Ben Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. President, this amendment provides a fiscally sound alternative for estate tax reform. It represents a fiscally sound approach to protecting family farms, ranches, and small businesses from the onerous estate tax. It is cosponsored by Senators Lincoln, Baucus, Landrieu, Stabenow, Salazar, Bill Nelson, and Mark Pryor. The amendment provides for an estate tax reform initiative; the necessary next step to improving the estate tax component of the Baucus amendment adopted by an overwhelming margin of 97 to 1. This amendment gets us to a $5 million exemption and a 35 percent rate. I hope the day will come when we can fully repeal the estate tax forever, but unfortunately today is not that day. Unfortunately, the fiscal realities we face do not at this time allow for a permanent solution. That is why we must adopt this amendment to provide peace of mind for thousands of families who are planning to pass their business, farm, or ranch on to the next generation. Like the Kyl amendment, our amendment will allow us to accommodate the Landrieu proposal of a $5 million and 35 percent with a surcharge for the largest estates. Unlike the, Kyl amendment, this amendment is fiscally responsible and deficit neutral. I look forward to working with the cosponsors of this amendment and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact meaningful estate tax reform this session, and eventually finding a permanent solution. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and join me in following through on the promise made in this amendment to extend estate tax relief with an exemption of $5 million and a top rate of 35 percent. Mr. President, I yield the floor to Senator Lincoln from Arkansas.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 342

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to express my best wishes and appreciation to a staff member who is leaving my office after many years of public service. W. Don Nelson has served with distinction as my State director in Lincoln, NE, since I was elected in 2000, which is no small job in a State that stretches 500 miles. Although we share the same last name, we do not share a family relationship. We do share a passion for public service. W. Don, as he is known throughout Nebraska, has a long history of bipartisan government service at the highest levels. Mr. Nelson worked for former Congressman Douglas Bereuter when he was director of the Nebraska State Office of Planning and Programming. He also served as a chief policy adviser for former Nebraska Governors Norbert Tiemann, Jim Exon, and former Wyoming Governor Ed Herschler and was chief of staff for Nebraska Governor Bob Kerrey. Before Don became my State director he was in the private sector serving as managing director for the Nebraska office of a major national securities firm. To say that W. Don Nelson was an important and vital part of the staff for those of us whom he served is an understatement. His background as a lawyer and investment banker made him invaluable in government service but his abilities stretched far beyond that. W. Don Nelson is one of the most fiercely loyal and completely trustworthy individuals I have ever had the privilege to know. His intellect and depth of knowledge on virtually any issue is uncanny. He has the courage to confront adversaries at the highest levels and the compassion to help those who are less fortunate. He is a gracious host and gentleman to friends, and a devoted father and husband to a loving family. W. Don may be retiring but not to a rocking chair. The W. Don Nelson that so many Nebraskans know will never sit back and rest on his laurels. His so-called retirement will be in front of a computer screen and stalking the halls of government buildings visiting with elected and appointed officials from the other side of the desk, as a reporter. After answering questions from reporters for much of his career, he will be asking the questions. He is crossing over to start his own newspaper, called Prairie Fire, in Lincoln, NE. Its objective is to be the progressive voice of the Great Plains offering thoughtful, bipartisan public discourse about all matters relating to politics and the arts and, I imagine, Don's passion, the environment. All of us will miss Don, his quirky sense of humor, his vintage neckties, his sports cars, and even his outward display of pride in Cornhusker Country for his alma maters, the University of Florida and Florida State University. We wish him every success in his new role as editor, publisher, and writer.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, this has been called a very unusual occasion for us to come to the floor on a Saturday to vote on a resolution or to vote on any matter, but this is a very special occasion today because we need to vote up or down on this resolution. I want to make it clear that while it is unusual, I believe it is, in fact, necessary. But I want to make it clear also that I support and prefer the Warner-Nelson-Collins resolution, which sets forth benchmarks and conditions for staying and requirements for the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi Prime Minister to meet in connection with that. But this resolution, while it may be more simplistic, still expresses support for the troops, a very strong statement of support for the troops and what they do, funding for the troops, and continuing to support their needs. It also states an opposition to the surge plan. The Warner-Nelson-Collins resolution, which I prefer, makes it very clear that the opposition to the surge plan is sending our troops into Baghdad to put them in harm's way between the Sunnis and the Shias and the sectarian violence that has been described as being far worse than a civil war. We do not believe that is the appropriate plan. We have asked in that resolution that the President reconsider, consider all alternatives and other plans that might not put our troops into harm's way in the middle of a civil disobedience and a civil conflagration, as we have seen it. I thank Senators Warner and Collins for their support and the cosponsors of this other resolution that I have referred to. Today, it is pretty clear there has been much debate about the debate. My friend from Kentucky indicated he is frustrated. We are all frustrated. We are frustrated because it is time to end the charade and move forward to the consideration of the resolution so the Senate can be on record with Senators voting for or against the surge plan. The American people can see what is happening. They know some want to prevent a vote at all costs. There have been Members complaining about the vote cast a little over a week ago, cast against moving forward. Then they said in the Senate, it is time to have a vote after having voted against having a vote. It is time to move beyond the debate about the debate and move toward the consideration of this resolution. It is time for the Senators to be on record with the question: