Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Hollings, Hutchison, Lautenberg, Smith, and Snowe in introducing the Over-the-Road Bus Security and Safety Act of 2003. The purpose of the bill is to provide funding assistance for security improvements to the intercity bus industry. The legislation is the bipartisan product of work that occurred during the last Congress under the leadership of Senator Max Cleland.

Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress and the Administration have taken extraordinary steps to improve security. We have enacted the Homeland Security Act, which consolidated 22 agencies in a new Department of Homeland Security. We also have enacted the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, ATSA, which closed security gaps at our nation's airports and largely transferred the responsibilities of the security of air transportation to the federal government. In addition, we've enacted the Maritime Transportation Security Act, MTSA, which, for the first time ever, established a framework for security at our nation's maritime ports. Yet, much remains to be done as we work to identify and close security gaps.

As we have witnessed in other countries, bus transportation can be the target of terrorist attacks. This is further evidenced by the fact that terminals that have already implemented a passenger screening process have seen a rise in discarded weapons in bus stations. In our view, facility improvements and baggage screening efforts

would be a significant step to improving bus security.

Therefore, the bill we are introducing today authorizes $35 million for fiscal year 2003 and $99 million for fiscal year 2004 to fund an intercity bus security grant program that would be administered by the Secretary of Transportation. It would include a matching requirement that recipients of federal grants fund 10 percent of the security improvement expenses.

Already, $15 million was appropriated for bus security grants in the fiscal year 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act and another $10 million was appropriated in the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act. This bill, if enacted, will authorize the funding already appropriated, along with an authorization of $99 million for fiscal year 2004 and, in turn, give Congress time to further study existing and future needs for bus transportation security and determine what, if any, changes should be made to the program.

The bill will help improve bus security by authorizing grants for security improvements at terminals; for the installation of surveillance equipment; for improvements to protect or isolate the driver; and for other specified improvements. The legislation also would require the Department of Transportation to complete a preliminary report assessing the adequacy of over-the-road bus security and determine what, if any, additional steps should be taken to improve bus security.

There have been several well-publicized bus accidents since September 11, 2001, including an accident on October 3, 2001, that involved an attack on the driver and claimed seven lives. Passing this measure will allow Congress to take short-term action that will have a beneficial effect on the security of the bus industry and does not preclude consideration of longer-term security policy considerations.

Efforts to pass similar legislation is also underway in the House of Representatives, where the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, under Chairman Young's leadership, has already reported legislation to be considered by the full House.

I want to thank Senators Hollings, Hutchison, Breaux, Lautenberg, Smith, and Snowe for joining me in this effort. I look forward to working with all members to move this legislation forward.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Hollings, Hutchison, Lautenberg, Smith, and Snowe in introducing the Over-the-Road Bus Security and Safety Act of 2003. The purpose of the bill is to provide funding assistance for security improvements to the intercity bus industry. The legislation is the bipartisan product of work that occurred during the last Congress under the leadership of Senator Max Cleland.

Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress and the Administration have taken extraordinary steps to improve security. We have enacted the Homeland Security Act, which consolidated 22 agencies in a new Department of Homeland Security. We also have enacted the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, ATSA, which closed security gaps at our nation's airports and largely transferred the responsibilities of the security of air transportation to the federal government. In addition, we've enacted the Maritime Transportation Security Act, MTSA, which, for the first time ever, established a framework for security at our nation's maritime ports. Yet, much remains to be done as we work to identify and close security gaps.

As we have witnessed in other countries, bus transportation can be the target of terrorist attacks. This is further evidenced by the fact that terminals that have already implemented a passenger screening process have seen a rise in discarded weapons in bus stations. In our view, facility improvements and baggage screening efforts

would be a significant step to improving bus security.

Therefore, the bill we are introducing today authorizes $35 million for fiscal year 2003 and $99 million for fiscal year 2004 to fund an intercity bus security grant program that would be administered by the Secretary of Transportation. It would include a matching requirement that recipients of federal grants fund 10 percent of the security improvement expenses.

Already, $15 million was appropriated for bus security grants in the fiscal year 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act and another $10 million was appropriated in the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act. This bill, if enacted, will authorize the funding already appropriated, along with an authorization of $99 million for fiscal year 2004 and, in turn, give Congress time to further study existing and future needs for bus transportation security and determine what, if any, changes should be made to the program.

The bill will help improve bus security by authorizing grants for security improvements at terminals; for the installation of surveillance equipment; for improvements to protect or isolate the driver; and for other specified improvements. The legislation also would require the Department of Transportation to complete a preliminary report assessing the adequacy of over-the-road bus security and determine what, if any, additional steps should be taken to improve bus security.

There have been several well-publicized bus accidents since September 11, 2001, including an accident on October 3, 2001, that involved an attack on the driver and claimed seven lives. Passing this measure will allow Congress to take short-term action that will have a beneficial effect on the security of the bus industry and does not preclude consideration of longer-term security policy considerations.

Efforts to pass similar legislation is also underway in the House of Representatives, where the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, under Chairman Young's leadership, has already reported legislation to be considered by the full House.

I want to thank Senators Hollings, Hutchison, Breaux, Lautenberg, Smith, and Snowe for joining me in this effort. I look forward to working with all members to move this legislation forward.

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

Mr. President, today I am joined by Senators Dorgan, Brownback, and Ensign in introducing the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act. This bill is designed to streamline the process of relocating government users from spectrum reallocated for commercial use.

The bill would establish a separate fund on the books of the United States Treasury called the Spectrum Relocation Fund. When spectrum occupied by a Federal agency is auctioned, the proceeds from the auction would be deposited into the fund. Federal agencies would be able to withdraw from the fund the estimated expenses associated with the relocation, with additional expenses being approved by the Office of Management and Budget, with notice provided to Congress and the General Accounting Office, GAO, as necessary.

Currently, when spectrum assigned to a Government agency is auctioned, the law requires the agency to negotiate with the winning bidder to determine the cost of purchasing or returning new equipment necessary for the agency to transfer out of the spectrum band. These negotiations would be time-consuming and difficult for both parties. This bill would eliminate the need for lengthy negotiations between these parties. Thus it would accelerate the pace of introduction of new services using the spectrum.

Spectrum is a critical resource of our armed services. It is important that any relocation process consider the needs of our military operations. I believe that this bill would allow our military to have confidence that its relocation costs will be fully and timely reimbursed, while providing commercial bidders with certainty regarding the full cost of the right to use the spectrum and the ability to use it in a timely fashion.

Finally, the bill provides important oversight functions for Congress and the GAO to ensure that the fund is used in a manner that is fair and justified. In this way, American taxpayers are assured that their resources are used most efficiently.

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

Mr. President, today I am joined by Senators Dorgan, Brownback, and Ensign in introducing the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act. This bill is designed to streamline the process of relocating government users from spectrum reallocated for commercial use.

The bill would establish a separate fund on the books of the United States Treasury called the Spectrum Relocation Fund. When spectrum occupied by a Federal agency is auctioned, the proceeds from the auction would be deposited into the fund. Federal agencies would be able to withdraw from the fund the estimated expenses associated with the relocation, with additional expenses being approved by the Office of Management and Budget, with notice provided to Congress and the General Accounting Office, GAO, as necessary.

Currently, when spectrum assigned to a Government agency is auctioned, the law requires the agency to negotiate with the winning bidder to determine the cost of purchasing or returning new equipment necessary for the agency to transfer out of the spectrum band. These negotiations would be time-consuming and difficult for both parties. This bill would eliminate the need for lengthy negotiations between these parties. Thus it would accelerate the pace of introduction of new services using the spectrum.

Spectrum is a critical resource of our armed services. It is important that any relocation process consider the needs of our military operations. I believe that this bill would allow our military to have confidence that its relocation costs will be fully and timely reimbursed, while providing commercial bidders with certainty regarding the full cost of the right to use the spectrum and the ability to use it in a timely fashion.

Finally, the bill provides important oversight functions for Congress and the GAO to ensure that the fund is used in a manner that is fair and justified. In this way, American taxpayers are assured that their resources are used most efficiently.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Kyl today to introduce the Northern Arizona National Forest Land Exchange Act of 2003. This bill facilitates an exchange of over 50,000 acres of Federal and private land in Arizona for the primary purpose of consolidating National Forest lands currently in checkerboard ownership in the northwestern portion of the State. Included in the exchange are a number of other Federal land parcels located in the communities of Flagstaff, Williams, Clarkdale, Cottonwood, and Camp Verde and other lands currently leased by six different camps.

