Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we have passed the supplemental appropriations bill. Because of the lateness of the hour last evening, and the fact that the House had already adjourned, having sent an emergency spending bill to us that basically included disaster relief money to FEMA, almost $1 billion, we were left with a choice of having to take it or leave it. It certainly was necessary for funding for FEMA for all kinds of emergencies. But, unfortunately, we did not have the opportunity to amend the bill to add additional items of very necessary funding. One of those is the ongoing investigation into what happened to the Space Shuttle Columbia. This commission was established by NASA and headed by retired Navy Admiral Gayman. I have personally visited with them several times, and I am quite impressed with the professionalism of the individual members of the Columbia commission. Certainly I am impressed with the professionalism and the dedication of Admiral Gayman as we anticipate the forthcoming report about what happened to the space shuttle. What was the cause? What is the fix? I think we can anticipate we are going to see them go much deeper into the organization of NASA itself as to what can be improved. I want to talk about that for a minute. Let me get to the point about my coming to the floor so I can address this issue. They did not get the money appropriated which they need to continue the investigation. The only place conceivably they could get it is to take it right out of the hide of NASA. Of course, NASA has been starved over the last 10 years, which is part of the reason we got to this point in the first place. Safety was not given the priority it should have been given. Often safety is a reflection of where the resources--the money--is going. Thus, over that decade, right up until recently, NASA was starved of funds and, therefore, they were taking money out of space shuttle safety upgrades and putting it into other areas. That is one of the problems I think the Gayman commission will identify as their report comes forward. But the supplemental appropriations bill that we passed last night did not provide the appropriation of $50 million for the Gayman commission when, in fact, it is ongoing and it will be reporting. The long and short of it is that when we come back in session in September, that is one of the items we will have to address immediately. I think the will is clearly here in the Senate. From talking to the leadership on both sides of the aisle, I think the will is clearly here, and that is an item that we will have to attend to. Let me say a couple of words about the investigation and what I think they might find. Clearly, the dramatic evidence they have is that this piece of foam that covered one of the support structures for the strut that attaches to the orbiter came off after launch during the ascent. It came off at such a rate and velocity, hitting the leading edge of the wing--that reinforced carbon--that it just blew a hole in it. Yet when the space shuttle got into orbit many engineers in the space agency were saying we ought to take photographs of it. That was denied. The capability of those high resolution photographs is well known, well established, and well reported in the press. That would have shown the breach. The breach was estimated to be probably a half foot. With that kind of photography available, NASA managers would have been able to clearly see it. Then the question is, What would you do about it? They had the capability because we had another space shuttle already stacked. It was back in the vehicle assembly building. It could have been processed; it could have been done double time. They could have rolled it out to the pad. Unless there was a major hitch, they could have launched it. They could have gotten this launched as a rescue shuttle in time. Another option was they could have done an EVA--that is an acronym for space walk--from Columbia in orbit. The ingenuity of NASA in a time of peril is just incredible. What that space team, that space family can do to figure out how to take care of problems and how to meet emergencies is incredible. Let us not forget Apollo 13. On the way to the Moon, the major engines exploded. They were losing oxygen. They were losing air pressure. That team went into emergency mode and they figured out how to get those three Apollo astronauts back into the lunar lander. Then they figured out how to use the motor of the lunar lander. As the gravity of the Moon caught them and pulled them behind the Moon, they used that motor to kick them out of lunar orbit onto a trajectory back to Earth. All reasonable people thought we were going to have three dead astronauts. Yet the NASA team, the NASA family, even the astronaut who had been bumped from the flight because he had been exposed to the measles--he was on the ground--could go into the simulator and work it real time--figured out how to bring them back. That team, headed by astronaut Jim Lovell, who was in the spacecraft, came back home. They came back home safely. It was an incredible time. It is just another example of the ingenuity and the high-pressure decisionmaking that NASA's family and its team is capable of doing. Had they known that a hole was blown into the leading edge of the left wing of the Space Shuttle Columbia this past February, they, too, would have been able to figure out something that they could do in a space walk to stuff it in. That may not have saved them but we could have tried. I think the Gayman report will discuss these issues. But I think the Gayman report is also going to discuss some additional points. It has been well reported in the press that you can expect they are going to talk about the lack of communication and the culture of NASA that discourages communication from the bottom up. That is a culture that leads to intimidation of people coming forth into the open--a culture in which the managers are not encouraging that information. It is kind of like water. It is very easy for water to flow from the top down, but it is very difficult for water to flow from the bottom up. You have to encourage that communication for it to occur. Interestingly, this same kind of problem occurred 17 years ago in the destruction of the Space Shuttle Challenger. There were engineers in Provo, UT, at Morton Thiokol begging their management the night before to stop the countdown on the Space Shuttle Challenger because they feared the cold weather was going to stiffen those rubberized gaskets called O-rings which would on launch allow the hot gases to come through the joints of the solid rocket boosters, which is exactly what happened, and it caused the destruction of the Space Shuttle Challenger. There is a logical reason why it was destroyed, but there is also a culture reason why it was destroyed. That culture was a lack of communication. It was a culture in NASA that did not encourage communication, that was almost intimidation if you dared challenge the authority. When you are dealing in a research and development agency that is as good as NASA is, you can only expect the very best flow of information in all