Ben Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I am here today to honor a fellow Nebraskan, Don Overman, who has made a significant contribution to maintaining commercial airline service in rural Nebraska. Mr. Overman is a former mayor of Scottsbluff, NE and currently serves as Chair of the Western Nebraska Regional Airport Authority Board in Scottsbluff. For nearly two decades in his various roles Mr. Overman has dedicated himself to assuring that Nebraskans are not deprived of having access to passenger airline service. It can be hard for those who have never lived in sparsely populated areas of this country to understand just how difficult it is to provide services that people in large urban areas take for granted, such as airline service. In large urban areas, there is never a question whether citizens will have ready access to airline service because of the economies of scale where expenses are offset by a large number of users. In lightly populated areas where there are fewer customers, the economy of scale can be nonexistent. For instance, at the Western Nebraska Regional Airport in Scottsbluff, NE, they struggle to board 10,000 airline passengers per year. Compare that to Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Atlanta, GA, which is the busiest airport in the world and boards, on average, nearly 10,000 passengers per hour. Even with 10,000 passengers per year, the Western Nebraska Regional Airport is the third busiest airport in Nebraska. Residents of the Nebraska Panhandle who use Scottsbluff's Western Nebraska Regional Airport are taxpayers, just as certain as those who use Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson and, as such, deserve to have convenient access to an airport. The economy of scale makes convenient access a challenge. It is a challenge that Don Overman has accepted. As Chair of the Airport Authority Board, he has worked tirelessly to increase boardings so Western Nebraska Regional Airport can be considered a primary airport and remain eligible for Federal funding. I have worked personally with him and can attest to his perseverance and dedication. Under his leadership, Western Nebraska Regional Airport will exceed 10,000 boardings this year for the first time since 2001. This is a significant achievement which is not only important to the flying public but to economic development in lesser populated areas of Nebraska. Airports provide a vital link for business to ensure that those Nebraska communities remain competitive in attracting new opportunities. Among other achievements of Don Overman and the Western Nebraska Regional Airport Authority Board is the construction of a new $4.2 million terminal of which $2.7 million was funded through the Federal Airport Improvement Program and $1.5 million was secured through local funding. This is a new facility to replace the current terminal which dates back to World War II. As Mr. Overman has observed in the past, the first image people see when they arrive in a community is the airport. That first impression creates their feelings about the community. Thanks to Mr. Overman's hard work, that first impression will be a positive one which will help attract economic development and growth to the area. Mr. Overman, who is often referred to fondly as Mr. Scottsbluff or Mr. Airport, will be recognized Saturday, October 29, 2005, when the new terminal is dedicated and named the ``Donald E. Overman Terminal.'' It is a well-deserved honor for a man whose achievements in the past have earned him recognition as the Scottsbluff Star-Herald Newspaper's Citizen of the Year and Citizen of the Century in Government. I would like to extend my sincere congratulations to Don Overman on this historic occasion. Thanks to him and the Western Nebraska Regional Airport Authority Board, citizens of the Nebraska Panhandle and surrounding States will have a modern new building and continued access to commercial airline service.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Navy Pilot LCDR Thomas E. Blake of Spencer, NE. Lieutenant Commander Blake was a selfless and honorable man whose commitment and service to his country were exemplary. As a 1990 graduate of Spencer-Naper High School, Blake went on to earn a bachelor's degree from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in 1994. Blake was an 11-year veteran of the Navy, and had been stationed at Sea Control Squadron 32, based at Jacksonville, Florida for the past 6 months. On September 21, 2005, LCDR Thomas Blake died at the age of 33 when an S-3B Viking jet crashed near Jacksonville Naval Air Station, killing Blake and LCDR Scoot Bracher of Malverne, NY. Blake was the naval flight officer and mission commander on the flight. Lieutenant Commander Blake is survived by his wife Jessica, a native of Gretna, NE. Thomas and Jessica are the parents of a 2-year-old son, and Jessica is expecting their second child soon. I would like to offer my sincere condolences and prayers to the family and friends of Lieutenant Commander Blake. His noble service to the United States of America is to be respected and remembered by all. Every American and all Nebraskans should be proud of the service of brave military personnel such as LCDR Thomas E. Blake.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Valerie Frias and Katherine Hutchinson, two Judiciary Committee staffers, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the debate on the nomination of John G. Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Virginia for his wise counsel through the process of bringing together 13 other colleagues to bring about a confirmation process and nomination process that has worked. Now we are on the eve of this confirmation vote on the 17th Chief Justice of the United States. The question is, what is next? We also have another Supreme Court vacancy to fill. I hope the President and the White House will continue to reach out and seek the advice of our colleagues so we can face that nomination with the same kind of input we did in the case of Judge Roberts. Let me say that the late Senator from Nebraska Ed Zorinsky said on so many occasions that in Washington there are too many Republican Senators and too many Democratic Senators and not enough United States Senators. I can say as the gang of 14 got together, there were less Republicans and less Democrats than there were United States Senators, anxious to work and bring about a resolution to the judicial impasse, but also to pave the way for where we are today and where we are going to be tomorrow and where we are going to be in the next confirmation process. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I first thank you for the opportunity to speak today. And I say to my distinguished colleague from Virginia, it was a pleasure to get to know you better through the Gang of 14 in our efforts to bring about advice and consent with the White House in the nomination process for the Supreme Court. It is always difficult to take either less or more credit than you deserve, but I think in this situation, by working together, we were able to bring the Senate into fulfilling its obligation to deal with the confirmation of judicial nominees. It made it possible for us to be able to have a nomination and a process that works so well that it will now result in an up-or-down vote on Judge Roberts. The Senator from Virginia is right. There were suggestions that we needed to change the rules because of certain practices on the part of certain Members of the Senate that raised doubts about the process, whether we could get up-or-down votes on judicial nominees, particularly appellate court nominations and perhaps Supreme Court nominees. But by working together, we found a solution that I believe in very many ways held on to the traditions of the Senate that are good but also invoked a process that has resulted now in what we are going to be able to accomplish tomorrow. We were able to refuse to engage in extreme partisanship but worked together in partnership to develop a compromise. We paved the way. We preserved the traditions. And I believe in some respects we have also assisted in leading to the historic outreach by the White House to an overwhelming number of our colleagues for their input under the advice and consent portion of our agreement that we shared with the White House. I personally thank the White House for reaching out. The administration has reached out to many of our Members on several occasions. Most recently, I had the pleasure and the privilege of being contacted for my thoughts about the next nominee and the process that would be used there. I think we have also learned not to believe everything we hear about the Senate not being able to accomplish much, the criticism that Senators are lost in partisanship and deadlock through the unwillingness of people to compromise or be able to work together. I believe we disproved that theory with this Gang of 14. We have gone through divisive elections. We know America needs to be brought together. We do not seek to further divide ourselves. We need to work together. It gave us an opportunity to, in many ways, reduce the partisan tension that was ripping this body to the extent that it was difficult to get anything done, particularly as it might have been difficult to get through the nomination process for the Supreme Court. So it is a pleasure for me to be here on the floor and a real privilege to be associated with my colleague from Virginia. We have been joined by other members of the Gang of 14 who I know have some similar thoughts they would like to express. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I rise today to honor SSG Tricia Lynn Jameson of Omaha, NE. SSG Tricia Lynn Jameson was a dedicated soldier serving in the National Guard for over 11 years. Originally born in Aurora, NE, she and her family moved to Omaha where Jameson became a 1989 graduate of Millard South High School. Jameson began her military career on July 11, 1994, joining the Army National Guard as a medic. Staff Sergeant Jameson was the epitome of a selfless individual, always giving a hand to others. During a mission to the Treybul border crossing on the Iraqi-Jordan border on July 14, 2005, an improvised explosive device off the side of the road struck the M997 ambulance that she commanded. Staff Sergeant Jameson bravely lost her life in this attack, but she died as she lived, helping others no matter the risk to herself, as she was on her way to assist injured marines who had been wounded by an earlier device. Wanting to make a difference, Staff Sergeant Jameson was a volunteer in the 313th Medical Company, GA, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. She was promoted to sergeant first class posthumously. Giving her life to save others and to the cause of freedom, Staff Sergeant Jameson was the finest example of courage. She is survived by her mother, Patricia, and brother, Robert, among many other friends, family, and fellow soldiers. I offer my heartfelt prayers and thoughts to Staff Sergeant Jameson's family. She made the ultimate and most courageous sacrifice to spread freedom and hope and to defend liberty. She was a person of incredible altruism, and both Americans and Nebraskans alike will not forget what she gave to our great Nation. sergeant jason t. palmerton Mr. President, I rise today to honor SGT Jason T. Palmerton of Auburn, NE. Sergeant Jason Palmerton had a desire to selflessly give his all to his country. Born in Hamburg, IA, but growing up in Auburn, NE, he graduated from Auburn High School in 1998. After several years doing mechanical maintenance in Lincoln, Palmerton decided to enlist in July of 2002, requesting to be in the most rigorously trained Special Forces Group. Six weeks ago, after nearly 3 years of training, Sergeant Palmerton became a Green Beret and was deployed to Afghanistan with his 12-man team. At the age of 25, Sergeant Palmerton died on July 23, 2005, after sustaining bullet wounds on dismounted patrol during his service in Operation Enduring Freedom in Qal'eh-Yegaz, Afghanistan. He was a member of the 1st Battalion, 3rd Special Forces Group based out of Fort Bragg, NC. All Americans should honor Sergeant Palmerton's courage and patriotism as he aimed to become a highly trained Green Beret from his first days in boot camp, knowing both the difficulty and risk associated with the achievement. For the past 6 weeks, he continued to serve bravely in the unstable and dangerous environment of southern Afghanistan. Sergeant Palmerton left behind his fiancee, Shelley Austin, parents, and numerous other friends, family, and fellow soldiers. I offer my sincere condolences and prayers to Sergeant Palmerton's family. He gave his life to save and honor the liberties of America, and his passion to achieve this end will long be remembered. SGT Jason Palmerton's sacrifice is the essence of the American freedom and he fought to save that freedom for all Nebraskans and Americans alike.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, with the Judiciary Committee's confirmation hearings all but complete, I rise today to announce my vote on the nomination of Judge John Roberts to serve as the 17th Chief Justice and the 116th Justice of the United States Supreme Court. I have come to my decision not in haste, but with great care and consideration. Over the history of our Nation, relatively few Senators have had the opportunity to consider the nomination of a Chief Justice and I recognize the honor that accompanies this great responsibility. Judge Roberts is an extremely well qualified nominee. Some have said he may be the best nominee ever to the Supreme Court. I am not one that regularly calls on such hyperbole on most issues, but I can say today that from what I have seen, I expect Judge Roberts to serve with distinction and honor as Chief Justice. I think the Court will be enhanced despite the obvious and measurable impact of the loss to the Court of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. My record on judicial nominations speaks for itself. I have supported 213 of the 214 district and circuit court judges confirmed by the Senate. I voted against filibustering judicial nominees twenty-four times. I understand the executive branch's power to