Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me take 2 minutes. Amendment No. 1939 Mr. President, I have an amendment that I filed, No. 1939, which I understand is going to be acceptable to both the managers of the bill and will be included with other amendments that are approved in a few minutes. I particularly compliment Senator Snowe as the cosponsor of this legislation. She has been a long-time champion of commercial air service in rural areas, and I appreciate her leadership on the amendment. The amendment is very simple. In fact, both the House and the Senate have passed the substance of this amendment previously in connection with the FAA reauthorization legislation. The amendment that we are offering, that we appreciate people supporting, will preserve the Essential Air Service Program by preventing the Department of Transportation from implementing a new program that would require communities to pay in order to retain their commercial air service. I hope the Senate will again support it. Congress established the Essential Air Service Program in 1978 to ensure that communities that had commercial air service before airline deregulation could continue to receive scheduled service. Without EAS, many rural communities would have no commercial air service at all. All across America, small communities face ever-increasing hurdles to promoting their economic growth and development. Today, many rural areas lack access to interstate or even four-lane highways, railroads or broadband telecommunications. Business development in rural areas frequently hinges on the availability of scheduled air service. For small communities, commercial air service provides a critical link to the national and international transportation system. The Essential Air Service Program currently ensures commercial air service to over 100 communities in 34 States. EAS supports an additional 33 communities in Alaska. Because of increasing costs and the current financial turndown in the aviation industry, particularly among commuter airlines, about 28 additional communities have been forced into the EAS program since the terrorist attacks in 2001. In my State of New Mexico, five cities currently rely on EAS for their commercial air service. The communities are Clovis, Hobbs, Carlsbad, Alamogordo and my hometown of Silver City. In each case commercial service is provided to Albuquerque, the State's largest city and business center. Back in June, during consideration of the FAA reauthorization bill, Senator Inhofe and I, with 13 bipartisan cosponsors, offered an amendment that struck out a provision in that bill that would for the first time require some communities to pay to retain their commercial air service. I believed that arbitrary proposal would have eliminated scheduled air service for many rural communities that participate in the Essential Air Service Program. I was pleased the full Senate listened and adopted our amendment to the FAA reauthorization bill. In parallel, the full House of Representatives also voted to eliminate mandatory cost sharing language from the FAA reauthorization bill. Most students of Government would tell you that when a majority of both Houses of Congress have voted against a particular measure, the conferees couldn't arbitrarily put it back in. Well they did. In another example of secret House-Senate back-room dealing, the Republican conferees excluded the minority members, flagrantly ignored the will of the majority in the House and the Senate, and restored the very cost-sharing language both Houses one month before had voted to reject. I believe adding this extraneous and objectionable provision is an egregious violation of the conference process. A conference report on H.R. 2115 was filed 3 months ago and there has been no further action in either House of Congress. Clearly, this was flawed process and the result is an FAA conference report that can't pass either the House or the Senate. It is not clear how the leaders will resolve the problems with the FAA conference report. Last month, 16 bipartisan Senators wrote to the House and Senate conferees opposing the mandatory cost sharing for EAS communities. Thirty-five bipartisan House Members signed a similar letter to conferees. I ask unanimous consent that both letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, in response to the comments the Senator from Idaho made earlier this morning on the Healthy Forests legislation, the history of that legislation is that the bill did get referred to the Agriculture Committee. I thought that was a mistake, since the Energy and Natural Resources Committee has always had primary jurisdiction over most of the issues dealt with in that bill. But a bill was reported out of that committee. Following that, a group of Senators--the Senator from Idaho included--got together on a bipartisan basis to develop their own alternative, or their own proposal. That is what is intended to be brought to the Senate floor. My staff, the staff of the Democratic side of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, was not included in those negotiations. I complained about that. They were told they could observe but not participate in a meaningful way. They did that to some extent. I believe it is important that we have a full opportunity for amendment to this bill. I do not object to the bill coming up. I do not object to us proceeding with an agreement to limit what we do to the amendments related to that bill. I think that would be an appropriate way to proceed. It is an important issue. We ought to deal with it before Congress adjourns this fall. I will have several amendments. I think there are problems with the bill as I understand it. I also have a great many questions I would like to have answers to about the meaning of some of the language in the bill. Those are legitimate issues. I believe we can have a full and fair debate and a full and fair opportunity for Senators to offer amendments. I know the assistant Democratic leader, Senator Reid, did suggest we proceed to bring the bill up. There would be no objection to that. Certainly, I think that would be an appropriate way to proceed. With that, I appreciate the chance to explain my own point of view and position. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, to conclude my statement, I do think there are serious questions regarding this new language. It differs substantially from the bill that was reported by the Agriculture Committee. Some of the major issues raised by the amendment include a lack of any new funding to reduce hazardous fuels; failure to eliminate the harmful agency policy of borrowing from proactive forest restoration accounts to pay for firefighting; the curtailment of public participation in the management and oversight of public lands, including the establishment of a new so-called predecisional review process, which I do not, frankly, understand; and also, of course, as I mentioned before, limitations on judicial review. It also appears to create some new standards for injunctions that might be issued by the Federal court, both preliminary and permanent injunctions. There is no protection that I can see for national monuments and roadless areas and other environmentally sensitive areas in the bill. I am not aware how some of these issues have been adequately addressed in the proposed amendment. For that reason I think we need to have an opportunity to offer amendments. I hope the Senate can consider this forest health legislation this year. As do many Senators, especially those from Western States who have suffered in recent years from catastrophic wildfire, I very much want to see us resolve these issues as best we can. But we should do so under conditions that allow for amendments and allow for full debate. And that is my purpose at this stage. So I hope we can proceed and do so in a way that all of us get to participate in the process. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak for just a few minutes about the need for the so-called Healthy Forests initiative that was discussed earlier this week. Earlier this week, there was a unanimous consent request made to proceed to H.R. 1904, the so-called Healthy Forests initiative. The unanimous consent request sought to limit debate on the bill to a specified list of amendments to be offered by particular Senators. Included in that list were two amendments that were purported to be offered or suggested to be offered by me. I have never spoken to anybody about my intent with regard to offering amendments. And I certainly have not agreed to any particular amendments that I wanted to offer. Therefore, I have real concerns with that unanimous consent request because the proposed unanimous consent request would have limited me to offering certain amendments that I had not previously heard about. Obviously, I would have objected had not other Senators done so. This is an important issue that the Senate needs to try to address this year. I do not favor delaying that consideration. There is always a threat that we have seen in the West, particularly in recent years, of unnatural, intense, catastrophic wildfire. That is a threat to many of our communities, to millions of acres of public land and forests in the West. It was alleged early this week by some who were supporting moving ahead with that unanimous consent request that those who did not favor the unanimous consent request did not favor active management of the national forests. I want to be clear in my statement this morning that I certainly do not fall in that category. I do not think we should just let nature take its course. I do think we should pursue active management. What I want to be sure of is that the bill we finally enact provides meaningful new authority to our land managers; that it is focused on the communities that are most threatened by wildfire; and that it does not unduly restrict the public's right to participate and have oversight in the management of these lands. I am aware that a deal of some sort has been developed by certain of the Senators who are concerned on the issue. I was not involved in that set of negotiations that led to that deal. The provisions, as I understand them, that have come out of that are complicated, complex. I have a number of questions about the ramifications of some of those provisions, especially the ones dealing with administrative appeals, judicial review, and such issues. I think there should be a hearing. That would be the right way to proceed. We have new legislative language. The right way to proceed would be to have a hearing where we can get testimony on these provisions and better understand them. I have asked for such a hearing. I hope that will occur. I believe having a clearer understanding of what the amendment means and encouraging constructive suggestions would be a preferable course for us to pursue.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, over 6 weeks ago, the Senate appointed 13 conferees to the conference with the House on the Energy bill. Six of those conferees are Democrats. They were appointed to represent the 49 Democrats who serve in this body. The day after our appointment, there was one meeting of the conference to allow for opening statements. Since then, there has been no opportunity for Democratic conferees to actually act as conferees. Some of the proposed text for the conference report, which was written without our involvement, has been circulated to us for comment by our staff. On the most important issues before the conference--that being electricity and ethanol--we have not yet seen a draft text. Our concern about the way the conference has been conducted is not new information to this body. I have conveyed those concerns directly to the chairman of the conference. I have been joined publicly in expressing those concerns by other Democratic conferees, both in the Senate and House. The blackout on information about the conference became even more complete during this past weekend. We understand there are agreements on most of the issues involved with