Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the conference report to accompany H.R. 2115, the FAA authorization bill.

Madam President, I ask that the conference report be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the conference report be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I see the Senator from North Dakota. If the Senator has a very brief comment to make, I yield to him.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 404, S. 1741, a bill to provide a site for the National Women's History Museum in the District of Columbia.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Alaska, and I yield to the Senator from Alaska for that purpose.

Madam President, I certainly do agree with the distinguished Senator from Alaska. Both of us have had the opportunity to serve in public office. Both of us come from States that are small in population but large in the impact that women have had on our Nation's history. We are from States with rich histories of accomplishments by women of all backgrounds and cultures.

For example, the legendary Senator Margaret Chase Smith was the first woman in history to serve in both the U.S. House and the Senate.

Pauline Elizabeth Hopkins, who has been called the dean of African- American Women Writers, and who has been considered one of the most prolific black female writers in the beginning of the 1900s, was born in Portland, ME.

Mary Gabriel, of the Passamaquoddy Tribe, was a famous Native- American basket weaver, largely credited with reviving the art in the State of Maine.

Brenda Commander is the first woman to be elected as chief of Maine's Maliseet Indian Tribe.

Is the Senator from Alaska aware of similar accomplishments by Alaskan women?

I certainly do. That is a wonderful story of a truly courageous woman.

We have many women such as that throughout Maine's history. Josephine Peary was one such woman. She was married to the great explorer, Robert E. Peary, who was the first to reach the North Pole, not that far from Alaska. They lived together on Eagle Island in Casco Bay, ME. Josephine began exploring when she accompanied her husband to Greenland on a journey sponsored by the Academy of Natural Sciences that would last for a year and a half. That travel, in 1892, made Josephine the first woman in history to be a member of an Arctic exploration team.

I understand that women in Alaska also have been pioneers in expanding opportunities for women to work outside of the home. I wonder if the Senator from Alaska might expand on that.

I would love to share that information with the Senator from Alaska. It is just fascinating to hear the many firsts that women from her State have established.

The Senator from Alaska obviously has a great deal of pride in the history of women in her State.

In Maine, too, we have women who have played influential roles throughout history, but especially in the field of literature.

I am sure all of my colleagues know well the story of Harriet Beecher. She wrote ``Uncle Tom's Cabin'' in 1850 while pregnant with her seventh child. She began writing the book while residing in Brunswick, ME. Her deep religious faith and dedication to bringing to light the problems with slavery encouraged ``Hattie'' to write with such passion that she quickly finished and continued to write an average of a book a year to support her family.

Another famous Mainer, Martha Ballard, also made important contributions. She lived in Hallowell, ME, and was a midwife and a healer. She faithfully maintained a diary from 1785 to 1812, and her meticulous records have provided us with a rare glimpse into the daily life in Maine in the late 1700s and the early 1800s. Her contributions and life were only recently highlighted when Laurel Ulrich documented her work in a Pulitzer Prize winning book ``The Midwife's Tale.''

America's first female novelist, Sally Sayward Barrell, also known as Madam Wood, was born in York, ME, in the southern tip of our State. She wrote five gothic novels, first under the signature of ``A Lady of Massachusetts,'' and then, later, under the signature of ``A Lady of Maine'' when Maine was granted statehood in 1820.

Another pioneering woman was Dorothea Dix. She was born in Hampden, ME, in 1802, and is considered a groundbreaking reformer in the area of treatment for individuals suffering from mental illness. She traveled the Nation advocating for a more compassionate, holistic approach to the treatment of those suffering from mental illness. She was truly ahead of her time. She also successfully lobbied Congress to establish the first and only national Federal mental health facility which would become a world premiere mental health and research center.

I ask my colleague to further expand on how Alaska has supported women and their accomplishments.

I would reply to my friend and colleague from Alaska that my role model and inspiration was the great Senator Margaret Chase Smith. She served as Senator from Maine the entire time I was growing up. She served in the Senate from 1949 to 1972. I realize how fortunate I was to have as a role model this courageous, smart, and brave woman who did so much and set so many firsts for America. I have often thought that the path for my colleague Olympia Snowe and myself to the Senate was paved by the remarkable Senator Margaret Chase Smith.

I remember well my very first meeting with Senator Smith. I was a senior in high school. I was in Washington for a special program, and she spent nearly 2 hours talking with me. She talked about national defense, her service on the Armed Services Committee and, most of all, about her decision to speak out against the excesses of Joseph McCarthy. That was an extraordinarily brave thing to do, but it was typical of Senator Smith, who had a courageous and independent spirit.

She was the first to do so many things. She was the first Republican Senator elected to the Senate. I would note that when I was elected to the Senate, Maine became the first State to send two Republican women to the Senate to serve at the same time. She was the first woman to serve in both the House and the Senate. She was the first woman to be backed by a major political party in a Presidential election. Long after it became commonplace for women to serve in the highest ranks of our Government, Senator Smith will always be acknowledged and remembered and honored in Maine for her dignity and her courage.

Although I didn't realize it at the time, when I look back at her meeting with me, I realize that that was the first step in a journey that led me to run for her seat 25 years later. I am so proud to hold the seat once held by the legendary Senator Margaret Chase Smith.

Women such as those the Senator from Alaska has spoken of and whom I have talked about today are the reason we are so proud to sponsor a bill that, at no cost to the taxpayers, directs that the Old Post Office Annex be made available to house the National Women's History Museum. We need a place for our country to honor the contributions of women, particularly for young girls who are coming to Washington to be able to go to this museum and learn about some of the remarkable women who have changed American history, about whom the Senator from Alaska and I have talked today. Women's history needs a place in our capital and in our collective American history.

I ask my colleague from Alaska if she would agree with that sentiment. She has been such a leader in getting this bill through.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for participating in this discussion tonight. She certainly continues that proud tradition in Alaska of women who have made a real difference. I am honored to serve with her. She does an extraordinary job. I also think we would be remiss in not recognizing the contributions of our Presiding Officer today, the Senator from North Carolina, Mrs. Dole, who also has established so many firsts in American history. I know that she, too, will be prominently featured in this museum once it comes about.

