Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the Republican manager, the chairman of the committee, suggested that I move forward with my amendment, which will not take long at all. I can do this in less than 5 minutes. Amendment No. 3520 Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I know it is getting late in this process, and I will try to make this as quick as possible. There has already been a significant amount of discussion on this floor, in this town, and actually, quite frankly, this morning in the meetings some of us had with the President of the United States on the situation in Darfur in the Sudan. I want to begin by saying I respect the effort made by my friend, Senator DeWine. I understand the managers are going to accept a proposal for $90 million or thereabouts to deal with this problem. There are already as many as 30,000 dead. Mr. President, 1.2 million people have been chased from their homes, and 200,000 refugees have fled to Chad. The civilians have been bombed from planes and helicopters by the Government of Sudan. And there are continued reports of systematic rape, murder, and torture by the Sudanese Government as well as by allied militia troops. Now, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a report in which the U.N. investigators indicate they believe that crimes against humanity have been committed in Darfur. Secretary of State Colin Powell has said that the State Department is contemplating whether Khartoum is engaged in the genocide. I think when they, in fact, finish they will conclude clearly that it is. The Agency for International Development and its leader, Andrew Natsios, as well as U.N. officials, have said that what has happened in Darfur is the ``worst humanitarian crisis in the world today.'' They point out that under the best circumstances--not the worst, the best circumstances--according to Mr. Natsios, 320,000 people will die. That is the best they hope for. If everything turns around, there are going to be 320,000 dead. And he made that public statement on June 3. He said ``more resources are desperately needed.'' Now, to have to respond in a manner that is commensurate with the suffering seems to me to be our obligation. The President of the United States said he brought this to the attention of the G-8. We had this discussion this morning in the Cabinet Room, and he, quite frankly, indicated that he was not getting the kind of response that was warranted. Some of us suggested--and I was not one because others spoke first--that this is of an urgent need, and we have to lead. Now, I know that my friend from Ohio has called our attention to this and, in fact, has gotten roughly $90 million appropriated or agreed to. But the fact is, Mr. Natsios pledged, in Geneva, in the first week in June, that the United States would come up with $188 million. That is the pledge this administration made in Geneva in June. Now, the reason I bother to mention that is, the President pointed out this morning that the G-8 nations and the rest of the world do not seem seized with the same sense of urgency as we are, and that we have to lead. If we have announced we are going to do $188 million, and we are trying to get the rest of the world in on the deal, and then we come out of here with less than half of that, it seems to me it undercuts the very point that is trying to be made by the President of the United States. Now, I am not speaking for the President and implying that he is for or against this $188 million. I do not know. I assume he must have been for it or the head of his AID, under his administration, would not have pledged $188 million. Now, this is $188 million as emergency money in this fiscal year. Most of the money Natsios pledged was 2005 money that has yet to be appropriated. In other words, he pledged money he does not have and may not get for quite some time for what he calls the ``worst humanitarian crisis in the world today,'' where, if things go well, 320,000 will die. The House bill gives less than half the money, only $70 million. I understand that--again, I am not being critical of my friend from Ohio, but as he said to me, he got what he could. That is good. It is better than nothing. But keep in mind, the $188 million pledge was made, according to AID officials, in advance of the U.N.--in advance of the U.N.--issuing the revised numbers about how many people will be affected. Those numbers have increased. So the House bill provides less than half of what might be an inadequate pledge to begin with. I was asked not to offer this amendment because we give about half. Apparently that is going to be agreed to by the managers. But the Senate has the power to do a lot more than that. So let's give the administration what it said it will need to provide an emergency response in Darfur. If we do not, make no mistake about it, no one else is going to step to the plate.

