Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for 15 minutes, and I include in that request Senator Reid of Nevada who has asked to follow me for an additional 15 minutes.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 15 minutes, and if there is a Member on the other side of the aisle who would like to speak for 15 minutes, that they be allowed to do so, as well.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Is the unanimous consent request that I made that I be allowed to speak for 15 minutes, is that acceptable?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I came to the floor to discuss a topic we will be taking up in the Senate Armed Services Committee later this week as we start to grapple with the authorization bill for the Defense Department--the question of missile defense. This topic is timely for a number of reasons. First of all, the administration plans to deploy a ``rudimentary'' missile defense system this September, despite the fact it has not been proven to work. The Armed Services Committee begins consideration of this DOD fiscal year 2005 budget request, and the Pentagon has requested $10 billion for missile defense systems in 2005, so it is timely to talk about it right now. Also, it is timely to talk about this issue because the General Accounting Office has released a report exhaustively reviewing major missile defense programs--with interesting and useful findings, if we will listen to those findings. Let's look at that GAO report. The report made some very telling observations. Among them was that the missile defense to be deployed in September simply will not be proven yet, because it hasn't been tested against realistic targets. The GAO recommends that realistic operational tests should be conducted on the missile defense system, which many of us have been saying. How in the world can you deploy something that has not been developed and tested? The GAO recommends we establish clear and firm missile defense goals. I don't see how we can operate and manage a complex, expensive program like this without goals. The report also took a hard, unbiased look at what progress was being made on these missile defense programs. The GAO spent close to a year doing research going beyond the rhetoric to understand what was going on scientifically and fiscally among these complex programs. What did the GAO find? Well, they found some major problems, problems that should concern all of us who support a true working missile defense for our homeland. I want to repeat that--problems that concern those of us who truly support a working missile defense program for our homeland. The GAO found, for example, the prime contractors for 2 of the missile defense programs had cost overruns totaling almost $400 million during fiscal year 2003 alone. The GAO found the first increment of missile defense to be deployed in September is going to cost a billion dollars more than the Pentagon thought it would cost a year ago. That is a billion dollars of cost growth in a single year. I want this program to be successful, and I also want it to be fiscally responsible. The GAO also found the airborne laser program is more than a year behind schedule and projected to go over budget between a half billion dollars and a billion dollars. Let's look at that airborne laser program for a moment. It is a fascinating technology, using a laser cannon mounted on a 747 aircraft to shoot down missiles while they are rising in the boost phase of an ICBM flight. In March 2003, only a year ago, during the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on missile defense, I asked the Lieutenant General Kadish, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, about the airborne laser. He told me it was going to be working within a year. Well, we know now--not from him, but from the GAO report--that at the time of the hearing last year, the airborne laser program was already significantly behind schedule and had more than $100 million in cost overruns a year ago when I asked the question in the Armed Services Committee. But they didn't tell us that. According to the GAO, just about everything that can go wrong with this program has gone wrong. General Kadish did not tell us that a year ago. The report says: Numerous and continuing issues have caused the [program] to slip, including supply, quality, and technical problems. I continue the quote: For example, specialized valves have been recalled twice, laser fluid management software has been delayed due to inadequate definition of requirements, and improperly cleaned plumbing and material issues have required over 3,000 hours of unplanned work. In addition, delays in hardware delivery occurred in almost every month of fiscal year 2003. Why didn't they tell us that last year? It is, again, symptomatic of the executive branch not deferring to the proper balance of powers as envisioned by the Constitution. Instead, they are asking the legislative branch to do its bidding. This has to stop for the sake of the balance of powers of this country. Even as these problems were occurring with the airborne laser, more money was pouring into the program. The Missile Defense Agency spent about a billion dollars on the airborne laser in 2002 and 2003, and the administration has asked for another half billion dollars in fiscal year 2005 for this same program. The Pentagon has not been forthcoming with this sort of information. If it weren't for this GAO report, it is not likely the Congress would understand how serious the problems are with this airborne laser program. I wish it were not so, because wouldn't it be good for America if we suddenly had an airborne laser that could shoot down an ascending rocket heading for an American target? The airborne laser program is not the only surprise in the GAO report. The report reveals computer programs needed for Navy ships to work with the administration's missile defense system won't be tested adequately prior to the planned September deployment of the system. Since these ships are needed to protect Hawaii from a missile launch, Hawaii is now unprotected. That same report reveals major delays with the administration's missile defense plans. It says: Flight tests leading up to the [deployment] have slipped [over] 10 months, largely as a consequence of delays in [missile defense] interceptor development and delivery. Accordingly, the test schedule leading up to the September [deployment] has been severely compressed, limiting [the] opportunity to characterize [the