Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Cooperative Watershed Act of 2008 with my colleagues Senators Crapo, Baucus and Craig.

This is an important piece of legislation because it deals with being good caretakers of our water.

Water is life. It is as simple as that folks. If we do not manage what we have, well then people are going to be in trouble. In Montana, we are currently suffering through almost a decade of drought, and with growing demand, increased pollution, and a changing climate, our water resources will only become more stressed in the coming years.

Now folks in Montana are not the type to sit back and wait for someone else to come along and fix a problem for them. No, folks in Montana have long since started coming together to form local groups to ensure their water resources are properly managed. These groups consist of irrigators, farmers, environmental groups, scientists, and governmental officials all working together. Unfortunately, these groups often are limited by a lack of funding for projects and a full time administrator. These groups hold so much potential, but are being held back by the simple lack of funding. That is why I, along with Senators Crapo, Baucus, and Craig, have introduced the Cooperative Watershed Act of 2008.

The Cooperative Watershed Act of 2008 sets up a granting program under the Department of the Interior to help local stakeholders come together and form or expand watershed-wide management groups that can cooperatively manage their local water resources. The funds in this bill will help these groups build the capacity to act as grassroots, nonregulatory entities to address local water availability and quality issues within a watershed.

By getting all the different stakeholders involved in the management process, these groups will help reduce the need for Federal regulation and litigation, and result in the best overall use of the available, and often limited, water supply. Make no mistake, in Montana we understand that local stakeholders are in the best position to manage their own resources, but Federal support must play a role in helping them establish the capacity to do so.

Now in granting funds, this bill takes into account that different strokes are needed for different folks. To accommodate the varying stages of development of different groups, the grant program is divided into three phases: an initial planning phase to help new groups form and begin to formulate ideas and project proposals, a pilot project phase to help semi-established groups gain the capacity to conduct projects and studies, and an implementation phase to help fully formed and functioning groups undertake large-scale, multi-year projects.

Montana has been a leader in implementing water resources planning on a watershed scale for years, and the funding provided in this bill will allow Montanans and other interested States to increase their capacity to effectively manage their vital water resources as we move into the future.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Cooperative Watershed Act of 2008 with my colleagues Senators Crapo, Baucus and Craig.

This is an important piece of legislation because it deals with being good caretakers of our water.

Water is life. It is as simple as that folks. If we do not manage what we have, well then people are going to be in trouble. In Montana, we are currently suffering through almost a decade of drought, and with growing demand, increased pollution, and a changing climate, our water resources will only become more stressed in the coming years.

Now folks in Montana are not the type to sit back and wait for someone else to come along and fix a problem for them. No, folks in Montana have long since started coming together to form local groups to ensure their water resources are properly managed. These groups consist of irrigators, farmers, environmental groups, scientists, and governmental officials all working together. Unfortunately, these groups often are limited by a lack of funding for projects and a full time administrator. These groups hold so much potential, but are being held back by the simple lack of funding. That is why I, along with Senators Crapo, Baucus, and Craig, have introduced the Cooperative Watershed Act of 2008.

The Cooperative Watershed Act of 2008 sets up a granting program under the Department of the Interior to help local stakeholders come together and form or expand watershed-wide management groups that can cooperatively manage their local water resources. The funds in this bill will help these groups build the capacity to act as grassroots, nonregulatory entities to address local water availability and quality issues within a watershed.

By getting all the different stakeholders involved in the management process, these groups will help reduce the need for Federal regulation and litigation, and result in the best overall use of the available, and often limited, water supply. Make no mistake, in Montana we understand that local stakeholders are in the best position to manage their own resources, but Federal support must play a role in helping them establish the capacity to do so.

Now in granting funds, this bill takes into account that different strokes are needed for different folks. To accommodate the varying stages of development of different groups, the grant program is divided into three phases: an initial planning phase to help new groups form and begin to formulate ideas and project proposals, a pilot project phase to help semi-established groups gain the capacity to conduct projects and studies, and an implementation phase to help fully formed and functioning groups undertake large-scale, multi-year projects.

Montana has been a leader in implementing water resources planning on a watershed scale for years, and the funding provided in this bill will allow Montanans and other interested States to increase their capacity to effectively manage their vital water resources as we move into the future.