directions. So I am looking forward to Admiral Gayman's commission report, which I think will be very helpful as we try to get this problem fixed and get flying again so we can get on with America's space program. Once we address all these culture issues, it is going to be the responsibility of this Congress to help NASA develop a new goal, a new vision, a new mission, that will ignite again the imagination of the American people. I think in large part that is going to be either us going back to the moon with a lunar colony and/or the next major bold step of sending an international team from planet Earth to planet Mars. That will be an exciting day. In the meantime, however, we have to do what we did not do last night. We have to fund the investigation as to the destruction of Columbia. We have to fund that commission, and not out of the hide of NASA, so that those NASA moneys are not taken away from upgrades in safety. Instead, we have to fund that as we had promised we would fund it. Mr. President, there was another program we did not fund last night. It is clearly the majority opinion in this Senate that we want to fund AmeriCorps, that we want to continue to have young people have a financial incentive to help out their country, just like we do in the Peace Corps. We have been down to only 7,500 people in the Peace Corps. We need to at least get that up to 25,000. I have had foreign leaders over the course of the last two and a half decades tell me the Peace Corps is one of the best things America has going for it in our foreign relations. Also, young people who want to help their country, but not necessarily to do so abroad, ought to be able to do so at home. But, instead, what do we see? The House of Representatives cutting AmeriCorps. So one of the things we wanted to do last night was to add to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill an additional amount of money so AmeriCorps could stay at least at its present level so it was not cut. That was not done. I am sad it was not done. In the judgment of this Senator, that clearly was not in the best interests of the country. Indeed, I would like to see a day in which every young person in America would have an obligation to their country for 1 or 2 years. And that obligation could be their choice of national service. They could go into the military. They could go into the Peace Corps. They could go into AmeriCorps; part of that, the Job Corps. They could go in as teachers' aides. They could do innumerable tasks and, in return, have some financial incentives for their own education, something akin to what we did after the Great War, the GI Bill, where soldiers could come back and go to school. The politics is not right for that. It would be costly. But that is a goal I think we ought to work toward. Instead, what we are doing is exactly the opposite by cutting AmeriCorps.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am proud to live in a country where so many citizens volunteer their time to serve their Nation. The United States has always had a strong tradition of volunteerism. And my pride is bolstered by a surge in participation at volunteer organizations--including AmeriCorps--since the September 11 terrorist attacks. Our Nation depends on such volunteer organizations to provide crucial community services. For example, AmeriCorps enlists the help of our Nation's youth to tutor and mentor children, build affordable housing, teach computer skills, clean parks and streams, run afterschool programs and help respond to disasters in communities that wouldn't otherwise have such services. At a time when our Nation's youth are turning out in record numbers to volunteer and our communities are facing budget crises, you would think that Congress would make funding for our national service programs a high priority. But it has done the opposite. Before they left town last week, the Republican-controlled House rebuffed attempts to provide $10 million for the program. As a result, AmeriCorps will drop 20,000 of its 50,000 volunteer slots this year. This dramatic downsizing during these tough economic times will deprive communities of needed help, and young volunteers of a small stipend they need to pay for college or student loans. We know the program has a history of mismanagement--and those problems are being fixed. In fact, the President this month announced an overhaul of the agency's management. But the mistakes of a few at the top shouldn't jeopardize the opportunities for young volunteers or the communities that rely on the services they provide. There is no questioning the essential role AmeriCorps plays in helping communities and promoting volunteerism in America. In order for volunteers to make the greatest possible impact on society, we must continue our support for this and other national service programs. I hope when we return in September, we can provide AmeriCorps the support it needs to put our Nation's eager recruits to work in communities that depend on their help.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I have been trying to find the appropriate wrinkle in this important debate on the Energy bill to share with the Senate something that I heard on the radio this morning that almost caused me to drive off the road. Given the fact that we have, over the last couple of weeks, just gone through and passed an important bill with regard to the Department of Homeland Defense, given the fact that former Senators Warren Rudman and Gary Hart have compiled a major report continuing to warn us that we are dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack in the U.S., and given the fact that we are all, every day, reminded of the war on terror and how we are going to protect ourselves, something I heard on the radio this morning makes me wonder that we must not be listening. According to intelligence reports made public yesterday, terrorists may be plotting suicide missions by hijacking commercial airliners, most likely in the United States, but clearly it could be anywhere in the world. Such a plot is detailed in a memo from our own Transportation Security Administration. I want to quote from it: The plan may involve the use of five-man teams, each of which would attempt to seize control of a commercial aircraft either shortly after takeoff or shortly before landing at a chosen airport. This type of operation would preclude the need for flight-trained hijackers. Madam President, the threat that we face from terrorist organizations is still with us ever since we were rudely awakened on September 11. And interestingly, at the same time that we are informed of these potential new terrorist plots, the Transportation Security Administration, in a shocking disclosure that I heard on the radio today, reportedly intends to cancel air marshals on some of our most vulnerable commercial flights. And if that is not enough, they are reportedly also cutting back on the training for new air marshals. In the wake of these reports, the agency says it has every available air marshal deployed right now and additional resources are being directed to this critical program. I certainly hope so. The air marshal program