Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida.--that there would be suddenly inserted or deleted--

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding to me. Isn't it interesting, in the eleventh hour, the closing hours of the session, when the country is at war and a bill that is perceived to be vital to the defense interests of this country--

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. Of all of the important legislation we have worked on this year to protect our Nation from further acts of terrorism, I consider this bill to be one of utmost importance. Most terrorist attacks around the world target transportation, and the Nation's 361 seaports, 14 of which are in Florida, are especially vulnerable. Our seaports are open and exposed to acts of terrorism as well as to drug trafficking, cargo theft, and especially important to Florida, the smuggling of illegal immigrants. The fact that many of our ports are located in and around large urban areas makes the security of the seaports of paramount importance. The extreme vulnerability of the urban areas in and around seaports was underscored recently by the fishing boat that eluded Coast Guard interdiction and arrived just off the shores of Key Biscayne, FL, carrying a large number of Haitian immigrants. Had this boat carried terrorists or dangerous cargo, a tragedy might have occurred. A terrorist attack at our seaports would produce devastating effects both in terms of loss of life and in economic disruption. Florida's seaports play a critical role in our national, State, and local economies. Florida's seaports are major gateways of commerce for the flow of goods and passengers along the Nation's and Florida's transportation corridors of commerce. Florida ranks fourth in the Nation's total container movements, and is home to four of the major container ports in the country. Florida has the top three busiest cruise ports in the world. Approximately twelve million passengers embarked or disembarked at Florida seaports during 2001 and approximately 80 percent of those passengers were U.S. citizens. The security of the Nation's seaports is crucial to the future of the cruise tourism industry. Although Florida has the largest international water border in the continental U.S., and thus the largest Federal maritime domain of any State in the continental U.S., Florida's seaports receive very limited Federal law enforcement resources, and no Federal funding for security infrastructure to provide the security controls necessary to protect themselves from threats of large-scale terrorism, cargo theft, drug trafficking, and the smuggling of contraband and aliens. The increased threat of terrorism at our borders demands that action be taken immediately. This legislation lays out important security measures that must be taken to ensure the safety and security of our seaports. It significantly increases funding for the Coast Guard to $6 billion in fiscal year 2003. It also authorizes $90 million in research and development grants to improve our ability to screen cargo for dangerous contraband, to detect unauthorized people or goods from entering through seaports, and to secure access to sensitive areas of our ports. This bill also mandates the development of standards for training Federal, State, and private security professionals and provides funding to carry out that training and education. It also mandates for the first time, the development by ports, facilities, and vessels, of comprehensive security and incident response plans. Unfortunately, the final version of this legislation does not include a dedicated funding source necessary to carry out the needed security measures. The grant program it establishes will help fund some of the security enhancements, but there must be more funding allocated to individual seaports. Florida has already spent more than $7 million securing our 14 deepwater seaports. Florida needs more Federal funding to comply with the mandated security measures of this bill. We must also ensure that ports that have already spent substantial amounts of funding on security measures are reimbursed for those improvements. Without a dedicated funding source, it is hard to see how we will achieve the high level of security at our seaports envisioned by this bill. No one deserves more credit for the passage of this important legislation than my good friend and colleague Senator Bob Graham. It is an important step forward to securing our seaports and making our nation safer. But, as Senator Bob Graham has said, we have much more to do. I look forward to working with him and my colleagues on the Commerce Committee to take the next steps in making our seaports safe.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to address a number of issues in the Defense authorization bill. I am voting for this bill because it contains many provisions critical to fighting the war on terror and it provides pay raises for the men and women of our military. But it fails to rectify a longstanding inequity for disabled military retirees. It's wrong that disabled retirees are forced to pay for their own disability benefits. While this bill ends the penalty for some 30,000 retirees, there are more than half a million veterans out there who still are forced to pay for their own disability benefits. For the many good things we have in this bill, I'd like to thank leadership of our Chairman, Senator Levin, and Ranking Member, Senator Warner. Americans can be assured of their devotion to the security of our nation and the welfare of the men and women in uniform around the world today serving in harm's way. I would also like to say I am grateful for the opportunity to have served on this committee for two years with the Senior Senator from Georgia, Max Cleland. Max Cleland has been an inspiration making countless sacrifices during his lifetime of service to our Nation. I have turned to Senator Cleland again and again over the years on the most challenging issues confronting us--from the war on terror to the welfare of our service members and their families, our military retirees and our veterans. Deep within the chest of Senator Max Cleland beats the heart of an American Soldier, an American who has given much in the defense of freedom; an American who has much, much more to give. I know that I will call upon my friend and colleague again and again, no matter where he is, when I need the clear insight and straightforward counsel of a soldier. This has been a very important year in American history. We have learned much about the dangers that confront our Nation at home and around the world. We have learned much about the capability of our Armed Forces to confront and defeat these dangers. I am confident we will win the war on terror, there can be no question among the American people, or in the minds of our friends and enemies. This bill goes beyond the President's request and beefs up our arsenal with additional warships, better fighting aircraft and improved security at our military bases. This is a strong bill for our service members and their families. This bill provides for important increases in pay, bonuses, special pays, medicare care and family housing. This is a major piece of legislation that lays the foundation for how this Nation will prosecute the war on terror at home and abroad; how this Nation will transfer its military for the dangers that may confront us in the future; and, how this Nation will care for the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, and their families, that put themselves in harms way everyday. I would like to highlight two provisions in this bill, for which I am grateful for the support of my colleagues in the Senate and the House's conferees. Earlier this year, the Defense Department acknowledgement that Navy ship defense and vulnerability experimentation during the Cold War, known as Shipboard Hazard and Defense or Project SHAD, used chemical and biological agents that exposed sailors unwittingly to potentially lethal toxins. While the military necessity of anticipating, understanding, and mitigating the vulnerability of our fleet to gas attack is indisputable, using our sailors, intentionally or not, as human guinea pigs is reprehensible. A provision that I sponsored and included in this bill (Section 709) directs the Department of Defense to submit