Ben Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, we yield time to the distinguished Senator from the State of Missouri, who will speak. We are alternating, but if there is no one on the other side to speak, then Senator Johnson will be next.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I thank my colleague from South Dakota, who has worked so long and hard on this issue and has cosponsored the Hagel-Johnson/Johnson-Hagel legislation that helped lead the way to this particular part of the energy bill. I thank him for his constant support and vigilance on the issue. It is clear that this issue has achieved a wide bipartisan result with strong support from both sides of the aisle. It is also very apparent that some of the challenges the ethanol or biofuels industry faced in the past have lessened as a result of the hard work of so many. There was a time when there was an absolute conflict between oil and ethanol producers and between the interests that supported each of those industries. This past week, an agreement was announced that brought together the environmental industry as well as the petroleum industry. I thank the API for their support. It is a clear recognition that this is a way to work together to support an energy policy that will benefit all Americans and benefit our world as well. It is important to point out that while we continue to stress the importance of more domestic production and reduce the reliance on foreign sources of oil, there is a role that the industry domestically and the renewable fuels industry today can play together, a role that finds room for both domestically produced oil as well as foreign- produced oil and domestically produced energy in the area of renewable fuels. It is pleasant to recognize we have crossed that line and have been able to bring together parties from different industries to recognize the common goal of the ability to rely on our own needs to the extent we can with our own production. That is clear in moving from 1 percent of the oil and fuel needs of our country and the supply to up to 4 percent in just 10 years. That is not only a move in the right direction, it is a move away from some of the reliance we have had in other areas of the world where stability is not strong for our future but certainly puts us in peril for the future needs of our energy. It is also very important to point out that this industry, with the renewable fuel standard that will be created and with the ethanol and other biofuels processing plants that will be springing up all over America, can extend to the rural areas. I know the distinguished Presiding Officer is concerned about, in her own State, the erosion of the rural areas in population and the decreasing opportunities that exist in some of the rural areas. This industry can extend across America because of the reliance on biomass-- and it is not simply limited to the corn-producing States or other States more closely associated with farm products--and not only be a strong industry far beyond a cottage industry, but it can certainly extend to many of the other States that are not always considered part of the agricultural producing industry in America today, but we know they are. Therefore, this is, as the distinguished Senator from Missouri said, a win-win situation for all of us. I am also pleased there is a cutting-edge technology that continues to be a part of this biofuels effort. Many States are today advancing the new technology, which the distinguished Senator from North Dakota mentioned, of aviation fuel that can be extended to biorefinery products. The High Plains facility in my State of Nebraska at York is processing the plant's waste stream in an anaerobic digester for the production of biogas that can be used to dry the distiller's grains and operate the plant, so that the plant has the opportunity ultimately to be self-sustaining in terms of its own energy needs as it produces energy for the rest of the country. The Dow-Cargill facility in Blair, NE, is currently producing ethanol but in short order will be producing biodegradable plastics for use in the food industry in that same facility. They produce energy, but they will be producing an environmentally friendly plastic that will be biodegradable rather than what we are currently using. Later in this session, I hope to offer an amendment calling for a Manhattan-type project to aggressively advance the biorefinery concept--the production of biofuels, bioenergy, and biochemicals in integrated facilities. A major resource commitment, utilizing the unique capabilities of the Department of Defense to take a concept from inception to fruition, is needed in this country to ensure that 10 years from now we have established the commercial technology base to produce many billions of gallons of renewable fuels in dispersed and decentralized installations around our country. There is the opportunity for increased technology, for increased production of biofuels that will assist us in the growth that is being sponsored by this legislation with the expectation that perhaps it is only the beginning--that, in fact, we can exceed the requirements that will be provided in this bill in years to come. I am proud the production and the testing of these products is underway today and will expand into the future and be a nationwide emphasis, whereas today clearly the emphasis has been more limited and more discussed in terms of the rural areas of the Midwest. This is about more than the Midwest. It is about, in fact, a national energy policy that will end up with national energy needs, in meeting those needs from so many different parts of our world and our Nation. The energy needs are clear, and that is why this energy bill is important. But not only are the needs important, but the sources of production to fill those needs likewise are important. That is why this particular provision is extremely important to deal not only with the energy needs, but to deal with a cleaner environment, for economic development, and obviously for national security by relying on our own sources for more of our own energy production. Shortly, Senator Lincoln from Arkansas will be joining us. I might mention, as I did before, as part of the Governors' Ethanol Coalition that was established in 1991, we had a distinguished Governor from the State of Arkansas in that initial group who kept his commitment to supporting ethanol not only in his role as Governor but as the President of the United States. It is also important to point out that as we have continued to expand the role of the current President, while the Governor of Texas he participated in that Governors' Ethanol Coalition, making it a broad-based group of 26 States and several countries working together to continue to support ethanol and the development of biofuels to deal with our energy needs. Until the distinguished Senator from Arkansas arrives, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I thank my colleague from the great State of Montana for his support. He does have Midwest connections. He had the good fortune to marry a woman from the State of Nebraska. We appreciate his connection with the Midwest and his support. I yield the floor to the Senator from Arkansas, who will speak on the renewable fuel standard.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to the distinguished Senator from the State of Florida.