Ben Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. This amendment is a circuit breaker as opposed to a trigger. Nothing automatically kicks in as in the case of the trigger amendments that have been offered in the past but it does, in fact, create an opportunity for a privileged motion that deals with spending or tax cuts in the event the debt reduction targets are not being met.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I would like take this opportunity to commend the University of Nebraska baseball team for winning a third-straight Big 12 Conference Series Championship. Yesterday, in what has become a typical display of terrific teamwork and fierce talent, the Huskers defeated Texas A&M to sweep the series. The University of Nebraska baseball team boasts a 45-14 record, and now, thanks to their dominance at the Big12 tournament, they will likely earn a top-eight seed on the national level. To add to the excitement, the Huskers will play next month at the College World Series in Omaha, which President Bush is scheduled to attend. In fact, to honor the President's upcoming trip, I have considered seeking an appropriation for the repainting of Air Force One in Husker Red and putting the block ``N'' on the tail of the plane; however, should that scheme fail, I have an alternate plan to ensure that the President roots for the home team. Last week, I personally delivered a Huskers baseball cap to the President, and I intend to accompany him aboard Air Force One to make certain he wears it as he disembarks the plane in Nebraska. The College World Series is always exciting, but this year, with our terrific team, the President will have the opportunity to see college baseball at its best. Again, I offer my heartiest congratulations to each member of the team, and I applaud Coach Dave Van Horn for his leadership. I wish them the very best as they continue to play ball.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I want to express my support for the conference report on the budget resolution. My affirmative vote on this report will be cast for several reasons, but the most important one among them is that this resolution provides the American people with a substantial tax cut--without neglecting our national budgetary obligations. The concerted effort from Senators and Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle in the negotiating process has culminated in a victory for American taxpayers. The vote on the budget resolution will succeed in doing a great deal for our country and for our future. Today we are authorizing the third largest tax cut in the history of our Union. The men and women of Nebraska, as well as the men and women across the Nation, will directly benefit from the $1.25 trillion tax cut over 11 years that will enable us to still pay down the national debt and meet our domestic budgetary priorities. The American people deserve a tax cut, and it is the role of Congress and the administration to deliver it. This conference report is our delivery vehicle. Of even greater consequence than the tax cut spread over 11 years is the inclusion of a $100 billion up-front stimulus package, which will help strengthen our economy sooner rather than later. I firmly believe that our economy, which has been showing all the symptoms of a slow- down, needs a jump-start from a stimulus package to blunt the effect of what could become a serious economic recession. As any doctor will tell you, you should not wait until the patient is on life support before you begin treatment. It is critical that we heed the warning signs of a slowing economy, and use the tools within our legislative power to prevent the situation from metastasizing. The 2-year, $100-billion economic stimulus package prescribed by this conference report will put the American economy back on the road to recovery. Another important aspect of the resolution, in addition to the substantial tax cut and the upfront stimulus package, is the increased support of agriculture. When our budget negotiations started, agriculture was a mere footnote in the margin. While it remains a footnote, it is now a little bolder and a little bigger. I am anxious to see agriculture removed altogether from ``footnote'' status, or more accurately, out of emergency spending mode; but I am pleased in the interim that at least we are increasing agriculture funding to a more substantial--and realistic--level. While a new farm bill would be more welcome than prolonging the endless cycle of emergency spending, the $79 billion over 11 years that has been included in this Report does recognize and consider the unfavorable odds and inequities that our farmers and ranchers are forced to contend with due to a problematic farm bill and unpredictable hardships dispensed by Mother Nature. As with any compromise, the conference report on the budget resolution is not representative of my ideal budgetary blueprint. I accept, however, that ``giving and taking'' is an integral part of the bicameral, bipartisan negotiating process. While this report could be stronger in some areas--namely, education--I am comfortable casting an affirmative vote, because it meets an important criterion I have consistently promoted throughout the process. This report authorizes a substantial tax cut--including an up-front economic stimulus package-- that allows us to still provide for our critical domestic priorities, such as preserving Social Security and Medicare, paying down the national debt, and funding agriculture. As a result, I will vote in favor of this conference report. While the final outcome of the budget resolution cannot be described accurately as a triumph for bipartisanship, it can be characterized as a triumph for American taxpayers. It is my hope that we will forge ahead on other issues in a stronger and more cohesive spirit, more united in our efforts and less divided in our cause. It is time to make ``politics as usual'' synonymous with progress, not partisanship.