Floor Statements

Mr. President, I believe we are about to have an agreement on the order for proceeding, but I need to consult with my colleagues, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask that time be taken equally from both sides.

Madam President, let me begin by thanking the distinguished chairman of the Senate Finance Committee for his hard work.

That is correct.

I was about to ask.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to amendment No. 596, which is a Collins-Rockefeller-Nelson, et al, amendment, regarding State aid, which is at the desk.

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

Madam President, I was beginning with my thank-yous to the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, who has worked so hard to produce not only the bill on the floor but also has worked very closely with the sponsors of this amendment to come up with a proposal for fiscal aid to the States that I believe is carefully drafted and is going to make a real difference to the 49 States that are struggling to close budget shortfalls.

I am pleased to have a number of cosponsors, including Senators Rockefeller, Ben Nelson, Smith, Schumer, Coleman, Clinton, Murray, and Wyden. But I particularly want to pay tribute to Senator Ben Nelson and Senator Rockefeller, who have worked night and day with not only Senator Grassley and myself but others interested in this issue to forge a compromise that I think will result, at the end of the day, in the conference report with $20 billion in much needed fiscal relief for our States.

Half of this funding would be through a temporary increase in the Federal Medicaid share, to ensure that States can continue to protect millions of vulnerable Americans who rely on the Medicaid program as part of the health care safety net.

The attacks of September 11, coupled with the subsequent recession and resulting unemployment, have placed tremendous and unanticipated strains on State budgets. The States are, after all, our partners in providing health care, education, and other essential services to the citizens of this Nation. They are, however, facing a dramatic and unexpected decline in government revenues at precisely the time when the demand for government services has never been higher because of a lagging economy.

States from Maine to Nebraska to West Virginia to Alaska are facing their most serious budget shortfalls in 50 years. States face deficits of between $70 and $85 billion for the next fiscal year, which begins in most States on July 1. They also face deficits of $26 billion trying to close the books on the current fiscal year.

Moreover, while the President's proposal for excluding dividends from taxation would spur needed investment in American businesses, it would cost the States nearly a billion dollars over the next 3 years. That strengthens, to me, the case for providing aid to the States.

Let me tell you what the State of Maine, my home State, is facing. The State of Maine faces a budget shortfall for this year and the next of approximately $1.2 billion. Let me put that in perspective.

The entire budget for the State of Maine is only $5.3 billion, which means it faces a shortfall of approximately 20 percent. Imagine if the Federal Government were struggling with a budget shortfall of 20 percent. It would have to close a $440 billion budget gap, and it would have to do so without borrowing a single dime. That summarizes the dilemma facing our State.

Forty-nine States have balanced budget requirements. They have to balance their budgets. They cannot print more money. They can't run temporary deficits. They can't borrow the money to close the deficit. As a consequence, States have been cutting spending, increasing taxes, using rainy day funds, and delaying capital projects. They are doing whatever they can because they must balance their budgets.

All of the States have cut programs--even programs that provide lifelines to our most vulnerable citizens. At a time when the number of people without health insurance is climbing, 49 States have either already cut their Medicaid Programs or are planning to do so.

Medicaid provides a critical health care safety net for 44 million of our most vulnerable low-income citizens, including 218,000 in my State of Maine. States, as a result of trying to balance their budgets, are slashing Medicaid Programs. As a consequence, approximately 1.7 million Americans are at risk of losing their health insurance. That means they are going to be added to the growing number of 41 million Americans lacking health insurance.

Moreover, not only is our proposal compassionate, not only will it help the most vulnerable Americans keep their health care services, but our proposal makes sound economic sense. Putting money into the hands of States is a great way to stimulate economic growth in conjunction with the tax provisions of this package. As States cut spending and raise taxes to balance their budgets, they weaken the overall economy.

A recent Goldman Sachs analysis underscores the stimulative effect of State fiscal relief. The report notes that ``State governments could provide significant support to the economy without large long-term budget cuts, reducing the need for these jurisdictions to raise taxes, and cut spending.''

After all, if we cut taxes here in Washington only to have taxes increase in State capitals across the country, we will wipe out some of the good we are trying to do by cutting Federal taxes.

I am not saying Congress should bail out the States. I am not saying States should not have to make hard choices. I am not saying States should not balance their budgets. The States are going to have to make hard, painful choices, even with the $20 billion we are proposing to assist them. The nature and the severity of the fiscal crisis facing our States has convinced me that we simply have to help them. The consequences are too dire otherwise, and too many vulnerable low-income American families will suffer if we do not step in and lend a helping hand.

I am encouraged that the economic stimulus package approved by the Senate Finance Committee authorizes temporary fiscal relief to the States. As the distinguished chairman has indicated, tonight we are deciding how to fill in the blanks and how that help should be allocated. We focus particularly on Medicaid because of our concern about the impact of State budget cuts on low-income families in America.

But there is another reason it makes sense to target one-half of the assistance to the Medicaid Program. That is that Medicaid is the fastest growing component of State budgets. While State revenues are stagnant, or declining in most States, Medicaid cuts are increasing at a rate of more than 13 percent a year. That is why States have no choice but to look to the Medicaid Program.

If you look at home State budgets, the vast majority of State spending is for education and Medicaid. If we want to help protect low- income Americans, the best thing we can do is to approve an increase in the Federal match for the Medicaid Program.

As to the State of Maine, our amendment would mean $116 million over the next 2 years for health care and other services that will help our most vulnerable Americans.

There is another advantage to using the current Medicaid structure-- what is known as the Federal Medicaid matching rate, or FMAP. That is, the States don't have to take any new legislative action or establish any new administrative structures in order to use these additional Federal matching funds. They can go straight into the Medicaid Program.

The remaining $10 billion could be used by States and local governments to fund education or job training, health care or other social services, transportation or other infrastructure needs, and law enforcement or public safety. In other words, we provided a great deal of flexibility for that remaining $10 billion.

Our amendment would allocate $4 billion of those funds directly to counties and local governments.

Our amendment is strongly supported by a wide range of health care groups, which I will submit as part of my formal statement in the interest of time.

The support for our proposal--the Collins-Rockefeller-Nelson-Smith, et al, amendment--underscores the critical importance of providing assistance to States right now. Now is when they need it. Now is when we must act.

