Ben Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

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

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I thank the minority assistant leader and my friend from Massachusetts for this courtesy to have this opportunity to speak for a few minutes about the first responder issue, as it relates to legislation before us today. Since September 11, States and communities of all sizes have made great strides in preparing for another possible terrorist attack. Based on the National Strategy for Homeland Security's principle of shared responsibility, Federal, State, and local governments, together with the private sector and the American people, have worked in partnership to ensure that our first responders are well equipped and well trained. States and local governments are responsible for preparing and implementing multi-year plans to ensure our Nation's first responders receive the equipment and training they require so that we are not only securing our homeland, but we are actually secure in each of our hometowns. The Senate's Homeland Security appropriations bill, S. 2537, slashes the primary first responder program by 45 percent, or $760 million. My amendment would restore this funding back to the fiscal year 2004 total of $1.7 billion. Called the State Homeland Security Grant Program, this is the primary source of coordinated funding for first responders. SHSGP, as it is referred to, allows States and local governments to build and maintain a base capacity by funding essential prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities within the State and across regional boundaries. Eligible uses include equipment, training, and exercises necessary to ensure our first responders are prepared and that both urban and rural critical infrastructure is protected, something I am sure the Presiding Officer is interested in, coming from the neighboring State of Wyoming. At least 80 percent of SHSGP is passed through to those who protect our hometowns: firefighters, police, EMTs, and other local emergency managers across the country. Nearly every State, even those that get additional money from the Urban Areas Security Initiative, UASI, will suffer a net loss in fiscal year 2004 under the Senate bill. Nearly half of all those States will see their efforts cut almost in half. Funding cuts of this magnitude will mean that private/public partnerships will have to be dismantled, and countless hours of planning, training, and exercise will have to be retooled. Regional alliances will fall dormant. Training classes and exercises will be cancelled, and equipment purchases will be put on hold. In short, hometown security will suffer immeasurably. The citizens of America expect that everything possible is being done to prevent another terrorist attack, and they expect that if another tragedy were to occur, the response and recovery will be immediate, well coordinated, and well trained. This vital work takes dedicated professionals executing well-rehearsed plans. I have watched the vote counts on other amendments to this bill, and unfortunately it is clear that this amendment will not pass. This is extremely disappointing. It is disappointing to me and should be to all rural areas. Because I realize this will fall short of the required 60 votes, for the sake of time I will not force a vote on my amendment, but I do hope that as debate on funding for this important program proceeds, that everyone will come to the same conclusion I have: These funding cuts will undermine regional efforts and harm every State's ability to protect both its urban and rural critical infrastructure. Whether it is the protection of an urban shopping mall or the prevention of a rural bioterrorism incident that affects our food and water supply, critical infrastructures in every State must be protected. If our goal is to make sure our homeland and hometown security is as strong as the weakest link, we must ensure that every link is strong and that there is no weak link in our protection. That includes food and local areas, as well as urban and populated areas. All must be protected. I will make one further point on this subject. It is my understanding that an amendment may be offered that affects the funding formula for the State homeland security grant program. Currently, 38 percent of SHSGP funds are dispersed based upon a minimum funding formula, and the remaining 62 percent are dispersed to states based upon population. As I understand it, the amendment that may be offered would require the Department of Homeland Security to change the 62 percent portion of the funds from a population based formula into a high threat and population density formula. As someone who comes from a rural State, I plan to oppose this amendment and hope that my colleagues from smaller States and rural areas will do the same. The proposed funding formula would have the effect of shifting a lot of the current funding from the smaller states and sending it to our largest States that meet loosely defined criteria such as threat, vulnerability, and the presence of critical infrastructure. I wholeheartedly support funding for the first responder efforts in our major metropolitan areas, which is why I strongly support the current Urban Area Security Initiative program, which sends extra funding to these large areas. But I do not support paying for these programs by shifting funds away from our rural, less-populated states. Nebraska would lose $8 million under this proposed formula. I can't tell you how critical that is to a state like Nebraska and to all the communities in Nebraska that are trying to follow through on the preparedness plans the Department of Homeland Security asked them to implement. And a shift in formula like this one would pull the rug out from under them. One needs to only look at the most recent terrorist attack in Russia and see that this attack was in a school in a rural area, and it is easy to understand that we must not be lulled into thinking that the rural areas are not going to be affected by any kind of terrorist activity. Our country is only as safe as our weakest vulnerability. The State Homeland Security Grant Program has already been cut by 45 percent in this bill. Shifting funds away from our less populated states will further exacerbate the problem. We need to make sure every part of the country is prepared, regardless of location. I thank my friend from Massachusetts for his courtesy, and I yield the floor. Amendment No. 3625, Withdrawn I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment at this time.