Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to a fallen pillar of the movement to extend civil and social rights to millions of African Americans: Coretta Scott King.

Mrs. King was loved and respected the world over as one of the pioneers of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. She was the friend, partner and wife of the leader of the civil rights movement, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Born in Marion, AL, on April 27, 1927, Coretta Scott graduated as valedictorian of her high school class and attended Antioch College in Yellow Springs, OH. She received a B.A. in music and education and then studied concert singing at the New England Conservatory of Music in Boston, MA.

As the young Martin Luther King, Jr., began his civil rights work in Montgomery, AL, Mrs. King worked closely with him, organizing marches and sit-ins at segregated restaurants while at the same time raising their four children: Yolanda Denise, Martin Luther III, Dexter Scott, and Bernice Albertine.

During the height of the civil rights movement, Mrs. King and her husband endured threats and attempts on their lives. In spite of the violence that surrounded them and that would one day take Dr. King's life, they never abandoned a fundamental belief in nonviolence. They were committed to peace.

After her husband's death, Mrs. King took a more visible role in the movement. She worked to keep his ideology of equality for all people at the forefront of the Nation's agenda. She pushed for more than a decade to have her husband's birthday observed as a national holiday, then watched with pride in 1983 as President Reagan signed the bill into law.

King became a symbol, in her own right, of her husband's struggle for peace and brotherhood, presiding with a quiet, steady, stoic presence over seminars and conferences on global issues. Throughout her years of service, however, she never lost sight of the fact that her children were her greatest responsibility.

Mrs. King was also a role model for many young women. She showed them that their own voices had value and that their thoughts and actions mattered.

Our loss of Mrs. King leaves a void that won't soon be filled. We have lost a great leader, a great role model, a great woman, and a great American, but it is also important for us to remember that her children have lost their mother. May the Lord grant them peace in this time of mourning. Our thoughts and prayers go out to her family and friends.

Mr. President, today is a sad day for the Nation. We have lost one of our

leading voices for equality and justice. In closing, I am sure that the entire Senate will join with me in honoring the life of Mrs. Coretta Scott King.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to state my opposition to the nomination of Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court.

After thoroughly reviewing Judge Alito's record during his time on the Federal bench, I am left with grave and serious concerns about his views on the power and scope of executive branch authority, the lack of discrimination against parents in the workplace, his general disposition toward cases involving civil rights, and his views on the scope of voter rights.

Because of these concerns, I cannot in good conscience support his nomination to the Supreme Court to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, the highest Court in the land with tremendous ability to exercise judgment over the people of this Nation.

Over the course of Judge Samuel Alito's career and his tenure on the Federal bench, he has compiled a troubling record of personal statements and court decisions that signal his willingness to defer authority to the executive branch when questions of presidential powers are deliberated before the Supreme Court.

I strongly believe that our Constitution calls for an independent and co-equal judicial branch that provides a check on the government's power to encroach upon our individual rights of Americans.

At a time when many Arkansans have expressed concerns over the President's legal authority to eavesdrop on Americans without court supervision and detain U.S. citizens without judicial review or due process, I cannot support a Supreme Court nominee who has repeatedly failed to uphold reasonable limits of presidential authority at the expense of constitutional liberties.

This issue is especially significant because Judge Alito would replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who recently ruled in a 2004 case on executive authority that ``a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens.''

While the legislative and executive branches of government are, by their very nature, political, we demand our judicial branch be above that.

When one party controls both of the political branches, the independence of the judiciary is especially important.

It is not just important to keep in check but also to maintain the confidence of the American people that their government is balanced and that it is there to serve them and not the politicians.

Our Founders created our country and its government with the memories of tyranny still fresh in their minds.

The judicial branch was given exceptional authority for the specific reason that it provides a critical check on the two political branches of our government.

This is not to say that the judicial branch is charged with correcting the perceived wrongs of the party in power. It is simply charged with upholding the Constitution and the rights guaranteed to citizens under it. Upholding this requirement is the most important duty the court is given.

If a potential nominee to the Supreme Court cannot or will not uphold either part of this solemn duty, his or her appointment will serve to undermine the fundamental system of checks and balances on which our government depends.

Of equal concern is Judge Alito's record on the issue of discrimination in the workplace.

In Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, Judge Alito's statement that the Family Medical Leave Act was a ``disproportionate solution'' to the problem of workplace discrimination is deeply troubling.

In an opinion rejecting the position of Judge Alito, Chief Justice Rehnquist explicitly noted that common workplace practices had been discriminatory toward both men and women by reinforcing the role of women as the sole domestic caregiver.

I fear that Judge Alito' s inability to recognize this type of discrimination threatens dire consequences for rights hard won by women over the last few decades.

The majority of our Nation's families depend on income from both parents just to get by. The future and strength of our Nation depends on the strength of the fabric that our families are made of.

I cannot in good conscience vote to allow any of the gains that have allowed women to become an integral part of our Nation's workforce while remaining exceptional mothers to their children to be rolled back.

As his record points out, Judge Alito has consistently set an unfairly high burden of proof in discrimination cases leading him to rule consistently against Americans who are merely attempting to assert their basic constitutional rights.

Judge Alito's philosophy of deferring to the government and those in positions of authority threatens to undermine many of the laws established by Congress to ensure that discrimination does not prevent anyone from realizing his or her full potential--not just as an American, but as a human being.

Also of concern are Judge Alito's comments on voter rights. He has stated his interest in constitutional law was motivated largely by his disagreements with the Supreme Court reapportionment decision that established the principle of ``one person, one vote.''

This landmark case became a cornerstone of our democracy by ensuring that everyone's vote would be weighted equally, regardless of an individual's economic background, their address, or the color of their skin.

If an individual is prevented from seeking a fair remedy at the ballot box by denial of his basic right to vote, the only avenue he has left is our judicial system.

Judge Alito's skepticism of established principles of voter rights coupled with his skepticism of claims relating to discrimination is a dangerous combination that threatens to exclude many Americans from full and equal participation in their government and society.

I remind my colleagues that the strength of our Nation comes from the input of the diversity of individuals who make up this great land. We cannot diminish that.

Equal access to the ballot box is a right guaranteed to every American that is the very foundation of democracy.