Are you for deploying thousands of troops to the crossroads of civil war in Iraq or do you oppose that plan? This is the second opportunity the Senate has had to allow an up-or- down vote on a resolution on the Iraq surge. Let the Senate debate and vote on this resolution. We owe it to the American people. We owe it to the American people because of the importance of this resolution making clear that we do not support, or that we do support, putting our troops in harm's way in the middle of a civil war or a war that is simply between Shias and Sunnis, Shias and Shias, and other civil groups within the community. We do not have to understand the 1,400 years of this battle to know it is inappropriate to put our troops into the middle where it is impossible to identify the enemy. We put our troops into a situation where they are going to go door to door, hopefully with some support from the Iraqi troops, hopefully with some support from Prime Minister Maliki, hopefully with some support from the Iraqi Government. In any event, the surge which the President said is going forward will put our troops in that condition and that situation. I, for one, do not believe that is an appropriate use of our troops. I believe today is the opportunity for the Senate to be able to say no, by saying yes to moving forward on this resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of SGT Randy J. Matheny, 20, of McCook, NE. Sergeant Matheny followed in the footsteps of his older siblings when he joined the Nebraska Army National Guard on March 28, 2005, as a heavy vehicle driver in Detachment 1, 1057th Transportation Company in Scottsbluff. His older sister, SSG Karen Matheny, is a full-time member of the Nebraska Army National Guard's HHD, 734th Transportation Battalion in Kearney. PFC Pat Matheny, his older brother, is an active- duty soldier with the U.S. Army. Both of Sergeant Matheny's siblings are serving in Iraq; his sister is currently serving her second tour, and his brother is preparing to deploy for his first. Sergeant Matheny graduated from my alma mater, McCook Senior High School, in 2004. His teachers and friends knew him as a well-known, soft-spoken student. In his free time, he enjoyed riding his motorcycle and spending time with his friends. After joining the Nebraska Army National Guard in 2005, he attended basic training at Fort Jackson, SC, and then advanced individual training at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, in 2006. In June 2006, he transferred as a heavy vehicle driver to the Nebraska Army National Guard Detachment 3, 1074th Transportation Company based in Sidney. Sergeant Matheny was mobilized for duty in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom on July 15, 2006. The 1074th Transportation Company is responsible for providing security for transportation missions throughout Iraq. On February 4, 2007, Sergeant Matheny passed away when an improvised explosive device detonated next to the armored security vehicle in which he was serving as a gunner. He was 20 years old. Then-Specialist Matheny was posthumously promoted to sergeant. The Matheny family from my hometown of McCook, NE, are the paradigm of courage and selflessness. In addition to his brother and sister, Sergeant. Matheny is survived by his father Gary Matheny and mother Jan Collins. I offer my condolences to Sergeant Matheny's family and friends who inspired and supported his career. He made the ultimate and most valorous sacrifice so that future generations around the world will live free, peaceful lives. Sergeant Matheny will be forever remembered as a hero. Colonel Brian Allgood

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I thank my friends from Virginia and Arizona for the courtesy being extended to me and I appreciate their forbearance. Madam President, the Senate is about to embark on a weeklong recess in the next couple days, and I would be remiss to allow this week to end without at least trying with my colleague from Virginia one more time to get the Senate to consider our resolution on the Iraq troop surge. For days we have seen Senators deliver speeches on this floor, some for a vote, others against allowing a vote. We have heard great calls to action, and we have heard that doing nothing would be better than doing something. We even had Senators participate in an exercise to block an up-or-down vote on a resolution, some for reasons they think were certainly important. But I am not a believer in doing nothing, and I believe the Senate has an obligation to lead. I have said that before, and I will say it again. The Senate is not only a deliberative body, but it is a governing body and has oversight interests. Each Senator, as a Member of the body, has an obligation to lead. I would like to commend my colleagues, the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Maine, for exhibiting great leadership and courage in forging this resolution that includes many important issues that need to be covered in a vote of this magnitude. Both of my colleagues and others have overcome fierce political pressures, including the Presiding Officer. But we have come together to do the right thing. I would like to thank my colleagues, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, from Michigan, my colleague from Nebraska, and the other Senators who have signed on in support of our resolution. Together, we are able to begin the process of oversight, the process of leadership, the process of living up to our obligations. And we are here today to try to continue to do the right thing. The House of Representatives is engaged in a historic debate today over a resolution that does, in part, what our resolution does. It expresses opposition to the President's planned surge of troops in Iraq. Although their resolution and our resolution come at it from different directions and points of view, in essence, they have some similarity. But I would prefer the Senate to take up the Warner-Nelson- Collins resolution because we have spent considerable time and energy drafting a complete and comprehensive resolution that includes many of the priorities Senators have expressed over the duration of that war. Our resolution includes the need to establish benchmarks for the Iraqi Government to meet in order to continue involvement of the United States in Iraq. It includes the desire to continue fighting the terrorists in Anbar Province. It expresses clear opposition to the President's proposal to deposit 21,000 troops at the crossroads of civil war in Baghdad. The House resolution does express opposition to the President's plan, but it does not include these other important measures which we think are very important. So I hope we can resolve our differences and vote on this resolution in a timely fashion. The American public deserves an up-or-down down vote on this most important issue of today. The time is now to express our opposition to the troop surge and the use of American soldiers to stop civil war in Iraq. Thank you, Madam President. And I thank my colleague and friend from Arizona and my colleague and friend from Virginia.