Truth in Cigarette Labeling Act of 2006

Mr. President, today I rise to discuss a topic that will always have incredible meaning to American families: educating our children. We all want what is best for our children, and we all want to make sure that we provide them with the tools that they need to succeed in tomorrow's workforce.

While there are many different components to our education system here in America, today I want to concentrate on a particular point of concern, an area where, with some improvement, can be a key tool ensuring that our children are meeting their educational goals.

Today, along with Senator John Cornyn of Texas, I rise to introduce the Raising Achievement through Improving Supplemental Education Act of 2006--or the RAISE Act for short.

The RAISE Act seeks to improve the Supplemental Educational Services, SES, program and clears the way for this program to become well-known, widely available, and easily accessible to eligible students.

It seeks to broaden eligibility requirements and prioritization of the program, and to target all low-performing students regardless of income status.

Let me take a step back and talk about the Supplemental Education Service program, or SES program, for those who might not be familiar with it.

SES was implemented as part of No Child Left Behind and designed to be an innovative tool to help meet the academic needs of low-income students attending continuously failing schools.

The No Child Left Behind Act requires school districts to utilize 20 percent of their Federal funds for after-school tutoring programs at consistently failing schools.

Under this program, low-income parents can choose free private tutoring from the provider of their choice. School districts then use their 20 percent allocation to pay the providers for their tutoring services. Any part of these funds that are not used for tutoring can be transferred into other district programs.

By providing direct tutoring after school, the SES program can help students who are behind catch up with their peers. This in turn also improves the overall school performance.

While the intent of the SES program has been pure, there have been numerous shortfalls nationwide--these shortfalls have much to do with a lack of implementation which the RAISE Act would seek to correct.

For example, in the 2003-2004 school year, only 17 percent of the eligible 1.4 million students participated in SES programs. That means that hundreds of thousands of children are not being provided with tutoring help where funding has already been set aside for that purpose.

Some parents reported that they did not sign up because they lacked the transportation to get their students to the providers, the providers were not tutoring on-site at the schools. Also, there were some conflicts with other, better established after-school programs.

States have reported that many school districts with low turnout have failed to communicate with parents or implement the program in a way that ensures its success. The reports further indicate that some of the districts have openly undermined the program in letters to parents.

In my own State of Florida for instance, one county sent a letter home to parents this past April about the SES services that would be provided for the current school year that sent quite a mixed signal.

The letter stated that although parents might be able to secure SES program assistance for their children, the district believed that the funds could be better spent elsewhere and went as far to, quote unquote, ``strongly urge parents'' not to utilize their SES and school choice options under No Child Left Behind.

So, what we are seeing is that with all the good intentions behind the SES program, we are having some problems with implementation.

In Florida, we have already implemented SES improvements. As a result, Florida will see a higher SES program success rate, stronger guidelines, and better State oversight.

Many of the provisions of the RAISE Act are modeled after the successes already occurring in my home State.

In our school districts where SES programs are thriving, good communication with both parents and providers has been emphasized, as well as access to on-site tutoring at school facilities.

One prominent Florida-based example is the SES program in Marion County, located in central Florida. Schools there have utilized all their funds to maximize student enrollment, which also increases the program's chances of greater overall success.

Other good examples of SES program progress include Escambia County, Florida, where the city of Pensacola is located--to best utilize their SES dollars, they hosted a successful summer tutoring program.

School Districts in the Palm Beach and Miami-Dade areas have SES programs that bode well on a national level for the strong parental outreach efforts they have instituted, which enable all eligible students the ability to enroll in SES.

In Hillsborough County, FL--where Tampa is located--their success with SES enrollment brought the U.S. Department of Education to grant the district a special provision, whereby they can provide SES tutoring in addition to the private providers that most of the money is allocated for.

This will allow Hillsborough County to make SES available to more students, and I look forward to seeing what their efforts bring.

The RAISE Act will help make possible nationwide the kind of SES program success we have experienced in Florida. This success will come about because of stricter implementation standards and program overview.

Another important component of the RAISE Act is eligibility for SES. Currently, SES targets low-income, low-performing students.

I think we should be targeting all low-performing students, regardless of income status.

By overlooking many middle-class families who do not have the money to put their children into private tutoring or after-school programs, many of those children are falling through the cracks.

