National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005

Mr. President, I rise with my colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, to introduce the Safe Teen and Novice Driver Uniform Protection (STAND UP) Act of 2005--an important piece of legislation that seeks to protect and ensure the lives of the 20 million teenage drivers in our country.

We all know that the teenage years represent an important formative stage in a person's life. They are a bridge between childhood and adulthood--the transitional and often challenging period during which a person will first gain an inner awareness of his or her identity. The teenage years encompass a time for discovery, a time for growth, and a time for gaining independence--all of which ultimately help boys and girls transition successfully into young men and women.

As we also know, the teenage years also encompass a time for risk- taking. A groundbreaking study to be published soon by the National Institutes of Health concludes that the frontal lobe region of the brain which inhibits risky behavior is not fully formed until the age of 25. In my view, this important report implies that we approach teenagers' behavior with a new sensitivity. It also implies that we have a societal obligation to steer teenagers towards positive risk- taking that fosters further growth and development and away from negative risk-taking that has an adverse effect on their well-being and the well-being of others.

Unfortunately, we see all too often this negative risk-taking in teenagers when they are behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. We see all too often how this risk-taking needlessly endangers the life of a teenage driver, his or her passengers, and other drivers on the road. And we see all too often the tragic results of this risk-taking when irresponsible and reckless behavior behind the wheel of a motor vehicle causes severe harm and death.

According to the National Transportation Safety Board, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans between 15 and 20 years of age. In 2002, teenage drivers, who constituted only 6.4 percent of all drivers, were involved in 14.3 percent of all fatal motor vehicle crashes. In 2003, 5,691 teenage drivers were killed in motor vehicle crashes and 300,000 teenage drivers suffered injuries in motor vehicle crashes.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that teenage drivers have a fatality rate that is four times higher than the average fatality rate for drivers between 25 and 70 years of age. Furthermore, teenage drivers who are 16 years of age have a motor vehicle crash rate that is almost ten times the crash rate for drivers between the ages of 30 and 60.

Finally, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety concludes that the chance of a crash by a driver either 16

or 17 years of age is doubled if there are two peers in the motor vehicle and quadrupled with three or more peers in the vehicle.

Crashes involving teenage injuries or fatalities are often highprofile tragedies in the area where they occur. However, when taken together, these individual tragedies speak to a national problem clearly illustrated by the staggering statistics I just mentioned. It is a problem that adversely affects teenage drivers, their passengers, and literally everyone else who operates or rides in a motor vehicle. Clearly, more work must be done to design and implement innovative methods that educate our young drivers on the awesome responsibilities that are associated with operating a motor vehicle safely.

One such method involves implementing and enforcing a graduated driver's license system, or a GDL system. Under a typical GDL system, a teenage driver passes through several sequential learning stages before earning the full privileges associated with an unrestricted driver's license. Each learning stage is designed to teach a teenage driver fundamental lessons on driver operations, responsibilities, and safety. Each stage also imposes certain restrictions, such as curfews on nighttime driving and limitations on passengers, that further ensure the safety of the teenage driver, his or her passengers, and other motorists.

First implemented over ten years ago, three-stage GDL systems now exist in 38 States. Furthermore, every State in the country has adopted at least one driving restriction for new teenage drivers. Several studies have concluded that GDL systems and other license restriction measures have been linked to an overall reduction on the number of teenage driver crashes and fatalities. In 1997, in the first full year that its GDL system was in effect, Florida experienced a 9 percent reduction in fatal and injurious motor vehicle crashes among teenage drivers between 15 and 18 years of age. After GDL systems were implemented in Michigan and North Carolina in 1997, the number of motor vehicle crashes involving teenage drivers 16 years in age decreased in each State by 25 percent and 27 percent, respectively. And in California, the numbers of teenage passenger deaths and injuries in crashes involving teenage drivers 16 years in age decreased by 40 percent between 1998 and 2000, the first three years that California's GDL system was in effect. The number of ``at-fault'' crashes involving teenage drivers decreased by 24 percent during the same period.