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate a very special place in my hometown of McCook, NE. It is a place which exemplifies the thousands of family-owned small businesses lining the main streets of every small town in America, businesses which are the driving force in keeping those towns economically viable. This year marks the 50th anniversary of Sehnert's Bakery in McCook, NE. It was in 1957 when Walt and Jean Sehnert, the grandchildren of immigrants who came to America 110 years ago, bought the bakery as a place to work hard, earn a decent living, and raise a family. Today, their son Matt Sehnert and his wife Shelly carry on the tradition by providing the people of McCook with some of the most delicious pastries on the planet. Matt and Shelly credit a dedicated and hard-working crew, who also take pride in Sehnert's longstanding tradition. As many small businesses do in order to survive in a competitive environment, Matt and Shelly have modernized Sehnert's Bakery and expanded it to include a catering service and cafe, where I often meet with constituents during visits home. My memories of Sehnert's go back to when I was a teenager in McCook and was able to get a job there, working early Saturday mornings. I learned a lot about how to make piecrusts and decorate cakes. I also learned that it is easy to overdose on glazed donuts when you work in a bakery Walt Sehnert can still recall my first day on the job. My fellow colleagues, if you ever have the pleasure of visiting my hometown of McCook, NE, I urge you to drop by Sehnert's Bakery and enjoy some of their mouth-watering donuts, or maybe some pies or perhaps one of their famous ``Jiffy Burgers,'' whose recipe remains a closely guarded secret in McCook. Sehnert's Bakery and Bieroc Cafe Catering Service is located at 312 Norris Avenue. That is Norris, as in George Norris, who very capably served Nebraska in the U.S. Senate from 1913 to 1943. Yes, McCook has produced two U.S. Senators, as well as three of Nebraska's Governors. Not bad for a town with a population of just 8,000 people; but of course, that is why the Sehnerts and I are proud to call it home.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Preserving Patient Access to Inpatient Rehabilitation Hospitals Act of 2007 to make changes to a rule issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, which has restricted the ability of rehabilitation hospitals to provide critical care. In my home State of Nebraska, Madonna Rehabilitation Hospital in Lincoln is a nationally recognized premier rehabilitation facility offering specialized programs and services for those who have suffered brain injuries, strokes, spinal cord injuries, and the latest care for cardiac, pulmonary, cancer, pain, and joint replacement patients. If the CMS rule is not updated, Madonna and other facilities will not be able to continue to offer critical care to patients eager to restore their past health and physical function. When CMS first looked at whether facilities would qualify as inpatient rehabilitation facilities, IRFs, a list of criteria were created to determine eligibility. The narrow criteria, generally referred to as the ``75-percent rule,'' were first established in 1984, but were never strictly enforced and ultimately suspended in 2002 due to inconsistencies in accurately determining medical necessity. Since establishing strict enforcement of the 75-percent rule in 2004, field data estimates that as many as 88,000 Medicare patients have been denied critical IRF services. The rule will, by CMS's own estimate, shift thousands of patients both Medicare and non-Medicare into alternative care settings which may be inappropriate and inadequate. Bipartisan Congressional efforts have repeatedly petitioned both the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and CMS for cooperation in averting an escalation of the 75-percent threshold, which currently stands at 60 percent. For cost-reporting periods beginning July 1, 2007, the compliance threshold is scheduled to jump to 65 percent, with full 75-percent implementation scheduled for July 2008. If legislative action is not taken, IRFs will be forced to turn away more and more patients in order to operate as rehabilitation hospitals or units. By freezing the compliance threshold at 60 percent and ending the inconsistent and unpredictable use of fiscal intermediaries' local coverage determinations, our efforts will ensure that patients across America will continue to have access to the rehabilitative care they need. I am pleased a bipartisan group of Senate Finance Committee; Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee; and Special Committee on Aging members have joined me in supporting this legislation. In addition, the American Association of People with Disabilities, the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Rehabilitation Providers Association, the Federation of American Hospitals, and numerous other associations and advocacy groups have endorsed our bill. Just as I have heard from patients and medical providers who have experienced problems with the 75-percent Rule, my colleagues and the members of these associations have witnessed the devastating effect this rule is having on those who need this type of critical care. I urge my colleagues to join Senators Jim Bunning, Debbie Stabenow, Olympia Snowe, John Kerry, Susan Collins, Jack Reed, Hillary Clinton, Robert Menendez and me in supporting this important bill. My colleagues and I are determined to resolve this lingering problem and return medical necessity decisions back into the hands of medical providers, while ensuring access to improved inpatient rehabilitation care. The Preserving Patient Access to Inpatient Rehabilitation Hospitals Act of 2007 is a top priority, and I look forward to its passage this year.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Preserving Patient Access to Inpatient Rehabilitation Hospitals Act of 2007 to make changes to a rule issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, which has restricted the ability of rehabilitation hospitals to provide critical care. In my home State of Nebraska, Madonna Rehabilitation Hospital in Lincoln is a nationally recognized premier rehabilitation facility offering specialized programs and services for those who have suffered brain injuries, strokes, spinal cord injuries, and the latest care for cardiac, pulmonary, cancer, pain, and joint replacement patients. If the CMS rule is not updated, Madonna and other facilities will not be able to continue to offer critical care to patients eager to restore their past health and physical function. When CMS first looked at whether facilities would qualify as inpatient rehabilitation facilities, IRFs, a list of criteria were created to determine eligibility. The narrow criteria, generally referred to as the ``75-percent rule,'' were first established in 1984, but were never strictly enforced