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

Madam President, the Senate has a real opportunity today to do right by our newest veterans who have served us well in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When our troops came home at the end of World War II, our Nation made a choice to make college a reality for millions of them. Nearly 8 million veterans--half of all who served in that war--took advantage of the Montgomery GI bill. They had their college education paid for. Our country made a decision to invest in our warriors' future as they returned from the battlefield. As a result, the ``greatest generation'' produced broad-based growth and prosperity.

Today, we are great at sending our troops off to war, but we are coming up short in providing the benefits their service has earned. That is shortsighted and wrong.

A very small percentage of Americans actually serve in our Armed Forces, the military, on Active Duty, Reserves, and National Guard. It totals less than 3 million people in a country of 300 million.

So far, 1.6 million troops have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tens of thousands more of our troops will rotate through in the coming months. These men and women and their families are the ones who have borne the sacrifice of 15-month deployments, multiple tours of combat zones, injuries, and the loss of far too many of their battle buddies.

It is right that the Senate give back to them by giving them a GI bill that meets today's needs. It is time to treat doing right by our veterans as a true cost of war. These folks all joined the service because they love their country, they want to serve, and they want to be a part of all the great work our military does. It is hardly glamorous, but it is critical to our Nation.

A GI bill that provides our troops the full cost of a college education is a vital recruiting tool, and it helps us give back to the people who are serving our country.

Today, nearly one-third of all Active-Duty servicemembers who signed up for the GI bill never use the benefit. There are many good reasons, but one of the main reasons is that the current GI bill doesn't provide enough benefit to meet the needs of today's veterans.

Madam President, today's GI bill is woefully inadequate. It only provides about $9,000 in costs for an academic year of college. When you factor in tuition, room, board, books, and other living expenses, that is only about 70 percent of the actual cost of attending a university such as the University of Montana. It is only a drop in the bucket for a private school.

The Webb amendment that we have before us today fully covers the cost of any instate public school's tuition and fees, and it creates a matching program to help create incentive for private schools to do the right thing and pay for a veteran's education. It will stay this way for a generation. This legislation is tied to the cost of public education so the benefit to our veterans will keep pace with the annual rise in tuition and fees, which have averaged about 6 percent over the last decade.

Another thing that makes this amendment so important is that for the first time it brings the National Guard and reservists more access to the GI bill. Right now, few guardsmen and reservists can get the full benefit. Given how much we have relied on the Guard in Iraq, I think that is wrong.

Let me also say we know the vast majority of servicemen sign up for the GI bill, but that has a cost. When you first receive a paycheck from the military, you have to decide whether to spend $100 a month for the first year on buying into the GI bill benefit. That is a total cost of $1,200. Now, $100 may not seem much to some folks in Washington, DC, but I guarantee you that to an airman just out of basic and on his or her first tour at a base such as Malmstrom Air Force Base, that $100 is a big deal. The Webb GI bill gets rid of that fee, and it is about time we did so.

Finally, I wish to address one of the complaints about the Webb bill. Some have said the Webb bill will hurt retention, especially in the mid-career officer corps. This is simply untrue. A commissioned officer would have to serve 8 or 9 years before being fully eligible for the new enhanced GI benefit. It is not the GI bill that causes mid-career folks to leave the military. It is 15-month deployments, multiple tours, and stop-loss involuntary deployment extensions, the so-called back-door draft.

So I hope we can get this done today. This bill will cost about $2 billion a year, and that is a little less than we spend in Iraq in 1 week.

Keep in mind that, over a lifetime, the average individual who goes to college earns more than $500,000 more than someone who does not. This is the right thing to do for our troops, but it is also a good investment in our country's future, especially at a time when the economy is sputtering, wages are stagnant, and jobs are being lost. So I call on this body to stand by our Nation's warriors and to pass a 21st century GI bill. It is the right thing to do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss two important domestic priorities that are funded in the Senate's emergency supplemental. Those two priorities are the Secure Rural Schools and JAG/Byrne funding. These programs are critically important to Montana and rural America. I hope my colleagues continue to support them.

Last year, a 1-year extension of the Secure Rural School and Self- Determination Act was included in the emergency supplemental, giving much relief to rural counties.

We also narrowly lost the opportunity to pass a 5-year reauthorization during the debate on last year's energy bill. But now, today, we have the same opportunity to provide temporary relief while we work to provide the longer term funding solutions that our counties and schools deserve.

Why is this so important? Because county payments assist 600 rural counties and 4,400 schools in 42 States.

A majority of the counties in my State of Montana receive benefits from this program. Without an extension, these communities will suffer, and schoolteachers and county workers will be laid off.