These rights came after much work and incredible sacrifice and to me they are too important to put at risk.

As I stated during the debate on Chief Justice Robert's nomination, considering a Supreme Court nomination is one of the most important duties we are called upon as Senators to fulfill.

I did not come to my decision on Judge Alito' s nomination lightly.

Ultimately, I supported the nomination of Chief Justice Roberts because I sincerely believed he cared more about the rule of law and our Nation's judicial system than he did about ideology or politica1 parties.

I sincerely regret I cannot draw the same conclusion about Judge Alito.

For me, this nomination is not about a single issue or controversy. It is much more important than that.

This nomination is about the rights and freedoms we cherish as Americans.

It is about the future course of our Nation and the impact the decisions of the Supreme court will have on the citizens of this great land.

I feel government has a commitment to those amongst us who face incredible challenges to ensure that the values we all hold dear as Americans apply equally to them.

I have real doubts about Judge Alito's views on the role of government in protecting those rights. I respect the opinions of my constituents and colleagues on both sides of this issue. But in the end, after great prayer and research--and certainly after listening to all the principles I learned growing up as a farmer's daughter in east Arkansas in the rural part of this Nation--I made the decision that I believe is in the best interests of my State and of my country.

I appreciate the time attention of my colleagues. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the outstanding work of antihunger leaders, volunteers, and organizations throughout the gulf coast region and the Nation who have risen to the occasion and provided much needed food, support, and basic services to victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. As we approach the holiday season, I want to take the opportunity to help raise awareness about the challenges the charitable food industry have met in the wake of the hurricanes as well as the increased demands on their services and food supplies.

I want to focus my remarks on food rescue and food bank organizations and antihunger advocates operating in my home State of Arkansas. I also want to highlight the amazing work done by America's Second Harvest, A2H, and its national network of food banks to bring food relief to the thousands of our fellow citizens suffering from the devastation wrought by the gulf region hurricanes.

Arkansas is fortunate to have a strong network of antihunger, food rescue, and food bank organizations that tirelessly work to feed hungry Arkansans. This dynamic network includes six A2H affiliates located across Arkansas which include the Foodbank of North Central Arkansas, Harvest Texarkana, Food Bank of Northeast Arkansas, River Valley Regional Food Bank, Arkansas Foodbank Network, and the Ozark Food Bank. Other essential partners in the network include the Arkansas Rice Depot, Potluck, Inc., Heifer International, Winrock International, local food pantries, homeless shelters, church soup kitchens, faith- based antihunger programs and advocacy groups such as the Arkansas Hunger Coalition, Arkansas Community Action Agencies, Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance, Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families and the Interfaith Network.

I am proud of the many volunteers, employees, and financial contributors of these organizations and programs. Their commitments to feed the hungry and serve the poor is making a great difference in Arkansas for our citizens and for the thousands of hurricane victims who sought shelter in Arkansas after the hurricanes and for many that still remain.

I am also proud of America's Second Harvest national leadership to organize its network of food banks to respond to the disaster area along the gulf coast region. Within hours of Hurricane Katrina's landfall in the gulf coast, A2H food banks from around the Nation began sending truckloads of food and water to the affected areas. Volunteers and staff from the network also were dispatched to the gulf region to help with relief efforts and provide support to the food banks and food rescue organizations trying to operate in areas where many of the local food distribution agencies had been wiped out.

A2H immediately began to raise funds nationally for hurricane relief and dedicated all of these donations solely to food acquisition, transportation, storage, and distribution to the disaster victims in the gulf region. Undamaged food was rescued from the flooded New Orleans food banks and additional warehouse space was secured in other areas to ensure that the A2H network would be able to meet the dramatic increase in demand for emergency food assistance that continues to this day in the gulf region.

Staff and volunteers worked tirelessly, night and day, for weeks on end to get food and distribute it to those in need. They collected, transported, stored, and provided more than 59 million pounds of food, accounting for more than 46 million meals valued at an estimated $88 million to the gulf region. This effort is continuing as the need broadens to reach those displaced persons in other areas where so many victims have been relocated.

On Thursday, December 15, 2005, A2H released a report at a Capitol Hill press conference documenting their study on the depth and breadth of the impact of the gulf region hurricane disasters on the charitable food distribution system and the clients it serves. The study results report that there are some 40 A2H food banks located in the hurricane- impacted areas. Demands for emergency food assistance in these Gulf Coast states tripled immediately following Hurricane Katrina and continue to be more than 50 percent higher than prior to the disaster. It is clear that much more is needed to secure the basic needs of those in the gulf region. Additionally, inventories donated to the gulf region by many food banks have not been replaced and are now struggling to feed the clients and families they regularly serve.

A2H has helped shed the light on the severity of the situation that still exists for thousands of families throughout the gulf coast region. I hope that my colleagues in both the Senate and House will take a close look at these findings to reinforce the need for congressional support for our local grassroots antihunger organizations and for continued support of our vital Federal food assistance programs like Food Stamps, WIC, School Breakfast and Lunch, and Child and Adult Care Food Program.

All of these important programs and activities are essential ingredients in our Nation's battle to end hunger in America, whether it comes from natural disasters or the everyday struggles of low-income Americans to make ends meet. Thank you to America's Second Harvest and to the many antihunger volunteers and advocates throughout Arkansas and across our Nation who are making a difference.

Mr. President, I rise today in tribute to Mr. Alan Newman, Forest Supervisor of the Ouachita National Forest, who will retire on January 3, 2006, after more than 32 years with the U.S. Forest Service. Prior to his 10 years of service to Ouachita National Forest, Alan worked as the Forest Supervisor and Deputy Forest Supervisor of the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas and has also served with the U.S. Forest Service in Wisconsin, Michigan, Tennessee, and Kentucky. He also served as a C-130 pilot in the Air Force for 5 years including 2 years of active duty in Vietnam.

Alan has been an asset to the Ouachita National Forest throughout his tenure as Forest Supervisor. He successfully led an effort to finalize the largest land exchange in the history of the U.S. Forest Service-- the Arkansas/Oklahoma land exchange of 1996. Alan has also been extremely instrumental in the restoration of historic Camp Ouachita, a former Girl Scout Camp built by the Civilian Conservation Corps, CCC, and the Works Progress Administration, WPA, and listed on the National Historic Register. It is only through his strong commitment and leadership that Camp Ouachita is now available for public use. Restoration included restoring the Camp Ouachita lodge and facilities to usable condition, while adhering to national historic standards. Alan leaves a lasting legacy with the restoration of these structures.

