[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 67 (Thursday, May 13, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5459-S5461]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   HONORING OUR SERVICE MEN AND WOMEN

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong hope that we 
can get agreement today to move ahead

[[Page S5460]]

with H.R. 3104 and pass that legislation before we adjourn this week. 
This is legislation which has passed the House unanimously and has come 
over to the Senate. In my opinion, this should now pass the Senate and 
go to the President for signature. This is legislation that would honor 
those service men and women in Iraq and in Afghanistan who have served 
their country there or continue to serve there.
  Obviously, over the last couple of weeks the reputation of our 
military has been stained by the horrific events at Abu Ghraib prison 
and every level of our military has been affected by the actions of the 
few who have been identified. I think all of us are looking to see the 
extent of the problem. All of us are anxious to ensure the problem does 
not continue in the future.
  At this point, it is important to recognize and honor the thousands 
of fighting men and women who serve this Nation every day with 
commitment, courage, integrity, and professionalism both in Iraq and in 
Afghanistan.
  That is the purpose of the legislation I am urging us to bring up and 
to pass today. We have a Senate version of this same bill that has been 
introduced. It has 24 cosponsors. I have introduced this legislation 
with Senators Lugar and Lott, Landrieu, Inhofe, Gregg, Johnson, 
Rockefeller, Pryor, Reid, Daschle, Lincoln, Boxer, Durbin, Biden, 
Akaka, Edwards, Kerry, Clinton, Bayh, Feingold, Nelson, Conrad, 
Kennedy, Stabenow, and Dole. So this is a broadly supported piece of 
legislation on both sides of the political aisle.
  I particularly want to thank the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, Senator Warner, for his support of this important measure.
  This has been a dangerous and a brutal period for our troops in Iraq 
in particular, but also in Afghanistan. There have been nearly 3,000 
Americans injured in these 2 conflicts in recent months. More than a 
year after the initial Iraq invasion, the administration has announced 
plans to maintain a force of at least 135,000 troops in Iraq through 
next year, through 2005.
  We will have many debates as we proceed with the Defense 
authorization bill next week and then later with the Defense 
appropriations bill, on the right level of funding, on how quickly to 
proceed with funding. President Bush has recently asked for another $25 
billion to be included in the defense budget for the operations in Iraq 
and I know there will be discussion about whether that is the 
appropriate amount. But clearly the liberation of Iraq is turning out 
to be the most significant military occupation and reconstruction 
effort this country has engaged in since World War II. We must not 
underestimate the importance of the work that is involved here. I think 
it is important that we recognize those whose lives are on the line to 
accomplish this very difficult task.
  Let me talk a minute about what is at stake in this legislation. The 
Defense Department has decided in their view what is appropriate is to 
award to the brave men and women who are serving in those two conflicts 
the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and no other medal. 
This is despite the fact the Global War on Terrorism Medal is meant for 
any individual who served overseas during this war on terror and may 
have come within a few hundred miles of a combat zone. The dangers of 
serving in Iraq and in Afghanistan are far greater. Therefore, along 
with my colleagues, I propose to correct what I considered a mistake by 
authorizing that we issue the Iraq and Afghanistan Liberation Medals in 
addition to the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal.
  When the President was defending Secretary Rumsfeld earlier this 
week, he noted Secretary Rumsfeld was involved in leading the military 
in ``two wars.'' If the President is willing to acknowledge the fact we 
are engaged in two wars, then his decision about how to award medals 
should be consistent with that. The policy we are currently following, 
that the Pentagon is currently following, is not consistent with that.
  While some of us in this body have not shared the administration's 
view on the wisdom of going to war in Iraq, we are united when it comes 
to supporting our troops. These young men and women from Active Duty, 
from National Guard, and from Reserves are all volunteers. They 
exemplify the very essence of what it means to be a patriot. We 
believe what they are doing in Iraq and what they are doing in 
Afghanistan today differs from military expeditionary activity such as 
peacekeeping operations or enforcement of no-fly zones.

