Ben Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection; the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, on June 17, 2005, more than a half-century baseball tradition continues in Omaha, NE. This is the 56th year in a row that Omaha plays host to what is officially named the NCAA Men's College World Series. Of course, baseball fans nationwide know it by its unofficial name--``The Road to Omaha.'' The Men's College World Series features the best teams that college baseball has to offer. Many of the players are the professional superstars of tomorrow. One has even gone on to become President of the United States. As a student at Yale University, President George H.W. Bush played in the College World Series in Kalamazoo, MI, in 1948, 2 years before the games found their permanent home in Omaha. In 2001, President George W. Bush came to Omaha to throw out the first ball at Johnny Rosenblatt Stadium. The stadium, named in honor of a former Omaha mayor and avid baseball fan, serves as the home ballpark for the Omaha Royals, which is the Pacific Coast League AAA farm team of the Kansas City Royals. Since the College World Series came to Omaha in 1950, there have been 799 games played at Rosenblatt Stadium with 5,692,950 fans in attendance. The attendance shows remarkable growth from that first year when fewer than 18,000 fans showed up for the entire series. Today, the average attendance for the entire 10-day event approaches 230,000 with an average per-session attendance of nearly 23,000. Credit for this phenomenal success story goes to College World Series of Omaha, Inc., a nonprofit organization which has captured the imagination of the people of Omaha, its business leaders, city officials and volunteers. We are often asked by fans that follow their teams here and are attending their first College World Series, ``Why Omaha?'' The answer is easy. The entire city rolls out the red carpet for visiting teams and their supporters. Baseball fans, most from the Omaha area, fill the stadium for each game. They cheer all participating teams equally, making players, families and fans from other parts of the country feel welcome. Even when hometown favorites, the Nebraska Cornhuskers or Creighton Bluejays make it to the series, fans continue to cheer for teams coming from other States. Many Omaha supporters take time off from work during the 10-day event, tailgating on the stadium grounds and attending games each day. They will often wait in line all night to buy tickets which remain low in price despite sellouts and the fact that games are telecast nationwide on ESPN and ESPN2. A book of 50 general admission tickets sells for $50. Even box seats for the championship games sell for only $30. The College World Series in Omaha has become as much of a tradition as baseball itself. Even the name, Omaha, has become synonymous with championship baseball. Instead of referring to it as the College World Series or the NCAA Division I Baseball Championship, teams competing to play here all refer to Regional and Super Regional tournaments as the ``Road to Omaha.'' In the same year that baseball returned to Washington, DC, I am proud that the College World Series returns to Omaha for its 56th consecutive year with contractual assurances that it will remain here at least through 2010. I'd like to extend a warm Nebraska invitation to all of my colleagues and baseball fans everywhere to come to Omaha from June 17 through 27 to enjoy college baseball's finest tradition. You are certain to enjoy yourselves, and like many of the players who earn the right to participate in the College World Series, you, too, will find yourself part of the ``Road to Omaha'' experience.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. The recent decline in ethanol prices, coupled with surging pump prices for gasoline, have created a market dynamic in which increased ethanol use could help curtail record high gas prices. Consumers in many parts of the country where ethanol can be delivered to existing storage and terminal facilities are not receiving lower cost supplies and are paying as much as 8 cents a gallon more at the pump than they would if oil refiners purchased ethanol to blend. Blending high-priced gasoline with more modestly priced ethanol results in a more affordable final product. By using ethanol, oil refiners have an opportunity to pass along real savings to consumers during this period of high gasoline prices. The Consumer Federation of America cites several reasons for the dramatic increase in gasoline prices, including tight crude oil inventories, inadequate oil refinery capacity, lack of competition, and the oil industry's increasing market power. In contrast to gasoline prices, ethanol prices have actually fallen during the past 6 months. As an example, the price of ethanol on the Chicago spot market hit $1.82 per gallon in November 2004 but averaged about $1.18 per gallon last month. At these prices, why don't oil companies blend more ethanol to lower consumer prices? We have an opportunity to see that consumers benefit from cleaner burning, affordable, and domestically produced fuel. Finally, a win for the environment: For environmental and health concerns, the Nation decided to clean up the fuels which have powered America for nearly a century. The Clean Air Act identified numerous areas of the country which must reduce or eliminate their pollution levels. Those areas have been meeting the challenges of the Clean Air Act through changing the gasoline and diesel fuels used, either year- round or seasonally. Studies show ethanol reduces emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons by 20 percent, and particulates by 40 percent in 1990 and newer vehicles. In 2001 alone, ethanol reportedly reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 3.6 million tons or the equivalent of removing more than 520,000 vehicles from the road. Now and through the next several years, cleaner and cleaner fuels such as ethanol, natural gas, propane, and biodiesel will be used in cars, trucks, and buses. Today's key issue is to determine which alternatives will extend or replace gasoline and diesel fuel to reduce pollution. We need to be working hard to craft a comprehensive rural development plan that will spur investment in agribusiness and promote economic activity in the agricultural sector. This Energy bill, and the renewable fuels standard contained within, is an important part of such a rural development plan and is key to reversing the realities of outmigration in the rural areas. If passed, this fuels language will establish a 4.0-billion-gallon renewable fuels standard in 2006, growing every year until it reaches 8 billion gallons by 2012. This is a responsible approach to meeting the demands of an ever-increasing demand for fuel sources. Additional benefits to this legislation include the displacement of foreign supplies of crude oil, reduction in the U.S. trade deficit, and the creation of tens of thousands of jobs throughout the United States. It is quite apparent that increased use of ethanol will do much to boost a struggling U.S. agricultural economy and at the same time will help establish a more sound national energy policy. A choice for renewable fuels is a choice for America, its energy consumers, its farmers, and its environment. It will help us to reverse our 100-year-old reliance on fossil fuels, a more pressing concern than ever given the unrest in the Middle East and increased competition for energy from growing economies throughout the world. If each State were to produce 10 percent of its own domestic renewable fuel as Nebraska does, America will have turned the corner away from dependence on foreign sources of energy. When you take a hard look at the facts, you will see that this legislation is nothing but beneficial for America. The Fuels Security Act is balanced, comprehensive, and is the result of the dedication of so many, especially Senator Lugar and Senator Harkin. Now I ask my colleagues to join me in promoting new opportunities for the technologies that will put our Nation and our world's transportation fuels on solid, sustainable, environmentally enhancing ground. We owe it to our country now and to future generations to pass this legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for giving me this brief opportunity to speak about the renewable fuels provisions in the Energy bill. I thank my colleagues, Senators Frist and Reid, for their leadership, and Senators Lugar, Harkin, Talent, and so many others for their efforts in developing this important legislation. I am here today to support