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I believe this is a matter of great importance to the security of our country. The amendment would eliminate funding for an A-76 competitive outsourcing study of immigration information officer, contact representative, and investigative assistant positions within the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, or the BCIS, at the Department of Homeland Security. As a general principle, I do not oppose privatization of Government jobs where doing so clearly is in the best interest of the most efficient use of taxpayers' dollars and is in the best interest of not only our Government but of the taxpayers. I do believe, though, that there are some types of jobs that can and should be performed by Government, as well as some jobs and services that can be performed by private contractors. I believe that deciding which jobs are appropriate for privatization should be a very careful and deliberative process. It should not be done to meet arbitrary quotas. In the case of these particular BCIS jobs, I believe DHS has made a mistake in subjecting them to an A-76 study. In this instance in particular, I do not believe privatizing these particular jobs is appropriate or will best serve the interests of our country. I believe these jobs are intricately tied to the national security of our country and therefore are inherently governmental. These jobs require a high level of discretion and of very specific knowledge of immigration laws to determine who is eligible for immigration benefits. These workers are charged with weeding out fraud in the immigration system and identifying those with criminal histories or those who could be potential terrorists. These are the types of jobs that are inherently governmental in that they are vital to protecting our country from security threats. The DHS's own job descriptions for these positions illustrate why these positions are inherently governmental. For example, immigration information officers are required to have the ``skill to identify fraudulent documents in order to prevent persons from appealing for benefits for which they are not eligible.'' They are also required to have ``knowledge and skill in interviewing techniques and observation of applicants in order to determine if an applicant is misrepresenting the facts in order to appear eligible for a benefit.'' In addition, according to the DHS's own job descriptions, workers in these positions are exposed to highly confidential information and may at times be exposed to national security information. They must exercise their discretion by observing and questioning individuals for the purpose of determining if those individuals are attempting to submit applications under fraudulent situations and reasons. This can lead to the arrest or detention and subsequent deportation of those aliens and may lead to the prosecution of cases. In Nebraska alone, there are 100 workers within the BCIS performing these functions, and I have heard from them directly about why they believe their duties are inherently governmental. Quite frankly, I agree with them. I believe it would be unwise, especially in our country's current heightened state of alert to terrorist threats, to outsource jobs that are so closely linked to the security and safety of our country. Weeding out potential fraud in our immigration system must indeed remain a responsibility of Government employees, especially when the perpetrator of the fraud may be a dangerous criminal or a terrorist. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support Senator Leahy's and my amendment and prevent these jobs from being privatized. I thank the Senator from Vermont. Amendment No. 3582 to Amendment No. 3581

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I have cosponsored, as my distinguished colleague from Vermont has indicated, an amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill, and I ask unanimous consent that Senator Harry Reid of Nevada be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in support of this request for additional disaster assistance in the wake of Hurricanes Charley and Frances, and the devastation they have brought on the State of Florida. I, along with my Nebraska constituents, send our thoughts and prayers to those in Florida dealing with the physical and emotional impact of these hurricanes. In Nebraska, we sympathize with the victims of natural disasters, whether they be caused by hurricanes, floods, or tornadoes. Presently, my State is facing its fifth straight year of record drought, which as you know has a damaging effect on the agricultural industry, as well the mainstreet of every Nebraska community. Multiple years of drought have cost our Nation billions of dollars in economic losses and has many farmers wondering whether they will be able to carry on. They are not in this position because of poor planning or some unfortunate weather incident but rather as the result of a continuous natural disaster that once again has turned upside down the hopes and work that went into planting this spring. This drought is a disaster--it is been a disaster for agriculture and a disaster for rural communities, which depend so much on agriculture. I think that going home over the August recess certainly gave all of us from States hit by drought even more reason to seek assistance. I do not want to detract from the importance of sending disaster assistance to those in Florida. However, I believe that my colleagues must join me in casting a greater spotlight on the importance of helping our Nation's farmers and ranchers recover from the impacts of the current drought. Therefore, I would like to join the Senator from South Dakota in calling on the President and the 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. A drought relief package is of the utmost importance to farmers and ranchers in Nebraska and across all those rural America parts suffering from this natural disaster. It will make the difference between keeping their farms or being forced out of agriculture--to the detriment of all of us who depend on the ``breadbasket of the world.'' We must seek this assistance in order to ensure that our rural communities are not allowed to wither under the worst conditions in over half of a century. I hope my Senate colleagues will join me in supporting drought assistance this year. Like any other natural disaster, this drought has hurt the very livelihoods of good, hardworking people who struggle every day to stay afloat even under normal conditions. It is imperative that we respond to this crisis in rural America. I thank my colleagues for this opportunity to address an issue of great importance to my State.