Less money for rural schools means less opportunity for our rural students, lower teacher pay, bigger classroom size, fewer activities, and students who start to fall behind. Rural America's students deserve the same opportunities as their urban counterparts, and this program helps them to keep pace.

Fewer dollars for the counties mean higher local property taxes, poorer

roads, and local public work projects that do not get done. Overall, rural economies will suffer in a big way.

In the West, we are rich in public lands. One-third of Montana is in public ownership. Much of it is timberland. It only makes sense that the Federal owners help support local services.

These counties are, by nature, rural, and Secure Rural Schools funding makes up a large portion of their local budget. Without this extension, local communities will not be able to make ends meet. For these reasons, I hope the funding for Secure Rural Schools remains in the supplemental.

I also express my appreciation for the work of Senators Wyden, Baucus, and others who have fought so hard to fund this program over the years. Rural America needs this support to continue.

Another issue I want to draw attention to is the JAG/Byrne funding used by America's drug task forces. These justice assistance grants help local law enforcement agencies fight drug dealers and manufacturers across this country.

There is $490 million in the supplemental to restore funding to this critical program that will bring the amount of last year's level up to $660 million.

Montana has seven drug task forces, which cover three-quarters of Montana's 56 counties. In 2007, Montana's Drugbusters received almost $1.3 million. This year, Montana is set to receive only $473,000. That is a loss of $817,000 in 1 year. The folks on the ground have told me they are going to have massive cutbacks in programs and in surveillance. In fact, 27 of the 49 agents statewide would be laid off. Three of the seven drug task forces would have to close their doors altogether.

Montana is the fourth largest State, geographically. It is too big and expansive for us to think we can keep a handle on drug traffickers with such limited resources. What would happen? More drugs would remain in our communities, more weapons in the hands of criminals, more crimes, and more children would be exposed to danger because they would be continually exposed to volatile situations, criminal behavior, and drugs. We do not want to go backward.

As a result of the efforts of Montana's Drugbusters, there has been a significant decrease in the number of meth labs. For instance, in 2002, there were over 120 labs. In 2006, thanks to the Montana Drugbusters, there were less than 10 labs in the State of Montana. This is great work and this work must continue.

Without the restoration of this funding, our efforts to limit drugs in Montana and throughout the country will be devastated. Our children's exposure to drugs and crime will be increased, and our families will be torn apart. Montana cannot afford it. No State can. Americans deserve better.

I know many of my colleagues share in my strong support for JAG/Byrne funding and county payments. I appreciate their help in developing and continuing these programs. I hope this supplemental, in the end, includes these important programs and that the President signs the supplemental into law.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Dodd, I ask unanimous consent that LCDR Christopher Martin, a congressional fellow in Senator Dodd's office, be allowed floor privileges for the duration of the debate on H.R. 2642.

Mr. President, I rise today not only as a U.S. Senator from Montana but also as a farmer who is actively engaged in agriculture, family farm agriculture. It truly is a family farm that we operate in north central Montana. Not only do my wife Sharla and I farm, but when we need help, my brother, my son-in-law, my son, and my daughter all step to the plate and help us.

We just finished spring planting in north central Montana, and with it comes hopes for a great year. We all know the commodity prices right now are very good, but the rest of the story is this: Diesel prices are double what they were last year. Chemical prices have gone through the roof. Fertilizer is becoming unaffordable because the cost is so high.

That is where the farm bill steps in--this farm bill which just came out of conference committee which we will vote on, hopefully, later today. In this farm bill, we raise the target price. We have a disaster program that Senator Baucus fought so hard to get into this bill so that farmers, when they do have a disaster, do not have to come back to Washington, DC, with hat in hand. They will have a safety net. We have country-of-origin labeling in this farm bill with some teeth in it that I hope the next administration takes by the horns and adopts so people know where their food comes from. It allows for the interstate shipment of meat so small meatpackers can ship their products across State lines, which has not been available before, to add value to meat products throughout this country. It has a nonfood biofuel section of which a part of that is a camelina pilot program, which I am very proud of, which offers farmers another crop for their rotation and helps this country become more energy independent. It also has a very aggressive nutrition program to help people who need help buying food, which is very important.

This bill is about rural development, about making rural America all it can be, creating jobs, and helping meet this country's energy needs, creating a level of energy independence.

This bill is also about food security for this country. We have been very fortunate in the United States. We have not suffered the lack of food that other countries have. I believe it is because of farm bills of the past, and it is because family farmers have done such a great job meeting this country's food demands.