the renewable fuels provision in the Senate Energy bill. This legislation is one of the pillars for economic development for rural America, one segment of the population that lagged behind in the economic surge of the 1990s, yet a segment positioned to play such an integral role in fueling our Nation. It is rare when legislation benefits all. It is rare when legislation creates only winners. It is clear that the production and use of renewable fuels is a win/win situation--a win for farmers from rural communities, a win for consumers, and a win for the environment. That is why as Governor of Nebraska, I invited other Governors interested in creating a group devoted to the promotion and increased use of ethanol to join me in Nebraska. In September of 1991, we met, and the Governors' Ethanol Coalition emerged. Membership in the coalition doubled from 9 to 19 States during the first year, and now stands at 30 States, with international representatives from Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Sweden, and Thailand--30 States, red and blue States. First, I mentioned this legislation is a win for farmers in rural communities. Three years ago, we completed the farm bill which at the time was characterized as one very important part of the economic revitalization plan for rural America. Economic stimulus can come in many forms and the production of renewable fuels is certainly a viable option for rural America, especially--and candidly--in my State of Nebraska. It is as simple as this: Demand for corn to create ethanol raises prices for corn. Demand for sorghum to create ethanol raises prices for sorghum. Demand for soybeans to create biodiesel raises prices for soybeans. Added to the important feature of farm profitability is the idea that increased grain prices result in less assistance to producers under the farm bill in the form of loan deficiency payments and countercyclical payments--yes, less government assistance. Merging the realities of agricultural economics and farm policy into energy legislation is the type of responsible legislation the voters sent us here to enact. I am unabashedly proud of what my home State has accomplished in this area. Within the State of Nebraska, 11 ethanol plants currently produce 523 million gallons of ethanol per year or 12 percent of the Nation's total. The benefits of the ethanol program in Nebraska don't just involve grain producers. It involves investment in industry, the creation of jobs related to plant construction, operation, and maintenance. It includes permanent jobs at the ethanol facilities and stimulates the economic engines in small rural communities. In Nebraska alone, more than 270 million bushels of corn and grain sorghum is processed at the plants annually. These economic benefits and others have increased each year during the past decade due to plant expansion, employment increases, and additional capital investment. Next, a win for consumers: A study released by the Consumer Federation of America points out that motorists could be saving as much as 8 cents per gallon of gasoline at the pump if oil refiners would blend more ethanol into their gasoline supplies. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a copy of the Consumer Federation of America Report.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I am here today to pay tribute to a great American and a great Nebraskan. J. James Exon served with distinction in the United States Senate from 1979 to 1996 an as Governor of Nebraska from 1970 to 1978. Senator Exon passed away in his hometown of Lincoln, NE last Friday at the age of 83. His funeral services are tomorrow in Lincoln. Jim Exon understood Nebraskans like no one else which explains his popularity with the people of his State. He loved them and they loved him back. He was a Democrat in a highly Republican State, yet he never lost an election in 2 campaigns for Governor and 3 for United States Senate. He understood that Nebraska is a populist state more than it is a partisan state. Most Nebraskans judged him on what he said and what he did, not on his political registration. Jim Exon was a common man. Nebraskans will remember Jim Exon as one of the greatest leaders Nebraska ever had. Anyone who travels around Nebraska today can see the continuing legacy from his quarter century of public service. Jim Exon built on the Nebraska tradition of working together. In that way he carried on the legacy of another giant in Nebraska history, Senator George Norris. Norris founded the unicamera legislature in an effort to improve the workings of government and to achieve results. Jim Exon had the same philosophy. I had the honor of serving in then-Governor Jim Exon's cabinet as Nebraska Director of Insurance. He has been a friend and mentor ever since even as I have followed him as Governor and U.S. Senator. I would frequently call him to seek advice and he would often call to offer it. Now, those calls will cease but I don't think I'll ever stop learning from Jim Exon. The people of Nebraska always appreciated Jim Exon in life as they do now in death. We will miss him but we can all take comfort in the fact that his fingerprints are on more than a quarter century of our history and Nebraska and the United States of America are far better places because of his generous service. As a former poker partner of Jim Exon, I can say that the man was driven to win. He was surprised by those who didn't try to beat him. That attitude carried over into his public life and is ``part and parcel'' of the reason so many Nebraskans are fond of him. He made you feel like he was on your side. He made you feel your issues were important. And most of all, he made you feel proud to be a Nebraskan. Those in public life must face the last great scrutiny when they leave this world for the next. Their careers are examined again. Their friends and foes get one last unanswered say. In the case of Big Jim Exon, who liked to have the last word, I know this must be driving him crazy. In the case of Jim Exon the last word goes to Nebraska, the State and the people he loved so dearly. The State of Nebraska will miss Jim Exon, his wisdom, his humor and his common sense. He is one Nebraskan who from start to finish, and through every day, truly did lead ``the good life.'' I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two editorials from Nebraska newspapers that captured the essence of Jim Exon so eloquently, one from my hometown paper, the McCook Gazette and another from the Omaha World Herald.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, when I was running for the Senate in 2000, I pledged to put partisanship aside to do what is right for Nebraska. I told Nebraskans that if they elected me they could count on me to carefully consider the issues and ultimately do what I think is best. From tax cuts, to Medicare reform to campaign finance reform and now to the battle over stalled judicial nominations, I have distanced myself from the partisan atmosphere in Washington to get things done. Over the past few months and with great intensity over the past two weeks, I have been working with a bipartisan group of moderate-minded Senators to craft an alternative to the ``nuclear option''--the partisan and political attempt to force a change in the rules of the Senate to end filibusters against judicial nominations. The nuclear option is a temporary political fix to a very serious and ongoing problem: The Senate's failure to confirm more than 60 nominations during the last administration and the filibustering of ten of President Bush's nominations. To address this problem, I would prefer a permanent rules change to the Senate over a temporary procedural maneuver like the nuclear option that can be reversed if the White House or the Congress changes hands. The Senate was designed by our Founding Fathers to act as a counter balance to the House of Representatives which represented States based on population. The Senate was the chamber where each State would have equal representation, two Senators and two votes. The intent was to prevent the power in Congress from becoming concentrated in large population States like New York, California, Florida and Texas. In the Senate, a Senator from Nebraska has the same power as a Senator from any other State. As a former Governor and a firm believer in the power of the executive branch to appoint Cabinet members, judges and other officials, I do not support filibustering nominations. In fact, as Nebraska's Senator, I have voted against filibustering judicial appointments in every case but one where I was denied access to background