This is a complex land exchange because of its size, the diverse nature of the lands involved, and the range of potential benefits and impacts that would result. The Forest Service has stated that the consolidation of the checkerboard in the Prescott National Forest will yield significant benefits and cost-savings to the public. In putting forth this exchange with the Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership, the Forest Service has identified opportunities to achieve better and more cost-effective management of Federal lands and resources, to acquire lands that will meet the important public objectives of protection of wildlife habitat, cultural resources, watershed, wilderness and aesthetic values, and also meet the needs of State and local residents and their economies.

The communities of Flagstaff and Williams and the camps are strongly in favor of this bill as it will allow them to acquire federal lands that will be exchanged to Yavapai Ranch, providing them beneficial economic and land use management opportunities. The communities of Clarkdale, Cottonwood, and Camp Verde are also an important part of this exchange. Inclusion of these parcels, totaling more than 300 acres, has focused discussion on essential issues of available water supply, the limits of sustainable growth, and quality of life concerns.

The issue of potential adverse impacts of new development on limited water resources has been addressed in this bill through the establishment of conservation easements which limit water use on the Verde Valley parcels after private acquisition. This foresighted provision is intended to conserve precious surface and ground water resources and protect the water users and State water right holders dependent upon them. Given the uncertainty about available water supplies and future uses, I believe this is a responsible measure which is in the interest of both Arizona citizens and the American public.

Of primary importance to me are the procedural terms and conditions by which the land exchange will be conducted. The Forest Service has stated that the procedures set forth in this bill represent standard practice and will allow for the desired outcome of a fair and equal value exchange of public property. I have also made an effort to

solicit public input on the exchange in order to appreciate the potential benefits and costs involved. I held several public meetings in Arizona on the exchange and have heard and read the differing views of hundreds of interested Arizonans.

After careful consideration, I believe it is appropriate that the bill be introduced at this time. While the proposed exchange has the support of the Forest Service, the elected representatives of the affected communities, and the camps, introduction of this bill advances us to the next phase of public consideration of key aspects and procedural issues associated with the legislation.

I expect that public hearings will be held here and in Arizona on the bill in the near future. The Forest Service will have an opportunity to provide public statements concerning the specific provisions of the bill, as will other parties affected by the exchange. I anticipate that in the next phase of the legislative process, our state delegation will receive the information needed to address any remaining issues and ensure that this exchange will be conducted in a manner that benefits the citizens of Arizona and Federal taxpayers alike.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Kyl today to introduce the Northern Arizona National Forest Land Exchange Act of 2003. This bill facilitates an exchange of over 50,000 acres of Federal and private land in Arizona for the primary purpose of consolidating National Forest lands currently in checkerboard ownership in the northwestern portion of the State. Included in the exchange are a number of other Federal land parcels located in the communities of Flagstaff, Williams, Clarkdale, Cottonwood, and Camp Verde and other lands currently leased by six different camps.

This is a complex land exchange because of its size, the diverse nature of the lands involved, and the range of potential benefits and impacts that would result. The Forest Service has stated that the consolidation of the checkerboard in the Prescott National Forest will yield significant benefits and cost-savings to the public. In putting forth this exchange with the Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership, the Forest Service has identified opportunities to achieve better and more cost-effective management of Federal lands and resources, to acquire lands that will meet the important public objectives of protection of wildlife habitat, cultural resources, watershed, wilderness and aesthetic values, and also meet the needs of State and local residents and their economies.

The communities of Flagstaff and Williams and the camps are strongly in favor of this bill as it will allow them to acquire federal lands that will be exchanged to Yavapai Ranch, providing them beneficial economic and land use management opportunities. The communities of Clarkdale, Cottonwood, and Camp Verde are also an important part of this exchange. Inclusion of these parcels, totaling more than 300 acres, has focused discussion on essential issues of available water supply, the limits of sustainable growth, and quality of life concerns.

The issue of potential adverse impacts of new development on limited water resources has been addressed in this bill through the establishment of conservation easements which limit water use on the Verde Valley parcels after private acquisition. This foresighted provision is intended to conserve precious surface and ground water resources and protect the water users and State water right holders dependent upon them. Given the uncertainty about available water supplies and future uses, I believe this is a responsible measure which is in the interest of both Arizona citizens and the American public.

Of primary importance to me are the procedural terms and conditions by which the land exchange will be conducted. The Forest Service has stated that the procedures set forth in this bill represent standard practice and will allow for the desired outcome of a fair and equal value exchange of public property. I have also made an effort to

solicit public input on the exchange in order to appreciate the potential benefits and costs involved. I held several public meetings in Arizona on the exchange and have heard and read the differing views of hundreds of interested Arizonans.

After careful consideration, I believe it is appropriate that the bill be introduced at this time. While the proposed exchange has the support of the Forest Service, the elected representatives of the affected communities, and the camps, introduction of this bill advances us to the next phase of public consideration of key aspects and procedural issues associated with the legislation.

I expect that public hearings will be held here and in Arizona on the bill in the near future. The Forest Service will have an opportunity to provide public statements concerning the specific provisions of the bill, as will other parties affected by the exchange. I anticipate that in the next phase of the legislative process, our state delegation will receive the information needed to address any remaining issues and ensure that this exchange will be conducted in a manner that benefits the citizens of Arizona and Federal taxpayers alike.

Madam President, I rise to oppose this amendment because it is premature. The amendment is premature not only in my view but in the view that was held by the Senator from California on March 13 in the Commerce Committee when we marked up the cargo security bill. At that time, the Senator from California said, and I quote from the record of the hearing of the markup:

I have a bill which I am not moving today because I think

that would require a hearing. But what I thought would be

good is that since the TSA has said they are studying the

best way to combat this--

Speaking of protection of the airliners from missile attack--

but yet we haven't seen the study, what I would say in this

amendment is to ask them to please give us a report on their

study to this committee within 90 days on the best way to

defend turbo and jet passenger aircraft from these shoulder-

fired missiles.

So we adopted the amendment of the Senator from California on the cargo security bill that is before the Senate which will be passed by the Senate without any doubt whatsoever.

I do not know of any living American who does not want to protect our airliners. I do not know of any living American who does not want to protect all of America, including our borders.

The fact is that it is proposed to spend $30 million on R&D and deployment of technology on commercial airliners. I can assure my colleagues that it is not that easy. It is not that easy to transfer technology which is adopted for military aircraft and then immediately transfer it to civilian aircraft. Obviously, we need some time for the TSA to look at the threat and put the threat in the scale of the threats that we face in an order of priority, and the best way may not be installing this equipment on airliners. It probably is. But we do not know for sure. All we know is that there is a threat, as there are myriad threats out there to our lives and our security, whether they be at reservoirs or nuclear powerplants or along our borders, or wherever they may be. And we do have the ability perhaps to adopt military technology. But that has to be studied, as the amendment of hers on the bill after discussion in the markup.

What type of technology is it? How can we deploy technology immediately when we do not know what technology it is that is best executed if we believe that airliners needed this protection immediately.

I am not going to take the entire 8 minutes the Senator from----

That the Senator from Alaska yielded, but I just say this is a premature amendment. This is an amendment that is going to spend $30 million for deployment of technology when we do not even know if that technology exists, and if it does, if that is the best technology. So that is why I am in opposition to the amendment.

I will be glad to respond to a question from the Senator from California.

Does the Senator have a question or does she want to use her own time?

If the Senator has a question, I would be glad to respond. Otherwise, I do not want to use the time of the Senator from Alaska.

I thank the Senator for her question, and I appreciate the Senator from Alaska allowing that time. It is still premature and I think that to order a study of the background within a period of a couple months would be most appropriate.

I yield back the remainder of my time to the Senator from Alaska.

I am sure it will not be long, but since my colleague Senator Kyl wants to speak on it, I would like to wait before entering a time agreement.

It should not be more than 15 or 20 minutes.

I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, as I said yesterday during the debate on the supplemental, I hope we can consider the bill that did not include a host of add-ons and provisions not requested by the administration. Today, with many of our young men and women in harm's way, we should be considering a measure to support the ongoing war efforts and our Nation's homeland security needs free of earmarked or unauthorized provisions. Unfortunately, that is not the case with the bill before the Senate.

I wonder why we could not once--especially with a war going on--bring forward a bill that was free of unnecessary provisions in wasteful earmarks. I hoped we could do it just once.

