Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, Senators Hatch and Leahy, in introducing the Prosecutorial Remedies and Tools Against the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2002, PROTECT, S. 2520. The spread of child pornography is one of the gravest dangers in our society because it harms the weakest among us, our children. Since the Supreme Court's April 16, 2002, decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, I have been extremely concerned that those who would prey on our children through the Internet have a shield from prosecution. They can simply claim the images they are posting, often computer files which are difficult to closely examine, are not of actual children but rather are computer generated. As the law currently stands, it is offering protection to the predators, not to the child victims. Those who collect and engage in child pornography are oftentimes full-fledged sexual predators themselves who have abused real children. This has been proven by the highly successful Federal Bureau of Investigation operation, Operation Candyman. Investigators found 7,200 Internet child pornography traffickers. At this point, of the 90 people arrested through Operation Candyman in March of 2002, 13 have admitted to molesting a total of 48 different children. There is an achievable balance between preserving our first amendment right to freedom of speech and protecting children from Internet predators. I believe this bill strikes that balance, and I have confidence that the Supreme Court will agree. I would also like to thank Attorney General John Ashcroft for working with Congress to draft this legislation.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the tragic hold up of our circuit court nominees to the Federal bench. It takes only a few numbers to show the dramatic vacancy crisis we are facing in the Federal court system: 10 percent of Federal judgeships are vacant right now, 85; 20 percent of judicial seats at the Federal courts of appeals are vacant. With eight openings, half of the entire Sixth Circuit is now vacant. It is operating at half strength. The Judiciary Committee has held a hearing on only one of President Bush's seven nominees for the Sixth Circuit, and that hearing was held just a week and a half ago after pending for over 6 months. Two of the Sixth Circuit nominees, Jeffrey Sutton and Deborah Cook, were nominated a year ago today but have not yet had a hearing. Do they question their ability? The ABA rated both nominees as unanimously qualified, but they have languished for a year. The numbers simply do not lie: 44 nominations are currently pending before the Judiciary Committee. Unfortunately, 22 of those unconfirmed nominees are for circuit courts, the court of last resort for most cases. In 1996, the current Judiciary Committee chairman called a vacancy rate of only two-thirds as high as the one we face today a judicial emergency. It is even more so today, and we are doing even less about it. Of the current 85 vacancies, 37 are considered judicial emergencies by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. This is calculated based on the number of years the judgeship has been open and the size of the court's caseload. Perhaps the most staggering fact is this: Of the President's first 11 circuit court nominees submitted to the Senate on May 9, 2001, only 3-- Mr. President, only 3--have even received hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is a crisis by any definition, by any measure, and it is inexcusable. One of the nominees who has been waiting almost a year is from my home State of Arkansas. He is a very distinguished, very qualified jurist named Lavenski Smith. This is my friend Lavenski Smith. It is very easy to talk numbers. Numbers come and go. People come to the Chamber and argue numbers and statistics, but I want to put a face on what we are really talking about. Judge Smith was nominated for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals almost a year ago, on May 22, 2001. I brought this picture of Lavenski Smith in the hopes this might put a human face on at least one of the people we are hurting by these unjust and inexcusable delays. Judge Smith has received broad support from both of his home State Senators, from colleagues on the bench in Arkansas, from colleagues from his days of practicing law. He has received the support of the American Bar Association. He has received the support of the president of the Arkansas NAACP. He has received the support of editorial boards of both the left and the right ends of the political spectrum in the State of Arkansas. That is broad support. That is support from the left and the right. There is support from every colleague who has ever worked for him. There is support from his colleagues on the Arkansas Supreme Court. There is support from the American Bar Association. There is support across the board. The NAACP president has written asking for a hearing. Yet Judge Smith's nomination languishes. Why? If he is confirmed, Judge Smith will be the first African-American Arkansan on the Eighth Circuit. I wonder what the ladies and gentlemen of the press would be saying about this nomination were the tables reversed, were Republicans in control and a Democrat nominee, an African American, who would be the first on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, had languished for almost a year without even a hearing. Ever since this nomination, I have looked forward to the day when I could sit next to Judge Smith in the Senate Judiciary Committee and I could give a glowing introduction of my friend at that hearing. I have been waiting, I have been waiting, and I have been waiting. I have written Senator Leahy over and over, and I have talked to Senator Leahy. Others have written and pleaded for a hearing, and yet nothing has happened. I would like to tell my colleagues about my friend. Lavenski Smith earned both his bachelor's degree and his law degree from the University of Arkansas. Following law school and 3 years working in private practice, Judge Smith served the poorest and the neediest citizens of Arkansas as the staff attorney for Ozark Legal Services. At Ozark Legal Services, he represented abused and neglected children. These were children whose own parents were unwilling or unable to act in their best interest, putting the children in danger. So Judge Smith stepped in. Judge Smith helped these children. He represented them in our complex legal system and navigated the foster care system for them. He helped find the safest place for these children to grow and to thrive. So he is committed to the needy. He is committed to the poorest, and he has demonstrated that with his life, not just with his rhetoric. In addition to this public service, Lavenski Smith has volunteered his spare time to charitable endeavors such as raising funds for the School of Hope, a school for handicapped children in his hometown of Hope, Arkansas. After Judge Smith spent years working at Ozark Legal Services, Judge Smith opened the first minority-owned law firm in Springdale, AR, handling primarily civil cases. He then taught business law at John Brown University and took several positions in public service, including working as the regulatory liaison for Governor Mike Huckabee in the Governor's office. He currently serves as a commissioner on our Public Service Commission. Now I mentioned he has this very broad support, and indeed he has. So let me share some of the statements of support for Judge Lavenski Smith, former Arkansas Supreme Court Justice, who was nominated almost a year ago to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and has not been granted even the courtesy of a hearing before our Judiciary Committee. Dale Charles, the president of the Arkansas NAACP, President Charles wrote: He's a fine person individually and in his time on the Supreme Court he represented himself and the court well. I encourage them to question him and let his record speak for itself. I do not foresee his confirmation being in jeopardy. This is Dale Charles, president of the Arkansas NAACP. Dale Charles wrote this