and ultimately suspended in 2002 due to inconsistencies in accurately determining medical necessity. Since establishing strict enforcement of the 75-percent rule in 2004, field data estimates that as many as 88,000 Medicare patients have been denied critical IRF services. The rule will, by CMS's own estimate, shift thousands of patients both Medicare and non-Medicare into alternative care settings which may be inappropriate and inadequate. Bipartisan Congressional efforts have repeatedly petitioned both the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and CMS for cooperation in averting an escalation of the 75-percent threshold, which currently stands at 60 percent. For cost-reporting periods beginning July 1, 2007, the compliance threshold is scheduled to jump to 65 percent, with full 75-percent implementation scheduled for July 2008. If legislative action is not taken, IRFs will be forced to turn away more and more patients in order to operate as rehabilitation hospitals or units. By freezing the compliance threshold at 60 percent and ending the inconsistent and unpredictable use of fiscal intermediaries' local coverage determinations, our efforts will ensure that patients across America will continue to have access to the rehabilitative care they need. I am pleased a bipartisan group of Senate Finance Committee; Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee; and Special Committee on Aging members have joined me in supporting this legislation. In addition, the American Association of People with Disabilities, the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Rehabilitation Providers Association, the Federation of American Hospitals, and numerous other associations and advocacy groups have endorsed our bill. Just as I have heard from patients and medical providers who have experienced problems with the 75-percent Rule, my colleagues and the members of these associations have witnessed the devastating effect this rule is having on those who need this type of critical care. I urge my colleagues to join Senators Jim Bunning, Debbie Stabenow, Olympia Snowe, John Kerry, Susan Collins, Jack Reed, Hillary Clinton, Robert Menendez and me in supporting this important bill. My colleagues and I are determined to resolve this lingering problem and return medical necessity decisions back into the hands of medical providers, while ensuring access to improved inpatient rehabilitation care. The Preserving Patient Access to Inpatient Rehabilitation Hospitals Act of 2007 is a top priority, and I look forward to its passage this year.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I state again for my colleagues that this debate is not about support for the troops or support for their extraordinary work on the ground in Iraq. Our troops, the best fighting force in the history of the world, have performed admirably, honorably, and successfully under extreme and dangerous conditions in Iraq. We are not here today to besmirch their efforts, their work, or their sacrifice. To indicate otherwise is disingenuous and out of line. This is not the time or the place for political attacks. The President even made an offer to Congress before a nationally televised audience on January 10 that, ``if Members have improvements that can be made, we will make them.'' This is a debate about a serious topic: What is the way forward in Iraq? How can we achieve a political solution without the additional loss of American lives? One of my colleagues has said over and over, ``this comes down to if you support an escalation or not'' and ``the American people deserve this debate.'' For me, the question is, Will the Senate lead? Will the Senate express its opposition to the surge? I know many do not think passing a nonbinding resolution is leading, and I know others say the resolution goes too far. I say that, on an issue of this magnitude, an issue this important, it is critical for the Senate to speak with the strongest voice possible. Generating a revised resolution with broader appeal was putting our best foot forward in securing the strongest bipartisan vote possible. I am proud to have worked with my colleague, Senator Warner, the most recent past chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and our colleague, Senator Collins of Maine, in this cause. They have shown tremendous leadership on this issue, as have Senator Levin, Senator Biden, and Senator Hagel. But it seems that even when it comes to the lives of our troops, partisanship prevails. Here we are, after weeks of negotiations, after weeks of public proclamations, after weeks of consideration, about to witness the minority choose politics over progress--and this is after we revised our original resolution to address some of the concerns that were raised by both Democrats and Republicans. It is important that we point out that this is not simply about being opposed to a surge. It is about opposition to a surge to do what? To go into Baghdad? To go into the midst of sectarian violence, civil war, criminality? There is no opposition to continuing to support troops in Al-Anbar and even an increase in the troops to fight the bad guys in that location. But that is altogether different from going into Baghdad where our troops will be expected to be on the point and in harm's way in the midst of sectarian violence that is unparalleled across our great world today. But in strong support of Iraq, we must, in fact, do what we can to support Iraq but without putting our troops in the midst of that caldron. The Baker-Hamilton report made things very clear. We have established benchmarks as well--that we should empower the Iraqi Government to be able to do what it can to quell its own violence. We cannot win their civil war. We cannot stop the violence in Baghdad. Only a political solution achieved by the Iraqis will be able to do that. If we are to do our duty, if we are to exhibit leadership, let us begin by allowing a full debate on the resolutions we have pending. Let's talk about the President's plan to deploy American troops to the crossroads of civil war in Iraq. Let's talk about holding the Iraqi Government accountable for its responsibilities. I am prepared to defend the resolutions I have offered with Senators Warner, Collins, and Levin. I am prepared to vote on the McCain resolution. And I am prepared for the debate because its time has come. I ask my colleagues, if not now, when? If not now, do we wait for more troops to die before we oppose the President's plan? If not now, do we wait for more violence, more unrest, more danger for our troops before we act? Some have said the President deserves one last chance to succeed. How do we ask our troops to do again what has failed in the past? We have had other surges that have not succeeded for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the Iraqis have not shown up. So what is different this time? I hope we do not look at this as our last hurrah. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, is someone offering the order?

