John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent my comments be separated. I will make a few comments about Secretary Bolton and ask that they are separated and appear separately in the Record.

Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent--I will not speak that long--to proceed for such time as I may consume.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the successes of the intelligence community are never really known to the American public. But the spectacular failures of the last few years have been apparent to us all. Blue- ribbon panels, presidential commissions, and common sense have all told us that the intelligence community needs reform. In recent months, with action by Congress and the administration, we've begun to see progress. With the vote on John Negroponte's nomination today, we will take an important step in giving life to the structural reforms we've debated for so many months. John Negroponte faces a daunting challenge as the country's first Director of National Intelligence. It will be his responsibility to make intelligence reform a reality, to break-down the barriers between intelligence agencies, and to restore the credibility of the American intelligence community. There once was a time where the word of the President of the United States was enough to reassure world leaders. After the intelligence failures of the last few years, that is no longer true. In his confirmation hearings, Mr. Negroponte identified ways to improve the intelligence process--formalizing lessons-learned exercises across the community; utilizing ``Team B'' analyses to avoid self- reinforcing analysis premised on faulty assumptions; improving inter- agency and community-wide cooperation; and removing barriers between foreign and domestic intelligence. He must also be able to work effectively with Secretary Rumsfeld and the Department of Defense--and its 80 percent of the intelligence budget--to really reform the community. Many of us in Congress will support his efforts, and I urge President Bush to be steadfast in this regard as well. But Mr. Negroponte's most immediate and urgent task will be to speak truth to power. When the intelligence does not support the policy goals or ambitions of the administration, Mr. Negroponte must never flinch, never waiver, never compromise one iota of his integrity or the integrity of the intelligence. He must also be willing to push analysts to challenge assumptions, consider alternatives, and follow the evidence wherever it may lead them. And when they do, he must back them with the full authority of his office. Today we face many threats, the dangerous legacy of the Cold War in vast nuclear arsenals, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, the spread of terrorism, lingering disputes in various regions of the world, and new forces, like globalization, all crying out for leadership by the United States. The decisions policy makers make are influenced by many factors. But on issues of war and peace, on protecting this country, on determining our long-term national security needs and the direction of our foreign policy, there is no substitute for intelligence that is accurate, timely, and trusted. Mr. Negroponte will shape the role of Director of National Intelligence in fundamental ways. He will be judged on whether or not America is safer at the end of his tenure than when he starts. For the sake of us all, I hope he succeeds.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Supplemental Appropriations bill includes a provision, Section 6023, which allows the Department of Energy to count subcontracts towards their small business prime contracting goal and caps the total agency small business goal at 23 percent. Section 6023 amends the Small Business Act, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship but neither Senator Snowe, the chairwoman of the committee, nor I, the ranking member, were consulted about this language prior to its introduction. The Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship has a longstanding position opposing the counting of subcontracts towards small business prime contracting goals at the Department of Energy. And for good reason, doing it this way is faking. It's saying that you are awarding prime Federal contracts to small business when you really aren't. This language will essentially cut small businesses out of contracts at the Department of Energy across the Nation by removing all incentives for the agency to create prime contracting opportunities for these firms. This provision would reduce the amount of contracts available for small firms, shrinking their revenue stream, reducing jobs and hurting the economy. Also, by reducing competition in the marketplace this language would prevent the Federal Government from benefiting from the billions of dollars in savings that come from that competition. Even more problematic is the precedent this would set for government contracts. It would open the door for any agency with management and operations contractors, facilities managers, or systems integrators to seek an exemption from Federal acquisition law with regard to prime contract awards to small firms. Mr. President, I recognize the concern that Senator Domenici has for his firms in New Mexico and for the two DOE laboratories located in his State. The loss of contracts by local businesses is a concern that Senator Snowe and I would be happy to address with Senators Domenici and Bingaman. However, this language does nothing to guarantee that contracts stay local; instead it simply shifts the authority to award Government prime contracts away from a Federal agency and gives that authority to private, for-profit corporate entities. The availability of prime and subcontracting opportunities for small firms at the DOE is a complicated issue that needs a thorough investigation and analysis before adopting legislation that could irreparably harm small businesses throughout the Nation. An emergency supplemental