Ben Nelson

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, the Senator from Maine has told us what the Baucus-Grassley unanimous consent request to move the legislation forward won't do, what it has been said is included, what has not been included in it, and, therefore, as a result it shouldn't be considered at this point. I will concede the point to my friend from Maine that it is a tremendous shame we didn't somehow pass a prescription drug benefit for our seniors. I have worked with her. We even shared an amendment on the Patients' Bill of Rights. I know of her passion for health care and for the benefits for our seniors. I share those values, and I share the concern we all have today everywhere that we don't have a prescription drug benefit for our seniors. I have to go back to Omaha and face George and Lee, who have spent so much time telling me about the importance of having a prescription drug benefit. But you know we had three shots at it this session. One was it was too expensive, one was it didn't provide enough benefits, and the one my friend from Maine supported--the insurance model--failed by getting only 48 votes. But I come from an insurance State. And not one insurer that I spoke to told me they planned to offer this benefit anywhere, let alone in the State of Nebraska. There were a lot of reasons why that particular bill didn't make it. There were reasons why the other two bills didn't make it. I would like to have us pass a prescription drug benefit before we leave, but I don't want to do it at the expense of this legislation that is so necessary. When I go back, if we don't pass it because we try to pass a prescription drug benefit that causes the failure of this legislation which I am going to describe in a minute, I will have to face George and Lee. Not only will they tell me we didn't get a prescription drug benefit, but their physician Medicare rates are down and their doctor doesn't want to provide the care for them anymore. Or I have to go back and find out the skilled nursing facilities are not going to be funded or the State fiscal relief that Senators Rockefeller and Collins and I worked so hard to get through is now cut back from $9 billion to $5 billion and that is not going to be available to the State. I agree with the passion of the Senator from Maine and her concern about the fact we didn't get a prescription drug benefit done yet this session. But I don't agree we ought to pull this legislation which is before us back into committee so they can attach to it a bill that failed, only got 48 votes, and which I don't think will work. I think we have to separate these two issues--and they have been separated. Let us talk about the bill that is now before us, the Baucus-Grassley bill, a bipartisan effort. The ranking Member from Iowa is pushing to have this considered on the floor rather than to go back and be delayed in committee. Under current law, Medicare's physician payment rates are projected to fall by 12 percent over the next 3 years. In Nebraska, physicians' losses due to the 2003-2005 cuts will total about $63 million or $17,230 per physician. This comes on top of a 5.4 percent payment cut which cost Nebraska doctors a total of $12.9 million or about $3,875 per physician in 2002. An AMA survey conducted earlier this year found that one in four physicians either has restricted or plans to restrict the number or type of Medicare patients treated. One in three has stopped or intends to stop delivering certain services to Medicare beneficiaries. Additional payment cuts of an extra year will only exacerbate these problems and cause significant access problems in the State of Nebraska--a State that is already challenged geographically to be able to provide access to our residents. Let us talk for just a moment about skilled nursing facilities and what will happen there. Our skilled nursing facilities are also in jeopardy. If action isn't taken and if this legislation does not pass, then Nebraska's facilities will lose $28.48 per patient per day next year, for a total of $10 million. There are just some that aren't going to make it. They are going to be in small communities that will be left out when it comes to skilled nursing facilities. When it comes to State fiscal relief, my colleague from West Virginia and I--both former Governors from our States--know very well what the impact is going to be on the States of Nebraska and West Virginia, as well as the rest of the States. Forty-nine out of 50 States must balance their budgets by law. It is no secret the economy is hurting. States are facing a number of difficult decisions as a result of that. When States have to make budget cuts, let me assure you it affects real people. There may be line items in a budget, but there are faces associated in every case. In a special session in Nebraska in August, the legislature made some drastic cuts. It wasn't pretty. Thirteen thousand kids were cut from Medicaid. That is why we have been working so closely, Senators Rockefeller, Collins, and I, to pass State fiscal relief, which is part of this legislation. Seventy-five of our Senate colleagues agreed with us when they supported our amendment in July. Senators Baucus and Grassley have included State fiscal relief in this very important provider package, and it is extremely important to the people in the State of Nebraska and the States of every one of our colleagues here in the Senate. If I were one of my residents of Nebraska, or one of my constituents watching or listening to the debate today and heard about unanimous consent requests, objections, sending this back to committee for further consideration, trying to deal with what cloture is, how many times, what person did what, and how many of us are all interested in making sure we get not only this legislation through but also a prescription drug benefit, they have to be confused. Their only question is, Why don't you just get this legislation done and work also on a prescription drug benefit? What has one got to do with the other? Don't, for heaven's sake, deny us our prescription drug benefit because you can't get it through, and at the same time now come along and make sure our doctors aren't going to get reimbursed enough, or our skilled nursing homes aren't going to have enough money, and our States are going to continue to cut back on Medicaid benefits. Separate the two issues and get them done. Three tries, and I don't think we are out. That is true in baseball. I don't think it is true here. I think we can dust off one of these versions and make it work well. I have met with Senator Snowe on a prescription drug benefit. I have met with everybody I can in the interest of finding a prescription drug benefit. I know it is possible. I also know it is difficult. But I think it is extremely important for us to first fulfill our obligations with the Baucus-Grassley effort. Let us let this come to a vote. Let us stop the objections. Let us withdraw the objection from the other side. Let us get a vote. Then let us see if a bunch of us can come back together--and we should--and get a prescription drug benefit. But, for heaven's sake, even in the greatest and most sincere effort in the world, we should not think about one bill here because we are trying to save another, when we know very well it is not going to work. We have not run out of time. We can do this. We should bifurcate them. We should separate them, get the Baucus-Grassley bill done, withdraw the amendment, and let us work on a prescription drug benefit so I can go home and I can talk to Lee and George and tell them something more than: Well, we tried. I sure don't want to have to go back and say: Well, we didn't get anything on prescription drugs. But that isn't where the bad news ends. There is worse news. We also didn't get the give-back bill through, and that means if you have to go to a nursing home, there may not be one. Your doctor may decide he is not going to treat you because he has had a reimbursement dropped or if, heaven forbid, they have to go on Medicaid, there will not be any benefits to provide for seniors as well. I don't want to have to tell the children of Nebraska there are further cuts coming because we could not get the State relief, the FMAP, as it is called, back to the States to take care of the short budgets so that people are not going to be further disadvantaged by these unfortunate economic conditions in these times. I agree with my friend from West Virginia, there is more passion in this Senate body to pass a prescription drug benefit than you can imagine. The problem is very simple. We just cannot agree on how to do it. It cannot cost too much, the benefits cannot be too little, and we cannot pass something that will not work. I think we have the collective wisdom to find a way to do it, but it is going to require the collective will to do it. But this mechanism is not the mechanism on which to do it. And let's not sink it trying to do something noble for those who are the most vulnerable among us, our seniors. I think they can understand why we do not want to sink one trying to do the other. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Virginia for the opportunity to be here today and for his close attention to these matters of war and these matters of peace that so often come before us on the U.S. Armed Services Committee, and for his counsel and wisdom. I thank him so much. I rise today to discuss our Nation's Iraq policy, and the resolution we are now debating. This resolution could give the President the power to send the United States Armed Services into a military conflict with Iraq. As I am sure most of my colleagues will agree, for the U.S. Congress there is no more important debate than one that involves a decision that may lead to loss of life of our brave men and women in uniform. It is without question that Saddam Hussein poses a threat to the Middle East, our allies in the region, and our international interests that include rebuilding Afghanistan and making peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Saddam has refused to comply with United Nations resolutions that were the basis for a cease-fire during the Persian Gulf war in 1991. He agreed to those terms in order to prevent the multinational coalition from proceeding into Iraq and removing him from power by force. Throughout most of the 1990s Saddam was held in check through U.N. weapons inspectors, a naval blockade and United States and allied air patrols over the southern and northern areas of Iraq. During that time the U.N. inspectors uncovered Saddam's chemical and biological programs and dismantled those they located. However, since 1998, Saddam has not allowed U.N. weapons inspections. Now, nearly 4 years have passed with no outside reporting on progress made in Saddam's chemical, biological, or nuclear programs. Moreover, we know that Saddam recently attempted to purchase aluminum rods used to refine uranium. These rods could be used to develop materials for nuclear weapons. President Bush and his advisers have determined that Saddam Hussein's quest for weapons of mass destruction must end now. The President said in his speech before the U.N. that Saddam poses an immediate, unchecked threat to our Nation and our allies, and unless we act now his arsenal will only grow. Any resolution on action involving Iraq that the United States Congress would approve must focus on the imperative of disarmament of Iraq. By disarming Saddam and removing his nuclear, biological and chemical capability, he will pose no strategic threat to the United States or our allies. Saddam would be contained. If, in order to disarm Iraq, we need to use military force that results in the removal of the current regime, then we should do so. Saddam Hussein must know that the United States will support President Bush's use of force to remove him, if he does not comply with orders to disarm and destroy all weapons of mass destruction. The President has suggested that ``regime change'' may be the only way Iraq will comply with the 16 existing U.N. resolutions. However, a resolution whose primary focus is ``regime change'' does not address the fact that the next regime in Iraq, even if it is more friendly to the United States, would inherit all weapons systems and programs that the United States did not destroy. Additionally, if we pursue ``regime change'' as an objective, we will severely limit our ability to form a multinational coalition of support as President Bush's father did so successfully during the gulf war. Our allies worldwide have expressed support for disarming Saddam, but little enthusiasm for regime change. Alone among President Bush's advisers, Secretary of State Colin Powell has suggested that putting weapons inspectors back in and making sure they can do their job is the proper avenue to pursue. The heart of this resolution should outline precisely what access weapons inspectors should be afforded as they inspect the Iraqi military capabilities. It should demand complete transparency of Saddam's military inventory, and unrestricted and unfettered access to all of Iraq by U.N. weapons inspectors, including the presidential palaces. In concert with a focus on disarmament, a congressional resolution should also strongly urge the President to exhaust all diplomatic efforts within and outside the United Nations. Total disarmament of Iraq should be a multinational effort. Nevertheless we must reserve the right, and give the President the authority, to act unilaterally provided the presence of an immediate and grave threat to the United States. This congressional resolution should not give the President an immediate and unconditional pass to wage war, but should place an emphasis on his diplomatic effort to resolve the issue of disarmament without loss of life. If Saddam's defiance leads to war, we must also focus on what will need to be accomplished after the war in order to ensure stability in the region. More thought must be given to the effort that will be required to maintain peace and provide for the Iraqi people in the event that Saddam fails to resolve this issue peacefully. We seek no quarrel with the people of Iraq and the international community must be prepared to assist them. It is an endeavor that the United States should not undertake alone which, in my opinion, strengthens the need for any use of force to be multilateral. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have heard many hours of testimony from administration officials outlining their case for war. But I fear we have not yet heard enough about what Iraq will look like when the smoke clears. I am willing to debate and support a resolution that has the characteristics that I have mentioned, but there needs to be equal debate and thought into how we will leave Iraq and what kind of commitment we are willing to give. This resolution will serve as Saddam's last chance at a peaceful conclusion to his years of defiance of international law if it meets these conditions: The primary objective of the United States is the disarmament of Iraq rather than regime change; the United States will work to establish international support and cooperation and exhaust all diplomatic avenues before going it alone in Iraq; and the United Nations weapons inspectors will be allowed unfettered access to inspect Iraqi weapons systems and facilities and they will be supported by armed U.N. troops. With these objectives, the United States will demonstrate that we seek a peaceful and diplomatic solution, but if diplomacy fails the United States will take every measure necessary to defend our country, our allies, and our interests. This is our responsibility to our national security, our international interests, our citizens, and the people of the world. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today it is my privilege to share with my colleagues the accomplishments of a distinguished citizen and entrepreneur, Mr. William C. Holmberg. Mr. Holmberg, a former member of my staff, has recently been appointed to the New Uses Council. Founded in 1990, the council is dedicated to expanding the development and commercialization of new industrial, energy, and nonfood consumer uses of renewable agricultural, forestry, livestock, and marine products. I am certain that Mr. Holmberg will provide exceptional leadership and ingenuity in his new post. I am also pleased to share that Mr. Holmberg has been awarded the Department of Energy's 2002 Biomass Energy Program Distinguished Service Award. This annual award is presented to individuals exemplifying superior achievement in establishing, promoting, and implementing projects that exhibit the efficient use of biomass energy resources and technologies. In pursuit of developing renewable resources, Mr. Holmberg established Global Biorefineries, Inc., a nonprofit organization dedicated to the development of sustainable bioenergy initiatives. Since its inception, Global Biorefineries has promoted the production of renewable domestic fuels to advance our Nation toward energy independence. As these examples illustrate, Mr. Holmberg's dedicated to the creation of efficient alternative energy sources is essential in developing a plan for our Nation's environmental and energy future. His tireless effort to ensure the promotion of renewable agricultural products has helped our country's environmental conservation efforts, and Mr. Holmberg's commitment to solving our Nation's energy challenges will ensure that new and innovative resources and technologies will continue to flourish.