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law be authorized to meet on Monday, February 5, 2007 at 3 p.m. to conduct a hearing on ``Genocide and the Rule of Law'' in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Witness List The Honorable Sigal Mandelker, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Lieutenant General The Honorable Romeo A. Dallaire, Senator, Parliament of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Don Cheadle, Actor and Activist, Los Angeles, CA. Diane F. Orentlicher, Professor, Washington College of Law, American University, Washington, DC.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, tonight I believe we have seen the introduction of a resolution which not only has had bipartisan support in its prior form but will receive very strong bipartisan support in its current form, as amended. I rise to support this resolution for a number of reasons. I think it is important that we continue to support our troops in the field and those who support the troops across the world. I think it is important that we thank them for their service and that we make it very clear that this resolution does not impair their ability to move forward in their command. It is also important to point out that while some of the cosponsors haven't had the opportunity to review this, it is being circulated to them so that they do have the opportunity to review it. And I am sure they will become cosponsors with the new resolution. It is important to point out that in this resolution, benchmarks are included that I believe will help break the cycle of dependence in Iraq by empowering and requiring the authority of the Iraqi Government and the responsibility of the Iraqi Government to take a greater role in the battle in Iraq, particularly as it relates to Baghdad. We generally believe that it is inappropriate for our troops to intercede in the battle between the Sunnis and the Shias on a sectarian basis in battles that are of a similar nature that certainly do involve sectarian violence. There is a greater role for the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi military. This resolution in its present form will assure the assuming of that greater role, that greater responsibility by the Iraqi Government and certainly by the Iraqi Army. It is a pleasure for me to introduce and thank our cosponsor, the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the ``Biofuels Investment Trust Fund Act'' because I believe it is legislation that can help America progress towards a more secure energy future; I believe it is a small piece to the puzzle that is our energy policy. The Biofuels Investment Trust Fund Act seeks to take a simple, common sense step down the path we in this country need to take to improve our energy security. The Act would direct that all money collected by the Federal Government pursuant to the tariff on imported ethanol be invested in the research, development and deployment of biofuels--especially biofuels like cellulosic ethanol that can be produced from biomass feedstocks. There are some who advocate removing the ethanol tariff but I believe that it is currently unwise to do so. We are in the early stages of trying to build a renewable fuels industry that will eventually allow ethanol and other biofuels to be a real alternative to the fuels we currently derive from oil. The tariff is an important part of that because it helps the nascent ethanol industry and it ensures that we are not providing subsidies to ethanol produced in other nations. It seems to me, however, that the money collected from this tariff can be put to better, more productive uses than merely deposited in the general fund. And, it would seem, that using these funds to help build our domestic ethanol production would be the wisest use of the money. Therefore, I propose that the tariff funds be collected in a specific trust fund and only be used for investment in biofuels research, development and deployment. Moreover, I propose that those funds be more specifically invested in the next generation of ethanol production--cellulosic ethanol produced from biomass feedstocks. These funds can be used in any of a number of ways to help offset the substantial costs inherent in starting an entire industry--like one for cellulosic ethanol--from scratch and in the face of volatile commodities and energy markets. Our Nation faces a serious crisis brought on by our energy consumption and, most importantly, by our reliance on foreign sources of oil. As a Nebraskan, my focus has been on the role agriculture can play in the development of alternative sources of energy and I am convinced that American agriculture is positioned to supply the nation with an abundant source of clean, high-quality energy that will reduce our destructive reliance on foreign oil. I also believe that biofuels production can be the catalyst for a new wave of American innovation as a part of the continuing search for better energy solutions. The virtue in producing cleaner, more sustainable fuels derived from our own fields rather than extracted from distant lands could help spur new technologies, new jobs and new growth in our national economy. We in Nebraska know the value of ethanol. We know the benefits it holds for the environment and our farmers and we know that it is critical in lessening our dependence on foreign oil. We also know that the ethanol industry creates jobs--nearly 1 in 4 jobs in Nebraska are agriculture related and new ethanol plants are opening across the State. I believe that a national emphasis on biofuels production represents an important investment in the proud tradition of the American farmer, American ingenuity and American productivity. It's a win-win-win situation--a win for farmers, a win for agriculture and win for national security. There is not an area of the country that does not have some agriculture product that can be used as an alternative energy source whether it's corn in Nebraska, forestry wastes in the Northeast and Northwest, or sugar cane in Hawaii, Louisiana and Florida; or whether it is biomass energy crops that can be grown throughout the country. In conclusion, I am proud to introduce the Biofuels Investment Trust Fund Act with the hope that it will be part of the solution to our energy problems. The money we deposit in this Biofuels Trust Fund will help grow our biofuels industry and through that investment we will improve our national energy security, as well as boosting the