In 2001, the Ouachita National Forest suffered tremendous damage due to an unprecedented ice storm. Alan led the forest through a major salvage sale program designed to restore ecological health to the forest. He has fostered strong, positive working relationships with a variety of partners across Arkansas and Oklahoma. Recently, the Ouachita National Forest Plan was successfully completed in record time and with significant public involvement.

Alan's work is testament to his commitment to natural resource management. He leaves the 1.8 million acres of the Ouachita National Forest in extremely good condition. I appreciate Alan's commitment and dedication and wish him and his family well in retirement.

Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to my friend and colleague Senator and now Governor-elect Jon Corzine. With his election to the Senate in 2000, Jon Corzine has been a source of wisdom and a great friend to me and to many of my colleagues.

Jon Corzine was elected to the Senate after serving as cochairman and cochief executive officer of the investment company Goldman Sachs. During his time in the Senate, he has focused on serving the State of New Jersey, applying his financial expertise to major economic and regulatory issues and pushing a forward-looking, progressive agenda.

Senator Corzine has pursued new safeguards to protect chemical facilities against terrorist attack, introduced legislation to improve access to education and health care, fought for stronger environmental policies, and lead the effort in Congress to crack down on corporate abuse.

The Senate recently adopted Senator Corzine's resolution declaring the need for new safeguards at the Nation's vulnerable chemical plants. He also secured Federal funding toward the construction of a second railroad tunnel underneath the Hudson River, long sought by New Jersey's congressional delegation, and won Federal support for a wide variety of community and economic development projects throughout the State of New Jersey.

On a more personal note, it has been a great pleasure for me to work with such a gifted and dedicated public servant. He has never hesitated to put the people of New Jersey and the people of this Nation first. The people of New Jersey have made a wise choice in selecting Senator Corzine to be the chief executive of their great State. He will take the same enthusiasm and professionalism to the Governor's mansion that he has exhibited here in the Senate.

I wish him well in his new responsibilities. I know that he will be a benefit to the people of his home State of New Jersey. We will miss his passion and insight here in the Senate. But our loss will be the people of New Jersey's gain. Farewell and Godspeed.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of Carmen McCormick. She was a brave young woman, beloved by her family and friends, who dedicated her life to the nation she loved through honorable service in the U.S. Navy.

Gunner's Mate First Class McCormick enlisted in the Navy in April of 1999 and completed her basic training at the Recruit Training Command in Great Lakes, IL. Upon completion of basic training, she attended Gunner's Mate ``A'' school, and later continued her technical training at the Naval Training Center in San Diego. Ultimately, her duty led her to the Mayport Naval Station in Jacksonville, FL.

To those who served beside her, McCormick was a tremendous asset as a talented technician and recognized expert in all aspects of ordnance handling, but she was also a trusted leader and a friend whom they came to know and love.

Tragically, she was involved in a serious automobile accident on the night of November 11, 2005. Her shipmates joined her at the hospital shortly after the accident and later joined her family in a constant vigil by her bedside, and throughout the hospital, until the moment she passed away on November 13. She would have been 26 years old next month.

Although Carmen may no longer be with us, I pray that her friends and family have found some sense of solace knowing that she was not alone at the end of her life's journey but was surrounded by loved ones who sought to comfort her with their presence and their prayers. I would like to share the family's appreciation for the U.S. Navy officials who helped everyone through the difficult issues that arose from Carmen's end-of-life care. She had devoted herself to service and looked forward to a promising career in the Navy, and in her final moments they did everything they could to ensure she was treated with the honor and respect she deserved.

Of particular assistance and comfort to the family were Carmen's commanding officer, LCDR Tim Sullivan, as well as Senior Chief Joseph Adamo, LT Tim Johnson, CAPT Charles King, and ADM Annette Brown. Their compassion and understanding made a tragic situation a little more bearable.

My thoughts and prayers go out to the friends and family of Carmen McCormick, particularly her parents, Michael Flanigan and Leslie Santa Maria. Although her time with us was far too short, her spirit and her love will remain in our hearts forever.

Mr. President, I would like to call up my amendment numbered 2652, please.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the gulf breezes blew back the curtains and America and the world very clearly saw the face of poverty in the United States. We and the rest of the world saw a situation where many of our poorest families, our American families, were left to fend for themselves--many not even able to afford a bus ticket out of town to evacuate.

We find ourselves today reconciling our priorities, something that hard-working American families do every day. They reconcile their budgets, they reconcile their priorities, to decide what is essential to that family and what is a luxury.

I do not believe we can have this discussion today without bringing up what I find, in our Nation, to be one of our greatest priorities and by far one of our greatest blessings, and that is our children. I believe we have an opportunity right now to help lift those families in Louisiana and, indeed, across this entire Nation. In 2001 and again in 2003, Senator Snowe and I worked together to make sure that working families of many low-income children were included in the child tax credit.

Unfortunately, a recent report, highlighted in the New York Times, shows that almost one-third of children do not qualify for that child tax credit because they are in families earning too low an income. When you break that finding down by race, it is even more disheartening. About half of all African-American children and half of all Latino children are left out of the full tax credit, child tax credit, because their family's earnings are too low to qualify.

We are talking about working families. To qualify for this tax credit, you have to be working and you have to have children.

I thank my colleagues for listening. I understand, due to the refundable nature of this credit, it is not germane to the reconciliation bill, and as a result, I will not ask for a vote, but I do ask our colleagues to

remember what our priorities are tonight.

Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to a great educator and a great Arkansan, Dr. Scott Mason Roulier. Dr. Roulier is being honored as the 2005 Arkansas Professor of the

Year by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, CASE.

Dr. Roulier, Associate Professor of Political Science, is the 12th professor from Lyon College, in Batesville, AR, to receive this honor.

This tribute is in recognition of Dr. Roulier's dedication and hard work in the areas of government and politics in laying the framework for our Arkansas undergraduate students to be successful in their careers. He is teaching his students the value of political action and involvement in current events as it relates to local, State and Federal government.

