Floor Statements

Mr. President, today it is my great honor to recognize the valiant efforts of two volunteer firefighters from Ainsworth, NE.

Mr. Bill Carr and Mr. Jeff Keezer of the Ainsworth Volunteer Firefighter Department were instrumental in the April 22, 2002 rescue attempt of Timothy Culpepper, a digital communications worker who was stranded more than one thousand one hundred feet in the air when a fifteen hundred foot telecommunications tower he was working on partially collapsed near Bassett, NE.

When a wire snapped disabling and stranding Mr. Culpepper, several agencies, including the Nebraska Emergency Management Agency, were called upon for the dangerous rescue mission. However, upon arriving at the scene, response teams realized they were ill-equipped to perform the high-altitude rescue.

Bill Carr, a carpenter and married father of three, had spent many summers during college painting tall communications towers. Jeff Keezer, a married father of one, works for a steel company that erects hundred-foot grain elevators. Though these experiences could not have adequately prepared them for this dangerous and technically challenging rescue. They quickly volunteered to help.

With no regard for their personal safety, Mr. Carr and Mr. Keezer, armed only with estimations of the exact height of the stranded worker, began to make the physically challenging two-hour ascent to rescue the man who was hanging only by a harness. Carrying bundles of rope and heavy rescue equipment, these brave firefighters, along with a handful on colleagues from the Lincoln Fire Department, scaled the tower amid 30-mph winds and with dwindling daylight. Upon reaching Mr. Culpepper it was discovered that tragically he did not survive the impact of tumbling debris.

Mr. Carr and two other firefighters managed to scale the total distance to Mr. Culppeper in ninety minutes while Mr. Keezer, with heavy rescue equipment on his back, and two other firefighters scaled to the half-way point to manage the recovery effort and descent that lasted more than 3 hours.

Unfortunately these two brave and selfless first-responders were omitted from an award ceremony in Washington, D.C. on February 14. Though the Department of Justice didn't recognize their efforts, Mr. Carr and Mr. Keezer can forever hold their heads high knowing their bravery and the fabric of their character has made all Nebraskans, and especially their neighbors in Ainsworth, proud of their actions.

Mr. President, heroism comes in many forms and the courage displayed by Mr. Carr and Mr. Keezer with danger present is a shining example. Nebraskans like Mr. Carr and Mr. Keezer are selfless, honorable and just and they are what makes living in Nebraska living ``the good life.''

I am proud to represent Nebraskans like Mr. Carr and Mr. Keezer who are committed public servants. Volunteer services are an essential part of small-town America. Without the brave and selfless efforts of everyday citizens like Mr. Keezer and Mr. Carr, many rural communities would lack vital protection and security. The city of Ainsworth and the state of Nebraska are fortunate to have courageous citizens like Jeff Keezer and Bill Carr. These men are true heroes.

Mr. President, on Monday, February 24, I was unable to be present to vote on S. 151, the PROTECT Act, because I was part of the U.S. Presidential Delegation attending the inauguration of His Excellency Roh Moo-Huyn, President of the Republic of Korea. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. President, today at the White House six brave Nebraska firefighters will be honored by the Vice President of the United States for their stirring acts of bravery and heroism during a dangerous and daring rescue in Nebraska.

All Nebraskans are tremendously proud of these men. They showed uncommon bravery when they selflessly risked their lives in service of others and today's honor is but a small payment toward all they have given for their communities.

The Vice President will present Deputy Chief Ron Kennett, Captain Rick Klein, and Firefighters Bob Borer, Jeremy Hosek, Guy Jones, and Mike Wright of the Lincoln Fire Department with Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor awards. The award recognizes the firefighters' role in recovering an accident victim from a television tower in Bassett, NE, on April 22, 2002

During that rescue a man was trapped on a 1,500-foot tall Nebraska Educational Telecommunications, NET, tower. The man, Timothy Culpepper of Meridian, MS, was part of a crew installing a new cable and transmission line on the tower about 15 miles south of Bassett. It is believed Culpepper was killed instantly when a steel cable snapped. His body was about 1,180 feet above ground.

After an air rescue was determined to be impossible due to winds, tower wires and lack of expertise, Lincoln Fire and Rescue was called in. The six-person crew was flown to Bassett in a Nebraska State Patrol aircraft, usually used by the Governor's Office. Deputy Chief Kennett and Captain Klein directed the recovery operation from the ground. The six firefighters climbed for an hour and a half to reach the accident victim. They lowered Mr. Culpepper's body 300 feet at a time, with the descent taking more than 3 hours.