The amendment offered by Senator Kyl and myself is intended to improve the bill to achieve that goal. This amendment would not provide funding for a number of items in the bill that are not associated with the stated purpose of the bill. If there is discussion by other Members, I make it fully understood this amendment is proposed in the framework of the title of the bill which I may repeat several times, which is: Making supplemental appropriations to support Department of Defense operations in Iraq, Department of Homeland Security, and related efforts for the fiscal year ending September 20, 2003, and for other purposes.

Clearly, this legislation is to pay for the war in Iraq and other homeland security needs. It is not here to pay for agricultural facilities, for loan guarantees, for sea lamprey control in Lake Champlain, for the Mental Health Association in Tarrant County, Forth Worth, TX, or AIDS research at the University of California, for the study of treatment of autism at the Geisinger Health System, Harrisburg, PA. None of those, even in one's wildest imagination, relates to the title of this legislation.

What Senator Kyl and I have done is propose an amendment, rather than drag the Senate through each individual measure and forcing votes on it--which we could have done--but lump them all together and find out whether the Senate is going to continue its porkbarreling ways, which has become, to me, a national scandal, or we are going to draw the line somewhere.

Let me go specifically through what our amendment would not fund. It would not fund $98 million for buildings and facilities under the Agricultural Research Service to continue construction for USDA research facilities. Of course, it is designated in Ames, IA.

The very first lines in the emergency supplemental bill include $98 million in funds that are intended to be used to continue modernization work on the animal and inspection services facility near Ames, IA. I note this facility received favorable attention from the appropriators previously when a $50 million earmark for the same facility was included in last year's supplemental bill that was intended to fight the war against terrorism. An additional $33 million was also earmarked in the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill.

The administration has previously stated additional funding as suggested in last year's supplemental bill was not an essential priority at that time. As a further demonstration of the nonemergency nature of this project, the administration's 2004 budget does not request any funding to supplement this effort.

Certainly, the study of farm animal diseases and controlling known and unknown animal diseases are clearly important to national public health

issues. As part of the Government's effort to improve its knowledge of disease agents and mechanisms, this research facility and other related facilities do serve an important purpose. However, this work is already underway. Adding an additional $98 million as part of this essential war spending measure is simply not required or necessary.

Finally, this ongoing project will clearly be the subject of additional appropriations in future years through the routine appropriations process. These particular renovations are not scheduled to be completed for at least a few more years. I find it difficult to believe removing this $98 million earmark at a time when it is not needed will jeopardize its continued planning and construction.

We will not fund $50 million for the Maritime Administration's title XI loan guarantee program. Chapter 10 of title I provides $50 million in funding to the Maritime Administration's title XI guaranteed loan program for shipbuilders and shipyards. As I said yesterday, this funding is not justified as part of an emergency supplemental to fund the ongoing war. Not only is the program riddled with problems, but the administration did not propose funding it, either in its 2004 or 2003 budget. The Title XI program does not serve any defense or homeland security purpose. It should not receive funding under the guise of a wartime need.

The title XI program is without question one of the most wasteful and mismanaged guarantee programs in the Federal Government. Since 1998, loan defaults have totaled $490 million. On Monday of this week, the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General released a report that details the multiple problems with the program's administration. Moreover, how can this provision be aimed at supporting the current war when vessels take years to be built? It simply cannot.

I take a moment to respond to some of the comments made by my colleagues yesterday on the floor in defense of the title XI Maritime Loan Guarantee Program that warrant clarification to ensure there is no misconception about the program.

First, it was asserted that this program is a critical need for the auxiliary maritime capacity during time of war. Yet based on information provided by the Maritime Administration, nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is, as I indicated in my statement yesterday, out of the 51 vessels currently being used in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, only 1 was built using a title XI maritime loan guarantee. Furthermore, when the Maritime Administration reviews such loan applications, it does not evaluate them to determine if the proposed vessels have any military applicability.

Second, the proponents of this funding claim that the program strengthens our shipbuilding industrial base in support of our defense needs. This argument has been used time and time and time and time again in an attempt to justify this porkbarrel program. Appropriators have claimed for years that commercial ship construction keeps shipyards open and reduces the costs associated with defense ship construction.

I cannot argue against the claim that providing subsidies helps to keep shipyards open. There is little, if any, evidence that commercial ship construction reduces the costs associated with defense ship construction. In fact, recent evidence shows just the opposite.

In February, the Department of Justice filed suit against Newport News Shipbuilding for knowingly mischarging the U.S. Navy for more than $72 million of costs related to the design and development of commercial tankers which were passed through as overhead on major Navy shipbuilding contracts. This is one case, but clearly more investigation is needed to determine how other yards are doing their work.

I point out again, $490 million in defaults over the last 5 years is a lot of money. Speaking of a lot of money, I point out the $98 million for building facilities under the Agricultural Research Service and $50 million for the Maritime administration is about $150 million that is being added. So we are not talking about small amounts of money.

Mr. President, $500,000 for another program that will not be funded is $500,000 for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Title 11, Chapter 2 of the bill earmarks $500,000 for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to be used for sea lamprey control in Lake Champlain. This funding was not requested by the administration and the sea lamprey does not, in my opinion, pose a clear and present danger to our national security. I hope my colleagues will agree that a wartime supplemental is not an appropriate vehicle to fund an earmark of this nature, which has absolutely nothing to do with fighting the war in Iraq or meeting our homeland security needs.

One million dollars for the Jobs for America's Graduates (JAG) school-to-work program for at-risk young people for Training and Employment Services under the Employment and Training Administration of the Department of Labor.

The supplemental appropriations bill provides $1 million for the Department of Labor's Jobs for America's Graduates school-to-work program for at-risk youth people. This program is a school-to-career program implemented in 1,000 high schools, alternative schools, community colleges, and middle schools across the country and United Kingdom. Its mission is to keep young people in school through graduation and provide work-based learning experiences that will lead to career advancement opportunities or to enroll in a post-secondary institution that leads to a rewarding career.

No one disputes that the goals of this program are worthwhile and that this may be a valuable and effective program. But what is it doing in a appropriations bill whose purpose, by its stated title, is to ``support Department of Defense Operations in Iraq, Department of Homeland Security, and Related Efforts . . .''? Can someone tell me how this program is so related to our war effort and homeland security that we must provide funding for it today in this bill? If it is so urgent, then why was it not included in the President's supplemental appropriations request?

When we consider the Labor/HHS appropriations bill for the next fiscal year, we should debate funding for this program at that time. The Labor/HHS appropriations bill is the proper legislative vehicle for debate about this program--not this war supplemental. We are doing a disservice to our young men and women fighting the war in Iraq by attaching this unrelated program to a bill designed to support their efforts.

Mr. President, there is $225,000 for the Mental Health Association of Tarrant County, Ft. Worth, TX to provide school-based mental health education to schools in Tarrant County; $200,000 for the IDS Research Institute at the University of California, San Francisco for Developing County Medical Program to facilitate clinician exchange between the United States and developing countries; and $1,000,000 for the Geisinger Health System, Harrisburg, PA to establish centers for excellence for the treatment of autism.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) portion of the emergency supplemental spending bill to fund the war in Iraq contains several earmarks. Such funding may be for worthy health endeavors. However, these provisions are earmarks and they do not belong within the text of an emergency bill devoted to funding the war. These earmarks are funded from monies allocated by the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill which I understand were earmarked in the accompanying report. But now, the appropriators are seeking to earmark them in statute.

There is directive language that would allow West Point cadets to receive flight training during the summer at The University of North Dakota.

Last year's appropriations Senate Report--I emphasize ``report,'' which does not have the effect of law--earmarked $2 million in Army Operation and Maintenance account for the University of North Dakota ROTC program, known as ``Air Battle Captain.'' On this supplemental bill, there is directive language which would authorize--for the first time--a new program to teach flight training to West Point cadets during summer training at the University of North Dakota. This sounds like a good program, but

shouldn't this aviation training program be competitively bid? Perhaps cadets could be better trained at the Army aviation school at Fort Rucker in Alabama. Arizona also has a very good aviation school in Prescott, AZ--Emory Riddle University. These schools should be afforded the same opportunity to train West Point cadets. At the very least, there should be competition, to determine the most cost-effective means to provide this type of initial pilot training to West Point cadets. I don't know. However, I do know the appropriations bill should not direct the West Point Superintendent to send his cadets only to The University of North Dakota, without consideration of other pilot training capabilities. That is wrong. That is wrong.