We need to have a farm bill that helps support those family farmers, and that is exactly what this farm bill does. Is it perfect? No. But is it pretty darn good? Yes. This farm bill does things for people in production agriculture that it needs to do to make sure they remain in business, to make sure this country's food security needs are met.

So when I read editorials in newspapers on the east coast, west coast, in the Washington Post, Boston Herald, Dallas Morning News, Los Angeles Times--and the list goes on and on--that talk about this farm bill being loaded with waste and giveaways and lard, I ask the folks who write these editorials to come out to Montana and talk to somebody who has their hands in the dirt. Go out to the Midwest and see the kinds of challenges these folks have and ask yourself: Is this farm bill really full of the kind of waste you are talking about? Because it is not. It is a farm bill that meets the needs of America's family farmers. As I have said many times before, if we lose this country's family farmers, this country will change forever, and not for the better.

So I applaud the folks who worked on the conference committee from both parties, from all corners of this country, to develop a farm bill that meets the needs of this country. I hope the Members of this Senate join me later on today in voting for this farm bill and sending it to the President's desk. I hope the President signs it because it is the right thing to do.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I recognize American Legion Auxiliary Unit 70 out of Judith Gap, MT. Judith Gap is a small town in central Montana with less than 200 residents, but they have a vibrant community where the American Legion plays a key role. The legion supports a whole host of activities, from supporting veterans throughout Montana to throwing local poppy-themed dinners. They provide a great deal for the area, and I ask unanimous consent that the full activities record of American Legion Auxiliary Unit 70 of Judith Gap, MT, be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I would like to thank the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from North Dakota for their comments on renewable energy and climate change. That is definitely an issue I hope we take up sooner rather than later, and hopefully we will have some commonsense solutions to the problem so we can move this country forward both in the area of reducing our effects on climate but also economically because it is a tremendous opportunity with the right piece of legislation.

I rise today to urge the inclusion of the JAG/Byrne grant funding in the emergency supplemental that we will consider in the coming weeks. A week ago, I organized a summit of drugbuster law enforcement in my home State of Montana. I asked all of the leaders of Montana's drug task forces to come together to talk about Federal funding. It is a critically important issue.

Many of them drove hundreds of miles across the State in a spring blizzard to take part in this summit. The drug task forces are made up of dedicated law enforcement officers from every part of Montana: sheriffs' deputies, narcotics officers, local and State police, and undercover agents. They work together across jurisdictions to bust drug smugglers, as well as those who grow or manufacture instate.

Our State of Montana has 56 counties. There are, of course, a lot of different regions that deal with the task forces, that deal with catching the drug manufacturers and smugglers. It is critically important that these folks work together.

There is cause for concern because the President proposes slashing $350 million from the drug task forces nationwide. If that happens, Montana will lose a staggering 70 percent of its national drug fighting money for the upcoming year, and the task forces would probably have to lay off 27 agents, leaving only 22 agents to battle drugs statewide. In a State the size of Montana that is impossible.

We should not let that happen. We should find a way to fund these drug task forces in this supplemental, this spending bill that we are going to be considering in a few weeks. If we do not, these cuts will cripple the progress that we have made up to now in the war on drugs in rural States such as the State of Montana.

These drug task forces are success stories. The officers who are on the front lines keep drugs, the drug smugglers, and the drug dealers off our streets. They make our communities safer; they reduce crime, and they make a place like Montana a whole lot safer to live and raise a family. These drug busters work together to get the job done.

Because drugs are not limited by borders, these tasks forces rely on Federal funding to facilitate the cooperation across the many jurisdictions of Montana, and it works.

Last weekend, folks picking up some trash in Havre, MT, stumbled across a dumped meth lab. They called the police, and within minutes the task force agents were there on the scene to help clean it up and keep the community safe.

A week ago Monday I heard about a drug operation busted in a remote part of southeastern Montana; so remote, in fact, the task force needed the help of the National Guard helicopter to find it. Officers found 3 pounds of methamphetamine.

Last summer, the Northwest Montana Drug Task Force investigated a case that took them across State lines to Salt Lake City, UT. In the end, they seized 2 pounds of cocaine. They took 20 illegal weapons off the streets, and they say they couldn't have done it without their ability to work across jurisdictional lines and work together. For example, one task force busted a meth lab in a home. Through surveillance, they knew children were present. They took the precautions not to put the children in any more danger. When the bust was made, one child inside tested positive for meth because he was living in a house where they were cooking meth. Even his toys were covered with meth resin. This case set the standard for the way officers deal with and protect children in harm's way. In only 1 year, Montana'a drug task forces rescued 84 children from homes where they were being exposed to drugs and drug dealers.