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I am pleased and proud to congratulate a leading Nebraska company that this year is celebrating its 50th anniversary as the world's preeminent mechanized irrigation manufacturer. Valmont Industries' development of the center pivot technology has revolutionized agricultural production, not just in the United States, but around the world. At the same time, this technology uses far less water than other traditional means of irrigation such as flood and drip, and preserves water quality by reducing nonpoint source pollution because it lessens the use of pesticides and fertilizers. Valmont's products allow us to grow significantly more crops and produce greater crop revenue, all while protecting our vital natural resources. I am sure my colleagues are familiar with the center pivot. When you fly across the country and see huge circles in the middle of farmland, those are created by the center pivots manufactured in my home town of McCook and Valley, where they were first developed. In fact, the brand name is popularly known as Valley pivots. You can also see Valley center pivots and linear and corner machines at work in over 100 countries. All told, the company maintains irrigation manufacturing and distribution facilities in five states and six countries on six continents. I worked with Valmont officials during my tenure as Governor, and I continue to work with Mogens Bay, chairman and chief executive officer for Valmont; Bob Meaney, senior vice president; and Tom Spears, president of the Irrigation Division; as well as the company's Washington representatives at Bob Lawrence & Associates. In addition, I am also quite familiar with other Valmont products, since it is also the world's foremost manufacturer of engineered poles for electrical transmission, lighting, traffic signs and signals, and wireless communications. Today, a half century after Bob Daugherty improved and marketed the first center pivot, Valmont has produced an estimated 145,000 center pivots, linear, and corner machines, which successfully irrigate more than 14 million crop acres, and can effectively promote the growth of virtually any crop. I congratulate Valmont and its dedicated workers for their half century of innovation and initiative as well as for their success in helping to feed the world while protecting our environment. These are truly remarkable legacies.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, August 3, 2004 marks the 60th anniversary of what is believed to be the worst military aviation disaster in the history of the State of Nebraska. At 8:25 p.m. an Army C-47 transport airplane dropped from the sky near Naper, NE, killing 28 brave World War II servicemen. The dead included 26 Army pilots, one flight surgeon, and an aircraft crew chief. They were traveling from the Bruning, NE air base to Pierre, SD to complete their training before being shipped off to war. On August 8, Naper Historical Society of Boyd County, NE will dedicate a permanent memorial to the Naper 28. They raised funds for the Naper 28 Memorial through a donation campaign. What is perhaps most touching about this fundraising effort is not the funds themselves, not even the speed with which they came, but it was the sentiments attached by way of note or letter from other World War II veterans or their widows. At the time of the disaster, very little attention was paid to this aviation disaster. Though it commemorates the tragedy that befell the Naper 28, the memorial at Knollcrest Cemetery in Naper, NE, also bears witness to a more enduring lesson in bravery and valor and preserving the freedom that defines America. No doubt, the town of Naper, and citizens throughout Boyd County are delighted finally to have a fitting memorial for the 28 servicemen who lost their lives in 1944. It is fitting that the Naper 28 Memorial will be dedicated the same year as the National World War II Memorial in Washington, DC. This year marks an especially commemorative year for America's veterans, and is a year when all Americans gratefully remember and honor the bravery and valor with which America fought in World War II. Anniversaries, like the 60th anniversary of D-Day and the 60th anniversary of the Naper 28, are important reminders about our history as a Nation, and about our character as Americans. As America pauses to recall the thankless bravery and sacrifice of those who died protecting our freedoms on D-Day, the people of Naper and all Nebraska also pause to remember the tragedy and sacrifices and lost opportunities of the Naper 28. I submit the names of the brave souls of the Naper 28, as they appear on the memorial in Naper, NE, as further commemoration of their sacrifice. They are as follows: The Naper 28 F/O John F. Albert 2nd Lt. Willam F. Acree 2nd Lt. William Armstrong 2nd Lt. Millard F. Arnett, Jr. 2nd Lt. Herbert A. Blakeslee 2nd Lt. George E. Broeckmann 2nd Lt. Robert K. Bohle 2nd Lt. Jack L. Brown 2nd Lt. Richard E. Brown 2nd Lt. James C. Burke, Jr. 2nd Lt. Donald J. Clarkson 2nd Lt. Lloyd L. Hemphill Sgt. Orson I. Hutslar 2nd Lt. Arthur Johnson Capt. Clayton R. Jolley Capt. Leonard C. Jolley 2nd Lt. Gerald C. Keller 2nd Lt. Jack E. Lytle Capt. Stanley J. Meadows 2nd Lt. Robert E. Nesbitt, Jr. 2nd Lt. Bernard W. O'Malley 2nd Lt. Anthony J. Paladino 2nd Lt. Bruce S. Patterson 2nd Lt. Lelan A. Pope 2nd Lt. Charles V. Porter Capt. Leslie B. Roberts 2nd Lt. Pat N. Roberts, Jr. 2nd Lt. LaVon H. Sehorn

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I rise today to honor SFC Linda Tarango-Griess of Sutton, NE. Sergeant First Class Tarango-Griess served bravely in the 267th Ordnance Company of the Nebraska National Guard, which was deployed in February from Fort Riley, KS. She selflessly gave her time and her expertise to preserving American ideals through her service to the Guard. At the time of her death, she was serving in Samarra, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near her convoy vehicle. Those who knew Sergeant First Class Tarango-Griess were continually inspired by the example of leadership she set, her positive attitude and her confidence were great assets to her and her colleagues. Her family recently set up a memorial in North Platte, NE. One poster, especially, demonstrated the ongoing optimism that she helped others to see. This poster reads: ``We will miss you. No goodbyes. See you later.'' My thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of SFC Linda Tarango-Griess, but she will remain as a beacon of dedication and patriotism to all Americans from her shining example of commitment through her service to the Armed Forces. sergeant jeremy fischer

