in a position to do the things for the community they had always done. They have remained very active and very giving but not to the same extent when they had a business to rely upon. So this community lost in many ways. It lost a great, locally owned, family-owned business. It lost the patriarch of that business, a very generous person, who supported the community, and the family, of course, has not been able to employ those people. Over 200 people were employed in the business. One of the modern-day rationales for the estate tax is that it prevents the concentration of wealth in just a few families. If there is any Nation that you don't have to worry about that, it is the United States of America. We are a Nation in which anyone can make wealth--and you can lose it quickly. Everyone aspires to get higher on the economic ladder. The notion that somehow there are just a few rich families in this country controlling everything is, of course, a wild myth. So it is not necessary to break it up. But what happened when people like my friend Jerry, when he passed away and his family had to sell his printing company, what happened to the concentration of wealth? It sure took it away from his family, all right, though no one would contend they were really among the elite of this country. He was a poor Jewish kid from New York who came out west, made good, employed a lot of people and did a lot for his community. No, they sold to a big corporation, a public company. So the concentration of wealth, of course, was enhanced, not lessened, as a result of the application of the estate tax. It is very hard for small businesses these days, or even small farms, to compete with publicly-owned businesses. When the CEO of a publicly- owned business passes on, nothing happens. The corporation simply goes chugging right along. But when the patriarch of a family-owned business passes away and half of the money in the business has to be paid to Uncle Sam, it can crush that small business. It is one of the reasons we need to eliminate this tax. The small family-owned business or family-owned farm cannot compete with the giant corporation which does not suffer the same kind of tax. We should not have to buy back the estate from the king any longer. We need to end this most unfair tax of all, the death tax. It is interesting that even though most Americans will not have to pay the death tax because their estates would fall within the amount that is exempted, by very large numbers, they recognize it is a very unfair tax. So when public opinion surveys ask people their opinion of the tax, the majority of people in this country say they would like to end the tax, that it is unfair and it should be eliminated. As a matter of fact, this applies to liberal and conservative voters. According to a Gallup poll from April of this year, 58 percent of the respondents said that the inheritance tax is unfair. It is interesting, this poll was taken when Americans were filing their taxes. The death tax was called unfair by more people than the despised alternative minimum tax. Only 42 percent of the AMT said it was fair. Yet, of course, we know that also to be a very unfair tax. It was never intended to apply to average Americans. It was put in there to make sure that even the wealthiest Americans with all of their deductions, exemptions, credits and places to park their money that even they would have to pay some tax--even if they did not owe any income tax, they would owe an alternative minimum tax. Now, that alternative minimum tax, much like the death tax, is reaching down to take money from more and more and more Americans. So we are recognizing that whatever its good intentions originally, it is an unfair tax. It is interesting that even though more Americans will be hit with the AMT, a greater number of Americans believe the death tax is more unfair than even the alternative minimum tax. Of course, they are both unfair. They both need to be eliminated. It shows the sense of fairness that Americans have. There was a poll taken not long after the Presidential election last year. It was interesting to me that while 89 percent of people who identified themselves as Bush voters believed the death tax is somewhat or very unfair, 71 percent of the Kerry voters also found the death tax at least somewhat or very unfair: 25 percent, somewhat; 46 percent, very unfair. So this reaches across the economic spectrum; it reaches across the political spectrum. Americans know an unfair tax when they see it, and they think it ought to be eliminated. Of course, the economic theory backs them up. They say it is unfair because, among other things, it is a tax on hard work. It is a tax on thrift over consumption. It is a tax on assets that have already been taxed at least once when they were earned and sometimes multiple times as that money has been invested and then returned a profit. Americans understand we should have a tax policy that encourages savings and encourages working more. When people know that the next dollar they earn is going to be taken by the Federal Government or that half of everything that is left in this estate could be taken by the Federal Government, what is the incentive for them to continue to work? Dr. Edward Prescott, a Nobel Prize winner in economics from Arizona State University, got that prize by proving the phenomenon that there is a direct relationship in how much more people will work and how much they have to pay in taxes. When they know most of what they earn, they can put back into their business, save, invest or give to their kids, they will continue to work. When they know it will go to Uncle Sam, guess what. They don't work anymore. That is lost productivity. It is lost productivity that damages our entire country, our economy. It obviously hurts in job creation. It hurts in our ability to continue to enjoy the kind of growth we have. The studies verify this. The studies verify, according to the Joint Economic Committee, for example, which has done one of these recent reports, that the estate tax has reduced the stock of capital in the economy by about $847 billion over the last several decades, the last 60 years. That is almost $1 trillion in lost capital that could have been put to work creating jobs and creating products. In comparison, the estate tax raised $761 billion in inflation- adjusted dollars over this same period of time. The bottom line is, this is a destructive tax. It is not a tax that helps taxpayers very much. It is about 1 percent of the revenues we collect, and, according to estimates, Americans actually pay about the same amount in money every year to avoid