In the Senate report--not in bill language--there is an earmark for $12 million from Defense-Wide Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation for airfield improvements in Alaska that may be associated with the ground-based mid-course missile defense program. Because this is report language, I can not strike it in my amendment, however it is equally as appalling.

According to the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget: ``Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation covers the costs of developing and testing new systems and subsystems.'' My staff advises me that, this may have been included in previous appropriations tables in some form--but I could not find it. However, I question the merit of this earmark. If this was a valid program, why would we take critical dollars from research, development, testing, and evaluation funding--which Republicans and Democrats alike, understand is underfunded according to defense budget experts--to pay for airfield improvement in Alaska? Why are we robbing critical defense Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation funds to pour concrete? Why not use Military Construction money? Mr. President, $12 million is a lot money for airfield improvements.

The Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee provides Airport Improvement Program funding for airports in the United States for planned maintenance and construction. This is a lot of money to refurbish the airfield. Because it is report language--it is a Senate Appropriations Committee recommendation only--the Department of Defense does not need to apply the $12 million in this way, so it could simply ignore the Committee recommendation as it does not have the force of law.

Similarly, there are two other earmarks--that my colleagues will explain are not new earmarks. In fact, they were included in the Senate Appropriations Report language last year.

We have a new kind of routine that is going on here by the appropriators that certainly is a testimony to imagination, but I think it is something that is a new opening for porkbarrel spending. In an appropriations bill, you put in money for a general fund and it is in the report language, not having the force of law, so, therefore, those of us who want to eliminate it cannot do so because it is in the report language. Then in the following appropriations bill, they earmark from that report language in the law the porkbarrel project. It is wrong. It is wrong.

In any case, there is no doubt this year--the war supplemental to support Department of Defense operations in Iraq--includes directive bill language specifically to provide $6.8 million from Air Force Operation and Maintenance accounts to build and install fiber optic and power upgrades at the 11th Air Force Range in Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska. Furthermore, there is $3 million earmarked in the Operation and Maintenance accounts directing the Army to build a rifle range for the South Carolina National Guard. Why not use Military Construction funding, if this was a worth-while project. Why hide it in Operation and Maintenance funding?

For the benefit of my colleagues, operations and maintenance money is used to train people. This is what we could use to provide spare parts. This is the heart and soul of the movement and readiness of our military. So we are, in report language, saying they should take money from operation and maintenance accounts to build fiberoptic and power upgrades at Elmendorf Air Force Base and to build a rifle range for the South Carolina National Guard.

The one thing many of us have worried about, and worried about for years and years, is operation and maintenance. We always shortchange them because they are nonsexy items. There is no contract let, generally speaking, for operation and maintenance--to provide the spare parts, the maintenance of the high-tech equipment, the fuel, all of those things. Now, where is this directed money coming from for fiberoptic upgrades, for building a rifle range? Out of operation and maintenance.

Again, according to the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget: ``Operation and Maintenance (O&M) includes spending on fuel, spare parts, and overhauls of military equipment. O&M also includes spending on such items as health care, environmental programs, the maintenance and repair of buildings, roadways, runways, and base operating support including telephone systems and computers.''

Report language does not have the force of law. The war supplemental bill language does however. There will now be no doubt in any Pentagon general counsel's mind because the Iraqi war supplemental says: Spend the money or you will be breaking the law.

Mr. President, let me also express my deep concern about a pattern that seems to be developing. It seems to becoming a practice in which funding is provided in one appropriations bill, and then earmarked, under the guise as technical corrections, in a subsequent measure. In fact, this is the very situation that is taking place with the above mentioned earmarks under the Department of Health and Human Services. Funding was authorized and now we are expected to not even question the fact that the pending bill proposes a number of provisions to earmark the previously authorized funds.

Again, I will never underestimate the imagination and creativity of the Appropriations Committee. This is one pattern that must be halted.

I hope we can vote in favor of this amendment. It is not a huge amount of money when we are talking about the size of this overall bill. I believe all of these provisions from which we are trying to eliminate the money would probably be restored in a normal appropriations process--whether I happen to agree with it or not. But how do we tell our constituents, who are paying their taxes--and understanding they have difficult times now with unemployment high, with cutbacks, and people being laid off--that we are going to take their tax dollars, in the name of funding the war on Iraq and homeland security, and spend it on these projects? I do not think we should be doing this.

I hope my colleagues will consider voting in favor of the amendment.

I mention to my colleague, I tried to get a handle on it. My colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, I know wants to speak on it, but I am not sure there is a lot of other significant debate on the amendment.

I object.

After that, return to the Ensign amendment or return to the McCain amendment?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

The Senator is aware there are German military and civilians working right now, helping in the reconstruction and peacekeeping in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan?

And have these Germans perhaps been associated with some firm that may also be in the work of reconstruction and peacekeeping in Bosnia and Kosovo and Afghanistan? Does my friend from Delaware believe somehow we should prevent any company, corporation, or individual who may have a contract in those three parts of the world from doing so?

One more question: As the ranking member and senior and former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, suppose in the case of Kosovo, where Germany contributed enormously in the force of peacekeeping, medical care, other provisions of sustenance, particularly in Kosovo and Bosnia, where there was enormous devastation, suppose we had passed a law like this with regard to Bosnia or Kosovo: Do you think we would have gotten the kind of assistance from the German government and the people we have received to date, including leadership of the peacekeeping forces?

Mr. President, I will not waste the time of this body responding to the statement of the Senator from Iowa except to say I agree with him. It is more than an embarrassment. It is more than an embarrassment that we would be putting $98 million into a project that already received $50 million before an additional $33 million in the 2003 omnibus appropriations bill and for which there was not any additional funding requested by the administration.

There is a reason there was not any request for this money by the administration when they asked for this funding which is supposed to be for the war.

As I say, I will not waste time except to say it is more than an embarrassment to me to tell my constituents that when we are supposed to be funding a war that is going on right now when young Americans are fighting and dying and badly need the equipment and materiel and the help that is in this bill that we are going to try to stuff in a $98 million porkbarrel project for an agricultural research facility which is already more than adequately funded, rather than put it into an emergency supplemental. I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.

I will take ten seconds. I oppose the amendment, but I assure the Senator from California we recognize this is a threat; we recognize this is a danger. I hope we defeat this amendment, but I commit to her we will work to try to address this clear and present danger, through studies and work with TSA and other agencies of government. I look forward to working with the Senator.

Madam President, could we, in this body, strike these nonessential and unnecessary projects from this bill so we can focus on the intent of the language? I don't want to debate the merits or demerits of projects that are included in the bill. They are clearly nonemergency and nonwar related. I ask my colleagues in the Senate to consider striking them. They can come in future appropriations bills, but they are certainly not appropriate at this time on this bill.

Regular order, Madam President.

I ask for the regular order.

I object.

Ten minutes.

Mr. President, approximately 40 minutes ago, maybe a half hour ago, we were given a ``managers' package.'' The managers' package, the first group was--we haven't yet received the second group of amendments in the managers' package--27 amendments. There is $10 million for the South Pole station in the managers' package; $10 million for NOAA; $600 million for the Department of Agriculture expert assistance; $500 million for the DOJ and FEMA; $281 million for the Department of Energy; $5 million earmarked for a Kentucky public safety communications system. I haven't finished compiling the list because we haven't even had a chance to review these amendments.

I ask my colleagues again: How do you accept a managers' package--in this case worth billions, B as in billions--worth billions of dollars without any debate, without any vote, without any discussion that I know of of any kind? How do you do that? How do you do that?

I intend to have votes on parts of the managers' package. I don't know why we need in this bill $10 million for the South Pole station. I did not know that al-Qaida had reached the South Pole. More importantly, how can we appropriate $500 million for the Department of Justice and FEMA without even talking about it? Couldn't we debate it? Maybe it won't be absolutely necessary. Do we need $281 million additional for the Department of Energy? I don't think the Department of Energy is on the frontline in the war in Iraq.

I am told by the Senator from Alaska--I have the greatest respect and, believe it or not, a great deal of affection for him--that, well, they would pass anyway and this is the best way to treat it because then he will be able to reduce it in the conference.

I am not a member of the conference. Most of us are not conferees. Most of us are just ordinary Senators who have a responsibility to our constituents, not to approve of a managers' package worth billions of dollars that none of us have ever seen or read--and you would not have seen or read it if I had not demanded that the managers' package be shown to us.

Is this the way to govern? Is this the way to spend the taxpayers' dollars? It cannot be. It cannot be the right thing to do.