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, as we enter our 5th week of debate on this Senate floor on the homeland security bill, I rise today to ponder exactly where we have been, and, perhaps much more importantly, where we are going. In recent weeks, Democrats and Republicans have made little progress on the bill. Some have identified particular provisions they would like to have changed; some have not. The President offered his own proposal for consideration, and, as the Record will reflect, the Senate obliged him by allowing it to come to the floor for consideration. My good friends, Senator Gramm of Texas and Senator Miller of Georgia, are championing the President's bill. He could have no two more noble or respected Senators as his gatekeepers. Let me describe for you what this bill does. It will establish a new Federal Department, the largest Government reorganization since the establishment of the Department of Defense. It will affect 170,000 Federal employees and each and every American. It will restructure existing agencies and create new ones. It will relocate and reclassify employees and will establish the largest reaching intelligence- gathering operation in the history of civilization. Is this the kind of legislation that Congress should approve blindly? Obviously not. Some would have you believe that anyone who wants to make any change--no matter how slight--to this massive legislation is an opponent of the President. I want to make a slight change to this bill, one I believe is supported by a majority of the Senate, but that does not make me an opponent, nor does my amendment make anyone an opponent. I support the President. I want to see him achieve his goal of establishing this new Federal bureaucracy. What I do not support is sacrificing our constitutional responsibility for oversight of not just the Department, once it is established, but of the effort to create the Department in the first place. Passing this bill comes down to one unresolved issue: the method of resolving differences as they pertain to labor-management in the new Department of Homeland Security. I have joined together with my colleagues, Senator John Breaux and Senator Lincoln Chafee, to put forth a compromise that has the support of a majority of the Senators, and should be embraced as a victory, not demagoged as a special interest protectionist measure. The President's bill, the Gramm-Miller bill, does not have enough votes to pass, and it does not have enough votes to invoke cloture. The Lieberman bill does not have enough votes to pass, and it has not had enough votes to invoke cloture. Without becoming unnecessarily bogged down with Senate procedure, it is important to point out that cloture means to shut off debate and a majority to pass a piece of legislation under these circumstances. Now, my amendment has enough to pass, but it does not have enough to shut off cloture. If my amendment were passed and passed on the Gramm-Miller bill, I believe that the bill would then have enough not only to shut off cloture but pass. That is what we are really trying to do. Our compromise would give the President the authority he needs to hire and fire, promote or demote employees in the new Department. Indeed, it gives him exactly the authority he sought when Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge wrote the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee in early September. I have here for everyone to see--even those watching through the electronic eye--Governor Ridge's comments to Senator Lieberman. I will quote in part, but I can quote before or after. There is some question about the context of this particular legislation. It was in conjunction with explaining what the White House was interested in in terms of the flexibility that management would require over labor under this new agency. He said: Senator, the President seeks for this new department the same management prerogatives that Congress has provided other departments and agencies throughout the executive branch. For example-- Then he identifies a couple of other processes that are fairly innocuous. Then he says, relating to personnel flexibility: Personnel flexibility is currently enjoyed by the Federal Aviation Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Transportation Security Administration. We initially tried to embody the Federal Aviation Administration in our amendment, but it was ruled not to be germane. So we did the next obvious thing; we went to the Internal Revenue Service, which lays out under existing law--which made it germane--the nature of the flexibility, that personnel flexibility to which Governor Ridge had referred. We thought that would, in fact, do it. Now, much to our surprise, that apparently does not do it because they have suggested that this is a nonstarter. It seemed to be starting back in September--the third of September--but it seems to be a nonstarter today. I don't know what has changed in that timeframe. My good friend, Senator Gramm, said that everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own set of facts. I think this is a set of facts that we have before us. It is hard to believe that there would be more than one opinion about what Governor Ridge had to say. There should be no more than one opinion about what his letter purported to deal with. So I think this is one set of facts, with one opinion. It is possible to mischaracterize facts, but I don't think there is any way to mischaracterize the plain and simple language when he said ``the same management prerogatives.'' He didn't say ``almost the same,'' or ``slightly different''; he said ``the same management prerogatives.'' I said the other day that there are times on this floor when you find out you are having a disagreement and you cannot understand why it is a disagreement; you are not sure what it is about, and you feel like Lewis Carroll must have felt when he wrote Alice in Wonderland. I have not seen the cheshire cat, but when winning is described as winning in the media about this issue, I feel as if we are in Alice in Wonderland. Let me also suggest that there have been some news reports that I made reference to from the past few days that might shed some light on this situation. On Friday, Paul Light, of the respected Brookings Institution, told the Chicago Tribune that the differences between the two sides in this fight--he calls it a ``fight''--are relatively minor and that Democrats have already given the President almost everything he requested. I think Senator Lieberman parenthetically has said he has given 95 percent. We have been looking for a way to close the gap. I quote from his story: I don't think the answer's in the legislation. I think it is a little bit about Iraq and a little bit about the election. Mr. Light said the President should declare victory and move on. He said: Any President in history would celebrate the enormity of consensus that exists in Congress right now. The President has gotten 95 percent of what he wants. I think it is closer to 99; obviously, it is not 100. Today's issue of Roll Call includes a news story and a column in which some Republican leaders outline a strategy to use the homeland security issue in the coming elections. Mark Preston, a very able reporter from this respected publication, wrote: A disagreement over key labor issues in the homeland legislation might force this bill to be shelved until after November. Mr. Preston quotes my good friend from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Republican conference, Senator Santorum, as saying: There are issues not being acted upon here, and they would certainly be issues of great importance to the American people and therefore be of very great importance to a campaign. Madam President, they are very important to the American people, and no more important for us to do today and tomorrow is to deal with national security as it relates to the American people, and put aside partisan politics, put aside this election and electioneering and resolve the differences and close the difference between 95 percent and 100 percent. The differences are, in fact, I think, as Mr. Light said, very small. Accusations of obstructionism seem to be aimed at securing a campaign wedge, and what we really need to do is move away from obstructionism to constructionism. We can be constructive in developing this particular approach. There are some other issues besides the flexibility issue, and we thought we had pretty much closed the gap there as well. The Morella amendment, as it was introduced in the House, relates to the question of collective bargaining. What this particular amendment does is go back and have Morella included in the amendment as it was introduced in the House. It may not be exactly what was requested, but we have suggested that if there are some particular questions