Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, from my letter, which will be in the Record, you will see the similarity to what we have here today. Just in Eritrea, crop failures and the lack of rainfall put about 1.5 million at risk--just less than half the population. But these grotesque figures only speak to those in the Horn of Africa. For example, down in Zimbabwe, 49 percent of the population is in need; in Malawi, approximately 29 percent of the population is in need; in Zambia, approximately 26 percent of the population; and in Lesotho, approximately 30 percent of the population. These are just some of the countries whose populations need food right now. The World Food Programme estimates that a total of over 38 million people are at risk of starvation throughout Africa this year. This figure is almost beyond comprehension, and compels this body to provide relief. The toll of this famine threatens to be far worse than anything we have seen previously for another reason. The terrible epidemic of HIV/ AIDS, which is currently ravaging the continent, destroys the immune systems of its victims. When further weakened by malnutrition, they are unable to fight off even the most mild illnesses. If we do not act, the death toll will rise, and it will rise quickly. There is also a security aspect to providing this relief. It is well- known that the Horn of Africa has had its problems with extremism, particularly in nearby Sudan. As such, crises in this region may pose significant security threats as we fight the global war on terrorism. Terrorist organizations and other extremists have frequently used food as a political weapon in past famines. By controlling the distribution of food, they can hold entire populations of hungry people hostage, and thereby gain their unwitting support. We must combat these threats on all fronts, including providing relief, and with it order, to regions that desperately need it. Now, allow me to explain this amendment in the context of the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill we are debating. Because of the Congress' inability to pass the 2003 appropriations bills on time, food relief is being undercut by $252 million as we operate at 2002 funding levels. Moreover, such severe food shortages in Africa were not contemplated in the president's 2003 request. Simply funding the president's request will not be enough to stave off a massive starvation crisis in Sub- Saharan Africa. I ask that a letter from the Alliance for Food Security to President Bush dated January 3, 2003 be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator is correct. It involves three countries in east Africa, six countries in west Africa, three countries in central Africa, and about seven countries in southern Africa.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I have a parliamentary inquiry. I had asked for the yeas and nays, and there was determined to be a sufficient second. Could you inform me, on the Nelson amendment, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, on the occasion of the day that honors Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I offer a couple of thoughts. I will share with the Senate a couple of stories. I think of what Dr. King and his band of brothers and sisters meant to this Nation and their extraordinary success under extremely difficult circumstances and under a great deal of duress. One of his young lieutenants is a member of this Congress, Congressman John Lewis of Atlanta. He was one of the youngest of Dr. King's lieutenants, having been a very young preacher from Alabama who had joined Dr. King, a young preacher who, by the way, has regaled so many in this Congress with the stories of how he learned to preach in a rural area of Alabama, on a dirt farm, where John Lewis as a child would go out to the henhouse, and there, with an audience of hens perched on their perch in the henhouse, John Lewis would start to practice his oratory that ultimately brought him to be such a great preacher, to be such a great lieutenant of Dr. King's, or now, as we know, a great public servant, having been a Member of the House of Representatives for a number of years. But the story I wanted to share about John Lewis, I asked him one day, there was something very special about what you and Dr. King and the rest of Dr. King's group would do because you were always together and there was not a lot of discord. How was it, in the face of all of that physical threat and at times physical brutality, you were able to be so successful and so single-minded of purpose that you ultimately achieved your goal? He said: Bill, we always met together as a covenant group in prayer and we always prayed together that divine providence would watch over us, and that gave us the strength. That was an insight for me into that extraordinary part of American history where they were so very successful. So, on this eve of Dr. Martin Luther King's holiday, I not only give the reverence and the respect to Dr. King, but to those who were with him, like our friend, our colleague here in the Congress, Congressman John Lewis. But there is another story I wanted to tell you about. It is illustrative of some of the obstacles that have had to be overcome, particularly by minorities and people of color, for whom Dr. King fought so successfully. I want to tell you the story about Charlie Bolden from Columbia, SC. One day I was down in my State and a very distinguished retired gentleman approached me. He said, You don't know me, but we know someone in common and that's Charlie Bolden. He knew that the relationship I had with Charlie Bolden was that Charlie was my pilot on the 24th flight of the space shuttle. Both of us were rookies. That is the same Charlie Bolden who went on to command two more flights, ultimately retired from the astronaut office, went back in the active duty Marines, and has just recently retired with a second star--General Charlie Bolden. But the story this gentleman wanted to tell me was the extraordinary success story of Charlie Bolden from Columbia, SC, whose father was a football coach, whose mother was a librarian who had always taught him the value of an education and the value of hard work. Yet when this outstanding high school student applied to the Naval Academy, his representative from the South Carolina congressional delegation would not nominate him because of the color of his skin. So this gentleman I met in Florida wanted to tell me the story. He was an Assistant Secretary of Defense under the administration of President Johnson, and one of his specific duties, in addition to his Department of Defense duties, was to go around the country and find promising minority students and try to get them married up with a sponsor who would nominate them to the service academies. This gentleman found Charlie Bolden, who could not get a nomination from his congressional