Ben Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I rise today in order to speak in support of the Essential Air Service Program and explain why the program truly is essential, especially in rural States. In Nebraska, our two largest airports are separated by only 63 miles in a State that covers 77,000 square miles. This means that thousands of Nebraskans are hours away from a large or even medium-sized airport requiring them to drive several hours to take a flight. Due to these geographical barriers, many Nebraskans rely on Essential Air Service to keep themselves and their communities connected to the Nation's transportation network. In Nebraska, we have Essential Air Service airports in many communities including my hometown of McCook, Alliance, Chadron, Grand Island, Kearney, North Platte, and Scottsbluff. Without the EAS Program, you would see the many hours it already takes to get to any type of air service increased significantly for people in rural areas. The cost to travel on one of these EAS flights would become so cost- prohibitive that many would not even be able to afford to travel. And, quite frankly, there would probably be many cases where EAS airports would struggle to exist. But the EAS Program isn't simply about cutting hours off a driver's time to make a flight. It is also about economic development in rural areas and job creation. EAS promotes accessibility and growth in rural communities and in the surrounding rural areas--and I have seen the impact air service can have on a community's ability to attract employers firsthand. When I was Governor of Nebraska, one of the first questions many companies would ask when they wanted to bring a manufacturing plant or warehouse distribution complex to town would be what is the air service situation in the area. Because of these EAS airports, I could respond that the area provided an air service transportation option which gave these communities a job creation recruiting edge. But don't just take my word for it. Listen to other Nebraskans who are saying the same things about how important the essential air program is to their communities. For example, John Chizek, the mayor in Chadron, NE has said: As the Mayor and lifetime resident of Chadron I believe it is essential to continue support of the Essential Air Service Program. As a community we are active in the recruitment of new business. I firmly believe we have a unique atmosphere to offer to businesses looking to move or expand. Our county was recently identified as the poorest in the State and any limitations place on us by reducing EAS support will only hinder our hopes of growth. Darwin Skelton, the airport director at Western Nebraska Regional Airport, has said: Essential Air Service is very important to Western Nebraska Regional Airport and Western Nebraska as a whole, without this funding we would not have commercial air service to our community. We have many businesses in this community that use this airport (i.e. Aurora Loan Service, Vertex, Regional West Medical Center, Twin City Development, just to name a few). When they are told of this plight, I am sure you will be receiving letters of support from many businesses/ organizations from around the area . . . small, more rural markets need air service to grow and maintain connections with larger hubs and doing away with Essential Air Service would be saying to rural America that they are not valued as an important part of air service in the United States. Kyle Pothoff, public works director for the city of McCook, said: Having access to commercial air service is critical to the economic stability of communities like McCook and without this service it would make recruiting new businesses very difficult. A statement that I have recently heard is that economic development does not come by bus or train, it comes by air. This statement could not be more true. Finally, Dave Glenn, CEO of Pathology Services in North Platte, said: With the economy finally showing signs of improvement, loss of EAS funding for airports like North Platte (LBF) would be disastrous. Pathology Services, P.C. serves 18 hospitals and over 50 clinics in Central and Western Nebraska, Northwest Kansas, and Northeast Colorado. To provide the Medicare required pathologist services, we rely on using our general aviation plane based at the North Platte airport. Our hospital has also recently started a medical helicopter service which helps meet the health care needs of patients. Without EAS funding our business and the health of our citizens would be negatively impacted. I am well aware that the Essential Air Service does have its critics who are concerned about providing government funding support to keep air service in rural America. Certainly a review of all government supported programs to find efficiencies and ways we can make a program run better and spend less I am always open to. But to simply try and eliminate the Essential Air Service Program which is a driver of economic activity in my State, as you can clearly see from these Nebraskans' stories, is the wrong approach. Essential Air Service truly is essential to rural Nebraska and rural America and why I oppose any efforts to eliminate this important program.

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

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Bill Nelson of Florida to amendment No. 58 as an original cosponsor.