Congress is most effective when it stands arm in arm and not toe to toe with our partners, the States. Our States face a fiscal crisis of expanding dimension. We need to help, and this bipartisan, carefully crafted amendment is the critical step forward in doing just that.

I hope we will have a strong bipartisan vote for this important amendment. It is similar to proposals that my colleagues and I advanced last year and this year which garnered the overwhelming support of the Senate. Now we can make sure that it happens.

I would like to yield at this time to the Senator from West Virginia who has been stalwart in arguing for fiscal relief for the States. It has been a great pleasure to work with him. I yield to him as much time as he needs out of my time.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for his remarks. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his eloquent statement, and I now yield time to the other great leader on this issue, my colleague and friend, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

I would like to ask my friend from Nebraska how he would respond to a valid question that has been raised about our amendment: Will the increase in the FMAP, Federal share of Medicaid, be a temporary one?

I thank my colleague for that valuable clarification. Let me ask my colleague from West Virginia about another question that has come up regarding the impact of our proposal on the baseline for future Medicaid calculations. There is some concern that this provision might increase FMAP rates in future years. Would you clarify this issue for our colleagues?

I would like to add one other point of clarification on this provision. By no means do we intend to prohibit States from using the revenuesharing portion of this amendment on services or other spending that the State cut in its most recent budget. If a State wanted to use a portion of these funds to restore all or part of a vital service it was forced to eliminate or reduce, it should be allowed to do so. We know that the State is the best judge of how to prioritize these funds, not the Federal Government.

Madam President, I thank my colleague and close friend, the Senator from Nebraska, for his leadership and for making such an excellent case. I know there are others who are waiting, so I will conclude the debate on this by making just one final point. Forty-nine States are facing severe budget shortfalls. This is not an isolated problem. It is a problem that affects all but one State. This isn't a case where States have been fiscally irresponsible, spending wildly.

In fact, the States are coping with the demand for services and a decline in revenues at the same time. It is not something they brought upon themselves. That is why we should step in temporarily--these are not permanent assistance programs--to provide help. It will help ensure that 1.7 million Americans will not lose their Medicaid services. It will help ensure that they might just have a little bit of help as they make the painful, difficult choices that are necessary to close their budget gap. It will help ensure that it has a direct stimulative effect, which is, after all, the entire purpose of this package. It is to get our economy growing again and create good jobs. Fiscal aid to States will help to achieve that critical goal.

I want to take this opportunity to ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that would create a United States Consensus Council. Designed to facilitate a consensus building process on important national issues, the U.S. Consensus Council is modeled upon similar entities that have operated successfully in several States. The council would be a nonprofit, private entity that would serve both the legislative and executive branches of government. Its role would be to build agreements among stakeholders on public policy issues where there are diverse and conflicting views and bring these agreements back to Congress or other decision-makers for action.

A good example of such a consensus council is the Montana Consensus Council. Established in 1994, this council has helped to facilities agreements on a range of contentious public issues. The Council, for example, facilitated development of a plan for the cleanup of hazardous waste sites that was overwhelmingly approved by the State legislature. It also helped mediate a dispute between recreationists and ranchers over water rights and, with the input of key stakeholders, an agreement was successfully reached.

The North Dakota Consensus Council, created in 1990, has helped build agreements on numerous local and State issues, including facilitating a five year effort to develop a strategic plan for the future of North Dakota and an economic development strategy to implement that plan.

The U.S. Consensus Council Act was introduced in the last Congress by Senator Dorgan and cosponsored by a bipartisan group of Senators. The Committee on Governmental Affairs favorably reported the bill last fall, but the full Senate did not have an opportunity to act on it before adjournment. I am pleased that Senator Dorgan, along with Senators Santorum and Conrad, have joined me in reintroducing the legislation today.

The legislation would establish the U.S. Consensus Council as an independent nonprofit corporation under the District of Columbia Nonprofit Corporation Act. The Council would not be an agency or instrumentality of the United States. The Council's role would be to design and conduct processes that bring together key stakeholders and build agreements on complex public policy issues. The resulting recommendations would be advisory, subject to the normal legislative or regulatory processes.

The Council's powers would be vested in a 12-member part-time Board of Directors. Each of the leaders of the majority and minority in the House of Representatives and the Senate would appoint two board members, and the President would appoint four members. Members of the Board cannot be Federal officers or employees.

A President, selected by the Board, would be the chief executive officer of the Council.

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that would create a United States Consensus Council. Designed to facilitate a consensus building process on important national issues, the U.S. Consensus Council is modeled upon similar entities that have operated successfully in several States. The council would be a nonprofit, private entity that would serve both the legislative and executive branches of government. Its role would be to build agreements among stakeholders on public policy issues where there are diverse and conflicting views and bring these agreements back to Congress or other decision-makers for action.

A good example of such a consensus council is the Montana Consensus Council. Established in 1994, this council has helped to facilities agreements on a range of contentious public issues. The Council, for example, facilitated development of a plan for the cleanup of hazardous waste sites that was overwhelmingly approved by the State legislature. It also helped mediate a dispute between recreationists and ranchers over water rights and, with the input of key stakeholders, an agreement was successfully reached.

The North Dakota Consensus Council, created in 1990, has helped build agreements on numerous local and State issues, including facilitating a five year effort to develop a strategic plan for the future of North Dakota and an economic development strategy to implement that plan.

The U.S. Consensus Council Act was introduced in the last Congress by Senator Dorgan and cosponsored by a bipartisan group of Senators. The Committee on Governmental Affairs favorably reported the bill last fall, but the full Senate did not have an opportunity to act on it before adjournment. I am pleased that Senator Dorgan, along with Senators Santorum and Conrad, have joined me in reintroducing the legislation today.

The legislation would establish the U.S. Consensus Council as an independent nonprofit corporation under the District of Columbia Nonprofit Corporation Act. The Council would not be an agency or instrumentality of the United States. The Council's role would be to design and conduct processes that bring together key stakeholders and build agreements on complex public policy issues. The resulting recommendations would be advisory, subject to the normal legislative or regulatory processes.

The Council's powers would be vested in a 12-member part-time Board of Directors. Each of the leaders of the majority and minority in the House of Representatives and the Senate would appoint two board members, and the President would appoint four members. Members of the Board cannot be Federal officers or employees.