I think we can take great pride in being here tonight and knowing we have passed this legislation unanimously.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the following CBO summary of the cost estimate regarding S. 1522 be printed in the Record.

I say to the Senator from Nevada, about 12 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise to express my strong opposition to the conference agreement on the Energy bill we are debating today.

Our Nation needs a balanced energy policy that will increase supply, decrease demand, reduce our reliance on foreign oil, and protect our environment. Unfortunately, the Energy legislation before us fails to strike this necessary balance. In fact, it would be poor energy policy, poor environmental policy, and poor fiscal policy. It favors special interests, it contains billions of dollars in wasteful subsidies, and it fails to promote energy conservation. It would be bad for Maine's electricity consumers, it would be bad for Maine's manufacturers, and it would be bad for Maine's environment.

I am very disappointed that the renewable energy provision that I coauthored with Senator Bingaman was not included in the final version of this legislation. This provision would have required that 10 percent of our electricity come from clean, renewable energy sources by the year 2020. A majority of the Senate conferees voted in favor of this proposal, but unfortunately the House voted to remove it, thus passing up an important opportunity to increase fuel diversity, decrease natural gas prices, and reduce greenhouse gases.

This legislation would do very little to reduce our dangerous and increasing reliance on foreign fuels. The United States is nearly 60 percent reliant on foreign oil, and this number is projected to increase in the coming years, reaching as high as 70 or even 75 percent in the next decade to 15 years.

Senators Landrieu and Specter and I joined to offer an amendment to the Senate Energy version that directed the President to devise a plan to save 1 million barrels of oil per day by the year 2013. We did not dictate how that should be done. It could be done by increasing fuel efficiency standards for our trucks and cars. It could be done by moving toward more energy-efficient appliances. There are many ways that goal could be accomplished.

Not surprisingly, our amendment enjoyed widespread support in the Senate. In fact, it passed by a vote of 99 to 1. Inexplicably, the conferees voted to drop that provision from the final bill.

This legislation also contains numerous wasteful and very expensive subsidies, including a 5-billion-gallon ethanol mandate that will subsidize corn production in the Midwest at the expense of higher gas prices in New England. Ethanol is more expensive than gasoline. It is difficult to transport, it is of dubious value to the environment, and it does little to reduce our reliance on foreign fuels. In fact, studies show that it takes about 4 gallons of oil to produce 5 gallons of ethanol. If the goal were to reduce reliance on foreign fuels, we would be much better off increasing automobile fuel economy standards or mandating other achievable efficiency improvements.

The liability waiver for MTBE manufacturers also does not belong in this bill. The gasoline additive MTBE is a suspected carcinogen and has contaminated a number of ground water supplies in my home State of Maine, and I know it is also a problem in the home State of the Presiding Officer.

In 1998, for example, a ground water system serving 5,000 people and operated by the Portland Water District was contaminated by MTBE. This incident cost the Portland water district $1.5 million. The liability provisions in this legislation will leave MTBE manufacturers with little incentive to help clean up contaminated water supplies. The likely result will be that municipal ratepayers will have to shoulder a majority of the cleanup costs.

The electricity title of this bill is particularly troubling to me because it is biased against the Northeast. Three months ago, the largest blackout in our Nation's history illustrated the fundamental flaws in a haphazard and poorly regulated electricity market.

Just today, the General Accounting Office, at my request, released a new report on electricity restructuring that analyzed the blackout and identified what steps should be taken to ensure greater reliability of the electric grid. Unfortunately, the recommendations that are in the GAO report fly in the face of what has been done in the legislation we are debating today.

Electricity regulators in the areas most affected by the blackout in the Northeast and the Midwest have stated that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, known as FERC, needs to move ahead with standardized electricity markets in order to improve the reliability of our markets. Since electricity flows across power lines without regard to State boundaries, we need clear and consistent electricity rules that apply to the entire Nation. Unfortunately, this legislation would actually prohibit FERC from moving ahead with standardized markets for another 3 years. I am astounded by that.

Earlier this year, many of us representing States in both the Northeast and the Midwest wrote to the conferees to share our views on the electricity issues that were being debated in the conference. We quoted our regulators on the impact of delaying these FERC rules. Specifically, we stated:

Our States feel strongly that any delay of SMD [the

standard market design] hurts efforts to provide reasonably

priced and reliable electricity to consumers and businesses.

In fact, Ohio Governor Bob Taft, in testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, stated that he believes that any delay would ``impose an intolerable risk on the nation.''

He went on to say:

We urge you to reject proposals to further delay FERC's

ability to address issues which have a direct effect on the

cost and reliability of electricity, for millions of our

constituents.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letters we sent to the conferees be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. President, in view of our urging the conferees to not interfere with FERC going ahead with these commonsense and necessary regulations, you can imagine my disappointment to discover that this bill, in fact, delays these regulations by FERC for 3 years.

I am also very troubled by the subsidies for pollution control equipment for some of our Nation's dirtiest powerplants. Why should taxpayers pay for pollution control technologies for 40-year-old coal- fired powerplants that were grandfathered under the Clean Air Act? Recently, when three advanced natural gas plants were built in Maine, these plants installed state-of-the-art, advanced pollution control technologies without any subsidies, without being subsidized by the American taxpayers. The cost of this technology was borne by electricity consumers in the State of Maine and other States in the Northeast. The cost of electricity from the oldest coal-fired powerplants has long been subsidized through exemptions from the pollution controls mandated by the Clean Air Act. To further this subsidy by authorizing billions--billions--of taxpayer subsidies for the dirtiest plants makes no sense at all, and it will have the effect of continuing to ensure a disparity in the price of electricity between regions in which pollution and other costs are subsidized and regions such as ours, in New England, which are not the beneficiary of these subsidies. That is not fair. It is not fair to our taxpayers, and it is not fair to our electricity consumers.

I am further disappointed by the inclusion of language in the electricity title which will undercut the nationwide development of clean power generation. This language, which is known as the participant funding language, effectively negates the benefits of the combined heat and power provisions that Senator Carper and I worked so

hard to include in this bill. The participant funding language actually creates a disincentive for clean energy generation by allowing monopoly utilities to shift the costs of transmission upgrades onto clean power generation, such as combined heat and power--the cogeneration plants.