This bill is meant to ensure that all of our low-performing students have an opportunity to succeed academically.

We are going to help out those in need such as Ms. Carla Garcia of Gibsonton, FL--a part of Hillsborough County. She is a single mother struggling to provide her family with the basics.

She does not qualify for the low-income programs at her school, so her

son is not currently eligible for SES services even though he is falling behind academically.

Ms. Garcia strongly believes that if her son was able to receive tutoring under SES, he would be better able to excel and perform at grade level.

Under the RAISE Act, Ms. Garcia would be able to receive SES services for her son--as would many other parents for their children--because my bill would make SES tutoring available to all students who are struggling to meet grade level proficiency.

The RAISE Act aims to make sure that every child in the school yard has an equal opportunity at scholastic growth and advancement.

So, to summarize: The RAISE Act will require better parental notification of eligibility and program availability; we streamline the application and registration process; and we level the playing field-- making school facilities as available for tutoring as they are for other after-school activities.

The RAISE Act will broaden eligibility requirements and prioritization. Right now SES targets low-income, low-performing students; I think we ought to target all low-performing students, regardless of income status.

In Florida, we have already implemented SES improvements. As a result, Florida's SES program has stronger guidelines and better State oversight. Many of the provisions of the RAISE Act are modeled after the successes already occurring in the state of Florida.

The RAISE Act will provide the guidance and tools states and school districts need to increase participation and produce results. Stronger coordination, communication, and guidance will make SES programs more effective.

The RAISE Act will help raise the success of all students, in turn raising the academic achievement of our schools. The Act was developed in consultation with school administrators, state education officials, and non-profit and research groups. This is a nationwide imperative and I urge my colleagues to support this innovative set of reforms.

Let us continue to make improvements to the success that is No Child Left Behind, by providing the necessary funding, regulation, and implementation of Supplemental Educational Services across this great land.

Together, we can make the RAISE Act a reality and improve the academic lives of countless American schoolchildren.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the TANF Economic and Financial Education Promotion Act of 2006, with my colleagues Senators Lautenberg, Stabenow, and Obama. I appreciate the work of our former colleague, Senator Corzine, for initiating this important financial and economic literacy bill, of which I had been an original cosponsor. This bill is a product of revisions suggested by the

Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy and the American Savings and Education Council, as well as consultation with other community groups such as the National Association of Securities Dealers and National Council on Economic Education.

As noted in the bill's findings, high levels of personal debt and bankruptcy filings combined with a negative personal savings rate in 2005 have put more and more individuals on the edge of financial insolvency. Individuals who are already living with less-than-ideal financial circumstances--such as most Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, recipients and others who are not financially self- sufficient and live outside the financial mainstream--apply to predatory lenders for short-term loans with comparatively high interest rates or fees, or are able to save little or nothing for emergencies or future events. A lack of basic consumer finance education, including lack of familiarity with how a checking or savings account works, has been cited as a major reason millions of Americans do not set up mainstream accounts and, thus, put themselves into greater financial peril.

Economic and financial education can help individuals and families meet short-term obligations and maximize their well-being in the long- term, particularly in populations traditionally underserved by mainstream financial systems. Such education can provide access to the tools needed to create household budgets, initiate savings plans, and build assets, as well as keep vulnerable individuals from unknowingly entering or being forced into financially devastating credit arrangements. Core goals of economic and financial literacy activities complement TANF's aims to reduce welfare dependency, helping people achieve self-sufficiency.

For families transitioning from welfare into work, challenges continue to abound, including obtaining child care and transportation. Another challenge that is often overlooked, however, is the difficulty of transitioning from a benefits- to a wage-based income. Financial and economic literacy programs that educate families through this transition about taxes and tax benefits that they may be eligible for, such as the Dependent Care Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, can help to ensure that they have access to these important work benefits.

The bill we are introducing today would tackle this problem for a targeted group of Americans by making economic and financial education an allowable use of federal TANF funds and a qualified work activity under the law. The bill would also require States, through collaborations with local banks, community-based organizations, business entities, and members of the Federal Financial Literacy and Education Commission, to promote financial education in their state TANF plans. States must ensure that such activities are accessible to the target population by way of appropriately-geared curriculum, provide relevant and practical information to participants, include a direct delivery component, and, to the extent practicable, work with an asset building program conducted in that state. This bill aims to make a big difference for one of our country's most vulnerable populations and provide them access to tools that can allow them to stand on their own feet, for themselves and their families.