Men and women like these firefighters are our first line of defense whenever tragedy strikes. They are truly an inspiration to us all. I join with my fellow Nebraskans and this entire nation in thanking them for their courage and for making my home State proud.

Madam President, I thank you for the opportunity to speak about what is clearly a bipartisan issue. I would like to add to what my colleague from Minnesota said about the Fuels Security Act offered by Senators Daschle and Lugar on a bipartisan basis.

I am here today to support the Fuels Security Act of 2003. This important renewable fuels legislation is one of the pillars for economic development for rural--America one segment of the population that has lagged behind during the economic surge of the 1990's and is suffering under the combined effects of the current economic slowdown and a two-year devastating drought which I had the audacity to name ``Drought David.''

This legislation is important for rural America. Last year, we completed the farm bill--the first part of the economic revitalization plan for rural America. For the last several months, we have been struggling over the most important short-term economic stimulus plan for rural America--comprehensive drought assistance. Though I believe what the Senate passed and what we hear will be included in the omnibus is insufficient to adequately compensate for the drought, it might provide some initial assistance to farmers and ranchers.

In addition to the farm bill and disaster assistance, I believe we need to craft a comprehensive rural development plan that will spur investment in agri-business and promote economic activity in the agriculture center. We need to consider opening new markets like Cuba-- to ensure American products can be sold and farmers and ranchers can earn a living.

The Fuels Security Act of 2003, is the latest piece of the puzzle.

It is clear that use of ethanol, as part of a renewable fuels standard is a win-win-win situation: a win for farmers, a win for consumers, and a win for the environment. That is why I rise as an original co-sponsor and strong supporter this renewable fuels legislation.

If passed, the Fuels Security Act will establish a 2.3 billion gallon renewable fuels standard in 2004, growing every year until it reaches 5 billion gallons by 2012. There are many benefits to this legislation.

It will displace 1.6 billion barrels of oil over the next decade; reduce our trade deficit by $34.1 billion; increase new investment in rural communities by more than $5.3 billion; boost the demand for feed grains and soybeans by more than 1.5 billion bushels over the next decade; create more than 214,000 new jobs throughout the U.S. economy; and it will expand household income by an additional $51.7 billion over the next decade

It is quite apparent that increased use of ethanol will do much to boost a struggling U.S. agriculture economy, and will help establish a more sound national energy policy.

The greater production of ethanol will also be beneficial to the environment. Studies show ethanol reduces emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons by 20 percent and particulates by 40 percent in 1990 and newer vehicles. In 2001 ethanol reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 3.6 million tons, the equivalent of removing more than 520,000 vehicles from the road.

A choice for ethanol is a choice for America, and its energy consumers, its farmers, and its environment.

Enactment of the Fuel Security Act will help us to reverse our 100- year-old near total reliance on fossil fuels; a more pressing concern than ever given the possibility of military conflict in the Mid East and the continuing economic turmoil in Venezuela.

It was recently reported we are currently exporting about 80,000 gallons of fuel to Venezuela right now to help in their shortfall because of the turmoil in that part of our world.

I am unabashedly proud of what my home State has accomplished in this area. Within the State of Nebraska, during the period from 1991 to 2001, seven ethanol plants were constructed and several of these facilities were expanded more than once during the decade.

Specific benefits of the ethanol program in Nebraska include: $1.15 billion in new capital investment in ethanol processing plants. They include 1,005 permanent jobs at the ethanol facilities and 5,115 induced jobs directly related to plant construction, operation, and maintenance. The permanent jobs alone generate an annual payroll of $44 million. And more than 210 million bushels of corn and grain sorghum is processed at the plants annually. These economic benefits and others have increased each year during the past decade due to plant expansion, employment increases, and additional capital investment.

If each State produces 10 percent of its own domestic, renewable fuel, as Nebraska does, America will have turned the corner away from dependence on foreign sources of energy.

And it is possible because ethanol and biodiesel can be made from biomass from other than corn or sorghum or other row crops. It can be produced from garbage. It can be produced from switch grass and all kinds of other biomass.

When you take a hard look at the facts, you will see that this legislation is nothing but beneficial for America. The Fuels Security Act is balanced,

comprehensive, and is the result of the dedication of so many, especially Senator Daschle and Senator Lugar.