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, on behalf of Senators John McCain, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Breaux, and Mr. Johnson, to protect our veterans from financial predators who offer ``instant cash'' in exchange for future pensions or disability pay. Current law prohibits the direct sale of a veteran's pension or disability benefits. These payments are a tax-free, monthly check from the government, meant to provide important financial support to veterans who were disabled or wounded in service to our country. In the State of Florida alone, 245,000 veterans or their survivors received such compensation last year; and the Department of Veterans Affairs paid out nearly $21.3 billion nationwide. To get this pot of money, some companies have used a loophole that enables them to enter into contract with veterans and offer them ``instant cash'' in exchange for future benefits. These contracts require veterans to sign away their disability benefits or pensions for a certain period, often 8 years. In exchange, companies give them a lump-sum cash payment, typically valued at only 30 cents per dollar and in certain cases, companies require veterans to put up collateral, such as taking out a life insurance policy, potentially leaving a veteran's family out in the cold. The VA has called this practice a ``financial scam.'' The VA Inspector General says: ``These schemes seem to target the most financially desperate veterans who are the most vulnerable. For many unsuspecting veterans, these benefit buyouts could be financially devastating.'' In one case, a veteran received a lump total of $73,000 in return for his monthly benefit checks of $2,700 over 10 years. An annual interest rate of 28.5 percent. I find this practice reprehensible. The intent of the law that prohibits the assignment of a veteran's benefits is being skirted. My bill expands the definition of assignment of benefits and makes a violation punishable by a stiff fine, and up to 1 year in jail. The second part of my bill creates a 5-year education and outreach campaign, through the VA, to provide information to veterans about what legitimate financial services are available to them. The Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Vietnam Veterans of America, and AMVETS have endorsed this bill. I look forward to having the support of this body as we move to better protect our veterans from ``instant cash'' and other financial schemes. I would like to conclude with a comment from one of our country's veterans. ``. . . My pension isn't a lottery winning. It's an award from the American people for serving my country, and it's appalling to think there are those out there that would rob you of this honor and steal your future.'' I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, on behalf of Senators John McCain, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Breaux, and Mr. Johnson, to protect our veterans from financial predators who offer ``instant cash'' in exchange for future pensions or disability pay. Current law prohibits the direct sale of a veteran's pension or disability benefits. These payments are a tax-free, monthly check from the government, meant to provide important financial support to veterans who were disabled or wounded in service to our country. In the State of Florida alone, 245,000 veterans or their survivors received such compensation last year; and the Department of Veterans Affairs paid out nearly $21.3 billion nationwide. To get this pot of money, some companies have used a loophole that enables them to enter into contract with veterans and offer them ``instant cash'' in exchange for future benefits. These contracts require veterans to sign away their disability benefits or pensions for a certain period, often 8 years. In exchange, companies give them a lump-sum cash payment, typically valued at only 30 cents per dollar and in certain cases, companies require veterans to put up collateral, such as taking out a life insurance policy, potentially leaving a veteran's family out in the cold. The VA has called this practice a ``financial scam.'' The VA Inspector General says: ``These schemes seem to target the most financially desperate veterans who are the most vulnerable. For many unsuspecting veterans, these benefit buyouts could be financially devastating.'' In one case, a veteran received a lump total of $73,000 in return for his monthly benefit checks of $2,700 over 10 years. An annual interest rate of 28.5 percent. I find this practice reprehensible. The intent of the law that prohibits the assignment of a veteran's benefits is being skirted. My bill expands the definition of assignment of benefits and makes a violation punishable by a stiff fine, and up to 1 year in jail. The second part of my bill creates a 5-year education and outreach campaign, through the VA, to provide information to veterans about what legitimate financial services are available to them. The Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Vietnam Veterans of America, and AMVETS have endorsed this bill. I look forward to having the support of this body as we move to better protect our veterans from ``instant cash'' and other financial schemes. I would like to conclude with a comment from one of our country's veterans. ``. . . My pension isn't a lottery winning. It's an award from the American people for serving my country, and it's appalling to think there are those out there that would rob you of this honor and steal your future.'' I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, this week during the war against terror in Afghanistan America lost eight soldiers and Nebraska lost a native son. These soldiers died valiantly protecting the rights, ideals, values, and way of life that Americans enjoy. Sgt. Philip Svitak, a member of the Second Battalion, 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, was born in Lincoln and raised in Fremont. He graduated from Fremont High School in 1989 and entered the Army where he served in the Gulf War. Sgt. Svitak's parents have said that growing up, he dreamed of a career with the military service. His favorite gifts would be colored the familiar green olive drab. But he also enjoyed fixing things, hunting, and skateboarding. He loved his wife, Laura, and their two young sons, Nolan and Ethan. Before departing for Afghanistan, he told his family that ``the terrorists have to be stopped.'' Philip has made the ultimate contribution. Those who knew Sgt. Svitak will remember him as a levelheaded and caring friend and father. Those of us who did not, will remember him as well, as a brave and dedicated soldier who made the ultimate sacrifice for a forever grateful nation. We thank Sgt. Svitak for his service and his sacrifices. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and the families of other servicemen and women as they endure their loss of their loved ones who have been killed defending our freedom.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to commend my colleagues and the Senate leadership for bringing this legislation, the new federal farm bill, to the floor so early in the year. I think the priority this bill received on the calendar reflects its priority to the Nation, our economy, and especially our rural and agricultural regions. In my home state of Nebraska, 55,000 families earn their living on the farm. In total, one in four jobs in Nebraska is connected to agriculture. To say the farm bill and Federal farm programs are important to my state is an understatement. Which is why I was part of a group of sensible, concerned Senators that pushed this body to consider, and pass, a new farm bill last year. We knew that we had to act fast to remedy the problems associated with Freedom to Farm. I know first hand, serving as governor of a rural state during the implementation of that program, that it was a failure and needed to be fixed. We wanted to get it done last year for two reasons. First, we wanted to give farmers and their lenders as much time as possible to plan for a new federal program. Second, time was running short on the Federal budget clock and in order to maintain an acceptable level of funding for the farm bill, we needed get it done before the budget authority