Troops Phone Home Free Act of 2003

I am pleased today to introduce the Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act of 2003, a bill intended to close loopholes in our immigration laws that have allowed war criminals and human rights abusers to enter and remain in this country. Senator Hatch has joined me in offering this bill, along with Senators Lieberman and Levin. In the other body, Representatives Mark Foley and Gary Ackerman today introduce identical legislation.

Our bill would update the charter of the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, OSI, which for years has investigated and has sought justice in the cases of Nazi war criminals who have sought refuge on our shores. It is time to renew the OSI charter to take into account the new generations of war criminals who try to escape justice by living among us.

This bill closely mirrors legislation I had offered that was reported unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, and which passed the Senate during the 106th Congress. I hope and expect that, with the help of Senator Hatch and others, this bill will become law during this Congress.

As we introduce this bill, our armed forces are fighting to replace an Iraqi regime that has been marked by its utter disregard for the human rights of its people. We must not fight this war on the one hand, and let human rights abusers from around the world enter our Nation with impunity on the other.

When they learn it is so, the American people are appalled to learn that our country has become a safe haven for those who exercised power in foreign countries to terrorize, rape, murder and torture innocent civilians. A report issued last year by Amnesty International claims that nearly 150 alleged human rights abusers have been identified living here and warns that this number may be as high as 1,000. Meanwhile, an article in the New York Review of Books stated that ``hundreds, if not thousands, of foreign nationals who have been plausibly accused of the most heinous human rights crimes, including torture and assassination, either have lived or still live freely in the U.S.'' [William Schulz, ``The Torturers Among Us,'' New York Review, p. 22, April 25, 2002.]

I introduced a similar version of this bill on May 10, 2001, and the Judiciary Committee reported the bill with a Leahy-Hatch managers' amendment on April 18, 2002. Unfortunately, the bill was subject to an anonymous hold on the Senate floor.

I introduced similar legislation in the 106th Congress and was pleased when the proposal garnered bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. The legislation passed the Senate on November 5, 1999, as part of S. 1754, the Hatch-Leahy ``Denying Safe Havens to International and War Criminals Act,'' but unfortunately it was not acted on by the House before the end of the 106th Congress. Nevertheless, Representatives Foley and Ackerman have provided consistent leadership in moving this legislation in the House, by introducing the measure in the l06th Congress as H.R. 2642 and H.R. 3058, in the 107th Congress, as H.R. 1449, and again today.

The problem of human rights abusers seeking and obtaining refuge in this country is real, and requires an effective response with the legal and enforcement changes proposed in this legislation.

For example, three Ethiopian refugees proved in an American court that

Kelbessa Negewo, a former senior government official in the military dictatorship that ruled Ethiopia in the 1970s, engaged in numerous acts of torture and human rights abuses against them when they lived in that country. Negewo oversaw and participated in the torture of opposition political figures in Ethiopia, and then moved to the United States only to work at the same Atlanta hotel as one of his own victims. The court's descriptions of the abuse are chilling, and included whipping a naked woman with a wire for hours and threatening her with death in the presence of several men. The court's award of compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $1.5 million to the plaintiffs was subsequently affirmed by an appellate court. [See Abebe-Jira v. Negewo, 72 F.3d 844 (11th Cir. 1996).] Yet during the pendency of his appeal of the civil verdict, the Immigration and Naturalization Service granted Negewo citizenship.

This situation is an affront both to the foreign victims of torture who fled here to escape their persecutors, and to the American victims of such torture and their families. As Professor William Aceves of California Western School of Law has noted, this case reveals ``a glaring and troubling limitation in current immigration law and practice. This case is not unique. Other aliens who have committed gross human rights violations have also gained entry into the United States and been granted immigration relief.'' [20 Mich. J. Int'l.L. at 657.]

Indeed, another case actually involves American victims. In 1980, four American churchwomen were raped and murdered by the Salvadoran National Guard. Two former Salvadoran government officials who allegedly covered up the murders currently reside in Florida.

Unfortunately, criminals who wielded machetes and guns against innocent civilians in countries like Haiti, Chile, Yugoslavia and Rwanda have been able to gain entry to the United States through the same doors that we have opened to deserving refugees. We need to lock that door to human rights abusers who seek a safe haven in the United States. To those human rights abusers who are already here, we should promptly show them the door out.

We have unwittingly sheltered the oppressors along with the oppressed for too long. We should not let this situation continue. We waited too long after World War II to focus prosecutorial resources and attention on Nazi war criminals who entered this country on false pretenses, or worse, with the collusion of American intelligence agencies. Thousands of declassified CIA documents were made public last year, as a result of the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act that I was proud to help enact in 1998. These documents made clear the extent to which the United States relied upon and helped Nazi war criminals. As Eli M. Rosenbaum, the head of the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, noted at the time, ``These files demonstrate that the real winners of the Cold War were Nazi criminals.'' We should not repeat that mistake for other aliens who engaged in human rights abuses before coming to the United States. We need to focus the attention of our law enforcement investigators to prosecute and deport those who have committed atrocities abroad and who now enjoy safe harbor in the United States.