was instituted as the front line of defense against would-be hijackers. Just knowing there is someone trained and armed who is usually sitting in the first-class section if somebody is trying to bust forward into the cockpit is a great comfort. What is the reasoning behind these reported cuts I heard on the radio that almost caused me to run off the road? It is that the Transportation Security Administration does not want to pay for the hotel rooms for the air marshals for overnight stays. What price do we pay for security? That is almost like saying, while we are at it, we are going to get rid of the x-ray machines in security lines at the airports because we want to save on electricity, which, of course, is a ridiculous argument. The Transportation Security Administration, according to the news reports, says it is trying to save $104 million. That might be a laudable goal, but I suggest we ought to start looking at the $8 million program that has already been spent in the Pentagon that has recently come to the fore and has caused such a flap. That is the program that would allow people to gamble on on the likelihood of terrorist attacks and assassinations, on which we have all joined in mutual disgust--that there was such a program. Now having been denied that program, it will not continue, said the Deputy Secretary of Defense in testimony yesterday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and yet that was an $8 million program. I have been waiting all day to say--and I thank the Senators for their indulgence--that when it comes to the defense of our citizens, we cannot afford to cut corners. If we do, we will have forgotten the lessons of September 11. I hope the radio report I heard this morning that they are seriously considering cutting back on the air marshals program is not true. Clearly, let's not forget the lessons of September 11. I thank the Chair.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Yes, for perhaps only 3 or 4 minutes.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I will accommodate the leadership. Whatever is the pleasure of the leadership.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished presiding Senator, the great Senator from the State of Alaska. I had the privilege of visiting his State en route to China with the majority leader a couple months ago. We used, as a convenient place for refueling, the Air Force base in Anchorage. That is a wonderful land the Presiding Officer comes from. It was a great privilege to visit, especially with our troops that are providing for the defense of our country. Speaking of that, I continue to be amazed at the courage and the ability of our men and women in uniform in service to this country and those not in uniform in places such as Iraq, where I visited 2 weeks ago. In talking with those soldiers, anyone could see how dedicated they are. At the same time, we recognize those soldiers are uncomfortable. It is hot, 120 degrees, and it is dangerous. As a matter of fact, we see the effects of premeditated assassination, the so-called resistance. It is taking form in three different ways. It is extremely lethal. Indeed, over the past week, on the average, two of our American soldiers per day have been murdered, some of them by RPGs, rocket-propelled grenades, often fired into armored convoys; some of them by landmines detonated by remote control device placed usually where the road narrows; and some of them purely by assassination with a small handgun, as in the case of the Florida soldier killed the night before I arrived. The Florida soldier was pulling guard duty. A delegation had gone into the university and they were protecting them, looking out for their interests. In the midst of the melee, someone in the crowd comes up behind him and taps him on the shoulder. He turns around and they shoot him in that unprotected area above the body armor and below the helmet. This is the kind of premeditated assassination we see. It is clearly my hope, and the hope of everyone, that we would have some diminution of this killing as the Saddam Hussein regime is brought to account now with the demise of the two sons and along with what I think will be the capture--whether alive or not, I don't know--of Saddam Hussein himself. Iraq has become a place, as reports in the press have indicated, where others are coming into Iraq to try to do damage to American interests. So it is going to cause us to be all the more vigilant. Clearly, the stakes have never been higher for the United States to stabilize Iraq, both politically and economically, just as we need to do so in Afghanistan in our war against terror. I came here today to speak on the Energy bill which is before us. I want to discuss this issue that not only affects the lives of every American but also impacts the Nation's security. That is what we are debating, energy policy. These energy issues we are going to be debating this week affect everyone. They affect the air we breathe. The policy affects the cars we drive, the lights that illuminate our lives, and the electricity bills we pay. I would like to be able to go home this August, after we recess, and tell people in my home State of Florida that the Senate made a difference, that we have changed some of the energy policy so that we are going to, hopefully, have more efficient homes and more efficient cars and cleaner air and, most importantly, more peace of mind. It is my hope what this Senate will do is decrease our dependence on foreign oil. I served in the House of Representatives years ago. I had come into the Congress in 1978. We were in an energy shortage. A bunch of nations on the other side of planet Earth had joined a cartel and decided to reduce production. That had caused panic buying, it caused the price of energy--the price of oil--to go way up. The United States, as it was trying to enact an energy policy at the time, looking for alternative fuels, looking toward encouraging renewable sources of energy such as wind and Sun, also did something else. We have salt domes underneath the ground, down in Louisiana. We started filling those salt domes with a strategic petroleum reserve so we would be able to tap into an instantly ready source of oil if the spigot in those foreign lands was shut off. What is the likelihood of that in the future? A study of military history will teach us about certain chokepoints, geographical chokepoints. For example, the Straits of Gibraltar are considered a military chokepoint. Let me tell you about one of the most dramatic chokepoints I ever saw, and I saw it from the window of a spacecraft, 203 miles above the Earth as our ground track on the orbit came right down the Persian Gulf, looking straight down at the Strait of Hormuz, a 19-mile-wide area, a chokepoint, a military chokepoint of the Persian Gulf, that 19-mile-wide strait through which most of the supertankers of the world have to pass. Talk about a target for a terrorist. Indeed, the Strait of Hormuz--if the terrorists were ever to be successful in sinking a couple of supertankers there, you can imagine what would happen to the flow of the oil to the industrialized world. We would immediately be