Floor Statements

Mr. President, PVT Noah Boye was a dedicated Marine who served his country with honor. He joined the Marine Corps right after he graduated from high school in 2001. He was deployed to Kuwait in February 2003 and was part of the initial coalition forces that helped bring down Saddam Hussein in March. Private Boye spent 4 months in Iraq that year and redeployed to Iraq last month. He is described as a caring person who was always there for everybody and anybody. His family remembers him as the life of the party and a genuine and gentle man. The last contact he had with his mother was a letter that she received from him 3 weeks ago that was dated March 7. When his mother showed concern about her son going to Iraq, he told her, ``Mom, that's my job. It's what I have to do.'' Private Boye fought for his country with no regrets and with great honor.

I would like to express my deepest sympathy for the Boye Family, and I know all Nebraskans join me in remembering and honoring Noah's contributions to Grand Island and his sacrifice on behalf of his country. Private Boye's sacrifice will forever remind this Nation of the danger that comes with the duty to protect our Nation's interests and the freedoms of others around the world. As a nation, we are grateful to Marines like Private Boye who make the ultimate sacrifice so that all Americans can live in freedom.

Sp Dennis Morgan

Mr. President, SGT David McKeever was a soldier who fought honorably for his country. He joined the Army in 1997, right after graduation from South Park High School in South Buffalo, NY. Before going to Iraq to try to help keep peace, he served proudly in Bosnia. He just recently reenlisted to serve his country. He was also approved for a promotion from army specialist to the rank of sergeant just before his death. This well-deserved honor was given to him posthumously.

David had 15 days remaining before he would have left Iraq for Germany, and then return home. His family describes him as a dedicated soldier, proud American, and hero who was fully aware of the high cost of freedom.

SGT David McKeever will be greatly missed and our thoughts and prayers will be with his family and friends. He leaves behind a wife, a one-year-old son, his parents and his four sisters. As a nation, we are grateful to David McKeever and other soldiers like him who make the ultimate sacrifice so that others can live free.

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to continue the relief to six hospitals in Nebraska that have been struggling financially under the current Medicare payment structure.

Local hospitals can best meet the unique needs of rural communities which is why I am committed to ensuring that these hospitals have the resources they need. Vital services like hospitals are increasingly important for the survival of our rural communities. Towns can't adequately serve residents--or attract new residents--without access to basic services. We need to focus on ensuring that hospitals and other vital services have the resources they need, so that communities will have the essential services they require.

Last year, Senator Brownback and I proposed legislation to provide cost-based reimbursement for rural community hospitals. Rural Community Hospitals (RCH) are hospitals with between 25-50 beds. Those hospitals had been adversely affected by Medicare formulas that set rates for reimbursement nationwide. These rates did not take into account the higher costs of practicing medicine in rural areas as these areas do not have the benefits of volume that larger hospitals enjoy. RCHs are also too large to qualify for critical access designation given to hospitals with fewer than 25 beds.

I am pleased that provisions from this legislation were included in the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 as a pilot program. The program provided cost-based reimbursements for inpatient services.

The legislation Senator Brownback and I are introducing today will expand the pilot program to cover outpatient services as well. This legislation will again address a critical shortcoming in current reimbursement practices and help Rural Community Hospitals serve their communities and invest in the future of rural health care.

Six Nebraska hospitals would be affected by expanding the scope of the pilot program. Those hospitals are: Beatrice Community Hospital, Columbus Community Hospital, McCook Community Hospital, Jennie Melham Memorial Medical Center in Broken Bow, Phelps Memorial Health Center in Holdrege, and Tri County Hospital in Lexington.

We made some progress for our rural hospitals by creating the RCH pilot program last year. This legislation would expand on that victory by ensuring that all Medicare treatments, whether inpatient or outpatient, would receive cost-based reimbursement. Expanding this program will make a big difference to these hospitals and more importantly, the patients they serve.

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to continue the relief to six hospitals in Nebraska that have been struggling financially under the current Medicare payment structure.

Local hospitals can best meet the unique needs of rural communities which is why I am committed to ensuring that these hospitals have the resources they need. Vital services like hospitals are increasingly important for the survival of our rural communities. Towns can't adequately serve residents--or attract new residents--without access to basic services. We need to focus on ensuring that hospitals and other vital services have the resources they need, so that communities will have the essential services they require.

Last year, Senator Brownback and I proposed legislation to provide cost-based reimbursement for rural community hospitals. Rural Community Hospitals (RCH) are hospitals with between 25-50 beds. Those hospitals had been adversely affected by Medicare formulas that set rates for reimbursement nationwide. These rates did not take into account the higher costs of practicing medicine in rural areas as these areas do not have the benefits of volume that larger hospitals enjoy. RCHs are also too large to qualify for critical access designation given to hospitals with fewer than 25 beds.

I am pleased that provisions from this legislation were included in the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 as a pilot program. The program provided cost-based reimbursements for inpatient services.

The legislation Senator Brownback and I are introducing today will expand the pilot program to cover outpatient services as well. This legislation will again address a critical shortcoming in current reimbursement practices and help Rural Community Hospitals serve their communities and invest in the future of rural health care.

Six Nebraska hospitals would be affected by expanding the scope of the pilot program. Those hospitals are: Beatrice Community Hospital, Columbus Community Hospital, McCook Community Hospital, Jennie Melham Memorial Medical Center in Broken Bow, Phelps Memorial Health Center in Holdrege, and Tri County Hospital in Lexington.

We made some progress for our rural hospitals by creating the RCH pilot program last year. This legislation would expand on that victory by ensuring that all Medicare treatments, whether inpatient or outpatient, would receive cost-based reimbursement. Expanding this program will make a big difference to these hospitals and more importantly, the patients they serve.

Mr. President, I agree with much of what my colleague from Idaho said with respect to passing the Energy bill. I think it is important we find ways to become far more energy independent, rather than dependent, on foreign sources of oil. In addition to looking for ways to become self-sustaining in our energy needs, we need to look to the Western Hemisphere for a Western Hemisphere energy policy to bring together the countries in this hemisphere to work jointly for our energy needs. I will have more on this in the future. I commend my colleague for his comments about the importance of getting an Energy bill. We need to look at renewable sources of energy.

I know my colleague from Iowa will agree that soy diesel and ethanol would be just a few of the kinds of things we could do as an alternative energy policy, and they are all included in the Energy bill the Senate has passed on a

couple of occasions and hopefully the White House will work with the House of Representatives to fashion their version of a bill that will mesh with ours so we can ultimately pass in the very near future an Energy bill for the United States so 60 percent reliance on foreign sources can be reduced as dramatically as we possibly can do it, as quickly as possible as well, so we can become self-sustaining with our energy needs.