A President, selected by the Board, would be the chief executive officer of the Council.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce a resolution seeking parity among the United States, Canada, and Mexico with respect to the personal exemption allowance for merchandise purchased abroad by returning residents. I am especially pleased to be joined today by Senators Baucus, Bingaman, Domenici, and Clinton as original cosponsors.

For Maine citizens living near the U.S./Canadian border, moving freely and frequently between the two countries is a way of life. Cross-border business and family relationships abound. The difference in personal exemption allowances, however, puts Maine businesses near the Canadian border at a considerable disadvantage in relation to their Canadian counterparts.

A United States citizen traveling to Canada for fewer than 24 hours is exempt from paying duties on the equivalent of $200 worth of Canadian merchandise. For trips over 48 hours, the exemption increases to $800 worth of merchandise. This means that a Mainer living in a border community has the option to shop in both the United States and in Canada, seeking the best price and products. Under U.S. laws, Canadian stores are able to serve both Canadian and American customers, and, because of the high exemption level, Americans are able to bring home from Canada a significant amount of merchandise duty free.

Unfortunately, these advantages are a one way street. A Canadian citizen is given no dutyfree personal exemption allowance for trips under 24 hours. Canadian Customs is instructed to begin collecting duties and taxes on merchandise as long at it can collect three Canadian dollars. Canadian duty and sales tax rates range from seven to fifteen percent depending on the policies of the Canadian province; Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland enforce a 15 percent Harmonized Sales Tax, HST on all imports. Assessing a 15 percent combined duty and tax rate, Canadian Customs begins to collect the duty and tax on the equivalent of only approximately $14 worth of U.S. goods. Compare this to the $200 limit given to U.S. citizens.

This means that a Canadian shopping for the day in Fort Kent, Madawaska, or Calais can bring home only $14 worth of merchandise before a 15 percent duty is imposed. The exemption limit rises to a mere $50 for trips between 24 and 48 hours. Restrictions such as these are a significant deterrent to Canadians who would otherwise shop in Maine communities.

In August of 2002, I brought two top Treasury officials to Maine to meet with our affected border communities to hear their concerns about this problem. In the meeting held in Calais, small business owners such as Louis Bernardini, owner of the Boston Shoe Store, and Bill Francis, owner of Knock on Wood gift shop, explained that Canada's duty barriers cost their businesses thousands of dollars in estimated revenue on an annual basis. These losses are compounded by other challenges facing their and other small businesses--an economic recession, the weakness of the Canadian dollar, and additional restrictions on border security following September 11.

This discrepancy in personal exemption allowances gives an enormous competitive advantage to the Canadian and Mexican retailers in border communities. It gives the retailers of our neighbors to the north and the south access to the cross-border shoppers while, in effect, denying that same opportunity for American retailers. This is not fair nor free trade.

In June 2002, I wrote to the Bush administration requesting that it raise the issue with its Canadian counterparts as soon as possible. Former Treasury Secretary O'Neil responded to my request and wrote to John Manley, the Canadian Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister, asking him to adopt ``a more trade-friendly and less administratively burdensome system of personal duty allowances.''

I had the opportunity to meet personally with John Manley this week regarding border issues. During this meeting, I told him that Canada's restrictive personal exemption policies threaten the economies of its neighboring communities. I was encouraged by Minister Manley's understanding of my concerns and acknowledgment that this issue needs to be resolved.

Currently, Treasury officials are actively negotiating with Canada to try to resolve the problem. The resolution I am introducing today expresses the Sense that the Secretary of the Treasury and the United States Trade Representative should continue discussions with officials of the Governments of Canada and Mexico to achieve parity with respect to the personal exemption allowance structure. Passage of this amendment will send a clear message to these governments that the duty disparity unfairly disadvantages American businesses and must be corrected. I urge my colleagues to support its swift passage.

Mr. President, at a time when our men and women in uniform are fighting valiantly to bring peace and opportunity to an oppressed people and ensure the security of our homeland, I am pleased to introduce the Selected Reserve Educational Assistance Act of 2003 to extend the opportunity of higher education to many of those very same men and women in uniform. This legislation provides our National Guard and Reserve personnel, hundreds of thousands of whom are currently mobilized, deployed, and fighting around the globe, with educational opportunities as intended by the Montgomery GI bill. I am pleased that my colleagues, Senators Tom Daschle, Tim Johnson, and Bill Nelson, have joined as cosponsors.

Through this legislation, we week to promote both service to country and education in a way that is both logical and fair. Members of our National Guard and Reserve are members of our communities. The skills they learn from military service are reflected in the positions of leadership they assume among us. These citizen-soldiers have demonstrated their commitment to serve and as members of the ``total force'' deserve opportunities to further improve themselves through the civilian educational opportunities the Montgomery GI bill promotes. Service and education are prerequisites of a strong, vibrant democracy. This legislation seeks to further this combined effort.

The original GI bill, known as the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, was enacted in 1944. That bill provided a $500 annual education stipend as well as a $50 subsistence allowance. As a result of this initiative, 7.8 million World War II veterans were able to take advantage of post- service education and training opportunities, including more than 2.2 million veterans who went on to college. My own father was among those veterans who volunteered for the war, fought bravely, and then returned to college with assistance from the GI bill.

Since the 1940's various versions of servicemen's education assistance have allowed millions of veterans to take advantage of educational opportunities. Over time, however, inflation and the escalating costs of higher education have eroded the value of those educational benefits. During the 107th Congress with the enactment of Public Law 107-103 Senator Johnson and I, along with many of our colleagues, made great strides returning value to educational assistance benefits available for active component service members and veterans. More remains to be done.

The United States military is an all volunteer force. In times of peace and prosperity and in times of trial, we rely on young men and women to come forward of their own accord to stand up for our collective defense. Though service to country and patriotism, particularly in times of crisis, factor into recruiting this all volunteer force, benefits still do and ought to matter. We must remain vigilant, as we are constantly recruiting new members of our armed forces, ensuring the benefits these individuals receive from military service are commensurate with the service they render to this nation.

At its inception in 1985, the Reserve Montgomery GI bill program, had been pegged at 47 percent of basic active component Montgomery GI bill benefits. During the ensuing 18 years, the parity of the reserve program with its active duty counterpart has slipped. At present the Chapter 1606 program, Selected Reserve Montgomery GI bill, is only about 28 percent of the Chapter 30 program. This legislation attempts to bring the reserve program back in line with the active component benefit.