system's] performance prior to the initial fielding. The report goes on: The production and delivery of all 20 interceptors by the end of [December 2005] is uncertain--contractors have not demonstrated that they can meet the increased production rate. Given the reality of the technical problems, the schedule delays, and the lack of operational testing, can we justify to the American people spending hundreds of millions of dollars in 2005 to continue to buy more missile defense interceptors than we already have? I want them to be successful. Let's make sure what we have is going to, in fact, work because the GAO report reveals many of the administration's missile defense programs are in serious trouble with major cost overruns, schedule delays, and inadequate testing. Even to the most enthusiastic supporters of missile defense among us, it should be clear that technology is not proving itself as fast as we had hoped. Given the fact a missile attack against the U.S. is probably lower on the list in terms of probability than other attacks, and given what is going on right now in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think it is clear we need to look carefully and objectively at this missile defense budget and see if we should not spend some of this money on making sure we get it right through the development and testing, and some of that money for our soldiers and marines in battle right now so they can fight and win. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, that is an interesting segue into what I wanted to talk about, the polarized nature today of the Senate. At times, this Senate has become so partisan, and increasingly so now, that it is in gridlock. There seems to be a playing out of ``gotcha'' politics that has poisoned the atmosphere in Washington, DC, so that it is hard to get the people's business done. When I had the privilege of coming 4 years ago to the Senate, I had read the histories of the great leaders of this body and the extraordinary consensus and bipartisanship, that they would reach out and bring people together in order to form a consensus that could help the Nation govern itself. We find we have exactly the opposite happening in the Senate. At the same time, what we find happening--under the Constitution, the separation of powers are a check and a balance against each other. That is beginning to erode. Instead, what we see is the power, instead of being equally divided and balanced between the judicial, the legislative, and the executive branches, we find in the executive branch almost an attitude that the legislative branch should become an appendage of what the executive branch wants. If that trend continues, the Constitution is not going to work as it was intended to work. We find in the histories of this great body, when we have read about those great leaders, even within our lifetime--Everett Dirksen, Lyndon Johnson, Mike Mansfield, and Bob Dole--they reached out and built bipartisan consensus. They were partisan when they needed to be, and yet they knew the way this body operates. One cannot break a filibuster except by 60 votes now; it used to be two- thirds. We have to build consensus, and we have to build it from the political center by reaching out and bringing people together. The sharpness of this poisoned atmosphere of excessive partisanship and excessive ideological rigidity has made it very difficult for this Government to function. As a matter of fact, we read the articles recently in major periodicals where it seems ideology is lining up in one party or another, almost as if that is the decision point, the choice, for America to make. But America has always yearned for another way and that was using the best of our democratic principles through the cross currents of ideas, through the intercourse of discussion, through the heat of debate, for ideas and consensus to emerge upon which to govern this wonderful, broad, beautiful, powerful, and very diverse country. Until we do that, we are going to continue to have a problem of gridlock. There is something I can do about it by the way I conduct myself individually, day in and day out--when I make mistakes, own up to those mistakes and apologize to the people who would be offended by those mistakes in the interest of comity and consensus building. That is how this Senator has tried to conduct himself, failed as I may be. That is how I will try to continue to conduct myself and hope I am joined by other Senators in that--through the way you conduct yourself, reaching out in the spirit of comity and personal friendship, and with a sight set on what is good for the Nation. Partisanship prevents us from building consensus in order to run this wonderful country we are privileged to serve and represent. Mr. President, that is what has been on my heart.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue important to my State, and to a growing number of Americans: Motorsports. Born in Daytona Beach, racing today is the fastest growing sport in the country and has given birth to an economy unto itself. With 38 track and speedway facilities in locations throughout Florida, including two of the Nation's larger tracks--Homestead-Miami and Daytona International Speedways--motorsports contribute nearly $2 billion annually to Florida alone. Simply put, these tracks, whether large or small, create jobs and expand tourism. The Internal Revenue Service has allowed these facilities to depreciate their property over a 7-year period. Now they are challenging this longstanding industry practice and treating racetracks differently than other entertainment complexes. That is simply unfair and will have a dire economic effect, discouraging the capital investments that these facilities rely on to improve their product and attract the legions of fans that have been so valuable to small towns across the country. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting prompt enactment of S. 1524, the ``Motorsports Fairness Act'' to clarify that these facilities are indeed 7-year property for purposes of depreciation.