I wish to also talk today about the effort that has been undertaken since at least 1996 by Congress and the previous administration, and that is the fundamental reform of the welfare system. This system, while seeking to prevent hardship among those hurt by economic deprivation by providing a safety net, had unfortunately become a spider web. Too many families were caught in the cycle of poverty, and the system that was supposed to help them became instead complicit in maintaining the cycle.

Chief among those reforms was providing more flexibility to States. As a Governor at the time, I saw firsthand the results of giving those closest to the unique challenges of the system, the States, the ability to implement changes to the welfare system.

In Nebraska, we instituted a program called Employment First. This was a fundamental change to the way welfare worked. No longer would a person automatically be entitled to benefits if able-bodied. He or she had to sign a contract which laid out a plan for becoming self- sufficient. The maximum period of being eligible for benefits was 2 years barring extraordinary circumstances. Yet Employment First also recognized some persons, especially single women with children, needed additional help with family matters such as childcare and transportation.

We provided transitional aid for these challenges, even after they found employment; if you will, a bridge from welfare to work, a bridge that was put in place to help people become self-sufficient in the process of finding employment and leaving welfare.

Public officials were encouraged to consider a new view of the measurement of assistance. Instead of focusing on how many were added to the rolls, they looked at how many entered employment. That change in vision produced dramatic results. The total Nebraska caseload dropped 11 percent by 1998, the lowest number in 18 years. Average monthly caseloads fell 30 percent from 1993 levels. A family's time on assistance had been cut almost two-thirds to 11 months from the time under the old system, and Nebraska taxpayers saved $14 million moving families from dependence to independence, from welfare to work.

This is important to note. Nebraska saved $14 million under the new system. It is important because States, including Nebraska, are now facing serious budget shortages. In fact, today's Lincoln Journal Star reports Nebraska leaders had to borrow from the State's cash reserve fund to make payroll and pay its bills this week. In fact, $58.2 million, which is the exact amount Nebraska received in additional Federal funds this year, was borrowed from the reserve to fund schools and other programs throughout the State.

The Federal funds stored in the State's reserve have helped States during this recession period. Those funds came from a State fiscal relief measure sponsored by my colleagues Senator Susan Collins of Maine, Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, and myself. This is exactly what that State fiscal relief effort intended: to provide fiscal assistance to help States, such as Nebraska, that are facing chronic budget shortfalls and help them meet their obligations.

It is important to remember this welfare reform bill will also help States continue to meet those obligations. For example, the State of Nebraska sharply cut back eligibility for childcare assistance from 185 percent of poverty to 120 percent of poverty. As a result, about 1,600 Nebraska children lost childcare assistance from the State.

Yesterday the Senate adopted an amendment to add $6 billion for childcare services to this bill. Under that amendment, Nebraska would receive $40.8 million of that money to help the State provide for Nebraska's children. I am proud to say I was one of those in the majority who voted for that amendment.

With flexibility, the States can tailor their programs to meet their specific needs and save money in the process. A large part of our success in Nebraska in the 1990s was due to the new flexibility allowed under the 1996 law. We now want to expand that flexibility so more States can craft their own unique methods to succeed.

Yet Employment First also recognized some persons, especially single women with children, needed additional help with family matters, such as childcare and transportation, and with the Federal funds that were provided were able to do that.

Today I wish to talk briefly about the Alexander-Nelson-Carper- Voinovich amendment or, if I am talking to Nebraskans, the Nelson- Alexander-Carper-Voinovich amendment that would provide that flexibility to the States.

Our amendment would create the accountability for a results demonstration project to provide greater flexibility to up to 10 years. But we wouldn't just provide flexibility, we would demand results and accountability. States participating in the project would be required to ensure all adult TANF recipients have a self-sufficiency plan, much like Nebraska.

As I said, we have put this to work in Nebraska. It has made a tremendous difference in how recipients look at their own lives. It helps them map out their own paths to success and assures they will have the institutional assistance they need to follow it.

Our amendment would also include targets for increasing the State's performance, not just increasing employment and job retention, but in tracking entry earnings and earnings gains and, most importantly, child well-being. This is vital because reducing the welfare rolls will mean little if it comes at the expense of children. The amendment would institute penalties for States that fail to meet their agreed-upon targets because it means little if it is not accompanied by results.

This proposal will expand upon existing reform measures and will help strengthen States' abilities to assist those most in need while giving them the tools they need to succeed. It is worth pointing out this amendment is sponsored by four former Governors.

We understand the role of the States in making welfare reform a success because we have all been there. States can do more. They want to do more. This amendment will help them meet the unique needs of their citizens by tailoring their programs to address the needs of recipients in their States.

I recall the times when it was necessary to come to Washington to get the approval of Health and Human Services to take a unique approach. This was time consuming, expensive, and delayed the process. What we want to do is give the Governors the opportunity, through their legislatures, to address the needs of recipients in their own respective States, under the theory of the States as the laboratories of democracy as envisioned by Thomas Jefferson. We want to give them the opportunity to make those changes and meet the needs of their respective citizens.

I thank my colleagues, Senator Alexander, who has arrived on the floor, Senator Carper, and Senator Voinovich for their hard work on behalf of welfare recipients and their efforts on this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help the States help their residents.

Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from North Dakota and commend him for all the work he has done on the budget.

I say to my friend from Idaho I think we recognize across the aisle it is important for us to work on a bipartisan basis. I agree with him. I might take issue with him when he would suggest that any, or all, or always, or never with respect to your friends on this side of the aisle. I think we are here to work together. I hope we can, without classifying ourselves one way or the other, except to say we are here as Americans representing the folks back home by working together and getting something accomplished. I know that is the goal of the Senator from Idaho. I think a lot of us share that goal.

Tony Raimondo

I rise today to come to the defense of a great friend, and more importantly, a great Nebraskan, Tony Raimondo. As many are aware, Tony Raimondo was to be nominated this morning as the Bush administration's new manufacturing czar. Late yesterday the announcement was canceled, citing scheduling conflicts.

I realize there have been speeches in this Chamber that have been critical of Tony's record as a businessman. I am here to say ``nonsense.'' We all know politics runs the days around here. It is a very political time with the Presidential election. Much is at stake. Yesterday was no exception to that, and today is not either.

I am not going to address what was said earlier. Everyone has a right to an opinion. No matter who the Bush administration decided to appoint to this position, he or she is going to be run through the ringer. But I am here to tell you this Nebraskan isn't going to watch another Nebraskan get treated like this.