In each of the last three years over 75,000 National Guard and Reserve members have taken advantage of Veterans Administration educational benefits for pursuing their educational or vocational objectives. While those citizen-soldiers currently mobilized may become eligible for veterans benefits, we must correct the disparity between the active and reserve Montgomery GI bill programs. Only two benefit increases have been legislated in the reserve program since its inception in 1985, other than cost-of-living increases. The reserve Montgomery GI bill benefit for full-time study stands at $276 compared to $985 per month for the Title 38 program. This legislation will bring the reserve Montgomery GI bill benefit to $428 per month in fiscal year 2004 and $473 per month in fiscal year 2005 and continue out-year increases in accordance with advances in the consumer price index.

The Military Coalition comprised of 33 member organizations representing over 5.5 million veterans and family members endorses rate increases and funds for the reserve Montgomery GI bill program so that National Guard and Reserve service members can reap an educational return on their voluntary service to country.

It is time to return reserve educational assistance benefits to the level intended by the original drafting of the Reserve Montgomery GI Bill. Coupling and reinforcing service with higher education will pay dividends for our future security, strength and prosperity. This legislation fulfills the promise made to our Nation's service members, helps with recruiting and retention, strengthens the economy, and partly offsets the increasing costs of higher education.

I urge all Members of the Senate to join me in support of the Selected Reserve Educational Assistance Act of 2003 and quickly pass this legislation.

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

Mr. President, at a time when our men and women in uniform are fighting valiantly to bring peace and opportunity to an oppressed people and ensure the security of our homeland, I am pleased to introduce the Selected Reserve Educational Assistance Act of 2003 to extend the opportunity of higher education to many of those very same men and women in uniform. This legislation provides our National Guard and Reserve personnel, hundreds of thousands of whom are currently mobilized, deployed, and fighting around the globe, with educational opportunities as intended by the Montgomery GI bill. I am pleased that my colleagues, Senators Tom Daschle, Tim Johnson, and Bill Nelson, have joined as cosponsors.

Through this legislation, we week to promote both service to country and education in a way that is both logical and fair. Members of our National Guard and Reserve are members of our communities. The skills they learn from military service are reflected in the positions of leadership they assume among us. These citizen-soldiers have demonstrated their commitment to serve and as members of the ``total force'' deserve opportunities to further improve themselves through the civilian educational opportunities the Montgomery GI bill promotes. Service and education are prerequisites of a strong, vibrant democracy. This legislation seeks to further this combined effort.

The original GI bill, known as the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, was enacted in 1944. That bill provided a $500 annual education stipend as well as a $50 subsistence allowance. As a result of this initiative, 7.8 million World War II veterans were able to take advantage of post- service education and training opportunities, including more than 2.2 million veterans who went on to college. My own father was among those veterans who volunteered for the war, fought bravely, and then returned to college with assistance from the GI bill.

Since the 1940's various versions of servicemen's education assistance have allowed millions of veterans to take advantage of educational opportunities. Over time, however, inflation and the escalating costs of higher education have eroded the value of those educational benefits. During the 107th Congress with the enactment of Public Law 107-103 Senator Johnson and I, along with many of our colleagues, made great strides returning value to educational assistance benefits available for active component service members and veterans. More remains to be done.

The United States military is an all volunteer force. In times of peace and prosperity and in times of trial, we rely on young men and women to come forward of their own accord to stand up for our collective defense. Though service to country and patriotism, particularly in times of crisis, factor into recruiting this all volunteer force, benefits still do and ought to matter. We must remain vigilant, as we are constantly recruiting new members of our armed forces, ensuring the benefits these individuals receive from military service are commensurate with the service they render to this nation.

At its inception in 1985, the Reserve Montgomery GI bill program, had been pegged at 47 percent of basic active component Montgomery GI bill benefits. During the ensuing 18 years, the parity of the reserve program with its active duty counterpart has slipped. At present the Chapter 1606 program, Selected Reserve Montgomery GI bill, is only about 28 percent of the Chapter 30 program. This legislation attempts to bring the reserve program back in line with the active component benefit.

In each of the last three years over 75,000 National Guard and Reserve members have taken advantage of Veterans Administration educational benefits for pursuing their educational or vocational objectives. While those citizen-soldiers currently mobilized may become eligible for veterans benefits, we must correct the disparity between the active and reserve Montgomery GI bill programs. Only two benefit increases have been legislated in the reserve program since its inception in 1985, other than cost-of-living increases. The reserve Montgomery GI bill benefit for full-time study stands at $276 compared to $985 per month for the Title 38 program. This legislation will bring the reserve Montgomery GI bill benefit to $428 per month in fiscal year 2004 and $473 per month in fiscal year 2005 and continue out-year increases in accordance with advances in the consumer price index.

The Military Coalition comprised of 33 member organizations representing over 5.5 million veterans and family members endorses rate increases and funds for the reserve Montgomery GI bill program so that National Guard and Reserve service members can reap an educational return on their voluntary service to country.

It is time to return reserve educational assistance benefits to the level intended by the original drafting of the Reserve Montgomery GI Bill. Coupling and reinforcing service with higher education will pay dividends for our future security, strength and prosperity. This legislation fulfills the promise made to our Nation's service members, helps with recruiting and retention, strengthens the economy, and partly offsets the increasing costs of higher education.

I urge all Members of the Senate to join me in support of the Selected Reserve Educational Assistance Act of 2003 and quickly pass this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Arizona for his initiative.

I ask unanimous consent I be added as a cosponsor of his legislation, the Troops Phone Home Free Act. I think it is a wonderful initiative.

I also commend the Senator from Georgia, who heads the Personnel Subcommittee on the Armed Services Committee, with whom I am very privileged to serve. He brings great leadership to the effort. I am proud to be a member of his subcommittee.

Death Gratuity

Later tonight I am hopeful the Senate will consider legislation, S. 704, which I introduced last week with my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, the chairman, Senator John Warner, and my colleague, Senator John McCain. I recognize the contributions and cosponsorship of Senators Ben Nelson and George Allen. The legislation we have introduced will send an important message to our troops who are engaged in combat, even as we speak, that our Nation is so grateful for their service.