paying the death tax as it brings into the Federal Treasury. Alicia Munnell, an economist, has made that point. She was a member of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers. She estimated that the costs of complying with the estate tax laws are about the same as the revenue raised. It is expected to raise about $28 billion in this fiscal year. The bottom line is, therefore, it is a very inefficient tax. It costs, actually, twice as much as we think it does. It does not bring in that much revenue. And certainly it is very detrimental to economic growth and to capital formation. There is a way we treat this phenomenon in the Tax Code. It really tells us how we should treat the estate tax. Think about the unintended events that occur in your life. Obviously, death is the chief among them. You cannot choose when you die. Everyone knows they are going to die, but it is not an event that is a voluntary event or that we decide when we are going to do it, certainly not for tax-planning purposes. It is much like a couple of other things that are recognized in the Tax Code as involuntary events. One of them is what happens when there is a theft. Someone breaks into your home and steals a lot of your property. You might get the insurance company to give you that money back. Should that money be taxed as income when you get it back from the insurance company? Of course not. It is merely a replacement for what was stolen from you. The Tax Code recognizes this in what is called an ``involuntary conversion,'' and they do not force you to pay the ordinary income tax on the money you get back when you suffer that loss. It is the same thing for death. Death is not a planned event. Death is not something like a sale of property for which you would expect to pay a capital gains tax but, rather, something that occurs to you involuntarily; certainly you should not suffer a price when the estate is passed to you from your loved one, let's say. It comes, of course, at the worst possible time in people's lives to begin with, when they are grieving the loss of a loved one and now are going to have to pay the king to get that loved one's estate. This is not something which Americans believe is fair or right or just. There is a way we treat this in the Tax Code--involuntary conversion. You don't get taxed on it. The same philosophy ought to apply to the estate tax. There are a lot of reasons. There are the purely economic reasons. There is American public opinion. There is the philosophy of the Tax Code. All of these things mitigate against having this unfair death tax today. What we have done is to, therefore, set up a process by which we can take up the House bill which voted overwhelmingly to eliminate the death tax. That is H.R. 8. What we are debating now is the taking up of H.R. 8 so that we, too, can vote to repeal this fundamentally unfair tax. We will have a cloture vote. It will occur presumably sometime tomorrow. I urge colleagues to vote yes on cloture so that we can take up the House bill. Some of my colleagues do not want to support the House bill for full repeal. I understand that. They are well aware of the fact that since there may not be support for that to get 60 votes, a lot of work has been done to develop an alternative which would end the most pernicious impact of the tax but still allow some revenue to be collected from the most wealthy estates each year. I will discuss that in a moment. The bottom line is that in order for us to vote on full repeal or to vote on an alternative to full repeal, we will have to support the first cloture motion to proceed so that we can take up the House bill. Presumably, then, the majority leader would have a cloture vote on that underlying bill and people can vote yes or no on that as they please. I will vote to repeal the estate tax. Should that fail, we will then have the opportunity to vote on an alternative. That alternative has been relatively widely discussed, and we will have an opportunity to discuss it more later. In general terms, what it would do is provide that most people won't have to spend the $30 billion a year that is spent on insurance policies, lawyers, accountants, estate planners, and the like to try to avoid paying most of the estate tax. For most people, under this alternative compromise, the exempted amount will be large enough that they won't have to worry about it, or if even after the exempted amount, their estate will be covered--and with the increase in real estate prices today and with the value of businesses and farms going up, frequently, simply because of the value of the land or the personal property, a lot of estates could get caught even with a generous exempted amount. We have a plan that only the capital gains tax rate would apply. If that is the case, then, whether you choose to sell the property before death or you are willing to pay whatever you have to after the exempted amount after death, it is the same. It would be 15 percent today; after 2010, it would be 20 percent, if that is not changed. Everybody knows, therefore, that the penalty, in effect, to the Government is the same. You pay on the gain if you sell the property before death. If your heirs inherit the property, they would pay that same 15 or 20 percent. There may be an addition to ensure that the very wealthiest estates pay at a higher rate. That is something we are discussing with colleagues. The bottom line is, what we will do is make clear that for most people, they won't have to worry about the death tax anymore. For the very few who do, it would be only the very largest estates which would clearly have the financial means of doing something about it. We are not going to be able to get to either a vote on full repeal or the alternative unless we vote for cloture to take up the House bill. That is the critical vote which will occur tomorrow. We have a series of speakers. I believe the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, is next. Then we have Senators Talent, Shelby, Bunning, Allen, Thune, and Grassley on the Republican side. I urge them to be here to ensure their place in line so that they have an opportunity to speak for the allotted time on this important issue, laying the foundation for what is going to be a historic vote tomorrow to finally get on the process for getting rid of this most unfair tax. I urge colleagues' support and yield the floor.