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

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I believe other colleagues are here to speak. I notice Senator Schumer is here. I appreciate very much his support. Working together very carefully with total collaboration, we have been able to, with our colleagues, bring about what I think is important privacy legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support our amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays. I believe other colleagues are here to respond.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I call up my second-degree amendment No. 85 which is at the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, the amendment which Senators Schumer, Akaka, Shaheen, Tester--our Presiding Officer--Whitehouse, Menendez, Bill Nelson of Florida, and I have offered, which we will be voting on shortly, is a commonsense approach to addressing the serious issue of protecting an individual's privacy when they pass through security checkpoints at airports and public buildings. Nebraskans and Americans understand that every step must be taken to keep Federal buildings and air travel safe in America, particularly after the 9/11 attacks. However, as we promote security, safeguards are necessary to protect everybody's privacy from misuse of images generated by body scanning machines. Our legislation sends a commonsense message: We will not ignore people's privacy as we make sure air travel and Federal buildings are safe. The amendment is very straightforward. It would, No. 1, make it a crime to photograph or record a body scan image or distribute a body scan image, taken at either an airport or any Federal building, without express authorization to do so either by law or regulation. Second, it imposes a penalty of up to 1 year in prison and $100,000 fine on violators. Third, we provide an exception from prosecution if the actions taken occur while an individual is engaged in their official duties during the course of an authorized intelligence investigation or criminal prosecution. This language, which was worked out with officials at the FBI and DNI, is important. This is not an abstract concern. There has already been a case where these images have been taken and posted on line inappropriately. So it is my hope that by creating a very strong deterrent and establishing criminal penalties for those who take and distribute body scan images inappropriately, we will help prevent that from occurring again. By adopting this amendment, we are telling our constituents we are not going to ignore their privacy in the process of making sure we have safe airports and Federal buildings. I ask my colleagues to support our amendment. Amendment No. 85, As Modified, to Amendment No. 58

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, the amendment Senators Schumer, Akaka, Shaheen, Tester, Whitehouse, Menendez, and I have offered is a commonsense approach to address the serious issue of protecting individuals' privacy when they pass through security checkpoints at both airports and public buildings. Senator Schumer and I have been working on this issue for some time, and I appreciate very much his input and counsel in taking this approach. I appreciate the support of the additional sponsors as well as the Presiding Officer, who is one of those sponsors. By creating a deterrent and establishing criminal penalties for those who take and distribute body scan images inappropriately, we will help protect the American people's privacy while making sure we are using every resource available to try and assure their safety at the same time. This is not an abstract concern. There has already been a case where these images, some 30,000, have been taken and posted, some of them, online inappropriately. It is our hope this amendment will help prevent that from occurring again. By including this amendment in the FAA reauthorization, we are telling our constituents we will not ignore their privacy in the process of making sure we have safe airports and Federal buildings. That is what they are asking of us. That is what we are going to deliver. I ask my colleagues to support our amendment when it comes up for a rollcall vote. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 34

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I call up the amendment at the desk.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the chairman, for this opportunity to discuss an amendment to the FAA reauthorization bill which I will be offering shortly. We are currently working with the minority on some language changes. This amendment will be proposed before long. When it is, I will be seeking a rollcall vote. The amendment, which I propose along with Senators Schumer, Akaka, Menendez, Whitehouse, Tester, and Shaheen, would make it a crime to photograph, record, or distribute a body scan image taken by a body scan imaging machine at either an airport or any Federal building without express authorization to do so either by law or regulation. I have heard from many Nebraskans who are concerned that the use of body scan imaging machines is overly invasive and their privacy is being ignored. I, too, share these concerns. This isn't an abstract concern. According to news reports, the U.S. Marshals Service acknowledged last year that some 35,000 images from a body scanner at a security checkpoint at a Florida courthouse had been saved. That is despite promises from Federal agencies that these images would not be stored. One hundred of the saved images were leaked, and some are now online for anyone to view. So an invasion of privacy has already occurred. Nebraskans and the American people understand that every step needs to be taken and every resource needs to be used to ensure the safety of our citizenry. Using technology to scan individuals for hidden weapons is a necessary, albeit sometimes unpleasant, aspect of making sure our airways and public buildings are safe. However, in the scope of doing such things, safeguards can and must be put in place