Our bill would raise the amount paid to the families of military personnel killed while on active duty. It would increase it from $6,000 to $12,000. This payment, which is known as the death gratuity, would be paid retroactive to September 11, 2001, so that the troops who have been killed in the battle against terrorism would also be eligible for this doubled benefit.

As are all of my colleagues, I am very saddened by the loss of American life in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The young men and women of our military represent the very best our Nation has to offer. They do not join the military for monetary gain nor to have a comfortable lifestyle. They serve our Nation out of a sense of patriotism that should make each and every American proud. The mercy they are showing even today to Iraqi prisoners of war is testament to the strength of character that is the core of our military values. In many cases, we ask our own troops to take additional risks in order to avoid injuring or killing innocent civilians. That they do this without question or regret speaks well not only of our military but of our Nation.

When the Commander in Chief sends our troops into harm's way, we hope and pray each and every one of them will come back home unharmed. While we know this will not be possible, that knowledge does not lessen our shock and our sadness when we learn of the loss of lives.

My State of Maine has experienced two such losses since the war began. Last Saturday, I attended a memorial mass in Windsor, ME, in honor of the life and sacrifice of CPT Jay Aubin. CPT Jay Aubin and CPL Brian Kennedy, both proud members of the United States Marine Corps, perished in a helicopter crash in the Kuwaiti desert in the very first few days of the conflict. I met with the parents of both these brave marines, both of whom were present at this memorial mass last Saturday. Hundreds of Mainers gathered to pay tribute to the sacrifice of these brave marines and their families.

As I stand on the floor of the Senate, I once again want to assure their families we honor and recognize their service and their sacrifice. When we send a young man or woman into harm's way, our Nation has in return a sacred obligation to them and to their families. We must ensure they go forth with the utter and complete confidence, should the worst happen, should they be called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice, that their country will care for their families and honor their service. The death gratuity is a small token, but it assists the grieving families with their immediate financial needs. There are a variety of other programs that provide for longer term support, but in the initial hours and days after a family has endured such a terrible loss, these funds help to alleviate monetary concerns. This benefit is commonly provided within 72 hours to the family of the service member who is killed while on active duty.

The last time the death gratuity was raised was in 1991 during the period of the gulf war when it was doubled from $3,000 to $6,000. With more than a decade having passed, it is time for Congress to move forward and increase this sum in recognition of those who are today fighting in Operation Iraqi Freedom and in the war against terrorism. It is the least we can do to honor their sacrifice. I offer this legislation in tribute to the families of those whose loved ones are today engaged in combat in the Persian Gulf. Too often we forget the sacrifices they make so that their loved one, their husband, wife, father, mother, brother, or sister, can serve our Nation. They are asked to accept long deployments and frequent moves while at the same time providing their loved one with the support they need to do their jobs.

Truly, what these families do is heroic. Passage of this legislation will send a clear and strong message to them that this Congress and this Nation is grateful for their sacrifice. Again, it is my hope we will pass this legislation by unanimous consent later this evening. In the meantime, my thoughts are with our troops as they fight in the battles in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in the war against terrorism, and I pray they will soon return home in victory.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on behalf of my self and Senator Warner that will provide increased support for the families of those brave men and women in the armed forces who make the ultimate sacrifice in service to our Nation. The bill I introduce will raise the amount paid to the next-of-kin of military personnel killed while on active duty from $6,000 to $12,000. Further, it makes this increase retroactive to September 11, 2001.

Like all Americans, I have been greatly saddened by the loss of life in recent days during our operations in Iraq. While all of us understand the dangers whenever the Commander-in-Chief sends our troops into harm's way, that does not lessen the shock and sadness we all have felt as we learn of the loss of lives and see the cruel video of American POWs held in Iraq.

In the initial days of the war, two Marines with ties to Main lost heir lives. Both Captain Jay Aubin and Corporal Brian Kennedy, who perished in a helicopter crash in the Kuwaiti desert, have parents living in Maine. I came to this floor yesterday to express my condolences to their families, and declare my commitment to ensuring that their sacrifice is remembered.

I can think of no better way to honor their memories, and the memories of other Americans who have given their lives, than to ensure that their loved ones receive the care that they need and deserve. The last time that the death gratuity was raise was in 1991, during the period of the last Gulf War. At that time, it was increased from $3,000 to 6,000. It well past time for the Congress to move forward and increase this amount to better recognize the sacrifices of these families.

The death gratuity is commonly provided within 72 hours to the family of the servicemember who is killed while on active duty. This amount, while a small solace to a grieving family, assist them with their immediate financial needs. It is our obligation as a Nation to ensure that those families receive every support we can provide during such a terrible time. Just as important, as our troops enter into combat they need to be confident that, should the worst occur, that their family will have the support they need.

We can never fully repay the debt of our Nation to those who have laid down their lives for our Nation. The best we can do is honor their memory, ensure that their sacrifice is not in vain, and help provide for their families. The bill I have introduced will send a message to our brave young men and women that their Nation if grateful for their service.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on behalf of my self and Senator Warner that will provide increased support for the families of those brave men and women in the armed forces who make the ultimate sacrifice in service to our Nation. The bill I introduce will raise the amount paid to the next-of-kin of military personnel killed while on active duty from $6,000 to $12,000. Further, it makes this increase retroactive to September 11, 2001.

Like all Americans, I have been greatly saddened by the loss of life in recent days during our operations in Iraq. While all of us understand the dangers whenever the Commander-in-Chief sends our troops into harm's way, that does not lessen the shock and sadness we all have felt as we learn of the loss of lives and see the cruel video of American POWs held in Iraq.

In the initial days of the war, two Marines with ties to Main lost heir lives. Both Captain Jay Aubin and Corporal Brian Kennedy, who perished in a helicopter crash in the Kuwaiti desert, have parents living in Maine. I came to this floor yesterday to express my condolences to their families, and declare my commitment to ensuring that their sacrifice is remembered.

I can think of no better way to honor their memories, and the memories of other Americans who have given their lives, than to ensure that their loved ones receive the care that they need and deserve. The last time that the death gratuity was raise was in 1991, during the period of the last Gulf War. At that time, it was increased from $3,000 to 6,000. It well past time for the Congress to move forward and increase this amount to better recognize the sacrifices of these families.