the Energy bill. In fact, the settled energy provisions probably represent well over 500 pages of legislative text. This text contains many details and it is important that we be able to view the text before we are called into a final conference meeting for an up-or-down vote. Our staff was standing by all weekend in hopes of getting to see this text. We were not able to do so. I personally cannot think of any valid reason why the completed text--those portions that have been completed by the Republican conferees--should not be distributed to the rest of the conferees immediately. There are numerous new sections on topics that have not been yet dealt with, as we understand it. We need to see those. Some of those may be provisions that were neither in the House nor the Senate bill. Others may entail spending of which we previously have not been informed. I have spoken to the chairman of the conference in the last few minutes. He has informed me that he and our majority leader are insisting that this conference not be concluded until we are given the full text of this bill and until we have at least 24 hours to review the text and have a final meeting at which we can raise objections and offer amendments. I appreciate that courtesy. This is far short of what I think would be required in an appropriate conference, but it is certainly some effort to accommodate, which I very much appreciate. I do believe the sections that have not yet been released--that being the sections on electricity and ethanol--need to be released at the earliest possible moment, and hopefully today. These are very important sections. They are going to affect Americans in their pocketbook in very real ways. It is very important we get the provisions out so we can understand them, debate them, and consider them before we are called upon to finally pass on this conference. The right thing to do is to make the documents--that is, the text of this proposed Energy legislation--public as soon as possible. There is no doubt in anybody's mind that this is what the Democratic conferees continue to ask for. I hope this is the course of action that will be taken by the leadership of the House and Senate at the earliest possible moment. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill of significant importance to our Nation's health: The Better Eating for Better Living Act of 2003. Today, heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes are responsible for two-thirds of the deaths in the United States. The major risk factors for these diseases and conditions are established in childhood through unhealthy eating habits, physical inactivity, obesity, and tobacco use. Obesity rates have doubled in children and tripled in adolescents over the last 2 decades. Today 1 in 7 young people are obese and 1 in 3 are overweight. This is not a problem. This is a crisis with potentially dire consequences that demands our immediate attention. Obese children are twice as likely as non-obese children to become obese adults. Overweightness and obesity can result in physical, psychological, and social consequences, including heart disease, diabetes, cancer, depression, decreased self-esteem, and discrimination. Obesity is a complex multi-factorial disease that is difficult to prevent but even more difficult to treat. Our best bet at improving the lives of children who currently are obese and preventing more from joining the ranks is to encourage environments that foster healthy eating and activity in our communities, in our homes, and in our schools. It is the need to improve the nutritional environment of our schools that I want to address today. Our school breakfast and lunch programs were originally designed to combat hunger in our nation. They have been and continue to be a vital component of the food security safety net. However, today we have another problem: obesity and overweight, and the child nutrition programs need to be updated to meet the needs of our current health challenges while maintaining their role securing healthy food for all children. Only 2 percent of children currently consume a diet that meets the five main recommendations for a healthy diet from the USDA Food Guide Pyramid. Three out of four high school students in the U.S. do not eat the recommended 5 or more servings of fruits and vegetables each day and 3 out of 4 children consume more saturated fat than it recommended in the dietary Guidelines for Americans. Although the school lunch and school breakfast programs have made great strides in improving health by meeting these guidelines, our work in creating healthy school environments is not yet done. Since obesity is a complex issue, stemming the tide will take a myriad of interventions. I commend Senators Harkin, Leahy, Kohl, Dole, and others who have introduced bills that would improve the Child Nutrition programs and the children and schools they serve while preserving its mission to provide nutritionally sound meals to the young people who need them. Today I am introducing another bill vital to improving our children's health: The Better Eating for Better Living Bill. This bill has four key components. First, the bill increases the reimbursement rates for school lunch. School food service directors have been expected to improve the quality of their meals without any concurrent funding increase for years, and it's time that changes. An additional 10 cents per meal may not sound like much but it will offer school food service directors significantly greater flexibility in purchasing quality food including leaner meats, fresh vegetables, and fresh fruits. Second, the bill requires the secretary of agriculture to evaluate the nutrition guidelines for school meals every five years. The science of nutrition is a dynamic and rapidly changing field. Guidelines are appropriately based on the best science of the time but as that science evolves, so should the guidelines regulating school meals. Our children deserve the benefit of the most current science. Thus, updates are to be based on current