to help deter individuals from collecting and using those images inappropriately. This is the goal of the amendment I and my colleagues are offering. I am well aware Transportation Security Agency officials have said the agency will not keep, store, or transmit images, but that has not and doesn't ensure compliance. If passing laws or directives ensured compliance, there would be no speeders in America. What is needed is additional consequences to make anyone considering keeping, storing, or transmitting these scanned images think twice about the fact that they will be committing a felony. If the consequence is enough of a deterrent, we will have better compliance and the privacy of every American will be better protected. Let me explain specifically what the amendment does. One, it makes it illegal to photograph, record, and subsequently distribute the images taken by body scan machines in an airport or any Federal building. Two, it imposes a penalty of up to 1 year in prison and up to a $100,000 fine for those who inappropriately collect and distribute these images. Three, it says that any individual who is acting within the course and scope of their employment is not breaking the law by saving these images or sending them if the purpose for doing so is to use these images in a criminal investigation or prosecution. By adopting this amendment, we will be telling the American people and my constituents that we are not going to ignore or compromise their privacy in the process of making sure we have safe airports and Federal buildings. Our amendment takes a commonsense approach to addressing this issue and why I am seeking its inclusion in the FAA authorization. I thank the chairman and yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I rise to discuss the New START treaty. In the last 40 years, our country has participated in numerous arms control and nonproliferation efforts. They are a critical element of our national security strategy. If done right, arms control agreements can enhance U.S. national security by promoting transparency and information--sharing that can inform us about the size, makeup, and operations of other military forces. They also provide other countries with information about our force and capabilities, and that promotes a strategic balance and discourages an attack on the U.S. or its allies. Transparency and information sharing enable our military planners to better prepare for a real threat. Without such agreements and understandings, our military and the military of countries like Russia must prepare for worst-case scenarios. That leads to inefficient, runaway defense spending. If that sounds familiar, that is because we have been down that road before--it was called the arms race. The U.S. and the former Soviet Union poured massive resources into building not only vast stockpiles of nuclear weapons, but also on the expansive systems needed to defend against incoming bombers and missiles. Since the late 1960s, arms control agreements and other measures have worked to reduce nuclear forces and systems that support them. I would note that former President Ronald Reagan, who accelerated nuclear modernization and launched the Star Wars missile defense effort, overcame his initial distaste for arms control agreements. Working with Soviet Premier Gorbachev, Reagan laid the foundation for today's START treaty. In July 1991, Presidents Bush and Gorbachev signed the START I treaty and the Senate later approved it on an overwhelming and bipartisan vote of 93 to 6--a vote which concluded after 4 days of floor debate. Nebraska's Senators at the time, Jim Exon and Bob Kerrey both supported the START 1 treaty. As we consider New START, it is our constitutional duty to address today's concerns and the treaty's merits. Now I have heard five main concerns during debate. They are: No. 1, treaty limitations on missile defense; No. 2, sufficiency of modernization plans for nuclear enterprise; No. 3, adequacy of treaty verification measures; No. 4, force structure changes resulting from treaty reductions; No. 5, and the timing of the Senate's deliberations of the treaty. First, the New START treaty won't affect any current or planned U.S. missile defense efforts. Some point to language in the treaty's preamble and the inclusion of unilateral statements. But they are not legally binding. And changing the preamble would unravel the treaty. The only binding restriction on missile defense systems arises in article V. It prevents conversion of ICBM silos into missile defense launchers. That has no practical effect because converting silos is more expensive and less desirable than building new silos. Second, some have questioned the administration's commitment to modernize our nuclear facilities and forces. As the chairman of the Armed Services' Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I held three hearings this year addressing the health of our nuclear weapons complex. I would note that the administration asked for $7 billion in Fiscal Year 2011 for stockpile sustainment and infrastructure investments. That is roughly 10 percent more than 2010 funding. The administration also plans to invest $80 billion in the next decade to sustain and modernize the nuclear weapons complex. That is the biggest commitment to the nuclear enterprise in more than a decade. On top of that, the administration recently offered an additional $4 billion toward modernization goals. Third, some argue that verification measures are less rigorous than for START I. Its verification measures expired last December. So, as of today, we have gone 376 days without onsite monitoring and verification in Russia. The less we are allowed to see for ourselves the more uncertainty we will feel about Russian forces. New START includes verification measures allowing 18 onsite inspections annually. We determine where and when to go, with very little advance notice to the Russians. As many of you know, this treaty counts every warhead and delivery system and tracks them with unique identifiers. That is a tremendous