These statistics are promising and clearly show that many States are taking an important first step towards addressing this enormous problem concerning teenage driver safety. However, there is currently no uniformity between States with regards to GDL system requirements and other novice driver license restrictions. Some States have very strong initiatives in place that promote safe teenage driving while others have very weak initiatives in place. Given how many teenagers are killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes each year, and given how many other motorists and passengers are killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes involving teenage drivers each year, Senator Warner and I believe that the time has come for an initiative that sets a national minimum safety standard for teen driving laws while giving each State the flexibility to set additional standards that meet the more specific needs of its teenage driver population. The bill that Senator Warner and I are introducing today--the STANDUP Act--is such an initiative. There are four principal components of this legislation about which I would like to discuss.

First, The STANDUP Act mandates that all States implement a national minimum safety standard for teenage drivers that contains three core requirements recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board. These requirements include implementing a three-stage GDL system, implementing at least some prohibition on nighttime driving, and placing a restriction on the number of passengers without adult supervision.

Second, the STANDUP Act directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue voluntary guidelines beyond the three core requirements that encourage States to adopt additional standards that improve the safety of teenage driving. These additional standards may include requiring that the learner's permit and intermediate stages be six months each, requiring at least 30 hours of behind-the-wheel driving for a novice driver in the learner's permit stage in the company of a licensed driver who is over 21 years of age, requiring a novice driver in the learner's permit stage to be accompanied and supervised by a licensed driver 21 years of age or older at all times when the novice driver is operating a motor vehicle, and requiring that the granting of an unrestricted driver's license be delayed automatically to any novice driver in the learner's permit or intermediate stages who commits a motor vehicle offense, such as driving while intoxicated, misrepresenting his or her true age, reckless driving, speeding, or driving without a fastened seatbelt.

Third, the STANDUP Act provides incentive grants to States that come into compliance within three fiscal years. Calculated on a State's annual share of the Highway Trust Fund, these incentive grants could be used for activities such as training law enforcement and relevant State agency personnel in the GDL law or publishing relevant educational materials on the GDL law.

Finally, the STANDUP Act calls for sanctions to be imposed on States that do not come into compliance after three fiscal years. The bill withholds 1.5 percent of a State's Federal highway share after the first fiscal year of non-compliance, three percent after the second fiscal year, and six percent after the third fiscal year. The bill does allow a State to reclaim any withheld funds if that State comes into compliance within two fiscal years after the first fiscal year of non- compliance.

There are those who will say that the STAND UP Act infringes on States' rights. I respectfully disagree. I believe that working to protect and ensure the lives and safety of the millions of teenage drivers, their passengers, and other motorists in this country is national in scope and a job that is rightly suited for Congress. I also believe that the number of motor vehicle deaths and injuries associated with teenage drivers each year compels us to address this important national issue today and not tomorrow.

The teenage driving provisions within the STANDUP Act are both well- known and popular with the American public. A Harris Poll conducted in 2001 found that 95 percent of Americans support a requirement of 30 to 50 hours of practice driving within an adult, 92 percent of Americans support a six-month learner's permit stage, 74 percent of Americans support limiting the number of teen passengers in a motor vehicle with a teen driver, and 74 percent of Americans also support supervised or restricted driving during high-risk periods such as nighttime. Clearly, these numbers show that teen driving safety is an issue that transcends party politics and is strongly embraced by a solid majority of Americans. Therefore, I ask my colleagues today to join Senator Warner and myself in protecting the lives of our teenagers and in supporting this important legislation.

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

Mr. President. I am today reintroducing a very important bill on a subject that was not resolved last year, and which continues to be an outstanding issue for those of us who are dependent on healthy and productive natural populations of ocean fish and shellfish.

Simply put, this bill prohibits further movement toward the development of aquaculture facilities in federal waters until Congress has had an opportunity to review all of the very

serious implications, and make decisions on how such development should proceed.

Some people are calling for a moratorium on offshore aquaculture. Frankly, Mr. President, we need more than a delay--we need a very comprehensive discussion of this issue and a serious debate on what the ground-rules should be.

For years, some members of the federal bureaucracy have advocated going forward with offshore aquaculture development without that debate. Doing so, would be an extraordinarily bad idea.

We are now being told that the Administration is in the final stages of preparing a draft bill to allow offshore aquaculture development to occur, and that it plans to send a draft to the Hill in the very near future. The problem is, that draft has been prepared in deep secrecy. We have only rumors about what may be in that draft bill. The administration has had meetings on the general topic of aquaculture, but has done little to nothing to work with those of us who represent constituents whose livelihoods might be imperiled and states with resources that might be endangered if the administration gets it wrong.