The death gratuity is commonly provided within 72 hours to the family of the servicemember who is killed while on active duty. This amount, while a small solace to a grieving family, assist them with their immediate financial needs. It is our obligation as a Nation to ensure that those families receive every support we can provide during such a terrible time. Just as important, as our troops enter into combat they need to be confident that, should the worst occur, that their family will have the support they need.

We can never fully repay the debt of our Nation to those who have laid down their lives for our Nation. The best we can do is honor their memory, ensure that their sacrifice is not in vain, and help provide for their families. The bill I have introduced will send a message to our brave young men and women that their Nation if grateful for their service.

Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business throughout the afternoon. As announced by the majority leader, there will be no rollcall votes today. On Tuesday at 9:30 a.m., the Senate will begin a series of votes in relation to amendments to the budget resolution. Again, Senators are reminded to remain in or close to the Chamber throughout this period to avoid missing any of the scheduled rollcall votes. Under the previous agreement, the Senate will vote on final passage of the budget resolution at 4 p.m. on Wednesday. Tuesday and Wednesday will be busy voting days, and we ask for the cooperation of all Members.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong and unconditional support for our troops in Iraq. As the war continues to progress, I have every confidence in their capabilities, their courage, and their commitment. The passage by unanimous vote last week of a resolution in support of our troops sent a message to all the world that Congress is united behind our men and women in the gulf.

I have also come to express my sincere condolences to the families of those brave individuals who have already made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our Nation. Last Friday, I learned that my State of Maine had suffered two losses early in the fighting, two marines with ties to the State of Maine: CPT Jay Aubin and CPL Brian Kennedy were among those killed when their helicopter crashed in the Kuwaiti desert. Captain Aubin grew up in Skowhegan, ME, and his parents, Thomas Aubin and Nancy Chamberlain, live in our State still. Corporal Kennedy's mother lives in Port Clyde, ME. No words can express fully my sorrow over their loss and my

thanks for the service of their sons. Their brave sacrifice will never be forgotten.

On many occasions in recent months, this institution has debated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Individual Senators have had honest disagreements about the right course to take in confronting Saddam Hussein. Now that our troops are engaged in battle against the forces of Saddam Hussein, we must speak with one voice.

The outcome of this conflict is not in doubt. Our military is the best equipped with the best trained force in the world's history. As the representative from Maine on the Senate Armed Services Committee, it has been my privilege and honor to work side by side with our military leaders to ensure this is the case.

If there is any message we could continue to send to the Members of the Iraqi military, it would be to express the ultimate futility of their continued resistance. The President has made clear, we come not as conquerors but as liberators.

War is a harsh, painful, brutal reality even when the goals are noble, even when the goals are security and freedom. As we have already seen, there is very little certainty in combat. In the fog of war, there are innumerable factors that might affect the course of battle. We often receive conflicting reports, confusing media accounts, and distorted descriptions of the battlefield. But one thing should never be in doubt, one thing is unmistakable: Our troops will prevail, and they will receive whatever support they need to bring this conflict to a successful end as rapidly as possible.

I express my gratitude to the families of the young men and women currently in harm's way who have been left behind. They truly carry a heavy burden, and they deserve the respect, the thanks, and the admiration of every American. As we have seen so painfully over the weekend, victory will not come without cost. While our military leaders will continue to do everything they can to minimize the danger that our troops will face, there is still much risk and much danger.

To the wives, the husbands, the parents, and the children of troops, thank you for your bravery, your strength, and your patriotism. Thank you for your love of country.

When I first came to the Senate over 6 years ago, I would not have imagined this moment. We lived in a different world then. But today, as our troops engage in battle, let us all show our unwavering support for our troops, thank them for their service, and express our heartfelt hope for their safe return.

Mr. President, just as we stand behind our troops in Iraq, so must we also unite here at home behind our first responders as they protect our communities from the threat of a terrorist attack.

As the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I have made helping first responders one of my top priorities. Now that we have confirmed Secretary Tom Ridge and helped to get the new Department of Homeland Security up and running, it is time to turn to strengthening the new Department's partnership with State and local governments and the first responders who protect our homeland.

On March 1, our home security structure began to come into place as Secretary Ridge incorporated nearly two dozen agencies into the new Department of Homeland Security. While this new framework will provide much needed focus to tackling the threat of a terrorist attack, we must also provide the resources to our communities and their police, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel who stand ready to respond to a crisis.

Just as they stand by to protect our citizens, our first responders deserve a government that stands by them.

In a recent conversation with Secretary Ridge, we discussed the fact that if disaster does strike, if there is another terrorist attack, it is our first responders, not some official from Washington, who would be on the front lines. I plan on holding a series of hearings and introducing legislation streamlining and strengthening Federal support for State and local homeland security efforts.

We must continue to combat terrorism at every stage. The war on terrorism has already yielded some very significant victories. The fall of the Taliban has denied al-Qaida its most important sanctuary. The capture of several high-ranking al-Qaida operatives has also pushed us forward in our quest to end terrorist attacks. Working with foreign governments, we have disrupted much of the al-Qaida network.

But we know that terrorist cells continue to operate around the world, and the threat in the United States remains high. The threat remains very real as terrorists still plot to attack our Nation.

Just as we must continue to attack the threats at their sources, we must also strengthen our ability to detect, prevent, deter, and respond to a terrorist attack.

Recently, I met with some 40 officials from communities around the State of Maine. I have also spoken with police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical staff personnel. They have all expressed concerns about navigating the maze of Federal homeland security funding.

I met recently with Maine's Adjutant General, GEN Joe Tinkham, who talked to me about the tangled web of some 40 Federal Agencies and Departments that have a role in combating terrorism and in funding local homeland security efforts. He told me that, while underfunded, in some ways the previous system worked better for the State of Maine because there was much more flexibility. Now he finds that certain money is set aside that can only be used for equipment purchases, when what is needed is joint training to learn to use that equipment effectively in some communities.

The new Department of Homeland Security will address many of these concerns by helping to streamline and coordinate programs formerly administered by a number of different agencies. But we must follow up on these efforts to help the new Department enhance its efforts to fund first responders.

I have received a lot of advice on this issue from Maine's firefighters, police officers, and State and local officials. They have suggested a new partnership with the Department of Homeland Security that gives them the flexibility they need to meet whatever is the need for homeland security at the local level.

