Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to honor First Lieutenant Edward D. Iwan of Albion, NE.

First Lieutenant Iwan was a man who led by example and his leadership deserves the utmost honor. He was raised on a farm near Albion, NE and was a 1994 graduate of Albion High School where he was active in Future Farmers of America and Student Council. First Lieutenant Iwan valued his church, family, and country; and following high school he served 3 years in the United States Army. He then returned to Nebraska and earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Criminal Justice. During college he remained active in the Armed Forces including the ROTC, National Guard and Army Reserve. In December of 2001, First Lieutenant Iwan returned full-time to the Army.

During his last tour of duty to our country this soldier was promoted from Second to First Lieutenant, served in several locations, and was deployed to Iraq in January of 2004 with the 2nd Battalion, 2nd Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division. First Lieutenant Edward D. Iwan was killed in action on Friday, November 12, 2004 during sustained combat in Fallujuh, Iraq. This brave soldier led by example to the very end, when even as his unit was under attack, he continued to guide his troops. He was killed when a rocket propelled grenade struck his Bradley Fighting Vehicle. His final heroic moments resulted in the posthumous awards of a Purple Heart and Bronze Star.

I offer my sincere thoughts and prayers to the family and friends of First Lieutenant Iwan. His service to our Nation will forever be appreciated. He was an outstanding American, Nebraskan, and soldier who embodied the bravery, spirit, grace and values of our grateful Nation.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to see the passage of S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. This bill has been under consideration in Congress since before I was elected to the Senate. Since my arrival, I have been a proponent of the goals it strives to attain to ensure that abuse of America's bankruptcy laws is curtailed and that Americans who find themselves in unanticipated financial duress and have legitimate reasons to seek bankruptcy protections will have the opportunity to do so.

The goal of the bill is to prevent certain abuses of the bankruptcy system. It includes more than five hundred pages of new and reformed law, but key provisions include the following.

First and foremost, the bill will curb abuse of the bankruptcy system by implementing a means test to ensure that those who can afford to repay some portion of their unsecured debts are required to do so. Bankruptcy petitioners with relatively high incomes could be required to file under chapter 13 instead of chapter 7, and repay some of their debt out of future income. The means test takes into account the petitioner's income, debt burden, and allowable living expenses, which can vary significantly according to the debtor's place of residence and particular circumstances. Filers who cannot afford to repay at least $6,000 will be given unfettered access to chapter 7 liquidation proceedings.

The bill has a safeguard that will allow judges to consider extenuating circumstances in each bankruptcy case. After determining this means test calculation, the judge can then take any ``special circumstances'' into consideration before making a decision to shift the debtor into chapter 13. This will allow judges to consider cases where catastrophic illnesses or other unexpected financial calamities that have impacted a family or individual to the point where their debts are too heavy a load to carry. This provision made many of the amendments considered on this bill redundant.

The bill implements an important safeguard for family farmers by making permanent the extension of chapter 12 bankruptcy rules. Chapter 12 has expired every year, necessitating the need for an extension. Last year, Senator Grassley and I worked in a bipartisan fashion to secure the chapter 12 extension. The bill also bumps the exemption level for family farmers from $1.5 million to nearly $3.24 million, which will be adjusted periodically for inflation.

The bill includes an important provision to safeguard our children. It contains provisions that strengthen the ability of women and children to collect child support and marital dissolution obligations. This provision will enable some families to continue to provide for the needs of their children.

Consumers also benefit from protection measures in this bill. By requiring new minimum payment and introductory rate disclosures for credit cards, consumers will be protected from surprise fees and unexpected rate fluctuation. It also contains a `debtor's bill of rights' requiring that bankruptcy attorneys and petition preparers disclose their services and fees for those services to consumers.

It is important to note that no American will be denied access to the bankruptcy system under these reforms. However, those trying to shield their assets while abandoning their financial responsibilities will find it much more difficult to abuse the system and leave their debts for other Americans to cover through higher interest rates and fees.

As I mentioned earlier, there were many amendments to this bill offered for consideration. As I considered each of these amendments, I measured the intended impact of each amendment on the bill. In voting against many of the amendments I did so knowing that the groups of individuals singled out by the amendments, such as veterans, individuals with chronic health problems, or military personnel, were already adequately protected in the underlying bill.