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, while we are getting all of our ducks in order with regard to the procedure and there is this momentary lull in the consideration of the instant legislation, I rise to discuss conditions facing the United States with regard to an important neighbor of ours in this hemisphere; that is, Venezuela. Venezuela is a country in deep crisis. I worry, as has been the case with so many of our neighbors to the south, that it is not getting enough attention in relation to this crisis. We all should know the President of Venezuela, President Chavez, is right now the subject of a petition drive aimed at holding a referendum on a recall of his Presidency. That is provided for under section 72 of the Venezuelan Constitution. What is also well known is President Chavez and his allies have done everything in their power to make it impossible to hold a legitimate referendum. A week ago I was in Venezuela. I spoke to numerous officials of the Chavez government, including the Foreign Minister, the Energy Minister, the Vice President of the National Assembly. I also spoke to leaders of the opposition who have been leading the drive to hold a recall referendum under the provisions of the Venezuela Constitution. This is a recall on whether the President will continue in office. In addition, I met with numerous business leaders from American companies, many in the energy sector, to hear their views on what is likely to happen to Venezuela, what is going to happen to Venezuela- United States relations, and what our policy should be there. Everyone I spoke with recommended the United States must strongly support a negotiation led by the OAS and the Carter Center aimed at resolving disputes related to holding the referendum. Typically, this would not be a dispute. They have many more signatures than is required for the referendum. However, an objection has been raised that signatures are not accurate as to the people. That is easy to check. I met with one of the mediators at the Carter Center who described to me the proposals his team and the OAS team had made to try to bridge the gap between the Chavez government and the opposition. When I asked if anyone outside of the government, any of the opposition in the business leaders actually think the Chavez government, and specifically President Chavez, will allow the continuation of this referendum to go forward, I got the same answer from all quarters. It was, ``No.'' Because of the way President Chavez has governed, because of the way he has tried to silence opponents, it is widely believed he will never allow the recall referendum to go forward. I hope he will hear this chorus of concern being expressed now from the Senate that under section 72 of the Venezuelan Constitution he should allow the process of democracy to work. Just last week, the Venezuelan National Election Commission announced procedures for conducting the reparos--the verification of over 1 million disputed signatures on the original recall petitions. For a few days at the end of May, those who signed the petitions will have the opportunity to come forward and present evidence that verifies their signature. It is a cumbersome process. Even if it works perfectly, and even if the signatures are legitimate, there may not be enough time to verify them all. That is another concern, that the process is being drug out purposely, so as to avoid the timeframes involved. But even worse, there is so little trust being expressed that the Chavez government is going to conduct the process fairly that the effort may be doomed even before it starts. This political crisis, which has been going on in one form or another in Venezuela for 3 or 4 years, leaves me deeply concerned about the direction of Venezuela and the prospects for its democracy. It is a tragedy that a country of such enormous promise, with vast natural resources, and a vibrant entrepreneurial population and well- modernized, could find itself in such a dire circumstance. I am afraid that the United States is not doing enough to make clear how much we have at stake in the protection of democracy in Venezuela. With a recent United Nations report indicating that a majority of the people in Latin America have their doubts about the value of democracy, we cannot afford to leave any doubt about where we, the United States, stand and what our policy is. I think we also have reason to worry about the impact on the economy in our hemisphere of a major oil supplier to the United States, the fourth largest supplier to the United States; we have to be concerned. What about the interests of the United States if suddenly Venezuela were destabilized? That is why I was so impressed with the impact that a statement by Senator John Kerry had on both the Government and the opposition in Venezuela. Senator Kerry's call for strong U.S. support for the Organization of American States and the Carter Center process genuinely shook up the Chavez government, and it gave renewed hope to the opposition. Without a sustained push by the United States at its highest levels, I have grave doubts that President Chavez will ever permit the referendum. Senator Kerry made this statement, much to the delight of the opposition in Venezuela, on March 19 of this year. It is a very strong statement on reform that is needed, and how the Chavez government needs to get behind democracy and stop the kind of direct attacks on the United States in which it is engaging. Now, other nations to which the United States should be reaching out, to use their influence as well: Brazil, Chile, Spain, and France, are all, in some respects, better positioned than the United States to try to influence the Venezuelan Government. But those states need to see sustained leadership from the United States. The threat to democracy in Venezuela is not, by any means, the only reason for our concern. President Chavez has caused us a number of other headaches recently. He struck up a close alliance with Fidel Castro. He has started to strike up an alliance with a gentleman named Morales in Bolivia who is trying to expand the drug trade in Bolivia. And there is extensive evidence of cooperation between Cuban and Venezuelan intelligence services. There is also the employment of a great number of Cuban nationals in Venezuela. Venezuela has provided assistance or, at a minimum, safe haven to even those who are drug runners, such as the FARC, a group that basically is involved in the drug trade, fighting the legitimate Government of Colombia. And the FARC continues to conduct a terrorist campaign against the Government and the people of Colombia. 