Last year, we put a downpayment on the needs of our communities. The increased funding of programs, such as the FIRE Act, and those within the Office of Domestic Preparedness, are important steps forward in providing the necessary resources.

But we must build on this success and provide a stronger framework. First responders' needs are as diverse as the States and the communities they protect. Our grant programs and other assistance must be flexible enough to reflect this diversity. But, unfortunately, that is not the case under the current approach.

Maine's first responders and local governments have told me their needs range from communications equipment to personnel to more effective training. Mainers, and others beyond the beltway, do not just have needs; they also have tremendously creative and effective ideas that can be channeled into the new coordinated community-based homeland security strategy.

Over the coming weeks, I will be holding hearings in the Committee on Governmental Affairs to begin to build a consensus for legislation helping homeland security transition many of its important grant programs into their new directorates. I plan to call on States, communities, and, most importantly, our first responders who stand on the front lines to learn how we can better meet their needs.

Listening to the ideas and needs of our communities and first responders will be the most effective way of developing legislation to make sure our homeland security dollars go as far as possible. We want legislation that will help provide the right resources to the right people.

Our President and Secretary Ridge have shown tremendous leadership in focusing the new Department's efforts, not only in developing a national strategy but in focusing its efforts outside Washington.

Congress must shift its homeland security focus from Washington to our borders, our shorelines, and our communities. I look forward to continuing to work with communities across Maine and around the country so that we can build a better and stronger homeland security partnership in the months and years ahead.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to rise to introduce the Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2003. I am joined by my colleagues, Senator Landrieu, Senator Warner, and Senator Roberts, in introducing this legislation to help our teachers who selflessly reach deep into their own pockets to purchase supplies for their classrooms or to engage in professional development.

Senators Warner, Landrieu, Roberts and I have long led the effort to recognize the invaluable services that teachers provide each and every day to our children and to our communities. This tax relief is significant in that it recognizes the extra mile that our dedicated teachers go in order to improve the classroom experience for their students.

This legislation builds upon the tax relief that we authored, which was previously enacted in the economic recovery package in the last Congress. Our bill would double the amount that a teacher can deduct-- from $250 to $500--and includes professional development expenses in the deduction. Our bill would also make this modest tax relief permanent, whereas the provision in the economic stimulus package is scheduled to sunset next year.

While our legislation provides financial assistance to educators, its ultimate beneficiaries will be our students. Other than involved parents, a well-qualified teacher is the single most important prerequisite for student success. Educational researchers have demonstrated, time and again, the strong correlation between qualified teachers and successful students. Moreover, educators themselves understand just how important professional development is to maintaining and expanding their level of competence.

When I meet with teachers from Maine, they repeatedly tell me of their desire and need for more professional development. But they also tell me that, unfortunately, school budgets are so tight that frequently the school districts cannot provide the assistance a teacher needs in order to take that additional course or pursue that advanced degree. As President Bush aptly put it, ``Teachers sometimes lead with their hearts and pay with their wallets.''

A recent survey by the National Center for Education Statistics highlights the benefits of professional development. The survey found that most teachers who had participated in more than eight hours of professional development during the previous year felt ``very well prepared'' in the area in which the instruction occurred. Obviously, teachers who are taking additional course work and pursuing advanced degrees become even more valuable in the classroom.

Increasing the deduction for teachers who buy classroom supplies is also a critical component of my legislation. So often teachers in Maine, and throughout the country, spend their own money to improve the classroom experiences of their students. While many of us are familiar with the National Education Association's estimate that teachers spend, on average, $400 a year on classroom supplies, a new survey demonstrates that they are spending even more than that. According to a recent report from Quality

Education Data, the average teacher spends more than $520 a year out of pocket on school supplies.

I have spoken to dozens of teachers in Maine who have told me of the books, rewards, supplies, and other materials they routinely purchase for their students.

Idella Harter is one such teacher. She told me of spending more than $1,000 in a single year, reaching deep into her pocket to buy materials, supplies, and other treats for her students. At the end of the year, she started to add up all of the receipts that she had saved, and she was startled to discover they exceeded $1,000. Idella told me at that point she decided she'd better stop adding them up.

Debra Walker is another dedicated teacher in Maine who teaches kindergarten and first grade in town of Milo. She has taught for more than 25 years. Year after year, she spends hundreds of dollars on books, bulletin boards, computer software, crayons, construction paper, tissue paper, stamps and inkpads. She even donated her own family computer for use by her class. She described it well by saying, ``These are the extras that are needed to make learning fun for children and to create a stimulating learning environment.''

Another example is Tyler Nutter, a middle school math and reading teacher from North Berwick, ME. After teaching for just two years, Tyler has incurred substantial ``startup'' fees as he builds his own collection of needed teaching supplies. In his first years on the job, he has spent well over $500 out-of-pocket each year, purchasing books and other materials that are essential to his teaching program.

Tyler tells me that he is still paying off the loans that he incurred at the University of Maine-Farmington. He has car payments to make. He is saving for a house. And he someday hopes to get an advanced degree. Nevertheless, despite the relatively low pay he is receiving as a new teacher, he says, ``You feel committed to getting your students what they need, even if it is coming out of your own pocket.''

That is the kind of dedication that I see time and again in the teachers in Maine. I have visited nearly 100 schools in Maine, and everywhere I go, I find teachers who are spending their own money to improve their professional qualifications and to improve the educational experiences of their students by supplementing classroom supplies.

The relief we passed overwhelmingly in the last Congress was a step in the right direction. As Tyler told me, ``It's a nice recognition of the contributions that many teachers have made.'' We are committed to building on this good work. We invite all of our colleagues to join us in recognizing our teachers for a job well done.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to rise to introduce the Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2003. I am joined by my colleagues, Senator Landrieu, Senator Warner, and Senator Roberts, in introducing this legislation to help our teachers who selflessly reach deep into their own pockets to purchase supplies for their classrooms or to engage in professional development.

Senators Warner, Landrieu, Roberts and I have long led the effort to recognize the invaluable services that teachers provide each and every day to our children and to our communities. This tax relief is significant in that it recognizes the extra mile that our dedicated teachers go in order to improve the classroom experience for their students.