representative in his home State. But Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota nominated Charlie. Charlie went to Annapolis. He was promptly elected president of the freshman class and continued as class president, interestingly, alternating as class president in that Annapolis class with another very distinguished American, the just retired Adm. Blaire, the Commander in Chief of the Pacific for the United States. Charlie, at the end of graduation, chose the Marines. He chose aviation, he became a marine test pilot, and then he applied for the astronaut office. Fate brought the two of us together on the flight that had to be scrubbed four times on the pad, delayed over the better part of a month. On the fifth try, almost a month later, we were launched into an almost flawless 6-day mission, with Charlie having to correct a helium leak immediately after launch, only to return to Earth from a very successful mission and, 10 days later, Challenger launches and blows up 10 miles high in the Florida sky. An extraordinary success story about a fellow, an African American, who wanted to achieve, who obviously had the right stuff, who could not get in because of the color of his skin in a nomination process, who was given a break and who soared in his personal achievement and his contributions to our society. This is another example of the principles for which Dr. King fought. I want to tell one more story. This is a story that has nothing to do with American history, but it is one of my favorite political heroes in history. A British parliamentarian by the name of William Wilburforce came to the Parliament in the 1790s and served there for almost 4 decades. He came to the Parliament at age 21. He came at the same time as his good friend, William Pitt the younger, who, 3 years later, at age 24, was elected Prime Minister and, of course, William Wilburforce, one of Pitt's best friends, could have been a part of the government. But he had an experience and he decided to devote his life to the elimination of the established economic order of the day in England at that time, the English slave trade. Just to give you an idea of the enormous economic power of the slave trade at that time, in the 1790s and early 1800s, it would be as if you would take half of the American Fortune 500 companies, combining all of that economic power, and that was the power that invaded the whole country of England at that time. That was how much money was being made by the shipping companies, by the captains, by the seamen, by the insurance companies. They would go under the flag of truce, down off the African coast--sometimes with the complicity of some of the tribal chieftains and sometimes not--taking natives as slaves against their will and forcing them into the holds of ships, separating them from families and shipping them to the new world where they would be sold. Wilburforce, at age 24, and a Parliamentarian, said this is wrong; it is against God's law, and he devoted himself to the abolition of the English slave trade. Time after time, again he was beaten in vote after vote, but he persevered. He overcame, and 20 years later his bill passed the Parliament. As a matter of law, the English slave trade was abolished. Some 20 years later--literally 3 days before William Wilburforce died, news was brought to him on his deathbed that the Parliament had abolished slavery, a full 2 or 3 decades before slavery was abolished in the United States. He also had as one of his great crusades not only the English slave trade, but what he called ``The Reformation of Manners''--what we term today a moral and spiritual revitalization of the country. He did that for England in that day and was exceptionally successful, particularly after he wrote a book, which would be at the top of the New York Times best seller list today, called ``A Practical View''--written by William Wilburforce. On this eve of Dr. King's birthday I wanted to reflect on these giants--John Lewis, a contemporary among us, a lieutenant of Dr. King; Charlie Bolden, a contemporary today, a just retired Marine two-star general, former astronaut; and William Wilburforce, one of the great leaders who single-handedly as a single member of Parliament--not in the government--changed the course of history of the world by his persistence in establishing a law to abolish the English slave trade. What do those three people have in common, John Lewis, Charlie Bolden, and William Wilburforce? What they had in common was clearly they were courageous, clearly they were persistent, and clearly they were talented. But they also were ``overcomers''--to overcome the established order of the day, to make things different, and to make things more right. This is my testimony to Dr. King. 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. I thank the Senator for the time. Mr. President, I wish to express support. I thought a deal was a deal. Last year, when the Senator from Massachusetts negotiated the authorizing bill with the White House, it was that we would increase the funding level from the Federal Government, which is only 7 percent of all of the educational funding, because most of the educational funding is at the State and local level, as it should be, but the Federal Government had a unique position, especially for the disadvantaged, to help out the States so that a child would have an equal opportunity to learn. So in the minute that the Senator has given me, I wanted to express my support for his position to honor the agreement that was made between the White House and the Congress last year on educational funding.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a Floridian who has made significant contributions to his community through the field of broadcasting and communications. A resident of St. Petersburg, Patrick L. McLaughlin is a broadcast engineer whose career began after service in the United States Navy in World War II and culminated with this retirement from the television industry in 1985. He, and many radio-and-television pioneers like him, literally helped get television off the ground, laboring behind-the-scenes to usher in the dawn of modern, electronic television. For the technicians and engineers of those early days of TV, it often was a low-budget, low- glamour profession. But they pressed on and built an extraordinary industry. In 1954, Mr. McLaughlin helped build up West Central Florida's first television station, WSUN-TV, Channel 38. Later, he served as chief engineer at WFLA-TV, Channel 8, in Tampa, now one of the country's largest media markets. Under his guidance, WFLA and other television stations initiated important technological changes that have been models for later industry transformations. Along the way, he made sure local stations remained on the air during times of crisis to provide an essential lifeline and source of information for dispersed Tampa Bay area communities when they were hit by hurricanes and riots. Nowadays, we take television so much for granted that it's easy to forget that innovative technicians and engineers, such as Mr. McLaughlin, helped transform broadcasting stations into a source of entertainment and education for current and future generations, as well as a powerful medium that helps shape both popular culture and contemporary history. For this, we owe that early generation of broadcast engineering pioneers our gratitude. I ask my Senate colleagues to join me today in recognizing one of them, Patrick L. McLaughlin.