and sound scientific evidence, current public health concerns, and cultural appropriateness. Next the bill will liberalize the current milk guidelines so as to only require schools to require low fat or no fat milk as is appropriate for school-age children. Schools would have the option of providing other milk products so long as they are cost and nutritionally equivalent. Finally, serving healthy food is an important first step, but accompanying that food with adequate nutrition education is vital to growing a generation of healthy eaters and active adults. Thus, the bill provides increased funding for nutrition education. Specifically, it would provide guaranteed funding at the state level for implementation and administration of the Team Nutrition Program. This is a program that has existed in statute for years, but because its administration has rarely been funded, it has not been implemented. It is time we commit to nutrition education as part of making a strong commitment to our children's health and well-being. Now is the time to take action toward improving the health and well- being of our nations' youth. Let us implement these vital advances in the child nutrition program now while we are reauthorizing the Child Nutrition Act. The cost of improving the health of our children will be far less than the cost of the health consequences to come if we do nothing. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill of significant importance to our Nation's health: The Better Eating for Better Living Act of 2003. Today, heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes are responsible for two-thirds of the deaths in the United States. The major risk factors for these diseases and conditions are established in childhood through unhealthy eating habits, physical inactivity, obesity, and tobacco use. Obesity rates have doubled in children and tripled in adolescents over the last 2 decades. Today 1 in 7 young people are obese and 1 in 3 are overweight. This is not a problem. This is a crisis with potentially dire consequences that demands our immediate attention. Obese children are twice as likely as non-obese children to become obese adults. Overweightness and obesity can result in physical, psychological, and social consequences, including heart disease, diabetes, cancer, depression, decreased self-esteem, and discrimination. Obesity is a complex multi-factorial disease that is difficult to prevent but even more difficult to treat. Our best bet at improving the lives of children who currently are obese and preventing more from joining the ranks is to encourage environments that foster healthy eating and activity in our communities, in our homes, and in our schools. It is the need to improve the nutritional environment of our schools that I want to address today. Our school breakfast and lunch programs were originally designed to combat hunger in our nation. They have been and continue to be a vital component of the food security safety net. However, today we have another problem: obesity and overweight, and the child nutrition programs need to be updated to meet the needs of our current health challenges while maintaining their role securing healthy food for all children. Only 2 percent of children currently consume a diet that meets the five main recommendations for a healthy diet from the USDA Food Guide Pyramid. Three out of four high school students in the U.S. do not eat the recommended 5 or more servings of fruits and vegetables each day and 3 out of 4 children consume more saturated fat than it recommended in the dietary Guidelines for Americans. Although the school lunch and school breakfast programs have made great strides in improving health by meeting these guidelines, our work in creating healthy school environments is not yet done. Since obesity is a complex issue, stemming the tide will take a myriad of interventions. I commend Senators Harkin, Leahy, Kohl, Dole, and others who have introduced bills that would improve the Child Nutrition programs and the children and schools they serve while preserving its mission to provide nutritionally sound meals to the young people who need them. Today I am introducing another bill vital to improving our children's health: The Better Eating for Better Living Bill. This bill has four key components. First, the bill increases the reimbursement rates for school lunch. School food service directors have been expected to improve the quality of their meals without any concurrent funding increase for years, and it's time that changes. An additional 10 cents per meal may not sound like much but it will offer school food service directors significantly greater flexibility in purchasing quality food including leaner meats, fresh vegetables, and fresh fruits. Second, the bill requires the secretary of agriculture to evaluate the nutrition guidelines for school meals every five years. The science of nutrition is a dynamic and rapidly changing field. Guidelines are appropriately based on the best science of the time but as that science evolves, so should the guidelines regulating school meals. Our children deserve the benefit of the most current science. Thus, updates are to be based on current and sound scientific evidence, current public health concerns, and cultural appropriateness. Next the bill will liberalize the current milk guidelines so as to only require schools to require low fat or no fat milk as is appropriate for school-age children. Schools would have the option of providing other milk products so long as they are cost and nutritionally equivalent. Finally, serving healthy food is an important first step, but accompanying that food with adequate nutrition education is vital to growing a generation of healthy eaters and active adults. Thus, the bill provides increased funding for nutrition education. Specifically, it would provide guaranteed funding at the state level for implementation and administration of the Team Nutrition Program. This is a program that has existed in statute for years, but because its administration has rarely been funded, it has not been implemented. It is time we commit to nutrition education as part of making a strong commitment to our children's health and well-being. Now is the time to take action toward improving the health and well- being of our nations' youth. Let us implement these vital advances in the child nutrition program now while we are reauthorizing the Child Nutrition Act. The cost of improving the health of our children will be far less than the cost of the health consequences to come if we do nothing. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, that is correct. I have no opposition to the amendment. I just want to speak to and explain my views on it.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak very briefly on the pending McConnell amendment which Senator McConnell, Senator Warner, and Senator McCain have offered. First, I congratulate them. I think this is a very constructive amendment. It gives recognition to the men and women who are serving overseas in various locations. It puts the Senate on record, even though it is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, in support of the issuance of appropriate medals to these individuals. I believe, as I was arguing the day before yesterday when we had the other debate on this issue, that the appropriate course is either on the initiative of the Pentagon or through action by the Congress that at some stage fairly soon we authorize combat medals for those who serve in Iraq and for those who perhaps serve in Afghanistan. That seems to me to me to be consistent with the course we followed previously. We had a medal of that sort for those who served in the first gulf war. We had a medal of that sort for those who served in Kosovo. There is ample precedent for that. To lump all military engagements that we have after 9/11 under this large umbrella of the global war on terrorism and say we are going to give you one medal for whatever military engagements you serve in after that date I think is inadequate. I think the men and women serving in Iraq today deserve special recognition for that. I have seen the suggestions being considered at the Pentagon for putting a star on some designation--on a generic kind of a medal dealing with the global war on terrorism, some kind of star indicating services in Iraq. To me, that would not be consistent with what we have done before. I hope we won't go that route. Obviously, this is a step forward. I commend the Senator from Virginia, the Senator from Arizona, and the Senator from Kentucky for putting forward this amendment. I intend to support it. I hope all Senators will support it. But I hope we will find a way or that the Pentagon will find a way to do more to recognize the service of these individuals both in Iraq and in Afghanistan. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield back the remaining time.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I certainly have no objection to voting on this, voting at 20 minutes to 6. I would like a chance to speak for 4 or 5 minutes on the amendment, if I could.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, this amendment relates to the utilization of the National Guard and Reserve as part of our military activities and presence around the world. I think we have all been struck by the fact that in the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in many other instances, we are seeing a greater utilization of reservists and National Guard personnel by the Pentagon. I am not being critical of that, but I do think this is a new reality we need to adjust to and understand better. Since the founding of our Nation we have relied upon the services of citizen soldiers. The National Guard and Reserves have a proud tradition of setting aside their civilian lives to serve our country in times of conflict. Recently, the need for this service has significantly increased. Today, the National Guard and Reserves' commitments overseas are critical to the resolution of several conflicts around the world. The almost 400 soldiers deployed to keep the peace between Israel and Egypt along the Sinai peninsula are members of the Oregon National Guard's 1-186th Infantry Battalion. The only Fighter Squadron operating from Iraq is an A-10 unit from Missouri's 442 Fighter Wing stationed at Tallil Airbase in Southern Iraq. This Reserve unit is the only A-10 Warthawg unit in the Air Force with Precision Guided Munitions delivery capability. Much of the air defense of Washington, D.C., is the responsibility of the D.C. Air National Guard's 113th Fighter Wing and air defense forces of the New Mexico National Guard. The purpose of this amendment is to require the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security to provide a report to the Senate Armed Services Committee and House Armed Service Committee that contains the following: No. 1, an assessment of the levels utilization of the Guard and Reserves component in the manning of contingency operations, domestically and overseas. No. 2, Recruitment and retention plans for the National Guard and Reserves in light of increased commitments. No. 3, and finally, a report from the Department of Homeland Security on the effects of National Guard and Reserves deployments on Homeland Security. Last week I had the opportunity and honor to meet with families of the 717th Medical Company of the New Mexico National Guard. I cannot tell you how moved I was by the patriotism and commitment of these families and guardsmen. Despite the increased operations tempo members of the New Mexico National Guard remain as dedicated as ever to saving lives in New Mexico and overseas. For example, last year, CPT Paul Saiz deployed to Kosovo in support of KFOR for 6 months flew dozens of aeromedical airlift missions throughout Kosovo in support of U.S. military and the civilian populace. Upon returning from his deployment he participated in several civil search and rescues in the New Mexico mountains, and when Albuquerque, NM was ravaged by wildfires, Captain