Peter Fitzgerald

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, June 4. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until the hour of 11 a.m., with the first 30 minutes under the control of Senator Brownback or his designee; provided further that the remaining time be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees and that Senators be limited to 5 minutes each.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution that would designate June 2003 as National Safety Month. National Safety Month is not just a tribute to our Nation's advances in health and safety and our never-ending efforts to protect lives. It represents a standard of excellence in safety to which we as a Nation must continue to aspire. While our Nation has enjoyed great advances in safety, we must continue to work to reduce the number of unintentional and preventable injuries and deaths. As summer is traditionally a time in which the number of unintentional deaths increases, it is appropriate to dedicate a month at the beginning of the season to the improvement of safety and health in our country. During National Safety Month, the National Safety Council will provide tips, articles and information to raise awareness and promote safe driving, home and community safety, general preparedness, and workplace safety. I would like to commend the National Safety Council for the contributions that it has made to public safety. I am proud that the National Safety Council is headquartered in my home State of Illinois. The National Safety Council is celebrating its 90th anniversary as an organization this year, and its 50th anniversary as a federally chartered organization. Congress chartered the National Safety Council in 1953 to educate and influence society to adopt safety, health, and environmental policies, practices, and procedures that prevent and mitigate human suffering and economic loss arising from preventable causes. The National Safety Council fulfills its mission through a network of approximately 50 local and regional chapters that provide safety and health programs and services to communities across the United States. The Council currently has 37,500 members. I thank Senator Feinstein for joining me to submit this resolution that declares June 2003 National Safety Month and recognizes the National Safety Council for its important work. During a time when homeland security is foremost on the minds of Americans, this month will continue to heighten public awareness of the ongoing quest to save and protect lives. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, the world has just witnessed the overwhelming effectiveness of the Armed Forces of the United States. Our military's rapid success in Iraq should serve as a source of pride for our Nation, for that success is based on the people in the Armed Forces, average Americans and immigrants doing extraordinary things. I come to the floor today to pay tribute to one of the people who has made the American military the great success it is today. At the end of this month, Lieutenant Colonel Erin McCarter will retire after over 20 years in the Air Force. Col. McCarter hails originally from Moline, IL, one of the Quad Cities on the Mississippi River. She graduated from Moline High School and then attended the University of Iowa through the Air Force Reserve Officers Training Corps. Commissioned as a second lieutenant, she started her military career during the cold war as the logistics officer accountable for nuclear munitions at Ellsworth Air Force Base. At 21, then Lt. McCarter was responsible for the nuclear munitions at a Strategic Air Command facility. It is remarkable the responsibility the military places in the hands of relatively young officers and enlisted personnel, and these young men and women are routinely up to the demands placed on them. Col. McCarter continued her Air Force career largely in logistics and as a staff officer. She served as a wing supply and headquarters staff officer at a number of major Air Force bases, including Ramstein in Germany and Shaw in South Carolina. She served as chief of the Pacific Air Force's weapon systems support at Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii. While there, she also served as chief protocol officer to the commanding general, Pacific Air Forces. She went on to command the 8th Supply Squadron at Kunsan Air Force Base in South Korea, before coming to the Pentagon. After holding staff officer positions and serving as a liaison officer to Congress, Col. McCarter became Country Director, Saudi Arabia Division, in the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of the Air Force for International Affairs. In this capacity, she successfully managed the relationship with one of our country's key strategic allies in the Middle East. During her Air Force career, Col. McCarter received a master's degree in business administration and completed the executive program in international business management at Georgetown University. She received the Meritorious Service Medal with three oak leaf clusters, the Air Force Commendation Medal with oak leaf cluster, and the Air Force Achievement Medal with oak leaf cluster. After 20 years in service to our Nation, Colonel McCarter is retiring. Our Nation's loss is Illinois's gain, however, as she is returning to the Prairie State, where most of her family continues to reside. I want to take a moment as well to thank her family. Without their continuous support, I am confident Col. McCarter would not have had as successful a career in the Air Force as she enjoyed. Upon Col. McCarter's retirement from active duty, I want to welcome her home to Illinois and thank her for her dedication, devotion to duty, and commitment to the Air Force and our Nation. We owe her and all her colleagues in the Armed Forces a great debt.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today with great pride to pay tribute to our Armed Forces involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Thanks to the dedication and valor of more than 200,000 of our brave men and women in uniform, the Iraqi people have been liberated from the oppressive and murderous grip of Saddam Hussein and, I believe, this Nation and the world are safer today than they were a few weeks ago. The successes of our Armed Forces in Iraq are unprecedented. In 3 short weeks, our troops marched 300 miles to the heart of Baghdad, liberated fortified Iraqi cities along the way, and removed Saddam Hussein's entrenched, brutal regime from power. All the while, they worked honorably to minimize civilian casualties, preserve Iraq's infrastructure, distribute food and medical aid to innocent Iraqis, and treat enemy POWs with dignity and respect. In short, our troops engaged in battle with purpose, determination, and compassion. They not only defended but embodied American values. Their service on our behalf should make all Americans proud. Yet we know that this war, like any war, was not won without cost. Despite the unprecedented achievements of Operation Iraqi Freedom, both in terms of a mission accomplished and the relatively few coalition casualties, American lives were lost. More than 100 U.S. soldiers, who volunteered to trade the comforts of family and home for a desert battlefield halfway around the world, will not see the fruits of their sacrifice. They join those brave souls throughout our history who died for freedom's cause. As we salute the members of our Armed Forces for a job well done, we pay solemn tribute to all those whose ultimate sacrifice helped make victory in Iraq possible. Moreover, Mr. President, as we honor the collective sacrifice by all our military men and women, we remember our fallen heroes as individuals. We recall the lives and legacy of those who died to protect us. Each name represents a life--a mother, a father, a sister, a brother, a son, a