appoint judges--as Nebraska's Governor I appointed the entire State Supreme Court and Court of Appeals and more than half the State's sitting judges. As a Senator who pledged to put aside the partisan games to get things done in Washington, I was very concerned last year about how a potential Senate shutdown due to a stalemate over judicial nominations would impact legislation important to the Nation, and especially my home State of Nebraska. We needed a national energy policy--including the renewable fuels standard that would boost ethanol production, a very strong Nebraska industry. We needed to complete the Highway bill--with $1.3 billion in road construction funds that will create jobs and boost the economy in Nebraska. We needed to avoid the now annual ``omnibus'' spending bill that made it nearly impossible to monitor and control Washington spending. Social Security and Medicare need to be addressed. At the time I was concerned about the ongoing drought--``Drought David'' as I called it to bring attention to it--that is ravaging our agricultural sector in Nebraska and across the Nation. We had no idea the wrath and destruction that Hurricane season would bring to bear on the Nation, but after Katrina we can see how important it is to have a functioning Congress. Senator Alexander, during a floor speech regarding the judicial stalemate offered a suggestion, a call really, that many of us heard and decided to heed. Surely, a bipartisan group of Senators could develop an agreement that would resolve the stalled judicial nominations and diffuse the nuclear option--and ultimately, ease some of the partisan tension that had crippled the Senate and threatened to shut it down completely. I am very proud of my role in the so-called ``gang of fourteen,'' the bipartisan group that navigated the path to confirmation for many of the President's judicial nominees and preserved the precedents and traditions of the Senate. I am also very proud that the gang's ``memorandum of understanding'' paved the way to complete many of the legislative priorities I mentioned earlier--including the energy bill and the highway bill. The ``memorandum of understanding'' included an important section asking the President to improve communications with the Senate on judicial nominees. We asked that he spend more time on the advice part of the ``advice and consent'' clause in the Constitution. When Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her planned retirement in June, the White House heeded our recommendation and consulted with a vast majority of Senators before nominating Judge Roberts to the Court. That consultation with the Senate certainly diffused some of the more extreme partisanship when the Roberts nomination was announced. Not all of it, of course, but some of it. Before the Judiciary Committee began its process, I met personally with Judge Roberts. In that meeting he impressed me. We talked at length about judicial activism and the threat it poses to the Nation. We talked about settled law. His knowledge of the history of law was impressive. His belief in and dedication to the rule of law was apparent and admirable. At the outset of the Roberts confirmation process, I said that I hoped the gang of fourteen had no role in the process because that would mean the process was working. And it did work. The Roberts confirmation hearings were dignified, the questions were tough but appropriate, and the answers Judge Roberts provided were as most expected. The hearings were no place to overturn law or discuss case specifics. The hearings did not produce any disqualifying revelations, nor did I expect that to happen. Only time will tell where Judge Roberts will come down on the prevailing legal matters that come before the Roberts Court. I can only take him at his word that he will approach his role on the Court without a predetermined agenda, without activism, and with only the intention to balance the scales of justice for all Americans. What came though to me as I watched his confirmation hearings was a man with great poise, a deep and thorough knowledge of the law, a love for this country and unmatched integrity. John Roberts is a man deserving of the nomination and deserving of confirmation. I will vote to confirm Judge John Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise to speak about efforts to resume normal beef trading relationships with Japan. I thank my colleagues from my neighboring beef States for their leadership and support and so many others for their efforts in seeking a bipartisan resolution to this matter. As I travel through Nebraska, attending events and participating in summer parades throughout the largely rural landscape, I am constantly reminded of the importance of our beef industry. Prominently displayed on many vintage cars and pickup trucks are generic black and yellow license plates that boast a clear message--``Nebraska, the Beef State.'' While it is unlikely any modern day automobile in Nebraska now or in the future will sport that yellow and black plate of old, our billboard slogan, ``the Beef State,'' is still the message people equate with Nebraska. I am here to address an important amendment that will suspend the rulemaking process the United States Department of Agriculture has proposed and published in the August 18, 2005 printing of the Federal Register in a rule entitled ``Importation of Whole Cuts of Boneless Beef from Japan.'' The formal public comment period was closed yesterday so prompt Senate action is imperative. At the time the rule was published, the Nebraska Cattlemen, a grassroots organization whose individual producer members determine issues of importance to the Nebraska beef industry, wrote to me to request a stepped-up effort to convince Japan to resume imports of United States beef. In their letter they stated: [n]ormalization of beef trade must be progressively pursued because it impacts the state's economy and because responsible trading partners treat each other fairly and justly. The letter continues: [t]rade should not be based on politics and protectionism. I couldn't agree more. Trade must be based on fair play. Free trade must include a vision of fair trade. I am going to step back a moment to state why this is so important to me and the hard-working cattle producers and beef processors in my State. In the beef State, cattle outnumber people four to one and more than one of every five steaks and hamburgers in the Nation comes from my State. According to USDA, Nebraska ranks first in commercial cattle slaughter, processing over 4 million metric tons of beef and beef products in 2004. Nationally, the numbers are even more compelling. The U.S. beef industry is worth an estimated $175 billion, with cattle producers conducting business in all 50 States and operating 800,000 individual farms and ranches. The economic impact of the beef industry contributes to nearly every county in the Nation, and they are a significant economic driver in rural communities. Demand for beef continues to increase, up nearly 20 percent since 1998. With 94.9 million cattle reported to be in the United States as of January 2004, there