So now I ask my colleagues to join me in promoting new opportunities for the technologies that will put our Nation and the world's transportation fuels on solid, sustainable, and environmentally enhancing ground. We owe it to our country now--and to future generations--to pass this legislation without any further delay.

Madam President, I thank you for the opportunity to speak about what is clearly a bipartisan issue. I would like to add to what my colleague from Minnesota said about the Fuels Security Act offered by Senators Daschle and Lugar on a bipartisan basis.

I am here today to support the Fuels Security Act of 2003. This important renewable fuels legislation is one of the pillars for economic development for rural--America one segment of the population that has lagged behind during the economic surge of the 1990's and is suffering under the combined effects of the current economic slowdown and a two-year devastating drought which I had the audacity to name ``Drought David.''

This legislation is important for rural America. Last year, we completed the farm bill--the first part of the economic revitalization plan for rural America. For the last several months, we have been struggling over the most important short-term economic stimulus plan for rural America--comprehensive drought assistance. Though I believe what the Senate passed and what we hear will be included in the omnibus is insufficient to adequately compensate for the drought, it might provide some initial assistance to farmers and ranchers.

In addition to the farm bill and disaster assistance, I believe we need to craft a comprehensive rural development plan that will spur investment in agri-business and promote economic activity in the agriculture center. We need to consider opening new markets like Cuba-- to ensure American products can be sold and farmers and ranchers can earn a living.

The Fuels Security Act of 2003, is the latest piece of the puzzle.

It is clear that use of ethanol, as part of a renewable fuels standard is a win-win-win situation: a win for farmers, a win for consumers, and a win for the environment. That is why I rise as an original co-sponsor and strong supporter this renewable fuels legislation.

If passed, the Fuels Security Act will establish a 2.3 billion gallon renewable fuels standard in 2004, growing every year until it reaches 5 billion gallons by 2012. There are many benefits to this legislation.

It will displace 1.6 billion barrels of oil over the next decade; reduce our trade deficit by $34.1 billion; increase new investment in rural communities by more than $5.3 billion; boost the demand for feed grains and soybeans by more than 1.5 billion bushels over the next decade; create more than 214,000 new jobs throughout the U.S. economy; and it will expand household income by an additional $51.7 billion over the next decade

It is quite apparent that increased use of ethanol will do much to boost a struggling U.S. agriculture economy, and will help establish a more sound national energy policy.

The greater production of ethanol will also be beneficial to the environment. Studies show ethanol reduces emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons by 20 percent and particulates by 40 percent in 1990 and newer vehicles. In 2001 ethanol reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 3.6 million tons, the equivalent of removing more than 520,000 vehicles from the road.

A choice for ethanol is a choice for America, and its energy consumers, its farmers, and its environment.

Enactment of the Fuel Security Act will help us to reverse our 100- year-old near total reliance on fossil fuels; a more pressing concern than ever given the possibility of military conflict in the Mid East and the continuing economic turmoil in Venezuela.

It was recently reported we are currently exporting about 80,000 gallons of fuel to Venezuela right now to help in their shortfall because of the turmoil in that part of our world.

I am unabashedly proud of what my home State has accomplished in this area. Within the State of Nebraska, during the period from 1991 to 2001, seven ethanol plants were constructed and several of these facilities were expanded more than once during the decade.

Specific benefits of the ethanol program in Nebraska include: $1.15 billion in new capital investment in ethanol processing plants. They include 1,005 permanent jobs at the ethanol facilities and 5,115 induced jobs directly related to plant construction, operation, and maintenance. The permanent jobs alone generate an annual payroll of $44 million. And more than 210 million bushels of corn and grain sorghum is processed at the plants annually. These economic benefits and others have increased each year during the past decade due to plant expansion, employment increases, and additional capital investment.

If each State produces 10 percent of its own domestic, renewable fuel, as Nebraska does, America will have turned the corner away from dependence on foreign sources of energy.

And it is possible because ethanol and biodiesel can be made from biomass from other than corn or sorghum or other row crops. It can be produced from garbage. It can be produced from switch grass and all kinds of other biomass.

When you take a hard look at the facts, you will see that this legislation is nothing but beneficial for America. The Fuels Security Act is balanced,

comprehensive, and is the result of the dedication of so many, especially Senator Daschle and Senator Lugar.