daughter, a husband, a wife. Each leaves behind someone who was touched by their goodness and sustained by their love. Each has a story that deserves to be told. I would like to take a few moments to recall those fallen heroes from my home State of Illinois. Seven young men from various parts of my State have lost their lives in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Marine Captain Ryan Beaupre from St. Anne, IL, age 30, died piloting a helicopter that crashed a few miles from the Iraqi border. Ryan was an honor student and athlete at Bishop McNamara High School and received a bachelor's degree at Illinois Wesleyan College. He left a promising career in the insurance business to serve his country and fulfill his boyhood dream of flying. Ryan lived his dream as a pilot in the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. According to friends and relatives, Ryan was the ``boy next door''--red hair, freckles, and a wide smile. As one friend put it, Ryan ``would be anybody's friend and apparently he was.'' Marine Private Jonathan Lee Gifford from Decatur, IL, age 30, was killed in an ambush in Southern Iraq. Jonathan served in the 1st Battalion, 2nd Regiment, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force, which suffered heavy casualties in the first days of the war. A 1991 graduate of Stephen Decatur High School, Jonathan joined the Marines in 2001, fulfilling an ambition he had harbored since he was a teenager. His loved ones say Jonathan was always for the underdog, an attitude which helped motivate his service in Iraq. He leaves behind friends and family, including a much loved four-year-old daughter. Marine Corporal Evan James from La Harpe, IL, age 20, was killed trying to cross a canal in southeastern Iraq. CPL James, a recent graduate from La Harpe High School, served with the 6th Engineering Support Battalion based in Peoria, Illinois. Prior to being called to active duty, Evan had been studying at Southern Illinois University to be a physical fitness trainer. According to those who knew him best, Evan was an incredibly giving young man. As one high school friend said, ``Evan was an all-American boy. He would do anything for his country, for his school, for his friends.'' Marine Corporal Brian Matthew Kennedy from Glenview, IL, age 25, was killed when his helicopter crashed south of Iraq. Brian attended Glenbrook South High School in Glenview, where his grit and determination enabled him to be a successful starting offensive lineman for the football team at a mere 170 pounds. That same determination served Brian well throughout his all too brief life. Brian's friends and family describe him as an extraordinarily conscientious young man with a firmly positive outlook on life. As a member of the 3d Marine Aircraft Wing, Corporal Kennedy was the quintessential marine: He took pride in everything he did and met life's challenges with skill and determination. Army Specialist Brandon Rowe from Roscoe, IL, age 20, was killed in an ambush near the Iraqi city of Najaf. A recent graduate of Hononegah High School, Brandon was the youngest of four siblings. Shortly after his high school graduation, Brandon joined the 101st Airborne Division based in Campbell, KY. Gifted with thoughtfulness and humor, Army SP Rowe was known for using wit and laughter to put others at ease. Brandon's family said he genuinely believed in his mission and knew his service would help liberate oppressed Iraqis. Staff Sergeant Lincoln Hollinsaid from Malden, IL, age 27, was killed by enemy fire as he led his unit into combat. A soldier in the 11th Engineer Battalion, Lincoln joined the Army in 1995, shortly after graduating from Princeton High School in Malden. Lincoln's father has said his son loved two things: the military and the outdoors. When he wasn't marching for the Army, he was marching through the mountains, hunting and fishing. Never one to shy from duty, SSG Hollinsaid had transferred to a new military unit prior to the war to improve his chances for combat. First Sergeant Edward Smith, age 38, grew up in Chicago. He died from wounds suffered in battle. Edward had been serving as a reserve police officer in Anaheim, CA before being called to active duty as a member of the 1st Marine Division. Edward's wife Sandy described her husband this way: ``He was an unbelievable man. He had such a good heart. He cared about people. He was just the best man I've ever known.'' Edward leaves behind a loving wife and three young children. Mr. President, these young individuals were ordinary men who lived extraordinary lives of service to America and the cause of freedom. They had many promising years ahead of them, and they leave behind family and friends who will miss them dearly. As we mourn their loss, we honor their sacrifice. On behalf of the Senate and the proud state of Illinois, I salute these fine young men and all the other soldiers killed in combat, and wish their loved ones comfort, peace, and peace of mind. To them I say on behalf of our country: Your loved ones were truly heroes. Their bravery and dedication will live in our memories for all time.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children's Deformities Act of 2003, which will require insurance companies to cover corrective surgeries for children with congenital or developmental deformities. According to the March of Dimes, 3.8 percent of babies born annually--about 150,000 babies per year suffer from birth defects. Approximately 50,000 of these babies require reconstructive surgery. Examples of these deformities include cleft lip, cleft palate, skin lesions, vascular anomalies, malformations of the ear, hand, or foot, and other more profound craniofacial deformities. Plastic surgeons are able to correct many of these problems, and doing so is critical to both the physical and mental health and development of the child. On average, children with congenital deformities or developmental anomalies will need three to five surgical procedures before normalcy is achieved. An increasing number of insurance companies are denying access to care by labeling the surgical procedures cosmetic or nonfunctional in nature. In some cases, carriers may provide coverage for initial procedures, but resist covering later, necessary procedures, claiming that they are cosmetic and not medically necessary. Although insurance companies ultimately have decided to cover some of these procedures, families have had to battle through the appeals process of insurance companies for extended periods of time, thereby forcing children to wait unnecessarily for needed surgeries. The treatment plan for children with congenital defects usually requires staged surgical care in accordance with the child's growth pattern. Onerous and time-consuming appeals procedures can jeopardize the physical and psychological health of children with deformities. The American Medical Association defines cosmetic surgery as being performed to reshape normal structures of the body in order to improve the patient's appearance and self-esteem. In contrast, reconstructive surgery is defined as being performed on abnormal structures of the body, caused by congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, trauma, infection, tumors, or disease. According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, reconstructive surgery is performed in order to improve function and approximate a normal appearance. The Treatment of Children's Deformities Act of 2003 will prohibit insurers from denying coverage for reconstructive surgery for children. This bill identifies the difference between cosmetic and reconstructive surgery and incorporates the American Medical Association's definition of reconstructive surgery. The measure requires group and individual health insurers and group health plans to provide coverage for treatment of a minor child's congenital or developmental deformity, disease, or injury. The legislation defines ``treatment'' to include reconstructive surgical procedures. These are procedures that are performed on abnormal structures of the body caused by congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, trauma, infection, tumors, or disease. The Treatment of Children's Deformities Act of 2003 has been endorsed by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and several other medical organizations. Fifteen States have already enacted legislation that to different degrees require insurance companies to cover treatment of craniofacial and congenital anomalies. While governor of Texas, George W. Bush signed into law legislation that is similar to the legislation I introduce today. I would like to thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Snowe for cosponsoring this important legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill so that children who suffer from congenital deformities or developmental anomalies do not have to wait unnecessarily for needed treatment. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record following the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children's Deformities Act of 2003, which will require insurance companies to cover corrective surgeries for children with congenital or developmental deformities. According to the March of Dimes, 3.8 percent of babies born annually--about 150,000 babies per year suffer from birth defects. Approximately 50,000 of these babies require reconstructive surgery. Examples of these deformities include cleft lip, cleft palate, skin lesions, vascular anomalies, malformations of the ear, hand, or foot, and other more profound craniofacial deformities. Plastic surgeons are able to correct many of these problems, and doing so is critical to both the physical and mental health and development of the child. On average, children with congenital deformities or developmental anomalies will need three to five surgical procedures before normalcy is achieved. An increasing number of insurance companies are denying access to care by labeling the surgical procedures cosmetic or nonfunctional in nature. In some cases, carriers may provide coverage for initial procedures, but resist covering later, necessary procedures, claiming that they are cosmetic and not medically necessary. Although insurance companies ultimately have decided to cover some of these procedures, families have had to battle through the appeals process of insurance companies for extended periods of time, thereby forcing children to wait unnecessarily for needed surgeries. The treatment plan for children with congenital defects usually requires staged surgical care in accordance with the child's growth pattern. Onerous and time-consuming appeals procedures can jeopardize the physical and psychological health of children with deformities. The American Medical Association defines cosmetic surgery as being performed to reshape normal structures of the body in order to improve the patient's appearance and self-esteem. In contrast, reconstructive surgery is defined as being performed on abnormal structures of the body, caused by congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, trauma, infection, tumors, or disease. According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, reconstructive surgery is performed in order to improve function and approximate a normal appearance. The Treatment of Children's Deformities Act of 2003 will prohibit insurers from denying coverage for reconstructive surgery for children. This bill identifies the difference between cosmetic and reconstructive surgery and incorporates the American Medical Association's definition of reconstructive surgery. The measure requires group and individual health insurers and group health plans to provide coverage for treatment of a minor child's congenital or developmental deformity, disease, or injury. The legislation defines ``treatment'' to include reconstructive surgical procedures. These are procedures that are performed on abnormal structures of the body caused by congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, trauma, infection, tumors, or disease. The Treatment of Children's Deformities Act of 2003 has been endorsed by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and several other medical organizations. Fifteen States have already enacted legislation that to different degrees require insurance companies to cover treatment of craniofacial and congenital anomalies. While governor of Texas, George W. Bush signed into law legislation that is similar to the legislation I introduce today. I would like to thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Snowe for cosponsoring this important legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill so that children who suffer from congenital deformities or developmental anomalies do not have to wait unnecessarily for needed treatment. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record following the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. FITZGERALD. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for the excellent work he has been doing on this ban on partial-birth abortion. I am an original cosponsor of Mr. Santorum's bill. I applaud him for his hard work and toil on this issue, not just this year but for several previous years. In fact, Senator Santorum has been working on this issue for some 7 years. When you reflect that it has taken this long for this body to get to this date where we are close to having a vote and we hope the bill will pass and be signed by the President, you have to wonder what kind of a society have we become that it has taken us so long to get to the point where we are close to banning what to me seems to be a very cruel and inhumane procedure. It has been made abundantly clear, both in this debate and in many Senate committee hearings on prior occasions, that banning partial-birth abortion is a simple step those of us on both sides of the abortion issue should be able to coalesce and find common ground over. We are talking about banning a specific procedure in which a baby is partially delivered, scissors are stuck in the back of the baby's skull, a vacuum suction tube is inserted into the skull, and the baby's brains are sucked out. We are banning this type of abortion only. Can we not agree this is too cruel and inhumane a procedure to allow in the United States? As Senator Santorum has said, we are not banning other types of abortion. I am struck that several times in the 4-plus years I have been in the Senate, we have on several occasions had debates on the Senate floor and votes in the Senate about banning cruel and inhumane treatment of animals. In fact, I remember several years ago we had a debate over an amendment brought by Senator Torricelli that would prohibit the use of funds in the Interior budget to facilitate the use of steel-jawed traps and neck snares for commerce or recreation in a national wildlife refuge. During the debate on this amendment, my friend and colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, described the amendment to ban steel-jawed traps and neck snares as a ``no brainer.'' My colleague went on to say: ``These traps are inhumane. They are designed to slam closed. The result is lacerations, broken bones, joint dislocations, and gangrene.'' In concluding, Senator Reid stated: ``In this day and age there is no need to resort to inhumane methods of trapping.'' Many Members were persuaded. I was persuaded. I voted to protect the animals out West, the coyotes, wolves, and bears that were being inhumanely trapped in these steel-jawed traps and neck snares. Why were many of us persuaded? Why were we all troubled by steel-jawed traps and neck snares? Is it because there is something in our gut that turns and twists over