I thank my cosponsors for joining me in introducing this bill, and I urge other colleagues to support this meaningful legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Education for Retirement Security Act of 2006, with my colleagues Senators Lautenberg, Stabenow, Sarbanes and Baucus. I thank our former colleague, Senator Corzine, for initiating this important financial and economic literacy bill, of which I had been an original cosponsor. This bill is a product of revisions suggested by the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy and the American Savings and Education Council, as well as consultation with other community groups such as the National Association of Securities Dealers and National Council on Economic Education.

Americans are not saving enough for retirement. Longer life spans, combined with low savings and high consumer debt, are putting many mid- life and older Americans on the path to entering retirement years with a lower quality of life, delaying their retirement to catch up with inadequate savings, or becoming a significant financial burden on their loved ones. In 2005, only 42 percent of workers or their spouses calculated the amount they needed to save for retirement a major decrease from 53 percent in 2000. Only about half of working Americans are covered by a pension plan.

Inadequacy of retirement nest eggs and other preparation for retirement will certainly impact the U.S. economy and government services, as we know that the number of older individuals in the U.S. is projected to more than double over the next 30 years, from 35 million to 75 million people. We will inevitably see serious increases in long-term care and other health costs.

Furthermore, individuals of questionable moral character are determined to erode older Americans' lifetime savings through fraud or aggressive marketing tactics selling unnecessary products or those with exorbitant and hidden fees. The Federal Trade Commission Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse reported that incidents of identity theft targeting individuals age 60 and older increase from 1,821 victims in 2000 to a startling 21,084 victims in 2004. More people in the U.S. should have basic competency in money management to avoid becoming victims of financial fraud and abuse.

The Education for Retirement Security Act is intended to address both the lagging savings rate and increases in fraud and abuse by establishing a grant program to arm midlife and older individuals with critical information and knowledge. It would do this by authorizing a grant program similar in structure to one which has proven successful in the Excellence in Economic Education Act, which awards a grant to a national entity that provides subgrants to community organizations to carry out programs that enhance economic, financial, and retirement literacy, and reduce financial abuse and fraud among the target population. The national entity would evaluate subgrantees on the performance and effectiveness of their programs, identify best practices and programs for replication, and assess any behavioral change, including asset accumulation, made by program participants. The bill would also create a national training and technical assistance grant program toward creating and making available instructional materials and information promoting economic and financial education, and providing training and other related assistance to subgrantees.

Economic and financial education can lead individuals to avoid scams and bad decisions about investments, mortgages, and pension plans, and ensure that they have access to tools they need to make sound financial decisions and prepare adequately for retirement. The limited timeframe that midlife and older Americans have in which to assess the realities of their individual circumstances, recover from bad economic choices, and benefit from more informed financial practices, makes critical the type of education that this bill would support.

I thank my cosponsors for joining me in introducing this bill, and I urge other colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce and discuss my bill, the ``Truth in Cigarette Labeling Act.'' I wish to thank my colleagues, Senators Clinton, Harkin, Menendez, Reed, Durbin, Kennedy and Leahy for co-sponsoring this important legislation.

My bill bans the tobacco industry from using deceptive cigarette marketing terms such as ``light'' and ``low tar'' to imply health benefits and it prohibits cigarette manufacturers from making any claims based on the cigarette testing method established by the Federal Trade Commission called the ``FTC Method,'' which measures tar and nicotine yields.

My legislation is consistent with the recent court ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler. Kessler's ruling says cigarette manufacturers must stop labeling cigarettes as `'low tar'' or `'light'' or `'natural'' or with other `'deceptive brand descriptors which implicitly or explicitly convey to the smoker and potential smoker that they are less hazardous to health than full-flavor cigarettes.''

The tobacco companies are appealing that ruling, which will likely tie it up in the courts for a while. This makes it necessary for Congress to act now and pass my bill.