Scientists, the media and the public are awakening to the serious disadvantages of fish raised in fish farming operations compared to naturally healthy wild fish species such as Alaska salmon, halibut, sablefish, crab and many other species.

It has become common to see news reports that cite not only the general health advantages of eating fish at least once or twice a week, but the specific advantages of fish such as wild salmon, which contains essential Omega-3 fatty acids that may help reduce the risk of heart disease and possibly have similar beneficial effects on other diseases.

Educated and watchful consumers have also seen recent stories citing research that not only demonstrates that farmed salmon fed vegetable- based food does not have the same beneficial impact on cardio-vascular health, but also that the demand for other fish to grind up and use as feed in those fish farms may lead to the decimation of those stocks.

Those same alert consumers may also have seen stories indicating that fish farms may create serious pollution problems from the concentration of fish feces and uneaten food, that fish farms may harbor diseases that can be transmitted to previously healthy wild fish stocks, and that fish farming has had a devastating effect on communities that depend on traditional fisheries.

It is by no means certain that all those problems would be duplicated if we begin to develop fish farms that are farther offshore, but neither is there any evidence that they would not be. Yet despite the uncertainties, proponents have continued to push hard for legislation that would encourage the development of huge new fish farms off our coasts.

Not only do the proponents want to encourage such development, but reports indicate they may also want to change the way decisions are made so that all the authority rests in the hands of just one federal agency. I believe that would be a serious mistake. There are simply too many factors that should be evaluated--from hydraulic engineering, to environmental impacts, to fish biology, to the management of disease, to the nutritional character of farmed fish, and so on--for any existing agency.

We cannot afford a rush to judgment on this issue--it is far too dangerous if we make a mistake. In my view, such a serious matter deserves the same level of scrutiny by Congress as the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy for other sweeping changes in ocean governance.

The ``Natural Stock Conservation Act'' I am introducing today lays down a marker for where the debate on offshore aquaculture needs to go. It would prohibit the development of new offshore aquaculture operations until Congress has acted to ensure that every federal agency involved does the necessary analyses in areas such as disease control, engineering, pollution prevention, biological and genetic impacts, economic and social effects, and other critical issues, none of which are specifically required under existing law.

I strongly urge my colleagues to understand that this is not a parochial issue, but a very real threat to the literal viability of natural fish and shellfish stocks as well as the economic viability of many coastal communities.

I sincerely hope that this issue is taken up seriously in the context of reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which governs fishery management, and responding to the recommendations of the U.S. Oceans Commission and the Pew Oceans Commission.

We all want to make sure we enjoy abundant supplies of healthy foods in the future, but not if it means unnecessary and avoidable damage to wild species, to the environment generally, and to the economies of America's coastal fishing communities.

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

Mr. President, I am today reintroducing legislation to clarify the status of villages participating in the federally established Community Development Quota (CDQ) program created to assist economically disadvantaged communities around the edge of the Bering Sea.

The CDQ program is one of the youngest but most successful of a variety of programs intended to improve economic opportunities in some of my State's most challenged communities.

The CDQ Community Preservation Act is intended to maintain the participation of all currently eligible communities along the shore of the Bering Sea in Alaska's Community Development Quota program. It is necessary because inconsistencies in statutory and regulatory provisions may require a reassessment of eligibility and the exclusion of some communities from the program. This was not the intent of the original program, nor of any subsequent changes to it. In order to clarify that fact, a legislative remedy is needed.

Senator Stevens joined me in introducing just such a remedy last year, but work on it was not completed and we were forced to settle for only temporary relief. It is time we dealt with this matter more appropriately.

Alaska has been generously blessed with natural resources, but due to its location and limited transportation infrastructure it continues to have pockets of severe poverty. Nowhere is this more evident than in the villages around the rim of the Bering Sea.

The Community Development Quota Program began in 1992, at the recommendation of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, one of the regional councils formed under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Congress gave the program permanent status in the 1996 reauthorization of the Act. The program presently includes 65 communities within a 50 nautical-mile radius of the Bering Sea, which have formed six regional non-profit associations to participate in the program. The regional associations range in size from one to 20 communities. Under the program, a portion of the regulated annual harvests of pollock, halibut, sablefish, Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and crab is assigned to each of the associations, which operate under combined Federal and State agency oversight. Almost all of an association's earnings must be invested in fishing-related projects in order to encourage a sustainable economic base for the region.