Mr. BIDEN. I would be happy to.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my friend from Vermont, Senator Leahy, be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I might add, this is an unusual position to be in. I do not usually come to the floor on matters and try to lead an initiative on which I am not the guy who has done the most work. I have not done the most work on it. There are others, including Senator Leahy and others, who have been out in front on this issue. But I do not want to see us go through this wrap-up without us actually facing up to the facts. Let's know what we are doing. Mr. President, $90 million is better than nothing, but it is not the $188 million, which is probably too little anyway, that we already pledged. I am worried about the impact that will have on the rest of the world as we try to generate support because we need support. Now, look, our former colleague, Senator Danforth, who we just confirmed today, played a leading role in the Sudan in helping settle one of the real difficult issues, which was the north-south problem. Now we have an east-west problem. The fact is, he got the international community to step up and come forward in order to deal with this incredibly humanitarian crisis. It seems to me that notwithstanding the fact Mr. Natsios was forced to make the pledge for money to get the first piece done, the north-south piece, it is not going to inspire any contributions from our partners and donor communities. The Congress has to provide these emergency funds. This money will not stop the attacks. It will not do all we need to do. But it will give essential assistance to the victims of Khartoum's atrocities. How many times have we stood around this floor, those who have been here for the better part of the last decade, and lamented our failure to act in the last catastrophic African crisis with the Hutus and the Tutsis? How many times have we talked about it? Bill Clinton writes about it: We wish we had done more. President Bush talks about it. Let's not do this. Let's not step back. Let's not be here 5 years from now, 10 years from now saying: If we only had acted. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. At the appropriate time, I will ask for the yeas and nays. The chairman of the committee indicated he had a very important commitment that required him to be off the floor but wanted me to make my statement and get it moved on. I will not engage in anymore debate on this issue. At the appropriate time, when the chairman or whoever is going to respond to this amendment makes that response, I am ready for a vote. In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am going to send a modification to the desk in a moment. I will take 60 seconds to explain it. My staff had drafted the amendment for $188 million, which was a pledge by Mr. Natsios, before Mr. DeWine's $90 million was accepted. So I am not asking for $188 million on top of that. The amendment I am sending to the desk asks for an additional $118 million above the 90 which, in fact, apparently the committee has already accepted. So I send a modification to the desk and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be so modified to say $118 million instead of $188 million.

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their support of S. Con. Res. 83, a resolution that I introduced in support of the establishment of a Democracy Caucus within the United Nations. In particular, I thank Senators Lugar, Hagel, Lieberman, and Coleman for their co-sponsorship of this resolution. I also want to thank Chairman Lugar for permitting the resolution to come to the floor today. I am pleased that the Bush administration also supports the establishment of a U.N. Democracy Caucus, and that significant progress was made on this front in Geneva at this year's Commission on Human Rights. In particular, Peru, Romania, East Timor, Poland, Chile, South Korea, India and Italy have been very engaged in collaborative democracy-promotion initiatives. I am encouraged by such joint efforts. The broader the international support for a caucus, the more effective it will be. The establishment of a U.N. Democracy Caucus is not merely a project supported by Congress and the State Department. It is also endorsed by a broad-based coalition of U.S.-based organizations and advocacy groups such as Freedom House, Human Rights Watch, the American Jewish Committee, the American Bar Association and the Council for Community of Democracies. I also thank them for their work and advocacy on this issue. The idea of establishing a Democracy Caucus within the United Nations makes extraordinary good sense. The basic principal is this: democratic nations share common values, and should work together at the United Nations to promote those values. We will be more effective in doing so. Working together with like-minded nations in the United Nations and other multilateral organizations is a logical and practical way to conduct foreign policy. We build coalitions in American politics, in legislatures across the land and here in the Congress. Similarly, we should build coalitions of like-minded