I have great sympathy for what the Senator from Alaska is trying to achieve by getting this bill done, paying for the war, paying for the war on terror. But how do we sit here and accept billions of dollars in a managers' package that none of us--excuse me, all but a few of us have ever seen, debated, discussed, voted on, or will ever have anything to do with?

I trust the judgment of those who go to the appropriations conference, but I don't give them the responsibility that I have to the taxpayers of my State.

I am sure many of these amendments in the managers' package will pass. I have already seen that today. When we had an amendment to take out the totally extraneous provisions, we only got 39 votes. I am sure they will pass. At least I will be able to go back and tell my constituents that I didn't support $10 million for the South Pole Station in the name of fighting the war on terrorism and the war on Iraq. I have greater respect for the men and women in the military who are doing the fighting than to vote for $10 million for the South Pole in the name of helping them fight the war.

I will yield the remainder of my time, and I will object to the managers' package, and we will have a series of votes. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I do not want to prolong the debate. The Senator from Alaska just mentioned there are six amendments still being cleared. This cannot be the way to spend the taxpayers' dollars--to pack 25, or how ever many amendments there are, into a managers' amendment accumulating billions of dollars.

The Senator from Alaska said ``the appropriate people were notified and these amendments were discussed with them.'' I do not like to indulge in a show of hands, but I guarantee you, Mr. President, most of the Members of this body were not consulted on most of these amendments that are in the managers' package because I have been here most of the day and I have never heard them discussed or debated. The only reason I am seeing them now for the first time, as I say, 40 minutes before we would have had final passage on the bill is because we demanded to see them.

Again, I am not a member of the Appropriations Committee. I believe there are 20 some members of the hundred of us who are members of the Appropriations Committee. For us to simply say, I will accept a $600 million amendment; don't worry, we will work it out in conference--I am supposed to go back to my constituents and say: I spent $600 million of your money, but do not worry, we left it up to another Senator to work it out in conference.

We cannot govern this way. We cannot. We cannot have this kind of procedure. I apologize to my colleagues for this, but I am not the one who ran this procedure. I warned the Senator from Alaska time after time that the managers' package was the most egregious of everything that is done in the appropriations process. I will never forget a couple years ago when I asked the manager of the bill: What is in the managers' package, as everybody was standing in line to vote. He said: I don't know.

I let it go because I did not want to anger my colleagues and upset the schedules of my colleagues. Do you know what we found? We found about $50 million in absolutely unnecessary and unrelated projects added in a ``managers' amendment.'' We cannot do that. We cannot do business this way.

I agree with the Senator from Alaska that he will win on every one of these votes because we just saw earlier today that if we are not going to reject $93 million for an agriculture research center and $50 million for maritime administration guaranteed loans, which is a totally failed program--and I have forgotten some of the others--we certainly are not going to turn down amendments that have as much as $600 million.

Here is another one. An amendment described as town meetings. Interesting, town meetings. It removes a 250,000-person threshold for Senate funding of town meetings. What is that all about? It may be, as the Senator alleges--I did not know they had more severe winters than others at the South Pole, but there may be a very legitimate reason to lift the cap on a 250,000-person threshold for Senate funding of town meetings. We do not know. We do not know, I say to the Senator from Alaska.

No. I would like to finish first.

I yield to the Senator from Alaska. I yield.

All I am saying is we do not know. There may be good reasons or there may be bad reasons. There may be good reasons, when we are trying to fight the war on terrorism and the war on Iraq, to lift the 250,000-person threshold for funding for town meetings. There may not be also. We do not know.

Mr. President, I would like to make two points. One, I propose a vote on the Kohl amendment, which is amendment No. 455, which gives an additional $600 million for agriculture. At the conclusion of that vote, then I will be ready to go to final passage, but I want to tell my colleagues for the last time, I will not--I will not--we cannot govern this way. It is not right. We are not carrying out our duties to the people who send their hard-earned tax dollars to us to handle with care and deliberation.

So if it is agreeable with the Senator from Alaska, we will have a vote, which he will win, adding $600 million, which was in the managers' package and never debated or discussed that I know of, and I bet most of my colleagues never knew of, and we will probably adopt it, giving an additional $600 million to help I guess feed the troops in Iraq, and then we will go to final passage.

But I tell my colleagues who are here on the floor, I will not do this managers' package routine ever again. If the Senator from Alaska feels he will not carry something in conference because it is a losing vote, then that is how it should be, but at least every Senator will be on record and their constituents will know how they stood on town meetings and the South Pole and all of these others--Louisville/ Jefferson County Public Safety Communications System, et cetera. If it is agreeable with the Senator from Alaska, I will agree to a unanimous consent request to do that.

Mr. President, the Senator from Wisconsin mentioned Saudi Arabia; I did not know the people of Saudi Arabia were in need.

But, again, it is unrequested by the administration. I am sure it is worthwhile. There is not an amendment that has come before us that is not worthwhile, but it was not felt urgent at this time by the administration.

I yield the floor.

May I ask what that means?

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to authorize expansion of the Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona. I'm pleased that Representative Rick Renzi will introduce companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

The Petrified Forest National Park is a national treasure among the Nation's parks, renowned for its large concentration of highly colored petrified wood, fossilized remains, and spectacular landscapes. However, it is much more than a colorful, scenic vista, for the Petrified Forest has been referred to as ``one of the world's greatest storehouses of knowledge about life on earth when the Age of the Dinosaurs was just beginning.''

For anyone whom has ever visited this park, one is quick to recognize the wealth of scenic, scientific, and historical values of this park. Preserved deposits of petrified wood and related fossils are among the most valuable representations of Triassic-period terrestrial ecosystems in the world. These natural formations were deposited more than 220 million years ago. Scenic vistas, designated wilderness areas, and other historically significant sites of pictographs and Native American ruins are added dimensions to the park.

The Petrified Forest was originally designated as a National Monument by former President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906 to protect the important natural and cultural resources of the Park, and later re-designated as a National Park in 1962. While several boundary adjustments were made to the Park, a significant portion of unprotected resources remain in outlying areas adjacent to the Park.

A proposal to expand the Park's boundaries was recommended in the park's General Management Plan in 1992, in response to concerns about the long-term protection needs of globally significant resources and the Park's viewshed in nearby areas. For example, one of the most concentrated deposits of petrified wood is found within the Chinle encarpment, of which only thirty percent is included within the current Park boundaries.

Increasing reports of theft and vandalism around the Park have activated the Park, local communities, and other interested entities to seek additional protections through a proposed boundary expansion. It has been estimated that visitors to the Park steal about 12 tons of petrified wood every year. Other reports of destruction to archaeological sites and gravesites have also been documented. Based on these continuing threats to resources intrinsic to the Park, the National Parks Conservation Association listed the Petrified Forest National Park on its list of Top Ten Most Endangered Parks in 2000.

Support for this proposed boundary expansion is extraordinary, from the local community of Holbrook, scientific and research institutions, state tourism agencies, and environmental groups, such as the National Parks Conservation Association, NPCA. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support from the National Parks Conservation Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I see the Senator from Arkansas, the prime cosponsor, along with the Senator from Colorado. I will briefly make a comment to thank them for producing this amendment. I thank Senator Warner, as well as Senator Chambliss and others on both sides of the aisle who are responsible for this amendment. It is much needed.

We had a hearing on this issue yesterday. It was one of the most remarkable evasions of responsibility I have ever seen. Basically, in summary, testimony by the Secretary of the Air Force and Chief of Staff of the Air Force said, really, no one is responsible.

We know people are responsible and people are held responsible, including the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and the Secretary of the Air Force. The Secretary of the Air Force has proven, to our satisfaction, that he cannot and will not address this situation, this crisis, at the Air Force Academy in a mature and efficient fashion. That is what triggered this amendment by Senators Allard and Pryor. I strongly support it. Clearly, the quicker this panel will act and send its recommendations, the sooner we will implement changes in policy that will prevent a recurrence.

I might add, the situation apparently has been going on for 10 years. That is clearly an unacceptable situation at one of our finest institutions.

I thank the Senator from Arkansas, the Senator from Colorado, and others involved in this important amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, we are addressing the immediate needs. This is an emergency supplemental. The needs as identified by the Senator from Louisiana are all nice to have, but they should go through the orderly process, through the Senate Armed Services Committee, a request by the President of the United States, and then a full and open debate. This is neither the appropriate nor, I believe, fiscally responsible thing to do at this time. I urge a ``no'' vote.