information on the nominee. However, I also do not think the nuclear option is the solution to the impasse over judicial nominations. We have built consensus behind a plan whereby seven Republican Senators pledge to vote against the nuclear option in exchange for an agreement from seven Democrats to allow most of the stalled nominations to get up-or-down votes as well as a pledge to not support filibusters of future nominations except in extraordinary circumstances. Our compromise would be constructed completely within the existing rules of the Senate; it would prevent the nuclear option and the expected fallout of bringing all Senate business, including the energy bill and other important legislation, to a halt; and would preserve the rights of the Senate minority not only for this Congress but for future Congresses regardless of who is in the majority. Protecting the Senate's minority rights might seem to go against the concept of democracy and majority rule. In reality and without the spin on this issue that the special interest groups from both extremes put on this matter, the Senate's minority rights are part of the system of checks and balances that keep any branch of government from dominating the others. The minority rights aren't always about party politics either. Many filibusters throughout history were conducted by Senators who disagreed with the president or the majority of Senators. Filibusters also give small States such as Nebraska an important tool to protect itself from the will of the larger States. The debate over these judges has consumed the Senate and all of Washington. When I am in Nebraska most folks do not ask me about the judicial nomination process. Nebraskans tell me they want an energy bill that will boost ethanol production and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Nebraskans are concerned about the President's plan to divert Social Security funds to private accounts and a myriad of other important legislative priorities. Those who do mention judges and nominations express concern about where the Senate seemed to be headed. Many expressed to me the desire to stop the bickering and get on with the Senate's business. Others offered encouraging words in support of the compromise effort and those comments made me feel that Nebraskans were appreciative of our efforts. The business, that we as Senators are tasked with carrying out for the American people would cease in the Senate if the majority leader follows through on his threats to employ the nuclear option. Nebraskans waiting for the energy bill, a Federal budget, asbestos litigation reform and even confirmation of future judicial nominations are the ones who will suffer if the nuclear option is detonated. With our compromise everybody wins. Those seeking to protect minority rights win. Those seeking to confirm judicial nominations win. Small States win. We accomplished this by working together with common purpose and shared concern for the future of this body. I am proud of what we have accomplished and I will treasure the new friends I made in the process. I thank you, all of you, for working with me, for trusting me, and for joining me in this great challenge. I would like to include all the names of the signatories on the memorandum of understanding as part of my statement. These brave senators are: Senator John McCain, Senator John Warner, Senator Robert Byrd, Senator Mary Landrieu, Senator Olympia Snowe, Senator Ken Salazar, Senator Mike DeWine, Senator Susan Collins, Senator Mark Pryor, Senator Lincoln Chafee, Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Joseph Lieberman, and Senator Daniel Inouye.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Texas, Senator Pryor, and others for supporting and cosponsoring this legislation, which I think is extremely important. There are several points that need to be made about it. One is to point out what it does not do. It does not prevent tolling. Tolling on new construction and on additional construction on existing highways will be continued to be permitted. What it does do, as a matter of fairness, is it stops the equivalent of double taxation on existing highways already paid for by the Federal gas tax and in many cases State gas tax dollars. What this will avoid having is an additional tax now put on those highways in the name and in the form of a toll, perhaps a little less ominous sounding than a tax. If one looks at the net effect of putting a toll on an already paid-for stretch of highway, it amounts to an additional tax, in this case double taxation. The second point that is important to make about this bill is it is a matter of highway safety. All studies will indicate very clearly that if there is a choice between a toll road and a nontoll road, it is most likely that truckers and other drivers will seek to use that nontoll road. In many cases, that is not going to present a matter of safety, but in all too many cases it will redirect traffic and reroute traffic to older, smaller, and less capable roads of handling that additional traffic. That not only will be a burden for the roads and will deteriorate the roads at a faster rate than was originally planned in their construction, but it will also raise the amount of traffic in many cases on two-lane highways or smaller highways and will increase the safety factor. I think it is pretty clear that we would ordinarily not take away the right of a State to do this. But under these circumstances, where we are allowing tolling of existing lanes on the Interstate Highway System, that is bad policy and it is absolutely unfair. This amendment does not affect the State's ability to finance new construction using tolls, as perhaps some thought. But it does affect the right to do it in the case of existing highways. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We worked out the questions that have been raised with respect to the State of Virginia. We believe that has now been handled, and this legislation should pass as part of this important bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I join Senator Brownback in introducing The Rural Community Hospital Assistance Act. This legislation is intended to ensure the future of small rural hospitals by restructuring the way they are reimbursed for Medicare services by basing the reimbursements on actual costs instead of the current pre- set cost structure. Current law allows for very small hospitals--designated Critical Access Hospitals (CAH) to receive cost-based Medicare reimbursements. To qualify as a CAH the facility must have no more than 25 acute care beds. In rural communities, hospital facilities that are slightly larger than the 25 bed limit share with Critical Access Hospitals the same economic conditions, the same treatment challenges, the same disparity in coverage area but do not share the same reimbursement arrangement. These rural hospitals have to compete with larger urban-based hospitals that can perform the same services at drastically reduced costs. They are also discouraged from investing in technology and other methods to improve the quality of care in their communities because those investments are not supported by Medicare reimbursement procedures. The legislation would provide enhanced cost-based Medicare reimbursement by creating a new ``rural'' designation under the Medicare reimbursement system. This new designation would benefit five Nebraska hospitals. Hospitals in McCook, Beatrice, Columbus, Holdrege and Lexington would fall under this new designation, and would have similar benefits provided to nearly sixty other Nebraska hospitals classified under the CAH system. The legislation would also improve the hospitals with critical access status. Sixty CAH facilities in Nebraska already receive enhanced cost- based reimbursements for inpatient and outpatient services. The legislation would further assist these existing CAH facilities by extending the enhanced cost-based reimbursement to certain post-acute and ambulance services and eliminating the current 35-mile test. Rural hospitals cannot continue to provide these services without having Medicare cover the costs. If something is not done, the larger hospitals may be forced to cut back on the number of beds they keep-- and the number of people they care for, and others may be forced to close their doors. These hospitals provide jobs, good wages, health care and economic development opportunity for these communities. Without access to these hospitals, these communities would not survive. The Rural Community Hospital Assistance Act will ensure that the community has access to high quality health care that is affordable to the patient and the provider.