expired for $73.5 billion in new farm bill funds we had secured. But, that didn't happen. We had an administration that thought we should wait, and a merry band of Senators agreed. So, for reasons still unclear to me, the farm bill was defeated last year, and the only people who suffered were the farmers all across the country who depend on these programs to thrive. Now, we are here on the precipice of progress. We have addressed the concerns that were raised last year and we may actually pass a new farm bill this week. I must say it's been an interesting process. As the debate on the farm bill was underway last December, simultaneous debates on how best to boost the nation's economy out of a recession were being conducted. I was part of the economic stimulus discussions, and a part of the farm bill proceedings in the Agriculture Committee. I couldn't help but notice the parallel goals of both bills: to stimulate the economy and to stimulate the agriculture economy. An argument might be made that the best economic boost for my state, Nebraska, is something to generate activity in the agriculture economic sector. Anything that improves the agricultural economy stirs the overall economy in my state. That is why I am here now. I am here to say that this farm bill represents the best economic hope for rural, agriculture-based, states like Nebraska. Commodity prices for crops remain at historic lows for the fourth straight year. Livestock producers--the largest sector of agriculture in my State--are facing costly new environmental regulations with frightfully few federal resources to help share the burden. This farm bill addresses these concerns and will have a positive impact on the rural economy. This farm bill is the right thing to do, even if it's a few weeks late. We have made great strides with this bill. I am proud to say we have nearly doubled conservation spending--encouraging agriculture to improve resource management and for the first time providing incentives for conservation on land in production. This farm bill promotes trade, promotes conservation and competition. It breathes new life into our commodity programs. For example, it reauthorizes the programs for sugar beet growers, which are so critical to the 550 sugar beet families in western Nebraska. It also provides nutrition programs for hungry children and adults, supports our international food donation and trade efforts, and protects millions of acres of environmentally sensitive land, among other important priorities. The farm bill before us makes a real commitment--both in programs and funding--to rural development. This farm bill removes barriers to the school lunch program for military families by eliminating an accounting glitch that uses their housing allowance to prohibit their participation. I am pleased that despite the obstacles laid down before us, the Senate is about to do the right thing and pass this needed and important legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the people who feed our nation and the nations around the world, our farmers and ranchers, by supporting the new farm bill.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to express support for the Daschle consensus stimulus package, and I applaud the action of the Senate in passing the Baucus amendment to provide for accelerated depreciation over 2 years and 30 percent additional depreciation, as well as assisting and holding the States harmless for any lost revenue they might otherwise receive based on the support of the Medicaid Program at the State level. I think it is clear to most everyone that we need to have some economic stimulus. What does not seem to be clear to everyone is of what that consists. What seems to be further unclear at times is whether we need to do it a certain way for a certain period of time. I thank Senator Daschle for his efforts on this issue, not just for bringing forth the economic stimulus package but doing so in such a constructive way, trying to find that which was common among most of the proposals that have been offered and to bring together consensus where consensus can be achieved. This legislation is, at the very least, a building block for a package with which most would be hard pressed to disagree. If each of us were to come up with what we thought was the best economic stimulus for the country and put together our own package, we would have had at least 100 different bills. In fact, if I had my way, I would probably do some of this differently, but I think when a package is put together and we take a close look, as we are, at individual ideas that might differ with the package, that might be supplemental, we are certainly seeing what the Senate is all about, and that is diverse opinions being fully debated to try to help this country out of its economic doldrums. In fact, if I had my way, I would include a provision addressing the net operating losses, or the NOLs, for a longer period of time because I think by extending the period of time it would help business shoulder the burden of the current economic downturn. So I think it is important we consider an NOL extender as well. Over the past few months, we have heard so much talk from both sides about the need for an economic stimulus. Recently, we had the Chairman of the Fed say perhaps it was not as necessary as it might have been before, and we have heard others say we should have done it last year. As anyone knows, there were a handful of us--maybe more than a handful--who wanted to do it last year, but that is not a reason not to do something this year in the context of where we are. I think that is what Senator Daschle has offered us, an opportunity to revisit, to rethink, and to package together a stimulus package that would work for the future to help us, if not come out of the deepest of a recession, from falling further into a recession or, if we are already on the way out of the recession, to expedite the return to economic prosperity. There will be those who will say this package is not perfect. There is not anyone who says that it is. Legislation is never perfect, but it is as close to an agreement that has presented itself. I certainly hope to thank Senator Daschle for taking this action because I think it will, in fact, help us enter a threshold of progress. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to address the Chamber today and speak on a very important issue we have all been concerned about and we all have had comments about, continue to have thoughts about, and will continue to have them into the future. I speak of the stimulus package. It is unfortunate we missed the opportunity to be able to conclude a package of the type the centrists put together based on what was supported by so many different individuals and groups. Unfortunately, the blame has already begun. So we are in a position where we are talking about would have, could have, should have. We will have an opportunity as time goes by over this holiday break to continue to talk and continue to look for solutions. In January, something must in fact be done so we can move forward to protect the jobs of those who currently have them, help those individuals who have lost them, and help create new jobs. This is about three things: Jobs, jobs, jobs. And it is about the people who support them. Terrorism Insurance