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 a neighboring power; namely, Venezuela, give assistance to this brutal adversary, as they would go across the line into Venezuela. President Chavez has also made some truly outrageous statements, such as praising Iraqi insurgents who attack American soldiers. He has also tried to use his oil supply relationship to have a lever on the small nations in the Caribbean to get them to oppose U.S. policies. And President Chavez has threatened to cut off oil exports to the United States. Venezuela also suffers from a potent market in false documentation, such as passports and other identity cards. I am becoming increasingly concerned at the ease, by paying $800 or $900, of getting full documentation of everything from a passport to a driver's license, all of which is legitimate, simply by buying off officials. 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. We may have a net set up to try to protect people from coming into our borders, but Venezuelans can travel on their documents to European countries. And that begins to start the process of mischief. The Venezuelan Government is not doing nearly enough to put a stop to this practice. I had a friendly meeting with the Foreign Minister, and I raised all of these concerns with him. He said, with regard to the forged documents that are legion in Venezuela, that he was not aware of the problem. But 3 days after I left, the Government announced the arrest of nine people for trafficking in forged documents. I hope that is the beginning of a crackdown. If that is the case, I thank the Foreign Minister of Venezuela for taking my comments to heart. You can see that the whole picture adds up to a very disturbing conclusion. If things do not improve soon, I worry that we may eventually reach the point where we have to treat this Venezuelan Government as an unfriendly government that is hostile to U.S. interests. That is not what I want. And I do not think that is what the U.S. Government wants. In the interest of fostering free and fair elections and democracy in all of Latin America, that certainly is not what we want, that is not what the Organization of American States wants, but that seams the direction in which we are headed. That is one of the reasons for me making this statement to my colleagues in the Senate. If those deteriorating relations between our governments continue, that would be a tragedy for a longtime ally, and it would represent a reversal of the longstanding good relationship the United States and Venezuela have had. At this stage we cannot be anything but clear with the Venezuelan Government about the direction this relationship is headed. If Venezuela's democracy continues to be undermined by its Government, if President Chavez continues to side with those who are trying to be adversaries to the United States, and if Venezuela does not prove itself to be a reliable ally in the war on terrorism, if Venezuela does not continue to abide by its own constitution, then we will scarcely be able to draw any other conclusion from these actions. For this reason, I commend Senator Kerry for making crystal clear, in his statement of March 19 of this year, what the stakes are. He has made certain that no Venezuelan official can doubt that if the present course continues, things will get no easier for them in a future Kerry administration. My hope is this knowledge will cause the current American administration to make clear to President Chavez that our Government places a high priority on democracy, the rule of law, and responsible conduct in international relations, and that the Government of the United States will come down hard on the words and the deeds of the Chavez government and that Chavez' failure in these areas--it will be made clear--will have consequences, not only in his relations with us but in his relations around the world. This is a matter of grave importance when you consider how dependent we are on foreign oil. That is one reason. We have always relied on that oil coming out of Venezuela. So many of our refineries on the gulf coast of the United States are established to handle the kind of oil with its content to be able to refine it into American fuel. Many other refineries in the world don't have that capability. So it is clearly in Venezuela's interest that they continue that commerce and continue good relations with the United States. I hope and pray our relations will improve and that we will get back into the longstanding friendship we have had for years and years. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I yield to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I defer to the leadership. I have some remarks to make on another subject as in morning business, to come out of my hour with regard to the motion to proceed.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I join with our colleagues and just tell Senator Byrd what a mentor he has been to the newer Members of the Senate. There are moments and experiences here that one never, never will forget. I will never forget the first time, with somewhat trembling knees, I rose to give my first speech. In the course of that speech, I happened to mention it was my maiden speech in the Senate. Of course, I was speaking to an empty Chamber, except for the Presiding Officer. All of a sudden, the doors swing open and in strides Senator Byrd. As I finished my remarks, Senator Byrd rose to his feet and said: Will the Senator yield? And then proceeded to give a history of the maiden speeches of the Senate. What a mark upon this junior Senator, what a pleasant memory that he is such a great mentor to all of us. We thank him. I thank the Chair.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Isn't it interesting, if you will put the other chart up there--Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding for a question--how the old labels don't mean anything anymore--what is conservative and what is liberal. We are now looking at record deficits, and they say this is a conservative budget? It seems to me it is exactly the opposite, that the reckless spending and tax policies that end up with fiscal policy that is running the country into debt are exactly the opposite of conservative fiscal policy. To the contrary, it is reckless liberal policy that is driving our country into economic doldrums. Does the Senator agree?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, as the Senator did yield, I ask the Senator, our ranking member on the Budget Committee, isn't it interesting that when we voted on all these issues in the Budget Committee and on the floor of the Senate, that organizations that rate the votes, even respected organizations such as the National Journal, when they determined what is liberal and what is conservative, in the votes the Senator from North Dakota and I were casting against raising the deficit in the outyears, lo and behold, they rated our vote as liberal when, in fact, our vote is conservative, not to run the country, over the next 10 years, into this extraordinary national debt that is going to build up like it is a rocket taking off.