to the Congress, within 90 days, a comprehensive plan for the review, declassification and submission to the Veterans Administration all medical records and information relating to the SHAD project. Subsequent reports are required every six months allowing the Congress to evaluate the Defense Department's progress in executing the plan. We owe this level of effort to the sailors that may have been exposed to potentially toxic agents and get them the medical care to which they are entitled. I also sponsored a provision included in this bill, Section 583, that requires the Department of Defense to provide the Congress a report, classified and unclassified, on their progress toward resolving the fate of Navy Captain Michael Scott Speicher. Captain Speicher is the only American still unaccounted for from our war with Iraq nearly twelve years ago. In that time, the Defense Department has painfully mismanaged the search for and subsequent classification of Captain Speicher. Section 583 of the bill requires the Defense Department to report to Congress not later than 90 days of enactment, and every 120 days thereafter, providing specific details on their efforts to resolve the fate of Captain Speicher. We need to give American service members the certain knowledge that we are not a nation that casually or negligently abandons its military men and women during or after a conflict. I share the hope of so many of Captain Speicher's shipments, friends and family that we will one day know his fate. I am proud to have sponsored this provision and expect that the Defense Department's efforts will reflect the Nation's interest in bringing peace and comfort to all. There is also heartbreak in what we were not able to do in this bill, especially for our military retirees. This bill fails to repeal the prohibition on the concurrent receipt of retired pay and disability compensation, as we had provided in our Senate version of the bill. Instead we have a compromise acceptable to the President who is unwilling to pay the cost of correcting the injustice of requiring our military retirees to pay for their own disability compensation. This is an intolerable disappointment for the hundreds of thousands of military retirees and their families hurt by the policy. We failed them again and I am deeply disappointed. It has been clear to all that President Bush has worked hard against the interests of our military retirees in this instance. And, with the help of the civilian leadership in the Department of Defense and the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, he's got what he wanted, controlling federal spending on the backs of our retired veterans. I would have preferred that we as a Congress had done the right thing and passed the Senate version of the bill giving our retired military authority to receive their full pay and disability compensation. I would have preferred that we had passed full concurrent receipt as eighty-two Senators and 403 members of the House have already agreed to support as cosponsors on separate legislation. I would have preferred that we had passed full concurrent receipt and forced the President's veto. I would have proudly voted to override a veto and fix the injustice once and for all. And, I believe an override could have been easily achieved. Sadly, this effort was lost in the partisan, election engineering of this Administration, the civilian leadership in the Defense Department, and the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives. For weeks we have delayed resolution of this issue in this bill in order to avoid forcing the President to take an action contrary to the interests of veterans. Hopefully, veterans will quickly learn that there are those of us who truly care about meeting our obligations to them; and, they do have a place to go where their voices will be heard, where America's promises will be kept, and where their needs will be met. I am ready to take up this fight in our next session. I am proud to represent the interests of our veterans and our military retirees. I am also proud to represent the interests of our retirees' surviving spouses, military widows, and their children. We have a lot of work to do correcting some of the injustices created over the years with conflicting and inconsistent benefits policies that seem to be concentrated in our Armed Services and Veterans programs. I look forward to taking up these challenges and working with my colleagues to rationalize and simplify our benefits systems so that we keep our promises to those who have given their all to the Nation. I would like to close with a quintessentially American expression of what we need to do by President Teddy Roosevelt, ``A man who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good enough to be given a square deal afterward.'' I believe that there should be at least eighty-two of my colleagues in this chamber who will agree with this and be willing to make it a reality next session.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, it is with a very heavy heart that all of us gather in the Chamber that will miss one of our own. It was with a very heavy heart we received the news on that snowy, icy day that we had lost, while flying in northern Minnesota, a wonderful companion and colleague and, along with him, his life's companion, and part of that family--his daughter. This freshman Senator had observed this Senator from Minnesota who had such energy and, along with it, such happiness. I can still see Paul Wellstone thrusting in the air those short, little jabs, while at the same time having that wry smile on his face, as he would teach us the way we should be as Senators--advocating for those who could not advocate for themselves, for those who could not hire with unlimited resources. He was there to stand and represent those folks. I went to Minnesota in August to do what I could for Paul Wellstone in a race that, interestingly, as November 5 approached--and Paul was so concerned about what was going to be the effect of his vote on the Iraq resolution, the fact he voted his conscience, the fact he stood up as the little giant against what was otherwise considered the tide. The fact he did that resonated among his constituents in Minnesota. We saw the result of that in the polls, for Paul had jumped up from an even race. He was up five, six, seven points before that fateful day his life was taken from us. I think back to that time in August I had gone out there to campaign for Paul. It was a time of mourning in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area because a lady police officer had just had her life snuffed out in an unusual kind of murder, where it was unsuspected. I went with Paul and Sheila that night to several events, including back to the source of that crime, at a project where so many of the community leaders had turned out. I watched Paul as he interacted with those grieving constituents, as they all came together in a resolve to heal the wounds in that community and bring the races together, instead of dividing them, as so often might have been the case in a very unfortunate circumstance where a police officer had lost her life. I went to what was called the ``national night out''--a remembrance of what communities can do in coming together. I went to two or three such events on that evening I visited with Paul and Sheila. I watched the interaction of him with Minnesotans. I saw that it was the same Paul Wellstone that I saw interacting with Senators in this Chamber, in our caucuses, in our luncheon meetings, in the cloakroom, and in the committee meetings. It was the same friendly, highly intelligent man, always offering that smile, getting from place to place with that limp in his gait as a result of an old wrestling injury. And he was so attractive. He was attractive to us as a friend and a colleague. He was attractive to the folks of Minnesota as their Senator. I went to their home, a modest, very comfortable, very appropriately appointed duplex townhouse, close in so he could be where his constituents were. It was easy access for him, even though with that limp; it had a set of stairs, at least two, if not three stories. It was so comfortable as a retreat for him, made so by his lifelong companion Sheila, who was at his side throughout that campaign and who was at his side throughout his