letter some time back. He wrote more recently on April 8 a specific letter to Chairman Leahy, and I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I would like to share with my colleagues what the President of the Arkansas chapter of the NAACP wrote concerning my friend Lavenski Smith: Dear Chairman Leahy, as the President of the Arkansas State Conference Branch of the NAACP, I am writing to express our concern that attorney Lavenski Smith, who is from Arkansas, has not been given a confirmation hearing. President Bush nominated Mr. Smith approximately a year ago for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, he has not been given a hearing before the Judiciary Committee. While I understand there are some partisan issues involved-- That is the greatest understatement ever made-- I am asking you, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to immediately schedule a hearing on behalf of the confirmation of Mr. Smith for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. It is my opinion that Mr. Smith is a fine individual and has served the people of Arkansas well in his capacity as a public official. Sincerely, Dale Charles, NAACP. What kind of support does one have to have to get a hearing? How long does one have to wait to get a hearing? In June of 2001, the American Bar Association, which has been called the gold standard of qualifications, agreed and made a unanimous qualified determination. Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court, W.H. ``Dub'' Arnold, well-respected jurist in the State of Arkansas, wrote on behalf of Lavenski Smith: He is a great man. He is very intelligent. He did a great job for us on the Arkansas Supreme Court. I think he'll make a great Federal judge. I think President Bush made the best possible nomination he could have made. Now, Justice Arnold is a Democrat, but he is a fair-minded Democrat and he is a distinguished jurist and he weighs in and says President Bush made the best possible nomination he could have made. We put in a call to Judge Smith to let him know I would be making these remarks on his behalf in this Chamber. Judge Smith said: Well, go ahead. I do not think it will make much difference, but go ahead. I was so crushed that he is so cynical about the process that has already delayed this nomination for a year and not even given him a hearing, that his attitude about pushing hard for it really will not accrue to any results. Mike Huckabee, Governor of the State of Arkansas stated: He just has all the equipment to be an outstanding jurist. I'll be the first to predict that his next stop will be the United States Supreme Court. Governor Huckabee is a Republican. So we have Dub Arnold, a Democrat, and we have Mike Huckabee, a Republican. We have the NAACP. We have the American Bar Association in June of 2001 saying that a unanimous qualified determination has been made regarding Judge Smith's nomination. Yet he waits. It has now been almost 1 year since he was nominated. I have thought and thought, why? I understand a nomination that is controversial, a nomination that has severe opposition within the State of Arkansas--perhaps if the letter from the president of the NAACP had been a critical letter or perhaps if his colleagues on the Arkansas Supreme Court had come out publicly and said they question his qualifications, perhaps then there would be some way to understand why there has not even been a hearing for Judge Smith. So I have thought about why, and the only opposition I can find, I say to my distinguished colleagues and to our Presiding Officer today, to Judge Smith's nomination is found on two Web sites. One is NOW, the National Organization for Women, and the other is NARAL. Judge Smith, for all of his qualifications, all of his distinguished service, all of his commitment to the poor, needy, and handicapped in our society, has one grave shortcoming: He is pro-life. There are those on the Judiciary Committee who have said: Don't send us a pro-life nominee. They are dead on arrival. That is tragic. To those who for years have denounced the idea of a litmus test to the Federal bench, that we only look at whether one is qualified or not, no one raised the issue of whether Judge Smith is qualified. Yet the only opposition has been NARAL and the National Organization of Women, and they say he is pro-life; he has a record of being pro-life. How can we possibly consider him for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals? That is a litmus test if there ever was one, and they are blatant about it. So we wait. And Judge Smith waits. Holding up judicial nominees is not just a political game. The confirmation process is not a payback opportunity for perceived wrongs of the past, nor should it be viewed as a chance to throw a roadblock before a new President's administration. The American people are watching the Senate's failure to fulfill its constitutional duty, and they are wondering if we understand what our role is. Last week, I received a call from a constituent in Arkansas. She had previously written to me asking me why the President's very well- qualified nominee to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, Lavenski Smith, has been waiting for close to a year without the courtesy of a hearing. I responded the way I am sure many Members do, by pointing out the letters I have written supporting Judge Smith's nomination, urging quick attention by the Judiciary Committee. I told her I was working hard to convince the committee to examine his qualifications, as I knew they would find his stellar record more than adequate for the job. I wrote to this lady, my constituent, that Senate procedure required the nominations to be reported out of the Judiciary Committee. She received my letter and called me last week. She said she had looked through her Constitution and wanted to read to me article II, section 2.2, which states that the President shall appoint justices with the advice and consent of the Senate--not the Judiciary Committee. She wanted to know why the Senate was allowing a partisan hijacking of Senate procedure to prevent fulfillment of our constitutional duty. I tell this story to illustrate that the vacancy crisis in the judiciary is having affects beyond the administration of justice. Our failure does not just create backlogs that allow dangerous criminals on the street longer, leaves the innocent waiting longer for vindication and slow victims access to justice. When we leave half of the bench of a court of appeals empty and another one only two-thirds full, the American people start to doubt our ability and our will to carry out our constitutional duties. I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share my reverence and respect for the Constitution. I hope we will move forward and confirm, or at a very minimum, have hearings and votes on the 44 nominees still pending, including my very qualified and very dear friend, Lavenski Smith, who would be a very able jurist and judge on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. This will set an important precedent for this circuit court of appeals by serving as the first African American on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. I ask once again, after nearly a year, for a hearing for my friend and for movement on these very important judicial nominations. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair. I congratulate Senator Allard for an excellent statement. I have a similar story to tell of one of our nominees from the State of Arkansas.