Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to posit a couple of questions to the distinguished immediate past chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. How much time do we have remaining?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Does that give the Senator from New York enough time?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Is it my understanding this Senator would have 10 minutes?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. How much time is allocated to this side on morning business?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I was going to address the topic, ``Are you safer than you were 4 years ago,'' but while we have the distinguished Senator from Delaware in the Chamber, I want to address a couple of issues with him.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I did not have a request.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Why, in his opinion, does the administration continue to resist the outreach of building consensus in the international community, to help us with problems such as Iraq and Iran and North Korea? Why is there resistance to that, I ask the Senator from Delaware?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I further ask my friend from Delaware, given the fact of what we have heard in the testimony in the Foreign Relations Committee over the last week, and also in the Senate Armed Services Committee; given the fact my friend from Delaware and I have had long conversations about not only do we not need to pull out of Iraq but we need to increase our troop strength in Iraq because the alternative would be unthinkable, for us to turn tail and run and create a vacuum which would be filled by terrorists, which would only give succor and encouragement to the other radical elements in the region, including Iran, does the Senator from Delaware think we are safer now in our international diplomacy results than we were 4 years ago?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I certainly agree with the Senator from Delaware. I will ask a final question of him. Why does the Senator from Delaware, one of the most knowledgeable in this entire body on international affairs----

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I further ask the distinguished former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee with regard to nuclear weapons and the acquiring of nuclear technology and the ability to make a bomb in Iran, are we safer today than we were 4 years ago?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Then, Mr. President, indeed this is what the Senator from Delaware has constantly preached. He has been a Johnny- one-note on how we ought to engage with other nations around this world, through diplomacy, to better the protection of the United States. Is it the impression of the Senator from Delaware we have been dragging our feet with regard to North Korea, before we ever started engaging them in international and one-to-one discussions?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, what we have gotten in a few minutes is a short course of what, in the opinion of this Senator from Delaware, and in the opinion of this Senator from Florida, we need to do: Internationalize the effort, build a consensus, reach out, bring in an international force such as NATO, led by the American military, bring in a senior international diplomat, prepare Iraq for governing itself, and be prepared to be there for the long haul. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent it be charged to our time and that we have 1 additional minute so the Senator can finish his answer.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. All of my speech on ``are you better off now than you were 4 years ago,'' I am going to save for another day. I want to take advantage of one of the most knowledgeable Members of the Senate. In thinking about the question of are you better off now than you were 4 years ago, are you safer now than you were 4 years ago, I have had the privilege of sitting at the knee of the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He has taught me something about two countries where we better keep a laser eye focused, namely Iran and North Korea. I ask the distinguished ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as I hold up this chart about suspected nuclear weapons in North Korea, are we safer now than we were 4 years ago?

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 also can 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 American's privacy rights overseas. We need to be proactive 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 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 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 also can 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 American's privacy rights overseas. We need to be proactive 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 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. Madam President, I say there is never a dull moment in the life of this Senator from Florida. Since I have learned the ways of comity, accommodation, felicity, I yield to the distinguished Senator from the State of Delaware. In fact, in my remarks about are we better off now than we were 4 years ago, I was going to try to engage my distinguished colleague in a colloquy.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to an outstanding leader, administrator and advisor, Dr. Oswald Bronson, the retiring president of Bethune-Cookman College in Daytona Beach, FL. Dr. Bronson's list of accomplishments, honors and contributions are long and distinguished. Because of Dr. Bronson, Bethune-Cookman has earned a national reputation for excellence in liberal arts education. In his 29 years at Bethune-Cookman, he doubled the enrollment, boosted its endowment from $1.2 million to $25 million, increased its economic impact on the community to $300 million and raised its operating budget to $45 million. A recognized ``key power broker'' for the Nation's black colleges by Black Issues in Higher Education, Dr. Bronson advised President Clinton on higher education issues and served as chairman and president of several national, influential educational organizations, including the United Negro College Fund, the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Education and most recently the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. And not only is Dr. Bronson a respected voice on higher education issues, but also a leading religious figure. He served as President of the Interdenominational Theological Seminary and President of the United Methodist Church Council of Presidents. As a pastor in three States, Dr. Bronson lectured and taught in numerous mission schools, pastoral institutes and leadership training seminars. For his dedicated service and distinguished career, Dr. Bronson earned many honors including an honorary Doctor of Divinity Degree, and honorary Doctor of Laws degree and keys to several cities in Florida. I am honored to call Dr. Bronson a friend and thank him for his remarkable tenure at Bethune-Cookman College and extraordinary contribution to our country. He will be missed, but I know he will continue to make a contribution.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to commend an exceptional young Floridian, who is raising money to build an ALS clinic in Jacksonville. Jason Metcalfe may only be a fourth grader at Tynes Elementary school, but his story can teach us all--young and old alike--a lesson in the spirit of giving. Jason's good friend and confidant, Mr. Chapman, was diagnosed with ALS, a debilitating condition commonly called Lou Gehrig's disease. After learning Mr. Chapman was stricken with the devastating disease, he took action. Jason made a long-term goal to become a scientist and help find a cure for ALS. He has already improved his grades and is now receiving top marks in school. In addition to his commitment to education, Jason decided to help in the short term by collecting money to support ALS research and treatment facilities. He has been saving his allowance, selling candy and taking donations. And I am proud to report that he has already shattered his original goal of raising $500 and has collected in excess of $11,000. Mr. Chapman passed away on February 1, 2004, but Jason's dream to become an ALS researcher and to build a clinic in Jacksonville lives on. Jason's hard work, determination and leadership is an example to us all. I am proud of the work he is doing to give back to people like Mr. Chapman, who suffer from ALS. Thank you, Mr. President, for allowing me to recognize the efforts of an exceptional young Floridian.