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question, I ask our leader on the Budget Committee: How in the world could our friends, who call themselves conservatives, vote for anything but a conservative budget such as this that, as the Senator from North Dakota has characterized it, is radical? How could our friends, who claim they want to protect the Social Security surplus, vote for a budget that raids all of that surplus to finance tax cuts, primarily for the more well-to-do? How could our friends, who call themselves conservative, in fact, finance a lot of this budget for a prescription drug benefit that was a bailout to the pharmaceutical and insurance companies, and, lo and behold, was not what it was sold as--$400 billion over 10 years--but, instead, $535 billion? How could our conservative friends vote for a budget like this?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I came here to talk about the future of Iraq. I am just going to make a few comments because we are in Iraq. We better be successful there. The stability of that country, politically and economically, is extremely important to the interests of the United States. If it is destabilized, or if we cut and run, a vacuum is going to be created. That vacuum is going to be filled. It is going to be filled by terrorists, somewhat akin to what happened after the Soviets got whipped in 1989 in Afghanistan. They left and we left also. We were in there clandestinely. Of course, that created a vacuum and that vacuum was eventually filled by the Taliban. And then, of course, the Taliban provided protection for al-Qaida, the beginning of that network. We see the result, the painful, painful result, not only with the beginning of the 1993 attempted destruction of the World Trade Center but the completion of that plan to destroy it in 2001 and then the many other bombings that have occurred around the world. So we better be successful. We have young men and women--we have old men and women over there, too--doing a fantastic job for us. Not just service men and women wearing the uniform of this country; these are men and women who are not wearing the uniform of this country but are in equally as important positions such as the CIA, the State Department, AID, all of the American companies that are over there in the reconstruction effort--the nongovernment groups that are over there trying to help out the Iraqi people. As we approach this 1-year anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein, it is appropriate to consider what lies ahead for the Iraqi people and what lies ahead for the American people who made some progress now in the reconstruction of Iraq. There is now an Iraqi transitional administrative law which outlines the basic principles upon which a free and Democratic Iraq will be governed. But trying to get democracy across to a community, to a society that has lived under repression for so long--

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent I have an additional 7 minutes.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. The responsiveness we have had thus far, I must say, is nothing short of remarkable. But there are still many concerns that I have about the reconstruction of that country. The first is that we have an administrative law that hands control over to the Iraqis, but it hasn't been spelled out. It seems as though the decisions and the actions in Iraq are being driven by an artificial deadline--June 30. Why June 30? Are we ready to hand over to these institutions that have no experience in democracy in another 3 months? I don't think so. An expeditious transfer of power to Iraqis certainly may be desirable, but we shouldn't put the cart before the horse and give sovereignty to a governing body that may be less than fully able to handle the political, military, economic, religious, and ethnic strife that may arise from such a premature handover. That would put American lives further at risk and would jeopardize the entirety of our reconstruction efforts today. I am also concerned about the nature of the United States presence in Iraq after the turnover. Will a government, a new Iraqi government within this short period of time 3 months from now, have sufficient legitimacy among the Shiite, Sunni, and Kurds--all of them--to maintain the presence of our troops who are so desperately needed to maintain the security and stability of that country? The disagreements over the presence of the troops, not even to think of the disagreements over the number of our troops and other political issues involving a successor government which could give rise to civil, religious and/or ethnic strife--guess who would be right in the middle. It would be our U.S. troops. The transitional administrative law does not include an agreement for the stationing of U.S. forces. That gives rise to the prospect of U.S. forces fighting well-armed militia groups in addition to the security threats they face every day. What are they facing every day? Improvised devices that are designed to lure our troops to them and then kill or maim our U.S. service men and women. In addition, the Coalition Provisional Authority now has been working hard to stand up an indigenous Iraq security and defense force. I went to one of those police training academies outside of Amman, Jordan. It was impressive. But within an 8- or 16-week course, they were only going to be able to train about 1,500 policemen. I am concerned about whether this force is going to be adequately staffed, resourced, and ready for the tremendous task of law and order in Iraq after the turnover on June 30. Moreover, if these indigenous security efforts fall short and significant disagreements lead to an unraveling of a unified and sovereign Iraq, guess who is going to be on the ground as Iraq dissolves into many religious and ethnic community conflicts. You got it. The United States service men and women are going to be in the middle of it. The political dissolution of Iraq is something the United States must take every precaution to avoid. That is another reason not to let the artificial deadlines drive the Iraqi reconstruction. I am concerned also about the role of religion in the future of Iraq. The transitional administrative law