Typically, each association sells its share of the annual harvest quotas to established fishing companies in return for cash and agreements to provide job training and employment opportunities for residents of the region. The program has been remarkably successful.

Since 1992, approximately 9,000 jobs have been created for western Alaska residents with wages totaling more than $60 million. The CDQ program has also contributed to fisheries infrastructure development in western Alaska, as well as providing vessel loan programs; education, training and other CDQ-related benefits.

The CDQ program has its roots in the amazing success story of how our offshore fishery resources were Americanized after the passage of the original Magnuson Act in 1976. At the time, vast foreign fishing fleets were almost the only ones operating in the U.S. 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone. American fishermen simply did not have either the vessels or the expertise to participate.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act changed all that. It led to the adoption of what we called a ``fish and chips'' policy that provided for an exchange of fish allocations for technological and practical expertise. Within the next few years, harvesting fell almost exclusively to American vessels. Within a few years after that, processing also became Americanized. Today, there are no foreign fishing or processing vessels operating in the 200-mile zone off Alaska, and the industry is worth billions of dollars each year.

The CDQ program helps bring some of the benefits of that great industry to local residents in one of the most impoverished areas of the entire country. It is a vital element in the effort to create and maintain a lasting economic base for the region's many poor communities, and truly deserves the support of this body.

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

Mr. President, it is with a sense of honor that my friend and colleague, Senator Feinstein, and I rise to introduce a bipartisan constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag.

I am proud and privileged to be working again with my California colleague on this important proposal. Among our principal cosponsors are our colleagues Senator Thune and Senator Talent. It is heartening to us to see some of the Senate's newest Members come to this issue with the same passion that its original supporters still feel.

This amendment is truly bipartisan. Today, we count 51 original cosponsors of this resolution. And, nearly two-thirds of the Members of this body have indicated their support. Those numbers seem to grow with each passing year.

No doubt, some will still argue that this amendment is unnecessary. Fortunately, that refrain is gradually losing its punch.

When this amendment eventually passes the Senate, as I believe that it will, our victory will not be attributed to the passions of the moment. Rather, it will be due to the tireless efforts of citizens committed to convincing their elected representatives that this amendment matters.

I have heard from some Utahans who love our country's flag but are opposed to amending the Constitution. To them I would say, amending the Constitution should never be taken lightly. Yet after serious study of the issue, I have concluded there is no other way to guarantee that our flag is protected, as I will discuss in a few minutes.

And, indeed, guaranteeing the physical integrity of the flag is a cause worth fighting for. The American people seem to understand what the opponents of this amendment fail to grasp. This amendment is a necessary statement that citizens still have some control over the destiny of this Nation and in maintaining the traditions and symbols that have helped to bind us together in all our diversity for over 200 years.

Those who oppose protecting the flag through a constitutional amendment are probably not aware of our constitutional history. Indeed, for most of America's history, our Nation's laws guaranteed the physical integrity of the American flag.

These were laws no one questioned. No one every questioned that the simple act of providing legal protection for the flag, a unique symbol of our ties as a Nation, could somehow violate the Constitution.

We should take a moment and recall what we were taught about the flag as schoolchildren. Our flag's 13 stripes show our origins. We started as 13 separate colonies that first became separate States and then one Nation through the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution. The 50 stars on the field of blue represent what we have become: a Nation unified. And over the past 230 years, we have become ever more united in our commitment to the extension of liberty and equality.

Among all of our differences, differences frequently reflected in this body, we do remain one Nation undivided and indivisible, and our flag is a simple but profound statement of that union. That is why we open the Senate each day by pledging our allegiance to the flag. It is a reminder of all that we have in common.

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens understood the significance of the flag's status when he wrote:

A country's flag is a symbol of more than nationhood and

national unity. It also signifies the ideas that characterize

the society that has chosen that emblem as well as the

special history that has animated the growth and power of

those ideas . . . So it is with the American flag. It is more

than a proud symbol of the courage, the determination, and

the gifts of a nation that transformed 13 fledgling colonies

into a world power. It is a symbol of freedom, of equal

opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of goodwill for

other peoples who share our aspirations.

There is a certain wisdom to Justice Stevens' statement that our constituents immediately grasp. Some polls show that over 80 percent of the American people support an amendment to protect the flag.