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, before I begin discussing the judicial nomination, I wish to respond to the colloquy that took place on the other side of the aisle regarding our President's commitment to education. I serve on the Education Committee, and I was privileged to serve on the conference committee on the Leave No Child Behind legislation which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and which was signed into law in January. I saw for more than a year the President's and this administration's deep commitment and involvement to reforming and fully funding our education legislation and our commitment to our elementary and secondary education, special education under IDEA, and the bilingual and other programs that were reauthorized in this legislation. We have incredible leadership in the White House, and that is why this bipartisan legislation passed by over 80 votes in the Senate. It disappoints me and hurts me to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle attack this administration and question its commitment to education. We saw in 30 years under Democrat control an education policy that got us nowhere, in which the learning gap between high- achieving and low-achieving students never narrowed, in which test scores, instead of rising, continued to fall. Now we have a President who has said: Let's try something different; let's put real accountability into education; yes, let's increase funding, with dramatic increases in title I, dramatic increases in IDEA, special education, and dramatic reforms and increases in bilingual education; but let's accompany spending increases with accountability; let's not just spend more, let's spend smarter. I, for one, stand and applaud the President for his leadership. I can only say as the President's poll numbers soar on leadership in education and Republicans in general score better on education than ever before, that is the only explanation for the misguided attack on the President on the education issue which we just heard today.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference report of the farm bill. This bill has been a long time in coming. The House of Representatives passed their version of the farm bill last October, and the Senate began debating the farm bill on the floor of the Senate last December. Our farmers have been waiting for a resolution. Our farmers have been waiting for some type of certainty in farm policy. This bill provides changes to our current farm policy that are desperately needed by our country's farmers. Since last year, farmers have been waiting to see if they will be able to continue farming as a way of life and a way of making a living. They have been hoping Congress will do the right thing and provide them with the safety net they need to continue. Frankly, during the last year, many have not survived the wait. Many have held auctions, sold out, and left agriculture. However, others have been able to withstand the uncertainty and have waited for Congress to pass this farm bill. So I think it is long overdue. Many of our rural communities revolve around agriculture--from seed and fertilizer dealerships to farm implement businesses and storage facilities. These businesses have entire communities that rely upon what they do. Agriculture is essential to the local economies of these small towns and communities. This is true in much of my State of Arkansas and throughout the country. In addition to businesses, the health of the agriculture sector directly impacts the viability of local schools and churches. Without assistance, these towns will quickly disappear, and these small rural communities will be lost, and nothing will be left but ghost towns. This bill includes many features that will benefit producers, rural communities, scientific advancement, and the environment. Throughout the long process--and it has been an arduously long process--there was a constant awareness of where farm policy has had shortcomings in the past and the important role of a complete and comprehensive farm policy as our producers continue to compete in an ever more global marketplace. The three-part safety net composed of marketing loans, fixed payments, and the new target price counter-cyclical payments will provide much greater stability for our country's farmers. That is what farmers have asked for more than anything else--a degree of predictability and certainty in farm policy. This bill will provide our farmers with the predictability and certainty that they need. In Arkansas, many farmers have not been able to get loans, and they are in jeopardy of not being able to farm. Some bankers in my State have been lending to farmers so they can get the crops into the ground simply on faith that we will eventually act and get something approved for them. After months upon months of waiting, and delay upon delay-- these bankers, frankly, have had a lot more faith than I have. After all this time, we finally have a bill that can go to the President and be signed into law, and it is a bill that my farmers in Arkansas support. Time is of the essence, and to delay any longer will only serve to further complicate and muddle the implementation of this new policy. The time has come to pass the bill. Negotiations have been completed, and I think any effort to delay the passage of this bill is simply, at this point, hostile and antagonistic to farmers and farm communities throughout the country. This bill, when it left the Senate floor, included some provisions about which I was very concerned. In particular, I was concerned about the provisions included on payment limitations. As this provision was written, it would have had a disastrous impact on farmers in my State. A study conducted by the University of Arkansas indicated that farm income would have been reduced instantaneously by 25 percent had that payment limitation gone into place, and that as many as 40 percent of the farmers in Arkansas would have been impacted by this provision. In my opinion, including these limitations without any studies, hearing, or adequate understanding of the impacts was irresponsible and unfortunate. I am heartened and grateful to the conferees for exercising wise judgment in withdrawing and drastically scaling back these harmful provisions. Like all of my colleagues, I am concerned about any abuses of Government programs. However, to punish all farmers and ranchers in our country because of the abuses and excesses of a few is bad legislating. In addition, forcing arbitrary limits on our farmers is equally irresponsible. Different crops cost different amounts to raise. Some crops, such as rice and cotton, have very high input costs, which require these operations to become larger because they rely on economies of scale to survive. But these crops also need support, and to set arbitrary limits without any regard to the difference in crops and input costs would be disastrous and particularly harmful to specific regions of the country. Farm policy, as I have learned through this process, is very complex. But this bill represents a responsible and comprehensive approach. This bill includes many provisions that will assist the farmers in rural communities in Arkansas and throughout the country. However, this bill does not have everything I would want. One area in which I am very disappointed in this bill is the forestry title. In the committee and on the Senate floor, I believe many meaningful compromises had been reached, and foresters in Arkansas supported many of the programs included. Following the horrendous ice storms that hit Arkansas nearly a year and a half ago, the need for new programs and new funding mechanisms became apparent. I think it is unfortunate that conferees could not come to consensus on many of those provisions. It is my sincere hope that the Agriculture Committee will work quickly to approve these necessary forestry programs. While many of the forestry programs included in the Senate version of the farm bill would have benefitted foresters in many states, the Hazardous Fuel Reduction Program was of specific interest to me, and I was disappointed that it was not included in the final version of the conference report. I am sure many of my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee also would like to see many of these provisions passed, so I look forward to working with them to resolve this matter. Despite my concerns with the forestry title, or lack thereof, I want to highlight some of the provisions in this bill that I believe will have great benefits to our country. One of the conservation programs of which I have been a strong supporter in the past is the Wetlands Reserve Program. This program has been used by farmers throughout