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I join Senator Brownback in introducing The Rural Community Hospital Assistance Act. This legislation is intended to ensure the future of small rural hospitals by restructuring the way they are reimbursed for Medicare services by basing the reimbursements on actual costs instead of the current pre- set cost structure. Current law allows for very small hospitals--designated Critical Access Hospitals (CAH) to receive cost-based Medicare reimbursements. To qualify as a CAH the facility must have no more than 25 acute care beds. In rural communities, hospital facilities that are slightly larger than the 25 bed limit share with Critical Access Hospitals the same economic conditions, the same treatment challenges, the same disparity in coverage area but do not share the same reimbursement arrangement. These rural hospitals have to compete with larger urban-based hospitals that can perform the same services at drastically reduced costs. They are also discouraged from investing in technology and other methods to improve the quality of care in their communities because those investments are not supported by Medicare reimbursement procedures. The legislation would provide enhanced cost-based Medicare reimbursement by creating a new ``rural'' designation under the Medicare reimbursement system. This new designation would benefit five Nebraska hospitals. Hospitals in McCook, Beatrice, Columbus, Holdrege and Lexington would fall under this new designation, and would have similar benefits provided to nearly sixty other Nebraska hospitals classified under the CAH system. The legislation would also improve the hospitals with critical access status. Sixty CAH facilities in Nebraska already receive enhanced cost- based reimbursements for inpatient and outpatient services. The legislation would further assist these existing CAH facilities by extending the enhanced cost-based reimbursement to certain post-acute and ambulance services and eliminating the current 35-mile test. Rural hospitals cannot continue to provide these services without having Medicare cover the costs. If something is not done, the larger hospitals may be forced to cut back on the number of beds they keep-- and the number of people they care for, and others may be forced to close their doors. These hospitals provide jobs, good wages, health care and economic development opportunity for these communities. Without access to these hospitals, these communities would not survive. The Rural Community Hospital Assistance Act will ensure that the community has access to high quality health care that is affordable to the patient and the provider.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill designating a Jacksonville courthouse as the John Milton Bryan Simpson United States Courthouse. John Milton Bryan Simpson was born in Kissimmee, FL, in 1903. He was nominated to the Southern District Court of Florida by President Truman in 1950 and to the Federal court of appeals by President Johnson in 1966. Designating this courthouse after the late Judge Simpson is a fitting tribute to a man whose judicial decisions were instrumental in desegregating public facilities in Jacksonville, Orlando, and Daytona Beach. It is important that we remember not only his name but also his legacy of courage during that period of our history. I hope that other members of the Senate will join me in honoring Judge Simpson, a man who was not only a hero to the state of Florida, but a national hero.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill designating a Jacksonville courthouse as the John Milton Bryan Simpson United States Courthouse. John Milton Bryan Simpson was born in Kissimmee, FL, in 1903. He was nominated to the Southern District Court of Florida by President Truman in 1950 and to the Federal court of appeals by President Johnson in 1966. Designating this courthouse after the late Judge Simpson is a fitting tribute to a man whose judicial decisions were instrumental in desegregating public facilities in Jacksonville, Orlando, and Daytona Beach. It is important that we remember not only his name but also his legacy of courage during that period of our history. I hope that other members of the Senate will join me in honoring Judge Simpson, a man who was not only a hero to the state of Florida, but a national hero.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to honor First Lieutenant Edward D. Iwan of Albion, NE. First Lieutenant Iwan was a man who led by example and his leadership deserves the utmost honor. He was raised on a farm near Albion, NE and was a 1994 graduate of Albion High School where he was active in Future Farmers of America and Student Council. First Lieutenant Iwan valued his church, family, and country; and following high school he served 3 years in the United States Army. He then returned to Nebraska and earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Criminal Justice. During college he remained active in the Armed Forces including the ROTC, National Guard and Army Reserve. In December of 2001, First Lieutenant Iwan returned full-time to the Army. During his last tour of duty to our country this soldier was promoted from Second to First Lieutenant, served in several locations, and was deployed to Iraq in January of 2004 with the 2nd Battalion, 2nd Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division. First Lieutenant Edward D. Iwan was killed in action on Friday, November 12, 2004 during sustained combat in Fallujuh, Iraq. This brave soldier led by example to the very end, when even as his unit was under attack, he continued to guide his troops. He was killed when a rocket propelled grenade struck his Bradley Fighting Vehicle. His final heroic moments resulted in the posthumous awards of a Purple Heart and Bronze Star. I offer my sincere thoughts and prayers to the family and friends of First Lieutenant Iwan. His service to our Nation will forever be appreciated. He was an outstanding American, Nebraskan, and soldier who embodied the bravery, spirit, grace and values of our grateful Nation.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to see the passage of S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. This bill has been under consideration in Congress since before I was elected to the Senate. Since my arrival, I have been a proponent of the goals it strives to attain to ensure that abuse of America's bankruptcy laws is curtailed and that Americans who find themselves in unanticipated financial duress and have legitimate reasons to seek bankruptcy protections will have the opportunity to do so. The goal of the bill is to prevent certain abuses of the bankruptcy system. It includes more than five hundred pages of new and reformed law, but key provisions include the following. First and foremost, the bill will curb abuse of the bankruptcy system by implementing a means test to ensure that those who can afford to repay some portion of their unsecured debts are required to do so. Bankruptcy petitioners with relatively high incomes could be required to file under chapter 13 instead of chapter 7, and repay some of their debt out of future income. The means test takes into account the petitioner's income, debt burden, and allowable living expenses, which can vary significantly according to the debtor's place of residence and particular circumstances. Filers who cannot afford to repay at least $6,000 will be given unfettered access to chapter 7 liquidation proceedings. The bill has a safeguard that will allow judges to consider extenuating circumstances in each bankruptcy case. After determining this means test calculation, the judge can then take any ``special circumstances'' into consideration before making a decision to shift the debtor into chapter 13. This will allow judges to consider cases where catastrophic illnesses or other unexpected financial calamities that have impacted a family or individual to the point where their debts are too heavy a load to carry. This provision made many of the amendments considered on this bill redundant. The bill implements an important safeguard for family farmers by making permanent the extension of chapter 12 bankruptcy rules. Chapter 12 has expired every year, necessitating the need for an extension. Last year, Senator Grassley and I worked in a bipartisan fashion to secure the chapter 12 extension. The bill also bumps the exemption level for family farmers from $1.5 million to nearly $3.24 million, which will be adjusted periodically for inflation. The bill