or some particular interests in adding some language that would make this better, we are entirely interested in doing that. The truth is that we have not had that opportunity to try to bring that about. We met Thursday, we met Friday, and we met today. I think it is time for us to stop meeting and time for us to find a way to solve the issue. We are beyond meeting, I believe, when it comes to this particular amendment. Flexibility is important and making sure that what we do in terms of this legislation is that we not adversely impact job security for national security, and certainly not unintentionally. The White House has made it clear they have no plans to go in and make major wholesale changes. I take them at their word. I think if that is the case--and I take them at their word--then we ought to find, if not this language, some language that will permit us to close the gap to move this forward. If, in fact, it is everybody's plan to achieve a result here, then I think we can achieve one. I truly believe it is important to the national interest to be able to deal with the personnel flexibility of the President. There is no question he needs to have the capacity to hire and fire, to promote and demote, and do what is in the best interests. There is no question about that. And adding that there be some requirement regarding the changing of authority or the changing of position in mission of the personnel is a slight adjustment. It certainly is not any kind of major intrusion on the Presidential authority. To include the Morella language, in terms of flexibility, simply adds to that. I hope we will be able to move beyond meetings to closing the gap, bridging this debate so it brings about the best result that we can, not simply for the White House but for the people of this great country. This should not be about Republicans or Democrats. It should not be about the legislative branch or the executive branch. It ought to be about what is in the best interest, the national interest of our people, and for those who share the same desire for freedom and are struggling to achieve it in other parts of the world. We have a great responsibility to the American people, but we also have a responsibility that is now being questioned and challenged around the world. One of the best ways for us to begin to resolve these issues is to take care of business at home. I cannot think of a better way than to adopt this amendment so we can adopt the Gramm-Miller proposal and move forward for national defense and our own homeland security. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak, and I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I suggest the Senator from Utah makes a good point in terms of not wanting this to go through an endless review process that will take years. It can take a substantial amount of time and tie in knots the entire operation. The reason that is unlikely, and most likely impossible, is the court case, the one case in 30 years, where it is made clear that if the President performs by making all the points that would be required by law, that is essentially nonreviewable. All that is being proposed here is that there are two additional requirements that can be met, as well, and if the President dots the i's and crosses the t's and in good faith makes a determination that the court is not going to review it. It is important the court would not review it if he did not dot all the i's or cross the t's. I expect this President and the future President to do the right thing under the law. That being the case, there is absolutely no reason to believe this will be tied up in court or there will be endless appeals by those who feel aggrieved by the determination. That is why it is important, whether you transfer these individuals or you go with the status quo, this body in the past and I think this body today has dealt with establishing requirements that must be met so that when they are met, due process has been achieved, the courts are not going to meddle in this process, and they are not going to review the administrations of the Congress when it comes to national security.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and speak in favor of the amendment which, together with Senators Chafee and Breaux, I have submitted for consideration to the homeland security debate. I wish my good friend and colleague from Texas was in the Chamber because I have hunted with him. He is an excellent hunter. He is a great sharpshooter. Today his shots miss the target. The truth is, he is right on one point: The people of America are smart. They are smart enough to know that you are not entitled to your own set of facts, but it is pretty easy for somebody to mischaracterize or restate the facts in a way that will make their case. That is what happened on the floor this morning. If you want to attack an amendment, then refer to those who support the amendment as opponents of the President. Everybody knows Senator Chafee, Senator Breaux, and I are not opponents of the President. This is an area where I thought we had agreement with the White House. Let me characterize the facts not as I see them but as they have been stated by others. I refer, first, to the letter from Governor Ridge, dated September 5, to Senator Lieberman. I quote: The President seeks for this new department the same prerogatives that Congress has provided other departments and agencies throughout the executive branch. Then there are several examples set forth as bullets. The third bullet point reads: Personnel flexibility as currently enjoyed by the Federal Aviation Administration. He also adds the Internal Revenue Service and the Transportation Security Administration. This proposal adopts the language of the Internal Revenue Service in connection with the reorganization of that Department. I thought we were in the position to offer exactly what was being requested. I am a little bit confused about this because I happened to be presiding the day my good friend from Texas appeared on the floor and said, with regard to providing Presidential authority: We have done the same thing in the past with the Federal Aviation Administration. But interestingly enough, in one area we have granted a tremendous amount of flexibility, when we decided to reform the Internal Revenue Service. We gave the executive branch of Government tremendous flexibility in hiring, firing, pay, and promotion because we were so concerned about the inefficiency and the potential corruption in the Internal Revenue Service. He went on to ask his colleagues, if we believed it worked there, then why do we not believe it can work here? That is exactly what we have offered. Now we find that is not acceptable. I have already referred to the concern I have; that is, when the goalposts are moved and the rules change in the middle of the game or the circumstances around you continue to be in flux, how in the world can you ever meet the expectations of the other side? What my colleagues and I have tried to do is offer a compromise that will bridge the gap to bring together that last 5 percent Senator Lieberman and Senator Gramm referred to, to close the gap, fill the last 5 percent, end the debate, and do what we need to do--vote to pass a homeland security bill so it can go to conference and we can have national security. It has been suggested that perhaps we are not as interested in national security as we are in other interests. National security is not only the primary interest, it is the driving force behind the homeland security bill. It has been suggested that there is another interest, as though that is going to take away from national security. That is not going to take away from national security because this amendment provides enough support for the President's powers, the President's authority to do what the President needs to do. It is consistent with what Governor Ridge has suggested, and it is consistent with what our good friend and colleague from Texas asked for on the floor of the Senate over a week ago. Characterization is important. But the important thing the American people understand is that on the floor of the Senate sometimes losing becomes winning. While the same set of facts are stated there, they can be characterized in different ways. You have seen a characterization today that is different than what the facts truly are. It is hard to find another interpretation from what my good friend, the Senator from Texas, has said on the floor of the Senate or what Governor Ridge has written very clearly in his letter. It seems to me we can, in fact, close the gap, stop the debate, and move forward and pass this legislation. Senator Lieberman made a good point: In the Congress of the United States, it is rare that a bill that is introduced in one form is in that same form by the time it has completed its process. There are amendments. There are amendments because there are different ideas in which we try to approach these very important issues, to find legislation that will solve the problems we face. This bill is different now than it was at the very beginning. I can tell you today that, if we can accept this amendment, we can, in fact, close the gap. I have met with Senator Gramm. He is absolutely right. He has always offered to meet to discuss this or any other issue to see if we can close the gap. We are continuing to have discussions. I hope we are able to close the gap. But if the conditions change, it is very difficult to close the gap. I hope we will be able to move beyond what appear to be partisan remarks this morning to what will be American remarks about how we can find a solution--not to characterize it as Republican or Democrat, but to characterize it as an American solution to an American problem facing the American people. And it is the American way to debate, compromise, and ultimately come up with a solution. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. If I might respond, I agree with my friend and colleague from Connecticut. It is our intent this be additional authority, an additional opportunity for the President to make a decision about national security. I agree also that were it to be appealed, the national security would just simply eliminate the appeal. I am confident. If it is not as clear as it needs to be, we will certainly, with our good friend from Pennsylvania, help make it clear. Perhaps this will resolve the concern the White House has about this language. Our goal is to make it supplemental.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. If I thought this would slow down the process, if I thought this was a diminution of the President's authority to make determinations, I would not offer it. It is important to distinguish between the threshold requirement and the President's power. If you want to defeat this, people will say it diminishes the President's power. It does not diminish the President's authority to make determinations. It does not, through the court cases, diminish the President's power and authority to make certain determinations. In this particular situation, the threshold decision about whether or not the President meets that decision without regard to the President's power to make the decision that there has been a material change, that clearly is a reasonable requirement in this particular situation because you are moving one group from their current situation to another situation. The question will be, Is there a material change as it relates to those responsibilities that are set out? It does not diminish the President's power or authority.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, the Senator from Texas has made a number of points that I think I will try to respond to as briefly as I possibly can but at the same time respond to the suggestions. First of all, I am new to this Washington-style posturing and spin doctoring, but I think I am getting the hang of it--maybe slowly, but I am beginning to get the hang of it. I agree that we are not entitled to our own set of facts. We may have interpretations, we may even have our own thoughts about a set of facts, but we are not entitled to characterize those facts differently just because we choose. When one looks at a letter or a statement, the statement and/or the letter will speak for itself. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter from Governor Ridge, dated September 5, 2002, to Senator Lieberman in which he says: . . . the President seeks for this new Department the same management prerogatives that Congress has provided other departments. . . .

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, he points out the Internal Revenue Service, which is exactly what we have included in this amendment, hardly opposing the President unless, Heaven forbid, Director Ridge opposes the President. He suggested it. Then, Madam President, I do not need to enter--it is already a matter of record--the remarks of the good Senator from Texas in which he suggested that the current situation might be remedied by including the IRS formula that was included in the reorganization of the IRS. I would not suggest for a minute that he opposes the President. We have had some explanations or recharacterizations of what these documents mean. The recharacterization does not change the language, does not change the meaning, but now what seems to have changed is the goalposts have been moved, the rules have been changed, and now in good faith we proposed what we thought the White House and others, who were suggesting we ought to do it differently, we thought, what they were asking for. As with mischaracterizations, I think anybody today watching us would feel as if they have been watching a little bit of ``Alice in Wonderland.'' This is the only place I can imagine where if you have an amendment, you are an opponent of the President. I am not an opponent of the President. I do not oppose the President. I am here trying to find a way to close the gap. I would like to find the steering wheel for the car of the good Senator from Texas so that it is 100 percent complete, not 95 percent complete, as the example he gave before. I am intrigued by mischaracterization, but I am not persuaded by it, and nor will my colleagues be persuaded by it as well. The Senator from Texas referred to page 12 of our amendment and read from it the language he said was now taking away authority of the President. The title is: ``Limitation on Exclusionary Authority.'' He says we are excluding the President's authority. The truth is, this is just a reference to existing law, and it has to have some sort of a heading. Let's move away from the heading and see what this particular provision does. It says no agency that is transferred to the Department will be excluded from the coverage of chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code 7103(b)(1). What does that have reference to? The President's authority. It says the agency will not be exempt from the President's authority. What is that President's authority this has reference to? It says that the President may issue an order excluding any agency or subdivision thereof from coverage under this chapter if the President determines the agency or subdivision has as their primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative or national security work, and the provisions of this chapter cannot be applied to that agency or subdivision in a manner consistent with national security requirements and considerations. It also says that the President may issue an order suspending any provision of the chapter or activity if somebody is located outside of the United States and the District of Columbia. The truth is, this reference incorporates the President's current authority. It does not exclude it. It does not change it. It does not limit it. What I agree with, which the Senator does point out, is it does then set some additional tests the President ought to apply in making a determination. That is not limiting authority. That is saying these are the tests that ought to be considered and have to be considered before the order is issued. The President has the same authority as before, but now it has a reference to dealing with there being a material change in the responsibility. The good Senator has also made a suggestion maybe we ought to look at wording that says ``or the threats have changed.'' When the good Senator suggests a change to the existing law, he is not opposing the President, but when we make a suggestion, we are opposing. I think we have to use the same terminology and say we are both trying to improve the existing situation. If the Senator from Texas makes a suggestion we add language, I am not going to suggest he is opposing the President. I am not even going to suggest he is opposing me. He is trying to make something he disagrees with better, but it does not make us opponents. What we have heard today is a lot of discussion with a lot of hyperbole and changing the rules as we go along. Of course, I think anybody watching from the outside looking in will not be misled by this kind of spin-doctoring or this kind of labeling. My hope is we can set aside partisan discussions and talk about the essence of what it is we are about. What we are about is finding a way to close the gap. I have said to the Senator from Texas, and I say it again, if there is language--and we are looking at his suggestion there--that will make this clearer and stronger, we are very much in favor of considering that. But I do not think it will make either of us opponents of the President if we agree on that language, which is different