Tony Raimondo is a friend of mine, a former business partner of mine, and he is not the antijobs CEO he is painted to be.

Sure, he has a company in China. He expanded there last year. In fact, I had the pleasure to be at the ribbon cutting of his factory there. Next week I will be in Columbus, NE, the headquarters of Tony's business, Behlen Manufacturing. I will see many Nebraskans who are employed at Behlen, or are related to somebody employed at Behlen, or at least know someone employed by Behlen.

Tony is a respected member of the Columbus business community. He is a Nebraska business leader. He has represented Nebraska business interests around the world and here at home as a prominent member of the National Association of Manufacturers, and he is a good employer.

Sure, his business has struggled in recent years. It is hard to find one that hasn't. But he didn't do what others have done. He is fighting to keep his business alive and well in Nebraska and in the other States where it is located. He is fighting to save those jobs. He is fighting to not let his employees down, his community, his State, or his country.

He expanded his business to China. He didn't close it and move it to China. With his experience, I think he can show others how to keep jobs here at home and how to expand and diversify their businesses--saving jobs in America. Tony Raimondo should be held up as an example, not derided as a pirate.

I am not sure what is happening with the nomination at this point. Obviously, there is a predictable partisan opposition. But what I am not hearing is any alternative. Should we leave this important position empty and watch manufacturing jobs continue to decline or should we get someone in place to at least try to preserve those jobs, those good- paying jobs here in America?

I came here to get things done and to do what is right for Nebraska. I say let

us try. Tony Raimondo is not only a good choice for this position but, in my opinion, he is the best choice.

I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished Senator from the State of North Dakota for the time.

Mr. President, SGT Cory R. Mracek was a dedicated and distinguished soldier who loved the military and was excited to go to Iraq. He attended Chadron State College for one semester before joining the National Guard and then later, the U.S. Army.

He spent his first year in Korea, where he was awarded several medals. He was chosen to be a United Nations Command Honor Guard for 6 weeks, an honor for which only the best soldiers were chosen. He came home 4 years later and worked as a night stocker at Wal-Mart. However, army life was calling him and he missed it more than he thought. He re- enlisted and was again stationed in Korea for 12 months. Because of the war in Iraq, his tour was extended to 15 months. He returned to the States in October 2003 and proceeded to Ft. Benning, GA, where he trained to be a paratrooper. He loved the thrill the first time he jumped from the plane and it had been his dream to be a part of the 82nd Airborne Unit in Fort Bragg, NC. He had been in Iraq just 8 days when a roadside bomb exploded west of Baghdad and killed him and two other soldiers.

SGT Cory Mracek's sacrifice will forever remind this Nation of the danger that comes with the duty to protect our Nation's interests and the freedoms of other arounds the world. As a nation we are grateful to soldiers like Cory Mracek who make the ultimate sacrifice so that all Americans can live in freedom.

Mr. President, SGT Dennis Corral served our Nation bravely and honorably. He entered the Army in 1989 and later left the service to pursue other interests. In 1997 he re-entered the Army and was sent to Iraq in December of 2003. Corral was not scheduled for deployment to Iraq until January 2004, but he volunteered to go earlier in place of another soldier who was married and had children. Sergeant Corral was not one to complain, and readily accepted every task that was asked of him. His arrival was greatly anticipated by his company, as they had been without a supply sergeant, and were greatly in need of his skills. Immediately upon his arrival, he set to work improving the company supply system--organizing, filing, and issuing out equipment. In all that he did he showed his dedication and his love for serving his country. Sergeant Corral was the first American soldier to die in Iraq in 2004. SGT Dennis A. Corral will always be remembered as a soldier who fought for freedom and made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of his country.

Mr. President, more than 70 years ago, Nebraska Senator George Norris left Congress, returned to Nebraska, and led the effort to establish a unicameral legislature. He did this in large part because of his frustration with conference committees. These committees are supposed to reconcile differences between House and Senate bills, but all too often the bills that come out of these committees with new, controversial provisions.

Based on what I have witnessed, I have a renewed understanding of Norris's frustration with the conference committee process.

As we all know, it is in the conference committee that the final draft of legislation is often completed. Once the conference report is finished, a member may only vote to accept or reject; no amendments are allowed.

For this reason, the conference committee is an attractive opportunity to include legislative proposals that would not pass muster if they were considered openly on the floors of the House and Senate.

As Senator Norris wrote:

Members of conference committees are often compelled to

surrender on important items where no surrender would be even

demanded if consideration of the legislation were in the open

. . . The individual legislator must then vote upon a

conference report without any opportunity of expressing by

his vote his opposition to anything that the bill in this

form contains.

This is as true today as it was so many decades ago.

Too often, a conference report comes back to us with initiatives never discussed in this body, or worse, with provisions that were rejected outright months, weeks, or even days before. In a conference report, popular or necessary programs can be tied to unpopular or impractical ones, subverting the process by which we should consider legislation.

The legislative process is frustrated further when the legislation in question is labeled a ``must-pass'' appropriations bill. With programs awaiting resources sometimes months after the end of the fiscal year, there is an understandable desire not to drag out the process once the omnibus bill is finally completed. When a ``must pass'' appropriations bill leaves conference, the normal conference habit of including more controversial measures increases exponentially--as does the pressure to pass the bill without delay.

This is not how Congress should do business. Measures should be considered openly and honestly. They should not be tucked in during closed door meetings of committee conferees.

This year's Omnibus bill contains several controversial proposals, and while this is by no means the first time this has occurred, it is past time for it to end.

Included among those is a provision that would delay funding of COOL for 2 years. This could effectively end the program before it has begun. This program is believed to be an important element in our efforts to re-establish consumer confidence in foreign markets. Nebraska's beef exports to Asian markets amounted to more than $460 million in revenue for our State in 2003. Without these and other markets, Nebraska could lose up to 21,000 jobs according to a Creighton University expert, severely hurting our efforts to turn the corner on the recent economic downturn. This may be the most important economic issue facing rural Nebraska. We need to act promptly in considering the impact of defunding COOL.

For this reason, I will vote to continue debate on the Omnibus bill. I do so in the hopes that this package can be re-examined and that the policy initiatives in it will be discussed as legislation, not appropriations.

This bill contains many promising Nebraska projects, some of which I worked with my colleagues and other Nebraskans to include. These projects and other spending initiatives are important to our State and to me. But I do not think that their importance

should allow them to be held hostage by a process that promotes the backroom inclusion of new, controversial, onerous and unpopular initiatives. It is my hope that with full debate on the bill, these last minute policy initiatives will be considered and openly discussed.

