Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, last week my colleague Senator Jay Rockefeller and I had the privilege of introducing the Advanced Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2004, which would improve an individual's understanding of the importance of advance directives and give people the opportunity to discuss their options with their doctor. The goals of the legislation are important. But as we make advance directives more accessible, we must also reach out to the many Americans who feel uncomfortable discussing serious illness and death and help them learn how to make their end-of-life health care plans. Accordingly, today I am pleased to introduce a Resolution designating the second week of December 2004 to be ``Conversations Before the Crisis Week.'' During this week, there will be town hall meetings, television and radio shows, educational events, newspaper articles, legal clinics, and other activities taking place in communities across the country. This coordinated effort will bring the discussion of dying out of the shadows and into the public square. There are difficult questions to ask and the answers are neither simple nor universal. But it is essential that we discuss them and that each of us find the best answer we can for ourselves and our families. The alternative is unacceptable: once a terminal illness or tragedy strikes, it is infinitely more difficult to sort through the complex and confusing emotional, spiritual, legal, and medical concerns. We must begin having these conversations before the crisis because it is important to plan for end-of-life care without the anger, sadness, fear, and pain that may accompany a terminal diagnosis, and because knowing what you want is the greatest gift you can give to those who love you and may have to make medical decisions for you. It is my hope that as we talk more we will learn more; and as we learn more, we will demand more. If we demand better end-of-life care, we will get it. One example: Medicare has an excellent hospice benefit but only 25-30 percent of eligible Medicare beneficiaries use this service. Even people who do use the hospice benefit stay for an average of 28 days--too short to provide maximum benefit. Since Medicare allows people who need it to have over 180 days of hospice care, this is very surprising. By supporting this resolution, and creating a ``Conversations Before the Crisis Week,'' we can generate important public attention--attention that will help explain this mystery, and attention that will be crucial to helping people end their lives in a way that is as peaceful and as meaningful as possible.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator have remaining?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I say to the Senator that I think he is right on. In my State of Florida, we have the same experience and the very same statistics that he has pointed out with regard to New Jersey. This is not what was originally contemplated for the Guard and the Reserves, and because of their specialties, because there is not enough of the Active-Duty Force, they have become, in effect, a full-time active-duty force. The good news is they are professionally trained warriors, as much as the Active-Duty force. The bad news is, this is not what they bargained for in the Reserves and the National Guard, because they have their own civilian lives. So I appreciate the Senator offering this amendment. I support it. If the Senator is finished with his comments, I will take 30 seconds and point out one of the differences between the Senate bill and the House bill on something we tried to address in 2001, after the debacle we had in the 2000 Presidential election in Florida, where there was an inconsistency of the application of State laws on to the counting of military overseas ballots in the Presidential election. One of the things we did was start a pilot study for Internet voting of overseas military. There was some concern that fraud could be injected into Internet voting. So what we have done in the Senate bill is still have a process but have it delayed to the 2006 and 2008 elections. The House bill on Defense authorization has done exactly the opposite and instead has cut out any kind of pilot study on Internet voting for overseas military. I hope when we get to conference that we will insist on the Senate provision. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, today I submitted an amendment to the fiscal year 2005 National Defense Authorization bill that would eliminate the current offset against annuities paid by the Department of Defense Survivors' Benefits Plan--SBP--for Veterans Administration Dependency and Indemnity Compensation--DIC. I ask for my colleagues' support for this amendment and invite their cosponsorship. Unfortunately, many of us do not realize that a reduction similar to the current offset rules for military retirement and veterans' disability compensation applies to the survivors of military retirees enrolled in the Survivor Benefit Plan--SBP. Payments for the survivors of our retirees from the military Survivor Benefit Plan--SBP--are reduced by benefits payable from the veterans' Dependency and Indemnity Compensation--DIC--program. Thus, surviving spouses of 100 percent disabled military retirees generally cannot receive benefits through both the retirement system and the veterans' disability system. Over the last few years we have made a tremendous effort to repeal the law that prohibits concurrent receipt of retired pay and disability compensation for our military retirees. This year we have already adopted a provision in the fiscal year 2005 National Defense Authorization bill that will eliminate the phasing over 10 years of retired pay for retirees with 100 percent disability. I supported this provision. We have to take care of our most deserving retirees, but we should also take care of their survivors. I have long supported the full implementation of concurrent receipt, but I do not understand why we would leave behind the widows and dependent children of those retirees that have purchased the income protection provided by the Survivors Benefit Plan. I know of no purchased annuity plan that denies its benefit based on the receipt of another benefit. This is wrong and it hurts our most valuable widows-- those left behind by combat losses and retirees fully disabled by their service. It is difficult to justify paying military retired pay and veterans' compensation concurrently to the retiree but not paying benefits from both the SBP and the DIC concurrently to that retiree's widow or surviving children. My amendment ensures consistency in the application of benefits to survivors from the SBP program and DIC. I urge the Senate to adopt this amendment and take care of our military widows.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, Senator Graham of Florida and myself congratulate the Tampa Bay Lightning for winning the 2004 National Hockey League Stanley Cup Championship. In only its 12th year as a team, the Tampa Bay Lightning has reached the pinnacle of hockey for the first time in its existence. The past 12 years have been rather difficult for the team and it has undergone turbulent changes. In the history of the Lightning, not only have there been three ownership groups, but there have also been five coaches and four general managers. To top it all off, just 3 years ago the team finished last in the league. However, due to their determination, resilience, and tenacity the Lightning has accomplished what National Hockey League teams all over the country strive to achieve. While all National Hockey League teams start the season with the Lord Stanley's Cup in mind, only one gets the privilege of gaining such an honor. As hockey fans looked at this year's National Hockey League Season, it was obvious that the Lightning was the underdog and few people considered the team a contender because of the numerous changes and setbacks. However, the Lightning believed in itself and was full of determination. A wise person once said: Anything the mind can perceive, and the heart can believe, one can achieve. The Lightning has taken this to heart, and it makes me proud to say that Lightning has struck in the Tampa Bay Area. Under the leadership of head coach John Tortorella, who has just become only the third American-born coach to ever win the Stanley Cup, the Lightning deserves to be commended. Throughout the season, all of the players, coaches, managers, and fans have taught the Nation a valuable lesson, in any equation for success, there are three factors: determination, drive, and tenacity. I offer congratulations to all members of the Tampa Bay Lightning, their families, and their fans throughout the State of Florida.