includes an important provision to safeguard our children. It contains provisions that strengthen the ability of women and children to collect child support and marital dissolution obligations. This provision will enable some families to continue to provide for the needs of their children. Consumers also benefit from protection measures in this bill. By requiring new minimum payment and introductory rate disclosures for credit cards, consumers will be protected from surprise fees and unexpected rate fluctuation. It also contains a `debtor's bill of rights' requiring that bankruptcy attorneys and petition preparers disclose their services and fees for those services to consumers. It is important to note that no American will be denied access to the bankruptcy system under these reforms. However, those trying to shield their assets while abandoning their financial responsibilities will find it much more difficult to abuse the system and leave their debts for other Americans to cover through higher interest rates and fees. As I mentioned earlier, there were many amendments to this bill offered for consideration. As I considered each of these amendments, I measured the intended impact of each amendment on the bill. In voting against many of the amendments I did so knowing that the groups of individuals singled out by the amendments, such as veterans, individuals with chronic health problems, or military personnel, were already adequately protected in the underlying bill. I carefully considered each amendment offered to the bill on a case by case basis to determine if the amendment improved the bill. Because I believe the bill already covered most of the issues presented in the amendments, it was my determination than many of the amendments did not improve the bill and thus, I voted against them. Again, this bill includes a safeguard for judges to consider ``special circumstances'' like medical bills, deployment to war and other circumstances. In addition to this safeguard, I supported an amendment to the bill that clarified the circumstances that might be considered by a judge. That language provided specific examples a judge might consider including ``a serious medical condition or a call to order to active duty in the armed forces.'' I voted for this amendment because it provided an improvement, in the form of clarity on special circumstances. It is important that creditors, retailers, and small businesses who in good faith provide people with credit do not bare the brunt of the cost when debtors find themselves unable to pay. It is also critical that we protect consumers who have found themselves in unanticipated situations where their inability to meet their debts is beyond their control. And it is important to safeguard consumers against predatory lending practices. I worked hard to find the correct balance among these competing goals on this bill and feel that the Senate did a good job in accomplishing that overriding principal. I am pleased to support this bill because I believe it provides needed improvements to our bankruptcy protection laws that will benefit every American.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President. Today, I introduce legislation that will overturn a new regulation that is putting critical access hospitals (CAH) at risk by arbitrarily lowering the Medicare reimbursement for laboratory services. Sixty rural hospitals in Nebraska will be negatively impacted unless this regulation is reversed. This legislation would repeal a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) regulation that would prohibit critical access hospitals from being reimbursed at-cost for laboratory services, unless patients are ``physically present in a critical access hospital'' when laboratory specimens are collected. Many CAHs provide laboratory services in rural health clinics (RHCs) and nursing homes in smaller, neighboring communities, as well as in home-health settings; however, the elimination of cost-based reimbursement may make it prohibitive for them to continue offering off-site laboratory testing. In short, under the new regulation, lab services would not be reimbursed by CMS unless the patient is at the facility where testing will occur. This change jeopardizes rural Americans' access to care by imposing an additional burden on the frail elderly by requiring them to visit the hospital to get simple lab tests done. The additional time and expense incurred by the patient is unnecessary if the CAR is willing and able to conduct tests at the point of patient care and transport it back to the hospital for analysis. Congress created the CAR program in 1997 to ensure that those in isolated, rural communities have access to health care. To protect the viability of these hospitals, often a community's only source of vital health care services, Congress established cost-based reimbursement for Medicare inpatient and outpatient services--regardless of where the services are provided. The new regulation would fundamentally alter this well-established practice. We have tried to work with CMS to change the rule. In November of 2003, I was joined by 28 Senators in a bipartisan letter to the Administrator of CMS asking for his assistance in constructing a rule that does not penalize CAHs for offering off-site laboratory services. Unfortunately, CMS responded that the rule would stay intact. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Susan Collins. Senator Collins has been a strong advocate for rural health care, and I look forward to working together on this legislation. The Nebraska critical access hospitals affected by the regulation are: Harlan County Health System in Alma Fillmore County Hospital in Geneva Pawnee County Memorial Hospital in Pawnee City Niobrara Valley Hospital Corporation in Lynch Thayer County Health Services in Hebron Kimball County Hospital in Kimball Kearney County Health Services/Hospital in Minden Saunders County Health Services in Wahoo Henderson Health Care Services in Henderson Community Memorial Hospital in Syracuse Garden County Hospital & Nursing Home in Oshkosh Franklin County Memorial Hospital in Franklin Genoa Community Hospital in Genoa Gothenburg Memorial Hospital in Gothenburg Annie Jeffrey Memorial County Health Center in Osceola Brodstone Memorial Nuckolls County Hospital in Superior Webster County Community Hospital in Red Cloud Tilden Community Hospital in Tilden Morrill County Community Hospital in Bridgeport Jefferson Community Health Center in Fairbury Memorial Hospital in Aurora Oakland Memorial Hospital in Oakland St. Francis Memorial Hospital in West Point Alegent Health Memorial Hospital in Schuyler Nemaha County Hospital in Auburn Brown County Hospital in Ainsworth Antelope Memorial Hospital in Neligh Cozad Community Hospital in Cozad Litzenberg Memorial County Hospital in Central City Avera St. Anthony's Hospital in O'Neill Warren Memorial Hospital in Friend Creighton Area Health Services in Creighton Butler County Health Care Center in David City Rock County Hospital in Bassett Boone County Health Center in Albion Callaway District Hospital in Callaway York General Hospital in York Howard County Community Hospital in St. Paul Memorial Hospital CAH in Seward Dundy County Hospital in Benkelman Chadron Community Hospital Health Services in Chadron St. Mary's Hospital in Nebraska City West Holt Memorial Hospital in Atkinson Cherry County Hospital in Valentine Providence Medical Center in Wayne Plainview Public Hospital in Plainview Osmond General Hospital in Osmond Tri Valley Health System in Cambridge Pender Community Hospital in Pender Johnson County Hospital in Tecumseh Chase County Community Hospital in Imperial Community Medical Center in Falls City Valley County Hospital in Ord Crete Area Medical Center in Crete Ogallala Community Hospital in Ogallala Perkins County Health Services in Grant Memorial Health Center in Sidney Gordon Memorial Hospital District in Gordon Memorial Community Hospital in Blair Box Butte General Hospital in Alliance