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the Akaka bill. If cloture is invoked on that bill, there is a process by which we will debate and amend the bill. I would like to discuss with my colleagues today some of the infirmities with the bill that we would hope to address through the amendment process. There is no way to sugarcoat this bill. This bill proposes that the Federal Government establish a racial test for Americans who want to participate in the creation of a new government--a government that will gain, according to section 8 of this legislation, lands and natural resources, civil and criminal jurisdiction, and governmental authority and powers. It is unconstitutional, it offends basic notions of American values, and it should be rejected. I would like to spend a few minutes talking about an amendment that we would be voting on should this bill be brought forward. First, keep in mind that we are going to have to decide once and for all if we believe in racial tests and race-based government. Government anticipated by this bill is created through a racial test. Read section 3, subparagraph 10: Native Hawaiians, those eligible to participate in the creation of this government, are defined ``as an individual who is one of the indigenous, native peoples of Hawaii and who is a direct lineal descendent of the aboriginal, indigenous, native people in the Hawaiian islands on or before January 1, 1893, and exercised sovereignty there, or a person who descends from one who was one-half Native Hawaiian in 1921.'' What is that test? It is a racial test. As the Supreme Court emphasized, ancestry is a proxy for race. Some advocates insist that it is not a race-based government, no matter what the actual language of the bill says. So we will offer an amendment to put this question to the Senate. The amendment will say that this new government will not have any governmental powers if membership in the entity is in any way determined by race or ancestry. The Senate will have a straightforward up-or-down vote on whether it supports or rejects the principle of race-based government. If I am wrong and the bill's text is wrong, and this isn't about race, then that amendment will surely pass overwhelmingly. When I discussed this amendment with the bill's sponsors in the past, they have said they would strongly oppose it. So we will let the Senate vote directly and resolve the issue. All Senators should look forward to a vote on whether they support race-based government. Second, we will have to decide whether the Constitution and basic civil rights are to be left to a negotiation process after the bill's passage. As I have explained previously, this bill would allow the creation of a government not subject to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It could also be immune from the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and all other State and Federal civil rights laws. It would authorize creation of an enclave where Native Hawaiians would be subject to a different set of legal codes, taxes, and regulations. Proponents deny this. They say it is preposterous to say that civil rights won't be protected. They say the bill won't result in unequal tax and legal systems in Hawaii. They say basic fairness would be preserved. But then they say just how this happens is entirely up to subsequent negotiations between the Native Hawaiian entity and State and Federal bureaucrats. Obviously, basic civil rights should not be up for negotiation. So we will offer an amendment to clear this up. My civil rights amendment will apply the entire Bill of Rights to the new government. It will apply all Federal antidiscrimination laws. It will ensure that the new government doesn't have any special immunities from lawsuits under those laws. It will prevent the creation of any racially defined liabilities, so that no person is subject to any law, regulation, tax, or other liability if any person is exempted on the basis of race or ancestry. And it will guarantee fairness and equal treatment. It will not leave these matters up to future ``negotiations.'' This civil rights amendment deserves a vote, and it will get one. The New York Times editorialized today that the bill does not ``supersede the Constitution.'' I disagree, but we can resolve this. So let's vote and not leave it up to chance. Let's adopt my amendment and guarantee civil rights and equal treatment. Again, I have shared the drafts of this amendment with the sponsors of the bill who said they oppose it. Perhaps they will reconsider, but the Senate will have an opportunity to vote on this amendment. Third, there is a dispute over whether the people of Hawaii, who are most personally affected by this legislation, actually want this bill. The sponsors say yes, and point to opinion polls that speak vaguely of ``recognizing'' Native Hawaiians. I can point to alternative polls which show strong majorities opposed when the citizens understand that with recognition comes the potential for unequal treatment. Do the Hawaiian people want this? We know much of the political establishment does. But what about the citizens? I am concerned that this bill will divide Hawaii and encourage racial division there and elsewhere. Indeed, as the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights noted in its report, if you listen to the citizens of Hawaii rather than just their political leaders, it is clear that this legislation has already divided that State. Why would the Senate want to impose a divisive result upon the State of Hawaii without giving Senators a voice? So one of my colleagues will offer an amendment that will give us the answer to the question. It will simply require that all citizens of Hawaii have a voice by requiring a statewide referendum once the negotiations are complete. The Senate should not be passing on the question of what is good for Hawaii when we have evidence of such division. Again, I have floated this idea by the bill's sponsors, and they have opposed a referendum requirement. But why would they not want to ensure that the people of Hawaii have a direct voice in approving or rejecting the final product of the negotiations called for in the bill? So we will have an amendment. The Senate can decide if the people of Hawaii should be denied their opportunity to speak. As I have said in the past, I will support a cloture vote and will support the Senate having an opportunity to debate and vote on amendments to this bill. But should cloture be accepted and the Senate get on this bill, I have also noted I strongly oppose it and will offer amendments to try to ensure the result of the bill is most fair to the people of Hawaii. That I will most surely do. I look forward to that debate. I look forward to the debate and amendments that will be offered as a result. I yield the floor.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.