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to discuss this same issue and do it with a different approach. We have been talking about the unconscionable cuts in education. We are about to see some huge cuts in homeland defense. A lot of this burden is being shifted to the States. On the question of local law enforcement and the question of port security, my State of Florida has 14 deep-water ports. The ports are an obvious target for those who are trying to do bad things to us. Right now only 3 percent of all the containers coming into this country are, in fact, inspected. A lot of this financial burden is being shifted to the States with the cuts that are being proposed in this coming appropriations bill to homeland defense. Wait until there is another attack, and then what is going to be the answer when this administration did not insist on an appropriations bill that would fully fund the adequate protection for this country's homeland? To come back to the issue of a tax cut, coming from Florida, I have a lot of folks who are retirees with a percentage of the population that is well above the national average--that is 65 and above--and, therefore, a lot of our population looks to income from dividends. In an ideal world, it would certainly be good if we could cut the tax on dividends and eliminate it, but we are not in an ideal world. We are in a war. We have increased expenses for war and, at the same time, we are in a sick economy. We need to get this economy moving again. We need to stimulate this economy. How can we do that? We can do it by putting dollars in the pockets of everyone across the board so they will spend and let those dollars circulate through the economy and, thus, rev up the economic engine. There is something else we can do with regard to business. We can give business the incentive to invest in more plant and equipment in the short term to create more jobs and to get the engine of the economy stoked up again. How can we do that? We can accelerate depreciation-- not 5 years from now, not 3 years from now, but accelerate depreciation in the next year. If we are looking at what works with regard to stimulating the economy, it would be my suggestion--and I think this is common sense-- we pick tax policies and tax cuts that will directly do that now, not some hoped-for stimulation several years down the road. When we balance that against all the needs in a huge deficit situation that is being projected as $250 billion in this present fiscal year--in other words, we are spending $250 billion more than we have coming in in tax revenue. When we realize that the sick economy is, in part, a reflection of lack of confidence of the American people in the future of the economy because of the deficit spending, while at the same time we are going into a war where we are going to have more expenditures, then the tax cuts that should be used should be surgically and strategically determined in order to stimulate the economy. It would be this Senator's opinion that even though I would like very much to eliminate the tax on dividends and that would help a lot of my people, the first requirement of our people in Florida and this country is to get this economy moving again and to stimulate the economy. We could be much wiser in how we approach our ultimate decision on this stimulus of the economy through a tax cut. I have been quite disturbed by what I see emerging as a means of cramming an appropriations bill down the throat of Congress by bringing about a number of major cuts in homeland security and education. The mechanism that is being employed is under the gun of shutting down the Government at the end of this month. A continuing resolution is being proposed, which is a resolution that continues the funding of Government under last year's appropriations levels, up through the end of this month, but there is a threat of shutting down the Government on January 31 unless there is a new continuing resolution or continuing funding of the Government. There are huge cuts being proposed in homeland security and education but some of us are going to fight that as not in the best interest of this country. Ultimately, we are being maneuvered into a position, are you going to shut down the Government by refusing to enact a continuing resolution or are you going to accept that and accept it at last year's levels, which would totally not have our country prepared for the defense of this homeland? That does not make sense to this Senator, and that is not in the interest of my State particularly since it seems as if whatever happens often happens first in Florida. Anthrax happened. We even had a kid flying a plane into a tall building. We have the threats in the 14 deepwater ports in Florida of what kind of cargo could come in that would never be inspected. It could not even come in on a commercial cargo ship. It could come in on a pleasure craft. So many of the ports of this Nation have deepwater access all the way up to a highly urbanized downtown area. There is the opportunity for mischief by those who want to do damage to the United States. I urge upon my colleagues that we be very careful as we approach these decisions on the appropriations bills, and on the concurrent decisions on tax policy, that we do what is in the interest of the defense of this country and also in the interest of the stimulus of getting this sick economy moving again. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we have heard some weighty subjects discussed here today. The Senator from New Hampshire was discussing the issue of education. Prior to that, Senators from Utah and New Jersey were talking about tax policy, trying to get our sickly economy revved up and moving again. If those were not enough of weighty subjects to talk about, I want to bring up one of grave concern to the foreign policy of this United States, indeed to the very defense of these United States: That is the subject of North Korea. I rise today to speak on this subject as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This question of development of nuclear weapons by North Korea is something we should address. That is the occasion to which I rise today. Over half a century we have seen North Korea struggle along in its totalitarian, repressive regime. If there is any question about that, look at the fruits of that repressive labor--the starvation there among the people while the leaders, indeed, lead very comfortable and cushy lives. Nobody questions the starvation among the people in North Korea. The free world has been trying to do something about it. To those in this Chamber who have had the privilege, as I have, of going to the DMZ, to the line, to see the stark differences on either side of the line, it is very apparent. One, is a side that is lush in vegetation, highly developed. Then, just looking across the line, you see quite a contrast with the sparse vegetation on the north side of the line. But I saw North Korea also from a different perspective, from the window of a spacecraft on the night side of the Earth. There is quite a contrast for the lights reflecting from Earth back up into space--there is a distinct difference between North and South Korea from space at night. The South Korean peninsula is lit up, vibrant in its economic activity, whereas north of the line there are very few lights discernible from the view of the window of the spacecraft. In North Korea, we have had a regime that has isolated its own country. Now this situation is urgent, vis-a-vis the foreign policy of the United States. It requires sustained attention from our administration even as we deal with a separate and growing crisis in Iraq. Unfortunately, the Bush administration is approaching the events on the Korean peninsula in an inconsistent and incoherent way, in the opinion of this Senator, even as it continues to build up our forces in the Persian Gulf region. This is dangerous. We cannot, in my opinion, and we must not, allow the North Koreans to develop an effective nuclear weapons arsenal. Yet it is a very difficult situation. Go back to 1994. The Clinton administration faced a similar crisis in 1994, which it averted by striking an agreement with North Korea. This Agreed Framework provided the United States would provide North Korea with economic assistance and more open diplomatic communication in exchange for a cessation of operations and infrastructure development of reactors and facilities used to build its nuclear weapons program. This agreement, while flawed, allowed the United Nations to come in and monitor the disposal of the plutonium rods to ensure they would not be used to develop weapons. Indeed, it helped prevent North Korea from having dozens of nuclear weapons by now. One year ago, President Bush, in his State of the Union speech, referred to North Korea as a member of the axis of evil for its repressive and brutal actions against their own population. In that respect the President was correct. But we see now what the consequences of that speech are. Instead of speaking softly and carrying a big stick, President Bush decided to speak harshly without a coherent policy to back it up. Though this pronouncement did not cause the North Koreans to begin their bad behavior and cheat on their agreements--it certainly didn't cause them to start that bad behavior or cheat on their agreements with the United States and the international community which, by the way, the North Koreans have now admitted--it did embolden them to harden their position, to renounce the 1994 agreement and to begin in earnest to openly pursue more nuclear weapons. This is now the situation in which the Bush administration, by its own words, has painted our Nation into a very difficult corner. U.S. policy regarding North Korea has been inconsistent. The President has demanded North Korea give up its nuclear weapons programs, which is a good starting point. He said he wants to solve this peacefully, through diplomatic means, but until this week--indeed, until day before yesterday--the President refused even to speak directly to the North Koreans. The administration has said it wanted to isolate North Korea, possibly with sanctions. Look around the world. That option is opposed vehemently by the governments, friendly to us, of South Korea and Japan. Even China has stated its position, that it supports a non-nuclear Korean peninsula. Yet the administration has scarcely engaged the Chinese in a meaningful way. We ought to be encouraging them to join us to stop the development of North Korean nuclear weapons. Russia also needs to be included in these discussions. The lack of a clear strategy increases the risk of a volatile and destabilized atmosphere in the face of a North Korean nuclear threat. This danger is underscored by today's news that North Korea has announced its immediate withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. U.S. leadership is needed for the world's declared nuclear powers to work together, perhaps through the United Nations, in a common response to this immediate danger. If we fail to do so, the nightmare scenario of North Korea selling its nuclear weapons to terrorist groups and other rogue states and other provocations could become a reality. I welcome the President's belated decision to engage the North Koreans directly. I hope it has not come too late. I also hope that these talks will be conducted at the highest possible levels. We must make North Korea understand that the building of an arsenal of nuclear weapons will not be tolerated, and that all options to combat this threat are on the table. At the same time, we must work to form a viable, regional solution with South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia. No policy that we pursue can possibly work unless it is carried out in consultation with these key countries. We must devise workable policy options that the United States and North Korea may consider to de-escalate the situation immediately. These talks must be substantive and be conducted in good faith, which has been a consistent problem over the years with North Korea--but now the world is watching--immediately, now. Finally, I hope that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold hearings on North Korea as soon as possible. Hearings should explore the administration's detailed plans and policy prescriptions for this crisis and its implications. I know Senators Lugar and Biden care a great deal about this. I thank them for their leadership. I call upon President Bush to stop sending mixed signals on this urgent matter. Consistency in policy and leadership is demanded in these very hazardous and uncertain times. Then one day, maybe from the window of a future spacecraft--with a North Korea that has become a part of the world community of nations, a North Korea that reaches out in friendship to her neighbors--then maybe one day from the window of a future spacecraft on the night side of the Earth, we can look down and see a North Korea joining a South Korea lit up like a glittering jewel showing economic and political progress and freedom in that part of the world. Thank you for the opportunity to address this most important matter. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I wish all of the Senate, all of our colleagues in Congress, as well as the American people, Happy Thanksgiving. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I have been making a series of speeches about NASA, and I rise again today to speak about this little agency. It is a favorite agency of mine, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Last week, the White House submitted a budget amendment to its 2003 budget request for NASA. The budget amendment, which also retools NASA's 5-year budget plan, amounts to a watershed point for NASA. In this budget amendment, the administration has requested a significant change in its 2003 NASA priorities. Instead of funding a program to replace the space shuttle, this amendment seeks to scale back funding for the space launch initiative to a more realistic development time line. This budget amendment, in my opinion, signals a revamping of NASA's integrated space transportation plan. The new plan incorporates the space shuttle, a new orbital space plane, and technology for future reusable launch vehicles into one comprehensive plan to provide for the advancement of human space flight. It is about time we had such a plan, and I applaud the administration's efforts to move in this direction. The new plan includes an increased shuttle launch rate to better meet the research needs of the space station. Under this new budget plan, both the shuttle and the station programs will be funded on a much more sustainable and long-term level, while also seeking to develop a new orbital space plane. This new spacecraft would be used to provide astronauts regular access to the international space station without always needing to rely on the aging space shuttle fleet. The new budget plan provides for a much-needed infusion of cash to start to provide for space shuttle safety upgrades and infrastructure repairs and modernization. These repairs and improvements will help us fly the shuttle much more safely through the middle of the next decade and possibly even longer. This funding is a welcome reprieve for the neglected and decaying human space flight infrastructure that is literally falling apart at NASA centers around the country. The new budget plan also responds to the concerns of a new study. This study, called the ReMAP study, concluded that the space station in its currently planned form would not be able to conduct even a minimum level of science research to call it a science program. NASA's 2003 budget amendment seeks to fix some of these concerns by providing additional funding to increase the research capabilities onboard the space station. I welcome this decision. I have been into the mockup of the space station at the Johnson Space Center, and the capability for science, for research, is there if we can have the crew members who can be dedicated to the research while in orbit. With this budget amendment, I am pleased with the administration's restructuring of NASA's budgetary priorities for fiscal year 2003, and I congratulate administrator Sean O'Keefe. In this budget amendment, the administration, with Administrator O'Keefe, and his deputy administrator Fred Gregory, have provided more funding for the shuttle program, including an increased flight rate and more funds dedicated to safety and supportability upgrades, as well as improvements to the ground-based infrastructure. These areas are in dire need of additional financial support. The space shuttle simply cannot continue to fly safely if NASA does not dedicate additional resources to the orbital fleet. The one missing piece from this plan is the formal cooperation with the departments dealing with the Nation's defense. NASA's new plans to upgrade the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle--everything has an acronym at NASA--or the EELV--to meet the human-rated requirements may also yield great efficiencies and reliabilities for defense launch needs. An orbital space plan could also meet some of our defense needs, and the Air Force has also had on the books for many years plans to develop such a vehicle. The defense establishment should be part of this effort. DOD, NASA, and other agencies need to pool their resources to develop these high- risk, expensive technology programs. NASA cannot be expected to do this alone. Our country will be better served by jointly developing the technology needed for exploration and use of space. I congratulate the agency and its leadership on what I think is a budgetary watershed point and one that is a shift in the right direction, and I encourage the defense-related agencies to start cooperating with NASA to develop these new technologies. Mr. President, there is another area in which I have concern and I want to express it. NASA has a proud history of staying outside the partisan nature of our political arena. As one of the largest independent agencies, NASA has a unique role in the structure of our executive branch. Its leader does not assume a Cabinet-level position, and yet its policies and practices have a significant impact on the strength and future of our Nation's science and technology programs and sector. No other independent agency has as much influence on our country's innovation capabilities in science and technology, outside of the medical field. Yet unlike the Departments of Commerce or the Department of Education, NASA does not usually get brought into partisan battles or political struggles of Congress. Rather, NASA's nonpartisan approach is more akin to the nonpartisan style of the Department of State and the Department of Defense. There are clearly occasionally disagreements within these Halls about the future of this little agency, but never have the differences come down to simply a question of to which party a Member belongs. The Nation's space program is not a partisan program. It is an American program, and that is the way the Senators of this body treat it. In recent weeks, constituents, newspaper columns, editorials, and NASA employees have brought to my attention at least two incidents of partisan political activity on the part of the agency's head, who may have been acting at the direction of the White House itself. In October, NASA's Administrator made a decision that could stand to challenge this agency's traditional bipartisan and nonpolitical status. Administrator Sean O'Keefe flew to Alabama to campaign for a candidate for Governor, and then he publicly announced his plans to travel to Florida to hold a space townhall meeting for a nonincumbent congressional candidate. He also participated in a fundraiser in Alabama. Now, in this last announced trip, were it not for a mechanical problem that delayed his flight beyond the candidate's reasonable timeframe, Administrator O'Keefe would have been on the ground in Florida conducting political campaign events. I am troubled about the