This provision is particularly harmful to our manufacturers, many of whom use combined heat and power to generate products and jobs.

The last thing we need in this country is another disincentive for our manufacturers. In the Northeast in particular, manufacturers are already struggling to cope with high electric rates. The last thing we should be doing is shifting more of the costs on to them.

The legislation would also increase greenhouse gas emissions, waste natural gas and other already scarce fuels, and harm air quality.

The bill's failure to address climate change is yet another disappointment. It seems a near certainty that greenhouse gas emissions will increase by hundreds of millions of tons under this legislation. Yet the entire climate change title has been stripped from this bill. If we are going to spend billions of dollars on oil and gas and coal projects that will increase greenhouse gas emissions, then at least we should determine whether such an increase in emissions could cause an abrupt and potentially dangerous change in our climate.

Unfortunately, the abrupt climate change provisions that I authored were also omitted from the final version of the bill.

In summary, this bill does not offer the balanced energy policy that America needs. It does not do enough to increase energy efficiency or renewable energy. It does not promote conservation. It does not protect our environment. It does not give FERC adequate authority to provide reliable electricity markets. And it will not reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

I cannot in good conscience vote in favor of ending the debate on this legislation, and I call on my colleagues to take a close look at the provisions of this bill. I believe as they delve into this bill they will realize that it is fundamentally flawed and should be rejected.

In doing so, we would save the taxpayers some $80 billion, and we would signal our support for a more balanced energy policy for this Nation.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Exhibit 1

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, July 25, 2003.

Hon. Pete V. Domenici,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S.

Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Jeff Bingaman,

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Bingaman: We are

writing to urge you to continue our nation's efforts to move

toward competitive wholesale electricity markets that will

benefit consumers and businesses. National competitive

markets, where multiple buyers and sellers can negotiate

bargains and pass cost savings along to consumers, are the

best approach to the challenges facing the electricity

industry.

We would like to bring to your attention a number of issues

addressed in the electricity title of the Senate Energy Bill

(S. 14) that have implications for residents and businesses

in the Northeast-Midwest region.

Delay of Standard Market Design--S. 14 and the proposed

substitute amendment delays the implementation of the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) standard market design

until July 2005. Electricity markets have outgrown state

boundaries. We are writing to express our concern with the

proposed delay of standard market design and the provision to

make participation in regional transmission organizations

voluntary. The delay has serious implications for residents

and businesses in the Northeast-Midwest region and throughout

the nation.

A standard market design would streamline the wholesale

electricity industry, encourage transmission investments and

move the lower 48 states toward a more competitive

electricity market. Congested power lines, which are the

result of the current electricity system, cost customers and

businesses throughout the United States billions of dollars

each year, whereas competitive wholesale power markets could

deliver billions of dollars in economic benefits.

Schwab Capital Markets detailed the importance of

standardized markets to increasing investment in our nation's

transmission grid and electricity generation.

Testifying before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air

Quality, Christine Tezak with Schwab states: ``We believe

that capital will be less expensive for all market

participants if FERC continues (and is permitted to continue)

its efforts to provide reasonably clear and consistent rules

for this business . . . Schwab WRG continues to view

continued efforts to move forward with the restructuring of

the electricity industry to be the best investment

environment for the widest variety of participants in the

electricity marketplace--whether they provide generation,

transmission, distribution or a combination of these

services--and most importantly, the most likely to provide

sustained long-term benefits to consumers.'' Further, Ms.

Tezak stated: ``Congress needs to decide whether or not it

still believes in the 1992 Energy Policy Act. Today, Congress

is becoming an increasing part of the reason capital is hard

to attract to this business. Congress is calling for FERC to

slow down, Wall Street is frustrated FERC won't move

faster.''

S. 14 makes participation of federal utilities in Regional

Transmission Organizations voluntary. Federal taxpayer

dollars were used to develop and maintain Federal power

marketing agencies such as the Tennessee Valley Authority and

Bonneville Power. The energy generated by these facilities

should benefit all Americans. TVA and Bonneville should be

required to participate in RTOs so communities throughout the

United States have access to the power generated at these

Federal facilities.

The Energy Bill must put national interest above the

interest of a few vertically-integrated utilities that want

to maintain regional monopolies. We encourage you to support

standardizing electricity markets and prevent further delay

of these efforts.

Participant Funding--S. 14 and the proposed substitute

amendment directs FERC to establish rules to ``ensure that

the costs of any transmission expansion interconnection be

allocated in such a way that all users of the affected

transmission system bear the appropriate share of costs.''

The language requires FERC to fairly align the costs and

benefits of transmission upgrades, a judgment that can

include a consideration of relevant local factors. This is

not only the most equitable approach but also the one most

likely to ensure that transmission development will keep pace

with growing electricity demand.

Combined Heat and Power--S. 14 currently contains the

``Carper-Collins'' language which keeps in place incentives

to operate combined heat and power facilities until true

competition exists in electricity markets. This language

retains, for a limited time, the provisions of the Public

Utility Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA) which require utilities

to provide back-up power and buy electricity from qualifying

combined heat and power facilities. As soon as competitive

electricity markets are established, these requirements are

repealed. Since combined heat and power saves energy, reduces

greenhouse gas emissions, increases energy independence, and

is good for the competitiveness of American manufacturing, we

urge you to retain such provisions.

We urge you to complete the work Congress started with the

Energy Policy Act of 1992 to provide reliable, low-cost

electricity to customers. Please stand strong against

pressure to reverse court on Congress' efforts to establish

better working, competitive markets, and to continue working

towards competitive electricity markets.

Sincerely,

Jack Reed, Olympia J. Snowe, Edward M. Kennedy, Arlen

Specter, Susan M. Collins, Debbie Stabenow, Frank

Lautenberg, Carl Levin.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of a Sense of the Senate amendment that Senator Sarbanes and I are offering with respect to the section 8 housing voucher program. This amendment states that section 8 housing vouchers are a critical housing resource, that public housing authorities must be able to use all of their authorized vouchers, and that the Senate expects the Department of Housing and Urban Development to take all necessary steps to encourage full voucher utilization.