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. In addition to being concerned about the future of the stimulus package, there is an aspect of stimulus that is involved in another proposal that hopefully will be brought up today, and that is the terrorism insurance issue. It is not about insurers, it is about insureds. It is about the ability to be able to insure one's property, one's house, one's home, one's apartment, one's automobile. If one is a business owner, it is about insuring their storefront or their business. It is about having workers compensation insurance and liability insurance. It is about having insurance for the protection one needs. There is a very important timeframe we must in fact look at, and that is January 1 of this coming year. I am hopeful we will be able to settle today on a bill and be able to pass something and send it on for reconciliation in conference, so we can match or in some way make it close enough to the House version that a reconciliation of the conference committee is possible, because if we fail to do that, there is a possibility, and perhaps even a strong likelihood, that on January 1 of this coming year 70 percent of the reinsurance that is currently available to direct writers will be affected. It may not provide for terrorism in the future. I know for many people it seems sort of esoteric. It seems sort of complex and perhaps eyes-glazed-over thinking about insurance and reinsurance and whether there will be protection for terrorism or not, but it is a very real issue, a very real and present concern we must in fact have. It is not about simply insuring skyscrapers. It is about insuring small businesses. It is about apartment buildings, storefronts, and people's own personal residences, as well as their automobiles. It is about whether or not money will be available for lending or whether or not it will continue to be available for construction. If we are concerned, as I think we are, about a worsening economy and at what point we will be able to see the economy turn around and be stimulated so it can be a robust economy, one of the things we must in fact be concerned about is anything that tips the scales against the economy we have today that can make it worse. In fact, failure to take action can make it worse by not taking the appropriate action to undergird and support it. If we are unable to come together and make sure insurance continues to be available, as well as affordable, but certainly available to the public, if we fail to take that opportunity, then we might expect construction will be impeded, if not stopped, and that we may in fact see housing starts and other building starts stopped. Unemployment can be affected. We could end up with more people unemployed, and the economic downturn could be accelerated. I say these things not to provide a scare tactic but simply to impress as to how important it is we solve this problem of availability of terrorism insurance in the near term so we can work for a longer term solution. What has been offered to date is, in fact, a short-term solution, a backup, a compromise to work in the immediate term, the short term, with broad-based support. I hope we will take this up and move forward.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Daschle substitute to the committee-passed bill. Let me begin my statement by pointing out that every farmer I talk with in Nebraska wants Congress to pass a new farm bill this year. This legislation is awfully important to tens of thousands of farm families in Nebraska and they are asking me to get it done. For my State, with its 55,000 farm families where we have more cows than people there may be no greater economic stimulus package than the farm bill. Many of my colleagues have thanked Chairman Harkin, ranking member Lugar, and their staffs for their hard work in getting this bill together. Let me add my thanks. It was not an easy job. But then, neither is farming in an environment where commodity prices for crops remain at historic lows for the fourth straight year. Or where livestock producers--the largest sector of agriculture in my state--are facing costly new environmental regulations with frightfully few federal resources to help share the burden. So I rise in support of this legislation and ask my colleagues to join me in its consideration. This bill breathes new life into our commodity programs, provides nutrition programs for hungry children and adults, supports our international food donation and trade efforts, and protects millions of acres of environmentally sensitive land, among many other important priorities. It makes a real commitment--both in programs and funding--to rural development. I have worked with many Nebraskans involved in rural development in their communities, and these are the provisions they asked for: Access to venture capital. Adequate funding for water and sewer projects. Greater access to broadband service. More funding for value-added product development. A modest investment in these programs will have tremendous return in rural communities all across America. I hope my colleagues have heard from their constituents about the importance of these provisions and that they are as enthusiastic as Nebraskans are. This bill also includes, for the first time, a title devoted to agriculture-based energy. It's a terrific idea and one whose time has come. I only wish the Agriculture Committee had the jurisdiction to go further! Nevertheless, the provisions in the energy title that provide grants, loans and technical assistance to farmers and ranchers to develop and incorporate renewable energy use will be, I predict, widely oversubscribed. In five years we will be back here trying to expand these programs, like we have our conservation programs, because demand has far surpassed the funding available. Speaking of conservation, let me briefly comment on the conservation title. The Chairman and Ranking Member of our committee deserve special recognition for their vision in moving farm programs toward a more conservation-oriented policy. Environmental and sportsmens' groups--the hook and bullet coalition, I heard them called recently have been working toward the expansion of these programs for years, and their efforts pay off in this bill. CRP, WRP, WHIP, FPP . . . the acronyms all run together, but each program has a distinct and invaluable purpose. Of particular interest to Nebraskans are the significant new resources for the EQIP program, which will allow it to ramp up to $1.25 billion a year by 2006 from just $200 million now. It will provide assistance to thousands of livestock producers, in particular, to comply with new regulations. Just as importantly, it will assist row crop producers in protecting water supplies, soil quality and wildlife habitat. The House also made a significant commitment to EQIP and I commend them for that. A critical title of this legislation reauthorizes and expands nutrition programs. Included is a provision of particular importance to Nebraska and other states with military installations. The privatization of housing on military bases has had the unintended consequence of jeopardizing eligibility for the free and reduced cost school lunch program for qualifiying children. Because of the reporting requirements in the privatization legislation, service members' housing allowances are now being counted as income making children who previously qualified for the free and reduced cost school lunch program ineligible. So, unfortunately, as a result of a policy that I support--privatized housing on our military bases--we are improving quality of life with one hand and taking it away with the other. This bill creates a stop-gap solution to this problem, until child nutrition programs can be reauthorized. Finally, the commodity title is of course the engine driving this train. I cannot overstate how important it is to Nebraska. Farmers, as we all know, are deriving an ever-increasing share of their income from farm program payments under Freedom to Farm. The law that was supposed to rid them of the shackles of Federal farm programs has instead made them more dependent on the government than ever before. It has cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars in emergency assistance. Farmers in Nebraska have said