states in the United Nations, particularly to bolster global democratic principles, advance human rights, and promote international security and stability. The administration has recently re-discovered the virtues of working in cooperation with other nations at the United Nations. There we are just one nation, though a very powerful one. We only have one vote, whether in the General Assembly or the Security Council. Other democratic states should be natural allies on many issues; a caucus of democracies will facilitate such cooperation. Forging a coalition of democracies is not merely a statement that nations have shared values; it is a hard-headed diplomatic approach. By joining forces to make common cause, the democracies can be more effective in the U.N. and other world bodies. The unanimous passage of this resolution demonstrates the strong support of the Senate for the creation of a Democracy Caucus. I hope the Senate's action gives democracy-building efforts in the United Nations an important boost to this idea. I thank my colleagues within and outside the Senate for supporting this resolution.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Benjamin Franklin Commemorative Coin Act. This bill will authorize the U.S. Mint to produce a limited edition silver coin, in two designs, to honor the achievements of Benjamin Franklin, America's distinguished scientist, statesman, inventor and diplomat. In 2006, the United States will host a worldwide celebration marking the 300th anniversary of Franklin's birth on January 17, 1706. Activities, lectures and exhibits are being developed through the efforts of the Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary Commission, as ordered by the Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary Commission Act, Public Law 107-202. The Commission, on which I serve with other elected officials and private sector partners, is responsible for providing a proper tribute to one of our most remarkable founding fathers. Surcharges on the sale of the coin would help the commission pay for activities it plans for celebrating Benjamin Franklin's birthday. During the American Revolution, Franklin designed the first American coin--the ``Continental'' penny--and, until 1979, he was the only non- President of the United States whose image graced circulating coin and paper currency. it is only fitting that we honor Franklin's legacy through issuance of a commemorative coin. This bill is the Senate companion to H.R. 3024, which was introduced by my colleague from Delaware, Congressman Mike Castle, and it presently enjoys 326 cosponsors. As celebrations for our great leader are planned, I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting a commemorative coin for this important American. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I would like to take a moment to engage the Senator from Michigan in a discussion about information operations in the Air National Guard. Before we begin, I would also like to thank my colleague for his willingness to have this discussion on an issue of great importance to national security and to many of the Air National Guard personnel in my State. Let me start by saying that I think most of my colleagues understand that while the world today has changed, some things have stayed the same. When you are trying to stop terrorists, just like organized crime, you have to follow the money. These days, in order to follow the money, you have to have the very best in information operations skills. You have to understand the computerized financial networks and security systems used by financial institutions. In addition, you have to be able to protect your own information. This is a critical aspect of the war on terrorism and one where the Government needs more capability. Last year, the Defense Authorization Conference Report provided 30 additional Air Guard personnel that we had hoped would be used to stand up a new unit in Delaware to do this mission. This year, Senator Carper and I had hoped to finish that work by providing a total of 60 personnel for that unit. Unfortunately, we are not able to do that because the Department of Defense has not evaluated this proposal to determine whether it is a mission that should be assigned to the Air National Guard. We understand that the Department of Defense has an established process for assigning missions and determining the manning necessary to support those missions. Expanding the information operations capability of a unit or units within the Air National Guard has not been considered through this process.

Mr. BIDEN. I hope that we can agree that the Department's review should include an examination of using the Air National Guard for emerging missions like information operations.

Mr. BIDEN. I also hope that we will have their input regarding the mission and its suitability for the Air Guard before we take up next year's Defense Authorization bill. I would also like to make sure that the consideration of this particular mission takes into account the unique skills present in the Delaware Air National Guard and the work that they have already done in this area.