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designating the oak tree as an official national emblem. This day bears especially great significance for me as a United States Senator from Nebraska, since Arbor Day was first celebrated in our great state. The original seed of this day was planted in 1872 by J. Sterling Morton, a newspaper executive and an environmentalist ahead of his time. Mr. Morton moved from Michigan to Nebraska City, where he discovered a tree-less prairie. In effort to bring some shade to the state, he collaborated with Robert Furnas to promote the idea of a statewide holiday dedicated to tree planting. Mr. Morton authored many articles on the benefits of trees as he garnered support for the idea of an Arbor Day. He also became active in Nebraska Territory politics, where he continued to voice his aspiration for a forested prairie. While Morton is revered as the Father of Arbor Day, it was then-Governor Furnas who made the observance official in 1874 with the first proclamation designating Arbor Day in Nebraska. Since then, with the exception of one year, Nebraskans have celebrated Arbor Day with pride. The one million trees that were said to have been planted on the very first Arbor Day--not to mention all the ones since--have had a tremendous impact on the landscape and on the lives of Nebraskans. The influence of that first observance has continued as each year, during planting season, people from around the globe observe the Nebraska-born tradition of Arbor Day. Considering the historical significance of Arbor Day to Nebraska, I am proud to sponsor this legislation to designate the oak tree, selected by Americans in a nationwide vote, as an official emblem of the United States. By formally designating a national tree, we honor the past and plant hope for an even greener future. After all, an oak tree is an appropriate metaphor for the history of our country. The United States has grown from the acorn of colonialism into a strong, branching entity. Like a maturing oak, our roots are deepening, and with each passing year, our core strengthens. J. Sterling Morton, as he expounded on the indifference of trees to their worldly surroundings, once wrote, ``There is no aristocracy in trees.'' To his sentiment, I would add that, ``Instead, there is only the humble root of democracy.'' The oak, the symbol of our democracy, will always serve as reminder of the vitality and strength that permeates our national--as well as natural--history. In closing, I would like to thank Senator Mike Crapo for cosponsoring this legislation and for his support of this effort. I also want to commend each of the voters who participated in the selection process, sponsored by the National Arbor Day Foundation. The involvement of these American citizens has made this legislation possible.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designating the oak tree as an official national emblem. This day bears especially great significance for me as a United States Senator from Nebraska, since Arbor Day was first celebrated in our great state. The original seed of this day was planted in 1872 by J. Sterling Morton, a newspaper executive and an environmentalist ahead of his time. Mr. Morton moved from Michigan to Nebraska City, where he discovered a tree-less prairie. In effort to bring some shade to the state, he collaborated with Robert Furnas to promote the idea of a statewide holiday dedicated to tree planting. Mr. Morton authored many articles on the benefits of trees as he garnered support for the idea of an Arbor Day. He also became active in Nebraska Territory politics, where he continued to voice his aspiration for a forested prairie. While Morton is revered as the Father of Arbor Day, it was then-Governor Furnas who made the observance official in 1874 with the first proclamation designating Arbor Day in Nebraska. Since then, with the exception of one year, Nebraskans have celebrated Arbor Day with pride. The one million trees that were said to have been planted on the very first Arbor Day--not to mention all the ones since--have had a tremendous impact on the landscape and on the lives of Nebraskans. The influence of that first observance has continued as each year, during planting season, people from around the globe observe the Nebraska-born tradition of Arbor Day. Considering the historical significance of Arbor Day to Nebraska, I am proud to sponsor this legislation to designate the oak tree, selected by Americans in a nationwide vote, as an official emblem of the United States. By formally designating a national tree, we honor the past and plant hope for an even greener future. After all, an oak tree is an appropriate metaphor for the history of our country. The United States has grown from the acorn of colonialism into a strong, branching entity. Like a maturing oak, our roots are deepening, and with each passing year, our core strengthens. J. Sterling Morton, as he expounded on the indifference of trees to their worldly surroundings, once wrote, ``There is no aristocracy in trees.'' To his sentiment, I would add that, ``Instead, there is only the humble root of democracy.'' The oak, the symbol of our democracy, will always serve as reminder of the vitality and strength that permeates our national--as well as natural--history. In closing, I would like to thank Senator Mike Crapo for cosponsoring this legislation and for his support of this effort. I also want to commend each of the voters who participated in the selection process, sponsored by the National Arbor Day Foundation. The involvement of these American citizens has made this legislation possible.