It is past time for Congress to end the process of using conference reports and appropriations bills to enact unpopular or controversial policies. Continuing debate on the controversial provisions of this bill is the first step in doing so.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Medicare bill before the Senate. This is not a perfect bill, far from it. It is not the bill I would write. But it is a bill that will do more for our seniors and one we can build on in the future.

For the past decade this body has worked on adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. We all know it is desperately needed. The skyrocketing cost of drugs has put meaningful health care treatment out of the reach of many seniors. Medicare simply was not crafted with a prescription drug component. That is not to blame any of the creators of the landmark legislation that created Medicare. They could not have known that science would eventually put the treatments and cures for many diseases in pill form. They did the best they could with the knowledge they had at the time. And that system served seniors well for a very long time.

But it does not serve them well today. The lack of prescription drug coverage is a glaring omission in the current Medicare Program. It prevents many seniors from getting the treatments they need and undermines the promise of the Medicare Program--to provide health care benefits to our seniors.

And we do not have the excuse that we are unaware of the importance of drug treatments. We know how these medications can improve and prolong the lives of countless seniors. We know that seniors urgently need this benefit and the medicine it will provide.

As I said, the bill before us is not perfect, and many people have raised legitimate concerns about its shortcomings. Some have said it is too expensive; some have said it does not cover enough of the drug costs for seniors. There is truth to both statements. And both sides have worked to confuse our seniors. A lot of money has been spent by special interest groups to advance their opinions rather than accurately assess the impact of this bill.

Putting all the clutter and spin aside, in a time of rising Federal deficits, this bill does move the ball forward. It takes a concrete step toward providing meaningful coverage. And it does make some efforts to contain long-term costs.

This legislation is the first step in covering drug treatments and this is a

major step for seniors across the country. For example, in my home State of Nebraska, today there are 259,000 Medicare beneficiaries. Of these, about 90,000 do not currently have prescription drug coverage. Through this bill, beginning in 2006, they will all have coverage.

The average out-of-pocket cost for drugs for a typical Nebraskan, including premiums, will decrease 35 percent from $760 to $500 per year. Low-income Nebraskans receive a large benefit in this bill. Before the drug benefit is implemented in 2006, low-income Nebraskans will receive $600 a year for their drugs, resulting in Nebraskans receiving $83 million in prescription assistance. After the drug plan is implemented, 108,000 low-income Nebraskans will pay little to nothing in premiums, deductibles and coinsurance. Because Medicare is taking responsibility for dual eligibles, Nebraska will save $167 million over 8 years. And the benefits for Nebraska extend beyond the drug benefit.

This bill will provide additional reimbursements for rural hospitals and health care providers. Nebraska doctors will receive $57 million over 2 years. Critical access hospitals will receive $11.3 million, and the rest of Nebraska's hospitals will share an additional $108 million over 10 years. This funding will help keep rural health care vital and available to rural seniors.

Furthermore, this bill contains a pilot program I pushed to include that will create a new Medicare designation of ``rural community hospitals''. These hospitals will receive cost-based reimbursements for Medicare services. Seven Nebraska hospitals will take part in the 5- year program resulting in an additional $22.5 million for these hospitals to help them continue to provide high quality health care in their communities.

Rural community hospitals are currently unable to keep pace with their costs. They are too big to qualify for additional Critical Access Hospitals funds, yet too small to take advantage of the volume benefits of larger hospitals. This new pilot program will allow Nebraska's rural community hospitals to immediately benefit from cost-based reimbursements for inpatient services while testing the feasibility of extending the program to similar hospitals across the Nation.

The seven hospitals are Beatrice Community Hospital, Box Butte General Hospital in Alliance, Columbus Community Hospital, Community Hospital of McCook, Jennie Melham Memorial Medical Center in Broken Bow, Phelps Memorial Health Center in Holdrege and Tri County Hospital in Lexington.

Nationwide, this bill also takes steps to ensure that seniors do not lose their employer-sponsored health coverage. Originally, the conferees only handled this issue halfway through a subsidy covering 28 percent of costs to employers $250 and $1000. I, and others, did not believe this would do enough to protect these benefits. So we have made that subsidy non-taxable; increasing the value of the subsidy by a third. Because of this increase, the Congressional Budget Office has stated that the drop rate for seniors could decrease by half; saving these benefits for millions of seniors.

The bill before us is not perfect, but it is a start. I do not believe this bill is the beginning of the end of Medicare, nor do I believe that it is the final solution to the skyrocketing costs of health care.

With passage of this legislation, for the first time, seniors will have access to prescription drugs through Medicare. And we will be able to use this bill to build better coverage in the future. This bill goes fully into effect in 2 years; time that can be spent studying this coverage, adapting it and making sure it works for our seniors.

For too long, seniors have waited for this coverage. Many of those seniors are not here to see it happen today. They are no longer with us; they never got the drug coverage they needed. It is too late for them.

But it is not too late for millions of seniors across the country to benefit from this bill. We owe it to them to pass this and get a concrete start on this issue. We can make changes if we need to; but we can't get back the time we will have lost if we do not move forward now.

A vote against this bill will leave tens of thousands of seniors in Nebraska without a prescription drug benefit of any kind. Let's pass this bill before it is too late for today's seniors. We may not get an opportunity like this again.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my friend and colleague from Nebraska, Congressman Tom Osborne, on his dedicated work for mentoring programs that has earned him a place in the Hall of Fame for Caring Americans.

Congressman Osborne has been awarded this honor by the Caring Institute for his commitment and understanding of the positive influence that mentors can have on a child's life. In 1991, while he was still head coach of the Nebraska football team and I was the Governor of Nebraska, Tom Osborne and his wife Nancy started a program called TeamMates. This program paired middle school students with university football players to give young people someone who could talk with them, help them set goals, and reinforce basic skills, attitudes, and other lessons of life. The program was a success and it soon expanded statewide.

Tom Osborne, the football coach, became Congressman Tom Osborne in 2000, the same year I joined the Senate, and it has been a pleasure to work with him on several mentoring projects. His Mentoring for Success Act authorized $50 million in new competitive grant awards to local school districts and community based organizations to fund mentoring initiatives. He also led the way in designating January ``National Mentoring Month.'' He continues to work to fund these valuable programs.