Our Nation is facing a critical shortage of affordable housing. A recent study by the Joint Center on Housing Studies at Harvard University indicates that approximately 30 percent of American families have housing affordability problems, with as many as 14.3 million families paying more than half of their income for housing costs and 17.3 million families paying 30 to 50 percent of their income toward housing costs. The same study indicates that 9.3 million families live in housing that is overcrowded or distressed, and 3.5 million households in the United States will experience homelessness at some point this year. That last number includes more than 1.3 million children.

As the gap between wages and housing costs grows, the number of working families who are unable to afford adequate housing continues to increase. On average, a family must earn over $15 per hour to afford modest rental housing, and in many cases, rising costs have led to families simply being priced out of the housing market. In my home state of Maine, the City of Portland offers a prime example of this phenomenon. The National Housing Conference reports that, in 1999, the median home price in Portland was $12,500. By 2001, that median price had increased to $158,000. During this period, Fair Market Rent for a two-bedroom apartment jumped from $641 to

$817 per month, and this trend of increasing disparity between wages and housing costs shows little sign of abating.

Section 8 housing vouchers help approximately 2 million families with children, senior citizens, and disabled individuals afford a safe and decent place to live. The congressionally appointed, bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission found that housing vouchers are ``the linchpin of a national housing policy providing very low-income renters access to privately owned housing stock. Currently, utilization of vouchers is at a high of 96 percent, and is on course to rise to 97 percent in fiscal year 2004, according to data provided by HUD. The average cost per voucher has also steadily increased from just over $6,400 in August of 2002, to $6,756 in April, 2003, and the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost per voucher in FY 2004 will be $7,028.

Our amendment states that it is the sense of the Senate that: 1. housing voucher are a critical resource in ensuring that families in America can afford safe, decent, and adequate housing; 2. public housing agencies must retain the ability to use 100 percent of their authorized vouchers to help house low-income families; and 3. the Senate expects the Department of Housing and Urban Development to take all necessary actions to encourage full utilization of vouchers, and to use all legally available resources as needed to support full funding for housing vouchers in fiscal year 2004, so that every voucher can be used by a family in need.

To many families, older, and disabled individuals, section 8 housing vouchers are the difference between having a safe, decent place to live and homelessness. it should be the sense of the Senate that HUD use all legally available funds to support every authorized voucher, and I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Will the distinguished Senator yield for a question?

The Senator from Utah is an extraordinary lawyer, and he also has a distinguished history in the Senate and has served so ably as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I wonder, given the Senator's breadth of experience, if he happens to know the origin of the word filibuster and could he enlighten the Members of this body and those who

are watching tonight as to its origin and meaning.

I thank the Senator for his clarification. That is indeed fascinating and we have learned a great deal here this evening.

Mr. President, once again we find our young men and women in harm's way in a foreign land. As they have so many times in our history, Americans in uniform carry the torch of freedom in their hands and the promise of peace in their hearts as they face those who would rule by tyranny and violence. On this Veterans Day, I rise not only to commend our veterans but also to recognize the men and women of the State of Maine engaged on the front lines in the Global War on Terrorism.

Maine is well represented by young men and women serving on active duty in our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. Since September 11, 2001, citizen-soldiers from across the State of Maine from all Reserve and Guard components have closed ranks with those on active duty to protect our shores and secure our future.

The men and women from Maine have left homes, jobs, and loved ones to answer the call to duty. Senior Master Sergeant Stephen Valley is among them. Steve, who hails from Millinocket, ME, left the active Air Force in 1994 after nearly eighteen years of service. In 1998, he joined the Air Force Reserve, and despite family challenges, including a father sick with Parkinson's disease, stepped forward and mobilized in November of 2001. Steve served nearly continously in the Middle East since then, including duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, until he retired from active service on November 1. He is a man of courage and character. He represents the best we offer to a world longing for freedom and peace.

Mainers are deployed around the globe. Nearly twenty-five percent of the Maine Army National Guard is on alert, mobilized, or deployed. Maine National Guard soldiers are guarding prisoners at Guantanamo Naval Station in Cuba. Soldiers of Company E, 120th Aviation of Bangor are controlling air traffic in Afghanistan. Members of the 112th Air Ambulance Unit

from Bangor are performing medivac missions in Iraq. Soldiers of the 11-36 Transportation Company from Bangor and Sanford are moving supplies across Iraq and Kuwait. Soldiers from the 94th Military Police Company of Maine and New Hampshire are performing police missions across Iraq and are helping to train Iraqi forces to assume security responsibilities.

This past summer, I went to Iraq. I met hundreds of American and British troops. I saw people from Maine performing key roles in rebuilding the country after the fall of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. In the city of Kirkuk, I ate lunch with five service members from Maine--Specialist Gregory Norster of Phillips, Chief Warrant Officer Brian Mucci of Shapleigh, Specialist Wayne Goodrich from Oakland, Specialist Erin Maynard from Washburn, and Senior Airman Bill Spreng from Ellsworth. The contributions of Mainers to bring freedom to the people of Iraq make me very proud.

The courage and commitment of the American and other coalition troops were strikingly clear during my visit. By night, many of the soldiers conduct raids on pockets of resistance; by day, they renovate schools, rebuild roads and utilities, and help Iraqis take their first steps toward democracy. Despite the continuing danger, the harsh living conditions, and the oppressive heat, morale among the soldiers and Marines I met was high. Army Sergeant Michael Levesque of Winslow put it best when he told me how proud he was to have ``helped to give the Iraqi people a precious gift: their freedom.'' In Kirkuk, where I met Michael, morale was particularly high because the Iraqis there are so grateful. Everywhere we went in this city south of the Kurdish section, local citizens waved and called out ``thank you, America!''

By contrast, conditions--both in July and today--remain hostile in and around Baghdad. Our troops face near daily ambushes and sniper attacks. The fighting goes on for many of our troops who must contend with the threat of rocket-propelled grenades, improvised explosive devices, and rogue gunmen.