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the Breaux-Nelson-Jeffords, et al., bipartisan tax cut plan. This compromise is the result of careful consideration of the two philosophies dominating the tax cut debate today. The first was the belief that the $750 billion tax cut was not sufficient, considering the size of our projected surplus. Yet the second was that the $1.6 trillion tax cut could negatively impact programs in agriculture and defense, which are so important to the people of America and the people of Nebraska. To put it another way, this legislation was written with one specific goal in mind: to cut taxes without cutting hope, and to do so in a bipartisan manner. We have worked deliberately toward that end, and I am pleased to stand here today and help introduce a tax cut package that will, in fact, achieve that goal. In this plan we have included a $1.25 trillion tax cut proposal, and we put $350 billion back into the surplus so it can be used for increased debt reduction and the programs that are vital to the future of our industry, such as agriculture, defense, education, and a prescription drug benefit. Acknowledging the discrepancy between the two plans offered today for consideration gives us the chance to negotiate our partisan differences on the tax cut. I believe quite strongly that the Breaux-Nelson- Jeffords, et al., plan is an excellent starting point for this discussion. I have had the privilege of working with the President back in the days when I was Governor Nelson and he was Governor Bush. So I am familiar with the bipartisan efforts he undertook in the State of Texas. We both campaigned on the premise that we would reach across party lines to find sensible solutions to the Nation's most pressing issues. With this bipartisan proposal on the table, the President and the White House have the opportunity to demonstrate their negotiating skills and their desire to work together to achieve an ideological conclusion that is based not on partisanship, but is based on partnership. Persuading one or two Democrats to vote with 48 or 49 Republicans doesn't, in my opinion, constitute bipartisanship. However, sitting down and working out our differences to establish a constructive alternative does, in fact, constitute bipartisanship. On the surface, this legislation is about the tax cut, but it is also about much more than a tax cut. This bill is about changing the partisan tenor in Washington. And when we can successfully negotiate with the people at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, as well as with colleagues on either side of the table, we will be taking a step in the right direction. I am confident that if we work together, we will in fact reduce our differences, and we will also in fact reduce taxes; but we will not reduce our hopes and our dreams or those of others.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the McCain-Feingold bill. To be clear, I am not opposed to the impetus behind this legislation, which is to reform our current campaign finance system. I concur with my colleagues--who support this bill--that the present system is inadequate and inherently flawed. But, unfortunately, this is where our parallel viewpoints diverge. While I agree that the present campaign finance system is imperfect, I believe that the McCain-Feingold alternative to that system is even more so. This legislation, once enacted, likely will hurt the status quo more than it will help. And, ultimately, I predict it will foster campaign finance regression, rather than institute campaign finance reform. From the beginning, I have worked with my colleagues to negotiate a more fair and balanced package that, I believe, would have achieved thorough reform. Key parts such as the Hagel amendment on soft money contributions and the amendment on non-severability are not included in this final bill. Had they been included, these amendments would have made the legislation much more effective and comprehensive, and consequently, much more likely to receive my support. To be fair and consistent, certain aspects of this final bill are laudable and do have my support. I am pleased that the Snowe-Jeffords provision and the Hagel amendment regarding disclosure are included. Increased accountability and transparency for special interest groups are important to the overall reform effort. Moreover, the Wellstone amendment, which extends the Snowe-Jeffords provision to independent advocacy groups, will help remove the facades behind which these groups hide. For too long, special interest groups have funded so-called issue ads whose main objective is to distort the facts. It is encouraging that this bill, as amended, confronts that issue. The ability of state parties to carryout traditional activities such as voter registration, is another issue addressed by the Levin amendment, which I was pleased to join as an original co-sponsor. State and local candidates rely on get-out-the-vote efforts and voter registration activities which are usually funded by the state party. Since this campaign finance reform bill, prior to the Levin amendment, would have severely limited state parties, it became apparent that we needed to ensure that such crucial activities are not abolished as well. Without question, I am encouraged by the inclusion of this amendment. It, and the ones regarding increased disclosure, are definitive steps in the direction of genuine campaign finance reform. That being said, any ground gained by these steps is lost through the ban on soft money and the defeat of the non-severability clause. McCain-Feingold bans soft money contributions only to the national parties. As I have said before, this measure is ineffective, an ultimately unproductive. The soft money ban in this bill will likely be more of a temporary road block than a true dead end. I believe that eventually soft money will find a detour, and it will flow into federal elections from another direction. A more realistic approach to the unfettered flow of soft money that pollutes our current campaign finance system, would have been to include the Hagel amendment, which would have capped soft money contributions at $60,000. The Hagel measure was pragmatic and essential to real reform. With the absence of this language in the final bill, we are left with a plan than falls short on efficacy and long on futility. Without the inclusion of a cap, instead of a ban on soft money to national parties, my support for this bill declined, but the nail on the coffin, so to speak, was the defeat of the severability clause. The non-severability amendment was characterized by its opponents as the ``poison