So now I ask my colleagues to join me in promoting new opportunities for the technologies that will put our Nation and the world's transportation fuels on solid, sustainable, and environmentally enhancing ground. We owe it to our country now--and to future generations--to pass this legislation without any further delay.

Mr. President, today I will address a different subject than has been addressed this morning. The Senate recently passed a disaster assistance package consisting of $3.1 billion to aid those affected by the worst drought since the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s. Some have referred to this package as drought disaster relief. I cannot quite call it drought relief because it does not really provide drought relief. It may provide some arid condition relief and some oasis assistance, but I cannot bring myself to call it real drought relief, for two reasons: No. 1, because $3.1 billion is inadequate. It is not enough. No. 2, it does not do enough for farmers and ranchers who are actually suffering the losses due to the devastating drought.

I decided to give the drought a name, and I gave it the name ``David'' to give it an identity like other natural disasters and to show that this drought, the same as a hurricane, required immediate emergency Federal assistance.

Several of my colleagues wore Drought David ribbons that I distributed to them to remind all Senators of the severe impact of the drought, and I thank those who proudly wore them. Back home, the newspaper Journal Star in Lincoln thought my proposal to name the drought was worth asking readers to submit their suggestions, and many creative suggestions were submitted but one stood out.

For Shannon Sutherland of Lincoln, the drought summons up thoughts of the devil in hell. Among her suggestions was ``The Devil's Bull's Eye'' in reference to the drought maps looking like a bull's eye right over Nebraska. The Journal Star reported that on Monday.

Shannon Sutherland is absolutely right. The Drought Monitor maps do resemble a target with Nebraska in the crosshairs, but our neighboring States share the target, unfortunately.

If we go look at this chart, if that is not a bull's eye, I do not know what a bull's eye would look like. Unfortunately, that bull's eye is right over my hometown of McCook, NE. As we can see, that area has suffered the worst drought conditions in the State of Nebraska.

We are not alone. The darkest brown is where the worst conditions are being experienced, and even though this disaster assistance was passed last week and is now over in the House, the drought continues. I think we have a tendency at times to think when we have passed something, that takes care of it. Well, first, it was inadequate to take care of the past needs, and it certainly is not going to be adequate to take care of the additional needs.

Yet despite my efforts to raise awareness--and others who have attempted to raise awareness--of this drought, the Senate still could not manage to provide comprehensive drought assistance. I have come today to give my fellow Senators another opportunity to hear a message I received from one of my constituents, Bill Lueck of Arcadia, NE, in the central part of the State. His words came in over the weekend. I spoke to him yesterday. His words are a powerful reminder of how the recent drought relief bill fell short. He said:

I have some concerns over the current disaster portion of

the omnibus appropriations bill. According to the information

I got from the farm bureau, they're considering 42 percent of

AMTA payments to farmers. In our area here we have irrigated

producers who haven't suffered a loss, who are going to get

an additional payment and in the western part of the State

our cattle producers out here are hanging on by their

fingers. I assumed when they didn't consider the $6

billion anymore and went to the $3.1 billion for

agriculture disaster aid that would go more to livestock

producers. We've got breeding stock on wholesale bull sale

that are down $1,000 average per bull around here.

To Bill Lueck, I say thank you. I could not have said it better myself. I

could not have drawn the focus more narrowly than he did. A $3.1 billion drought package to address the devastation of a drought this extensive inevitably leaves out people who need help to make it through the disaster.

The State of Nebraska will possibly receive about 8 percent of what we need. We asked for $6 billion; we got $3.1 billion. The way in which it is being distributed to those who have severe needs and those who may have some needs but in a uniform manner robs those who really are most affected because they are going to be left with virtually nothing compared to what they need.

Richard and Cecelia Carnes of Marquette, NE, which is very close to Sargent, in the middle part of the State as well, also wrote to me regarding true drought assistance. These two truly represent the family farmer. They have been in the farming business for the last 40 years, with some of their land having been in the family for over 100 years.

Richard and Cecelia are afraid of losing their farm because of the drought. They are going to sell half of their cow herd to pay for the expenses they incurred during the drought last summer. The expenses are ongoing, even though the income is not forthcoming. They have even gone so far as to invest their retirement savings into keeping their farm afloat, but without significant Federal assistance they cannot prevail, either in the short term or in the long term.