Higher education is an essential element of any effort to prepare our workforce to meet the demands of today's global marketplace. I share Dr. Roulier's commitment to education and join him in encouraging more students in Arkansas and around our great Nation to pursue a college education.

Congratulations, Dr. Roulier, and thank you for your dedication and contribution not only to Lyon College but also to shaping the minds of our future leaders.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleague, Senator Hatch, to introduce the Elder Justice Act of 2005. I am pleased that Senate Special Committee on Aging Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Kohl are joining us as original cosponsors of this important legislation.

I have been a cosponsor of the Elder Justice Act since Senator Breaux and Senator Hatch introduced the original bill in 2002. I joined them again as a cosponsor in 2003 and helped pass a version of the legislation out of the Senate Finance Committee in late 2004.

Unfortunately and regrettably, the Elder Justice Act failed to become law last year, despite the incredible leadership by Senator Breaux and Senator Hatch. It has yet to become law despite the fact that our Nation continues to grow older and despite the fact that the tragedy of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation continues.

Abuse of our senior citizens can be physical, sexual, psychological, or financial. The perpetrator may be a stranger, an acquaintance, a paid caregiver, a corporation, and sadly, even a spouse or another family member. Elder abuse happens everywhere, at all levels of income and in all geographic areas. No matter how rich you are, and no matter where you live, no one is immune.

Congress must make our seniors a priority and pass the Elder Justice Act as soon as possible.

This bill represents the culmination of 25 years of congressional hearings on the distressing effects of elder abuse. It represents a consensus agreement developed by the Elder Justice Coalition, a national organization dedicated to eliminating elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation in America. This bill reminds us of the fact that Congress has already passed comprehensive bills to address child abuse and violence against women but has continued to ignore the fact that we have no Federal law enacted to date on elder abuse.

Every older person has the right to be free of abuse, neglect, and exploitation. And the Elder Justice Act will enhance our knowledge about abuse of our seniors in all its terrible forms. It will elevate elder abuse to the national stage. Too many of our seniors suffer needlessly. Each year, anywhere between 500,000 and 5 million seniors in our country are abused, neglected, or exploited. And, sadly, most abuse goes unreported.

This historical problem will only get worse as 77 million baby boomers age.

The Elder Justice Act confronts elder abuse in the same ways we combat child abuse and violence against women: through law enforcement, public health programs, and social services at all levels of government. It also establishes research projects to assist in the development of future legislation.

The Elder Justice Act will take steps to make older Americans safer in their homes, nursing home facilities, and neighborhoods. It enhances detection of elder abuse and helps seniors recover from abuse after it starts. It increases collaboration between federal agencies and between Federal, State, local, and private entities, law enforcement, longterm care facilities, consumer advocates, and families to prevent and treat elder abuse.

Each of us will grow older, and if we're lucky, we will live for a very long time. A baby girl born today has a 50 percent chance of living until she is 100 years old. What will we gain if we fail to ensure that baby girl ages with dignity, free of abuse, neglect, and exploitation? As Hubert Humphrey said, ``The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.''

It is time for Congress to pass the first comprehensive federal law to address elder abuse, the Elder Justice Act of 2005, to ensure that those in the twilight of life are protected from abuse that threatens their safety, independence, and productivity.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleague, Senator Hatch, to introduce the Elder Justice Act of 2005. I am pleased that Senate Special Committee on Aging Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Kohl are joining us as original cosponsors of this important legislation.

I have been a cosponsor of the Elder Justice Act since Senator Breaux and Senator Hatch introduced the original bill in 2002. I joined them again as a cosponsor in 2003 and helped pass a version of the legislation out of the Senate Finance Committee in late 2004.

Unfortunately and regrettably, the Elder Justice Act failed to become law last year, despite the incredible leadership by Senator Breaux and Senator Hatch. It has yet to become law despite the fact that our Nation continues to grow older and despite the fact that the tragedy of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation continues.

Abuse of our senior citizens can be physical, sexual, psychological, or financial. The perpetrator may be a stranger, an acquaintance, a paid caregiver, a corporation, and sadly, even a spouse or another family member. Elder abuse happens everywhere, at all levels of income and in all geographic areas. No matter how rich you are, and no matter where you live, no one is immune.

Congress must make our seniors a priority and pass the Elder Justice Act as soon as possible.

This bill represents the culmination of 25 years of congressional hearings on the distressing effects of elder abuse. It represents a consensus agreement developed by the Elder Justice Coalition, a national organization dedicated to eliminating elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation in America. This bill reminds us of the fact that Congress has already passed comprehensive bills to address child abuse and violence against women but has continued to ignore the fact that we have no Federal law enacted to date on elder abuse.

Every older person has the right to be free of abuse, neglect, and exploitation. And the Elder Justice Act will enhance our knowledge about abuse of our seniors in all its terrible forms. It will elevate elder abuse to the national stage. Too many of our seniors suffer needlessly. Each year, anywhere between 500,000 and 5 million seniors in our country are abused, neglected, or exploited. And, sadly, most abuse goes unreported.

This historical problem will only get worse as 77 million baby boomers age.

The Elder Justice Act confronts elder abuse in the same ways we combat child abuse and violence against women: through law enforcement, public health programs, and social services at all levels of government. It also establishes research projects to assist in the development of future legislation.

The Elder Justice Act will take steps to make older Americans safer in their homes, nursing home facilities, and neighborhoods. It enhances detection of elder abuse and helps seniors recover from abuse after it starts. It increases collaboration between federal agencies and between Federal, State, local, and private entities, law enforcement, longterm care facilities, consumer advocates, and families to prevent and treat elder abuse.

Each of us will grow older, and if we're lucky, we will live for a very long time. A baby girl born today has a 50 percent chance of living until she is 100 years old. What will we gain if we fail to ensure that baby girl ages with dignity, free of abuse, neglect, and exploitation? As Hubert Humphrey said, ``The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.''

It is time for Congress to pass the first comprehensive federal law to address elder abuse, the Elder Justice Act of 2005, to ensure that those in the twilight of life are protected from abuse that threatens their safety, independence, and productivity.