bill is not the place for this language. Finally, I have received a draft copy of the GAO report requested by Senators Domenici, Bingaman, Snowe and myself on this very subject--DOE small business contracting. The draft report has a number of disturbing findings including: the complete lack of oversight in M&O subcontracting by the Department of Energy, falsified reporting data, and the mismanagement of subcontracts by large prime contractors. Given the serious nature of the problems with these M&O contractors, it is highly inappropriate for the Congress to now exempt the Agency from its oversight duties and hand over all control to these companies. I have worked diligently with Senators Snowe, Bingaman, and Domenici to find compromise language that would address Senator Domenici's concerns without causing irreparable damage to the small business community. Unfortunately, we ran out of time before this bill was adopted. However, I hope that we can continue to work on finding a real solution and correct this harmful provision in the conference to ensure that small businesses receive their fair share of DOE contracts. I believe we can do that without adversely affecting the agency's ability to successfully permit its core duties. Mr. President, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill before the Senate is a vitally important piece of legislation. It provides $81 billion in immediate funds for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to meet critical needs for other important national priorities, including tsunami relief. The war in Iraq has been a divisive issue in our country. People have passionate views on the subject--a passion that is matched by our concern for the welfare of the men and women of the American military. It is that concern and a real desire for them to succeed that has driven us all to push the administration toward adopting a better approach to the mission in Iraq. In recent months, President Bush has made progress in drawing additional international support to the training of Iraqi security forces. We can wonder what took so long and hope that their efforts in recent months were just the beginning, but we all recognize that the Iraqi election was an important milestone and success--a success made possible by the courage of the Iraqi people and the dedication of the men and women of the American military. But the mission there is not complete. Even this week Iraq has been struck by deadly violence against innocent civilians. And the nascent government, even after the first election, can only be described as fragile. The Iraqi people are in the midst of an experiment with democracy--an experiment that must succeed. This supplemental bill will give them the tools and resources they need to succeed. The legislation also provides critical funds for the mission in Afghanistan. The war against al-Qaida and international terrorism is not yet won, and our forces need these funds to continue the fight, to support the emergence of a free Afghanistan, and to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. Last week, the Senate adopted two amendments I offered to improve benefits for surviving military families. One amendment extends the length of time surviving families may stay in military housing free of charge to one year. Military families suffer in unique ways when a loved one is lost in the line of duty. In the midst of grieving they must almost immediately plan to move and change their entire life. For those with children in school, the loss is compounded by the disruption in school and friends that moving in the midst of the school year may bring. The amendment the Senate accepted last week gives surviving military families the opportunity to get their affairs in order, to finish the school year, and to better cope with the loss of a loved one before having to move. I thank my colleagues for their support in this effort. The second amendment I offered increases to $100,000 the death gratuity paid to survivors of service members who die on active duty. The current law provides a miserly sum of $12,400. I began talking about the need to increase the death gratuity more than a year ago. When the administration announced its proposal earlier this year, it sought to limit the increase to those who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. No one thought that was a good idea, including the uniformed leadership of the United States military. The Senate Appropriations Committee addressed part of the problem in its mark of this bill, but avoided the simple solution of changing U.S. Code to read ``$100,000'' instead of the current $12,000. My amendment did just that. And I thank my colleagues for their overwhelming support of it. Our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan are not yet done. Until they are, the administration must continue to build international support for our efforts and ensure that the men and women of the American military have everything they need to succeed and that their families have the support they need and deserve. The Congress has an important responsibility to pass this legislation swiftly. Any effort to unnecessarily burden this legislation with immigration provisions in conference will unnecessarily delay the passage of this vital legislation to the detriment of the men and women in the field today. I strongly urge the conferees to reject any effort to attach the REAL ID Act to this legislation. Let's pass a clean bill that provides our forces with the tools they need and the resources they need to succeed.