In their letter, they made a particularly good point that I will express at this time:

This drought is affecting everyone in the country. Whenever

there is a disaster for flooding, hurricanes, tornados, and

snowstorms the Government is there helping right away. A

drought is much worse since the farmer is the one producing

the food for the country.

People might take issue with whether a drought is worse than other disasters, but I do not think anybody would disagree that a drought that adversely affects the output of food is a disaster that we can ill afford.

They concluded the letter by saying that everyone needs to try farming to truly understand what it is like. The Senate needs to realize the seriousness of the problem and put themselves in the shoes of family farmers and ranchers like Richard and Cecelia. Perhaps then we could provide real and substantial drought relief.

Yesterday, I spoke with my good friend and colleague Tom Osborne about some concerns raised by House members on the fairness of the drought package passed by the Senate. The Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee indicated that the Senate plan would provide ``relief'' to farmers and ranchers who suffered no losses. The package treats equally farmers and ranchers who did and did not suffer losses.

That's right. In a time of budget deficits and fiscal calamity, the Senate package squanders scarce resources and provides assistance to those who actually need it. Farmers and ranchers in my State of Nebraska are not pleased. Nebraska, perhaps, is one of the States hit hardest by Drought David. For two years, we have suffered under dry conditions and dwindling herds and crops. Some estimates say 20,000 of the remaining 55,000 Nebraska family farms are likely to go under this year because of the drought. The drought is a crisis--like a tornado, a hurricane, a flood, or a fire--and the climatologists indicate there is no relief in sight and it may be moving in an easterly direction.

Congressman Osborne has worked tirelessly to provide comprehensive drought assistance. He left no stone unturned in his effort to find adequate funding. He knocked on every door, he made every phone call, did everything that could be required of someone in his position. But the message he received in return was that farmers and ranchers suffering from drought needed a budgetary offset to receive Federal assistance. In the end, the Senate version found an offset, but didn't find enough.

But we are practical people in Nebraska and around the country--$3.1 billion is better than nothing; but it is not enough. Ask the people of this country; people such as Bill Lueck and Richard and Cecelia Carnes, who have seen this drought dry up their livelihood, and they will tell you it is not enough. I hope my fellow Senator will join me in seeking to provide comprehensive drought relief in this Congress.

Nebraska State climatologists recently predicted we are about to face a perfect drought this summer, sort of an oxymoron, but I think it requires an explanation. It is the worst of all factors converging. If our family farmers and ranchers are going to survive this perfect drought, we must provide better comprehensive drought relief now to take care of the past losses and prepare them for the bump ahead they are going to face.

I have sent a letter to the House Agriculture Committee, Chairman Goodlatte, encouraging him to revisit the drought package. I know he is looking very carefully at it. I would love to see the House pass a better drought assistance bill, devoid of special interests, set- asides, devoid of wasteful payments to those who need it least, and one that provides real and comprehensive drought assistance to farmers and ranchers who are teetering on the brink of disappearing forever, never to return. We need to provide the most assistance to those who need it most.

In the State of the Union Address on Tuesday, the President delivered a speech of 5,050 words. In that speech the word agriculture never appeared. I know he had a lot to say and he could not say everything.

He made a strong case in his remarks for the need to stimulate the economy, both with short-term and long-term implications with tax cuts and other economic incentives. I am sure I will be supporting a number of those. How can we give a tax cut to farmers and ranchers with no income? How can we stand by and watch the agricultural sector of the economy wither under drought conditions? The best economic stimulus for a rural state such as Nebraska and many other States right now is a comprehensive rural development program coupled with real emergency drought relief. Anything short of that will be a failure to our farmers, our ranchers, and our Nation.

When it comes to making decisions, I will come down on the side of Nebraska every time. If I have to choose between the White House and the farmhouse, I choose the farmhouse. If I have to choose between the White House and the Statehouse, I choose the Statehouse. If I have to choose between the White House and the schoolhouse, I will choose the schoolhouse. If I have to choose between the White House and the average family house in Nebraska and throughout our country, I choose the house of each and every Nebraskan and each and every American every time.

My point is the Congress is here to make decisions, not just accept what is dictated as appropriate from the administration. The case of agriculture could not be a better example. Every Member in the Senate knows very well, better than any bureaucrat in the Office of Management and Budget, what is right for our States, our communities, and our constituents.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for the opportunity to address the nomination of my good friend, Governor Ridge, for this important position that has been created to take care of homeland security.