pill'' of campaign finance reform. Quite frankly, I thing the total package before us today would have been easier to swallow if it had been included. The non-severability amendment would have prevented the courts from striking down some provisions and leaving others. Once the courts act, it is possible that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law as passed by Congress will look nothing like the McCain-Feingold finance reform law tweaked by the courts. For this reason, the severability provision only weakens the bill and extends the inequalities fostered by the present system. My conviction that the current campaign finance system is flawed remains unchanged. Comprehensive reform is undoubtedly needed; however, I do not believe this legislation will achieve that goal. It's often been said that something is better than nothing. Well, in this instance, the reverse rings true. Nothing is better than something. Therefore, I will vote accordingly and reserve my support for a more comprehensive and equitable campaign finance reform package.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nebraska for the opportunity today to extend my full support for campaign finance reform. Again, I convey my sincere appreciation for the work of Senators McCain and Feingold and Senator Hagel, as well as all of my colleagues who are involved in this effort to reform the campaign finance system. As a veteran of four Statewide campaigns myself, and as a newly elected Senator fresh from the campaign trail, I believe, as many of my colleagues do, that the current campaign finance laws are, in a word, ``defective.'' Our country was founded on principles such as freedom and justice. As I see it, the present system for financing Federal campaigns undermines those very principles. I believe that in its present form the campaign finance system tends to benefit politicians who are already in office. Some folks call it incumbent insurance. I prefer to call it a problem. Thus, I wholeheartedly believe the time has come for meaningful campaign finance reform. There is an old adage we all know that goes: Don't fix it unless it is broken. Well, many aspects of our campaign finance system today are broken, and they do need fixing. Before us today we have several legislative remedies for this flawed system. Not one, though, as far as I am concerned, is a panacea for the maladies afflicting our current campaign finance laws, nor can they be. Both the McCain-Feingold bill and the Hagel bill include provisions which I support. I am a cosponsor of Senator Hagel's legislation because I am particularly sympathetic to the bill's provision to limit soft money contributions rather than prohibit them. In an effort to pinpoint the culprit for the faults in the present campaign finance system, I believe soft money has become the scapegoat. As my friend from Louisiana pointed out last night, there is a popular misconception that the McCain-Feingold bill bans all soft money. This is not accurate. McCain-Feingold bans only soft money to the political parties. While I agree that unlimited soft money contributions raise important questions, I also believe that banning soft money to the parties would only be unproductive and ultimately ineffective. Chances are, if we succeed in blocking the flow of soft money from one direction, it will eventually be funneled to the candidates from another. Furthermore, some soft money contributions are used for valuable get-out-the-vote efforts and for the promotion of voter registration and party building, all very valuable efforts that promote our system. A more realistic approach in lieu of banning soft money would be to cap the contributions at $60,000, as prescribed by the Hagel bill. Thus, I favor the provision to limit soft money in Senator Hagel's bill. Also, I strongly support the provisions on disclosure outlined in McCain-Feingold, that are also included in the Hagel amendment. A lack of accountability within the current system is at the core of the problem. As a matter of fact, if we could enact substantive changes to disclosure laws and remove the facades which special interest groups hide behind, we, at the very least, will be heading in the right direction. This action to increase disclosure, combined with limitations on soft money contributions, will not only refine our current system, but will reform it. As an individual who spent the majority of the past year on the campaign trail, I have put a great deal of thought into what I believe is the right direction for campaign finance reform. My Senate race has made me all too familiar with the shortcomings of the current system. My campaign experience with one group in particular has bolstered my support for efforts to limit so-called issue ads. This organization funded by undisclosed contributors ran soft-money issue ads throughout my campaign criticizing my stance on one issue, which was unrelated and irrelevant to their purported cause. Unfortunately this is not the only example of issue-ad tactics I encountered during my most recent campaign. So it only follows that I am pleased with the Snowe-Jeffords provision, which addresses these so- called issue ads funded by labor and corporations. This provision will hold labor and corporations more accountable for these ads by imposing strict broadcasting regulations and increasing disclosure requirements. I was very encouraged last night by the passage of Senator Wellstone's amendment, which expands the Snowe-Jeffords provision to also cover the ads run by special interest groups, whose sole purpose is to mislead voters. This leads me to my final point and the reason why I have come to the floor this morning. I want to express my strong support for this Hagel amendment we are currently debating. The passage of this amendment is crucial for the improvement of our campaign finance system. I commend Senator Hagel for introducing a measure that realistically addresses soft money contributions. Additionally, the Hagel amendment does not supersede the critical aspects of McCain- Feingold--most notably the Snowe-Jeffords, and now Wellstone, issue-ad provisions, which are imperative if our goal is true reform. The Senate has the opportunity to repair our flawed campaign finance system. And if we don't seize the moment and take action now, it will always be a flaw in our democracy. Again, I commend my colleagues on their efforts, and I am hopeful that we will succeed in approving this amendment and ultimately in approving a meaningful campaign finance reform package this session.