When I first introduced this bill, the Rutland Daily Herald in Vermont editorialized that:

For the U.S. commitment to human rights to mean anything,

U.S. policies must be strong and consistent. It is not enough

to denounce war crimes in Bosnia and Kosovo or elsewhere and

then wink as the perpetrators of torture and mass murder slip

across the border to find a home in America. (October 31,

1999)

The Clinton Administration recognized the deficiencies in our laws. One Clinton Administration witness testified in February 2000 that:

The Department of Justice supports efforts to enhance our

ability to remove individuals who have committed acts of

torture abroad. The department also recognizes, however, that

our current immigration laws do not provide strong enough

bars for human rights abusers. . . . Right now, only three

types of human rights abuse could prevent someone from

entering or remaining in the United States. The types of

prohibited conduct include: (1) genocide; (2) particularly

severe violations of religious freedom; and (3) Nazi

persecutions. Even these types of conduct are narrowly

defined. [Hearing on H.R. 3058, ``Anti-Atrocity Alien

Deportation Act,'' before the Subcomm. on Immigration and

Claims of the House Comm. On the Judiciary, 106th Cong., 2d

Sess., Feb. 17, 2000 (Statement of James E. Costello,

Associate Deputy Attorney General).]

The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act would provide a stronger bar to human rights abusers and close loopholes in our current laws. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) currently provides that (i) participants in Nazi persecutions during the time period from March 23, 1933 to May 8, 1945, (ii) aliens who engaged in genocide, and (iii) aliens who committed particularly severe violations of religious freedom, are both inadmissable to the United States and removable. [See 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(2)(G) & (3)(E) and Sec. 1227(a)(4)(D).] This bill would expand the grounds for inadmissibility and deportation to: (1) add new bars for aliens who have engaged in acts, outside the United States, of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial killing,'' and (2) remove limitations on the current bases for ``genocide'' and ``particularly severe violations of religious freedom.''

The definitions for the new bases of ``torture'' and ``extrajudicial killing'' are derived from the Torture Victim Protection Act, which implemented the United Nations' ``Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.'' These definitions are therefore already sanctioned by the Congress. The bill incorporates the definition of ``torture'' codified in the federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340, which prohibits:

an act committed by a person acting under the color of law

specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental

pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to

lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or

physical control.'' [18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340(1).]

``Severe mental pain or suffering'' is further defined to mean:

prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (A) the

intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe

physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or

application, or threatened administration or application, of

mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to

disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and (C) the

threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another

person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical

pain or suffering, or the administration or application of

mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to

disrupt profoundly the senses or personality. [18 U.S.C.

Sec. 2340(2).]

The Torture Victim Protection Act also included a definition for ``extrajudicial killing.'' Specifically, this law establishes civil liability for wrongful death against any person ``who, under actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation . . . subjects an individual to extrajudicial killing,'' which is defined to mean ``a deliberated killing not authorized by a previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. This term, however, does not include any such killing that, under international law, is lawfully carried out under the authority of a foreign nation.''

The bill would not only add the new grounds for inadmissibility and deportation, it would expand two of the current grounds. First, the current bar to aliens who have ``engaged in genocide'' defines that term by reference to the ``genocide'' definition in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. [8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(E)(ii).] For clarity and consistency, the bill would substitute instead the definition in the federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1091(a), which was adopted pursuant to the U.S. obligations under the Genocide Convention. The bill would also broaden the reach of the provision to apply not only to those who ``engaged in genocide,'' as in current law, but also to cover any alien who has ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise participated in genocide. This broader scope will ensure that the genocide provision addresses a more appropriate range of levels of complicity.

Second, the current bar to aliens who have committed ``particularly severe violations of religious freedom,'' as defined in the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA), limits its application to foreign government officials who engaged in such conduct within the last 24 months, and also bars from admission the individual's

spouse and children, if any. This bill would delete the reference to prohibited conduct occurring within a 24-month period since this limitation is not consistent with the strong stance of the United States to promote religious freedom throughout the world. As Professor Aceves has written:

This provision is unduly restrictive . . . The 24-month

time limitation for this prohibition is also unnecessary. A

perpetrator of human rights atrocities should not be able to

seek absolution by merely waiting two years after the

commission of these acts. [William J. Aceves, supra, 20 Mich.

J. Int'l L., at 683.]

In addition, the bill would remove the current bar to admission for the spouse or children of a violator of religious freedom. This is a serious sanction that should not apply to individuals because of familial relationships that are beyond their control. The purpose of these amendments is to make those who have participated in atrocities accountable for their actions. That purpose is not served by holding the family members of such individuals accountable for the offensive conduct over which they had no control.

Under current law, most aliens who are inadmissible may receive a waiver under section 212(d)(3) of the INA to enter the nation as a nonimmigrant, where the Secretary of State recommends it and the Attorney General approves. Participants in Nazi persecutions or genocide, however, are not eligible for such a waiver. Our bill retains that provision. It does not, however, ban waivers for those who commit acts of torture or extrajudicial killings. I would hope that such waivers are used sparingly and only under the most compelling of circumstances.