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague and cosponsor Senator Jay Rockefeller as we introduce the Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2004. Senators Rockefeller and Collins, along with Senator Wyden, sponsored a bill with similar goals in the 107th Congress and have provided invaluable support and counsel in drafting the bill we introduce today. The Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2004 has a simple purpose: to encourage all adults in America, especially those 65 and older, to think about, talk about and write down their wishes for medical care near the end-of-life should they become unable to make decisions for themselves. Advance directives, which include a living will, stating the individual's preferences for care, and a power of attorney for health care, are critical documents that each of us should have. The goal is clear, but reaching it requires that we educate the public about the importance of advance directives, offer opportunities for discussion of the issues, and reinforce the requirement that health care providers honor patients' wishes. This bill is designed to do just that. Americans are afraid of death. We don't like to think about it, talk about it, or plan for it. Any yet, we will all face it. Not only our own deaths, but our parents, siblings, friends, and sometimes, tragically, children. Today, most Americans face death unprepared. Family members frequently end up making critical medical decisions for incapacitated patients, yet they, too, are unprepared. Only 15 to 20 percent of adults have advance directives. Among this group, many have not discussed the contents of these important documents with their families or even the person named as the health care proxy. It is time to bring this discussion into the mainstream. Too much is at stake to continue to deny our mortality. You all know about the tragic situation going on in Florida with Terri Schiavo. Here is a young woman in a persistent vegetative state who is the subject of a debate about her treatment between her husband and her parents, a debate that has now become a court case and a legislative quagmire. Why? Because she didn't write down what type of care she would want in the event an accident, illness or other medical condition caused her to be in an incapacitated state. She is young and didn't think about death or dying. If she had an advance directive that made her wishes clear and named a health care proxy to make decisions for her should she be unable to do so for herself, the treatment debate might continue, but there would be no question as to who could decide. The Supreme Court has clearly affirmed that competent adults have the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment Washington v. Glucksburg and Vacco v. Quill, 1997, but it also stressed that advance directives are a means of safeguarding that right should adults become incapable of deciding for themselves. Fortunately, situations like Mrs. Schiavo's are rare. Of the 2.5 million people who die each year 83 percent are Medicare beneficiaries. In fact, 27 percent of Medicare expenditures cover care in the last year of life. Remember, everyone who enrolls in Medicare will die on Medicare. The Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act encourages all Medicare beneficiaries to prepare advance directives by providing a free physician office visit for the purpose of discussing end-of-life care choices and other issues around medical decision- making in a time of incapacitation. Physicians will be reimbursed for spending time with their patients to help them understand situations in which an advance directive would be useful, medical options, the Medicare hospice benefit and other concerns. The conversation will also enable phyisicans to learn about their patients' wishes, fears, religious beliefs, and life experiences that might influence their medical care wishes. These are important aspects of a physician-patient relationship that are too often unaddressed. Another part of our bill will provide funds for the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a public education campaign to raise awareness of the importance of planning for care near the end of life. This campaign would explain what advance directives are, where they are available, what questions need to be asked and answered, and what to do with the executed documents. HHS, directly or through grants, would also establish an information clearinghouse where consumers could receive state-specific information and consumer- friendly documents and publications. State-specific information is needed because in addition to the federal Patients Self-Determination Act passed in 1990, most states also have enacted advance directive laws. Because the state laws differ, some states may be reluctant to honor advance directives that were executed in another state. The bill we introduce today contains language that would make all advance directives ``portable,'' that is, useful from one state to another. As long as the documents were lawfully executed in the state of origin, they must be accepted and honored in the state in which they are presented, unless to do so would violate state law. All of the provisions in the Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2004 are there for one reason: to increase the number of people in the United States who have advance directives, who have discussed their wishes with their physicians and families, and who have given copies of the directives to their loved ones, health care providers, and legal representatives. Senator Rockefeller and I all believe that as our Medicare population grows and life expectancy lengthens, improving care near the end of life must be a priority. Helping people complete these critical documents is an essential part of making the final journey as meaningful and peaceful as possible. Over the next decade or two our elderly population will grow. Baby- boomers, used to having control of their lives and demanding the best, will be stunned to discover that good end-of-life care is hard to find. I recommend to all of you a report called Means to a Better End: A Report on Dying in America Today that was published in November 2002 by Last Acts Partnership. In it, every state and the District of Columbia was rated on eight different criteria to assess the state of end-of-life care in this country. Not one state--not mine, not yours--received a high grade. Some did well in one or two areas, but none did well in half or more of the measures; all were mediocre at best. The researchers found that too many people end their days in hospitals and nursing homes, attached to machines, alone, in pain. Doctors, not wanting to admit ``failure,'' as many of them see death, urge aggressive treatments such as chemotherapy on patients who have little chance of responding to it. Pain medication is often underprescribed or withheld for fear that the dying patient-- dying patient--might become addicted to the drug. The good news is that growing numbers of health care providers, nonprofit organizations and consumer advocates recognize the need for change. New palliative care programs, pain protocols and hospice services are being instituted in facilities around the country. Another Last Acts Partnership publication, On the Road from Theory to Practice highlights the best programs and practices for others to emulate. This body is a legislative institution not a medical one--with the exception of the distinguished majority leader, of course. We cannot legislate good medical care or compassion. What we can do, what I hope we will do, is to enact this bill so that the American public can participate in improving end-of-life care--first, by filling out their own advice directives and talking to their families about them; and by raising their voices to demand that our health care systems honor their wishes and improve the way they care for people who are near the end of life. If we can do that, we will have done a great deal. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I also ask that a letter of support for this legislation from the Last Acts Partnership also be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague and cosponsor Senator Jay Rockefeller as we introduce the Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2004. Senators Rockefeller and Collins, along with Senator Wyden, sponsored a bill with similar goals in the 107th Congress and have provided invaluable support and counsel in drafting the bill we introduce today. The Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2004 has a simple purpose: to encourage all adults in America, especially those 65 and older, to think about, talk about and write down their wishes for medical care near the end-of-life should they become unable to make decisions for themselves. Advance directives, which include a living will, stating the individual's preferences for care, and a power of attorney for health care, are critical documents that each of us should have. The goal is clear, but reaching it requires that we educate the public about the importance of advance directives, offer opportunities for discussion of the issues, and reinforce the requirement that health care providers honor patients' wishes. This bill is designed to do just that. Americans are afraid of death. We don't like to think about it, talk about it, or plan for it. Any yet, we will all face it. Not only our own deaths, but our parents, siblings, friends, and sometimes, tragically, children. Today, most Americans face death unprepared. Family members frequently end up making critical medical decisions for incapacitated patients, yet they, too, are unprepared. Only 15 to 20 percent of adults have advance directives. Among this group, many have not discussed the contents of these important documents with their families or even the person named as the health care proxy. It is time to bring this discussion into the mainstream. Too much is at stake to continue to deny our mortality. You all know about the tragic situation going on in Florida with Terri Schiavo. Here is a young woman in a persistent vegetative state who is the subject of a debate about her treatment between her husband and her parents, a debate that has now become a court case and a legislative quagmire. Why? Because she didn't write down what type of care she would want in the event an accident, illness or other medical condition caused her to be in an incapacitated state. She is young and didn't think about death or dying. If she had an advance directive that made her wishes clear and named a health care proxy to make decisions for her should she be unable to do so for herself, the treatment debate might continue, but there would be no question as to who could decide. The Supreme Court has clearly affirmed that competent adults have the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment Washington