economies in agriculture and our rural communities. I request that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the ``Biofuels Investment Trust Fund Act'' because I believe it is legislation that can help America progress towards a more secure energy future; I believe it is a small piece to the puzzle that is our energy policy. The Biofuels Investment Trust Fund Act seeks to take a simple, common sense step down the path we in this country need to take to improve our energy security. The Act would direct that all money collected by the Federal Government pursuant to the tariff on imported ethanol be invested in the research, development and deployment of biofuels--especially biofuels like cellulosic ethanol that can be produced from biomass feedstocks. There are some who advocate removing the ethanol tariff but I believe that it is currently unwise to do so. We are in the early stages of trying to build a renewable fuels industry that will eventually allow ethanol and other biofuels to be a real alternative to the fuels we currently derive from oil. The tariff is an important part of that because it helps the nascent ethanol industry and it ensures that we are not providing subsidies to ethanol produced in other nations. It seems to me, however, that the money collected from this tariff can be put to better, more productive uses than merely deposited in the general fund. And, it would seem, that using these funds to help build our domestic ethanol production would be the wisest use of the money. Therefore, I propose that the tariff funds be collected in a specific trust fund and only be used for investment in biofuels research, development and deployment. Moreover, I propose that those funds be more specifically invested in the next generation of ethanol production--cellulosic ethanol produced from biomass feedstocks. These funds can be used in any of a number of ways to help offset the substantial costs inherent in starting an entire industry--like one for cellulosic ethanol--from scratch and in the face of volatile commodities and energy markets. Our Nation faces a serious crisis brought on by our energy consumption and, most importantly, by our reliance on foreign sources of oil. As a Nebraskan, my focus has been on the role agriculture can play in the development of alternative sources of energy and I am convinced that American agriculture is positioned to supply the nation with an abundant source of clean, high-quality energy that will reduce our destructive reliance on foreign oil. I also believe that biofuels production can be the catalyst for a new wave of American innovation as a part of the continuing search for better energy solutions. The virtue in producing cleaner, more sustainable fuels derived from our own fields rather than extracted from distant lands could help spur new technologies, new jobs and new growth in our national economy. We in Nebraska know the value of ethanol. We know the benefits it holds for the environment and our farmers and we know that it is critical in lessening our dependence on foreign oil. We also know that the ethanol industry creates jobs--nearly 1 in 4 jobs in Nebraska are agriculture related and new ethanol plants are opening across the State. I believe that a national emphasis on biofuels production represents an important investment in the proud tradition of the American farmer, American ingenuity and American productivity. It's a win-win-win situation--a win for farmers, a win for agriculture and win for national security. There is not an area of the country that does not have some agriculture product that can be used as an alternative energy source whether it's corn in Nebraska, forestry wastes in the Northeast and Northwest, or sugar cane in Hawaii, Louisiana and Florida; or whether it is biomass energy crops that can be grown throughout the country. In conclusion, I am proud to introduce the Biofuels Investment Trust Fund Act with the hope that it will be part of the solution to our energy problems. The money we deposit in this Biofuels Trust Fund will help grow our biofuels industry and through that investment we will improve our national energy security, as well as boosting the economies in agriculture and our rural communities. I request that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, today I wish to congratulate the No. 1 volleyball team in America: the University of Nebraska Cornhuskers Women's Volleyball Team. The Cornhuskers won their third national title with a 3-1 victory over Stanford University on December 16, 2006. Previously, Nebraska captured National Collegiate Athletic Association's Women's Division I Volleyball Championships in 1995 and 2000. The win moved Nebraska into a tie for second place on the list of all-time NCAA Volleyball Championships among all schools. The title was also the second for the Huskers under Coach John Cook, who led Nebraska to the 2000 title in his first season as Nebraska's head coach. Nebraska ended its 2006 season with a 33-1 record. The team's .971 winning percentage led the Nation and was the second-best mark in school history. The Huskers also became just the third team in NCAA history to be ranked No. 1 for the entire season. In addition, the Cornhuskers are the first team outside of the Pacific Ten Conference to win a national title in women's volleyball since Nebraska's last title in 2000. After finishing runner-up last year, Nebraska became just the third volleyball team to ever win the National Championship season after losing in the NCAA's final match. Pennsylvania State University, Penn State, and the University of California at Los Angeles, UCLA, are the only other schools to accomplish such a feat. Attendance at the championship match, played at the Qwest Center in Omaha, NE, totaled 17,209, an all-time collegiate volleyball record. The total attendance for the entire championship session of 34,222 also set an NCAA record. The previous record was 23,978 set during the 1998 Championships in Madison, WI. On their way to winning the national title, several Huskers collected prestigious individual honors as well. Nebraska's 6-foot, 5-inch junior right-side hitter, Sarah Pavan, led the way, winning the American Volleyball Coaches Association's, AVCA, Division I National Player of the Year award and the 2006-2007 Honda Sports Award for volleyball. Pavan became the fourth Husker to win each award. Along with Pavan, sophomore outside hitter Jordan Larson was named an AVCA First Team All-American, while junior middle blocker Tracy Stalls was a second- team selection and redshirt freshman setter Rachel Holloway was a third-team honoree. It is a tremendous accomplishment to win a National Championship, and the University of Nebraska's Women's Volleyball Team is to be commended for its excellence and for the pride it has instilled in all Nebraskans.