Of all the places I have visited as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, including Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Korea, nowhere have I found the challenges more difficult and the dangers more present than in Iraq. In the end, the commitment of the Iraqi people will determine whether Iraq will prosper in peace and freedom, or succumb to a violent minority bent on division, destruction, and domination. The dedicated young men and women serving in uniform, from Maine and from all over America, are giving the Iraqi people the opportunity to seize what all humanity desires and deserves.

On this day set aside to honor sacrifice, we must also honor the sacrifices made by the spouses, parents, children and other loved ones of our troops. The families left behind must face the challenges of daily living as they suffer from the separation and from the relentless worry. The news of any casualty strikes a chilling chord in their hearts. Every death, every injury, is a blow to them as they wait, and hope, and pray.

In September, I met with family members of the deployed soldiers of the 94th Military Police company. These families have had to endure two extended deployments in three years: the 94th conducted a peacekeeping rotation to Bosnia that ended in 2001; in 2002, the 94th was called to arms again and is performing admirably in Iraq. The soldiers of the 94th are proud and professional and committed to getting the job done. Their families bear the burden of absence and uncertainty. Among them was Penny Mills, wife of Sergeant Curtis Mills of Shapleigh, ME.

Just one week later, soldiers of the 94th were ambushed in Iraq. Two were severely wounded: Specialist Christopher Kotch of Brunswick and Sergeant Curtis Mills. Soon after, I visited them at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. There was Penny, standing by her husband. We had no idea we would meet again--not so soon, not under those circumstances. Sergeant Mills, with the support of his wife and family, is recovering well. After reconstructive surgery and extensive physical therapy, he will one day return to work as a letter carrier. Specialist Kotch, after his recovery, will likely return to college and a life of possibility and promise.

In times of peace and in times of trial, we rely on our young men and women to step forward for our defense. The citizens of Maine have answered the call. America's first casualty in the War on Terrorism was Master SGT Evander Earl Andrews of Solon, ME, who lost his life in Qatar on October 10, 2001. Today, in Litchfield, ME, a father grieves for his daughter, Army Warrant Officer Sharon Swartworth, who miraculously survived the attack on the Pentagon two years ago but who did not survive an attack on a Black Hawk helicopter in Iraq last Friday. These are but two of the soldiers who died not just in the service of their country, but also in the service of mankind. They did so on behalf of millions of people they did not know--innocent Iraqis, Afghans, and Americans who died on 9-11, and all peace-loving people everywhere.

Our service members and veterans--whether they served in World War I or II, Korea, Vietnam, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, Kuwait, or now in Afghanistan or Iraq--share a common bond: their uniform is not that of a conqueror, but of a liberator. We can never fully pay the debt we owe those who put their lives on the line to advance the cause of freedom.

Nor can we repay the debt we owe those families and loved ones they leave behind. The enormity of that debt was best summed up one-hundred thirty-nine years ago in a President's letter to a mother who lost five sons in the war to preserve this Nation. I will close with the words of Abraham Lincoln:

I feel how weak and fruitless must be any words of mine

which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss

so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the

consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic

they died to save.

I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of

your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of

the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours

to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after I have concluded my remarks and the senior Senator from West Virginia has concluded his remarks that the Senator from Georgia, Senator Chambliss, be recognized for 8 minutes.

Mr. President, let me begin my remarks this evening by commending the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Both Senator Warner and Senator Levin care deeply about strengthening our national defense and about supporting the men and women who wear the uniform. It has been a great pleasure to work with both of my colleagues. I particularly appreciate their work on what was an extremely challenging conference with the House of Representatives.

Personally, I have very mixed feelings about this conference agreement, but on balance I believe it deserves our support. For example, it provides much-needed support for naval shipbuilding, it provides a pay raise and improved health care benefits for our men and women in uniform, it provides real progress in providing concurrent receipt to our disabled veterans. It has many provisions that are absolutely essential, particularly in this time of war.

On the other hand, I am disappointed, for example, with the environmental provisions that have been included in this conference report. I felt the Senate version of the DOD authorization struck a far better balance than the provisions in the House bill, or even the compromises that are included in this conference report. I believe it is a false choice to say we have to sacrifice environmental protection in order to allow our troops to get the training they need. I much preferred the Senate version in this regard.

What I most want to comment on tonight are the Civil Service provisions that have been included in this legislation. The primary goal of our Federal personnel system should be the recruitment and retention of the highest quality workforce to serve the citizens of the United States. Unfortunately, the current antiquated system does not always achieve that goal. It has become too cumbersome for agencies to hire good employees, particularly those with specialized skills or expertise. It has become too difficult to reward outstanding workers, and it has become almost impossible to remove poor performers. Clearly, reforms are needed.

Earlier this year, the Department of Defense delivered to Congress a far-reaching proposal to restructure the Department's civilian personnel system. Unfortunately, the Department's proposal went too far and it did not include important safeguards to protect good employees.

To strike a better balance, I worked hard with several of my colleagues, including Senator Levin and Senator Voinovich, to craft an alternative that would give the Department of Defense the authority it needed to create a more responsive system while providing vital protections for the civil servants who work for the Department. The stakes in this debate were very high because the Department employs some 735,000 civilian employees. That is approximately a quarter of the entire workforce. So we needed to get this right. We needed to come up with a system that was more flexible but that was also fair to the civilian employees of the Department.

Title 5 of the United States Code sets forth the rights and the duties of Federal workers and defines their relationship with management. It is a series of laws committed to the jurisdiction of the Governmental Affairs Committee which I am privileged to chair. I take our responsibility for these laws very seriously. In fact, I would have much preferred for this matter to be addressed through the normal committee process. Indeed, the Governmental Affairs Committee, as Senator Akaka mentioned in his remarks, approved a carefully drafted bill by a vote of 10 to 1. This was a bipartisan bill that Senator Levin helped to craft, along with Senator Voinovich and myself. It had the cosponsorship of several members of the committee including Senator Akaka, Senator Sununu, and several others.

Unfortunately, the House acted to include this issue as part of the Defense Department authorization bill and thus that prompted the resolution of this important matter in conference.