I carefully considered each amendment offered to the bill on a case by case basis to determine if the amendment improved the bill. Because I believe the bill already covered most of the issues presented in the amendments, it was my determination than many of the amendments did not improve the bill and thus, I voted against them.

Again, this bill includes a safeguard for judges to consider ``special circumstances'' like medical bills, deployment to war and other circumstances. In addition to this safeguard, I supported an amendment to the bill that clarified the circumstances that might be considered by a judge. That language provided specific examples a judge might consider including ``a serious medical condition or a call to order to active duty in the armed forces.'' I voted for this amendment because it provided an improvement, in the form of clarity on special circumstances.

It is important that creditors, retailers, and small businesses who in good faith provide people with credit do not bare the brunt of the cost when debtors find themselves unable to pay. It is also critical that we protect consumers who have found themselves in unanticipated situations where their inability to meet their debts is beyond their control. And it is important to safeguard consumers against predatory lending practices.

I worked hard to find the correct balance among these competing goals on this bill and feel that the Senate did a good job in accomplishing that overriding principal. I am pleased to support this bill because I believe it provides needed improvements to our bankruptcy protection laws that will benefit every American.

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

Mr. President. Today, I introduce legislation that will overturn a new regulation that is putting critical access hospitals (CAH) at risk by arbitrarily lowering the Medicare reimbursement for laboratory services. Sixty rural hospitals in Nebraska will be negatively impacted unless this regulation is reversed.

This legislation would repeal a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) regulation that would prohibit critical access hospitals from being reimbursed at-cost for laboratory services, unless patients are ``physically present in a critical access hospital'' when laboratory specimens are collected. Many CAHs provide laboratory services in rural health clinics (RHCs) and nursing homes in smaller, neighboring communities, as well as in home-health settings; however, the elimination of cost-based reimbursement may make it prohibitive for them to continue offering off-site laboratory testing. In short, under the new regulation, lab services would not be reimbursed by CMS unless the patient is at the facility where testing will occur.

This change jeopardizes rural Americans' access to care by imposing an additional burden on the frail elderly by requiring them to visit the hospital to get simple lab tests done. The additional time and expense incurred by the patient is unnecessary if the CAR is willing and able to conduct tests at the point of patient care and transport it back to the hospital for analysis.

Congress created the CAR program in 1997 to ensure that those in isolated, rural communities have access to health care. To protect the viability of these hospitals, often a community's only source of vital health care services, Congress established cost-based reimbursement for Medicare inpatient and outpatient services--regardless of where the services are provided. The new regulation would fundamentally alter this well-established practice.

We have tried to work with CMS to change the rule. In November of 2003, I was joined by 28 Senators in a bipartisan letter to the Administrator of CMS asking for his assistance in constructing a rule that does not penalize CAHs for offering off-site laboratory services. Unfortunately, CMS responded that the rule would stay intact.

I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Susan Collins. Senator Collins has been a strong advocate for rural health care, and I look forward to working together on this legislation.

The Nebraska critical access hospitals affected by the regulation are:

Harlan County Health System in Alma

Fillmore County Hospital in Geneva

Pawnee County Memorial Hospital in Pawnee City

Niobrara Valley Hospital Corporation in Lynch

Thayer County Health Services in Hebron

Kimball County Hospital in Kimball

Kearney County Health Services/Hospital in Minden

Saunders County Health Services in Wahoo

Henderson Health Care Services in Henderson

Community Memorial Hospital in Syracuse

Garden County Hospital & Nursing Home in Oshkosh

Franklin County Memorial Hospital in Franklin

Genoa Community Hospital in Genoa

Gothenburg Memorial Hospital in Gothenburg

Annie Jeffrey Memorial County Health Center in Osceola

Brodstone Memorial Nuckolls County Hospital in Superior

Webster County Community Hospital in Red Cloud

Tilden Community Hospital in Tilden

Morrill County Community Hospital in Bridgeport

Jefferson Community Health Center in Fairbury

Memorial Hospital in Aurora

Oakland Memorial Hospital in Oakland

St. Francis Memorial Hospital in West Point

Alegent Health Memorial Hospital in Schuyler

Nemaha County Hospital in Auburn

Brown County Hospital in Ainsworth

Antelope Memorial Hospital in Neligh

Cozad Community Hospital in Cozad

Litzenberg Memorial County Hospital in Central City

Avera St. Anthony's Hospital in O'Neill

Warren Memorial Hospital in Friend

Creighton Area Health Services in Creighton

Butler County Health Care Center in David City

Rock County Hospital in Bassett

Boone County Health Center in Albion

Callaway District Hospital in Callaway

York General Hospital in York

Howard County Community Hospital in St. Paul

Memorial Hospital CAH in Seward

Dundy County Hospital in Benkelman

Chadron Community Hospital Health Services in Chadron

St. Mary's Hospital in Nebraska City

West Holt Memorial Hospital in Atkinson

Cherry County Hospital in Valentine

Providence Medical Center in Wayne

Plainview Public Hospital in Plainview

Osmond General Hospital in Osmond

Tri Valley Health System in Cambridge

Pender Community Hospital in Pender

Johnson County Hospital in Tecumseh

Chase County Community Hospital in Imperial

Community Medical Center in Falls City

Valley County Hospital in Ord

Crete Area Medical Center in Crete

Ogallala Community Hospital in Ogallala

Perkins County Health Services in Grant

Memorial Health Center in Sidney

Gordon Memorial Hospital District in Gordon

Memorial Community Hospital in Blair

Box Butte General Hospital in Alliance

Mr. President. Today, I introduce legislation that will overturn a new regulation that is putting critical access hospitals (CAH) at risk by arbitrarily lowering the Medicare reimbursement for laboratory services. Sixty rural hospitals in Nebraska will be negatively impacted unless this regulation is reversed.

This legislation would repeal a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) regulation that would prohibit critical access hospitals from being reimbursed at-cost for laboratory services, unless patients are ``physically present in a critical access hospital'' when laboratory specimens are collected. Many CAHs provide laboratory services in rural health clinics (RHCs) and nursing homes in smaller, neighboring communities, as well as in home-health settings; however, the elimination of cost-based reimbursement may make it prohibitive for them to continue offering off-site laboratory testing. In short, under the new regulation, lab services would not be reimbursed by CMS unless the patient is at the facility where testing will occur.

This change jeopardizes rural Americans' access to care by imposing an additional burden on the frail elderly by requiring them to visit the hospital to get simple lab tests done. The additional time and expense incurred by the patient is unnecessary if the CAR is willing and able to conduct tests at the point of patient care and transport it back to the hospital for analysis.

Congress created the CAR program in 1997 to ensure that those in isolated, rural communities have access to health care. To protect the viability of these hospitals, often a community's only source of vital health care services, Congress established cost-based reimbursement for Medicare inpatient and outpatient services--regardless of where the services are provided. The new regulation would fundamentally alter this well-established practice.

We have tried to work with CMS to change the rule. In November of 2003, I was joined by 28 Senators in a bipartisan letter to the Administrator of CMS asking for his assistance in constructing a rule that does not penalize CAHs for offering off-site laboratory services. Unfortunately, CMS responded that the rule would stay intact.

I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Susan Collins. Senator Collins has been a strong advocate for rural health care, and I look forward to working together on this legislation.

The Nebraska critical access hospitals affected by the regulation are:

Harlan County Health System in Alma

Fillmore County Hospital in Geneva

Pawnee County Memorial Hospital in Pawnee City

Niobrara Valley Hospital Corporation in Lynch

Thayer County Health Services in Hebron

Kimball County Hospital in Kimball

Kearney County Health Services/Hospital in Minden

Saunders County Health Services in Wahoo

Henderson Health Care Services in Henderson

Community Memorial Hospital in Syracuse

Garden County Hospital & Nursing Home in Oshkosh

Franklin County Memorial Hospital in Franklin

Genoa Community Hospital in Genoa

Gothenburg Memorial Hospital in Gothenburg

Annie Jeffrey Memorial County Health Center in Osceola

Brodstone Memorial Nuckolls County Hospital in Superior

Webster County Community Hospital in Red Cloud

Tilden Community Hospital in Tilden

Morrill County Community Hospital in Bridgeport

Jefferson Community Health Center in Fairbury

Memorial Hospital in Aurora

Oakland Memorial Hospital in Oakland

St. Francis Memorial Hospital in West Point

Alegent Health Memorial Hospital in Schuyler

Nemaha County Hospital in Auburn

Brown County Hospital in Ainsworth

Antelope Memorial Hospital in Neligh

Cozad Community Hospital in Cozad

Litzenberg Memorial County Hospital in Central City

Avera St. Anthony's Hospital in O'Neill

Warren Memorial Hospital in Friend

Creighton Area Health Services in Creighton

Butler County Health Care Center in David City

Rock County Hospital in Bassett

Boone County Health Center in Albion

Callaway District Hospital in Callaway

York General Hospital in York

Howard County Community Hospital in St. Paul

Memorial Hospital CAH in Seward

Dundy County Hospital in Benkelman

Chadron Community Hospital Health Services in Chadron

St. Mary's Hospital in Nebraska City

West Holt Memorial Hospital in Atkinson

Cherry County Hospital in Valentine

Providence Medical Center in Wayne

Plainview Public Hospital in Plainview

Osmond General Hospital in Osmond

Tri Valley Health System in Cambridge

Pender Community Hospital in Pender

Johnson County Hospital in Tecumseh

Chase County Community Hospital in Imperial

Community Medical Center in Falls City

Valley County Hospital in Ord

Crete Area Medical Center in Crete

Ogallala Community Hospital in Ogallala

Perkins County Health Services in Grant

Memorial Health Center in Sidney

Gordon Memorial Hospital District in Gordon

Memorial Community Hospital in Blair

Box Butte General Hospital in Alliance

Mr. President, thank you for the opportunity to speak today about a fellow Nebraskan who not only gave back to his State, but gave much more in ways of laughter to all of America. I am speaking of Johnny Carson, beloved by his family and friends, cherished by fans, and respected by his fellow comedians. Johnny Carson was a man whose comedic talent always looked effortless, yet set the highest of standards for his performances. Mr. Carson passed away at the age of 79.

Mr. Carson took over the ``Tonight Show'' in 1962, and preferring to retire at the top of his game, voluntarily stepped down in 1992. For 30 years, Johnny Carson tucked Americans into their beds all the while making them laugh before they shut their eyes to sleep. Between 10 to 15 million people watched Johnny deliver his hilarious monologue each night.

Mr. Carson should be honored not only for all the laughter he brought to so many American homes, but also all that he brought to his hometown, Norfolk, NE. Johnny Carson was and will remain Nebraska's favorite native son. He always remembered his roots, and often made visits home to ``give back'' to his humble, rural community which he loved. There is no question that all of Norfolk loved him back. He was a philanthropist, a father, a son and to most, a cherished nightly friend.

Mr. Carson shielded his political views as carefully as he did his private life, insisting that the only message of his show was entertainment. Johnny Carson is a man that could bring people together, regardless of political or religious affiliation, regardless of race or gender; he was a man of character. He will be remembered and recognized today and always as a man who gave his all and never forgot the few.

Mr. President, today I am offering legislation with Senator Mike Enzi to remove chicory from the fruit and vegetable, FAV, planting prohibition on Direct and Counter-Cyclical Program, DCP, base acres.

Diversification is a common theme among farm producers throughout the country. If we expect our producers to survive, we have to give them more options for diversifying agriculture. Our responsibility should include the elimination of the disincentive to produce alternative crops. This bill offers a clear opportunity to grow a chicory industry, creating a new revenue stream and helping to diversify agriculture production.

The State of Nebraska currently has the only chicory processing facility in the United States. There is a strong interest from producers in Nebraska and Wyoming to increase the production of chicory, due to its relatively low input cost and opportunity for high profits. Only 800 to 1,000 acres of the crop are expected to be planted in 2005. Farm bill policies are simply blocking the prospects for growth in the chicory industry.

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 currently provides three exceptions--lentils, mung beans, and dry peas--to the FAV planting prohibition on DCP base acres. Chicory should be added to this list of exceptions.

Mr. President, today I am offering legislation with Senator Mike Enzi to remove chicory from the fruit and vegetable, FAV, planting prohibition on Direct and Counter-Cyclical Program, DCP, base acres.

Diversification is a common theme among farm producers throughout the country. If we expect our producers to survive, we have to give them more options for diversifying agriculture. Our responsibility should include the elimination of the disincentive to produce alternative crops. This bill offers a clear opportunity to grow a chicory industry, creating a new revenue stream and helping to diversify agriculture production.

The State of Nebraska currently has the only chicory processing facility in the United States. There is a strong interest from producers in Nebraska and Wyoming to increase the production of chicory, due to its relatively low input cost and opportunity for high profits. Only 800 to 1,000 acres of the crop are expected to be planted in 2005. Farm bill policies are simply blocking the prospects for growth in the chicory industry.