Of course, changing the law to address the problem of human rights abusers seeking entry and remaining in the United States is only part of the solution. We also need effective enforcement. As one expert noted:

[s]trong institutional mechanisms must be established to

implement this proposed legislation. At present, there does

not appear to be any agency within the Department of Justice

with the specific mandate of identifying, investigating and

prosecuting modern day perpetrators of human rights

atrocities. The importance of establishing a separate agency

for this function can be seen in the experiences of the

Office of Special Investigations. 20 Mich. J. Int'l L., at

689.

Our country has long provided the template and moral leadership for dealing with Nazi war criminals. The Justice Department's specialized unit, OSI, which was created to hunt down, prosecute and remove Nazi war criminals who had slipped into the United States among their victims under the Displaced Persons Act, is an example of effective enforcement. Since OSI was created in 1979, more than 60 Nazi persecutors have been stripped of U.S. citizenship, almost 50 such individuals have been removed from the United States, and more than 150 have been denied entry.

OSI was created almost 35 years after the end of World War II and it remains authorized only to track Nazi war criminals. Specifically, when Attorney General Civiletti, by a 1979 Attorney General order, established OSI within the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, that office was directed to conduct all ``investigative and litigation activities involving individuals, who prior to and during World War II, under the supervision of or in association with the Nazi government of Germany, its allies, and other affiliated governments, are alleged to have ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person because of race, religion, national origin, or political opinion.'' (Attorney Gen. Order No. 851-79). The OSI's mission continues to be limited by that Attorney General Order.

I believe it is time to reward the tremendous work that OSI has done by expanding its mission to ensure effective enforcement against war criminals of all stripes.

Little is being done about the new generation of international human rights abusers and war criminals living among us, and these delays are costly. As any prosecutor knows instinctively, such delays make documentary and testimonial evidence more difficult to obtain. Stale cases are the hardest to make. We should not repeat the mistake of waiting decades before tracking down war criminals and human rights abusers who have settled in this country. War criminals should find no sanctuary in loopholes in our current immigration policies and enforcement, and should never come to believe that they will find safe harbor in the United States.

The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act would amend the INA, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1103, by directing the Attorney General to establish an Office of Special Investigations (OSI) within the Department of Justice with authorization to denaturalize any alien who has participated in Nazi persecution, torture, extrajudicial killing or genocide abroad. Not only would the bill provide statutory authorization for OSI, it would also expand its jurisdiction to deal with any alien who participated in torture, extrajudicial killing and genocide abroad not just Nazis.

The success of OSI in hunting Nazi war criminals demonstrates the effectiveness of centralized resources and expertise in these cases. The knowledge of the people, politics and pathologies of particular regimes engaged in genocide and human rights abuses is often necessary for effective prosecutions of these cases and would best be accomplished by the concentrated efforts of a single office, rather than in piecemeal litigation around the country or in offices that have more diverse missions.

These are the sound policy and practical reasons that experts in this area recommend that the United States ``establish an office in the Justice Department similar to the one that has tracked Nazi war criminals, with an exclusive mandate to carry out the task of investigation [of suspected human rights abusers].'' [William Schulz, supra, at p. 24.]

I appreciate that this part of the legislation has in the past proven controversial within the Department of Justice, but others have concurred in my judgment that the OSI is an appropriate component of the Department to address the new responsibilities proposed in this bill. Professor Aceves, who has studied these matters extensively, has concluded that the OSI's ``methodology for pursuing Nazi war criminals can be applied with equal rigor to other perpetrators of human rights violations. As the number of Nazi war criminals inevitably declines, the OSI can begin to enforce U.S. immigration laws against perpetrators of genocide and other gross violations of human rights.'' 20 Mich. J. Int'l. 657.

Unquestionably, the need to bring Nazi war criminals to justice remains a matter of great importance. Funds would not be diverted from the OSI's current mission instead, additional resources are authorized in the bill to cover the costs of the Office's expanded duties.

Significantly, the bill further directs the Attorney General, in determining what action to take against a human rights abuser seeking entry into or found within the United States, to consider whether a prosecution should be brought under U.S. law or whether the alien should be deported to a country willing to undertake such a prosecution. Despite ratifying the Convention Against Torture in 1994 and adopting a new law making torture anywhere in the world a crime, federal law enforcement has not used this authority. In fact, one recent observer noted that ``the U.S. has never prosecuted a suspected torturer; nor has it ever extradited one under the Convention Against Torture, although it has surrendered one person to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.'' [William Schulz, supra, at p. 23 - 24.]

As one human rights expert has noted:

``The justifiable outrage felt by many when it is

discovered that serious human rights abusers have found their

way into the United States may lead well-meaning people to

call for their immediate expulsion. Such individuals

certainly should not be enjoying the good life America has to

offer. But when we ask the question `where should they be?'

the answer is clear: they should be in the dock. That is the

essence of accountability, and it should be the central goal

of any scheme to penalize human rights abusers.'' [Hearing on

H.R. 5238, ``Serious Human Rights Abusers Accountability

Act,'' before the Subcomm. on Immigration and Claims of the

House Comm. On the Judiciary, 106th Cong., 2d Sess., Sept.