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President. Today, I introduce legislation that will overturn a new regulation that is putting critical access hospitals (CAH) at risk by arbitrarily lowering the Medicare reimbursement for laboratory services. Sixty rural hospitals in Nebraska will be negatively impacted unless this regulation is reversed. This legislation would repeal a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) regulation that would prohibit critical access hospitals from being reimbursed at-cost for laboratory services, unless patients are ``physically present in a critical access hospital'' when laboratory specimens are collected. Many CAHs provide laboratory services in rural health clinics (RHCs) and nursing homes in smaller, neighboring communities, as well as in home-health settings; however, the elimination of cost-based reimbursement may make it prohibitive for them to continue offering off-site laboratory testing. In short, under the new regulation, lab services would not be reimbursed by CMS unless the patient is at the facility where testing will occur. This change jeopardizes rural Americans' access to care by imposing an additional burden on the frail elderly by requiring them to visit the hospital to get simple lab tests done. The additional time and expense incurred by the patient is unnecessary if the CAR is willing and able to conduct tests at the point of patient care and transport it back to the hospital for analysis. Congress created the CAR program in 1997 to ensure that those in isolated, rural communities have access to health care. To protect the viability of these hospitals, often a community's only source of vital health care services, Congress established cost-based reimbursement for Medicare inpatient and outpatient services--regardless of where the services are provided. The new regulation would fundamentally alter this well-established practice. We have tried to work with CMS to change the rule. In November of 2003, I was joined by 28 Senators in a bipartisan letter to the Administrator of CMS asking for his assistance in constructing a rule that does not penalize CAHs for offering off-site laboratory services. Unfortunately, CMS responded that the rule would stay intact. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Susan Collins. Senator Collins has been a strong advocate for rural health care, and I look forward to working together on this legislation. The Nebraska critical access hospitals affected by the regulation are: Harlan County Health System in Alma Fillmore County Hospital in Geneva Pawnee County Memorial Hospital in Pawnee City Niobrara Valley Hospital Corporation in Lynch Thayer County Health Services in Hebron Kimball County Hospital in Kimball Kearney County Health Services/Hospital in Minden Saunders County Health Services in Wahoo Henderson Health Care Services in Henderson Community Memorial Hospital in Syracuse Garden County Hospital & Nursing Home in Oshkosh Franklin County Memorial Hospital in Franklin Genoa Community Hospital in Genoa Gothenburg Memorial Hospital in Gothenburg Annie Jeffrey Memorial County Health Center in Osceola Brodstone Memorial Nuckolls County Hospital in Superior Webster County Community Hospital in Red Cloud Tilden Community Hospital in Tilden Morrill County Community Hospital in Bridgeport Jefferson Community Health Center in Fairbury Memorial Hospital in Aurora Oakland Memorial Hospital in Oakland St. Francis Memorial Hospital in West Point Alegent Health Memorial Hospital in Schuyler Nemaha County Hospital in Auburn Brown County Hospital in Ainsworth Antelope Memorial Hospital in Neligh Cozad Community Hospital in Cozad Litzenberg Memorial County Hospital in Central City Avera St. Anthony's Hospital in O'Neill Warren Memorial Hospital in Friend Creighton Area Health Services in Creighton Butler County Health Care Center in David City Rock County Hospital in Bassett Boone County Health Center in Albion Callaway District Hospital in Callaway York General Hospital in York Howard County Community Hospital in St. Paul Memorial Hospital CAH in Seward Dundy County Hospital in Benkelman Chadron Community Hospital Health Services in Chadron St. Mary's Hospital in Nebraska City West Holt Memorial Hospital in Atkinson Cherry County Hospital in Valentine Providence Medical Center in Wayne Plainview Public Hospital in Plainview Osmond General Hospital in Osmond Tri Valley Health System in Cambridge Pender Community Hospital in Pender Johnson County Hospital in Tecumseh Chase County Community Hospital in Imperial Community Medical Center in Falls City Valley County Hospital in Ord Crete Area Medical Center in Crete Ogallala Community Hospital in Ogallala Perkins County Health Services in Grant Memorial Health Center in Sidney Gordon Memorial Hospital District in Gordon Memorial Community Hospital in Blair Box Butte General Hospital in Alliance

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I am offering legislation with Senator Mike Enzi to remove chicory from the fruit and vegetable, FAV, planting prohibition on Direct and Counter-Cyclical Program, DCP, base acres. Diversification is a common theme among farm producers throughout the country. If we expect our producers to survive, we have to give them more options for diversifying agriculture. Our responsibility should include the elimination of the disincentive to produce alternative crops. This bill offers a clear opportunity to grow a chicory industry, creating a new revenue stream and helping to diversify agriculture production. The State of Nebraska currently has the only chicory processing facility in the United States. There is a strong interest from producers in Nebraska and Wyoming to increase the production of chicory, due to its relatively low input cost and opportunity for high profits. Only 800 to 1,000 acres of the crop are expected to be planted in 2005. Farm bill policies are simply blocking the prospects for growth in the chicory industry. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 currently provides three exceptions--lentils, mung beans, and dry peas--to the FAV planting prohibition on DCP base acres. Chicory should be added to this list of exceptions.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I am offering legislation with Senator Mike Enzi to remove chicory from the fruit and vegetable, FAV, planting prohibition on Direct and Counter-Cyclical Program, DCP, base acres. Diversification is a common theme among farm producers throughout the country. If we expect our producers to survive, we have to give them more options for diversifying agriculture. Our responsibility should include the elimination of the disincentive to produce alternative crops. This bill offers a clear opportunity to grow a chicory industry, creating a new revenue stream and helping to diversify agriculture production. The State of Nebraska currently has the only chicory processing facility in the United States. There is a strong interest from producers in Nebraska and Wyoming to increase the production of chicory, due to its relatively low input cost and opportunity for high profits. Only 800 to 1,000 acres of the crop are expected to be planted in 2005. Farm bill policies are simply blocking the prospects for growth in the chicory industry. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 currently provides three exceptions--lentils, mung beans, and dry peas--to the FAV planting prohibition on DCP base acres. Chicory should be added to this list of exceptions.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, thank you for the opportunity to speak today about a fellow Nebraskan who not only gave back to his State, but gave much more in ways of laughter to all of America. I am speaking of Johnny Carson, beloved by his family and friends, cherished by fans, and respected by his fellow comedians. Johnny Carson was a man whose comedic talent always looked effortless, yet set the highest of standards for his performances. Mr. Carson passed away at the age of 79. Mr. Carson took over the ``Tonight Show'' in 1962, and preferring to retire at the top of his game, voluntarily stepped down in 1992. For 30 years, Johnny Carson tucked Americans into their beds all the while making them laugh before they shut their eyes to sleep. Between 10 to 15 million people watched Johnny deliver his hilarious monologue each night. Mr. Carson should be honored not only for all the laughter he brought to so many American homes, but also all that he brought to his hometown, Norfolk, NE. Johnny Carson was and will remain Nebraska's favorite native son. He always remembered his roots, and often made visits home to ``give back'' to his humble, rural community which he loved. There is no question that all of Norfolk loved him back. He was a philanthropist, a father, a son and to most, a cherished nightly friend. Mr. Carson shielded his political views as carefully as he did his private life, insisting that the only message of his show was entertainment. Johnny Carson is a man that could bring people together, regardless of political or religious affiliation, regardless of race or gender; he was a man of character. He will be remembered and recognized today and always as a man who gave his all and never forgot the few.