my State and across the country to restore wetlands and enhance wildlife habitat. This bill includes funding to increase the acreage cap for this program to 2.275 million acres. This will allow an additional quarter million acres of wetlands to be enrolled in this important program each year through 2007. By expanding this program, marginal lands can be taken out of production. It is good for the environment, it is good for recreation and sportsmen, and it is good for reducing farm production on marginal lands. Basically, it is a win-win for all of the stakeholders in agriculture. Also, I was very pleased with the increase in the funding for the EQIP program. This program will provide much- needed funds for our livestock and crop producers who will be trying to come in line with increasing environmental requirements. This program will benefit both producers and the environment. I believe the investments we make in this program will be repaid many times over in the future by the increased environmental quality we will all enjoy. In the area of trade, this bill will provide increases in funding for important programs such as the Market Access Program, the Foreign Market Development Program, and the Food for Progress Program. Although trade will not solve all of the problems facing our country's farmers, it is a critically important component of our national agricultural policy. We are the world's leading producer of food and fiber, and it is essential that we work to open these new markets. The investments we make in these areas will benefit our producers by providing new market. In addition, these programs will benefit consumers all over the world by granting them access to some of the safest and most nutritious food in the world. This bill also addresses a key challenge facing agriculture in the United States: the lack of young and beginning farmers. One of the reasons young people are not going into agriculture today is the difficulty in gaining the credit that is required to start a new farming operation. This bill provides a number of incentives to help young farmers get started. I think that is a great victory for the future of agriculture in our country. If we are going to continue as the world's leading producer of food and fiber, we must have young people getting involved. This bill reserves funds for operating loans for beginning farmers. It also authorizes funding for a beginning farmer and rancher development program to assist young men and women who want to get involved in agriculture. There has also been much discussion of the energy title of the farm bill. While I am wary of the creation of new programs, several of the components in the energy title will provide whole new options for producers in Arkansas. More and more farmers I talk to are interested in the possibility of getting involved in some form of renewable energy production, whether it is ethanol or biodiesel. Farmers recognize that these products could provide new markets for their crops. In addition, it could help our country become more energy independent. The inclusion of this title will complement the work we completed two weeks ago with the passage of the energy bill. Finally, I am extremely pleased that the deceptive use of the term ``catfish'' for fish of many different orders and families can no longer be used to artificially boost sales of foreign fish at the expense of our domestic producers. Much of this issue has been misunderstood. It has been a provision that has been attacked, I think, unfairly, by opponents claiming that we were somehow trying to redefine the names of specific fish inaccurately. Not at all. With this provision, we were trying to end the deceptive and economically destructive practice of mislabeling Vietnamese basa, and I am very pleased that this provision was retained. This provision is one that I and many of my colleagues have fought hard for. This has been a difficult problem to fix, and I am very pleased this bill will make the correction permanent. This farm bill has been a long time in coming. I urge my colleagues to pass this conference report quickly so the USDA and FSA officials throughout our country can get to work, finalizing the regulations and implementing the new programs. They are going to have a big job ahead of them, and we need to let them get started immediately. This bill has the potential to stabilize the farm economy, promote the development of new markets, revitalize our rural communities, and make our producers more competitive in the global marketplace. This bill is not the solution to all the challenges facing agriculture, but it does provide farmers with a safety net they need to hold their own while we work to open new markets and fight the lower foreign tariffs and barriers to trade. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the bill. Finally, I would like to thank my staff, Michael Zehr and Robbie Minnich, both of whom have gone through their first farm bill. They have worked long hours and done marvelous work as we have gone through this process. I thank them for their hard work on behalf of Arkansas' farmers. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment No. 3389 offered by Senator Lieberman and Senator Gordon Smith. This amendment is an important expression of our Nation's solidarity with the Israeli people during these attacks against their people. Civilized peoples must come together to fight and defeat terrorism wherever it occurs. There can be no negotiations with terrorists. On September 11, the American people experienced the depravity of international terrorism. The Israeli people have been subjected to a barrage of terrorist attacks that have been specifically targeted at civilians. It is incumbent on the United States to send the message throughout the world that these acts will not tolerated. It has been made evident that the Palestinian leadership uses suicide bombings as a means to accomplish political goals. This is simply unacceptable, and must not be tolerated. We must continue to ensure that Israel has all the necessary resources in order to defend itself. We must make it clear to all nations in the region that there will be consequences for support of terrorism. But most of all, we must send a message to the world that the United States stands in unity with Israel.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today, as an original cosponsor of the Home Health Modernization Act of 2002, to express my strong support for a clarification of the definition of ``homebound'' with respect to eligibility for home health services under the Medicare program. I want to tell you about Ms. Pamela Wolfenbarger of Fayettevelle, AR. Ms. Wolfenbarger is a quadriplegic as the result of an accident and has devoted the last twenty years to raising her son. Now that her son is grown, she would like to return to school so that she might become more self-sufficient financially. Due the current Medicare homebound policy, Ms. Wolfenbarger is unable to do so, nor can she leave her home to go clothes or food shopping, despite offers of assistance from a tremendous support group in her community. Ms. Wolfenbarger needs the services of a home health nurse to assist her in personal care, dressing, and transferring from her bed to her wheelchair. The current Medicare statute states: ``While an individual does not have to be bedridden to be considered to be confined to the home, the condition of the individual should be such that there exists a normal inability to leave home, that leaving home requires a considerable and taxing effort by the individual, and that absences from the home are infrequent or of relatively short duration, or are attributable to the need to receive medical treatment''. Problems have arisen because the terms ``infrequently'' and for periods of ``relatively short duration'' are comparative terms with no point of comparison, which has led the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to interpret the statutory coverage criteria for home health as requiring patients to remain in their homes virtually at all times, except those times specifically excluded in the statute, in order to remain eligible for coverage of home health services. As a consequence, many beneficiaries who are dependent upon Medicare home services and medical equipment for survival, including Ms. Wolfenbarger, are being unnecessarily restricted to their homes out of fear that they will lose their home health benefits. I believe we need to correct this problem for people like Ms. Wolfenbarger, and that is why I have joined Senators Collins, Bond and Cleland in introducing S. 2085, to clarify the homebound definition. Under this important legislation, the current requirement that beneficiaries be allowed ``only infrequent absences of short duration'' would be eliminated. By doing so, reasonable absences from the home will be allowed and we will bring the home health benefit into the 21st century. I urge my Senate colleagues to support the Home Health Modernization Act of 2002.