This conference agreement, while by no means perfect, is a reasonable compromise to the challenge of modernizing an outdated system while protecting employees' rights. It is not as I would have drafted it. It does not represent fully the compromise so carefully crafted in a bipartisan manner by the Governmental Affairs Committee, the committee of jurisdiction. But we have included several important safeguards in this conference report.

For example, employees subject to adverse personnel actions will have an independent appeals process and an independent third party will resolve collective bargaining disputes. These are two essential reforms that were not included in the Department's original proposal.

Another very important provision in this bill has to do with the collective bargaining rights of the Department's employees. The Department of Defense has repeatedly claimed it has no desire to waive the collective bargaining rights of its employees. Indeed, the bill before the Senate specifically states the Department does not have the authority to waive the chapter of title 5 that governs labor-management relations. Thus, I fully expect the labor relations system developed by the Department will abide by the principles enumerated in chapter 71, such as the duty to bargain in good faith--a duty that applies to both labor and management, incidentally--and the prohibition against unfair labor practices.

Furthermore, the Department's ability to change employee management relations sunsets in 6 years, providing an additional check, another safeguard, on the Department as it develops its labor relations system. We put in specific language to require collaboration with the representatives of employees to make sure this is a collaborative, rather than a confrontational, process.

In addition, the final bill does not include the unilateral waiver authority sought by the Secretary which would have enabled the Department to waive the process for developing the system in the interests of national security.

This actually was originally proposed by the Department and was a completely unilateral waiver that would have allowed the Secretary to waive virtually all personnel laws and regulations. I am pleased we have not included that authority. I do not think it is necessary, and it is contrary to the spirit of developing a modern personnel system in a collaborative way with the employees of the Department.

The Governmental Affairs Committee will keep a very close eye on the Department of Defense as it develops the regulations to implement the new national security personnel system to ensure a collaborative process that will lead to a modern, effective, and fair personnel system. Senators Levin, Voinovich, Sununu, Stevens, Akaka, Lieberman, and Chambliss, and I will work together with our colleagues who care about this issue on both committees to ensure that the Department creates a system that is consistent with the merit system principles afforded to other Federal employees.

The Office of Personnel Management will also play a crucial role in the development of the system. And I trust that the Department will make every effort to use the expertise of Director Kay Coles James and her staff.

Finally, I thank Senator Levin, who has worked so hard on this issue. As the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and as the senior member on the Governmental Affairs Committee, he, more than any other Member in this body, has unique experience and expertise which he brought to bear on this issue.

I also pay tribute to the chairman of the committee, Senator Warner, who was very gracious in deferring to my

strong interest in this area. He did allow and encourage me to take the lead in what were difficult negotiations with the administration and the House on this issue.

In the end, the product is not the one I would have preferred, but it does represent a reasonable approach and one that I hope will be successful in creating a modern, fair, and efficient personnel system for the Department of Defense.

Mr. President, I rise today to draw attention to a looming crisis for New England's groundfishermen. Last week, the New England Fishery Management Council voted to adopt a set of new regulations, known as Amendment 13. This package of regulations will permanently alter the character of New England's groundfish fishery, and will particularly harm the fishermen in my home State of Maine. This sweeping change in fisheries management is largely unneeded; in fact, most stocks of fish in the groundfish complex are rapidly rebuilding. There is a much larger problem in the fishery management process that has subverted a system of rational management and forced these unnecessary changes on our fishing industry. That problem is excessive litigation.

Amendment 13, like many other regulations driven by excessive litigation, will permanently harm Maine's fishermen and related businesses. Historically, numerous coastal communities in Maine have taken part in and benefitted from the groundfish fishery. Unfortunately, regulatory changes will force many of Maine's smaller groundfish boats out of the industry. Small fishing communities like Stonington, Rockland, and Port Clyde which used to be home to many groundfish vessels, are already suffering due to restricted access to fish stocks. The changes to these coastal communities clearly stem from regulations born of excessive litigation.

Further, these burdensome regulations will hurt boats of all sizes. Many small boats will not survive due to severe cuts in fishing time combined with the long distances that must be traveled in order to access fish stocks. In addition, Maine's larger vessels are leaving our States, moving to southern New England ports, in an effort to survive this latest round of regulations. The damaging effect of such an exodus on Maine's fishing infrastructure, which is at a critical minimum, will be irreparable. As Amendment 13 is put into place, revenues will continue to move south, and Maine's working waterfront will vanish, to be replaced by coastal development.

The drastic sacrifices demanded of our fishermen might be worthwhile if New England groundfish were truly at risk. However, fish stocks are rebounding at a tremendous rate. For example, Georges Bank haddock biomass figures have gone from less than 20,000 metric tons in 1994 to roughly 100,000 metric tons in 2002. Overall, groundfish biomass figures have tripled since 1994. This fishery is a success story. Unfortunately, litigants refuse to agree. They have stolen management authority away from the regional councils and given this power to the courts, which are particularly ill-suited to make biological decisions.

Excessive litigation also diverts precious resources from the main mission of the National Marine Fisheries Service: fisheries management. Each year the Service spends time and money defending itself in the courts. In fact, this year the Senate is considering appropriating $5 million to the National Marine Fisheries Service exclusively for the purpose of fighting litigation. This money could be better spent conducting research, if our management system was not engulfed in litigation.

We all suffer when a management system is under siege from excessive litigation. As in the case of Amendment 13, management plans are developed under an aura of crisis where managers must meet court- appointed goals before court-appointed deadlines. What we need instead, is fisheries management developed with measure and reason. We need a system where the views of stakeholders are valued.

In 1976, Congress passed the Fishery Conservation and Management Act. One of the strongest aspects of this act was the creation of regional fishery management councils. These councils rely on the participation of those who know the most about our Nation's fisheries. Unfortunately, some advocacy groups have chosen to bypass the council system by proceeding straight to court. In fact, one of these groups has already threatened to sue the National Marine Fisheries Service if they do not get what they want out of Amendment 13. This is truly discouraging, considering these regulations have yet to be published. Excessive litigation should not continue to diminish the participatory nature of fisheries management by removing decision-making authority away from those most qualified to manage our Nation's fisheries.