Many smokers switch to cigarette brands advertised as ``low tar'' or ``light'' out of concern for their health, believing that such cigarettes are less risky or a step toward quitting. These claims are based on the FTC tar ratings, which are now known to be inaccurate in assessing the behavior of actual smokers. Some 85 percent of all smokers today smoke these so-called safer cigarettes.

FTC officials admit the agency's test is flawed. Former FTC Commissioner Timothy Muris testified at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on June 11, 2003, that the tar rating system is ``broken.'' The FTC has also published a warning to consumers called ``Up In Smoke: The Truth About Tar and Nicotine Ratings.'' This alert concludes that ``cigarette tar and nicotine ratings can't predict the amount of tar and nicotine you get from any particular cigarette.'' It is absurd that the FTC permits a testing method that FTC officials admit is flawed.

According to the National Cancer Institute, cigarette tar and nicotine yields as measured by the FTC Method don't give smokers a meaningful measure with regard to how much tar and nicotine they are likely to inhale from smoking a cigarette, and that marketing cigarettes as delivering lower amounts of tar using the FTC Method is deceptive to consumers.

Not surprisingly, the tobacco companies have known since 1975 that this test doesn't work. The tobacco companies' internal documents show that people actually get more tar and the same amount of nicotine when they smoke light cigarettes than from smoking regular cigarettes. That's because smokers will inhale more deeply and/or frequently to draw out the nicotine they're addicted to.

So, the FTC, the National Cancer Institute and the tobacco companies all agree that the FTC testing method doesn't work.

And all the while, the tobacco companies have been taking advantage of this fact and using it to spike the nicotine yield in cigarettes and make them more addictive.

A recently released report by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health shows that from 1998 through 2004 cigarette manufacturers increased the amount of addictive nicotine delivered to the average smoker by 10 percent. Of 179 cigarette brands tested in 2004, an astonishing 166 brands fell into the State's highest nicotine yield range, including 59 brands that the manufacturers had labeled ``light'' and 14 described as ``ultra-light.''

The increase in nicotine levels went unnoticed because the standard government test--the flawed FTC Method--uses a smoking machine that fails to mimic real-life smoking behavior. A manufacturer, for example, can design a cigarette that will score low in nicotine delivery to the machine by placing tiny ventilation holes in the filter to dilute the smoke. But in real life, a smoker will often cover the vents with his or her lips or fingers, thereby inhaling a higher dose of nicotine.

Everyone knows nicotine is a highly addictive drug. For tobacco companies to spike the amount nicotine at a time when States and the Federal Government are creating public health campaigns to curb smoking is absolutely deplorable.

I used to smoke--a lot. Fortunately, my daughter, when she was a young girl, convinced me to quit. She said, ``Daddy, they told me at school that if you smoke, they will have to put a black box in your throat. I don't want you to get a black box in your throat.''

From that day forward I quit.

Across America, smokers--men, women, and kids--have their own reasons for quitting. I know it's tough to quit. But I want Americans to be healthy.

``Big Tobacco'' doesn't. They make their money off an addictive product that kills people. They have known for decades that their product is lethal. They need our kids sick and addicted to make a dime.

When I came to the Senate, I was determined to do everything I could to protect Americans--especially our youth--from the dangers of tobacco. I'm proud to say that my work on tobacco control started long before it became a mainstream issue.

I've been protecting Americans from Big Tobacco's lies since 1987, when I wrote the bill that banned smoking on planes. In 1989, I wrote the requirement that all federally-funded programs for children provide a smoke-free environment.

Those laws changed our culture. Today, we'll try and change it again. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation and stop cigarette manufacturers from lying to the public.

My legislation can help America's smokers kick the habit by putting out more of big tobacco's big lies. Tobacco-related illnesses kill over 400,000 Americans every year. My bill can help save America $89 billion a year in health care costs. Most important, it can save people's lives.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce and discuss my bill, the ``Truth in Cigarette Labeling Act.'' I wish to thank my colleagues, Senators Clinton, Harkin, Menendez, Reed, Durbin, Kennedy and Leahy for co-sponsoring this important legislation.

My bill bans the tobacco industry from using deceptive cigarette marketing terms such as ``light'' and ``low tar'' to imply health benefits and it prohibits cigarette manufacturers from making any claims based on the cigarette testing method established by the Federal Trade Commission called the ``FTC Method,'' which measures tar and nicotine yields.