advancement in transparency over the previous system of attribution. And it certainly is better than no verification system, which exists at the present time. Fourth, some express concern about the treaty's impact on the nuclear triad--our strategic bombers, missiles, and ballistic missile submarines. In testimony and in direct conversations with me, our military leaders have assured that the New START retains the triad. Proposed reductions by the Pentagon aim to spread across all systems and minimize impacts to any one system or base, thus retaining a safe, secure, and effective triad. Finally, some indicate that considering New START now prevents the Senate from spending adequate time to consider the treaty, or that we would be rushing judgment on the treaty. New START was signed in April of this year, and the Senate has had it for consideration since May. Together, the Foreign Relations, Intelligence, and Armed Services Committees have held 21 hearings and briefings related to the treaty. The truth is that the Senate has been actively deliberating New START for 7 months. By comparison the 2002 Moscow Treaty took 9 months to complete and START I took a little more than a year. When it came to floor debate, the 1991 START I treaty required 4 days of debate, while START II, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the 2002 Moscow Treaty each took 2 days. I am confident that the Senate has fulfilled its responsibility to fully consider and deliberate on New START, and our actions are entirely consistent with the past actions of this body in considering previous arms control agreements. Those are concerns that have been raised. Now let's look now at the merits. In recent months, I have spoken about this treaty with key military leaders including Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, General Cartwright, and General Chilton. Each has expressed full support and participation in this treaty. They also fully support the proposed reductions to the nuclear arsenal and the continued sustainment of the nuclear triad. In addition, Secretary Clinton and every living former Secretary of State--nine in total--have all publically voiced their support. Five former Secretaries of Defense on both sides of the aisle have endorsed the treaty. Seven former Strategic Command commanders have endorsed the treaty. STRATCOM, headquartered in my State in Omaha, NE, in the Bellevue area, oversees America's strategic nuclear, nonnuclear and cyber defenses. Also, it is important, I believe, that the U.S. Strategic Command actively played a key role in negotiating the treaty. With that experience, the former STRATCOM commander in chief General Chilton who is recently departed, said: Our nation will be safer and more secure with this treaty than without it. What we negotiated to is absolutely acceptable to the United States Strategic Command for what we need to do to provide the deterrent for the country. I wholeheartedly agree. I am prepared to vote to ratify the New START Treaty because it promotes our national security and can make America and the world safer. It increases transparency between nuclear nations. It promotes cooperation and not suspicion. And it reduces the possibility of a nuclear exchange and still enables America to respond to the terrible threats that continue in the nuclear age. I would like to elaborate. America will be stronger if we can continue to look under Russia's hood, and they under ours. Trust but verify still works. This treaty will help U.S. Strategic Command accomplish its absolutely vital mission for our Nation. Further, as the chairman of the U.S. Senate--Russia Interparliamentary Group, I have held many meetings with my Russian counterparts about this treaty. It is a step in the right direction to encourage further cooperation between the U.S. and Russia. As we work toward cooperation, the treaty reestablishes verification measures and increases transparency considerably. That will reduce uncertainty about Russian forces, and increase their predictability. Without this treaty, our understanding of Russian nuclear forces will continue to deteriorate. We would have a tendency for U.S. forces to overcompensate for what we don't know. That is a losing strategy in an era of large budget deficits and needed fiscal constraint. Entering into this treaty demonstrates our commitment to modernizing the nuclear stockpile by making the most of what we have to spend and to keep our country safe. The New START treaty offers the possibility of providing our military with insights needed to efficiently and successfully provide a safe, reliable, and secure nuclear deterrent. At the end of the day, the New START treaty builds on successes from previous treaties, and paves the way for further bilateral agreements between the United States and Russia. It moves us further away from a nuclear war no one wants. Even as it does, we will retain a powerful and effective deterrent capability. And finally, ratification also will send a strong message to those around the world opposed to proliferation and those seeking to proliferate. For these reasons, I support the New START treaty and I believe the Senate should ratify it as soon as possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, Nebraskans want both Republicans and Democrats to work out a bipartisan plan soon that will extend all, or nearly all, of the income and other tax cuts which expire on December 31, 2010. In today's votes, I opposed the first amendment because it would raise taxes for a number of small businesses in Nebraska and nationwide, penalizing the best job creators in our economy. I supported the second amendment extending the tax cuts for most taxpayers because it won't affect most small businesses. I believe that any revenue generated by ending tax cuts for some Americans should go not for new government spending but to pay down the nearly $14 trillion debt. Debt reduction is essential for all Americans' economic future, and for our Nation to remain the leader of the free world. I will continue pushing for extending all of the tax cuts to provide the certainty, clarity, and continuity we need to get our economy going strong again. I hope the Senate will come together soon to pass major tax cuts.