v. Glucksburg and Vacco v. Quill, 1997, but it also stressed that advance directives are a means of safeguarding that right should adults become incapable of deciding for themselves. Fortunately, situations like Mrs. Schiavo's are rare. Of the 2.5 million people who die each year 83 percent are Medicare beneficiaries. In fact, 27 percent of Medicare expenditures cover care in the last year of life. Remember, everyone who enrolls in Medicare will die on Medicare. The Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act encourages all Medicare beneficiaries to prepare advance directives by providing a free physician office visit for the purpose of discussing end-of-life care choices and other issues around medical decision- making in a time of incapacitation. Physicians will be reimbursed for spending time with their patients to help them understand situations in which an advance directive would be useful, medical options, the Medicare hospice benefit and other concerns. The conversation will also enable phyisicans to learn about their patients' wishes, fears, religious beliefs, and life experiences that might influence their medical care wishes. These are important aspects of a physician-patient relationship that are too often unaddressed. Another part of our bill will provide funds for the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a public education campaign to raise awareness of the importance of planning for care near the end of life. This campaign would explain what advance directives are, where they are available, what questions need to be asked and answered, and what to do with the executed documents. HHS, directly or through grants, would also establish an information clearinghouse where consumers could receive state-specific information and consumer- friendly documents and publications. State-specific information is needed because in addition to the federal Patients Self-Determination Act passed in 1990, most states also have enacted advance directive laws. Because the state laws differ, some states may be reluctant to honor advance directives that were executed in another state. The bill we introduce today contains language that would make all advance directives ``portable,'' that is, useful from one state to another. As long as the documents were lawfully executed in the state of origin, they must be accepted and honored in the state in which they are presented, unless to do so would violate state law. All of the provisions in the Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2004 are there for one reason: to increase the number of people in the United States who have advance directives, who have discussed their wishes with their physicians and families, and who have given copies of the directives to their loved ones, health care providers, and legal representatives. Senator Rockefeller and I all believe that as our Medicare population grows and life expectancy lengthens, improving care near the end of life must be a priority. Helping people complete these critical documents is an essential part of making the final journey as meaningful and peaceful as possible. Over the next decade or two our elderly population will grow. Baby- boomers, used to having control of their lives and demanding the best, will be stunned to discover that good end-of-life care is hard to find. I recommend to all of you a report called Means to a Better End: A Report on Dying in America Today that was published in November 2002 by Last Acts Partnership. In it, every state and the District of Columbia was rated on eight different criteria to assess the state of end-of-life care in this country. Not one state--not mine, not yours--received a high grade. Some did well in one or two areas, but none did well in half or more of the measures; all were mediocre at best. The researchers found that too many people end their days in hospitals and nursing homes, attached to machines, alone, in pain. Doctors, not wanting to admit ``failure,'' as many of them see death, urge aggressive treatments such as chemotherapy on patients who have little chance of responding to it. Pain medication is often underprescribed or withheld for fear that the dying patient-- dying patient--might become addicted to the drug. The good news is that growing numbers of health care providers, nonprofit organizations and consumer advocates recognize the need for change. New palliative care programs, pain protocols and hospice services are being instituted in facilities around the country. Another Last Acts Partnership publication, On the Road from Theory to Practice highlights the best programs and practices for others to emulate. This body is a legislative institution not a medical one--with the exception of the distinguished majority leader, of course. We cannot legislate good medical care or compassion. What we can do, what I hope we will do, is to enact this bill so that the American public can participate in improving end-of-life care--first, by filling out their own advice directives and talking to their families about them; and by raising their voices to demand that our health care systems honor their wishes and improve the way they care for people who are near the end of life. If we can do that, we will have done a great deal. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I also ask that a letter of support for this legislation from the Last Acts Partnership also be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to address amendment No. 3279 to the pending bill. This amendment asks the administration to report on any relationships between foreign governments or groups operating within their territories and foreign terrorist organizations in Colombia. It also asks the administration to describe United States policies that are designed to address such relationships. This amendment, tragically, is extremely timely in light of today's news. This morning's Miami Herald reported that in Little River, Colombia, in the province of Norte de Santander, over 30 peasants were murdered in cold blood. Terrorists entered their residencies and shot them to death with automatic weapons. The FARC is suspected to have committed this crime. While Colombia, with tremendous support of the U.S., has made great strides in fighting narcoterrorism under President Uribe, there is still much work to be done, as is underscored by yesterday's events. The FARC and the ELN, Colombia's two main rebel groups, both of which have been designated by the United States as foreign terrorist organizations, continue to conduct terrorist attacks against civilians in their campaign against the Colombian government. These groups are also heavily involved in the drug trade that does so much harm to Colombia and to our own country. At a time when Colombia is making slow but steady gains in its long struggle against the FARC, the last thing it needs is to have neighboring countries providing assistance to these brutal adversaries. To be perfectly blunt, my primary concern is with Venezuela. On my visit to Colombia and Venezuela in April, I heard some disturbing accounts from various U.S. officials of instances in which the FARC had been able to cross the line into Venezuela and conduct operations from that side of the border from virtual safe havens. Colombian authorities are also suspicious that the Chavez government has been willing to, at a minimum, look the other way while FARC elements operate in Venezuela, if not actually permitting some level of coordination. Threatening to compound the ``safe haven'' problem for the United States and Colombia is the fact that Venezuela also harbors a potent market in false documentation, such as passports and other identity cards. I am increasingly concerned at the ease with which, simply by buying off officials for $800 or $900, one can acquire fully legitimate, yet false, documents in Venezuela--everything from a passport to a driver's license. I am certainly concerned that international terrorist groups will discover their ability to acquire and make use of forged Venezuela documents to conduct terrorist attacks, and I raised these important issues with Venezuelan officials during my visit. Naturallly, the Venezuelan government disputes these serious allegations. What this amendment would do is help us establish the facts. If groups in Colombia that our government has designated as foreign terrorist organizations are receiving support or assistance from Venezuela, or any of Colombia's other neighbors, or any other state for that matter, we need to know about it and adjust our policies accordingly. Right now, Colombia needs all the help it can get from its neighbors. In asking the administration to report on whether terrorist groups may have relationships with or be operating in neighboring countries such as Venezuela, perhaps we can address this problem in a more regional context and better understand what Colombia is up against. I thank the chairman and ranking member and their staffs for their support. amendment no. 3401