implications of this public decision. At present, I have the good fortune of cooperating on space policy issues with dozens of my colleagues in both parties. Senators who share my love and enthusiasm for space exploration include Senators Trent Lott, Don Nickles, Orrin Hatch, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Conrad Burns, George Allen, Richard Shelby, Barbara Mikulski, John Breaux, Mary Landrieu, and Bob Graham. When it comes to supporting our favorite little agency, we agree wholeheartedly and together happily roll up our sleeves and work on furthering the Nation's space-faring capabilities, despite what other issues might separate us, or despite the partisanship in which we sometimes engage in this body. In the other Chamber, NASA's supporters come from both sides of the aisle. Representatives Tom DeLay, Dana Rohrabacher, Ken Calvert, Dave Weldon, Nick Lampson, Ralph Hall, Bart Gordon, and Bud Cramer are but a few who have repeatedly gone out on a limb for NASA. By announcing his plans to participate, being perceived as acting in his official capacity as the head of NASA, Administrator O'Keefe diminished the spirit of bipartisanship. Well, thank goodness for an airline mechanical problem on that last occasion. So I rise to make a public request of our Administrator, which follows the private request I made of him prior to his scheduled trips, and that was a private one before the fact. My request now publicly is do not ruin the spirit of bipartisanship and bipartisan cooperation that NASA and its supporters enjoy. When it comes to political campaigns, just stay out of them altogether and keep the long-standing tradition that NASA Administrators stay out of partisan politics. This is a speech in which for the first two-thirds I praised the Administrator of NASA for the change in direction that I think is a good change, and I think shows his good leadership, but it is a speech also with a heavy heart that since he would not take my advice, or that of many others privately, it needs to be stated publicly that there is a great and long-standing tradition that NASA Administrators stay out of partisan politics. I ask unanimous consent that supporting documentation be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, God bless America, and God bless Senator Byrd and what he has meant to this institution, and for serving in this institution, the Congress of the United States, for over a half century. We have had the privilege of again having one of the great insights into American history as seen through the prism of Senator Byrd's observation after a half century of American politics and American history. When I was a Member of the other body, the House of Representatives, one of the great delights I had was to sit at the knee of Congressman Claude Pepper, a former Senator. He was a walking political history book. And along with that delightful personality, you could learn so much just listening. Of course, he was always a great delight. The Senator who presides and I both had the pleasure of being with Claude Pepper. So often I would hear when he would take what he would call his ``boys''--those members of the Rules Committee--on a trip and those younger Members of Congress--younger by one-half and sometimes two-thirds the age of the venerable Claude Pepper--could not keep up with the energetic pace he kept on those congressional delegation trips. And so, likewise, it has been such a privilege for me that I have now had the opportunity to come here to the Senate and sometimes to sit at the knee and learn from the senior Senator from West Virginia. For what you have given to all of us--the particular interests and affection you have shown to the new Members of the Senate in the 107th Congress--we are all so very appreciative to you. Again, thank you for your words today in commemorating this time of Thanksgiving that so many of us in our own way will say a little prayer of gratefulness for this blessed land of which we have the privilege of being citizens. Mr. President, I rise today to again give another one of my speeches about my favorite little agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I yield to the Senator for that purpose.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his kind words. Whenever he is so gracious to me, as he just has been, I think myself undeserving of those kind words. I look around this Chamber and see the places that people who have really shown courage and devotion to duty and to country sit, a place like over there, Senator Inouye, a winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor; a place like over there, Senator McCain, a prisoner of war who withstood those horrors for over 6 years; a place like over there for Senator Chuck Hagel, a distinguished veteran of Vietnam; a place like over here, the seat of Senator John Kerry, the holder of the Silver Star from Vietnam; or that seat right there, the occupant of which will be leaving us at the end of this Congress, a triple amputee from Vietnam, Senator Max Cleland, who has overcome so much and yet who has the greatest attitude of any Senator in this body. These are the heroes, and there are many more, both men and women, in daily acts of courage. I feel very privileged to be a part.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a resolution dealing with a problem we are facing in the Middle East-- that of resurgent anti-Semitism. I am joined by my friend and colleague from Oregon, Sen. Smith, in offering this resolution. Right now, throughout this month, a multi-part series is being broadcast on Egyptian state television entitled, ``Horseman Without a Horse.'' This program is based on a notorious anti-Semitic document known as ``The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.'' ``The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,'' written in the early 20th century by Russian anti-Semites, purports to be a record of secret meetings at which Jewish leaders hatched a plan for global Jewish domination. All reputable scholars have discredited the document, but it has proven tougher to stamp out than the most resilient weed. Time and again, various anti-Semitic leaders have used the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to justify outrageous acts of persecution against the Jewish people. The perpetrators of pogroms in Russia cited it. Hitler used it. So did Stalin. It has become a staple of anti-Semitic propaganda. The places these myths are most likely to surface nowadays are in the Arab world. With depressing regularity, we see Jews portrayed in the Arab media as bloodthirsty, conniving, and manipulative. The editorial cartoons of Jews that appear in Egyptian newspapers alone would be shocking to nearly any American who saw them. Now comes a television program about Jewish plots to control the world, broadcast nationwide on Egyptian government-sponsored television