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a historic church in Omaha, NE, which celebrated its 145th anniversary on November 13, 2010. St. John African Methodist Episcopal--A.M.E.-- Church was founded in 1865 and continues to host a thriving congregation in north Omaha's minority community. The current church structure is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, having been designed by Clarence W. Wigington, who grew up in Omaha, becoming Nebraska's first African-American architect. He later went on to become the first municipal African-American architect in the United States. St. John A.M.E. Church was organized at the end of the Civil War, 2 years before Nebraska became a State. This institution endured challenging times of racial bigotry and hatred, which were unfortunately widespread across America at the time. Maintaining the church's presence required the strength, courage, and faith of early African-American leaders. Today, St. John A.M.E. Church remains a focal point in Omaha, NE; as the congregation continues a 145-year tradition of ministering to the spiritual, intellectual, physical, emotional and environmental needs of the north Omaha community.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to honor SSG Michael Bock of Springfield, NE. Sergeant Bock grew up in Springfield, attending Elkhorn Mount Michael High School for 2 years before moving with his family to Leesburg, FL. About a month after graduating from Leesburg High School in 2002, Sergeant Bock joined the U.S. Marine Corps. Marrying his high school sweetheart, Tiffany, in 2003, Sergeant Bock was very much a family man. According to Tiffany, no matter what he was doing or how long he was working, he would still call his family. He even got up in the middle of the night recently while in Afghanistan to get online and watch Zander, his 3-year-old son, blow out his birthday candles. Sergeant Bock was also very dedicated to his career in the Marine Corps. He served two tours in Iraq and also served in Australia and Indonesia, where he received a Marine Corps humanitarian ribbon for his help during the tsunami recovery in 2004. Sergeant Bock's goals of starting a college fund for his son and purchasing a house for his family were interrupted on August 13, 2010. He was on his second deployment in Afghanistan serving with the 3rd Combat Engineer Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force when he was killed while supporting combat operations in the Helmand province. SSG Michael Bock knew the dangers he faced and the risks he took. He also knew the importance of the work he did in the Marine Corps on behalf of his fellow Americans. He risked--and ultimately sacrificed-- his own life so people a world away could have the chance to enjoy the freedoms he had found in America. I join all Nebraskans in mourning the loss of Sergeant Bock and in offering my deepest condolences to this young hero's family.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, earlier today, I voted in favor of two motions designed to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Let me be clear, I strongly support extending individual income tax rates. While I voted in favor of these motions to show my support for extending the tax cuts, I do not agree with the tactics being used to advance this goal. The repeated attempts to suspend rule XXII in order to make a motion to commit a bill back to committee are becoming part of an ongoing dilatory effort in the Senate. These tactics are not a serious attempt to come up with a legislative solution but are designed only to score political points and slow the progress of the underlying bill. The American taxpayers deserve more. I believe that instead of looking to score points both parties should work together on a serious effort to extend these expiring tax provisions, not waste time with procedural distractions.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I bid farewell to a great Nebraskan. Mrs. Mary Wade, affectionately known as ``Mother Wade.'' She has selflessly served thousands of members of the Salem Baptist Church in Omaha for more than 65 years. At the age of 92, Mrs. Wade is now moving away from Nebraska where she has lived since moving to my home State in 1944. She will be living with her adult children in Los Angeles, CA. Mrs. Wade is known far and wide for her service to not only Salem Baptist Church but to the entire Omaha community. She worked hand in hand with her late husband, Dr. J.C. Wade, Sr., who was the pastor at Salem Baptist for many years before his retirement in 1988. After Dr. Wade's death in 1999, Mrs. Wade continued to serve the people of Omaha and to provide counsel to members of Salem Baptist Church, whose membership, under the leadership of the Wades, grew from 250 to more than 2000. Thanks to her wise counsel, direction, and leadership, Omaha is a better place because of Mother Mary Frazier Wade. I join all Nebraskans in bidding Mrs. Wade a fond farewell and thanking her for her service. We will miss her, and we wish her well.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, first, I would like to commend Chairman Dodd for his hard work on the Wall Street reform bill and for maintaining an open and transparent process while developing this legislation. With regard to the orderly liquidation authority under title II of the bill, an ``insurance company'' is defined in section 201 as any entity that is engaged in the business of insurance, subject to regulation by a State insurance regulator, and covered by a State law that is designed to specifically deal with the rehabilitation, liquidation, or insolvency of an insurance company. Is it the intent of this definition that a mutual insurance holding company organized and operating under State insurance laws should be considered an insurance company for the purpose of this title?