Saiz and others flew firefighting missions, dumping water with pinpoint accuracy. I have been told that many firemen were convinced that had it not been for Captain Saiz's efforts, firefighters would have perished. Currently, Captain Saiz and 35 others are deployed to Afghanistan providing Aeromedical Airlift for the entire country. The 717th Medical Company's Commander, MAJ James Fishbourne writes: The soldiers of the 717th Medical Company (AA) are doing extremely well. We are very busy and have completed 43 combat medevac missions to date. I am so proud of our soldiers and how they are performing in this environment. We are non-stop here with urgent and priority medevac missions. Last week one of our crews was called to rescue an infantryman from a 180- ft canyon near the Pakistan border. Our crews were able to hoist the soldier to safety and bring him back to the level 1 hospital. We have also been called to evacuate many mine blast victims throughout Afghanistan. It is very sad to say, but most of the mine victims are children. One patient we evaced to Bagram was a 12-year-old girl with both legs amputated. The night she was in surgery, the hospital was running low on O- blood and one of our pilots (CW4 Atkinson) donated several pints to save her life. Just last night I transported two children involved in a rollover. What a sight it was seeing two small Afghan children lying on a stretcher together being cared for by SSG Esqueivel and CW2 Medina. These children are very sick or hurt when we are called to rescue them. I can't tell you about all the missions our fine soldiers have accomplished but I will say that there is no medevac mission that we have had to turn down and no better soldiers than those of the 717th. Our soldiers were involved with the bomb that went off near Bagram, we did assist the hospital with recovery of the local nationals and assisted the doctors and medical personnel here at the hospital. Please do all you can to tell the people back home that the soldiers of the 717th Medical Company are doing great things for the soldiers, airmen, and marines here in Afghanistan. They are making great sacrifices being away from their families and jobs back in New Mexico. Guardsmen and reservists all over the country are making great sacrifices. We need to examine the long-term impact that prolonged activation has on recruitment and retention of the National Guard Reserves. We must ensure that the administration has a plan to not only retain qualified guardsmen and reservists, but to also attract new members. I find it very hard to believe that the increased operations tempo the Guard and Reserves are experiencing will have no effect on recruitment and retention. I fear that if we ask too much of these men and women, many will decide to leave military service. Therefore, we must ensure that the Department of Defense has prepared an effective strategy to maintain the National Guard and Reserves. it is quite possible that the Department of defense has such a plan, but I am not aware of it. We must also closely look at the impact that long deployments have on security at home. Many of the young men and women serving overseas as members of the National Guard and Reserves work as first responders at home. How has the absence of Guardsmen and reservists who are civilian policemen, emergency medical technicians and other first responders, hampered the ability of states to respond in times of natural disaster or homeland security emergencies? How will the absence of Guard and Reserves personnel who may ordinarily serve in these capacities as part of their service when they are not otherwise deployed affect these operations? These are questions that must be answered. There is no doubt that the utilization of National Guard and Reserves, at least at current rates, will continue well into the future. The information these reports will provide will be critical as we move ahead with decisions about manning, procurement, and security. I understand that portions of this report may have some sensitivity. If there is a requirement for portions or all of this report to be in classified format, then it should be submitted at the appropriate level of classification. Let there be no doubt that the men and women of the National Guard and Reserves are doing their part to protect us at home and overseas. We must ensure that analysis has been conducted, and plans are in place to preserve the integrity, readiness and force levels necessary for this period of long-term activation. At the appropriate time I hope we can adopt this amendment--by voice vote, if possible. I do not know a reason why it should be objected to by any Member of the Senate, but obviously I await the opportunity for all Members to review the amendment before I call for a vote. Madam President, with that, I see nobody else seeking the floor so I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I do send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank my colleague from Nevada. Madam President, so there is no question about the opportunity for others to speak, I was asked if I would describe my amendment first and then at the end of my description I will ask to set aside the pending amendment and send my amendment to the desk. That is how I will proceed. I intend to offer in a few minutes an amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Lugar, Senator Lieberman, Senator Bayh, Senator Clinton, Senator Durbin, Senator Landrieu, Senator Lincoln, Senator Smith, and Senator Reid. This is an amendment to honor our service men and women in Iraq who are serving far from home, far from family, far from friends. Let me indicate from the title of the amendment that I intend to send to the desk what it would do: to authorize the award of the Iraqi Liberation Medal as a campaign medal for members of the Armed Forces who serve in Southwest Asia in connection with Operation Iraqi Freedom. These service men and women, as we all know, have left the security of this country and their home behind to provide freedom and security for those who have not known it for many years. The human cost has been substantial, over 300 American fighting men and women will never come home. There are over 1,200 who will return wounded, far higher than previous conflicts. I have a chart that demonstrates the grim statistics, showing the casualties our military has incurred in recent conflicts. In Operation Desert Storm, with which we are all familiar, the casualties, total deaths were 382, killed in action, 143, and the wounded were 467. In the Kosovo campaign, there were 16 deaths. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, as of last week, there were 196 killed in action, 309 total deaths, and 1,268 wounds. So the casualties have been significant. This is not a minor military activity. We have over 130,000 troops in the region. They remain to ensure that those who died and those who were wounded did not suffer and die in vain. They are also there to build a new Iraqi nation and to provide stability and freedom in that nation. The liberation of Iraq is turning out to be the most significant military occupation and reconstruction effort, clearly, since the end of the Vietnam war and perhaps even before that. Despite their sacrifice and courage, these brave men and women will not, under current policy, be specifically recognized for their service in Iraq. Instead, the Department of Defense has decided to award them a Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. This issue was drawn to my attention by an article that appeared in the Army Times and the Navy Times and the Air Force Times called ``One Size Fits All?'' ``The Pentagon plans to award one medal for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for any future campaigns related to the war on terrorism.'' I believe this is a mistake in policy, that our military personnel deserve better. Accordingly, my colleagues and I are offering this amendment to correct the mistake by ensuring there is authorized an Iraqi Liberation Medal in lieu of this Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. As all who have paid attention in the Senate know, some of us did not agree with the administration's decision to proceed in Iraq when it did, but clearly we have all been united in our support of the troops. Young men and women, both active-duty personnel and National Guard and Reserve, have come forward and done their duty. That is clearly the essence of patriotism, and we all respect that. They continue to serve even though they do not know when they will be returning to their families and to their communities. They continue to serve despite the tremendous hardships they face and despite the constant threat to their lives. The President, of course, has agreed entirely with this view of the exemplary service our men and women have provided. He has made many statements to that effect, and there is no partisan disagreement on any of that. Let me put up another chart in the Chamber. During Operation Desert Storm, service members received three separate military decorations for their service: the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal; the Liberation of Kuwait Medal, given by the Government of Saudi Arabia; and the Liberation of Kuwait Medal, given by the Government of Kuwait. Those are all three depicted on this chart. In the case of Kosovo, our service men and women received the NATO Service Medal and the Kosovo Campaign Medal. And those two medals are depicted on this part of the chart. In the case of this current conflict in Iraq, the proposal by the administration is to give them the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, and that would apply to Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom or any operation in the Philippines or any future global war on terrorism operation. The policy as it now exists would say that if you are in the military and you are directed to duty in one or more of these operations, you get this generic medal which indicates you are part of the global war on terrorism, which we know is of indefinite duration and which we know is not limited by any geographic limitation. There is a difference--a substantial difference--between an expeditionary medal on the one hand and a campaign medal. We only need to look at an excerpt from the U.S. Army Qualifications for the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal and the Kosovo Campaign Medal. In order to receive the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, you do not need to go to war, you only need to be ``placed in such a position that, in the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, hostile action by a foreign armed force was imminent even though it does not materialize.'' So that is an expeditionary medal. To earn the Kosovo Campaign Medal, there was a higher standard. A military member had to either ``[b]e engaged in actual combat, or duty that is equally hazardous as combat duty, during the Operation with armed opposition, regardless of time [spent] in the Area of Engagement.'' Many within the military agree there is a significant difference between an expeditionary medal and a campaign medal. According to the Army Times: Campaign medals help establish an immediate rapport with individuals checking into a unit. An expeditionary medal does not necessarily denote any combat or any real connection to that particular area of potential combat. A campaign medal is designed to recognize military personnel who have risked their lives or are risking their lives in combat. Obviously, all of us want to see proper recognition given to our young men and women who are in Iraq, including Army SP Joseph Hudson from my home State of New Mexico, from Alamogordo, NM. He was held as a prisoner of war. The Nation was captivated, and particularly people of my State were captivated, as we watched Specialist Hudson being interrogated by the enemy on videotape. Asked to divulge his military occupation, Specialist Hudson stared defiantly into the camera and said: ``I follow orders.'' Those of us with