resoundingly, ``Enough!'' and they are right. It is time for a new program that offers some stability and a reasonable chance at profitability. And it's time for a program that no longer offers its benefits based on what you may have planted 20 years ago. This legislation provides a modest increase in loan rates, and I do mean modest. Corn goes from $1.89 to $2.08; wheat from $2.56 to $3.00. Farmers in Nebraska have been calling for an increase in loan rates for years, but this is hardly what they had in mind. And still, there are those who call it excessive. Who say that these loan rates--still well below what it costs farmers to raise a crop-- will ``stimulate production.'' I ask them: where? Freedom to Farm sent farmers checks when prices were at record highs and they did what any business would do--they invested in greater productivity. And they were successful. As we know too well, it took only two years of Freedom to Farm for prices to collapse. And they have not recovered. And still the government signals, ``Plant more.'' ``Buy more land.'' ``Expand your operation.'' The current program, I say to my colleagues, stimulates production. So I do not see where all this new production is going to come from. What I do see is a loan rate that offers producers a fighting chance at making a cash flow work with their banker this spring. A safety net that leaves them less dependent on the continued largesse of Congress. And I like that, and so do they. The commodity title reauthorizes programs for sugarbeet growers, which is also important to my state. To the 550 families growing sugarbeets in western Nebraska, this bill is critical. And it meets other needs of other regions and senators that make it truly a national program--including peanuts and fruits and vegetables. So I thank Chairman Harkin for putting this bill together and I urge the Senate to invoke cloture and move to its immediate consideration.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Railroad Retirement and Survivors' Improvement Act of 2001. For years, our Nation's railroad workers have played a vital role in moving commerce and passengers around this country, and it is my belief and hope that America will benefit from their hard work for years to come. This bill is designed to strengthen the Railroad Retirement System and ensure that these men and women who have helped build, run, and maintain our railroads, have adequate resources to care for themselves and their families when they finally complete their years of hard labor. The current system, which has been around for over 65 years, currently serves more than 690,000 retirees and their family members, and more than 245,00 active employees. Because the Railroad Retirement System, unlike other industry pension plans, is funded by payroll taxes on employees, it is easy to see why this program, that pays retirement benefits to almost three times as many people as there are paying for those benefits, is in desperate need of reform. Most Americans are concerned about the future of Social Security for similar reasons--because the number of retirees in America will greatly increase in the coming years as baby boomers retire. Well, the problem for Railroad Retirement is here and now, and so is the right time for a commonsense solution. Railroad Retirement has always been restricted to investing only in government securities, and while this may have been a good policy 65 years ago, it does not make sense in today's economy. Because of this policy, the system's annual average investment return has been far lower than that of private multiemployer pension plans. This bill would solve that problem by allowing Railroad Retirement to be operated more like a private pension plan, by establishing a private trust in which assets of the system can be invested in various ways, including private securities. Moreover, the legislation would shift greater responsibility to the railroad industry, and away from the government, to ensure adequate funding of the system. Better financing means enhanced returns to provide for an improved benefit structure for Railroad Retirement beneficiaries. These benefits would include a lowering of the incredibly high payroll taxes currently paid by railroad workers and employers; a lowering of the retirement age for those with 30 years of service to age 60; reducing the vesting period in the system from 10 years to 5; and improving the benefits paid to widows and widowers. All of these improved benefits are desirable reforms, and they can be achieved without compromising the solvency of the system, which the Railroad Retirement Board's actuary has projected out to 75 years under this legislation. Because this legislation is the right solution at the right time, it has received overwhelming bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress. Last year, when the bill was first introduced, it was approved on the floor of the House by a vote of 391-25, and had the support of 80 Members in the Senate. However, after it was reported favorably by the Finance Committee, it never made it to the Senate floor. After its reintroduction in the current Congress, the bill has again been approved by a landslide on the floor of the House, and now awaits action here in the Senate, where it has enjoyed the support of 74 cosponsors. I urge your continued support of this legislation, and speedy passage of the reform that railroad workers and their families throughout this country so badly deserve. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this legislation, a bill to substantially revise and modernize the railroad retirement system, a system that was established in the dark days of the Great Depression. I also commend our leadership for bringing this important matter before the Senate in the closing days of this session. The fact that this body is willing to take the time to consider this measure during these critical days highlights the importance of this issue to both rail labor and management. Swift passage of the bill is essential to the continued vitality of our rail industry, and I urge the Senate to act on it without delay. Two of the giants of our Nation's rail industry have roots in my State of Nebraska. The headquarters of the Union Pacific Railroad is located in Omaha. And the Burlington Northern maintains a major presence in the State, with over 8,500 employees in Nebraska alone. One stretch of Burlington's line located in Nebraska is the busiest rail segment in the world; coal unit trains traverse Nebraska constantly, providing energy to meet the Nation's needs. In this case, management and labor of the Union Pacific Railroad and the Burlington Northern have worked cooperatively over a period of several years to develop this legislation and to build wide support for it here in Congress. The House has acted on it overwhelmingly, in three separate votes, and it is now time for the Senate to move it forward. It enjoys strong bipartisan support in both Chambers, and we simply cannot afford to delay the bill when we all know it will pass easily, especially when we have so much other important work to do, and so little time in which to do it. It is time for the Senate to act. This bill introduces tried and true investment techniques into the railroad retirement system. It represents a way to make better use of the resources built up by the contributions of rail employees and employers to the system. Approximately $17 billion in retirement funds will, for the first time, be invested as normal, modern pension plans are, diversified among different types of investments, instead of locked into safe but low-yield Federal bonds. This simple change will permit the opportunity for better benefits and lower contributions for our rail workers, and give the industry the opportunity to take more responsibility for its own