Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Army 1LT Jacob N. Fritz of Verdon, NE.

Lieutenant Fritz graduated from Dawson-Verdon High School in 2000. His peers and teachers recognized him as a natural leader. He was active in every extracurricular activity his school offered: speech, drama, basketball, football, track, and band. He organized drug-free parties and dances.

After high school, Lieutenant Fritz followed his dream of serving in the Armed Forces by enrolling in the Military Academy at West Point, graduating in 2005. His younger brother, Daniel, followed in his footsteps and is currently a third-year cadet at West Point.

Lieutenant Fritz had been serving in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, assigned to A Battery, 2nd Battalion, 377th Parachute Field Artillery Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, based in Fort Richardson, AK. On Saturday, January 20, 2007, Lieutenant Fritz passed away when his dismounted patrol received indirect fire followed by small arms fire in Karbala, Iraq. He was 25 years old.

1LT Jacob Fritz is survived by his parents, Lyle and Noala Fritz of Verdon, NE, and his two younger brothers, Daniel and Ethan. I offer my sincere condolences to the family and friends of Lieutenant Fritz. He made the ultimate and most courageous sacrifice for our Nation. I join all Americans in grieving the loss of this remarkable young man and know that Lieutenant Fritz's passion for serving, his leadership, and his selflessness will remain a source of inspiration for us all.

Sergeant Major Marilyn Gabbard

Mr. President, first of all, I thank the senior Senator from Virginia for his considerable work in drafting this resolution and working over the weekend with us and our staffs, who worked very closely together to prepare this Iraq resolution.

I think it is important to say as well that I respect the work done by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today in considering the resolution submitted by, supported by their chairman, the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden. I have a great deal of respect for Senator Biden's work.

This is an area where there can be more than one idea about how to approach something, but at the end of the day, it is going to be important to have a resolution that has broad bipartisan support.

I also appreciate the work of Senator Collins, who, as our colleague, has worked very closely on this resolution together with her staff to be able to submit it today in this fashion by putting it not only into the Record but on the floor so it can become part of the business of the Senate.

There will be some who would say: Why is there a need for a second resolution? Well, this resolution offers a new set of ideas, more broadly worded, and in some cases, clearly, more likely to be bipartisan for Senators to consider. Given the fact that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee resolution came out on largely a partisan vote, we think this resolution, because it is picking up bipartisan support, will be, in terms of content and support, consistent with an effort to bring about a bipartisan resolution with broad support.

The recommendations of the Iraq Study Group have not been followed to any significant extent to date. In some respects, they have been almost on a skyhook for future consideration. It was our feeling that many of these recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton study group should be included in a resolution, and we included many of those recommendations in the body of our resolution.

We also worked very carefully to avoid political rhetoric or any kind of rhetoric that threatens the real objective. The real objective of this resolution is to stress to the White House that we disagree with the approach this plan takes by putting more men and women in our uniform in harm's way to fight, to do battle, to overcome the sectarian violence and the possible civil war of the Sunnis and the Shias and various subgroups within those religious and political elements. We also believed it was important to stress benchmarks and to empower the Prime Minister and the Iraqi Government to be able to meet certain objectives, certain goals, and to be able to deliver.

At the end of the day, we think it is important to send a strong but unified message to the White House and Iraq. The more support the resolution receives in the Senate, the stronger our message will be. So tonight I am very pleased and am certainly proud to be here with my colleagues to say that at the end of the day, we think the strength of this resolution to uphold our responsibility will be in the best interests of our country and our military and that our colleagues should join together with us in opposition to the surge of U.S. troops to be placed in Baghdad. It is the responsibility of the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi military to overcome the battles between sectarian groups within their own country and to seek less of a military resolution and certainly more of a political resolution to the problems that exist at the present time.

With that, let me say that I would like to see our unanimous consent be modified to include up to 10 minutes for Senator Salazar from Colorado to speak on the resolution afterward, if there is no objection.

Sure.

Mr. President, it is my pleasure to now turn to Senator Collins, who has worked very closely with us. Before I do, I should indicate the cosponsors from the Democratic side are Senator Salazar, Senator Bill Nelson, Senator Landrieu, Senator Bayh, and Senator McCaskill.

Mr. President, as I have mentioned before, last year Washington was rocked by the Abramoff scandal and other misdeeds. I am pleased that Congress has shown it is taking seriously its responsibility to the American people by revisiting and tightening the rules and laws that govern Members of the Senate. Many have said that S.1, which overwhelmingly passed out of the Senate last week, includes the most sweeping ethics reform measures since Watergate.

There is one point that I discussed and pushed forward during last year's debate that I believe needs to again be part of what we are doing now. Last year I offered a sense-of-the-Senate amendment to make many of the reforms we have considered throughout this ethics debate apply to all branches of Government. I am pleased that this sense of the Senate was accepted and is included in the underlying bill.