professional career, including his career in the Senate. Then when I was in Minnesota, I talked to his kids. This is not his immediate family kids. This was the extension of Paul Wellstone, the professor, the extension of Paul Wellstone, the Senator, who had legions of young people, some in their middle years, who went door to door telling why those Minnesotans should vote and continue him in the Senate. I saw their conviction as I talked to them basically to share a number of stories I had as a Congressman going door to door. A lot of those experiences we shared were quite humorous, some of the unexpected experiences when one goes knocking on doors. I explained to them, with a bit of overstatement, that western civilization depended on what they were doing, going door to door. We all had a good laugh about that. They were committed. They were committed to Paul Wellstone. They were committed for the kind of person he represented, and they were doing the job and they were very effective. Their number had multiplied many times over so that as it came to that fateful day, there were legions of some 4,000 of those young people who were canvassing Minnesota. That says a lot about the kind of person Paul Wellstone was and how his memory will live; that young people believed enough in him that they would spend all day in a thankless job of going door to door. I remember so well the Paul Wellstone we loved around here. He was not afraid to take on any foe. He was not afraid to take on any subject where he felt he could offer something of substance to the discussion, and as far as this Senator is concerned, it often made the difference because it was done with dignity, it was done with passion, it was done with energy, and his orations were done with great conviction. That is a great example. That is a great role model for all of us. We will miss him deeply. I remember when I came to the Minnesota airport for that memorial service. Someone met me at the gate and escorted me to the place where we were all to huddle up and then board the buses. As I walked in to that waiting room, what stared me in the face was a simple poster that said: Wellstone for Senate. I remember almost having my breath taken away as I realized that he was not going to be with us in body anymore. But he certainly will continue with us in spirit. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. You will recall during the Enron hearings that the Senator from North Dakota chaired, one of the witnesses, a former Enron employee from the Orlando, FL, area, where Enron has one of its subsidiaries, the Florida Gas Company. We remember the very sad story of that lady. Her life savings was in the pension plan of the company, $750,000, and because they would not let her get into that retirement account to sell it--while, by the way, the corporate executives were selling their stock--the value of that retirement fund for that Enron employee from Florida plummeted to $20,000. She lost her entire life savings.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am going to speak about the management of one of the most exciting little agencies in the Federal Government, NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Senator from North Dakota has just put his finger on a number of problems with regard to our national economy, a subject that I addressed yesterday. I compliment him for his comments, his insight into the multiplicity of problems that are facing our country at this time. There is much to be done. I would like to focus today on a particular part of the Federal Government, of which I have some credentials to offer some suggestions. If we don't pay attention to the direction the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is headed, we are going to get off on a wrong track and there are going to be some mistakes made. They can be mistakes everyone in this country would regret. I shared with the administrator of NASA my hope for his success. He came through our Commerce Committee. We had both private and public meetings. We had a lengthy hearing for his confirmation. We will continue to have hearings. I have suggested to the administrator that it appears the White House and the Office of Management and Budget are going to be unwilling to offer to NASA a budget that would increase its buying power. Its basically $15 billion budget in current-year spending is basically the same as it was 10 years ago. This is a little agency that has achieved so much and its achievements are the embodiment of the hopes and dreams of Americans as we fulfill our role as adventurers and explorers--a characteristic of the American people that we never want to give up. If we do, we will be a second-rate nation. This country was founded by explorers. This country was expanded by explorers and adventurers. Then the frontier was westward. Now the frontier is upward. And here on Earth the frontier is inward. We never want to give up that adventure because we will not fulfill the destiny that is resident in the hearts of all Americans, that we want to be adventurers and explorers. But, in this Senator's opinion, NASA is not going to be able to fulfill that role and achieve that destiny if we keep starving NASA. NASA cannot do that in the year 2003 on a budget that was the same budget in fiscal year 1991--12 years ago. So if the White House and the Office of Management and Budget continue to starve NASA of its funds, there has to be some kind of relief. I have suggested to the administrator a $5 billion item in the national budget over the next 5 years that is for the development of technologies of a follow-on to the space shuttle. The space shuttle originally was going to be extending its lifetime to about the year 2007. Then it was extended to 2012. Now the word out of NASA is that the present fleet of four orbiters is going to continue so that we will have assured access to space for humankind through the year 2020. It is a reliable vehicle. We have the best space team in the world. We have the finest launch team in the world at the Kennedy Space Center. But we can't continue to operate safely with the continued starving of NASA funds by the administration. I have suggested to the Administrator that one aspect he should look at as a program is development of new technologies for a new kind of vehicle, a reusable vehicle, that would be scheduled to go after the year 2020. That is also an item that is of considerable interest to the Department of Defense. The DOD, being flush with money, could fund that, with NASA having the management of that research, which it does so well and, therefore, give some relief in the NASA budget so that what was left over could be applied to what was necessary; that is, safety upgrades on the space shuttle. So there is no question that we are doing everything possible to have that space transportation system be as safe as possible even though we know it is risky business. When you defy the laws of gravity, when you go at mach 25, when you circle the globe in 90 minutes, when you come through 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit of searing heat on reentry, it is risky business. So we cannot afford to do anything less than upgrade all of the things that we have in the pipeline for the shuttle safety upgrades. At the same time, our Nation is in the midst of building the largest engineering accomplishment of all time. We are building a space station. It is a multinational effort. By the time it is completed, it will weigh 1 million pounds, it will have an acre of solar panels, it will measure the length of a football field, it will have a pressurized volume equal to two jumbo jets, and it will orbit at 220 nautical miles above the Earth. We already have an international space station in orbit. What is up there already is an extraordinary accomplishment. It is the largest cooperative scientific program in history. It is drawing on the resources and the scientific expertise of our own Nation along with the expertise of 15 other countries. This project is an exciting gateway to the new frontiers in human space exploration--meeting the deep-seated need of humans throughout history to explore the unknown, to understand their world and their universe, and to apply that knowledge to the benefit of all here on Earth. The International Space Station will sustain U.S. leadership