The Amendment 13 process is a clear example of why fisheries management belongs in the hands of fisheries managers. The courts handed our regional managers a set of impossible goals and an impossible time frame in which to achieve these goals. Nothing but the impossible can result from this situation, despite the efforts of regional managers to create a reasonable management plan. This entire process only demonstrates the weaknesses of regulation driven by excessive litigation, and the need to take management decisions out of the courts and place them back in the council system. That will require changes in the law.

Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment, along with my colleagues Senators Leahy and Snowe. This amendment will protect the funding for important working lands conservation programs, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, FRPP, the Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program, WHIP, and the Grassland Reserve Program, GRP. It will do so by prohibiting the U.S. Department of Agriculture from diverting funds from these working lands conservation programs in order to fund the technical assistance costs of another conservation program, the Conservation Reserve Program, CRP.

Working lands conservation programs provide vital assistance to a large number of farmers, but they are especially critical to small and specialty crop growers, such as the potato and blueberry growers in my State of Maine. These programs help farmers manage their land in ways that improve production while, at the same time, protecting the environment, reducing agricultural runoff, and enhancing wildlife habitat.

Unfortunately, despite the large increase in funding for these programs contained in the Farm Bill of 2002, a significant number of family farmers who wish to participate in these programs--who seek assistance in their efforts to change their farming practices in order to improve water quality and availability in their communities, or to restore wetlands--have been turned away.

They have been turned away because the U.S. Department of Agriculture decided to divert funds from these working lands conservation programs in order to pay for technical assistance for the Conservation Reserve Program. Although the Conservation Reserve Program is itself a worthy program, it serves a different purpose than the working land conservation programs. The most significant of the differences between these programs is that the Conservation Reserve Program provides payments to farmers who take farmland out of production, while the working land conservation programs provide assistance to farmers who want to keep farming their land--but to do so in a way that helps the environment.

When we enacted the farm bill of 2002, we recognized the value of both of these types of programs, the Conservation Reserve Program and the working lands conservation programs, and provided significant funding for both types of programs. The Department of Agriculture's decision to divert funds from the working lands conservation programs in order to pay for technical assistance for the Conservation Reserve Program is not consistent with the carefully crafted balance reached in the farm bill. It is also inconsistent with the commitment made by Congress and the administration to America's farmers and ranchers--a commitment to provide assistance to those who wish to participate in voluntary conservation programs while keeping their land in agricultural production.

This amendment closes the loophole that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has used to divert funds from these working lands conservation programs in order to pay for other priorities that the Department deems more important. With this amendment, we keep the commitment made to our farmers and ranchers in the farm bill of 2002--a commitment to support and assist them as they work to enhance their stewardship of the land. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe, in offering an amendment that will expand the borders of the Aroostook County Empowerment Zone to include the entire county, so that the benefits of empowerment zone designation can be fully realized throughout the northernmost county in Maine.

The Department of Agriculture's Empowerment Zone program addresses a comprehensive range of community challenges, including many that have traditionally received little Federal assistance, reflecting the fact that rural problems do not come in standardized packages but can vary widely from one place to another. The Empowerment Zone Program represents a long-term partnership between the Federal Government and rural communities--10 years in most cases--so that communities have enough time to implement projects to build the capacity to sustain their development beyond the term of the partnership. An Empowerment Zone designation gives designated regions potential access to millions of dollars in Federal grants for social services and community redevelopment as well as tax and regulatory relief over a ten-year period.

Aroostook County is the largest county east of the Mississippi River. Yet, despite the impressive character and work ethic of its citizens, the County has fallen on hard times. The 2000 Census indicated a 15 percent loss in population since 1990. Loring Air Force Base, which was closed in 1994, also caused an immediate out-migration of 8,500 people and a further out-migration of families and businesses that depended on Loring for their customer base.

Unfair trade practices have also struck a blow to the County's economy. Aroostook shares more border miles with Canada than most northern states. It is bordered for approximately 280 miles to the west, north and east by Canada. Canadian farmers and businesses have been extremely competitive in Aroostook's traditional business markets; as a result, Aroostook's farmers have experienced a loss in sales which has caused additional job loss, and still more people migrating from Aroostook County. Aroostook's economic situation has been further worsened by the strong value of the Canadian dollar in relation to the U.S. dollar and the restrictive personal exemption duty limits that Canada imposes on its citizens when they make shopping trips to U.S. businesses on the border.

In response to these developments, the Northern Maine Development Commission and other economic development organizations, the private business sector, and community leaders in Aroostook County have joined forces to stabilize, diversify, and grow the area's economy. The designation of Aroostook as an Empowerment Zone has been a vital element of this ongoing effort to enhance both the present and the future economic prosperity of the county.

There is, however, a restriction in the law governing empowerment zones that prevents this tremendous program from benefitting all of the small rural communities in Aroostook. Currently, the law limits the Aroostook empowerment zone to 1,000 square miles, despite the fact that Aroostook covers some 6,672 square miles and only has a population of approximately 72,000 people. Including all of the county in the empowerment zone will guarantee that parts of the county will not be left behind as economic prosperity returns to the area. It does little good to have a company move from one community to another within the County simply to take advantage of empowerment zone benefits.

America's greatest success can only be achieved when everyone has the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of a strong economy. It is only fair that all of Aroostook County's population be given the opportunity to fully benefit from the Empowerment Zone Program.

I appreciate the Senator's comments, and I look forward to working with him. I would also like to assure him that I do not believe the Governmental Affairs Committee's jurisdiction affects in any way the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction over immigration and naturalization matters, as set forth in Senate Rule XXV. The Governmental Affairs Committee was responsible for the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which created the new Department of Homeland Security. The committee has conducted wide-ranging and vigorous oversight of the Department and, this year alone, has reported out six bills that address homeland security concerns. In total, the Governmental Affairs Committee has held over 30 hearings on homeland security matters, thus reflecting the paramount role it plays with respect to these matters.