During the debate last week, I filed an amendment, No. 71, which builds upon the principle behind this sense of the Senate--that the standards employed in this bill should be the minimum standards that guide the other branches of Government. I thought this was a good amendment--in fact, a necessary amendment--that ought to be accepted into this bill. Unfortunately, that did not happen. I have spoken with some of my colleagues and understand that though there is general support for the principle that ethics standards in the executive branch should be as stringent as those made applicable by this bill, some of my colleagues believe the provisions of this amendment warrant further evaluation. Though I am disappointed this amendment will not be included on this bill, I respect and appreciate the importance and value of committee evaluation and will look forward to working on this issue as that committee process proceeds.

I thank my good friend from Connecticut. I appreciate his thoughtfulness in this debate, and I look forward to discussing it further as his committee proceeds this year.

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

Madam President, I am here speaking a little

bit early. Senator Warner will appear on the scene shortly. But as you know, Madam President, I will be presiding, so this gives me the opportunity to speak now.

Senators Warner and Collins and I have worked to develop a bipartisan resolution dealing with Iraq. I thank them for working to forge this bipartisan resolution. I would clarify that the goal of this resolution is to broaden the resolution's appeal. It is important to send a strong message to the White House and Iraq. And the more support the resolution receives in the Senate, the stronger our message will be.

This may not be an either/or situation. We are bringing forth a new set of ideas, something more broadly worded for Senators to consider. Some can vote for this resolution, and the other, without feeling any contradiction.

The content of this resolution is more inclusive of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations and steers clear of partisan or Presidential rhetoric.

I urge our colleagues--some of whom I have spoken with today, and some of whom I have spoken with over the weekend, and others in recent days, some tomorrow--to read this resolution carefully. I believe they will find the resolution to be thoughtful, forceful, and meaningful.

If a Senator is not comfortable with the wording of the previously announced resolution, if a Senator was concerned that the resolution did not include the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, if a Senator was concerned about the infringement on executive powers, I think that Senator will find our resolution more appealing.

In the end, we all have a responsibility to lead. We are accountable to our constituents--the American people, as is the President. When we see a policy development that we feel is not in the best interests of the United States and the U.S. military, we must speak out, we must act, and we must communicate with the President that we disagree with his plan.

Simply put, that is what we are trying to do--to express our concern, our opposition, or disagreement with deploying troops in the heart of a civil war in Iraq.

The goal is maximum bipartisan support to send the strongest message possible from the Senate to the President, to the American people, and to Iraq about our concern about this plan.

Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside and that I may call up my amendment No. 71.

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

Mr. President, last year, Washington was rocked by the Abramoff scandal and other misdeeds. With the underlying bill, Congress has shown it is taking seriously its responsibility to the American people its responsibility to set rules for behavior by Members and staff that aren't just words on a page in a dusty ethics manual.

I applaud the effort that has gone into ethics reform. It has been a good debate. There is one point that I discussed last year--- as early as the Rules Committee markup--- that I feel needs to again be part of the debate this year. Last year I offered a sense-of-the-Senate amendment to make many of the reforms we have considered throughout this ethics debate apply to all branches of government. I am pleased that this sense of the Senate was accepted and is included in the underlying bill.

Today I have filed and proposed amendment No. 71, which builds on the principle behind this sense of the Senate that the standards employed in this bill should be the minimum standards that guide the other branches of Government. The revolving door isn't just on the front of the U.S. Capitol. It spins freely in the executive branch--in every Federal agency in Washington.

My amendment has three parts:

The first provision says the gift and travel bans of this

bill should be the minimum standards employed by the

executive and judicial branches. The second provision extends

the Senate's 1-year ban on lobbying by former staff to the

executive branch. The third provision extends the Senate's

negotiating of future employment provisions to the executive

branch as well.

I believe in disclosure, transparency and restoring integrity to our government. The question here isn't whether reforms are needed, they are. But we need to make sure we are implementing the right reforms. Any reforms need to apply to all branches of government if we are to begin the process of rebuilding trust between the government and the people.

Mr. President, I think the underlying bill is incomplete without my amendment, and I urge my colleagues to adopt it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the amendment introduced by Mr. Kerry and Mr. Salazar. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

When the ethics reform process began last year, I was quick to point out that, for the most part, our laws had worked the way we intended. Today, Jack Abramoff, Bob Ney, and Duke Cunningham have all been found guilty of the crimes they committed and have been punished accordingly. Last year, when we held our hearing in the Rules Committee, I remarked that Capitol Hill must be the only place in the world where, if someone breaks the law, we rush to change the law.

Well in this case, we have an opportunity to add to the law to correct a significant shortcoming. We take away the retirement benefits of those Members of Congress who violate the public trust by committing crimes while in office.

It is often said, ``If you do the crime, you do the time.'' Well, it seems that if you are a former Congressman or Senator, you do the crime, do the time, and continue to collect Federal retirement benefits paid for by the American taxpayer. That just doesn't seem right to me.

This amendment, the Congressional Pension Accountability Act, will bar Members of Congress from receiving taxpayer-funded retirement benefits after they have been convicted of bribery, conspiracy, perjury, or other serious ethics offenses. If we are serious about cleaning up Congress, we should approve this amendment and put our money where our mouth is--by saying that the public, who are the primary victims of crimes committed by elected officials, should not be required to pay benefits for those who are convicted of a breach of the public's trust.