I am suggesting to the Senator from Louisiana, this is a very large appropriation which has not been examined by members of the committee themselves in this context and is added after carefully thought out, carefully requested amounts of funds have gone through the Appropriations Committee in the form of an emergency supplemental. I am sure these are all worthy causes. There are billions and billions of dollars of worthy causes.

Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I always enjoy hearing from candidates for higher office.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, if I need a few more minutes than that--I don't think I will--I hope the Senators from Mississippi and Nevada will indulge me.

Mr. President, before I get into the amendment, we have made a preliminary examination of the--this is the reason I said to the Senator from Mississippi we may need a few more minutes--we have made a preliminary examination of the bill, and the first time through it, tragically--I say tragically because the title of this bill is ``making supplemental appropriations to support Department of Defense operations in Iraq, Department of Homeland Security, and Related Efforts for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes.''

The first thing we find is $98 million under the Agriculture Research Service, buildings and facilities, to complete a research center in Ames, IA.

What is that all about? How in the world do you call $98 million for an agricultural research service center in Ames, IA--remember, it is designated for Ames, IA, not Des Moines, IA; Ames, IA,--that fits into a bill that is called ``making supplemental appropriations to support Department of Defense operations in Iraq, Department of Homeland Security, and Related Efforts for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003.'' Disgraceful.

We have $1 million for the Jobs for America's Graduates school-to- work program for at-risk young people. I am sure that is an important program. Someone will have to tell me how that is related to the title of this legislation.

There is $6.8 million from O&M Air Force to build and install fiberoptic and power improvements and upgrades at the 11th Air Force Range in Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska.

There is $3 million from O&M Army to build a rifle range for the South Carolina National Guard.

There is $12 million for research, development, test, and evaluation Defense-wide for airfield improvements in Alaska that may be associated--may I emphasize: may be associated--with the ground-based midcourse missile defense program.

There is requiring a study regarding delivery of pediatric health care in northeastern Oklahoma.

There is $225,000 for the Mental Health Association of Tarrant County, TX.

There is $200,000 for the AIDS Research Institute at the University of California, San Francisco, for developing a county medical program to facilitate clinician exchange between the United States and developing countries.

There is $1 million for the Geisinger Health System, Harrisburg, PA, to establish centers of excellence for the treatment of autism.

Why can't we, for once--for once--bring forward a bill--especially when we are at war, especially when we have young men and women fighting and dying--that is free of these outrageous kinds of spending? Can't we do that just once?

Well, now let's get to the $50 million for the title XI Maritime Loan Program, which is the subject of the amendment.

Mr. President, chapter 10 of the bill would provide $50 million in funding to the Maritime Administration's title XI loan guarantee program for shipbuilders and shipyards. It is not justified as part of an emergency supplemental to fund the ongoing war. Not only is the program riddled with problems, but the administration has proposed no funding for it in either its fiscal year 2004 budget or for the prior year, and for good reason. The title XI program does not serve any defense or homeland security purpose, and it should not receive funding under the guise of a wartime need.

I have never been a proponent of the Title XI program. I think that many of my colleagues must be as shocked as I to learn that $50 million for this program has been added to this emergency supplemental appropriations bill in the name of defense. The Appropriations' Committee report accompanying this bill claims that this funding is needed to help transport military equipment and supplies to deployed military forces during the time of war. Such an allegation is simply not true.

According the Maritime Administration, there are 51 vessels currently being utilized in direct support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Only one of those 51 vessels was constructed with the use of a title XI loan guarantee. Any claims by the proponents of this mismanaged pork barrel program that it serves an essential military purpose are ridiculous.

The title XI program is, without question, one of the most wasteful and mismanaged guarantee programs in the Federal Government. Since 1998, loan defaults--loan defaults--have totaled $490 million. On Monday of this week, the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General released a report that details the multiple problems with the program's administration.

The IG's report details the increasing number of loan defaults, coupled with the increasing number of bankruptcies of companies that have been granted loan guarantees. The report notes that Enron--Enron-- has three loan guarantees that will soon go under and cost the taxpayers $122 million--Enron.

The DOT Inspector General found that ``MARAD needs to improve administration and oversight in all phases of the Title XI loan process . . .'' The report says:

The financial interests of the United States would be

better protected through use

of compensatory loan provisions to reduce risk, improved loan

application review procedures, more rigorous financial

oversight of borrowers during the term of loan guarantees,

better monitoring and protection of vessels and shipyards

while under guarantee, and more effective stewardship of

assets acquired through foreclosures.

The Senate Commerce Committee will hold a hearing next month to consider the IG's findings, along with a report being prepared by the General Accounting Office. I am informed that the GAO's preliminary findings fully support the Department of Transportation IG's findings and provide even greater detail on missteps by MARAD that, again, have led to this program having suffered losses of nearly $500 million.

I close by reminding my colleagues of just how awry this program can go when Congress jumps in without full and complete consideration of what is being done. In exchange for a Congressionally ordered monopoly for service among the Hawaiian Islands, American Classic Voyages entered into a contract to build two cruise ships in a U.S. shipyard. It is that requirement that has led to the most outrageous example of how provisions inserted to benefit special interest can and often do lead to waste and burden American taxpayers.

To help push the program, MARAD, in the face of strong political support for the project, approved a $1.1 billion title XI loan guarantee for the construction of these two vessels. Loan guarantees and commitments to this company represented over one quarter of the title XI portfolio.

On October 19, 2001, American Classic Voyages filed a bankruptcy petition under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The petition listed total assets of $37.4 million and total liabilities of $452.8 million. The cruise line said in its petition that it had more than 1,000 creditors, including the American taxpayers being represented by the Department of Transportation.

MARAD never once sounded the alarm that this project was in trouble. It did nothing to further protect the taxpayers' interest. To the contrary, as noted by the DOT IG in its report, just weeks before American Classic Voyages filed for bankruptcy, MARAD granted ACV additional exemptions and modifications to the requirements of the program and their contract.

The failed project is the most costly loan guarantee ever granted under the Maritime Loan Guarantee Program, resulting in the U.S. Maritime Administration paying out over $187.3 million of the American taxpayers' money to cover the loan default for this project. Only $2 million was recovered from the sale of some of the construction materials and parts.

Overall, American Classic held a total of six loan guarantees that cost the American taxpayer $329 million.

I ask my colleagues to learn from this lesson. Fifty million dollars in MARAD guarantees on a bill like this is, first, wrong. And to continue to fund this program until it is fundamentally reformed, according to the Department of Transportation's inspector general's report and an upcoming GAO report, is a criminal waste of American tax dollars. It has no place on this bill.

The Senator from Arizona and I were talking, and I believe the best thing to do, given these projects I just listed, is probably to have one amendment that we will propose tomorrow, Senator Kyl and myself, to strike all of these provisions so we give everybody a chance to vote yes or no on all these provisions of the bill.

Then we can answer to the American taxpayer as to whether $98 million for Agricultural Research Service building facilities; whether money for the Mental Health Association of Tarrant County, TX; whether the Geisinger Health System in Harrisburg, PA, to establish centers of excellence for the treatment of autism are what is needed to win the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq today.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

I yield such time as I have remaining to the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl.

Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Mississippi to grant me 2 minutes.

Mr. President, I just say that, in consultation with Senator Kyl, and thinking about this, rather than force the Senate through a series of votes, this is an important piece of legislation. So tomorrow I will be proposing an amendment that includes the provisions that I described that I believe are extraneous and not related to this bill, as is stated in the title. I will include the $50 million for the MARAD loan guarantees.

Shortly, I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment because I will include it in the wraparound amendment that will be considered tomorrow on behalf of myself and Senator Kyl and, I hope, others.

Let me finally say that I do believe the appropriators exercised great restraint. I congratulate the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Mississippi. I believe this contains probably less unnecessary spending than any appropriations bill I have seen. Now I would like to see if it is possible to send an entirely clean bill to the President of the United States, and that would be a monumental achievement.

Amendment No. 456, Withdrawn

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment at this time.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

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

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

I thank the Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

free to support your initiative.

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

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

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

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

to his wife.

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

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

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

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

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

subscribers to find the best rates possible. Andrew is a

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

at this time. Yours, Mil Cornelius, President.

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

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

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

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

other remote areas. I can assure you that PrairieWave fully

appreciates the benefit to morale and military service that

the ability to communicate with loved ones brings.

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

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

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

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

country.

All of them make statements along those lines.

OmniTel Communications:

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

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

later this year to help defray other costs they may have

incurred.

OmniTel Communications supports our Armed Forces in its

critical action and wish the very best to all Americans who

have to make very serious decisions for the future of our

great country.