pension system. For the first time, the law will now automatically regulate the amount of contributions going into the system in response to the actuary's estimate of the amount of reserves in the system. Under present law, if reserves falter, the Congress must step in and create new legislation to either reduce benefits or raise taxes, or both--a cumbersome mechanism to accomplish an unpopular task. This bill provides a much more streamlined means of dealing with such a contingency, without Government involvement. Industry and labor both support this automatic provision, because they know that the investment markets, in the long run, will be more productive for the system than a steady diet of only Federal bonds. One of the most compelling arguments for this legislation is that it will improve the lot of widows and widowers of retired railroad employees. Under current law, they watch their monthly compensation decline by two-thirds once their spouse passes away. This is not only antiquated, it is an unbearable burden on some of our elderly. It is a throwback to a time when the system was in difficult straits and could not afford more. Today the system can afford to do better than this, if railroad retirement reform is enacted. The bill will provide the surviving spouse 100 percent of what the deceased former rail employee was entitled to in his or her own right. There are 50,000 retirees affected in one way or another by this one provision. There is one other important element of the bill. The industry will now be permitted to reduce the very heavy payroll tax burden it now carries to provide benefits under the system through a 3-percentage- point drop in contributions, phased in over three years. This aspect of the bill will remove a real disincentive to hire new employees or to replace those who retire. It will free up capital for other worthwhile expenditures. And as we continue to strive to reach agreement on an economic stimulus package, we all can recognize that this benefit is especially important during this time of economic downturn. I do not intend to go into all the improvements and the modernization that has been written into this bill at this time. There will be adequate time for a full explanation of the bill as debate progresses. But I want to once again stress the need for the Senate to move this measure forward. The Nation's railroad retirees and their families need us to act. The Nation's rail industry can help our economic recovery if we act. And the Nation's citizens expect us to act. I appreciate the opportunity to make these important points today, and I urge the Senate to act as quickly as possible.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. 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, I rise in support of this second- degree amendment and believe it requires some degree of explanation as to how it may differ from the amendment which has been offered. It has been characterized that this is an issue about food safety. But truly the difference between his amendment and mine is not about food safety, it is about whether or not we are going to enforce a flawed standard before we have studies completed that this body mandated last year. That is what this issue is all about, not whether or not we are going to have food safety. My amendment doesn't move to table Senator Harkin's amendment, but it seeks to improve it. I believe in fact it does. We worked very diligently to find a way to have a solution. But the solution would have required authorizing and empowering the U.S. Department of Agriculture, by statute, by his amendment, to enforce a standard about which a court in Texas, a Federal district court in Texas, has said, among other things: The performance standard may not be enforced because it doesn't measure food safety. I am for food safety. But I am not for a standard that doesn't measure food safety. Nor am I in favor of empowering specifically eliminating any question about the authority of an agency to enforce a standard that does not measure food safety. I am most definitely interested in making certain that we have food safety. That is why I worked very closely with my colleague to work out some language which he has included in his amendment. I commend him for doing that because that language says that, by May 31 of next year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture must initiate rulemaking and a standard based on these studies which are expected to be completed by that time. I think it would be unwise for this body to now empower the U.S. Department of Agriculture to enforce standards that do not measure food safety after, last year, authorizing and requiring studies that will, in fact, establish a standard that will be aimed at measuring food safety and empowering the agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to be able to use those standards in order to impose an appropriate salmonella standard for all food. That is what the question is really all about: Do we enforce and authorize and require the enforcement of a standard that doesn't rise to that level versus authorizing the agency and requiring the agency to, by a certain time--a timeframe certain--to have the rulemaking in place in order to impose an appropriate standard based on sound science. That is what this issue is about: Whether or not we are going to have a standard based on sound science or one that the court says doesn't measure food safety. There are some other things the amendment does that I think are important. It specifies that food that is unsafe or labeled inaccurately or is otherwise adulterated cannot bear the U.S. Department of Agriculture mark of inspection. It further goes on to make sure that the agency, the Secretary of Agriculture, comes forward with the report that specifies the general points of scientific agreement regarding microbiological testing and standards. This will require a standard that we can be sure is based on sound science. Until these reports are done, we can't be sure the current standard is strict enough. It is not a question of whether it is too lax. We don't know. I am unlikely to support the requirement of that standard until, in fact, we have the studies done to know if it is strict enough. The suggestion might be that it is not strict enough. But I suggest we do not know and we will not know until and unless these studies that were authorized by this body last year have been completed and a rule adopted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I yield to my colleague from Arkansas.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I would like to recognize the tremendous outpouring of solidarity and support from America's citizens in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks. The nation's collective reaction to the horror of that day has been one of compassion and focused determination. I am pleased, not just with the response from our elected officials and our opinion-makers, but with all of our citizens across the country who have shown such courage in the face of adversity. In an outcome that has surely flummoxed the mastermind of this tragedy, a reality has emerged: America is still strong and, because of this tragedy, America ultimately will be even stronger. There is no firmer support for this belief than the way in which Americans have worked, as directed by our Commander-in-Chief, to get back to the demands of our daily schedules. The best civilian offense in the aftermath of these attacks is not to cower to fears of future attacks, but instead to quickly `get back on the job' and resume our routines. To that end, our nation has been constructing an effective and forceful civilian offense. But we can still do more. I have come to the floor today to encourage the continuation of debate--specifically here in the