stipulates Islam will be considered a source of legislation. I don't have any problem with Islam. That is their faith. But it seems this provision has satisfied neither those who wish for a secular government nor those who wish for an Islamic state. The United States must more clearly and urgently demand freedom for all religions and protect against the persecution of any particular religion. We cannot allow religious extremism to permeate Iraqi society in spirit and practice, deed, or law. I am concerned about the economy of Iraq. Think about it. We appropriated $18 billion for the reconstruction effort that is starting to enter Iraqi society. For the next 6 to 8 months, $18 billion will be infused to building roads and bridges and restoring wetlands, water systems, and electrical systems. This is going to be a country flush with U.S. dollars. My worry is the Iraqi economy is going to become heavily dependent on U.S. dollars. This puts an enormous burden on the U.S. taxpayer. What happens after this appropriation dries up? I urge the administration not only to call on the international community, as we did during the Afghan war and following the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan, but that we call on other countries and make them follow through on their pledges for financial assistance. Finally, I am concerned about the distinctly American nature of reconstruction efforts. The President promised Congress he would work closely to build international support for our efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein. While we are grateful for the few nations providing personnel, Operation Iraqi Freedom is predominantly an American program. Some may argue that it may not matter whether other nations participate or how other nations view our efforts in Iraq and the global war on terrorism. But this Senator, and I think a lot of Senators, would beg to differ. This is an important part. This is a very important part of keeping more allies involved. It would so much improve our chances of obtaining critical assistance from other Arab countries, especially the Arab countries in that region, as well as other nations of the world that now are reluctant to participate. I wanted to get these thoughts off my chest about this looming deadline of June 30. I wanted to, as we say in some corners, look over the horizon at what may be coming and how America needs to prepare for what may be coming in that strife-torn country of Iraq. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator is very kind. I must admit I became more of an environmentalist when I went into space because I got to see the entire ecosystem at once. I got to see how beautiful it is, yet how fragile it is. From that perspective, when I looked at the rim of the Earth and saw that thin little film which is the atmosphere, I came home from that space flight absolutely committed that I wanted to do my part to be a better steward of what the good Lord has given us. He has given us this beautiful planet in the middle of nothing. Space is nothing. Space is an airless vacuum that goes on and on for billions and billions of light-years, and there in the midst of it is our home, our planet. One of the reasons I want to go to Mars--of course I myself won't have that opportunity. That ought to be over the course of the next 30 years. I would like to think that at my age, at that time, I would still be physically fit to go to Mars, but that is for the next generation. But one of the reasons I am so intrigued about going to Mars is what the two Rovers up there right now have been discovering in the last few days, that in fact there was water there. If there were water, then there was likely life. If there were life, how developed was it? And if it were developed, was it civilized? And if it were civilized, what happened? What can we learn from what happened there so that we can become better stewards of our planet? Is that liberal or conservative? It is neither. It is good common sense. In fact, it is. It is conservative, coming from the word ``conserve,'' the environment. Yet all these groups that come out here and rate you on how you vote and say because you are voting for clean water and clean air, that is somehow a liberal vote? That is my point. The old labels don't mean anything anymore. I think that is beginning to penetrate in the American public. What they want is performance by their elected officials, all the way from the White House to the courthouse.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I could not help but think, as my colleague from Minnesota was delivering a wonderful and inspiring set of remarks, that is it not interesting, I would say to the Senator from Minnesota, that the old labels of liberal and conservative do not mean anything anymore. The American people are catching on because what they want is performance. They do not want people just pegged into these neat little categories, these labels, because as the Senator has so eloquently stated, the old labels do not perform because it is not business as usual. Whether it be the White House or the Congress or the State legislatures or the Governors, those labels do not mean anything. In fact, those labels are being turned absolutely upside down in this particular year, for we find ourselves voting on things that some critics would want to claim are liberal, but is it liberal to want to lower the annual deficit so the national debt does not increase by half a trillion dollars a year? To the contrary, that is conservative fiscal policy. As the Senator has said so eloquently, is it liberal or conservative to want to provide jobs for Americans? It is neither. It is good, common sense--performance for our people. Is it liberal or conservative to want to stop the flight of jobs to other countries, that overworked word of ``outsourcing''? I say to the Senator from Minnesota, there is going to be another twist on the question of outsourcing when they start outsourcing the jobs to the point at which they are handling personally identifiable medical and personally identifiable financial information of which our laws in this country protect its privacy, but in India or in China there are no laws that protect that privacy. When our people suddenly find that their very sensitive personal medical records are suddenly made available on the worldwide Web because there is no protection of privacy because those jobs have been outsourced to India or to China, they are going to have another think coming, as we would say in the South. So the old labels don't mean anything anymore. Is it liberal to support the environment? I would say that is conservative. I would say when you become a good steward of what the good Lord has endowed us with, which is this beautiful planet suspended in the middle of nothing with a thin little film enveloping the planet called an atmosphere, and when you despoil that air, when you despoil the water, and when you rape the land, it is conservative to want to protect that environment, but that is not the label, liberal or conservative. I am glad the Senator has given his speech about jobs. I am going to continue to give my speeches about what it is not to be liberal or conservative, not to be partisan, but to try to perform for the American people and perform for the States we are privileged to represent.