in exploration in and the use of outer space which has inspired a generation of Americans and people throughout the world. I suddenly had a flashback. I was a lieutenant in the Army. I was on leave at the time we were launching to go to the Moon. I was in Eastern Europe approaching Belgrade, Yugoslavia. I went to the U.S. Embassy right at the time of launch, and I asked them if they had for this Army lieutenant the opportunity to watch it on television. They did not. I said: What would you recommend? They said: It will be carried live by the BBC on radio. Go outside of Belgrade to that series of hills and stick up the antenna of your shortwave radio and tune into the BBC. My fellow companions--those two young Americans with me, my best friends today--and I went out there. And the BBC cut into NASA Control at the time of launch of Apollo 11. There were three Americans in Yugoslavia out there cheering as that rocket rose into the heavens. That is the kind of excitement that has been generated across the Earth by the stunning accomplishments of America's space program. Now we are on the cusp of having another stunning accomplishment of breakthroughs in scientific exploration on the International Space Station. That station will provide a stunning opportunity to enhance U.S. economic competitiveness by creating new commercial enterprises while serving as a virtual classroom in space to advance scientific education for teachers and students alike. Most importantly, the station will be a unique world-class laboratory by providing an international platform for advances in science and technology. In this laboratory of the heavens, we will conduct research in tissue growth, looking at the causes of cancers and potential medical treatments. Our Nation's biochemists will investigate new drugs and develop a whole new understanding of the building blocks of life. Using the microgravity environment of space--that is near zero G--our industries will be able to develop new advanced materials that may lead to stronger, lighter metals and more powerful computer chips. The station will also house experiments in combustion science that could lead to reduced emissions from powerplants and automobiles, saving consumers billions of dollars. But that is only if we complete the space station. Last year, we found that the international program had real cost overruns and management problems. There is no question that we absolutely have to complete the project because it is an investment in our future and the legacy we will leave to our children's children. Why else are we building it, other than to make a difference in their lives? Yet this administration chose to fund some of the station's cost overruns without adding more money to NASA's budget, and requiring cuts to many other critical programs, including the delay of the safety upgrades on the space shuttle which gives us the access to and from the International Space Station. Instead of funding the space station sufficiently to fulfill its potential, this administration proposed curtailing the space station program to a skeletal configuration called ``Core Complete.'' Instead of maintaining a full-time crew of six or seven astronauts to be on board the station at all times, Core Complete, the skeletal completion would provide for only three crew members. You cannot do science on the space station with just three crew members because it takes more than two crew members to tend to the care and the feeding of the station, and that leaves less than one person to conduct the research on board. So I have been quite afraid that these cuts would endanger the future of the International Space Station. Apparently, there are other people who feel that way, too, because there is a report just released and it concludes this is exactly what has happened: The future of the station itself is now in jeopardy. That is according to that report. In March, the administration charged an independent task force, made up of Nobel laureates and world-class scientists and engineers, to review, assess, and help define NASA's biological and physical research priorities. Just over a month ago, this group, known as the Research Maximization and Prioritization Task Force, or ReMaP, completed their review of the space station's science programs. The results were not good. This distinguished group concluded that the Core Complete configuration and the shuttle flight rate mandated by this administration would severely restrict the station's research productivity--a finding confirmed by NASA's own analyses. A year and a half has now passed since this administration destroyed the space station's research budget, by cutting the crew size on the International Space Station from seven to three, and eliminating the U.S. crew rescue vehicle and the crew's living space known as the ``habitation module.'' In addition, the study, the ReMaP study, concluded that if enhancements beyond the Core Complete are not anticipated, then NASA should ``cease to characterize the Space Station as a science-driven program.'' Listen to this conclusion: We should ``cease to characterize the Space Station as a science-driven program.'' What happened to the world-class laboratory? Where is our international science and technology platform? What about tissue growth research, and curing cancer, and all the other innovative medical treatments? What about the new drugs and the building blocks of life? How are we going to develop advanced materials and more powerful computer chips? What happened to environmental research in combustion science and reducing our emissions and energy use? With only a skeletal space station, gone are these and many other potential discoveries that we have been awaiting. NASA has a proven track record in supporting scientific research that makes a difference here on Earth. Let me give you a couple examples. I want to give some other examples of where NASA has such a proven track record in supporting scientific research. For example: a laminar air flow technique. It is used in NASA clean rooms for contamination-free assembly of space equipment. It is now being used--get this--at tollbooths on bridges and turnpikes to decrease the toll collector's inhalation of exhaust fumes. Straight out of NASA. I will give you another example: an advanced ultrasound skin damage assessment instrument. Using NASA ultrasound technology, it enables immediate assessment of burn damage depth, improving patient treatment, and it may save many lives in serious burn cases. I will give you another example: a remotely operated, emergency response robot. It was first developed by NASA. It reduces human injury levels by performing hazardous tasks that would otherwise be handled by humans. Another example: a custom-made suit, derived from space suits. It circulates coolant through tubes to lower a patient's body temperature, producing dramatic improvement of symptoms of multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, spina bifida, and other conditions. Here is another: a self-righting life raft, originally developed for the Apollo program, which was to the moon, where we landed the astronauts back in the water. It fully inflates in 12 seconds, and it protects lives during extremely adverse weather conditions with self- righting and gravity compensation features. How about this one? A new digital imaging breast biopsy system images breast tissue more clearly and more efficiently. This nonsurgical system--using technology originally developed by NASA for the Hubble Space Telescope--is less traumatic and greatly reduces the pain, scarring, radiation exposure, time, and money associated with surgical biopsies. And finally, a flywheel energy storage system. It is derived from two NASA-sponsored energy storage studies. It is a chemical-free, mechanical battery that harnesses the energy of a rapidly spinning wheel, and it stores it as electricity with 50 times the capacity of a lead-acid battery. This system is especially useful in electric vehicles, something that we are trying to perfect to help us ween ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil. And these are just a few examples. But I say again about this administration's plan for the space station: The Core Complete or the skeletal structure--not fleshed out-- simply taunts the research community, telling them that an orbiting