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to honor SGT Jeremy Fischer of Lincoln, NE. SGT Jeremy Fischer bravely dedicated his life to our Nation through his service with the 267th Ordnance Company of the Nebraska National Guard. Sergeant Fischer was deployed in February from Fort Riley, KS, and was serving in Samarra, Iraq at the time of his death on July 11, 2004, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his convoy vehicle. While SGT Fischer was in Iraq, he used his knowledge and skills to serve the National Guard as a chemical repair specialist, and was part of a team that installed armor kits on Humvees to protect soldiers. Those who knew him know that he embodied all the qualities people admire about Nebraskans. His presence was an asset in any situation. His warmth and personality will be missed among his fellow troops, his friends, and especially his wife and his family. I extend my sincerest thoughts and my deepest thanks to the family of SGT Fischer. He will be remembered for the service he has given to the American Armed Forces, and the ultimate sacrifice he has made for our country.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I would like to share with you and my colleagues my appreciation for Neal Corey of McCook, NE. Neal is my cousin and a role model to Americans, a preserver of history, and a perpetuator of tradition. Neal Corey, who is now a retired conductor for Burlington Northern Railroad, is the third generation of his family to maintain a farm in Red Willow County, a homestead that is still on its original site in Nebraska. A pioneer of subsurface irrigation in his county, Neal has helped others in his area to set up similar irrigation systems during his retirement to improve farming efficiency. As you can see, Neal has been perpetuating tradition and preserving history through a lifetime of service to his family at the farm, to the railroad, and to his neighbors. History has always interested him, but it literally took a greater vessel to move him to become an active part in preserving it. Neal's curiosities were piqued when he read a small article in the hometown newspaper we share, the McCook Gazette, about the recreation of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. After Neal sent in his $50 membership fee to the Discovery Expedition of Saint Charles, MO, he decided that wasn't enough. No, Neal decided he wanted to contribute something more than $50. So he looked into what it would take to be a part of this expedition. He thought it might be fun to get out and do some ``camping'' during his retirement. It was only during his training for the expedition, when he found himself wearing historical fashions that include long- sleeved cotton shirts, canvas pants, and a wool army coat during the summertime, that he realized just which kind of camping he would do. To this day, Neal selflessly contributes his time, his enthusiasm, and his energy to the Discovery Expedition of Saint Charles, MO. Through this expedition, Neal's goal is to preserve the history made by Meriwether Lewis and William Clark when they first set out to explore the unknown of a new Nation. Each year, the Discovery Expedition reenacts a different part of the original river journey--a journey that began in 1803 in Elizabeth, PA, and extends to Great Falls, MT. This year, Neal will be participating in the Nebraska portion of the river journey of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. This portion is scheduled to reach the Missouri River around July 16, and will include week-long activities at Fort Calhoun, NE, beginning July 30. I have been so inspired by Neal's energy and enthusiasm that I, too, will take part in a portion of this great commemoration. Through his example and his service, Neal Corey has been a force in both the preservation of American history, and the perpetuation of American traditions.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I address the issue that has been before the Senate for the past several days, the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution with regard to marriage. Let me be clear. I support the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I fully support the concept of marriage as a sacred and solemn social institution. I support the Nebraska constitutional amendment on marriage and I support the Federal law defending marriage. But, I am not convinced we need a Federal constitutional amendment on this issue at this time. As a former Governor, I am intimately familiar with instances where the Federal Government, Congress in particular, has interfered with the rights of States to govern. There are countless unfunded and underfunded federal mandates passed along to the States without the dollars to back them. There are tax laws and regulations that supersede state law. This is not what our Founding Fathers intended. Thomas Jefferson, Founding Father and American President, fiercely defended the rights of States and believed that the States had the right to govern themselves on matters that were not directly authorized as the jurisdiction of the Federal Government by the U.S. Constitution. I was pleased to see the good Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, come to the floor to express his concerns about this amendment. I echo his sentiments by also quoting from the Federalist Paper 45, in which James Madison wrote ``the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.'' I agree. Amending the U.S. Constitution, the document most sacred to those who love freedom and liberty, is a delicate endeavor and should be done only on the basis of the most clear and convincing evidence that a proposed amendment is necessary. Proponents of this amendment predict activism in the Federal courts will result in the overturning of State constitutional amendments like Nebraska. I share that concern, but at this time there has been no court action overturning a State law on this matter and I remain unconvinced that this threat meets the level of urgency required for a Federal constitutional amendment at this time. However, I plan to closely monitor the Federal courts and if evidence of judicial activism on this issue arises, I reserve the right to revisit this issue and reconsider a Federal constitutional amendment. To the supporters of the amendment I say that I am in agreement with you; I am on your side of this issue. I have been contacted by several thousand Nebraskans over recent days, on both sides of the issue. I know that this issue sparks an emotional reaction in most. I appreciate hearing from constituents on this issue. Senators are pressured by many and on various issues. Since coming to the Senate I have only felt the pressure to do what is right. In this case, the infringement on States rights is paramount. Until the rights of States are overruled by the courts, I believe that opposing this constitutional amendment at this time is the right thing to do.