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, today I rise on behalf of myself, the Senior Senator from Florida, Bob Graham, and my esteemed colleagues from Georiga, Senators Zell Miller and Saxby Chambliss, to commend to my colleagues a resolution commemorating Ray Charles for his great contributions to the world of music and culture. It is with great sadness that as our Nation mourned the death of former President Reagan, we received the news that this great and talented musician, Ray Charles, succumbed to liver disease at age 73. Ray Charles was born in Albany, GA on September 23, 1930, but he made Florida his home for many years. As a baby he moved with his family to Greenville, FL where he developed an early appreciation for music. There are stories from friends and family telling how at age 3 he began playing the piano, and showed a strong interest in music. Ray Charles wasn't born blind, but lost his sight to a childhood illness. His mother, Aretha Robinson, enrolled him in the St. Augustine School for the Deaf and Blind, where he leaned not only how to read and write Braille, but learned how to write music, and plan the piano, clarinet, trumpet and saxophone. In the late 1940s, after graduating from St. Augustine's, Ray Charles left Florida and began to work in honing his craft full time. And, as they say, the rest is history. Ray Charles began recording in the 1950's, experiencing success on the musical charts that culminated in his winning the first of many Grammy Music Awards in 1960 for Georgia on My Mind. This great song was adopted in 1979 by the State of Georgia as their State song. Ray Charles received eleven additional Grammy Awards, with the last of these awards coming in 1993. The list of honors he has received in his lifetime is impressive and reflects the impact that he has had on American music and culture. His music cannot be categorized or limited to one genre, which cannot be said of many artists. He was influenced by all types of music, and his music in turn influenced all types of artists--from rhythm and blues to country artists to rock and roll. Ray Charles's story is an American story, and one that should serve as an inspiration to us all; a story that shows how a strong spirit can overcome the greatest of obstacles. Ray Charles once said that his family was so poor that ``nothing was below us but the floor.'' Despite this poor beginning, and the racism and prejudice he undoubtedly faced as a blind black man during this time, he triumphed.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I call to the attention of the Senate the potential disaster in the making with regard to the Presidential election in the State of Florida. Everyone in the country knows what we went through 4 years ago in the Presidential election. It ended up being the difference of 537 votes that then cast Florida's electoral votes to decide the national Presidential election. To the great surprise and dismay of many registered voters who arrived at the polling places ready to cast their votes 4 years ago, they were told their names had been struck from the voting rolls because they were convicted felons, when, in fact, they were not. They had a similar name, like John Doe or Jane Doe, that was on a list of 100,000-plus convicted felon names that had been sent out to the 67 county election supervisors. They had struck these names. Members of the Senate, we have a disaster in the making again. The State of Florida has now sent out a list of 48,000 convicted felons whose names are to be struck from the voting rolls when, in fact, the matches are not guaranteed. To the contrary, several election supervisors have already received the list and noticed, in fact, they have employees in their own offices who were to be struck. They are not convicted felons. We simply cannot allow this to happen. This raises questions about our ability to cast our vote in a Presidential election.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator. I conclude by saying to the Senator from Nevada, it is important. This is another principle that is about to be violated; that is, the principle of the right to vote--that if you are a registered voter, and you get to the voting precinct, you find you cannot vote because your name has been mistakenly struck because it happens to be a match with the name of a convicted felon under another Florida law. So what I have done is filed a friend of the court brief, an amicus curie, along with the CNN suit against the State of Florida that says the public ought to have a right to inspect those voting rolls and those lists of 48,000 names to be struck. The State of Florida says, under a law, the public cannot inspect those records and copy them. I hope the suit will be successful in declaring the law unconstitutional and remove this cloud from our ability to vote. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I certainly yield to the distinguished Senator from Nevada.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator has pointed out an underlying principle of fairness. Florida is only one of seven States that has a process whereby a convicted felon has to restore their voting rights.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I commend Senators Shelby, Sarbanes, and Bunning for their efforts in drafting the S. 2238, the Bunning/Bereuter/Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act. They have worked with Senator Graham and me to make some important changes that will greatly benefit Federal flood insurance policy holders. Since 1968, the National Flood Insurance Program has provided reasonably priced insurance to Americans across the country. In Florida alone, there are approximately 2 million flood insurance policies. I support this legislation and, as the former elected insurance commissioner of the State of Florida, appreciate its goals and purpose. However, I have a unique situation in Florida dealing with flood insurance and would like to take a few minutes to bring it to my colleagues' attention. There is a community in Gulf Country in North Florida known as Cape San Blas. The area has some of the most impressive, pristine beaches in the State. You can see the unique physical characteristics of the Cape quite clearly from space--it is a swath of land that juts out into the Gulf of Mexico. Most of the residents of Cape San Blas have lived there for some time and have seen first hand the incredible damage and awesome forces of nature brought to bear by hurricanes. And ere we are today, 2 weeks into hurricane season and a good number of the residents of the Cape either do not have flood insurance or have to purchase it at a very high price. Since 1983, most of Cape San Blas has been included in the Coastal Barrier Resources System, which prevents the Cape from receiving many forms of Federal assistance, most notably flood insurance. But the residents made due by other means, relying on the private market or, in some cases, simply not purchasing flood insurance because it was not a requirement at the time. Back in 1995, after Hurricane Opal tore through parts of the Florida panhandle, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, determined its flood maps required revisions. The agency decided it would need to remap the area and began the process. The new maps took effect in November 202 and placed a large portion of the Cape and the surrounding area in a special flood hazard area--an area of land that has a 1 percent chance of being flooded in any given year. A home located within this area has a 26 percent chance of suffering flood damage during the term of a 30-year mortgage. The special flood hazard area designation has had a devastating effect on the local economy for several reasons. First, under the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 mandates flood insurance for property in a special flood hazard area that receives a federally backed loan. If a local bank writes a home loan, without Federal backing, while the bank may not require flood insurance, it does face a safety and soundness issue and possible enforcement action with federal banking regulators for offering high-risk loans. As a result of the new classification, some residents who never had to carry flood insurance before suddenly found it was a requirement. Many long-time homeowners have been forced to scramble to buy private flood insurance, often at very high rates. Some are also prevented from borrowing against their hard-earned equity, because second mortgages also require hard-to-obtain flood insurance. Local banks have had to turn away homeowners because of this. The new maps and classification have had a devastating effect on homeowners and the local economy already weakened by the closure of a paper mill and saddled with high rates of unemployment. With the stroke of a pen, FEMA radically changed the lives of thousands of residents and property owners in Cape San Blas. On the Cape, prior to FEMA's new maps, about 70 percent of the lands were not in special flood zone areas and financing was easily obtainable. The new maps placed approximately 75 percent of the Cape in a special flood hazard area and financing is near impossible. Even worse, the new flood maps have slowed the new economic engine of the Cape--tourism, construction and development. This is a clear case of a Government action adversely affecting the lives of citizens. It is simply unfair. There must be a way to make the residents whole again, and I think we have a responsibility to explore every possible avenue to do so. I had considered legislative remedies for the residents of Cape San Blas on the flood insurance bill. Yet I am very aware the flood insurance program is set to expire in 15 days and do not want to block the passage of this legislation, which is so critical to Florida and the Nation. But in the coming weeks, I intend to work with my colleagues and the Banking and Environment and Public Works Committees, with Congressman Allen Boyd, who represents Cape San Blas, and the appropriate Federal agencies to find an equitable solution to the problem facing the residents of Cape San Blas.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I will be very brief. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. Mr. President, on this occasion, when the Nation is mourning the loss of President Reagan, I wish to bring to the attention of the Senate a couple of stories which are fresh in my memory about President Reagan. I had the privilege during his two terms as President of serving in the House of Representatives, representing a district from the State of Florida. The first story I wish to share is of a time of great loss to this country, the loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger. The American people could hardly believe it. The entire technological prowess of our country was symbolized by America having a very successful space program. We were the first to the Moon. This new contraption called a space transportation system was reusable, with new technologies that had been developed. America was quite proud. I had the privilege of flying on the 24th flight of the space shuttle, 6 days in orbit, returning on January 18, 1986. Only 10 days later, the crew that we had stayed with in quarantine--we had been one of the most delayed flights in the history of the space program--was the crew of the Challenger. We all know the story. Ten miles high in the Florida sky, the Challenger's solid rocket booster had hot gasses escaping from a field joint in that rocket. They happened to come out at a place where the strut was burned. That caused the solid rocket motor to then cantilever and it punctured the big apricot-colored fuel tank that held all of the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. The whole space shuttle then disintegrated. Naturally, the feelings I had were very raw and very emotional on that day, having trained with that crew and having just returned from space 10 days earlier. America's feelings were as raw and as emotional because our whole symbol of technological and scientific prowess had suddenly disintegrated in front of our eyes on our television screens. At a time of a grieving nation, there can be only one person who can speak for the country. That is the President. President Reagan rose to the occasion. That speech on television that night, delivered from the Oval Office, was a masterpiece, in which he ends up quoting a Canadian pilot from World War II--a pilot who had experienced the joys of flying--and those immortal words that ended the poem that he had reached out and he had touched the face of God. President Reagan applied that poem to the feelings of the country at the time about what the seven astronauts had experienced. That is political genius. That is a leader. That is a leader who has the ability through communication to connect, to inspire, and in this particular case, on January 28, 1986, to help the Nation through the process of grieving, to accept what had happened and then pick up and move on, which we have. And of course, 17 years later, we had another very similar kind of experience when we lost an additional seven astronauts. That speech, in my mind, was only exceeded by the speech that occurred 3 days later by President Reagan at the Johnson Space Center in Houston in a memorial service for the astronauts, the astronauts, whose bodies at that point still had not been recovered from the floor of the Atlantic Ocean where, hopefully, they had perished before they ever hit the water. Hopefully, somehow that crew compartment had been punctured at that altitude and therefore there would have been instant decompression and there would have been instant loss of consciousness. But with all of that swirling in all of our minds, with all of that swirling in the minds of that NASA community--NASA really is a family-- again, the leader of the Nation had to rise to the occasion to summarize and to continue the process of healing in the time of grief. I saw rough, tough test pilots who were some of the best of the best of our astronaut pilots grabbing each other and hugging in that time of grief. And President Reagan, in the moment, gave comfort to all of those, especially to the families of that crew who were lost, led by the commander of that mission, Dick Scobee. Another story I wish to tell about President Reagan is very personal to me as well. It was just about the middle of the decade of the 1980s. I was a Member of the House of Representatives. There was a particular vote coming up that was critically close. I had already made up my mind that the way I was going to vote in this particular case was the way President Reagan had wanted the vote to go but had not telegraphed that to the leadership of either side because there was something I wanted to tell the President. There was a 6-month-old infant in my hometown of Melbourne, FL, who was dying because he needed a liver transplant. Mind you, this is 20 years ago. Twenty years ago we did not have the very sophisticated system we have set up today which allowed people to exchange information about organ donors. Twenty years ago it was catch as catch can. Twenty years ago, if a donor became available, it was just almost accidental that you found out if there was a donor of a particular organ. And when it involved an infant, like a 6-month-old infant, you not only had to match the blood type for a liver transplant, but the liver had to be the exact size in order to successfully transplant. You can see the difficulty. You can see this child lie dying, with only hours to live. The preparation had been made for the jet airplane to fly the child to the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center where all the surgeons were standing by. They kept waiting and waiting for a donor. No donor was produced because we did not know when any became available. There was not an exchange of information. So at my home in Melbourne, on a weekend, the call from the President of the United States came. He said: Bill, this is President Reagan. We are going to have a close vote and I need your vote. I said: Mr. President, I have already decided that I am voting with you. Now there is something that I would like to ask you, to help in the saving of the life of a child. I told him the story, and he said he would have Margaret Heckler, the Secretary of HHS, call me the next day and get the particulars, which he did. Margaret Heckler immediately held a press conference, and because of that press conference, within 3 days, a tragic death of a child on the west coast of the United States that we would have never known about was known, and the parents donated the child's liver, which was of the same blood type and the same size. That liver was packaged and cooled and flown to Pittsburgh, arriving at the same time Ryan Osterblom arrived, as they wheeled him into surgery. Mr. President, as you can see, I have a catch in my voice because that little boy is going to college this year. He wants to be a surgeon. After that successful transplant, the President had called the mother, Karen Osterblom, and for years he continued to correspond with them. It is going to be my pleasure to have the family come up here on Thursday as the President is lying in state and have them walk through the line in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol to show their respects to President Reagan. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. That is correct.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to bring to the Senate's attention to some recent news about the ongoing negotiations of the Free Trade Area of the Americas, or the FTAA. These negotiations have been going on for some period of time. I look at these with significant interest, as they dramatically affect my State of Florida. There are many mutual benefits that will accrue to the nations of the Western Hemisphere from a Free Trade Area of the Americas agreement. I am someone who has consistently supported free and fair trade. That is why I am hopeful these negotiations are going to yield an agreement that ultimately can be supported here. However, there is a critical issue with respect to the negotiations of the FTAA that is absolutely crucial to my State. It involves the Florida citrus industry. It involves tens of thousands of jobs, and it involves basically the production of frozen concentrate that supplies the fresh orange juice on the breakfast tables of so many Americans every morning. Here is the news. Last week, Reuters reported that ``the United States signaled for the first time that some agriculture products would be excluded altogether from the [Free Trade Area of the Americas agreement] FTAA. There was another publication called ``Inside U.S. Trade,'' which reported that this new proposal from the United States would ``allow for some market access negotiations to yield results other than total elimination of tariffs.'' Well, that is a significant change from what we have been told. It is, from my standpoint and my State's standpoint, clearly a step in the right direction. But while this would appear to be welcome news to Florida's citrus industry, we need some more information. I am going to continue to fight to preserve the tariff on imported frozen concentrated orange juice and ask for a commitment from the President. I believe the President must state publicly, in clear language, that we will not negotiate any reduction of the tariff on imported orange juice. It is not only important to Florida, it is important to the consumers of orange juice all over this country. Now, why is this so important? Let me tell you. Because if the FTAA negotiated out an elimination of the tariff, it would not be free and fair trade because Brazil would become a monopoly. Here is what happens. Right now, basically, of the world's production of frozen concentrated orange juice, you have Brazil basically producing about 60 percent and the remainder--around 40 percent--is produced by the Florida citrus industry. Of the world's production, the Florida citrus industry basically produces the supply for the domestic orange juice market; that is, the U.S. market. Brazil supplies some of that domestic United States market, and basically the markets in the rest of the world. There are other producers, but I am simplifying it. The two big producers are the United States--mainly Florida--and Brazil. Now, what happens? If you eliminate the tariff protecting the Florida citrus growers, and therefore the 40 percent that is