stations. It is likely the series will air in other Arab countries as well. Some would argue that this demonizations is an unavoidable hyproduct of the Arab-Israeli conflict. But perpetrating anti-Semitic myths is never acceptable. Arab governments can be expected to have their differences with Israel, and to seek to resolve those differences through negotiations. They can even be expected to criticize Israeli policies. But the gratuitous demonization of Jews serves on to incite popular sentiment against Jewish people, and by extension, the State of Israel. Instead, these governments should be seeking to promote religious tolerance, and to prepare their populations for peace with Israel. Egypt is a friend and ally of the United States. It is a significant recipient of U.S. foreign assistance because successive administrations of both parties have found the alliance to serve our national interests. But we have a right to expect better from our friends. We have a right to expect that they will not intentionally promote false and racist views that incite religious intolerance. As the State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher, said recently, ``We don't think government TV stations should be broadcasting programs that we consider racist and untrue.'' Anti-Semitism is a form of racism, and we need to condemn it whenever it occurs. The resolution I am offering today with Sen. Smith condemns any effort that lends legitimacy to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, supports the State Department's criticism of the Egyptian television series ``Horseman Without a Horse'', and urges the Government of Egypt and other Arab governments to refrain from broadcasting racist and untrue material, and to speak out against such incitement. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this import resolution.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. About 10 minutes.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I come to the floor not to speak on the Shedd nomination--and I had spoken to the chairman of the committee--but to speak about a matter we will be discussing tomorrow as we take up the homeland defense bill and some of the questions of privacy that have arisen, not necessarily directly involved in this bill but clearly in the discussion of homeland security. Some grave questions of invasion of privacy have been noted. So I felt compelled to take the floor of the Senate to raise further the issue of governmental intrusion into the private lives of people. I realize that in this technologically advanced age, in order to go after the bad guys, in order to be able to stop them before they hit us, clearly there has to be the clandestine means of penetrating the communications that are going on. That is very important to the defense of this country and our citizens. At the same time, the constitutional rights of privacy must always be foremost in our minds as we battle this new, elusive kind of enemy called the terrorist. So I want to offer some words. I start, first, with words from a very famous American who had something significant to say about privacy, Justice Louis Brandeis, in which he argued, in a 1928 case, that the Framers of our Constitution--and I will quote Justice Brandeis: . . . sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. Justice Brandeis went on, that the Framers of the Constitution had: . . . conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone--the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized man. Now, Justice Brandeis wrote those words in a dissenting opinion in a 1928 case involving a liquor dealer who was convicted by evidence gathered through a wiretap, way back then, early in the last century. That case arose because technology had granted the Government an increased ability to peer inside people's private lives--then, in 1928, a wiretap. The technology increased governmental authority, forcing the Supreme Court to evaluate and redefine the boundaries between freedom and governmental power. The technological advances also stimulated an important national debate about the balance between individual freedom and the legitimate needs of law enforcement. Now we are at a similar crossroads, and those words ring out to us today as we go about trying to balance the rights between individual freedom and the legitimate needs of the Government to penetrate terrorist cells. Technology has advanced faster than the Nation's norms and the laws for managing them. Modern technology makes possible unprecedented intrusions into the private lives of American people. This ability, coupled with increasing governmental demands to use that technology, poses a grave threat to personal privacy and personal freedom. This past week, I was rivetted by the news of the revelations about how the Department of Defense is developing a computer system to grant intelligence and law enforcement authorities the power to secretly access ordinary citizens' private information, including e-mail, financial statements, and medical records--to access that private information without the protections of a court order. Clearly, in this post-9/11 world, we need to develop tools that will enable our Government to keep us safe from terrorists by disrupting their operations. But these tools need to be balanced against the protection of innocent people's right to privacy. If the right to privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion. So what rivetted my attention were reports, first in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and then in the Washington Times, that the so-called Total Information Awareness Program--located in DARPA, deep inside the Department of Defense--would make possible unwarranted governmental intrusions such as we have never seen before. It is disturbing that we are developing a research system that, if ever used, would violate the Privacy Act as well as violate a lot of other Federal laws on unreasonable searches of private information without probable cause, which is the typical standard that needs to be met. That is why we go to a judge to get an order allowing us to intrude on such things as searches, as seizures, on such things as wiretaps. I have a serious concern about whether this type of program, called Total Information Awareness, can be used responsibly. So while we investigate and learn more about it, I intend to speak out to the Congress and to the committees on which I am privileged to serve-- including the Armed Services Committee--to speak out that we need to oversee this program to ensure that there is no abuse of law-abiding individuals' privacy. It has been reported that this program is authorized or endorsed by the homeland security legislation pending now in the Senate. And that does not appear to be the case. While it doesn't specifically tend to be the case, this legislation, the Homeland Security Department, does