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, once again, today, President Bush is going to talk about the rising cost of gas and how it is hurting Americans at the pump. He is going to talk again about our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. Last weekend, President Bush used his radio address to urge Americans to support his energy legislation. He said, and I quote him: American families and small businesses across the country are feeling the pinch from rising gas prices. President Bush is right. The fact is American families are struggling. But unfortunately he is wrong about his support of the energy bill and his approach. The issue is not that the President doesn't understand the problem; it is that he does not have a real solution. He has not proposed the kinds of steps that are staring us in the face, available to us to be able to put together a real energy policy for the country. The energy plan he continues to campaign for will, in fact, make the United States more dependent on foreign oil, it will keep gas prices at record highs instead of making them affordable for consumers, and it will make our air and our water more polluted instead of investing in a cleaner future. These are pretty stark choices. Each and every one of them, on examination, is proven in the ways in which this administration has moved backwards on enforcement, backwards with respect to its commitment to a major independent energy policy for the Nation. What we need to do is provide the Nation with sound solutions that are going to create jobs, instill a greater confidence in our relationships with other countries, and begin to move away from that dependency and to excite the economy through the creation of those kinds of jobs and the commitment to new technologies and to the research and development to create them. The crisis, as it is currently unfolding, affects our economy. It is a drag on the economy, a drag on growth, a drag on our security, and it is obviously harming our environment. The status quo energy policies the President is promoting are also hurting consumers at the pump, and no amount of taxpayer-funded, campaign-style events are going to cover up this reality because the evidence is plain for everybody to see at gas stations all across the country. People are now paying an average of $2.28 a gallon at the pump. That is up 6 cents in the last week and over 50 cents in the last year. All of this has been predictable. The rise of demand in China and the rise of demand in less-developed nations has been there for every economist to lay out over the course of the last years. Notwithstanding the rise in demand and the competition for available oil resources, the United States continues down the same old road. All of the hype about the Arctic Wildlife Refuge or other sources is never going to make up for the reality of how much of the oil reserves are actually available to the United States versus that increasing demand curve. For the fourth week in a row, gas prices are at an all-time high. They have now increased a staggering 56 percent since 2001. A recent Gallup survey revealed that 44 percent of Americans believe it is extremely important for Congress and the President to address gas prices. But you only need to look at the legislation that is promoted by the President, and set to be voted on in the House this week, to see that, yet again, Washington is turning its back on common sense and turning its back on the best interests of the American people. Under this administration, higher gas prices cost American consumers an extra $34 billion. If the House passes this bill, the Senate passes it, and the President signs it, it will cost the American consumer $34 billion. Airlines, truckers, and farmers spent an extra $20 billion last year alone. That is a regressive energy tax on the backs of working Americans. But the administration's friends got off a lot easier than the average American. This energy bill is going to make their load even lighter. While American workers and families were struggling, oil companies earned record profits in the fourth quarter of 2004: ExxonMobil, up 218 percent, ConocoPhillips, up 145 percent; Shell, up 51 percent; ChevronTexaco, up 39 percent; and BP, up 35 percent. Show me the American worker whose income has gone up by several percentage points, let alone double digits. Show me the American worker whose income has risen so they can keep up with the higher cost of fuel. What is the President proposing to do about this? Well, 95 percent of the tax benefits included in the President's bill, the bill he supports, more than $8 billion, goes directly into the pockets of big oil and gas companies. At a time when oil prices are at historic highs, our energy policy ought to be aimed at investing in new and renewable sources of energy, not providing another big giveaway to special interests, particularly to the big oil and gas companies that have had these remarkable increases in their profits over the course of the last year. Simply put, what is good for the administration's contributors has not been good for our economy. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has said: Markets for oil and natural gas have been subject to a degree of strain over the past year not experienced for a generation. The Chairman of the President's own Council of Economic Advisors has admitted: High energy prices are now a drag on our economy. But the problem goes even deeper. The administration's failure to propose a real energy policy also threatens our national security. We are more dependent on foreign oil than ever before, forcing us into risky and even compromising political entanglements with nations that we rely on for the fuel oil. America will never be fully secure until we free ourselves from the noose of foreign oil. Unfortunately, the so-called energy plan of the administration does nothing, nothing to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Don't take my word for it. The President's own economists found that oil imports will actually increase 85 percent by 2025 under a proposal such as we see at this point. The President's economists also found that ``changes to production, consumption, imports, and prices are negligible.'' You don't have to be an expert on oil or on energy policy to understand the basics of where we find ourselves. All you have to do is be able to count. The United States of America