  They continue to serve even though they do not know when they will 
return home to their family, to their friends. They continue to serve 
despite the constant threat which they face to their own lives and the 
tremendous hardship many of them face.
  There is a difference between an expeditionary medal and a campaign 
medal and it is a well-recognized difference that goes back throughout 
our military history. We only need to look at an excerpt from U.S. Army 
Qualifications for the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal and the Kosovo 
Campaign Medal. In order to receive the Armed Forces Expeditionary 
Medal, you did not need to go to war; you only needed to be ``placed in 
such a position that in the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
hostile action by foreign Armed Forces was imminent even though it does 
not materialize.''
  However, to earn the Kosovo Campaign Medal, the standard was higher. 
A military member was required to:

       Be engaged in actual combat or duty that is equally 
     hazardous as combat duty, during the Operation with armed 
     opposition, regardless of time in the Area of Engagement. Or 
     while participating in the Operation regardless of time [the 
     service member] is wounded or injured or requires medical 
     evacuation from the Area of Engagement.

  Many within the military agree there is a difference. According to 
the Army Times, and let me quote their statement, they say:

       Campaign medals help to establish immediate rapport with 
     individuals checking into a unit.

  An expeditionary medal like the Global War on Terrorism Medal does 
not necessarily denote the individual with that medal has ever been 
involved in combat. A campaign medal is designed to recognize military 
personnel who have risked their lives in combat.
  Campaign medals matter. Let me give another quotation here.

       When a marine shows up at a new duty station, commanders 
     look first at his decorations and physical fitness score, the 
     first to see where he has been, the second to see if he can 
     hang [tough]. They know what you have done and how serious 
     you are. . . . If you are a good marine, people are going to 
     award you when it comes time. . . .

  That is the statement of a sergeant, as quoted in the Army Times.
  In my view it is time we agreed with the rank and file in the 
military, recognize the sacrifice of our young men and women who are 
fighting to assist in Iraq, including great Americans such as Army SP 
Joseph Hudson from my home State, from Alamogordo, NM, who was held as 
a prisoner of war. The Nation was captivated as we watched Specialist 
Hudson several months ago being interrogated by the enemy. Asked to 
divulge his military occupation, Specialist Hudson stared defiantly 
into the camera and said, ``I follow orders.''
  Those of us whose sons and daughters were united in worrying about 
Specialist Hudson's family--and the entire Nation rejoiced when he was 
liberated--that same circumstance has played out with regard to many 
other men and women who have served and are continuing to serve our 
Nation in those conflicts.

  We have also asked a great deal from the Reserve and National Guard 
forces in our States. The reconstruction of Iraq would not be possible 
without the commitment and sacrifice of the 170,000 guard and 
reservists currently on active duty.
  In my view it is absolutely essential we go ahead and act on this 
legislation. I know there may be some who say this legislation has been 
incorporated, or the same provisions have been incorporated in the 
Defense authorization bill which will be considered on the Senate floor 
next week, and therefore we need not take action today. The problem 
with dealing with it on the Defense authorization bill as part of the 
Defense authorization bill is all of us who have been around the Senate 
know that bill will not get to the President's desk for signature until 
late this summer or maybe fall. What I am urging is we take the bill 
the House has passed unanimously, without a dissenting vote, we pass 
that same legislation,

[[Page S5461]]

and send it to the President for signature, so these two campaign 
medals, one for Iraq and one for Afghanistan, can begin to be awarded 
to these brave men and women.
  I hope we can get the needed clearance on the Republican side. All 
Democratic Senators have agreed to this course of action so we can 
bring up this legislation and pass it.
  I am informed there is objection at this point; at least clearance 
has not been achieved. I hope that can be remedied and we can act on 
this bill before we leave town this week.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I inquire, is there currently business 
before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in morning business with a 10-
minute time limit.

                          ____________________