from the current Gramm-Miller bill that is referred to as the President's bill. So I think we must, in fact, put aside who is opposing and let us start talking about how we can amend, improve and close the gap so the good Senator's car will have its steering wheel and he can drive forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut for this opportunity to speak on this amendment. Quite frankly, I think my colleague from Connecticut is absolutely right, and I ask my friends on both sides to take yes for an answer because I truly think this amendment will be the kind of yes that has been sought in the past. I am puzzled, as I think perhaps anybody watching and many of us here today are puzzled, by the characterization of this amendment as being in opposition to the President. Anytime you are trying to close the gap, anytime you are trying to bring about a resolution of compromise, it is hardly an exercise in opposition. I think, if anything, we should be looked at as friends of the process in trying to bring this together. To also suggest cloture would be inappropriate now is also very startling because I always thought cloture was how we finally brought the end of debate to get a vote for or against legislation to move it forward. Right now it seems the vote against cloture is to stall and have more opportunity for debate. So if people are a bit puzzled, I can only appreciate that fact because I am puzzled, too. In this exercise, I have learned a lot about the spin as opposed to the appropriate characterization of letters or of comments on the floor. I thought we were giving Governor Ridge and Senator Gramm exactly what they were asking for because that is the way I read Senator Gramm's comments. I presided the day he was presenting them, and I thought I understood him. I am surprised to find out I did not understand what he was saying. I am surprised I cannot read a letter from Governor Ridge in which he says the same management authority that is now provided in the IRS model is what we are after. We provide that in this amendment. Now we find that is not the case, either. This is a puzzling day for me. It is perhaps puzzling others who are watching it, because when it appears yes cannot be taken for an answer, I do not know what kind of an answer will be appropriate. If there is other language, I have said I will take a look at it, but I do not think the answer is no language. In fact, what we have is an opportunity to present something that ought to close the gap, fill in the last 5 percent, so we have 100 percent legislation that does what the President needs to be able to do and also protects national security. National security is lost in this debate over nits and little differences of opinion about this piece of the amendment or that piece of the amendment. We can close them, but we have to be able to be in a position to know when they are closed and when enough will be enough. Right now I would not know even how to begin to try to close this if it remains open, but it seems to me we can vote for cloture and then let's have the opportunity to finish this bill, get an up-or-down vote, as has been requested, move on and make national security the important point it is and have a Homeland Defense Department. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

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

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I am pleased to join with my friends, Senator John Breaux of Louisiana and Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, in helping break the stalemate on the labor-management issues that have held up the homeland security legislation. We need to move forward and pass a bill that provides real security for all Americans without the distractions of labor-management issues. This legislation is a huge undertaking, and the reorganization will certainly not be accomplished overnight. That being said, we need to get to it right now because the later we come back to try to do this, the more difficult it will be. We need to do it right because unscrambling the eggs is impossible. The new Department will not begin well if it begins with a staff who feels their concerns have been ignored. We now have the opportunity to break that logjam. This compromise addresses the concerns of both sides. The agreement preserves the Presidential authority to exempt union employees from collective bargaining as employees of the Department of Homeland Security. It also grants the President historic personnel flexibility, giving him the authority to hire, fire, promote, demote, and to rewrite civil service laws in the area of performance appraisals, classifications, pay rates and systems, and adverse action. The agreement provides binding arbitration on personnel flexibility. All sides will have a seat at the table during the development of the new personnel rules and any disagreements over the rules will be referred to the Federal Service Impasse Panel, which will have the authority to set the rules and resolve disputes. This is modeled after the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, which is current law. The Federal Service Impasse Panel has discretion to impose new rules to break this agreement. This is existing law. It is the way in which we ought to proceed. I know this amendment will receive broad bipartisan support, and I hope those of us who seek to complete action on this important legislation will support this effort to clear one of the major hurdles that has been currently blocking our progress so we can move forward on this important and vital security matter currently before us. I ask for the support of my colleagues, and I hope we will move forward on this as soon as we possibly can. There is no reason to delay this legislation any longer.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in support of the Nelson-Breaux-Chafee amendment which is a bipartisan compromise on homeland security. I believe perhaps some clarification is in order because there seems to be some misinformation or misunderstanding about what this bill does. My good friend from Utah said the amendment ties the President's hands. We have looked very carefully at existing authority that the President has in similar circumstances at this very moment. And it doesn't tie the President's hands. I must say Nebraska is going to be playing Texas at Texas A&M. My good friend from Texas is my hunting partner. Senator Gramm is not going to move the goalposts down in Texas when we play A&M. We are not going to move the goalposts on Texas when Texas plays in Lincoln. I don't think it is about moving goalposts in athletic events. But I believe on this amendment we have had the goalposts moved on us. Just recently, while I was presiding, Senator Gramm, in talking about the Lieberman bill, referred to the fact that it was too restrictive on the President's authority in the area of collective rights and bargaining rights, or in terms of civil service protection. At that point, he believed it tied the President's hands in dealing with these very important issues when it comes to national security. It was partly as a result of his comments at that time that I thought we would try to find a compromise that could deal with the situation. Let me read from some of Senator Gramm's comments that he made on the floor, I believe, just last week. He was talking about the fact that when we decided to federalize inspectors at airports, in that bill we gave the President power in terms of personnel flexibility to hire and fire, and we gave him the ability to get around the normal procedures that require up to 6 months to hire somebody. Then he goes on to say we have done that same sort of thing in the Federal Aviation Administration. Then he goes on and references the Internal Revenue Service. I quote: I ask my colleagues: If we believed that the current system was failing us in the Internal Revenue Service and that we had a problem which required a different approach and more flexibility with regard to our sensitivity at the Internal Revenue Service with people who know our intimate financial information and who look at our tax returns. If we believed that flexibility to administer that Department was necessary--and we did, and we adopted it and it is the law of the land today--I wonder what people back home would think when we said we thought flexibility was required at the Internal Revenue Service. . . . In other words, he says what we did in the Internal Revenue Service reorganization was OK. That is what he said last week. Well, lo and behold, because of his commitment to that particular flexibility, that is exactly the kind of language and that is the reference we have in this amendment. If it was good enough for last week, it seems to me it ought to still be good enough for