This legislation builds upon the tax relief that we authored, which was previously enacted in the economic recovery package in the last Congress. Our bill would double the amount that a teacher can deduct-- from $250 to $500--and includes professional development expenses in the deduction. Our bill would also make this modest tax relief permanent, whereas the provision in the economic stimulus package is scheduled to sunset next year.

While our legislation provides financial assistance to educators, its ultimate beneficiaries will be our students. Other than involved parents, a well-qualified teacher is the single most important prerequisite for student success. Educational researchers have demonstrated, time and again, the strong correlation between qualified teachers and successful students. Moreover, educators themselves understand just how important professional development is to maintaining and expanding their level of competence.

When I meet with teachers from Maine, they repeatedly tell me of their desire and need for more professional development. But they also tell me that, unfortunately, school budgets are so tight that frequently the school districts cannot provide the assistance a teacher needs in order to take that additional course or pursue that advanced degree. As President Bush aptly put it, ``Teachers sometimes lead with their hearts and pay with their wallets.''

A recent survey by the National Center for Education Statistics highlights the benefits of professional development. The survey found that most teachers who had participated in more than eight hours of professional development during the previous year felt ``very well prepared'' in the area in which the instruction occurred. Obviously, teachers who are taking additional course work and pursuing advanced degrees become even more valuable in the classroom.

Increasing the deduction for teachers who buy classroom supplies is also a critical component of my legislation. So often teachers in Maine, and throughout the country, spend their own money to improve the classroom experiences of their students. While many of us are familiar with the National Education Association's estimate that teachers spend, on average, $400 a year on classroom supplies, a new survey demonstrates that they are spending even more than that. According to a recent report from Quality

Education Data, the average teacher spends more than $520 a year out of pocket on school supplies.

I have spoken to dozens of teachers in Maine who have told me of the books, rewards, supplies, and other materials they routinely purchase for their students.

Idella Harter is one such teacher. She told me of spending more than $1,000 in a single year, reaching deep into her pocket to buy materials, supplies, and other treats for her students. At the end of the year, she started to add up all of the receipts that she had saved, and she was startled to discover they exceeded $1,000. Idella told me at that point she decided she'd better stop adding them up.

Debra Walker is another dedicated teacher in Maine who teaches kindergarten and first grade in town of Milo. She has taught for more than 25 years. Year after year, she spends hundreds of dollars on books, bulletin boards, computer software, crayons, construction paper, tissue paper, stamps and inkpads. She even donated her own family computer for use by her class. She described it well by saying, ``These are the extras that are needed to make learning fun for children and to create a stimulating learning environment.''

Another example is Tyler Nutter, a middle school math and reading teacher from North Berwick, ME. After teaching for just two years, Tyler has incurred substantial ``startup'' fees as he builds his own collection of needed teaching supplies. In his first years on the job, he has spent well over $500 out-of-pocket each year, purchasing books and other materials that are essential to his teaching program.

Tyler tells me that he is still paying off the loans that he incurred at the University of Maine-Farmington. He has car payments to make. He is saving for a house. And he someday hopes to get an advanced degree. Nevertheless, despite the relatively low pay he is receiving as a new teacher, he says, ``You feel committed to getting your students what they need, even if it is coming out of your own pocket.''

That is the kind of dedication that I see time and again in the teachers in Maine. I have visited nearly 100 schools in Maine, and everywhere I go, I find teachers who are spending their own money to improve their professional qualifications and to improve the educational experiences of their students by supplementing classroom supplies.

The relief we passed overwhelmingly in the last Congress was a step in the right direction. As Tyler told me, ``It's a nice recognition of the contributions that many teachers have made.'' We are committed to building on this good work. We invite all of our colleagues to join us in recognizing our teachers for a job well done.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong and unconditional support for our troops currently engaged in disarming Iraq. As the war continues to progress, I have every confidence in their capabilities, their courage, and their patriotism. I am pleased to support the resolution before us, and believe it will send a message to all the world that the Congress is united in support of our young men and women in the Gulf.

On many occasions in recent months, this institution has debated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Individual Senators have made honest arguments expressing widely differing points of view on this issue. Now that our troops are engaged against the forces of Saddam Hussein, however, we must speak with one voice.

It is my hope and expectation that this war will be short, and that our victory will be decisive. Our military is the best-equipped and best-trained force that the world has ever seen. As Maine's representative on the Senate Armed Services Committee, it has been my privilege to work side-by-side with military leaders to ensure that this is the case. If there is any message we could send to members of the Iraqi military, it would be to express the futility of resistance. The President has been clear, that we come not as conquerors, but as liberators. Our military superiority is overwhelming, and our forces will not stop until Iraq is disarmed.

Of course, there is very little certainty in combat. In the fog of war, there are innumerable factors that might affect the course of battle. Our leadership has worked to anticipate and prepare for whatever eventualities might develop. I suspect in the coming days we will be receiving conflicting reports, confusing media accounts, and distorted descriptions of the battlefield. However, one thing should be unmistakable . . . our troops will receive whatever support they need to bring this conflict to a rapid and successful end.

We also need to send a message to other forces in this world that seek to do us harm. They might believe that, because so many of our forces are engaged in the Middle East, we have left ourselves vulnerable. The administration has moved the Homeland Security Advisory to Orange, indicating that we are at high risk of terrorist attack. Gordon England, the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, has assured me that our Nation is taking almost unprecedented steps to protect our critical infrastructure, to identify potential terrorist threats, and to secure potential targets. Certainly, we do have some difficult days ahead.

However, we are working to deter, detect, and, if necessary, respond decisively to any terrorist attack.

I also want to say a word to the families of those men and women currently in harm's way in the Middle East. They truly carry a heavy burden, and I want to express my personal and heartfelt appreciation for the sacrifices that they make. No war comes without cost. While our military leaders will do everything they can to minimize the danger our troops will face, there is still much risk and danger. To the wives, husbands, children, and parents of troops, I thank you for your bravery and your strength. You and your loved ones deserve our admiration, our respect, and our appreciation.

When I came to the Senate over 6 years ago, I could not have imagined this moment. We lived in a different world then. In the coming months, we will debate how we came to this conflict, and how we need to proceed. Historians will study this period in our history every closely. There will be time to place this war in its proper context. Today, however, as our troops stand in harm's way, I only want to show my unwavering support for our troops, thank them for their service, and express my hope for their safe return.