Mr. President, I rise today with my distinguished colleague from Idaho, Senator Crapo, to discuss the change in Medicare bad debt policy as proposed in the budget reconciliation bill. I feel there is a need to differentiate between debt owed by individuals and debt owed by States. The sponsors of this policy argue that it will encourage skilled nursing facilities to be more efficient in the collection of bad debt. However, how can the facility be more efficient if the State simply refuses to pay the Medicare co-payments through its Medicaid program? This body should examine the root of this problem before implementing the bad debt policy in this bill. It is my hope that the conference committee considers this when examining this policy.

Madam President, I modify my amendment with the language that is currently at the desk.

Madam President, this amendment truly reflects the values that we hold as an American family. When one of us is sick or ill, the rest of us are there to help. The amendment simply provides immediate access to Medicaid for displaced individuals from the gulf coast disaster. It provides full Federal support to the affected States only in the Medicaid Program so that we don't leave them hanging without the means to be able to take care of their own people. We provide disaster relief funds through an uncompensated care pool for our providers who have, without being asked, provided the care for those individuals who needed it so desperately. I urge my colleagues to support this. We have tried time and time again to do what is right. We have the opportunity here. We have offered it many times. I encourage my colleagues, please do the right thing.

Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I will discuss today with my distinguished colleague from Idaho, Senator Crapo, to discuss the change in Medicare bad debt policy as proposed in this budget reconciliation bill. I feel there is a need to differentiate between debt owed by individuals and debt owed by States. The sponsors of this policy argue that it will encourage skilled nursing facilities to be more efficient in the collection of bad debt. However, how can the facility be more efficient if the state simply refuses to pay the Medicare copayments through its Medicaid program? In 2003, nursing homes in my home state of Arkansas never received the $589,263 in coinsurance owed to them from the Medicaid program. This body should examine the root of this problem before implementing the bad debt policy in this bill. It is my hope that the conference committee considers this when examining this policy.

Thank you, Madam President. I thank the chairman of the Agriculture Committee for offering leadership on this issue and certainly his friendship.

I rise today in opposition to the underlying amendment regarding further payment restrictions on the farm safety net.

This issue of payment limitation is not a new topic of debate. Unfortunately, it remains a largely misunderstood issue for many--both inside and outside the beltway.

As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I suppose I take for granted that not everyone pays close attention to farm policy that we set. But they certainly pay attention to the fact that the grocery store shelves in this great country are always full and that they get the safest and most abundant and affordable food supply in the world. They pay less per capita than any other developed nation on the globe for this incredible food source.

Our producers do it with all of the many things that Americans want to be taken into consideration, whether it be the environment or the economics, and they take into consideration the regulations. Our farmers, our producers in this great land, are the most productive, the most efficient of any across this globe.

I have to say, as a farmer's daughter, that I take pride in telling others about the farmers I represent and what American farmers provide this Nation and the entire globe.

Today, I come to the floor of the Senate to attempt to provide some clarity to this issue that has been misunderstood.

Above all else, our farm policy seeks to do one thing for producers of commodities: That is to provide a strong level of support to producers against low prices brought on by factors completely beyond their control, including foreign subsidies--some that are five and six times higher than the help that we provide our farmers in this country.

Think about that. I wish I had Senator Conrad's charts that always show the disproportionate share of subsidies of the EU, in particular, but other countries which provide their producers to remain competitive in a global marketplace.

As I have traveled my State since we enacted the 2002 farm bill, I can tell you that Arkansas farmers view our agriculture policy as a contract, an agreement, that they have made between themselves, their lenders, and their government. They should. They should be able to look their government in the eye when an agreement such as the 2002 farm bill is made and say, We have a deal. We understand that in the next 5 years we are going to work as hard as we possibly can with all of the variables that we get, whether it is weather that we have no control over or trade that we have no control over, whether it is multiple, different variables that they have no control over. But they know that their government has made an agreement with them and that their government will stand by that agreement as they make their plans for the enormous amounts of capital investment they have to invest in those five crop years, knowing that some will be better than others but that they can figure out there will be some consistency in the agreement they have made with their government on the program that will allow them to be competitive in a global marketplace.

I am here to urge my colleagues in this Chamber that today is neither the time nor the place to break that contract and agreement that we have made with our farmers.

This budget reconciliation process should not be used to make a policy change of this magnitude. The underlying amendment will effectively do exactly that for the producers in my State of Arkansas and many States across this Nation.

But my colleagues don't have to take my word for it on this matter.

A bipartisan commission established as a part of the farm bill to conduct a study on the potential impact of further payment limitations raised the same cautionary note. This 10-person commission was comprised of 3 members appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture, 3 members appointed by the Senate Agriculture Committee, 3 appointed by the House Agriculture Committee, and finally the chief economist of the Department of Agriculture.

These facts alone should be enough for each of the Members of this body to take their recommendation seriously.

I have taken the time to become familiar with their backgrounds and with their report, a report that was nearly 2 years in the making--not something that popped up overnight but something that was thoughtfully done to recognize how important a safe, abundant, and affordable food supply is to this Nation.

As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee and someone who has intimate knowledge of the farm operations in my State, I was pleased to discover the commission's top two recommendations support my position that no change should be made in the farm safety net until the current law expires.

First, it specifically states that any substantial changes should take place with the reauthorization of the next farm bill.

Some of you may be asking yourselves, What is substantial?

In strictly monetary terms, I can tell you that conservative estimates say that further payment limitations would cost my State alone almost $80 million a year. The overall economic impact to our State of Arkansas is estimated at nearly $500 million annually, a price far too high to pay when our farmers are looking at unbelievably high gas prices, unbelievably high costs in terms of fertilizer and application that has to be made, not to mention the trade implications that exist out there for our producers.

The commission's second recommendation was, if changes are to be

made, there should be an adequate phase-in period.

Not only does this team of experts, appointed by our Government's leaders in agriculture, urge that no changes be made to our current farm safety net until the appropriate time, but they also urged that, should that day come, our farmers need to be given an adequate period of time to avoid unnecessary disruption in their production, marketing, and business organization.

This is not something that happens once a month. Planning a crop, not only for that year but the understanding of the implication of the crop you plant this year on future crops you may plant, taking care of your land in a way that will make sure that land is sustainable for future generations, is not a 1-month-at-a-time operation.