28, 2000 (Statement of Elisa Massimino, Director, Washington

Office, Lawyers Committee For Human Rights).]

Finally, the bill directs the Attorney General to report to the Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House on implementation of the new requirements in the bill, including procedures for referral of matters to the OSI, any

revisions made to immigration forms to reflect amendments made by the bill, and the procedures developed, with adequate due process protection, to obtain sufficient evidence and determine whether an alien is deemed inadmissible under the bill.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate again to give their approval to this bill, and for the House to help us finally make it law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Federal Power Act Amendment of 2003.'' This bill is intended to ensure for the future the two things that matter most to all electricity customers: affordable electricity and reliable electricity.

Electricity users, my constituents and your constituents, wake up in the morning, flip a switch and expect their lights to turn on. They also expect that each month when their electricity bill arrives in the mail that they'll pay a reasonable price for that service. Customers don't care where the electrons come from or what new scheme the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has in mind for the electricity industry or really much of anything else. And frankly, as a representative of nearly four and a half million people in my home State of Louisiana, affordable and reliable electricity are my primary concerns when it comes to electricity policy, and that is the purpose for which I offer legislation today.

Electricity prices in Louisiana, and throughout the Southeast for that matter, are some of the lowest in the nation. According to the North American Electric Reliability Council's most recent reliability assessment report, the Southeast region is expected to enjoy, at least for the near term, ``adequate delivery capacity to support forecast demand and energy requirements under normal and contingency conditions.'' In other words, electricity customers in the Southeast should expect to continue to enjoy reliable electric service over the short run. My concern, however, is about the future of retail electricity service in my State.

There are several specific areas of concern that I have and that I attempt to address in the legislation being offered today.

First, the current balance between State and Federal jurisdiction, which has worked exceedingly well in my home State to provide low-cost and reliable electric service, is in jeopardy. Retail transactions, regulated by State public utility commissions, have historically comprised 90 percent of most utilities' transactions and continue to do so in a majority of States that have not restructured their electricity markets. In fact, there is not a single State in the Southeast with the exception of Virginia that has authorized retail competition. Yet, customers in our region of the country enjoy some of the lowest priced electricity service.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or FERC, however, has issued a proposed rule that would strip States of much of their current jurisdiction over retail electric service, including the transmission component of bundled retail sales. In so doing, FERC would dramatically impair the ability of States to use retail ratemaking to attain local policy goals and to continue to ensure low costs for retail customers. It would also prohibit States from ensuring that retail customers are given a priority for electricity service. As a result, in the event that supplies are tight, retail customers could lose the right to priority service.

FERC's proposed plan is a one-size-fits-all scheme on the entire country based on a model that closely resembles the one in place in New Jersey, much of Pennsylvania and Maryland. This model may work well in the Northeast, but it has never been tested or proven viable in any other part of the country. In fact, in a study performed by the consulting firm, Charles River Associates, it was concluded that there is ``considerable uncertainty as to whether [the FERC's proposed plan] would provide greater benefits to the southeast than the implementation costs.'' In Louisiana, and I'm sure in many other States throughout the Southeast and across the country, customers are happy with their electric service. So I ask, what's wrong with the current jurisdictional division between the State and Federal government? If a State or region wants to adopt a new approach, they should be free to do so. But we should not allow a Federal agency to make fundamental policy decisions that are best left to State officials who are accountable to local interests. We know what happened out West when California regulators attempted to institute a sweeping, new plan for its electricity markets. I hope to avoid importing those problems into Louisiana.

To address this jurisdictional concern, Section 2 of my bill would clarify the Federal-State arrangement under the Federal Power Act by explicitly stating that States shall have jurisdiction over the retail sale of electric energy, including all component parts of a bundled retail sale. In addition, Section 7 would enable States to continue to allow utilities to reserve transmission capacity for retail customers. This is current law and the current practice in a large number of States, including States with some of the lowest average retail rates and the best history of reliability. As contemplated by Congress when the Federal Power Act was enacted, FERC will retain jurisdiction over the wholesale sales of electric energy and States will retain jurisdiction over retail.

My second concern for retail customers is the potential for increased rates caused by the costs of accommodating the ``merchant generation'' that, over the past several years, have been seeking to connect to the electric grid in the Southeast. Though new generation is important to wholesale competition, it is a strain on the transmission system. To accommodate the new generation, new transmission facilities and upgrades to existing facilities are needed. However, customers in Louisiana would be forced to pay for the facilities needed to accommodate the merchant generators, even though most of their customers are out-of-region customers. State regulatory commissioners, understandably, are reluctant to pass transmission construction and upgrade costs off to local customers who are not benefitting from the electricity. Meanwhile energy dependent regions of the country are denied cheap and reliable electricity.

A reason they choose to site in Louisiana is because we are blessed with abundant reserves of natural gas--the currently favored fuel source for electric generation. Merchant generators are siting their facilities to gain access to these resources as cheaply as possible, and then are delivering electricity to regions where they can sell electricity at a higher cost. If enough transmission is built to export just a portion of the new generation that is planned to come on-line in Louisiana--10,000 megawatts--the estimated cost would impose a retail rate increase of 5 to 11 percent.