in crisis. Are we going to continue to rely on foreign oil for our daily consumption? Remember back a while, we made a commitment that we would stabilize our greenhouse gas emissions. That was done over 10 years ago. I hope now the Senate has decided to make good on that promise and put in place a climate change policy and a modest cap and trade system that is going to help us stop our ever increasing emission of harmful pollutants into our fragile atmosphere. I am somewhat amused and perplexed that there continues this debate over whether or not global warming is real. About 98 percent of the scientists say it is real. If you come from a State such as mine, Florida, with its hundreds and hundreds of miles of coastline, you had better be prepared for it being real. Yet almost all of those affected--the business industry, the insurance industry--are ignoring the fact the climate on planet Earth is warming. Let me tell you what that will do for a place such as Florida. As the seas rise, as the temperature rises, the coastal areas are threatened. They are threatened not only by the rise of the level of the sea but by the rise of the level in temperature which brings about much more violent storms and much greater plague and pestilence. So often we do not confront a problem until it is upon us. Yet the fact is, global warming is upon us. So what should we do? We should be concerned about that outer layer of the atmosphere, of it having the appropriate environmental ability to deflect the ultraviolet rays that come into the atmosphere and eat up the atmosphere. Emissions from fossil fuel burning go into the atmosphere, and they start to diminish that ozone layer which protects against the ultraviolet rays, the result of which is that it has this greenhouse effect on planet Earth, starting to warm up the planet. Sooner or later, we are going to have to face the music. That is what is happening to our planet. Yet are we enacting governmental policies that will protect us? That is what I am hoping, that we will have a Senate that will stand up, before the heat of this August recess, and say we are going to do something about it. I would also like to go home this August and say to my constituents that, although we have been talking about diversifying our fuel sources for years, we are now starting to make progress; we have tax credits; we have tax incentives; we have loan guarantees; we have renewable portfolio standards in place to spur production and use of clean and renewable fuels. I hope this is possible because we are living in historic times and the policies we enact should reflect the gravity of the issues we face. I am intrigued that all across this land, particularly in areas of high wind velocity, now we are building wind farms. To farmers, a wind farm can now be a profitable venture, leasing their land for the erection of high-technology windmills that will generate electricity. Sooner or later, we are going to figure out how to harness another major source of energy, the energy of the tides of the ocean. We already know how to harness the energy of the sun. Everything here is a question of economics. Is it economical to do so? It is, the more the price of oil goes up. As the cost of oil goes up because of diminishing supply--be that just by virtue of time or be that by virtue of interdiction of that supply such as a terrorist sinking a supertanker or whatever the reason is--we ought to be looking to these alternative and renewable fuels. Over and over again, Members of the Senate and Members of the House have decried the fact that our Nation's energy consumption is held hostage by the oil production of these other nations, some of which we don't get along with too well. That should bother us. It should make us want to enact policies we know will lessen our consumption of foreign oil. (Mrs. DOLE assumed the Chair.) I would like to go home this August and tell our constituents we are enacting changes in those policies, and we are going to protect ourselves. I see our new Presiding Officer, the great Senator from the State of North Carolina. I will never forget when I was in the House and one of the first wind energy systems was built in Boone, NC. This is going back 20 years. I will never forget it. Everybody was upset because the more the windmill turned, the more it disrupted the television coverage in Boone, NC. But today we have the benefit of propeller technology in the placing of these wind energy systems, which are these tall windmills with propellers which are as sophisticated in their design as those for airplanes. So we don't have to have all of that outcry that occurred in Boone two decades ago. Boone, NC was a pioneer. It was part of a NASA research project. We were looking for opportunities other than the consumption of foreign oil then. We are doing a lot better in our technology today. But we have to enact policies that will wean us from our dependence on that foreign oil. One policy that has a proven track record for decreasing our consumption of oil is increasing the miles per gallon on our automobiles. It has a fancy name. It is called Corporate Average Fuel Economy, otherwise known as CAFE. From 1975 to 1985, when CAFE or the mileage-per-gallon increases were mandated, we dramatically lowered our consumption of foreign oil. According to the National Academy of Sciences, the increase in fuel economy standards in that decade, 1975-1985, saved--get this--43 billion gallons of gasoline, which is the equivalent of 2.8 million barrels of oil per day. But since 1985, our Nation's fuel economy has stagnated, and our consumption of foreign oil has skyrocketed. Indeed, between 1990 and 1999, oil consumption in the United States rose 15 percent and, unfortunately, American oil imports from foreign lands rose 40 percent. Why? Because we stopped requiring increases in fuel economy standards. In our last few attempts to restart the program, we were stopped by a combination of very powerful lobbying groups. One of them--the automobile makers--said they could not do it. They said it was going to cost jobs. They said it was going to decrease consumer choice and that it was going to hurt vehicle safety. But that is exactly what they said in the 1970s. The auto makers successfully rose to the challenge then, and they can successfully rise to that challenge now. In fact, the increase in the fuel economy standards helped the auto makers stay competitive with their Japanese competitors in the 1970s and the 1980s. Smaller vehicles did not take over their fleets as they predicted. Eighty-five percent of the historical fuel economy gains came from technology with no impact on the vehicle weight or the vehicle size. I encourage this Senate on the eve of us going home to be forward thinking and not backward looking. This is the 21st century. We know that American auto manufacturers have the technological capability to increase CAFE standards and to maintain safety without denying the American public any choices in the type of vehicle they drive. It can be done. We just have to have the will to do it. The American people, after this traumatic experience of losing over 3,000 people on