In short, the commission acknowledges the complexity of this issue and recommends to each of us that we wait to proceed at the appropriate time and then only proceed with caution.

This amendment takes the exact opposite approach and will send shock waves through farm country, particularly in the South. In fact, the mere discussion of such a dramatic change creates an abnormal level of anxiety in my home State.

One of the fatal flaws of the previous farm law was its lack of an adequate safety net in the face of foreign subsidies and tariffs that dwarf our support of U.S. producers.

Again, Senator Conrad's chart says it better than anybody.

That level of subsidy that other nations provide their producers, their growers, is phenomenal compared to what we do for ourselves. The new farm law corrected that mistake.

The amendment now before us would limit that very support at a time when producers need the help the most, creating a new and gaping hole in the safety net.

Furthermore, during hearings on the new farm bill, virtually every commodity and general farm organization testified in opposition to further payment limitations.

Here we are today, once again, debating this issue of payment limitations.

Proponents of tighter limits continue to sensationalize this issue by citing misleading articles about large farm operations receiving very large payments as a reason to target support for smaller farmers. But, unfortunately, sensationalized stories only serve to cloud their misunderstood issue even further.

Senators truly need to understand that this amendment has very serious implications.

Let me attempt to provide some clarity on the issue of farms.

First, payment limitations have disproportionate effects on different regions in this country. Simply put, the size of farm operations is relative to regions, but even more simply, what a small farm is in Arkansas may be a huge farm in another State, which leads me to my next point.

This amendment continues to unfairly discriminate on a regional basis because it does not differentiate between crops that are extremely cost-intensive and those that are not cost-intensive in the South where we grow what we are suited to grow. That is what farmers do. You would be a fool not to. To try to grow a crop that you are not equipped to grow or intended to grow would be unbelievable.

What do we grow? We grow cotton and rice, which are highly capital- intensive crops. They require disproportionately more capital input per acre than any other crop.

What happened? You have to grow on an economy of scale, have a farm of an economy of scale so you can afford those capital inputs and still be competitive in a global marketplace.

This amendment would lump cotton and rice with the same category of crops that require half as much input cost. It absolutely does not take into consideration the great diversity of this Nation, which is our real strength. That is something we should recognize.

Finally, on the issue of size, farmers of commodities are not getting larger to receive more payments. They get larger in an attempt to create an economy of scale to remain competitive internationally.

At a time when we are telling our farmers to compete in a global market, we now debate an amendment that would discourage farmers from acquiring the economies of scale that they will need to compete in that global marketplace.

Certainly, my colleague from Iowa, who chairs the Finance Committee and has jurisdiction over international trade, can appreciate that. He has talked about it many times.

This amendment affects the cornerstone of support for our Nation's farmers because it prevents the marketing loan from working correctly.

These limitations would lead to loan forfeitures and huge Government inventories of commodities if steps are not taken to ensure that producers can market their commodities.

If you limit the amount of support farmers may receive, you are placing on them a substantial domestic disadvantage before sending them out to compete in an international market that is already unfair for our producers.

This is not the case in Europe, where agriculture is subsidized at a level six times higher than we have here in the United States and in the case of Japan, where agriculture is subsidized at a whopping 92 times more than we do in the United States.

Finally, I say to those who believe that farmers are getting rich at the expense of the taxpayers, there is a reason why our sons and daughters are not rushing back to the farm and their family heritage. It is because farming is a very tough business, with lots of challenges.

In the South, we face many of those, as farmers all across this Nation do.

I hope that my colleagues will take into consideration that this is not the time nor the place to deal with this issue. We made a contract with our grocers, our farmers, and our producers. And we want to make sure that as a government we make good on that contract, and if, in fact, the time comes when we review it, we do it at the appropriate time.

I yield my time to Senator Chambliss.

Mr. President, over 2 months ago, devastating natural disasters occurred in our Gulf Coast States, things that were absolutely out of our control, Mother Nature. Since that time, I and many of my colleagues have tried our hardest to get health care relief to those who were impacted by the tragedy. I say that because I am so saddened, as we have strived so diligently to look at a commonsense way that we could bring health care needs, meeting the health care needs of the victims of that region with absolutely very little success.

In the week following the tragedy, I came to the floor and offered an amendment to the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill. I withdrew my amendment because so many people said: We need to do this. Let us work out a bipartisan effort. Let us work together to meet the needs that exist in this devastated region of the Nation. I withdrew my amendment after working with Senators Grassley and Baucus to come up with a bipartisan compromise, with the assurance that we would allow a bipartisan compromise to come forward and provide the kind of relief our good neighbors in the Gulf State region needed.

The compromise, the Emergency Health Care Relief Act, which was S. 1716, received overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle. But each time we came to the floor and tried to pass it, there was a handful of Members who objected. We have tried to bring it to a vote at least five times that I am aware of. We listened to the concerns of the Senators who objected. We have scaled back the legislation time and time again, first taking out one piece, then the other, trying to see, accordingly, what we could do to accommodate their concerns, without completely gutting the purpose of providing the kind of relief our fellow Americans need in the gulf region. That scaled-back version was one that Senator Baucus offered in the Senate Finance Committee markup last week, and it failed along party lines, with the understanding, many Members said, that there was a need to get something out of committee.

I know how important it is to keep the trains running, but how well do we understand here in this body the needs of our fellow Americans who have been devastated, whose families have been torn apart, whose homes have been demolished, their children's lives and schools destroyed, who have been displaced and put into strange places to go to school? We think about people who have lost their jobs, who have lost their memories in many instances, family albums, wedding albums, things that can devastate you, depress you, and put you in a frame of mind that says: I need someone to embrace me and make me feel like a part of the family again.

Here we are attempting a budget reconciliation. A lot of people across this country think: Oh, budget reconciliation, what is that, yet one more big, long term the Senate uses for something they try to accomplish.

You know what, Mr. President, working American families reconcile all the time, now probably more so than ever before. Their wages are stagnant. The price of gasoline is out of control. The price to heat their homes this winter, the price of health care in general is out of control. They look at all of the things they are surrounded by and what do they do? They reconcile their budgets. They reconcile their household budgets, and they sit down and say to themselves: What is essential to keep our family whole? What is it this family needs to be able to maintain itself as a family, to not become dysfunctional or separated or torn apart, to not be hungry or cold? What is it this family needs? How do we reconcile the fact that our wages have been stagnant, our costs are going out the roof?