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Russell Ponder, a legislative fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I introduce an important piece of legislation that will correct an oversight from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. In 1997, Congress created a new diabetes benefit under Medicare--diabetes self-management training--but did not create a new provider group to deliver it. Congress assumed that the existing diabetes education programs in hospitals would be able provide services to all who were in need. Certified Diabetes Educators, CDEs, were not given the ability to bill Medicare directly for diabetes self-management training when Congress passed the new benefit in 1997 because they did not feel there was a need to create a new provider since CDEs could work within a hospital setting and receive reimbursement through hospital billing. However, due to changing health care economics, hospital diabetes self- management training programs have been closing at an alarming rate, forcing patients to seek other avenues for obtaining diabetes self- management training, such as clinics and stand-alone programs. While small in scope, the Diabetes Self-Management Training Act of 2004 will correct this oversight to ensure our Nation's seniors with diabetes have access to this important benefit. Diabetes education is very important in my State of Nebraska. According to the Nebraska Health and Human Services System, about five percent of Nebraska's adults have diagnosed diabetes--or about 60,000 people. An additional 20,000 Nebraskans probably have diabetes but have not been diagnosed. While diabetes rates continue to grow at an alarming rate, lack of access to diabetes-self management training, which is critical to controlling diabetes and preventing secondary complications, has also become a chronic problem. Despite the fact that twenty percent of Medicare patients have diabetes, and about a quarter of all Medicare spending goes to treat diabetes and diabetes-related conditions, less than one-third of eligible patients are currently receiving the benefit. Because CDEs are not able to bill Medicare directly for diabetes self-management training, patients have limited options for obtaining the training they need to successfully manage their disease and prevent expensive and debilitating complications. The potential for complications is enormous. If patients with diabetes cannot gain access to diabetes self-management training, serious complications will arise, such as kidney disease, amputations, vision loss, and severe cardiac disease. In fact, half of all Medicare dialysis patients suffer from diabetes. By improving access to this important benefit, I believe we will take an important step toward helping patients control their diabetes, which will not only save the Medicare program the significant costs associated with the complications from uncontrolled diabetes, but more importantly it will dramatically improve the quality of life for the millions of Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes. That is why I am so proud to introduce this bi-partisan legislation, the Diabetes Self- Management Training Act of 2004, along with my colleague Senator Hutchison. Throughout the Medicare debate last year, one of the top considerations for all Senators was the cost of the legislation and the long-term solvency of the Medicare program. In fact, we passed new programs in that legislation to begin studying new health care delivery models like Medicare that will improve the outcomes for beneficiaries with chronic diseases. While I strongly supported those new demonstration programs, we need not wait to begin helping our seniors. With diabetes already directly affecting so many seniors, and the baby boomers on the horizon, we cannot afford to deny seniors access to proven programs like diabetes self-management training any longer. I look forward to working to pass this legislation and help those with diabetes.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I introduce an important piece of legislation that will correct an oversight from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. In 1997, Congress created a new diabetes benefit under Medicare--diabetes self-management training--but did not create a new provider group to deliver it. Congress assumed that the existing diabetes education programs in hospitals would be able provide services to all who were in need. Certified Diabetes Educators, CDEs, were not given the ability to bill Medicare directly for diabetes self-management training when Congress passed the new benefit in 1997 because they did not feel there was a need to create a new provider since CDEs could work within a hospital setting and receive reimbursement through hospital billing. However, due to changing health care economics, hospital diabetes self- management training programs have been closing at an alarming rate, forcing patients to seek other avenues for obtaining diabetes self- management training, such as clinics and stand-alone programs. While small in scope, the Diabetes Self-Management Training Act of 2004 will correct this oversight to ensure our Nation's seniors with diabetes have access to this important benefit. Diabetes education is very important in my State of Nebraska. According to the Nebraska Health and Human Services System, about five percent of Nebraska's adults have diagnosed diabetes--or about 60,000 people. An additional 20,000 Nebraskans probably have diabetes but have not been diagnosed. While diabetes rates continue to grow at an alarming rate, lack of access to diabetes-self management training, which is critical to controlling diabetes and preventing secondary complications, has also become a chronic problem. Despite the fact that twenty percent of Medicare patients have diabetes, and about a quarter of all Medicare spending goes to treat diabetes and diabetes-related conditions, less than one-third of eligible patients are currently receiving