I am glad to see that the Caring Institute has chosen to honor Congressman Osborne's efforts to make mentoring a priority in the United States. The environment in which many kids today are raised looks nothing like the one in which I grew up. Today, close to 50 percent of all children are raised in single-parent households. In most cases, single parents work long hours; their energy and resources are stretched thin. In other cases, even two parent families cannot provide--for various reasons--the support a child needs. Congressman Osborne's Mentoring for Success Act is for these kids. It can make a big difference for so many young people and it can change these kids' lives and brighten their future.

It is appropriate that Congressman Osborne receive this award just before Thanksgiving because his programs have given so many young people a friend and a brighter future to be thankful for. Congratulations to Congressman Osborne and thank you for your continuing commitment to mentoring.

Mr. President, I rise this evening to express what might be best described as my disappointment in what has occurred during the past 24 hours, now I understand perhaps another 12 hours. I ask we move the process forward.

Mr. President, I rise tonight to express disappointment over what has happened over these past nearly 24 hours, or past 24 hours-plus, and perhaps another 12 hours. I just ask we move the process forward.

I would like to make very clear a few statistics I think are appropriate tonight. We have seen many statistics or many different versions of the same statistics over these past many hours. Tonight I would like to make very clear a few statistics with respect to my voting record on confirmation of judicial nominees, which is really based on the principles I hold as a Member of the Senate.

I voted to invoke cloture 13 times. That is a 100 percent voting record on judicial nominees. To date, I have never voted against invoking cloture on a judicial nominee, not one.

I have voted in favor of confirming all nominees except one, and I voted for cloture to move the process forward, even on a nominee I cannot support.

I have done all these things because I believe in moving the process forward. As Governor of Nebraska, I had the great privilege of appointing judges to the bench. I appointed the entire Nebraska Supreme Court and the entire Court of Appeals over my 8 years, and nearly 50 percent of the judges in Nebraska. I may not be good at it, but I have had a lot of experience.

I would hope we could move forward this process. If we cannot agree, then at least we ought to move on. What is happening right now during these hours of debate is not about moving the process forward. In fact, what is being accomplished seems to me to be just the opposite, setting us back. This debate has served only to further frustrate the work of this body, delayed action on critical legislation that must be addressed, and has further polarized the competing sides on these very controversial appointments.

The question I ask tonight is, Does using a tactic of delay to criticize and attack another tactic of delay cause you to make the point or lose the point?

To add further frustration to this matter, this delay occurred only after we were forced to choose between missing votes on Tuesday, Veterans Day, or cancelling the many obligations most of us made to our constituents to participate in events to honor veterans back home. The leadership basically decided having these hours of debate seemed to be more important than honoring those who fought and died while protecting the freedoms that under ordinary and normal circumstances are debated and defended in this very Chamber every day. By having votes on Veterans Day, I could not participate in that exercise, and I didn't appreciate having to choose between Nebraska veterans and votes on legislation before this body. Like others, I chose to be with my veterans. I missed two votes. I would do it again in a heartbeat.

But it is not only our veterans who were not given the consideration they deserve. It is also our seniors, who are anxiously awaiting a prescription drug benefit. What do I say to George and Lee back home when they ask me, ``Why haven't you been able to get a prescription drug benefit but the Senate could debate on other issues for 30-plus hours''?

It is those who suffer from mesothelioma who desperately await an asbestos reform bill. What do I say to a widow of a recently deceased judge in Nebraska who was waiting to collect money because of the bankruptcy of a particular company? She is unable to collect it, but would have the opportunity, under an asbestos reform proposal, to collect on behalf not only of herself, but on behalf of her young children.

I am just one of 100 in this great legislative body, and I am very honored to be here. Even though I am relatively new to the scene, I think it is very

clear each of us is entitled to his or her own opinion. I have to say some of us are moving the process forward. I find it difficult to explain to others why we cannot be independent in our thinking about judges. Someone might say there is not too much of a difference about this judge or that judge. That is what this process is all about. But when we can't come to an agreement about a particular judge and we can't move forward, we cannot delay in this situation, but we must in fact move on.

I oftentimes try to impress upon myself and my family and my friends and others that reasonable people can and will disagree. But when they are unable to agree, it is unreasonable to expect the process to come to a halt regardless of the rules, but it is important to go ahead and move on. I embrace that philosophy because I too would always like to have everything go my way. I would like to see every bill read exactly as I wish and every nominee be the one I choose. Instead, I do embrace that philosophy because I believe we can have those differences of opinion, hold different views on the issues, serve different constituencies from diverse regions of this great Nation, and we can, in spite of all that, and in many instances because of that, achieve progress in addressing the critical issues of our entire Nation.

I don't believe these hours of debate have helped us move closer to resolving our differences on these 4 nominees. In fact, I am afraid it has achieved just the opposite. I fear this exercise may have poisoned the well, leaving this body with such stark disagreements, and any progress on the issues that matter to my constituents--a prescription drug benefit, an energy policy, asbestos reform, welfare reform--and the bills that run the Government may not be now attainable.

Many Americans question the motives of both sides as this spectacle continues. I am not going to suggest a motive for all of this, but I can surmise a conclusion: These hours have been needlessly carved out while the critical issues remain unresolved. My constituents sent me here to get things done--not to pander, not to be a partisan, not to disrupt, delay, object, or deny, not to waste 30 minutes or 30 hours.

In the interest of moving forward, making progress, and doing good work for the American people, I urge my colleagues, not in any partisan way, to think long and hard about what is being orchestrated here for these hours and what the American public expects of us during the final days of the session--so we can deal with the prescription drug benefit, so we can deal with the energy needs, so those folks who are today worried about the cost of natural gas and the high cost of energy sources in the future know there is a solution in sight.

Drought relief: I can go back to Nebraska and say, Well, we couldn't get a drought bill. I guess it was OK that we debated 30 hours on other issues, but in fact when you are losing your family farm as a result of the continuing drought, that isn't probably going to sell.

Highway reauthorization: Many States today are waiting for the highway reauthorization so they can continue to build and improve their infrastructure, because that relates to jobs--jobs in construction, but also jobs because of the improved infrastructure.

Many States are worried today about FAA reauthorization. I have airports in smaller communities in Nebraska that are worried about being able to build and expand and improve their airports due to part of the reauthorization.

What do I say to them if that doesn't get accomplished? What do I say to those who are waiting for asbestos legislation? What do I say about class action? When are we going to get that accomplished?

When are we going to say enough is enough? If these 30 hours-plus that are now going into more hours had been used to debate health insurance, the full funding of special education, dealing with the Federal unfunded mandates, or some of us had worked previously on State fiscal relief, or in finding more ways to create jobs and improve the jobs and the markets we have today, looking for ways to make trade not only free but fair so we don't export jobs but we do import and export our products at the same time--if we had spent the time on that, then this time could have been productive.