I strongly believe that all Members of Congress must be held to the highest ethical standards and those who violate the public trust must be held accountable for their actions. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to further increase transparency and ensure accountability with respect to earmarks. I call up amendment No. 47 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I am concerned about the abuse of the earmark process, and I applaud the bipartisan efforts of the majority and minority leaders in crafting the earmark reforms in the underlying bill. I strongly support improving transparency and accountability in the appropriations process. I believe Members should certainly be required to disclose and justify their earmarks. My amendment takes this notion one step beyond by ensuring that earmarked funds are spent only for the stated purpose for which they are approved by the Senate.

The amendment simply states:

If an entity is properly awarded an earmark, the entire

amount of the earmark shall be transferred to the entity to

be expended for the essential government purpose of the

earmark.

If the entity doesn't spend the entire amount of the earmark, my amendment requires the excess funds to be returned to the Treasury for the purposes of deficit reduction. That is all this does.

Some Senators may ask, Why is such an amendment necessary? I think many of my colleagues in the Senate would be quite surprised to learn that all too often, after going through the process of earmarking funds for the benefit of their constituents, the earmarked funds are, on some occasions, spent by someone else once the bill leaves the Senate. The earmarked funds are going to be spent as the Senate intended. In reality, however, a portion of earmarked funds may sometimes be reallocated to other purposes by the agency tasked with delivering the funds to the intended recipient. Unfortunately, I have discovered this practice of ``skimming,'' as I call it, where the agency simply skims a portion off the top of the earmarks. It is fairly common, and in many cases it simply is not authorized by law.

Last year, with the help of the Congressional Research Service, I asked the 15 Cabinet-level departments to help me understand how this process works, what happens with the funding once Congress approves an earmark. Only 12 departments responded, and the responses varied widely. Some said they do not skim from the earmarks at all; however, some said they skim 2 to 3 percent off the top of the earmark without authority by law. In some instances, the agencies did cite a statutory authority for the skimming, but in others it looks as if the skimming was done without express authority to do so. Alarmingly, one agency replied only with this statement:

The magnitude of your request outstrips our ability to

provide you with the extensive amount of data that you

desire.

I found not only skimming in some cases, but there was stiffing when you asked for information as well.

The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse. Yet sometimes the executive branch sees fit to spend congressionally approved earmark funds for their own purposes. That is simply wrong under any set of circumstances. From a constitutional standpoint, from a fiscal responsibility standpoint, and from a practical standpoint, the executive branch should not be able to redirect earmarked funds unless specifically authorized to do so in that earmark. There shouldn't be an ongoing authority to do that with every earmark without the authority established by Congress. And if that authority has been established by law, I believe we ought to reconsider it because it should be on an earmark-by-earmark basis. If they want their budget to include a certain amount of money above

where they are at the moment, let them come to the budgeting process and make their request just like everyone else has to for the budgeting process here in Congress.

The earmark reforms in this bill are important, and we shouldn't allow the executive branch to undermine them. We owe it to our constituents to make sure earmarks are carried out as intended by this body in accordance with our earmarks disclosure rules.

To conclude, this amendment simply reinforces the earmark reforms in a very straightforward way. It will ensure that earmarks are only spent for the stated purpose for which they were approved. It will put an end to unaccountable skimming of earmarks and require that any unspent earmarked funds will be used for deficit reduction.

This amendment protects our constituents and the American taxpayer. It strengthens the underlying bill by providing a guarantee that earmarks will be spent only as the Senate intends, for the purpose for which they were approved, in accordance with the earmark reforms. I believe the underlying bill is incomplete without my amendment, and I urge my colleagues to adopt it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the Greater Omaha Sports Committee, the Omaha World-Herald, and the Downtown Omaha Rotary, which tonight will continue a long- running tradition in honoring college football's top interior lineman.

The Outland Trophy has been awarded every year since 1946 by the Football Writers Association of America. It is named after John Outland, who was an All-American tackle at the University of Pennsylvania in 1897. Mr. Outland created the award in 1946 because he believed his fellow linemen deserved more recognition for their contributions. Indeed, the game of football is often won in the trenches, with the most physically dominating linemen deciding the game's outcome.

From 1946 to 1989, Outland winners received only a plaque, and there was no public ceremony to honor their remarkable achievements. That has since changed, thanks to the dedication of football supporters in Omaha, NE, who not only prepared an impressive trophy presentation but began an annual banquet and public award ceremony.

It is only fitting that the Outland Trophy is awarded in Nebraska, as the University of Nebraska Cornhuskers lead the Nation with seven Outland Trophy winners, while three other Huskers have been named runners up.

This year, we congratulate Wisconsin offensive tackle Joe Thomas, who at 6 feet, 8 inches, 315 pounds, becomes the first Badger to earn the honor. Mr. Thomas led the Badgers' offense to average 30.3 points per game as the team compiled a 12-to-1 record. Congratulations as well to Bill Fischer, the 1948 Outland Trophy winner at offensive guard for the University of Notre Dame and a member of the national championship- winning Fighting Irish teams of 1946 and 1947. Mr. Fisher will receive an authentic Outland Trophy to replace his plaque in a long-overdue award ceremony.