only has 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. That is all God gave us, 3 percent. Saudi Arabia has 65 percent of the world's oil reserves. There is no possible way, with the current population growth, the current increase in demand for oil, the current increases in other countries, no possible way for the United States to drill its way to energy independence. We have to invent our way to it. But the President's energy policy is completely lacking in the major commitment necessary. There are token commitments, yes, but not the major commitment you need in order to spur the investment strategies, in order to spur the research and development and the fast transition in the marketplace we need to provide for the alternative energy sources the country ought to demand. The President's energy bill is not even a real Band-Aid on the energy crisis that threatens our economy and challenges our national security. What it does do for sure is fatten the coffers of big energy companies. There is a reason Senator McCain called the energy bill the No Lobbyist Left Behind Act. What kind of message do these policies send? If your profits go up, your subsidies go up. If the policy makes us more dependent on foreign oil, it makes the status quo even worse. What we ought to be doing is something profoundly better than this, and we know we could. Energy policy gives us a rare opportunity to address a whole series of challenges at the same time. If we end our dependence on foreign oil and move in that direction, then we begin to strengthen our national security, and we become more independent and more capable of making choices that are less founded in that dependency. If we lead the world in inventing new energy technologies, we create thousands of high-paying jobs in the United States, and we create products we can export and an expertise we can also export at the same time. If we learn to tap clean sources of energy, then we preserve a clean environment, and we reduce the level of environment- induced cancers and other problems we face. If we remove the burden of high gas prices, then American consumers will have more cash in their pockets, more ability to spend elsewhere, and we give our economy the boost it needs. Unfortunately, the energy bill before the Congress achieves none of these fundamental goals in the way we could and in the way we need to, given the crisis we face. It is laden with handouts to corporate interests. Over the period of the next days, I will lay out further the specifics of those particular linkages and what they mean to us. We have an opportunity to change the direction of our country, to change our economy and make ourselves more secure and to create jobs. The solutions to our energy crises, all of them, are staring us in the face. The fact is, a number of years ago, back in 1973, when the first oil crisis hit, and then in the latter part of the 1970s, this country did move to try to create a real policy of alternative energy. The result was thousands of small companies started up around solar or wind or alternatives. But then, unfortunately, in the 1980s, the Government pulled back from that commitment and many of those companies were lost and much of that technology shifted and was lost to Japan or to Germany or to other countries. The record of jobs lost versus jobs created and of opportunities lost versus opportunities seized is a clear one. It is long past time we get the politics out of this and put practical, real and, in some cases, visionary solutions on the table so we can strengthen our own economy, strengthen our country, and provide ourselves with alternatives that will make our Nation both healthier and safer at the same time. I believe we owe the Nation more than staged political events and rhetoric in the effort to move to that future, and I hope we will do so. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, earlier this week I was proud to submit into the Record several e-mails from the more than 2,000 I had received from military families around the country. These e-mails detailed the proud service that America's military families make every day. The e- mails are full of their pride and understanding of service. And I know my colleagues join me in expressing our thanks to them for all they do. I submitted these e-mails because they put a human face on the sacrifices we speak about so often. I have come to learn that one of the stories relayed to me about a Home Depot employee does not reflect Home Depot's policies. In fact, Home Depot is a strong supporter of its mobilized employees. The company was recognized last year by the Department of Defense for its support to service members, including a program to give hiring preferences to injured service members who want to work for the company. Its ``Project Home Front'' contributed tools and volunteers to help military spouses make home repairs while their loved ones were deployed. And, as a model for others to emulate, Home Depot makes up any salary lost by mobilized employees. I am happy to set the record straight on the contributions Home Depot makes to the brave Americans who work for it and serve in the National Guard and Reserves. I regret the unfortunate oversight and thank Home Depot for their support of America's military. The stories we received are snapshots of what service means to families across this great land. America's military families are partners in the defense of this country and we have to listen to them. Taking care of their needs is not sentimentalism it's a practical investment in our national security. Given the millions spent to recruit and train the men and women of the United States military, our modest investment in military families is a smart way to retain the force. I thank my colleagues for their continued interest and support on these issues, and I thank Home Depot for its support of America's heroes.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. To amendment No. 333 and amendment No. 334.

Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the second amendment is an amendment to raise the death benefit for those who die while in service to our country. Currently, it is $12,000 plus change. We want to take it up to $100,000. The Senator is going to tell you that the Pentagon is opposed to this. Secretary Rumsfeld is opposed to this. The uniformed leadership at the Pentagon is overwhelmingly in favor of it. Air Force GEN Michael Moseley said: I believe a death is a death and our servicemen and women should be represented that way. Army GEN Richard Cody said: It is about service to this country and I think we need to be very, very careful about [drawing a] distinction. And GEN Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: I think a death gratuity that applies to all service members is preferable to one that's targeted just to those that might be in a combat zone. Let me say to our colleagues, you can be driving a car and have a car accident in a combat zone, and you qualify for the upper level. But if you are serving on an aircraft carrier or elsewhere and you are training personnel, and you die from a catapult that falls or you have an accident, you do not get the same benefit, even as you are preparing to send troops to war. That is wrong. We believe you ought to apply it according to the desire of the uniformed generals, which is to treat all members of the service the same say.

Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senator from Alaska, or the manager, is prepared to accept one of the amendments, I think. Am I correct?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, point of inquiry.

Mr. KERRY. I am honored to have the Senator from West Virginia as a cosponsor.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, that is amendment No. 334, which extends the period of time that spouses can remain on a base after their spouse has died in action.

Mr. KERRY. Amendment No. 333.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lincoln be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for having supported amendment No. 334 to extend the $100,000 death gratuity to the survivors of all who die on active duty. I want the record to show what the amendment will accomplish and why what it accomplishes is important. Current law provides $12,000 to all members of the military who die on active duty, regardless of circumstance. Earlier this year, President Bush proposed increasing the death gratuity to $100,000 for those who die in Iraq, Afghanistan, or designated combat zones. The supplemental legislation reported by the Appropriations Committee increases the death gratuity to $100,000 for those who die in combat and those classified under circumstances classified as warranting Combat Related Special Compensation, CRSC, if they had lived. CRSC was a compromise brokered a few years ago in lieu of concurrent receipt. Using CRSC, the $100,000 death gratuity would go to those who die ``as a direct result of armed conflict; while engaged in hazardous service; in the performance of duty under conditions simulating war; or through an instrumentality of war.'' For all others, the death gratuity remains $12,000. My amendment is very simple. It changes the existing law to say $100,000 shall be paid in death gratuity under all circumstances in which $12,000 is now paid. It eliminates the provisions in the legislation that distinguish between the manner and place of deaths. It eliminates any connection to combat related special compensation. It does not extend the death gratuity to anyone who doesn't already receive the $12,000. The amendment simply heeds the advice of the uniformed leadership of the military who said, unambiguously, that a death is a death is a death, and Congress should not try to parse them. General Richard A. Cody, U.S. Army, said: It is about service to this country and I think we need to be very, very careful about making this $100,000 decision based upon what type of action. I would rather err on the side of covering all deaths rather than try to make the distinction. Admiral John B. Nathman, U.S. Navy, said: This has been about . . . how do we take care of the survivors, the families and the children. They can't make a distinction; I don't believe we should either. General Michael T. Moseley, U.S. Air Force, said: I believe a death is a death and our servicemen and women should be represented that way. General William Nyland, U.S. Marine Corps, said: I think we need to understand before we put any distinctions on the great service of these wonderful young men and women. . . . they are all performing magnificently. I think we have to be very cautious in drawing distinctions. Finally, General Richard Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: I think a death gratuity that applies to all service members is preferable to one that's targeted just to those that might be in a combat zone. I also want to note that the practical effect of my amendment is identical to the provisions of the House-passed supplemental. The underlying bill, H.R. 1268, passed the House on March 16, 2005, and in section 1113 it would require an equal death gratuity of $100,000 for all service members, regardless of the circumstance and location of their death. Like my amendment, it does not treat one military family differently than others. Lastly, my amendment has been endorsed by the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, EANGAUS; the Military Officers Association of America, MOAA; the National Guard Association of the United States, NGAUS; the National Military Family Association, NMFA; the Reserve Enlisted Association, REA; and the Reserve Officers Association, ROA. I thank my colleagues again for their support and look forward to working with them to hold this mark in conference.