laboratory is there but fails to provide them with real and significant opportunity to use it. The tag line NASA uses for the International Space Station program says: ``It's about life on Earth.'' That is the tag line. But is there going to be life in space? This Core Complete concept of the NASA administration falls so short of expectations that our Nation's leading scientists refuse to call it a science program. And under the administration's plan, our ever-shrinking space station will waste both time and money over the long run while failing to realize the unique potential of this international research facility. This administration--I am talking about OMB; I am talking about the White House, and I am talking about the administration in NASA--needs to stop pretending that Core Complete is a viable or a desirable goal for our country or our space-faring international partners. It is neither. Core Complete is the minimum configuration needed for the U.S. to say it has completed a space station, but that is just it-- it is the minimum. We can fix this by returning to the original plan. Let's go back to building a fully capable research laboratory. Let's go back to a crew size capable of maintaining the station and conducting a robust research agenda. Let's realize the full potential of this laboratory of the heavens. We must realize the station's full potential. Let's expand the crew size and broaden our research capabilities on board. Let's develop a crew rescue vehicle so that we don't have to rely on the Soviet vehicle that can only take three, so that we can get seven astronauts on board to do the research, so in the case of a catastrophic failure that we have a rescue vehicle, a lifeboat that can evacuate the seven crew members. And let's recommit to furthering humankind's understanding of the building blocks of life, recommit to developing advanced materials, reducing fuel emissions, and finding a cure for cancer. To this administration, I respectfully say, but I very strongly say, we best recommit this Nation to building a fully capable International Space Station. We have delayed long enough. The Nation awaits. There is not an American, there is not a school child whose eyes do not light up when told of the adventures and the successes of America's space program. We need to continue with a great vision. Right now, we can continue by building out the space station so it can fulfill its scientific research mission. I see my colleague from Montana. I had the privilege of going in the summer to Montana, and lo and behold, Tribal Industries in his State of Montana, built and conducted by the tribes on tribal lands, were doing great things that are direct spinoffs from America's space program. They had some interest in having me out there to talk to them about some of the successes of the space program. It is just another example of how all of these space accomplishments have spun off into businesses, this Senator, who has had such a great privilege of being a part of the space program, found when I went to the northern part of Montana, near Flat Iron Lake, near Big Fork. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank my distinguished colleague. It is always a pleasure to hear from him. I appreciate his undergirding of my comments this evening. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, before the No. 2 Democrat retires from the Chamber, I want to congratulate him. He is a tireless worker. He is the consummate consensus builder. He is someone who in the midst of chaos and fracas calms the waters with the soothing balm that gets reasonable people to suddenly understand they can come together. This agreement on the budget resolution, which contains the enforcement provisions of the Budget Act, is another testimony to his skill in negotiating, as he does so ably, with the Chairman and the ranking Members. So I am delighted. It is fitting this agreement on a budget enforcement provision has been agreed to, because of the condition of our economy. The stock market today has gone down another 220 points. Stocks stumbled, slamming the brakes on any kind of rally we might have thought was occurring over the last few days. Sales outlook was weak, there were disappointing earnings, and it has brought profit jitters back into the market. Is it any wonder investors, large investors such as pension funds or small investors such as the Presiding Officer and myself, with our own little hard-earned savings that we invest in the stock market, all across this land, indeed, have jitters because of the uncertainty of the economy? As a matter of fact, in the last 2 years, stock market wealth has been down 35 percent for a $5.7 trillion loss in that 2 years. If anyone doubts this, in January of 2001, all the stock markets had a combined asset value of $16.4 trillion. In September of 2002, that value went down to $10.7 trillion, a loss of $5.7 trillion. Is it any wonder that reduction in stock market value, which is huge--35 percent in a year and two-thirds--is a reflection of the feeling of uncertainty people have toward the economy, a slumping economy? It is one thing that certainly 2 million jobs have been lost since January of 2001. In January of 2001, private sector jobs were at 111 million. In September of 2002, a year and two-thirds later, private sector jobs were down to 109.6 million jobs--2 million jobs lost, another indicator of the slumping economy. It is not as if we did not have a warning. Early last year it became clear our economy was slowing down. During our Budget Committee hearings on the topic, almost every economic analyst said responsible tax cuts could help solve the problem. They said the best way to stabilize the economy was to get money into the hands of the people who would spend it, those with low-to-moderate incomes. Above all else, we were told that whatever we did, we should not pass any tax package that would cause long-term fiscal harm. As the Presiding Officer knows, we tried to heed those warnings. Last year, I supported a tax cut to provide immediate tax relief for all families. That tax cut would have made sure every taxpayer, including those who pay only payroll taxes--there are a vast number of Americans who do not pay income tax because they do not have enough income--that monthly payroll tax is deducted from their pay. The tax cut would have made sure that every taxpayer would also get a tax cut. It would have also reduced the 15-percent income tax rate paid by all income-tax payers. It would have reduced that to 10 percent and to a permanent reduction. It would have been fair. It would have been fiscally responsible, and it would have been economically stimulative. But the final version of last year's tax cut was enacted by this Chamber. This Senator did not vote for it, and I did not vote for it because it did not meet the criteria that the Social Security and Medicare trust funds would not be touched now or in the future. I remember when I was sworn in as a freshman to the Senate, the talk was so uplifting and upbeat about how we had a surplus that was projected for 10 years and that we were not going to have to invade the Social Security trust fund to pay bills; indeed, that we were going to fence it off. We promised that. We were going to fence off the Social Security trust fund so that by it remaining untouched, its surpluses over the next decade would have paid down most of the national debt, a debt that averages out in the range of about $200 billion to $250 billion a year we pay in interest on the national debt. Just think what that savings on interest payments could provide if we had followed through on the promises and paid down that national debt, what that would have meant to the economy as another indicator that we were getting our fiscal house in order. The final version of last year's tax cut did not meet that criteria of walling off Social Security trust funds. Because of the fiscally irresponsible way the bill was drafted, with gimmicks such as changing the beginning and ending dates of key tax provisions, because of those gimmicks the bill amounted to flawed public policy that would, in fact, cost our country much more than the $1.35 trillion at which that tax bill was advertised. The true cost of that tax bill which advertised at $1.35 trillion, and allowed by the budget resolution, over a 10-year