Mr. BIDEN. I thank my colleague for those assurances and look forward to working with him over the next year to make sure our information operations needs are met. Now, let me explain why I think it is so important to stand this unit up in Delaware. Delaware is uniquely situated to provide the skills needed for information assurance and financial tracking. Delaware is host to 7 of the top 10 banking institutions in the U.S. Delaware also has the highest amount of computer networking per capita of any State. In addition, major research companies like DuPont and Astra-Zeneca make their headquarters in Delaware. Last, Delaware has the highest number of scientists and engineers per capita in the U.S. All of those statistics mean that many members of Delaware's Air National Guard have civilian employment in banks or other institutions. They understand what is required to protect financial information and to track it. They are on the cutting-edge of information protection today. Their skills cannot be used by the Government, however, because banks and financial institutions are very sensitive about the employees of other banks reviewing their financial transactions. To do this type of work, a person must be a Government employee. One of the best ways to provide the benefit of these private sector skills to Government agencies fighting terror is through the National Guard. Guard personnel stay on the cutting edge of these skills because of their private sector jobs. They can then provide that knowledge to the Government, something that a civilian government employee cannot do. In 2003, the National Security Agency and the Air Intelligence Agency recognized their shortfalls in information assurance and tracking skills and started asking some of these Delaware Guardsmen and women to help them meet their requirements. NSA will have spent $945,000 between 2003 and 2004 to make use of the Delaware Air Guard's expertise. They would like to spend an additional $900,000 in 2005. AIA is spending $150,000 in 2004 on these missions. They are spending this money because a real need exists. Last year, the Senate, and then the full Congress, agreed that this mission needed support and a full-time unit. Thirty personnel were added to the Air National Guard's end-strength to create this new information operations unit. This year, we had hoped to finish the job by providing the full complement of 60 personnel needed for the mission and the $3.997 million needed to fully fund this unit. That is $2.75 million for personnel costs and $1.247 million for operations and maintenance. Unfortunately that will not be possible. Some may wonder why we sought an amendment to add the personnel and funding needed. The reason is simple. The Delaware Air National Guard is too small to move people to this mission and still do their primary tactical airlift mission. The 166th tactical airlift wing has had its C-130s fully tasked to support operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. When I wrote Lieutenant General James at the Guard Bureau about standing up this new unit, he replied that he thought Delaware's Guard was well- postured for the mission, but his ``end strength cap makes it challenging to resource new initiatives.'' Our amendment would have taken care of that challenge. Up to now, the personnel who have been working with NSA and AIA so far have been working three jobs. Let me say that again, three jobs. It is simply not sustainable. They cannot continue to do their regular Air Guard mission in the 166th tactical airlift wing, their civilian job, and the third job of helping NSA and AIA. With a new unit, we can provide the critical information operations skills needed to fight terrorism without harming the on-going tactical airlift mission that is supporting troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. I know end strength increases are controversial, but we need to look at the big picture. Remember, Congress agreed that a new unit was needed to do these missions last year. The facts on the ground have not changed. This is exactly the type of new mission the Air Guard should be doing. Only with the Guard can you get the commercial expertise and cutting edge knowledge needed to protect information systems and to track financial transactions. I look forward to hearing the Pentagon's thoughts about this new mission. Again, I think it's important to stress that information assurance and financial information operations are critical to the war on terrorism and to a transformed military. This is a growing area, not a shrinking one. We have looked carefully at all of our opportunities to provide the needed highly-skilled personnel to the fight. It is my belief that we can only do this if we create a unit to take advantage of the experienced and knowledgeable personnel available. No matter how patriotic people are, they cannot continue to work three jobs for years on end. Creating the new 166th information operations unit in the Delaware Air National Guard will enhance national security. It was the right thing to do last year and it's still the right thing to do. I hope that the Air Force will recognize that as we move forward in the war on terrorism.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I ask the Senator if he wants to respond to that comment.

Mr. BIDEN. Will my colleague yield for a couple questions?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask my colleague, the chairman of the Budget Committee, how big was the deficit in the budget you brought to the Senate floor, the budget you voted out of committee?

Mr. BIDEN. We are already starting off with the Senator recommending a vote for a budget that has $400 billion-plus.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I say to my friend, I didn't want to debate it. I was trying to get the facts. The facts are that, notwithstanding what he suggested he has saved by budget points of order, he brought a budget to the Senate floor that is in deficit over $400 billion.

Mr. BIDEN. Surely.