are 1.4 million jobs directly attributed to the beef industry. It is not a surprise that both the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and R-Calf United Stockgrowers of America have weighed in on the significance of their industry and the importance of having access to valuable markets throughout the world. With beef and beef variety meat exports accounting for approximately $3.8 billion in 2003 alone, it is important to recognize NCBA's and R-CALF USA's statements on the USDA proposed rule that is the subject of my amendment. On August 22, R-CALF USA stated that this is an example of ``USDA tilting the playing field away from independent U.S. cattle producers by continuing to give market access before we gain market access.'' I ask unanimous consent that the R-CALF USA statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Over the past few days, much has been done to elevate the discussion on the need to resume a normal trade relationship with the Government of Japan. Last week I joined Congressman Tom Osborne of Nebraska in a letter to USDA Secretary Mike Johanns, urging the Secretary to delay the proposed rule until such time as Japan completes its process and accepts beef from the United States. Another letter was sent to Secretary Johanns at approximately the same time by a number of my Senate colleagues--Senators Roberts, Cornyn, Craig, Burns, Crapo, Allard, Hutchison, Thomas, Thune, and fellow Nebraskan Senator Hagel. Their letter emphasizes that Japan must lift this unnecessary embargo, stating that U.S. ranchers and rural communities cannot continue to bear the economic uncertainty resulting from bad international policy. They added that it would be difficult for Congress to accept any admission of Japanese beef into the United States. I am thankful for their leadership and recognition that USDA's rulemaking effort should cease. Additional letters that I signed, again with bipartisan support, were forwarded to President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The letters complimented the administration's work in impressing upon Japanese officials the importance of the resumption of trade and urged their continuing efforts in making restoration of United States beef trade the highest economic priority with Japan. This amendment is simple and straightforward. If passed, the amendment would restrict funds made available in the Agriculture appropriations bill from being used by the Secretary of Agriculture for the purpose of developing a final rule relating to the proposed rule entitled ``Importation of Whole Cuts of Boneless Beef from Japan,'' to allow the importation of beef from Japan unless the President certifies to Congress that Japan has granted open access to Japanese markets for beef and beef products produced in the United States. While some have said this amendment is too restrictive, limiting the ability of the Agriculture Secretary to negotiate with Japan, I see it another way. I see it as simply applying the same policy Japan has in place against United States beef. I think it strengthens the Secretary's hand by sending Japan the clear message that the Senators from beef-producing States and from our neighboring States are not going to drop this matter. Our beef is the safest and highest quality in the world. There is no science-based reason for the embargo to continue, and if they want to sell beef here, then they need to let us sell beef there. Finally, I cannot back down from a personal commitment to the folks back home to aggressively pursue a Japanese market that in 2003 accounted for $1.4 billion of the $1.7 billion beef export market. Like Secretary Johanns, when he served as Governor of Nebraska, I have traveled to Japan on numerous occasions touting the exceptional quality and value of Nebraska beef and U.S. beef. Beef producers throughout the Nation produce a superior quality product and have been very supportive of Secretary Johanns' continuing efforts on behalf of the U.S. beef industry as Secretary of Agriculture. Unfortunately, bipartisan letters of support have not been able to resolve this issue. A congressional response is warranted. That includes a strong statement that prematurely allowing Japan any access to our markets is simply unacceptable. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I respect my colleague from Colorado and I certainly appreciate his support in working to reopen the borders with the country of Japan. I feel like somebody on a trip asking the question: Are we there yet? For 20 months we have been asking this question: Are we there yet? The sense-of-the-Senate resolution is perhaps a softer way of saying to Japan, finish this project as quickly as you can so this process does not go on another 20 months. The truth is I think it is time to move beyond our soft talk to harder talk. Perhaps this will help the Japanese Government understand that we are very serious about this continuing nontariff trade barrier against United States beef. It is extremely important to the economy of the State of Nebraska. It is important to the economy of our country. What it boils down to is it is unfair. There is no sound science that justifies the action that has been taken. With two cases of mad cow detected in the United States, one coming from Canada, statistically it is nonexistent in terms of the millions of head of cattle that are sent to slaughter every year. When you look at the situation, you have to ask yourself the question of why has it taken so long, 20 months, for this process. Now, I am at times frustrated by our own bureaucracy, but I think on its worst day, our bureaucracy can't compete with this process that has continued to delay and delay and delay this whole effort to try to reopen the trade between the United States and Japan for cattle. I suggest we can do both. We can pass a sense-of-the-Senate resolution which perhaps says in its own way that we need to reopen the trade borders and knock down these trade barriers. But I think we also need to say that we cannot move forward through the USDA until--not suggest but say we cannot move forward until and unless the Japanese reopen their borders to our exports. I think you can do both. I think one is a soft way, but the other sends a strong message. It is time for that strong message. Everywhere I go across Nebraska, I hear people say: How can this be? How can we continue to allow our trading partner to treat us this way? I think the answer is we cannot, and this is the way in which we stop it and we bring it to a head. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I have no objection to that procedure. I think it would perhaps save time for the Senate. I believe the sense-of-the-Senate resolution should be passed nearly unanimously by this body and it gives the opportunity for those who want to take a stronger position to be able to do it and be recorded as a yea or nay.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I thank the Chair. In fairness to both efforts, if we are going to adopt the Allard amendment by a voice vote, is it possible then to adopt the Nelson amendment by a voice vote as well?