include a provision creating a research division within the new Homeland Security Department. It would develop, among other things, information technologies similar to the Total Information Awareness Program. While I strongly support funding for new research, and I certainly believe that we must use our technological advantage to defeat our enemies, at the same time I think we better take a breath, be very cautious that any new research done in the Defense Department or within the new proposed Department of Homeland Security does not threaten our personal freedoms. I also have grave concerns that this information awareness program is being directed by someone who is very controversial: Retired Rear Admiral Poindexter, the former Reagan administration official who was convicted in, you remember, the Iran-contra story. There is a very legitimate question about whether or not he is the appropriate person to head such a sensitive program. To quote from recent editions of the Washington Post, specifically November 16, an editorial: However revolutionary and innovative it may be, this is not neutral technology, and the potential for abuse is enormous. The editorial continues: Because the legal system, designed to protect privacy, has yet to catch up with this technology, Congress needs to take a direct interest in this project. The editorial goes on: And the defense secretary should appoint an outside committee to oversee it, before it proceeds. The editorial concludes: Finally, everyone involved might also want to consider whether Adm. Poindexter is the best person to direct this extremely sensitive project. Though his criminal convictions were overturned on appeal, his record before the Congress hardly makes him an ideal protector of the legal system. . . . That is the Washington Post. In conclusion, ever since I had the privilege to serve with the likes of these great Senate giants on the floor right now, Senators Leahy and Hatch, guardians of the Constitution because of their roles on the premier committee that guards the Constitution in the Senate, privacy is an issue that has attracted my attention and concern. Has my time expired? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. NELSON of Nebraska.) The Senator's time has expired.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that I conclude my remarks in 2 minutes.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank Senators for letting me make this case. When I first came here, I became concerned that back in 1999 we allowed banks and insurance companies to merge, but we didn't protect individual's privacy. It would shock people to know that if you go have a physical exam in order to get a life insurance policy and if that life insurance company is acquired by a bank, that the access to those individually identifiable medical records is unlimited, without your personal consent, to anywhere within that bank holding company. You might also be interested to know that recently we had the issuance of rules by the Bush administration on medical record privacy, but there was a huge omission in that pharmaceutical companies could go to drugstore chains, pay the drugstore chain for the names and ability to communicate to individual people who had prescriptions, and then that pharmaceutical chain could contact that individual patient, asking them, soliciting them to change their medication to a different kind of medication, one that would be within the generic equivalent or a different brand name than the one that the physician had prescribed for them. That is an invasion of personal privacy. Yet it is allowed under the rules of the new administration. Take, for example, the case 2 weeks ago in Fort Myers, FL. Suddenly a dumpster was overflowing with tax records, bank records, Social Security numbers, all kinds of personally identifiable financial information not properly disposed of by the bank subsidiary. The bank says there is no such law. So I filed a bill to protect individual's personal financial privacy. Lo and behold, another invasion of privacy, identity theft, one of the big things, more recently, in Orlando, FL--another dumpster. Now all of a sudden, one of the two large pharmaceutical drugstore chains dumps all of the prescriptions in the dumpster, along with the bottles. As a result, the personally identifiable medical information is there for the public to see from someone pilfering the dumpster. I think I have made my case. Privacy is something we better be concerned about. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the legislation just referred to by the distinguished Senator from Vermont. I have a particular interest in this legislation because in my former governmental capacity as the State treasurer, insurance commissioner, and State fire marshal of Florida, I had the occasion to come to a great appreciation of the role of the firefighter, the extraordinary courage that firefighters display, and the extraordinary amount of property and life they save. Fortunately, that was etched into the consciousness of America as a result of what we saw on September 11--not only the police, the firemen, but so many public service personnel who responded under those conditions. So I want to add my voice in support of the legislation referred to by Senator Leahy and to those on the other side of the aisle who might be putting a hold on this legislation. There is an extreme risk to the occupation of firefighter. We understand that risk more clearly based on what we saw of the bravery and the devotion to duty expressed on September 11. But that bravery and devotion to duty goes on day in and day out in the firehouses in communities across this Nation. These firefighters should be appropriately compensated when infirmity and disaster strikes them. Mr. President, I wanted to add my name in support of the distinguished Senator from Vermont and his bill. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida.--for example, the provision that was deleted that passed unanimously in the Senate that we would have a bipartisan commission to understand the ramifications of September 11? That was in our version of the bill. And because the White House objected to that, even though an overwhelming vote had taken place in the House of Representatives, it was deleted. And because there was such an outcry, the morning's news says they are going to try to resurrect some bipartisan commission. But it shows the legislative sleight of hand in the rush to adjournment that would now delete a provision so important to the security of this country, such as a bipartisan commission to find out what went wrong in the intelligence apparatus that led to September 11 and at the same time would insert provisions into this bill that would create all kinds of havoc, as enumerated by the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Michigan. I thank the Senator for yielding.