Tonight the State of Nebraska is honored to welcome these men, together with other past winners, in what is sure to be another prestigious evening for the giants of college football.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor SSG Jeremy W. Mulhair of Omaha, NE.

Sergeant Mulhair will be remembered as a brave and committed soldier, a dedicated husband, and a loving father. His family says it was Sergeant Mulhair's dream to serve his country as a soldier, inspired by his father's, Jerry Mulhair, service in Vietnam, his uncle's service in the Navy, and a cousin's in the Marines.

Sergeant Mulhair was originally born in Michigan but grew up on a farm in a rural area northwest of Omaha. He attended Horace Mann Junior High School and Omaha Central High School. He later earned an equivalency degree before enlisting in the Nebraska Army National Guard. Sergeant Mulhair served with the Army in Korea in addition to two tours in Iraq.

On November 30, 2006, while serving in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom with A Troop, 1st Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Calvary Division, of Fort Hood, TX, Sergeant Jeremy

Mulhair passed away when a roadside bomb exploded near his vehicle in Taji, Iraq. He was 35 years old and had been serving in Iraq since October.

Giving his life in service to our country, Sergeant Jeremy Mulhair is the paradigm of courage and selflessness. He is survived by his wife Suzie and three children, Celina, Jeremy, and Maybel, of Fort Hood, TX; his parents, Jerry and Mildred, of Kimballton, IA; his brother, Robert Mulhair, of Mead; and his sisters, Tammy Lines and Dixie Heisner, both of Omaha.

I offer my prayers and thoughts to Sergeant Mulhair's family. He made the ultimate sacrifice to ensure that his children and others realize a peaceful and free world. Sergeant Mulhair was a soldier of incredible purpose and all Americans will never forget what he gave to our country.

I thank my good friend, Senator Baucus.

As my colleague knows, this legislation passed the Senate unanimously in November 2005 but unfortunately failed to be included in a conference report. It will create meaningful employment for persons with disabilities and disabled veterans in the field of third-party debt collection.

Especially with the large numbers of returning disabled veterans, employment opportunities are urgently needed. Generally, the employment opportunities for persons with disabilities are not great--1 in 10 Americans has a disability and the rate of unemployment is 70 to 80 percent. These private debt collection jobs are essentially highly paid call center jobs with annual incomes averaging $40,000 and often come with good health benefits and 401(k) plans.

This legislation is necessary since in letters and conversations with the Department of Treasury and Internal Revenue Service they have stated that under existing GSA rules, they cannot set a specific number of awards aside for contractors employing significant numbers of persons with disabilities. My understanding is the GSA currently allows a preference for a business that is owned by a disabled veteran, but it does not also allow a preference for a business that employs several persons with disabilities. This is an oversight which needs to be corrected.

This legislation is supported by the Disabled American Veterans, the American Legion, the American Legion Auxiliary, the American Association of People With Disabilities, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America.

I thank my colleague and good friend from Montana for his commitment to such an important effort.

Mr. President, I rise today to again speak in support of the Emergency Farm Relief Act--this time as an amendment to the fiscal year 2007 Agriculture appropriations bill. I want to start by thanking my colleague Senator Conrad for all of his hard work and his continued leadership in trying to get this relief to our farmers and ranchers.

Mr. President, this Congress has dragged its feet long enough. It is well past time for us to provide this relief for our Nation's farmers and ranchers--many of whom have suffered through multiple years of drought.

Now I know that some in this Congress and in the administration have questioned the need for emergency farm relief. But I have to wonder whether those individuals have seen the many fields in Nebraska that weren't even worth harvesting because the drought had killed off the crop.

I wonder if they have talked to the farmers and ranchers who are barely hanging on to their farms and ranches because of this multiyear drought and Congress's failure to provide relief.

And, I wonder if they have even seen their own statistics. Last week USDA released a report that stated that net farm income will have dropped by 20 percent this year in comparison to last year. This included a $4.7 billion drop in the value of livestock production.

Nebraska farmers and ranchers are estimated to have lost over $340 million just this production year due to the ongoing drought conditions. Nebraska farmers have also had to spend an extra $51 million in energy costs as their irrigation pumps ran longer than usual this year because of drought conditions.

And the Drought Monitor at the University of Nebraska continues to show that much of Nebraska is still suffering from severe to extreme drought.

Yet even the Secretary of Agriculture continues to question the need for disaster relief and this Congress stubbornly refuses to provide relief to those farmers and ranchers that have been harmed by this particular natural disaster.

And that, I think, is one of the most frustrating aspects about this debate over emergency farm relief. Congress and the administration seem to have no problems providing relief for other natural disasters like hurricanes. In fact, earlier this year we provided billions of dollars for Hurricane Katrina relief.

But even then, our attempt to provide emergency disaster relief to farmers and ranchers was substantially reduced and those farmers and ranchers unlucky enough to be hurt by drought were left behind and not given any relief.