the unnecessary suffering and pain of creatures with whom we share this Earth; the majestic animals who are as much a part of God's wonderful creation as we are; wonderful animals who add richness and texture to our own experience of the planet; animals whom we thank God for allowing us to appreciate and admire? The suffering of a bear or a deer can lead many of us to say no to a steel-jawed trap or neck snare, but what about the scissor through the head and neck of a child? What about sucking a baby's brains out? We would not treat a mangy raccoon this way. I remember a couple years back the Senate acted to do more to fight the inhumane treatment of dolphins. I remember supporting an amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Senator Boxer, to the fiscal year 2000 Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill to force countries to pay their fair share of the expenses of the Tuna Commission and delay the importation of tuna caught using fishing methods that unnecessarily harm and kill dolphin. During debate on this amendment, Senator Boxer spoke eloquently of the thousands of dolphin killed each year by fishing methods that cruelly and unnecessarily harass, chase, circle, maim, and kill dolphin that happen to be swimming over schools of tuna. I appreciated her efforts and others' efforts in the name of humaneness. I believe our Maker has touched our human conscience with something that makes us almost instinctively recoil from causing unnecessary pain and suffering to animals. I know there is a tender spot in the hearts of some who now oppose a ban on this cruel and inhumane procedure. I know it is there because I have seen it in debates in this body. But I don't understand how those who can hear the howl of the wolf or the squeal of a dolphin can be deaf to the cry of an unborn child. If people were sticking scissors in the heads of puppies, we would not abide it. In the name of common decency and humanity, I urge my colleagues not to let this happen any longer to our own young. I applaud Senator Santorum for the good work he has been doing. We will keep fighting until we get this ban enacted into law.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would extend the 10-cents-per-gallon small ethanol producers' tax credit to small farmer-owned cooperatives. The measure, if approved by Congress, could help boost ethanol production at a time when domestic energy prices are on the rise and the United States is seeking to reduce its dependence on foreign oil. Under current law, small ethanol producers, those who make less than 30 million gallons of ethanol per year, are eligible for an additional 10-cents-per-gallon-tax credit for up to 15 million gallons of ethanol each year. While the tax credit is intended to help maximize U.S. ethanol production by aiding small producers that otherwise may not be able to compete with larger companies, an unintended glitch in the law bars small farm cooperatives from passing this credit on to their farmers. Unfortunately, this glitch stifles production and penalizes farmers who join cooperatives. Farm cooperatives can be an efficient way for farmers to trim costs and maximize income. We must ensure that our tax code does not penalize farmers for pooling their resources in cooperatives. With rising energy prices and a potentiality vast new market for ethanol in the Nation's clean air program, we should encourage, not discourage, greater production by ethanol cooperatives. This legislation would revise existing tax law to permit farmer-owned cooperatives to pass the small producers' ethanol tax credit on to their members through dividends and allow these producers to treat this income as if they had generated it directly. The bill would also expand the number of producers eligible for the tax credit by doubling the production limit from 30 million gallons of ethanol a year 60 million gallons. Like most businesses, ethanol production facilities must achieve economies of scale to be viable in a competitive marketplace. Doubling the limit to 60 million gallons simply modernizes the tax credit to reflect current economic realities. I believe we must approach the new millennium with a renewed commitment to keep our environment clean and safe, and I also believes this objective is consistent with building and maintaining a strong economy. Renewable energy is central to our long-term goal of energy self-sufficiency. By expanding eligibility for the small producers' ethanol tax credit, this bill could stimulate ethanol production and ultimately help lessen our dependence on foreign sources of oil. Realizing this important benefit, the Senate included this legislation in the comprehensive energy legislation, H.R. 4, which unfortunately, failed to emerge from conference committee prior to the end of the 107th Congress. Additionally, this small ethanol producer tax credit legislation was incorporated into Senator Grassley's ``Tax Empowerment and Relief for Farmers and Fishermen, TERFF, Act,'' which we also did not approve prior to adjournment of the last Congress. I look forward to working with our new Finance Committee Chairman and my co-sponsor, Senators Johnson, Hagel, and Harkin, to get this legislation signed into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would extend the 10-cents-per-gallon small ethanol producers' tax credit to small farmer-owned cooperatives. The measure, if approved by Congress, could help boost ethanol production at a time when domestic energy prices are on the rise and the United States is seeking to reduce its dependence on foreign oil. Under current law, small ethanol producers, those who make less than 30 million gallons of ethanol per year, are eligible for an additional 10-cents-per-gallon-tax credit for up to 15 million gallons of ethanol each year. While the tax credit is intended to help maximize U.S. ethanol production by aiding small producers that otherwise may not be able to compete with larger companies, an unintended glitch in the law bars small farm cooperatives from passing this credit on to their farmers. Unfortunately, this glitch stifles production and penalizes farmers who join cooperatives. Farm cooperatives can be an efficient way for farmers to trim costs and maximize income. We must ensure that our tax code does not penalize farmers for pooling their resources in cooperatives. With rising energy prices and a potentiality vast new market for ethanol in the Nation's clean air program, we should encourage, not discourage, greater production by ethanol cooperatives. This legislation would revise existing tax law to permit farmer-owned cooperatives to pass the small producers' ethanol tax credit on to their members through dividends and allow these producers to treat this income as if they had generated it directly. The bill would also expand the number of producers eligible for the tax credit by doubling the production limit from 30 million gallons of ethanol a year 60 million gallons. Like most businesses, ethanol production facilities must achieve economies of scale to be viable in a competitive marketplace. Doubling the limit to 60 million gallons simply modernizes the tax credit to reflect current economic realities. I believe we must approach the new millennium with a renewed commitment to keep our environment clean and safe, and I also believes this objective is consistent with building and maintaining a strong economy. Renewable energy is central to our long-term goal of energy self-sufficiency. By expanding eligibility for the small producers' ethanol tax credit, this bill could stimulate ethanol production and ultimately help lessen our dependence on foreign sources of oil. Realizing this important benefit, the Senate included this legislation in the comprehensive energy legislation, H.R. 4, which unfortunately, failed to emerge from conference committee prior