In many ways perhaps there can be a catharsis as we move forward on finding new ways to deal with the judiciary. I have looked back and forth over the years looking at the role of the judiciary to see if there is anything anywhere that ever gives the judge the right to legislate or to make law. The one thing I made clear with every judicial candidate was: Are you going to be in the position of a judge or do you want to be a legislator? Are you going to legislate or are you going to adjudicate? The position of a judge is not to legislate. It is to interpret law, to apply law, and to adjudicate.

To win constituency groups in Presidential elections, the unfortunate thing for some time has been to say I am going to appoint judges to do certain things, to rule certain ways on the Supreme Court bench, to rule in certain ways on certain issues that will appeal to a constituency or to win constituency groups.

Sometimes I think we politicize the judiciary, and that is why we are where we are today. We need to move away from worrying about ideology, political philosophy, and to make sure judicial activism is not a part of what we do. If Presidential candidates say they are going to appoint Supreme Court judges not to be conservative or liberal, but those who will fairly apply the law and those who will do what they think is right under the law, not to make the law, then I think it is important. Politicians do keep promises. In the view of many, maybe not many promises. But politicians do keep promises when they say they will appoint judges of a certain kind. Then they are obligated to constituency groups to do that.

That is the root cause of our problem--moving away from ideology and political philosophy so we only deal with judges who come to the bench with the idea they are there to apply, to interpret the law, not to legislate, not to make the law. Until we do that, we are going to be hopelessly bogged down from time to time. But I am here to move the process forward. If the rest of us can't get together to move the process forward as a body, then we at least ought to move on.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor to my colleague from West Virginia.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 3182, legislation to reauthorize the adoption incentive program. I would like to thank Senator Grassley for his leadership on this issue. He has been a friend to American families for his entire tenure in this body and his work has made it even easier for more families to come together through adoption.

As an adoptive parent myself, I know firsthand how adoption can complete a family and how it can give new beginnings to both adoptive parents and children. And as a member of the Adoption Caucus, I have worked to make it easier for other families to experience the joy my family did through adoption.

This legislation will help that process by removing financial obstacles to adopting a child. As anyone who has been through an adoption knows, it can often by a very long, expensive process and for some families; the costs are so high as to be prohibitive. This legislation will help ensure that a family is not prevented from adopting a child simply because of the high costs involved.

The Adoption Incentives Program has already had been a tremendous success. Now this reauthorized and amended version of the program can help even more children and families for years to come. I stand wholeheartedly behind the goals of this bill and I look forward to working with Senator Grassley on this issue again in the future.

abused and neglected children

Mr. President, I rise today in honor of SSG Daniel Bader, a member of the Air Defense Artillery Battery, 1st Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment.

SSG Daniel Bader lived in Colorado for most of his life, but he always loved Nebraska. As a child growing up in York he watched his father put on his Reserve uniform for weekend duty. From his father's example, Daniel Bader learned that sacrifice is part of life and serving your country is an honorable way to live life. While in high school, Daniel Bader followed in his father's footsteps and joined the Guard himself and after graduation he went on to active duty. He excelled in the Army, rising to staff sergeant in just 8 years. In addition to being a soldier and a patriot, Staff Sergeant Bader was also a loving husband and father. In these family roles he also served honorably. Daniel Bader will forever serve as an example for all Americans of the kind of life in service one can live.

Staff Sergeant Bader was on his way home for 2 weeks' leave when his helicopter crashed in Fallujah on November 2. He leaves behind his wife Tiffany and a 14-month-old daughter Taryn Makenzie. A devoted family man, Daniel Bader had asked to be buried next to his grandfather at Rose Hill Cemetery in Palmer, NE. I know my fellow Nebraskans and all Americans join me in honoring and remembering Daniel Bader and the sacrifice he made for his family and our Nation.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor SSG Christopher Swisher, a native of Lincoln, NE and a member of 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment.

Staff Sergeant Swisher's mom once said, ``Chris was military from the day he was born. Knowing this keeps me going.'' As a young boy, Christopher W. Swisher wore camouflage T-shirts and dreamed of joining the military. After graduating from Lincoln Northeast High School, he worked hard to overcome his dyslexia and joined the Army.

Chris Swisher came from a Nebraska family with a proud military background. His older brother Terry served bravely as a Marine in Operation Desert Storm. The brothers played war games as children, both dreaming of the day they could wear the uniform of the United States military.

Staff Sergeant Swisher was killed on October 9, 2003 when his unit was ambushed while on patrol in Baghdad. He was supposed to be home by then, originally scheduled to return on September 29, but like many of our soldiers serving in Iraq, his tour was extended. His family was disappointed but Chris Swisher was doing what he loved to do.

All Nebraskans grieve for the Swisher family and we offer them our thoughts and prayers. The Swisher family can take some comfort in the brave words Chris spoke to his mother before he left for duty in Iraq: ``I'm doing what I want to be doing because I'm protecting my family, my home and my country.''

po3 david j. moreno

Mr. President, I rise today to honor PO3 David J. Moreno, a member of the 4th Marine Division Detachment, Naval Medical Center, San Diego.

Petty Officer 3rd Class Moreno dreamed of becoming a doctor. The California native lived briefly in Gering, NE and attended the University of Nebraska at Lincoln before joining the Navy. It was in the Navy that he discovered his love for medicine. He earned his Emergency Medical Technical License and served the men and women of our Armed Services honorably as a Navy medic.

Petty Officer 3rd Class Moreno died from a non-hostile gunshot wound in Hamishiyah on July 17, 2003. David Moreno died while serving his nation in a job he truly enjoyed. His sacrifice, along with the sacrifices made by his brothers-in-arms in Iraq and elsewhere during the global war on terrorism, serves as a reminder to Nebraskans and all Americans that freedom and liberty do not come easy. The cost of freedom and liberty is measured in sacrifice and David Moreno made the ultimate sacrifice to preserve these ideals for the rest of us. His sacrifice for freedom, liberty and our Nation is remembered today as we send our thoughts and prayers to his family in Nebraska and elsewhere.

ssg brett j. petriken

Mr. President, I rise today to honor SSG Brett Petriken of Omaha, NE.

A member of the 501st Military Police Company, Staff Sergeant Petriken served his nation bravely. In times of war, danger lurks at every turn and he knew this to be true, especially in a war zone like Iraq. Staff Sergeant Petriken lost his life when a heavy equipment transporter crossed the median and struck the Humvee he was in on May 26, 2003, in Samawa, Iraq.