the benefit. Because CDEs are not able to bill Medicare directly for diabetes self-management training, patients have limited options for obtaining the training they need to successfully manage their disease and prevent expensive and debilitating complications. The potential for complications is enormous. If patients with diabetes cannot gain access to diabetes self-management training, serious complications will arise, such as kidney disease, amputations, vision loss, and severe cardiac disease. In fact, half of all Medicare dialysis patients suffer from diabetes. By improving access to this important benefit, I believe we will take an important step toward helping patients control their diabetes, which will not only save the Medicare program the significant costs associated with the complications from uncontrolled diabetes, but more importantly it will dramatically improve the quality of life for the millions of Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes. That is why I am so proud to introduce this bi-partisan legislation, the Diabetes Self- Management Training Act of 2004, along with my colleague Senator Hutchison. Throughout the Medicare debate last year, one of the top considerations for all Senators was the cost of the legislation and the long-term solvency of the Medicare program. In fact, we passed new programs in that legislation to begin studying new health care delivery models like Medicare that will improve the outcomes for beneficiaries with chronic diseases. While I strongly supported those new demonstration programs, we need not wait to begin helping our seniors. With diabetes already directly affecting so many seniors, and the baby boomers on the horizon, we cannot afford to deny seniors access to proven programs like diabetes self-management training any longer. I look forward to working to pass this legislation and help those with diabetes.

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 legislation 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 reimbursements 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 CAH 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 CAH 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 legislation 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 reimbursements 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 CAH 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 CAH 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. I thank my colleague from Idaho for this opportunity to express our outrage at the behavior of Saddam's henchmen and for the disgust we have for what some misguided soldiers apparently did in conjunction with the trust they had imposed on them in conjunction with prisoners. We cannot erase what has been done. We can apologize for it. We can express our outrage. We can say to the American people and to the people of the world, this is not our way and we do not condone it, but we cannot change it and we cannot erase it. I think what we can do is make the broadest statement we possibly can symbolically by leveling this prison. It seems as though the demons of the Saddam regime carried on in the disguise of Americans who under ordinary circumstances would not have been conducting themselves in this way. I do not believe in those ghosts, but I do believe the message that can be sent is a very strong one: We do not condone this kind of behavior. The very behavior we went to eradicate needs to be eradicated once again. Those who are criminally responsible must be held to the letter of the law, and those who are responsible in the chain of command must also be held to the highest standards of our military. I think we can say to the Iraqi people more than we are sorry, which we are, more than we wish it had not occurred, that we stand with them to eradicate this kind of behavior once and for all, at least in that prison. Perhaps symbolically it will help all recognize this kind of behavior is unacceptable anyplace in the world. I have traveled with my colleagues to various parts of the world, to South Korea, the Baltics, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and those photos do not represent those men and women who serve our Nation honorably or share the values we Americans hold dear. This prison was the tool of a violent, repressive regime. It is as much a symbol of Saddam's regime as the statues honoring him throughout Iraq. It is even more so in many respects because it represents the truth of what his rule was. Just as those statues were torn down, so should this prison be torn down. This place has become a symbol of abuses and atrocities first under the regime and now sadly with the new acts committed by our troops. We need to make a clean start. What happened in that prison is not American. It does not represent our values, and we need to let the rest of the world know in the most visible way possible that these acts which were committed in that prison are not the American way and not the way America conducts itself. We need to make a break from the past. We need to level this prison. The symbol of atrocities, this home of abuses, should stand no longer. Let that be our stand, to tear down the prison, to hold those accountable who have engaged in such activities as we have held Saddam accountable, and let us move on so we can say to the people of the world, this is a new start, a break from the past. Let us join with the Iraqi people in building a new Iraq, one that is founded not on the abuses of Abu Ghraib but on the hope for tomorrow. We can share the values together to eliminate abuse, to eliminate these atrocities and to set the record straight for the rest of the world. I yield back any time to my colleague from Idaho.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, my response to my friend from Louisiana is if this had been a prison, I would say let us continue it as a prison and change simply the administration, the prison guards. But it was never a prison. It was a place of abuse and atrocity, a death chamber for thousands and thousands of Iraqi citizens. So it is not a prison, and it never was converted into a prison, apparently not even during the time that we have been able to administer it.