I rise in support of the nomination for a number of reasons. While we were Governors, for 4 years we worked together within the Governors Association to make sure our States were taken care of; that the economies of the States were directed in an appropriate fashion; that we worked together to make clear the State issues before the Congress of the United States.

In that experience, I had the opportunity to see firsthand Governor Ridge at work for the benefit of his State and for our country. In the last few months, I have had that same experience of seeing him at work in his new role of developing the homeland security strategy, the homeland security approach that I think will truly bring about homeland security.

His background enables him in a very unique way to bring together local, State, and Federal agencies. It is truly an honor for me to be here today to say I am proud to support his nomination, and I look forward to working with him.

Last year, as we were finishing up the second session of the 107th Congress, Governor Ridge came to Nebraska and looked at the University of Nebraska Medical Center as a possible site for a biomedical laboratory as part of the homeland security effort to make sure we have the capacity to deal with any kind of bioterrorism that would require medical treatment and

for the detection of bioterrorist activity.

While he was there, we had an opportunity to look at the facility but I think in a broader sense of what we need to have in terms of laboratories around the country to work with the CDC and to work with others in this new role.

At the end of the year, we also had what appeared to be somewhat of a grab for one of those institutions in another part of our country. The then-majority leader agreed with a number of us that we would have a way to deal with this in a compromise this year. That majority leader passed it on to Senator Frist, the new majority leader, to work this through.

A good-faith effort has been made--I am not totally convinced the language is as strong as I would like to see it, but clearly a good- faith effort has been made to resolve this issue so that the playing field is level so other institutions will be able to compete fairly to have the biomedical lab in their location based on the criteria.

To give an idea of how strong and supportive I am of Governor Ridge, I have been supportive of giving him, if you will, the total authority to set the criteria so that we do not set the criteria by law but he can by rule and regulation set the criteria and make the determination. That is the kind of support I think this gentleman will have from this Congress in so many different ways because of what he has been able to show and reflect in his work thus far. There will be total support along the way.

I am looking forward to the days ahead to work with Governor Ridge as he becomes Secretary Ridge in this very important responsibility.

On another matter related to this--and I do not come to the floor very often to talk about partisan politics or to respond to those partisan arguments that are sometimes made. I think typically they tend to derail us, distract us, and detract from the subject of the day. So yesterday when I heard someone talking about a partisan deficit as opposed to a deficit because some of us were supportive of firefighters, some of us were supportive of first responders and of police officers on the spot--recognizing that we ought not to simply have our pictures taken with these first responders as a matter of publicity or as a matter of PR; what we should, in fact, do is make sure we are supporting them financially--I was dismayed by what I heard and what I saw on a chart.

I wish to respond today because I think if we are going to focus on what homeland security is about, what Governor Ridge is focused on, it is about hometown security. If we are not secure in our hometowns, if we are not supportive financially in every way we possibly can, if we are not responding at the hometown level, the police officers, the firefighters, and the first responders of the emergency service workers and all those who protect our water supply and who protect our food supply, we are not going to have homeland security. That is what it has been about these last several days. We may have different ideas about doing it, we may have a different philosophy whether we do it through this budget or whether we do it in another budget, but that is different than to say it is a growing partisan deficit caused by one group versus another.

If we are not going to support our firefighters and we are not going to support our police officers at the local level, then we ought not say we are for homeland security. One cannot be for homeland security if one is not for hometown security.

The fact is, there may be disagreements, but I think we ought to set aside the partisan rhetoric and work together to find a way to fund these very important services rather than to talk in a global sense, in a broad sense about homeland security. It sounds great, but the only way it works is if we are focused on what is happening in Charlotte, NC, what is happening in Lincoln, NE, what is happening in Bangor, ME-- what is happening in the localities across our country. If we do not have security at the local level, this homeland is not secure, and none of us are truly safe.

I thank the Chair. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Madam President, I thank the Democratic leader for this time to speak about the need for disaster relief, and I commend my good friend and colleague from Mississippi, the chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, for bringing forth his proposal.

The debate today is not simply about disaster relief. It is about economic stimulus, and it looks to me as if the debate has already begun. Part of the stimulus package will involve tax cuts. Obviously, for a State such as Nebraska, tax cuts can be helpful, but to many farmers and ranchers who have no taxable income, who are about to lose their farms, who are about to lose their ranches and everything they have owned and that has been in the family for generations, a tax cut simply is not going to be enough.