September 11 of 2001, clearly have a renewed desire to see their Members of Congress act in the best interests of national security. Is weaning ourselves from our dependence on oil from foreign lands in the interest of national security? Can you imagine what our Middle East policy would be if we didn't have to import oil from the Persian Gulf region? Our foreign policy would be a lot easier to conduct. Senator Durbin is going to have an amendment that will require cars and SUVs and minivans and cross-over utility vehicles to achieve CAFE standards of 40 miles per gallon by when, by next year? No. By 2015. That would be 11 or 12 years from now. It would require by the same year of 2015 trucks and vans to have a mile-per-gallon standard of 27.5 miles per gallon. It can be done. I certainly urge our colleagues here to support Senator Durbin's amendment. I guess one of the bigger disappointments I have had legislatively in the 2\1/2\ years I have been in the Senate is that we can't come together and recognize something that has so much common sense. We already have hybrid vehicles driving around getting 50-plus miles per gallon, and they get it not only on the open road but they get it in city driving. That is because the technology has developed to the point where a computer will switch that engine from a gasoline engine over to an electric engine and back and forth. When we are using the gasoline engine we are powering the battery so the electric engine can be used, and it goes back and forth without any notice to the driver or the passenger and with no diminution on the electrical needs of the automobile and no diminution on any sane driver who doesn't want to squeal their wheels at every stoplight. The technology is there. I urge the Senate to go beyond with technology. On board every space shuttle is a machine that makes electricity. It makes electricity from a combination of two fuels: hydrogen and oxygen. And it has as a byproduct--water. As a matter of fact, so much water is produced that at the end of every flight day, the crews will have to dump excess water. It is amazing, when you dump that water out into the cold vacuum of space, you see that dumped water spray out, and all of a sudden those water particles crystallize. In the glint of the sunlight, it is a beautiful view. But what started this process was that we were making electricity on board for the space shuttle with the fuel of hydrogen. We can do the same to power our vehicles. We know most of our consumption of energy is done in the transportation sector--airplanes, trains, buses, cars, ships. We know most of the consumption of that energy is automobiles and trucks. So can you imagine, if we would put our minds to it--just like we put our minds to it when President Kennedy said: We are going to the moon and back within the decade of the 1960s--and we did it--can you imagine, if we would put our minds to it, in an Apollo-like program, if we developed a hydrogen engine that was cheap enough that could power our automobiles, the new ones, and the trucks? The technology is there. The capability is there. The application of the new technologies can bring the cost down. The only thing we are lacking is the will. Can you imagine if, suddenly, we did not have this dependence on foreign, imported oil how much freer the United States would be in our conduct around the world, in our military policy, in our foreign policy, in our ability to be self-sustaining in our own energy needs, and not giving up any of the creature comforts that we Americans are so blessed to have to our advantage? Yet when we get to a vote on some of these items on this Energy bill, we may get beat. I just simply do not understand that. So I am pleading with our colleagues in the Senate, as we debate this Energy bill, let's think about America in the future, over the course of the next decade, over the course of the next 25 years. Let's think about the decisionmakers on this floor in future decades and what we are shackling them with as a matter of military and foreign policy if we do not break our habit of depending on foreign oil. We can do it. We just have to have the will. Madam President, I thank you for this opportunity to share these ideas. Unless the manager of the bill wants otherwise, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 call to the attention of the Senate, and specifically to the Foreign Relations Committee, the question of whether or not longstanding policy has been changed by the administration with regard to the repatriation of Cubans interdicted on the high seas. As we know, since 1995 we have had an understanding with the Castro Cuban Government that when Cubans are interdicted on the high seas, they will be returned to Cuba and they will not be imprisoned. Clearly, we saw a change with the hijacking of a ferry boat a couple months ago. They were returned to Cuba, and without a trial they were summarily executed. Naturally, this has made us much more sensitive to the question about these very brave citizens of Cuba who are trying to flee the Castro regime. So it brings up the instance of 2 weeks ago. Three dock security guards were overpowered. A boat was stolen by some dozen Cuban citizens. On their way across the Straits of Florida, they were interdicted by the U.S. Coast Guard. In returning them, it appears there was a negotiation by our Government with the Castro government that they would receive prison sentences of up to 10 years at the discretion of the Cuban Government. This appears to be a subtle change in policy. Was it a hijacking? It was the stealing of a boat. But the long and the short of it is, the U.S. Government was negotiating directly to send these Cubans going back to Cuba into a prison sentence that could be as much as 10 years. I do not think this is right. Under these circumstances, it seems to me that at least the U.S. Government, this administration, should have considered the alternative of a third country for these people. Having been sent back, to go back into Castro's prisons, you know their fate. I am asking Senator Lugar and Senator Biden of the Foreign Relations Committee to investigate this matter. Let us determine if this is really in the best interest of what we are trying to achieve when people are leaving a repressive dictatorship, seeking freedom, and then it appears that the U.S. Government is negotiating their own prison sentence. I do not think that should be the policy of the U.S. Government.