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this debate on emergency funding for our military wouldn't be complete if we did not begin to address the crises military families face at home as well as abroad. I am proud that the Senate has passed my two amendments, one to allow families to stay in military housing for a full year after the death of a spouse, the other to ensure all military families receive $500,000 in total death benefits when a loved one dies in service to America, but I am also deeply moved by the stories I have heard from across our country in the last 24 hours about the challenges to military families every day. Yesterday, I sent an email to Americans asking them to share their stories--of husbands and wives, sons and daughters, neighbors and friends who serve their country with courage but have been left on their own by our policies here at home. Within hours over 2,000 Americans sent me their stories. They took time out of their busy days to share their stories on the hope someone would listen. Their voices must be heard in the halls of Congress. Today, I enter a small sample of their stories into the Congressional Record to prove we are listening, and hope that today's victory marks a new beginning, and that soon Congress will answer all their prayers and pass a comprehensive Military Families Bill of Rights. I ask unanimous consent that the letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY. No. 333.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his courtesy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Lautenberg as a cosponsor to Senate amendment No. 333 and Senate amendment No. 334.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there is confusion.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced two amendments to help our military families to be able to contend with the death of a loved one and the problems that flow to these families when one of America's service people are lost either in combat or in the course of duty. The disruptions are obviously enormous and unimaginable in many ways, but one of those disruptions is that after a period of 180 days, even in the middle of a school year, a widow would have to move off the base notwithstanding the kids are in the middle of a school year. I can give the names of people I have met in a number of instances over the course of the last couple of years traveling the country, people who talked about the incredible disruption to their family because of this. What we have learned listening to the commanders in the military and also to the families is that when we recruit, we are not just recruiting individual soldiers, and when we equip, we don't just equip by giving them the weapons and the technology they need to fight a war. We recognize we recruit a whole family and we retain a whole family. We need to have policies that are family thoughtful, family sensitive, so we can retain people in the military, particularly in a volunteer force where we expend enormous public dollars in order to train people to provide us with the superb capacity we have in our military. One of my amendments would provide an extension of that 180-day period of time so you get a year for the school year issue and other issues of finding a suitable home and figuring out whether you are going to go back and live with your parents, what your job is going to be, and where you are going to live, so all of these things are not providing added pressure to families who are already remarkably disrupted. The second is an amendment that would extend the death benefits, the total death benefits to families so those families who are unfortunate enough to lose a loved one are not suffering for the rest of their lives as a consequence of that contribution to their Nation. These amendments would be the first strong steps in what I call the military families bill of rights. I am not going to go through all of the details and the arguments for that, but I would like to say to my colleagues that yesterday I sent out an e-mail asking Americans to send stories in about their personal struggles with these issues, or those of their friends and friends' families that they heard about. In less than 24 hours over 2,000 families responded. They took the time out of their busy days in the hopes that we would listen, so I would like to share a few of those stories with my colleagues. The first is a couple in Austin, TX, who e-mailed me about one of their two young children who has Job's syndrome. When their father was called to duty, Home Depot stopped paying his salary and cut his health insurance. His wife, who was a schoolteacher, had to purchase insurance on the open