Its unique character is represented in the diversity of the groups that have worked over the years to bring this amendment to fruition. Veterans, police, African Americans, Polish Americans, farmers, and so many more diverse groups see in the flag a symbol of our Nation; they understand that it is perfectly consistent with our constitutional traditions for us to protect it.

Unfortunately, in 1989 the Supreme Court intervened and ovrrode every State law barring desecration of the American flag.

None of these States has restricted first amendment political speech in any way.

Their laws did not lead us down some slippery slope that would result in restraints on political opinions.

These States drew reasonable distinctions between political speech and inflammatory and frequently violent acts.

Yet in Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court held that a Texas statute, and others like it, that barred desecration of the American flag, violated core first amendment principles. That certainly would have been news to those who wrote the Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

It was news, bad news, to the American people as well.

So in response to this imprudent decision, the Senate acted quickly and passed The Flag Protection Act. It became law on October 28, 1989.

Then, in 1990, the Court struck down even this legislation in United States v. Eichman.

And that is why a constitutional amendment has become necessary.

With due respect to our courts, and to my colleagues who continue to support these decisions, these legal arguments against flag protection just do not hold water.

Detractors of our amendment contend that the first amendment guarantees the right to burn the American flag. It does no such thing.

They contend it would carve out an exception to the first amendment as some say. It would not. Rather, it would reaffirm what was understood not only by those who ratified the Constitution but also by citizens of today: that the first amendment never guaranteed such expressive conduct. Whether one is an originalist or whether one believes in a living Constitution, this argument falls short.

The American people have long distinguished between the first amendment's guarantee of an individual's right to speak his or her mind and the repulsive expression of desecrating the flag. For many years, the people's elected representatives in Congress and 49 State legislatures passed statutes prohibiting physical desecration of the flag, and our political speech thrived. It was just as robust as it is today.

Yet in 1989, the Supreme Court's novel interpretation of the first amendment concluded that the people, their elected legislators, and the courts are no longer capable of making these reasonable distinctions, distinctions that we frequently make in this body such as when we prohibit speeches or demonstrations of any kind, even in the silent display of signs or banners, in the public galleries.

The American people created the Constitution, and they reserved to themselves the right to amend the Constitution when they saw fit. Is it wrong to give the American people the opportunity to review whether the Supreme Court got it right in this case? I think not.

The fact is, a Senator does not take an oath to support and defend the holdings of the Supreme Court. We take an oath to support the Constitution. And, it is entirely appropriate that when we think the Court gets it wrong, we correct it through proper constitutional devices, devices set out in the Constitution itself . . . Though it has been forgotten over the years, this is hardly a radical idea. It was one supported by the founders of both the Republican and Democratic parties, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln.

As some in this body have noted, our courts are now frequently attempting to identify a national consensus to justify contemporary interpretations of our constitutional guarantees. The progress of this amendment to protect the flag demonstrates to me at least just how such a consensus is supposed to develop. Through argument, through give and take, through debate--over time the American people, as reflected in the actions of their representatives, have become more sure than ever that they should have the opportunity to protect their flag through moderate and reasonable legislation.

After September 11, citizens proudly flew the flag, defying the terrorist challenge to our core values of liberty and equality, and confirming its unique status as a symbol of our nation's strength and purpose. In the struggle that has followed, our flag stands as a reminder of the many personal sacrifices made to protect and strengthen our nation.

And so, to protect this symbol, I am today introducing this amendment.

I thank my colleagues, Senators Feinstein, Thune, and Talent for their work on this. I urge those who are not cosponsors of this amendment to keep an open mind as we debate this resolution.

It is my hope that the Judiciary committee will move the resolution to the floor.

And, in turn, I ask that our leadership ensure this resolution gets a vote on the floor.

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation on behalf of myself and Senators Corzine, Dayton, Durbin, Lautenberg, Mikulski, and Murray, that would bring a small measure of relief to the families of our brave military personnel who are being deployed for the ongoing fight against terrorism, the war in Iraq, and other missions in this country and around the world. It is legislation that the Senate adopted unanimously when I offered it as an amendment to the fiscal year 2004 Iraq supplemental spending bill and I think it would be very fitting for my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure again during this, the National Month of the Military Child.