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, it is hard to believe people might be inclined to vote against this amendment, but if that is the choice, I would withdraw my suggestion.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I also have a statement from NCBA in reaction to the rule that states it ``will not support finalization of this proposed rule until Japan has completed its process and accepts beef from the United States.'' I ask unanimous consent to have the NCBA statement, dated August 19, 2005, printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

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

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I am here today to speak about my cherished friend, long time aide, and trusted confidante, Sonny Foster, who died unexpectedly on August 25. I first met Sonny in 1973 when he and I served together on the Urban League Board. Sonny was still a student at Creighton and I was counsel to an insurance company. Sonny loved to tell the story of my first Urban League meeting at the old Logan Fontenelle Center. When the meeting ended and I went to drive home, I found, to my dismay, that someone had helped themselves to my battery. Sonny retold the story the week before he died. With his unique high-pitched laugh he said ``We never expected to see him again!'' But I came back and a friendship began that lasted for more than 30 years! In 1989, when I was planning to run for Governor, some 16 years later, we teamed up. No one ever expected us to win, and we never expected to lose. And we didn't. It was his first time to manage a statewide campaign and my first time as a candidate for office. Of this victory, the Omaha World-Herald said in its August 27, 2005 editorial ``Foster put his stamp on the political map of Nebraska by the start of the 21st Century--not only because of his assistance in planting Ben Nelson firmly in the political firmament, but also in his steadfast efforts to make the Democratic Party a force in his North Omaha base.'' Much has been made of Sonny's firsts. He was the first African American elected to be student body president at Creighton University in 1973. He was the first African American elected to the Omaha Board of Education by district. He was also the first African American to run a statewide campaign in Nebraska. Sonny had a long and distinguished career in public service including serving as a legislative aide for Congressman John Cavanaugh and as deputy labor commissioner for Governor Bob Kerrey. When I was Governor, he served in multiple positions in my administration. These are indeed significant accomplishments. And it is indeed appropriate that we celebrate them. But you know what Sonny treasured most was breaking the ground for others to follow--much more than anything he did on his own. In a very real sense, Sonny lived his life so others could enjoy their own success. Sonny lit the torch and passed it on. We must commit to never let that torch go out because of apathy or inaction. He set the standard--it is for others, for us, to now uphold. I had a lot of time to think about what to say about Sonny in the eulogy I delivered at his memorial service hoping to do justice to a most remarkable life cut short by some divine plan which we must reluctantly accept. I started by listing his many qualities: Sonny was brilliant and perceptive. He was loyal, honest, trustworthy, dependable, responsible, competent, caring, passionate and compassionate. He was totally trustworthy. Sonny was honest. He would tell you what you needed to know, not what he thought you wanted to hear. This was one of his most endearing qualities. One time I teased him by saying I preferred to be told that my idea was unlikely to work rather than be asked ``who came up with that crazy idea?'' Sonny was focused on getting things done. No task was ever too big or important or too small for him. Stories abound about his tackling impossible immigration cases and solving them. He met my plane when he could have assigned it to someone else. Those 20 minute trips gave us uninterrupted time to talk, to catch up, and to tease one another about one thing or another. Then there is Sonny's passion. Everyone has a story about how strongly Sonny Foster felt about each and every cause. He didn't suffer foolishness. He possessed the ability to sort things out. Not bashful, he told you what he thought and sometimes in colorful terms. Most of those terms cannot be repeated here. Some thought Sonny lacked patience. I see it the other way around. His dedication, his devotion to his work, his dogged perseverance manifested itself in bold and bombastic ways. When he cared, you knew it! Underneath the bombast and the passion was a deep well of compassion. Sonny had a soft, caring side. I think today of all those constituents who benefited from his good work in our office. How he cared about their problems! He left an indelible impression. An e-mail from a young TV reporter who has left Omaha for another market wrote, ``A few years ago, Sonny took time out of his schedule to talk with me about working in politics. I walked away from that evening knowing Sonny loved his job meeting and working for all Nebraskans and representing Gov./Sen. Nelson. I'll never forget his guidance, career advice and passion for his job.'' What was an everyday meeting for Sonny made a lasting impression on this young man. Sonny had that affect on people. I will be the first to admit that I wouldn't be standing here today after 15 years in elective office without Sonny. He had a political sense unmatched in Nebraska. He heard the rumblings long before the storms. He didn't need to poll anyone to determine the mood of the people. He just knew. His instincts were right on. And that's why people sought his opinion and listened when he spoke. Mrs. Foster described the last time she was with Sonny as being ``jolly.'' Have I mentioned that laugh? Sonny filled the room with his presence and his persona. It overflowed when he laughed that unique, infectious belly laugh. No one enjoyed a practical joke more than Sonny, except maybe me! I think Mrs. Foster will forever keep that wonderful memory of Sonny and by sharing it with all of us has given us a gift we should cherish. Thank you Sonny, for all you did for me, for my family, and most important, for the State of Nebraska. The ``good life'' will not quite be the same without you.