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 currently provides three exceptions--lentils, mung beans, and dry peas--to the FAV planting prohibition on DCP base acres. Chicory should be added to this list of exceptions.

Mr. President, today I am offering legislation with Senator Pete Domenici and Senator Larry Craig to allow small rural communities more time to meet an onerous and financially burdensome water quality regulation that is being imposed on local governments by the Environmental Protection Agency. The bipartisan Rural Community Arsenic Relief Act (RCARA) will amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to exempt small rural communities with population of up to ten thousand from the EPA's strict requirement to limit arsenic in drinking water to 10 parts per billion by January 1, 2006. Currently the allowable level of arsenic in drinking water is 50 ppb.

As a former governor who fought against unfunded Federal mandates from Washington, I understand the impact a policy such as this can have on local budgets.

Small rural communities simply don't have the resources and tax base to meet the arsenic standard arbitrarily set by the EPA. This unfunded mandate is a strain on local government budgets and will drive up local taxes. It is not right to ask the elected officials of our small communities to spend their limited funds on risks that we are learning are not as dangerous as they have been portrayed. This legislation will allow local governments more time to plan for and absorb the costs of meeting the EPA's standards for arsenic.

With each passing day it is increasingly evident that small communities will not be able to count on any immediate federal assistance in converting their water systems to meet the new arsenic standard. This bipartisan bill represents one means of giving more time to these communities, most of which have lived with arsenic--a widely distributed naturally occurring element--for ages.

Rural communities across America are grasping for solutions to comply with the new arsenic standard. Many reach the same conclusion--it is just too expensive. RCARA acknowledges that this is happening, recognizes that a one-size-fits-all solution doesn't work, and provides a framework to protect public health, while at the same time giving communities the flexibility they need to comply.

State officials in Nebraska estimate it could cost communities $120 million--$176 million to comply with the standard. Many communities, fearing that this regulation could bankrupt them, are considering dramatically raising rates for drinking water to cover the cost of new treatment and equipment. Extending the deadline is crucial for taxpayers and ratepayers throughout the country.

This bill allows small communities to adopt a locally supported public health policy as an alternative to the one prescribed by EPA. In many communities, the rule can reasonably be expected to more than double water rates on low-income families without improving the quality of their water in any appreciative manner. Our bill provides a reasonable amount of time for our small communities to understand and implement EPA's requirements, without bankrupting the system. It is the least we should do.

Mr. President, the United States is blessed with an abundance of natural resources and cutting-edge technology that leads the world in agriculture. We all agree that the richest resource of American agriculture is its people the--farm and ranch families-- whose efforts drive the productivity of our Agriculture industry for food, fiber and fuel.

American agriculture today is a complex business, very different from what it was even a decade ago. Adoption of modern technology, improved mechanization, and changing methods of production, marketing, and financing by energetic farmers and ranchers has changed the landscape of our rural areas. Our producers, diversified by size and enterprise, support an economic system that is, without doubt, the envy of the world.

It's critical to understand the diversity of American agriculture and how it influences our daily lives--whether we work or we don't work in agriculture or whether we live or we don't live on a farm. This is why I support the nomination of Nebraska Governor Mike Johanns to lead this agency that is responsible for the safety of meat, poultry and egg products, for opening new markets and reopening those currently closed to U.S. agricultural products, for providing food aid to those who have the need, for protecting soil,

water and wildlife, and for administering food nutrition programs.

Governor Johanns' qualifications to lead the Department of Agriculture are--at the core--his upbringing and his receptiveness to change and diversification--essential elements for an industry driven by ingenuity and fair competition.

Nebraska is a world-class leader in producing a high-quality, abundant, and affordable food supply. It leads the Nation in total red meat and dry bean production, and is a significant player in the production of alfalfa hay, corn, grain sorghum, soybeans, winter wheat, livestock, and popcorn.

Nearly 8 million acres of Nebraska's field crops benefit from irrigation, through approximately 24,000 miles of streams and rivers, reservoirs and aquifers. In recent years, the importance of maintaining water quality and quantity in times of severe drought conditions has added to the complexity of agricultural production. Mike Johanns has governed in these times of great uncertainty and is well aware of the continuing needs to deal with these most difficult times.