Surely, there must be a more equitable way to allocate cost while simultaneously enhancing our transmission capacity. It is not fair to expect customers in energy generating States to keep paying for transmission expansion when this increased transmission is primarily being developed for out-of-region use. In Sections 3 and 4 of this bill, I have attempted to provide a more equitable system. Section 3 would allow for ``voluntary participant-funding'' in which a regional transmission organization may choose to establish a system in which market participants pay for expansions to the transmission network in return for the transmission rights created by the expansion investment. This approach gives proper economic incentives for new generator location and transmission expansion decisions.

Similarly, Section 4 of my bill would require the FERC to initiate a proceeding to establish rules for interconnecting new generation to transmission facilities. As in Section 3, any costs made necessary by the interconnecting generator would be funded by the generator, or cost-causer, in return for a right to use such facilities funded by the investment.

The third problem that I see is the lack of new investment in transmission facilities. FERC noted in its Electric Transmission Constraint study that transmission congestion costs retail

customers across the country millions of dollars every year. Over the past 10 years, demand for electricity has increased by 17 percent while transmission investment during the same period has continuously declined about 45 percent.

What is even more troubling is that current demand for electricity is projected to increase by 25 percent over the next 10 years with only a modest increase in transmission capacity. In the short term, this lack of transmission investment and the corresponding lack of transmission capacity, adversely affects the ability of retail customers to realize the benefits of wholesale competition. Over the long term, and if this trend continues, the reliability of the bulk power system could be compromised. In the summer of 2000, transmission constraints limited the ability to sell low-cost power from the Midwest to the South during a period of peak demand, causing higher costs for customers. In the summer of 2001 during the California electricity crisis, transmission constraints along the Path 15 transmission route were a significant cause of the blackouts experienced by customers in the northern parts of that State.

To help spur this needed investment in the transmission sector, Section 5 of the legislation would provide further guidance to FERC in establishing transmission rates in two ways. First, Section 5 would amend Section 205 of the Federal Power Act to clarify that the cost causer is responsible for paying the costs of new transmission investment and that all users of the transmission facilities are required to pay an equitable share of the costs such facilities. These provisions will help ensure that users of the transmission system have proper economic price signals and encourage investment where it is needed most. Second, Section 5 would add a new section to the Federal Power Act, Section 215, that would require the FERC to initiate a rulemaking to establish transmission pricing policies and standards to promote investment in transmission facilities. Although the Commission may have sufficient authority under current law to initiate such policies, our Nation's transmission system has been neglected too long and I believe that the FERC could benefit from more specific guidance from Congress.

Finally, customers are not realizing all of the potential benefits of wholesale electricity markets because of its balkanization. The likely result is higher electricity prices. In different parts of the country, electric utilities are in various stages of joining together to form large regional markets, or in the terms used by FERC--regional transmission organizations. In addition, public power entities, including municipal utilities, cooperatives, and federal and State power marketing associations have been willing or resisting, to varying degrees, to contribute to the efforts to establish regional markets. Exacerbating this problem is the underlying fact that FERC does not have the same jurisdiction over public power utilities as it does over electric utilities.

Properly functioning regional markets for electricity can bring about significant benefits to customers in all parts of the country. More competitive wholesale generation, for example, will allow retail sellers greater opportunities to purchase generation from independent power producers. Improperly functioning markets, or one-size-fits all proposals that do not take into consideration regional differences, can be devastating. Current law and policy at FERC has been insufficient in achieving the proper balance between the need for robust regional markets, the reality of regional differences and the legitimate efforts of utilities.

Therefore, in Section 6 of the bill, the FERC would be required to convene regional discussions with State regulatory commissions to consider the development and progress of regional transmission organizations. It would further provide for specific topics of discussion between FERC and the States including the need for regional organizations, the planning process for facilities, the protection of retail customers, and the establishment of proper price signals to ensure the efficient expansion of the transmission grid. Section 6 would also help reduce the balkanization of the electric grid by authorizing the federal utilities such as the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Bonneville Power Administration to join regional transmission organizations. Also, in an attempt to help expand wholesale markets, Section 8 would provide for FERC to require that public power entities provide a limited form of access to their transmission facilities. This provision would give wholesale generators increased access to markets and ensure that competitors pay only the fair and reasonable price to use the transmission grid owned by public power.

In conclusion, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and consider its affect on retail electricity customers in their States. Affordable and reliable electricity should be our objective for all customers, in all parts of the country.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 718, the Troops Phone Home Free Act of 2003; that the only amendment in order be a McCain substitute amendment; further, that there be 1 hour of debate equally divided between Senator McCain and the Democratic leader or his designee; that at the expiration or yielding back of time, the amendment be adopted, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, without intervening action or debate.

I ask unanimous consent that the McCain substitute be adopted at this time for consideration.

Just to be clear, at the expiration or yielding back of time, the amendment is adopted, and the bill, as amended, will be read a third time and passed, without intervening action or debate?

I thank the Chair.