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to speak about S. 1610, a bill requiring the Federal Trade Commission to conduct an inquiry into the retail price of gasoline. I thank my colleagues, Senators Frist and Harry Reid, for their leadership and Senators Landrieu and Vitter and so many others for their efforts in working through this time of unprecedented destruction and human suffering. I am here today to lend my support for giving U.S. gasoline consumers a more thorough understanding of the pricing mechanisms that are at play at the pump. The legislation I propose calls for the Federal Trade Commission to conduct an immediate study into whether rising gas prices are the result of a struggling market or whether market manipulation or a form of gouging is taking place during this time of tragedy. Even before Hurricane Katrina, the Consumer Federation of America cited several reasons for the dramatic increase in gasoline prices, including tight crude oil inventories, inadequate oil refinery capacity, lack of competition and the oil industry's increasing market power. These are all plausible reasons for price spikes, but they are not enough to stop the questions of people concerned with their tighter budgets. Between Nebraska and Iowa, more than 500 complaints have been made to State officials about high prices. Officials in both States indicate they have seen no evidence of market manipulation by retailers. Retailers are not singled out as the focus of this bill. My bill calls for a 2-week study on the root of rising gasoline prices, including both regular gasoline and ethanol-blended gasoline. The report would then be forwarded to Congress for further action. If the report determines no market manipulation is occurring, the FTC would notify the U.S. Secretary of Energy, who would use the information to determine whether the Federal petroleum reserve would need to be tapped for additional oil. But if manipulation is found, we will have the opportunity to act quickly. The FTC would work with the attorneys general of various affected States to take appropriate action. I am aware that inquiries as these have been conducted in the past, particularly around this time of year. Price surges around the time of the Labor Day holiday are common. As the prices fall, interest in determining why they reached record level diminishes. I hope this can be different. Even if prices begin to fall, which it appears they may, we still need to know what happened and why it happened. Oil, as we all know, is the most widely used source of energy in the world. Facts indicate that world production of oil will start to decline. However, demand will not. At what point the production of oil will fall below demand cannot be accurately determined, but I believe that recent events that have disrupted normal supply and demand behavior is an illustration of what consumers can expect once that day arrives. This is why, after years of delay, it was so important that we were able to pass an energy bill, allowing for the development of more energy sources. I am hopeful that these energy sources, particularly renewable fuels made from farm commodities, will be developed quickly enough to prevent price surges at times the oil supply or refinery capacity is disrupted. According to the American Petroleum Institute, Nebraska has the distinct honor of being the only State west of Arkansas to see prices jump more than 50 cents per gallon since August 30. Why Nebraska? Let's find out. In many cases, we saw pump price increases of 20, 30, 40 cents and even higher in a single day. Why such a dramatic increase? Let's find out. We know there exists a very healthy competition between gasoline retailers, yet the price range for the same grade of gasoline yesterday was $3.19 in Lincoln, Nebraska and $2.99 in nearby Fremont. Why the difference? Let's find out. What role do speculators play in establishing price? Let's find out. These questions, and others, are important. Every part of our Nation's economy is impacted by these increases. For example, the extraordinary prices of gasoline, diesel fuel, natural gas and petroleum derived input products such as fertilizer, chemicals and propane add another economic burden, particularly in rural areas and for farmers and ranchers who count on a ready and accessible energy supply for the production and harvest of their crops and livestock. We need stable and reasonable gasoline, diesel, and natural gas prices to operate farm machinery, dry grain, and transport commodities to market, especially during the coming harvest season. The extreme volatility of world crude oil and petroleum product prices, according to USDA, has already impacted net farm income by over $2 billion. When we take a hard look at the facts, we will better understand the forces affecting prices at the pump. We'll understand why in Nebraska we pay prices that range from $2.89 to $3.61 and higher. We'll understand reports of $6.00 gasoline in Atlanta and even higher prices at home and abroad. This legislation is nothing but beneficial for American gasoline consumers. Now, I ask my colleagues to join me in promoting legislation that will provide valuable information on our Nation and the world's transportation fuels.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for bringing this project to the attention of the chairman and ranking member as well. AMRF has worked closely with the Afghan Minister of Health and has made sure that diabetes is included in the basic national health care package in Afghanistan. As the people of Afghanistan continue the hard work of building a strong democracy, it is important they have access to essential resources, such as medicines and care, which are vital in creating a peaceful and secure society.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Preserving Patient Access to Inpatient Rehabilitation Hospitals Act of 2005'' to make changes to a rule issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, (CMS) that would threaten the ability of rehabilitation hospitals to continue to provide critical care. In my home State of Nebraska, Madonna Rehabilitation Hospital in Lincoln is a nationally-recognized premier rehabilitation facility that offers specialized programs and services for those who have suffered brain injuries, strokes, spinal cord injuries, and other rehabilitating injuries. If this rule is not updated, Madonna would not be able to offer the same critical care to its patients as it currently does. When CMS first looked at whether facilities would qualify as an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF), a list of criteria was created to determine eligibility. The criteria, generally referred to as the ``75 Percent Rule,'' were first established in 1984. Initially ten categories were given. When the Rule was revised last year, three categories were added. To qualify as an IRF under the 75 Percent Rule, 75 percent of a facility's patients must be receiving treatment in one of these specified conditions. On its face, it appeared that CMS expanded the Rule last year by increasing the number of conditions from 10 to 13 and giving facilities a phase-in period to adjust to the changes. Initially the threshold for compliance was set at 50 percent for the first year and continues to rise until it