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, SPC Dennis Morgan was a dedicated soldier who fought bravely for his country. He was a member of the South Dakota National Guard and worked to protect others by finding and disarming explosive devices along the roads. Morgan was mobilized December 7, 2003 and deployed to the Middle East in February. He was in the last vehicle of a convoy, protecting an armored personnel carrier when a roadside bomb exploded. Morgan is the first casualty involving the South Dakota National Guard, which has nearly 1,200 members in the Middle East. His wife described him as a ``wonderful man, a hero, very loving and always happy.'' I would like to express my deepest sympathy for the Morgan family. SPC Dennis Morgan will be greatly missed and our thoughts and prayers will be with his family and friends. He leaves behind his wife and his mother. Dennis's sacrifice will forever remind this Nation of the danger that comes with the duty to protect our Nation's interests and the freedoms of others around the world. As a Nation we are grateful to Dennis Morgan and other soldiers like him who make the ultimate sacrifice so that others can live in freedom.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a great Nebraskan, a statesman, and a friend--former Governor Frank Morrison. On Monday, Frank Morrison passed away in McCook, NE. For a boy growing up in McCook, Frank Morrison was more than a governor to me, he was a role model. The Morrisons were friends of my family and I still remember delivering my first May Basket to Jeanne Morrison at the age of five. Maxine Morrison was my kindergarten teacher and Frank was my mentor in my early years in Nebraska politics. I would often talk to him about the issues of the day and he was always candid and fair in his advice. We didn't always agree, but Frank never let politics become personal. He had big dreams and big goals, but they were always practical and they became possible through his dedication. He worked with folks on both sides and he got a lot done because he understood that rhetoric and partisan passions were less important than making progress. He was a democrat and he loved the Democratic Party. But he loved Nebraska more. Nebraska was always, ALWAYS, first in his mind. Althought not a native Nebraskan, he loved this state as much as anyone and, in every sense of the word, was a statesman. He was as synonymous with Nebraska as the Sandhills, the Panhandle, the Platte, and the Huskers. All Nebraskans owe Frank Morrison a debt of gratitude for the leadership and partnerships he offered us over the years. Just last year, we had an illustration for the kind of regard in which Frank was held. Last September, the Chancellor of the University of Kearney, Dough Christenson, presented Frank with an honorary degree. The degree recognized Frank's more than seven decades of public service and his tireless advocacy for Nebraska. Frank said that it was the greatest day of his life, except the day his wife Maxine said ``yes''. Truly a well-deserved honor for a beloved Nebraska statesman. I would be leaving something out if I didn't also talk about Frank's sense of humor. His wit was legendary in Nebraska and it was undiminished even in his final days. I remember, just after one of my first elections--a very close primary race, I spoke with Frank and he told me about one of his first races. He had been nominated to the local school board by both parties. And he said he lost to a write-in candidate. But losing an election didn't bother Frank. He was dedicated to public service and to promoting Nebraska. He brought pride to our State and he was a tireless advocate of the natural wonders of a State that he had not been born in, but that he called home. Frank was 98 years old when he passed and that is a long life by anyone's standards. But the measure of his accomplishments is longer still. Just a little over a month ago, Frank's beloved wife Maxine passed away. The loss of these two Nebraska legends had signaled, perhaps, the end of an era. They have left a void that will be very difficult to fill, but they have also left a legacy and a love of Nebraska and his country that will likely outlive us all. I conclude with some words from the McCook Daily Gazette, the daily paper from the hometown Frank and I share: ``Frank had a grand vision, but he was also a down home person who loved his family, his adopted hometown, the people of Nebraska and this nation and this world. ``We will miss you, Frank. But we are very, very glad you lived such an abundant life. Thank you for living with purpose and passion. We will try, as best we can, to follow your example.''

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to speak today regarding the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act. As debate draws to a close on the motion to proceed to consideration of this bill, I take a few minutes to express my appreciation to those who have worked so hard over the past several years to find a solution to what has become an enormous--and continues to grow every day--problem. I offer my views as to how this process can be revived and lead to a satisfactory resolution yet this year. First, a bit of history will be helpful. Soon after I arrived in the Senate in 2001, I approached then-Chairman Leahy of the Judiciary Committee and indicated to him that I thought legislation was necessary to come up with a solution to compensate asbestos victims; if we worked on it in an appropriate fashion, it could be passed. I knew the process would be long and difficult, but I thought it was worth pursuing. If we did not begin, we would never conclude that solution. Senator Leahy very graciously agreed and held hearings to explore the feasibility of this approach. Following the elections of 2002, Chairman Hatch continued those efforts and began formulating a legislative proposal. I agreed to cosponsor that legislation, not because I supported everything in the bill, but because I believed it would provide an incentive for those with a major stake in the resolution of this issue to begin discussions aimed at solutions. That strategy worked. Discussions began, the major issues were framed, the Judiciary Committee held 4 long days of markup, and a bill was reported out. However, there were problems with the bill. Still, the process was moving forward. Sometimes it felt like one step forward, two steps backward. But stakeholders continued to negotiate. Senator Specter, to his credit, brought the parties together and worked on the array of issues other than values and dollar amounts. That process was also extremely helpful in bringing us to the point where we are today. The majority leader has now incorporated a number of the elements of the Specter-Judge Becker negotiations into the bill before the Senate. Unfortunately, the bill before the Senate is not complete. It still lacks a consensus among the major stakeholders. That is why I have chosen not