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I am offering legislation with Senator Pete Domenici and Senator Larry Craig to allow small rural communities more time to meet an onerous and financially burdensome water quality regulation that is being imposed on local governments by the Environmental Protection Agency. The bipartisan Rural Community Arsenic Relief Act (RCARA) will amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to exempt small rural communities with population of up to ten thousand from the EPA's strict requirement to limit arsenic in drinking water to 10 parts per billion by January 1, 2006. Currently the allowable level of arsenic in drinking water is 50 ppb. As a former governor who fought against unfunded Federal mandates from Washington, I understand the impact a policy such as this can have on local budgets. Small rural communities simply don't have the resources and tax base to meet the arsenic standard arbitrarily set by the EPA. This unfunded mandate is a strain on local government budgets and will drive up local taxes. It is not right to ask the elected officials of our small communities to spend their limited funds on risks that we are learning are not as dangerous as they have been portrayed. This legislation will allow local governments more time to plan for and absorb the costs of meeting the EPA's standards for arsenic. With each passing day it is increasingly evident that small communities will not be able to count on any immediate federal assistance in converting their water systems to meet the new arsenic standard. This bipartisan bill represents one means of giving more time to these communities, most of which have lived with arsenic--a widely distributed naturally occurring element--for ages. Rural communities across America are grasping for solutions to comply with the new arsenic standard. Many reach the same conclusion--it is just too expensive. RCARA acknowledges that this is happening, recognizes that a one-size-fits-all solution doesn't work, and provides a framework to protect public health, while at the same time giving communities the flexibility they need to comply. State officials in Nebraska estimate it could cost communities $120 million--$176 million to comply with the standard. Many communities, fearing that this regulation could bankrupt them, are considering dramatically raising rates for drinking water to cover the cost of new treatment and equipment. Extending the deadline is crucial for taxpayers and ratepayers throughout the country. This bill allows small communities to adopt a locally supported public health policy as an alternative to the one prescribed by EPA. In many communities, the rule can reasonably be expected to more than double water rates on low-income families without improving the quality of their water in any appreciative manner. Our bill provides a reasonable amount of time for our small communities to understand and implement EPA's requirements, without bankrupting the system. It is the least we should do.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, the United States is blessed with an abundance of natural resources and cutting-edge technology that leads the world in agriculture. We all agree that the richest resource of American agriculture is its people the--farm and ranch families-- whose efforts drive the productivity of our Agriculture industry for food, fiber and fuel. American agriculture today is a complex business, very different from what it was even a decade ago. Adoption of modern technology, improved mechanization, and changing methods of production, marketing, and financing by energetic farmers and ranchers has changed the landscape of our rural areas. Our producers, diversified by size and enterprise, support an economic system that is, without doubt, the envy of the world. It's critical to understand the diversity of American agriculture and how it influences our daily lives--whether we work or we don't work in agriculture or whether we live or we don't live on a farm. This is why I support the nomination of Nebraska Governor Mike Johanns to lead this agency that is responsible for the safety of meat, poultry and egg products, for opening new markets and reopening those currently closed to U.S. agricultural products, for providing food aid to those who have the need, for protecting soil, water and wildlife, and for administering food nutrition programs. Governor Johanns' qualifications to lead the Department of Agriculture are--at the core--his upbringing and his receptiveness to change and diversification--essential elements for an industry driven by ingenuity and fair competition. Nebraska is a world-class leader in producing a high-quality, abundant, and affordable food supply. It leads the Nation in total red meat and dry bean production, and is a significant player in the production of alfalfa hay, corn, grain sorghum, soybeans, winter wheat, livestock, and popcorn. Nearly 8 million acres of Nebraska's field crops benefit from irrigation, through approximately 24,000 miles of streams and rivers, reservoirs and aquifers. In recent years, the importance of maintaining water quality and quantity in times of severe drought conditions has added to the complexity of agricultural production. Mike Johanns has governed in these times of great uncertainty and is well aware of the continuing needs to deal with these most difficult times. Governor Johanns presents a list of qualifications that will be of considerable benefit not only to Nebraska and the Midwest, but throughout the nation. He is an experienced leader and a strong advocate with solid common sense solutions to the difficult questions presented to him. We've talked about the need for a bipartisan approach in this important job and I know he agrees how important that will be. I look forward to continue working with Governor Johanns, as Secretary of Agriculture to improve drought monitoring and forecasting, to advance renewable fuels initiatives increasing the use of ethanol and biodiesel in our transportation fuels just to name a few. In addition, the opportunity to create new and innovative rural development programs and reverse the trend of out-migration from the smallest communities has never been more important. Today's nominee not only has the leadership experience but he also has the experience of having worked to develop such programs. Governor Johanns and I have discussed and agree that it is important for the Secretary of Agriculture to work in a bipartisan manner with Congress. With a Farm Bill reauthorization effort nearing, I look forward to working cooperatively with him to develop a practical approach to our national agriculture policy that will support and promote our agriculture products and producers. The new Farm Bill should further the goals of consumer safety and confidence in our nation's food supply, without compromising the ability of our producers to compete--freely and fairly--in the global marketplace. I was pleased to learn of the administration's selection of Mike Johanns as the Secretary of Agriculture. I have said repeatedly, and believe thoroughly, the person who will administer the farm bill and build for the future of agriculture in America needs to be somebody with Midwestern agricultural experience. Governor Johanns has that kind of experience and that perspective and in my opinion will serve the administration and the country well.