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to congratulate two exceptional high school students from my home State of Florida. Just this March, Emily Neumeier of Tampa and Christine Banks of St. Petersburg were selected from a competitive pool of 800 participants as winners in a nationwide ``If I Were President Competition . . .'' These two young scholars were among 50 award- winners who each received a $1,000 scholarship from the contest sponsor Freedom's Answer--a student-run, nonpartisan and nonprofit organization that increases civic participation among youth. I would like to commend the contest organizers, entry evaluators, participants and winners for involving youth in politics and contributing to the well-being of American democracy. Again, I would like to recognize Emily and Christine for a job well done and wish them all the best in the future. Maybe one of them will even be President one day.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, my compliments to the majority leader on the way in which he offered leadership for the Senate on a rather rigorous and very lengthy discussion of the budget over the last several days. My thanks to him for the hospitality he provided in the course of a very long evening. And my compliments and congratulations to the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Nickles, and to Senator Conrad, the ranking member, for the extraordinarily bipartisan fashion, as the hours of the evening wore on and as nerves began to fray, of keeping a calm and cool deliberation in the midst of 300 amendments that had been filed. Those 300 amendments would have kept us here all day today, all day Saturday, all day Sunday, and well into Monday. Yet with that leadership, the chairman and the ranking member were able to get reasonable minds to come together and find consensus and therefore withdraw many amendments. That was a testimony and showed the Senate working its will. I asked for this time because I want to comment on one part of the budget that was passed last night. In the wee hours of the morning, an amendment was passed by unanimous consent, sponsored by Senator Sessions, Senator Shelby, this Senator from Florida, and Senator Graham of Florida. It was an amendment to bring the level of funding for NASA provided in the budget resolution up to the level requested by the President. This was no small amount of money, for what had come out of the Budget Committee, over my objection, was a cut to America's space program, as evidenced in the NASA budget, of $631 million. My pleas in the course of our deliberations in the Budget Committee to get the White House to step forward and to support its request for its full funding at a level of $16.2 billion, went unheeded. Indeed, those pleas went unheeded for the White House to support its own budget on NASA all the way up through the end of the deliberations this entire week until around 1 o'clock this morning. It was only when Senator Sessions and Senator Shelby each put their foot down to let the chairman of the Budget Committee know that their votes on final passage were questionable unless that was brought up to the level of the President's request did we successfully get inserted into the budget an amendment that would bring NASA up to the $16.2 billion. Where was the White House and why did it take--and I give great credit to Senator Shelby--that long, with my encouragement and that of others, to get the budget resolution amended so when this budget resolution is ultimately passed after conference with the House of Representatives there will not be such a financial straitjacket on NASA so the appropriations committees could not give the adequate funding to NASA? Yet that is what we were faced with at 1 o'clock this morning. Where is the White House? That is the subject of my commentary. There is no greater supporter in the Senate for America's space program than this Senator from Florida, who has had the great privilege of being a part of the space program. There is no greater need than the need at this particular time for the full funding of the President's request, with all that NASA has on its plate. It has, not only the new initiative announced by the President back in January of going back to the Moon and then eventually to Mars--of course, no funding really being provided for that, the major funding being provided in the President's announcement in the outyears--but all the other things on NASA's plate. We had a major space disaster, the second one that occurred within the span of 17 years. Now, as a result of an excellent report brought forth by Admiral Geman's commission, we understand what specific things need to be done to fix the problem and to get back into flight. Of course, it is going to cost a lot of money to make those fixes, and indeed the downtime is costing NASA all kinds of turmoil and uncertainty. For us not to have the White House step forward and say with vigor that they support their budget request for NASA caused us to just narrowly, by the skin of our teeth, avert a disaster of almost passing a budget resolution last night that was $631 million under the President's request. There is too much riding on our exploring the heavens for this extremely prestigious and very productive program of the United States called America's space program. As we explore the heavens, we continue to push out the frontiers of our knowledge, and as we develop the technology to do that, that then translates into magnificent enhancement in the quality of our lives as the technology from the space program is applied to our normal, everyday lives. I call on the White House. I call on the leadership of NASA. We cannot take for granted just