This legislation, introduced on behalf of Senators Allen, Chambliss, Lindsey Graham, Craig, Miller, and others, would improve the ability of American service personnel fighting overseas to communicate with their loved ones at home. It provides a monthly allotment of free telephone calling time to members of the Armed Forces outside of the United States who are directly supporting or involved in military operations in Iraq or Afghanistan for such period of time as the conflict continues in both areas.

I have discussed this issue with the Department of Defense and at this time they have not gotten back to me. I spoke to the Deputy Secretary of Defense. She supports the idea. There may be some changes proposed by the Department of Defense, but I am confident of their support.

This legislation would direct the Secretary of Defense to provide these troops with the financial ability to call home by providing a prepaid calling card or equivalent telecommunications benefit up to $40 every month. The bill would also direct the Secretary to work with telecommunications providers to facilitate the deployment of additional telephones for use by our troops. Our military mission must remain a priority of the Department of Defense. Therefore, the bill makes clear that the Secretary shall not take any action to implement the bill that would compromise our overall military objectives. Moreover, the bill gives the Secretary complete discretion on how best to implement it. If it is simply impractical to provide the benefit to certain soldiers, then the Secretary may refrain, obviously, from providing it. If the cost of providing the service to one branch of the military or the other is more costly, then the Secretary can determine the most equitable method of distributing the benefit.

The bill also directs the Secretary to maximize the use of all resources to fulfill the goals of the act and, thus, he may use existing programs, private support programs, or offers from private entities to make telephone service available to our troops. For example, I received a generous offer today from Joseph Wright, CEO of PanAmSat Corporation. In his letter he said:

[This bill] is a terrific idea and I would like to support

it. . . .We would be willing to provide satellite services

free to support your initiative.

The only intended beneficiaries of this bill are the troops serving this country. It is not intended to benefit any particular provider. Thus the bill urges the Secretary to implement the bill in a manner that is consistent with the timely provision of the benefits but also in a manner that allows for competition in the provision of such benefits.

All of us are aware of the importance of communicating with one's family and friends, particularly when you are in a time of crisis and combat. This is a modest attempt to try and help these men and women who are serving. Some of them have already been there for a very long time. The USS Abraham Lincoln has been at sea in the area for more than 300 days. Communications with their loved ones at home is obviously a very important aspect of preserving family and also communicating with friends as well. Modern technology enables our service personnel to communicate with their loved ones by phone, and these real-time discussions can provide significant emotional and psychological support to both the soldier and the family.

Unfortunately, for some the cost of placing these calls can be prohibitively expensive. On March 18, 2003, USA Today reported on the high cost of telephone calls from bases in Kuwait:

It cost one soldier $35 to make two quick phone calls home

to his wife.

Likewise, my office was recently told the story of a Marine corporal who didn't have enough money to call his son in the States on his birthday.

Last Friday, I asked the country's telephone companies to commit to ensure that families of service personnel don't have their telephone lines disconnected due to a short-term inability to pay the costs incurred for calls from troops overseas. I also asked for a commitment to implement special reduced rates where feasible for telephone calls with members of the Armed Forces overseas.

Madam President, the response has been overwhelming. From the smallest companies serving a few hundred customers to the largest of companies, around 60 companies have agreed to make these commitments. I wish to quote from a few of these letters and I will have many printed in the Record at the appropriate time. Some of them are extremely touching, believe it or not.

One that especially got my attention was from the Andrew Telephone Company in Andrew, IA. They will not disconnect service from servicemen's families for the duration of the war. They write:

We don't offer long distance, but we will assist

subscribers to find the best rates possible. Andrew is a

community of 450 and we have 19 young men and women serving

at this time. Yours, Mil Cornelius, President.

Remarkable. Andrew, IA, a community of 450 and they have 19 young men and women serving at this time. That is a very wonderful commitment.

We have commitments from small companies from Andrew Telephone Company to Quest, Southern Bell, SBC, Verizon, AT&T, MCI, Sprint. All the major corporations in America have also made these commitments. I am extremely grateful to them. More importantly, I am sure the service men and women and their families all over America are grateful as well.

Just a couple more: William P. Heaston, vice president of PrairieWave Communications in Sioux Falls, SD, wrote:

I am a retired Army officer, who served in Vietnam and

other remote areas. I can assure you that PrairieWave fully

appreciates the benefit to morale and military service that

the ability to communicate with loved ones brings.

William E. Morrow, CEO of Grande Communications in San Marcos, TX, writes:

We are proud of our troops and know their families are in

need of our support during these difficult times. This is the

least we can do in light of their great sacrifice for our

country.

All of them make statements along those lines.

OmniTel Communications:

We will also be providing cash credits as a donation on the

billing, which have yet to be determined, of these families

later this year to help defray other costs they may have

incurred.

OmniTel Communications supports our Armed Forces in its

critical action and wish the very best to all Americans who

have to make very serious decisions for the future of our

great country.

Ronald Laudner, CEO, OmniTel Communications, Nora Springs,

Mr. President, I yield such time as she may consume to the Senator from Maine.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back and we move to consideration of the legislation, S. 718.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Madam President, first, I very much commend Senator McCain for his leadership in introducing this very important, thoughtful, and considerate measure, S. 718. I am proud to be a cosponsor of it with him, Senator Chambliss, and others.