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the passage of the Clergy Housing Allowance Clarification Act. This important legislation, of which I am a proud cosponsor, will affect the thousands of clergy throughout this country who tirelessly work for so many of us with little regard for their own financial well- being. I have heard from countless Arkansans who are very concerned that if this legislation is not enacted, the 81-year-old housing tax exclusion for members of the clergy could be eliminated. This in turn would force a devastating tax increase on the many American clergy who can little afford to take on such a large financial burden. I believe that this legislation needs to be passed today to ensure that clergy of all faiths and denominations can continue to receive the parsonage housing allowance exclusion. This bipartisan legislation was passed overwhelmingly in the House by a vote of 408 to 0, and I applaud my colleagues in the Senate for seeing fit to pass this bill with equal support today.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation to designate a United States postal facility in Fayetteville, AK in honor of one of America's greatest heroes and fellow Arkansan, Clarence B. Craft. This bill would name the facility at 1590 East Joyce Boulevard as the ``Clarence B. Craft Post Office Building.'' Mr. Craft passed away on March 28, 2002, but left behind a legacy of kindness and courage. Prior to his passing he was one of only 148 living persons to be warded our Nation's highest award for actions above and beyond the call of duty, the Congressional Medal of Honor. Clarence Craft was an extremely humble person, and rarely talked about the accolades that made him a ``special man'' as he was described by those who knew him well. He spent the last twenty-five years of his life in northwest Arkansas giving selflessly of his time as a volunteer for the Veterans' Affairs Medical Center in Fayetteville. He was a true and dedicated friend to the veterans, one who lifted their spirits with personal visits, often visiting every patient in the hospital. Clarence Craft's actions on May 31, 1945, are truly deserving of this recognition. On the island of Okinawa, then-Private First Class Craft launched a one-man attack against the Japanese defense on Hen Hill. Opposed by forces heavily armed with rifles, machine guns, mortars and grenades, Clarence Craft killed at least 25 enemy soldiers. His heroic efforts were the key to the U.S. forces' penetration of a defense that had repelled repeated, heavy assaults by battalion-sized U.S. formations for twelve days, and resulted in the entire defensive line crumbling. I enthusiastically encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill in honoring Clarence B. Craft, an American hero. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation to designate a United States postal facility in Fayetteville, AK in honor of one of America's greatest heroes and fellow Arkansan, Clarence B. Craft. This bill would name the facility at 1590 East Joyce Boulevard as the ``Clarence B. Craft Post Office Building.'' Mr. Craft passed away on March 28, 2002, but left behind a legacy of kindness and courage. Prior to his passing he was one of only 148 living persons to be warded our Nation's highest award for actions above and beyond the call of duty, the Congressional Medal of Honor. Clarence Craft was an extremely humble person, and rarely talked about the accolades that made him a ``special man'' as he was described by those who knew him well. He spent the last twenty-five years of his life in northwest Arkansas giving selflessly of his time as a volunteer for the Veterans' Affairs Medical Center in Fayetteville. He was a true and dedicated friend to the veterans, one who lifted their spirits with personal visits, often visiting every patient in the hospital. Clarence Craft's actions on May 31, 1945, are truly deserving of this recognition. On the island of Okinawa, then-Private First Class Craft launched a one-man attack against the Japanese defense on Hen Hill. Opposed by forces heavily armed with rifles, machine guns, mortars and grenades, Clarence Craft killed at least 25 enemy soldiers. His heroic efforts were the key to the U.S. forces' penetration of a defense that had repelled repeated, heavy assaults by battalion-sized U.S. formations for twelve days, and resulted in the entire defensive line crumbling. I enthusiastically encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill in honoring Clarence B. Craft, an American hero. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senate Resolution 254, which designates April 29 through May 3, 2002, as ``National Charter Schools Week,'' and was passed by unanimous consent on April 25, 2002. I am an original cosponsor of this resolution with Senators Lieberman, Gregg, and Carper, and I am proud to support our Nation's charter schools and highlight their impact on effective school reform across the country. Charter schools are laboratories of reform and excellence. By allowing increased flexibility and autonomy, charter schools are able to implement new ideas, while still being held to high standards. Charter schools are also public schools, and must serve disadvantaged students and students with disabilities, often doing so with increased success. Studies have shown a link between increased student achievement and enrollment in charter schools. Most importantly, parents and communities are satisfied with charter schools, evidenced by two-thirds of charter schools having waiting lists. The charter school movement continues to move forward as more and more states have passed laws authorizing charter schools. My home state of Arkansas is in the early stages of implementation, with six charter schools open at the beginning of the 2001 school year. With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act earlier this year and our continued support for charter schools across the country, we are saying to our parents, teachers, and students that our efforts are focused on increased academic achievement for all children. I hope that the charter school movement continues to grow and spurs innovation and reform to strengthen our nation's public school system.