Mr. BIDEN. Again, I am not here to debate this. The facts are that he brought a budget to the floor of the Senate that is over $430 billion, and some believe it is over $500 billion in deficits. I agree with my friend that we should be careful about putting in entitlements. Entitlements, in a sense, if you think about the effect on the budget--I know the Presiding Officer is a former Governor--there are two types of expenditures: direct expenditures and tax expenditures. My friend also wants to essentially, in layman's terms, make an entitlement of the tax cuts; in other words, make them permanent. They do not want to make permanent the ability of veterans to have what this amendment calls for. I understand that. It is a logical argument. I do not begrudge that. I think it is an intelligent argument to make. I want to point out this is about values and priorities. If you want to know what a country values, if you want to know what a company values, if you want to know what a nonprofit values, look at its budget, and you will know. You will know what it values, on what it puts the highest value. I can understand one can make the argument, and there is truth to the argument, that tax cuts spur the economy, everything gets better, and it works out better. I got all that. Believe it or not, after 30 years here, I figured that out, and there is some truth to it. Really, this is a values debate, not wanting to put something permanently into the law that is an entitlement in the case of what veterans now and in the future would be entitled to. It is not a lot different fundamentally in its effect on the actual budget, the numbers in the budget, than essentially making permanent tax cuts from now infinitum. And they are big numbers. Again, the disagreement is real, genuine, and intellectually is defensible, but it is a difference of perspective. The reason the Senator from Delaware comes to the floor, very seldom my colleagues will notice, is that in this case, when you think about a budget that I voted against--I do not support the budget, I do not support the priorities within the budget by the Budget Committee--to turn around and say that when I vote not to sustain a point of order that somehow I am the one increasing the budget, it is a little bit like my saying to you: Here is the deal. What we are going to do in the family, we are going to have one car, drive it 22 miles a week, and not drive it any further than that. We are not going to turn the thermostat up over 60 degrees. And, by the way, we are going to build a new swimming pool in the backyard. If I do not get a vote on that--it seems to me when I come along and say we should be able to drive the car to church more often because the kids are not going to church because the church is 14 miles away, we should have more money for gas in the car, we should not have built the swimming pool--we do not get a chance to do that. I get a budget, which is legitimate, shoved on me because you guys run the show, the Republicans run the show. I got that. I understand it. I do not complain about that. More people voted for Republican Senators than Democratic Senators. But the idea that somehow when I suggest we should have a different priority and seek to change the budget I am busting the budget when, in fact, what has happened is the priorities that the chairman of the Budget Committee has placed in the budget--and very successfully, and he has led that committee very successfully and he has led it unanimously; there are no diversions on his side from what he proposes--is a little bit disingenuous in terms of the average person listening to this. It is as if I have to accept we are building a swimming pool instead of providing more gas in the car to get the kids to church. So I want to get more gas in the car to get the kids in church. I do not want to build a swimming pool. I do not want to do that. The only vehicle I have as a Senator is to vote for changing the budget that I do not want. What these are attached to is we say: What you put down in the budget, these tax cuts and the way they work and you are seeking to make them permanent, all those things, they are not my priorities. So the way I want to pay for that is I do not want to build a swimming pool. Now, you have built a swimming pool, but what I do not want to do is keep it open because it costs me a lot of money to keep it open. The money I can save by not filling the pool, not having a pool service come, not having to buy the chlorine, not having to buy the equipment is enough money for me to get the gas to get the kids to church on Sunday. That is what I want to do. That is what I am doing here. The fact is, the difference between 1993 and now is we are at war. My friend will say a lot of veterans who are going to benefit from this proposal are ones who are not at war now. One of the things we are trying to do in an All-Volunteer Army is make it more appealing for people to get into the service, to stay in the service, so that, in fact, when they volunteer to get in this Army, there are benefits that flow from it. They make enough sacrifices already in this Volunteer Army. We had trouble getting money early for bulletproof vests for these guys. I was just in Iraq, and I met a young man in Kuwait. Our generals introduced him to us. We had dinner, and they said: These are the heroes; these are the kids who drive the transport trucks from Kuwait City all the way up to Baghdad. Do my colleagues know what they are doing because we have not provided them what they need? They have been given the authority to augment their vehicles any way they want. I was joking with them. A lot of them are becoming spot welders. They are literally getting scrap metal and welding it to their vehicles. They are given the authority to do what they want because they are getting shot dead. We were out there, and these kids were on this incredibly dangerous mission. We said: Do the mission, but we realize you have