to the end of the 107th Congress. Additionally, this small ethanol producer tax credit legislation was incorporated into Senator Grassley's ``Tax Empowerment and Relief for Farmers and Fishermen, TERFF, Act,'' which we also did not approve prior to adjournment of the last Congress. I look forward to working with our new Finance Committee Chairman and my co-sponsor, Senators Johnson, Hagel, and Harkin, to get this legislation signed into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to reinstate a license surrendered to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, that authorized the construction of a hydroelectric power plant in Carlyle, IL. In order to facilitate the construction of the hydroelectric power plant, the bill also contains a provision that extends the deadline for beginning construction of the plant. Carlyle, IL, is a small community of 3,406 people in Southwestern Illinois, fifty miles east of St. Louis. Carlyle is situated on the Kaskaskia River at the southern tip of Carlyle Lake, which was formed in 1967 when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed construction of a dam on the river. Carlyle Lake is 15 miles long and 3.5 miles wide, the largest man-made lake in Illinois. When the Army Corps of Engineers constructed the dam, it failed to build a hydroelectric power plant to capitalize on the energy available from water flowing through the dam. A hydroelectric power facility in Carlyle would produce 4,000 kilowatts of power and provide a renewable energy source for surrounding communities. Furthermore, the environmental impact of adding a hydroelectric facility would be minimal, and such a facility, located at a site near the existing dam, would not produce harmful emissions. In 1997, Southwestern Electric Cooperative obtained a license from the FERC to begin work on a hydroelectric project in Carlyle. In 2000, Southwestern Electric Cooperative surrendered their license because they were unable to begin the project in the required time period. The City of Carlyle is interested in constructing the hydroelectric power plant and is seeking to obtain Southwestern Electric Cooperative's license. The bill I am introducing today is required for the construction of the facility. Legislation is necessary to authorize FERC to reinstate Southwestern Electric Cooperative's surrendered license. Because there is not enough time remaining on the license to conduct studies, produce a design for the facility, and begin construction of the project, the bill includes a provision that allows FERC to extend the applicable deadline. The full Senate passed this bill, during the 107th Congress, on November 20, 2002 without opposition, but, the House of Representatives was unable to act on this legislation before the 107th Congress adjourned. This legislation is an easy and environmentally safe approach to meeting the energy needs of Southwestern Illinois. Please join me in supporting this measure to provide a clean alternative energy source for this part of the Midwest. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to reinstate a license surrendered to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, that authorized the construction of a hydroelectric power plant in Carlyle, IL. In order to facilitate the construction of the hydroelectric power plant, the bill also contains a provision that extends the deadline for beginning construction of the plant. Carlyle, IL, is a small community of 3,406 people in Southwestern Illinois, fifty miles east of St. Louis. Carlyle is situated on the Kaskaskia River at the southern tip of Carlyle Lake, which was formed in 1967 when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed construction of a dam on the river. Carlyle Lake is 15 miles long and 3.5 miles wide, the largest man-made lake in Illinois. When the Army Corps of Engineers constructed the dam, it failed to build a hydroelectric power plant to capitalize on the energy available from water flowing through the dam. A hydroelectric power facility in Carlyle would produce 4,000 kilowatts of power and provide a renewable energy source for surrounding communities. Furthermore, the environmental impact of adding a hydroelectric facility would be minimal, and such a facility, located at a site near the existing dam, would not produce harmful emissions. In 1997, Southwestern Electric Cooperative obtained a license from the FERC to begin work on a hydroelectric project in Carlyle. In 2000, Southwestern Electric Cooperative surrendered their license because they were unable to begin the project in the required time period. The City of Carlyle is interested in constructing the hydroelectric power plant and is seeking to obtain Southwestern Electric Cooperative's license. The bill I am introducing today is required for the construction of the facility. Legislation is necessary to authorize FERC to reinstate Southwestern Electric Cooperative's surrendered license. Because there is not enough time remaining on the license to conduct studies, produce a design for the facility, and begin construction of the project, the bill includes a provision that allows FERC to extend the applicable deadline. The full Senate passed this bill, during the 107th Congress, on November 20, 2002 without opposition, but, the House of Representatives was unable to act on this legislation before the 107th Congress adjourned. This legislation is an easy and environmentally safe approach to meeting the energy needs of Southwestern Illinois. Please join me in supporting this measure to provide a clean alternative energy source for this part of the Midwest. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to urge the Senate to pass the extension of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation, TEUC, Program. In November, the Senate acted unanimously to extend the TEUC program through the end of March by passing a bill that I cosponsored along with Senators Clinton, Cantwell, Specter, Sarbanes, Kennedy, and Durbin. However, the House and Senate were unable to reach a compromise that would have allowed President Bush to sign the extension into law. This is our last chance to act before there is an interruption in the receipt of benefits pursuant to the TEUC program. November 2002, the nationwide unemployment level shot up to 6.0 percent from 5.7 percent in October. The law authorizing the TEUC program expired on December 28, 2002. If we do not act now to extend this program, as many as 800,000 workers who are receiving temporary benefits will not receive their full 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits. 1.6 million workers will exhaust their regular unemployment benefits between December 28, 2002 and the end of May 2003 if we fail to act. If we act today to extend this important program, we will ensure that these workers will receive their next unemployment check. The unemployment situation in my home State of Illinois is critical. It would be particularly adversely affected if we do not act. In November 2002, Illinois had a 6.7-percent unemployment rate, tying Mississippi with the third highest unemployment rate in the country behind Alaska and Oregon. Illinois' rate was substantially higher than the nationwide 6.0-percent unemployment rate. Over the 3-month period from September through November 2002, the average unemployment rate in Illinois was 6.6 percent, which is significantly higher than the national average of 5.8 percent over the same period. In November, there were 416,200 unemployed persons in Illinois. I have introduced legislation that would extend the provisions of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 to allow individuals receiving benefits to continue collecting them until they expire in full. This bill is retroactive, and permits people who otherwise would have had their TEUC benefits cut off on December 28 to receive the