Governor Johanns presents a list of qualifications that will be of considerable benefit not only to Nebraska and the Midwest, but throughout the nation.

He is an experienced leader and a strong advocate with solid common sense solutions to the difficult questions presented to him. We've talked about the need for a bipartisan approach in this important job and I know he agrees how important that will be.

I look forward to continue working with Governor Johanns, as Secretary of Agriculture to improve drought monitoring and forecasting, to advance renewable fuels initiatives increasing the use of ethanol and biodiesel in our transportation fuels just to name a few. In addition, the opportunity to create new and innovative rural development programs and reverse the trend of out-migration from the smallest communities has never been more important. Today's nominee not only has the leadership experience but he also has the experience of having worked to develop such programs.

Governor Johanns and I have discussed and agree that it is important for the Secretary of Agriculture to work in a bipartisan manner with Congress. With a Farm Bill reauthorization effort nearing, I look forward to working cooperatively with him to develop a practical approach to our national agriculture policy that will support and promote our agriculture products and producers. The new Farm Bill should further the goals of consumer safety and confidence in our nation's food supply, without compromising the ability of our producers to compete--freely and fairly--in the global marketplace.

I was pleased to learn of the administration's selection of Mike Johanns as the Secretary of Agriculture. I have said repeatedly, and believe thoroughly, the person who will administer the farm bill and build for the future of agriculture in America needs to be somebody with Midwestern agricultural experience. Governor Johanns has that kind of experience and that perspective and in my opinion will serve the administration and the country well.

Mr. President, Hayes Center is in the southwestern part of my home state of Nebraska. Villa Hayes is in the southwestern part of the Republic of Paraguay. I rise today to highlight the unusual connection between these two towns, named for the same American President, which have forged strong ties despite the distance between them. Thanks to a historian's efforts, these towns share a bond that affirms the power of international friendship and the enduring legacy of President Rutherford B. Hayes.

In 1878, President Hayes arbitrated a boundary dispute between Paraguay and Argentina, awarding new territory to Paraguay. The country named a department and a city, near the national capital of Asuncion, for him. John Fatherley of Chicopee, MA, is a historian who studies President Hayes. During college studies in Paraguay, he learned about the country's respect for our 19th President, whose decision in 1878 enlarged Paraguay by 30 percent.

Mr. Fatherley has since sought to promote ties between Hayes Center and Villa Hayes. He has traveled to Nebraska to educate Hayes Center students about the President for whom their town is named. He has also brought documents on President Hayes from the U.S. to Paraguay. In return, Villa Hayes presented Mr. Fatherley with its town seal, which he donated to the Hayes Center Historical Society in Nebraska.

Nebraskans are fortunate to share this connection with our South American friends and to have benefited over the years from Mr. Fatherley's admirable efforts. He has promoted international cooperation between Nebraskans and Paraguayans and honored the memory of a president too often forgotten. In an age when the well-being of any nation depends on so many others, it is more important than ever to strengthen the ties between Americans and our fellow human beings around the world.

I wish to express my admiration, therefore, for Mr. Fatherley and the towns of Hayes Center, NE, and Villa Hayes, Paraguay. Mr. Fatherley's work has revealed a small but important piece of common ground between the United States and Paraguay. He has also taught students in a small Nebraska community about the world beyond their walls. Both these things are essential to continued American prosperity and leadership in these challenging times.

Madam President, I thank my colleague for the opportunity to join with him to support this bipartisan legislation which we will be working to get passed in January.

As my colleague said, the new command will be a functional rather than a regional command, just like the U.S. Strategic Command in my State of Nebraska, and the U.S. Special Operations Command in Florida, the U.S. Joint Forces Command in Virginia, and U.S. Transportation Command in Illinois.

As stated, the goal of this new command will be to organize the eight combat support intelligence elements within the Department of Defense under a single military commander. These elements will include bringing together what are often referred to as the alphabet agencies. Most people know them more by their initials than they do by the actual names. But it will bring together the DIA, or the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine intelligence offices. All total, these offices employ thousands with budgets in the billions.

Eighty percent of all intelligence gathered by the U.S. Government is used by our armed services, and the ability to rapidly disseminate this information, as well as share the information, often means the difference between success and failure in the field. This new combatant commander will streamline the flow of information from our combat support elements to the warfighter, an important part, an important role for this agency.