produced in Florida, since Brazil has cheaper land and cheaper labor, Brazil then takes over 100 percent of the world's market for frozen concentrated orange juice. That is not free trade. That would be a monopoly. And what happens in a monopoly? In a monopoly, then, the producers can determine whatever price they want because they are the sole suppliers. And what happens to the consumer? The consumer gets it in the neck, and the price goes up. Well, you will hear those people who say: Oh, don't worry. There is competition among the growers in Brazil. The truth is, there are about five major producers in Brazil and, in effect, they operate as a cartel with collusion among themselves. So if they took over the entire world's market, ran the Florida citrus industry out of business, they would start to set the price, and that is not free and fair trade. I can tell you, this Senator, who is someone who is for free and fair trade, and has voted that way--is not going to stand for that because that is not in the best interests of consumers. I might also tell you when I went to Brazil last December, I had several very pleasant meetings with members of the Brazilian Government, including the chief negotiator for the FTAA, and a number of other ministers in the Government. I visited with the Acting President, who is the Vice President of Brazil, and he becomes Acting President when the President is out of the country, as the President was in South America in a Mercosur meeting at the time. When I told the Brazilian Vice President about this problem for Florida, his response was--half in jest, but half seriously--well, why don't you just have the Florida citrus growers move to Brazil where our land is cheaper and our labor is cheaper? That is exactly what we do not want to happen. We want to keep a vital industry alive in the United States. Florida has 12,000 growers, many of whom operate small family-owned operations. Unlike almost all agricultural commodities, the citrus industry receives no U.S. production subsidies. The tariff on Brazilian orange juice is the only offset the industry receives. Any reduction in that tariff would simply devastate Florida's citrus industry. This citrus industry is Florida's second largest. It is responsible for generating over $9 billion for the economy and providing nearly 90,000 jobs. It accounts for $1 billion in revenue for the State and local governments, which, of course, funds our public hospitals and our schools and our fire and our police services. So back on Brazil, I am disappointed that Brazil reportedly does not view a proposal to exclude certain agricultural products from ``total tariff elimination'' as a constructive step. I do not think we are going to see them take that position. Excluding the tariff on imported orange juice from the negotiations would actually represent an important step toward completing, not retarding, an FTAA agreement that will benefit all of the Western Hemisphere. And regardless of the progress of the FTAA negotiations, our industries should focus on expanding global markets for orange juice and not waste our efforts on fighting over the tariff. Greater cooperation is needed between Brazil and the United States. On a tangential matter, I want to encourage the administration to select Miami as the U.S. candidate city to serve as the home of the FTAA secretariat. Miami's special and close relationship with our Latin American neighbors makes the city a natural choice as the city to play this important role. The administration should announce this decision soon so we can put the full efforts of the U.S. Government behind one U.S. city; and that is logically Miami. As a matter of fact, from different destinations in Latin America, it is a lot easier to get to Miami from those locations in Latin America, in many cases, than it is to get from one location in Latin America to another. Miami is the logical choice. It is a place of significant Hispanic culture and population. La lingua is spoken there every day on la calle, on the street. It is a place that is a logical location for the everyday transaction of business for trade in the Americas. Miami is the gateway to Latin America. It should be the gateway for the FTAA. I believe the administration should act right now in going ahead and determining that so as they negotiate between different cities in the hemisphere, the United States will be unified behind one city it is putting forth, which should be Miami, FL. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, as we are waiting for some of the deliberations on the Department of Defense authorization bill, I thought it might be worthwhile to call to the attention of the Senate an amendment I will be offering at a later time having to do with our National Guard. The National Guard has performed magnificently, heroically, and with great professional skill, as well as patriotism. When I wore the uniform of this country as a member of the U.S. Army Active-Duty back in the late 1960s, the National Guard was a much different creature. Today, as the Presiding Officer so well knows, the National Guard is, in many cases, as skilled as, if not even more skilled in particular skills, the regular Army. Thus, when we encounter a threat to the interests of the United States and have to respond abroad, as we have both in Afghanistan and Iraq--especially in Iraq but before that in the Balkans--the National Guard is called on to supply so many of those troops. My wife and I make it a point on holidays such as Thanksgiving to have Thanksgiving dinner with troops in different parts of the world. One time we found ourselves with our troops in Bosnia. At that particular point in one of those camps out in the fields where we had that Thanksgiving dinner, of that entire U.S. military force, which was our ninth year in Bosnia helping stabilize that place from the fratricide and killing that occurred there before, lo and behold, who were those troops? Those troops were the National Guard. In that particular case, it was the National Guard unit from Pennsylvania. They knew they had a 6-month tour of duty and then they would go home-- remember, the National Guard members have their civilian jobs, and what they signed up for also encompasses if there is an emergency in their State, they are under the control of their Governor. Now we find that we have entered a new era in which we are stretched to the limit on our regular Army troops and almost as if it is an expected thing of replacing regular Army with National Guard. Of course, something is going to have to change, and I think the head of the National Guard and the head of the Reserves are addressing this because they are quite concerned that over time, they are going to see people not reenlisting in the Reserves and the Guard, and in order to compensate for that and encourage that, I think we are going to see our military leadership is going to be setting forth an agenda where Guard and Reserves would have a more certain anticipation that within a period of years, say, 4 years, they would serve a number of months of active duty. I hope that is going to solve some of the problems; otherwise, people might be voting with their feet as they leave the National Guard. The thrust of my remarks is to tell about when the National Guard is activated, as it has been very heroically from my State--the Florida National Guard was, in fact, in Iraq before the war started. We went in there with special operations troops, and they have performed magnificently. Initially, they thought they were going for 6 months. Then they understood 12 months. But in some cases, they were extended to 14 and 15 months. So in those long deployments, what happens back home? The families are anxious naturally. The families are usually without the primary breadwinner in the family. The families--the remaining spouses and the children--are often facing a new kind of not only emotional problems but financial problems, not even to speak of the question of the financial situation facing the employer back home. What should we do? Talk to any National Guard commander and he will tell you that a most important support for those families is the Family Assistance Centers. We have them all over the country. They did not used to get nearly the attention they do today because when fully implemented, when fully funded, when giving the attention to the families back home while their loved ones are abroad, they are giving them counseling, they are helping them get proper counseling on financial management, and they are serving as a center point for networking among the other National Guard families while their loved ones are deployed overseas. Thus, last year, when we had this very same bill on the Senate floor, the Department of Defense authorization, I offered an amendment, and it was accepted, providing $10 million for these Family Assistance Centers. This is $10 million out of a $400 billion-plus DOD authorization bill. It was accepted. A lot of that $10 million has not been allocated in the last year. Lo and behold, we are seeing some resistance to doing the same thing. I wanted to give notice to the Senate that coming up will be my amendment authorizing $10 million for Family Assistance Centers for our National Guard families at home. It is one of the least things we can do because it has been so effective. It has been so effective over the course of the past year. But right now, they are anticipating that they are not going to have those resources because they are not in the National Guard budget. I want to make sure it is going to be in the National Guard budget. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern about an issue that illustrates the continuing erosion of Americans' privacy rights. My concern is related to the practice of outsourcing. When U.S. companies outsource sensitive customer information for processing overseas, they may be outsourcing our privacy rights along with it. We all know that recently it has become popular for American companies to send internal paperwork to be done in other countries, by foreign companies. When a U.S. company allows a foreign company to process customer data, the foreign company may be given access to the most sensitive types of customer information. Our health records, bank account numbers, social security numbers, tax forms, and credit card numbers are now being shipped abroad--without the knowledge of the customer and beyond the reach of U.S. privacy laws. This phenomenon means that consumers are almost powerless to stop foreign scam artists from misusing their sensitive information. What types of abuses can occur under this scenario? In one recent shocking example, a U.S. hospital hired a medical transcriber in Pakistan through a subcontractor to work with sensitive patient health information. Later, the foreign worker claimed that she had not been paid for her work. So, you know what she did? She threatened to post patients' medical records online unless she was paid. Luckily, she got her paycheck and doesn't seem to have posted anything online. But this situation shows us the potential for gross violations of consumer privacy. The U.S. hospital said that it never even knew that the foreign transcriber had been hired through a subcontractor and it therefore had never bound her contractually to follow any privacy or security standards. Another potential abuse of offshoring sensitive customer data is identity theft. The illegal theft of someone's identity is a profoundly disturbing and costly problem in this information age. Moreover, illegal misuse of sensitive information can also have national security implications. For example, data about some of our Nation's power grids allegedly has been outsourced to companies overseas. Imagine the harm that terrorists might do if they got hold of that type of confidential information. As our global economy expands at such a rapid pace, we simply cannot tolerate the outsourcing of Americans' privacy rights overseas. We need to be proactve on this potentially explosive issue. Make no mistake, the Pakistani transcriber incident is not the first or the last time that sensitive customer information becomes endangered in a foreign country. The time to act is now, instead of reacting only after our privacy rights are further eroded. In light of these circumstances, today I am introducing a bill--along with Senator Feinstein--that begins to address these privacy and security concerns. The bill is called the INFO Act, which is short for The Increasing Notice of Foreign Outsourcing Act. The INFO Act is designed to help ensure that sensitive consumer information is protected and that U.S. companies can be held accountable for breakdowns in the security of customer information. Specifically, the INFO Act that we are introducing today would require the following things: First, U.S. companies in the health care industry and the financial industry must tell their customers that their sensitive health information and financial information is being processed by companies in foreign nations, where privacy safeguards may be less stringent. Second, U.S. companies in the health care industry and the financial industry must promise their customers that they are complying with U.S. privacy laws, which are designed to keep sensitive customer information secure even when it is outsourced. Third, U.S. companies in the health care industry and the financial industry must make sure that each foreign company that is handling sensitive customer information has agreed by contract to meet U.S. privacy standards and to keep sensitive customer information secure. Fourth, U.S. companies may examine the business operations of the foreign company to make sure the foreign company is meeting privacy standards and is keeping sensitive customer information secure. Fifth, a foreign company must notify the U.S. company of any data security breach. The U.S. company must then notify the U.S. regulatory agency, which can then hold the U.S. company accountable for the actions of the foreign company. Finally, an employee of a foreign call center must tell a U.S. customer where the employee is located, if the U.S. customer asks for this information. I strongly believe that we need to act now, before the privacy issues raised by offshoring begin to explode. Let me emphasize that I see this bill as both pro-consumer and pro- business. Consumers will be informed about how their sensitive information is handled and they can learn when security breaches occur. Additionally, foreign companies that handle customer data will be held accountable to the U.S. company that gives them their work. And U.S. companies will be upfront in informing their customers about offshoring sensitive data before customer backlash occurs. With this sort of system in place, we hopefully can reduce the chances of customer data being misused, and allow U.S. companies to play on a level playing field where all interested parties know the rules of the game. I have a history of trying to solve consumer issues in ways that are not needlessly burdensome to U.S. businesses. That is why my office, as well as Senator Feinstein's office, has met several times with industry representatives during the development of this bill. I was interested to find ways for businesses to protect consumer privacy rights without having to sharply raise prices or limit products and services. I believe that the INFO Act has achieved those goals. Consumer privacy has always been one of my top priorities. Now, as always, I look forward to working with all interested parties to resolve this consumer privacy issue in a timely and effective manner. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am quite troubled by what we have seen happen over the course of the weekend with the storming of the residential complex in or near Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, the eastern portion of Saudi Arabia, the oil-producing portion of Saudi Arabia. The storming of this residential complex and the taking of hostages at a residential complex that held people from many nations portends of what is to come. That is very troubling to the United States and the world community. In today's paper, I see headlines such as ``Saudis storm complex to free hostages.'' It says, ``Saudi leaders say the recent attacks won't affect the oil supplies.'' Then in another piece in the same newspaper, it says, ``Latest terror attack increases the doubts about the ability of Saudi Arabia to pump more oil.'' Is it not interesting that we as a world community, and especially as the United States, have to be concerned about the pumping of that Saudi oil in order to feed the voracious appetite we have for energy. Is it not interesting the United States had some painful lessons we learned in the early '70s, and again in the late '70s, when the oil cartel locked down limited production and almost brought the industrialized world to its knees, and we became so much more dependent, realizing we needed that foreign oil to feed our appetite; that as a Nation, we said we are not going through this anymore; we are going to head on a path for energy independence. Then we lulled ourselves back into the seductive price of cheap oil and continued allowing our voracious appetite to go unabated, with the result that even though we have tried all kinds of alternative measures, the fact is we are importing more than half of our daily oil consumption, and that figure is moving upward to 60 percent of our daily oil consumption. Right off the bat, that tells you that is not a good position to be in when it comes to the defensive interests of this country. Think how much of a freer hand we would have, as we conceive and develop our defense plans for this country, if we and the free industrialized world didn't have to depend on that oil coming out of that gulf region. But we are dependent. So when we see an attack by al-Qaida directly on those oil interests, we better start examining further the need for us to set energy independence as a major policy of the U.S. Government. We know that the United States is, in fact, al-Qaida's target, but there should be no doubt now that Saudi Arabia is also the target of al-Qaida. It is a target where al-Qaida has a better chance of success because it has the desired goal of overthrowing the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia. Saudi society presented them with many opportunities: weak institutions, an alienated population, and nearby terrorist operating bases. Al-Qaida's strategy is becoming increasingly clear. What they are doing is stoking the dissatisfaction of Saudi citizens with their government and the Royal Family by demonstrating the Royal Family's weakness by conducting their al-Qaida attacks in Saudi Arabia. The attacks this past weekend indicate where they are now headed: to cut off Saudi Arabia's lifeline by destroying their oil facilities and diminishing their oil-producing capability. It is a strategy that has some chance of success. If the attack that happened this past weekend had interrupted the flow of Saudi oil, then the Saudi Royal Family would, indeed, have some cause for concern that they could stay in power because overnight they would lose the one tool they have to keep some of the popular discontent in their country under wraps, and that is oil money. The Saudi rulers have not helped matters over the years by ignoring the obvious, which is the threat to their own self-interest posed by Islamic extremists. Why? Because the Saudi Royal Family has played footsy for far too long with the radicals, thinking they could buy them off and paying money to the extremist religious schools, called