period is closer to $2 trillion instead of $1.35 trillion. Now we know. The administration-supported tax cut plan that we passed last year has a cost that explodes to $250 billion in deficit in the year 2011 alone. Now, after going from record surpluses to real deficits, we are seeing just how bad that decision was last year. Now we are experiencing the worse market decline since the 1930s, as evidenced by the slumping stock market and again the 220-point loss today in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The Standard & Poors 500 stock index has lost nearly half of its value. In the last 2 years, Americans have seen the markets lose $5.7 trillion in value. That amounts to $9.5 billion a day in losses in value on the stock market. Homeowners now are having such a hard time paying bills. Home foreclosure rates have reached the highest rate in 30 years. That is another indicator. The poverty rate has reached an increased mark for the first time in 8 years and 1.3 million more Americans are now falling into poverty. Median household incomes have fallen for the first time in a decade. Another indicator is consumer confidence. Consumer confidence and consumer spending have both fallen. Retail sales just took their worst drop since November of last year, and consumer sentiment has dropped to levels last seen in the fall almost a decade ago, 1993. Look at another indicator. The number of Americans without health insurance rose by almost 1.5 million, to 41.2 million. In a nation of plenty, in a nation where we pride ourselves on the best health care in the world, there are 41 million people who do not have health insurance. Not only are the low and middle-income class families losing income, but because of the escalating price of health care premiums and prescription drug costs, they are now also losing their health insurance. I thank the previous Presiding Officer, my colleague from Minnesota, for his personal interest. He is a soul brother in what I am saying, and I appreciate it so much. In my immediate past government job before having the privilege of coming to the Senate, I was the elected insurance commissioner of Florida. I can see the trends of the rising health insurance premiums. There are a lot of factors on that. But I will tell you, the economy is one big factor. Where it crunches the little guy, where it crunches those in the middle-income and lower levels of income who do not have the beneficence of having the Government provide their health care through the Medicaid Program, where it crunches the little guy is in declining incomes in a slumping economy at the same time of rising health insurance premiums; it gets to the point they cannot afford it. That includes the rising cost of prescription drugs. Interestingly, we can get 52 votes in this Senate, a majority--plus 2--to modernize Medicare with a prescription drug benefit--but we can't get the 60 votes required to cut off the filibuster. Because of the slumping economy, Americans are faced with growing uncertainty over job security. With corporate scandals, a slumping stock market, a growing national debt and various forms of economic turbulence related to September 11, it is no surprise that unemployment is rising at a staggering rate. We have recently seen an increase in the number of 60 to 70-year-olds in the workforce. They are trying to make ends meet. In the last 2 years, unemployment has jumped by 1.5 percent. More than 2 million people, as I said earlier, have lost jobs in the last year and two quarters, and many who have lost their jobs are having trouble finding new work. In my Orlando office we have a bright college intern. This is a college graduate from one of our State universities who cannot get a job. While this college graduate is biding his time, he has very graciously come to offer his services as an intern in one of our Florida offices. Many who have lost their jobs, clearly are having trouble finding new work. A million and a half people have been unemployed for over 6 months. Now they are also losing their unemployment insurance. Last month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in the previous month, manufacturing lost 68,000 jobs; retail businesses lost 55,000 jobs. Last month, over 8 million Americans were unemployed; over 2 million more, as we said, above January of 2001 figures. Two million fewer people are working to support their families and contribute to the economy. They are gone--two million taxpayers, two million people forced to find other work because they lost their jobs. In a slumping economy, it is no easy task to find new employment, as that college graduate has found. People are now spending over 17 weeks unemployed compared to an average of 12 weeks a year and a half ago. The unemployment rate is rising--5.6 percent last month compared to 3.8 percent back in January of 2001, when the three Senators I see on the floor were sworn in. It is a little over a year and a half ago. The economy is failing, and we are arguing about the merits of extending unemployment compensation for American families. That is what some of the argument concerns. But instead of focusing on how to get the economy going again, this administration is proposing new tax cuts for the wealthy and extending those for the wealthy that were passed last year. New tax cuts in the year 2011 will have no immediate effect on our economy. In fact, adding an additional $4 trillion in debt during the next decade will only hurt our economy in the short term by pushing up interest rates. What we ought to focus on is the slumping economy now and how to correct it. Right now, most Americans are distracted with thinking about the war in Iraq and thinking about a war that is ongoing against terrorism. These are life-and-death matters. These are the gravest concerns of the Nation and should have our utmost attention, as it has had over the last couple of months. But we also must pay attention to our bottom line and to the economic security and the fundamental financial strength of America. To have military strength we need an undergirding of moral, and economic strength. With projected huge deficits projected all over the rest of this decade, can we really afford to dig an even deeper hole in the next decade right at the time when the baby boomers are going to start retiring and demanding more in terms of retirement and Social Security and Medicare? Last year's administration spending and tax cut plan has resulted in today's collision course of more deficits, more debt, more economic insecurity, higher interest rates, lower economic growth, and lower employment. There is no way to sugar-coat that. You may as well say it like it is. To anybody who says, ``Oh, why didn't you support the tax cuts,'' I say I did. I supported a tax cut up to $1.2 trillion over a decade. But what we said at that time was that is a responsible, balanced approach. A $2 trillion tax cut, particularly skewed to the latter end of the decade, is not a responsible way to rejuvenate our economy. All of this is occurring right under our noses. Yet it doesn't seem as if there are a lot of folks in this Chamber, nor down there on Pennsylvania Avenue, who are paying much attention. I appreciate this ongoing dialog that we have had, but there seems to be a war coming in the Middle East. So we better be paying attention to other battles. We must do something to reinvigorate our economy. We must pay attention to our Government's bottom line. We must not continue to raise the debt for our grandchildren. One of the things we can do in a slumping economy is get with the appropriate kind of tax cuts, and we can stimulate the economy by getting dollars into the pockets of people so they can go out and spend it. That could start rejuvenating the economy. We have a Christmas season coming up. It is going to be critical for retailers. We can do that with a responsible tax cut. We could also do that by extending unemployment benefits. The unemployment insurance system was designed to provide aid when it is needed most. When the economy is healthy, unemployment insurance revenue rises because taxes are being paid. Program spending falls because there are fewer unemployed. Conversely, in a recession, unemployment insurance revenues fall while spending rises, helping to stimulate the economy. But the problem now is that American