Ronald Laudner, CEO, OmniTel Communications, Nora Springs,

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

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

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

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important piece of legislation, which will have a tremendous impact on the lives of blind people throughout the country. In 1996, with the passage of the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act, Congress broke the historic 20-year link between blind people and senior citizens in regards to the Social Security earnings. Previously, that linkage to earnings limits helped many blind people become self-sufficient and productive members of society.

The Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act raised the earnings limit for seniors, without giving blind people the same opportunity. My intent when I sponsored that legislation was not to break the link between blind people and the senior population. Since then, I have worked with a bipartisan group of senators, in the spirit of fairness, to ensure that the blind population receives a raise in earnings limits, similar to that afforded to seniors under the 1996 Act. We must not continue policies which discourage blind individuals from working and contributing to our nation. I believe we should provide blind people with the opportunity to be productive and ``make it'' on their own.

Today I am joined by my good friend Senator Dodd, and a bipartisan group of senators, in introducing the Blind Empowerment Act of 2003. This bill is

similar in purpose to the Blind Person's Earnings Equity Act, which I sponsored in previous Congresses. Over a five year period of time, the Blind Empowerment Act raises the earnings exemption for blind persons to afford them with greater flexibility to achieve their professional and personal goals, without sacrificing Social Security benefits.

The earnings test treatment of our blind and senior populations historically has been identical. From 1977, blind persons and senior citizens shared the identical earnings exemption threshold under Title II of the Social Security Act. The earnings limit for the blind is currently $1,330 a month for fiscal year (FY) 2003, had the link not been broken in the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act, it would be $2,560 today. Senior citizens are now given unlimited opportunity to increase their earnings without losing a portion of their Social Security benefits. The blind, however, have been left behind.

The Social Security earnings test imposes as great a work disincentive for blind people as it once did for senior citizens. In fact, the earnings test probably provides a greater aggregate disincentive for blind individuals because many blind beneficiaries are of working age and are capable of valuable and productive work.

Blindness is often associated with adverse social and economic consequences. Many blind individuals who desperately want to work encounter enormous obstacles to achieve sustained employment or any employment at all. They take great pride in being able to work and contribute to society. By linking the blind with seniors in 1977, Congress provided a great deal of hope and an incentive for blind people to enter the work force. By not allowing blind individuals the opportunity to increase their earnings, as we have for senior citizens, we are now taking that hope away from them.

Blind people are likely to respond favorably to an increase in the earnings test by working more, which will increase their tax payments and purchasing power allowing the blind to make a greater contribution to the general economy. In addition, encouraging blind individuals to work and allowing them to work more without being penalized would bring additional revenue into the Social Security trust funds as well as the federal Treasury.

I hope that this Congress will finally address issues regarding the overall structure of the Social Security system and work towards solutions that will strengthen the system for seniors of today and tomorrow without placing an unfair burden on working Americans. It is absolutely crucial that we include raising the earnings test for blind individuals as a part of any Social Security bill we enact this year.

I urge each of my colleagues to join me in sponsoring the Blind Empowerment Act of 2003, to restore fair and equitable treatment for our blind citizens and to give the blind community increased financial independence. Our Nation would be better served if we restore hope for the blind and provide them with the freedom, opportunities and fairness afforded to our Nation's seniors.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Blind Empowerment Act of 2003 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important piece of legislation, which will have a tremendous impact on the lives of blind people throughout the country. In 1996, with the passage of the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act, Congress broke the historic 20-year link between blind people and senior citizens in regards to the Social Security earnings. Previously, that linkage to earnings limits helped many blind people become self-sufficient and productive members of society.

The Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act raised the earnings limit for seniors, without giving blind people the same opportunity. My intent when I sponsored that legislation was not to break the link between blind people and the senior population. Since then, I have worked with a bipartisan group of senators, in the spirit of fairness, to ensure that the blind population receives a raise in earnings limits, similar to that afforded to seniors under the 1996 Act. We must not continue policies which discourage blind individuals from working and contributing to our nation. I believe we should provide blind people with the opportunity to be productive and ``make it'' on their own.

Today I am joined by my good friend Senator Dodd, and a bipartisan group of senators, in introducing the Blind Empowerment Act of 2003. This bill is

similar in purpose to the Blind Person's Earnings Equity Act, which I sponsored in previous Congresses. Over a five year period of time, the Blind Empowerment Act raises the earnings exemption for blind persons to afford them with greater flexibility to achieve their professional and personal goals, without sacrificing Social Security benefits.

The earnings test treatment of our blind and senior populations historically has been identical. From 1977, blind persons and senior citizens shared the identical earnings exemption threshold under Title II of the Social Security Act. The earnings limit for the blind is currently $1,330 a month for fiscal year (FY) 2003, had the link not been broken in the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act, it would be $2,560 today. Senior citizens are now given unlimited opportunity to increase their earnings without losing a portion of their Social Security benefits. The blind, however, have been left behind.

The Social Security earnings test imposes as great a work disincentive for blind people as it once did for senior citizens. In fact, the earnings test probably provides a greater aggregate disincentive for blind individuals because many blind beneficiaries are of working age and are capable of valuable and productive work.

Blindness is often associated with adverse social and economic consequences. Many blind individuals who desperately want to work encounter enormous obstacles to achieve sustained employment or any employment at all. They take great pride in being able to work and contribute to society. By linking the blind with seniors in 1977, Congress provided a great deal of hope and an incentive for blind people to enter the work force. By not allowing blind individuals the opportunity to increase their earnings, as we have for senior citizens, we are now taking that hope away from them.

Blind people are likely to respond favorably to an increase in the earnings test by working more, which will increase their tax payments and purchasing power allowing the blind to make a greater contribution to the general economy. In addition, encouraging blind individuals to work and allowing them to work more without being penalized would bring additional revenue into the Social Security trust funds as well as the federal Treasury.

I hope that this Congress will finally address issues regarding the overall structure of the Social Security system and work towards solutions that will strengthen the system for seniors of today and tomorrow without placing an unfair burden on working Americans. It is absolutely crucial that we include raising the earnings test for blind individuals as a part of any Social Security bill we enact this year.

I urge each of my colleagues to join me in sponsoring the Blind Empowerment Act of 2003, to restore fair and equitable treatment for our blind citizens and to give the blind community increased financial independence. Our Nation would be better served if we restore hope for the blind and provide them with the freedom, opportunities and fairness afforded to our Nation's seniors.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Blind Empowerment Act of 2003 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about two bills--S. 711 and S. 712. I am honored to cosponsor these bills with Senators Lindsey Graham, Chambliss, and Allen. There may be others that also wish to cosponsor these bills to support our service men and women.

S. 711 simply authorizes a Selective Re-enlistment Bonus, SRB, for National Guard and Reserve service members who would be eligible for SRB if they were in a nonmobilized or drilling status. However, when they are mobilized under a Presidential select Reserve callup and they re-enlist during that period, National guardsmen and reservists are prohibited from receiving SRB payments until after they get off active duty or mobilization status sometimes 1 to 2 years later.

S. 712 authorizes Survivor Benefit Plan, SBP, benefits to survivors of National Guard and Reserve service members who die while performing inactive duty training or weekend drills.

This legislation provides equity with active duty service members and is consistent with Defense Department regulations when National guardsmen and reservists are mobilized under a Presidential select Reserve callup.

However, since January there have been 13 Reserve Component deaths during weekend military training while their units were preparing for Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom where families of National guardsmen and reservists did not receive the survivor benefit payments.

Furthermore, this legislation would cover those Reserve Component personnel who were serving in a drill status in the Pentagon during the attacks on the United States on 9/11.

This bill has the support of the Military Coalition, a consortium of nationally prominent uniformed services and veterans organizations representing more than 5.5 million members, the National Guard, and the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The roles and missions of the Reserve components has changed over the past several years, as the active duty force has evolved from the downsizing of our military forces during the last decade. I suspect that more changes will come as our national military strategy continues to evolve.

Instead, we have a military force that continues to rely more on the Reserve Components--men and women in the National Guard and Reserves-- to go to war and to perform other critical military tasks abroad and at home. Many combat, combat support and other support missions are being carried on the backs of our active and Reserve Component forces-- soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.

For example, in March 2001, the Army National Guard 29th Infantry Division took command of the American peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. The significance of this deployment was enormous, considering that more than 75 percent of the 4,000 U.S. Army soldiers on the ground were Army Reserve and Guard soldiers from 17 states--not just headquarters' staff, but operational units as well.