madrasas, hoping that Saudi money, spread around the Muslim world where the most extreme ideology and hatred is taught, was going to buy them peace. But I think the Saudi Royal Family is beginning to wake up. The United States has tried to be Saudi Arabia's defender. We had thousands of troops based over there in the 1990s. Clearly, when Saddam Hussein in the early nineties moved on Kuwait and it was very clear that he was intent on moving into Saudi Arabia, the United States responded. But Saudi Arabia did not like us having troops on their land. We did not particularly want to be there because we were the constant source of attack, such as the Khobar Towers bombing which took 19 American lives. The United States could not build a defensive wall around Saudi Arabia to protect them--now especially that is so--even if we wanted to, which we don't, but that is especially so because many of the threats now come right from within Saudi Arabia itself. So all we can do is impress upon Saudi Arabia the need for reform in their society as quickly as they can to isolate the extremists, to institute democratic institutions, and to diversify their economy. But those prospects are not good because if the Saudi Royal Family were to fall and if it is succeeded by an Islamic radical regime, then I fear for the rest of the Middle East and the gulf region that we would see a risk of those regimes falling like dominos. With a radical Saudi successor regime in control of all that oil, one can imagine the damage it could do by holding the West hostage economically. That is what we are facing. Sometimes we get lost in seeing the entire forest for the particular trees, but I think we need to pull back and see that this threat of radical terrorists is now being directed not only at us in the homeland, but it is being directed at a source of energy upon which the western industrialized world has become dependent. If the attacks we have seen just a few days ago do not convince us to curtail our addiction to oil, then I do not know what will. Why don't we do some reasonable things? I remember the junior Senator from Massachusetts offering an amendment to do something real simple, such as lower the miles per gallon for SUVs, and we got beat and beat badly. That is an easy one to do, not even to speak of shifting to alternative sources of energy, not even to speak of additional conservation efforts, not even to speak of production efforts where it is not going to harm the fragile environment where, indeed, there are the reserves, not even to speak of using our technology in a crash course such as we did when we went to the Moon in the Apollo project. We set a goal and we said we were going to achieve it. We marshaled the resources, we marshaled the will, we got the support of the American people, and within 9 years we were able to go to the Moon and return safely. And so, too, we need an Apollo-type project for energy independence to wean ourselves from that dependence on foreign oil. We need to invest massive manpower and effort into developing alternative energy sources so that the possible collapse of unstable oil regimes in the Middle East will not hold us hostage. Lord knows, let's hope that does not happen, but we need to wake up and see the insatiable appetite we have for that foreign oil. I believe energy independence is one of the top priorities for protecting U.S. national security. There are a lot of Senators who support that goal and yet we allow ourselves to be beat time and time again by certain special interests and lobbies that have their own interests at the forefront instead of the national interest. The events of this past weekend make the need for energy independence a national priority. These events make it clearer than ever. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern about an issue that illustrates the continuing erosion of Americans' privacy rights. My concern is related to the practice of outsourcing. When U.S. companies outsource sensitive customer information for processing overseas, they may be outsourcing our privacy rights along with it. We all know that recently it has become popular for American companies to send internal paperwork to be done in other countries, by foreign companies. When a U.S. company allows a foreign company to process customer data, the foreign company may be given access to the most sensitive types of customer information. Our health records, bank account numbers, social security numbers, tax forms, and credit card numbers are now being shipped abroad--without the knowledge of the customer and beyond the reach of U.S. privacy laws. This phenomenon means that consumers are almost powerless to stop foreign scam artists from misusing their sensitive information. What types of abuses can occur under this scenario? In one recent shocking example, a U.S. hospital hired a medical transcriber in Pakistan through a subcontractor to work with sensitive patient health information. Later, the foreign worker claimed that she had not been paid for her work. So, you know what she did? She threatened to post patients' medical records online unless she was paid. Luckily, she got her paycheck and doesn't seem to have posted anything online. But this situation shows us the potential for gross violations of consumer privacy. The U.S. hospital said that it never even knew that the foreign transcriber had been hired through a subcontractor and it therefore had never bound her contractually to follow any privacy or security standards. Another potential abuse of offshoring sensitive customer data is identity theft. The illegal theft of someone's identity is a profoundly disturbing and costly problem in this information age. Moreover, illegal misuse of sensitive information can also have national security implications. For example, data about some of our Nation's power grids allegedly has been outsourced to companies overseas. Imagine the harm that terrorists might do if they got hold of that type of confidential information. As our global economy expands at such a rapid pace, we simply cannot tolerate the outsourcing of Americans' privacy rights overseas. We need to be proactve on this potentially explosive issue. Make no mistake, the Pakistani transcriber incident is not the first or the last time that sensitive customer information becomes endangered in a foreign country. The time to act is now, instead of reacting only after our privacy rights are further eroded. In light of these circumstances, today I am introducing a bill--along with Senator Feinstein--that begins to address these privacy and security concerns. The bill is called the INFO Act, which is short for The Increasing Notice of Foreign Outsourcing Act. The INFO Act is designed to help ensure that sensitive consumer information is protected and that U.S. companies can be held accountable for breakdowns in the security of customer information. Specifically, the INFO Act that we are introducing today would require the following things: First, U.S. companies in the health care industry and the financial industry must tell their customers that their sensitive health information and financial information is being processed by companies in foreign nations, where privacy safeguards may be less stringent. Second, U.S. companies in the health care industry and the financial industry must promise their customers that they are complying with U.S. privacy laws, which are designed to keep sensitive customer information secure even when it is outsourced. Third, U.S. companies in the health care industry and the financial industry must make sure that each foreign company that is handling sensitive customer information has agreed by contract to meet U.S. privacy standards and to keep sensitive customer information secure. Fourth, U.S. companies may examine the business operations of the foreign company to make sure the foreign company is meeting privacy standards and is keeping sensitive customer information secure. Fifth, a foreign company must notify the U.S. company of any data security breach. The U.S. company must then notify the U.S. regulatory agency, which can then hold the U.S. company accountable for the actions of the foreign company. Finally, an employee of a foreign call center must tell a U.S. customer where the employee is located, if the U.S. customer asks for this information. I strongly believe that we need to act now, before the privacy issues raised by offshoring begin to explode. Let me emphasize that I see this bill as both pro-consumer and pro- business. Consumers will be informed about how their sensitive information is handled and they can learn when security breaches occur. Additionally, foreign companies that handle customer data will be held accountable to the U.S. company that gives them their work. And U.S. companies will be upfront in informing their customers about offshoring sensitive data before customer backlash occurs. With this sort of system in place, we hopefully can reduce the chances of customer data being misused, and allow U.S. companies to play on a level playing field where all interested parties know the rules of the game. I have a history of trying to solve consumer issues in ways that are not needlessly burdensome to U.S. businesses. That is why my office, as well as Senator Feinstein's office, has met several times with industry representatives during the development of this bill. I was interested to find ways for businesses to protect consumer privacy rights without having to sharply raise prices or limit products and services. I believe that the INFO Act has achieved those goals. Consumer privacy has always been one of my top priorities. Now, as always, I look forward to working with all interested parties to resolve this consumer privacy issue in a timely and effective manner. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.