The men and women of our Armed Forces undertake enormous sacrifices in their service to our country. They spend time away from home and from their families in different parts of the country and different parts of the world and are placed into harm's way in order to protect the American people and our way of life. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude for their dedicated service.

The ongoing deployments for the fight against terrorism and for the campaign in Iraq are turning upside down the lives of thousands of active duty, National Guard, and Reserve personnel and their families as they seek to do their duty to their country and honor their commitments to their families, and, in the case of the reserve components, to their employers as well. Today, there are more than 180,000 National Guard and Reserve personnel on active duty.

Some of my constituents are facing the latest in a series of activations and deployments for family members who serve our country in the military. Others are seeing their loved ones off on their first deployment. All of these families share in the worry and concern about what awaits their relatives and hope, as we do, for their swift and safe return.

Many of those deployed in Iraq have had their tours extended beyond the time they had expected to stay. This extension has played havoc with the lives of those deployed and their families. Worried mothers, fathers, spouses, and children expecting their loved ones home after more than a year of service have been forced to wait another three or four months before their loved ones' much-anticipated homecoming. The emotional toll is huge. So is the impact on a family's daily functioning as bills still need to be paid, children need to get to school events, and sick family members must still be cared for.

Our men and women in uniform face these challenges without complaint. But we should do more to help them and their families with the many things that preparing to be deployed requires.

During the first round of mobilizations for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, military personnel and their families were given only a couple of days' notice that their units would be deployed. As a result, these dedicated

men and women had only a very limited amount of time to get their lives in order. For members of the National Guard and Reserve, this included informing their employers of the deployment. I want to commend the many employers around the country for their understanding and support when their employees were called to active duty.

In preparation for a deployment, military families often have to scramble to arrange for child care, to pay bills, to contact their landlords or mortgage companies, and to take care of other things that we deal with on a daily basis.

The legislation I introduce today would allow eligible employees whose spouses, parents, sons, or daughters are military personnel who are serving on or called to active duty in support of a contingency operation to use their Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) benefits for issues directly relating to or resulting from that deployment. These instances could include preparation for deployment or additional responsibilities that family members take on as a result of a loved one's deployment, such as child care.

But don't just take my word for it. Here is what the National Military Family Association has to say in a letter of support:

(The National Military Family Association) has heard from

many families about the difficulty of balancing family

obligations with job requirements when a close family member

is deployed. Suddenly, they are single parents or, in the

case of grandparents, assuming the new responsibility of

caring for grandchildren. The days leading up to a deployment

can be filled with pre-deployment briefings and putting legal

affairs in order.

In that same letter, the National Military Family Association states that, ``Military families, especially those of deployed service members, are called upon to make extraordinary sacrifices. (The Military Families Leave Act) offers families some breathing room as they adjust to this time of separation.''

On July 21, 2004, then-Governor Joseph Kernan of Indiana testified before a joint hearing of the Senate Health, Labor, Education, and Pensions and Armed Services committees that Congress should revise FMLA to include activated National Guard families, as recommended by the National Governors' Association. The legislation I introduce today would give many military families some of the assistance Governor Kernan spoke of.

Let me make sure there is no confusion about what this legislation does and does not do. This legislation does not expand eligibility for FMLA to employees not already covered by FMLA. It does not expand FMLA eligibility to active duty military personnel. It simply allows those already covered by FMLA to use those benefits in one additional set of circumstances--to deal with issues directly related to or resulting from the deployment of a family member.

I was proud to cosponsor and vote for the legislation that created the landmark Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) during the early days of my service to the people of Wisconsin as a member of this body. This important legislation allows eligible workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year for the birth or adoption of child, the placement of a foster child, to care for a newborn or newly adopted child or newly placed foster child, or to care for their own serious health condition or that of a spouse, a parent, or a child. Some employers offer a portion of this time as paid leave in addition to other accrued leave, while others allow workers to use accrued vacation or sick leave for this purpose prior to going on unpaid leave.

Since its enactment in 1993, the FMLA has helped more than 35 million American workers to balance responsibilities to their families and their jobs. According to the Congressional Research Service, between 2.2 million and 6.1 million people took advantage of these benefits in 1999-2000.

Our military families sacrifice a great deal. Active duty families often move every couple of years due to transfers and new assignments. The twelve years since FMLA' s enactment has also been a time where we as a country have relied more heavily on National Guard and Reserve personnel for more and more deployments of longer and longer duration. The growing burden on these service members' families must be addressed, and this legislation is one way to do so.