I do not understand why this Congress is willing to help farmers damaged by hurricanes and is at the same time unwilling to help farmers that are damaged by other natural disasters such as drought. Both are natural disasters and both cause widespread economic harm.

That is why for the last few years when I talk about the drought I also talk about how I decided to nickname the drought ``Drought David.''

I gave it a name in the hope that it will help people realize that it is a natural disaster just like a hurricane even if it doesn't command the same types of headlines and television coverage.

A drought, unlike a hurricane or a flood, is a slow-moving disaster that can go over a course of years. In some cases Drought David is celebrating its fifth birthday. In other places it's celebrating its seventh birthday.

By giving it some identity, I had hoped to attract the same kind of attention that very often is given to hurricanes, which are named. And I had hoped that with that attention, this Congress would provide relief like it does for hurricanes.

Naming the drought was meant to help my colleagues focus on this being a natural disaster, with devastation of major economic proportions to large areas within our country and help them understand that it can have the same impact in terms of economic loss that very often a hurricane will cause in its wake.

I cannot overemphasize to my colleagues that the losses suffered and the losses we are asking relief for are those caused by a natural disaster.

These losses are due to events beyond the control of our farmers and ranchers. And that is why this Congress needs to provide relief, just as it does for losses caused by other natural disasters.

We cannot prevent drought. But Congress can help when a drought devastates large portions of our country.

And I remind my colleagues that failure to provide this needed relief threatens many small, rural businesses and communities and it threatens our nation's food and fuel security efforts.

This amendment will provide relief to farmers that have suffered production losses in 2005 and 2006 and it will also provide relief to livestock producers that have suffered losses in both years. And I urge my colleagues to support this relief.

I also want to remind my colleagues that this Congress can help in other ways, too. One of which is to provide farmers, ranchers and other agribusinesses with information for smart planning.

To that end, I also urge this Congress to take up and pass S. 2751, my NIDIS legislation, that will create a National Integrated Drought Information System.

The NIDIS bill will help create a drought ``early warning system'' that will be capable of providing accurate and timely information on drought conditions so State and local officials can plan for and mitigate the effects of drought.

An ``early warning system'' will give producers information they need to make planting and other decisions. They can use the information to limit their risk, thus limit their losses.

Unfortunately, due to the lack of a national drought policy, there has been no development to date of a coordinated, integrated drought monitoring and forecasting system.

With better research and better tools for planning and mitigation, we could significantly reduce losses and ultimately the need for large emergency disaster aid packages.

It is important to keep in mind that for every $1 we invest in mitigation and preparedness, we can save $4 in reduced impacts when the natural disaster occurs. And my NIDIS bill will invest $59 million over the next 6 years to help with mitigation and preparedness.

But that is what we are working on to help with droughts in the future. Today we must focus on providing relief for the devastating impacts that Drought David has caused the last two growing seasons.

Congress must do both: we must provide relief for the damages suffered now and we must provide for better planning and mitigation for the future.

Mr. President, this Congress cannot be excused for its failure to provide this much-needed relief. I urge my colleagues to support our nation's farmers and ranchers by supporting this emergency farm relief amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of S. 3991, the Emergency Farm Relief Act of 2006. I thank my colleague, Senator Conrad, for his hard work and leadership in trying to get this bill passed. We have all been working together on a bipartisan basis.

The Presiding Officer spoke eloquently about the need for this relief. Today is the last day for this Congress to consider providing relief for our Nation's farmers and ranchers who have suffered through multiple years of drought and other natural disasters. This is the time we can do it, before we adjourn for the elections.

I am frustrated with our refusal to provide relief to farmers and ranchers suffering from this particular natural disaster even though we seem to have no problems providing relief for other natural disasters, such as hurricanes. I accept the fact that we do that, but I don't accept the fact that we do that and fail to do this.

Mr. President, I have a chart here which shows the extent of the drought in the Midwest and down into Texas. You can see where the hotspots are. I will tell you that this only tracks it most recently. It doesn't show the extent of the damage that has happened over 5 to 7 years. So if you just overlaid 5 or 7 years on this, you would see where the drought has continued.

I decided that maybe to get parity here for this kind of disaster it might be helpful to give the drought some identification. So, unilaterally, I decided to name it ``Drought David,'' the same way we name hurricanes.

The unfortunate fact is that Drought David has, in some instances and in some locations, experienced its fifth birthday and, in some other areas, its seventh birthday.

Failure to provide this needed relief threatens many small rural businesses and communities as well as farmers and ranchers. It threatens our Nation's food and fuel security efforts. So today I join my colleagues and thank Senator Conrad for his final push because this is, in fact, a bipartisan effort to try to take care of those who are experiencing losses that are far beyond their ability to sustain and, certainly, far beyond their control.

Over the last few years, I think we have begun to understand that a drought has devastating impacts in much the same way hurricanes do in other locations. The difference is that a hurricane or a flood is a fast-moving disaster; this is a slow-moving disaster that can go over the course of years, as I have indicated. Giving it a name, I hope, will somehow have the impact of our colleagues understanding that this is an incident which goes over a long period of time; nevertheless, the devastation can be considerable, and in some cases the economic losses can be the same as those who have other disasters.