this week and next week and the week thereafter. So if this isn't moving the goalposts, it is at least shifting around on the answers. And I believe that what was good enough last week, and what is good enough for the Internal Revenue Service to deal with flexibility, is good enough for homeland security. Then the White House, through various spokespersons, has raised a question about whether the President's hands would be tied with what we are proposing. But lo and behold, Governor Ridge--who took advantage of me with a bet on the Penn State-Nebraska game, which I shall pay him very vividly for--went ahead and said something in his letter to Senator Lieberman that I thought was important. This is in his letter dated September 5, 2002: Senator, the President seeks for this new Department the same management prerogatives that Congress has provided other departments and agencies throughout the Executive Branch. For example: . . . personnel flexibility is currently enjoyed by the Federal Aviation Administration-- And guess what-- the Internal Revenue Service, and the Transportation Security Administration. I do not know what has changed since September 3 or last week, because we thought this would be acceptable, given the fact that the President needs the kind of historic personnel flexibility he is seeking. So for those who said we are changing the laws, or we are somehow restricting the Presidential authority, or tying the President's hands by changing the law, apparently they have not focused on what the current status of the law is because they are asking for what we are trying to provide them at the present time. Now, I don't know whether someone hasn't read the amendment, but some of the criticisms I have heard of the amendment would indicate they saw a previous iteration. It seems to me the current state of affairs with our amendment would be directly on point or on all fours with what has been asked. So I am very anxious to see if we can get a clarification because I think it has to be some sort of a simple mistake. I cannot believe that we have been asked to do something, or it has been suggested that this would be OK, and then, when we offer it, that somebody cannot take yes for an answer. I hope this will be clarified. It is also important to say that binding arbitration and personnel flexibility is part of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, which both Governor Ridge and Senator Gramm have suggested was OK. So it seems to me that whether it was binding arbitration, personnel flexibility, or, in the case of Presidential authority, in terms of exempting union membership, union employees, from collective bargaining membership, we have done exactly what others have been asking us to do. So it seems to me that if the people are as anxious as they seem to be, both in the administration and on the other side of the aisle, to get the Gramm-Miller amendment considered, the first step is to pass or at least have a vote on Nelson-Breaux-Chafee because it will, in fact, give us an opportunity to have that vote, and I think another vote shortly thereafter, if necessary, on Gramm-Miller. I do not know what more a person can do today than give the other side the kind of answers they are seeking and the kind of solution for which they have been asking. I hope this will be clarified. If there are some misunderstandings--as I think it may be a simple misunderstanding--I hope some other people will show up and respond to what we have put out there at this point in time. Very often, misinformation, a lack of information, mischaracterizations, and things such as that can drive the day. I hope they do not drive this day. National security is too important, and passing this homeland security legislation is of the utmost importance. So for those who are suggesting there is any effort to delay it or in some way tie the President's hands, this simply does not do it. It is consistent with existing law, and it gives the President ample authority to do what the President needs to do for personnel, for collective bargaining, and for breaking the logjam in the homeland security debate, which is so important to the future of our country. Passion runs deep: passion about Iraq, passion about homeland security, passion about getting something done as quickly as possible. I hope we can use that passion as a basis to accomplish something. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I call up my amendment at the desk.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I am here today to thank Gary Chenett, Diane Rey, and John Schniedermeier. They are responsible for awarding The Silver Rose to our veterans in Nebraska. The Order of The Silver Rose was established in 1997 by Mary Elizabeth Marchand. Her father, Chief Hospital Corpsman Frank Davis, died from illnesses resulting from the use of Agent Orange in the Vietnam War. He was a combat veteran; however, he was not wounded in combat, but was exposed to a dangerous substance while fighting for his country that took his life many years later. The Department of Defense has determined that Chief Davis and many like him do not qualify for The Purple Heart. It is the mission of The Order of The Silver Rose organization to recognize the courage, heroism, and contributions of American service personnel found to have been exposed to Agent Orange in a combat zone. I am sure that as time passes, they will expand their focus to members who have died from other conflicts. The Order of The Silver Rose gives many veterans the satisfaction that they are being recognized for giving their Nation the ultimate sacrifice. There are thousands of veterans who served this country faithfully and now find themselves in poor health, some fatal health, directly due to being exposed to harmful substances during war. Gary Chenett, Diane Rey, and John Schniedermeier have awarded eleven Nebraskans with The Silver Rose, I would like to honor them today, they are: Raymond D. Todorovich of Omaha; Edgar Fleherty of Omaha; Randy E. Holke of Fremont; John Schniedermeier of Omaha; Ronald R. Charles of Omaha; Terry H. Greenwell of Omaha; David C. Smith of Firth; Joseph E. Stillwell of Omaha; Roy R. Rogers of Fremont; Albert W. Kowalski of Omaha; Gilbert J. Styskal, Jr. of Omaha. On behalf of Nebraska, I thank these brave patriots for their sacrifices.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I am here on this day of remembrance to express on behalf of the National Funeral Directors Association and all Nebraskans our heartfelt sorrow for those who lost their loved ones on September 11, 2001. We Americans can be proud to declare the continued strength of our Union one year after this horrific act. The United States of America continues to stand as a beacon of freedom and opportunity for everyone, regardless of race, creed, or religious belief. The United States of America was founded on the fundamental principle that all citizens have the inalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the vitality of the United States of America is in the diversity of ideas, the freedom to express those ideas, and the opportunity to achieve one's potential and direct one's destiny. These principles are absolute and will not be surrendered or weakened by the cowardly acts of terrorists who are afraid of the sunshine of freedom and the responsibility it brings. On this day we must continue our unity, which reaffirms the principles for which this country was founded and that on this day freedom shall ring from every community in this great land and the voice of America will be heard around the world.