What do they do? They sit down and look at the essentials that are necessary. They make a list of what their essentials are, and they address those essentials first. Then they move on to

the things that may not be as essential, things that they want to do, but they deal with the essentials of life first. They deal with food, shelter, health care needs, education for their children. These are the decisions working families all across this great Nation are dealing with.

Here we find ourselves in the Senate doing the very same thing for our American family. When I reconcile my budget at home, I try very hard to think of those individuals who my children and I pray for every night when we say our prayers and we say: God bless those people who are homeless, who are hungry, who have lost their homes, who have suffered from natural disasters. I think as we reconcile this budget here, we need to look at our American family and what it is we find essential, that we find as a priority.

I come to this floor to say my sisters and brothers in the gulf coast region are a priority in this American family. Their needs have to be met. We don't need to wait another 8 weeks or 4 months or another year before we make it a priority. We need to reconcile it in this budget in our minds and in our hearts right here today. And if people have a problem with it, then let them pick it apart. Let them come down here and say: We will cover pregnant women, but we are not going to cover the childless adults who have lost their homes and been displaced from their families. We are not going to provide for those individuals.

Let them come down and pick it apart and nickel-and-dime what it is we can do for our American family. Because I have to say, I think a huge part of this Nation's values is represented in the priorities we choose. The priorities we choose have an important impact on the choices we make. We are here to reconcile the choices to be made at this time in our Nation. We are consumed with enormous debt. We are consumed with obligations internationally, with troops whose lives are on the line today in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have unbelievable choices.

But we can't forget about the other choices, the precious children we saw last night trick-or-treating. What is their future? Are they going to have the education they need to be competitive? Are they going to have an economy that is strong? Are they going to have a nation that is well-respected? The heart of it goes back to how we as Americans treat one another. Those are the values we have to begin to look at, particularly in a document such as this.

The underlying bill does contain some assistance for Katrina survivors. I thank the Finance Committee chairman, Senator Grassley, and my colleague, Senator Lott from Mississippi, who is on the committee. But the truth be told, it is not enough. The hospitals and providers of Louisiana have told us it is not enough. They have told us they can barely keep their hospital doors open past Thanksgiving. How in the world could we imagine that people are going to move back in to the communities of the gulf region to rebuild their homes, rebuild their businesses, bring their children back into school systems, if there is no medical care? I ask my colleagues, would you do that? Would you move your family back into communities where the hospitals are closing their doors? Would you ask your employees to come back to a business where no medical services could be provided? Is that how we treat our American family and the members of our American family?

It is beyond me why it is that we would nickel-and-dime our sisters and brothers in the gulf region. Chairman Grassley himself admitted in the committee that the limited relief in the underlying bill is only a downpayment. I urge my colleagues to take this opportunity to do more than just a downpayment for people whose lives have been destroyed, their families displaced, their homes obliterated, their jobs, Heaven knows what kind of jobs they might have to go back to.

We can provide real relief because we are Americans. We can do better than that by our American sisters and brothers. We are a family. As a family, we can do better than that. We can do better than a downpayment that might keep them open until Thanksgiving. I know we can do better than that. I urge my colleagues to do so.

I am sure the administration and my colleagues who oppose this amendment will say there is money out there for relief. And they are correct that there is money out there. But where is the relief? Congress has passed over $60 billion in FEMA funding, and where has it gone? Who knows? Through October 19, FEMA had placed only $18.2 billion into the Hurricane Katrina disaster relief fund, roughly one-quarter of the available funding, and had reported spending only around $4.1 billion. Nearly 2 months after the hurricane devastated the Gulf States, FEMA has provided only about $2.9 billion out of the $60 billion to individuals and families affected by such a monumental tragedy to a region in our Nation. That is one-tenth of the funding available that has gone to help hurricane survivors.

Even President Bush has realized that the money is not being used appropriately and has proposed reallocating $17 billion of it to do a variety of things, including reconstructing military bases, offering job training, building affordable housing, repairing the wetlands, among many other items. All of these things are great. But will families move back, will companies come back, will schoolchildren come back if there is no health care? Every day we drag our feet, it will cost us more, more to rebuild hospitals, more to bring providers into the region, more to make sure the health care infrastructure is there, whether it is medical schools, hospitals, clinics, ambulance service, all of the necessary needs that come through medical care.

What about health care for the thousands of Katrina survivors who aren't getting their basic health care needs met or for the hospitals and health care providers that came to their aid and States that have already been strapped and now have even more pressure on their budgets?

I do not understand why we continue again to nickel-and-dime these families who have been through so much. Can we not put ourselves in their shoes to understand the devastation they have experienced?

Maude Jordan is an example I used from an article out of the Economist. She is one of the Louisianans who isn't getting her basic health care. She survived on the top of her refrigerator for 3 days to avoid the flood. Then when she was finally taken to Baton Rouge, she made it to a relief center there and was told she didn't qualify for Medicaid because she is a childless adult, and the program doesn't cover childless adults.

All we are asking is to temporarily cover the Maude Jordans who have been devastated by this natural disaster--temporarily cover them. And if people on the other side think that is just too bold of an expansion of the program, then let's take it out. If they want to take it out, let's take it out. Let's not cover the Maude Jordans. I want to, and I think there are others who do, too. But if people think that is just too much sharing and they can't handle it, too much community, let's take it out. Let's just cover the normal people under Medicaid with 100 percent so that Louisiana, when they finally begin to get their feet on the ground, will not have to buckle from the burden of what we will lay upon them in covering their share of this devastation.

Katrina health care in this budget reconciliation bill will not help the Maude Jordans of the world or the thousands of survivors who simply don't have children. And maybe that is what people want to do. If it is, I hope they will come to the floor and make those recommendations.

But what about our health care providers. Last week, an Associated Press article illustrated the dire situation with Louisiana hospitals, saying that the entire hospital system is only a step away from financial disaster. One of those executives is the one I quoted earlier:

We're out of money, roughly after Thanksgiving.