We cannot prevent a drought, but Congress can help when a drought devastates large portions of our country. Some said maybe what we need to do is make sure the crop insurance program takes care of it. Well, the crop insurance program is for an occasional loss, not a continuing and sustained loss such as this. To give some sort of an analogy, you could not have insurance that would cover your house if it burned down every year, but occasional loss can be covered by insurance. This is just not coverable by insurance the way that it is right now. We cannot prevent it, but we can help. That is what we are all about today.

I am happy to report that we have taken some action that I think will be helpful. Just the other day, the Commerce Committee passed my NIDIS--National Integrated Drought Information System--legislation. That will help us create a system that will give us early warning so we will know how long droughts continue, give us better ideas about what drought conditions are predicted. This early warning system will give farmers and ranchers a better idea of what to expect. They can make planning decisions or livestock decisions based on the kind of information that will be available.

Unfortunately, at the present time, we are where we are, and we are not where we would like to be. We hope we will have the opportunity today with unanimous consent to move this bill forward. We can do it before we break, whether it is tonight, tomorrow, or Sunday. We need to get this done. There is no justification. We can ask the question: If not now, when? If not now, why?

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I thank Senator Conrad for this time.

Mr. President, during the August recess, I heard from many physicians in Nebraska who are concerned about the looming cut in their Medicare payments. If Congress does not act soon, Nebraska's doctors will face a $17 million loss next year. In addition, the cuts are scheduled to continue for the following 8 years if they are not reversed. During this time period, each Nebraska physician will lose $27,000 annually.

Physicians want to serve Nebraska's seniors, but they simply cannot afford to accept an unlimited number of new Medicare patients into their practices if Medicare payments do not keep up with the cost of providing care.

In addition to listening to my constituents, I also think it is helpful to listen to experts when making policy decisions. Medicare payment policy can be quite complicated, so Congress established the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, to make recommendations to us. MedPAC consists of a group of health experts that annually makes Medicare policy recommendations to Congress. For next year, MedPAC recommended that Congress eliminate the scheduled payment cut and instead raise physician payments by 2.7 percent.

I think we should listen to Nebraska's doctors and policy experts and stop the Medicare cut. We are running out of time. Congress must act now to stop the impending cuts. America's seniors and our health professionals deserve no less.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business about S. 385, the Emergency Farm Relief Act of 2006.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for his support and for his continuing interest and efforts to bring this to a conclusion.

I came to the floor last week as well in an attempt to provide much needed emergency relief to our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses that have been devastated by the long running drought that I have nicknamed Drought David. Some have asked why did I give it a name. A drought, unlike a hurricane or a flood, is a slow-moving disaster that can linger over the course of years. In some places, Drought David is celebrating its fifth birthday, and in other places it is celebrating its seventh birthday. But by giving it some identity, we hope we can give it the same kind of identity that is very often given to a hurricane which is named. It is not just a storm--it is Hurricane Ernesto or Katrina. I felt that giving this continuing drought a name would help give an identity so people could focus on this being a natural disaster, a devastation of major economic proportions to large areas within our country that can have the same impact in terms of economic loss which very often a hurricane will cause in its wake.

At this time, I ask a simple question of the Senate: If not now, when? When will this Senate provide the relief needed by our Nation's farmers and ranchers? Unfortunately, my question was answered last week by the procedural tactics to block an up-or-down vote.

So, today, I have two questions to ask my colleagues: If not now, when? And, most importantly, if not now, why? Why do we refuse to provide relief to farmers and ranchers suffering from this particular natural disaster when we provide relief, as we should, to others for natural disasters like hurricanes? Is relief from the Senate seriously based solely upon the sensational nature of the disaster and the news reports of the disaster? If a Drought David were able to grab the headlines like a hurricane, would relief be constantly and consistently blocked?

That is not acceptable to the farmers and ranchers I know, and it is not acceptable to me--and I am sure it is not acceptable to a majority of my colleagues in the Senate.

As Senator Conrad has pointed out, at least on two occasions, we have already voted to provide this kind of relief, and now procedurally it is being blocked.

Last week, I told the Senate about the damage this drought has caused to farmers and ranchers in Nebraska. As my colleague has indicated, in the State of North Dakota, the damage is considerable.

I told the Senate last week about how the drought has caused $342 million in damage so far this year for Nebraska alone.

Keep in mind this is in many cases 5 or 7 years old. The multiples are pretty clearly tremendously important to the State of Nebraska. Still the Senate has refused to act.

Last week, I talked about how the drought forced farmers in Nebraska to spend an extra $51 million just for irrigation costs during this summer. Still, the Senate refused to act.

Last week, I talked about how just this year the drought has cost Nebraska farmers $98 million in crop losses and $193 million in livestock production losses. And still, the Senate refused to act.

Senator Conrad and I and many of our colleagues have put together a comprehensive package to provide emergency funding to farmers and ranchers who suffered weather-related production shortfalls, quality losses, and damage to livestock and feed supplies. Our bill also helps farmers overcome the losses they suffered because of energy price spikes after the hurricane last year.