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business and the time be charged to our side.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, I am happy to announce to the Senate I have come from Tampa, FL, where I made an announcement of some significance today. Seated with two Negro League ballplayers--a pitcher from the Kansas City Monarchs, Bob Mitchell, and a pitcher from the Indianapolis Clowns, Mr. Maddox--we were happy to announce, with a representative of Commissioner Bud Selig present, the first compensation for the Negro League players who were kept out of the Major Leagues, because segregation did not end with Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier in 1947. Indeed, Major League Baseball was not integrated until the late 1950s. When Commissioner Selig, in 1997, decided to do something about the inequity of the Negro League players never having been compensated--but the criteria was based on the principle they would be compensated if they had played in the Negro Leagues before 1947 and in the Majors after--today the principle was established by Major League Baseball that, in fact, the Majors were not integrated until the late 1950s. The compensation plan we announced will be for the Negro Leaguers who still played the same amount of time--4 years--but played 4 years in the Majors before the end of the 1958 season. Therefore, they, too, will be compensated. Why is this important? It is important because of the sad fact of our Nation's history of segregation. There was tremendous talent in the Negro Leagues. We know of those such as Hank Aaron who came out of the Negro Leagues, and Jackie Robinson, the first to come out of the Negro Leagues into the Majors. We know of the home-run king, Hank Aaron, and what all he has meant to the game. But there were many other players who had fantastic talent but who were never able to break into the Major Leagues after Jackie Robinson because of the color barrier. So with this announcement today, it is giving new life to those players who are now quite elderly. Also, Major League Baseball has been kind enough to recognize there will be a survivor benefit since many of these players are now getting on to the age of the twilight of their lives. For the period of time in which this compensation is available, it will also be available to their surviving spouse. It has been such a privilege, and it is interesting, one of the great joys of public service is sometimes you are in the right place at the right time. I found myself in that position, having been elected to the Senate in the 2000 election. In 2001, I got a letter from Mr. Mitchell. He was asking for help, so we went to work on it. I met with him and a group of a half dozen of the old Negro League players. I told them I was going to go to work on this issue. And I say that with a great sense of personal satisfaction of knowing sometimes you are in the right place at the right time, to kind of move the ball along toward progress. I have given several speeches on the floor of this Senate. I have brought it up in several committee hearings, more recent of which was about 2 months ago, with Commissioner Selig sitting there, of where we could discuss Major League Baseball's intent to provide for this compensation. So one thing after another, with a lot of people working together, this is a happy day. I say it is coincidental, but it is a significant coincidence that it happens on the day of the 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education landmark Supreme Court decision. As I have met with these baseball players who played in the old Negro Leagues, I have asked them: How good were you? And I would talk to the shortstops, but it was most revealing when I would talk to the pitchers, just like Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Maddox, who stood up with me today in making this announcement in Tampa. I asked: How good were you? They would look at me, and that big smile would break out on their face, and they would say: Senator, listen, we would smoke 'em. They couldn't hold a candle to us. And I would say: Give me an example. And they would say: Today, they pitch four, five, maybe six innings. We would pitch nine straight innings, and we would still have the reserve to keep going. Finally, what a happy day this is for a lot of them who are now eligible to receive this compensation. What a happy day it is for me and my staff, who have worked so hard people over the past 3 years. What a happy day it is for Commissioner Bud Selig, who has wanted to do the right thing because he knew it was the right thing. I am glad to bring a little bit of good news to this august body of which I am very privileged to be a Member. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to commend an outstanding young Floridian. Matthew Ross is an 11-year-old who has overcome tough circumstances and has succeeded. He recently won the prestigious national award, the Temple Grandin Award, for achievement in autism, became the first autistic child to serve as a page in the Florida House of Representatives and won the Special Olympics District Tournament Golfing Regionals in his area. What a year. I had the privilege of meeting Matt recently. I was impressed by his polite demeanor and his interest in special education issues. A little over a year ago, Matt was in special education classes because by his own words, he had ``trouble with the way my brain processes information.'' He had been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome and, earlier, his mother had even considered placing him in a group home. But, now just some 12-13 months later he has blossomed. He is no longer in special education classes, and as I understand it has political aspirations. I give high praise to his mother, Susan Ross, who has steadfastly stood by Matt and made it possible for him to succeed. I wish Matt all the luck and blessings in the world. Keep it up, Matt.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I honor a wonderful leader and inspirational person, Sister Jeanne O'Laughlin. Sister Jeanne is retiring as President of Barry University in Miami Shores, FL, after more than 20 years as its president and more than 50 years as an educator. Under her tenure the student population at Barry more than quadrupled and became co-ed and diverse, the budget grew tenfold, the campus added 38 new buildings and Barry became the fourth largest private university in Florida. But, Sister Jeanne is more than just a president or professor, she is a fixture of the Miami community, a tireless advocate for the indigent and less fortunate and a prolific fundraiser. She has been honored by the Pope and selected for Presidential Commissions. She was the first female member of the Orange Bowl Committee and the Non-Group, chaired the Victory Foundation for the Homeless, the Miami Coalition for a Safe and Drug-Free Community, the Religious Task Force for We Will Rebuild and the Miami Blue-Ribbon Aviation Panel. And in the name of Barry University she would take on any challenge or bet even if it meant singing and dancing. When important decisions or events were happening in Miami she was there. Many will remember that she rescued three Chinese women from political prosecution and pushed for 14 months for their political asylum request to be accepted. Her tireless devotion to Barry, her infectious spirit and devotion to making the world a better place one good deed at a time, make Sister Jeanne a truly remarkable person. I am honored to know her.