Senate--on issues critical to our national security. A return to such a dialogue should not be frowned upon or considered as a sign of splintered resolve, but rather as proof that America and her values are alive and well. I commend President Bush and his advisors for their efforts thus far in preparing our minds and our military for the long battle we've undertaken. Our leaders, both civil and military, have built a coalition of nations sharing in our objective to thwart terrorist activity around the globe. We've sent a clear message to our friends, and they have responded with strong support. And just this morning, we've communicated another message. By announcing our intent to reopen National Airport, we're telling not only friends, but the whole world, that we Americans will not live in fear within our own borders. I am pleased with President Bush's announcement. Now that added security measures have been implemented, I agree with him: It's time to unlock the symbolic front door to our nation's capital and re-affirm our commitment to get back to business. That determination to get back to business is evident, not just at National, but at airports across the country. We have increased security measures at all airports, which in turn, have increased our sense that freedom has triumphed fear. It's important to recognize, though, that the lack of convenience resulting from increased security measures cannot, and should not, be misconstrued as a loss of liberty. Let us not confuse the longer lines at airports and the time-consuming luggage screenings as threats to liberty; instead, consider these measures as threats to terrorism. We are witnessing America's most important moment, and we are meeting the challenge with dignity and pride. With the events of September 11, tyranny has tried to mute the freedom that rings throughout our nation. We have defeated similar efforts in the past, and we will defeat them again. As long as we stand unified and stand strong, our spirit will never be silenced. The solidarity shown at the different levels of government of the past few weeks, within the various agencies, and across party lines has been unwavering. Here in the Senate, we swiftly approved legislation to provide $40 billion toward the recovery effort and to help finance the retaliation measures currently being developed by the U.S. Military under the direction of the President. In addition, we approved a resolution authorizing the use of force in response to the unwarranted attacks. Without question, this unity is an extraordinary asset for a country poised to wage an assault on terrorism. A few weeks ago, at Yankee Stadium in New York, and earlier at the National Cathedral in Washington, DC, thousands of people--Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Christians--people of all faiths--came together and honored and remembered the fallen heroes, the innocent lives, and the bright futures claimed by terrorism. At these services, and at services across the country and in my home state of Nebraska, people revived their spirits and their faith in democracy. These gatherings are visual displays of unity signaling that America is on the mend. Sure, for some of us, it may not ever feel like 'business as usual' again, or at least for awhile, life in America may feel more like business as `unusual.' Nonetheless, it is important for we policymakers to get back to work, including debate and discussion of all these issues. Such action will help ensure the continued viability of democracy and the continued vitality of the United States of America. After all, lockstep agreement among policymakers is not an American ideal. The free exchange of ideas, which helped America flourish, was the terrorists' true target on September 11. The terrorists, who likely don't even understand the true meaning of freedom, loathe America's system of government, her ideals and her liberty. In response, we must show the world how the American government will carry on, that the people will continue to have their say, and that debate will still be the prelude to unity--and not the construct of obstruction. To be clear, I am not saying we, as a nation, will no longer be unified in this effort to combat terrorism. I am simply saying that we all need to actively participate in developing, not simply rubber- stamping, policy. As a legislative body, we can return to the comparatively mundane and, consequently, more polarizing issues without losing sight of our resolve to fight terrorism. By doing so, we will not have swayed our national values to placate forces of evil. Yes, in times of tragedy, it is imperative to find a common bond to bring our nation together. But, as we heal our wounds, we must give all people, on all sides of an issue, a chance to be heard. After all, democracy is the healthiest alternative to war. Our weapons are words, and our nation's internal battles are fought on the grounds of the Constitution, rather than on the grounds of the combat zone. I do not believe in the bitter partisanship that has, at times, characterized our nation, but I do believe that debate is critical to a strong democracy. Freedom of expression is fundamental to life in America and, by extension, to healthy debate here in Congress. We in the Senate are free to speak our minds and hearts. And as a result of that freedom, we need to freely come together and return to `normal' debate empowered by the Constitution. Then, and only then, we will have successfully given back to the country that has given so much to each of us.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I am happy to yield.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky to strike the BRAC language from the fiscal year 2002 Defense authorization bill. Senator Dorgan referred to Secretary Rumsfeld's label for BRAC, the Efficient Facilities Initiative, as ``Iffy.'' I have to agree with him. I think it is iffy in terms of cost, iffy in terms of our present force structure, and would be iffy to the morale of our troop force. On Tuesday, September 11, the strategic environment in which the United States operates was completely changed; certainly, as it relates to the military as well. Many issues that crowded our plate disappeared, and we have all begun to focus on the current crisis. I believe that change in environment involves base closures. I said at the time we were debating this issue during the Defense authorization bill that we should wait on the QDR before we voted to give the administration the ability to close bases. That point of view was not shared by every member of the Armed Services Committee, and accordingly the BRAC language was included in the authorization bill. We are now told that the Department of Defense will submit an on-time QDR to the Congress and that DOD has indicated they will send an amended QDR to us just as soon as they can at a later date to address the current crisis. Authorizing another round of BRAC without first reviewing the QDR and without first admitting that our strategic environment has shifted dramatically is a classical case of putting the cart before the horse. I didn't think that BRAC was right before September 11, and I don't think our military knows if it is right now. We know, for example, as a result of the September 11 events, our fighter jets are flying cover over major U.S. cities. Those jets need bases from which to fly in and out. It strikes me as a rather odd time to be closing bases. Now that we are in the process of creating a homeland defense office, what role will our bases play in the protection of our major cities? Will we need increased ground defenses which are located at bases which could otherwise be closed? What role will bases play in our new security structure? Again, we haven't had the opportunity to think this through and, therefore, we