I warn my colleagues again that the devastating impacts of the drought threaten to drive many of our farmers and ranchers out of business. We no longer can expect family farmers to make a go of it day in and day out with these ongoing losses. People have said that maybe the Crop Insurance Program would be able to provide the kind of assistance that is required. No crop insurance program can ever provide year in and year out for a 5-year or a 7-year period of losses. It is not designed to do that, and it is not priced to do that. It is not equipped to do that, and actuarially it simply won't work. It would be the equivalent of insuring your house, and every year for 5 years the house burned. You rebuild it, it burns; you rebuild it, it burns. No insurance program is designed nor will it function to take care of that kind of loss.

Without our farmers and ranchers, we cannot expect to continue to secure our national food supply. And without our farmers and ranchers, we cannot hope to grow our domestic production of alternative renewable fuels.

Again I ask, if not now, when? If we fail to act and by our inaction we allow farmers and ranchers and rural businesses to dry up under the devastating impact of the drought, then we have failed not only those farmers and ranchers and small businesses, but we have also failed our Nation because we will have failed to ensure our food and fuel security.

This is why I ask my second question: If not now, why? I think our farmers and ranchers deserve more than procedural gimmicks. They at least deserve answers from this body about why they will not get the relief they so desperately need.

I have spoken to my friend and colleague, Senator Harry Reid, and he has informed me that no one on the Democratic side of the Senate is going to block or will block an up-or-down vote on this relief.

I hope today as we ask this question for the consideration of this body we will make a bipartisan effort to bring about relief to these parts of the country that are undergoing such devastating losses.

I ask again, if not now, why? Surely the Senate can spare an hour of its day to consider this issue and certainly to vote for farmers and ranchers and rural businesses that help this Nation and the world and of whom we are asking to provide more and more of our Nation's fuel supply as well. Surely, we can find some time to vote for providing them the relief they need. I think they deserve at least that much.

That is why I am prepared to continue to fight for this relief and continue to work to get relief out to our farmers.

I know my colleague and others are also joining in that. One way or the other, I will work to get this done. If nothing else, I am going to continue to fight to get this emergency relief included in any continuing resolution that Congress will have to pass before it leaves in a week.

I ask my colleague from North Dakota if he needs to have any more time yielded to him.

Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 3855

If not, I ask unanimous consent that the Agriculture Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3855, the emergency drought assistance bill, and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read a third time, and without further intervening action or debate the Senate proceed to vote on passage of this bill.

Madam President, let me also acknowledge that the objection entered was not a personal objection by the Senator from Alaska but one procedurally required of her in her capacity.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee and appreciate very much his leadership.

I rise to state I support what Senator Baucus has proposed. It affects a number of Nebraska teachers, Nebraska families. I appreciate what the Senator is doing.

Mr. President, I appreciate the distinguished chairman from Maine. I ask my colleagues, Senators Burns and Craig, who join with me--Senator Burns is here--I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 4945 be in order notwithstanding rule XXII. I know there will be an objection to it, but I also know that Senator Burns would like to speak to it if possible, before the objection is entered.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment No. 4945.

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

Mr. President, first I would like to point out the cosponsors. Senators Talent, Leahy, Obama, Durbin, Dayton, Schumer, and Clinton have all asked to be original cosponsors of my amendment.

I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 4954 that will provide much needed emergency relief to farmers, ranchers, and small businesses in rural America that today and for some time have been suffering the devastating impacts of natural disasters, such as the long-running drought in my home State of Nebraska.

A few years ago, I named the drought ``David'' to make the point that a drought is a natural disaster just like hurricanes--although it seems to be in slow motion--or floods or tornadoes and should be treated by Congress in much the same way because they are disastrous. Congress provides emergency relief to those who have suffered through devastating hurricanes, and there is no excuse for not helping farmers, ranchers, and businesses suffering from this natural disaster.

Unfortunately, in parts of Nebraska, Drought David is celebrating its seventh birthday, and yet Congress has failed to provide relief. I believe this relief must be addressed before Congress heads home for the elections, and I believe it should be addressed this week. That is why I am offering my amendment.

Ordinarily, I wouldn't offer an amendment to the port security bill because I certainly want to support that. But because of the lack of other opportunities and the increasing need for relief, I am faced, along with my cosponsors and others who will join me, with the recognition that there aren't many opportunities. And waiting until after

the election just doesn't seem appropriate. I thank Senator Conrad for his tireless efforts to get disaster assistance legislation passed through the Senate and for his work to draft and introduce the Emergency Farm Relief Act of 2006 that is the basis for this amendment.

Every time I check the U.S. Drought Monitor--and we can take a look at Drought David on this chart--showing where and how severely this drought is affecting the rural parts of America, I see the entire Central United States, as my colleagues can note from this demonstration, is suffering from drought conditions that are categorized as severe, extreme, or exceptional, including the western two-thirds of Nebraska, which is currently suffering from severe to extreme drought, Nebraska being located right here.

In the Dakotas the same thing is true, and dropping down to Texas and moving east, we find that the entire central part of our country is under these extreme to severe drought conditions.