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to support the nomination of LTG David H. Petraeus for promotion to General and Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq. I was pleased to join with my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee to favorably report his nomination to the full Senate. General Petraeus has been commended by his superiors and policymakers alike for his ability to listen, to spend money wisely and use force intelligently in Iraq. He will bring to this new assignment his experience from back-to-back tours in Iraq. Most recently, General Petraeus authored the Army's new counterinsurgency manual. He is truly one of our most impressive Army leaders today. On January 10, the President articulated the strategy which General Petraeus will implement if confirmed to this important post. His mission will be to clear, hold and build. It will require the use of force, and negotiations alone won't complete this mission. I have serious doubts about this plan, especially the President's desire to send even more troops to Iraq. Because I feel so strongly that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating, I have joined with colleagues to draft a non-binding sense-of-Congress resolution, S. Con. Res. 4, to oppose the surge of troops into Baghdad. Senator Warner, Senator Collins and I believe this resolution avoids partisan rhetoric and provides the Senate a voice to express their disagreement with the President on his Iraq policy. Importantly, this resolution holds the Iraqis accountable and lets them know that the U.S. commitment is not open-ended. Our resolution emphasizes the Iraq Study Group's valuable recommendations and specifically says that our strategy in Iraq ``should be conditioned upon the Iraqi government's meeting benchmarks that must be specified by the Administration.'' Along those lines, I hope General Petraeus will be vigorous in keeping Congress informed of progress he is making in Iraq. We need to know what the benchmarks are on the military side of the ledger. We also need to know what is expected of the Iraqis. I hope it's much more than just showing up; the bar can't be that low. I don't want to bombard General Petraeus with paperwork--we want and need him in Baghdad neighborhoods restoring order--but it is vital that we know if the Iraqis are capable of sharing security responsibilities. During his office call last week, I told General Petraeus the expectations from Congress for his success are high, but the hopes of the American people are even higher. I feel that General Petraeus wants nothing less than success in Iraq and I look forward to working with him in the coming months to meet the needs of the troops so they have the tools they need to complete this mission.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Army 1LT Jacob N. Fritz of Verdon, NE. Lieutenant Fritz graduated from Dawson-Verdon High School in 2000. His peers and teachers recognized him as a natural leader. He was active in every extracurricular activity his school offered: speech, drama, basketball, football, track, and band. He organized drug-free parties and dances. After high school, Lieutenant Fritz followed his dream of serving in the Armed Forces by enrolling in the Military Academy at West Point, graduating in 2005. His younger brother, Daniel, followed in his footsteps and is currently a third-year cadet at West Point. Lieutenant Fritz had been serving in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, assigned to A Battery, 2nd Battalion, 377th Parachute Field Artillery Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, based in Fort Richardson, AK. On Saturday, January 20, 2007, Lieutenant Fritz passed away when his dismounted patrol received indirect fire followed by small arms fire in Karbala, Iraq. He was 25 years old. 1LT Jacob Fritz is survived by his parents, Lyle and Noala Fritz of Verdon, NE, and his two younger brothers, Daniel and Ethan. I offer my sincere condolences to the family and friends of Lieutenant Fritz. He made the ultimate and most courageous sacrifice for our Nation. I join all Americans in grieving the loss of this remarkable young man and know that Lieutenant Fritz's passion for serving, his leadership, and his selflessness will remain a source of inspiration for us all. Sergeant Major Marilyn Gabbard

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the senior Senator from Virginia for his considerable work in drafting this resolution and working over the weekend with us and our staffs, who worked very closely together to prepare this Iraq resolution. I think it is important to say as well that I respect the work done by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today in considering the resolution submitted by, supported by their chairman, the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden. I have a great deal of respect for Senator Biden's work. This is an area where there can be more than one idea about how to approach something, but at the end of the day, it is going to be important to have a resolution that has broad bipartisan support. I also appreciate the work of Senator Collins, who, as our colleague, has worked very closely on this resolution together with her staff to be able to submit it today in this fashion by putting it not only into the Record but on the floor so it can become part of the business of the Senate. There will be some who would say: Why is there a need for a second resolution? Well, this resolution offers a new set of ideas, more broadly worded, and in some cases, clearly, more likely to be bipartisan for Senators to consider. Given the fact that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee resolution came out on largely a partisan vote, we think this resolution, because it is picking up bipartisan support, will be, in terms of content and support, consistent with an effort to bring about a bipartisan resolution with broad support. The recommendations of the Iraq Study Group have not been followed to any significant extent to date. In some respects, they have been almost on a skyhook for future