full 13 weeks of TEUC benefits. Furthermore, this legislation would make individuals who have exhausted their regular 26 weeks of unemployment insurance eligible for a 13-week extension, and would allow these individuals to apply for such extensions through the end of May. Under my bill, even those who enrolled in the TEUC program just prior to the expiration of the program would be eligible to receive full 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits. This bill is a more generous extension of the TEUC program than the extension that the Senate approved last November. It provides for 5- month extension of the temporary unemployment insurance program, which is more than the 3 months of benefits provided by the extension that the Senate passed last year. Passing this legislation will help millions of families nationwide, easing the burden that these families might otherwise experience if their unemployment insurance were to have expired on December 28, 2002. It will help unemployed Americans feed their families and pay their bills while giving them an additional 5 months to find new jobs. I would like to thank the Senators on both sides of the aisle who have helped to negotiate this bipartisan compromise bill that will extend unemployment insurance benefits to the millions of Americans who need them. President Bush has called upon us to quickly pass legislation that will extend the TEUC program, a program whose benefits fell off a cliff on December 28, 2002. I urge may colleagues in the Senate to support this necessary legislation. I also urge the House of Representatives to take up and pass this bill in an expeditious manner so that President Bush can sign the measure into law by this Thursday and prevent any interruption in the receipt of temporary unemployment insurance benefits. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, with no intervening action or debate, that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record, and that the consideration of these items appear separately in the Record.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2577 and that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2577 and H.R. 4823 en bloc.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, this year we mark the 57th anniversary of the end of the Holocaust. There are as many as 10,000 survivors of the Holocaust in my home State of Illinois, and over 100,000 in the entire United States, with an average age of over 80. Last year, Congress passed legislation I introduced exempting restitution paid to Holocaust victims and their families from Federal income tax. Unfortunately, this had to be done as an amendment to the 2001 tax relief bill, all of the provisions of which expire at the end of the year 2010. In other words, under current law, the tax exemption afforded to Holocaust restitution payments by last year's legislation will expire on December 21, 2010. According to current estimates, there will be over 90,000 Holocaust survivors in the year 2010, and over 35,000 in 2020. Without the assurance of permanence in Federal tax policy towards Holocaust restitution payments, victims of the Holocaust and their families will suffer significant risk and uncertainty in tax planning and other important personal decisions. The Federal Government should not make one dime on Holocaust restitution, ever. The legislation we pass today--the Holocaust Restitution Tax Fairness Act of 2002--addresses this problem by ensuring that Holocaust restitution and compensation payments will never be taxed by the federal government. I want to thank the sixteen Senators who cosponsored this bill, as well as Representative Clay Shaw, who spearheaded House passage of the House version of this bill earlier this year. I also want to thank the Anti-Defamation League, B'nai B'rith International, the Conference on Jewish Material Claims, the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims, the American Jewish Committee, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, and the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors--the largest organization of Holocaust survivors in America. The support of these groups was critical in shepherding this legislation through the Senate. After more than 50 years of injustice, Holocaust survivors and their families are reclaiming what is rightfully theirs. In passing this legislation today, Congress has done its part to protect the proceeds-- and make that protection permanent.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. I appreciate the accommodation of my great friend from the State of Nevada.

Mr. FITZGERALD. I think it is just a page and a half.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to make a statement on the passage of the Holocaust Restitution and Tax Fairness Act of 2002.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I want to call upon the House to act on the unemployment insurance compensation relief that we have passed in this body. I have been a cosponsor with other Members on this side of the aisle, as well as Senators Clinton and Sarbanes on the Democratic side. I think we need to pass the legislation over in the House which has already cleared this body. If we do not, benefits are going to fall off the cliff on December 28, as the majority leader stated. I hope the House will take up that important legislation and at least extend the benefits until we can come back and deal in the new year with this issue.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to applaud the passage of Anton's Law, H.R. 5504, by the House of Representatives. I introduced the Senate version of Anton's Law, S. 980, in May 2001. S. 980 is named in memory of Anton Skeen, a four-year-old who was killed in a car crash in Washington State. Anton's mother Autumn--a national passenger safety advocate--believes that Anton's life could have been saved had he been riding in a booster seat. Designed specifically to help standard adult seat belts fit better, booster seats are used to protect children who have outgrown their car seats but are still too small to fit properly in an adult-sized safety belt. On average, children in this group range from 4 to 8 years of age, weigh 40 to 80 pounds, and are less than 4 feet 9 inches tall. It has been reported that only about 5 to 6 percent of these 19.5 million U.S. children are using booster seats. In 2000, 721 children aged five to nine were killed and 103,000 were injured in car accidents. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation approved Anton's Law in August 2001, and the Senate passed the measure by unanimous consent on February 25 of this year. Last month, in order to help ensure that this important measure is placed on the President's desk for signature before the end of the year, the Senate Commerce Committee accepted my amendment to insert Anton's Law in the Senate version of the National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization bill, S. 2950, which the Committee then approved by unanimous consent. I would like to thank all of my colleagues for their continued support of this bipartisan legislation that will help to improve the safety and effectiveness of child restraints in automobiles and protect our Nation's young people. Like the bill that I introduced in this body, the bill that was passed yesterday by the House of Representatives will improve the safety of children from 4 to 16 years old by requiring the Secretary of Transportation to initiate a rulemaking regarding establishing performance standards for child restraints, especially for booster seats, for children weighing more than 50 pounds. This measure will also lead to the development of a 10-year-old dummy that can be used to test child restraint devices. It also requires automobile manufacturers to install three-point lap and shoulder belts in all rear seating positions