because the President has announced a major new initiative that it is going to get funded. Indeed, we are swimming upstream. The immediate reaction of the American people to the President's initiative was they didn't support it. There is only one person who can lead the space program. That is the President or the Vice President. A Senator can't lead it. The administrator of NASA can't lead it, particularly on bold new initiatives. It has to be the White House that leads it. I implore the White House and NASA to step forward and support your report. Otherwise, we are going to get into a situation where mistakes of omission are going to occur like almost occurred last night. Suddenly we are going to find ourselves with a final budget product that is going to straitjacket NASA with less funds than the President requested. Now more than ever NASA needs those funds to return to flight as safely as possible. I say that because space flight is risky. But it is a risk worth taking because of the expansion of our knowledge and the fulfilling of our desire in our inner souls to be explorers and adventurers, a characteristic of the American people. I felt compelled to share these thoughts as one of the biggest boosters of the U.S. space program--indeed, the world's space program. For we are in an international venture with other nations of this world on the international space station, sharing various citizens of the world on different avenues, namely, American rockets through the space shuttle and European and Russian rockets on other space ventures. It is important the White House back their request vigorously. I hope and I expect they will do so, and then we will continue to have an excellent space program. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent Senators Corzine, Mikulski, Schumer, and Nelson of Nebraska be added as cosponsors to my amendment.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we have arrived at the moment of truth on veterans. Veterans have been all over this Capitol today pleading their case regarding their health care. There is not one Member from any one of our 50 states who has not heard from veterans the tales of woe, the tales of inefficiency, the tales of long waits, waits as much as 6 months to get an appointment with a VA doctor to get a prescription. The way I approached this amendment was to go to the deliberations of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and to find and be guided by their bipartisan analysis of the Veterans' Administration budget, concluding we must add $1.8 billion in order to adequately fund the health care requirements of veterans. Listen to the words of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs when he testified last month to the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. Secretary Principi said: I asked for $1.2 billion more than I received. In other words, even the Secretary of the VA is calling for more money. The President's budget makes up the difference for these cuts in trying to rely on copayments from veterans on enrollment fees. To pay, the administration has tried to impose this tax--and it is a tax--on the hard-earned benefits of veterans in the past, but the Congress has not and is not going to allow it. We simply cannot accept a budget that includes access fees and higher prescription drug copayments. What this budget assumes is the number of VA patients requiring mental health care will decrease next year. If you believe that, you believe in the tooth fairy because the bipartisan analysis of our own Veterans' Affairs Committee finds no basis for this assumption and wholeheartedly rejects the President's $60 million cut in the funding for mental health care. To make matters worse on veterans health care, there are 60,000 veterans nationwide who have enrolled in the VA and have waited for 6 months or longer for an appointment. This is according to the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. Failure to provide more funds is going to result in longer waits and a higher risk to the quality of the care. Then there are a couple of other complicating factors. If anyone thinks because we have so many World War II veterans and because of their age their numbers are declining, think of all the veterans who were deployed in our Armed Forces serving in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom: 287,000 service members have served or are serving in those missions. The veterans health system has struggled, to make matters worse, with war-related problems from the first gulf war, with hundreds of thousands of American soldiers serving on the ground, while we cannot begin to estimate future demand on the veterans health system. Indeed, because of wonderful improvements in the way our military operates its health care on the battlefield, this present operation in Iraq has fewer deaths. But because of the nature of the war, there are many more injuries. At the end of November of last year, a few months ago, the number of soldiers medically evacuated from Iraq was almost 11,000, both battle and nonbattle related. This means what? It means our veterans are surviving at higher rates, hallelujah, but they are going to also, more likely, depend on the VA for future medical care related to those injuries. When we look at the President's budget for the Veterans' Administration, it reflects only a 1.8 percent increase in medical care funding over last year's appropriation. Overall medical care inflation, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, was 4 percent. So if we have medical care inflation at 4 percent with the President's budget only rising at something under 2 percent for veterans medical care funding, where is that going to leave our veterans? We must recognize the health care costs are growing more rapidly and reflect this in the rapid rise in the VA budget. From where do I get it? I get it from tax loopholes. Since I only have 10 minutes, I will not give examples of tax loopholes. If anyone wants these examples, they have been discussed over the course of the last several days. It is simple. Take the money, $1.8 billion increase for veterans medical care, which is woefully, inadequately funded in the President's budget and you get that out of closing tax loopholes where corporations are taking advantage of tax provisions that, in essence, allow them to pay less taxes than are owed. It is a simple tradeoff. That is what I am proposing. Why don't we do something for the veterans? I reserve the remainder of my time.