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I want to express my strong support for Senator Hollings's amendment to strengthen security at the Nation's seaports. Improved seaport security is an absolutely essential part of homeland security. Many of the Nation's ports are woefully insecure and are located in or near densely populated urban areas. A weapon of mass destruction could be delivered by a cargo ship and unleashed on tens of thousands of Americans before authorities could react. Such an attack would also be trouble for the economy. A major incident at one of the Nation's largest seaports could have a dramatic impact on the flow of goods in and out of the country, which could in turn weaken the already soft economy. Florida's 14 deepwater seaports handle roughly $47.6 billion of water-borne commerce each year. That figure represents almost two- thirds of the State's international trade in 2002. Florida's seaports handle roughly 115 million tons of international and domestic commodities as different as cars, apparel, steel, bananas, petroleum, and computer products. Most of these goods pass into the country uninspected, because the Nation's ports lack the manpower and technology needed to inspect every container. In fact, only 1 to 2 percent of all cargo coming into this country is inspected. That is unacceptable. What can we do to solve this problem? The Coast Guard estimates the total costs of implementing security at state-owned and private seaport facilities will exceed $7 billion over the next 10 years. We should acknowledge the Coast Guard's expertise by allocating a significant portion of the $7 billion they recommend is necessary to tackle this problem. And we need to commit to providing the remainder in a timely manner. In short, we can't address the port security problem soon enough. The $262 million already allocated by DHS is a modest start, but the committee's fiscal year 2004 commitment is not sufficient. Shortchanging our ports this year will only slow the process of upgrading the Nation's port security enhancements over the long term. I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the Record prior to the vote on the Hollings port security amendment to H.R. 2555.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I would like to remind Senators Cochran and Byrd that the MATRIX program has received $10 million in grant funding from the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. We are faced with a changed world following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It is imperative that our Nation's first responders be given the necessary tools they need to fight this war. From our Nation's busiest ports and key border crossings, to local law enforcement in rural America charged with safeguarding critical infrastructure, there is a great and growing need for timely and accurate information. That capability is now possible with the MATRIX system.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Senator Byrd, do you believe that the MATRIX system would qualify for continued funding from the Department of Homeland Security?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia. There are a lot of important reasons to enact this amendment. There is no greater calling for the National Government now than to protect the homeland. We see all the instability in the world and the fact that Iraq has now become a magnet for a lot of bad guys in all the world who want to do damage to the United States. In Iraq, almost one American soldier a day is being assassinated. By the way, the assassinations are taking place in three different ways. On the eve of my arrival, 2 weeks ago, in Baghdad, very sadly and unfortunately, one of our Florida National Guard soldiers from Gainesville was assassinated. In this particular case, the soldier was on guard duty for a delegation that had gone to a meeting at the university. And in the hubbub of all the crowds at the university, this soldier was standing guard for the party that was meeting. The soldier was vulnerable because of the crowds. And our soldiers are vulnerable between that position and that position--being the upper part of the body armor, the Kevlar, and the helmet. And, in this particular case, in the hubbub of that crowd, someone tapped that soldier on the shoulder. He turned around, and he was shot in the face. That is one method of assassination. Another method is to use a landmine with a remote control device, and usually a landmine placed on a part of a road where the road narrows, so when the convoy comes along that area, the landmine can be detonated. And it is usually targeted at a lightly armored vehicle such as a humvee. We have had that happen a number of times. And then a third method, which has been used more frequently recently, is the use of the rocket-propelled grenades. In the case of the soldiers last night who were assassinated, it was being fired from a position behind bushes, near a roadside. But another method is where a convoy is moving out, and they are moving rapidly, and someone on a downtown street tries to insert into that convoy and then shoots an RPG either at the vehicle in front of them or to the rear of them. So, clearly, there is a lot of trauma and mischief that is going on in that part of the world. But it is a foretelling of what people want to do to the United States. It is not just the Fedayeen and it is not just the Baathists and it is not just the Saddam loyalists. Iraq is now attracting outsiders who want to do damage to the United States. So if they target there, clearly they are going to be targeting here as well. This, by the way, is another reason, when we try to protect ourselves against terrorists, our protection is only so good as the timeliness of our intelligence and the accuracy of our intelligence. Does that ring a bell? And I hope we get through all of that and get it straightened out as well. But the issue before us is the protection of the homeland. You cannot protect the homeland on the cheap. If the question is how we allocate the moneys--if it should go to tax cuts or protecting the homeland-- then that gets to be a pretty simple answer. The people want the homeland protected. Although there is some measure of protection that is offered, now Senator Byrd has offered additional protection. The debate has already been held, and I will not repeat, except to emphasize one thought: Florida, my State, has 15 deepwater ports. It is a place of great vulnerability because of all the containers that come into this country, only 2 to 3 percent of them are checked. If we are looking for weapons as easily concealed, for example, as a shoulder-mounted heat-seeking missile that can bring down a commercial airliner, how easy that is to slip into the country in a container in port. Senator Byrd is offering a total of $610 million, $460 million over the existing $150 million in the bill, for expenses for port security. I can tell you every one of those port managers in my State-- and I think I can speak also for the other ports of the other States-- are strapped with so many expenses. They desperately need additional help for security at their ports. I rest my case. It is a matter of common sense in the protection of the homeland. I have only spoken about one part of the appropriations in this amendment. I encourage our colleagues to support Senator Byrd's amendment. I yield the floor.