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Private First Class Edwin C. Wood of Omaha, NE. Private First Class Wood was an ``All-American kid,'' who dreamed of one day serving his country. That opportunity came in October 2009 when he enlisted in the U.S. Army and became a cavalry scout for the 1st Squadron, 71st Armor Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 10th Mountain Division, based in Fort Drum, NY. A graduate of Omaha North High School, Private First Class Wood, better known as Eddie or Freckles, spent his time growing up as a member of the Boy Scouts and Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps a military re-enactor and a junior counselor at YMCA Camp Pokamoke in Crescent, IA. He was a role model to all who knew him. Private First Class Wood had just gotten back to Afghanistan, after being home on leave in June, when the truck he was driving on July 5, 2010, was hit by an improvised explosive device. The explosion took this brave young man's life, along with that of another soldier, SSG Christopher F. Cabacoy. Although he was only in the service for a short time, Private First Class Wood's awards and decorations include the Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and Combat Action Badge. PFC Edwin C. Wood served his country honorably and made the ultimate sacrifice for his fellow Americans. His courageous choice to protect his country and help the people of Afghanistan achieve peace and security represents all that we can be proud of in our armed forces. I know I join all Nebraskans in grieving the loss of Private Wood; he will be remembered for the selfless hero he was. Private First Class Wood's family and friends remain in our thoughts and prayers. Corporal Todd Nicely

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Army SPC Blaine E. Redding, who lost his life as the result of an improvised explosive device in Konar, Afghanistan, on June 7, 2010. Specialist Redding, who grew up in Plattsmouth, NE, was assigned to A Company, 2nd Battalion, 327th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division out of Fort Campbell, KY. He was serving in Afghanistan with his younger brother Logan, who was also a member of the 101st Airborne. Having previously served a year in Iraq, Specialist Redding was just 4 weeks into his deployment in Afghanistan when the vehicle he was riding in was hit by the roadside bomb. Four others were lost in this tragic event. Specialist Redding served his country honorably and made the ultimate sacrifice for his fellow Americans. His courageous choice to protect his country and help the people of Iraq and Afghanistan achieve peace and security represents all that we can be proud of in our Armed Forces. I commend SPC Blaine Redding's bravery and selflessness, while offering my deepest condolences to his young wife Nikki and the family members he left behind. It is a small comfort for those who must now go on without one they loved so dearly, but they know that Specialist Redding gave his life for a noble goal. I join all Nebraskans--indeed, all Americans--in mourning the loss of this fine young man.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, today I rise to speak in support of the bipartisan resolution of disapproval offered by my colleague and friend, Senator Murkowski from Alaska, and out of concern as well about a serious, harmful impact on Nebraska's economy that could result if the Environmental Protection Agency moves ahead with its plans to regulate carbon emissions in our country. While I will outline some of that impact in a moment, I wish to first explain why I am supporting the resolution. I am supporting it to protect the Nebraska economy and our Nation's economy from EPA overreach. It is that simple. I want to send a clear message: Nebraska's farmers, ranchers, business owners, cities, towns, and hundreds of thousands of electricity consumers should not have their economic fortunes determined by unelected bureaucrats in Washington, DC. Finding a national consensus on how to control the levels of carbon emissions is the job of elected Members of Congress. Reducing carbon emissions will have a substantial economic impact on our country but in different ways for different States. Congress should take the lead in determining the rules that will apply. American people may not support. It does not change the Clean Air Act. It says Congress should write the new rules curbing carbon emissions. The reason this is important can be found in what I have heard from many Nebraskans about the impact of the EPA's proposed carbon emissions regulations. For nearly 2 years, since the EPA's initial Proposed Rulemaking for Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act in July 2008, I have heard from Nebraskans. Many agricultural, industrial and energy-related businesses and organizations in my State have warned that the EPA regulations will impose substantial new costs on farmers, ranchers, small businesses, communities and users of electricity. EPA regulations would impose a top-down government-directed regime that would raise the price of energy in Nebraska, add greatly to administrative costs, and create new layers of bureaucracy. While no one can say how much, because even the EPA does not know yet what requirements will be imposed on power suppliers, the cost in Nebraska will be significant. Regulated entities