My legislation is consistent with the recent court ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler. Kessler's ruling says cigarette manufacturers must stop labeling cigarettes as `'low tar'' or `'light'' or `'natural'' or with other `'deceptive brand descriptors which implicitly or explicitly convey to the smoker and potential smoker that they are less hazardous to health than full-flavor cigarettes.''

The tobacco companies are appealing that ruling, which will likely tie it up in the courts for a while. This makes it necessary for Congress to act now and pass my bill.

Many smokers switch to cigarette brands advertised as ``low tar'' or ``light'' out of concern for their health, believing that such cigarettes are less risky or a step toward quitting. These claims are based on the FTC tar ratings, which are now known to be inaccurate in assessing the behavior of actual smokers. Some 85 percent of all smokers today smoke these so-called safer cigarettes.

FTC officials admit the agency's test is flawed. Former FTC Commissioner Timothy Muris testified at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on June 11, 2003, that the tar rating system is ``broken.'' The FTC has also published a warning to consumers called ``Up In Smoke: The Truth About Tar and Nicotine Ratings.'' This alert concludes that ``cigarette tar and nicotine ratings can't predict the amount of tar and nicotine you get from any particular cigarette.'' It is absurd that the FTC permits a testing method that FTC officials admit is flawed.

According to the National Cancer Institute, cigarette tar and nicotine yields as measured by the FTC Method don't give smokers a meaningful measure with regard to how much tar and nicotine they are likely to inhale from smoking a cigarette, and that marketing cigarettes as delivering lower amounts of tar using the FTC Method is deceptive to consumers.

Not surprisingly, the tobacco companies have known since 1975 that this test doesn't work. The tobacco companies' internal documents show that people actually get more tar and the same amount of nicotine when they smoke light cigarettes than from smoking regular cigarettes. That's because smokers will inhale more deeply and/or frequently to draw out the nicotine they're addicted to.

So, the FTC, the National Cancer Institute and the tobacco companies all agree that the FTC testing method doesn't work.

And all the while, the tobacco companies have been taking advantage of this fact and using it to spike the nicotine yield in cigarettes and make them more addictive.

A recently released report by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health shows that from 1998 through 2004 cigarette manufacturers increased the amount of addictive nicotine delivered to the average smoker by 10 percent. Of 179 cigarette brands tested in 2004, an astonishing 166 brands fell into the State's highest nicotine yield range, including 59 brands that the manufacturers had labeled ``light'' and 14 described as ``ultra-light.''

The increase in nicotine levels went unnoticed because the standard government test--the flawed FTC Method--uses a smoking machine that fails to mimic real-life smoking behavior. A manufacturer, for example, can design a cigarette that will score low in nicotine delivery to the machine by placing tiny ventilation holes in the filter to dilute the smoke. But in real life, a smoker will often cover the vents with his or her lips or fingers, thereby inhaling a higher dose of nicotine.

Everyone knows nicotine is a highly addictive drug. For tobacco companies to spike the amount nicotine at a time when States and the Federal Government are creating public health campaigns to curb smoking is absolutely deplorable.

I used to smoke--a lot. Fortunately, my daughter, when she was a young girl, convinced me to quit. She said, ``Daddy, they told me at school that if you smoke, they will have to put a black box in your throat. I don't want you to get a black box in your throat.''

From that day forward I quit.

Across America, smokers--men, women, and kids--have their own reasons for quitting. I know it's tough to quit. But I want Americans to be healthy.

``Big Tobacco'' doesn't. They make their money off an addictive product that kills people. They have known for decades that their product is lethal. They need our kids sick and addicted to make a dime.

When I came to the Senate, I was determined to do everything I could to protect Americans--especially our youth--from the dangers of tobacco. I'm proud to say that my work on tobacco control started long before it became a mainstream issue.

I've been protecting Americans from Big Tobacco's lies since 1987, when I wrote the bill that banned smoking on planes. In 1989, I wrote the requirement that all federally-funded programs for children provide a smoke-free environment.

Those laws changed our culture. Today, we'll try and change it again. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation and stop cigarette manufacturers from lying to the public.