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help ease the financial burden for the millions of Americans that find themselves extremely confused and frustrated every year as they try to prepare their tax returns. This year's tax filing deadline expired on April 15 for most American taxpayers, and the 17,000-page, 2.8 million-word tax code was more complex than ever. One estimate is that it now takes 28 hours and six minutes to tackle the Internal Revenue Service's 1040 form and do the necessary record keeping. According to the Tax Foundation, it is estimated that in 2002, individuals and small businesses will spend approximately 5.8 billion hours complying with the Federal income tax code, with an estimated compliance cost of over $194 billion. This amounts to imposing a more than 20 cent tax compliance surcharge for every dollar the tax system collects. By 2007, the compliance surcharge is conservatively estimated at $244.3 billion. Under current law, there is a way for those taxpayers who itemize and accumulate tax preparation fees up to at least 2 percent of their Adjusted Gross Income to receive a financial break from the IRS to help offset the cost of having a tax preparer calculate their tax. The problem is that there are millions more low- or middle-income individuals and small business owners trying to decipher the same complicated instructions and forms, for which there is no tax break. Since 1985, we have more than doubled the pages in the instruction booklet that accompanies the 1040. In response to this increased complexity, American taxpayers are seeking professional help at a record level that equals almost 60 percent of all returns filed. I believe it is time that we acknowledge how difficult our current tax system has become and help the millions of Americans who have to look to outside help in filing their yearly tax returns. I suggest that since the Federal Government is the party responsible for creating this overly complicated code, it is the Federal Government that should bear the burden of the costs that are incurred in its compliance. My proposal is simple, my legislation provides for the expenses that are incurred by a taxpayer in having their return prepared to be fully deducted. This would be treated as an above-the-line deduction and would allow for anyone who pays for these services to deduct up to $500 of these costs. Further, for those who already qualify to have their preparation cost be deducted because they reach the 2 percent threshold, they can opt not to have this deduction apply and continue to have their tax preparation fees be deducted under the current guidelines. I believe the legislation that I have introduced today will provide much needed relief to the millions of American taxpayers that are forced to comply with this complex code. I ask my colleagues for their support. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help ease the financial burden for the millions of Americans that find themselves extremely confused and frustrated every year as they try to prepare their tax returns. This year's tax filing deadline expired on April 15 for most American taxpayers, and the 17,000-page, 2.8 million-word tax code was more complex than ever. One estimate is that it now takes 28 hours and six minutes to tackle the Internal Revenue Service's 1040 form and do the necessary record keeping. According to the Tax Foundation, it is estimated that in 2002, individuals and small businesses will spend approximately 5.8 billion hours complying with the Federal income tax code, with an estimated compliance cost of over $194 billion. This amounts to imposing a more than 20 cent tax compliance surcharge for every dollar the tax system collects. By 2007, the compliance surcharge is conservatively estimated at $244.3 billion. Under current law, there is a way for those taxpayers who itemize and accumulate tax preparation fees up to at least 2 percent of their Adjusted Gross Income to receive a financial break from the IRS to help offset the cost of having a tax preparer calculate their tax. The problem is that there are millions more low- or middle-income individuals and small business owners trying to decipher the same complicated instructions and forms, for which there is no tax break. Since 1985, we have more than doubled the pages in the instruction booklet that accompanies the 1040. In response to this increased complexity, American taxpayers are seeking professional help at a record level that equals almost 60 percent of all returns filed. I believe it is time that we acknowledge how difficult our current tax system has become and help the millions of Americans who have to look to outside help in filing their yearly tax returns. I suggest that since the Federal Government is the party responsible for creating this overly complicated code, it is the Federal Government that should bear the burden of the costs that are incurred in its compliance. My proposal is simple, my legislation provides for the expenses that are incurred by a taxpayer in having their return prepared to be fully deducted. This would be treated as an above-the-line deduction and would allow for anyone who pays for these services to deduct up to $500 of these costs. Further, for those who already qualify to have their preparation cost be deducted because they reach the 2 percent threshold, they can opt not to have this deduction apply and continue to have their tax preparation fees be deducted under the current guidelines. I believe the legislation that I have introduced today will provide much needed relief to the millions of American taxpayers that are forced to comply with this complex code. I ask my colleagues for their support. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Heroism Pay Equality Act. This legislation will restore fairness and equality to our country's retired military reservists who have been cited for extraordinary heroism, by affording them the same entitlements offered to their active component counterparts. Current law awards members with between 20 and 30 years of service who have been cited for extraordinary heroism in the line of duty an additional 10 percent to their retirement pay for their heroic acts. Typically, this equates to a service member who has received the Medal of Honor, the Distinguished Service Cross, or the Navy Cross. Yet a service member who has been awarded one of these medals, and whose retirement eligibility was achieved in the Reserves, is not recognized with the same benefit. This bill erases this injustice, and is offered in the spirit of fairness to the total force. The United States is increasingly reliant on the Reserve component of the armed service to meet the challenges that face our military. Reserve and National Guard units have served with distinction in Bosnia, Kosovo, the Middle East, and are doing so today in Afghanistan and countless locations across the United States as part of our global war on terrorism. The additional pay for heroic acts is awarded for the act itself and has nothing to do with the component in which retirement eligibility was achieved. Thus, to honor our Nation's military reservists, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation, which Senator Cleland and I are introducing today, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Heroism Pay Equality Act. This legislation will restore fairness and equality to our country's retired military reservists who have been cited for extraordinary heroism, by affording them the same entitlements offered to their active component counterparts. Current law awards members with between 20 and 30 years of service who have been cited for extraordinary heroism in the line of duty an additional 10 percent to their retirement pay for their heroic acts. Typically, this equates to a service member who has received the Medal of Honor, the Distinguished Service Cross, or the Navy Cross. Yet a service member who has been awarded one of these medals, and whose retirement eligibility was achieved in the Reserves, is not recognized with the same benefit. This bill erases this injustice, and is offered in the spirit of fairness to the total force. The United States is increasingly reliant on the Reserve component of the armed service to meet the challenges that face our military. Reserve and National Guard units have served with distinction in Bosnia, Kosovo, the Middle East, and are doing so today in Afghanistan and countless locations across the United States as part of our global war on terrorism. The additional pay for heroic acts is awarded for the act itself and has nothing to do with the component in which retirement eligibility was achieved. Thus, to honor our Nation's military reservists, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation, which Senator Cleland and I are introducing today, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, it is my distinct honor and privilege to recognize the ``Arkansas Gunslingers.'' Task Force 2-153, commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Steve Womack, made military history on January 13, 2002 by becoming the first pure Army National