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Montana, Senator Burns, for granting me some time this morning to speak regarding this very important legislation to assist our farmers and ranchers across our country with the disaster which they have been experiencing--not only this year but in many cases for 2 or as many as 5 years. I thank Senators Baucus and Burns for their tireless work to get drought relief to the floor. I thank Senator Daschle for moving so quickly to get this amendment to a vote. I think going home over the August recess certainly gave many Senators--and all of us from the States that have been hit by drought even more reason to move on this bill. I am glad we are having this vote today. This drought is a disaster. It has been a disaster for agriculture and a disaster for rural communities which depend so much on agriculture. If this had been a hurricane or an earthquake, we would have already responded. If we had found a way to call a drought by name, such as ``Drought Andrew,'' or drought this or drought that, we probably would have been able to have it crystallized so people could see that it is the same kind of experience as you have with any other natural disaster. It just takes a longer time in building. It doesn't have necessarily a beginning point or an ending point, but it expands over a broad period of time. We would have had an aid package within a few weeks, and assistance would already be on the way, and the communities that have felt the hurt and the pain would already be feeling the positive effects from this kind of support. Here we are responding to natural disasters, and I think it is important we do that. We can remedy that by passing this amendment today, not waiting any longer. I also believe that my colleagues who are not from drought-stricken States may not have the entire picture about how bad this has been. I know I have been kept up to date on the devastation caused by the drought--getting reports, getting information, seeing pictures--but visiting the drought areas during the recess firsthand was certainly an eye-opening experience. Going to farms that have had crops--some good, some bad--every year for 70 years and today, this year, to see there is no crop, for the first time ever, is an eye-opening experience. To walk across a cornfield and find only shriveled cobs that can barely be shucked and having no kernels is an eye-opening experience. This is not the result of poor planning or some unfortunate weather; this is the result of a natural disaster that has crept upon the land, had no mercy; and it has turned upside down the hopes and the work that went into planting this spring. Again, for much of my State, this is a no-yield year. I would like to give some specific examples that I heard back home. A family farmer near McCook, NE--my hometown--Dale Dueland, whom I have known from the days that he crawled across his family's floor, said he would have a zero yield on his 900 acres of dryland corn. That crop is a loss this year, despite preparation that assumes little moisture--as he always assumes little moisture--and despite crop insurance. Al Davis from Hyannis told me: ``Each day places another nail in the coffin of many individual ranchers in Nebraska and on the Great Plains. Many ranchers have already thrown in the towel and are liquidating portions of their herds,'' which will have an impact not only today and tomorrow but for the next several years until those herds are rebuilt, if they are rebuilt. Annette Dubas, who owns a ranch and farm in western Nance County, NE, told me after the third year in a row of drought conditions, some farmers in her area had already been forced out, while others work two jobs just to be able to keep their farms going. These are not big-time corporate farms; these are family farmers who are being driven out of businesses that, in some cases, have been in their families for generations--in many cases 100 or more years. The relief package before us today is of the utmost importance to farmers and ranchers across Nebraska and all rural America. It will make the difference between keeping their farms or being forced out of agriculture--to the very great detriment of all of us who depend on the ``breadbasket of the world.'' We must pass this legislation and ensure that our rural communities are not allowed to wither under the worst conditions in over half a century. This is not the result of a bad crop-year or bad market price; it is about a no-crop year. It is about a no-pasture year, a no-grassland year on top of 2 or more for 5 years. It has been where we have been experiencing no crops, no pasture, and no future--unless we are able to step forward today and adopt this legislation. Mr. President, I would like to close my statement this morning by quoting from what Dale Dueland said at the Senate Agriculture Committee hearing in Grand Island, NE, last month. And I quote him: This drought is a disaster. It is as severe and as much a disaster as any flood, tornado, hurricane, or earthquake that you could imagine. It has been sneaky and sinister. It has tempted and teased us for two years with moderate dry spells, and this year just unleashed an unbelievable 90 days of extreme heat and dry to scorch the earth. This disaster deserves extreme measures to deal with the problems. Mr. President, I could not have said it better than my friend Dale Dueland.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I urge our colleagues to move forward on this legislation.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 2800 to say that during the August break, when we all went home, what a pleasant experience it was to go home, except that some of what I saw during those days in August in Nebraska were not pleasant experiences. The message from our farmers and ranchers in Nebraska is that the drought is driving them out of their business and running them out of agriculture. As a part of my trip back to Nebraska, I hosted a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing in Grand Island, and I thought it might be important to report back what I heard from many of our farmers and ranchers in Nebraska. Al Davis, a rancher from Hyannis, NE, in the middle of the sand hills, told me his ranch has not had any measurable precipitation since July 6--a month and a half earlier. For 60 days, Art Duvall's farm in Ord had no measurable rainfall, and the McCook Daily Gazette, my hometown paper which I delivered as a young boy, reported that as of the date of the hearing, that area had had only 8 inches of rain this year and that there will be 35 days this summer with temperatures of 100 degrees or more, approaching the record set during the Dust Bowl years. I visited Randy Peters' farm, a farm that has been in the Peters family since 1921, where on many occasions as a young boy, with my father, I hunted pheasants. So I am familiar with the farm. Since 1921, they have had a crop every year--some good years, some bad years, but they had a crop. This year, there will be no crop. The corn will be left standing, not even good for silage, not having any value except maybe if we get any kind of snowfall this winter, maybe to catch a little snow and keep it for moisture for the future. When we had TV cameras to take a look at how bad the ears of corn were, we had to walk halfway through the field to find an ear of corn big enough to shuck so we could peel back the husks and have people take a look at the fact that there were no kernels of corn on that ear. I also heard during the hearing the details regarding the sale of livestock. As the Senator from South Dakota stated about selling off herds and recognizing that next year may not be any better, farmers may need to sort of hedge their bet a bit and get rid of their herds in case the high cost of hay--if it is available--will drive up the cost of production to the point where they lose more on every head of cattle that they sell rather than recouping any losses. Witnesses testified that much of the nonirrigated crop in large sections of the State would be a total loss this year, after 2 previous years that had been bad crop years in their own right. Witness after witness testified that they need the kind of assistance the Federal Government would not think twice about giving if Nebraska had been struck by a hurricane. As Merlyn Carlson, the director of agriculture for the State of Nebraska, said, agricultural producers, farmers, need two things: Rain and money. Well, we cannot do anything about the rain. Even if we could, the rain will come too late this year to protect against the problems that are currently being experienced. It will be great for next year but not for this year. At this point, I am sure some of our colleagues would bring up the subject of offsets. That certainly has been raised by the administration and by many of our colleagues. There are those who believe that any disaster relief should be funded only by cuts in future farm bill programs. I disagree. There is no reason to treat disaster relief differently for rural areas struck by drought than we would in other areas struck by another kind of natural disaster. Moreover, if we wait for offsets, we will delay relief. One thing I have learned during my short time in the Senate is that every program and every idea has a constituency, and if one Member of Congress attempts to defund a program for the benefit of another, there will be a fight. We cannot afford to waste time having a floor fight over offsets. Throughout the hearing, witnesses asked for relief without delay. At one point, I asked a panel, consisting of representatives of the National Corn Growers Association, the American Corn Growers Association, the Nebraska Wheat Board, the National Grain Sorghum Producers, and the Nebraska Corn Growers Association, if they favored a delay in relief if offsetting costs could be found. Without exception, they did not. They recognized that, in fact, if aid will be of any assistance, it must be delivered as soon as possible.