To me, restoring this funding is a no-brainer. As one of the officers put it: We will end up spending much more money in the future if we have to play catchup.

During the summit last week in Montana, officers told me again and again that without Federal funding our small communities will be devastated. Our children will be exposed to more drugs and, therefore, more crime, and families will be torn apart.

I hope we can all work together to restore this funding. Montana and the Nation cannot afford to do otherwise. Americans deserve better.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senators Feingold, Harkin and Klobuchar in introducing a bill that would significantly increase voter participation. The Election Day Registration Act of 2008, EDR, would allow all eligible citizens to register to vote in federal elections on Election Day.

Studies have shown a strong increase in voter turnout in those States who have EDR. In 2004, 73.8 percent of all eligible voters in EDR states voted, compared with 60.2 percent of eligible voters in states without EDR--a difference of 13.6 percentage points. The top four States for turnout in 2004 had EDR--Minnesota 78 percent, Wisconsin 75 percent, Maine 73 percent, and New Hampshire 71 percent. The fifth highest state was Oregon--the universal vote-by-mail state. Even more compelling, the turnout is higher even when controlling for competitiveness--in terms of voter participation, ``safe'' states with EDR significantly outperformed ``safe'' states without EDR. Voter participation in those ``Battleground'' States with EDR was significantly higher than in those ``battleground'' states without EDR.

High voter participation is a fundamental part of a healthy democracy. This year we have seen record numbers of voters participating in the presidential primaries. The implementation of EDR for federal elections would build upon this momentum. Montana is expecting record turnout for our presidential primary on June 3rd.

EDR permits eligible citizens to register and vote on Election Day. There are currently 9 states that have some form of EDR: Minnesota, Maine, Wisconsin, Idaho, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Iowa, North Carolina and of course my home state of Montana. Iowa adopted EDR in March 2007 and North Carolina has implemented Same Day Registration at early voting sites. While the version in North Carolina isn't complete EDR, it is a strong move for increased access to the democratic process.

There is nationwide interest in EDR. Last year, 21 States had bills before their legislature to implement, or begin feasibility studies in support of, EDR.

In my home state of Montana we have had Election Day Registration. Montana adopted EDR in 2005 while I was president of the Montana state senate. Montana's version is a little different from EDR in Wisconsin and Minnesota--in Montana, the voter registers, election day, at the county courthouse rather than at the polling place. Whether it is at the polling place or the courthouse, the important fundamentals of access are maintained.

With EDR, the use of and reliance upon provisional ballots would be minimized. Provisional ballots are useful and valuable tools, however with EDR, the costly validation process that takes place after election day could be avoided, as eligibility considerations could be made on election day and the voter would then use a standard ballot. EDR streamlines the administrative process and makes sure that votes are counted.

Enactment of EDR would be a major step in the right direction towards inclusive and fully participatory elections. It's clear that people are more likely to vote when they know their votes will be counted. EDR has proven track record of increasing participation, and those concerns raised have been largely disproven or are easily addressed. In the end EDR allows more Americans to do that which is most fundamental to the democracy we love and the freedom we, as Americans, stand for--vote.

My cosponsors and I think this Election Day Registration Act of 2008 is necessary to strengthen our democracy. We welcome our fellow senators to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senators Feingold, Harkin and Klobuchar in introducing a bill that would significantly increase voter participation. The Election Day Registration Act of 2008, EDR, would allow all eligible citizens to register to vote in federal elections on Election Day.

Studies have shown a strong increase in voter turnout in those States who have EDR. In 2004, 73.8 percent of all eligible voters in EDR states voted, compared with 60.2 percent of eligible voters in states without EDR--a difference of 13.6 percentage points. The top four States for turnout in 2004 had EDR--Minnesota 78 percent, Wisconsin 75 percent, Maine 73 percent, and New Hampshire 71 percent. The fifth highest state was Oregon--the universal vote-by-mail state. Even more compelling, the turnout is higher even when controlling for competitiveness--in terms of voter participation, ``safe'' states with EDR significantly outperformed ``safe'' states without EDR. Voter participation in those ``Battleground'' States with EDR was significantly higher than in those ``battleground'' states without EDR.