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. President, I just returned from my home State of Florida, and I cannot state the number of people who came up to me over the course of the weekend to ask me about the situation in the prison in Baghdad and the question of what should be done with Secretary Rumsfeld. My reaction is, we have an ongoing investigation. I would like to see some more results of that investigation, in addition to what we have already been shocked with in the graphic photographs--although I understand we have ``not seen nothing yet,'' that we are going to get more graphic photographs, including some videos that are fairly descriptive of behavior that is clearly not behavior approved in the normal course of the standards of Americans. Of course, offensive conduct by Americans is made all the more difficult as we are in unsettled parts of the world in a place of Arab culture and the Muslim religion. Often, my response has been specifically about Secretary Rumsfeld; that this issue is much greater than any one Secretary of Defense. The issue comes down to how America has planned for the postwar occupation. We did not do a very good job of planning for the postwar occupation. This Senator happens to be a Democrat from Florida, but that does not have anything to do with this. What I am about to say is very bipartisan, or nonpartisan. One of the committees on which I have the privilege of serving is the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The chairman is a Republican and his name is Dick Lugar of Indiana. He has been saying very similar things to what I am about to say, as has his ranking Republican member, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, and certainly the ranking Democrat and former chairman, Senator Joe Biden of Delaware. It is this: We had a brilliant military campaign in Afghanistan and again in Iraq, led, by the way, by a Floridian, GEN Tommy Franks. To give credit where credit is due, I include Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He ought to be given credit. It was a brilliant military campaign, blending the use of military forces--specifically, special operations forces in Afghanistan--with other agencies, such as the CIA. The CIA was first in Afghanistan. The first American killed in Afghanistan was Mike Spann, a CIA agent detailed out of Uzbekistan. So, too, in the runup to the military campaign in Iraq, a brilliant military planning in the war effort. We took Iraq in much fewer days than General Franks had ever planned. Of course, that is what he is supposed to do as a combatant commander, plan for the worst and be very conservative in the planning. The military campaign was spectacular. The problem was, before the war in Iraq, in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, over and over we asked the administration--who is ``we''? It is all of those Senators I just talked about, the bipartisan leadership of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--asking over and over, peppering the administration with questions: What are your plans? Well, we do not have them. Well, bring them to us. And they would come back with some cursory plan. Of course, we are now seeing the results. The prison problems are a manifestation of just one element of the lack of a plan, of what it is to be an occupier in a Muslim country and then not planning for the sensitivities of being an occupier in a Muslim country. What do we do now? The criminal investigation will go forward. The rest of the reporting is going to go forward, and we will find out what to do with regard to the prisons. But what we ought to be doing, and I think we are hearing this chorus from a number of Members in a bipartisan way, coming out of the several committees--not the least of which is the Foreign Relations Committee--the President ought to convene the major countries of the world, along with the Arab neighbors of Iraq in the region, and they should forge consensus. When somebody says that consensus cannot be reached, all you have to do is explain to those countries it is in their naked self-interest to try to get a stabilized Iraq. France, for example, has a Muslim population somewhere between 8 and 12 percent. Convene those nations and then invite in a NATO force led by the United States. Go to the United Nations, get a senior international diplomat to come in and start working after June 30 to build Iraq with the institutions so it can go to elections. We will be there a long time. Anyone who doubts that, we are in the ninth year in Bosnia. It will take a lot of troops. Eventually, we will see our troops will have to be more than what we are planning for now with the 130,000 that we have there. With those few short comments prior to the voting on this resolution, I thank the Senate for the privilege of addressing the Senate. I yield the floor.