consideration. It was our feeling that many of these recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton study group should be included in a resolution, and we included many of those recommendations in the body of our resolution. We also worked very carefully to avoid political rhetoric or any kind of rhetoric that threatens the real objective. The real objective of this resolution is to stress to the White House that we disagree with the approach this plan takes by putting more men and women in our uniform in harm's way to fight, to do battle, to overcome the sectarian violence and the possible civil war of the Sunnis and the Shias and various subgroups within those religious and political elements. We also believed it was important to stress benchmarks and to empower the Prime Minister and the Iraqi Government to be able to meet certain objectives, certain goals, and to be able to deliver. At the end of the day, we think it is important to send a strong but unified message to the White House and Iraq. The more support the resolution receives in the Senate, the stronger our message will be. So tonight I am very pleased and am certainly proud to be here with my colleagues to say that at the end of the day, we think the strength of this resolution to uphold our responsibility will be in the best interests of our country and our military and that our colleagues should join together with us in opposition to the surge of U.S. troops to be placed in Baghdad. It is the responsibility of the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi military to overcome the battles between sectarian groups within their own country and to seek less of a military resolution and certainly more of a political resolution to the problems that exist at the present time. With that, let me say that I would like to see our unanimous consent be modified to include up to 10 minutes for Senator Salazar from Colorado to speak on the resolution afterward, if there is no objection.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Sure.

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

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, as I have mentioned before, last year Washington was rocked by the Abramoff scandal and other misdeeds. I am pleased that Congress has shown it is taking seriously its responsibility to the American people by revisiting and tightening the rules and laws that govern Members of the Senate. Many have said that S.1, which overwhelmingly passed out of the Senate last week, includes the most sweeping ethics reform measures since Watergate. There is one point that I discussed and pushed forward during last year's debate that I believe needs to again be part of what we are doing now. Last year I offered a sense-of-the-Senate amendment to make many of the reforms we have considered throughout this ethics debate apply to all branches of Government. I am pleased that this sense of the Senate was accepted and is included in the underlying bill. During the debate last week, I filed an amendment, No. 71, which builds upon the principle behind this sense of the Senate--that the standards employed in this bill should be the minimum standards that guide the other branches of Government. I thought this was a good amendment--in fact, a necessary amendment--that ought to be accepted into this bill. Unfortunately, that did not happen. I have spoken with some of my colleagues and understand that though there is general support for the principle that ethics standards in the executive branch should be as stringent as those made applicable by this bill, some of my colleagues believe the provisions of this amendment warrant further evaluation. Though I am disappointed this amendment will not be included on this bill, I respect and appreciate the importance and value of committee evaluation and will look forward to working on this issue as that committee process proceeds.

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

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

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

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I am here speaking a little bit early. Senator Warner will appear on the scene shortly. But as you know, Madam President, I will be presiding, so this gives me the opportunity to speak now. Senators Warner and Collins and I have worked to develop a bipartisan resolution dealing with Iraq. I thank them for working to forge this bipartisan resolution. I would clarify that the goal of this resolution is to broaden the resolution's appeal. It is important to send a strong message to the White House and Iraq. And the more support the resolution receives in the Senate, the stronger our message will be. This may not be an either/or situation. We are bringing forth a new set of ideas, something more broadly worded for Senators to consider. Some can vote for this resolution, and the other, without feeling any contradiction. The content of this resolution is more inclusive of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations and steers clear of partisan or Presidential rhetoric. I urge our colleagues--some of whom I have spoken with today, and some of whom I have spoken with over the weekend, and others in recent days, some tomorrow--to read this resolution carefully. I believe they will find the resolution to be thoughtful, forceful, and meaningful. If a Senator is not comfortable with the wording of the previously announced resolution, if a Senator was concerned that the resolution did not include the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, if a Senator was concerned about the infringement on executive powers, I think that Senator will find our resolution more appealing. In the end, we all have a responsibility to lead. We are accountable to our constituents--the American people, as is the President. When we see a policy development that we feel is not in the best interests of the United States and the U.S. military, we must speak out, we must act, and we must communicate with the President that we disagree with his plan. Simply put, that is what we are trying to do--to express our concern, our opposition, or disagreement with deploying troops in the heart of a civil war in Iraq. The goal is maximum bipartisan support to send the strongest message possible from the Senate to the President, to the American people, and to Iraq about our concern about this plan. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.