Moments ago, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) — who had previously told reporters that he would not support repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) before the military completed its year-long review of the policy — announced that he would vote for a compromise to delay implementation until after officials certified the findings of the review. Nelson’s support brings the total number of votes in the Senate Armed Services Committee to 15, enough to attach Sen. Joe Lieberman’s (I-CT) delayed-implementation amendment to the defense authorization measure on Thursday. When the amendment passes in committee, it would require 60 votes to strip repeal from the bill during the floor debate. The Defense Authorization bill is expected to pass both Houses and be signed by the President by late summer or early fall.

From Nelson’s statement today:

I will support the Lieberman compromise because it removes politics from the process. It bases implementation of the repeal on the Pentagon’s review and a determination by our military leaders that repeal is consistent with military readiness and effectiveness, and that the Pentagon has prepared the necessary regulations to make the changes.

“I spoke to Secretary Gates and he advised that while he preferred waiting until the study is completed, he can live with this compromise.

“The Lieberman compromise shows that Congress values the Pentagon’s review that will include the advice and viewpoints from our men in women in uniform, from outside experts and from the American people about how to implement the repeal. It rests ultimate authority to make this change with our military leaders. I believe this is the right thing to do.”

Until today, it was unclear if the new compromise would win over enough votes, but Nelson’s statement suggests that the compromise and Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ support, was critical to Nelson’s decision. As he told Metro Weekly last week, “I want to follow with the advice and the suggestions of Secretary of Defense Gates to have the study that is underway right now before we make that final decision — because it’s not a question of ‘whether,’ it’s a question of ‘how,” Nelson said. At that time, Nelson was also unsure if he could support the delayed-implementation approach. ““I don’t know,” Nelson said. “I haven’t seen that legislation. I know there’s probably some support for that, but I think it’s been made pretty clear by Secretary Gates that we shouldn’t take any action until the study is completed, and that’s my position. That’s where I’m going to stay.’”

More on the DADT compromise in today’s Progress Report.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) has been unsuccessfully trying to get the Senate to vote on an amendment to the financial regulatory reform bill that would cap ATM fees at 50 cents. Part of the Senate’s disinterest, according to the Omaha World Herald, may be that senators haven’t experienced coughing up a few dollars to withdraw money. The paper reported today that at least one senator, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), claims that “while he’s no fan of unnecessary fees, he’s unfamiliar with the charges” because he’s never used an ATM:

“I’ve never used an ATM, so I don’t know what the fees are,” Nelson said, adding that he gets his cash from bank tellers, just not automatic ones. “It’s true, I don’t know how to use one.” “But I could learn how to do it just like I’ve…I swipe to get my own gas, buy groceries. I know about the holograms.”

By “holograms,” Nelson clarified that he meant the bar codes on products read by automatic scanners in the checkout lanes at stores such as Lowe’s and Menard’s. “I go and get my own seating assignment on an airplane,” Nelson said. “I mean, I’m not without some skills. I just haven’t had the need to use an ATM.”

As the World Herald noted, there is an ATM in the basement of the Capitol Building “which prominently displays one of those ‘Fee Notice’ signs that frustrate so many constituents.” Making a withdrawal from it with a card not issued by the U.S. Senate Federal Credit Union costs $2. (HT: Nico Pitney)

Yesterday afternoon, as expected, Senate Republicans voted en masse to block debate on Sen. Chris Dodd’s (D-CT) bill to regulate Wall Street. Surprisingly, however, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) also voted no. Nelson had been “quiet” about the bill in recent weeks, but his “decision to vote no will give Republicans ammunition to charge that opposition to the bill as it now stands is bipartisan.”

So why did Nelson help block the measure while 65 percent of Americans support Wall Street reform? Speculation immediately turned to Nelson’s relationship with one of his most important constituents, billionaire investor Warren Buffet and his Nebraska-based company Berkshire Hathaway. Just hours before the vote, Senate Democrats killed a provision “sought by Berkshire and pushed by” Nelson that would have potentially saved the investment firm $8 billion, the Wall Street Journal reports:

Senate Democrats agreed Monday to kill a provision from their derivatives bill pushed by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc., a change one analyst predicted could force the Nebraska company to set aside up to $8 billion.

The Senate Agriculture Committee inserted language into its derivatives bill last week at the request of Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) that would have exempted any existing derivatives contracts from new collateral requirements—the money set aside to cover potential losses.

Berkshire has $63 billion in derivatives contracts, and Mr. Buffett has boasted he holds very little collateral against these products. [...]

The provision would have helped all companies with existing contracts. Capitol Hill aides said, however, that Berkshire pushed forcefully for the change because of its large book of derivatives.

The White House and Treasury Department had strongly opposed the change sought by Berkshire, “on the grounds that it would weaken the government’s ability to regulate the enormous market for derivatives.”

Berkshire officials “have long supported” Nelson, giving him more money over his political career than those of any other company. A Nelson spokesperson admitted before the vote that Berkshire had lobbied Nelson, but said the senator had always believed the new rules should not apply retroactively. After the vote, Nelson said his opposition was due to concern about how the bill would affect small businesses, such as dentists and auto dealers, saying, “I want to make sure this deals with Wall Street and not Main Street.” An aide said “Berkshire Hathaway was not was a factor.”

But Dodd said the removal of the Buffett carve-out was likely responsible for Nelon’s opposition:

Asked about Nelson’s vote, Dodd said he couldn’t accommodate the Nebraskan’s push to exempt some companies from having to back up their derivative investments with additional collateral. [...]

Dodd, who was seen conversing with Nelson and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) before the vote, said the conversation revolved around the derivatives exemption.

“Dentists and auto dealers didn’t come up,” he said when asked.

A Senate aide agreed, “definitively” saying that Nelson switched his voted after Democrats dropped the Buffett carve-out. “He was on board until today and the only thing that changed was the removal of that provision,” the aide said.

“Has Nelson forgotten how the Cornhusker Kickback saga played out? That it became a huge embarrassment for him personally, for his party, and for his state?” Matt Yglesias asks. “It’s groundhog day here,” Dodd said laughing.