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 rise today to express sadness at the passing of a legendary Floridian. Yesterday evening, Chesterfield Smith, one of the Nation's great attorneys, passed away in Coral Gables. Recognized by many as the conscience of the legal profession, Chesterfield's accomplishments are almost too numerous to count. A World War II veteran, founder of one of the country's most prestigious law firms and an accomplished litigator, he dedicated himself to his family and his country. He is probably best known on the national scene for his tenure as president of the American Bar Association during the Watergate scandal. Following the dismissal of special prosecutor Archibald Cox, Chesterfield courageously stood up to the President of the United States, publicly calling on Congress to reestablish the Office of Special Prosecutor. Smith's brave and bold reminder that the ``No man is above the law'' altered the course of public debate during that difficult time. That bravery carried over to his private practice as well. Chesterfield believed in individual accomplishment and personal responsibility. A fierce civil rights advocate who opposed segregation in the Old South, he aggressively challenged the color barrier by making his law firm a model of diversity. Chesterfield always led by example, but also challenged others in his profession to get involved. He encouraged his colleagues to ``be somebody'' in their communities. His passion and commitment to bettering our society influenced an entire generation of attorneys. Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg described him perfectly when she said of Chesterfield. ``He has devoted his extraordinary talent and energy to the improvement of the legal profession, to making the profession more honorable, more responsive to the people law and lawyers serve. She went on, ``He is, in sum, among the brightest, boldest, bravest, all-around most effective lawyers ever bred in Florida and the USA.'' I send my condolences to his family and friends on this sad day. His death is a grievous loss to the entire country. He will be greatly missed. I ask that an obituary chronicling Mr. Smith's life be printed in the Record. The obituary follows. Chesterfield Smith, International Law Firm Founder and Outspoken ABA President During Nixon-Era, Dies at 85 Smith's ``No Man is Above The Law'' Was Turning Point in Public Call to Investigate President Nixon Chesterfield Smith, 85, of Miami, one of the country's most prominent figures in modern law and often called ``the conscience of the legal profession,'' died today at Doctors Hospital in Coral Gables, Florida. Smith was the founder and chairman emeritus of Holland & Knight LLP, the country's eighth largest law firm. During his 55 year career, Smith was a major force in American law and politics, humbling the mightiest and giving a voice to the common. Smith served as president of the American Bar Association (ABA) from 1973-1974 and was best known as the daring leader who made the first public call to investigate President Richard M. Nixon during the Watergate scandal. His simple and direct rationale: ``No man is above the law'' appeared on the front page of major American newspapers following the infamous Watergate ``Saturday Night Massacre,'' October 20, 1973. America's Lawyer In a country that is cynical and, at times, even disdainful of lawyers, Chesterfield Smith maintained a positive vision of what lawyers could be, using his own success as an example. He believed that lawyers must have an ``unselfish involvement in essential public service'' and encouraged his colleagues to ``be somebody'' in their communities. The word restraint had no place in Smith's life. Known for his candid and sometimes brutally honest speeches, he loved nothing more than giving a rousing speech to stir up audiences. ``We are not a trade association. We are not a union,'' he once told a group of law students about the ABA. ``We are out to improve justice and its administration of society. If you don't intend to work to improve the quality of justice, then I hope you flunk your exams.'' Smith grew up in Arcadia, a small town in central Florida. He fought in World War II from 1940-1945, earning a Bronze star. He graduated from the University of Florida Law School in 1946. After graduation, Smith returned to Arcadia and soon joined the firm of Treadwell and Treadwell. A year and a half later, he joined the firm of Holland, Bevis and McRae in nearby Bartow. He made partner in record time by capably representing Florida's booming phosphate industry. His law firm subsequently engineered a merger with the prominent Tampa firm, Knight, Jones, Whitaker and Germany in 1968. The new firm became Holland & Knight, named for founders of both firms, and became a dominant firm in Florida. By 1965, Smith was fully immersed in the legal profession and state politics. He was elected president of the Florida Bar and chairman of the Florida Constitutional Revision Commission. In the late 1960's, his work on the Commission brought an end to the ``Pork Chop Gang,'' a group of powerful rural Florida legislators who, for years, controlled the state government by malapportionment. The Voice of the People Chesterfield Smith served as president of the ABA during one of the most turbulent and unsettling years in American politics, 1973-1974. In the midst of the Watergate scandal, Nixon and his advisors were convinced that they could avoid handing over the Oval Office tapes and fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox without public backlash. It would take Smith's words, ``No man is above the law'', a large voice from a significant source, to alter public discourse towards impeachment. Amid the Controversy, Smith publicly urged Congress to re- estblish the office of special prosecutor. Undaunted by wide criticism, he led the ABA in an effort to authorize an independent counsel to investigate President Nixon. Another former leader of the ABA, Leon Jaworski, was appointed. He vigorously prosecuted the case against Nixon, culminating in appeals to the Supreme Court. In the end, Nixon felt compelled to resign. Promoting Equal Justice for All Chesterfield Smith exhibited amazing clarity in a complex era in the 1960's. With this clarity came the courage and ability to recognize and embrace societal change. Unconcerned about the contrary opinions of others, he often spoke out against racial discrimination. And, despite growing up in the segregationist South Smith was one of the first to recruit minorities. Under his leadership, Holland & Knight became a model of diversity. Chesterfield Smith strongly believed in the responsibility of individuals to take action in the civic and charitable life of their communities. Today his firm is recognized for community service efforts and extensive pro-bono legal work. In 2002, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg presented Smith with the Laurie D. Zelon Pro Bono Award in a formal ceremony conducted in the Great Hall of the United States Supreme Court. During the ceremony Ginsburg, praised his life-long contributions to the legal profession and his leadership in creating a firm dedicated to public service. ``He has devoted his extraordinary talent and enormous energy to the improvement of the legal profession--to making the profession more honorable, more responsive to the people law and lawyers serve'' Ginsberg said. ``He is, in sum, among the brightest, boldest, bravest, all-around most effective lawyers ever bred in Florida and the USA.'' He is survived by his wife of 16 years, Jacqueline Allee, and two children, Chesterfield Jr. and daughter Rhoda Smith Kibler, both of Tallahassee, Florida.