Brett Petriken is a shining example of a soldier who put his life on the line to protect those he knew and loved and even those he didn't know and love. His family should think of him and remember what is most important to them, his role in their lives. Americans should think of him and remember that he died in the line of duty upholding the ideals of freedom and liberty and protecting the United States from the new invisible foes that represent a tremendous threat to our nation. As a nation we are grateful to soldiers like Brett Petriken and others like him who make the ultimate sacrifice so that others can live free.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Army SP Nathaniel A. Caldwell of Omaha. Specialist Caldwell, a member of the 115th Military Police Company, Army National Guard, was killed when his vehicle rolled over while responding to a civilian call on May 21, 2003 in Baghdad, Iraq.

Specialist Caldwell joined the armed services shortly after September 11 to serve his county. His commitment to protecting America at home and abroad is inspiring to us all. Nebraskans can look to Specialist Caldwell as an example of an American inspired to serve his Nation. He did so bravely. His sacrifice will forever remind the nation of the danger that comes with the duty to protect our Nation's interests and to preserve the flame of liberty for Americans and for all the world's people.

I know I join all Nebraskans in offering our thoughts and prayers for his family in Texas, Oklahoma, and elsewhere.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor CPT Travis A. Ford of Ogallala, NE. Captain Ford always gave 100 percent in everything he did. He excelled in high school sports and brought his enthusiasm to the Yell Squad at Husker football games while he attended the University of Nebraska at Lincoln.

As a Marine, he was selfless. A member of the Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 267, Marine Aircraft group 39, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, he volunteered to fly extra shifts so that younger Marines could get some sleep in the early days of the war. When his AH-1W Super Cobra attack helicopter crashed on April 4, 2003, during combat operations near Baghdad he became the first Nebraskan to give his life in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Captain Ford will be greatly missed and our thoughts and prayers are with

his family and friends in Ogallala, but Captain Ford will also be remembered for the shining example of patriotism, dedication and commitment that he set as a brave member of the Marines.

Mr. President, I rise today in honor of SP1 James Wolf, a member of the Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 52nd Engineer Battalion of the 43rd Area Support Group.

Specialist Wolf stopped in to visit the students at the Lincoln Heights Elementary School in Scottsbluff, NE when he was home on leave just a few short weeks ago. He wanted to thank all the students who had written letters to him while he was in Iraq and he told them how the letters they had written lifted his spirits and how he shared their letters with soldiers around him who did not receive any mail of their own.

He recently returned to Iraq where he was performing valuable work rebuilding schools, homes, and providing safe drinking water. Tragically, he was killed on November 6, 2003 when an improvised explosive device detonated near his truck convoy.

His death was a blow to the Scottsbluff community where he was remembered as a young man with a lot of spunk and someone who wanted to make a difference. He is the son of Bob and Chris Wolf of Scottsbluff. His mother said of him, ``He was very proud of what he did. He talked about making it a career, and he had such a sense of purpose. It was awesome just to hear him.'' James' sister Rachel, a 2003 graduate of Scottsbluff High, informed the school of her brother's death. Kirk Begley, principal at Scottsbluff High, said it was a ``sad, sad day when we had to let the staff know.'' Begley said James Wolf was ``just an all around great kid and was adamant about being a soldier.''

Specialist First Class Wolf will be missed greatly by his family and friends and the entire Scottsbluff community. He will also be remembered as a soldier whose patriotism inspired his community. I would like to express my deepest sympathy for the Wolf family and I know all Nebraskans join me in remembering and honoring James' contributions to Scottsbluff and his sacrifice on behalf of his country.

Mr. President, I ask that the following information be entered into the Record. I was unavoidably absent for rollcall votes on Thursday, October 30, 2003 as I was attending a funeral in Omaha, NE. As a result, I would ask that the Record reflect the following:

On vote No. 419, if present and voting, the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) would have voted ``yea.''

On vote No. 420, if present and voting, the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) would have voted ``yea.''

On vote No. 421, if present and voting, the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) would have voted ``nay.''

On vote No. 422, if present and voting, the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) would have voted ``yea.''

On vote No. 423, if present and voting, the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) would have voted ``yea.''

On vote No. 424, if present and voting, the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) would have voted ``yea.''

On vote No. 425, if present and voting, the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) would have voted ``yea.''

On vote No. 426, if present and voting, the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) would have voted ``yea.''

On vote No. 427, if present and voting, the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) would have voted ``yea.''

On vote No. 428, if present and voting, the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) would have voted ``yea.''

On vote No. 429, if present and voting, the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) would have voted ``yea.''

On vote No. 430, if present and voting, the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) would have voted ``yea.''

On vote No. 431, if present and voting, the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) would have voted ``nay.''

On vote No. 432, if present and voting, the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) would have voted ``nay.''

Resource conservation is an essential element of our nation's agriculture programs that has proven to be very popular with farmers and ranchers. The incentives incorporated in programs such as the Farmland Protection Program, the Conservation Reserve Program, and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, have not only heightened the awareness and value of good conservation practices, but they have made it possible for families to constitute limited production and be compensated for protecting fragile resources. The success of these programs is that family farms can retain their economic viability and continue to contribute to the stability of communities throughout the nation.

Conservation programs have touched on many fragile resources, but have not sufficiently encouraged the protection of the historic heritage that is embodied in historic buildings, structures, objects, and archaeological sites on farmland. Congress has declared that the spirit and direction of the nation is reflected in its historic heritage, and that the preservation of this heritage is in the public interest. Therefore, I believe we must work together to protect our common heritage embedded on these private lands.

Senator Kohl, today I am requesting a report to the U.S. Congress from the United States Department of Agriculture evaluating their conservation programs under the Natural Resources Conservation Service and all other USDA county-based farm agencies with the objective of determining what affirmative and programmatic actions are being taken to conserve and protect archaeological and historical resources on agricultural lands. Furthermore, this report should also provide or suggest new methods or program modifications to the conservation programs which will increase the protection of historical and archaeological resources on agricultural lands and help determine the manner in which these type of lands can be included within the overall goal of natural resources protection.

Finally, I am requesting that this report be completed within 120 days of enactment of the Fiscal Year 2004 Agriculture appropriations bill.

Senator Kohl, will you support this request and work towards its inclusion in the final conference report of the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture appropriations bill?

Madam President, thank you very much for this opportunity to speak on an issue important not only to my State but also to other States in my country as it continues to plague agricultural producers all over the United States. I thank Senator Dayton, my colleague from Minnesota, for offering this amendment and for his continuing good work on this important issue.