families in this economic decline which has existed over many months are exhausting their benefits, and they need our support. The unemployment insurance program was designed exactly for the situation we are in today. This is the rainy day for which unemployment insurance saves. If we would extend those benefits from the required number of weeks that are under law now, it would amount to an economic stimulus in the most direct way, allowing families to continue functioning while they search for jobs in this poor economy. In the 1980s, when I had the privilege of being at the other end of the Capitol in the House of Representatives, Democrats and Republicans came together to agree to extend unemployment insurance--three times. That is what we need to do today for some economic stimulus. What we need to do is provide immediate fiscal relief for States. We heard the Senator from West Virginia talking about the plight of the States. They have this huge additional drain on these Medicaid funds. States have diminished revenues. States need some assistance from the Federal Government on Medicaid, which is health care for the poor. Right now States are facing severe budget shortfalls, and many of them are finding themselves forced to cut bedrock services such as education, health care, and transportation. So the States need assistance with these and other crucial programs. What we need to do is to provide a strong bill to protect pensions. We have heard these heartrending stories about the people of the Enron Corporation and other corporations such as WorldCom. They have been saving and playing by the rules. They have been working hard and saving. Where have they been saving? They were saving in their corporate pension plan. They had a retirement system. We had several Floridians come up here because Enron had many employees of the Florida Gas Company in the Orlando area with headquarters in Winter Park. We had a number of those employees come up here and tell how they had their entire life savings, and now--instead of having their nest egg of about $750,000--because of the scandals in that Enron Corporation, and because those pensioners were not protected, they had less than $20,000 of retirement left out of $750,000. We need a plan that allows workers to hold employers accountable and help workers get their money back. If people responsible for protecting their investments abuse that trust, as we have seen over and over again in the scandals that erupted last fall and that were played out in front of the committees of this Senate--we need to make it easier for workers to sell their company stock in those pension plans and diversify their holdings. Most importantly, what we need to do is have a serious debate about how best to get our economy moving again. We need to think outside the box and look at some fresh ideas such as those presented at last week's bipartisan economic forum. What we need to do is get this economy moving again. That is what we need to do. What we need to do is focus on the needs of constituents who elected us to serve here in this Chamber and to make decisions for them, and to protect them in these many ways that I have tried to enumerate in these remarks. What we need to do is focus our attention and our resources on the American working family members. It is a time of partisan politics. We are just before an election. I guess my only disappointment in Washington in a job that I dearly love--I love the work. I love the people, I love these Senators, and they know I do. It is with a spring in my step that I come to work every day. My only disappointment is that this place gets too excessively partisan, and it gets too excessively ideologically rigid and extreme. So when the time comes, as the Good Book says, ``Come, let us reason together,'' there is a poisoned atmosphere and there is a rigidity and extremism so that it is hard to reach out and bring people together. In a slumping economy, you have to be able to reach out and bring people together. You have to be able to have Senators not insist that it is their way or the highway, but yet they have to recognize there are many people in this vast, broad, beautiful, complicated, and very diverse country who need to be represented instead of just that particular Senator's point of view. That is why our title is United States Senator--to represent the entire country and to represent all the people. I hope as we wind down in the closing days of this session, as we address some of these major economic problems, that we will consider it in the spirit of building a consensus to solve these problems. Thank you, Madam President, for the privilege of addressing the Senate.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I certainly yield to a good friend, my colleague, my wonderful companion as a freshman, the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator is absolutely right. And if you just put it in round terms of someone with a nest egg of $100,000 a year and two-thirds ago, in January of 2001, that is only worth $65,000 today. They have lost $35,000 of value in their retirement portfolio, mirroring the stock market wealth, the total stock market wealth down 35 percent between January of 2001 and September of 2002. It is a sad commentary.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. We had hopes and dreams. Indeed, we had realistic plans, if we had been conservative in our approach, if we had been balanced in our approach with that projected surplus. First of all, we said: Those economic projections for a surplus are way too rosy. Let's be conservative in our planning. Let's scale back that projected surplus so we can be conservative in what we plan for the surplus. Then we said: Let's be balanced. Let's have a substantial tax cut that would be about a third of the surplus, and let's take another third of the surplus and reserve that third, over the next decade, for the spending increases that need to occur, such as the Senator talked about, which is modernizing Medicare with a prescription drug benefit. We knew, for example, defense expenditures were going to go up and, therefore, there needed to be some spending increases there, and you could go on down a host of other items. Clearly, education was one of the major ones. We wanted to take a good part of that surplus, projected over 10 years, and invest that in education back to the States and local governments that run the educational systems. Then what we said was, to balance it out, the remaining third of that surplus we did not want to do anything with. We wanted that to be the surplus from the Social Security trust fund that was not going to be touched. That part of the surplus was going to pay down the national debt over the next 10 years. That balanced approach of a third, a third, and a third was going to get our fiscal house in order, was going to revive the confidence of the American investor in American companies because the economy was going to be stable. We were not going to have all these dire economic facts we have recited tonight that would not have occurred if we had been balanced in our approach.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Two-thirds of that projected surplus vanished primarily because of the overeager, rosy, incorrect economic projections of a budget surplus, plus absorbing so much more of the existing surplus from a tax cut that exceeded that balanced approach I talked about.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator is correct. It is a sad commentary all these things that were promised to veterans--that everybody was so eager, elbowing one another aside to try to get to the front of the line to support--through such things as concurrent receipt, eager to get to the front of the line to support a prescription drug benefit for Medicare seniors--have all been cast aside. Yet I cannot believe what I am seeing on the television when I go home. I see all these TV advertisements about how all these people who have blocked a prescription drug benefit to modernize Medicare say they have voted for one. Well, they voted for one. They voted for a version that was a subsidy from the Federal Government to insurance companies supposedly to provide prescription drug benefits. But in every State where a similar law has been passed to get insurance companies to provide a prescription drug benefit, the insurance companies will not do it because they cannot make money on it and, therefore, the senior citizens are the ones who suffer because they do not get the prescription drug benefit. So isn't it interesting they always want to run to the front of the line and talk about how they are for all of these things, but when it comes to doing it, where are the votes, particularly in a body such as the Senate, in which in order to pass anything you have to get 60 of 100 Senators because of our rules to cut off debate?