More recently, in October 2002, Fighter/Attack Squadron 201's commanding officer received the call to mobilize that many Reserve Component commanding officers have recently received. With few exceptions over 100 Navy reservists mobilized with their 12 F/A-18 Hornet A-plus jets, and began work-ups with Carrier Air Wing 8 in Nevada and full day and night carrier qualifications at sea. The impact of this accomplishment cannot be overstated. It was the first time since the Korean War that an entire Naval Air Reserve Squadron has deployed aboard an aircraft carrier, and this time VFA-201's base was not Fort Worth, Texas but the flight deck of the USS Theodore Roosevelt, CVN-71.

The reports from the field are outstanding. VFA-201, like hundreds of other aviators during the first night of ``shock and awe,'' flew their Hornets downtown to Baghdad. The pilots and their maintenance crews hailed from Texas, Arizona, California, New Mexico, Georgia, Florida, Nevada, Utah and Colorado. They are citizen soldiers. Thirteen of eighteen VFA-201 pilots are airline pilots who took a temporary leave of absence from their airline jobs.

They were similar to active duty sailors, yet they were different. Because they were reservists, every aviator has cruise experience, over 1,000 flight hours, and many have over 1,000 or 2,000 hours in the F/A- 18. VFA-201's squadron aviators provided leadership to the air wing in strike planning, flight execution and carrier operations. Their day and night time boarding rates and landing grades have exceeded all other Carrier Air Wing 8's squadrons.

While these are only two of the deployments that have taken place in recent years, they highlight the ever-increasing role of reservists in defending America's security interests around the world, and mark a radical departure from the past.

The figures are quite staggering when considered in total.

Today, nearly 60,000 reservists and National Guardsmen, including volunteers, are deployed under three Presidential callup orders for Bosnia, Kosovo, and Southwest Asia. For Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom over 275,000 men and women from the National Guard and the Reserves have been mobilized.

During each of the past 5 years, Reserve and National Guard service members have performed between 12 and 13.5 million duty days in support of the active force. These numbers are a direct contrast to 1990, when 1 million duty days were performed at a time when there were 25 percent more reservists.

Reservists also currently make up more than half of the airlift crews and 85 percent of the sealift personnel that are needed to move troops and equipment in either wartime or peacetime operations. In addition, reserve medical and construction battalions and other specialists are critical to a wide range of operations.

National Guard and Reserve service members are performing many vital tasks: from direct involvement in military operations to liberate Iraq in the air, on the ground, and on the sea; to guarding nuclear power plants in the United States; to providing support to the War on Terrorism through guarding, interrogating, and providing medical service to al-Qaida detainees; to rebuilding schools in hurricane- stricken Honduras and fighting fires in our western states; from overseeing civil affairs in Bosnia, to augmenting aircraft carriers short on active duty sailors with critical skilled enlisted ratings during at-sea exercises as well as periods of deployment.

I believe that the civilian and uniformed leadership of our Armed Forces and the Congress must recognize this involvement, and at a minimum provide equality in benefits for Reserve Component service members when they put on the uniform and perform their weekend drills or other critical training evolutions. Reservists, on duty, who resemble their active duty counterparts during training evolutions and are deployed at times around the world, should be treated equally when the administration and Congress provide for quality of life benefits.

I hope that all my colleagues will support these bills as a small expression of support and willingness to provide not just equality in quality of life benefits for our National guardsmen and reservists but support to all our men and women--our treasure--who are sacrificing so much for our nation, our freedoms and the freedom of the Iraqi people.

Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2003, H.R. 1307. This important legislation provides Congress with the opportunity to demonstrate our firm resolve to support the men and women who sacrifice so much in the service of our country. I applaud Chairman Grassley's and ranking member Baucus' efforts, and those of my colleagues who have worked so hard on these initiatives, in some cases, for many years. I want to particularly thank Senator DeWine for his stalwart leadership on the above-the-line deduction for expenses incurred by our National Guard and Reserve service members who have to travel great distances for their duty and training.

This long overdue tax benefit for our true citizen-soldiers is even more important today considering these facts: During each of the past 5 years, Reserve and National Guard service members have performed between 12 and 13.5 million duty days in support of the Active Force. These numbers are in a direct contrast to 1990, when 1 million duty days were performed at a time when there were 25 percent more reservists.

Reservists and National Guardsmen currently comprise more than half of the airlift crews and 85 percent of the sealift personnel that are needed to move troops and equipment in either wartime or peacetime operations. In addition, Reserve medical and construction battalions and other specialists are critical to a wide range of operations. Efforts by the Reserve components to move beyond a traditional wartime backup role and to provide peacetime support to active units are thus desirable. The Naval Reserve and Air Force Reserve components have made particularly impressive progress in this area.

The Reserve components are performing many vital tasks: From direct involvement in military operations to liberate Iraq in the air, on the ground, and on the sea; to guarding nuclear power plants in the United States; to providing support to the war on terrorism through guarding, interrogating, and providing medical service to detainees in Guantanamo Bay Cuba; to rebuilding schools in hurricane-stricken Honduras and fighting fires in our Western States; to overseeing civil affairs in Bosnia; to augmenting aircraft carriers short on Active-Duty sailors with critical skilled enlisted ratings during at-sea exercises as well as periods of deployment.

I believe that the civilian and uniformed leadership of our Armed Forces and the Congress must recognize this involvement. At a minimum, Congress must provide equality in benefits for Reserve component service members

when they put on the uniform and perform their weekend drills or other critical training evolutions. Quality of life is not just an Active- Duty obligation that Congress must provide. Reservists, on duty, who resemble their Active-Duty counterparts during training evolutions and are deployed at times around the world, should be treated equally when the administration and Congress provide for quality of life benefits.

I would like to take a moment to discuss a provision in the bill that I have personally worked on for some time. Section 101 would allow members of the uniformed services, as well as State Department personnel who are away on extended duty overseas, to qualify for the same tax relief on the profit generated when they sell their main residence as other Americans. I am pleased to announce that Secretary of State Colin Powell fully supports this legislation, and this legislation enjoys overwhelming support by the senior uniformed leadership, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels, the 31-member associations of the Military Coalition representing 5.5 million veterans, the American Foreign Service Association, and the American Bar Association.

The average American participates in our country's growth through home ownership. Appreciation in the value of a home allows everyday Americans to participate in our country's prosperity. Fortunately, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 recognized this and provided this break to lessen the amount of tax most Americans will pay on the profit they make when they sell their homes. Unfortunately, the 1997 home sale provision unintentionally discourages home ownership among members of the Uniformed and Foreign Services.

Under the 1997 Act the taxpayer must meet two requirements to qualify for this tax relief. The taxpayer must: (1) own the home for at least 2 of the 5 years preceding the sale, and (2) live in the home as their main home for at least 2 years of the last 5 years. The second part of this eligibility test unintentionally and unfairly prohibits many of the women and men who serve this country overseas from qualifying for this beneficial tax relief.

Constant travel across the United States and abroad is inherent in the uniformed and foreign services. Nonetheless, some members of these services choose to purchase a home in our communities, even though they will not live there much of the time. Under current law, if they do not have a spouse who resides in the house during their absence, they will not qualify for the full benefit of the home sales provision, because no one ``lives'' in the home for the required period of time. The law is prejudiced against families that serve our Nation abroad. They would not qualify for the home sales exclusion because neither spouse ``lives'' in the house for enough time to qualify for the exclusion.

Section 101 simply remedies this inequality in there 1997 law. It amends the Internal Revenue Code so that members of the uniformed and foreign services will be considered to be using their house as their main residence for any period that they are assigned overseas in the execution of their duties. In short, they will be deemed to be using their house as their main home, even if they are stationed in Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, in the ``no man's land,'' commonly called the DMZ between North and South Korea, or anywhere else they are assigned.

With Operation Iraqi Freedom, the global war on terrorism, and continuing operations in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo, our Armed Forces are deployed to an unprecedented number of locations. They are away from their primary homes, protecting and furthering the freedoms we Americans hold so dear. It is wrong to penalize them for doing their duty. Military service entails sacrifice. We must do all that we can to ensure that Congress is not adding to the burdens service men and women bear with an unfair Tax Code. This narrowly tailored remedy will grant equal tax relief to the members of our uniformed and foreign services, and restore fairness and consistency to our increasingly complex Tax Code.

This military tax package is a clear show of support for our men and women in uniform. It is the right thing to do, and I hope that all my colleagues will support this critical measure.