such as Nebraska's two Public Power companies, which provide electricity directly to 1.34 million Nebraskans in a State of 1.7 million residents, would be subject to an inflexible regulatory process. It would require new permits to be acquired before facilities are built or modified, and before Best Available Control Technology is purchased, installed, and operated. The application process for a single EPA permit for a new or modified source could cost the applicant hundreds of thousands of dollars and require more than 300 person-hours for a regulatory agency. In Nebraska today, coal serves as our primary fuel source to produce electricity. We also have a great potential to move to renewable energy resources such as wind. But the EPA's regulation of greenhouse gas emissions would force a move to other fuel alternatives at rates that would substantially increase the cost of electricity for consumers in our State. This is incontrovertible. Soaring electricity rates would have a detrimental impact on many businesses and manufacturers. One of them is Nucor Steel in Norfolk, one of the largest users of electricity in Nebraska. If you couple the electricity rate increase with new regulations and review processes for companies like Nucor to make major modifications to an existing facility or build a new facility, you have a recipe for trouble. EPA regulation of greenhouse gases would have chilling effects on new investment in our Nation's manufacturing sector that we are just beginning to see come around from the economic downturn. Further, these new regulatory costs are not limited to our utility consumers and manufacturers. They could devastate Nebraska's No. 1 industry: Agriculture. According the Nebraska Farm Bureau, were the EPA's tailoring rule not to work, an estimated 37,000 farms nationwide would emit more greenhouse gas emissions than the Clean Air Act threshold levels allow. Permits generally cost more than $23,000, so the regulations could add $886 million in costs to our farmers. Not only will our farms bear additional bureaucratic costs, but they will be put at a disadvantage in the global marketplace. The Nebraska Soybean Association notes that every other row of our State's soybean crop is exported. The EPA's new regulations will put commodities such as Nebraska-produced soybeans at a disadvantage to our foreign competitors who are not subject to similar burdensome regulations. Earlier this year, in his State of the Union Address, the President called for doubling our exports over the next 5 years to create more jobs in America. That goal is at cross purposes with allowing new regulations to go forward that will hamstring our producers as they try to compete in the global marketplace. Additionally, the Nebraska Corn Growers point out that the increase in the bureaucratic costs to farms will boost agriculture input costs. With that, our Nation's farms will not even be competitive with foreign producers here at home. That, then, in turn will lead to more foreign dependence and less security for the U.S. food and fuels supply. This strikes me as possibly the biggest negative consequence of the EPA getting out ahead of Congress. As I pointed out time and time again during debate on the 2008 farm bill: If you love that we are dependent on other nations for our energy needs, you'll love even more relying on other nations for our food. I am aware that some have argued that support of this resolution is an attack on the Clean Air Act. Some say that if the resolution passes it would lead to an even greater reliance on oil leading to more situations like the spill in the Gulf of Mexico. I am not going to go for a smokescreen argument against the Murkowski resolution. The resolution would only prevent an unwarranted and ill-advised expansion of the Clean Air Act's implementation. Every current standard and control for air pollution would be preserved exactly intact, as written and authorized by Congress. Now, I have no doubt that carbon emissions should be reduced in the U.S. But not through excessively costly EPA regulations or a complicated cap and trade proposal that could spur speculation that enriches Wall Street, while not cleaning the air above Main Street. In my view greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced through a comprehensive energy bill. One that promotes efficiency, innovation, new technology, and renewable energy such as wind and biofuels that can be produced in Nebraska's fields. An energy bill should help, not harm, Nebraska and the American economy as it cleans up the air. By pursuing that kind of a sound energy policy we will take important steps toward ending our reliance on energy from areas that can be unstable such as the Middle East, South America and Africa. Instead, we can create our own American energy from the Sun, the wind and the biofuels available throughout the Midwest, and across our great land. I believe there is bipartisan support for this type of comprehensive energy bill. I hope we can turn our attention to it soon. We should work together on legislation that enables our agricultural and manufacturing industries to grow, rather than wilt under layers of unilateral and bureaucratic EPA directives. When Congress takes the lead in that manner, Nebraska families, farmers and businesses will prosper, and so will America. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.