The purpose of this bill is to support the morale of the brave men and women of the U.S. armed services who are stationed outside the United States, directly supporting military operations in Afghanistan or Iraq, by giving them the ability to call their loved ones without an expense to them.

When you look at the findings, they all make very good sense, especially that

telephone contact with family and friends provides

significant emotional and psychological support to them and

helps to sustain and improve morale.

As you read the language of the bill, it all makes great sense as a matter of legislation. To give you an idea how it might have an impact on real people and real lives, and also the lives that have been lost, I will refer to an article today in The Washington Post, where a young man from Virginia lost his life. This young man's name is SGT Donald C. May, Jr. His father had fought in Vietnam. Young Mr. May joined the Marines as soon as he graduated from high school at Meadowbrook High School in Chesterfield County, VA. He reenlisted and eventually became a tank commander. His father received two Purple Hearts as a tank commander in Vietnam. Unfortunately, his father died in a boating accident while fishing a few years back.

At any rate, SGT May moved and bounced around for several years. He went to North Carolina, where he met his wife Deborah, and eventually they went off to California where he was stationed. He left in January for the Middle East, and it was then, in January, that his mother last talked to him on the phone. As his mother recalled in this article, he said, ``Mom, this is what I have trained for all my life. This is what I am meant to do. I am ready.''

He talked a bit later with his wife and he told her that he had decided not to reenlist because he wanted to be home more with his two children, Mariah, almost 7, and Jack, almost 2. His wife Deborah is pregnant with their third child, a son, to be named William. Mrs. May, the mother, said her daughter-in-law was treated twice in the last few days for premature labor. The baby is due in mid-May.

Brenda May's last communication with her son arrived a week ago. It was a letter dated March 3.

So when you think of this story of this brave, courageous hero, who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country, for our safety, for our freedom, for our security, and to liberate the people of Iraq, what a gift he has given to this country--his life, his future, to be holding his baby boy William, to be with his children as they grow up. That is the greatest gift he could give to this country, and I surely hope the people of Iraq, when liberated, will also get down on their knees and thank God for people of this man's courage.

When you listen to the story of him last talking on the telephone to his mother and wife in January, the last communication in a letter dated March 3, the reality is that was his last communication.

I know that you, Madam President, and all Americans can readily understand how this measure would have had an impact. If he could get to a telephone to actually have his mother, to have his wife, hear his voice and have him hear their voices, to tell him that they love him, for them to tell him how proud they are for what he is doing. Obviously, they would be asking him to stay safe. But there would have been the ending on that telephone call undoubtedly where his mother, his wife, and his children would have said: I love you.

While this measure looks like $40 a month and a telephone call, in some cases that may be the last contact. That is why this measure is so important, and I commend Senator McCain and all of my colleagues for introducing it. I urge my colleagues to pass it very shortly.

I am also hopeful that later this week we can take up S. 721. This is a measure I have introduced with Senators McCain, Chambliss, Graham of South Carolina, Warner, Burns, Miller, and Stevens to expand the combat zone exclusions and to provide tax exclusions to personnel serving in Cuba and the Horn of Africa in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

This legislation will help expand the combat zone tax exclusion to include the period in transit to qualified combat zones and to provide full income tax exclusion to other personnel. The pay for these personnel would not be, with the passage of this bill, subject to Federal or State taxes for any month in which they serve in one of these areas. The legislation also provides tax breaks for individuals serving in Operation Enduring Freedom, the global

war on terrorism, in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the Horn of Africa. If this measure were to pass, the pay for these personnel would not be subject to Federal or State taxes for any month in which they serve in one of these areas.

As a matter of past precedent, in 1995, Congress passed legislation designating Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, and Macedonia as comprising qualified hazardous duty areas. Military personnel serving there on peacekeeping duties are eligible for the same tax exclusion as personnel serving in combat zones.

I also point out that officers do not receive a full income tax exclusion. Any income above the level of the highest enlisted rank is subject to Federal and State taxes. This makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever, and I know that Senator Chambliss has another measure that will provide parity between officers serving in the Guard and Reserve.

The other point of this matter is that the pay of personnel in transit to a combat zone is subject to income taxes until they actually cross into the combat zone area.

What we are seeing is some of the ships are steaming at full speed when otherwise not necessary in an effort to give personnel as much tax-excluded income as possible. My view is that as soon as those battleship groups leave the ports, whether it is Wilmington, Norfolk, or San Diego, that is when the combat zone exclusion ought to apply. I think this is a commonsense, equitable matter. I think we should not be having our families back home worried about paying taxes when their brave loved one--whether that may be their husband, wife, son, daughter, mother or father--is leaving home. They should not be having to worry about paying taxes when they are serving, whether they are Reserves, Guard, or active military, in these areas supporting this operation for our security and also to liberate Iraq.