to improvise. So they are telling me: I got this piece of steel, and I put it on my side door and welded it on. What I wanted to do was get some underneath so that when the bombs blow up, they don't blow through the seat. It is amazing. My point is, we are asking these kids to do all this. Right now in category 7 and 8, there are 400,000 veterans seeking VA help who are told: Don't apply. To the best of my knowledge--I do not claim to have a real expertise in this area--but there are 90,000 veterans under the present system waiting for admission to get into veterans hospitals, and there are 40,000 who wait 2 to 6 months just to get a doctor to sign off on them qualifying to get prescriptions from their local VA hospital at the lower price. Whether or not this proposal that has been put forward is the answer to any of this, I cannot guarantee, but there is something wrong in Denmark. Something is wrong here. Something is not working. If you wonder if I am telling the truth, go home and ask your Democratic- or Republican-registered veterans. Ask them if they are happy with the way things are working right now. Find out how many of those 400,000 people are told do not apply, and 90,000 are trying to get into the hospital. Again, I acknowledge, based on the fact we decided to build a swimming pool in this budget instead of doing this, this will increase the deficit. I got it. Just like the administration budget initially proposed did not even include money for Iraq. Does anybody think $25 billion is going to get us through next year in Iraq? Raise your hand. Come to the floor and tell me. Anybody. I want you to stand here and go on record and say: I believe that $25 billion is going to cover the nut in Iraq and Afghanistan for next year. Let's get a little truth in budgeting here. I understand the Senator. I got it. I respect him. He has made a basic value judgment. He believes very strongly--and there is some evidence for his belief--that if, in fact, we have these massive tax cuts, the bulk of which go to the wealthiest, it will, in fact, trickle down. He will argue--and there is some evidence to it--that some of it has already started to happen, and the best way to help veterans, poor folks, IDEA folks, and all those folks is get the economy roaring. That will bring in more revenue. I got it. That is a legitimate argument. But the basic fundamental argument we have is the die are not even cast. The table has been set, and I either sit down and sup at the table when I do not like the menu and refrain from trying to change the menu, or I attempt to change the menu. So this notion that the VA health care system is in good shape, that we have done so much for veterans--which we have done more--we are creating a whole heck of a lot more veterans now, a whole heck of a lot more, and the need is going to increase more because we are at war and we are likely to be at war for a while. Again, I do not want to belabor the point. I respect my friend, the chairman of the Budget Committee. I respect the fact he has little choice but to ask us to vote for a budget that is already, by his standards, $435 billion or so out of whack. I respect that. I respect the fact that he believes, notwithstanding the fact that his own outfit points out a significant portion of that deficit last year and this year relates to the tax cuts, we will earn it all back; we will be able to cut the deficit because of the economic growth and all of that. I have that. But I have also been through this once before. I went through this once before in the Reagan era. It did not work then. Reagan came back and raised taxes. I do not think it is going to work now. I will yield the floor with one final comment.

Mr. BIDEN. Was there a time? There is a time. Well, I respect that, and I thank my friend from Oklahoma. We just have a difference in our priorities and the way in which we value our value system. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to explain why I cannot support either the Warner or the Lautenberg amendment regarding the return of the remains of military personnel to Dover Air Force Base. The Warner amendment was an endorsement of the current policy, which prohibits any news coverage. The Lautenberg amendment would allow for news coverage in all cases. I do not believe either approach is correct. In terms of the Warner amendment, I do not agree with the current policy. It denies the sacrifice made by the brave men and women of our military. Anonymous photographs of flag draped coffins tell a real story about honor, courage, and sacrifice. The current Defense Department policy suppresses that story. However, when those coffins are individually and respectfully taken from the transport plane to the mortuary, then the families should decide. At the point that caskets are being transported to the mortuary or when they are beginning their journey to their final resting place, each fallen hero is honored individually. In some cases, family members may be present. In most cases, they are not. Either way, the honor being paid to their loved one is for them to share or not. Some families may wish to honor their loved one by having the press present and others may find that same press coverage intrusive. It should be their decision. The families should have a clear veto authority and a clear ability to agree to press coverage of their loved one's transport at and within Dover Air Force Base. Unfortunately, the Lautenberg amendment does not clearly provide that authority. For me, it is simple. We must not turn away from honoring our war heroes, but we must also recognize that each sailor, soldier, airmen, and marine is somebody's son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, or sister. When they die in the service of this Nation, they have made the ultimate sacrifice and it is the family that must bear the ultimate loss. The least we can do is let the family decide how much of that experience they wish to share.