High voter participation is a fundamental part of a healthy democracy. This year we have seen record numbers of voters participating in the presidential primaries. The implementation of EDR for federal elections would build upon this momentum. Montana is expecting record turnout for our presidential primary on June 3rd.

EDR permits eligible citizens to register and vote on Election Day. There are currently 9 states that have some form of EDR: Minnesota, Maine, Wisconsin, Idaho, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Iowa, North Carolina and of course my home state of Montana. Iowa adopted EDR in March 2007 and North Carolina has implemented Same Day Registration at early voting sites. While the version in North Carolina isn't complete EDR, it is a strong move for increased access to the democratic process.

There is nationwide interest in EDR. Last year, 21 States had bills before their legislature to implement, or begin feasibility studies in support of, EDR.

In my home state of Montana we have had Election Day Registration. Montana adopted EDR in 2005 while I was president of the Montana state senate. Montana's version is a little different from EDR in Wisconsin and Minnesota--in Montana, the voter registers, election day, at the county courthouse rather than at the polling place. Whether it is at the polling place or the courthouse, the important fundamentals of access are maintained.

With EDR, the use of and reliance upon provisional ballots would be minimized. Provisional ballots are useful and valuable tools, however with EDR, the costly validation process that takes place after election day could be avoided, as eligibility considerations could be made on election day and the voter would then use a standard ballot. EDR streamlines the administrative process and makes sure that votes are counted.

Enactment of EDR would be a major step in the right direction towards inclusive and fully participatory elections. It's clear that people are more likely to vote when they know their votes will be counted. EDR has proven track record of increasing participation, and those concerns raised have been largely disproven or are easily addressed. In the end EDR allows more Americans to do that which is most fundamental to the democracy we love and the freedom we, as Americans, stand for--vote.

My cosponsors and I think this Election Day Registration Act of 2008 is necessary to strengthen our democracy. We welcome our fellow senators to support this important legislation.

Madam President, I wish to commend Chairman Akaka on the legislation that was passed in the Senate earlier today, S. 1315.

This bill makes a number of commonsense improvements to the benefits packages we offer America's veterans. I am pleased to have voted for this bill as it came out of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I am also pleased to have supported it on the floor today. It is long past due to give our disabled veterans the ability to purchase affordable life insurance. That is what this bill does. It provides up to $50,000 in life insurance for any veteran younger than the age of 65 who has a service-connected disability.

The bill also adds a host of new benefits to help critically injured service men and women get their households refurbished if they become disabled. That can mean putting in wheelchair ramps, remodeling a kitchen or a bathroom, and countless other chores. Again, it is a small measure, but for a soldier who has lost an arm or a leg or a marine who has suffered severe burns, it means the world.

It is long past time to increase burial benefits to help families deal with the growing costs of providing a final resting place for their veteran loved ones. This bill does that by authorizing double the current allowance for the burial of a veteran who dies from a service- connected disability to $4,000. It also triples the $300 benefit for nonservice connected disabilities. With the average funeral cost now around $6,000, this is a small gesture to the loved ones of our veterans, but it matters a great deal.

At a time of record national debt and chronic annual budget deficits, I am particularly pleased this bill is deficit-neutral. It does not increase taxes.

With all the good in the bill, it is little wonder the Veterans' Benefit Enhancement Act is supported by every major veterans service organization. This bill passed out of the VA Committee unanimously last summer, and I am pleased by the bipartisan support it got today. We now need to turn our attention to the veterans health care legislation that I am told will follow this bill. Our Nation's veterans deserve nothing less.

When our children sign up for military service, whether they do it at a local recruiting office or by going to a service academy or anything in-between, we make a deal with them. We ask them to put their lives on the line. We ask them to serve and to sacrifice at an increasingly difficult pace. We ask them to fight wars. We ask them to keep peace and to keep our Nation free and they go. They go and they do a better job than any other military in the world. In return, we promise that when their service is over, we will care for them and compensate them if they have been injured in their service to our country. With our Nation now at war, we have a great moral obligation to do right by the men and women who serve our country in harm's way. This legislation helps keep the promise to our veterans.

One other point I wish to add that relates to what the senator from Michigan and the Senator from Utah talked about. I have only been here for 15 or 16 months, but I will tell my colleagues that one thing I have noticed and one thing that has surprised me over the last year and a quarter is we debate whether to debate all too much. The fact is, whether we agree or disagree on an issue, what is important is we have an opportunity to vote on an issue--to make our stand and vote on an issue.