The committee also has handled the nominations of almost all of the Department's nominees. On June 5 of this year, our committee held a hearing on Mr. Garcia's nomination. We reported his nomination to the full Senate on June 17. We then agreed to a referral of Mr. Garcia's nomination to the Judiciary Committee. I understand that my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, now seeks a second referral of the nomination in order to complete its work thereon. I have no objection to my colleagues' request.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the conference report providing supplemental funding for our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I will support the conference report because I believe we cannot abandon

either Iraq or Afghanistan prior to ensuring that both countries are becoming free, democratic, and stable societies. We are asking our men and women in uniform to put their lives on the line to accomplish this mission. Their sacrifices must not be in vain. We have an obligation to ensure that our troops receive the resources needed to do their jobs as safely and as effectively as possible. This bill will help to accomplish that goal.

Terrorists operating in Iraq are actively working with the remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime against the establishment of a democratic government in Iraq. Every time a bomb explodes, we face a test, a test of our resolve to stay and finish the job. It is not easy to stay the course when our American troops are dying and getting wounded. But to walk away from Iraq would hand these terrorists a victory. To walk away from Iraq now would abandon innocent Iraqis to yet another authoritarian regime that oppresses human rights and threatens the entire region.

Three-quarters of the funding in this bill will help provide our soldiers with the tools they need to get the job done as safely and effectively as possible. The bill includes additional personnel and health care support, much-needed protective equipment, such as body armor and fortified Humvees that will help keep our troops safer, and funding for expanded military operations to pursue terrorists globally. The bill also provides $18.6 billion to build a modern infrastructure for Iraq and to strengthen security forces. Basic services are a fundamental building block of a modern country. As we recently experienced with Hurricane Isabel, the lack of reliable electricity and clean water supplies can disrupt the most modern functioning of societies. That, obviously, was a very small-scale disruption compared to what is being experienced in present-day Iraq.

I agree with the administration's proposal that we must focus on building an infrastructure. When I visited Iraq in July, I was struck by how little damage to the infrastructure was caused by the war. Our precision targeting spared the bridges and much of the infrastructure of this country, but nevertheless the infrastructure is in shambles.

It is in shambles because of the decades of personal greed and neglect of Saddam Hussein. So building a modern infrastructure for Iraq is critical to helping this country get back on its feet as a functioning economy and a modern society.

Despite my support for the goal of building an infrastructure, I want to make very clear that I am very disappointed that the conferees dropped a Senate provision I offered with many of my colleagues, including Senators Bayh, Ensign, Nelson, and Graham. That provision would have provided for half of the money to be used for the infrastructure rebuilding in the form of a long-term loan to Iraq. Both the Senate and the House expressed strong bipartisan support for this approach. I continue to strongly believe there are ways to structure our reconstruction assistance that would provide the Iraqi people with the assistance they need, when they need it, while lessening the long- term impact on the American taxpayers.

We should make Iraq a partner in this rebuilding venture, not simply the recipient of our goodwill. Iraq has abundant human and economic resources to enable it to shoulder some of the responsibility for its own future. It has been pointed out many times--but perhaps it bears repeating--that Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. The administration has estimated that within 2 years Iraq will be generating $20 billion in annual oil revenue. With such an economic capability, Iraq undoubtedly will have the financial resources to repay this loan one day.

I recognize--I emphasize--the need for help in the short term, but surely our taxpayers could be partially repaid in the long term.

The American people are very generous. They understand that Iraq needs our help right now. But in the long term, we will be better off if we act in partnership with the Iraqi people, giving them a sense of ownership in their own infrastructure by working with them, lending money to them, and by making this a shared responsibility.

Let me point out that the World Bank and the IMF have pledged money in the form of loans at the recent donors conference. Although they attached some conditions to the establishment of a loan program, these international financial institutions clearly believe that administering loans to Iraq is doable and that the country will have the capacity to repay this money in the future.

Finally, I remain very troubled that the status of Iraq's preliberation foreign debt remains unclear. Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, and Russia should not be repaid for debts incurred by Saddam Hussein while the United States invests billions of its own dollars in reclaiming the country for the Iraqi people. Indeed, if the leaders of three of those nations had had their way, Iraq would still be suffering under the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. The American taxpayer will be justifiably furious if one dime of his money goes even indirectly to repaying the debts incurred by Saddam Hussein.

As we go forward with the distribution of the aid provided by this bill, it is critical that the administration continue to vigorously pursue an international agreement that will ensure that the holders of Saddam-era debt will not seek repayment. American taxpayers' money simply cannot be used, even indirectly, to repay the dirty debts of a dictator. That was another advantage of our loan proposal. It would have made it very far less likely that that could occur.

This is particularly important after the donors conference made crystal clear that many wealthy nations, such as Saudi Arabia, France, and Germany, are apparently unwilling to donate any significant sums to the rebuilding cause.

Despite my reservations, I believe this package will pave the way to the day when our soldiers finally come home from Iraq. We must not waiver in our mission to eliminate terrorism and bring democracy and stability to Iraq and to the Middle East. I hope we will continue to consider ways we can achieve this goal that are fair to the American taxpayers and that recognize the need for a shared partnership with the Iraqi people.

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

Mr. President, I want to express my full support for the passage of H.R. 3365, the Fallen Patriots Tax Relief Act. Earlier this year, the Senate passed S. 704, introduced by myself, Senator Warner, Senator McCain, Senator Allen, and Senator Ben Nelson, which would have increased the death gratuity paid to the survivors of deceased members of our military from $6,000 to $12,000. Further, it would make this increase retroactive to September 11, 2001. I am pleased that H.R. 3365 incorporates this legislation.

There is no better way to honor the memories of fallen soldiers than to ensure that their loved ones receive the support they deserve. The death gratuity is provided within days to the family of the servicemember killed while on active duty. These funds help the family to deal with immediate needs during this difficult time. Given the sacrifices of our troops currently in Iraq. I believe that this increase in assistance is far past due.

H.R. 3365 also ensures that the death gratuity is tax free. I fully support this legislation, and believe that it sends a strong message of support to our troops. As the brave men and women of our military continue to go in harm's way in defense of our Nation, it is crucial that they do so with the confidence that their families will have our full support should tragedy occur.