of passenger vehicles. Since February, I have been working to have this measure passed by the House, and I commend them for the work that they have done on this important issue. While I am happy that Anton's Law will finally be presented to the President, this bill represents only part of what the Senate sought to accomplish when we passed Anton's Law in February. The Senate's version of Anton's Law, unlike the House bill, contained provisions that would extend for 2 years a Federal grant program for States to promote child passenger safety and education, and that would encourage State action by providing States with financial incentives to adopt mandatory booster seat laws by 2004. Absent this incentive grant program, States will have little impetus to promulgate the laws needed to adequately protect this group of children. As I have already mentioned, the version of Anton's Law passed by the Senate this year has been incorporated in the Senate's version of the National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization bill. I urge the conferees from both the House and the Senate to retain these grant provisions in the conference report of this bill. I thank Congressman Shimkus and Chairman Tauzin for their work in securing passage of Anton's Law by the House of Representatives, and urge President Bush to sign this necessary child safety bill into law as soon as possible.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Lieberman-Warner resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. This resolution gives President Bush the flexibility he needs to address the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, including the authority to use military force as he deems appropriate, without ceding too much authority to the executive to wage war outside Iraq. I applaud Senators Lieberman, Warner, McCain, and so many others who have worked with President Bush to reach an agreement on this critical issue. I support the President's policy of regime change in Iraq to eliminate the threat Saddam poses to the U.S. and the world, and agree that time is of the essence. I was concerned that the administration's initial draft resolution was too broad, and called for tighter parameters on the Presidential mandate. The resolution now before us addresses my concerns by confining the scope of possible military action to Iraq, rather than the entire Middle East region. Only last month we commemorated the one-year anniversary of the deadliest terrorist attack in our history. Today, we face a threat from a regime that would not hesitate to use weapons of mass destruction against our friends and allies, or against the United States itself, or transfer these weapons to terrorist groups that target Americans. Saddam Hussein's track record is well-known to all. He ordered the use of chemical weapons--including sarin, VX, tabun, and mustard agents--against his own people, killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians. His regime invaded two neighbors and threatened others. In 1991, his troops were prepared to invade other countries, had they not been thwarted by the U.S.-led international coalition. His regime launched ballistic missiles at four of its neighbors--Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Bahrain. He ordered the assassination of opponents in Iraq and abroad, including a former president of the United States. His regime beat and tortured American POWs and used them as human shields during the 1991 Persian gulf war. His military continues to fire at U.S. and coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq. Based on the information presented to me in classified briefings, I share President Bush's assessment that Iraqi disarmament must be the objective. Weapon inspections alone will not achieve this goal, and a lengthy inspections regime could inadvertently give Saddam more time to stockpile and conceal weapons of mass destruction. After eleven years of lies and deception, we cannot expect that Saddam will reverse course and willingly disarm. Clearly, regime change in Iraq is the only way to end the threat Saddam Hussein poses to the United States and the world. What has brought us to this point? On March 3, 1991, Iraq, having been forced to abandon the territory it overran in Kuwait, agreed to the terms of a cease-fire offered by the allied forces. Since the cease-fire, Iraq has repeatedly violated a series of Security Council resolutions designed to ensure that Iraq submits to U.N. inspections, abides by the cease-fire agreement, dismantles its extensive weapons of mass destruction programs, and returns Kuwaiti and other nations' POWs, missing persons, and property seized during the gulf war. The United Nations has found Iraq in ``material breach of cease-fire terms'' on seven occasions, and Iraq remains in violation of the cease-fire to this very day. For seven and one-half years, Saddam Hussein played a cat-and-mouse game with U.N. inspectors. The Iraqi regime misled, lied, intimidated, and physically obstructed the inspectors; and Iraqi scientists who provided in formation to the inspectors disappeared, most likely into Saddam's dungeons and execution chambers. The inspectors uncovered an enormous amount of biological and chemical weapons materials and production facilities, but by their own account they could not find everything. And any success they may have had was in large measure because Saddam feared a renewed military offensive by the United States. Finally, on November 11, 1998, following Iraq's announcement that it was prohibiting all U.N. inspections, weapons inspections in Iraq ceased. Under increasing international pressure, Iraq again agreed to allow inspectors full access, but then resumed obstructing their operations, and the United Nations withdrew the inspectors on December 15, 1998. Over the next 4 years, Iraq refused to admit weapons inspectors under the terms set forth by the Security Council. Iraq has had 4 years to refine its techniques of deception. It defies common sense to suggest that a hundred or even a thousand U.N. inspectors could, with any assurance, succeed in finding small WMD stockpiles and facilities in a country the size of the state of California. Many former U.N. inspectors who experienced first-hand Iraq's lies and deceptions have come to the same conclusion. We know that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, and is developing nuclear weapons. These weapons would immediately threaten U.S. troops and our friends and allies in the region. A Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons would radically alter the balance of power in the Middle East, requiring a profound shift in the deployment of American forces and undermine our ability to respond to other potential threats around the globe. Saddam has worked with terrorist networks for many years. He harbored Abu Nidal, and is reportedly providing safe have to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a key participant in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Saddam has himself ordered acts of terror. He shares many objectives with groups like al-Qaida, and may decide to use terrorists to conceal his responsibility for an attack on the United States. For 11 years, Saddam Hussein has thumbed his nose at the international community. Would it be prudent to continue what has failed for 11 long years? Would it be wise to give Saddam more time, which we know he will devote to realizing his greatest dream--to obtain the nuclear weapons that would allow him to dominate the Middle East with all of its oil and threaten to drive the United States out of a region that is vital to our security? Never in our history have we been in a position where we could be blackmailed, under the threat of nuclear war, into withdrawing support for our closest allies or sacrificing our national security to prevent