sons and daughters were united in worry with Specialist Hudson's family. The entire Nation rejoiced when he was liberated. He is just one of many who deserve this special recognition I am arguing for today. We have also asked much of our Reserve and National Guard personnel. The reconstruction of Iraq clearly would not be possible without the commitment and sacrifice of the 170,000 Guard and reservists who are currently on active duty. As recently as this last week, an additional 10,000 troops from Washington State and North Carolina were activated for service in Iraq. I think this is a straightforward amendment, one for which I hope we can have very strong support. I am very pleased that it is being proposed as a bipartisan amendment. My colleagues and I are committed to appropriately honoring the 200,000 or so heroes who have served to date or are serving in connection with the effort in Iraq. We believe current administration policy does not properly honor those personnel, and therefore we propose that in lieu of this Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, a new decoration that characterizes the real mission in Iraq--one that is distinctive and honors their sacrifice, something in the nature of an Iraqi Liberation Medal--be provided. Some will argue that Congress has no business legislating in this area. But I point out there is ample precedent for what we are proposing. Congress has been responsible for recognizing the sacrifice and courage of our military forces throughout history. Congress has had a significant and historically central role in authorizing military decorations. Our Nation's highest decorations were authorized by Congress. Those include the Congressional Medal of Honor, the Air Force Cross, the Navy Cross, the Army's Distinctive Service Cross, the Silver Star, and the Distinguished Flying Cross. All of those were authorized by Congress. We have also authorized campaign and liberation medals similar to what is being proposed here in many cases. A partial list includes the Spanish War Service Medal, the Army Occupation of Germany Medal, the World War II Victory Medal, the Berlin Airlift Medal, the Korean Service Medal, and the Prisoner of War Medal, in addition to the medals I have referred to already. The men and women of our military are doing their jobs every day in Iraq. We should do our job by honoring them appropriately with a medal that is specific to their sacrifice and to this campaign in Iraq. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask that it be immediately considered.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will not ask for the yeas and nays at this point. At an appropriate time, I will ask for the yeas and nays. It is important that the Senate go on record in support of the awarding of a medal of this type. I hope we can have a very strong vote on its behalf. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in previous military campaigns such as the first gulf war and Kosovo, and many before that, the Pentagon has issued campaign medals to service men and women who served in those conflicts. We need to do the very same in the case of our service men and women who are serving in Iraq. The amendment I am proposing says the Secretaries of the respective services may issue an appropriate medal or campaign designation to any person who serves in any capacity in the armed services in connection with Operation Iraqi Freedom. In my view, this is much preferable to the Pentagon's current policy, which is that everyone should get a Global War on Terrorism Medal instead of a medal that relates to their service in Iraq. The service men and women who are risking their lives in Iraq deserve to be recognized for their service in that country. This is a major military engagement we have gotten into here and there will be a lot of service men and women involved. We definitely should make this a separate medal. That is the thrust of the amendment. Senator Lugar is a cosponsor, along with many others. I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Byrd, Leahy, and Jeffords to those who are already listed as cosponsors.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the only argument I have heard against the amendment that, to me, made good sense was a concern about the prohibition provision, subsection (d) of the amendment. I have asked permission to delete that and it has been denied. So I would just simply suggest to my colleagues that it is more appropriate and more consistent with the policy of this country to give awards for major military conflicts such as what we have been engaged in in Iraq than it is to give a Global War on Terrorism award to everything that happens from 9/11 forward. The reality is, the people who are serving in Iraq deserve to be recognized for that. That is all we are trying to do with this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, are we going to have more debate on this amendment?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me say in response to my colleague from Virginia, if he would like to offer an amendment to give an award to those who served in Afghanistan, I will cosponsor and support that. I have proposed something for the men and women who have served in the conflict in Iraq. And I think it is an appropriate thing for the Congress to do. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona raises a valid point about the prohibition section, which is subsection (d). And I ask unanimous consent that be deleted from the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have had plenty of time. I suggest we vote.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is not intended to prevent the Pentagon from issuing any other awards they wish with regard to Afghanistan or other locations, but it is clear to me that issuing a Global War on Terrorism Medal is not adequate for the service we are calling on our men and women to perform in Iraq. We should give them a medal for that campaign. That is all the amendment does. I ask for the yeas and nays.