reaches 75 percent in July 2007. Facilities are struggling to even meet the 50 percent compliance rate in part because the expansion of categories is illusory. The rule will, by CMS' own estimate, shift thousands of patients--both Medicare and non-Medicare--into alternative care settings that may be inappropriate. CMS projected a patient loss of 1,170 admissions in FY 2005. A recent Moran Company report showed that in the first year alone, hospitals have been forced to deny care to between 25,000-40,000 patients to maintain compliance with the new 75 Percent Rule. By the fourth year of the Rule, IRFs will be forced to turn away one out of every three patients in order to operate as a rehabilitation hospital or unit. My legislation will ensure that patients across America will continue to have access to the rehabilitative care they need, and that experts in this community are organized to advise and make recommendations to Congress and the appropriate Federal agencies based on the realities and challenges facing the rehabilitative field today and in the future. The legislation provides an additional two years at the 50 percent threshold to give facilities additional time to adjust to the new categories and sets up a commission to advise Federal agencies on rehabilitative care and what categories are appropriate to be included in the 75 Percent Rule. I am pleased that many prestigious organizations have joined me in supporting the legislation. The American Hospital Association, the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, the Federation of American Hospitals, the American Medical Rehabilitation Providers Association and numerous other associations and advocacy groups have endorsed the legislation. Just as I have heard from patients and medical providers who have experienced problems with this Rule, the members of these associations are also witnessing the devastating effect the Rule is having on those who need this critical care. In addition, Senator Santorum is co-sponsoring this bipartisan effort. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I look forward to its passage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Preserving Patient Access to Inpatient Rehabilitation Hospitals Act of 2005'' to make changes to a rule issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, (CMS) that would threaten the ability of rehabilitation hospitals to continue to provide critical care. In my home State of Nebraska, Madonna Rehabilitation Hospital in Lincoln is a nationally-recognized premier rehabilitation facility that offers specialized programs and services for those who have suffered brain injuries, strokes, spinal cord injuries, and other rehabilitating injuries. If this rule is not updated, Madonna would not be able to offer the same critical care to its patients as it currently does. When CMS first looked at whether facilities would qualify as an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF), a list of criteria was created to determine eligibility. The criteria, generally referred to as the ``75 Percent Rule,'' were first established in 1984. Initially ten categories were given. When the Rule was revised last year, three categories were added. To qualify as an IRF under the 75 Percent Rule, 75 percent of a facility's patients must be receiving treatment in one of these specified conditions. On its face, it appeared that CMS expanded the Rule last year by increasing the number of conditions from 10 to 13 and giving facilities a phase-in period to adjust to the changes. Initially the threshold for compliance was set at 50 percent for the first year and continues to rise until it reaches 75 percent in July 2007. Facilities are struggling to even meet the 50 percent compliance rate in part because the expansion of categories is illusory. The rule will, by CMS' own estimate, shift thousands of patients--both Medicare and non-Medicare--into alternative care settings that may be inappropriate. CMS projected a patient loss of 1,170 admissions in FY 2005. A recent Moran Company report showed that in the first year alone, hospitals have been forced to deny care to between 25,000-40,000 patients to maintain compliance with the new 75 Percent Rule. By the fourth year of the Rule, IRFs will be forced to turn away one out of every three patients in order to operate as a rehabilitation hospital or unit. My legislation will ensure that patients across America will continue to have access to the rehabilitative care they need, and that experts in this community are organized to advise and make recommendations to Congress and the appropriate Federal agencies based on the realities and challenges facing the rehabilitative field today and in the future. The legislation provides an additional two years at the 50 percent threshold to give facilities additional time to adjust to the new categories and sets up a commission to advise Federal agencies on rehabilitative care and what categories are appropriate to be included in the 75 Percent Rule. I am pleased that many prestigious organizations have joined me in supporting the legislation. The American Hospital Association, the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, the Federation of American Hospitals, the American Medical Rehabilitation Providers Association and numerous other associations and advocacy groups have endorsed the legislation. Just as I have heard from patients and medical providers who have experienced problems with this Rule, the members of these associations are also witnessing the devastating effect the Rule is having on those who need this critical care. In addition, Senator Santorum is co-sponsoring this bipartisan effort. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I look forward to its passage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today's vote pitted two of America's top priorities against each other in a face off over Federal funding. Our national security interests are inherent is both securing our borders to keep terrorists out and providing first responders the resources they need to detect, prevent and respond to emergencies and terrorism. The underlying bill supports 1,000 new border patrol agents. That is a significant investment in securing our borders. The amendment we voted on would have added funding for an additional 1,000 agents, but redirected funds away from scarce first responder resources. We need to make border control and first responders copriorities. Considering the existing funding in the underlying bill for 1,000 new border patrol agents, I simply could not support an amendment that would strip funds from our police officers, firefighters, and emergency response personnel. For most people, homeland security is really hometown security. Our States rely heavily on these first responder funds to keep our communities safe. Vote on Amendment No. 1124