The responsibility of the military intelligence commander will include intelligence collection and analysis in response to requests from the national

intelligence director. As we know, this past week we all heard a great deal about whether it should be a NID, national intelligence director, or a NIC, whether it should be about directing or coordinating. This commander will act as the single entry point for the NID to assign military intelligence capabilities, and will strengthen the coordination of those efforts.

This will strengthen coordination between the NID and the Department of Defense because without one central contact inside DOD who can manage the military intelligence capabilities of the Department, it will be an extraordinary challenge for somebody outside DOD, such as the NID, to proficiently administer eight separate military intelligence assets.

This new command will prepare and submit to the Secretary of Defense and the NID recommendations and budget proposals for military intelligence forces and activities. Additionally, the commander will establish priorities for military intelligence that coincide with national priorities established by the NID and approved by the President. The commander will also ensure interoperability of intelligence sharing within the Department of Defense and within the intelligence community as a whole, as directed by the NID.

The commander will answer to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and the President, and will represent the Department of Defense in the intelligence community under the NID.

I realize some of my colleagues may be asking the question whether this new position will add yet another layer to military intelligence- gathering agencies, but consider the fact that no military coordinator currently exists. So I do not see this as another layer; I view it as a necessary position that DOD has been far too long without.

Perhaps if the commander for military intelligence already existed, then discovering how command was severed at Abu Ghraib might have been easier. The tragedy there likely would not have been prevented entirely, but there certainly would have been more direct lines of accountability with a combatant commander for military intelligence.

This is an opportunity for us to debate the issue at this time, but the opportunity to pass it after the first of the year will be one that I think we must, in fact, take up. It will improve coordination and will not undermine the direction of the national intelligence director, but it will, in fact, help harmonize in the sharing of intelligence throughout the entire military and intelligence community.

I thank my colleague from Georgia for the opportunity to participate, and I congratulate the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for doing an outstanding job in reforming our intelligence-gathering agencies' operations.

It is not an easy task. We think this could be a part of it, but rather than have any effect in slowing down the operation of what we are doing today, we think we can take this up at another time.

Mr. President, I support our amendment to provide emergency drought disaster assistance for farmers and ranchers who have suffered under a prolonged--in some areas a 5 year--drought. I am pleased to be working with Senators Conrad, Baucus, Dorgan, Burns, Roberts and Brownback to offer this amendment. It is a bipartisan amendment, with strong support. This amendment has the strong support of our national farm organizations, such as the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Farmers Union.

Nebraska's facing its fifth straight year of record drought, which as you know has a damaging effect on the agriculture industry, as well as the main street of every Nebraska community. The same is true in Montana, North Dakota, Kansas and other States as well. Droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes, are natural disasters and deserve to be treated the same. Multiple years of drought have cost our Nation billions of dollars in economic losses and have many farmers wondering whether they'll be able to carry on.

We were successful in 2003 in getting assistance to our producers, but only at half the amount necessary. We passed a $3.1 billion assistance package that was offset with farm bill programs--a plan I opposed. I offered a $6 billion emergency assistance package that if it had passed; we probably wouldn't be here today seeking what we were denied in 2003.

I have continuously worked for the additional assistance we have been unable to secure. I have repeatedly called on the President and Congress to support funding for drought aid for our farmers and ranchers, and to fully fund the crop and livestock disaster programs so critical to Nebraska's farmers and ranchers. This is of the utmost importance to farmers and ranchers in Nebraska and across all the areas suffering from this natural disaster.

The estimated cost for this disaster assistance is $2.9 billion. The assistance will be provided through emergency assistance in the form of a Corp Disaster Program, Quality Loss Program and a Livestock Assistance Program. This assistance is targeted to those who need it most. It will help recover eligible losses sustained by producers in counties designated as primary or continuous disaster areas during the 2003 or 2004 production years.

Producers can choose to claim losses for either the 2003 or 2004 production years, but not both years. This flexibility will allow for ranchers and producers to seek assistance for the year with the greatest negative impact on their farm operation.

I am happy to report that a similar effort is underway in the House of Representatives. Nebraska's own Tom Osborne is leading a bipartisan effort to secure relief for agriculture producers. I am hopeful that my Senate colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment. We must respond to the crisis this drought has caused in Nebraska and our Midwestern neighbors.

I send an amendment to the desk.

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

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.

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.

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