What happened last week was a prime example, where we had a transportation bill--corrections to a transportation bill--and we spent all week because it was being delayed and delayed. I sat in the chair last Thursday night when the majority leader, the Democratic leader, came down to the floor and said: I have to file cloture on this veterans' bill--the one we passed--because I have approached the minority and they have not gotten back to me and I do not want to take the chance of wasting a day.

We have work to do here. We have done some good work today, and I hope we can have many more days such as today, where we can vote on legislation that impacts the people of this country.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for protecting American workers from willful pay discrimination. To show my support, I will support cloture on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007, H.R. 2831. I appreciate Chairman Kennedy and the bipartisan coalition he has built around this legislation to ensure equal pay for equal work.

Every employee deserves to earn the same pay for doing the same work.

Our country was founded on the principle that all men and women are created equal.

Our workers should be paid equally for doing the same job.

As President Kennedy stated when he signed the original Equal Pay Act in 1963, protecting American workers against pay discrimination is ``basic to democracy''. We owe our workers the same protection today that President Kennedy did in the 1960s.

Despite our obligation to this issue, our work is far from complete. Forty-five years after he signed that historic piece of bipartisan legislation, American women still only make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes for doing the same work. African-American workers make 18 percent less than white workers for doing the same work and Latinos make 28 percent less for doing the same work. Unfortunately for all of us, American Indians make even less for doing the same work.

Congress cannot ignore this kind of discrimination. We have a duty to support this bill and speak out against pay discrimination.

This bill will merely restore the law to what it was before the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter. This bill merely states that a pay discrimination claim accrues when a pay decision is made, when an employee is subject to that decision, or at any time they are injured by it.

Lilly Ledbetter had worked at Goodyear for 19 years when she discovered she was being paid significantly less than her male counterparts for doing the exact same work. A jury agreed and awarded her $223,776 in back pay, and over $3 million in punitive damages. The United States Supreme Court however, interpreted the law to take away her jury award, saying that the 180-day filing limit had begun way back when her very first paycheck showed lesser pay, nearly 18 years earlier. So because too much time had elapsed the Court said, her claim was invalid. Despite Goodyear's willful wage discrimination, the Court offered her no protection. In fact, it reversed the protection the jury awarded her.

We are here today to undo this wrongheaded decision and clarify this law to make it fair to American workers.

Opponents will argue that this bill will lead to a flood of litigation, benefiting nobody but trial attorneys. They forget, however, that this bill merely returns the law to how the vast majority of States, including the great State of Montana, interpreted it before the Ledbetter decision. This bill will only change the way courts interpret the law in 7 States.

Opponents will also argue that this bill will punish businesses for acts of discrimination in some cases, decades ago, before management and corporate culture changed. The argument is hollow, however, because the bill contains a provision to limit claims filed to a 2-year maximum. In the spirit of negotiation, proponents had to limit potential awards. Take Lilly Ledbetter's case, for example. If this law would have been in effect for her, 16 out of the 18 years that she suffered pay discrimination would still go unpunished.

This bill is not perfect. We still have a long ways to go to protect American workers from pay discrimination. But this bill is a step in the right direction and the time is now. The House of Representatives passed this important bill last July, and It is time for this body to do the same. President Kennedy was absolutely right to support the Equal Pay Act in 1963. Forty-five years later, this bill will ensure that we turn the clock forward, not backward, on pay discrimination.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I certainly appreciate hearing the debate on the amendments of the technical corrections of the highway bill.

I want to take a little detour for a moment. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, I rise to speak on a matter that has been of great concern this week to not only the Governor of the State of Montana and Senator Baucus, but to my colleagues from the State of Washington, Senator Cantwell and Senator Murray.

Four Americans were detained last weekend in Nigeria. They have been held in Nigeria until today. Today they were released. It is an enormous relief to all of us and particularly to those families, that Sandy Cioffi, Tammi Sims, Clifford Worsham, and Sean Porter will soon be reunited with their loved ones.

Nigeria's State Security Service has been overseeing their custody since Saturday afternoon, more than 100 hours. They were charged with no crime. They were in the country legally. They did nothing wrong. So we worked closely to try to get these folks released, and it did happen. It is particularly of importance to me because one of the people who was detained is a lady by the name of Tammi Sims. Tammi is from Joplin, MT, which is a stone's throw away from my hometown. I have been in regular contact with her family since last weekend, and they have been worried sick. But now we have reason for hope. We will not be celebrating, however, until Tammi is reunited and the others are reunited with their families here in the United States. We will continue to keep our fingers crossed, and Sharla and I will continue to pray for Tammi and the rest of the group until they are back here on American soil.