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Would not the Senator wonder, then, since they refused to do that, and here we are in the middle of a war and a soldier is getting killed every day, would the Senator not wonder why they don't? I think that it might be that it just shows that annual deficit spending exploding higher and higher, which is ultimately going to have an effect on the financial markets of this country and make it all the more difficult for the economic recovery to occur.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. And thus, as the Senator has pointed out, it brings it to well over some $60 billion additional. Isn't it curious that if they are projecting $475 billion by their own figures in deficit financing for next year, that they do not add the additional $60 billion of anticipated war expenses, and that doesn't even count for the additional interest that will have to be paid on that newly incurred debt. Therefore, the deficit gets larger and larger and larger. To the average person what that means is, it is going to stall the recovery. It is going to cause the cost of money to go up in the interest rates. But if we, as dictated by the Constitution, are to fulfill our appropriations duty, is it not logical that this Senate and the House of Representatives should have the information as to what the projected costs are of carrying on the function of the Government of the United States, including the defense of the United States? That is the question.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for the point he has made. I would like to underscore it. By the administration's own figures, they are projecting the budget deficit--that is, the amount of money that we have to go out and borrow to pay our existing debts--in this fiscal year as $455 billion as illustrated by the chart the Senator has just shown. They are projecting next year $475 billion of deficit spending. Yet they will not come forth with a supplemental request when finally the Senator from West Virginia got the Secretary of Defense to admit in the Senate Armed Services Committee that the monthly cost for carrying on the war is $3.9 billion a month, just in Iraq, plus about $750 million a month in the war being prosecuted in Afghanistan.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I was considering offering an amendment regarding Roosevelt Roads in Puerto Rico because of punitive action that was taken in the House bill requiring the shutting down of Roosevelt Roads within 6 months, simply as a punitive measure over the fact that some of the leaders in the House did not like the fact that the Puerto Rican people took a position that they did not want training at Viegues Island. Instead, it ought to be done in a deliberative and professional process, just like any other military base, through the normal BRAC process. The resident commissioner or the delegate from Puerto Rico has requested that I not offer the amendment. He feels very confident that he will be able to prevail in conference. So at his request, I will not offer the amendment.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. What does that suggest is going on with regard to accurate, timely, and truthful intelligence?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator for his response.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. That is precisely the point I want to make. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for underscoring that. Because I get a little concerned, I got a little upset when I read in Sunday's Washington Post: CIA director George J. Tenet successfully intervened with White House officials to have a reference to Iraq seeking uranium from Niger removed from a Presidential speech last October. . . . Continuing: Tenet argued personally to White House officials, including deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley, that the allegation should not be used because it came from only a single source, according to one senior official. That was in October. Three months later, in the President's State of the Union speech, the very reference that was exorcised from the speech in October was inserted. I want the Senator from West Virginia to hear this reference. I want the Senator from West Virginia to verify what I am saying because, according to the Washington Post, when the Director of the CIA removed that reference to Iraq seeking uranium from Niger in October, the very same reference was inserted 3 months later in the President's State of the Union speech but with a qualifier, and the qualifier was: according to British intelligence, even though 3 months earlier the CIA Director had that reference stricken because it was not true.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, since we are on the Defense Appropriations subcommittee bill, I want to follow up on the remarks of the Senator from South Carolina. I thank him for his comments. I say this Senator is quite concerned about the legislated budgetary sleight of hand that has been apparent throughout this budgetary process. I don't like it. I don't think it is instructive to the country. I think it is budget fakery and that, although it has certainly been employed on both sides of the aisle over the years in the history of this Republic, particularly at a time now where the numbers are getting so large, where the annual deficit--that is spending more than we have coming in in revenue--is getting so large, if you believe the figures the Senator from South Carolina has just spoken about from a budget document that was just released--upwards of $500 billion on one page and upwards of $700 billion on another page-- that is spending that much more in this fiscal year than we have coming in in revenue--that is not a way to get our economic engine purring again. That is not a way of stopping the economic recession. Because if there are more people chasing the available dollars that we need to borrow, then there is more demand on the money. What is going to be the result on the cost of the money? The cost of the money is going to go up. That is going to be the interest rates that are going to go up, and that is all the more going to stall us trying to get out of the recession. It is perplexing to me, to say it in the mildest terms that I can, as to why we have all this budgetary sleight of hand, why we have this budgetary fakery. Why can't we just be up straight, aboveboard: this is what it is and this is the plan to get out from under it. But there seems to be an agenda to try to mask, to obscure what is the real situation. Since we are on the Defense Appropriations subcommittee bill, I want to bring up a matter of grave concern that I have. That is, as we continue to battle, as we continue to prosecute the war against terrorists--be that in Afghanistan, be that in Iraq, be that in America--we have to have timely and accurate intelligence. That has to be a given. There can't be any fudging or fakery or sleight of hand. It has to be the best estimate of all the intelligence agencies. So I get quite concerned.