I urge my colleagues to pass S. 718, the Troops Phone Home Free Act of 2003. It is the proper and compassionate thing to do. It also expresses our gratitude and appreciation not just to the troops but the loved ones home who need to have that reassurance and the pleasure of hearing their loved one's voice.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Troops Phone Home Free Act introduced by my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain. This legislation would allow troops who are on the front lines in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom to place phone calls to their loved ones without cost to them or their families. It would provide prepaid phone cards for the soldiers and provide more phones in the Middle East and in Afghanistan so our troops can have more flexibility to communicate with their families.

This is an important measure not only for the morale of our brave men and women who are overseas fighting in a war but also to their families and loved ones who are sacrificing dearly for their country.

There is nobody in this great body that we serve in who has a greater appreciation for a soldier to have the ability to pick up the phone and call his or her family than Senator McCain. I admire and respect him for his service to our country, and I am very pleased to be in support of his bill to make sure that every member of our Armed Forces serving in Iraq today, in Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, has the opportunity to communicate with their families.

We think of our brave men and women and the great job they are doing--which they are and I am so proud of all of them--but we have to also remember they have families back home. They have friends and loved ones here who are making just as big a sacrifice as they are making by serving our country. I think it is only right and fair that we give them as many benefits as we possibly can, and this is simply one more way of saying we appreciate the great work they are doing.

I also rise in support of S. 721, which is Senator Allen's bill to extend the combat zone where our men and women are serving. Again, from a Guard and Reserve standpoint, we are calling up these men and women on a much more regular basis today than ever before, and it is extremely important that we show support for all of our men and women serving in combat, active duty, Guard, and Reserve. This provides some equity in the payment to all of those men and women who are serving in combat in any part of the world to which they are called. So I do rise in strong support of Senator Allen's bill.

I also rise to introduce legislation, along with my colleagues Senator McCain, Senator Graham of South Carolina as well as Senator Allen, that I believe will be a positive step in assisting commanders in the Reserve and the National Guard. The men and women who serve our country in the Reserve and National Guard make up a critical component of an All-Volunteer Force and have chosen to put their lives on the line for the freedom of their families and their country, and we thank them. We continue to be on our knees in prayer for their continued safety and for their families as they serve around the world. The legislation I bring to the floor today represents a small step in recognizing the sacrifices that specifically the commanding officers in the Reserve and the National Guard are making as we speak. This initiative will provide a well-deserved benefit to at least 500 reservists and 1,500 National Guardsmen. Currently, National Guard and Reserve commanders are not entitled to command responsibility pay, even though they serve in a similar capacity to their active duty counterparts. This bill will allow for an added benefit of $50 per month for junior officers, $100 a month for mid-level officers, and $150 a month for Guard and Reserve senior officers who serve as commanders. This pay will apply whether they are full-time wing commanders of a Reserve component airlift wing or whether they are serving as a commander in an inactive duty training capacity. The purpose of this bill is to create further equity between our active and Reserve components. The amount of money involved is relatively small, but this measure serves as a powerful symbol that we value the contribution and sacrifice of our citizen soldiers stationed around the world serving the United States of America and the cause of freedom.

There is one special story about which I would like to speak very briefly. It is a story on the front page of virtually every major newspaper in America this morning. It is a story about CPT Chris Carter in the United States Army, a young captain from Watkinsville, GA, of whom I am so extremely proud, a story about Captain Carter who risked his life on a bridge over the Euphrates River, which was under siege, a bridge which they were seeking to have explosives removed from so we could take that bridge to make sure our troops ultimately got safely across the bridge. It is a story of CPT Chris Carter who, during the midst of a firefight, saw some innocent civilians, Iraqi civilians, crossing that bridge, coming over to the side he and his troops were on. He saw innocent civilians being caught in that firefight and one man being killed and a woman, an Iraqi woman, bleeding and pleading for help. Captain Carter got off of his vehicle, rushed to the bridge, behind his vehicle so that he could have some cover, until he got behind an iron post on that bridge. After he got behind the iron post on that bridge and under fierce fire coming from the other side, he risked his own life to go to that Iraqi woman and to pull her to safety and secure medication for her and ultimately have her transported to a medical facility where she is being treated.

I am so proud of every one of our men and women who are fighting in Operation Iraqi Freedom today. But it is men and women like Chris Carter of whom I am especially proud. He is not just a great Georgian, he is a great American and a great member of the United States Army.

I had a great conversation with his father this morning. His father obviously is extremely proud of him. He is one of those young men who will be able to take advantage of these benefits we have been talking about here today, Senator McCain, Senator Allen, and myself. He is one of the young men who will be able to take that phone card under Senator McCain's bill and call home to his family to tell them exactly what did happen and let them have an opportunity to tell him how very proud of him they are.

Again, I commend Senator McCain. I appreciate very much the strong support of Senator Allen and Senator Graham as we introduce these measures to try to make life a little more pleasant for our troops as they are separated from their families, and also to make sure their families have the opportunity to communicate with them, and have the financial resources to continue to provide for their families while they are serving in combat areas so that they can concentrate on doing the job they are sent to do and know that their families are being well taken care of, and know they are going to have the ability to communicate by telephone with their families on a regular basis.

I yield the floor.