That is not an argument against the tax cut. It is an argument real stimulus. It is an argument in favor of disaster relief.

Let's put a face on this problem. Let's go to southwest Nebraska, my home area, not far from Saint Francis, KS, where the distinguished Democratic leader's wife hails from. Randy Peters, who lives on his family farm that has been in the family for generations, when I say, look, we are getting you tax cuts, he will say, I appreciate that, Senator, that is nice. I then say, maybe part of the package will be eliminating the taxes on your dividends, and he says, that is great but, Senator, but the problem is that right now I do not have any taxable income. I spent all my savings on the farm and so I do not even have any dividends to be sheltered, and besides they are raising my taxes in Lincoln. What can you do to help me?

I say to him and I say to my colleagues, the best way we can help those who are experiencing the ravages of this drought is to simply move forward and pass enough in disaster relief to take care of the problem.

I have heard, and I suspect it will be suggested, that something is better than nothing. I agree, something is better than nothing, but in this case, something is just not good enough. We ought to be talking about how we are going to do something that is good enough to take care of those who are having this unfortunate experience we are seeing today.

There seems to be no relief in sight from the drought. Every forecast, every suggestion for the future, indicates an indefinite drought, but there can be financial relief if we will step forward and make sure we provide for enough, not less than what is required.

As we debate the whole area of economic stimulus, I hope we are not going to be in a position where we say to the White House, we know something is better than nothing and they know something is better than nothing. But we are not going to be able to do everything that is necessary because if we are going to require offsets consistently whether it is disaster relief or other spending, then I suppose the question has to be raised: Where is the offset on the stimulus package? If that is the case, maybe there is not enough. Something, of course, is better than nothing.

I do not want to make that argument then, and I do not want to hear that argument now, because something is better than nothing, we understand that. But when it is not good enough, we ought to strive towards making sure we can look Randy Peters and the family farmers and ranchers across this Nation who are experiencing these challenges in the eye and say we have done what we can do and it is not just a half a loaf to feed you for a very short period of time. Let's do enough to make sure we take care of our agricultural needs for the future.

There is not a better way to take care of rural America than to make sure our farmers and our ranchers do not lose their farms and ranches as an experience of this drought that continues today. It is not over. I have termed it ``Drought David'' as one way of getting it some attention so it has an identity. What I want to do is make sure we take care of those farmers and ranchers whose identity may be a little bit unknown in the hallowed Halls of the Capitol but whose pain is being felt.

Mr. President, on Monday, a colleague of ours lost his mother and, as always, when tragedy hits one member of our Senate family, we all feel like we have lost a member of our extended family.

Not every American is recognized for the way they lived their lives. Most Americans pass through time making contact with those around them, leading good and decent lives, praying to God for forgiveness and salvation, and leaving behind a modest legacy.

Betty Hagel Breeding was just like each one of us. She strived to live her life well; she endured life's unexpected twists and survived its tragedies for 79 years. She passed away this week, a true Nebraskan and a beloved matriarch, grandmother and mother of our colleague and friend Senator Chuck Hagel.

Life doesn't prepare you for much, especially the loss of your parents. It's especially difficult to lose someone who has played such an instrumental role in shaping your life, like most parents do.

According to her sons, Betty Hagel Breeding was ``the glue'' in the Hagel family, even more so after the death of her husband in 1962 and later her youngest son, Jim. From that point on, she alone faced the realities of life, the uncertainty of the future, and the wonder of fate as she guided her boys as they became young men.

When you lose someone like that, there is a bottomless hole in your life. When you reflect on the influence of your parents it crystallizes the role they played in the development of who you are and what you believe.

Our parents are the people who teach us how to be, how to treat others and how to live our lives. Betty Hagel Breeding passed away on Monday, but the lessons she taught her children and her children's children will live on through her sons. Her legacy lives today in Nebraska in those who have survived her and the lives of the Nebraskans touched by each one of them.

Senator Hagel is in Nebraska today with his friends and family. They are reliving the memories they share of Betty Hagel Breeding and celebrating her life and how she led it. I know many Nebraskans and many in the Senate community join me in sending heartfelt condolences to the Hagel family.

In times like these, when Nebraskans reach out to support fellow Nebraskans, it reminds me of why our State motto is ``the good life;'' because neighbor to neighbor, town to town, city to city, Nebraska is home to great men and women, like Betty Hagel Breeding.