My legislation can help America's smokers kick the habit by putting out more of big tobacco's big lies. Tobacco-related illnesses kill over 400,000 Americans every year. My bill can help save America $89 billion a year in health care costs. Most important, it can save people's lives.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I wish to talk about one tribute we can make to the brave men and women who have put their lives on the line and returned home wounded. We need to ensure that those who have sacrificed for our country receive their due benefits. We need to see that they are taken care of when they return home.

As of July 2006, nearly 20,000 members of our Armed Forces have been wounded in action in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Many of these soldiers are now permanently disabled. Of these brave soldiers who have been wounded, nearly 5,000 are members of the National Guard and Reserves. Our National Guard and Reserves are carrying a huge burden in our current conflicts abroad.

Ninety-five percent of America's National Guard combat battalions and special operations have been mobilized since September 11, 2001.

Many of these wounded soldiers come from rural States such as my home State of Montana. In Montana, we have the highest proportion of veterans per capita of any State. According to the most recent census, veterans account for nearly one out of every six people in Montana. And veterans and families of veterans constitute a significant portion of the population in rural States throughout the country.

When not deployed, many National Guardsmen and reservists in my home State support their families with second and even third jobs. At any time, they can be deployed overseas, to our borders, or even to aid with national disasters such as hurricanes or forest fires. If they are injured or disabled, however, many become unable to perform the jobs they did before deployment. They will need to transition into

a new job or career. It is our duty to provide the proper means for soldiers to make that transition. It is our duty to help them to live as independent citizens. It seems that the opposite is true.

Since August 2002, the share of veterans collecting unemployment insurance has nearly doubled. During any given year, half a million veterans across the Nation experience homelessness. We are not providing enough resources for veterans looking for work. We are too often failing our injured and our disabled veterans.

Many seriously injured and disabled veterans simply do not know what they are going to do once they return home. We need to help these young men and women. That is why today I offer a special tribute.

Today I am introducing the Help Our Patriots Employment Act of 2006, and I call it the HOPE Act. The HOPE Act would provide a tax incentive to employers to hire service-connected disabled veterans, and the HOPE Act would increase funding for job training transition services for injured and disabled veterans.

The work opportunity and the welfare-to-work tax credits expired at the end of 2005. We all hope these credits can be extended soon. They have gone without extension for too long now. In addition, I introduced legislation that would permanently extend and improve upon the work opportunity and welfare-to-work tax credits.

My HOPE Act provides employers with a graduated tax credit equal to 25 percent of wages for disabled veterans working between 120 hours and 399 hours, and a 40-percent tax credit on wages for disabled veterans working more than 400 hours, on up to $12,000 in wages per employee. In addition to this tax credit for businesses, my bill would increase funding for the Veterans' Employment and Training Service Program, the VETS Program, under the Department of Labor.

In my home State of Montana, the VETS Program has two staff members to cover the entire State. Montana covers more than 145,000 square miles. It is simply not possible for this essential program to reach every veteran who needs career help--not with two people.

For many injured veterans, it will be a long journey simply to get back on their feet. My legislation will not address all their needs, but it will help. One thing is clear: This problem is not going away. It is getting worse. That is why we need to make sure we are doing everything we can to help injured and disabled veterans.

These heroes have given so much for our country--so much. They have sacrificed so much on the battlefield. They return to a life much different from the one they left. We need to ensure they are given the resources to transition and succeed in life when they return home.

Mr. President, let me close where I began. Let me honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. I close by reading the names of those from Montana who have died fighting for our country since September 11:

PVT Krostofor Stonesifer, SGT Michael Bews, LT Edward Saltz, PVT Owen Witt, LTC Benjamin Watson, CPL Dean Pratt, CPL Kane Funke, SGT Aaron Holleyman, CPL Nathan Wood, SGT Robbie McNary, CPL Bill Ellingham, CPL Josh Timmerman, SGT Jack Tankersly, CPL Steve Slavik, CPL Nicholas Bloem, LT Josh Hyland, SGT Travis Arndt, PVT Andrew Bedard, CPT Michael MacKinnon, CPL Raleigh Smith, and CPL Phillip Baucus.

May their memory be a blessing in the lives of all of our families. May our Nation never forget their sacrifice. And may we always honor those who have fought to defend our freedom.