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to honor PFC Eric Paul Woods of Omaha, NE. Private First Class Woods served his country with the utmost bravery. A graduate of Urbandale High School in Urbandale, IA, Woods moved to Omaha 5 years ago, joining the Army in April 2004 as a medic with the G Troop, 2nd Squadron of the 3rd Army Cavalry. He was based out of Fort Carson, CO. Seven years earlier, Private First Class Woods met his wife Jamie, also of the Des Moines area. The two were wed a year later on their first anniversary as a couple. On March 8, 2005, Private First Class Woods was deployed for his first tour in Iraq. On July 9, 2005, Private First Class Woods was killed in action while serving courageously in Iraq. While bravely attempting to save the life of a wounded soldier near Tal Afar, Iraq, he sustained fatal wounds as an improvised explosive device detonated near the side of the road. His courage should be an example to all, as days before he turned down an offer to be moved away from the front lines. His dedication to both his fellow soldiers and his country clearly display both his valor and resolve. Private First Class Woods is survived by his wife Jamie and his 3- year old son Eric Scott, among numerous other friends, family, and countrymen who proudly honor and remember his sacrifice. I would like to offer my sincere thoughts and prayers to Private First Class Woods' family. His selfless commitment to his country will not be forgotten. Private First Class Woods will be remembered as a man who honored, served, and died for the liberties and freedoms of all Americans and Nebraskans.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, our amendment would give the smaller States the ability to have continuity and predictability in budgeting for their plans. I think it suffices to say that our country is only as safe as our weakest vulnerability. We need to make sure every part of the country is prepared, regardless of location or size. The citizens of America expect that everything possible is being done to prevent another terrorist attack, and they expect that if another tragedy were to occur, the response and recovery will be immediate, well coordinated, and well trained. The Collins amendment will strengthen regional efforts and increase every State's ability to protect both its urban and rural critical infrastructure. Whether it is the protection of an urban shopping mall or the prevention of a rural bioterrorism incident that would affect our food and water supply, these infrastructures in every State must be protected. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Maine for the opportunity to rise in support of the Collins amendment today. I am also a cosponsor of the bill she and Senator Lieberman have introduced, S. 21, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 2005. Each year since the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, many of us have come to the floor to remind our colleagues that terrorism is not only a threat faced by States with large urban populations but also States with large rural populations. Since September 11, States and communities of all sizes have made great strides in preparing for another possible terrorist attack. Based on the National Strategy for Homeland Security's principle of shared responsibility, Federal, State, and local governments, together with the private sector and the American people, work in partnership to ensure our first responders are well equipped and well trained. States and local governments are responsible for preparing and implementing multiyear plans to ensure our Nation's first responders receive the equipment and training they require. This year we turn our attention to the fiscal year 2006 Homeland Security appropriations bill following the devastating terrorist attack on our closest ally in the global war on terrorism. The coordinated attacks in London last week remind us that Islamic totalitarianism is still a threat to our democratic values and ideals and not solely confined to the borders of Iraq or the Middle East. The bombings on the subway and bus lines in London underscore the fact that terrorists will attempt to attack us when they choose, how they choose, and where they choose. And because terror can strike us anywhere, it is vitally important that our first responders have the funding they need in order to prepare for most, if not every, imagined threat. Each year we look for better ways to provide homeland security funding for States, be they large or small. The amendment offered by my colleague from Maine would achieve something that has not happened yet with respect to first responder funding. It would provide much needed predictability for our first responder planners. Because there has never been an authorization for this funding, each year, these programs are subject to great debate and amendments on the Senate floor, leaving our city and State officials without any sort of certainty in their preparedness planning. In the years since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Federal Government has provided States with a share of available homeland security funds through the State Homeland Security Grant Program, SHSGP. This program has been the primary source of coordinated funding for first responders, allowing States and local governments to build a base capacity by funding essential prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities. In past years, States have been guaranteed a minimum of .75 percent of these funds. The Collins amendment would modify the State funding program in three primary ways. First, it would combine three programs into one larger pot of funding. The SHSGP, with the Law Enforcement Terrorism and Prevention Program and the Urban Area Security Initiative, would now become one pool of money to be shared among the States. Second, it would authorize $2.9 billion in total funding for the three programs. This is important because the trend has clearly been to decrease this amount. Last year's bill included $2.7 billion in first responder funding, and this year's underlying Senate bill only includes $1.9 billion for these programs. Third, it would set the funding formula so that each State would be guaranteed a minimum level of funding, .55 percent of the total funding of the program. The remainder of the funds would be distributed based on risk. This guaranteed funding stream is critical for all of our smaller States. For many of our States, this guaranteed minimum will be most, if not all, of our first responder funding. I am not advocating that homeland security funds be diverted from high risk areas. But, rather, I am saying that rural and smaller States also need assistance in securing their communities and preparing for a possible attack. States set their own priorities when it comes to preparing for terrorist attacks.