What a great holiday gift we would provide the people of Louisiana who have lost their hospital system, do not have anywhere to take their children or elderly if they should choose to move back to their home and try to be there during the holiday season. There is no safety net in a hospital, no ability to be reassured that should they need it during the holidays it would be there.

Across the border, Mr. President, in my home State of Arkansas--I have been so proud of Arkansans. I believe

they have exhibited the values that we all believe are strong in America, the values of being a good neighbor. They answered the call. They answered the call to be a good neighbor and provided a tremendous amount of care without asking how or when or if they would be repaid.

My hometown, in one of the poorest counties in the country, that had to set up its own health foundation to keep the infrastructure of its health care in place and moving and operating and doors open, took out of that foundation to provide for the evacuees who were coming in, up the Mississippi River Delta and into our communities. And God bless them for doing it, for showing us that this spirit is still alive in this great country; that neighbors do mean something to neighbors and community is important. God bless them for doing it without being asked.

Yet what about us sitting here, not answering their call when they ask, does our American family have those same values? Are they going to come through for us when we have come through for our neighbors? Louisiana's Medicaid Program is considering making big cuts because they don't have the funding to keep it going. Those cuts could result in 100,000 people losing their prescription drug coverage. Over 100,000 low-income children and 2,500 pregnant women could be left without any Medicaid coverage. And Arkansas is operating under a waiver that the administration contends will make them whole. But even the administration admits that they need congressional action to get it done.

How many stories do we have to share, and how many lives have to be impacted before Congress will act? We have to do something now--today. I think it is so critically important as we see American families reconciling themselves in their family budgets, as we looked last night at the importance of community. I don't know about you all, but seeing precious children in our own neighborhood walking alongside my own, learning great things about being part of the community, how to say thank you, how to meet your neighbors, how to be part of a group in a community, it is time for us now to recognize the role we play in this great American community and this great American family and exhibit the values that are so important to Americans: that we would share with one another, that we would look after one another, that we would take care of our sisters and brothers in the Gulf State region.

Not just yet. Thank you.

The whole idea of community has been lost. Unfortunately, I think it is because there has been this attitude created, a sense or a feeling that makes Americans afraid to share. What does that mean? It just means we are all concerned about ``me.'' But what makes us strong as a country? It is the ``we.'' It is the ``we'' in Americans. It is when we work together, we not only do better, we do our best. And I think this amendment is a way that Americans can show their best. They can show how important it is to reach out and to take care of our neighbors and a big part of our American family.

My grandmother used to tell me when I would feel down and out: When you feel bad, and you feel like you could do better, she said, stop. She said: Think of somebody who needs something, and go do it for them.

Mr. President, I think America feels down right now. I think they wonder who we are and what we are all about. I think this is the time, as we reconcile whatever it is we are here to do, that we stop and think about who needs us right now and we go do something for them. I happen to think that my brothers and sisters in the gulf region need something. I think it will show all of us the biggest and the best America that we can possibly be.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

I actually need to yield to my colleague here.

Will the chairman yield for a brief comment?

I thank the Senator.

That is fine.

Earlier, I complimented the chairman on the incredible devotion to this issue and hard work in trying to bring about a compromise, and I am grateful to him.

I would like to apologize to the Senator from New Hampshire who seemed upset that I hadn't put forth my amendment here in writing, but I have it here for him. I thank the chairman for all his hard work.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment to offer the amendment about which I have just spoken.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I apologize. I guess we brought this amendment to the floor and to the committee so many times I just assumed my colleagues knew what it was. I apologize for any confusion in that regard.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time that has been used in the debate on this amendment be charged against the amendment so that it does not get charged against any of my colleague's time.

Mr. President, I yield to my good friend and my colleague from the gulf region, Senator Landrieu from Louisiana.

What is the time remaining on our side, please?

I yield time to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. President, what is the time agreement?

Mr. President, I honor the life of a young Arkansan who, in the name of freedom, paid the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of the Nation he loved. Steven A. Valdez was a brave soldier who died a hero in a foreign land, but he was also a caring young man who deeply loved his family and friends and they were never far from his mind.

Those who knew Lance Corporal Valdez from his childhood in McRea, a small north-central Arkansas town, remember him as competitive, energetic and fun loving. He graduated from Beebe High School in 2004 and, soon after, followed the footsteps of his older brother Glenn Skaggs, and his grandfather Billy Skaggs, into the United States Marine Corps.

In November of 2004, LCpl Valdez reported to the Marine Corps Base at Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii. Serving with the 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, he was deployed to Afghanistan in June as a machine gun operator with Weapons Platoon Company E. Within the year, his family received a letter from the Marines, which cited Valdez's promotion to Lance Corporal and praised him for going above and beyond what was asked or expected of him. While serving in Afghanistan, LCpl Valdez was stationed at Camp Blessing. The camp is located in eastern Afghanistan, in the foothills of the Hindu Kush mountains near the Pakistani border, and serves as a forward operating base for intelligence and military operations aimed to train Afghan security forces and track down al- Qaeda terrorists. He served with a platoon of Marines guarding the camp.

While serving in Afghanistan, LCpl Valdez and his grandfather, Billy, had an agreement; Billy would send care packages with his grandson's favorite snacks and items from home, but he would also include phone cards with the expectation that the young marine would call his grandfather once a week. For LCpl Valdez, it was a much needed respite from the stresses of war that allowed him to feel a little closer to home; for Billy, it was reassuring to hear his grandson's voice and to know that he was safe and healthy.

On September 26, insurgents attacked Camp Blessing with mortar, rocket-propelled grenades and small arms fire. LCpl Valdez was struck by shrapnel from a mortar while running to his machine gun post. The brave 20-year-old died shortly after.

In remembering their loved one, LCpl Valdez's proud grandfather speaks of him as a ``true hero.'' When his brother, Sergeant Glenn Skaggs, returns to Iraq, he will be concerned about his own well-being, but only in the sense that he doesn't want to put his family through another grieving process. Despite these concerns, in a manner typical of this courageous and selfless family, he proudly states ``My brother was over there for something he believed in, and I want to help finish it.''

Although Steven Valdez may no longer be with us, his legacy and his spirit will forever live on in our hearts. On behalf of a grateful Nation, my thoughts and prayers go out his family, friends, and all who knew and loved him.