So there is a great need for this relief. Recently, in my State of Nebraska, Professor Brad Lubben at the University of Nebraska released a report on the drought's impact on Nebraska's farmers and ranchers. He concluded that as of August 2006, this year, the drought has cost Nebraska agriculture a total of nearly $342 million--not much money by some measurements in Washington, DC, but extraordinary in the State of Nebraska. He found that the drought has thus far caused $98 million in crop losses, mostly wheat; $1 million in additional irrigation costs; and about $193 million in livestock production losses which have been incurred as well due to pasture and range conditions that are substantially below average. Grazing losses in western Nebraska are estimated to be from 50 percent to 70 percent. Pretty simple: no grass, no grazing, cattle losses.

The 2006 production year is not yet complete, so we don't know the final impact this will have on corn, soybeans, and sorghum, but I have seen many fields that are devastated by this drought and many farmers who have been given the go-ahead to cut their crop for silage rather than corn production.

Congress and the rest of Washington must understand this problem is critical and recognize the need to address the devastating impact our farmers and ranchers have suffered.

This comprehensive package provides emergency funding to farmers and ranchers who have suffered weather-related crop production shortfalls, quality losses, and damage to livestock and feed supplies. The bill also helps farmers overcome losses as a result of energy prices that spiked during last year's hurricanes--certainly an incident our Presiding Officer knows very well.

The bill would also expand funding for the Emergency Conservation Program, some of which could be made available for rehabilitating grass and ranch lands in places such as western Nebraska and, I would imagine, in the Dakotas as well that were damaged from recent wildfires.

I recently toured some of the drought-stricken regions of western Nebraska, including Lake McConaughy which for so long has been called Big Mac but which now is, unfortunately, less affectionately referred to as Little Mac, and the communities that had been devastated by the wildfires last month. When I visited firefighting officials, emergency response coordinators, and community leaders, I asked them how we could help. This amendment will provide some meaningful and immediate assistance to Nebraskans who lost so much in these fires.

Recognizing the devastating impact the disasters have had on Main Streets all over rural America, the amendment also provides assistance for thousands of small businesses simply fighting to keep their doors open. When farmers and ranchers have inadequate income, obviously it impacts the Main Street of that community. Lower purchasing power, lower sales, and fighting to keep doors open is an obvious result. Drought affects related businesses such as feed lots, grain dealers, implement dealers, and even local store fronts that service rural communities. Drought doesn't just destroy farms, it economically damages our rural communities and businesses.

Now, I know we are discussing port security, as I said before. So, ordinarily, I wouldn't offer this amendment as a part of that bill, but I am offering it at this time because it is needed, and Congress needs to accomplish this before it leaves at the end of the month.

My question is a very simple one: If not now, when? If not now, when?

Our farmers and ranchers cannot wait. The devastating impact of Drought David threatens to drive many of our farmers and ranchers in rural communities and businesses out of operation, and without them we cannot expect to secure our food supply and we cannot expect to continue to grow our domestic alternative fuel supplies, which is such a critical part of our own fuel security in America today. When agriculture suffers, the opportunities for alternative fuels such as biofuels will suffer as well. That is why we need to do this.

If we fail to act and by our inaction we allow farmers and ranchers and rural businesses to dry up under the impact of this drought, then we have failed to ensure both our food and fuel security.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I call up my amendment which is at the desk, amendment No. 4945. There are modifications at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Burns and Senator Cantwell be added as original cosponsors as well as make the following modifications to the amendment which is there at the desk.

Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I thank Senators Collins and, of course, Patty Murray for the opportunity to speak.

What I want to say is that I have been hearing rumors that the leadership staff says this drought disaster amendment is not germane. As far as I know, cloture has not been invoked. Until and unless cloture is invoked, it is germane. It cannot be ruled as not germane.

The amendment I offered this morning now has 19 bipartisan cosponsors. I have already pointed to the chart to show what the extent of the drought is and the devastation that the drought is wreaking all across the middle part of the country and down into the southeastern part of the country as well.

The drought conditions range from severe to less than moderate in most of the instances, and the darker, the more it is affecting. What isn't shown on this chart is the number of years that the drought has endured in some parts of the country.

In Nebraska, for example, the drought in some cases is 7 continuous years in duration, planting with higher input costs and no crop for many farmers. Many have not been able to sustain themselves. They have had to leave their farms.

Ranchers are being adversely affected by the drought, obviously, because their pastures are crisp where the grass should be green. The grass is brittle because of the continuing drought conditions.

As a matter of fact, trying to get some recognition of what a drought consists of as opposed to a hurricane, which has a name in each and every case--I named this drought David just a few years ago. Unfortunately, in some caces Drought David is celebrating its seventh birthday, in other cases its fifth birthday, and in some other cases 2 or 3 years. This is a continuing condition.

That is why our farmers and ranchers deserve an up-or-down vote on this amendment. There is no ruling that it isn't germane. We could have an up-or-down vote on it tonight. I hope we would be able to do that.

The severity continues, and denying an up-or-down vote doesn't mean the drought goes away. It just means the ranchers and farmers are not going to get what they deserve.

I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment, No. 4945.