Mr. President, I am here today to thank Gary Chenett, Diane Rey, and John Schniedermeier. They are responsible for awarding the Silver Rose to our veterans in Nebraska. The Order of the Silver Rose was established in 1997 by Mary Elizabeth Marchand. Her father, Chief Hospital Corpsman Frank Davis, died from illnesses resulting from the use of Agent Orange in the Vietnam war. He was a combat veteran; however, he was not wounded in combat, but was exposed to a dangerous substance while fighting for his country that took his life many years later.

The Department of Defense has determined that Chief Davis and many like him do not qualify for the Purple Heart. It is the mission of the Order of The Silver Rose organization to recognize the courage, heroism, and contributions of American service personnel found to have been exposed to Agent Orange in a combat zone. I am sure that as time passes, they will expand their focus to members who have died from other conflicts.

The Order of the Silver Rose gives many veterans the satisfaction that they are being recognized for giving their Nation the ultimate sacrifice. There are thousands of veterans who served this country faithfully and now find themselves in poor health, some fatal health, directly due to being exposed to harmful substances during war.

Gary Chenett, Diane Rey, and John Schniedermeier have awarded 11 Nebraskans with the Silver Rose, I would like to honor them today, they are: Raymond D. Todorovich of Omaha, Edgar Fleharty of Fremont, Randy E. Holke of Fremont, John Schniedermeier of Omaha, Ronald R. Charles of Omaha, Terry H. Greenwell of Omaha, David C. Smith of Firth, Joseph E. Stillwell of Omaha, Roy R. Rogers of Fremont, Albert W. Kowalski of Omaha, and Gilbert J. Styskal, Jr. of Omaha.

On behalf of Nebraska, I thank these brave patriots for their sacrifices.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation to assist State governments badly hurt by poor economic conditions and declining revenue. This legislation, that I am proud to be introducing with my good friends Senators Collins and Rockefeller, will provide $20 billion in Federal assistance to States.

Last July, 75 of our colleagues agreed with us that we need to help the States and passed a similar plan that we authored. Unfortunately, the House failed to act on our bill. In that timeframe, the budget situation in the States has gotten worse, not better. New estimates show the States facing a $60 to $85 billion shortfall next year. This is why I come to the floor today to introduce ``The State Budget Relief Act of 2003.''

The Federal and State governments are a partnership. When State governments are in a budget crisis, the Federal Government must step in and fulfill the obligations to the programs people rely on. We have the same constituents and the same goals.

The bipartisan fiscal relief package will provide assistance through a temporary increase in the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, FMAP, of Medicaid and $10 billion in social service block grants. This bill strikes a good balance by providing direct relief to Medicaid, which is one of the fastest growing programs in State budgets, while giving Governors needed flexibility through the block grants. This 18- month package will provide over $104 million in new funds to Nebraska.

As a former Governor, I know how hard it is for States to maintain a balanced budget. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and take that step to avert, at least in part, potentially damaging cuts to Medicaid as well as to other social services programs. If we do not help the States, any other Federal economic stimulus will likely be lost in State and local tax hikes and spending cuts.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation to assist State governments badly hurt by poor economic conditions and declining revenue. This legislation, that I am proud to be introducing with my good friends Senators Collins and Rockefeller, will provide $20 billion in Federal assistance to States.

Last July, 75 of our colleagues agreed with us that we need to help the States and passed a similar plan that we authored. Unfortunately, the House failed to act on our bill. In that timeframe, the budget situation in the States has gotten worse, not better. New estimates show the States facing a $60 to $85 billion shortfall next year. This is why I come to the floor today to introduce ``The State Budget Relief Act of 2003.''

The Federal and State governments are a partnership. When State governments are in a budget crisis, the Federal Government must step in and fulfill the obligations to the programs people rely on. We have the same constituents and the same goals.

The bipartisan fiscal relief package will provide assistance through a temporary increase in the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, FMAP, of Medicaid and $10 billion in social service block grants. This bill strikes a good balance by providing direct relief to Medicaid, which is one of the fastest growing programs in State budgets, while giving Governors needed flexibility through the block grants. This 18- month package will provide over $104 million in new funds to Nebraska.

As a former Governor, I know how hard it is for States to maintain a balanced budget. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and take that step to avert, at least in part, potentially damaging cuts to Medicaid as well as to other social services programs. If we do not help the States, any other Federal economic stimulus will likely be lost in State and local tax hikes and spending cuts.