must, in fact, set aside the BRAC authorization at this time. Some say that BRAC will provide us significant cost savings. Certainly, I am for cost savings. Over the long term it may be possible, but no one disagrees that in the short run, BRAC costs money. Right now we need every bit of our resources, financial and otherwise, to address our significant force protection concerns. Finally, this sends a mixed message to the men and women who are now preparing to engage a new and terrible enemy. How can we be united as a country if we are adversely affecting morale? Now is the time to focus on reducing the threat of terrorism, not on relocating and uprooting families from bases. It would be inopportune to include this language in the Defense authorization bill, certainly at this time. Until I am presented with more persuasive evidence regarding this matter, I simply cannot support an initiative that could hamstring our homeland defense. And in my opinion, it might. Certainly I believe others share that view based on comments on the floor. Clearly, it would be prudent to strike the language in the best interest of our country and our military personnel at this time. Let us consider BRAC under less threatening circumstances, when we will have more information at our disposal and when we will know what the QDR expects from our military. Let us not act prematurely. Instead, let's exercise prudence and do the right thing for the right reason. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, as we discuss this much needed legislation to provide financial assistance to our airline industry, I would like to voice my concern that air service to our small communities not be lost in this effort. I have consistently supported adequate funding for the Essential Air Service Program, and ensuring the viability of our small airports is a priority for me. Because I realize the economic impact a loss of air service would have on our small, rural communities, I applaud the efforts made in this legislation to include the needs of carriers who serve these markets. It is important that in considering financial assistance for the airline industry, that thought is given to the impact this tragedy has had on the regional airlines, which service our small communities. Essential air funding is critical to providing air service to most of the communities in Nebraska, as I know is the case in many States. As we continually focus on how to regain confidence in our economy, I believe this is one area where Government assistance can truly be beneficial. Because it is imperative to the economic wellbeing of these small communities that air service be continued, increasing the level of essential air service funding is critical to ensuring the air carriers serving small communities can continue to do so. I understand that the bill contains language authorizing the Secretary of Transportation to require air carriers currently receiving direct financial assistance to maintain scheduled air service to any point served by that carrier prior to September 11. In addition, the Secretary may require these carriers to enter into agreements, which will, to the maximum extent practicable, ensure that all communities that had scheduled air service before September 11 continue to receive adequate air service. I do have concern that in light of recent events some of these carriers will cut service to communities that rely on Government- subsidized air service. Therefore, I urge the Secretary of Transportation, in carrying out his authority under this bill with respect to these carriers, to consider the devastating impact cutting air service to small communities, especially rural communities, will have. It is my hope that the provisions of this bill provide sufficient protection of air service to small communities.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I would normally express that `it's at a moment like this' when words cannot suffice to express the anguish of yesterday's attack, but there has never been a moment quite `like this' in our history as a sovereign nation. The magnitude of the events that transpired yesterday will be measured in an infinite number of ways for years to come. We will mourn with words and photographs and stories as we try to wrap our arms around this tragedy and try to make sense out of that which seems so senseless. We are One Nation Under God--a God who is bigger than terrorism, who is bigger than hate, and who cannot be destroyed by acts against humanity. As I have listened to my colleagues today, I have been deeply moved by their compassion and I share their grief and sense of loss. I join with them in expressions of determination to hold those who are responsible accountable--to the fullest extent possible. In an effort to find hope in the midst of this pain, I have focused on the truth that terrorism cannot expunge the virtues on which this country was built. Yes, the landscape has been irrevocably changed and lives on Earth tragically and abruptly ended, but our composition, our principles and our freedom remain the same. We Americans are a people whose spirit of freedom and democracy will not be defiled by those who choose terrorism over the lives of our mothers and brothers and sisters and fathers. America's freedom and democracy--the real targets sought by the enemy--will never be compromised. Ever. Yes, those virtues can be challenged. And they have been to a most unconscionable degree. Make no mistake. We are at war. But this is not a conventional war fought by conventional means, rather this is an invisible war where the targets are uncertain and the attacks are unpredictable. There are no tanks, no troops, and no clear military objectives in this new war. We have worked to define and counter these new threats to world stability. But yesterday those new threats, which we have sought to define, were made real. But just as those threats were made real, the spirit of America was renewed. Firefighters and policemen in Pennsylvania and New York and Washington have worked--and continue to work--selflessly to salvage lives, as well as clues from the wreckage. These men and women are heroes--every one of them. Over two hundred workers have perished in the line of duty. Each has made the ultimate sacrifice. This display of courage has been an important first step toward healing. As we survey the emotional and physical damage, we will not brush aside the implications of the attack. The world is on notice. America is more than bricks and mortar. Her citizens are strong. I am convinced we will show the world how great nations stand resolute in the face of great adversity. The American people have responded with the will and the spirit that has served as the mortar in the construction of our country. America is back on the job, and will continue to lead the world. In the days ahead, we will investigate, pursue, prosecute and punish those responsible for these despicable acts. America will not be deterred. America will not negotiate or compromise in our pursuit of justice. Let our enemies know, and let those who harbor our enemies know, that we have declared this to be a new day, a new chapter in history, a time in which America will renew and strengthen its resolve and its commitment to defeat terrorism and those who give succor or shelter to terrorists. To our friends, we thank you for your expressions of sympathy, and to all people committed to peace, we ask for your cooperation, your support, and your common dedication to defeating the forces of terror and championing the ideals of free societies. So as we move forward to sustain life and freedom, we will continue to meet challenges with resolve and resiliency. We will learn from this experience and put that knowledge to good use. We will overcome this tragedy. But we will never forget.