Last year at this time this Chamber had a prolonged debate on whether to provide much needed emergency drought assistance to those hurt by continuing record drought. Some argued that there should be no assistance; others argued that, unlike with every other national disaster, assistance for drought victims should be funded through offsets. Some even argued we could always come back to take care of these victims at a later date.

Still some argued that a drought is no less devastating than a hurricane or flood for those who are affected and it should be treated as we would treat other natural disasters, by providing full assistance, treat it as an emergency, which, in fact, it is.

It took a while to get any help to our agricultural producers. Despite the plague of bankruptcies and the anticipated loss of thousands of family farms across the country, we could not get drought assistance passed until last spring, nearly 2 years after the worst of the drought had begun. That assistance came at a cost.

It covered less than half of the damage the USDA estimated had been caused by the drought, and it was paid for out of elements of the new farm

bill, robbing Paul to pay Paul. To survive, our farmers would have to sacrifice their future for their present.

Despite all that, despite waiting months for Congress to act, despite getting what assistance was offered at the expense of the farm bill, even now, more than 7 months after the passage of that inadequate bill, many of those hurt are just beginning to receive emergency payments. Some have received nothing while the least fortunate went bankrupt during the wait.

The drought package passed last spring offered a little over $3 billion for drought losses, half the estimated $6 billion in actual damages. By October 1, $1.85 billion had been distributed, just over a quarter of actual damages through 2002. Nebraska, which alone had $1.2 billion in damages, has received only $138 million in crop disaster payments, barely 10 cents on the $1 of what it lost. As of September 15, the sugar beet program had not even been implemented, leaving those producers with nothing.

Still, the drought continues. That is why I am here today. And still, because that drought continues, our farmers and ranchers need help.

I am here today to remind those who settle for less that we still need to do more. This map reflects the current drought impact in the United States. The red and brown areas are those areas that have been labeled as a drought area by the U.S. Drought Monitor at the University of Nebraska. The red areas within the regions have been declared as drought areas by the State or Federal Government. The brown areas have not been declared. As I said, they are considered to be declared drought areas by the U.S. Drought Monitor. The green areas are recovering from drought but could be impacted by recurring or lingering conditions. The yellow areas are under drought watch.

This map is for the time period of September 5 through October 2 of this year, less than 60 days ago. We can see this drought continues.

As is clear from this map, 16 States have seen at least half of their counties declared drought disasters and another 5 have some declared drought area and 2 additional States are considered drought States by the U.S. Drought Monitor but not all declared drought regions. All told, 23 States at the present time have at least some drought regions as labeled by the U.S. Drought Monitor. Another six States have some areas under drought watch.

This map makes it very clear, and it should be clear for everyone to see, the drought has not ended. It remains a national problem and has taken another planting season, another growing season, and another harvest. We need to provide more assistance for our farmers and our ranchers. We need to do more to mitigate the effects of this drought.

Finally, we need to take seriously the fact that a drought is no less devastating to those afflicted than of any other natural disaster.

The unfortunate thing on a comparison basis, some natural disasters are immediate or nearly immediate. This natural disaster takes time to develop. In this case, it is continuing.

If some believe this drought is not as damaging as other natural disasters, I invite them to visit Nebraska and the other States, visit farmers and ranchers who are selling their lands, selling their herds or those who have already sold their land and herds. I invite them to tour our rural communities to see how damaging this drought has been to small businesses, Main Street America, small communities that comprise those Main Streets that are connected to the land and the economic activity that it produces. I invite them to talk to the Governor of Nebraska who a few days ago asked the Department of Agriculture to declare our entire State a disaster area because of drought damages.

I tried a number of measures to focus some attention on the plight of our agricultural producers. I even tried to name the drought, Drought David, thinking that would give it some sort of focus, just as we name hurricanes. I even brought drought ribbons that some of my colleagues were good enough to wear a year ago because they understood the national impact of this drought as well as the impact on their particular States. I worked with leaders in this area such as Senators Daschle, Harkin, Baucus, Dayton, and Johnson, who also pushed for comprehensive drought assistance. But still it has not been enough. We need to do more. With economic conditions being what they are, we cannot risk losing more family farms, we cannot risk losing rural businesses, and we cannot risk agricultural bankruptcies and foreclosures.

This issue has not been resolved--not through the rains these counties and States need, and not through the paltry assistance provided by the Federal Government. We need to do more.

So today I rise in support of Senator Dayton's amendment to provide more support for our family farmers. In fact, I considered offering an amendment myself on this very issue. And that, again, shows the breadth of the disaster. Such States as Nebraska and Minnesota, and everything in between, and all around, are still in dire trouble. Our Nation is at economic risk.

If we dislike importing 50 to 60 percent of our oil for our energy needs, let me assure you, we will hate importing our food if it ever gets to the point that we lose agriculture as we have it today.

So we must act. We must act now or it will be too late for tens of thousands of more family farms and the rural way of life.

I thank you, Madam President. I thank the chairman, and I yield the floor.

Resource conservation is an essential element of our Nation's agriculture programs that has proven to be very popular with farmers and ranchers. The incentives incorporated in programs such as the Farmland Protection Program, the Conservation Reserve Program, and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, have not only heightened the awareness and value of good conservation practices, but they have made it possible for families to continue limited production and be compensated for protecting fragile resources. The success of these programs is that family farms can retain their economic viability and continue to contribute to the stability of communities throughout the Nation.

Conservation programs have touched on many fragile resources, but have not sufficiently encouraged the protection of the historic heritage that is embodied in historic buildings, structures, objects, and archaeological sites on farmland. Congress has declared that the spirit and direction of the nation is reflected in its historic heritage, and that the preservation of this heritage is in the public interest. Therefore, I believe we must work together to protect our common heritage embedded on these private lands.

Senator Kohl, today I am requesting a report to the United States Congress from the United States Department of Agriculture evaluating their conservation programs under the Natural Resources Conservation Service with the objective of determining what affirmative and programmatic actions are being taken to conserve and protect archaeological and historical resources on agricultural lands. Furthermore, this report should also provide or suggest new methods or program modifications to the conservation programs which will increase the protection of historical and archaeological resources on agricultural lands and help determine the manner in which these type of lands can be included within the overall goal of natural resources protection.

Finally, I am requesting that this report be completed within 120 days of enactment of the FY04 Agriculture Appropriations bill.

Senator Kohl, will you support this request and work towards its inclusion in the final conference report of the FY 04 Agriculture Appropriations bill?