market, leaving her finances in complete disarray. Her daughter was in the hospital so often that she eventually used up all of her sick and vacation days. The school docked her pay for lost time, and her financial situation went from bad to worse. This is because her husband was serving his country, but the Government did nothing for his family to make up that difference. I got an e-mail from a pharmacist whose nurses were upset about a woman who could not afford medication for her child because her husband had been called to duty in Iraq. They eventually found a way to get the mother the medication that her daughter needed, but the pharmacist was left questioning his Nation's leadership. Here is what he said: I was dismayed that there apparently was no help available for this mother whose husband was serving his country. A guy in Abilene, TX, e-mailed me about his first friend in the world who was shot down in Iraq. He left behind a wife and three children. Over 2,000 people honored him at the memorial service, but that did not do anything to help his parents, who were draining their retirement savings to get health insurance for their grandchildren. This fallen soldier's friend wrote: Nathan's family is getting by because of their love and faith in God and each other, but after losing a son in service to America, they should not have to struggle to see that his wife and children will get by. His wife has already lost her husband, and his children will already grow up without their father. His daughter Courtney will not have her Dad to walk her down the aisle when she marries. They will not have a Dad at their High School graduations or at the birth of their children. They should not have to sacrifice anymore. That is what this friend wrote to us, all of us Senators. Finally, I want to share a letter I received in February from Amy Beth Moore from Fort Hood, TX. Her two children, Meghan, age 13, and Sean, age 10, no longer have their father Jim. During his tour in Iraq, Jim was shot at, and his Hummer took a near deadly bullet in the gas tank. When he returned home, he was a senior officer in charge of refitting his unit for the next deployment. This required frequent helicopter flights back and forth from Texarkana. On November 29, 2004, his Blackhawk crashed, killing Jim and six other soldiers. Listen to what Amy wrote: Consider our predicament. But for the grace of God, my husband would not have survived a deployment to Iraq and then was working to ready the Fourth Infantry Division for its next deployment. Why should it matter where he was killed while serving proudly in the military? Why should we as his surviving wife and children not be entitled to the increased death gratuity and life insurance? I have been a full time mom, managing the home front of a career soldier and it is now up to me as a widow and a single parent to provide for our children. These benefits would greatly assist me in doing that and frankly, without them, we will have a serious challenge in the days and months and years ahead without Jim. I know that compensation in any form will in no way make up for the loss of a loved husband and father and all the missed moments that we would have shared as a family, but nothing is more important to me right now than trying to take care of my children, and it is on their behalf that I make this request. We have heard from military families. We have heard from friends. There are thousands more such stories across the Nation. The test is whether we, as a matter of conscience and common sense, are going to do what is right for those who serve our country. I thank the Appropriations Committee for fixing part of this, for going beyond the administration's request to limit the benefit to combat. But now I ask my colleagues to heed the advice of uniformed military leaders about those on active duty today and their families in the military. We need to provide this benefit to all Active-Duty personnel. Amy Beth Moore is right. What difference does it make where he was killed? He was killed preparing the troops to do what we need to do in Iraq, and his loss is as real whether he was killed in Iraq or elsewhere. If we fail to adopt these amendments we are going to confirm the greatest fears of Amy Beth Moore and the over 2,000 Americans who e-mailed their stories to me, that Washington talks a good game but doesn't really care about these families. For the survivors of our Nation's fallen heroes, much of life remains. Although no one can ever put a price on the loss of the life of any loved one, it is up to us to try to be generous, and I think correct, in helping them to put their lives back together. I urge my colleagues to join me in working toward a strong bipartisan military families bill of rights that does right by those who serve and by their families. I hope we can start that by taking the right direction in adopting these two important amendments today. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia again for his courtesy. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Durbin as a cosponsor.

Mr. KERRY. Thank you.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the current amendment be temporarily set aside so we can take up two amendments quickly.