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, Hayes Center is in the southwestern part of my home state of Nebraska. Villa Hayes is in the southwestern part of the Republic of Paraguay. I rise today to highlight the unusual connection between these two towns, named for the same American President, which have forged strong ties despite the distance between them. Thanks to a historian's efforts, these towns share a bond that affirms the power of international friendship and the enduring legacy of President Rutherford B. Hayes. In 1878, President Hayes arbitrated a boundary dispute between Paraguay and Argentina, awarding new territory to Paraguay. The country named a department and a city, near the national capital of Asuncion, for him. John Fatherley of Chicopee, MA, is a historian who studies President Hayes. During college studies in Paraguay, he learned about the country's respect for our 19th President, whose decision in 1878 enlarged Paraguay by 30 percent. Mr. Fatherley has since sought to promote ties between Hayes Center and Villa Hayes. He has traveled to Nebraska to educate Hayes Center students about the President for whom their town is named. He has also brought documents on President Hayes from the U.S. to Paraguay. In return, Villa Hayes presented Mr. Fatherley with its town seal, which he donated to the Hayes Center Historical Society in Nebraska. Nebraskans are fortunate to share this connection with our South American friends and to have benefited over the years from Mr. Fatherley's admirable efforts. He has promoted international cooperation between Nebraskans and Paraguayans and honored the memory of a president too often forgotten. In an age when the well-being of any nation depends on so many others, it is more important than ever to strengthen the ties between Americans and our fellow human beings around the world. I wish to express my admiration, therefore, for Mr. Fatherley and the towns of Hayes Center, NE, and Villa Hayes, Paraguay. Mr. Fatherley's work has revealed a small but important piece of common ground between the United States and Paraguay. He has also taught students in a small Nebraska community about the world beyond their walls. Both these things are essential to continued American prosperity and leadership in these challenging times.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I thank my colleague for the opportunity to join with him to support this bipartisan legislation which we will be working to get passed in January. As my colleague said, the new command will be a functional rather than a regional command, just like the U.S. Strategic Command in my State of Nebraska, and the U.S. Special Operations Command in Florida, the U.S. Joint Forces Command in Virginia, and U.S. Transportation Command in Illinois. As stated, the goal of this new command will be to organize the eight combat support intelligence elements within the Department of Defense under a single military commander. These elements will include bringing together what are often referred to as the alphabet agencies. Most people know them more by their initials than they do by the actual names. But it will bring together the DIA, or the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine intelligence offices. All total, these offices employ thousands with budgets in the billions. Eighty percent of all intelligence gathered by the U.S. Government is used by our armed services, and the ability to rapidly disseminate this information, as well as share the information, often means the difference between success and failure in the field. This new combatant commander will streamline the flow of information from our combat support elements to the warfighter, an important part, an important role for this agency. The responsibility of the military intelligence commander will include intelligence collection and analysis in response to requests from the national intelligence director. As we know, this past week we all heard a great deal about whether it should be a NID, national intelligence director, or a NIC, whether it should be about directing or coordinating. This commander will act as the single entry point for the NID to assign military intelligence capabilities, and will strengthen the coordination of those efforts. This will strengthen coordination between the NID and the Department of Defense because without one central contact inside DOD who can manage the military intelligence capabilities of the Department, it will be an extraordinary challenge for somebody outside DOD, such as the NID, to proficiently administer eight separate military intelligence assets. This new command will prepare and submit to the Secretary of Defense and the NID recommendations and budget proposals for military intelligence forces and activities. Additionally, the commander will establish priorities for military intelligence that coincide with national priorities established by the NID and approved by the President. The commander will also ensure interoperability of intelligence sharing within the Department of Defense and within the intelligence community as a whole, as directed by the NID. The commander will answer to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and the President, and will represent the Department of Defense in the intelligence community under the NID. I realize some of my colleagues may be asking the question whether this new position will add yet another layer to military intelligence- gathering agencies, but consider the fact that no military coordinator currently exists. So I do not see this as another layer; I view it as a necessary position that DOD has been far too long without. Perhaps if the commander for military intelligence already existed, then discovering how command was severed at Abu Ghraib might have been easier. The tragedy there likely would not have been prevented entirely, but there certainly would have been more direct lines of accountability with a combatant commander for military intelligence. This is an opportunity for us to debate the issue at this time, but the opportunity to pass it after the first of the year will be one that I think we must, in fact, take up. It will improve coordination and will not undermine the direction of the national intelligence director, but it will, in fact, help harmonize in the sharing of intelligence throughout the entire military and intelligence community. I thank my colleague from Georgia for the opportunity to participate, and I congratulate the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for doing an outstanding job in reforming our intelligence-gathering agencies' operations. It is not an easy task. We think this could be a part of it, but rather than have any effect in slowing down the operation of what we are doing today, we think we can take this up at another time.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I support our amendment to provide emergency drought disaster assistance for farmers and ranchers who have suffered under a prolonged--in some areas a 5 year--drought. I am pleased to be working with Senators Conrad, Baucus, Dorgan, Burns, Roberts and Brownback to offer this amendment. It is a bipartisan amendment, with strong support. This amendment has the strong support of our national farm organizations, such as the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Farmers Union. Nebraska's facing its fifth straight year of record drought, which as you know has a damaging effect on the agriculture industry, as well as the main street of every Nebraska community. The same is true in Montana, North Dakota, Kansas and other States as well. Droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes, are natural disasters and deserve to be treated the same. Multiple years of drought have cost our Nation billions of dollars in economic losses and have many farmers wondering whether they'll be able to carry on. We were successful in 2003 in getting assistance to our producers, but only at half the amount necessary. We passed a $3.1 billion assistance package that was offset with farm bill programs--a plan I opposed. I offered a $6 billion emergency assistance package that if it had passed; we probably wouldn't be here today seeking what we were denied in 2003. I have continuously worked for the additional assistance we have been unable to secure. I have repeatedly called on the President and Congress to support funding for drought aid for our farmers and ranchers, and to fully fund the crop and livestock disaster programs so critical to Nebraska's farmers and ranchers. This is of the utmost importance to farmers and ranchers in Nebraska and across all the areas suffering from this natural disaster. The estimated cost for this disaster assistance is $2.9 billion. The assistance will be provided through emergency assistance in the form of a Corp Disaster Program, Quality Loss Program and a Livestock Assistance Program. This assistance is targeted to those who need it most. It will help recover eligible losses sustained by producers in counties designated as primary or continuous disaster areas during the 2003 or 2004 production years. Producers can choose to claim losses for either the 2003 or 2004 production years, but not both years. This flexibility will allow for ranchers and producers to seek assistance for the year with the greatest negative impact on their farm operation. I am happy to report that a similar effort is underway in the House of Representatives. Nebraska's own Tom Osborne is leading a bipartisan effort to secure relief for agriculture producers. I am hopeful that my Senate colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment. We must respond to the crisis this drought has caused in Nebraska and our Midwestern neighbors.