I do, however, want to take a minute to thank the consular affairs section of the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, who were so very helpful in getting information about these individuals back to my office and to the families of those folks. I also thank the dedicated Foreign Service officers of the State Department. They do this kind of work all over the world, probably every day, but it is not until one of your own is in need of assistance that you appreciate their work, and I do.

I also thank some of my other colleagues, including Senator Feingold, Senator Brown, who also expressed support for these folks. I thank them for that. This is a good day, and hopefully those folks will be back in their home country very soon with their families.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Gray Wolf Livestock Loss Mitigation Act, which Senator Barrasso and I are introducing today.

This program is a key step now that wolves will be delisted in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. The bill will help reduce livestock losses due to wolves and help our ranchers who bear the financial burden of losses due to wolves.

On March 28, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed the gray wolves in the northern Rockies from the endangered species list. Wolves have, over the last few years, experienced a remarkable recovery in the northern Rockies. They, in fact, have exceeded their population goals put in place when they were reintroduced.

I applaud the Fish and Wildlife Service for their decision to turn the management over to the States, such as Montana, because Montana is ready.

Each State in our region has developed its own management plan that will treat wolves like other wildlife and keep their numbers at approved levels.

Today, tourists come to Yellowstone to see wolves. They are a symbol of the wildness of our region. But wolves also need to eat, and they kill animals in the process--some wild, some domestic. In the case of the domestic livestock, such as cattle and sheep, that costs producers time and money and reduces profitability.

Our States are taking action by initiating new programs that will try to prevent wolf kills by improved fencing, grazing practices, using guard dogs, and other means. They will also be compensating producers for the losses due to wolves.

Yesterday, Montana's program began accepting claims. Since the Federal Government reintroduced wolves to the northern Rockies, it only makes sense for the Fish and Wildlife Service to assist States in managing wolves even after the delisting.

Today, Senator Barrasso and I are introducing the Gray Wolf Livestock Loss Mitigation Act to provide the assistance States need in managing wolves in the future.

This program strikes the balance the public demands. It accepts the presence of wolves, but it also supports our livestock industry which is affected by that reintroduction of the wolves.

If wolves are a public asset deserving of reintroduction, the Federal Government ought to be a player at the table to mitigate their costs.

I encourage my colleagues to take a look at this issue--it is an important one--particularly those colleagues from the Great Lakes region and the Southwest who face similar problems.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Gray Wolf Livestock Loss Mitigation Act, which Senator Barrasso and I are introducing today.

This program is a key step now that wolves will be delisted in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. The bill will help reduce livestock losses due to wolves and help our ranchers who bear the financial burden of losses due to wolves.

On March 28, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed the gray wolves in the northern Rockies from the endangered species list. Wolves have, over the last few years, experienced a remarkable recovery in the northern Rockies. They, in fact, have exceeded their population goals put in place when they were reintroduced.

I applaud the Fish and Wildlife Service for their decision to turn the management over to the States, such as Montana, because Montana is ready.

Each State in our region has developed its own management plan that will treat wolves like other wildlife and keep their numbers at approved levels.

Today, tourists come to Yellowstone to see wolves. They are a symbol of the wildness of our region. But wolves also need to eat, and they kill animals in the process--some wild, some domestic. In the case of the domestic livestock, such as cattle and sheep, that costs producers time and money and reduces profitability.

Our States are taking action by initiating new programs that will try to prevent wolf kills by improved fencing, grazing practices, using guard dogs, and other means. They will also be compensating producers for the losses due to wolves.

Yesterday, Montana's program began accepting claims. Since the Federal Government reintroduced wolves to the northern Rockies, it only makes sense for the Fish and Wildlife Service to assist States in managing wolves even after the delisting.

Today, Senator Barrasso and I are introducing the Gray Wolf Livestock Loss Mitigation Act to provide the assistance States need in managing wolves in the future.

This program strikes the balance the public demands. It accepts the presence of wolves, but it also supports our livestock industry which is affected by that reintroduction of the wolves.

If wolves are a public asset deserving of reintroduction, the Federal Government ought to be a player at the table to mitigate their costs.

I encourage my colleagues to take a look at this issue--it is an important one--particularly those colleagues from the Great Lakes region and the Southwest who face similar problems.