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition on procedural grounds to the resolution of disapproval of OSHA's ergonomics standard. This worker protection measure, initiated by then-Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole in 1990, is aimed at helping diminish the roughly 600,000 repetitive motion and overexertion injuries incurred each year in the workplace. Using a resolution of disapproval to erase the standard is unnecessary and severe. Revisions to the existing standard are needed, but they will not be realized by the passage of this measure. While many businesses have taken steps to remedy repetitive motion and overexertion injuries, the problem persists and needs to be addressed. The measure currently under consideration, the resolution of disapproval, does not offer much in the way of sensible solutions. In fact, it is a resolution that resolves nothing, it may actually exacerbate the problem by prohibiting OSHA's ability to issue similar measures in the future to address problems caused by repetitive motion. In my view, it is a misuse of the process to force a vote that will short-circuit these regulations. At the very least, it is an unusual delegation of responsibility to the legislative branch by the executive branch when administrative responsibilities are available. While I plan to vote against the resolution of disapproval, I do have a concern about OSHA's current ergonomics rule, and I have asked Secretary Chao to initiate as soon as possible the administrative options available to her to revise the current rule. Businesses have raised concerns about a number of aspects of the rule, such as its scope; its impact on ergonomics programs businesses already have in place; its effect on state workers' compensation laws; and the cost of compliance. I am particularly concerned about the impact of compliance on small businesses in Nebraska and elsewhere. However, it is my experience that administrative options provide greater opportunity to reach reasonable consensus on issues addressed through federal regulation. This is why, rather than supporting the extreme measure before us today, I have asked for the Administration to exercise its administrative authority. By supporting the resolution of disapproval, Congress ignores administrative measures which could produce a more reasonable response. These concerns can be addressed most effectively by an administrative rather than a legislative approach. Both businesses and their workers would benefit from a sensible administrative solution.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I will vote to confirm former Senator John Ashcroft as Attorney General of the United States. The President of the United States has the constitutional authority to nominate those individuals he thinks will most ably advise him; therefore, I give President Bush latitude in choosing the members of his Cabinet. My role in this process, as defined by the Constitution, is to give my advice and consent to the President on his nominees for Cabinet positions. In keeping with that duty, I want to present a clear explanation as to why I will vote to confirm the President's choice for Attorney General. I have known John Ashcroft for well over 10 years. We both have had the honor to serve as the Chief Executive for our respective States. We were even colleagues for 2 years when our terms as Governor overlapped. I am familiar with his philosophy and his viewpoints and though we do not see eye-to-eye on every issue I respect him as a person and consider him a friend. But before my statement is dismissed as a rubber stamp approval, let me be clear: My vote to confirm Senator Ashcroft is not without some concerns. I am disappointed with his decision to accept an honorary degree from Bob Jones University, an institution that has become a national symbol for racial and religious intolerance, without any acknowledgement or discussion let alone repudiation of that school's policies that were egregious. And secondly, his handling of the Judge White nomination was considered by many of his former colleagues to have been unfair. But these two instances, while troubling, are not disqualifying. For me this vote today is an affirmative vote as a prologue to the future rather than a reaction to the past. This is supported by his pledge he made at his confirmation hearing to serve as Attorney General for ``all the people.'' I take Senator Ashcroft at his word when he says, and I quote, ``I understand that being Attorney General means enforcing the laws as they are written, not enforcing my own personal preferences. It means advancing the national interest, not advocating my personal interest.'' Throughout his confirmation hearing, Senator Ashcroft was unequivocal and unwavering with respect to the manner in which he would serve, if elected, as Attorney General. Additionally, yesterday I spoke to Senator Ashcroft and expressed my reservations and concerns. In that conversation, he reiterated his commitment to lead a professional and nonpartisan Justice Department, and assured me of his intention to honor his pledge. For me, this affirmative vote is not about politics; it is about potential and opportunity. If Senator Ashcroft is a man of integrity-- which he says he is and which I believe him to be--then he will uphold his constitutional duty, prove his nay-sayers wrong, and work tirelessly to help ensure justice for all. Indeed, the stakes are high, but that is exactly where Senator Ashcroft has put them. I look forward to working with him and to helping him keep his unequivocal promise to the American people.