to cosponsor this substitute amendment when I was asked to do so. It simply, in my judgment, is not ready. Several major issues have not been resolved. I don't believe this is a bill that can be written on the floor of the Senate. I do believe a solution can still be achieved yet this year if the leaders will make a renewed commitment to continue the process. With a very limited time agreement, no more than 2 or 3 weeks at the most, and with active involvement by leadership, I believe we can reach a solution. It may inevitably be a solution that is least objectionable, but at the very least we can arrive at a solution that almost every stakeholder can accept. As a matter of information, a constituent of mine by the name of Warren Buffett--some of you may have heard of him--expressed to me his view that there probably is not anything more important that the Congress can do for the economy than to resolve this issue which continues to overhang our economy. The economic impact is important. Of course, the most compelling reason to find a solution is not simply to provide certainty to the economy; it is, in fact, to provide relief to the many victims of the debilitating and deadly illnesses caused by asbestos. I know my colleagues understand the scope of the problem before the Senate. The suffering of the victims and their families has been brought home to each of us. We all have many examples of those unfortunate victims and their situations. But I would like to personalize it for my colleagues. When I served as Governor, I had the pleasure of appointing an Omaha attorney by the name of Mike Amdor to the Nebraska District Court bench. Mike Amdor was a very good friend. I had known him and his family for years. His father had gone to law school with my late father-in-law. I knew his mother when she was alive and worked with his father in the insurance business. I appointed him to the Nebraska District Court bench. He was a bright and vibrant lawyer, and he came to be a trusted and respected jurist. But more important, he was a consummate family man, a devoted husband, a father of five young children. In late 1999, he began to experience serious health problems and was soon diagnosed with mesothelioma. Despite a courageous and painful fight with the disease--and it looked at times as though he might be able to beat the odds and survive--he, unfortunately, passed away on November 28, 2002. Mike had been exposed to asbestos as a young man working his way through college and law school. We all know that virtually the only cause of mesothelioma is exposure to asbestos. Mike's family pursued legal action against those responsible for his exposure and obtained a series of settlements totaling $655,000. However, to date, his widow and five children have realized a total of $56,463.76 on those judgments. Fifty-six thousand dollars and change: less than 10 cents on the dollar because the defendants were bankrupt. Under the terms of the trust fund legislation, which we are debating and working to achieve, his widow and family could receive $1 million. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter which I received yesterday from Judge Mike Amdor's widow.

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

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, it is imperative we get this resolved. This legislation, unfortunately, is not complete. But it could be completed, and completed relatively quickly, with the right approach. And the right approach is to put the stakeholders in a room, with guidance from the leadership on both sides of the aisle, with a firm deadline, and with a firm charge to come to a resolution. It can be done, and, moreover, it should be done. The judge's case is a tragedy, but it does not stand alone, unfortunately. There are hundreds, yet thousands, of cases similar to Mike and Cathy Amdor's. There will be future victims who will not receive compensation because there will not be anybody left to collect from. I am committed to the trust fund approach because I believe it represents the best opportunity for those who are sick, and those who will become sick, to obtain reasonable compensation for their suffering. I remain optimistic that it can be done if we demonstrate the resolve, the determination, to put politics aside and get it done. We are now on the threshold of floor action on the bill. I urge the leadership to renew their commitment to a process which I and others on both sides of the aisle believe can still work. Fair treatment for thousands of asbestos victims is at stake, and we have come too far to quit now. We must make the final push to reach consensus. Again, I commend the hundreds of people who have spent thousands of hours working towards a solution. Those who have struggled with this issue have worked in good faith, determined to find the mechanism to compensate those victims and those who will in the future fall victim to asbestos. I still believe we can do this, and I know with absolute certainty, though, that we must. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to address the body today. I hope my colleagues will join together in asking our leaders to work together to come up with a solution that will meet the needs and will meet the opportunities that this legislation represents. But I think it has to be other legislation. This legislation is not yet ready to be passed. But with a very brief period of intense negotiation and working, with the support of the leaders, I do believe it can be. In the final analysis, it must be. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, SGT David McKeever was a soldier who fought honorably for his country. He joined the Army in 1997, right after graduation from South Park High School in South Buffalo, NY. Before going to Iraq to try to help keep peace, he served proudly in Bosnia. He just recently reenlisted to serve his country. He was also approved for a promotion from army specialist to the rank of sergeant just before his death. This well-deserved honor was given to him posthumously. David had 15 days remaining before he would have left Iraq for Germany, and then return home. His family describes him as a dedicated soldier, proud American, and hero who was fully aware of the high cost of freedom. SGT David McKeever will be greatly missed and our thoughts and prayers will be with his family and friends. He leaves behind a wife, a one-year-old son, his parents and his four sisters. As a nation, we are grateful to David McKeever and other soldiers like him who make the ultimate sacrifice so that others can live free.