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Since our colleague from Nevada has joined us, I will use his State as an example. About 4 years ago, the State of Nevada passed a prescription drug benefit that was very similar to the one that has been sponsored by the White House and that, in fact, has passed the House of Representatives. It is a subsidy to insurance companies to provide a prescription drug benefit. In the case of the bill here, it is a Federal subsidy. In the case of Nevada, it was a State subsidy. But the fact is, not one insurance company stepped forward in Nevada, after the passage of that law, to offer a prescription drug benefit because the insurance companies want to make money. They realized they could not make money. Sure, we are having a problem with escalating costs of prescription drugs, and we should deal with that, too. The question is, Are we going to fulfill our promise to provide a legitimate and workable prescription drug benefit to senior citizens on Medicare? We have offered that, and we have only gotten 52 votes here. We have to get 60 to cut off debate. We need eight more Senators, and then that thing will pass and pass overwhelmingly. But you see what is being blocked right now. And then people back home claim credit for voting for a version that really is not going to be a workable version, as experienced in the laboratories that we see out in our States.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, Federal election reform is long overdue. Two years ago, the election system's collapse became a public shame in my State. A lot of high-minded debate about the need to reform the system immediately followed the election, but since then this legislation has moved at a snail's pace. Only now, three weeks before the next election, are we poised to send a reform bill to the President to upgrade voting equipment, require provisional balloting and improve election administration. It's a shame that it has taken so long to remedy such a serious failure. A failure which cast into doubt the winner of the most important elected office in the world. As a result of the delays, these desperately needed improvements will come too late for the upcoming election. That's unfortunate, because in spite of the positive reforms made at the state level in Florida, some precincts experienced problems during the August primary election that might have been avoided, or at least mitigated, under the federal reforms. Similar problems could occur again and the failures are not likely to be isolated to Florida when the general election is held in November. Our goal now must be to implement the changes in time for the 2004 elections. Unfortunately, the administration has already chosen to slow down the reform process by rejecting a $600 million appropriation passed by Congress earlier this year in anticipation of final passage of the authorizing legislation. The administration unforgivably failed to accept the funds and the money must now be appropriated again. That process could take precious months that would otherwise be used by the States to prepare for the 2004 elections. There's no excuse for the administration's failure to accept Congress' down payment, especially after promising to support these reforms. I hope President Bush will reaffirm his support for election reform by asking Congress to include the full $3.8 billion authorized by this bill in the next continuing resolution or, at the latest, as part of a supplemental appropriation early next year. We shouldn't hesitate another day to send this money to the States so that they have every minute possible to prepare for 2004. A strong election system requires top-notch equipment, informed and able poll workers, a provisional voting system and outstanding voter education programs. But it also requires sensible registration and voting procedures that prevent fraud without disenfranchising voters. Despite my support for this legislation, I am concerned that the bill's anti-fraud provisions may unfairly burden minority, elderly and disabled voters. Eliminating voting fraud is absolutely essential, but the mechanisms used to prevent fraud should not be so complicated, or intrusive, that they discourage or prevent voting by qualified people who may not, as a consequence of their lifestyle, have the specific documentation required by this bill. I support modifying these provisions to allow potential registrants or voters to use additional documentation to prove their identity or to attest, under penalty of perjury, that they are in fact who they say there are. I understand that the conference committee would not approve such a change and I do not believe the entire bill should be sacrificed. In light of this problem, I intend to follow closely this legislation's implementation with a specific eye on how the anti-fraud provisions work in practice. If the photo identification requirements and registration procedures set out by this legislation cause more harm than good I will support their repeal.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I just want to thank the Senator from West Virginia for his insight and leadership and for educating me, a Senator from Florida, from his position as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I wanted to bring to the Senator some late-breaking news. We have just had a conference committee meeting of the Armed Services Committee in which we are trying to get final resolution on the DOD authorization bill. The House conferees refused to show up with the Senate conferees to hammer out the final version because of a dispute over concurrent receipt. But it is not a dispute from the entire membership of the House of Representatives. In fact, they had a motion to instruct conferees to accept the Senate's position, as articulated by the Senator from West Virginia on concurrent receipt; in other words, that if you have a military retirement, you ought to have that, and it should not be offset by what you are also entitled to if you are a disabled veteran who is entitled to disability benefits. Despite the fact that the House passed a motion to instruct conferees, 400 to 0, to accept the Senate position--in other words, to accept concurrent receipt--and give these disabled veterans what they are entitled to, the White House sends a message to the House of Representatives leadership and says: Don't agree with the Senate. I was so proud of the chairman of the Armed Services Committee; when he found out that was the position, he said: Nothing doing. We are not agreeing to the White House's position. We are going to stand up. The Senate is going to stand up for concurrent receipt. I thank the Senator from West Virginia. I wanted to bring him that late-breaking news. I also want to put very clearly where the responsibility is because the veterans of this country don't know that they are going to be denied concurrent receipt because of instructions from the White House staff and President Bush.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I inquire of the Senator from Alaska, who is standing to be recognized, I have a major speech I wish to make. If the Senator has a few remarks, I will certainly defer to let him go first.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized upon the conclusion of the Senator's remarks, and I defer to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. It is my understanding Senator Reid has some business to conduct before I begin my oration. As the Senator knows, I am getting warmed up to get into the subject of the economy. So I yield the floor to Senator Reid and ask unanimous consent that when the Senator is through, I would be recognized.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield for one comment so I can respond to the distinguished Senator from Virginia?