Guard unit to represent the United States in performing the Multinational Force and Observer, MFO, mission on the Sinai peninsula in Egypt which was born out of the 1979 Camp David Peace Accords. Soldiers of the 2nd Battalion, 153rd Infantry headquartered in Searcy, AR, along with other elements of the 39th Infantry Brigade were mobilized October 8, 2001 as part of President Bush's Homeland Defense initiative and the War on Terrorism. Under the strong leadership of Lieutenant Colonel Womack, Major Franklin Powell and Command Sergeant Major John Hogue, Task Force 2-153 exceeded all post-mobilization, pre- deployment, and post-deployment requirements. This accomplishment is particularly noteworthy given that these citizen-soldiers were given this critical and highly visible assignment just 90 days prior to deployment, at most, half the time to prepare routinely given to Regular Army units. When called upon by their commander in chief, this proud group of Arkansans literally lived up to their motto: ``Let's Go''! It is with great pride that I have risen today to pay tribute to the more than 500 soldiers who make up the Arkansas Gunslingers. They have selflessly put their private lives on hold to answer the call of duty. Their presence on the Sinai Peninsula is a powerful symbol of peace. The people of Arkansas are grateful for their service, and extremely proud that they have been chosen to represent the United States of America in this important mission.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the ``Emergency Agricultural Assistance Act of 2002'', which I am introducing today be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the ``Emergency Agricultural Assistance Act of 2002'', which I am introducing today be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Dodd, Murray, Hatch, Specter, Bond, Bingaman, Craig, Torricelli, Biden, Jeffords, Corzine, Sarbanes, Mikulski, Kennedy, Helms, Frist, Breaux, Edwards, Crapo, Collins, Campbell, Sessions, Inhofe, Carnahan, Durbin, Kerry, and Thurmond to submit a Senate Resolution declaring the Week of April 21-April 27, 2002, as ``National Biotechnology Week.'' There have been incredible advancements in science over the last few years that are allowing us to improve health care, increase crop yields, reduce the use of pesticides, and replace costly industrial processes involving harsh chemicals with cheaper, safer, biological processes. These advancements have occurred due to the hard work and diligence of scientists and researchers in the United States, and all around the world, who have spent their lives promoting and perfecting the practice of biotechnology. In addition, biotechnology and the tools and devices developed for this technology will be essential as our country continues to heighten its efforts to combat bioterrorism. One of the first challenges in combating bioterrorism is detection. Quick analysis of pathogens using gene chips and advanced techniques derived from biotechnology will allow health providers to quickly identify the type and nature of any biological attack. Also, there is a need to be able to respond to a biological attack. The tools of biotechnology will allow us to develop the vaccines and treatments needed for this purpose. Because of its great potential, biotechnology is a key component of promoting national security. In my home State of Arkansas, the potential for biotechnology as a motor for driving economic growth is just taking hold. Innovative research at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville and the University of Arkansas Medical School is paving the way for many small start-up companies at the state's incubation centers. In addition, research at Arkansas Children's Hospital and new genomics research at the National Center for Toxicological Research is leading to greater understanding of the impact that diets have on health. Also, there is great economic potential for a biotechnology corridor between Little Rock and the Pine Bluff Arsenal where the research community would be welcome to grow and thrive in our State. With all of these benefits, there is no doubt that biotechnology is touching our lives and improving our world. But, along with this technology comes the responsibility to understand and carefully evaluate it. It is essential that this technology be used to improve our world and preserve our humanity. If there is to be a future for this technology, and we are to fully realize its benefits and potential, elected officials and the public must be informed and engaged about the basics of technology itself and its incredible benefits. This is why my colleagues and I are pleased to introduce this resolution declaring April 21-27, 2002, as ``National Biotechnology Week.'' It is our hope that public officials, community leaders, researchers, professors, and school teachers across the country will take this week to actively promote understanding of biotechnology in their communities and their classrooms.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, throughout a long career on the Federal bench, Judge Richard Sheppard Arnold has exhibited tremendous integrity and commitment to public service. I am honored to join my colleague from Arkansas in introducing legislation to designate the Federal Courthouse in Little Rock, Arkansas, as the Judge Richard S. Arnold United States Courthouse. Finishing toward the top of his class both at Yale College and at Harvard Law School, Judge Arnold began his legal career as a Law Clerk to Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., of the Supreme Court of the United States. In October of 1978, President Carter appointed him to the District Bench for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas, and he was soon elevated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in 1980. There he served as Chief Judge from 1992 through 1998. Since April of 2001, Judge Arnold has served as Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eight Circuit. For the duration of his service on the bench, Judge Arnold has maintained a reputation as a true gentleman who possesses a keen intellect. Perhaps the finest measure of a man, however, is found in his friends. Judge Arnold has many. It was the entire bench of the Eastern District of Arkansas that came up with the proposal to name the courthouse in his honor, and nearly every day my mail includes a letter from a Judge in Arkansas championing this designation. Such unqualified support at the end of a long career is truly remarkable. Judge Arnold has certainly earned the honor this legislation would bestow. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting the designation of the Little Rock, Arkansas, Federal Court House as the Judge Richard S. Arnold United States Courthouse.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, throughout a long career on the Federal bench, Judge Richard Sheppard Arnold has exhibited tremendous integrity and commitment to public service. I am honored to join my colleague from Arkansas in introducing legislation to designate the Federal Courthouse in Little Rock, Arkansas, as the Judge Richard S. Arnold United States Courthouse. Finishing toward the top of his class both at Yale College and at Harvard Law School, Judge Arnold began his legal career as a Law Clerk to Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., of the Supreme Court of the United States. In October of 1978, President Carter appointed him to the District Bench for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas, and he was soon elevated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in 1980. There he served as Chief Judge from 1992 through 1998. Since April of 2001, Judge Arnold has served as Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eight Circuit. For the duration of his service on the bench, Judge Arnold has maintained a reputation as a true gentleman who possesses a keen intellect. Perhaps the finest measure of a man, however, is found in his friends. Judge Arnold has many. It was the entire bench of the Eastern District of Arkansas that came up with the proposal to name the courthouse in his honor, and nearly every day my mail includes a letter from a Judge in Arkansas championing this designation. Such unqualified support at the end of a long career is truly remarkable. Judge Arnold has certainly earned the honor this legislation would bestow. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting the designation of the Little Rock, Arkansas, Federal Court House as the Judge Richard S. Arnold United States Courthouse.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record, a poem by a constituent of mine, Debbie Rogers, on behalf of the victims of September 11, 2001. The poem follows. God Bless the USA Twin Towers once stood regally, but majestic in the sky, Pure evil took them down today, Americans stand and cry. Two planes marked for death, as the world observes them crash, Once titanic against the skyline, now scattered in debris and ash. Four planes all together, carrying innocent lives on each one, Leaving disbelief and carnage, when the hellish butchers were done. There was no kind of warning, no message did they send, And the total devastation, is so hard to comprehend. Emergency Crews work frantically, keeping hope always alive, They dig with bleeding hands, praying someone does survive. Thousands hurt and missing, death lingers in the air, Families in such torment, the world mourns in deep despair. Our whole world has been disrupted, as we watch the breaking news, Praying they find survivors, and all the missing clues. We need closure for the families, and justice for us all, We'll deal with this catastrophie, as Americans we stand tall. Were proud to be Americans, we won't take this without a fight, We won't cease in determination, till this wrong is made a right. We'll rise above the smoke and ash, remembrance in our heart, Of all the innocent families, these monsters tore apart. Now vengeance seems to call, like a beacon in the night, God forgive our thoughts two wrongs don't make a right. But we'll stand on honor and justice, there'll be a reckoning day, This deed won't go unpunished, God Bless the U.S.A. In Honor and in Memory, September 11, 2001, by Debbie Rogers.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Reid and Senator Warner in introducing a bill that will eliminate, once and for all, the inequity that our Nation's veterans have been burdened with for 110 years. Across this great Nation there are over 400,000 disabled, military retirees that must give up their retired pay in order to receive their VA disability compensation. Military retirees are the only group of Federal retirees who are forced to fund their own disability benefits. Men and women who served our country, who dedicated their lives to the defense of freedom, have earned fair compensation. The issue has been before the Senate for years. Concurrent receipt legislation introduced earlier this year by Senator Reid and myself had 79 cosponsors. The Congress needs to act this year on this issue. This bill will honor Americans who answered our Nation's call for 20 years or more. They are veterans who stood the line, defending our Nation, during times of peace and times of war. Military retirement pay and disability compensation are earned and awarded for entirely different purposes. Current law ignores the distinction between these entitlements. Military retirees have dedicated 20 or more years to our national defense in earning their retirement, whereas disability compensation is awarded to compensate a veteran for injury incurred in service to our Nation. Our veterans have earned and deserve fair compensation. I have been a longstanding supporter of efforts to repeal the century-old law that prohibits military retirees from collecting the retired pay that they earned as well as VA disability compensation. Since September 11, the American people have gained a greater appreciation of our military. The men and women in uniform have performed admirably in the war against terrorism. I recently visited our troops in Afghanistan. Their professionalism, their dedication, and their patriotism was an inspiration. As we all know, Afghanistan is still a very dangerous place. We need to send a message to those soldiers that are putting their lives on the line every day that our government provides just and fair compensation for those that will have gone before them. The Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Authorization Act included authority for concurrent receipt, but made it subject to offsetting funding. The bill we are introducing today moves forward in requiring full concurrent receipt, with no restrictions. I pledge to continue the fight on this important issue. I look forward to joining with Senator Reid in ensuring that the Senate Budget Resolution includes full funding for concurrent receipt. I will work with Senator Warner and my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee to see that the bill we are introducing today is incorporated into the Fiscal Year 2003 Defense Authorization bill. In closing, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important legislation. Is is simply the right and fair thing to do for American veterans.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Reid and Senator Warner in introducing a bill that will eliminate, once and for all, the inequity that our Nation's veterans have been burdened with for 110 years. Across this great Nation there are over 400,000 disabled, military retirees that must give up their retired pay in order to receive their VA disability compensation. Military retirees are the only group of Federal retirees who are forced to fund their own disability benefits. Men and women who served our country, who dedicated their lives to the defense of freedom, have earned fair compensation. The issue has been before the Senate for years. Concurrent receipt legislation introduced earlier this year by Senator Reid and myself had 79 cosponsors. The Congress needs to act this year on this issue. This bill will honor Americans who answered our Nation's call for 20 years or more. They are veterans who stood the line, defending our Nation, during times of peace and times of war. Military retirement pay and disability compensation are earned and awarded for entirely different purposes. Current law ignores the distinction between these entitlements. Military retirees have dedicated 20 or more years to our national defense in earning their retirement, whereas disability compensation is awarded to compensate a veteran for injury incurred in service to our Nation. Our veterans have earned and deserve fair compensation. I have been a longstanding supporter of efforts to repeal the century-old law that prohibits military retirees from collecting the retired pay that they earned as well as VA disability compensation. Since September 11, the American people have gained a greater appreciation of our military. The men and women in uniform have performed admirably in the war against terrorism. I recently visited our troops in Afghanistan. Their professionalism, their dedication, and their patriotism was an inspiration. As we all know, Afghanistan is still a very dangerous place. We need to send a message to those soldiers that are putting their lives on the line every day that our government provides just and fair compensation for those that will have gone before them. The Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Authorization Act included authority for concurrent receipt, but made it subject to offsetting funding. The bill we are introducing today moves forward in requiring full concurrent receipt, with no restrictions. I pledge to continue the fight on this important issue. I look forward to joining with Senator Reid in ensuring that the Senate Budget Resolution includes full funding for concurrent receipt. I will work with Senator Warner and my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee to see that the bill we are introducing today is incorporated into the Fiscal Year 2003 Defense Authorization bill. In closing, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important legislation. Is is simply the right and fair thing to do for American veterans.