This legislation has the support of a number of organizations, including the Wisconsin National Guard, the Military Officers Association of America, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, the Reserve Enlisted Association, the Reserve Officers Association, the National Military Family Association, the National Council on Family Relations, and the National Partnership for Women and Families. The Military Coalition, an umbrella organization of 31 prominent military organizations, specified this legislation as one of five meriting special consideration during the fiscal year 2004 Iraq supplemental debate.

We owe it to our military personnel and their families to do all we can to support them in this difficult time. I hope that this legislation will bring a small measure of relief to our military families and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. President, today, it is my distinct honor and privilege to rise and speak on behalf of Senator Hatch, Senator Feinstein, Senator Talent, myself, and 47 other senators, as we introduce bipartisan legislation we believe to be long overdue. It is not reform legislation. It does not authorize new government programs, create new sources of tax revenue, or provide incentives to stimulate our economy. It is none of those things, but it is a matter of great importance. The events of 9/11 have reminded us all of that. It is, instead, legislation that speaks to the core of our beliefs and hopes as a Nation, and as a people. It is about a national treasure and a symbol of our country that the vast majority of Americans--and the majority of this great body, I might add--believe is worth special status and worthy of protection. It is about the American flag.

Our American flag is more than mere cloth and ink. It is a symbol of the liberty and freedom that we enjoy today thanks to the immeasurable sacrifices of generations of Americans who came before us.

It represents the fiber and strength of our values and it has been sanctified by the blood of those who died defending it.

I rise today to call upon all members of this body to support a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag. It would simply authorize, but not require, Congress to pass a law protecting the American flag.

This amendment does not affect anyone's right to express their political beliefs.

It would only allow Congress to prevent our flag from being used as a prop, to be desecrated in some ways simply not appropriate to even mention in these halls.

This resolution and similar legislation have been the subject of debate before this body before. There is, in fact, a quite lengthy legislative history regarding efforts to protect the American flag from desecration. In 1989, the Supreme Court declared essentially that burning the American flag is ``free speech.'' That is a decision the American people should make, particularly when this country finds itself fighting for democracy and expending American lives for that cause, on battlefields overseas.

South Dakota veterans and members of the armed forces from my State know exactly what I'm talking about, as I'm sure they do from every state represented in the Senate. In recent months, units of the 147th field artillery and 153rd engineer battalions of the South Dakota National Guard returned home after spending a difficult year in Iraq. Likewise, the 452nd ordinance company of the United States Army Reserve is preparing to depart for Iraq in September.

My father, like many other veterans of World War II, understands the importance of taking this step. Veterans from across South Dakota have asked me to step up and defend the flag of this great Nation and today I am answering that call.

Today, members of both political parties will introduce a proposed constitutional amendment that would give back to the American people the power to prevent the desecration of the American flag. We know the gravity of this legislation. There is nothing complex about this amendment, nor are there any hidden consequences. This amendment provides Congress with the power to outlaw desecration of the American flag, a right that is widely recognized by Madison, Jefferson, and Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, one of the foremost advocates of first amendment freedoms.

Most states officially advocate Congress passing legislation to protect the flag. Frankly, I do not see this as a first amendment issue.

It is an attempt to restore the traditional protections to the symbol cherished so dearly by our Government and the people of the United States. Some acts are not accepted as ``free speech'' even in societies like ours where we consider free speech a cherished right. For example, an attempt to burn down this Capitol building as a political statement would never be viewed as someone's right of free speech. Our laws would not tolerate the causing of harm to other's property or life as an act of ``free speech.'' This flag happens to be the property of the American people, in my opinion, and this question should be put before the States and their people to decide how and if to protect it. I think the answer will come back as a resounding ``yes''.

There is little doubt that the debate over state ratification will trigger a tremendous discussion over our values, beliefs and whether we will ultimately bestow a lasting honor on our traditions. Importantly, it will be an indication of how we recognize our servicemen and women who are sacrificing--right now--in Iraq and Afghanistan, to protect those traditions and values for us. Will we honor them, and all the veterans who served and died in wars for this country and our flag over the last 200 years? That's not a question which a court should hold the final answer.

I believe the time has finally come. I believe our country wants this debate. The majority of this Senate, I believe, wants this amendment. We begin it here, and we begin it now. Let the debate begin.