the death of millions. And yet this is the danger we face in as little as one year if we do not act to remove this looming threat. Time is not on our side; it is on the side of Saddam Hussein. We cannot wait for a smoking gun, because a gun smokes only after it is fired, and the smoke of a nuclear blast would mean that we are too late. I applaud the President's decision to seek international support for regime change in Iraq, but U.S. action should not hinge on the endorsement of the United Nations. The United States is leading a coalition of international allies in the war on terror, not the other way around. In the case of Iraq, U.S. national security interests should not be sacrificed if the U.N. cannot be persuaded of the urgency of this threat. It would be preferable to have U.N. support, but we have to be prepared to go it alone if necessary. We cannot give the United Nations veto power over our decisions to protect our national interests. I remain concerned about our planning for the future of Iraq if we succeed in removing Saddam Hussein from power. Administration officials have presented a vision of a post-Saddam Iraq that is peaceful, democratic, and unified. Defeating the Iraqi military on the battlefield will not be easy, but ensuring a stable and friendly post- Saddam Iraq will pose even greater challenges, requiring careful planning by the administration in concert with our allies in the region. Iraq could rapidly slide into long-term political instability or even bloody war upon the collapse of the Baathist regime. Iraq's population is made up of three main components: the Kurdish speaking people in the north, the Arab Sunnis in the center, and the Arab Shiites in the south who make up a majority--some 60 percent--of the entire population of the country. Many Shiites desire a theocratic government similar to that in neighboring Iran. The Kurdish leadership in the north may recognize that independence is an impossible dream, but their experience of ten years of self-government will make their reintegration into a unified Iraq problematic at best. Arab Sunnis, fearing retaliation from the long-oppressed Shiite majority, may use the Sunni-dominated Iraqi military to keep the Shiites from gaining power. And while the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would involve the likely end to the Iraqi Republican Guard, the regular Iraqi army may remain to play a critical role in a post-Saddam Iraq. Yet the Iraqi army may become a den of coup-plotters; after all, Iraq endured a succession of bloody coups from 1953 until Saddam Hussein's ascent to power in the late 1970s. Our military planning should be guided by an awareness that how Saddam's regime falls will shape the Iraq that follows. At some point the American people will need to know the nature and extent of America's commitment to a post-Saddam Iraq. How long will our troops be on the ground in Iraq? What material and financial resources will we be asked to provide to Iraq? What responsibility will the United States have to maintain peace in the region? What help will we get from our allies in rebuilding Iraq? President Bush has exercised great leadership at a critical time in our history. I am proud to be a part of the debate we are having today in this chamber, which is a powerful demonstration of our democratic institutions. Ours is a nation that is slow to anger. Americans abhor war. I vote in support of this resolution, but hope and pray that the President, united with Congress, will succeed in averting war. There is no question in my mind that we must disarm Saddam, and that time is running out. Clearly, there are risks involved. But I believe the risks of doing nothing are far greater. I yield that floor.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support S. 2644, the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act, which was approved today by unanimous vote by the Governmental Affairs Committee. Earlier this week, the House of Representatives approved by voice vote the companion measure, H.R. 468, sponsored by Congressman Toomey of Pennsylvania. I thank Chairman, Lieberman and Ranking Member Thompson for their support of this legislation, and Congressman Toomey for his leadership in the House on this significant issue. This important legislation will increase the effectiveness of the Chief financial Officers' Act by expanding to all executive agencies the requirement that Federal agencies conduct independent financial audits. This bill will also subject agencies audited records to review by Congress and the administration. As my colleagues well know, fiscal mismanagement by Federal agencies costs taxpayers billions of dollars each year. The total amount of taxpayer losses is probably much greater than we know, however, because many agencies do not subject their budget reviews to the scrutiny of outside accountants. By requiring independent audits of all executive agencies, this bill will help make our Government more accountable to the taxpayers. The agencies covered by this bill have a combined annual budget of tens of billions of dollars--budgets that represent taxpayer dollars that should be accounted for more rigorously. I was dismayed to learn that under current law, only the 24 largest departments and agencies--and a few others specified by Congress--are required to submit their books to outside auditors. The Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 would require all executive agencies to prepare audited financial statements and subject those statements to an independent audit. I was especially surprised to learn that current Federal law does not require the Securities and Exchange Commission--the entity with which publicly held companies are required to file their audited financial statements--to subject its own books to the scrutiny of outside auditors. Other Government agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Product Safety Administration, the Federal Election Commission, the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Federal Communications Commission--agencies that spend billions of taxpayer dollars every year--have also been exempt from this legal requirement. I, along with many of my colleagues, have been very critical of the alleged accounting abuses by some of this Nation's largest corporations that have recently been brought to light. Particularly in light of these recent revelations, it is incumbent on Congress to ensure that the Federal Government, at the very least, meets the same standards that we set for the private sector. It is my hope that subjecting Federal agencies to congressional and executive oversight will provide an incentive for agencies to improve their financial performance or risk possible elimination. Independent audit opinions should contribute to increased Government efficiency by providing information that can be used to strengthen integral accountability, better monitor assets and liabilities, enhance cost controls, identify inefficiencies and weaknesses, and curb Government waste. S. 2644, the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002, would extend the Chief Financial Officers' Act requirements currently imposed on the major agencies to all executive branch agencies. The act gives the Office of Management and Budget the authority to waive the audit requirement for smaller agencies that have annual budgets of less than $25 million. In order to allow agencies some additional time to meet this new standard of accountability, the bill allows the OMB Director discretion during the first 2 years of the act's implementation to waive the application of the new requirements to any agency. This bill has bipartisan support as well as the support of the Government Accounting Office and the administration. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this important good Government legislation.